The Shooting of Michael Brown and the Rioters in Ferguson
Since the killing of Michael Brown and the subsequent riots in Ferguson, MO continue to dominate the news, let's try to use our reason and common sense to parse through what we actually know to be facts, rather than the sometimes stupid, sometimes outrageously slanted reporting by the media.
First, Mr. Brown's stealing of cigars doesn't appear to have anything to do with his being shot by a police officer. The Federal government and the governor of Missouri didn't want the video of the robbery released. I suppose it was because they thought it would only muddy the waters related to the shooting. But there's no reason it should. Now that we know Brown stole and that we know the shooting wasn't in response to that crime, we can simply acknowledge the facts and move on. Can't we?
So far two autopsies have been performed, one by the local government, as would be done in any incident like this shooting, and one ordered by the family, the results of which were just released yesterday. Apparently the Justice Department, which will now insert itself into this case, will also perform an autopsy, for a total of three.
When the result of the family-ordered autopsy was released, the reporting focused on the fact that Mr. Brown was hit by six shots, the last of which entered the top of his skull, indicating, according to reports, that he was falling forward when that shot hit him. And that shot was deemed to be a fatal shot. But let's remember here that there's nothing odd about six shots hitting this man. If the officer thought he needed to shoot - and I'm not saying he was justified here, just that he seemed to have believed he needed to shoot - then he would have fired multiple shots to be sure that the perp was down if not dead. You don't fire shots one at a time and check after each shot whether it hit the target and accomplished the goal of stopping the perp. To imply that somehow multiple shots are a problem is idiotic, don't you agree?
We still don't know exactly why the police officer shot Mr. Brown. Neither the film of Brown robbing a store, nor the autopsies, nor the testimony of witnesses has established anything we can get our hands around. The witnesses, one of whom was Mr. Brown's partner in crime during the robbery, are not known at this time to be credible. Maybe one or more will prove to be, but we don't know this now. And so a rush to judgment is totally inappropriate.
The mother of the victim called for the arrest of the police officer who shot her son after the release of the autopsy she authorized. While I sympathize with any mother who loses a child, since there's nothing about Brown being shot six times that indicates that a crime was committed by the police officer, obviously arresting him at this time would not be upholding the law. It would just in some way comfort the mother, I suppose, but that's not what law enforcement ought to be doing. That's obvious, right?
As for the police response to the demonstrators, who have at times turned into rioters, this appears to be mixed bag of over-reaction and appropriate response. Having not been there, nor having any reliable facts upon which to base any judgment of whether the early police use of riot gear and armored vehicles was over-kill, I'm simply giving the benefit of the doubt to those who believe it was. That's why the state trooper captain was brought in to supervise the response to the subsequent demonstrations. But with the latest violent outburst Sunday night, even the state trooper captain insisted that a forceful response was appropriate. Of course, the media reports also had one of the rioters shouting about how the police somehow cause these outbursts, but it strikes me as doubtful when you see people looting during the riots. It's only natural to conclude that the looters are more interested in enriching themselves rather than seeing that justice is done.
We haven't even addressed the racial issue here: Brown was black; the cop was white. But there's not much to say here, and there's absolutely no evidence that racism had anything to do with this shooting.
I suppose it's asking too much of the media to hold back and temper their reporting, which they could do by keeping their opinions in check and focusing on the available facts. But it's not asking too much for the rest of us to temper our response and exercise some prudence in how we judge things. Taking a step back and assessing what we really know so far calls for suspension of judgment until more facts become available. I hope you agree with that and that you have taken such a stance. Getting sucked into the emotionally charged reporting and allowing a grieving mother's feelings and comments to sway you one way of the other won't serve the cause of justice, which should be the whole point here.
First, Mr. Brown's stealing of cigars doesn't appear to have anything to do with his being shot by a police officer. The Federal government and the governor of Missouri didn't want the video of the robbery released. I suppose it was because they thought it would only muddy the waters related to the shooting. But there's no reason it should. Now that we know Brown stole and that we know the shooting wasn't in response to that crime, we can simply acknowledge the facts and move on. Can't we?
So far two autopsies have been performed, one by the local government, as would be done in any incident like this shooting, and one ordered by the family, the results of which were just released yesterday. Apparently the Justice Department, which will now insert itself into this case, will also perform an autopsy, for a total of three.
When the result of the family-ordered autopsy was released, the reporting focused on the fact that Mr. Brown was hit by six shots, the last of which entered the top of his skull, indicating, according to reports, that he was falling forward when that shot hit him. And that shot was deemed to be a fatal shot. But let's remember here that there's nothing odd about six shots hitting this man. If the officer thought he needed to shoot - and I'm not saying he was justified here, just that he seemed to have believed he needed to shoot - then he would have fired multiple shots to be sure that the perp was down if not dead. You don't fire shots one at a time and check after each shot whether it hit the target and accomplished the goal of stopping the perp. To imply that somehow multiple shots are a problem is idiotic, don't you agree?
We still don't know exactly why the police officer shot Mr. Brown. Neither the film of Brown robbing a store, nor the autopsies, nor the testimony of witnesses has established anything we can get our hands around. The witnesses, one of whom was Mr. Brown's partner in crime during the robbery, are not known at this time to be credible. Maybe one or more will prove to be, but we don't know this now. And so a rush to judgment is totally inappropriate.
The mother of the victim called for the arrest of the police officer who shot her son after the release of the autopsy she authorized. While I sympathize with any mother who loses a child, since there's nothing about Brown being shot six times that indicates that a crime was committed by the police officer, obviously arresting him at this time would not be upholding the law. It would just in some way comfort the mother, I suppose, but that's not what law enforcement ought to be doing. That's obvious, right?
As for the police response to the demonstrators, who have at times turned into rioters, this appears to be mixed bag of over-reaction and appropriate response. Having not been there, nor having any reliable facts upon which to base any judgment of whether the early police use of riot gear and armored vehicles was over-kill, I'm simply giving the benefit of the doubt to those who believe it was. That's why the state trooper captain was brought in to supervise the response to the subsequent demonstrations. But with the latest violent outburst Sunday night, even the state trooper captain insisted that a forceful response was appropriate. Of course, the media reports also had one of the rioters shouting about how the police somehow cause these outbursts, but it strikes me as doubtful when you see people looting during the riots. It's only natural to conclude that the looters are more interested in enriching themselves rather than seeing that justice is done.
We haven't even addressed the racial issue here: Brown was black; the cop was white. But there's not much to say here, and there's absolutely no evidence that racism had anything to do with this shooting.
I suppose it's asking too much of the media to hold back and temper their reporting, which they could do by keeping their opinions in check and focusing on the available facts. But it's not asking too much for the rest of us to temper our response and exercise some prudence in how we judge things. Taking a step back and assessing what we really know so far calls for suspension of judgment until more facts become available. I hope you agree with that and that you have taken such a stance. Getting sucked into the emotionally charged reporting and allowing a grieving mother's feelings and comments to sway you one way of the other won't serve the cause of justice, which should be the whole point here.
Comments