Jay Nixon is Right to Plan Ahead

We await the verdict, such as it may be, of the grand jury investigating whether Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson wrongfully shot and killed 18 year old Michael Brown. Speculation about what may happen runs the gamut from having charges brought against Officer Wilson up to his being cleared of any wrongdoing. In the meantime, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has already deemed the St. Louis area to be in a state of emergency and supporters of Michael Brown are making various demands, and mostly demanding an indictment of Officer Warren.

What's wrong with that, that last bit? Simply that it leaves us to question whether the people, of Ferguson really want justice or not.

Shouldn't the system be allowed at least the chance that it will work? Remember that working actually means doing justice, and the Darren Wilson is an entitled to justice as Michael Brown. Yet when protestors openly demand an indictment, they are for all practical purposes demanding to have there way about the manner without regard to any actual right or wrong.

It's that sort of knee jerk reaction to events however possibly awful which brings the entire community down. We can almost imagine that no matter what the grand jury finds there will still be rioting in Ferguson after an announcement is made, because what happened isn't about doing right but rather about what a supposedly put upon community wants solely because it wants it. Most of the protesters, we'll venture to say, don't in fact give a hoot nor a holler about the young man who was killed. They simply want to lash out for whatever vague reasons.

That is not justice. But it is the mob mentality. As such, we believe Jay Nixon has the right idea.

Darren Wilson's Past

Okay, we had hoped by now to keep quiet, at least for a few days, about the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. But we simply can't.

It appears that Officer Darren Wilson began his police career at a department which has been disbanded because of allegations of racial tension. The Huffington Post reports that news here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/24/darren-wilson-jennings-police-department_n_5704133.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D519874

We actually have no problem with this revelation. Although it should not be a factor in whether Officer Wilson is guilty of murder or not we recognize that it's okay to look into the character traits of a person in determining whether they are capable of such heinous acts. Just like it's okay to look into Michael Brown's character to see if he may be the type of person to assault a cop, but being willing to set that factor aside should it be irrelevant to Officer's Wilson's actions against him.

What galls us is that we aren't supposed to look at Brown's history in determining his possible culpability in a very serious matter, yet are encouraged to study Wilson's past to see if we can glean evidence that he might be racist. If there's any such thing as a double standard, this is it.

Either stop looking at the past of both of the central characters involved in the incident or allow everyone in law enforcement to probe into them and draw their own conclusions. We can't presume Michael Brown a thug simply because of his personal history. And Officer Wilson isn't automatically guilty due to a past association with racism. All we ask is consistency, and a willingness to give the law a chance to follow threads wherever they may lead.

Why Distrust Police Authority?

One of the things which the troubles in Ferguson, Missouri have brought out is the question of distrust. So many people simply don't trust police authority. Why?

The are certainly socioeconomic factors involved, and there's no use denying that. Yet how far can that be used as an excuse for a lack of trust? Even conceding the point, don't we reach a time when they simply don't matter? Sure, crime is higher in high poverty areas than in the more affluent parts of the country. We get that. We get too that the temptation to commit crime is higher among the poor, and at times that's arguably a mitigating factor. But does that excuse the crime or the criminal?

We get as well that the higher crime areas attract greater police attention. But shouldn't they? It's where the crime is, isn't it? And it leads us to wonder if, maybe, just maybe, at least some of the mistrust is predicated on that: the people 'harassed' by the police know the cops will be looking for them because to some small degree they know they're in the wrong. They know the questions they're going to be asked will be ones they prefer not answer precisely because they understand that the only answers they can give are the wrong ones. And they know that certain actions are wrong: try stealing from a thief if you don't believe it.

Then we face what the Missouri Highway Patrol, Ferguson Police, National Guard and various federal authorities face with the nightly (though apparently decreasing) marches in Ferguson. Would you trust a group of angry looking young men walking towards you, their faces hidden with bandanas? No? Then why should a cop?

We know that poverty and all the ills it brings isn't necessarily the fault of the poor. But we also know that crime cannot be excused merely because you're poor. And we think a lot of distrust of police authority comes from that and not from the poor being held down by the broader society. At some point, you're responsible for yourself. If you stay clear of trouble you won't likely fall into it. And most people, even the poor, understand basic right and wrong.

Very often, yes, distrust of the cops is born of fear. Yet that fear might only be of getting caught.