By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
I agree with those who tell us that we should strive to understand “how the other guy” sees things and not assume the worst about his motives. It is not only “nice” to do this. It is also effective. It gives us a leg up in the debate over the issues of the day. It is no great victory when we tear apart a caricature of the position of those who disagree with us; it leaves us wide open for the counterattack.
It was for that reason that I went out of my way to try to understand the arguments of those who insist that the Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson behaved in an egregious manner when he shot Michael Brown, even though everything I read, especially after the grand jury decision released its findings, convinced me that Wilson did what any police officer would have done in similar circumstances.
I did not spend time pondering the motives of everyone who condemned Wilson: Michael Brown’s parents, for example. They can be excused for not wanting to discuss the possibility that their son had behaved in a criminal manner and for insisting that Officer Wilson “wanted to kill someone” that night. They should be given some space to grieve before we charge them with speaking irresponsibly. I also dismissed the rantings of the street thugs and leftwing activists who used the shooting in an opportunistic way. Al Sharpton will always be Al Sharpton, likewise the people who are disposed to parrot the lines he feeds them.
But what of educated people who pride themselves on their ability to think clearly and present the truth to the public? Could it be that many of them were being intentionally unfair when analyzing what happened in Ferguson? It looked that way to me. No matter how diligently I work at it, I can’t put myself in their shoes.
Let’s start with Adam Howard, a frequent commentator on the website msnbc.com. On November 28 he objected to Officer Wilson’s testimony that Brown continued to charge him with intent to kill even after being shot and wounded several times.
Writes Howard, “It’s hard to fathom what is more absurd, the idea that a multiple gunshot wound victim would keep coming for more, or that a grand jury would believe it. I’ve never been accosted by the police, which makes me something of a statistical oddity. I assume however that if I ever am, I would be terrified and I certainly wouldn’t attack an armed officer. I’m not a coward. It’s just that I just don’t have a death wish. And, contrary to some peoples’ opinions, neither do the overwhelming majority of African-Americans.”
What are we to make of this logic? What is relevant is not whether an msnbc.com commentator would charge a police officer after being shot, but whether Michael Brown did. I think we can assume that Howard would not rob cigars from a convenience store and violently shove the clerk who tried to stop him (as Brown was recorded on videotape); that he would not throw punches at a policeman sitting in his patrol car (which several grand jury witnesses testified Brown did).
Officer Wilson does not deserve to be called a liar because a television reporter would not react in a confrontation with the police in the manner that the grand jury determined Michael Brown did.
What the grand jury had to consider, by definition, was not what most people would do, but an extraordinary occurrence, a criminal act, an attack on a police officer by a powerful young man under the influence of drugs who had just a short time before robbed a convenience store. Howard has to know that.
The same can be said of the reaction on the website salon.com. Salon was founded by Michael Kinsley, a widely published reporter and columnist and longtime co-host of CNN’s Crossfire. It prides itself as being on the left, but in a serious and high-minded manner. Salon’s target on November 24 was not as much the grand jury findings as the reaction of prominent conservatives to it on Twitter. The Salon column was entitled “Right-wing’s sick Twitter celebration: Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, Brit Hume battle for grossest Darren Wilson tweet.”
I reread what Coulter, Nugent, and Hume said on Twitter. I can’t figure out why Salon is raking them over the coals. Remember now, Twitter does not give you space to explain the subtleties of your position. It limits you to 140 characters. Here’s what Coulter said: “MO guv: Cops will protect lives, property & ‘free speech.’ Only people who’s free speech is threatened are whites cowering in their homes.” Ted Nugent? “DarrenWilson did good MichaelBrown did bad justice is served.” Brit Hume repeated National Review editor Rich Lowry’s quip: “Liberals pride selves on their supposed adherence to facts, but can’t accept them in Ferguson.”
Where is the “sick celebration” in the above comments? What is “gross” about them? One could object to the cold-hearted tone of Nugent’s remarks. But no one would mistake his grasp of the English language for William F. Buckley’s. What Nugent was saying was that the grand jury’s verdict depicted Michael Brown as an unjust aggressor and Wilson as acting in self-defense, in the manner that police are taught. What is “gross” about saying that? About being pleased to find an innocent police officer being found innocent?
Ann Coulter is known for acerbic comments, but her Twitter remark is beyond reproach. She was not attacking Michael Brown, but the Missouri governor for his cloying bout of political correctness. Come on: No one was going to deny the “freedom of speech” of the demonstrators that night in Ferguson. The police were going to respect peaceful protesters. That goes without saying. And, yes, there were white people that night in their homes with their doors locked, fearing what the rioters might do to them. Coulter was making a legitimate observation. Where is the “sick” content in what she said?
Brit Hume’s point was equally unobjectionable. It was clear — or at least permissible for an observer to conclude — that many of the demonstrators were unwilling to listen to the facts placed before them by the grand jury; that they had settled on a scenario that served their political agenda, or their eagerness to do some looting. If an observer can’t criticize rioters for robbing liquor stores to express their dissatisfaction with the justice system, we have reached a sorry state.
My point is not that Wilson’s account of what happened that night in Ferguson — and the grand jury’s willingness to accept it — cannot be questioned. What is unfair is to apply this double-standard.
Do I have a theory for the double-standard? I do.
I think the motive is a desire to right past racial injustices in this country by making exceptions for black lawbreakers in a way one would not for white. That is why Michael Brown was characterized as a “gentle giant,” when he was clearly a violent young man with a criminal past. It is why excuses were made for demonstrators who insist that Brown was shot while standing peacefully with his arms raised, when the evidence is overwhelming that that is not true.
Making Wilson a sacrificial lamb to serve this end is simply wrong. The maxims about the “rights of the accused” and being “innocent until proven guilty” apply to policemen as much as to law-breaking young men. It is not as if Salon and this MSNBC reporter were the only ones engaged in these cheap shots. Similar reactions could be found all over the Internet, the cable news programs, and the blog sites. It was an unattractive and worrisome moment for the country.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress