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.
Looks like the folks don’t care about bottled water. That refrigerator is still full. Maybe it’s an ecological statement on the wastefulness of bottled water.
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/41/b41a9507-2109-5168-bf77-514a889d9ef6/53f4d0e032245.preview-620.jpg
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqRWA35INOc&w=560&h=315%5D
Squeeky, I heard “riot porn” used on MSNBC. Some folks are no more than parrots.
Squeeky, for the last time now, they were indeed racist and indeed they were riot porn. I could almost hear the heavy breathing.
So much for a DA being able to convince a Grand Jury to indict a Ham Sandwich.
(I don’t think he even tried)
@Inga
Ohhh, sooo now the pictures aren’t “racist”. . .instead, they are “riot porn.” LOL! What does that term even mean??? I guess it is supposed to make people feel guilty for looking at pictures of young black Democrats practicing what old white Democrats, like yourself, preach. Nope. Not working on me!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Inga, I still do not understand why the photos were wrong to post. If that is what was happening there, where is the argument? I didn’t look at them as “porn.” If anything, I felt extreme sadness that people would be so quick to act this way in the 21st century. The photos make their own case. If we had the same photos or video of the incident at hand, we would all perhaps be more clear.
The bolded phrase has no merit whatever.
What are you trying to say here? is it that you’re concerned? that the LEO in question may yet have to answer/clear up some of his claims?
From the statement of the justice department:
And although federal civil rights law imposes a high legal bar in these types of cases, we have resisted forming premature conclusions.
~+~
The bolded phrase has no merit whatever.
Paul C. Schulte
If this blog is conservative enough for you, you can always ply your opinions at sites like JREF. It’s full of FOX-informed propagandists.
The grand jury addressed whether there was probable cause to charge Wilson with a crime. Lost in all the chatter is the issue of whether Wilson acted properly and judiciously in the course of duty. Was it proper for him to pull his gun instead of his Mace? Was it proper for him to shoot at Michael Brown at point blank range with his eyes closed (as he testified)? Was it proper for him to continue shooting at Brown after Brown had already been hit several times? How much of a disconnect was there between what Wilson saw and what he perceived? Did witnesses perceive a “Hulk Hogan,” a “monster”?
on 1, November 25, 2014 at 2:40 pmSqueeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
“@Inga…. heck, everybody can interpret poetry in their own way, sooo who cares what you think.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
*******************************
Precisely.
And as far as the looting pictures go, it was riot porn. Obscenly drooled over by you folks. I haven’t seen you so animated ever before, all that rioting and fervent wishing for bullets to fly really got you going last evening, huh?
@Inga
You are calling the pictures “racist” again, and the poetry. I asked you on the other thread if the pictures were photo-shopped, and if they weren’t, then in what way were they “racist”??? You refused to address the question. Sooo, I have to ask it again!
As far as the poetry, heck, everybody can interpret poetry in their own way, sooo who cares what you think.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
A turtle was happily swimming along a river when a scorpion hailed it from the shore.
A scorpion, being a very poor swimmer, asked a turtle to carry him on his back across a river. “Are you mad?” exclaimed the turtle. “You’ll sting me while I’m swimming and I’ll drown.”
“My dear turtle,” laughed the scorpion, “if I were to sting you, you would drown and I would go down with you, and drown as well. Now where is the logic in that?”
The turtle thought this over, and saw the logic of the scorpion’s statement. “You’re right!” cried the turtle. “Hop on!” The scorpion climbed aboard and halfway across the river the scorpion gave the turtle a mighty sting. As they both sank to the bottom, the turtle wailed said:
“Why did you do it? We are both going to die. Why did you do it?”
“I’m a scorpion. That’s what scorpions do.”
Aridog: Thanks for another thoughtful and reasoned comment. I read it twice just to be sure I had the benefit of what you said.
There comes a point where a careful and thoughtful conversation cannot be had with some few others. At that point it becomes useless to invest the time and effort because the response is the mere recitation of grievances and bumper sticker slogans.
But for others, your comments are always appreciated.
@ Zedalis
DBQ -“…he should have remained neutral and called for calm.”
Zed said: Because a vigorous prosecution was apparently too much to hope for from McCullough.
Um….no…..because you don’t prosecute people until they have been indicted or charged with a crime.
Every word was read prior to my comment, and then once again for clarity after. Promise..
Zedalis…that is because, if I am guessing correctly, because you have never experienced “immersion.” Good for you.
BTW I don’t think anyone should leave the country, but it would help if they could listen with an open mind. I cited a “police killing” that was personal to me, yet I said that once adjudicated, I was required to accept it. You’d be well served to do the same.
BTW…the speed of your response says you could not have read everything I wrote….you stopped at “immersion”….again, good for you. I promise I won’t tire your eyes again. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, snark and all.
Trooper…thanks. And with that post, I give up. It just isn’t worth the trouble. But, thank you once again, anyway.
Aridog – I never realized that immersion and proximity were the most important determinants when judging police killings and abridgement of human rights…Hmmm.