The (Enabled) Fugitive: Breaking Down the Darren Wilson Grand Jury and the Future of Extrajudicial KillingsChris Stevenson I Criminal Justice I Commentary I January 7th, 2015
"Most defense attorneys would never bring the defendant into the grand jury because you don't want your client to be cross-examined by the prosecutor, and you can't be present in there because it's a secret process. But in this case it's an opportunity to conform his (Wilson's) story to the evidence. So they're bringing him in to the grand jury so he can ingratiate himself to them."- Jerryl Christmas, Attorney and former St. Louis County prosecutor.
"Any person who enforces an unjust law is an outlaw."
It's easy for Darren Wilson to be calm and serene now. He's got all his shit. He just got married, he is in the middle of making a deal to retire (no doubt with all the benefits of the almighty 20-and-out pension), he just got away with murder, he already has money donated to his "defense fund," and he doesn't have to pay any of it to a private trial attorney - when you're one of a wave of cops around the nation who just killed a black man and the same guy whose job it is to prosecute you literally takes it upon himself to defend you, then you don't need a defense fund. In a case where a police officer refused to protect and serve, we have a prosecutor who refuses to prosecute.
In some ways, Wilson is a microcosm of post-colonial/post-slavery North America. He's killed who he's had to kill; and he's got all the stuff there was to take from others. He's calm now, even friendly.
The only upside is he'll be more apt to say some pretty dumb shit - that wouldn't shock you knowing he is a white cop, and a life was lost due to his narrow perspective. Regarding his statements comparing Michael Brown to Hulk Hogan, and himself to a 5-year-old, as atrocious as that sounds, a study shows this is not an isolated sentiment among the white police, frat-like fraternity. Back in March, a survey asking 176 mostly-white, male police officers their view of mostly puberty-aged, black boys, not surprisingly resulted in most viewing young, black boys as "less innocent" or older than their white, similar-age peers. Wilson's testimony takes it even further: "I felt like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan… intense… aggressive, the only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon."
Wilson used the same subterfuge requiring the jurors to abandon their common-sense that George Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'mara used in his closing argument during the summer of 2013. It's been well-publicized that Brown was a big kid, well over 6 feet, and Wilson needed to draw a clear contrast between "big Mike" and himself to this nearly all-white grand jury. He planted an image of himself as a five-year-old boy. However, the truth is, both Wilson and Brown are 6'4". Brown just outweighs him. But in an average, white grand juries' eyes, he goes from Hulk Hogan to a demon, to an "it."
After that humungous lie, it now depends on how many jurors pictured themselves during their youth knocking on Darren's door: 'hello Mrs. Wilson, can Darren come out to play?' 'Not today kids, there's a big Hulk Hogan-like, demon-crazed black kid named Mike armed with a fistful of stolen cigars whose out to get my innocent little baby.'
A couple things I want to address: there is nothing wrong with a police officer protecting his weapon (it does, after all, belong to him), or getting out of his car to pursue a suspect who could be potentially dangerous to the public. For Brown, to even flirt with the idea of taking Wilson's gun without some quark of a passing thought that this wasn't the convenient store cigar-man, would take him to levels of stupidity not often heard of, even among a current generation of young black boys seemingly estranged from common sense. If that were a true story. To this day, we don't know. We do know it's been a rather common practice for policemen to accuse or charge black suspects with trying to take their pistols during a struggle; and makes for a convenient excuse, especially if that suspect is now dead.
Racializing the Context and Staging Riots
A lot of whites around the country were and are solidly on the side of Wilson, imagining him justified simply because they see themselves in him. They want to be the "big, bad, white man" almost emptying his pistol in rage against the smart-mouth, black kid - 'teach those niggers a lesson' they no-doubt fantasize. They even wanted the blacks to riot, which is why the grand jury decision was aired at night, so as to put the rioters on display before the nation, against the backdrop of fire and fireworks. Sadly, the blacks complied, but not as much as we were made to imagine. Since then, there's been leaked footage of "Para-military Police CAUGHT ON FILM methodically setting fire to a vehicle in front of Advance Auto Parts in St. Louis MO. This happens on W Florissant Ave., the same street where nearly every fire occurred. Despite having this building locked down, Advance Auto Parts burnt down to the ground!" This didn't surprise me, knowing some police history.
During the '67 riot in Buffalo, NY, local police were observed looting stores, and not just a little bit of items were taken. Former BPD Officer Theodore Kirkland's book, "Spirit and Soul," documents his own eyewitness account of the illegal looting by some of his fellow white officers. Part of the reason behind this, of course, was greed; the secondary reason was how easy it would be to blame the blacks. In this case, in Ferguson, consider the political reason to be the prime reason; you see, after the George Zimmerman verdict, lots of whites around the country just swore there was going to be riots. Except for Oakland (obviously then-still pissed about the Fruitvale Station murder), no such rioting occurred. There were lots of rallies, but that's it.
Just over three and a half months since the fateful incident, and it's over. A criminal justice system figured out a new way to say 'we don't give a fuck.' White cop wins over mostly-white jury by using the stereotypes they were waiting to hear. No mystery there. "Say your prayers and eat your vitamins, brother." This is how The State of Missouri v. Darren Wilson became Missouri & Darren Wilson v. The Blacks.
Dissecting Darren Wilson's Account of the Incident
While Fox News and other amateur political pundits bombard you with "there was no evidence, there was no evidence" just as they are now doing regarding the Daniel Pantaleo no-GJ-indictment for the murder of Eric Garner, a quick review of some key statements taken from the Darren Wilson hearing proves how he was practically begging for an indictment - and they just across-the-board refused to give it to him. When asked about his height, he says, "6'4", just a shy under 6'4". Weight? "210-ish." My question is what's "ish"?
"It fluctuates between 205, 212, 213, something like that." Okay, so now they're interviewing Oprah. Can you say unstable liar?
Wilson says in between a call for a sick baby in an apartment complex and his interaction with Mike Brown and Dorian Johnson, a call came out regarding a theft-in-progress from a small, local market on West Florissant:
"It was not my call, I just heard the call. As I was on West and Canfield, I observed two men in the middle of the street; they were walking along the double-yellow line, single-file order… As Johnson came around my driver's side mirror, I said, 'why don't you guys walk on the sidewalk? ' He kept walking, as he is walking, he said, 'we are almost to our destination… Brown was starting to come around the mirror. I said, 'well what's wrong with the sidewalk? Brown then replied, 'Fuck what you have to say,' and when he said that, it drew my attention totally to Brown."
This, of course, is very much to the contrary of what many witnesses heard regarding his first words to him even before he drove up to reverse the car; "Get The Fuck On the Sidewalk!" To which Wilson claims Brown replied, "Fuck What You Have to Say!" This is very important because such an initial outburst from anyone towards someone else essentially jaywalking is bound to push anyone's button, even if the instigator is wearing a police uniform. A melee, or confrontation, is almost certainly bound to happen. Wilson -obviously portraying himself as a " humble innocent cop" just trying to direct a "hostile, black youth" to obey the law to the letter, now begins to weave a yarn of his keen detective skills:
"When I start looking at Brown, first thing I notice is his right hand, his hand is full of cigarillos. And that's when it clicked for me because I now saw the cigarillos, I looked in my mirror, I did a double-check that Johnson was wearing a black shirt, these are the two from the stealing… so I got on my radio and Frank 21 is my call sign that day, I said 'Frank 21 I'm on Canfield with two, send me another car.' I then placed my car in reverse and backed up just past them and then angled my vehicle, the back of my vehicle to kind of cut them off, kind of to keep them somewhat contained."
Wilson leaves out any testimony about his grabbing Brown around the throat, or at least trying to grab Brown around the throat, by reaching his hands out the window. If this never took place, then fine, no need to mention it. If he did, understand Wilson was driving an SUV patrol vehicle, so his doing that is entirely within the realm of possibility given Wilson is the same height as Brown and has a long reach. A neck-grabbing - or pulling Brown's arm through the open driver-side window, as Johnson said Wilson did - is wrong on many levels because it sends a clear message of hostility, even before Brown allegedly punched him… but that's none of our business, of course.
Wilson continues: "As I did that, I go to open the door and I say hey, come here for a minute, to Brown. As I open the door, he turns, faces me, looks at me, and says 'what the fuck are you going to do about it,' and shuts my door. Slammed it shut."
According to Wilson's Grand Jury account, he didn't say anything resembling "Get the Fuck Back" until he was forced to use the door to let himself out and push him at the same time. I believe he obviously knows he has to put those highly conspicuous words somewhere.
Says Wilson: "He then grabs my door again and shuts my door. At this time is when I saw him coming into my vehicle… so I don't remember seeing him come at me, but I was hit right here in the side of my face with a fist… and when I grabbed him, the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan."
This particular statement is one of the best examples of proof that he was coached beforehand, by either his lawyer or his "other lawyer," DA Robert McCulloch. Not only does he attempt to plant a stereotypical image of the well-known "big, black brute," he magically converts himself into a "little, clean-faced, 5-year-old white boy." I've seen white testimony create invisible disparities before, but this one takes the cake. I could just picture at least most of the 9 white jurors reaching for their box of Kleenex. Using a well-known, large, white athlete/entertainer like "The Hulkster" had to have been key legal strategy too, since I'm sure other names were pandered about behind closed doors; Mike Tyson, Ray Rice, Shaquille O'Neal, maybe even Charles Barkley - whom certainly is lacking in publicity nowadays - 'no no no,' they probably said, 'you'll come off as racist.' Instead, use a big, white athlete.' Assistant DA Kathi Alizadeh - whom we'll focus on later - questions him further:
"Holding on to what?"
"Hulk Hogan, that's just how big he felt and how small I felt just from grasping his arm… He immediately grabs my gun and says 'you are too much of a pussy to shoot me.' The way he grabbed it… he grabs it with his right hand."
Okay, that's enough. Listen, if Hulk Hogan grabs your gun, that's the end of you. You literally disappear from right before the grand jury's eyes. Your family has long since buried you. It's your strength against Hulk Hogan's "pythons," brother. Why? Wilson is no longer 6'4" Darren with law enforcement training - he's a five-year-old boy, remember? How can such a boy stay conscious long enough to survive Brown's punches, I mean, Hogan's punches! While still having strength to keep him from snatching his gun? Could it be that Wilson had now become so nervous and afraid at Brown's unexpected boldness that he was fumbling with his gun by himself? I'm not disputing they were in a fight, but I acknowledge the possibility that Brown never touched Wilson's pistol, and disagree that Brown was the first to initiate physical contact. 'Grab my gun' was the alibi Wilson needed to keep the jurors locked on his side. That, and his lies-by-omission. The stereotypes are just gratuitous game-clinchers, but Wilson would ultimately have more up his sleeve than just a Hogan reference.
"He grabs my gun, and says 'you are too much of a pussy to shoot me,' the gun goes down into my hip and at that point I thought I was getting shot. I can feel his fingers try and get inside the trigger guard with my finger, and I distinctly remember envisioning a bullet going into my leg… (Visions people, visions. That's the key to almost his whole testimony. Now he's a five-year-old boy with a bullet inside his leg. Damn That Mike Brown!!!)
Wilson continues, "Like I said, I was so focused on getting the gun off me. When I did get it up to this point, he's still holding onto it and I pulled the trigger and nothing happens, it just clicked. I pull it again, it just clicked again… I pulled it a third time, it goes off. When it went off, it shot through my door panel."
He never admitted that he had yet to make the cigarillos connection because perhaps his radio was on the wrong channel anyway. He also doesn't know the recording of the incident puts his version of the gunshots out of sequence.
After the 2nd shot goes off, Brown is said to have turned and run. Wilson, at that point, claims he called for backup:
"Shots fired, send me more cars."
A juror or assistant DA acknowledges there is no record of any call to dispatch from him:
"Did you know that radio dispatch did not get out?"
"No, I didn't find out until later while I was actually driving back to the station that my portable radio was on channel 3 and our main channel was channel 1."
Wilson offers more explanation as to his version of why he thinks his so-called dispatch failed to go through other than he simply didn't want to call because he wanted to finish Brown off and concoct his own story, which we are, in part, seeing now. "I never seen that much aggression so quickly from a simple request to just walk on the sidewalk."
"Okay, because you never did talk to him about the cigarillos or the stealing at the Ferguson Market?"
"No. I never had the chance to."
"And then after he did that, he looked up at me and he had the most intense, aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked. He comes back towards me again with his hands up."
At this point, Wilson wasn't able to tell the grand jury if Brown's raised hands were open or closed like a fist. He says he chased Brown out into the open, until Brown turns around and puts his right hand in his waistband, leans forward and charges at him (If this is true, then Brown may have been protecting the hand that was shot the first or 2nd time Wilson's weapon was fired). After that, Wilson fires at will. The rest is history… and revisionist history. Prosecutor becomes defense attorney, and defense attorney gets a virtual vacation. Assistant prosecutors become absent-minded history teachers, and 9 grand jury members become assistant defense attorneys.
The Oddities of the Grand Jury Proceeding
"I have never seen a prosecutor hold a press conference to discredit the victim… have you ever heard a prosecutor go in a press conference to explain to the press why the one that did the killing is not going to trial, but the victim is guilty of several things no one has established?" As much as conservative and even many liberal whites hate hearing the sound of Al Sharpton's voice, those words in the immediate aftermath of the grand jury's decision rang even more true. What would Sharpton have said then if he knew about the real fix, by McCulloch and his assistants? What about McCulloch's reported involvement of an organization known as the Backstoppers, whom among other things is known to have raised funds for uniformed police causes. Not only is he reported to be a member, he is said to be president. They are believed to have made the "I Support Officer Darren Wilson" T-shirts. In other words, the man who was left to determine whether officer Darren Wilson should be prosecuted for murder was a hardened, and apparently unconditional, Wilson supporter.
McCulloch described the grand jurors as "engaged" - a story by Mediatakeout.com shows that, if this were true, it was an understatement. All three black jurors voted for an indictment. Of course, before, the "public McCulloch" and the "white nine" claimed the witnesses made contradictory statements, and used them as an excuse to not indict. What about Wilson's contradictory statements? The reason he entertained so many witness testimonies was to drown out the account of the only real witness, or witness that mattered most; Johnson. Yes, if so many witnesses have conflicting stories then the streets do lie. McCulloch did this to the point of knowingly letting at least one person testify who wasn't anywhere to be found during the incident.
Alizadeh - "In your mind, grabbing your gun is what made the difference where you felt you had to use a weapon to stop him?"
Wilson - "Yes. Once he was hitting me in the face, that was enough, was in my mind to authorize the use of force."
Alizadeh - "Okay, so if he would not have grabbed your gun while he was hitting you in the face, everything was the same, but he would not have grabbed your gun, you still would have used deadly force?"
Wilson - "My gun was already being presented as a deadly force option while he was hitting me in the face."
McCulloch tries to explain why it seems the grand jury, his grand jury, accepted the word of his pro bono client Darren Wilson as infallible truth. Wilson knows that simply being white before a grand jury of nine whites in a case against a black teen, dead or alive, gives him a huge head start. Factor in a tale of a "demonized, black Hulk Hogan" being spun from between his pink lips, and he is the new owner of 18 ears. Events almost as diabolical as the multiple shooting of Brown were set in motion by McCulloch and his team even before Wilson entered the court building. By now, many have heard of what is known as the deliberate incompetence of Kathi Alizadeh, made famous by political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. On 9/16, she is shown to have told the grand jury, "I'm going to pass out to you all, you are going to receive a copy of a statute. It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers' use of force in making an arrest. And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer."
Alizadeh then handed the grand jury a copy of a 1979 law that was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985. Just by looking at that document, members of the grand jury were made to think it is legal to shoot at a defendant for nothing more than fleeing from the police. It's important that O'Donnell stated how that law has never been enforced during Alizadeh's entire career as assistant prosecutor. In other words, she has no history or immediate guide that she once based prosecuting a defendant on. So how in hell does she force her fingers to make contact with the old law now? We have a problem in Buffalo with young black boys fleeing when they see police squad cars even when they haven't done anything, because they have been taught by their peers who actually have warrants or have done something illegal. Part of that outdated law, section 563.046, states an officer was "justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody." That law, being in effect in Buffalo, and no-doubt many other cities today, would make a boom industry for funeral homes, but once again it was outlawed in '85 - a fact that was conveniently withheld from Darren Wilson's grand jury.
DA Robert McCulloch's Corrupt History and No-Indictment Fix
On the other hand, McCulloch is old enough to remember when that law was in effect. In fact, he became the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney only 6 years after the SC made that ruling. How could he have not orchestrated Alizadeh to perjure herself? Laws like this aren't written or passed by accident. 563.046's end had to do with a mid-'70's case of a black male, ironically named Garner. Not the guy we've seen being choked to death by police with no weapons or illegal cigs on him. This time, we're talking about a 15-year-old purse-snatcher, Edward Eugene Garner, of Memphis, Tennessee. In late October of '74, Eugene Garner was shot by one of two officers (Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright) responding to a burglary call. He died on the operating table with $10 dollars and some jewelry in his pocket. Tennessee was one of 21 states operating on the "fleeing felon rule," which applied after notice of intention to arrest if a suspect was seen running away from the scene.
In 1975, his father, Cleamtee Garner, filed a civil rights action against several parties he saw as involved in the incident. After losing most of the trials involved in the case, the appellate court found that the Tennessee deadly force statute violated the 4th and 14th amendments of the Constitution. A decade later (3/85), the Supreme Court ruled that an officer "may not use deadly force to stop burglars or other unarmed suspects unless they pose a serious danger to authorities and others (Tennessee vs. Garner 87-1035)."
This is not the first time McCulloch played "pass the buck" in order to get questionable cops off on cases where his job was to obviously indict them. The Brown case was the 5th time he presented a shooting case to a grand jury; none of those cases has an indictment.
There was the "Jack in the Box" case in 2000 where two undercover officers, a police officer and a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), officer, shot and killed two unarmed black men in the parking lot of a Jack in the Box fast-food restaurant in Berkeley, MO. McCulloch set up a grand jury and invited the shooters to testify. They claimed the suspects tried to escape arrest and then drove toward them; the jury declined to indict. McCulloch then lied to the public (just as with Mike Brown) about witness testimony saying every witness had testified to confirm this version. " St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Michael Sorkin reviewed the previously secret grand jury tapes, released to him by McCulloch, and found only three of 13 officers testified that the car was moving forward." A federal investigation later found that the men were unarmed and that their car had not moved forward when the officers fired 21 shots; nevertheless. The feds, for whatever reason, backed down from indicting as well. McCulloch made a key statement about the two shooting victims, Ronald Beasley and Earl Murray, which could safely be considered strong evidence of his sentiments of Mike Brown today: "These guys were bums."
McCulloch's appointing his own assistants to handle the Brown case was his answer to black leaders calling for a special prosecutor because they obviously didn't trust him. How now all you armchair legal experts claiming there was "no evidence?" O'Donnell summed up the sneaky, amoral, and racist machinations of McCulloch and Alizadeh: "there is nothing more helpful the assistant DA could have done for Officer Darren Wilson right before his testimony than show that outdated incorrect law to the grand jury… with the belief that anything he did to Michael Brown would be fully justified legally simply because Michael Brown at some point ran away from Officer Wilson." Those of you imagining this was just an oversight by them might want to take note of how she waited weeks later (not hours later or the next day) to correct it, and then still refused to specifically explain what it was they read that was incorrect:
"Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to effect an arrest. So, if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law," Alizadeh explained.
That was an understatement. It doesn't comply with any law.
"This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar to you that the law is codified in a written form in books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes, and so the statutes for the use of force to effect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme… I'm sorry, United States Supreme Court cases."
Amazing tricknology this trick uses, deliberately handing out copies of an outdated law, then let weeks go by without saying a word about it. Weeks after Wilson testified.
"So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." This is what Ms. Alizadeh said after she handed out the new document: "That does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use deadly force in affecting an arrest okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of that statue that I've given you a long time ago. It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct. Ignore it totally." A grand juror then asked "The Supreme Court, Federal Court overrides Missouri statutes?"
Alizadeh - "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that."
Sheila Whirley - "We don't want to get into a law class."
Because why would grand jurors who are about to decide on whether to indict a murder case want to be concerned with the law? They didn't want to get into an indictment anymore than they wanted to reveal what specifically in that previous document was incorrect. This is tragic in broader proportions because of the unethical and backwards direction McCulloch, Alizadeh and Whirley took this grand jury through in order to get the result they wanted. A gross betrayal of the judicial process at its mildest. They should have waited for Christmas.
While many were outraged, some weren't surprised at all. Jeryl Christmas see's results like these as just one of the ends to a means that begins with Ferguson's economy; "$2.8 million was taken in Ferguson last year through traffic violations directly attributed to racial profiling." Christmas, a former prosecutor for the city of St. Louis, told a national audience on Blogtaklradio's Center Stage hosted by Kheri Hines. On Hines' show, back in September, he disclosed:
"I been a prosecutor before and I know how it works. There's not gonna be an indictment, our only hope is gonna be in the US Attorney's Office. Normally, when we go into a grand jury to get a homicide, we get that done in one day. When you start convening a grand jury before you finish the investigation, you're setting it up for a no true bill (no probable cause). Remember, a grand jury is only for probable cause, all you determine is 'do we have the right person, are we charging him correctly, do we have probable cause to move forward.' Over probably 98% of the time we get our indictments from the grand jury. The grand jury is the arm of the prosecution. The joke in the prosecutor's office is that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. What the prosecutor is doing now, is he is presenting so much evidence to them at this point, that by the time they get ready to vote as to whether or not to true bill this case, meaning to indict it, they're gonna vote for no true bill. And then he's gonna say 'well the grand jury did that, not me.' That's what prosecutors do when they want to hide behind a grand jury and not issue charges. When you want to invite the defendant to come in and speak, we never bring the defendant into the grand jury."
Meanwhile, in the Jungle (New York), events surrounding Darren Wilson's acquittal seem to influence a spirit of keeping NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo free and clear for the holidays. There, a 23-person panel, comprised of 14 Whites and 9 non-Whites, decided against indicting Pantaleo for choking an unarmed and non-threatening Garner to death on video. The funny thing about that equally-unnecessary-as-it-was-horrible murder was that more officers need to be indicted than just Pantaleo, in particular the one seen walking toward Garner after he broke up a fight, Justin Damico, and the one who blurted "no" to the cellphone video guy, Ramsey Orta, when he asked about doing CPR while cops and paramedics pretended to try and revive him. While outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder is considering whether or not to bring federal charges against Wilson, the newly appointed AG Loretta Lynch has already begun to look into federal indictments against Pantaleo and several other officers around Garner at the time of his death.
What these purposeful refuse-to-indicts do is further warp the minds of whites across the country regarding actual right and wrong, and train them to pronounce false-judgments and opinions against issues and individuals. Especially the minds of white police officers. The federal indictments are critical in that this is an Administration whose prime criminal justice branch is led by blacks, but only toyed with the public's hopes regarding George Zimmerman even after he continued terrorizing people after his acquittal. Contrast that to conservative President George H.W. Bush' federal prosecution of four officers for the videotaped beating of Rodney King, and that doesn't look good for President Obama.
We can't continue hoping Jesse James will prosecute Frank James. Expecting white jurors to convict bad cops is like expecting many of them to stop listening to AC/DC. It would take big balls. Our only hope is for the Obama Administration to XO new laws and measures. The only way to change the mind of the juror is to change the juror. If a jury doesn't reflect the racial population of that town or area, then there can be no proceeding or trial until it does. There needs to be an anti-profiling and brutality law as strict and extensive as the truck driver DOT laws that came out a few years ago.
Yes, we do need police; in fact, once you filter through the thick cloud of white-right misinformation, you'll see that most blacks are for law and order. You have to also credit them for knowing the actions that led to the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford, Ezell Ford, Jordan Baker, Dante Parker, Rumain Brisbon, and Tamir Rice were much less police work, as they were more based on personal and irrational black fear and - as shameful as it is to say - various degrees of still-ongoing-suburban, white naivete. More often to blacks, a simple 911 call can produce a bad roll of the dice, a gullible officer operating on sweeping departmental statements that stand to act out on you once they hit the field. Throughout the country, most police arrests are never questioned by blacks because we know the difference. Cops that do real police work everyday don't have any exciting video footage like this because they have the disadvantage of doing their jobs right. The problem is too many American law enforcement officers aren't just unordinary; they are social-amateurs.
After Bacon's Rebellion, whites construed race into a good-guy/bad-guy issue, using black vs. white as their most extreme example. Blacks didn't ask for this, it was just imposed on us; and at various times throughout this nation's history, the police have played no small role in misinforming, slandering, instigating, and basically brainwashing mostly white Americans by convincing them that we are "the enemy." Currently, a weekend shooting of two NYPD officers allegedly by a young black man who voiced his disdain over the Eric Garner killing and GJ ruling has ignited police, politicians, and pro-law enforcement supporters into a wave of concurrent verbal outrage and denial.
As a result of largely the two mishandled grand jury decisions Congress has stepped up by quietly passing a bill that addresses the outbreak of questionable police killings. Right now, it seems we are just captives under a police state or intermittent pogrom. Many forcibly-naive whites, and even some boneheaded, black Youtube commentators, openly disagree, claiming that as long as police aren't just arbitrarily walking down the street shooting blacks, then it can't be a police state. Well, for that matter, neither did such a scenario take place in Nazi Germany, Sharpeville, or any other place, until the order was given. I for one don't want to have to wait until it gets to that point before something is done. It will be too late then. Freed captives don't come for free. Legislation must be drawn up and changed, and then the war starts. They've been enjoying their torture for a long time and won't be willing to let some paper stop them. When slavery stopped, lynching began. When Segregation stopped, the drug war and mass incarceration began. We must be prepared for the freedom and the backlash.
Chris Stevenson is a regular columnist for blackcommentator , his own blog www.thebuffalobullet.com , and a syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook - you don't have to join any of them. Watch his video commentary Policy & Prejudice for clbTV & Follow his Blogtalkradio interviews on 36OOseconds . Contact him by email at firstname.lastname@example.org .