@Frank Apisa,
Quote:I have addressed the fact that I think six bullets into the body of Brown, who essentially was stopped for jaywalking, SEEMS excessive.
The reason for the stop does seem justified--Brown and his friend were walking down the center line of the street.
But the shooting had nothing to do with the original reason for the stop. All of the eyewitnesses I've heard all describe an "altercation" or a "tussle" with Brown while the police officer was still in his car. One of them said it looked like they were arm-wresting. So there was some sort of physical confrontation going on, that may, or may not, have involved Brown going for the officer's gun, and may, or may not, have resulted in injury to the officer. No one who witnessed the scene could tell exactly what was going on between them.
But the shooting apparently occurred after the officer exited his vehicle, and he was seemingly not being physically attacked at that point. And the witness accounts differ in what transpired then. So a main issue is going to be whether Brown still posed a legitimate threat once the officer was out of his car with his gun drawn.
I think the video of the convenience store robbery, which does show Brown aggressively shoving the store clerk aside, may be relevant in revealing Brown's state of mind prior to his interaction with the police officer. The unlawful behavior in the store was followed by unlawful behavior walking down the center of the road, and a continuing belligerent attitude in not responding to the police order to get back on the sidewalk. And it's not clear just how belligerent and aggressive Brown might have then gotten with the officer while he was still in his car. Brown might have also feared being arrested, not for jaywalking, but for the strong-arm robbery he knew he had just been involved in, and that's a serious charge, and he may have panicked and become aggressive when the officer stopped and confronted him for something unrelated. So we really don't know what the officer found himself dealing with in a situation that seems to have rapidly escalated.
We haven't yet heard the officer's side of the story, nor has any forensic evidence yet been released that clarifies the events of the shooting. The police may have erred in allowing the media coverage to be so heavily dominated by only one side of the story--the community outrage over what they perceived to be the "execution" of another unarmed black male by a white cop. and the civil unrest and nightly dramatic clashes with law enforcement that then followed. But, the media had only one side to report because the police department didn't provide anything to counterbalance it. So coverage became all about racial tensions, and long-standing pent-up grievances with the police, and political jockeying, and less about whether this particular shooting was justified or not.
I'd much rather see this situation adjudicated in a court room than decided in the media, but I don't think that's going to happen, and I think the media will crap up the possibility of that happening. Simply the constant interviewing of eye witnesses by the media allows the witnesses to be influenced by each other's version of events which is already a contaminating factor. Eyewitness accounts are often unreliable, and having them listen to each other's versions of events would only make them more so.
I agree with you that we don't have enough information to make a judgment about whether this shooting was justified or not. But too many people in Ferguson seem to feel otherwise, they've already decided the police officer is guilty, and nothing short of his conviction is going to satisfy them. I can only wonder what will happen there if the Grand Jury doesn't hand down an indictment.
There is obviously considerable racial tension, and anger, and frustration in Ferguson, and this shooting was just the spark that caused it all to come to a head. Rather than just demonstrating in the streets, I hope the black population of Ferguson takes this as a wake-up call to vote, in order to better exert their influence in their community to effect change. Black voter turnout there is abysmally low, particularly in odd numbered years, but it's in odd numbered years when the municipal government there is elected. A community that's almost 70% black, shouldn't have predominantly white faces in it's municipal hall, or on it's school boards, or be so under-represented on its police force. I think substantially increased voter turnout would be one of the most positive outcomes of the activism this shooting has energized.
I'm glad that Al Sharpton has sent a similar message.
Quote:‘Twelve percent turnout is an insult to your children’
08/18/14
By Steve Benen
The Rev. Al Sharpton, host of msnbc’s “Politics Nation,” spoke at the Greater Grace Church’s services yesterday, and addressed the crisis surrounding Michael Brown’s death from a variety of angles. Of particular interest, though, was one of Sharpton’s challenges to the community itself.
“Michael Brown is gonna change this town,” he said, before criticizing the paltry voting record on the area. “You all have got to start voting and showing up. 12% turnout is an insult to your children.”
That was not an exaggeration. The historical and institutional trends that created the current dynamic in Ferguson – a largely African-American population led by a largely white local government – are complex, but the fact that black voters haven’t been politically engaged has contributed to the challenges facing the community. In the most recent elections, turnout really was just 12%.
Patricia Bynes, a black woman who is the Democratic committeewoman for the Ferguson area, told the New York Times that last week’s developments may shake the complacency that too often shapes local politics. “I’m hoping that this is what it takes to get the pendulum to swing the other way,” Bynes said.
To that end, Ferguson residents have had an enormous amount of work to do over the last several days – mourn, grieve, protest, and recover, all while struggling through moments of violence – but haven’t forgotten about the importance of civic engagement in general, and voter registration in specific.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published a piece over the weekend that included a striking detail (thanks to my colleague Laura Conaway for the heads-up).
Rev. Rodney Francis of the St. Louis Clergy Coalition pointed to voter registration tent at the scene. “That’s where change is gonna happen,” Francis said.
Debra Reed of University City and her daughter, Shiron Hagens, were working at the registration tent. They said they set it up on their own.
“We’re trying to make young people understand that this is how to change things,” Reed said.
Note, some Republican-led states have made voter-registration drives far more difficult in recent years – Florida, for example, has imposed harsh restrictions without cause – but no such hindrances exist in Missouri.
State GOP policymakers have taken steps to restrict voting rights and curtail early voting, but none of this should be seen as an excuse to discourage Ferguson residents from registering and participating. The kind of systemic changes many in the community crave can be achieved through the ballot box.
To repeat Sharpton’s message: “You all have got to start voting and showing up. 12% turnout is an insult to your children.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/twelve-percent-turnout-insult-your-children
