Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, the linking of the two incidents was bound to happen. For many people, many of them African-Americans, it was inevitable. The events that happened on August 9th 2014, were going to be examined through the lens of Trayvon Martin's murder by George Zimmerman. How the prosecution in setting the entire grand jury process and witnesses could ignore that is shocking and puzzling.
After the Zimmerman trial, many African-Americans and other minorities felt crushed by the decision. It looked like justice was not rendered when Zimmerman walked free from the courthouse. The prosecution was blamed for what was seen as a lukewarm attempt to convict. The racial makeup of the jury, a jury of six with only one African-American and a Latino was questioned in its adequacy of understanding the many nuances of the case and to render the correct verdict. Those errors would again be committed in Ferguson.
The prosecutor for the the St. Louis County, Robert McCulloch and the Governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon behaved in the worst possible way. McCulloch, whose father was a police officer killed by a black man should have recused himself from the process as not to tint the result, but he refused. The governor, who was asked by the Brown family to appoint a special prosecutor for this case, an action that is in his power, refused to do so unless McCulloch recused himself from the case, something that for his political ambitions he was never going to do. So in the end rather than having a special prosecutor and grand jury so that the results would be seen as impartial, the situation was that the leading prosecutor was a man who was seen as possessing a bias towards the police.
 |
| Michael Brown Jr. |
Even with ignoring the fact that McCulloch was going to be the prosecutor for the indictment of Wilson. It is still not understandable why McColloch decided not to create a special grand jury, an action he is allowed to take, to examine this case. Instead he had the case, which had garnered the attention of the entire country and the world, prosecuted by the normal seated grand jury. A grand jury that was made of nine white people and only three black people. The fact that grand juries only need a nine people majority to reach a conclusion, makes many people wonder if the nine white jurors did not vote for Wilson not do be indicted and the black voices remained stifled. The racial makeup of the vote cannot be released, the law does not permit it, which will cause many to make conclusion that in hindsight seem to make sense. How the prosecution did not decide to create a grand jury of six Caucasians and six African-Americans to avoid all of these questions is puzzling. With that type of make up, at least three African-Americans would have had to vote for no indictment, and it would have made it very hard for anyone to claim racial bias or to have any excuses for violence.
The decision by the prosecution to also announce the verdict of the grand jury at 8pm is questionable. That time was the most fertile for creating trouble and it is indeed easier for troublemakers to wreck havoc in the night than during the day. Could the prosecution not have held on the verdict until the following day and announced it in the middle of the day as to minimize the chances of the utter destruction that happened on West Florrisant Avenue? And for many of course, this will look like the prosecution timed it perfectly to insure that the violence that would come after the announcement overshadows what looked like a process set us purposefully to deliver a non indictment for Darren Wilson.
For the prosecution to have claimed that in this case everything should be done the normal way demonstrates a staggering case of ignorance or the purpose of making sure there was no indictment for Darren Wilson. From the beginning, this case was always going to have racial tones and the prosecution, with the Governor should have done everything in their power, like the suggestions aforementioned, to make sure that the verdict was always going to be seen as impartial and untainted. Instead in the eyes of many, it looks like the prosecution, aided by a seemingly indifferent Governor, made sure to have everything conspire to have a no indictment. McCulloch has had a record of being strongly on the police side.
It is ignorant not to understand why many African-Americans were enraged by the no indictment. There is a long story in this country of young black males being killed by whites and their perpetrators walking free, going all the way back to Emmet Till and the many men who were killed under the Jim Crow laws. In recent days, in addition to the death of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, there has been the killing of John Crawford III, killed at a Walmart in Ohio for seeming threatening just because he was holding an air rifle. The killing of Tamir Rice, another twelve year old African-American who is was killed by police for having a BB gun that looked realistic on a playground. Another death was that of Vonderritt Meyers, who was killed by a St. Louis police officer who was working off duty as a private security contractor, With the names of those young men in the African-American consciousness is it any wonder why many feel that the justice system is set against them? All the shooters are still free and none has seen the inside of a cell. With the situation reversed and had it been a black officer killing unarmed young white teens, would they still be walking free? Those are questions that are inescapable in the minds of many African-Americans, as mentioned above the Governor and the prosecution, in the light of this situation, should have taken steps to insure that there was no doubt of the impartiality of the verdict. Instead no actions taken and the results were heartbreaking.
 |
| Tamir Rice |
In regard of this situation, the United States and its citizens ought to look in the mirror and confront the fact that there is a legacy of racism, segregation and unfairness against African-Americans in the majority of the history of the United States, it is only in 1964 that African-Americans and other minority can claim to be fully equal citizens of this country. So for only the past 50 years of the 238 years that the United States has existed, have African-American been seen, in the eyes of the laws as equals, it is not easy for many to forget the centuries of mistreatment and its results, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and many issues that plague many African-American communities today. It is understandable for many to feel that this was an injustice done and to dismiss those feelings is to deny the very history of this nation.
Did you read thoroughly? I am not questioning the validity of the verdict, but the awful way it was handled by the prosecution and the governor. Everything should have been done to insure that there would be no question on the impartiality of the verdict but nothing was done and here we are asking questions because of that carelessness.
ReplyDeleteYou say you aren't questioning the validity of the verdict, but then go on to say there was nothing done to ensure the validity of the verdict. Seems like that there is questioning the validity of the verdict. Very contradictory. And again I say that the jury was composed 3 months BEFORE the shooting even occurred, so the race of the crime, which you have put so much emphasis on in your article, did not matter in the choice of the jury. The choosing of that jury could not have been any more impartial. Stop making this a racial issue, Hubert, it is a human issue, one that needs to be fixed by getting young people who are in trouble and involved in crime the help they need before it comes to something like this.
ReplyDeleteLord, have you read the whole thing. Had a special jury been created made up of 50/50 black and white, there would be 0 dout on the impartiality of verdict. There was 9 whites and 3 blacks and the vote tally was 9 to 3 people come to their conclusion when they read that, with a 6-6 jury at least 3 blacks would have to vote to get a verdict and it makes it difficult to infer racism. It was in the power of the governor or prosecution to create a special grand jury for this case. In the first sentence I said that for many people this case was always going to be viewed through the trayvon Martin lens, race was always going to be involved and to insure none of that happens a special prosecutor and grand jury should have been created. To pretend that there is not a history of racism against black males is to deny the history of this country and wounds that were created by 400 years of mistreatment do not heal in 50 years.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all they never released the vote tally in this case so check your sources on that. So you cannot say it was just the white people who voted against any indictment and it was just the black people who voted for an indictment. And second, you would want them to add more controversy and race to this case by changing the entire jury and the entire course of justice? Doesn't seem like the greatest of ideas. As for the second half of your reply, as soon as you can stop bringing race into this and start seeing it without a racial bias, then you will be able to understand better the facts and actuality of this entire case. Im not denying the racial history of this country, it is despicable, but it is no reason to use race as an excuse in the modern era. As soon as all people see others as people and not colors, then we won't have articles like this blaming racism as the reason someone was charged or not.
ReplyDeleteThe prosecution revealed that the vote was 9-3 during the press conference the only thing that was not released is the racial break of the tally. Denying that race was involved in this case is akin to an ostrich burying it's head in the sand. The prosecution did so, and look at the results. As long as people continue to experience racism, it is relevant in the modern era. Fifty years is also not that long is it?
ReplyDeleteThe prosecutor never released the number of votes. The only thing we know is that less than nine people voted for indictment. It could have been 8 or it could have been 12 who voted for no indictment. The split was never released. Please look at facts before you make your statements. And watch the press conference again, someone asks him to reveal the votes and he says he will not. Race did not divert proper justice in this case, and the only reason it is brought up is because racist people want something to fall back on and blame so that they can make noise. The results had nothing to do with racism . The facts were presented and the jury made a decision based on the facts, like any other case. People who are displeased with the result of this case and are using racism as an excuse for injustice, when really there is none.
ReplyDeleteYou are making the point of my articles though. Poll after poll has proven that white people do not view this as injustice as opposed to minorities. I refered to this as a problem cause by the government agencies ignoring race after 1964. This is proof of the disparity 9 opinion between races. I keep saying the verdict might be corrected but nothing was done to make sure that no one questions it. And leave it to people who don't experience racism to claim it is not there. People who are upset have a very genuine reason to do so. I have said that there is more to this than race and I will be examining other aspect this is why this is part I. But the prosecution has made it difficult to take race out of this, especially as I mentioned in the beginning since black people and minorities were always going to see this case through the trayvon Martin lens.
ReplyDeleteHad the jury been 50-50, and I speak only for me. This article wold not exist and I would be writing about other aspects of the case. But the seed of doubt is in my mind because of the handling of this by the prosecution and the governor. This is the case for many people and to dismiss out opinions is rather condensending, people will feel how they feel.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't being condescending of your opinion but rather correcting the errors in your factual misleading. You changed the conversation to your racial opinions, which you have the right to do, but don't call me condescending or dismissive of your opinion when I was not.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
When did I say I was white? Or did you just assume that? You did. And even at that you think white people don't experience racism? Not as severely and it is never highlighted by the media so no one ever hears about it. But it does exist so don't say it doesn't and assume all white people claim racism doesn't exist. Thats very condescending of you. If you want to examine race's role in this case that is fine but don't make it the focal point and make certain statements about things that are not certain. Don't use race as an excuse to dismiss the case because you disagree with how it happened and the result. Use the fair way and criticize the facts, the only thing that matters.
ReplyDeleteHubert, you make some interesting points in your article. Yet I wonder if all the cases you mention of African-Americans killed by police are as similar as you are suggesting. You say "those errors [of the Zimmerman trial] would again be committed in Ferguson" but I think these cases show some significant dissimilarity.
ReplyDeleteTrayvon Martin did not commit any crimes the night he was killed and the man who shot him was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman who disobeyed the instructions of 911 officials. Michael Brown had just committed a crime when he was confronted by an on duty police officer. I think these few difference alone should give us pause before we begin creating race-related scapegoats.
Does the US have a horrible history of racial inequality? Yes, of course! But if you give men guns and tell them to overcome violence with more violence I don’t see how these situations can be avoided. Race issues
in the US are complicated and there aren't going to be any solutions unless people are willing to go the Martin Luther King Jr. route and make peaceful, articulate and well-reasoned complaints when a gross injustice has taken place. Yet is this case the gross injustice that many are claiming? I think the Trayvon Martin case is a far better qualifier.
Could it be that the bigger issue at hand is our American assumption
that lethal violence is the primary means of keeping civil peace? Don’t the UK and other European governments employ non-lethal methods of law enforcement? Do they have the same problems with these kinds of shootings?
-Todd H
There is an essay that will address the last part of your comment. For many, the view is that yes, Brown stole from the store, but when officer Wilson killed him, he used unecessary or excess force because he was black. There are countless example, of black men and women getting harsher sentences and being treated rougher than their white counterparts. That is where the doubt is and it is legitimate to have. There is also the fact that officer Wilson was able to testify yet Brown didn't, because the dead do not speak, we will never have the full picture of what went on.
ReplyDeleteI do not condone the violence and riots, they will have their own essay. But people who feel that justice is not being done here are legitimate, today, a no indictment was also given by a grand jury in the death of Eric Garner. For many, including me, questions continue to be in our mind, if James Holmes is alive, why not Eric Garne and Michael Brown?
The other essays will arrive but again, I really wish a special grand jury had been created and that none of this doubts would be in my mind.