So whether someone deserves death doesn’t have much to do with how just their death is? That seems backwards to me personally.
Nor does extreme stupidity seem like a worthy reason for death, either. Quite the opposite, in fact. An extremely stupid person would be incapable of rational analysis of a situation. A person who deliberately and with knowledge of consequences does something which results in their death, some responsibility may be laid at their door. But if they’re extremely stupid, it makes no sense to say that death was “justice”.
I think a more accurate summarisation of your position, so far as I understand it, is that you don’t consider Brown to be worth much, and so his death isn’t a big loss. Would that be correct? I apologise if I’ve misunderstood you.
The real issue is that riots are going to continue until we educate blacks that our criminal justice system is largely fair and just. The reason blacks are arrested more often is because they have a higher rate of criminality. Blacks need to understand that it’s not a crime to kill a black person who is trying to harm or kill an other person, it is self defense. Being black doesn’t mean you get to hurt people and face no consequences. This false narrative of a failed criminal justice system which mostly works empowers all kinds of nonsense. People are rioting in the street literally because they believe democracy means that a jury must do what the mob says.
The point is that Brown is the person responsible for the death and suffering, not Wilson. Yes, it’s terrible that a young man was killed. But it’s less terrible than a policeman being a murderer, and it’s less terrible than having two grieving families, if Wilson were jailed. For that matter, it’s less terrible for someone to be killed as a result of their own idiocy than for them to be murdered.
And it’s far, far less terrible for someone to be killed in legitimate self defence than for someone to be falsely convicted of murder, which is what many here want to happen.
One question asked by a reporter is sticking with me. The reporter asked if the grand jury vote were unanimous. The question startled me a bit, wondering why I hadn’t thought of it. The prosecutor answered that not only did he not know, but no one knew nor was allowed to say if he did!
There is, as I understand it and only to that meager extent…a threshold that must be met before an indictment can be rendered. That number, if I understand correctly, is higher than a simple majority. Protection for the innocent, I suppose, a worthy purpose. But if that is so, it opens the possibility that the majority of the grand jury favored some sort of indictment, but not enough to overcome that barrier.
It means that the tiny little piece of his brain that’s still human and not completely sociopathic has realized that it must not think further about the things he’s posted tonight or else it’ll have to snuff itself out in shame.
I think it goes to far to say that Michael Brown deserved to die because of his behavior that night. I do think it is fair and correct to say that his behavior resulted in him justifiably being shot. After that, it’s just up to where the bullets landed. I do think he was a bully and wouldn’t be surprised if he had turned into a thug. But he could have very well turned it all around and become a productive member of society. If his behavior that day was an anomaly, then its a tragedy he died. If it was to be just the beginning of a life of thuggery, good riddance. But we’ll never know.
We are given to understand that every bit of evidence offered to the grand jury was copied to the Justice Dept. I have confidence that Atty Gen Holder is not in cahoots with the Ferguson cops, so if it passes through them and they declare it kosher…so be it.
By all means, please make this argument to the next African-American you meet. Heck, I’ll even let you wait to pick out one who’s older and seems relatively well off.
Let us know how that works out for you.
(Perhaps Jessica Williams of The Daily Show? Maybe you can connect through Twitter.)
I am surprised by the decision and frankly perplexed. Shooting someone six times seems, well, over the top.
Here’s the thing though, with a reduced evidentiary standard there wasn’t even enough evidence to indict. This isn’t abouy race or about “privilege” but about the facts. It doesn’t fit your narrative, too bad.
It’s about the decision to kill. Once that’s been made, seeing it through thoroughly is not an issue to me. If it were five bullets to his joints and one to the head five minutes later, that would be something else entirely, but being shot six times isn’t overkill.
This is effectively the difference I was attempting to look at with Martin Hyde’s post.
Our good friends at Talking Points Memo have photos from the evidence, showing the officer in the hospital, being treated for the wounds from his savage beating.