In late 2023, Minnesota media outlet Alpha News released “The Fall of Minneapolis — ” a documentary claiming (among other things)that Derek Chauvin’s trial was rigged. This crowd-funded documentary amassed a whopping 1.7 million YouTube views in less than two months. Written and directed by J.C. Chaix, produced by Liz Collin (also the author of the documentary’s source material, a book titled “They’re Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd”), “The Fall of Minneapolis” hasn’t received as much criticism as I’d expect. It’s discussed positively in left-wing and right-wing spaces, gained large viewership on other platforms, and Alpha News’s name recognition has increased substantially. By all accounts, the film is a massive success.
The fall of Minneapolis is also full of shameless lies. Not mistakes, not reasonable political disagreements — lies. I don’t make such accusations lightly. If I’ve done my job well, by the end of this article you’ll agree that Alpha News created a piece of political propaganda so clearly deceptive that there are only two possible explanations for their behavior. The first: they’re just lying. Alpha News propped up their claims by making up evidence — taking quotes out of context, ignoring the very trial they try to dispute, distorting crucial definitions or events, or making outrageous claims and never expanding upon them. The other? Well, Alpha News makes a big deal throughout the course of this documentary to act like they’re “standing up for the truth.” They preen like whistle-blowers, showing the audience footage and arguments that “politicians and media didn’t want you to see.” Their mission statement, from their website’s “about” page, states: “We are a team of independent journalists with a mission of reporting stories that go untold by our state’s mainstream media. Our dedication to uncovering the truth is persistent and unwavering.” If they weren’t deliberately lying to push their narrative while making this documentary, if they genuinely believed they performed adequate research and checked their claims enough before releasing this product, they are lying when they claim to be dedicated to the pursuit of truth. No responsible, competent journalist committed to the truth could have possibly released this product with the genuine belief that it had a factual basis for its claims.
Maybe you fell for this documentary, and you’re expecting to hate this article. That’s fine. We’ve all been manipulated by misleading media, I know I have. People trust one another. When Alpha News lies so brazenly about being committed to the truth, it really disarms your critical thinking skills. I’d just ask that, like any decent person should, you remain open to the idea that you might be wrong and that your beliefs might need to be changed. I certainly am, so please let me know if I’m wrong about anything in the comments.
I’m quickly going to address two common takeaways from the documentary. The first: shock about the full body cam footage. Alpha News presented this footage (the body cam footage of the initial encounter between George Floyd and the officers, as shown at the beginning of the documentary) as something “politicians and the media” didn’t want you to see. Many expressed surprise and outrage that they hadn’t seen this footage, and seem to feel like they were indeed somehow deceived about the true events of this case. However, this footage was shown to the jury in full, and published to the public on Aug. 10, 2020 — around two months after George Floyd was murdered. Judge Cahill initially withheld the footage from the public — not “politicians,” not “the media.” Judge Cahill’s reasoning for doing so is clear, sound, and thoroughly explained in the article linked here. If you didn’t see this footage, it’s because you didn’t want to see it, you didn’t care to seek it out. That’s okay, I didn’t either — it doesn’t change the facts of the case. The full footage was shown in the trial, to the jury, and Chauvin was convicted nonetheless.
The second common reaction: outrage about the riots. The riots were bad. They change nothing about the details of the trial, and they do not support Alpha News’s argument that the trial was in any way rigged or mishandled.
The rest of this article is going to cover the “trial of Derek Chauvin” section of the documentary, starting at 51:30 and ending at 1:16:55. The central piece of evidence that Chauvin’s trial was rigged is the claim that witnesses, specifically former MPD Chief Medaria Arradondo and Inspector Katie Blackwell, lied about the maximal restraint technique (MRT) by testifying that exhibit 17 (pictured below) is not a trained MPD technique.
Exhibit 17, of course, does not feature the maximal restraint technique, and the documentary’s equivocation of the two is an attempt to plant a false definition of the MRT within the minds of the audience. The full definition of the MRT as contained within contemporary MPD training manuals is linked here (pages 8–9)— I encourage you to read it in full. The most important portions that clearly demonstrate Alpha News’s dishonesty are as follows:
The purpose of the policy that governs the MRT is to provide guidelines for the use of “hobble restraint devices.” The only context in which the MRT is described as acceptable is while using a hobble restraint device and while complying with the use of force policy. It’s never implied that the MRT can be carried out without the use of a hobble device. Here’s my favorite portion of this policy:
It clearly states that the required report after each use of the MRT should list the hobble restraint device as the implement used. In other words, you need to use the hobble to carry out the MRT. Can’t do the MRT without a hobble. Pretty unambiguous.
You have to understand that there’s a problem with that policy. It says, if you use a hobble, you must put the person who is being restrained into what’s called the “side recovery position.” An absolute utter failure of this policy is there is no part B that says what to do if you do not use a hobble but still administer the maximum restraint technique, MRT.
Consider this comparison: J.C. Chaix picks up a driver’s manual. He reads the following sentence: “if you’re driving a car, be sure to keep your eyes on the road!” He looks up, and incredulously whines: “an absolute utter failure of this policy is that there is no part B that says what to do if you’re driving without a car!! Just as one cannot drive without using a vehicle, one cannot employ the MRT in compliance with this MPD policy without using a hobble restraint device. This is also how MRT is defined and understood throughout the trial.
Ridiculous as this position may be, J.C. Chaix and Liz Collin don’t shy away from the fact that they are indeed accusing these witnesses of committing perjury. Considering their incorrect definition of MRT, this accusation seems unwise — but let’s take a second look at the trial footage Alpha News uses to support their argument in this documentary. Here’s the transcription of Katie Blackwell’s testimony, as shown in “The Fall of Minneapolis:”
Prosecutor: I’d like to show you what’s been received as ex. 17. Is this a trained technique that’s by the MPD when you were overseeing training?
Blackwell: It is not.
Prosecutor: And how does this differ?
Blackwell: I don’t know what kind of improvised position that is. So, that’s not what we train.
Remember Alpha News’s false definition of the MRT as a knee-on-neck restraint. If one believes that MRT is indeed what we see in ex. 17 (it’s not), the fact that Blackwell says she doesn’t recognize the technique does indeed seem like a lie. Unfortunately, their definition of the MRT is so outlandishly dishonest that it’s impossible to maintain while showing more than tiny fractions of the trial at a time. Here’s what I mean — here’s the full, unedited transcript of the exchange between Katie Blackwell and the prosecution — I’ve bolded the portions Alpha News excluded.
Prosecutor: I’d like to show you what’s been received as ex. 17. Is this a trained technique that’s by the MPD when you were overseeing training?
Blackwell: It is not.
Prosecutor: And why not?
Blackwell: Well, use of force according to policy has to be consistent with MPD training, and what we train are neck restraints, the conscious and unconscious neck restraint. So, per policy, a neck restraint is compressing one or both sides of the neck using an arm or a leg, but what we train is using one arm or two arms to do a neck restraint.
Prosecutor: And how does this differ?
Blackwell: I don’t know what kind of improvised position that is. So, that’s not what we train.
Isn’t that just shameless? They cut out the prosecutor asking “and why not?” and Blackwell’s entire explanation! Why would they need to be so obviously deceptive? Well, in the unedited testimony Blackwell clearly and accurately describes ex. 17 as a “neck restraint,” not “maximal restraint technique,” which completely undermines both their false definition of MRT and the ridiculous accusation of perjury. Again, I ask: how can this editing choice be interpreted as anything other than deliberate dishonesty?
Let’s analyze their portrayal of former MPD Chief Arradondo as well. Here’s a transcript of the testimony they show from Arradondo:
Prosecutor: As you reflect on ex. 17, I must ask you — is this a trained MPD defensive tactics technique?
Arradondo: It is not.
The documentary immediately cuts to Chauvin’s mother accusing Arradondo of lying, and Collin saying that “several of those witnesses testified that MRT is not a part of Minneapolis police policy.” Collin is telling a lie. No witness testifies that MRT is against policy — MRT was indisputably a part of MPD policy, the policy itself was admitted as evidence during the trial. In fact, despite the fact they’re accusing him of lying under oath by saying MRT is not within MPD policy, Arradondo actually defines MRT exactly how I do earlier in his testimony — here’s that quote:
Prosecutor: Can you describe what the maximal restraint technique is?
Arradondo: Yes counselor, the maximal restraint technique is often referred to as the “hobble,” and that is a method of, if officers are dealing with typically a combative or aggressive person, in order to protect them or the property, it’s basically attaching a cord of the legs to the waist, so the person or the individual does not have free movement of their legs. So it’s securing them, again, by their ankles, prone, bringing it to their waist and securing it. The MRT, or the hobble, if it’s used, a supervisor has to respond to the scene.
Of course, Alpha News doesn’t show that part of the trial. Not only does that quote undermine their made-up MRT definition, it exposes that Arradondo is referring specifically to Chauvin’s knee-on-neck hold — not the MRT — during the short clip Alpha News decided to clip out of context and present to their audience as perjury. Arradondo testified for minutes about just how unacceptable Chauvin’s actions were. Alpha News showed you three words. I’ll give you the rest, in bold:
Prosecutor: Do you recognize exhibit 17 to be an image taken from the bystander video that you reviewed?
Arradondo: Yes, I do.
Prosecutor: Based upon your review of all of the information that you just mentioned, do you believe that [Chauvin] followed departmental policy 5–304 regarding de-escalation?
Arradondo: I absolutely do not agree. That action is not de-escalation, and when we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life, and we talk about the principles and values that we have, that action goes contrary to what were taught.
Prosecutor: As you reflect on Exhibit 17, I must ask you: is this a trained Minneapolis Police Department defensive tactics technique?
Arradondo: It is not.
Yes, that’s all they included. If they included the rest, they wouldn’t have a documentary. I transcribed this manually, it’s not perfect, but it was worth it — this testimony perfectly describes Chauvin’s failures. Arradondo continues:
Prosecutor: We read the departmental policy on neck restraints. Is this a neck restraint?
Arradondo: The conscious neck restraint by policy mentions light to moderate pressure. When I look at exhibit 17, and when I look at the facial expression of Mr. Floyd, that does not appear in any way, shape or form that that is light to moderate pressure
Prosecutor: Would you agree, then, that this particular form of restraint — if that’s what you call it — in fact violates departmental policy?
Arradondo: I absolutely agree that violates our policy.
Prosecutor: Are you aware now that the defendant maintained his position on George Floyd for nine minutes and 29 seconds?
Arradondo: I am aware of that.
Prosecutor: I believe you testified that force has to be reasonable when it’s applied at the beginning and through the entire encounter. Is that right?
Arradondo: That is correct.
Prosecutor: Is what you see in exhibit 17, in your opinion, within Minneapolis Police Department policy 5–300 authorizing the use of reasonable force?
Arradondo: It is not.
Prosecutor: And why not?
Arradondo: It has to be objectively reasonable. We have to take into account circumstances, information, the threat to the officer or the threat to others, severity of that, so that is not a part of policy that is not what we teach, and that should be condoned [sic].
Prosecutor: When do you believe or do you have a belief as to when this restraint, the restraint on the ground that you viewed, should have stopped?
Arradondo: Once Mr. Floyd — and this is based on my viewing of the videos — once Mr. Floyd had stopped resisting and certainly once he was in distress and trying to verbalize that, that should’ve stopped. There’s an initial reasonableness, trying to just get him under control in the first few seconds, but once there was no longer any resistance and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive — and even motionless — to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffs behind their back, that that is in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy, it’s not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or values.
Prosecutor: Sir, based on your review of the video, and based on your own experience and training as an MPD Officer, did you see signs during the encounter that Mr. Floyd was exhibiting [indications] of being in medical distress?
Arradondo: Yes, yes.
Prosecutors: And you saw at one point, I think you just testified that Mr. Floyd was unresponsive.
Arradondo: Yes.
Prosecutors: Were you aware that officers at the time were unable to find a pulse?
Arradondo: Yes, I was aware of that.
Prosecutor: And so stated?
Arradondo: I was aware that the officers were not able to find a pulse, yes.
Prosecutor: Did you see the defendant, or any of the officers, attempt to provide first aid to Mr. Floyd?
Arradondo: I did not see any of the defendants try to attempt to provide first aid to Mr. Floyd.
Prosecutor: Did you see them provide any medical attention?
Arradondo: I did not.
Prosecutor: Based on these observations do you have an opinion as to whether the defendant violated MPD departmental policy 7–350 by failing to render aid to Mr. Floyd?
Arradondo: I agree that the defendant violated our policy in terms of rendering aid.
Prosecutor: Thank you. I have no further questions at this time, Your Honor.
In the face of the obscene dishonesty I’ve described so far, two possibilities emerge. The first: JC Chaix and Liz Collin never read the policy defining MRT and didn’t watch more than a couple minutes of the trial. If true, JC Chaix and Liz Collin have accused high-ranking police officers of lying — under oath — about a policy they themselves have not even read. Worse yet, they’re indicting the entire American justice system, alleging a grand conspiracy to rig Chauvin’s trial and produce a wrongful conviction, without even watching the trial in question. Undoubtedly, this is journalistic malpractice of the highest degree.
The other, more likely possibility: J.C. Chaix did indeed read the full MRT policy, saw how thoroughly inconvenient it was to the narrative he wanted to push with his movie, and decided to lie about the definition. Liz Collin did indeed watch the trial of Derek Chauvin, strategically picked tiny clips from hours of witness testimony, and arranged them in a precise way to create the most compelling possible piece of dishonest political propaganda. These lies synergize perfectly — the false definition of MRT as “knee-on-neck restraint” is established, then clips are taken out of context that lead the viewer to believe that the witnesses are denying that “MRT” is a part of MPD policy. This isn’t an accident, this isn’t a reasonable disagreement about the outcome of the case — it’s an intentional distortion of the facts. The dishonesty doesn’t stop here — the fake definition of MRT is also used to legitimize another false claim — that evidence about the MRT was wrongfully withheld from the jury.
The so-called evidence (pictured below) regarding the MRT was not wrongfully withheld from the jury. J.C. Chaix and Liz Collin, of course, know this is true, and you’ll see why.
As you can see, the above slide shows a group of officers carrying out the MRT — they’re using a hobble device to restrain somebody, and one of their knees happens to be on the upper shoulders of the arrestee. Never mind the fact that Chauvin and Co. decided not to use a hobble device, and thus were no longer employing the MRT while maintaining an improvised knee-on-neck restraint. Never mind that Arradondo testified to the fact that employing such a hold as a temporary means of halting a suspect’s resistance is completely acceptable, and that the departure from policy happened when Chauvin failed to de-escalate immediately or notice that George Floyd needed medical attention as he died slowly under his knee. Never mind the clear mandate on the above slide to place the subject in the recovery position immediately to avoid positional asphyxia, which Chauvin never did, or the even more prescient warning that sudden cardiac arrest typically occurs following a violent struggle. Alpha News pretends the lack of a hobble device doesn’t matter by fudging the definition of MRT, ignores Arradondo’s testimony by only showing out-of-context snippets, and makes sure to obscure the text on the above slide whenever it’s shown.
My airing of these damning facts and Alpha News’s dishonest dismissal of them don’t matter, because the fact that this evidence was correctly withheld from the jury is already a matter of law. Alpha News never mentions the incredibly inconvenient fact that the exclusion of the above slide was disputed within Chauvin’s appeal, and Chauvin’s argument was soundly dismantled by the court. Below is a quote from the court of appeal’s opinion, and you can decide whether this explanation makes sense:
Alpha News claims in their mission statement that their “dedication to uncovering the truth is persistent and unwavering.” It seems obvious that an essential part of “uncovering the truth” about why this piece of evidence was excluded would be the court of appeals' opinion as to why it was excluded. If they could dispute that opinion, they surely would have. As it stands, the fact that Chauvin can’t establish he saw this slide before he murdered George Floyd is a thoroughly reasonable explanation for why it wasn’t shown to the jury. Unfortunately, this fact is incompatible with Alpha News’s chosen narrative.
Again, two possibilities emerge: did they somehow miss the State’s opinion about the denial of Chauvin’s appeal? After all, they never mention that the exclusion of this slide was a part of the failed appeal, and never engage with the arguments against the admittance of this evidence. Of course, missing this crucial argument against Chauvin’s claims would demonstrate an utter lack of journalistic due diligence. Surely they knew about the appeal and its failure — they even have Chauvin’s appeal lawyer in the documentary! They almost certainly lied by omission, preserving their narrative but destroying any hope of adhering to their self-stated mission of “uncovering the truth.” After all, this appeal denial is a public, easily accessible document, and reading its 50 pages would debunk “The Fall of Minneapolis” more effectively than anything I could hope to write. Here it is!
The MRT slide wasn’t the only piece of evidence “The Fall of Minneapolis” claims was unjustly withheld from the jury. According to Alpha News, “Judge Cahill refused evidence about the MRT, the miscommunication between the fire department and EMS, and Floyd’s drug arrests.” Throughout “The Fall of Minneapolis,” Alpha News makes claims that sound like a serious indictment of the trial’s legitimacy, but collapse completely if one asks “well, why does that matter?” Well, why does it matter that Judge Cahill refused evidence about the miscommunication between the fire department and EMS and Floyd’s drug arrests? The miscommunication between fire and EMS was never a secret, it’s thoroughly explained during the trial, and it changes nothing about whether Chauvin murdered Floyd. Floyd’s arrest history isn’t relevant to whether he was murdered, and his struggle with opioid addiction is discussed freely during the trial. So, what evidence exactly was withheld, and why did it change the outcome of the trial? The documentary doesn’t answer. If there was crucial evidence about the fire/EMS response or Floyd’s arrests that would have changed the facts of the case, Alpha News surely would have actually described that evidence. They did not.
It should be evident by this point that Alpha News is not interested in the truth. Methodically picking apart the layers of Alpha News’s dishonesty as I have done so far is a painstaking process, and the marginal utility of such analysis diminishes quickly. In other, less obnoxious, words: I will never be able to change the mind of a person who reads my article, reaches this point, and still believes that a single word published by Alpha News can possibly be trusted. Any additional debunking of the Chauvin Trial portion of the documentary will not change any additional minds. I’ve been thoroughly logical in my analysis so far, so I’d like to end with something a bit different.
I think it’s important to note that they interviewed Derek Chauvin, and that much of the misinformation I’ve described in this article came directly from his mouth. This documentary, supposedly an investigation into “the truth” about this case, is in fact a platform for a convicted murderer to make the arguments contained within his already-denied appeal. They never mention why the appeal was denied, or refer to the 50-page response from the court justifying the denial. They never once criticize Chauvin’s actions, or present an argument for his guilt. They never show the video of Chauvin slowly murdering George Floyd or refer to the fact that Chauvin had a duty to de-escalate and to provide medical attention, especially after the other officers told Chauvin that George Floyd no longer had a pulse. This documentary doesn’t make an attempt to present “both sides,” there’s no actual commitment to or care about finding the truth. It instead feels like a film produced to rehabilitate the public image of a celebrity embroiled in scandal, with the sickening twist of Chauvin being the embattled star. Alpha News condemns and insults the “mainstream media,” but any mainstream outlet is better than an alternative media rag that’s now best known for sacrificing any shred of journalistic integrity they may have possessed to produce a puff piece for Derek Chauvin.
All opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
Sources:
MN Court of Appeals: commentary on the denial of Chauvin’s appeal (Alpha News pretends this doesn’t exist, because it debunks pretty much every point they make):
https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Opinion-Published.pdf
MRT definition and policy 5–316 (pages 8–9) & the “wrongfully withheld” slide (page 26):
Judge Cahill on withholding body cam footage & body cam footage release date:
Interview with Chaix and Collin clarifying perjury accusation:
https://glennloury.substack.com/p/what-derek-chauvins-trial-didnt-show
Autopsy report:
The Fall of Minneapolis:
