As I write this, the streets of Ferguson are under siege between protestors, cops, and simple trouble makers. It's disheartening to watch. Some of these people in the streets are genuinely upset with what happened. In fact, most of them are. A small group is out there to cause problems, and rip a whole community apart. It's sad.
First, to the broader event itself- Michael Brown being shot isn't an isolated incident. It is, for the sense of the law, but make no mistake, everything that happened here is part of a larger issue. Michael Brown's attitude toward that cop, according to testimony, was a product of his perception of how the officer would treat him. Darren Wilson's decision to shoot him, out of fear for safety, was a product of his perception of Brown and the situation. That protestors poured into the streets was surely about more than one incident, and more so a product of an overall environment that was unhealthy. The scenes of militarized cops was also a product of perceptions from a broader feeling amidst the community. In short, Ferguson has a race problem, in it's government and police force, and in it's community. They don't trust each other, and that is unacceptable. With that said, the problem lies on the side of the government there. That must be fixed, by mobilization of the public to the ballot box.
To the incident itself though- it is not a matter of the police force on the whole, or a matter of Michael Brown as a kid. An unarmed 18 year old kid was shot by an armed officer of the law. The victim's color did not matter legally, but it absolutely matters to the situation. Unfortunately, there is no way to make everyone accept the legal justification here. You can't. Some people are just going to believe what they believe. That's it.
My personal feeling is that Darren Wilson was probably never going to be convicted. I also think he should have been indicted. Based on the evidence submitted, it appears that the most plausible, consistent witnesses were the ones who said Brown charged Wilson. I'm not going to get into calling some people liars and other people not, however just the fact that we're talking about different accounts means Wilson was going to win at trial. Even more important though are the forensics. The forensics pretty much made a conviction impossible. If there was blood in the car, it's pretty plausible to say the officer was in an altercation with the victim when he first shot him. Reasonable doubt would have been easy. Now I would love to know why we never heard exactly why Wilson felt threatened (and won't), as I would think that intent matters here. With that said, I want to know that for my own purposes, not for the purposes of guessing the jury's final verdict. With the evidence, and inconsistency in it, Wilson was never going to be convicted of a crime.
Now, with that said, I'm not totally clearing the prosecutor. First, I think many of his critics are playing into local politics. Robert McCulloch has been St. Louis County District Attorney for a while, and yes, he's pro-cop. Most DA's are. He's also being attacked in no small part for backing a white candidate against the African-American County Executive in this year's primary. So yes, that's a defense of him. I won't defend the case though. He failed to get an indictment on a cop for shooting an unarmed teenager, and that is partially because he was overly balanced in presenting his case. I wonder if the average African-American in St. Louis who shoots someone will have ALL of the evidence presented to a grand jury by a prosecutor. Seriously, he presented evidence helpful to the defense in his presentation. I do see why a prosecutor would rather lose at the grand jury by presenting too much evidence against a cop, rather than prosecuting them and losing. That's not an excuse to do it. He bungled the case, a case in which he probably could have received an indictment, if not a guilty verdict.
Tomorrow, opinions on this awful situation will largely fall along partisan, racial, ideological lines. If you watched FOX, and watched people looting the Ferguson Market, you'll talk about "thugs" and "criminals." If you watched MSNBC, you'll hear about "protestors." Let me say this- a kid was killed. That kid was black. He was killed by a white cop. No verdict will change the suspicions and real issues we have in our society over issues just like this. Many will believe the fix was in. The fact is, young black men have to worry about being shot by a police officer a lot more than I do. Whether Officer Darren Wilson should have been tried or not for killing Michael Brown was left to the grand jury, and I'd like to believe they did their job well. That's not the point though, because many people are where they started the day on this issue, because of what they perceive here. That is the problem, and that needs to be addressed. We need equal justice, and a lot of people don't feel they got it here, and a lot wouldn't have if the shoe was on the other foot. It's bad for America to let this continue.
First, to the broader event itself- Michael Brown being shot isn't an isolated incident. It is, for the sense of the law, but make no mistake, everything that happened here is part of a larger issue. Michael Brown's attitude toward that cop, according to testimony, was a product of his perception of how the officer would treat him. Darren Wilson's decision to shoot him, out of fear for safety, was a product of his perception of Brown and the situation. That protestors poured into the streets was surely about more than one incident, and more so a product of an overall environment that was unhealthy. The scenes of militarized cops was also a product of perceptions from a broader feeling amidst the community. In short, Ferguson has a race problem, in it's government and police force, and in it's community. They don't trust each other, and that is unacceptable. With that said, the problem lies on the side of the government there. That must be fixed, by mobilization of the public to the ballot box.
To the incident itself though- it is not a matter of the police force on the whole, or a matter of Michael Brown as a kid. An unarmed 18 year old kid was shot by an armed officer of the law. The victim's color did not matter legally, but it absolutely matters to the situation. Unfortunately, there is no way to make everyone accept the legal justification here. You can't. Some people are just going to believe what they believe. That's it.
My personal feeling is that Darren Wilson was probably never going to be convicted. I also think he should have been indicted. Based on the evidence submitted, it appears that the most plausible, consistent witnesses were the ones who said Brown charged Wilson. I'm not going to get into calling some people liars and other people not, however just the fact that we're talking about different accounts means Wilson was going to win at trial. Even more important though are the forensics. The forensics pretty much made a conviction impossible. If there was blood in the car, it's pretty plausible to say the officer was in an altercation with the victim when he first shot him. Reasonable doubt would have been easy. Now I would love to know why we never heard exactly why Wilson felt threatened (and won't), as I would think that intent matters here. With that said, I want to know that for my own purposes, not for the purposes of guessing the jury's final verdict. With the evidence, and inconsistency in it, Wilson was never going to be convicted of a crime.
Now, with that said, I'm not totally clearing the prosecutor. First, I think many of his critics are playing into local politics. Robert McCulloch has been St. Louis County District Attorney for a while, and yes, he's pro-cop. Most DA's are. He's also being attacked in no small part for backing a white candidate against the African-American County Executive in this year's primary. So yes, that's a defense of him. I won't defend the case though. He failed to get an indictment on a cop for shooting an unarmed teenager, and that is partially because he was overly balanced in presenting his case. I wonder if the average African-American in St. Louis who shoots someone will have ALL of the evidence presented to a grand jury by a prosecutor. Seriously, he presented evidence helpful to the defense in his presentation. I do see why a prosecutor would rather lose at the grand jury by presenting too much evidence against a cop, rather than prosecuting them and losing. That's not an excuse to do it. He bungled the case, a case in which he probably could have received an indictment, if not a guilty verdict.
Tomorrow, opinions on this awful situation will largely fall along partisan, racial, ideological lines. If you watched FOX, and watched people looting the Ferguson Market, you'll talk about "thugs" and "criminals." If you watched MSNBC, you'll hear about "protestors." Let me say this- a kid was killed. That kid was black. He was killed by a white cop. No verdict will change the suspicions and real issues we have in our society over issues just like this. Many will believe the fix was in. The fact is, young black men have to worry about being shot by a police officer a lot more than I do. Whether Officer Darren Wilson should have been tried or not for killing Michael Brown was left to the grand jury, and I'd like to believe they did their job well. That's not the point though, because many people are where they started the day on this issue, because of what they perceive here. That is the problem, and that needs to be addressed. We need equal justice, and a lot of people don't feel they got it here, and a lot wouldn't have if the shoe was on the other foot. It's bad for America to let this continue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment