The verdict of guilty brought in against Derek Chauvin on all three charges strikes us as correct and courageous. And also inevitable. That became clear in the first minutes of the trial, as the prosecutor, Jerry Blackwell, opened his case by taking jurors second-by-second through the horrifying minutes in which Chauvin murdered George Floyd by kneeling on his neck until Floyd could no longer beg for his life — for it had left him.

It is hard to recall a trial moment as devastating as the nine minutes and 29 seconds in which Chauvin was captured on video kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed George Floyd. There is one moment in particular, when Chauvin, his left hand in his pocket, looks up momentarily and seems — at least to us — to show a slight smile. Call it the smirk of intent. Could, we wonder, that be the moment that sealed the killer’s fate?

Were there any doubt, it was erased by the testimony of eyewitnesses and the sound and video they recorded. It was plain to them what was happening. They, too, begged for Floyd’s life. A 911 operator, watching remotely via a surveillance camera, was so alarmed that she called the police on the police. For the rest of us, it’s a bit like a black hole; even if we can’t see it, we can confirm its existence through the behavior of distant objects.

We understand the danger — well marked by Judge Peter Cahill — that an appeals court could be asked to, and might agree to, declare a mistrial owing to the remarks of Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Were a verdict of murder not brought in, she said at a crucial moment in the trial, protesters should stay on the streets and “get more confrontational.” These threatening protests are a terrible tactic, in our view.

Judge Cahill, though, said he trusted the jury not to be following the news. Alan Dershowitz suggests the U.S. Supreme Court itself could eventually overturn the verdict owing to Ms. Waters. Our estimate is that the scales on which Ms. Waters tried to put her thumb were already sufficiently weighted in favor of guilt. So her contempt wouldn’t have made a difference even if the jury were aware of what she said.

The knottier problem is the question of what this verdict means in respect of “systemic racism.” The phrase rests uneasily with the Sun. We don’t for a moment deny that there are racists in America or that, even a century and a half after the 13th Amendment, we still have a long way to go in purging the evil of racism and repairing its damage. Yet, in this case, our whole vast system of justice sprang to.

Officer Chauvin was fired by the city even while the law was demanding that he be presumed innocent. The president of America, Donald Trump at the time, ordered the Justice Department and FBI to assist the prosecution. The case was handed to, in Keith Ellison, the highest law enforcement official in Minnesota. He put competent prosecutors on the case.

A charge of murder was handed up. A diverse jury was selected. The trial was open to the press. Much of it was even broadcast live. A settlement was made with George Floyd’s family. A police chief testified against an ex-cop. These are not symptoms of systemic racism. These are acts of a country prepared to respond to evidence. We don’t mean to belittle the protestors. It seems to us, though, that this case was driven by the facts.

The vast majority of police officers in our country deserve our trust and ardent appreciation. It is not, nor should it be, easy to bring a police officer, or anyone else, to book. The burden is always, and constitutionally must always be, solely on the prosecution. The defense doesn’t have to lift a finger. We don’t know what will happen with the next defendants in the death of George Floyd. In this case, though, the evidence prevailed.