VS: FERGUSON: A Miscarriage of Justice
Justice Not Served in Ferguson
Photo courtesy of nbcnews.com
December 17, 2014
The choice not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson is a grave miscarriage of justice, but sadly I cannot say I am surprised. As a weary Atticus Finch told a weeping Jem Finch, “They have done it before, and they will do it again” (Lee). I have many qualms with the decision of Ferguson’s grand jury. The most significant and most persistent is their failure to acknowledge the inconsistencies of Darren Wilson’s account versus witness accounts, assume responsibility, and demand a trial by choosing to indict Darren Wilson.
The witness accounts of Dorian Johnson, La’Toya Cash, and Phillip Walker essentially mirror each other, despite minute differences. The account of Darren Wilson, however, greatly differs. Moreover, Wilson’s “injuries”’ do not align with his story. According to several websites, Wilson likens Mike Brown to a demon with “Hulk Hogan” strength. He also says he felt like a “five-year-old” and his “life was in danger.” What is interesting is there is no physical evidence to back this claim up, besides a minor bruise on Wilson’s cheek. Seems to me a man with Hulk Hogan strength with a five-year-old in his hands could do much more damage than a mark resembling untreated eczema. These disparities would, in my opinion, be enough to indict and try a murderer.
Mainstream media incessantly demonizes people of color, not just Michael Brown; although he has been especially demonized by the media after his murder. It was reported that Brown “robbed” a convenience store the day of his murder. The legal definition of “robbery”’ is “the taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her immediate presence, by force or intimidation.” The circulating video of Michael Brown shows no evidence of force or intimidation, although Brown did push the clerk. It is important to note Brown did not push the clerk until after the clerk put his hands on Brown. If no force is used, it is not a robbery. At most, Michael Brown’s actions coincide with the term “shoplift,” which is defined as “theft of merchandise from a store or business establishment.” Either way, shoplifting does not justify the slaughter of a man. He has been labeled as a thug.
It is also important to note that no one employed at the convenience store called the cops; in fact, it was a customer who dialed 911 and reported what he thought to be a robbery. The attorney of the store owners said, “during the course of Ferguson’s investigation, the police department from Ferguson came to the store and asked to review the tape.” This means Michael Brown was murdered before Darren Wilson knew of Brown to be guilty of robbery. Wilson cannot use Brown’s crime for justification of his capricious, irrational, and, ultimately, unlawful action.
Despite a few who dissent, there is a general consensus that Brown had his hands up. Hands up is a universal sign of surrender; it signifies the aggressor to stop, to cease force, to halt all action. We will never know what exactly happened to Michael Brown, but we can be certain justice was not served. As Atticus said, “seems only the children weep.”
Nick Latessa • Dec 18, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Dear Alex,
I feel compelled to address SEVERAL inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and blatant misrepresentations of both the facts and the law in your article. All of these combine to demonstrate a lack of understanding of both the judicial system and American society as a whole. As such, i will address each of these issues in turn.
You first focus on the testimony of three witnesses, one of whom was a fellow suspect in the convenience store robbery (and yes, I did say robbery, a point on which I’ll elaborate shortly). You neglect, however, to acknowledge the 8 African-American witnesses whose testimony fully backs Officer Wilson’s account of the incident. When weighing conflicting testimony, a grand jury often will take the weight of numbers into account, as well as the relative credibility of the witnesses. It’s apparent that this grand jury chose to believe the 8 over the 3.
Second, you compare the “Hulk Hogan-like” strength of Michael Brown vs the “relatively minor bruise” on officer Wilson’s cheek. What you neglect to mention is that much of the testimony discussed the struggle for the gun in the officers car as a wrestling match, rather than a boxing match.. Thus, the appearance of the single bruise, coupled with the close-in wound on Michael’s hand from the discharged weapon appears completely plausible.
Third, i’ll ignore your attempt to frame the robbery evidence as “racial” and move to the facts of the case. It is disputed by NO ONE the Michael is scene on camera, stolen cigarillos in hand, shoving the owner of the store (a man who definitely cowered to Michael’s Hulk-like frame) into a chip display. Your feeble attempt to say that since he had already stolen the cigarillos at this point that the shove didn’t raise the crime to one of robbery is both factually and legally insignificant. Since Michael was still INSIDE THE STORE when the shove took place, the crime was still in progress. as such, his actions compile together to determine that the correct definition of the crime would be robbery.
Fourth, you mention that Michael had not been identified as a suspect when Officer Wilson happened upon him and Mr. Johnson in the street, therefore Officer Wilson had no reason to stop them. Unfortunately, again the facts are against you. Testimony showed that a description of a “large black male and a small black male” as having just robbed a local store had come out on the radio at the time when officer Wilson encountered them. After having asked them repeatedly to clear the street, Officer Wilson saw the cigarillos in his hand and concluded that these two fit the description given, and then called for backup.
Finally, you refer to a general consensus that Michael had his hands up in an attempt to surrender. Unfortunately, you’re wrong. While there was conflicting testimony on this point (some of which from Mr Johnson was self-serving) the autopsy conclusively showed that Mr. Brown was shot while his hands were down and from the front. This evidence negates the entire “shot while fleeing” argument.
In conclusion, the grand jury did what it had to do based upon the evidence given. While I know you will dismiss this evidence as “tainted” or “racially motivated”, I ask you to look again, this time with unbiased eyes.
Jakob Glass • Dec 17, 2014 at 7:47 pm
With the court system, a judge needs hard evidence in order to issue an indictment. If it looks like there is little to no valid evidence, the judge will not bring that trial all the way through, because without evidence, there is only opinions and words being thrown around. And that is the situation we have here. Dozens of people were supposed “witnesses” to the shooting, but as events proceeded, these witnesses changed. Yes, people said they saw him with his hands up, but three other witnesses also accounted to seeing Brown charging at the officer. Witness testimony was extremely unreliable, where there was almost a new story every person they asked. Even when they felt that some evidence against the officer was forming, it was quickly shut down. As witnesses were sworn in at court, they changed their account of what happened, admitted to lying about their story, or just did not show up at all. In the position of a court, you cannot issue a trial in which there is no hard evidence.
Under any circumstances, it was wrong for the officer to shoot Brown, don’t get me wrong. But with the way witness and and officer report was pointing, the officer followed protocol and legally could shoot. It’s wrong, but legal.
If you wanted an example of racism, poor police, and terrible courts, you could write about the man strangled in New York. The police man there had a history of misconduct, and used an illegal choke hold resulting in a death. The worst part is, the whole incident was caught on camera, and the court still failed to indict him. Illegal actions and misconduct caught on camera, just for him to get off free. Go figure that one out.
In conclusion, we may never know what truly happened with Mike Brown, and even if we did, how reliable is our court system to carry out justice?