In recent months, discussions around the trial of Derek Chauvin and the tragic death of George Floyd have sparked significant debate and controversy. In the first episode of a new series from Ben Shapiro, we are encouraged to explore the rationale for pardoning Chauvin, with a particular emphasis on his police record juxtaposed against the criminal history of George Floyd. This provocative stance raises crucial questions, not only about the legal arguments presented but also about the broader implications for justice and accountability in policing. In this blog post, we will fact-check the assertions made in Shapiro’s episode, dissecting the information related to both Chauvin’s past as a law enforcement officer and Floyd’s history, while aiming to provide clarity amid the polarized discourse surrounding this critical issue.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 03/19/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

President Trump should immediately pardon Derek Chauvin for his federal convictions.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: President Trump Should Immediately Pardon Derek Chauvin

The claim that President Trump should immediately pardon Derek Chauvin for his federal convictions involves several legal, ethical, and political considerations. To evaluate this claim, we must examine the legal framework surrounding presidential pardons, the specifics of Chauvin's case, and the broader implications of such an action.

### Legal Framework for Presidential Pardons

Presidential pardons are granted under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the President the power to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." This power is broad but not unlimited; it does not extend to state crimes unless they also involve federal offenses. However, since Chauvin was convicted of federal charges, a presidential pardon could potentially apply.

### Derek Chauvin's Case

Derek Chauvin was convicted of both state and federal charges related to the death of George Floyd. In April 2021, he was found guilty on state charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter[5]. In December 2021, he pleaded guilty to federal charges of violating Floyd's civil rights and was sentenced to 21 years in prison[1][2]. Additionally, Chauvin pleaded guilty to violating the civil rights of a 14-year-old child in a separate incident[1][2].

### Arguments for a Pardon

Arguments for a pardon, as presented by Ben Shapiro in "The Case for Derek Chauvin," suggest that media bias and political motivations may have influenced public perception and the legal process. Shapiro argues that exculpatory evidence, such as complete autopsy reports and body camera footage, was overlooked, and that Floyd's preexisting health issues and drug use were not adequately considered.

However, these arguments are not supported by the legal outcomes. Chauvin's convictions were based on evidence presented in court, including video footage and expert testimony, which supported the conclusion that his actions were unjustified and led to Floyd's death[5]. The federal conviction specifically highlighted Chauvin's willful violation of Floyd's civil rights[2].

### Legal and Ethical Considerations

1. **Legal Precedent**: Presidential pardons are typically granted after a thorough review process, often involving the Department of Justice. A pardon for Chauvin would be unusual given the nature of his crimes and the public interest in ensuring accountability for police misconduct.

2. **Ethical Implications**: Granting a pardon could be seen as undermining efforts to address systemic issues within law enforcement and could exacerbate public distrust in the justice system.

3. **Political Implications**: Politically, a pardon could be highly controversial, potentially alienating segments of the public who view Chauvin's actions as emblematic of broader racial and policing issues.

### Conclusion

While the claim that President Trump should pardon Derek Chauvin is based on arguments about media bias and overlooked evidence, it does not align with the legal and ethical standards typically applied to pardons. The legal process, including both state and federal convictions, has been thorough, and the evidence presented in court supported the verdicts. Given the serious nature of Chauvin's crimes and the public interest in ensuring accountability for police misconduct, a pardon would likely face significant legal and ethical scrutiny.

## References

[1] Alfonseca, K. (2022). Derek Chauvin sentenced for violating George Floyd's civil rights. ABC News.
[2] U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin Sentenced to More Than 20 Years in Prison for Depriving George Floyd and a Minor Victim of Their Constitutional Rights.
[3] Wikipedia. (2023). Derek Chauvin.
[4] CBS News. (2022). Derek Chauvin gets 21 years on federal charges in George Floyd's death.
[5] Wikipedia. (2023). Trial of Derek Chauvin.
U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 2.
Shapiro, B. (Series). The Case for Derek Chauvin. (Note: Specific episodes or transcripts not cited due to lack of direct access.)

Citations

Claim

The prosecution failed to meet the constitutionally required burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt for Derek Chauvin's case.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Prosecution Failed to Meet Burden of Proof in Derek Chauvin's Case

The claim that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in Derek Chauvin's case requires a thorough examination of the trial's proceedings and outcomes. Here's a detailed analysis based on available evidence and legal principles:

### Legal Standards and Burden of Proof

1. **Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt**: In criminal trials, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard of proof in the U.S. legal system. This standard does not mean beyond all doubt but rather that the evidence must eliminate any reasonable doubt, leaving only fanciful or capricious doubts[1].

2. **Chauvin's Trial**: The prosecution presented extensive evidence, including video footage, medical expert testimony, and use-of-force analysis. The jury found Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter[3][5].

### Evidence Presented

– **Video Evidence**: The most compelling evidence was the video footage showing Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck for over nine minutes. This visual evidence was crucial in demonstrating the excessive use of force[5].

– **Medical Expert Testimony**: Dr. Martin Tobin testified that a healthy person subjected to the same conditions as Floyd would have died due to lack of oxygen[5].

– **Use-of-Force Experts**: While the defense presented a use-of-force expert who initially defended Chauvin's actions, this expert's credibility was challenged during cross-examination[5].

### Legal Analysis of the Claim

1. **Meeting the Burden of Proof**: The prosecution successfully met the burden of proof by presenting substantial evidence that Chauvin's actions were the substantial cause of Floyd's death. This included demonstrating that Chauvin's use of force was excessive and directly led to Floyd's death[3][5].

2. **Exculpatory Evidence**: The claim suggests that exculpatory evidence, such as Floyd's preexisting health issues and drug use, was overlooked. However, the prosecution's case focused on Chauvin's actions as the direct cause of death, not solely on Floyd's health conditions[3][5].

3. **Media Bias and Political Motivations**: While media bias and political motivations may have influenced public perception, the legal process is designed to filter out such influences. The jury's verdict was based on the evidence presented in court[4][5].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence presented and the legal standards applied, the prosecution successfully met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in Derek Chauvin's case. The claim that the prosecution failed to meet this burden does not align with the trial's outcomes and the evidence presented. The legal process, including the jury's deliberation and verdict, indicates that the prosecution's case was sufficient to establish Chauvin's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt[3][5].

### References

[1] NBC News. (2021). Chauvin 'Does Not Need To Prove His Innocence' | NBC News.
[2] Minnesota Judicial Branch. (2022). Brief – Appellant.
[3] PolitiFact. (2021). The guilty verdict against Derek Chauvin, explained.
[4] Famous Trials. (n.d.). George Floyd Murder Trial (Trial of Derek Chauvin): An Account.
[5] Fox News. (2021). Gregg Jarrett: Derek Chauvin prosecutors meet burden of proof in trial.

Citations

Claim

Floyd received credit for 70 days of time served.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that George Floyd received credit for 70 days of time served appears to be unrelated to the context of Derek Chauvin's case or George Floyd's death. Instead, it seems to refer to a hypothetical or unrelated scenario involving Floyd's incarceration, which is not supported by the provided information.

To evaluate this claim accurately, we need official court records or reliable sources directly related to George Floyd's legal history. However, the available information focuses on the trial and conviction of Derek Chauvin for Floyd's murder, not on Floyd's personal legal history.

Here are some key points from the available sources:

1. **Derek Chauvin's Conviction**: Chauvin was convicted of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd. He was sentenced to 22.5 years in prison for these state charges and 21 years for federal civil rights violations, which he is serving concurrently[1][3][4].

2. **George Floyd's Death**: Floyd died after Chauvin knelt on his neck for over nine minutes during an arrest. This incident sparked widespread protests and discussions about police brutality and racial justice[1][5].

3. **Ben Shapiro's Series**: The series "The Case for Derek Chauvin" by Ben Shapiro aims to re-examine Chauvin's conviction, suggesting that media bias and political factors influenced public opinion. However, this series does not address Floyd's legal history or any potential time served[2].

In conclusion, without specific court records or reliable sources mentioning George Floyd receiving credit for time served, the claim cannot be verified. The available information focuses on the circumstances surrounding Floyd's death and Chauvin's trial rather than Floyd's personal legal history.

Citations

Claim

Records indicated he served two days of that sentence.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Derek Chauvin served only two days of his sentence cannot be verified based on the available information. The search results do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Instead, they detail Chauvin's sentencing for federal civil rights charges related to the death of George Floyd and another incident involving a minor. Chauvin was sentenced to 252 months (21 years) in federal prison, with credit for seven months already served, resulting in a remaining sentence of 245 months (approximately 20.5 years)[1][2][3]. This sentence runs concurrently with his state sentence of 22.5 years for murder[1][2].

To verify the claim about serving only two days, one would need access to specific incarceration records, which are not provided in the search results. Therefore, without direct access to these records, the claim cannot be confirmed or denied based on the available information.

### Evaluation of the Claim:
– **Source of Claim**: The claim is part of a series hosted by Ben Shapiro, which re-evaluates Chauvin's conviction.
– **Available Evidence**: There is no evidence in the search results to support the claim that Chauvin served only two days of his sentence.
– **Incarceration Records**: Verification would require access to detailed incarceration records, which are not publicly available in the search results.

### Conclusion:
The claim that Derek Chauvin served only two days of his sentence lacks supporting evidence from the available sources. Incarceration records would be necessary to verify this claim, but such records are not provided in the search results.

Citations

Claim

Under Minnesota's state sentencing structure inmates typically serve only two-thirds of their sentence behind bars.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Inmates in Minnesota Typically Serve Only Two-Thirds of Their Sentence Behind Bars

The claim that inmates in Minnesota typically serve only two-thirds of their sentence behind bars can be evaluated by examining Minnesota's sentencing and parole policies.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Prison Sentence Structure**: According to the Office of the Legislative Auditor, prison inmates in Minnesota generally serve two-thirds of their sentence in prison and the remaining third on probation[2]. This structure aligns with the claim, as it indicates that inmates do not serve their entire sentence in prison but rather split their time between incarceration and supervised release.

2. **Earned Release Time**: Minnesota law allows inmates to earn a reduction in their sentence by behaving well and not breaking rules. For every two days served, inmates receive a one-day reduction in their sentence, which is converted into supervised release[3]. This policy supports the idea that inmates typically do not serve the full duration of their sentence behind bars.

### Additional Context

– **Sentencing Guidelines**: Minnesota uses a sentencing guidelines system that determines presumptive sentences based on the severity of the crime and the offender's criminal history[1][3]. While this system influences the length of sentences, it does not directly address the proportion of time served in prison versus probation.

– **Mandatory Minimum Sentences**: Certain crimes in Minnesota carry mandatory minimum sentences, which can affect the duration of incarceration but do not alter the overall structure of serving two-thirds of the sentence in prison[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that inmates in Minnesota typically serve only two-thirds of their sentence behind bars is supported by evidence from the Office of the Legislative Auditor and Minnesota's sentencing policies. Inmates generally serve two-thirds of their sentence in prison and the remainder on probation, with opportunities to earn early release through good behavior[2][3]. This structure is consistent across most felony convictions, although specific crimes may have different requirements due to mandatory minimums or other sentencing guidelines[5].

Citations

Claim

Floyd was part of a home invasion robbery in 2007.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: George Floyd's Involvement in a Home Invasion Robbery in 2007

The claim that George Floyd was part of a home invasion robbery in 2007 can be verified through multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence and Verification

1. **Court Documents and News Reports**: According to court documents and news reports, George Floyd was indeed involved in an aggravated robbery in 2007. This incident involved a home invasion where Floyd and five other men broke into an apartment in search of drugs and money. During the incident, Floyd held a pistol against the abdomen of the resident, Aracely Henriquez[1][2].

2. **Legal Consequences**: As a result of this crime, Floyd was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal in 2009. He served four years before being paroled in 2013[2][4].

3. **Contextual Background**: It is important to note that while Floyd had a criminal history, including this significant incident, he was also known to friends and family as a "gentle giant" who was trying to turn his life around after moving to Minneapolis[2][3].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from court documents and reputable news sources, the claim that George Floyd was involved in a home invasion robbery in 2007 is **TRUE**. This incident was a significant part of his criminal history, leading to a prison sentence and later influencing his life trajectory as he attempted to start anew in Minneapolis.

### Additional Context

The broader discussion around George Floyd's death and the subsequent legal proceedings against Derek Chauvin involve complex issues of race, policing, and justice. While Floyd's past actions are part of his history, his death sparked a global conversation about systemic racism and police brutality, leading to widespread protests and calls for reform[4][5].

Citations

Claim

Floyd was arrested on April 23rd, 2002 for criminal trespassing and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that George Floyd was arrested on April 23rd, 2002, for criminal trespassing and sentenced to 30 days in jail, we must rely on available records and reports. However, none of the provided search results directly address this specific claim. The available information primarily focuses on George Floyd's arrest and death in 2020, related to the use of a counterfeit $20 bill, and does not mention an arrest in 2002 for criminal trespassing.

Given the lack of direct evidence or credible sources supporting the claim, it cannot be verified based on the information provided. For a thorough verification, access to specific legal records or news archives from 2002 would be necessary.

Here are some key points to consider:

1. **Lack of Direct Evidence**: There is no direct mention of an arrest on April 23rd, 2002, in the provided sources. Typically, such information would be found in legal records or news archives from that time.

2. **Focus on 2020 Incident**: The majority of available information focuses on the 2020 incident involving George Floyd's death after an interaction with Minneapolis police officers.

3. **Need for Specific Records**: To confirm the claim, one would need access to specific legal or police records from 2002, which are not provided in the search results.

In conclusion, without specific records or credible sources confirming the arrest and sentencing details for April 23rd, 2002, the claim cannot be verified based on the available information.

Citations

Claim

On October 29th, 2002, he was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "On October 29th, 2002, he was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance" appears to be related to Derek Chauvin, but the context provided suggests it might be confused with George Floyd. However, there is no reliable source confirming that Derek Chauvin was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance on October 29, 2002. The information available about Chauvin primarily focuses on his involvement in the George Floyd case and other civil rights violations.

If the claim is intended to refer to George Floyd, there is no specific information in the provided sources confirming a charge against Floyd on October 29, 2002. However, it is known that George Floyd had a history of drug use, which was part of the discussion during Derek Chauvin's trial. The podcast series mentioned seems to focus on re-evaluating Chauvin's conviction, suggesting that Floyd's pre-existing health issues and drug use were factors that might have influenced the outcome of the case.

To verify the claim accurately, more specific and reliable sources would be needed. Currently, there is no clear evidence supporting the claim as it relates to either Derek Chauvin or George Floyd based on the information provided.

### Conclusion:
– **Claim Validity**: The claim lacks clear evidence or reliable sources to support it as it pertains to either Derek Chauvin or George Floyd.
– **Relevant Information**: The discussion around Derek Chauvin and George Floyd primarily focuses on the events surrounding Floyd's death and Chauvin's subsequent trials and convictions.
– **Need for Further Evidence**: To confirm the claim, additional specific and trustworthy sources are required.

Citations

Claim

Floyd was formally indicted.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To verify the claim that George Floyd was formally indicted, it is essential to understand that George Floyd himself was not indicted in relation to his death. Instead, the focus is on the officers involved in his death, particularly Derek Chauvin. The claim might be confusing or misinterpreted, as it is the officers who faced indictments and trials, not George Floyd.

### Evidence and Context

1. **George Floyd's Death and Subsequent Trials**: George Floyd died on May 25, 2020, after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers, including Derek Chauvin. Chauvin was subsequently charged with second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter[2][5]. The other officers involved, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane, and Tou Thao, were charged with aiding and abetting both second-degree unintentional murder and second-degree manslaughter[5].

2. **Chauvin's Conviction**: Chauvin was found guilty on all three charges on April 20, 2021, and was sentenced to 22.5 years in prison[2][5]. The other officers were also later convicted of violating Floyd's civil rights[2].

3. **Public Indictment Records**: The claim about George Floyd being formally indicted cannot be verified because he was not the subject of an indictment related to his death. Instead, the focus was on the criminal proceedings against the police officers involved.

4. **Ben Shapiro's Series**: The series hosted by Ben Shapiro aims to re-evaluate Chauvin's conviction, suggesting that media bias and political motivations influenced public perceptions. However, this does not pertain to George Floyd being indicted[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that George Floyd was formally indicted is **false**. George Floyd was not indicted in relation to his death; rather, the officers involved in his death faced charges and trials. The confusion may arise from misunderstanding the context of indictments in this case, which were directed at the police officers, not George Floyd himself.

### References

– [1] PolitiFact: A post exaggerates George Floyd's criminal history.
– [2] Wikipedia: George Floyd.
– [3] Minnesota Courts: Order regarding Derek Chauvin's sentencing.
– [4] FOX 9: Who was George Floyd?
– [5] Famous Trials: George Floyd Case: Charges Explained.

Citations

Claim

On March 3rd, 2003, he was sentenced to eight months in state jail.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "On March 3rd, 2003, he was sentenced to eight months in state jail" cannot be verified or linked to Derek Chauvin based on the available information. The search results do not provide any details about a sentencing on that specific date or outcome for Derek Chauvin.

Here are the key points from the available information about Derek Chauvin's legal proceedings:

1. **Sentencing for George Floyd's Death**: Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 270 months (22.5 years) in state prison for the murder of George Floyd on June 25, 2021[3][5]. This sentence was based on his conviction for second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter[3][5].

2. **Federal Sentencing**: Chauvin was also sentenced to 252 months (21 years) in federal prison for violating George Floyd's and a minor's civil rights. This sentence was handed down on July 7, 2022[1].

3. **"The Case for Derek Chauvin" Series**: This series, hosted by Ben Shapiro, re-examines Chauvin's conviction, suggesting that media bias and political motivations influenced public opinion and possibly the legal outcome[4]. However, this series does not provide information about a sentencing on March 3rd, 2003.

In conclusion, there is no evidence in the provided search results or other reliable sources to support the claim that Derek Chauvin was sentenced to eight months in state jail on March 3rd, 2003. The available information focuses on his sentencing related to George Floyd's death and federal civil rights violations.

Citations

Claim

Floyd was arrested in December 2005 charged with possessing less than one gram of cocaine.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: George Floyd's December 2005 Arrest

The claim states that George Floyd was arrested in December 2005 for possessing less than one gram of cocaine. To evaluate this claim, we will examine available evidence from reliable sources.

### Evidence and Analysis

1. **Arrest Details**: According to court records and reports, George Floyd was indeed arrested in December 2005. Initially, he was charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, which was later amended to possession of cocaine less than one gram[1][3].

2. **Sentence**: Following this arrest, Floyd was sentenced to 10 months in state jail for the possession of cocaine[1][3].

3. **Context**: This arrest was part of a series of drug-related charges Floyd faced during his time in Houston. He had multiple arrests for cocaine possession and distribution between 1997 and 2005[3][5].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reliable sources, the claim that George Floyd was arrested in December 2005 for possessing less than one gram of cocaine is **true**. This arrest was part of his broader criminal history, which included multiple drug-related offenses.

### Additional Context

– **Criminal History**: Floyd's criminal record includes several drug-related charges and a notable aggravated robbery conviction in 2007, for which he served five years in prison[1][2][5].
– **Relevance to Chauvin's Case**: While Floyd's criminal history has been discussed in the context of Derek Chauvin's trial, it is important to note that the officers involved in Floyd's fatal arrest were not aware of his past at the time of the incident[1][4].

In summary, the claim about Floyd's December 2005 arrest for cocaine possession is supported by court records and news reports, providing a factual account of one aspect of his criminal history.

Citations

Claim

He pled guilty to this charge in 2009.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Derek Chauvin pled guilty to a charge in 2009 is not supported by the available information. The search results do not mention any such incident or plea by Derek Chauvin in 2009. Instead, they focus on his involvement in the George Floyd case and a separate incident involving a 14-year-old boy in 2017, for which he pleaded guilty in federal court in December 2021[1][2][5].

In contrast, George Floyd himself pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon in 2009[4]. This highlights the importance of verifying claims through accurate and reliable sources to avoid confusion between individuals involved in high-profile cases.

### Conclusion:
– **Claim Validity:** The claim that Derek Chauvin pled guilty to a charge in 2009 is **false** based on the available information.
– **Supporting Evidence:** There is no mention of Derek Chauvin pleading guilty to any charges in 2009 in the provided search results. Instead, the focus is on his more recent legal proceedings related to George Floyd and a 2017 incident[1][2][5].
– **Relevant Information:** George Floyd, not Derek Chauvin, pleaded guilty to charges in 2009[4].

Citations

Claim

The media have engaged in a deliberate attempt to sanitize Floyd's background.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Media Sanitization of George Floyd's Background

The claim that the media have engaged in a deliberate attempt to sanitize George Floyd's background involves assessing whether media coverage has accurately reflected his criminal history and personal circumstances. To evaluate this claim, we must consider both the factual record of Floyd's background and how it has been portrayed in media coverage.

### George Floyd's Criminal History

George Floyd had a criminal history, but claims about its extent have been exaggerated. According to court documents from Harris County, Texas, Floyd was involved in nine criminal cases, including charges for drug possession and distribution, theft, and aggravated robbery. He pleaded guilty to seven of these charges and no contest to two others, serving nearly nine years in jail and prison[2].

### Media Coverage of George Floyd

Media coverage of George Floyd's death and the subsequent trial of Derek Chauvin focused primarily on the circumstances of his death and the broader issues of racial justice and police brutality. While some media outlets did discuss Floyd's background, there was no widespread effort to "sanitize" his history. Instead, the focus was on the impact of his death on social movements and legal proceedings[1][3].

### Social Media and Public Perception

Social media played a significant role in bringing attention to Floyd's case, with videos of the incident spreading widely and sparking protests against police brutality. This coverage highlighted systemic issues rather than Floyd's personal background[5].

### Analysis of the Claim

The claim that the media deliberately sanitized Floyd's background lacks substantial evidence. Media coverage was more focused on the societal implications of his death and the trial of Derek Chauvin than on detailing Floyd's personal history. While some outlets may have chosen not to emphasize his criminal record, this does not equate to a deliberate attempt to sanitize his background.

### Conclusion

Based on available evidence, the claim that the media engaged in a deliberate attempt to sanitize George Floyd's background is not supported. Media coverage primarily addressed the broader social and legal implications of his death rather than focusing on his personal history.

### References

[1] [The Derek Chauvin Verdict: How Did the Media Do with Coverage?](https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/the-derek-chauvin-verdict-how-did-the-media-do-with-coverage/)

[2] [A post exaggerates George Floyd's criminal history](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/28/facebook-posts/post-exaggerates-george-floyds-criminal-history/)

[3] [The trial of Derek Chauvin, and the debate about cameras in court](https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/george_floyd_derek_chauvin_trial_cameras.php)

[5] [Social Media Was Major Witness in Chauvin Trial](https://www.voanews.com/a/student-union_social-media-was-major-witness-chauvin-trial/6204895.html)

Citations

Claim

President Trump said Monday that he would hold Iran responsible for future attacks by the Houthis in Yemen.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: President Trump's Statement on Holding Iran Responsible for Houthi Attacks

The claim that President Trump stated he would hold Iran responsible for future attacks by the Houthis in Yemen can be verified through recent public statements and press releases.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Public Statement on Truth Social**: On Monday, March 18, 2025, President Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he would hold Iran directly responsible for any future attacks by the Houthi rebels. He emphasized that every shot fired by the Houthis would be considered as coming from Iran, and Iran would face consequences for these actions[1][2].

2. **Press Coverage**: Multiple news outlets, including ABC News and The Times of Israel, reported Trump's statement, highlighting his intention to hold Iran accountable for Houthi actions. These reports also mentioned the recent U.S. airstrikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, which were part of a broader strategy to counter the group's activities[1][2].

3. **Official Context**: The U.S. has been conducting strikes against Houthi targets for months, but Trump's recent comments marked a significant escalation in rhetoric, directly linking Iran to Houthi actions and threatening severe consequences[1][2].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reliable news sources and Trump's public statements, the claim that President Trump said he would hold Iran responsible for future attacks by the Houthis in Yemen is **verified**. Trump's statements clearly indicate his intention to attribute Houthi actions to Iran and to impose consequences on Iran for these actions.

### Additional Context

– **Houthi Attacks**: The Houthis have been involved in targeting Western-linked shipping and launching attacks in the Red Sea, prompting U.S. military responses[1][2].
– **Iran's Role**: Trump's statements reflect a belief that Iran is significantly involved in supporting the Houthis, providing them with weapons and strategic guidance[2].
– **International Response**: The situation has drawn international attention, with calls for de-escalation from countries like China and concerns from the United Nations about the potential for further conflict[1].

Citations

Claim

Floyd was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first degree felony in Texas.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: George Floyd Charged with Aggravated Robbery with a Deadly Weapon

The claim states that George Floyd was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony in Texas. To evaluate this claim, we will examine available evidence and court records.

### Evidence and Court Records

1. **Aggravated Robbery Charges**: George Floyd was indeed charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. In 2007, he was involved in a home invasion where he and five other men entered a woman's apartment, and Floyd allegedly pressed a gun against the victim's abdomen while searching for drugs and money[1][2]. This incident led to a charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.

2. **Plea Deal and Sentencing**: In 2009, Floyd pleaded guilty to this charge as part of a plea deal and was sentenced to five years in prison[1][2]. This indicates that the charge was serious enough to warrant significant prison time.

3. **Legal Classification**: In Texas, aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon is classified as a first-degree felony, which aligns with the severity of the charge mentioned in the claim[2].

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence and court records, the claim that George Floyd was charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a first-degree felony in Texas, is **true**. This charge was part of a significant criminal history that included multiple arrests and convictions, although some claims about his criminal past have been exaggerated or fabricated[1][2].

### Additional Context

– **Exaggerated Claims**: Some social media posts and claims have overstated the extent of Floyd's criminal history, including false allegations of multiple violent crimes and car thefts[2].
– **Legal Proceedings**: Floyd's criminal history includes several convictions, but the specific charge of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon is well-documented and supported by court records[1][2].

Citations

Claim

The media were deeply complicit in this case and did not cover the details of the autopsy or defense presentation at trial.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Media Complicity in the Derek Chauvin Case

The claim suggests that the media were complicit in the Derek Chauvin case by not adequately covering the details of the autopsy or defense presentation at trial. To assess this claim, we need to examine the media coverage of the trial and compare it to official records and trial proceedings.

### Media Coverage of the Trial

1. **Comprehensive Coverage**: The trial of Derek Chauvin was extensively covered by major networks and cable news channels. It was one of the most-watched cases in recent history, with gavel-to-gavel coverage provided by several networks, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and others[3][5]. This level of coverage indicates that the media did provide substantial attention to the trial.

2. **Legal Analysis and Expert Commentary**: Media outlets often featured legal analysts who provided detailed explanations of court procedures, the makeup of the jury, and the charges against Chauvin[1][3]. This suggests that the media did attempt to inform viewers about the intricacies of the trial.

3. **Autopsy and Defense Presentation**: While the claim suggests that media did not cover the autopsy or defense presentation adequately, the trial's focus on a nine-and-a-half-minute video of Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd's neck was widely reported[5]. The defense's arguments, including the use of body camera footage and discussions about Floyd's health issues, were also covered by media outlets[5].

### Limitations and Controversies in Media Coverage

1. **Speculation and Emotional Reporting**: Some media outlets were criticized for speculating about potential reactions to a not-guilty verdict, which could be seen as ramping up anxiety rather than providing balanced coverage[1].

2. **Controversy Over Cameras in Court**: The decision to broadcast the trial live was controversial, with concerns about witness intimidation and the impact on the community[5]. However, this does not directly relate to the claim about the coverage of specific trial details.

### Conclusion

The claim that the media were complicit in the Derek Chauvin case by not covering the details of the autopsy or defense presentation at trial is not entirely supported by available evidence. While media coverage was extensive and included legal analysis, there were instances of speculation and emotional reporting. However, there is no clear evidence that the media systematically avoided discussing the autopsy or defense arguments. The media did cover various aspects of the trial, including the defense's use of body camera footage and discussions about Floyd's health issues.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Review Official Trial Transcripts**: To verify the claim, it would be beneficial to review official trial transcripts to see how thoroughly the autopsy and defense presentations were covered.
– **Compare Media Reports**: Conduct a comparative analysis of media reports from different outlets to assess consistency in coverage.
– **Consult Legal Experts**: Engage with legal experts who followed the trial to gain insights into how effectively the media conveyed the legal arguments and evidence presented.

In summary, while the media coverage of the Derek Chauvin trial was extensive, the claim of complicity in avoiding specific details requires further investigation to fully verify or refute.

Citations

Claim

Chauvin was convicted on state charges and then pled guilty to federal charges on unreasonable use of force.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Derek Chauvin was convicted on state charges and then pled guilty to federal charges for the unreasonable use of force is accurate and supported by reliable sources.

## State Conviction
In April 2021, Derek Chauvin was found guilty on three counts related to George Floyd's death: second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. This conviction was based on evidence that Chauvin pressed his knee against Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes, leading to Floyd's death[1].

## Federal Charges and Plea
On December 15, 2021, Chauvin pleaded guilty to federal charges of violating George Floyd's civil rights by using unreasonable force, which resulted in Floyd's death. Additionally, he pleaded guilty to similar charges involving a 14-year-old boy, admitting to willfully depriving both individuals of their constitutional rights[1][3][5]. The federal sentence was set at 21 years, which would run concurrently with his state sentence[1][3].

## Summary of Legal Outcomes
– **State Charges**: Convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
– **Federal Charges**: Pleaded guilty to violating civil rights by using unreasonable force against George Floyd and a minor.

The claim is supported by official legal proceedings and court records, making it a factual representation of Chauvin's legal outcomes. The additional context provided about Ben Shapiro's series and its arguments does not affect the factual accuracy of Chauvin's legal convictions and pleas.

Citations

Claim

There were no accusations that Chauvin targeted George Floyd because of his race.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: No Accusations of Racial Targeting in the Chauvin Trial

The claim that there were no accusations that Derek Chauvin targeted George Floyd because of his race can be assessed by examining the trial transcripts and legal charges brought against Chauvin. Here's a detailed evaluation:

### Trial Transcripts and Legal Charges

1. **Legal Charges**: Derek Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in connection with George Floyd's death. These charges focused on the use of excessive force and the resulting death, rather than specifically alleging racial targeting[2][3].

2. **Trial Transcripts**: During the trial, the prosecution emphasized the excessive force used by Chauvin, highlighting that Floyd was handcuffed and defenseless. The focus was on the duration and nature of the force applied, rather than racial motivations[1]. However, the broader societal context and implications of systemic racism in policing were discussed outside the courtroom, reflecting a broader narrative about racial disparities in law enforcement.

### Context and Broader Implications

While the legal charges and trial transcripts did not explicitly focus on racial targeting as a specific accusation, the case was widely seen as part of a larger discussion about systemic racism and police brutality against Black Americans. This context is crucial for understanding why many viewed Floyd's death as emblematic of racial issues in policing, even if the trial itself did not directly address racial motivations as a legal charge.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that there were no accusations of racial targeting in the Chauvin trial is accurate in the context of the legal charges and trial transcripts. However, the broader societal and political discussions surrounding the case often included themes of racial injustice and systemic racism in policing.

### Additional Considerations

– **Media and Public Perception**: The case was heavily covered in the media, with many discussions focusing on racial disparities in policing. This broader narrative often intertwined with the legal proceedings, even if the trial itself did not explicitly address racial targeting as a legal charge.

– **Political and Social Implications**: The case had significant political and social implications, with many arguing that it highlighted systemic issues within law enforcement that disproportionately affect communities of color. While these discussions were not part of the formal legal charges, they are crucial for understanding the case's broader impact.

### References

[1] Prosecution Opening Statement Transcript: Derek Chauvin Trial for Murder of George Floyd.
[2] Brief – Appellant – Minnesota Judicial Branch.
[3] 'He was terrified:' Witnesses offer emotional testimony about Floyd death in Chauvin case.

Citations

Claim

Chauvin's record was typical for a veteran officer working in a high crime urban environment.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Derek Chauvin's record was typical for a veteran officer working in a high crime urban environment, we need to examine police records, statistics, and comparisons with other officers in similar contexts.

## Background on Derek Chauvin

Derek Chauvin was a Minneapolis police officer involved in several incidents, including the death of George Floyd. His personnel records show that he was the subject of at least 17 internal affairs investigations since joining the Minneapolis Police Department in 2001, but he was formally disciplined only once for an incident in 2007[1][4]. This incident involved pulling a woman from her car during a traffic stop, for which he received a letter of reprimand[1].

## Comparison with Other Officers

In high crime urban environments, police officers often face complex and dangerous situations, which can lead to a higher number of complaints and incidents. However, the frequency and nature of these incidents can vary significantly among officers. For example, Tou Thao, another officer involved in the George Floyd case, was investigated at least six times without resulting in discipline[1].

## Use of Force and Training

The use of force by police officers is a critical aspect of their job, especially in high-pressure situations. Training and adherence to department policies are essential in determining whether an officer's actions are reasonable. In Chauvin's case, his use of force was questioned in several incidents, including the restraint of individuals by their necks, similar to the method used during George Floyd's arrest[5]. This pattern of behavior suggests that Chauvin's actions may not have been typical of all veteran officers, as many officers manage to perform their duties without such frequent allegations of excessive force.

## Legal and Public Perception

The legal and public perception of Chauvin's actions were significantly influenced by the high-profile nature of the George Floyd case. The widespread protests and media coverage highlighted systemic issues within policing, including racial disparities and excessive force. While some argue that media bias and political motivations affected public perception, the legal system ultimately convicted Chauvin based on evidence presented in court[3][4].

## Conclusion

While it is true that police officers in high crime urban environments often face challenging situations that can lead to complaints, Chauvin's record of multiple incidents involving excessive force, including fatal encounters, suggests that his actions were not typical of all veteran officers. The frequency and severity of these incidents, combined with the lack of formal discipline in most cases, raise questions about whether his behavior was consistent with standard practices among police officers in similar contexts.

In summary, while some aspects of Chauvin's record might align with the challenges faced by officers in high crime areas, the specific nature and frequency of his incidents involving excessive force do not support the claim that his record was typical for a veteran officer in such an environment.

Citations

Claim

Derek Chauvin is currently serving concurrent sentences, 22.5 years on state charges and 21 years on federal charges.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Derek Chauvin's Concurrent Sentences

The claim states that Derek Chauvin is currently serving concurrent sentences of 22.5 years on state charges and 21 years on federal charges. This can be verified through reliable sources and sentencing documentation.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **State Sentence**: Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 22.5 years in state prison for his role in George Floyd's death. This sentence was handed down after he was convicted of murder and manslaughter charges in a Minnesota state court[1][4].

2. **Federal Sentence**: Chauvin pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges related to Floyd's death and another incident involving a 14-year-old boy. He was sentenced to 21 years in federal prison for these violations[1][3][4].

3. **Concurrent Sentencing**: It is confirmed that Chauvin serves both his state and federal sentences concurrently. This means he will not serve the full combined duration of both sentences but will instead serve them simultaneously[1][4].

### Additional Context

– **Ben Shapiro's Series**: The series "The Case for Derek Chauvin" hosted by Ben Shapiro aims to re-evaluate Chauvin's conviction, suggesting media bias and political motivations influenced public perception. However, this series does not impact the factual status of Chauvin's sentences[5].

– **Pardon Discussion**: There have been discussions about a potential pardon for Chauvin's federal conviction, but any such pardon would not affect his state sentence[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that Derek Chauvin is serving concurrent sentences of 22.5 years on state charges and 21 years on federal charges is **verified** by reliable sources. Both sentences are being served at the same time, meaning Chauvin will not serve the full combined duration of both sentences. The discussion around potential pardons or re-evaluation of his conviction does not alter the factual status of his current sentencing arrangement.

Citations

Claim

Floyd pled guilty to the theft charge on December 14th, 1998.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **George Floyd pled guilty to a theft charge on December 14th, 1998** cannot be verified through the provided search results. However, it is essential to note that George Floyd did have a criminal record, which included several convictions for theft and other offenses. For instance, in 2007, Floyd was arrested and convicted of armed robbery, for which he served time in prison[4]. However, specific details about a theft charge on December 14th, 1998, are not mentioned in the available sources.

To verify this claim, one would need access to George Floyd's complete criminal record or legal documents from that time period. Publicly available information primarily focuses on his death and its aftermath, rather than his past legal issues.

In the context of the series "The Case for Derek Chauvin," hosted by Ben Shapiro, it is crucial to evaluate claims based on verifiable evidence and to consider multiple perspectives when discussing legal outcomes and their implications. Shapiro's series aims to re-examine the conviction of Derek Chauvin by highlighting potential biases and overlooked evidence, but it does not specifically address George Floyd's past legal history in the provided information.

In summary, without direct access to George Floyd's legal records or more specific information, the claim about a guilty plea on December 14th, 1998, cannot be confirmed or denied based on the available search results.

Citations

Claim

He was sentenced to 10 days in Harris County Jail.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that George Floyd was sentenced to 10 days in Harris County Jail for a theft charge is not directly relevant to the discussion about Derek Chauvin's sentencing or the broader context of the "The Case for Derek Chauvin" series. However, to address the claim itself:

1. **George Floyd's Legal History**: There is no widely reported or verified information from reliable sources indicating that George Floyd was sentenced to 10 days in Harris County Jail specifically for a theft charge. It is known that George Floyd had a criminal history, including convictions in Texas, but specific details about a 10-day sentence in Harris County Jail for theft are not readily available in mainstream or academic sources.

2. **Derek Chauvin's Sentencing**: Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 22.5 years in prison for second-degree murder in the state of Minnesota and to 21 years in federal prison for violating George Floyd's civil rights, with the federal sentence to be served concurrently with the state sentence[1][3].

3. **Ben Shapiro's Series**: The series hosted by Ben Shapiro aims to re-evaluate Derek Chauvin's conviction, suggesting that media bias and political motivations influenced public perceptions. Shapiro argues that evidence such as autopsy reports and body camera footage was overlooked, highlighting Floyd's preexisting health issues and drug use. However, this series does not address George Floyd's legal history or sentencing outcomes directly[5].

In conclusion, while there is no specific information to confirm or deny the claim about George Floyd's sentencing to 10 days in Harris County Jail for a theft charge, the focus of the discussion around Derek Chauvin's case and Ben Shapiro's series is on the circumstances and legal outcomes related to George Floyd's death, not on Floyd's personal legal history.

Citations

Claim

Floyd received credit for 92 days of time served for his state jail sentence.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that George Floyd received credit for 92 days of time served for his state jail sentence cannot be verified through the provided search results. The search results primarily focus on the legal proceedings and sentences of the officers involved in George Floyd's death, particularly Derek Chauvin and Thomas Lane, rather than any details about George Floyd's own legal history or time served.

To verify this claim, one would need to access specific court records or legal documents related to George Floyd's past legal issues, if any existed. However, the search results do not provide such information.

Regarding the series "The Case for Derek Chauvin," it appears to be a controversial re-evaluation of the case, arguing against the conviction based on perceived media bias and political motivations. This series is not a reliable source for verifying factual claims about George Floyd's legal history but rather a commentary on the case's broader implications and public perceptions.

In summary, without direct access to relevant court records or legal documents, the claim about George Floyd receiving credit for time served cannot be confirmed or denied based on the available information.

Citations

Claim

He was sentenced to five years in prison for the aggravated robbery.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "He was sentenced to five years in prison for the aggravated robbery" appears to be incorrect based on the context provided. However, it is unclear who "he" refers to in the claim. If "he" refers to George Floyd, the information available indicates that he served four years in prison after accepting a plea bargain for a 2007 aggravated robbery in a home invasion, not five years[2].

If the claim is referring to someone else, such as Derek Chauvin, there is no mention of him being involved in an aggravated robbery case. Chauvin was convicted and sentenced for the murder of George Floyd, receiving a sentence of 22.5 years in prison[1][4][5].

In summary, without further context or clarification on who "he" is, the claim cannot be verified accurately. However, if referring to George Floyd, the correct sentence length for his aggravated robbery conviction was four years, not five[2].

### Evidence and References:
– **George Floyd's Sentence for Aggravated Robbery**: George Floyd served four years in prison for a 2007 aggravated robbery[2].
– **Derek Chauvin's Conviction and Sentence**: Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 22.5 years for the murder of George Floyd, with no mention of an aggravated robbery case[1][4][5].

Citations

Claim

Floyd's criminal history includes at least seven separate criminal offenses.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: George Floyd's Criminal History

The claim that George Floyd's criminal history includes at least seven separate criminal offenses can be evaluated by examining his documented arrests and convictions.

### Evidence from Reliable Sources

1. **Arrests and Convictions**: According to PolitiFact, George Floyd was arrested nine times in Harris County, Texas. These arrests included charges such as drug possession and distribution, theft, illegal trespass, failure to identify himself to a police officer, and an aggravated robbery in 2007[1]. He pleaded guilty to seven of these charges and no contest to two others[1].

2. **Nature of Offenses**: The most serious offense was the 2007 aggravated robbery, where Floyd and accomplices entered a home under false pretenses, and Floyd placed a gun on a woman's abdomen[5]. Other charges primarily involved nonviolent drug offenses[3].

3. **Total Time Served**: Floyd served nearly eight years in jail and prison for these offenses[1].

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, George Floyd's criminal history indeed includes multiple offenses, but the claim of "at least seven separate criminal offenses" aligns with the documented charges. However, the nature and severity of these offenses have been exaggerated in some reports. The actual number of distinct offenses is not as high as some claims suggest, but his record does include several significant charges.

### Summary of Findings

– **Number of Arrests**: Nine arrests in Harris County, Texas.
– **Types of Offenses**: Primarily drug-related, with one aggravated robbery.
– **Convictions**: Pleaded guilty to seven charges and no contest to two others.
– **Time Served**: Nearly eight years in total.

The claim about the number of offenses is generally supported, but the severity and details have been distorted in some narratives.

Citations

Claim

Floyd spent approximately 10 years in various jails and prisons between 1997 and 2013.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that George Floyd spent approximately 10 years in various jails and prisons between 1997 and 2013, we need to examine his documented incarceration periods during this time frame.

### Evidence from Incarceration Records

1. **Arrests and Sentences**: George Floyd was arrested nine times between 1997 and 2007. His charges included drug possession and distribution, theft, trespass, and aggravated robbery[1][3]. For these offenses, he served multiple jail terms and prison sentences.

2. **Specific Incarceration Periods**:
– **1997**: 180 days in Harris County Jail for delivering less than a gram of cocaine[1].
– **1998-1999**: 10 months in state jail for theft (initially charged with aggravated robbery)[1].
– **1998**: 10 days in Harris County Jail for theft[1].
– **2001**: 15 days in Harris County Jail for failure to identify himself[1].
– **2002**: 30 days for criminal trespass[1].
– **2003**: 8 months in state jail for cocaine possession[1].
– **2004**: 10 months in state jail for delivering less than a gram of cocaine[1].
– **2009**: Sentenced to five years in prison for aggravated robbery, paroled in January 2013[5].

3. **Total Time Served**: According to PolitiFact, Floyd served a total of eight years and nearly eight months in state jail, county jail, and prison for his actions[3]. This does not exactly match the claim of approximately 10 years but is close.

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence, George Floyd did not spend exactly 10 years in jail and prison between 1997 and 2013. However, he did serve a significant amount of time, totaling around eight years and nearly eight months[3]. Therefore, the claim is somewhat exaggerated but not entirely inaccurate. The discrepancy may stem from how time served is calculated or reported.

### Recommendations for Further Evaluation

– **Detailed Court Records**: Accessing detailed court records could provide a more precise breakdown of Floyd's incarceration periods.
– **Official Corrections Data**: Consulting official corrections data from Texas could offer a comprehensive view of his time served.

In summary, while the claim of 10 years is not entirely accurate, George Floyd did spend a substantial portion of his life incarcerated during this period.

Citations

Claim

Between 1997 and 2013, Floyd spent more time incarcerated than he did as a free man.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: George Floyd's Incarceration History

The claim that between 1997 and 2013, George Floyd spent more time incarcerated than he did as a free man requires verification through reliable sources, such as official incarceration records or biographical accounts from trusted outlets.

### Available Information

While specific details about George Floyd's incarceration history are not readily available in the provided search results, it is known that he had a history of run-ins with the law. However, without direct access to his incarceration records or detailed biographical information, it is challenging to confirm the exact duration of his incarceration versus his time as a free man.

### Relevant Context

George Floyd's life and experiences have been extensively covered in the media, particularly following his death in 2020. His background includes struggles with addiction and involvement in the criminal justice system, which are often highlighted in discussions about his life and the broader societal issues surrounding policing and race.

### Conclusion

Without specific data on George Floyd's incarceration periods and durations, the claim cannot be definitively verified. It is essential to consult official records or detailed biographies for accurate information.

### Recommendations for Verification

1. **Official Incarceration Records**: Accessing George Floyd's official incarceration records from relevant authorities would provide the most accurate information regarding his time spent in prison.
2. **Biographical Accounts**: Detailed biographies or interviews with individuals close to George Floyd could offer insights into his life experiences, including his incarceration history.
3. **Trusted Media Sources**: Reputable news outlets and documentaries often provide comprehensive background information on individuals like George Floyd, which might include details about his incarceration history.

In summary, while the claim about George Floyd's incarceration history is intriguing, it requires verification through reliable sources to be confirmed.

Citations

Claim

Floyd was arrested at least nine times in total.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: George Floyd Was Arrested at Least Nine Times

To assess the claim that George Floyd was arrested at least nine times, we must rely on available information from reputable sources. While the claim itself is not directly addressed in the provided search results, we can gather relevant details about Floyd's criminal history from other sources.

### Background on George Floyd's Arrests

George Floyd had a history of arrests and convictions, primarily in Texas. Between 1997 and 2005, he was arrested several times on charges related to drugs and theft[4]. One of the most significant incidents was in 2007, when Floyd was charged with aggravated robbery. He pleaded guilty in 2009 and received a five-year prison sentence, serving time until his parole in 2013[4].

### Available Information on Arrests

While specific details about the exact number of arrests are not provided in the search results, it is documented that Floyd had multiple arrests. However, there is no clear evidence or official records cited in the available sources to confirm that he was arrested at least nine times.

### Conclusion

Based on the available information, it is known that George Floyd had multiple arrests, but there is no specific confirmation of at least nine arrests in the provided sources. To verify this claim accurately, law enforcement records would need to be consulted directly.

### Recommendations for Further Verification

1. **Consult Law Enforcement Records**: For precise information on the number of arrests, official law enforcement records should be reviewed.
2. **Use Reliable News Sources**: News outlets and academic publications often provide detailed backgrounds on individuals involved in high-profile cases.
3. **Avoid Speculative Claims**: Claims without direct evidence should be treated with caution to ensure accuracy in reporting.

In summary, while George Floyd had a documented history of arrests, the specific claim of at least nine arrests cannot be confirmed with the available information.

Citations

Claim

Floyd was involved in serious criminal behavior spanning more than a decade.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that George Floyd was involved in serious criminal behavior spanning more than a decade, it is essential to examine the nature and timeline of his offenses based on reliable sources.

## Overview of George Floyd's Criminal History

George Floyd had a criminal history, primarily involving non-violent drug offenses. According to court documents and news reports, Floyd was arrested nine times in Harris County, Texas, for charges including drug possession and distribution, theft, illegal trespass, and failure to identify himself to a police officer[2][3]. His most serious offense was an aggravated robbery in 2007, for which he pleaded guilty and served five years in prison[2][3].

## Timeline and Nature of Offenses

– **Early Offenses (Late 1990s to Early 2000s):** Floyd was arrested multiple times for non-violent drug offenses. He pleaded guilty each time due to financial constraints and served several short stints in jail[3].
– **2007 Aggravated Robbery:** Floyd's most serious offense was an armed robbery, where he and others broke into a home. He pleaded guilty as part of a plea deal to avoid a potential 40-year sentence[2][3].
– **Later Life (2017 Onward):** After moving to Minneapolis, Floyd sought to turn his life around by enrolling in a rehabilitation program and securing employment[3].

## Assessment of the Claim

The claim that George Floyd was involved in serious criminal behavior spanning more than a decade is partially accurate but exaggerated. While Floyd did have a criminal history, the majority of his offenses were non-violent and related to drug use and possession. The most serious incident was the 2007 aggravated robbery, which was a singular event rather than part of a decade-long pattern of serious criminal behavior[2][3].

## Conclusion

In conclusion, while George Floyd had a criminal history, the claim that he was involved in serious criminal behavior over more than a decade is overstated. His offenses were primarily non-violent, with the exception of the 2007 aggravated robbery. The portrayal of his criminal history as spanning decades with multiple serious offenses is not supported by the evidence[2][3].

Regarding the series "The Case for Derek Chauvin," it introduces additional perspectives on the case, including discussions about media bias and political motivations. However, these arguments do not directly impact the assessment of Floyd's criminal history but rather focus on the broader context of the trial and its implications for race and policing discussions.

Citations

Claim

Floyd was paroled in 2013.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: George Floyd Was Paroled in 2013

The claim that George Floyd was paroled in 2013 can be verified through reliable sources. Here's a detailed evaluation of this claim:

### Background
George Floyd was born on October 14, 1973, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and grew up in Houston, Texas. He had a history of arrests and convictions, including a significant case in 2007 for aggravated robbery, for which he was sentenced to five years in prison in 2009[3][4].

### Parole in 2013
According to multiple sources, George Floyd was indeed paroled in 2013 after serving part of his five-year sentence for the 2007 aggravated robbery conviction[3][4]. This information is consistent across various reports and does not appear to be disputed.

### Evidence and Verification
The evidence supporting Floyd's parole in 2013 includes:
– **Consistent Reporting**: Multiple reputable sources, including news outlets and biographical accounts, confirm that Floyd was paroled in 2013[3][4].
– **Contextual Background**: Floyd's criminal history and subsequent parole align with the broader narrative of his life, including his move to Minneapolis after his release[3][4].

### Conclusion
Based on the available evidence, the claim that George Floyd was paroled in 2013 is **verified**. This conclusion is supported by consistent reporting from reliable sources, which provide a clear timeline of his imprisonment and parole.

### Additional Context
The context of Floyd's parole is relevant to discussions about his life and the broader societal implications of his death. However, it does not directly impact the legal or factual aspects of the Derek Chauvin case, which is a separate matter involving different legal and evidentiary considerations.

Citations

Claim

The claim discusses the radical progressive politics that had taken hold of Minneapolis.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "radical progressive politics" have taken hold of Minneapolis, we need to examine recent political developments and trends in the city. Here's a detailed analysis based on available information:

## Political Landscape in Minneapolis

Minneapolis has historically been a liberal city, but recent years have seen a shift towards more progressive politics. The city council has been divided between liberal Democrats and a more progressive faction, which includes democratic socialists[1]. In recent elections, the progressive faction has gained significant ground, securing at least seven out of 13 seats on the city council[1]. This shift indicates a growing influence of progressive ideologies in local governance.

## Progressive Policies and Initiatives

Progressive policies in Minneapolis often focus on issues like labor rights, social justice, and community development. For instance, the city has seen efforts to protect rideshare drivers and address broader social issues[1]. Additionally, outside groups like Minneapolis for the Many have played a significant role in endorsing and supporting progressive candidates, reflecting a strong grassroots movement[1].

## Historical Context of Progressivism in Minnesota

Minnesota has a long history of progressive politics, dating back to the Progressive Era (1899-1920). During this period, progressives in Minnesota advocated for reforms such as direct primaries, non-partisan elections, and labor rights[3]. This historical context suggests that progressive ideals have been influential in the state for over a century.

## Current Progressive Agenda in Minnesota

At the state level, Governor Tim Walz has implemented a range of progressive policies, including paid family leave, abortion rights protections, and climate change initiatives[5]. While these policies are not specific to Minneapolis, they reflect a broader progressive trend in Minnesota politics.

## Conclusion

The claim that "radical progressive politics" have taken hold of Minneapolis is supported by recent political shifts and trends. The city council's move towards a more progressive majority and the influence of progressive groups indicate a strong presence of progressive ideologies in local politics[1]. However, the term "radical" might be subjective and could vary in interpretation. Overall, Minneapolis is experiencing a significant influence of progressive politics, consistent with broader trends in Minnesota.

In the context of the series "The Case for Derek Chauvin," the political environment in Minneapolis is relevant as it highlights the city's ongoing discussions about race, policing, and social justice—issues that are central to progressive politics. However, the series' arguments about media bias and political motivations are not directly related to the progressive political landscape but rather to specific legal and social issues surrounding the case.

Citations

Claim

Floyd was saying he could not breathe while he was still in the police car.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: George Floyd Saying He Could Not Breathe While in the Police Car

The claim that George Floyd said he could not breathe while he was still in the police car can be evaluated through available video evidence and testimonies from the incident.

### Evidence from Body Camera Footage

Body camera footage from the officers involved in George Floyd's arrest provides crucial insights into the events leading up to his death. According to transcripts and reports from this footage, Floyd repeatedly expressed discomfort and claustrophobia while being placed in the police vehicle. He asked the officers to crack a window and expressed fear of dying in the car, mentioning he had recently had COVID-19[4]. However, these statements were made as he was being placed in the vehicle and struggling with claustrophobia, not specifically stating "I can't breathe" while inside the car.

### Testimonies and Video Evidence

The body camera footage shows that Floyd's complaints about breathing difficulties became more pronounced once he was restrained on the ground. He repeatedly told the officers that he could not breathe and called out for his mother[3][4]. This indicates that his breathing difficulties were more significant after being taken out of the vehicle and restrained by the officers.

### Conclusion

While George Floyd did express discomfort and fear of dying in the police car due to claustrophobia, there is no clear evidence from the available body camera footage or transcripts that he specifically said "I can't breathe" while still inside the vehicle. His complaints about breathing difficulties became more pronounced after he was restrained on the ground[3][4].

### Additional Context

The series "The Case for Derek Chauvin" by Ben Shapiro aims to re-evaluate the conviction of Derek Chauvin, suggesting that media bias and political motivations influenced public perceptions. However, this series does not directly address the specific claim about Floyd's statements in the police car. The focus of Shapiro's argument is more on broader issues related to the case, such as media bias and the role of preexisting health conditions and drug use in Floyd's death[5].

In summary, while Floyd did express discomfort and fear in the police car, the specific claim that he said "I can't breathe" while still inside the vehicle is not supported by the available evidence. His breathing difficulties were more pronounced once he was restrained on the ground.

Citations

Claim

Floyd actively resisted being placed in the vehicle.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: George Floyd Actively Resisted Being Placed in the Vehicle

To evaluate the claim that George Floyd actively resisted being placed in the vehicle, we must consider available evidence from body camera footage, eyewitness accounts, and other reliable sources.

### Evidence from Body Camera Footage and Eyewitness Accounts

1. **Body Camera Footage**: While body camera footage is a crucial piece of evidence, specific details about Floyd's resistance during the initial interaction with police are not widely reported in the available sources. However, it is known that Floyd was initially cooperative but became agitated when officers attempted to place him in the police vehicle[2].

2. **Eyewitness Accounts**: Darnella Frazier's video and other eyewitness accounts primarily focus on the events after Floyd was removed from the vehicle and pinned to the ground by Officer Chauvin[2]. These accounts do not provide detailed information about Floyd's behavior during the initial attempt to place him in the vehicle.

### Contextual Information

– **Initial Police Interaction**: The incident began when a Cup Foods employee called 911 to report that Floyd had purchased cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill. The employee described Floyd as "awfully drunk" and "not in control of himself"[2].

– **Autopsy and Health Conditions**: Autopsy reports and medical experts have discussed Floyd's preexisting health conditions and drug use, but these factors are more relevant to the cause of death rather than his behavior during the arrest[3][4].

### Conclusion

While there is some indication that George Floyd may have become agitated or uncooperative during the arrest process, specific evidence from body camera footage or eyewitness accounts directly supporting the claim that he actively resisted being placed in the vehicle is not clearly documented in the available sources. The primary focus of public and legal scrutiny has been on the events following his removal from the vehicle and the subsequent restraint by Officer Chauvin.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

To fully assess the claim, it would be beneficial to review the complete body camera footage and detailed eyewitness statements from the initial stages of the arrest. Additionally, official police reports and transcripts from the trial could provide more insight into Floyd's behavior during this period.

### References

– [2] Famous Trials: George Floyd Murder Trial
– [3] Glenn Loury: What Derek Chauvin's Trial Didn't Show Us
– [4] Georgetown Law Journal: The Death of George Floyd, The Trial of Derek Chauvin, and Deadly-Force Encounters with Police

In summary, while there are indications of agitation or uncooperativeness, the specific claim about active resistance during placement in the vehicle lacks detailed support from the available sources. Further investigation into primary evidence is necessary for a definitive conclusion.

Citations

Claim

The autopsy findings will be analyzed in detail in the second episode.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Autopsy Findings in "The Case for Derek Chauvin"

The claim that autopsy findings will be analyzed in detail in an upcoming episode of "The Case for Derek Chauvin" suggests a focus on how George Floyd's autopsy was conducted and interpreted. To evaluate this claim, we need to consider existing information about the autopsies and their conclusions.

### Autopsy Reports and Conclusions

1. **Hennepin County Autopsy**: The official autopsy by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner concluded that Floyd's death was a homicide due to "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression," with contributing factors including pre-existing heart conditions and drug use[2][3].

2. **Independent Autopsy**: An independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family, conducted by Dr. Michael Baden, concluded that Floyd died from "asphyxiation from sustained pressure when his back and neck were compressed," cutting off blood flow to the brain[2][4].

3. **Expert Interpretations**: Forensic pathologists generally agree that both autopsies point to homicide as the cause of death, with differences in how the cause is described rather than the conclusion itself[2].

### Analysis of the Claim

– **Validity of the Claim**: The claim that autopsy findings will be analyzed in detail is plausible, given the ongoing legal and public discussions around Chauvin's conviction and the complexities of the autopsy reports.

– **Potential for Misinterpretation**: There is a risk that the analysis might misinterpret or selectively present autopsy findings to support a narrative of media bias or political influence, as suggested by Ben Shapiro's series.

– **Evidence and Context**: Any detailed analysis should consider the comprehensive findings from both autopsies, acknowledging the consensus among experts that Floyd's death was a homicide caused by police restraint[2][4].

### Conclusion

The claim that autopsy findings will be analyzed in detail is valid in the context of ongoing discussions about George Floyd's death. However, the interpretation and presentation of these findings must be scrutinized for accuracy and fairness, considering the existing consensus among forensic experts that Floyd's death was a homicide resulting from police actions.

### Recommendations for Future Analysis

1. **Comprehensive Review**: Any analysis should include a thorough review of both the Hennepin County and independent autopsy reports.

2. **Expert Consensus**: Acknowledge the consensus among forensic pathologists that Floyd's death was a homicide caused by police restraint.

3. **Contextualization**: Provide context on how autopsy findings have been interpreted and used in legal proceedings and public discourse.

4. **Avoid Selective Presentation**: Ensure that the analysis presents a balanced view of the evidence, avoiding selective interpretations that might mislead or distort the facts.

Citations

Claim

Tren de Aragua is now a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Tren de Aragua is now a designated foreign terrorist organization, we can rely on official government documentation and declarations.

1. **Presidential Proclamation and Designation**: On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, specifically targeting members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a transnational criminal organization from Venezuela. This proclamation directs federal agencies to apprehend and remove certain TdA members from the United States[2].

2. **OFAC Designations**: The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has also designated Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). This designation was part of a broader effort to combat international cartels and terrorist organizations, as outlined in Executive Order 14157 issued on January 20, 2025[3][4].

3. **U.S. Department of State Designations**: On February 20, 2025, the U.S. Department of State officially designated Tren de Aragua, along with other organizations like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and several Mexican cartels, as FTOs and SDGTs. This designation highlights the U.S. government's recognition of these groups as significant threats to national security[3].

Based on these official sources, it is clear that Tren de Aragua has indeed been designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. government. This designation reflects the organization's involvement in activities that pose a threat to U.S. national security and stability in the Western Hemisphere.

The claim is therefore **verified** through official government actions and declarations.

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!