America's Ferguson protests put police authority on trial
Night of protest shows the two solitudes when it comes to dealing with police
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News
Posted: Nov 26, 2014 5:00 AM ET|
Last Updated: Nov 26, 2014 8:55 AM ET

Years ago, a fellow journalist affixed what I thought was a terribly clever sticker to his bumper.

"Question Authority," it proclaimed in capitalized yellow letters.

I adored that bumper sticker. It seemed a most elegant assertion of individual rights in a democracy.

It also turned out to be a magnet for impassive traffic cops intent on writing tickets for the slightest infraction.

Of course it did.

What happened in Ferguson, Mo., last summer was a great deal more serious than being rousted for a smart-alecky bumper sticker, but it began the same way — somebody questioning a cop's authority.

Officer Darren Wilson told grand jurors that when he told Michael Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk that Saturday afternoon instead of down the middle of the road, Brown replied "fuck what you have to say."

Eventually, they tussled at the window of Wilson's cruiser. Finally, with both of them outside on the street and facing one another, Wilson shot the unarmed teenager to death.

There are different accounts of what happened in those final seconds. Wilson testified Brown, already wounded in the hand, charged at him and looked "like a demon."

And the grand jury declined to indict Wilson. Of course it did.

Enforcers of the status quo

Most police despise any challenge to their authority. Some will abuse it, if necessary, to protect that authority, and the system can allow them to do that.

Some police are bright, professional and educated. Some are louts. Some are racists. You never know which variety you're facing.

But what they all have in common (outside Great Britain) is the weapon at their hip, and the implicit threat of its ultimate use to settle matters.

Let me acknowledge the obvious: I'm a privileged male Caucasian and I have no idea what it's like to be a young black man in a mostly black American city where the police are mostly white. Pretty nasty at times, I imagine.

But I've had my share of dealings with police, in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere in the world, and there is a universal truth: when police demand submission, it's best to submit.

You can complain later. In democracies like America, actually in America in particular, people enjoy individual rights and judicial recourse against arbitrary behaviour.

But as the family of Michael Brown, and so many others in this country have discovered, police are more than enforcers of the law.

They are enforcers of the status quo that provides their employment and power, and the system they protect has conferred upon them something very close to an immunity, which can be a terrifying reality, especially for underprivileged minorities.

Jenny Durkan, a former U.S. attorney in Seattle, wrote convincingly about this in the Washington Post after the grand jury verdict in the Michael Brown case on Monday.

She described trying to rein in a police department that had a pattern of abusive behaviour toward minorities, and running into a wall of legal protection.

Basically, a prosecutor must prove a policeman wasn't acting in good faith in the moment in question, which ranges from difficult to impossible.

When a Seattle officer shot and killed a Native American woodcarver who failed to drop his carving tool quickly enough, an inquest jury found the policeman was not in danger, and that he hadn't given the woodcarver enough time to drop it.

A criminal jury, though, acquitted the officer, finding that he, indeed, did believe the woodcarver was a threat.

Fear factor

Durkan's office then tried to assess whether the Seattle police had been violating federal civil rights in some of these cases, which is what Justice Department officials are doing in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson now that local prosecutors stand accused of steering the grand jury away from an indictment.

But, writes Durkan, "federal law sets a very high bar, and essentially requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer intended to deprive a person of his civil rights … It is exceedingly difficult to prove such specific motivation."

And why does society grant such effective immunity to police? Fear.

Fear of evil, fear of the other, fear that the membrane between civil society and barbarity is easily ruptured, as the looters and arsonists among the civil rights protesters in Ferguson managed to prove, with theatrical irony, after the verdict.

Clearly, there are people with well-grounded anger at class divisions who feel the appropriate response is to go out and help themselves to some shop owner's goods, or burn down a building.

And there are actually "advocates" willing to defend that kind of action. ("You can rebuild a shop, but you can't bring a young man back to life.")

All such behaviour does, of course, is deepen the system's willingness to let police behave as they see fit.

It's a safe bet that my fellow privileged white folks felt a whiff of fear, and gratitude for their local police as they watched the post-verdict rioting in Ferguson and elsewhere.

But the Ferguson story, with its pictures of militarized white cops training their combat weaponry at the crowds, has also brought the issue of race and class into awfully sharp relief.

Everybody, including President Barack Obama and Robert McCullough, the prosecutor who announced the grand jury verdict, agreed something has to be done.

Obama, who seemed unable to hide his disappointment at the verdict, talked about a system "in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion."

But both men offered only bromides about holding a public discussion on accountability. As though that's going to change anything.

The best practical suggestion came from Michael Brown's family: Ensure that every police officer working the streets of America wears a body camera. That would certainly help.

Many police cruisers are already equipped with dash cameras. And the Ferguson case demonstrated the fallibility of eyewitness accounts.

So why not pin digital cams on uniforms? They would act as impassive, accurate monitors, both in cases of police abuse and when someone falsely claims police abuse.

I suspect police here will probably resist the idea, though. Nothing questions authority like hard video evidence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/america-s- ... -1.2850038

Brown was warned. He should have stopped.

Doesn't justify extra-judicial execution... oh, wait... he was black.

I guess because Brown was black Wilson should have handed over his gun and let Brown shoot him.

There was no reason to kill him. None.

Training

So y'all are training murderers rather than cops?

Training
. Our targets are black after all.

Is that an attempt at humour?

Exactly, jab! ~ this, along with the "unusual" misuse of the grand jury, bothers me ... a LOT ~

Cannalee, I agree that Michael Brown should have stopped ~ but at least equally if not even more importantly, he should not have been killed ~ there are just too many contradictions in Wilson's own testimony ~ I heard snippets of Wilson's interview last night ~ and he claims he would not do anything differently in a "do over" ~ still exactly ZERO remorse about taking another's life ~ that says a lot about his mindset ~

Sooz

And FTR, while I do understand the frustration and anger boiling over, and sympathize with those who got the subliminal message that black lives have no value, I do not support or even understand the destruction ~ I see that destruction as self-defeating ~ but I do strongly support the Brown family's message of [paraphrasing here] "let's make a difference, not just noise" ~

Sooz

Perhaps if minorities the disenfranchised simply stopped co-operating with society?

TBogg is a blogger who often uses mega hyperbole to make his point ~ but in this commentary, he nails it with bull's-eye precision IMO ~ there are a few "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Revenge is a dish best served cold
TBogg | 25 Nov 2014 at 13:21 ET

The series of unfortunate events that began on Aug. 9, when a white police officer gunned down an unarmed black teenager in the street in Ferguson, Missouri, played out exactly the way we knew they would. The black teen’s death was dismissed as an outcome unworthy of justice while the white police officer walked.

We all knew this would end badly for everyone who is not Darren Wilson, an incompetent and panicky cop who squeezed off 12 shots, many when the victim was half a football field away, because he feared a punch from Michael Brown “could be fatal if he hit me right.” Evidence of the Brown’s death-dealing punching power can be seen in the medical examiner’s photo seen above, although if it looks to you like someone who leaned on their own hand, elbow on the table for five minutes, you’re not alone.

I don’t hate cops. In fact I don’t even like the word “cop,” preferring ‘police officer’ because I have a lot of respect for anyone who takes on a thankless, mostly shitty job, that requires them to wear a six to eight pound Kevlar vest out the door everyday because someone might try to kill them. I have police officers in my extended family, one of my best friends has been a police officer for over twenty-five years, and my daughter recently graduated with a masters in criminal justice with an eye on going into federal law enforcement, although she could very well end up as a police officer. They’re all good people working in a profession the public hates until they need them. Good police officers like them are hurt when bad police officers like Darren Wilson get away with murder.

You didn’t need to have a background in courthouse procedures to know that something didn’t seem right when St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch addressed the press Monday night. Instead of speaking as an advocate for the victim of crime who can no longer speak for himself, McCulloch sounded like a defense attorney cautiously explaining that his client was innocent all along, while inwardly suppressing his glee that he got a big win.

Wilson got away with murder because McCulloch wanted him to get away with it. He sandbagged the case instead of prosecuting it, throwing a mass of conflicting evidence at the grand jury, virtually tossing up his hands his and saying, “I don’t know. What do you guys think?” The overwhelmingly white grand jury, inclined to side with a white police officer who believed his life was in imminent danger from a large black man, took the unfocused mass of testimony and conflicting statements and punted.

Questions about McCulloch were raised days after Brown was gunned down, with people clamoring for Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to appoint a special prosecutor without ties to St. Louis law enforcement to handle the case. Nixon, whose incompetence has been on display since the police went ‘Armies of the Night’ on Ferguson protestors months ago until his press conference a day ago, sat on his hands which seems to be the extent of his skill set as an administrator.

Given a nod and a wink, McCulloch, decided to take the case to the grand jury where he worked the almost impossible, thereby getting him off the hook for not pressing charges himself.

The prosecutor, whose police officer father was a shot down in the line of duty by an African-American man when McCulloch was only twelve, may very well have seen Michael Brown and Darren Wilson through the prism of his own life experience. As the saying goes: “revenge is a dish best served cold.”

Despite the risks involved, Darren Wilson likely would have been better served had McCulloch charged him and taken him to a public trial where the whole world could see the evidence presented and the testimony given, instead of a very private and secret trial away from public scrutiny. Although McCulloch made public the transcripts, evidence, and testimony from the grand jury proceedings, what is lost is the dynamic of seeing and watching how questions are asked and answered. As we’ve seen countless times before, it’s very likely a jury in public trial — which would doubtless have been moved — would have let Wilson walk too, as they tend to side with police in the majority of cases where it is hard to quantify and dispute the fear of personal safety.

Not that that would have made Wilson’s life post-trial any easier, as George Zimmerman can attest, but it would at least have removed the stigma of something that was hidden away from the public because it was shameful and unjust. Wilson is not off the hook yet, since the Justice Department is still mulling over federal charges, and Wilson and the Ferguson police department are undoubtedly facing a major civil suit, but his life is for all intents and purposes is over now.

Wilson is now the face of police officers gone bad, acting criminally and then walking away because a badge shields them from any repercussions of criminal activity. Previously the only image we had of Wilson was a fuzzy picture taken at an award ceremony a few years back. Now everyone in America knows his face because of the examiner’s photo showing off his ‘war wound.’ Wilson, who just married a fellow police officer — out on sick leave for the past few weeks due to “stress” — a month ago will never work in law enforcement again. Despite support from some members in law enforcement, no one is going to touch the toxic cop with a history of violence. From this point forward he and his bride will spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder wondering where retribution will come from. They’re going to be living in the cage built by his actions on Aug. 9.

From now on Wilson is going to be “Hey, aren’t you that guy…?” and he’ll have to wonder how it will play out from there. He’s alive but his life is over and his future is full of uncertainty, fear, and paranoia.

As the saying goes: “revenge is a dish best served cold.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold/

I understand what you're saying, but I see the looting and destruction as a clear sign of not "... co-operating with society" ~ and that's not working out so well ~

Sooz

All they'd need to do is not show up for work. Since that group includes women (unequal pay for equal work, etc.) the economy would grind to a halt in no time. The 1% would react immediately.

I realize this thread is getting old, but a few things trouble me about Bogg's , blog. First of all there was a sitting grand jury due to be dismissed in September. Because of the August 9 shooting the jury was held over. So the members were already seated at the start of this case. Secondly Mr Bogg makes a ģŕand jury sound sinister as.well as secretive. Fact is a.grand jury has broad investigative
powe;rs ànd it's use in this case was right

Cannalee2 wrote:

I realize this thread is getting old, but a few things trouble me about Bogg's , blog. First of all there was a sitting grand jury due to be dismissed in September. Because of the August 9 shooting the jury was held over. So the members were already seated at the start of this case. Secondly Mr Bogg makes a ģŕand jury sound sinister as.well as secretive. Fact is a.grand jury has broad investigative
powe;rs ànd it's use in this case was right

Oh heck, Cannalee! Here you are suggesting a grand jury which heard a whole bunch of evidence might make a better decision than a whole bunch of people who haven't got a clue what happened. There's no need for a trial. Just hang Wilson. No matter how strong the evidence in his favor might be, any outcome other than "guilty" wouldn't do.

Hell, you've got this blogger Sooz posted earlier who, I presume, would be willing, under the same circumstances Wilson faced, to throw his daughter and best friend to the wolves without a trial. That's how deep the prejudice runs.

I agree that "... a grand jury has broad investigative powers" ~ but St Louis County prosecutor McCullough misused the entire grand jury process ~

A grand jury is NOT a trial jury ~ a grand jury's entire purpose is only to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a defendant to trial ~ FULL. STOP. ~ there is virtually no voir dire process, where both defense and prosecution attorneys get to ask the potential grand jurors questions ~ a grand jury hears testimony from a limited number of people, usually police investigators, but McCullough brought in over 60 witnesses ~ it is very "unusual" for the potential defendant to testify to a grand jury, but Williams testified for over 4 hours ... without any cross-examination ~

As County Prosecutor, McCullough is allegedly an advocate for the victim but, instead of risking a full trial, he made his case FOR WILLIAMS to the grand jury ~ maybe the real fault here is the on the governor, who, with full knowledge of McCullough's family history [his father was a cop, killed in the line of duty by a black man decades ago], refused to appoint a special prosecutor ~

The other troubling aspect [altho not related to the grand jury] is that Williams and George Zimmerman each described their victims using almost identical words ~ ~ and while I can't attest to the "innocence" of either Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin, I know that neither deserved to be killed on the days and in the ways they died ~

Sooz

As I understand it, a Grand Jury is similar to a Juge d"Instruction in France.
The function is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.
We have Preliminary Hearings.

Your ridicule is noted, jim ~ but if that is what you're taking away from this discussion, then you have a comprehension problem ~ I worked for a major law firm my entire working life, and I know how the process works ~ I also know how "irregular" this grand jury was ~

To be explicitly clear, I deeply believe [as does "this blogger" I posted above] that Wilson SHOULD have gone to a full trial ~ as do most legal experts ~

Sooz

Exactly, oskar ~ which is why I said "... A grand jury is NOT a trial jury ~ a grand jury's entire purpose is only to determine if there is enough evidence to bring a defendant to trial ~ FULL. STOP. ..." in my above post ~

Sooz

I should think that there's a mechanism to challenge a Grand Jury that has clearly exceded it's mandate.

And here I thought grand juries operated in secret. But apparently everyone knows, not only what testimony was given by all 60 witnesses but even what was in the prosecutor's mind when he was presenting the case. As I said, regardless of the truth, the only satisfactory outcome here had to be guilty.

I think the procedings are secret as they are ongoing but once they are over and a decision is reached they become part of the public domain unless specifically ordered otherwise by a judge. I could be wrong.

Normally, only the decision is made public, altho most of the same information becomes public if an indictment leads to a trial ~ FTR, jim, I posted a link to the grand jury documents in post 11 above, which the county prosecutor released the day after the decision was announced ~ I'm still working my way thru them ~

I repeat: my opinion is based on my decades of personal experience working at a major US law firm and on the opinions of US legal scholars and experts ~

Sooz