An inherent bias against the system
When we examine the history of the United States it makes it simple to understand the inherent bias that people of color hold against law enforcement, the judicial system and government in general. Legalized slavery was the law of the land for more than two centuries. Laws were passed to prevent the thousands of Chinese laborers who came to the U. S. in the post Civil War era from permanently immigrating to the U. S. Japanese-Americans who were U. S. citizens were interred in concentration camps during World War II. The Immigration Act of 1924, which severely limited immigration of Africans and prohibited the immigration of Arabs, East Asians and Indians, remained more or less in effect for more than 40 years. Add to that decades where lynching was not prosecuted, where "Whites Only" signs prohibited access to restaurants, restrooms and so many other public places and it makes even more sense for people of color to believe they will never get "fair" treatment.
Darren Wilson's testimony to the grand jury seems implausible to this former military cop. It must be noted that most of us will never face a life or death situation where we truly believe we must kill or be killed. That doesn't mean that we can leap to a flawed conclusion that an unarmed teen was murdered solely because he allegedly stole a box of Swisher Sweets (there is nothing sweet about how those nasty things smell, BTW). The grand jury concluded that Darren Wilson did not commit a crime. The big question about that is just how was the mass of evidence presented to the grand jury.
Was it the intent of the prosecution to seek an indictment, to seek exoneration of Officer Wilson, or to present a fair and impartial view of the evidence for the grand jury to conduct a proper review? We will never know. I suspect the prosecutor and his assistants were much more invested in the exoneration of Officer Wilson rather than seeing him indicted.
Would a trial where Officer Wilson was acquitted have changed the outcome in Ferguson? Probably not. Any outcome where he wasn't charged with and convicted of a crime in the death of Michael Brown, Jr., would have been less than satisfactory to many. Even if irrefutable evidence were to be presented at trial that completely exonerated Officer Wilson, there is a belief that an injustice was done and redress is owed.
We fail to learn the lessons of our history. In 1979 Arthur McDuffie, an African-American insurance salesman was killed following a high-speed chase. Janet Reno (who would later become our nation's Attorney General) was the lead prosecutor who tried the four officers accused in Mr. McDuffie's death. They were acquitted and the riots that erupted in Liberty City, Goulds and other portions of the greater Miami area resulted in more than a dozen deaths. For the purpose of full disclosure, I could have been killed in those riots. I was in a car with friends that drove through the very intersection where a crowd began pulling white people out of their cars and beating them, only an hour or so before the violence began. A subsequent federal civil rights trial resulted in more acquittals.
Then there was the Los Angeles riots of 1992. 53 deaths and thousands of injuries in the wake of the acquittal of the officers who severely beat Rodney King. One can only wonder what kind of violence might have been done had Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon had not been convicted of violating Mr. King's civil rights in a federal trial.
Conservatives point to the fact that all of the victims of white officer versus black suspect involve situations where the "suspect" had committed some kind of crime. That is not the issue. The issue is the treatment of that PERSON in how they are treated during and subsequent to their apprehension. Cops talk about "stick time" and "catching up" as their way of expressing street justice. There's no need for that. That I think anyone who ignores lawful orders to surrender is being foolish doesn't change the fact that many people of color fear being taken into custody. Based on the events of our recent past, can we blame them? I think not.
I am saddened that the legacy of Michael Brown, Jr., will be another round of rioting and hope this path can be altered. We should take action to force every single state government to pass a Michael Brown law, that mandates every single armed police officer must wear a POV camera anytime they carry a weapon. It isn't enough to require cops to wear a camera when they are on duty. If they are permitted to carry weapons while not working, because they have a duty to enforce the law 24 hours a day then it only makes sense that their actions be subjected to a form of scrutiny that is transparent to all. Further, these cameras must be set up so that the cops who wear them cannot turn them off.
The next step in solving the problems that are causing crime is for everyone to watch one documentary film and to read one very informative book. The film is "Inequality for All" where former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains the cause of the growing inequity of income in the U. S. The book is "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol. Most of the crime in economically deprived areas results from the inequities in income and educational opportunity in those areas.
Preventing another tragedy like the death of Michael Brown, Jr., won't be easy. But the criticality of doing so cannot be overstated. Perhaps someday we can begin to erode that inherent bias.
Darren Wilson's testimony to the grand jury seems implausible to this former military cop. It must be noted that most of us will never face a life or death situation where we truly believe we must kill or be killed. That doesn't mean that we can leap to a flawed conclusion that an unarmed teen was murdered solely because he allegedly stole a box of Swisher Sweets (there is nothing sweet about how those nasty things smell, BTW). The grand jury concluded that Darren Wilson did not commit a crime. The big question about that is just how was the mass of evidence presented to the grand jury.
Was it the intent of the prosecution to seek an indictment, to seek exoneration of Officer Wilson, or to present a fair and impartial view of the evidence for the grand jury to conduct a proper review? We will never know. I suspect the prosecutor and his assistants were much more invested in the exoneration of Officer Wilson rather than seeing him indicted.
Would a trial where Officer Wilson was acquitted have changed the outcome in Ferguson? Probably not. Any outcome where he wasn't charged with and convicted of a crime in the death of Michael Brown, Jr., would have been less than satisfactory to many. Even if irrefutable evidence were to be presented at trial that completely exonerated Officer Wilson, there is a belief that an injustice was done and redress is owed.
We fail to learn the lessons of our history. In 1979 Arthur McDuffie, an African-American insurance salesman was killed following a high-speed chase. Janet Reno (who would later become our nation's Attorney General) was the lead prosecutor who tried the four officers accused in Mr. McDuffie's death. They were acquitted and the riots that erupted in Liberty City, Goulds and other portions of the greater Miami area resulted in more than a dozen deaths. For the purpose of full disclosure, I could have been killed in those riots. I was in a car with friends that drove through the very intersection where a crowd began pulling white people out of their cars and beating them, only an hour or so before the violence began. A subsequent federal civil rights trial resulted in more acquittals.
Then there was the Los Angeles riots of 1992. 53 deaths and thousands of injuries in the wake of the acquittal of the officers who severely beat Rodney King. One can only wonder what kind of violence might have been done had Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon had not been convicted of violating Mr. King's civil rights in a federal trial.
Conservatives point to the fact that all of the victims of white officer versus black suspect involve situations where the "suspect" had committed some kind of crime. That is not the issue. The issue is the treatment of that PERSON in how they are treated during and subsequent to their apprehension. Cops talk about "stick time" and "catching up" as their way of expressing street justice. There's no need for that. That I think anyone who ignores lawful orders to surrender is being foolish doesn't change the fact that many people of color fear being taken into custody. Based on the events of our recent past, can we blame them? I think not.
I am saddened that the legacy of Michael Brown, Jr., will be another round of rioting and hope this path can be altered. We should take action to force every single state government to pass a Michael Brown law, that mandates every single armed police officer must wear a POV camera anytime they carry a weapon. It isn't enough to require cops to wear a camera when they are on duty. If they are permitted to carry weapons while not working, because they have a duty to enforce the law 24 hours a day then it only makes sense that their actions be subjected to a form of scrutiny that is transparent to all. Further, these cameras must be set up so that the cops who wear them cannot turn them off.
The next step in solving the problems that are causing crime is for everyone to watch one documentary film and to read one very informative book. The film is "Inequality for All" where former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains the cause of the growing inequity of income in the U. S. The book is "Savage Inequalities" by Jonathan Kozol. Most of the crime in economically deprived areas results from the inequities in income and educational opportunity in those areas.
Preventing another tragedy like the death of Michael Brown, Jr., won't be easy. But the criticality of doing so cannot be overstated. Perhaps someday we can begin to erode that inherent bias.
posted by me at 3:48 PM
