Thursday, August 21, 2014

Ferguson: From an Unknown City, to a Household Name

I was initially hesitant to write this post.  Individuals in today’s society are quick to accuse, label, judge, and write-off those having a difference of opinion as ignorant, misinformed, or worse; indeed, if people were still able to engage in healthy discourse involving differing opinions, the necessity of this blog would likely be in doubt. Unfortunately, we, as a society, have moved far beyond the realm of healthy intellectual debate regarding sensitive topics.  So let us travel 100 miles south of my humble abode to Ferguson, Missouri.

It is hard to think of a more inflammatory subject right now than race.  In writing this post I can’t help but wonder if I choose to run for political office years from now, will a string of words be plucked from this article to brand me as a racist – a term I believe is used too loosely in today’s society. Race is a constant theme throughout news stories, often tainting the real facts and issues at hand.  This is not to say the racial divide in this country is a non-issue; however I believe race is exploited to demonize those with differing opinions.  In Ferguson, the narrative ranges from white individuals get away with murdering young black kids because the system wants it that way to black individuals should simply obey whatever orders an officer gives and they will not get hurt.

Let us start with the facts about what happened in Ferguson.  Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by white police officer Darren Wilson. The autopsy showed that he was shot six times, twice in the head and four times in the right arm, all in the front of his body.  The final and likely fatal shot was to the top of his head which, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden the medical examiner who conducted an autopsy at the Brown family’s request, indicated that Michael’s head was bent forward when the bullet struck him. Eye witness reports range from Michael having his hands up, to being shot in the back, to charging the officer.  Michael’s community, primarily black, immediately rallied in support for the unarmed teen.  Darren’s community, primarily white, rallied in support for the officer. Lines were drawn and the racial divide was (and still is) palpable.

First off, the looting is inexcusable and, to my understanding, being perpetrated mostly by non-residents of Ferguson. Those who support Michael should be outraged at how the looters are exploiting his death for their own well-being.  This abhorrent behavior should be no part of “seeking justice for Michael.”

The media coverage is overwhelming.  It is an important story to cover, but the amount of speculation, non-verified statements, and opinion presented as fact makes it difficult to ascertain what exactly is occurring in Ferguson.  Are cops in military vehicles harassing peaceful protesters and reporters, or are local officers being pelted with rocks and molotov cocktails while protecting the local Ferguson business owners by arresting looters?  Depending on which news station is reporting, this story lands somewhere between a non-story inflamed by the liberal media and Rodney King.  My guess is it is somewhere in the middle. 

Aside from the extremes, however, both sides are asking for the same thing: justice.  What is justice in this case?  I have a feeling I would get a different response depending on which “line” in Ferguson I asked. One side wants Darren arrested and has little faith in a legal system which has a record of disproportionately charging, convicting, and sentencing young black men. The other side, wants the people of Ferguson to quit protesting, accept their story, and conclude that Darren was just doing his job. 

Our criminal justice system is one of procedure.  Justice is not achieved in a day.  A grand jury has been convened and, to me, the process of achieving justice is underway.  The Attorney General of the United States has been to the area and ensured that his office will investigate the shooting and possibly bring civil rights violations.  Having  Mr. Holder, a well documented advocate of civil rights, present should provide added comfort that justice is being pursued.  Yet, the protests continue and whether justice will be served (and accepted by those disappointed in the result whatever it may be) remains to be seen.

If Darren had racism flowing through his blood and killed Michael with malice in his heart, I hope the legal system would prove this and he would be locked up forever.  If Darren used unnecessary force in killing Michael, not out of racial animus, but in a moment of heightened emotion, I would hope the legal system would prove this and he would be locked up accordingly.  If Darren killed Michael after a fight and in self-defense while being charged by Michael, I would hope the legal system would prove this and he would be released. Each of those results would be a just one, and I would feel that justice could be considered served if this matter ended in any one of the aforementioned ways.  The fact is, we have a legal system to determine these facts. I am not racist, nor am I choosing sides, in asking that we wait to see whether or not Darren is indicted and what facts come to light at trial.  If he is not indicted, the grand jury should not immediately be labeled racist. Likewise, if he is indicted, the grand jury should not be accused of caving to political and social pressure.  No media has all the facts.  I know nothing about Darren or Michael aside from what has been reported, and no one knows what Darren was feeling when he pulled the trigger except himself. Hopefully, all the rumors will be filtered out by a courtroom and we will gain a clear picture of what happened.  I hope that the legal system works as it should, and I refuse to condemn the process in this case before it even begins; however, I understand the mistrust some have about the legal process.


My honest hope is that this incident leads to healthy dialogue about race in this country.  It is one we need to have.  One where the term racist is not flippantly tossed around. One where an individual can address issues like the rate of children born out of wedlock and the disproportionate sentencing of crack and cocaine, without pointing fingers and instantly declaring that the other side is incapable of understanding.  We need to end the divide and begin working towards a solution.  I think it would have been good measure for the Attorney General to have met with both Darren’s family and Michael’s family, instead of just Michael’s.  I think it would have been a positive step for the local police in Ferguson and the local residents to stand together and ask for justice, whatever the result may be. Sadly, it appears our country is not ready to have this dialogue, and both “lines” in Ferguson are to blame. 

4 comments:

  1. Thanks! Healthy dialogue is just what we need. How did we as people become so defensive? What are we trying to defend? Our defensiveness most likely stems from a good purpose and intention to protect ourselves and our culture(s) and yet it's not helping us move forward.

    How do we enter into this healthy dialogue in order to mend these divisions? I think we need to start with taking the bold move to trust others - others that do not share similar views or are in some way different. We need to trust and not be afraid of change AND to change...rather, embrace what the future can look like when we do mend differences...through healthy dialogue.

    How can we defend without being defensive?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Greg,

    Thanks for your nuanced analysis of such an incendiary issue. "What is justice in this case?" I fear that the "line" that feels slighted will find it easy to say the deck is stacked against them--if Wilson is not charged, Brown's supporters would say that the system is racist. If Wilson is convicted of murder, Wilson's supporters would say that the result was inevitable given the violent protests.

    Unfortunately, it sounds like there is no good outcome unless people radically change, in the way that you and Lindsey suggest. A good start would be seeking out people who are different from ourselves. Broaden our social circles. Remove ourselves from ideological echo chambers. That takes humility and patience. As you point out in your last paragraph, Greg, it means realizing that the other side IS capable of understanding. No one side has all the answers.

    ReplyDelete