The state has failed to protect our most fundamental freedom: the right to life. This crisis has unfolded as a last resort, after decades in which the right to life can no longer be guaranteed by the law. In fact, it is often those meant to uphold it that who threaten it most. Proponents include the New York Times Editorial board.
The argument
The case of George Floyd goes beyond the American Constitution, because the principle it engages is not a national one. It defies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which outlines that each and every person has the right to life. Framing the case that way changes what is under discussion: a constitutional argument can turn on the scope of a particular protection and on who falls within it, whereas a human rights argument begins from a status that cannot be forfeited or qualified. That is why the argument insists on separating Floyd's record from his standing. Whilst Floyd had a criminal past, this does not make him any less human and does not nullify his right to life. Regardless of the suspicion cast upon him, George Floyd's status as a human being demands that he be treated as such, which is precisely what a rights framework exists to secure, since a right that could be withdrawn from those under suspicion would offer no protection at the moment protection is needed. Allyson McKinney Timm writes of the inhumane cruel murder describing it as a "mournful window into America's shameful human rights crisis." As Andrea Jenkins states, "This is about the violation of human rights." The argument then widens from the killing to the response. The violence exercised under governmental instruction during BLM protests only fuels the view that the government of the United States of America is one plagued by systemic racism; a single killing may be attributed to an individual, but the treatment of those protesting it implicates the institution. The final step concerns consequences for everyone. If the police are allowed to act with reckless abandon as they did in this case, then we run the risk of a power tripped police force who care little for those whom they are supposed to serve and protect. On this reading the debate is really about the right to life, and our freedom is what is at stake.
Premises
Counter-arguments
The issue surrounding George Floyd’s concerns racism more than the right to life. Whilst it could be argued that the two are often intertwined, the prejudice suffered by the black community in America does not always result in death. A common denominator in the innumerable cases of injustices against black people, that is as prevalent as ever, is that there is racial prejudice against them – a prejudice that is engendered in the police force. A revaluation of the attitudes held by much of the police force as well as society as a whole is needed. Ultimately, George Floyd’s murder was, of course, a violation of the right to life. However, it goes beyond murder as it reflects the fact that there is still a prevalent level of racism within the police force.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Invoking the Universal Declaration adds moral weight rather than legal force. It is a non-binding declaration, and the conduct at issue was already prohibited by domestic criminal law — which is the instrument under which it was in fact prosecuted. [Rejecting P2] That a criminal record does not diminish anyone's right to life is not contested by any party to this debate, so the premise refutes a claim nobody in the question has made. [Rejecting P3] The counter-argument on record disputes the framing rather than the facts. It argues that a right-to-life analysis cannot account for what the case is generally taken to be about, since the great majority of documented racial injustice in policing — stops, searches, charging decisions, use of force short of death — involves no fatality at all. On that view the common factor is racial prejudice within the force, and the right-to-life frame captures only the most extreme cases. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also sits oddly with the position it is filed under. A universal right held by everyone is the opposite of what a civil-liberties crisis specific to one group would consist in, and the counter concludes that the case goes beyond a killing precisely because of what it reveals about racism.