I can’t bring myself to declare a liberal senior editor of a progressive magazine an Ethics Hero simply for writing an objective analysis of the Darren Wilson grand jury decision because the vast majority of his ideological brethren are refusing to demonstrate similar integrity and disgracing themselves. Nevertheless, John Judis’s essay titled “The Ferguson Decision Was Not a ‘Miscarriage of Justice.’ Liberals Need to Accept That.” is a relief and a pleasure to read in its matter-of-fact recognition of reality. He is an analyst with impeccable hard left credentials: his curriculum vitae suggests that he is a socialist. He does not, however, believe in twisting the truth and misleading the public to further a political agenda. There is hope.
Here are some highlights:
- “The physical evidence ruled out that Wilson had shot Brown in the back while running away, as Brown’s companion Dorian Johnson initially had claimed. And it was not conclusive one way or the other on whether Brown had, after he turned around to face Wilson, tried to surrender. In all, the forensic evidence did not prove Wilson innocent of killing Brown when he was trying to surrender, but it also did not give the grand Jury “probable cause” to indict him on that basis. Other evidence may surface, but from what the grand jury learned, I think it did the right thing, and that it’s also unlikely—given this evidence—that the federal government, which must meet an even higher evidentiary standard, will choose to indict Wilson….”
- “By suggesting that the grand jury did the right thing, I am not exonerating the Ferguson police department, or other police departments. Many police departments are more likely to arrest without good cause or shoot without sufficient provocation a young black male than anyone of another sex or race or ethnic group. If Wilson himself had been better trained, he would not have killed Brown….there are a host of reforms that need to be made to police departments as well as changes in the law. And it is worth holding demonstrations to demand these. But I am suggesting that liberals are wrong to characterize the grand jury decision as a “grave miscarriage of justice” or to demand, as Moveon.org has done, that the federal government “arrest and prosecute Officer Darren Wilson.” These kind of charges and petitions only serve to exacerbate racial tensions and to cloud the underlying issues….”
Someone should get him meetings with the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the St. Louis Rams. Maybe he could explain why continuing their “hands up” demonstrations makes them look foolish. I don’t agree with some of his conclusions, particularly his belief that Robert McCulloch should have recused himself in favor of a Special Prosecutor, which would have ensured a miscarriage of justice with a repeat of the George Zimmerman show trial. Compared to virtually all other commentary from left-leaning commentators, however, Judis is clear-eyed, candid and fair….and correct.
_____________________
Pointer: Newsbusters
Source: The New Republic
Ethics Alarms 
Refreshing, yet too little too late.
Jack, this is heartbreakng to watch. You and a significant fraction of youur countrymen are tearing yourselves and each other to pieces.You are becoming ever more strident and enthusistic that an analytical treatment of the ehics involved here can resolve something and that anyone who says otherwise or in an emotive style must be a liar. Meanwhile because an emotive style of argument is an unfair advantage you also seem to feel you are entitled to any excess or offence in claim or form of language you care to adopt. In defence of what is good and noble – and rational and strictly truthful in analytical terms.
Their is a ‘murder’ side and an ‘injstice/insanity’ side. Both convinced they are right, both convinced that victory for their side will solve the ‘Ferguson probllem’ or Race to name it properly. Both covinced that the other side are liars.. Both convinced that they are entittled by the abuse of principle of their opponents to disregard their own. There are liars on both sides but far from as many as you think.
Both sides are wrong, both sides are right. Both just in their different ways. Both utterly irrelevant. Their is no ‘side’ in America or t least there shouldn’t be.
All I can do is cry.. So that’s what I’m doing.
Like I said Jack, me and this site? Too much passion at my time of life.
Goodbye. ATB.
By my count, this is the third time you’ve sayonara-ed me.(By the way, I usually ban commenters the first time they do that. It’s the stage director in me. I detest false exits: they are obnoxious and disrespectful to the audience.) It’s also about the tenth time you have fallen into the Holocaust denier validation trap. People have no right to railroad someone for murder, or any crime, because it feels good. They have no right to operate by Big Lie ideology, repeating something that is not true and that they would or should know isn’t true if they would be objective and diligent, harming society as a result. They absolutely have no business continuing to make the same counter-factual arguments after the law, facts and expert opinion shows them to be wrong. Exploiting the ignorant is wrong, creating distrust and hate is wrong. Pointing this out has to be done in the most emphatic, non-ambiguous manner possible, because obviously, these people do not pay attention easily.
Not all issues have two sides, Bruce, and there are not fair and valid opposing positions in every controversy. Feelings are not facts. Biases are not facts. Your passive and lenient attitude creates a nourishing environment for liars, fools, and knaves.
Those, like you, who lazily resort to false equivalencies with every controversy are simply unwilling to accept the hard facts of truth-telling: all opinions are not valid, and some opinions deserve no respect at all, and must be treated accordingly. It doesn’t happen often, but I have seldom seen a clearer case. Your approach guarantees periodic outbreaks of self-inflicted societal harm, and those like you have aided and abetted so many historical disasters that I couldn’t possibly list them. You really should do something about that. Sure: people regularly insist, falsely, that their opponents are absolutely wrong. That doesn’t mean that on occssioans this is the only rational response. It was the rational response, for example, to slaveholders’ desperate raionalizations to justify the continuation of slavery. You presumably would have been among those who accused Harriet Beecher Stowe of being emotional and on-sided, and not admitting that the other side had some valid points to, and that slavery wasn’t all bad. Given the choice between those people and the extreme utilitarianism of John Brown, I’m beginning to think Brown’s was the lesser evil.
Meanwhile, bye. (You can apply for re-instatement, of course, but you need to reform first.) You’re an interesting guy, and provide a useful piece of the puzzle as to why finding its way to ethics is so difficult for societies: the ones who see all conflicts as “Can’t we all just get along?”
“If Wilson himself had been better trained, he would not have killed Brown….”
I like the excerpts you highlighted of his, but this one line doesn’t really say much. Hell, if Wilson had been better trained Brown would have been dropped in fewer shots. If Wilson had been better trained Brown’s arm would have been broken in the car during the struggle. If Wilson had been better trained, he would have been a neurosurgeon and nowhere near Ferguson. If Wilson had been better trained he would have said some Spock-ian psychology to suddenly convert Brown into a perfect citizen on the spot. If Wilson had been better trained… Come on now… that’s not a road to go down in this.
Nonsense. I don’t care how well trained Wilson was, Wilson’s level of training would have next to no impact on Brown’s decision to become aggressive after being told to get out of the middle of a road by a police officer. And no, Wilson’s tone of voice is irrelevant. However a police officer tells you to quit violating the public space of a busy road is irrelevant, you are doing wrong, get out of the road. An officer can say “hey guys, do you mind letting the traffic by, thanks!” or he can say “move your fucking ass off the road dick-holes”…you are still in the wrong and a physically aggressive response to either extreme makes you EVEN MORE IN THE WRONG. All of which is completely non-dependent on Wilson’s training level.
(to be clear, in the extreme of an officer saying “move your fucking ass off the road dick-holes”, the proper response is to file a complaint or take even more aggressive *legal* action later)
Yes, I said I wasn’t completely thrilled with all aspects of his analysis, but I’m still impressed, given who he spends all day talking to. On the training issue, it is, as you suggest, hindsight bias. Yup, maybe the perfect police officer would have handled the situation differently—it’s such a cheap criticism whenever facts go south. If Brown had been raised properly, or not warped by toxic cultural influences in the black community, or not had step-father who likes inciting riots, or if he had been raised in a stable two parent household–funny, I don’t hear anyone making those arguments. Wilson thinks his training saved his life, and he should know.
“If Wilson himself had been better trained, he would not have killed Brown….”
Anyone who says this better come up with an explanation for what training and what action he should have taken so their statement can be analyzed as reasonable or asinine. I somehow doubt John Judis did think of what change in training or policy would have changed the outcome. My guess is that he threw that in because he still can’t accept the idea that people who attack police officers sometimes get shot and killed for it and the police officer isn’t automatically guilty of a crime in such a case.
If you are wondering what training or alternate action is possible, I saw it on the news. A local police officer stopped a car and the plate was registered to someone with outstanding warrants for violent offenses. Since there were three people in the car, he called for backup and didn’t approach the car until said backup arrived. It was a good call, because one of the passengers opened fire on them. Now, it appears Wilson did call for backup, but maybe the Ferguson department should have a policy that the officer fall back and follow a group like Brown and his friends (suspected violent criminals) until the backup arrives. Brown still may have attacked, but it wouldn’t have been as dire a situation for Wilson.
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for him to get mobbed? I’ve noticed a trend that when a lefty bucks the party line, the majority converges on them like sharks with blood in the water. It’s like a lefty scab is worse in their mind, no matter how coached and qualified his opinion, than a righty towing his line.
Dead right on that one. One of the things I love about liberals is that they tend to eat their young.
This is the party line among my lefty friends.