Yesterday, I ran a column discussing the curious sight of rioters and looters demanding “justice” when what they are really describing is mob justice in Ferguson, Missouri. I noted that the evidence did not support the initial claims of the shooting of Michael Brown and that demonstrations are not substitutes for demonstrated evidence in a criminal case. The response, however, to the declination of charges has been precisely what President Obama and the Brown family sought to avoid in their public comments. In perhaps the most symbolic incident, Ferguson Market and Liquor, the store that Michael Brown robbed before he was killed, was looted by people demanding “justice” for Brown.
A security camera captured Brown strong arming the store owner after stealing from the store:
Regardless of how one views the evidence of the shooting, the store owner was clearly strong armed by Brown and did nothing beyond being the victim of a reported crime. However, he now has a ransacked store and is somehow blamed for the killing.
The media filmed as people carted out stolen merchandise out of the store last night:
The discussion of the resulting looting and rioting often seemed a bit too enabling and relativistic. There is no rationale connection between ransacking stores and seeking justice, a point that President Obama made eloquently last night as did the Brown family (though reportedly with the exception of Brown’s stepfather). Indeed, some “meanings” drawn from the incident extended all the way to federalism principles.
While St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch detailed the evidence including testimony from African-American witnesses who refuted accounts of Michael Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, and onlookers Piaget Cranshaw and Tiffany Mitchell. He was not shot in his back and was initially shot in a struggle with Wilson in (or partially in) the police vehicle. Nevertheless, the verdict was denounced by various commentators, including MSNBC contributor Michelle Bernard who called Brown the latest “casualty” of what seems to be nationwide “war on black boys.” Bernard curiously blamed federalism and state rights for part of the problem, saying that people see this case and say “we don’t want to hear about states rights.” She also calls on the Justice Department to “get involved” and “intervene.”
However, the Justice Department has intervened and reportedly also found no basis for charges in the case under civil rights provisions. If those accounts are accurate, the declination of such charges may trigger no violence by those who define justice as not a guaranteed process but a guaranteed punishment.
JT, you are an honest good man and I respect your opinion, but you couldn’t be more wrong about this miscarriage of justice. To say that this doesn’t even deserve to make it to trial and there is nothing a trier of fact could find, no evidence to be disputed in the face of countless witness accounts describing different angles of the same scene at different times that forensics cannot rule out. What we heard was a prosecuted sounding like the defendants attorney last night. In an area known for poor history with minorities. I have yet to hear an account from a witness conflicting any of these stories besides one affiliated with the officer himself. I don’t know how closely you’ve followed this story but the only side whose been factually disproven was Wilson and his fractured eye socket. Sure some may think the 12 bullets that were discharged and missed as he was running away actually struck him before he turned around to give up, actually hit him, but that doesnt disprove the entirety of what they saw. If people here have a hard time believing impoverished black witnesses because of subconscious stereotypes, how about these two white construction workers just 50 feet away and tell me then there isn’t enough to bring this to trial in any case where the perp isn’t an officer or the victim isn’t black or homeless: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/
The prosecutor did not address the false statements made by the police. From the injuries of the officer to the officer not knowing the victim was a robbery subject.
“Yet, let’s concede that prosecutors punted and allowed Wilson to walk because they were either racist or incompetent or terrified. Let’s concede that the grand jury capitulated to the will of the prosecutor. Even if that were all the case, we still wouldn’t have an out-of-control cop callously gunning down an innocent, defenseless black man, although that happens in the United States far too often, and all too often there is no indictment. But there is no proof that racism played a role in this shooting or a role in the lack of an indictment. Unless all the scientific evidence in the case is wrong, it’s fair to say that Brown was a clear aggressor and, at the very least, put himself in a perilous position. To indict Wilson only to soothe the anger of community would not be just. It would be the opposite.”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/25/sorry-but-the-ferguson-grand-jury-got-it-right/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=8c800b77ab-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-8c800b77ab-79248369
Where to even begin? The convenient and wholly inaccurate conflation of demonstrator and looter? The feigned naivete of the grand jury process by a lawyer and law professor who certainly does know better? Or how about the footage of the burning convenient store (taken by camera crews stationed there many hours before) without a cop or firefighter anywhere in sight?
This grand jury was not justice. It was not meant to be justice. It was designed as a cover for justice, an painfully obvious veneer for a rigged system. DA McCulloch played the same game following a double killing by the police near Ferguson in 2000. http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2000-06-21/news/anti-community-policing/full/ http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357
The burden of proof at the grand jury stage is only probable cause. That’s it; that’s all. A grand jury does whatever the prosecutor wants it to do (hence the “indict a ham sandwich” cliche). There is only one side presented, and in this case, that side was the killer’s. Of course the grand jury no-billed the case – that’s why it was convened.
This is not justice. In this case, justice demands a trial, in public, with a prosecutor who is not working for the accused. Yet Professor Turley presents this result as if a thorough review of the evidence were completed by disinterested prosecutors and labels any and all who might complain as seeking “mob justice.”
fiver – justice demands that the Grand Jury actually do its job, not railroad someone so you feel better about yourself.
Inga – you cannot ‘gruber’ your way out of this one.
I love how the usual suspects on this site decry growing police abuse of power, but instictively take their side when it is a question of their other pet subject – lawless minorities.
Hmmm. What might any rational person conclude?
zedalis – are we do subsume you are rational?
Michael Haz – thanks for the list. I have been to several of those places. The Art Museum is unburnable from the outside are a couple of the others. The Botanical Garden is basically plants with a few buildings, but they are stone. Budwiser is all brick. The people who made that list are anarchists. That list has nothing to do with Michael Brown but more to do with an excuse to destroy things.
<<< "Maureen – the War on Black Boys is being run by the Democratic Party. It has been going on for years."
Abracadabra, allah-shazam, HocusPocus, the GOP loves African Americans!
zedalis – I am an Independent. I just know how the Democrats have treated blacks.
Just like ISIS recruits jihadists, so does the Bloods street gang in Ferguson.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-michael-brown-was-a-local-gangster-seen-flashing-gang-signs/
Paul can you prove yourself to be anything more than an ideologue who condescends and tries to convince others he knows it all? Paul, your ‘sources’ who ever, whatever are not more credible than you are, which isn’t saying much.
Inga – you are trying to Saul Alinsky me. How progressive of you. I probably do not read the same MSM pap that you do. The AP serves everybody so almost everybody has the same story that the AP reports. There are a few people who sent their own reporters, so they have a different take on the situation than the AP pool person.
A few more ad hominem attacks would be perfect this morning.
“The media’s the most powerful entity on Earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” – Malcolm X
Inga – are you so ignorant that you believe the MSM? My god woman, grow up.
Paul dearie, stop being condescending, it’s also being discussed in print media across the board. Lord Paul, you don’t watch news OR read news outlets? Where the heck do you get your news from anyway, an antenna in your tooth?
This seems to be the preferred negotiating strategy for self-centered ideologues; give me what I want or else all hell will break loose. The most uncivilized version will be found in the ME where non-compliance will be met with decapitation. The most civilized version will be found right here in America where non-compliance is met with executive orders. We also find their enablers right here in the RIL, giving credence to this lawlessness; it’s the fault of cable news, it’s the fault of Officer Wilson, it’s the fault of the prosecutor. Pathetic!
NEWSFLASH: For all you “progress” orientated folks; we ARE making progress on the “more perfect union” front and while it won’t happen in your lifetime, it certainly won’t gain ground while you push for Social Injustice.
Isaac,
It came to my mind last evening that it almost seemed like they were ‘sacrificing’ Ferguson. Very minimal police presence in light of the fact that they certainly must’ve known that announcing the GJ result that late would’ve given cover of darkness to looters, arsons and rioters. They lnew the result would enrage the people there. It seemed almost coordinated, by the government officials.
@Paul C – follow this link.
One wonders why there weren’t more police protecting businesses. Although one might not be able to say that the looting of the store was inevitable, it was highly probable. Why aren’t these looters, captured on video, in jail? When I hear about looting my mind always refers to the photos of looters hanging from lamp posts with signs around them ‘Looter’ after the San Francisco earthquake, white guys. There is no connection whatsoever between looting and justice, looting and frustration, looting and anger. I have seen looting in LA, Detroit, and other places. The only emotion on the faces of the looters is ‘glee’.
Again, where are the police and why aren’t these looters in jail and WTF was the store doing open and unprotected. Is society admitting guilt by letting these guys ‘blow off steam’.
Paul C. Schulte – According to Wilson’s testimony and the prosecutor, 10 rounds were fired and 6-7 bullet wounds were found. That means that 3-4 bullets COULD have been fired at Brown’s back. I’ve read Wilson’s testimony in its entirety; I’d like to read the testimony of the eyewitnesses.
Oxa – it also means that 3-4 bullets could have been fired at his front and missed.
Paul, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The PA is not the attorney for the accused. McCullogh acted in that capacity in this case. That’s not only my opinion, many legal experts have said so last night and this morning. Wake up, have some coffee and watch something else besides Fox.
I realize this blog isn’t a liberal/progressive site…as evidenced by the paucity of comments that most liberals would agree with.
Seems to me that customers who espouse regressive (conservative?) views are the most likely to have their views safely untampered with. Post an inflammatory/right wing comment, and it will remain posted. Respond to it, and the response may or may not remain. At most, both comments will be censored. Lesson: conservative opinions are nearly always “safe” – in the interest of fairness or balance, or the appearance thereof. In MSM, teevee, and the Web.
Bill McWilliams – if you are feeling put upon on this site, you can always move to another one. However, I have never seen anyone picked on because they were progressive or liberal.