Confession time – many of you have followed the events in Ferguson, Missouri, a lot more carefully than I have. I have followed the story but not delved into every eyewitness report or followed the debates closely. I did, however, follow the news coverage Monday and watched the St. Louis County DA’s press conference. I have a few opinions and observations that I’d like to proffer for your consideration.
It is with great trepidation that I wade into this quagmire. Racial issues can be explosive, even on a Baptist blog. But here’s my take.
1) Justice was done in St. Louis County.
I saw several interviews today with family members and friends of Michael Brown, with community leaders and others who demanded that “justice be done.” It was clear that when they said, “Let justice be done,” what they really meant was “Officer Darren Wilson has to be indicted.” They defined justice according to the outcome. They were, of course, disappointed and even angered by the fact that the grand jury returned a “no true bill” decision.
I have no idea exactly what happened on the street that morning. It seems clear to me that Michael Brown could have made some different choices and he might still be alive. Perhaps he was a victim, but he was not without culpability in the tragedy. He could have and should have done things differently. Still, I wonder if Officer Wilson could have handled this in such a way that he would not have had to use deadly force to protect himself. I am not a police officer and I don’t know what he went through, but were his actions absolutely necessary?
But justice was done in St. Louis County. Justice is not about getting the outcome you want, but about a fair process being followed. It appears that all of the evidence was given to the grand jury, every witness was heard from, and great care was taken to try to do the right thing. The grand jury, after an arduous process of examination, decided that Officer Wilson had reasonable cause to use deadly force.
It would have been unjust if witnesses were excluded or evidence was ignored. It would have been unjust if a predetermined outcome had been fixed. It would have been unjust if the grand jury had listened to public opinion and press pressure and rendered a verdict based on that. But the evidence I’ve seen, to this point at least, is that they examined the evidence comprehensively and rendered their decision carefully.
That is justice. Justice is having your day in court, having the evidence heard, having a fair jury render an impartial verdict. Justice is not simply demanding that the government or the justice system do what you want.
We ought not be too quick to substitute our own judgment (based on our opinions and the limited evidence we have seen) for the judgment of those who have seen all the evidence.
2) This problem is about a lot more than one tragedy in Ferguson.
For the family and friends of Michael Brown, this is about the loss of one young man they loved, but for most people this is about a lot more than this situation. Some look at the situation and see abuse of power and racial injustice while others look at the same situation and see lawlessness and violence.
Our views on this situation tend to reflect our macro-views of racial issues in America. The facts of the case take a back seat to our passionately-held views of racial issues. The DA laid out a pretty compelling case that the evidence did not support charging Officer Wilson with a crime. The jurors spent months meticulously reviewing all the evidence in the case and rendered their decision. But there is such suspicion and lack of trust in the system that many people simply did not trust their decision.
That leads to the third point.
3) The Ferguson tragedy reveals the racial issues that still exist in America.
There has been progress in America on racial issues in recent years, and there has been progress in the SBC as well. But if you think we’ve solved our racial problems, all you need to do is look and listen to the coverage of the Ferguson tragedy.
Many African-Americans see a system of pervasive discrimination, believe the deck is stacked against them in the halls of justice and are frustrated at the pace of progress. Many white people tend to see race-baiting and blame-shifting and are frustrated about being called racists for their views and opinions on issues.
Race is still a quagmire in America…still.
4) Whites must seek to understand why blacks feel the way they do.
I am not a racist, but I do benefit from being a white person in America. I’ve never been pulled over by police because I’m in the wrong part of town with the wrong skin color. I’ve never been refused service at a restaurant because of my race. I’ve never been suspected of a crime for being a white guy. These are constant realities in the lives of black people, especially young black men, in America.
By the way, most of the scenarios I mentioned happened in Sioux City in recent years, to a deacon in my church, a man of dignity, gentleness, and grace. In the months before his death, he told me stories of things that happened to him in Sioux City, Iowa – not exactly a Klan hotspot. Racial profiling, discrimination and injustice are still real in America.
We, the white majority, need to realize that we do have certain privileges that are ours because of our race. The playing field is not completely level. Black people have a completely different experience in America than we do and it is incumbent on us to attempt to understand it.
Here is my thesis on racial issues:
The racial situation in America today is the result of centuries of white oppression, discrimination and dehumanizing treatment of black people. Though our forefathers caused this, not us, it is right and just for us to lead out in correcting it. Black people ought not have to demand justice, we ought to do all we can to give it!
5) Let Baptists be the leaders in racial reconciliation.
It is no surprise to anyone that the Southern Baptist Convention does not have a proud history in terms of racial issues. The defense of slavery was at the root of the founding of our convention. For more than a century after the elimination of slavery in America, Southern Baptists continued to practice discrimination, segregation and racism, and gave spiritual cover to despicable acts.
To deny that these things happened is to seek to revise history. Yes, there were voices among us calling for racial reconciliation, but the simple fact is that in far too many churches, we tolerated the intolerable – Southern Baptists were too often part of the problem.
We’ve owned that and repented of it. We’ve taken some significant steps in racial reconciliation. But as Southern Baptists resisted racial justice in previous generations, we must be leaders in it in the future. Let’s make it our goal to root out every vestige of racism in our churches, to stand against racial discrimination as the evil that it is, and take positive steps to demonstrate to our commitment to making Black, Asian, Hispanic and other ethic people full partners in Baptist life.
We need to be models to the world of racial reconciliation through the gospel, not because of guilt or some sort of outside pressure, but because the love of Christ compels us. May God grant us the courage to do this.
6) This is an issue that isn’t going away any time soon!
Little more needs to be said about that, does it?
Well said.
I’m a white mom who is a pastor’s wife that grew up in the South with relatives who still use derogatory racial terms. I went to a racially diverse schools, a historically black college, and taught school for years in various racial mixes of schools/classrooms. I have always cringed at racism, and it makes me sick.
I’ve watched Ferguson with a different view. We have 5 kids: 3 biological white kids and 2 African American girls. Sidenote: Of my bios, 2 are boys who love Michael Jordan; did you know some businesses ban people wearing Jordan tennis shoes and they’re often associated with “thugs”? (Or worse terms)
I sat and watched the initial Ferguson coverage for days, much as I sat and stared at 9/11 coverage years ago. It consumed me. I was trying to understand all the viewpoints. I read article after article and a lot of the comments, and it came down to one takeaway for me: racism is very much alive and well in America.
The comments alone were enough to make me have fear for my two little girls and what they would face. People raged that the police weren’t racist and none of the events were racially motivated while they spewed hatred based on race. Ignorance.
We have a lot of praying to do for our country. And our country will only be healed when we take a personal look at our own stereotypes and hatred the way God sees it. We have to each, black and white, step “across the aisle”, and make an effort to be different and to understand the other side’s perspectives and hurts. And we have to stand against racism when we see it. This includes when Papaw uses a derogatory term or a coworker tells a racially questionable joke. White people need to be brave enough to tell other white people to stop.
Thank you for that comment.
I followed comments on Twitter for much of the evening after the verdict last night. It seems that there is a mad cry for white Christians to empathize with those (not just blacks, by the way) who prejudged this police officer and are now “hurting” as a result of not seeing him hang for the crime from which he was cleared. I saw (on my Twitter feed anyway) only calls for Christians to weep with those who weep. I saw absolutely no calls for Christians to rejoice with those who rejoice.
What about the police officers who now feel a little safer going to work, because they know that the system works? If, by providence, they wind up having to defend themselves with deadly force, they now can feel a little more secure in the knowledge that some juries aren’t swayed by mob rule. That goes for black cops, too, by the way.
I do recognize the tragedy of this situation, but I am simply exhausted after a night of watching Christians thoughtlessly encourage the deepening of the racial divide by focusing on only skin color and not the justice that was carried out. A jury meticulously combed through all the evidence and interviewed all the witness, some multiple times, and found no probable cause. Where’s the “Amen!”? Why are Christians not seeking to explain the sanity of the ruling to their friends, rather than comforting them when they spew their race-based venom on social media? We need more peacemakers, from ALL communities, not just from those of pale pigmentation.
“I do recognize the tragedy of this situation, but I am simply exhausted after a night of watching Christians thoughtlessly encourage the deepening of the racial divide by focusing on only skin color and not the justice that was carried out.”
I could not agree more.
William
Very good statement.
The only cure for racial strife – the recipe for racial reconciliation – is the Gospel. It need not be any more complicated than that.
Tarheel
Yes Yes Yes. As Christians and especially pastors and preachers we must say loud and clear that Jesus is the answer. I now that is trite, but it is true. We keep looking in the wrong places for a “cure” to this issue. The New Testament give us a solid, workable basis for racial equality. (I prefer the term “human equality”)
Some people do not believe that American astronauts have landed on the moon, and form fanciful stories to support that belief. The evidence that was sifted by 12 grand jurors (selected long before the situation occurred) appeared to have value and from the brief explanation that was proffered last night by the grand jury, …the sad path for this young man killed in the street was one of three outcomes; (1) an ultimate jail sentence of some extent for robbery/assault/fleeing after a peaceful surrender to law enforcement (2) an ultimate jail sentence of some extent for robbery/assault/fleeing/assault of a law enforcement officer after being subdued by force for resisting arrest, or (3) death by lethal force after being confronted and violently resisting the arrest by law enforcement for what appeared in the evidence as the robbery/assault/fleeing from a convenient store.
The grand jury looked at the evidence and made a clear decision. That is what is good about America!
Tarheel is right… the gospel will change the heart. That is the remedy!
Chris
As I said earlier I agree. This is one reason I am proud to call Tarheel a friend and brother in Christ. Men we have the answer, PREACH IT.
While I am on a tare, I might as well make some enemies. Men we must spend more time telling people about the change that the blood of Jesus makes and less time talking about how to manage money etc. It is time for Hard Gospel reaching that can change man’s attitude and behavior.
D.L., you don’t like to manage money? 🙂 The love of the management may be evil at the root, but the management of resources is important for maintaining his household in a Godly manner. Don’t love money….Go Gospel!
Chris
I am not radical on this issue. I do see the need for that sort of preaching. It is biblically defensible. However, with the national situation, and the world stage as it is, I think we can find more important things on which to preach
I am so proud of our country and our legal system. Anyone rioting over this verdict is a embarrassment to the human race and I hope they never breed. Anyone unhappy with this verdict needs to stop using their “fee-wings” to make decisions and actually rely on facts.
Decisions like this and the Zimmerman case make me thankful to be an American.
I’m pretty sure that ridicule and disdain are not helpful steps in the orocess if healing. .
I wonder if some are being to quick to revel in the findings of the Grand jury without taking note of what the whole episode tells us about race relations in America.
Just because Officer Wilson’s shooting was declared justified does not do away with centuries of mistreatment and the stain it has left
It tells us that some people use this situation as an excuse to say “We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us”. And it’s not just black people that are using this as an excuse to riot and in general act like scum.
Someone disagrees with the verdict? Fine. But violence and looting are the responses of savages, not civilized human beings.
No one is condoning the violence or looting. Why not attempt to empathize with the pain felt by so many?
This shooting may not have been the cold blooded murder some described it as, but shouldn’t we actively seeking to heal racial tension through Christ rather than just gloat over a jury finding?
Why don’t those who are “suffering” in their “pain” over the verdict try to objectively look at the situation, realize that due process as outlined in our law was carried out, and, how you say….. get over themselves and deal with reality? I’d say that’s a much more adult way to handle what happened.
Actually there ARE people condoning the violence and looting, including but not limited to elected officials (state senate) in the state of Missouri.
I was speaking of people in this discussion, in the Christian discussion broadly.
sv,
Are they condoning it or understanding it? The difference is important.
CR, trying to make that nuance is like trying to say “I understand why Hitler, the Nazi’s, and a majority of Germans at the time wanted to get kill the Jews.” Hey, after all, they did have “reasons”. Didn’t you know it was the Jews that were keeping the German people down! It was the Jews who were keeping the German people poor. No it was not WW1 that was to blame it was the Jews! (On a side note notice how some of those very statements are still being used to target Jewish communities today).
What is most troubling is that the people who are justifying and “understanding” the people behind this violence are simply using it as a prop to shift the blame from those who are actually responsible. “No it’s not these kids fault they are rioting and burning down businesses, it is “white societies” fault!” They brought this on themselves! Rather than calling for peace, they are fanning the flames. Rather than calling for this to stop, they are talking about the start of a race war.
sv,
Not even close.
Godwin’s Law.
Dave
I agree with the heart behind this statement. Gloating over the decision is wrong. However, being respectful and even proud of our system of justice is acceptable.
I believe that you have the right idea and motive, however I remember the race war in the 50s in Saint Louis it was not pretty.
I stood up for a fellow Marine in a resturant when he was told he would have to eat in the kitchen. 10 of us in uniform and he was told that he would have to eat in the kitchen. I told the waitress that if he was to eat in the kitchen we would to. She informed me that we could not eat in the kitchen, in other words it was reserved for blacks. I agree brother its been going on way too long.
By the way I am white and I have preached in black churches and have had black brothers preach in our church. Yet we still have too many narrow minded folks on both sides to see an all out remidy unless Jesus comes back today.
The facts in the Ferguson, MO case show that the police officer was justified in what he did to protect himself and society. The Grand Jury studied those facts and said the police officer should not be charged with any crime. I, along with others, am glad the Grand Jury did not cave in to mob rule and public pressure.
How unjust that an innocent, public servant doing his job, and doing it well, has been so vilified.
The young man killed while attacking a police officer was a strong arm robber and a bully. That is a plain fact. He could have had a bright future ahead of him. Parents of all races should teach this to the younger generation. Rather, some parents are teaching their children to hold a grudge against all those in authority.
To those who said earlier, and some who still say today, that the facts do not matter – you are dead wrong. If facts and law do not matter, we are left with anarchy. We should in no way excuse the vandalism going on as a result of the Ferguson decision.
Show a case of a white man committing first degree murder against a black man and I will be for the death penalty. But it should be based on facts and evidence, not feelings and emotion.
I would fault the media and law enforcement on one issue. For weeks it seems we have been presented with primarily one side of the story. And it was a faulty side lacking evidence.
Perhaps if they had released and reported more facts and evidence early on, it could have defused some of the anger. They should have previously presented some of the facts justifying the police officer. Frankly, some conservative commentators did this, the mainstream media did very little.
David R. Brumbelow
I’ve lived in the St. Louis area for 26 years. I have friends who live in Ferguson and have been there to FBC many times. It’s a good community. So sad to see the mayhem and property destruction. But I think we could all see this coming. Those sympathetic to M. Brown have been clear all along that anything less than an indictment and subsequent conviction of officer Wilson would be injustice.
Good post Dave. Let us all pray for the people there and for leaders to be able to break through to the agitators. And for the Brown and Wikson families.
Wilson family I meant obviously.
Les
I was born and raised in St. Louis. I pastored in the Brentwood area in the 80’s. I moved with my parents to Ferguson during my senior year in High School (though I continued to attend Beaumont near downtown which was basically 50% black and 50% white). FBC Ferguson was a great gospel preaching church when Bob Worner (Werner?) was there. I suspect it continues to be. But you are correct, one could see this coming, I would like to think that the situation would not have been as bad if the out of towners stayed home.
I don’t get it. This seems so simple to me. A guy who just robbed a store is about to get caught, attacks a police officer and gets shot and killed. Tragedy? Yes. Travesty? No. I don’t get the outrage. If this was a clear case of police brutality (Rodney King) then I too would be outraged. But this incident was clearly not that. This officer was doing exactly what he was trained to do when attacked by a criminal. He’s a hero.
As for the rioters…I don’t get it. As I watched the coverage it seemed to me like there are 2 different types of rioters. There are those just looking for license to get free stuff. They really don’t care about justice, just what they can get their greedy hands on. And then there are those who have some other motivation that I can’t figure out.
Dr. Moore put this in perspective well.
white folks tend to look at this as a single, isolated situation – a cop shot an aggressive, law-breaking man, a justified shooting.
African-Americans tend to see it as part of a pattern of brutality, of injustice. They see a white cop shooting down an unarmed black man and contextualize that into a lifetime of injustice.
Who is right? Depends, I guess, on which side of the racial divide you are on.
Dave,
I agree with you that our perspective on this issue is necessarily influenced by our own experiences. And while there is certainly a history of racial injustice in our country, and a legal system that has been affected by that history, it would likewise be unjust for this officer to be a scapegoat punished for the sins of the many. The grand jury had to make a decision based on the facts in Officer Wilson’s case. In that respect, looking at this situation in isolation and considering only the legal merits of the case against Wilson isn’t a black/white issue. It’s the only way to do it fairly.
I agree.
Here is perhaps a refined view of my thinking.
1) The justice system ought to be color-blind as much as possible.
2) Christians ought not to pretend that we live in a colorblind society and we ought to take definitive steps toward racial healing reconciliation.
We ought to be moved by the injustice being done daily to black people in America (and not try to argue that it doesn’t happen – that is untenable). We ought to be moved by the poverty, the breakdown of the family and many other social and spiritual problems that are found in much of the black community – all of which are direct descendants of racism, slavery and injustice.
We ought to seek to empathize with the suffering, and not just condemn the bad behavior. YES, we ought to condemn looting, etc. But we ought also to look beyond that to the causes.
Dave, and I might add,….actually do something about it. It is not enough to be empathetic alone. Get into the action, and make things different. Talk and empathy is way to cheap to buy.
“We ought to be moved by the poverty, the breakdown of the family and many other social and spiritual problems that are found in much of the black community – all of which are direct descendants of racism, slavery and injustice.”
And might I add, over 1 century of dedicated voting for a certain political party. No one wants to talk about the donkey in the room that some of these problems can and should be laid at the feet of a political party that has an entire minority group in its voting pocket, and I dare say does not want to change anything in fear of possibly loosing that voting group. Voting demographics show that across ethnic lines, those who rise from poverty to middle class (or above) tend to vote for Conservative candidates. What would happen if large portions of the “black” community did get out of poverty (which would be a very great thing)? The Democratic party could possibly loose a large chunk of their voting base. We want to talk about the REAL problems? Lets include ALL the problems. Otherwise we are just whistling like a duck.
Stephen, is there NO empathy 4 centuries of oppression did to black culture? No empathy is appropriate.
Frankly, your comments make me sad.
I agree with all you said, Dave. We do need to address these issues at the big-picture level. Most of the current protests are specifically directed at the decision not to indict Wilson, however. I agree with using Ferguson as a launching point to discuss the broader problems. I disagree with those who try to project those problems onto whether Wilson committed a crime. I understand that you are not doing that.
Dave when I hear and see the way the majority treat Black Conservatives in this country, THAT makes me sad. And its THAT reaction that demonstrates that this is NOT entirely about the racial divide, but rather a protected political subset of a major political party in this country. Conservative black men and women, people who are trying to promote REAL ideas to heal the black community, are ignored wholesale simply because of the letter behind their name. People ignoring this reality, makes ME really “sad”.
That is really troubling.
Dave, according to the US Census Bureau, the last 40 years is a testimony to the work that many have done on behalf of Black Americans specifically, but all “race” / ethnic prosperity and inclusion than ever before in the history of this great nation. The number of blacks ages 25 and older with a high school diploma as nearly tripled… 1970=31%, 2010=84%. And the number of blacks ages 25 and older with a college degree has quintupled… 1970=4%, 2010=20%. Maybe we should continue to focus and work on those things that got these numbers heading in the right direction for all ethnicities, and not take steps back into the 1960s.
Remembering is one thing,…recognizing what is actually happening is quite another. Harvard, for instance, was just dinged for denying diversity along performance lines for another ethnic group. So, in the is age of immediate news cycles, not much gets missed. But, a lot can be ginned up on misinformation as well.
Dave
“Daily” (paragraph 5) is the operative word IMO. While the Ferguson issue is horrific and cannot be discounted, it is the DAILY plight of the Black community that must be addressed. The poverty, hunger, unemployment, feelings of hopelessness, etc that exist day after day after day after day is not the quality of life that America is all about. National attention is turned to this one event. That is the way of the media. Perhaps this is the playing field that the Church can spotlight, not on one or two occasions, but day after day after day after day.
D.L. … that is absolutely correct my friend! We have been ministering in a tough part of Nashville for over 20 years, specifically buying property within the poverty stricken area, and then teaching, revitalizing, mentoring children, tutoring kids, rooting out crack houses, and thugs. It takes a lot of initiative,…working with families, with law enforcement, etc. Its about creating habits and lasting change. But, you can’t just do it with rhetoric,…it takes time and initiative and persistence.
We have been blessed to effect now 490+ unique students a year in our urban ministry in downtown Nashville and have just bought another property in an impoverished area north of the city. The kids, youth, and families are glad to see us make that next initiative in their area. Action does make a difference. You can see some testimonies from parents here…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bUAsLLl-LY
Chris
I was not aware of your ministry. Blessings on you my brother. Even though I was raised in the inner city of St. Louis, I cannot imagine the challenges you must face in your ministry. You are so right rhetoric is one thing action is quite another. You certainly have my respect for your dedication to a difficult task.
I will put you on my 30 day prayer list, my brother.
P.S. Have you ever thought about developing some kind of training for others who might want to engage in that kind of ministry. 20 years of experience builds a lot of expertise, and the need is unimaginable.
Amen, Dave. Having been a police officer in a small Southern town (Talladega, Alabama, population about 16,000) that was about 30% African-American and in a small Southern city (Montgomery, Alabama, population about 140,000 back then) that was about 50% African-American, I can tell you that inequality existed then and still does. Talladega’s racial relations were on a fair footing to begin with, as it was never a hotbed for the KKK and such, and as police chief there in the 60s, my father added to the town’s heritage by emphasizing fairness along with order. Montgomery had a lot to recover from (the events of the ’50s and ’60s) but by the time I was there in the mid-70s, had accomplished much in that way–and the city had done more than the county, let me tell you. Other cities and towns have more still to do. Part of that has to do with trust–and showing too much force too soon, as well as inequality (real or perceived) in hiring practices is antithetical to trust.
Do I think Officer Wilson was justified? Probably, although there remain unanswered questions (such as the distance at which he fired the fatal bullet). Could Michael Brown avoided all this simply by having gotten out of the middle of the road when approached by Officer Wilson? Absolutely! If he was indeed charging Officer Wilson, as the officer maintains, was he justified in shooting him? I think so, and I probably would have done the same thing under the circumstances. But Officer Wilson could also have avoided it all by waiting a few moments to see if Brown got out of the street as he said he would when he reached his destination; and he could have avoided either the shooting or at least any question of whether or not it was justified by waiting for back-up until he further confronted Brown (and here I primarily blame the administration, for in a dangerous area, the only excuse for officers patrolling alone is financial, not strategic). And I think any officer should have asked himself, “Is this confrontation worth killing a human being? Over a strong-arm robbery for few cheap cigars that would probably make him sick anyway (based on my experience with Swisher Sweets many years ago)?” Those were questions we were trained to ask ourselves. And that goes back to training, how rigid police will be, and possibly involves the “militarization” of the police.
John
D.L. Thanks brother,… yes we are booking up for the Summer already on training programs. Groups from all over the US come and work with us and learn during the Summer months. For more information you can find that under the DTI (Discipleship Training Institute) part of the website at Cottage Cove Urban Ministries…. http://cottagecove.org
We are currently looking for Interns. The young lady working and ministering with us from Australia will be returning home soon, so there will be an opening.
D.L., fyi…here is the link to the page if churches want to get involved with our training program. Just have them click on the DTI tab at the top right of the page.
http://cottagecove.org/videos.htm
Dave Miller said:
We ought to be moved by the poverty, the breakdown of the FAMILY and many other social and spiritual problems that are found in much of the black community – all of which are direct descendants of racism, slavery and injustice.
WOW, Dave. That is an extraordinary statement to make without proof.
My translation: All of the black community’s problems are the white man’s fault.
“My translation: All of the black community’s problems are the white man’s fault.”
While certainly not entirely true, that is closer to the truth than you would likely ever be willing to admit.
Chris,
Again, no proof offered.
Ken, first of all, if you misinterpret and twist my words, that is not my responsibility. Frankly, it’s not a godly form of communication.
So, I’d appreciate if you’d just respond to what I say, not pervert my words to make your point.
Thanks for that.
If you wish to converse, please indicate that your intent is to abandon that kind of tactic and I will be glad to engage.
Dave,
I apologize for offending your sensibilities. I understand that you are a pastor and should understand godly forms of communication more than a 54 year-old layman, but I do not believe I said anything wrong. I was hoping for a response from you clarifying what you meant in your statement. I also do not understand “that kind of tactic” is.
Please forgive me for my error. I will no longer post here.
Ken, you are welcome to post here, if you’d like. But I’m not going to engage someone in conversation who is going to twist my words as you did.
My words are in English. They do not need to be translated.
What is it you would like me to clarify. If you wish to ask a question or make an observation, fine. But don’t tell me I said something I didn’t say.
I was not so impressed with Moore’s lecturing on this issue. His article only spoke to one side. It was, IMO, frankly, disappointing and not very helpful.
“Who is right? Depends, I guess, on which side of the racial divide you are on.”
I think the facts of the case demonstrate who is right –
This is NOT the case to claim innocent victim-hood on the grounds of racial bias. The facts just do not support it.
Facts are our friends, aren’t they?
Dave
I normally think that Moore does a decent job. However in this case I think he came up short. I am willing to admit however that It may be due to the fact that I expected more (no pun intended) from him. I don’t agree that white people see this as a single event. I think that most people understand the tension and the discussion. We see it differently I am sure but most anyone understands the discussion and the history.
If all we take away from this should is “Michael Brown was a bad guy and Officer Wilson was justified” I’m not sure we are sure Ewing this with gospel eyes.
Why not try to sure we in gee the hurt and pain, the betrayal and the sense of injustice written in the hearts if sure we in geek many people.
A little gospel empathy would ge c a good thing, rather than denying there is a real problem.
“Justice is not about getting the outcome you want, but about a fair process being followed.”
No, justice is the guilty being punished and the rights of all being protected. Is it justice when the fair process sends an innocent man to jail? Is it justice when the fair process allows a criminal to escape the consequences of his actions? Is it justice when a fair process does not even allow the fair process to take place? Keep in mind the grand jury is not a trial. Darren Wilson never had his day in court. He had a prosecutor playing defense attorney and a grand jury that did something very unusual: decline an indictment.
True, it is unusual for a grand jury to decline an indictment. The reason is that prosecutors use their discretion to weed out the weak cases themselves. They don’t bring a case to the grand jury unless they are confident they have at least probable cause. The prosecutor could have declined to present the case to the grand jury at all. Of course, had he done that, he would have been castigated in the court of public opinion. Instead, he aired all the evidence before the grand jury and gave them an opportunity to provide a second opinion on behalf of the public. As a public official, the prosecutor has an ethical obligation to limit his presentation to what he can argue in good faith based on the evidence.
Chris, history has shown Justice to be many variations and themes. In America, it is a system based in Law. That was what the jurors had to work with, and did a very good job, it appears of applying the law. American form of justice has served her well, yet can be improved.
The anger on either side of this specific debate is not over justice being judged on current law in MO. It is over the perception and understanding of rights. It appears that some in Ferguson and many around the country are not satisfied with how they feel their rights are defined. That is what needs to be examined in great depth.
The cause of this tragedy is clear, and according to law; the grand jury of non-prejudiced MO peers agreed that in this specific case, the law enforcement officer was well within the limits of the law and actions were applied appropriately.
Chris,
The grand jury doesn’t decide the merits of an individual’s action, they decide the merits of the evidence, as they see it. They did not rule Wilson innocent, they ruled the evidence wasn’t compelling enough to indict. Considering the evidence, it was a very unusual ruling.
Agreed,…. they ruled the evidence pursuant to the law. The evidence appeared very convincing toward the lawless action of the perpetrator, not the counterpart. In this case, the young men fit the action of the perpetrator in the evidence viewed by the 12 individuals commissioned to decide that fact.
What is justice, Chris? Who says?
Roberts,
“He had a prosecutor playing defense attorney and a grand jury that did something very unusual: decline an indictment.”
WOW!
Is it possible they declined to indict because the evidence was so overwhelming that Officer Wilson acted reasonably and not illegally?
Prosecutor playing defense attorney? Evidence please. That is a serious charge!
Is this asinine accusation based on the same convictions that brought us your comments back in August and September – for example MB being shot in the back from 40 feet as he was running away with his hands up?
Bluntly, Chris – Your rhetoric on this issue has been so roundly discredited by the facts it would seem you might be a little more careful in your snap judgments and comments.
Chris,
Amen!!!!
“Justice is not about getting the outcome you want, but about a fair process being followed.”
Amen Dave! By all accounts, justice was indeed rendered in St. Louis County … the facts were carefully considered and weighed during a lengthy, fair process. As I watched the response to that decision in this morning’s news, I was reminded of an Abraham Lincoln quote “You never have the right to do wrong.”
That’s only one part of my point though, Max. The other is that we have to realize what our white forefathers have done to create the problem and to seek in humility to fix it thru Christ’s love
I am confused. A war was fought and many white young men died. then a peaceful but hard won solution for legal equality by Dr King. that peaceful solution included many white people. fast forward through affirmative action programs and mandatory hiring practices by not only the government but private industry on to today where we have a black president and a black Attorney General up until recently. the police chief of my city is black.
if those things are not proof a constant stream of hard won remedies to pay for the sins of our white forefathers that have been sought over decades, i do not know what would be.
there is another type of discrimination. it is subtle but insidious and even more damaging to people. the discrimination of low expectations based on gender or skin color. That is not of Christ, either.
what ever happened to content of character instead of skin color?
“what ever happened to content of character instead of skin color?”
Granted the man who said those words was shot and killed because of the content of his character and the color of his skin.
“what ever happened to content of character instead of skin color?”
Granted the man who said those words was shot and killed because of the content of his character and the color of his skin.
”
Finish your thought, Chris. What does that mean?
A black man was elected twice as president. Should I take your same words above and apply it to Obama since it is about skin color? Is that why people voted FOR him instead of trying to shoot him?
Lydia, that is still the ideal.
But we are FAR from reaching that. Black people today still suffer injustice regularly because of their skin color.
“But we are FAR from reaching that. Black people today still suffer injustice regularly because of their skin color.”
That is much too vague but something we must all agree with or we are “racists” or hardhearted.
When you see injustice, fight it as I do. I have had the opportunity to fire someone who was trying to covertly intimidate a black coworker. That was 20 years ago and you betcha I got my ducks in a row and made it happen.
And keep in mind the word “injustice” is serious. Get specific. It is not the same as being treated unfairly. Fat people are treated unfairly all the time as are seniors looking for jobs. That is different from injustice. Get specific before making a blanket declaration and lets deal with actual issues.
I don’t go along with politically correct terminology. We stamp out the monster of injustice by dealing with it in our own little corners of the world. Just keep in mind, guys like Al Sharpton are using the same terminology and they make their living off what they claim is injustice.
“what ever happened to content of character instead of skin color?”
Content of character is being displayed on the streets of Ferguson, no matter how you spin it. The heart of the problem is a problem with the heart. Lost hearts are black hearts regardless of the color of one’s skin.
What’s the answer? Jesus, of course! Perhaps that seems too elementary a fix for most folks to wrap their head around, but it’s the only hope we have in this country to resolve racial tension. That was the essence of Dr. King’s dream. To drag Dr. King into the mess in Ferguson is to misunderstand the man and his mission.
Yes, because racism wasn’t as much of a problem back in the 50’s when more people went to church……….
If someone looks at the evidence that was presented to the grand jury and disagrees with the grand jury’s decision, that person has a right to his opinion. If he wants to peacefully protest the decision as an injustice, I fully support his 1st Amendment right to do so. To me, the problem is that there were so many people ready to protest before they heard the evidence. Of those protesting last night, how many do you think actually listened to the prosecutor’s presentation? Any result other than an indictment was unacceptable to them, regardless of the facts. In essence, they wanted a legal lynching. There will be a civil lawsuit against the officer and under that different standard of proof, a jury may indeed find that he used unreasonable force. But it is not right to call for a man to be tried as a criminal without considering whether there is evidence to support charges.
“Of those protesting last night, how many do you think actually listened to the prosecutor’s presentation?”
Did the violence start before or after his statement?
It started immediately after the decision was announced.
Chris,…to my earlier point. The instigators of lawlessness last night were preconditioned on their perception of what “their rights” should be, not necessarily the law. A tweet could not contain the entire reading unfortunately for MO.
Chris,
The instigators of violence last night were, for the most part, looking for an excuse to be violent. Do not confuse looting and vandalism with the cry for justice on the part of the family and community.
Again, I agree with your comment. I hurt for this family and their loss and truly look for a remedy that fits into the theme of American justice for their situation. It may not come as an action out of lawlessness (clearly and wisely dealt by the grand jury), but it may come in the ability of the community to address perception of rights and educate both the public and law enforcement.
Chris, Roberts,
“Do not confuse looting and vandalism with the cry for justice on the part of the family and community.”
Legal Justice by definition cannot be predetermined or determined on the basis of intimidation…it must be based on facts. Physical evidence and testimony. By those standards Officer Wilson was found, under justice, to have acted reasonably and within the confines of the law.
Also, to your comment “did the violence start before or after the announcement?”
After – but I have one for you…were the ready made identical signs decrying a non indictment that were being waived by demonstrators in Ferguson, Chicago, Atlanta, L.A. and New York made before or after the announcement?
Like I said, I have no issue with peaceful demonstrations – even planned and choreographed ones…but lets not pretend that the demonstrations were not preplanned.
If it turns out, as it has, that the initial incident in Ferguson was not about race or racial injustice, then in connection to this incident, perhaps we should not be talking about race at all. It was a simple incident of a justified police shooting.
Sometimes rioters need to be told the truth, that they are wrong.
Perhaps we should talk more about racial issues, when a real racial issue arises. And perhaps we should not be overly sensitive about race. How about getting back to a colorblind society?
Yesterday I walked into a bank and was met by three officials of the bank – a black man, a Hispanic man, and a white woman. They all treated me with respect and helpfulness. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be?
David R. Brumbelow
Regardless of whether race had anything to do with the shooting of Michael Brown, situation in Ferguson is CLEARLY about race. Suggesting we ignore that reality is beyond comprehension.
Amen, Adam. Amen!
We need to see this incident in the context of racial relations in general in this nation, and we need to be redemptive – not just condemning.
I agree with both you and Adam – Here – David Miller – but I think the point David B is making is that the actual incident was not about race – race has been injected into the story – but there is no evidence that race relations precipitated the actual event being discussed. To try and force this case an example of police racism and the like, given the evidence that shows that not be the case at all, is to cheapen and devalue actual cases that could be used to illustrate the problem we agree exists.
That said – I ask again – shall we not also empathize with the plight of Officer Wilson, his family and friends, the store owners, the peaceful demonstrators, the police and firemen who are subjected to condemnations of racism when they are simply doing their jobs, in Ferguson? Is there only “one story” that deserves redemption?
Thanks, Tarheel.
My point was simply that if we are going to talk about racism, why not begin with a true incident of racism, rather than a false one.
And God bless those police officers of all races who are simply doing their jobs, and doing them well.
David R. Brumbelow
“Perhaps he was a victim, but he was not without culpability in the tragedy. He could have and should have done things differently. Still, I wonder if Officer Wilson could have handled this in such a way that he would not have had to use deadly force to protect himself”
Dave, you are my friend and we have had differing opinions on very few matters, however, this statement is the only statement I can remember you making that disappoints me. “Perhaps he was a victim.” I struggle understanding how you can make such a statement. Michael Brown robbed a store and attacked a police officer. He was moving toward Officer Wilson. The officer was holding a pistol. He was not holding a ticket book or a flashlight, a megaphone or Skittles. Michael Brown was coming for the officer’s gun and what do you think he would have done with it? That anyone can say MB could be a victim seems to me to be beyond the pale. It is the police’s job to arrest criminals. MB was a criminal and the police officer was doing his job. I hope our police never ignore a criminal because it may result in an altercation. I hope they do their jobs even if it means an altercation. Criminals need to be removed from the streets. The grand jury determined MB was not a victim and OW actions were justified. Michael Brown is no victim and saying he could be does not help move racial reconciliation forward.
As for as culpability, this entire Ferguson event is not necessarily the result of centuries of mistreatment. That can be debated. The Ferguson meltdown is absolutely the result of SOME in the black community who would rather lie to indict a white man than to tell the truth and indict a black man. I saw again yesterday 2 young African-American females describe how they witnessed the officer stand over MB and shoot him in the back several times. He was shot walking away. He was shot with his hands up. He never came near the police car. These were all proven to be lies by forensic evidence both by the FBI and the local investigators. These are the individuals who are most culpable for what is happening in Ferguson.
What I saw last night was best described by Wade Burleson’s tweet, “A man who uses force to steal what is not his is now honored by those who use force to steal what is not theirs. #justice #ferguson #irony”
Well said Dean.
Yes, agreed Dean. Calling MB a victim – and thereby insinuating Officer Wilson has done something nefarious – clouds any real discussion regarding healing the racial divide.
I am saddened for MB’s family and friends who have to experience this loss – but the facts have been clearly laid out for all who desire to see them as they are – Officer Wilson in this case did what MB’s decisions and behavior necessitated.
I am not and would not imply that racism is dead and there is not racial divide or even that parts of our systems are still in some ways captive to, dare I say, Jim Crow thinking…. HOWEVER, lets be honest – This is not the case to advance the idea of
“inappropriate police racial profiling” or
“killing of innocent black young men by white cops”
– because, again lets be honest, the only part of either of those statements that bears any existence in reality is that it was a white Officer Wilson who shot and killed the young black MB – Context however details that he did so in the lawful performance of his duties and because MB’s actions called for deadly force.
Dean, Great analysis.
Sorry, to disappoint you, but I think there is still enough murkiness about what happened.
I think if you’d read what I said, you’d see where my heart is – I’m trying to call both sides to understand the other side.
However, I still have some dis-ease about all that happened to the point where I am not ready to place all the blame on one side or the other. 80-20? 70-30? 95-5? don’t know.
But I remain with questions about the situation. Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s where I am.
Which is why it seems that a trial where both sides could be presented, defended, and prosecuted would be the way that justice would be carried out. I too have questions about what actually happened. Perhaps Officer Wilson is totally innocent. We should presume his innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But, the process of the Grand Jury deciding all of this and the DA presenting all of the evidence but not advocating for an indictment is very confusing to me. The role of the Grand Jury is not to decide the case or hear both sides. It is to look at the evidence and decide it it bears a trial. The fact that there are conflicting testimonies of eyewitnesses and that there is a great deal of confusion about what happened (even those who agree with Wilson’s overall story disagree with parts of it and there is confusion as to what actually happened. I thought that was what the trial would be for, but we won’t have that now. Wanting a trial is not presuming guilt. It is wanting to hear all sides – that is what justice should be. Now, we are left to accept the Grand Jury’s decision and look over the evidence ourselves.
And, if we are lauding the DA/GJ for not giving into the mob to bring an indictment, it appears that he gave into the mob by not deciding himself that this should not go to trial and face the wrath of the people while bringing it to the Grand Jury and NOT advocating for an indictment. It is all very unusual and I am still trying to figure out what to make of this process.
I wish someone would write a really good book on this issue, Alan.
Oh, wait….
http://www.amazon.com/When-Heaven-Earth-Collide-Evangelicals/dp/1603063501
Never mind!
I’ll bet you wish someone would fulfill his promise to write a review of the book!!
Or, perhaps he realized that making the decision himself left him open to the charge of bias (as has been argued in another comment here, I think by Mike).
Seating a GJ and giving them access to all the evidence seems like a good way to handle this.
The grand jury system is designed to protect defendants from having to face trial on unsubstantiated charges. It is possible that probable cause can be lacking even where there is some incriminating evidence. I don’t want to live under a legal system in which one can be tried as a criminal based on mere accusations of wrongdoing, however shaky. Having to stand trial, even if ultimately acquitted, is a substantial burden on a defendant. Had Michael Brown escaped following the robbery that night (and assuming we didn’t have that video), would we feel right about his being tried if the evidence was just a bunch of vague, conflicting descriptions? To be sure, there are defendants who are prosecuted who shouldn’t be, including the African-Americans of Ferguson who feel oppressed. But that doesn’t mean we should do away with the safeguards that are meant to protect us all.
Alan, when you say that “a trial where both sides could be presented, defended, and prosecuted would be the way that justice would be carried out“, you very obviously have decided “what to make of this process.”
Alan, just read through your posting.
I think what you have said has some merit with respect to the DA. More than likely the DA knew the evidence was so weak for an indictment, it certainly appears to me that the involvement of the Feds is what pushed this to a GJ. The DA had to have made the judgement that if he made the push personally to not indict relative to the evidence that he had seen, there would be even more implications. So, it does appear that he made the decision to push to a GJ with the cover of the Feds.
If the Feds had not injected themselves into the process, it is very likely that the DA may have appeased (which is a horrible thought anyway) the community to push this as an indictment, then to a judge for the decision, even knowing that would cost a fortune and eventually end up where we are today.
All in all it appears to me that the DA was given a bit of an out by the Feds, where the GJ could see the evidence from all sides because of the Feds, along with four hours of testimony from Wilson. The gross amount of testimony and evidence revealed the facts, and the DA was pretty much off the hook.
The outcome was confusing, moreover because of the injection of the Feds, and the mission they have to support a civil rights agenda. Unfortunately, this was a horrible set of evidence about a young man robbing, fleeing, engaging law enforcement, and never standing down…. so this went the wrong way for the Feds to forward a civil rights agenda framework.
That’s right Chris, I believe that had this not been some hot button issue. And had it not been exacerbated by race baiters like Al Sharpton and the current AG, it is unlikely that this would have gone to a grand jury in the first place.
“These were all proven to be lies … the individuals who are most culpable for what is happening in Ferguson.”
Almost my exact words after hearing the DA’s report last night. These lies have taken flight throughout the world to fuel unrest. Who is the father of lies and author of confusion?
Dean
Anither one of those time i say “Gee I wish I had said that”. Well done.
” Why not attempt to empathize with the pain felt by so many?”
Agreed. Absolutely we should do that….
But is Officer Wilson, his family, his friends, the store owners victimized by terror, the officers in harms way this very moment, the innocent people in Ferguson, and other residents and officers in other cities where violent protesting (or – lets face it excuses for criminal behavior) are taking place not worthy of calls for compassion and understanding and healing? Where are the calls for mercy and compassion for them? Why has Stetzer and Moore and others not lectured America in regard to that?
Again – Racial reconciliation will only be healed by the gospel as I stated earlier – human efforts outside of that are faulty and not sustaining.
Gospel reconciliation will require a lot more than saying, “See, it’s all Michael Brown’s fault.” Or, “See, they are just a bunch of lawless looters.” (Not accusing you of that)
I agree with your premise. I just think we have to deal in the macros, not the micros.
Agreed, but pretending that this incident, at the time it happened, in real time, was all about race is counterproductive as well, IMO. This case is not a microcosm of injustice – at least not against MB.
This was a case where a police officer who was trying to question/detain a suspect. It is about a suspect who became violent with said police officer. It is about a police officer who had to use lethal force to prevent said suspect who has acted criminally and with intent to harm the officer from attacking him again.
Insisting on making this case the basis for healthy discussion on these issues is just not helpful, IMO.
Tarheel, it’s not about pretending that the initial incident was all about race. It’s about understanding and empathizing why so many blacks perceived it as being about race. Years of discrimination and distrust leave scars that heal slowly, and sometimes not at all. That perception is still very real and will bear its face again. The parents or grandparents of these truly protesting, not rioting, were the ones subjected to real life, legalized discrimination. Seeing as it was a part of American culture legally until the 60’s, we need to understand, even if we don’t agree, with that POV
Yea, I feel ya.
I am not discounting the truth of what you are saying. I know there is palpable mistrust of the police and institutions and government structures – some of it quite justified – some of it quite illogical. I do try to separate the rational and rational issues and demonstrations from the irrational and violent ones.
I will say thought that it saddens me when black “leaders” exacerbate the tensions in ways that seem intentional in order to actually keep them metaphorically aflame (although sometimes literally aflame).
I agree about those who simply agitate and fan the fire. So do many blacks. One thing I try to teach our congregationn as we are in a predominantly black area is to just watch our words on these things. The simplist thing said can be taken the wrong way, and voicing our opinion, even though it may be right, may shut a door to sharing the gospel, which is what we are to be about. Satan uses these things very effectively to rebuild walls that separate us. As Christians, we need to be able to above all else put advancement of the kingdom first. It’s hard enough under normal circumstances, but when these flames are fanned it becomes even more difficult due to the emotions involved. Ultimately, that is what we are dealing with here, an emotional reaction rooted in a past where blacks were indeed second class citizens
Great post. It’s unfortunate that the dialog so far seems to focus on the small picture of this one case and not on the bigger issue.
I live in a predominantly white neighboring county to the south of St. Louis County. For reference, Ferguson is in North St. Louis County, so I am a good 25-30 miles away from the areas affected. Two thoughts came to my mind last night as I watched the excellent local news versus the drama seeking nation news.
1) It is my firm belief that you have to separate your disgust of the looters from the demonstrators. They are not the same people. I would be willing to bet a large some of money that the vast majority of folks you saw burning and looting do not have a Ferguson zip code in their address. My money is on a St. Louis city zip code, specifically the north side. Opportunists from nearby north St. Louis decided they wanted an early Black Friday.
In contrast, if you strongly believe that justice has been denied, I fully support your decision to commit civil disobedience. There was a group that shut down the one of the interstates. Sure it annoyed some travelers for 30 minutes, but in my mind it was a valid expression of discontent.
2) We must look at how officers are trained to assess situations and respond.
As many have mentioned, no one can know with absolute certainty whether deadly force was warranted in this specific case. The GJ couldn’t make that decision with certainty ( a whole ‘nuther discussion), so they did not indict. The bigger picture is what bothers me.
We have had at least one instance a month for the last year of police going to deadly force rather quickly in situations, the most recent the 12 year old killed while possessing an Airsoft gun on a playground.
Two issues that I would like studied: a) In the use of deadly force, how much time between initial confrontation and shooting, and (he mentions in a whisper) – b) what are the demographics of the use of deadly force.
I know anecdotally that I could expect a smackdown from my rural sheriff’s deputy if I confront him, but I don’t expect that I will be shot by him.
I would like to see if data supports my thesis, and how it may be different for the inner-ring suburbs and St. Louis city.
Thank you for this comment.
“It is my firm belief that you have to separate your disgust of the looters from the demonstrators. They are not the same people.”
Amen! I agree with you.
I was very heartened last night when it was reported that, at least once, a group of peaceful protestors linked arm and arm in front of a store preventing looters from getting to it – alas, though the criminal minded ones found other outlets for their behavior.
I have no issue at all with anyone who seeks to peacefully assemble and speak freely for any reason whatsoever.
Empathy is needed. It would be easier if the Brown supporters were saying, “Mike was a troubled young man. He made some very poor decisions. He chose the life of a criminal and lost his life as a result. We are saddened that his life ended this way. We plead for all youth to see his life as an example of what can happen if you make poor decisions.”
That is not what they are saying. They are saying that MB was the victim of a hate crime for being black. They are saying that he is the innocent party. They are calling for justice and ignoring that justice was served.
It’s hard to have the needed empathy in response to that.
Re: Justice.
Are the rioters being prosecuted? There were riots prior to the grand jury. They don’t want justice or they would have to submit to it themselves. They want victory over their perceived enemies. Understanding that their sinful nature is surfing the wave of a history of discrimination doesn’t mitigate the truth that they deserve justice as well. Presenting the gospel, which is the only solution here, requires speaking the truth both about our own sins as well as the sins of those to whom we speak, demonstrating how those sins are covered by the blood of Christ, not the blood of Michael Brown or Darren Wilson. When we call for people’s blood, we are in the position of the people who called for the blood of Christ at Pilate’s doorstep who were willing to let the murderous rebel, Barabbas, go free. Our hearts are not just, yet Christ satisfied divine justice in a way that was not fair. Yet it was not fair in our favor.
Jim,
Do not confuse those doing violence with those seeking justice. As for those doing violence, there were 61 arrests last night. Certainly there were many looters who got away, but 61 arrests shows those doing violence aren’t exactly being ignored.
Chris,
I posted this earlier to you when you made a similar response – I did not want you to miss it.
Legal Justice by definition cannot be predetermined or determined on the basis of intimidation…it must be based on facts. Physical evidence and testimony. By those standards Officer Wilson was found, under justice, to have acted reasonably and within the confines of the law.
There are legitimate questions as to whether those standards really were upheld. Just because a situation goes through the legal process doesn’t mean justice is served.
But doesn’t justice demand that only the facts and evidence be considered?
Allowing anything else – including race relations, the hurting of the family, many other factors that are real and important, to determine a “verdict” defies the idea of justice.
What is designed to protect everyone is the blindness of proceedings….only the facts of the case – nothing else – only the facts.
Tarheel that is exactly the point. Some people don’t want blind justice, they want revenge justice. The people claiming “white suppression” don’t want a fair justice system, they want a black centric justice system. The evidence is, based on the statements of the agitators that a riot was going to happen regardless of the GJ result. The evidence is, that even a trial and a guilty verdict for Officer Wilson would not have stopped the violence that is playing out.
I am 100% in favor of a blind justice system. And I think we are closer to that goal now than at any other point in the history of this country. To ignore that fact, is to simply ignore factual history. A blind justice system does not persecute a person JUST because the mob wants to. That is not justice, that is anarchy, that is mob rule, and that cannot be allowed to function in this society.
You are nit-picking, Chris.
The point is that a jury heard all the evidence and listened to the testimony of all the eyewitnesses (even those who recanted or admitted they’d made stuff up).
My point is that justice is not about demanding that a certain outcome happen, but that a fair hearing being given.
Someone is ALWAYS going to be unhappy with the outcome. Someone ALWAYS thinks the accused was guilty and others ALWAYS think him or her innocent.
My post was not about the legal process (and I understand that the grand jury process here was unusual, but not illegal). My point is about a fair hearing being given and a decision rendered.
It seems to me that this happened, so legal nitpicking is not really germane or interesting.
Tarheel,
I said nothing about race relations, family feelings, etc. I had the evidence in mind.
Chris,… even though probably foolish at the beginning of the unfortunate situation,….the Federal Government used this as an opportunity and injected themselves into the process. There injection in this case proved to be a basic lesson in law, as they examined the evidence as well and the findings were consistent,…at least up to this point. I am wondering if the Federal Government will try to bring charges of some sort in the future, and follow the same logic you are posturing.
At the beginning of this saga, and before any rendering had been made….that appears to be the objectives of those engaged in forming an opinion on the condition of race in America. When you have folks looking for a “Poster Child” that reflects their version of racial tension, the pursuit can be blinding on its own, and have negative and lasting effects.
In this case, …anger is an understandable reaction when the facts are ignored. Anger is not an understandable reaction when the facts are examined.
Anguish and sorry is an understandable reaction when the facts were made known. Leaders with wisdom will understand the difference.
Dave,
My point is that just because the various steps of the system are followed doesn’t mean justice has been served. Our history reveals many, many instances of that same system being used to perpetuate injustice. It is a bit obtuse to pretend that going through the system = justice being served.
No one is saying GJ decision always = always justice being served.
What we are saying is that based on physical evidence and testimony presented to them there was a finding of a lack of probable cause (a very, very low standard BTW) by an impartial standing grand jury that was formed way before the incident.
Even Geraldo, who is not a fan of the police – ever in any case – and certainly has been an active spokesman against racial profiling and police force – has said numerous times that the evidence is overwhelming that while there was a tragic end – Officer Wilson acted appropriately given the circumstances.
Bringing up Geraldo can result in immediate banishment.
Dave Miller,
I most humbly apologize – It was a serious error in judgment to bring up that name – perhaps you might find the grace and mercy to grant me clemency from banishment?
Chris, I’m not confusing them with actually seeking justice. Sorry if I sound that way. It’s my way of indicating passively that they aren’t although many claim they are in order to move my discussion to the gospel.
I haven’t been following all the news, so I hadn’t heard one way or another that there had been some arrests. On the one hand, I’m glad they are trying to enforce the law there for everyone’s safety. On the other hand, arresting them won’t help anyone accept the truth.
I watched a good portion of the District Attorney’s presentation. If what he said in terms of man hours invested by the grand jury, the number of interviews, the number of witnesses, the amount of physical evidence – the number of photographs, tests, video and audio evidence, and 3 autopsies is anywhere close to being accurate, I have but one opinion.
I have no business second guessing the people who sat through and reviewed all of that information and then made a judgment in a highly charged atmosphere.
So I have no comment about the process, whether the result was right or not, etc.
The other thought I have is that we do have a problem with race in the U.S., but that is nothing new, nor would the outcome in this case make any change.
That problem, I am afraid, is here to stay. It is intractable.
But many there are many societal problems like that.
Jesus taught us to treat every person fairly. It’s that simple. That is what each of us can do.
All the discussion and talk leads to nothing. It may actually exacerbate the problem. Like picking at a sore spot.
There are issues that come up from time to time that are assigned to various bodies or organizations assembled for dealing with such issues. Legistlatures, Courts, Commissions etc. We can have an impact on those, but only a limited one.
The basic thing we should do is live our lives in an honorable way, treat people fairly, pray, and probably not speculate or pontificate about things we really don’t know about.
Thank you, sir.
I have a few questions for any legal folks who may know.
1. Is it common for a prosecutor to take a case to a grand jury?
2. If not, how does a prosecutor decide to seek a prosecution?
3. Is it common for a prosecutor to take an officer involved shooting to a GJ?
4. Is it more or less common for the prosecutor to be aggressive to get an indictment?
5. Is it ever advisable for a prosecutor to attempt to be unbiased in a GJ case? IOW is it sometimes advisable for a prosecutor to remove a decision to indict or not from himself only over to a panel such as a GJ?
Those questions are the source of a lot of the unrest in North County.
Here’s some backstory about PA McCullough:
1) His father was a police officer killed in the line of duty by an African American. He has several family members who have worked in some capacity for police departments. Is that disqualifying? In my mind no, but these facts do make a claim of bias easy to comprehend.
2) As his position is an elected position, he is very much a political animal. We just had a nasty campaign for St. Louis County Executive, but the nastiness was in the primary, not the general election. He supported another candidate to replace the sitting executive from his party (DEM). This white candidate (Steve Stenger) got most of his support from the more affluent western and southern suburbs, while the African American sitting County Executive (Charlie Dooley) base was in north county, of which Ferguson is a part. McCullough did something unheard of in the primary by blasting Dooley with charges of corruption in his ads for Stenger. That did not sit well with the African American political base. Many temporarily switched to supporting the Republican candidate in response.
There were calls for McCullough to recuse himself on day one because of “the backstory”.
Mike I appreciate that. I actually live in STL county and am very familiar with Bob and the county exec race. My questions are genuine general legal questions about how prosecutors operate and grand juries.
Grand jury practice varies by state. Federal prosecutors are constitutionally required to use grand juries. States, however, may choose to abolish grand juries or to use them only in certain types of cases. Grand juries may also have investigative powers as well as the duty to review indictments. It’s hard to say how often the decision to use a grand jury is affected by the fact a police officer is the defendant. When a grand jury is not involved, the prosecutor files charges directly and the case proceeds to a preliminary hearing before a judge who decides whether there is probable cause for the case to go forward.
Thanks Jeff. I for one appreciate that Bob decided to take this case to the GJ. Seems to me he was trying to be as fair as possible. He’s being condemned for not being more aggressive to get an indictment. Of course he would have been condemned had he chosen not to seek an indictment on his own as well. No win either way he went.
I agree. The prosecutor was open to claims of political bias no matter what he did. It seems to me that McCullough took a middle course: he didn’t feel comfortable with the case, but he at least exposed the grand jury to all the evidence so they could make an independent decision. Had McCullough simply decided to close the case himself, there would have been even greater outrage along with a greater risk of reactionary violence. There was a lot at stake here.
A person involved in officer involved shooting cases in NY just said on CNN that for the past 25 years almost EVERY officer involved shooting case has been presented to a GJ with all available evidence just like what happened in MO.
Yea, I thought so too – it seems common to me – anyway.
DA’s work with police all the time – I think most of them can be impartial anyway – but the appearance makes it worth going the grand jury route.
I am not an attorney, but as a police detective, I had quite a bit of experience with both prosecutors and Grand Juries. And my experience is some 30+ years out of date too.
The prosecutor (or District Attorney, or State’s Attorney, or Circuit Solicitor, the title varies somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) has a mandate to seek the truth. This is different from a defense attorney’s job, which is to present a vigorous defense of his or her client, without regard for where he or she believes the truth lies. This means the prosecutor is supposed to look at all the evidence, and prosecute those he (or she) truly believes committed the crime in question.
There is no requirement to take a case before a Grand Jury; upon sufficient evidence, a prosecutor, or the police (usually with a judge’s review in the way of an approved warrant) can simply arrest a suspect. At that time, further safeguards apply, such as arraignment and due process.
It has been my experience that a prosecutor takes a case to a Grand Jury when there are questions, to dampen any hint of bias on the part of the prosecutor, or some other extenuating circumstances warrant it. And Grand Juries can take off on their own too! But normally, the only evidence a Grand Jury hears are those things which would make a reasonable person have cause to believe the suspect might indeed have committed a crime. From this arises the truism that a “good DA can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.” This is where the concept of our adversarial system comes into play: the DA presents evidence which suggests guilt (while being required to turn over to the defense any evidence that might suggest otherwise), and the defense attempts to refute that evidence, whether by calling the law into question, the facts into question, or the interpretation of the facts.
I am not absolutely sure the system works as well when a Grand Jury is presented (theoretically) with both incriminating and exculpatory evidence, and without a prosecutor pushing for an indictment. But then I suppose local politics enter in, whether it is that the prosecutor believes that a “no bill” from a Grand Jury is the only way to settle an issue, or if the prosecutor wants to influence the outcome. Which was the case in Ferguson–I don’t know. That is where a Special Prosecutor, with no local connections and his (or her) own investigation should have stepped in. I have seen that happen, in fact it happened in my own family. A new and corrupt mayor in my hometown got a couple of cronies into our police department, then had them take his car and burn it for insurance. As police chief, my father was indicted in the whole mess. The mayor and his cronies were quickly found guilty, but my father’s case kept being continued at the DA’s request. Finally, a Special Prosecutor was brought in from across the state. He sent his own investigative team in to both review all the evidence as well as to re-interview any and all witnesses. Over a year later, almost two, the case came up. Oddly enough, the date on the summons was a holiday; and the courthouse was locked up. We finally got in through a side door, only to find that the case was indeed called–on a day when there were no loiterers or reporters, and only a few courthouse employees around around. My father’s case was called, the Special Prosecutor got up and said there was no evidence against my father, and the judge dismissed all charges against him. Hence the value of an unbiased prosecutor.
John
There are two separate issues here, and it seems to me like most people either ignore one or the other.
Issue 1: a cop shot a man in Ferguson.
Issue 2: the historic and present injustice toward black people in America.
The facts on issue 1 seem pretty clear. The rhetoric of “cold-blooded murder” seems to have been proven false. From what I heard last night, Officer Wilson was within his legal rights when he shot Brown. The facts of this case seem to rest on the side of the officer.
The facts on issue 2 seem pretty clear as well. Centuries of slavery, oppression and injustice have left a deep stain on American society. The fact that IN THIS CASE the shooting was justified does not negate the bigger problem of racial injustice.
We need to separate these two. The American history of racism does not make Officer Wilson guilty. The innocence of Officer Wilson does not negate 400 years of oppression.
“We need to separate these two. The American history of racism does not make Officer Wilson guilty. The innocence of Officer Wilson does not negate 400 years of oppression.”
I think we all can agree on this. 🙂
We need to separate these two. The American history of racism does not make Officer Wilson guilty. The innocence of Officer Wilson does not negate 400 years of oppression.
If this is true, then the people who are hurt and wounded by the verdict have no basis to be hurt and wounded. That is the point.
There is a certain segment of the population* that, anytime something happens involving a white person and a black person, scream “Racism!!! Whitey out to get me, whitey out to get me!” Instead of perpetually claiming to be victimized when the issue is clearly NOT racial, these people need to grow up, accept responsiblity for their lives and move on. Let’s deal with racism when it happens, and it does, but let’s stop giving a voice to people who want to live in perpetual victimhood because “the man” is always trying to “bring them down, yo”.
*And before someone cries “Racist” I’ve read just as many ignorant white people blathering about how unjust the verdict is as I have black folks, so the segment of the population I’m referring to is not defined by race.
If one does not wish to be identified as a racist, it would be well for that person to carefully guard their words against the kinds of generalization, categorization and denigration that tend to mark racism.
Dave, with all due respect, that street goes both ways. I would say that if one does not want to be labeled a race monger (like Al Sharpton, or State Sen Nashid) to need to…
“…carefully guard their words against the kinds of generalization, categorization and denigration that tend to mark (race mongering).”
Well, since Al Sharpton does not, to my knowledge, read SBC Voices, I don’t write much for his sake.
I sure wish you’d take my words to heart, though.
“Issue 2: the historic and present injustice toward black people in America.”
How does that line up with the fact it took white votes to elect a black president? Twice. Does that prove anything concerning point of injustice and skin color.
Are you sure you are not really talking about “class” injustice?
dave
most certainly there are two streams of thought. mixing them is not a good idea.
Dave,
As always, you are a voice of reason amidst the shame of so much nonsense.
You always inspire me!
I think a point that may be missed is that even if the shooting was legally justified, the racial tension that obviously exists in Ferguson (and elsewhere) may have led to an outcome that wouldn’t have occurred had Brown and Wilson been of the same race. Race may have aggravated the response of either or both of these men.
But that is speculation, is it not?
It could be that Wilson was racist inciting him to act out.
It could be that Brown was racist inciting him to act out.
It could be that both were racist inciting them both to act out.
It could be that neither were racist and the events would have played out in the same way if they were both of the same race.
That is why following the evidence only is the way to lead to justice being served. Speculation is not helpful. If evidence had been presented that race was a factor with regard to either or both men – I would certainly expect that to have been presented and considered along with all the other GJ evidence.
Tarheel: My point is, I think people are looking at the outcome (no indictment) and concluding that race wasn’t a factor in the incident. That logic doesn’t follow. Every time a black person expects the worst when they are pulled over by a white cop in a white neighborhood, or a white person’s finger hovers over the 911 speed dial when black kids in hoodies come near, race is a factor, even if nothing bad happens.
When the day comes that the black motorist is pulled over and thinks, “uh oh, was I speeding?” and the white pedestrian thinks “I wonder if those guys would help me carry in the groceries”, then we’ll be post-racial.
Bill, good points. I think the church as the best opportunity to be “post-racial”. Since the federal and state governments build into the current system a reason to pay attention to racial outcomes, I fear that finding a way to “post-racial” relations will be much slower and political.
Interesting.
When I was in High School, I was rather aggressively detained and questioned by black officers simply because I and a group of friends were playing basketball on a court that was in a black neighborhood.
My older brother was stopped and questioned recently on his way to work one morning by a black officer because he took a short cut through a black neighborhood…he was actually told by the cop that “when white dudes come through here it is usually to sell drugs.”
There are two cases of profiling – I wonder if these cops would be considered racists?
By the way, I do not consider either of those cases to be racially motivated – it was actually good policing. When my brother and I, as we were taught, answered respectfully to the officers and did as we were asked by them, the situations ended peacefully.
Notice I said race is a factor, and by that I mean by both sides. So no, the black officers in the latter example were not necessarily racist, but race was a factor in the incident. In your own experience at the basketball court, yeah, they might have been racist. Certainly race was a factor.
Tarheel: I think it is clear, especially the latter, that each incident was motivated by race. That’s not the same thing as motivated by racism.
Tarheel,
Amen!!!!
To those who asked about the Grand Jury, it does vary by state.
But generally prosecutors take cases to a grand jury to obtain an indictment, not as an exercise to see what might happen.
Grand jury proceedings are the most biased proceedings against the defendant. The old saying is that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.
The prosecutor and his witnesses are the only people who appear before the grand jury. The defendant usually pleads the 5th Amendment so he cannot be cross examined.
The defense lawyer is not allowed to be there or to cross examine the witnesses or to present evidence in favor of his client.
A presentation before a grand jury is basically a prosecutor’s holiday. One-sided. No opponent. It’s like playing basketball against yourself.
The case presented before the grand jury is as good as it gets. So if what was presented was not enough to get an indictment, then you know the proof was weak.
There is a difference here in that the defendant was also a police officer and city employee, not a person arrested by the police.
The danger for the prosecution is that he might get an indictment before the grand jury, but when the proof is tested in a jury trial, he ends up loosing. You don’t want to have that happen too many times as a prosecutor.
I suspect that the prosecutor here wanted to make sure that he made a thorough presentation so he could not be accused of doing anything he could to secure an indictment. (e.g. that was one of the charges made in the State vs. Zimmerman case).
It sounds like the prosecutor just put everything before the grand jury and let them decide.
If I were guessing, I would say that the prosecutor was zealous in making sure to present a complete and thorough case, but was probably not as zealous against a police officer as he would have been against a private citizen. But I am just guessing here.
I will say again, however, that if the grand jury thought the evidence was so weak that an indictment was not appropriate, that getting a conviction in a jury trial would have been next to impossible. There you would have an opposing defense lawyer with their own experts etc.
I suspect the prosecutor knew there would not be enough evidence to indict. The whole exercise may have been one of appeasement.
“The old saying is that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.”
In my discussions with people today, I’ve used that old adage several times.
The overarching issue is this:
Officer Wilson operated within his training and the grand jury looked at the investigation and agreed that charges were not warranted. This, with the citizens members of the grand jury going home and seeing and hearing all the threats of violence if they failed to indict him. I can imagine that some of those jurors *wanted* to find enough to indict, just to put off what is happening now. (After all, then it goes to a court trial and then the rioting would be blamed on those jurors.)
The problem is that the system, overall, is tilted. People believe they are on the short-end of the stick and react accordingly.
Whether it is the African-American community in this case, or the Christian community about the Houston subpoena issue, or the ministerial community about the housing allowance—we see people who perceive a threat to their group by the big bad “other.” What do we expect them to do? After all, we go nuts about our own portion–and some of us talk a lot of smack about “I’d like to see them arrest me for preaching this…”
The difference being that the last 400 years have been generally kind to middle-class white people, especially Christians and our clergy. That is not the case for: African Americans; Native Americans; non-Christians and their clergy; Asian Americans; Hispanics; even the poor white folks like the Irish–note the racists of Rock Ridge wanted to compromise and keep out the Irish, and that was an attitude that existed–these have a heritage of surviving in the face of adversity. In the face of a system that teaches them to work hard enough and you succeed, and then handicaps the opportunity to work.
Oh, and also teaches that the way to handle unjust governance is to write up your complaints, destroy commerce by flinging it into the bay and framing innocent people, and then hide in the woods and shoot at the duly uniformed agents of the legal government.
We do all understand that, right? That we are a nation founded on the principle that if you don’t like your government and it’s not listening to you, you turn to violence and destruction to start a new one?
Did we not cheer the demonstrators roaming the streets of Cairo or Tripoli, Damascus or Tehran, wanting to be heard? We celebrate it.
Until it happens here. Then it’s all about how the system “worked” and that’s just the way it is.
We have to change the way it is. The facts, as they sit, do indicate that Officer Wilson was within his training and responsibilities when he fired those shots. Fair enough.
But the system, overall, that has created these problems has to change. We cannot sit in our safe havens and bemoan the problem anymore, because it’s not a system that created this situation.
It’s us. We, the people, have done it.
“””The problem is that the system, overall, is tilted.””” I know people have already made up there minds on this issue–perhaps weeks ago.
So, I understand the basis for the statement made above. It matters very little if this is a “true” statement or not. It fits the narrative for some and so we see statements like this flying like tear gas canisters at the riot.
I do agree that some “people feel this way.” Feelings are nebulous things. I’m not sure they are particularly helpful in dealing with whatever degree of “racial tension” we have in our country.
Also, ethnic tension is by no means limited to our country. It is often the source for armed conflict all around the world and all through history.
To default to heated rhetoric–from either side–will guarantee that workable solutions will be hard to come by.
As I said, I know that many people have their minds made up about the guilt or innocence of the officer. I must confess I don’t know what happened. I must trust our system unless there is overwhelming evidence that a decision should be over-turned.
I see no such evidence in this case and most cases involving police shootings.
The fact is, absolutely no evidence supports making this this statement in regard to Ferguson. How quickly we forget the Trial of the Century. I didn’t hear many black people decrying our judicial system at that time. In that case it was the other way around.
To indict the “whole system over all” based upon zero evidence is simply fanning the flames of status quo. I don’t think it helps anything.
Would someone explain why there were only 3 Black jurors in a town that is 70% Black? That is a issue just as serious as the killing of Mike Brown.
Pastor McKissic,
You know how much I love and appreciate you as my dear brother in Christ. I don’t know why only 3 black people were used on the grand jury, but do you truly believe that white people aren’t capable of assessing the evidence and coming to a just conclusion? What if in the coming days we were to find out that the black jurors voted to acquit, would that have any weight in your opinion?
From what we’ve been told, we won’t be allowed to find out how the jury voted.
Chris,
I was asking a hypothetical question. I’m trying to better understand Brother Dwight’s thinking on this matter.
Brother John,
The quality & depth of our relationship can handle disagreement or even a sensitive conversation.
Yes! If the 3 Black jurors found him innocent, I would feel confident that the evidence & the evidence alone, led to this conclusion. It is inexplicable to me that there were only 3 Blacks on this jury, except that decision was strategic. That disparity also helps fuels the anger.
Also, it has been my experience that leaks are always a possibility.
Thank you brother for your very forthright answer.
Svm exactly right. County prosecutor and the % you quite are right on. And…the GJ was in place by May I think we’ll before this incident.
To answer your question, because this was a St Louis County prosecutor with a St Louis County Grand Jury pulled from the St Louis County jury pool. St Louis County as a whole is 70% white, 24% black. Based on that the jury pool is dead on.
If this is correct – that explains it.
I have to say though that it is completely assuming and Sterotypical typical to assert that white people will always, no matter the evidence, vote a certain way and black people will, no matter the evidence, vote a certain way – is there no individuality – or are votes determined by the color of ones skin? Is there no chance of impartiality or is that determined by the color of one’s skin? Is there no chance of fairness or is that determined by the color of one’s skin?
If this is the position people are truly taking then there truly is no hope we are hopelessly racially deadlocked as a society.
Dwight,
Total speculation here – but I think my guess is are reasonable.
Possibly because juries are randomly (most likely by computer) picked from voter registration rolls and there possibly are less blacks registered to vote?
It doesn’t have to be a racist reason.
Just one more thought, though, as I read some people on Facebook, and hear about Tweets from some more, and read other quotes. It seems like some people are trying so hard to be racially sensitive that they excuse all kinds of bad behavior. And, it’s as if they’re saying, “No matter what the evidence is, lynch the White man. Because, we’ve got to look like we’re the more racially sensitive people. and thus, appear to be more sophisticated and intelligent.” So, the Black man, and the Hispanic man, and the American Indian can do no wrong. But, White people are guilty. Of what? Being White, and for every injustice done to any person of color in the history of the world. Why are we guilty of these things? Because, we’re White.
A preeminently unhelpful comment. Name one person calling for lynchings. Many people are speaking against the arson and looting. No one is saying anything about lynching anyone.
Chris,
It’s a figure of speech, and I think you know that. I was using it in the sense of…”Put the White man in jail for killing the Black man…never mind the evidence, or the facts of the case…never mind if the White man is innocent, or guilty…just put him in prison.”
Again, I think you know what I meant, and you’re trying to make a big deal about nothing.
David
David,
It’s true that I know what you were doing with that comment.
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/ferguson-lynching-michael-brown-darren-wilson/
Actually Chris, there were calls for Wilson to be lynched, even if they were called “mock”.
Your summary is astonishingly misleading. The demonstration there has three people lynching _themselves_ as a way of showing violence against black people. There was _no_ call for lynching Wilson, staged or otherwise. Did you not even try to understand what was happening?
Chris what is preeminently unhelpful is people “Mocking” and harkening to the lynchings of the past in order to provoke and incite anger.
It’s completely irrational and tge height of baiting to even intimate that anyone in civilized America today supports the idea of lynching black people.
Why are you identifying with Wilson being white? What difference does that make? And, when have we seen anyone calling for lynchings of the white man?
I have seen a lot of white people today making racist jokes and comments and denigrating anyone who disagrees with this decision as the equivalent of a barbarian. I have seen far more racism from whites today – white Christians, for that matter – than I have from blacks. I have seen anger and confusion from blacks, but honestly, I haven’t seen a lot of them blaming all whites for this. I have seen them frustrated with the system.
Alan,
Do you honestly think all of this hulabaloo would be going on if Officer Wilson had been Black? I don’t. It’s a racial thing. Officer Wilson was White, and he shot a Black man. And yes, I hear a lot of people saying that Officer Wilson should be put in prison.
David
“I have seen far more racism from whites today – white Christians, for that matter – than I have from blacks.”
I challenge you to look at the #Ferguson twitter feed. Or turn on anything Al Sharpton is saying.
Yep. I was thinking The exact same thing.
Although I will say that there has been way too much racist/revenge seeking/gloating rhetoric going on form people espousing various veiwpoints.
So might be helpful to see what the family did last night.
http://myfox8.com/2014/11/25/michael-browns-stepfather-at-rally-burn-this-b-down/
isn’t Inciting a riot a crime? Doesn’t “justice” demand the arrest of Michael Brown stepfather on that charge?
Nice, Tarheel, real nice.
Of course I think such a charge would be ridiculous Given his understandable emotional state right now – consoling a grieving wife over the loss of her son, very likely he is stepfather loved as well – my point is that cries for justice can come from any corner of any place at any time – most often these cries are tied up in emotion – that’s another reason I am thankful for judicial system that seeks to suck emotion out of the situation and look at the totality of the facts.
I just hope the revenge mentality doesn’t continue to take hold in the Justice Department – they should know better.
Have Black people been mistreated in the past in the USA? Most definitely. Should we understand the anger of Black people due to past injustices? Yes, we most certainly should. Does that mean that a White cop should go to prison, today, for defending himself against a criminal? No way. Does that mean that White people should feel guilty for all the past injustices? No way, again. I never lynched anyone. I never owned a slave. And, does this mean that looting and burning down people’s businesses, and burning people’s cars should be excused? No way…no how.
Well,
I think that there is a lot of misinformation about grand juries and the role of the prosecutor in dealing with a grand jury.
1. There is no defense attorney cross examining witnesses.
2. The Prosecutor is not acting as a Prosecutor in the same way that he would in an actual trial. Why? because he is using the grand jury to determine if the evidence warrants a jury trial.
3. A grand jury’s threshold of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is what is call a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, the threshold of proof is much lower in getting a grand jury to indict than it is in getting a jury to convict.
4. Only a 51% majority is required in order to indict. Even with several blacks on the jury the grand jury failed to indict for even the lesser charge of manslaughter.
All of this information taken together makes me think that the evidence was just not there.
Some corrections to your attempt to address what you call misinformation:
The Ferguson grand jury required 9 of 12 votes to indict. I’m no mathematician, but that’s a wee bit higher than 51%, try 75%.
You say there were “several black” on the grand jury. To be precise, there were 3 – that’s 25%.
3 blacks would make up 25% of the jury Chris. Number two most grand juries require a 51% majority. And number your comment about the prosecutor acting as a defense attorney is just beyond ridiculous.
Further even a 75% required vote (if you are correct)is light years from the unanimous vote required of a trial jury.
…I’m the one who told you that the three African Americans on the grand jury made up 25%, perhaps you misread something…
It doesn’t matter how other grand juries operate, this one required a 75% vote, as indicated in pretty much any news article talking about the Ferguson grand jury. Since your Googling skills might just be lacking, I’ll help you out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-ferguson-grand-jury-process-works/2014/11/24/46599f9a-73f9-11e4-a589-1b102c2f81d0_story.html “In Missouri, there are 12 members on a grand jury and nine must vote in favor of an indictment for there to be one.”
As for the prosecutor, he was not formally the defense attorney, but nonetheless he was the defense attorney. He did not want to indict Wilson and did his best to ensure there would be no indictment.
“He (the prosecutor) did not want to indict Wilson and did his best to ensure there would be no indictment.”
Is this random accusation (yet again without proof) provided with the same conviction of the other pontifications that you have espoused on the case that have been so thoroughly debunked?
Maybe we should just except whatever it is you’re saying as fact because some guy on the Internet said so?
Chris,
Of course he didn’t want to indict the man because he knew that it was not likely that he would get a conviction. Like I said, you do not understand the role of a prosecutor in a grand jury.
John,
He was not acting according to his role, one of the problems with how the Ferguson process went. This has already been pointed out by many people.
Further, given the fact that you brought up that an acquittal is rare adds more credence to the grand jury’s findings not less.
I watched an interview this morning where a man who had been both a defense attorney and a prosecutor said he was doing precisely what he job was.
John,
I’ll see your prosecutor and raise you one of my own.
As for the acquittal, no, that they deviated from the norm does not prove anything given all of the abnormalities of the case and given the available evidence. I don’t know whether or not Wilson was guilty, but the available evidence more than warranted an indictment. That it was not delivered in this case speaks volumes for the integrity of the process, and the prosecutor’s involvement is at the heart of the problems. This is why people from the start called for him to recuse himself and for a special prosecutor to be brought in.
Now, there’s really nothing more to be said, though if you spew enough additional nonsense it might yet goad another response out of me.
Obviously Chris the grand jury disagrees with your assessment and they are the only ones who would know about what the evidence warranted.
Chris,
The fact that a unanimous decision is not required and that a much lower threshold of proof is required, and they grand jury failed to indict on even the least of the charges in front of them pretty much seals it for me.
You were right about the 75% but you were wrong about everything else. I’m sure though the one thing you were right about is more than enough to soothe your overinflated view of your intellectual superiority.
Chris perhaps you should read this link.
PS..I hope that HTML formatting worked.
Opps…well…sort of…
Thanks SV, I really appreciate that article.
Chris Roberts
It is against my desire to speak in a way that is less than kind, however, I have come to the conclusion that your words are getting more nonsensical with each comment.
I understand that the transcript of what the Grand Judy in the MB case heard will be released. If so, you will have the same information as the GJ had.
Bennett,
That’s exactly right. Which means that no one including Chris, me, or anyone else currently has enough information to say that an indictment was “more than warranted.”
But even when the transcripts are released that still not the same as being there on the grand jury and bearing the responsibility that they did.
Chris, are you assuming that the blacks voted one way and the whites voted the another way? If we later discover, as we have with so many of your “fact” prognostications on this issue, that it was not that monolithic – does that change anything in your view?
We already know that all of the witnesses who testified that Michael Brown was charging at Ofc. Wilson were black – so the monolithism that you’re arguing for has already been at least somewhat debunked.
Tarheel, I have no idea how the vote went. I was just correcting Wylie’s numbers. Accuracy is important, you see, though I admit I wouldn’t expect you to get that.
Shall we go back to the August and September confident comments of one Chris Roberts and check them for accuracy?
Been waiting all day for you to correct the record Mr. accuracy.
Chris,
“I have no idea…”
Maybe you should stop there.
“He was not acting according to his role, one of the problems with how the Ferguson process went. This has already been pointed out by many people.”
Who? Al Sharpton, Benjamin Crump, and MSNBC analysts don’t count.
According to a Wall Street Journal article, leaks from the Federal investigations have let slip that “civil charges would likely be unsuccessful”. I wonder why they think they would be unsuccessful if they have all this evidence that should have secured an indictment of Wilson?
Somebody made a observation last Friday that the president’s executive order was made at a time when something explosive was about to happen that would relegate the executive order to the back of the news cycle. Surely someone is going to mention that prediction.
Yes you did, Dean. 😉
(I wonder if Mr. Roberts will admit that you were right – since certainly he was preparing to call you out if you weren’t)
Actually, I was amused to note that the immigration order had already faded from the news. It lasted all of about a day. No distraction necessary.
Lol!
The esteemed Chris Roberts – often wrong but absolutely never in doubt.
Am I wrong that the immigration piece had already faded from the news cycle? Not that it was never mentioned, but it was nowhere near front and center for more than about 5 minutes.
Yes. It has not faded from the new cycle even today.
Now I will say If you’re watching MSNBC you’re not going to see very much potentially negative about the president.
I assume you’re watching MSNBC – because almost everyone of your talking points are regurgitated from it.
Tarheel,
You assume wrong. But you know what they say about assume…
But at any rate, are you saying immigration is still prominent in the news cycle despite Ferguson, so Ferguson hasn’t distracted from it? Now as already indicated, I disagree – it faded even before the grand jury stole the spotlight – but you do seem to be undermining the argument that Ferguson served to distract from Obama’s executive order.
Chris, you’re right – you’re always right.
I bow to your excellence.
Your intelligence is above reproach
How dare I suggest otherwise.
“Professing to be wise they have become fools.”
Keep talking Chris you’re exposing yourself – good day.
Based on the first bit of your comment, I assume that by that last line you mean I am exposing my genius while other people show themselves fools? I didn’t really expect that comment from you, but I do appreciate it. May even print it and frame it. Will you autograph it for me?
Let me be clear the first line was completely sarcastic – I’m sure you know that given your superior intelligence to everyone else in the discussion and for that matter, in your mind anyway, in the world.
“Let me be clear the first line was completely sarcastic”
No takebacks!
Dear Chris: Are you suffering from inner insecurities so much so that you are willing to frame sarcasm? You are not quite as good at your Atheism as you suppose, and besides we have some real historical lessons in Atheism from the 20th century, namely, the Communistic countries. Talk about slaughtering folks. They really take the cake. And How about your perspectives on the moral rule about such murders? And do you wonder about Stalin’s glare upward, when he passed as his daughter says. Solzhenitsyn also shows us how utterly hopeless the Atheistic cause was in his various writings. Have read them Chris? How about C.S. Lewis? And how about the conspiracy that runs the world which Lewis tells us about as a part of his sci/fi fiction, especially the volume titled, That Hideous Strength. Yep, a supposedly fictitious work, and yet he actually names a participant in the Great Conspiracy, but I’ll leave you to find his name in Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist. Have you read Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag or his First Circle or his One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich or his First Circle or his Cancer Ward? Seems like any good practitioner of Atheism would wanted to be up on how to answer critics by knowing the fellow’s views who gave away all the position affirm.
Personally, I think you hang around Christian blogs, especially those of preachers due to a desire, hidden and secret, to get that peace the folks enjoy even in their worst moments. Never forget, when my family was murdered (four of them) that I actually felt someone standing at my shoulder and would turn to see who it was and would even comment on it to my wife. Sometime before that tragedy, Chris, I had a visitation or whatever one wants to call it, a solid half hour of an invisible presence that made me cry tears of joy like I did the night I was converted from Atheism to the Christian Faith. My mind told me that the presence was Jesus. He was more real invisibly than He would have been had He stood before me in the flesh.
And in the conversion, 57 years ago, this past 12-7, I had my eyes wide opening, thinking at a Youth For Christ Meeting, “I would like to go forward.” Then I thought, “Why would I want to do that. I don’t believe any of that is true.” At that moment I saw one before me, standing, with an arm raised like he was knocking at a door. He was about 15-20 feet in front of me, standing in the midst of the pews, wearing red and blue robes, had a beard. My response then was, “Let me out of here.” It was so embarrassing. After all, when you say there is no God and He shows up, it is rather hard on your unbelief. Of course, some folks think I suffered a delusion. Anyway, I planned to tell no one, but before I got home, something or someone, changed my mind and it led to my conversion that night and to tears of joy as I felt the burden lifted off of my heart that I did not even know I had. I have had other experiences, and as to the reliability of the Bible< I attended SEBTS when it was the most liberal seminary in the convention. My thought then was, "They ought to try Atheism, if they want real skepticism." In any case, I found, as a historian, that my faith in the Bible was confirmed by objective methods of study. Moreover, intellectual and psychiatric studies, not counting literary and philosophical and theological approaches, were persuasive as to the fact that the Book presents a wisdom commensurate with its claimed source.
Here’s a really sad story from the Ferguson rioting and looting. Here’s people who really got hurt.
http://fox2now.com/2014/11/25/natalie-dubose-talks-small-businesses-unrest-in-ferguson/
David
I think we have discovered the Chris Roberts doesn’t fact have a God – despite his protesting – his God is his own self perceived intellect.
*does in fact
Lol. Smart phones! Ugh.