I had just read a nauseating post by self-declared liberal pragmatist Justin Barogona, who authored this despicable sentiment:
“The fact is that the protests would quickly simmer down if a handful of actions were taken, none of which involves SWAT teams, tear gas, riot gear, assault rifles or armored vehicles. The moment Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson gets charged with the murder of Mike Brown, the city of Ferguson won’t find itself overtaken with protests, rallies and marches…Wilson needs to be charged with a crime, and that needs to happen sooner rather than later. Anger and frustration will only continue to build upon itself as long as Wilson isn’t staring down a murder charge.”
This is essentially extortion, bordering on terrorism, I thought. Is this really mainstream liberal thought today in the United States—mob coerced indictments, regardless of truth, due process or fairness? Sacrifice a possibly innocent public servant so Ferguson, Mo. won’t burn? Bragona’s smug insistence that the obvious course of action is to charge a man with murder for political expediency marks him as beneath contempt, an enemy of the rule of law as well as basic fairness and decency. But how close is the position of Eric Holder and the Justice Department, as well as President Obama?
This story, telling us the the Obama Administration is promising civil rights leaders “justice,” is ominous. “Justice,” to the protesters and those who decided to make the death of Mike Brown another symbolic indictment of white racism, and the facts be damned,means only one thing: tar Darren Wilson as a racist killer. Is Obama playing a dangerous game of deceit with his core supporters, or is he merely promising justice as it is supposed to be, letting the law follow the facts after an objective investigation? The latter is the obvious ethical and responsible course, indeed the only legitimate course. I don’t believe that is what is intended or meant, however. I think the Obama Administration is determined to prosecute Wilson regardless of what the investigation reveals, because it does not have the integrity or courage to oppose the mob, and “liberals” like Bragona.
Then I read about Isis beheading photo-journalist James Foley, and their threat to kill another American if Obama doesn’t capitulate to their demands. As the two situations began to coalesce as a blog post in my fevered brain, Chris Marchener posted what follows, making my post superfluous.
Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, Ethics Train Wrecks Collide, As The Redskins And Trayvon Martin’s Mother Board The Ferguson Express:
I took pains not to link these events to terrorism but in light of the brutal beheading of the photo-journalist James Foley a case can be made. The comparison is simple. ISIS states that unless the US does as it demands it will suffer more beheadings of the remaining captives. A Missouri state senator, Jamilah Nasheed, said if the officer is not indicted tomorrow by the Grand Jury the riots that occurred recently will look like a picnic compared to the havoc that will come. (I think I got the quote right but it is not in quotes because I got it from an audio source).
Such statements can be interpreted as cautionary or as a threat. I will bet that any riots that break out will be explained as just cautionary and justified as “understandable” by her. Her word however carry a different message to her constituents; those words will have been heard as a call to action by the rioters. If US policy is not to negotiate with terrorists then we cannot concern ourselves with the behavior of malcontents in determining sound decisions that pass Constitutional muster.
If the Grand Jury finds that probable cause does not exist from the facts the people – not the government – came to that conclusion and the rest of us have to accept it. If the Grand Jury factors in the threat of violence and an indictment is returned then the Grand Jury system has been obliterated by those seeking to profit from the threats of violence. What exactly will we be left with if our judicial system cannot be trusted? Vigilante justice.
I am appalled at the rhetorical behavior of those whose name is preceded by the “Honorable” when they engage in the deliberate inciting of violence when they don’t get their way.
The protesters want an indictment of officer Wilson not because of what happened but because it represents as an indictment against to system that they want to invalidate and a validation of their claim that the criminal behavior of many young poor men (of all colors) is somehow justified and rational. I would ask how many indictments of white officers will be necessary make the black community feel no longer oppressed by the police and the criminal justice system?
In my hypothetical solution, I posited that if they can never trust the police no matter what then the police should simply be defunded and leave these people to protect themselves.
If I were a white police officer I would be looking for a new line of work when our elected officials are so quick to disavow the due process requirement in favor of racial preferences of the electorate.
There is no leadership on this issue.