In a New York Post article, Rich Lowry claims that the national conversation we’re having about race in the wake of Michael Brown’s death at the hands of former officer Darren Wilson is “based on lies”:
The “national conversation” about race and policing we’ve been having ever since Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo., last summer has been based on lies.
The lie that Officer Wilson shot Brown while he had his hands up and was pleading “Don’t shoot.”
The lie that New York City policemen targeted Eric Garner for a violent arrest because he was black.
The lie, peddled especially by the progressive prince of New York City, Mayor de Blasio, that the police are racist.
These are the lies that fuel hatred for the police, because if the police routinely execute black men in cold blood and serve a thoroughly racist system, they deserve to be hated.
That “national conversation” that has been occurring since Ferguson?
It is not based on lies. Yes, there are facts that may be disputed in the specific case of Michael Brown’s EXTRAJUDICIAL death and denial of his rights as a human being and a U.S. citizen at the hands of former officer Darren Wilson. But the Black Lives Matter movement is about addressing the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The movement is based on the very real experiences of black Americans. It’s based on the fact that black men are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police officers than white men. It’s based on the disproportionate presence of Black Americans in prison. It’s based on racist policies like Stop & Frisk. It’s based on the fact that law enforcement officers are just as prone to possessing implicit racial biases as anyone else which leads to them making snap judgments about People of Color that are often based on stereotypes:
The first step in understanding how implicitracial bias works is to understand the general concept of implicit bias, which can shape the way we think about lots of different qualities: age, gender, nationality, even height.
Two of the leading scholars in the field, Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald, capture it well in the title of a book they wrote about the concept. It’s called “Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People“
What do these “blind spots” look like, and how do they shape behavior? Well, if you have a stereotype about Asian people that labels them as “foreign,” implicit bias means you might have trouble associating even Asian-American people with speaking fluent English or being American citizens. If you’ve picked up on cultural cues that women are homemakers, it means you might have a harder time connecting women to powerful roles in business despite your conscious belief in gender equality.
Implicit racial bias also means that many people think of African-Americans as prone to violence. Or less educated than Anglo-Americans. Or that African-Americans are mostly criminals. Or the thinking that leads to officers thinking that a Black suspect has a gun when they don’t have any reason to think so.
These biases are present in cops. In lawyers. In judges. In jurists. No matter their intentions, they are still human beings. No matter our desire to be fair and impartial, we humans have prejudices and the criminal justice system doesn’t currently have a means of weeding out or minimizing those biases so that all citizens are treated equally on the streets by police officers and given a chance at a fair hearing in the courtroom. These prejudices are one more thing that people are protesting against. They are one more example of the racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system that leads to People of Color being treated differently than white people.
And these disparities? They did not spring into existence when Darren Wilson decided he had no recourse but to shoot and kill a black man he deemed demonic (no denial of Brown’s basic humanity there). Those disparities were long in existence and the death of Brown brought them to light once more. National attention is shining on the ugliness of those disparities, which is necessary if we are to ever fix this fucked up system.
Lowry goes on to say:
His rote praise of the police notwithstanding, especially now that he is under so much political pressure after the murders of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, Mayor de Blasio is deeply invested in this smear.
It is why he has made career anti-police agitator Al Sharpton practically deputy police commissioner.
Smear? It’s a smear to recognize that Black Americans are not treated fairly on the streets or in the courtroom?
Also, Al Sharpton is anti-police? Got a citation for that? Not a twisting of his words, but actual quotes where he demonstrates that he is anti-police. Not quotes that call for a reform of law enforcement, but actual quotes where he demonstrates that he is anti-police. I wonder if they’ll be forthcoming.
It is why he considers the police a clear and present danger to his biracial son, Dante.
If it wasn’t already clear, Lowry demonstrates in this one sentence that he doesn’t understand the Black Lives Matter movement AT ALL. The reasons why Mayor de Blasio has talked to his son about police brutality are all over the country. We’re in the middle of having a national conversation about those reasons, remember? Is Lowry’s memory that poor? I doubt it. What is more likely is that he doesn’t believe the claims of African-Americans across the country. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t care about the experiences of Black people, which is entirely possible, scary though that may be. Either way, the end result is an article that attempts to undermine the entire Black Lives Matter Movement while not understanding the very reasons the movement exists.
Lowry also takes it as truth that people are lying about aspects of the Brown case. Given that many facts in the case are disputable, he has no reason to be as certain as he is that people are lying. How does he know that? How do we know these “lies” aren’t actual truths? I hope he’s not using Witness #40 as reason to believe people are lying, since she wasn’t even there to witness Wilson’s heartless murder of Brown. As I said above, there are facts that are disputable. Did Brown have his hands up was Wilson shot him? I don’t know. Was he pleading “don’t shoot”?I don’t know. I don’t know how the writer of this article knows either. But whether he was or not doesn’t change what the movement is about. By claiming that the entire Black Lives Matter movement is based on lies, the writer of this New York Post article dismisses the real experiences of countless people across the country. He also demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the complaints of African-Americans across the country as he sets up a massive strawman and sets about burning it to the ground.
In a New York Post article, Rich Lowry claims that the national conversation we’re having about race in the wake of Michael Brown’s death at the hands of former officer Darren Wilson is “based on lies”:
The “national conversation” about race and policing we’ve been having ever since Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo., last summer has been based on lies.
The lie that Officer Wilson shot Brown while he had his hands up and was pleading “Don’t shoot.”
The lie that New York City policemen targeted Eric Garner for a violent arrest because he was black.
The lie, peddled especially by the progressive prince of New York City, Mayor de Blasio, that the police are racist.
These are the lies that fuel hatred for the police, because if the police routinely execute black men in cold blood and serve a thoroughly racist system, they deserve to be hated.
That “national conversation” that has been occurring since Ferguson?
It is not based on lies. Yes, there are facts that may be disputed in the specific case of Michael Brown’s EXTRAJUDICIAL death and denial of his rights as a human being and a U.S. citizen at the hands of former officer Darren Wilson. But the Black Lives Matter movement is about addressing the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The movement is based on the very real experiences of black Americans. It’s based on the fact that black men are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police officers than white men. It’s based on the disproportionate presence of Black Americans in prison. It’s based on racist policies like Stop & Frisk. It’s based on the fact that law enforcement officers are just as prone to possessing implicit racial biases as anyone else which leads to them making snap judgments about People of Color that are often based on stereotypes:
The first step in understanding how implicitracial bias works is to understand the general concept of implicit bias, which can shape the way we think about lots of different qualities: age, gender, nationality, even height.
Two of the leading scholars in the field, Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald, capture it well in the title of a book they wrote about the concept. It’s called “Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People“
What do these “blind spots” look like, and how do they shape behavior? Well, if you have a stereotype about Asian people that labels them as “foreign,” implicit bias means you might have trouble associating even Asian-American people with speaking fluent English or being American citizens. If you’ve picked up on cultural cues that women are homemakers, it means you might have a harder time connecting women to powerful roles in business despite your conscious belief in gender equality.
Implicit racial bias also means that many people think of African-Americans as prone to violence. Or less educated than Anglo-Americans. Or that African-Americans are mostly criminals. Or the thinking that leads to officers thinking that a Black suspect has a gun when they don’t have any reason to think so.
These biases are present in cops. In lawyers. In judges. In jurists. No matter their intentions, they are still human beings. No matter our desire to be fair and impartial, we humans have prejudices and the criminal justice system doesn’t currently have a means of weeding out or minimizing those biases so that all citizens are treated equally on the streets by police officers and given a chance at a fair hearing in the courtroom. These prejudices are one more thing that people are protesting against. They are one more example of the racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system that leads to People of Color being treated differently than white people.
And these disparities? They did not spring into existence when Darren Wilson decided he had no recourse but to shoot and kill a black man he deemed demonic (no denial of Brown’s basic humanity there). Those disparities were long in existence and the death of Brown brought them to light once more. National attention is shining on the ugliness of those disparities, which is necessary if we are to ever fix this fucked up system.
Lowry goes on to say:
His rote praise of the police notwithstanding, especially now that he is under so much political pressure after the murders of Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, Mayor de Blasio is deeply invested in this smear.
It is why he has made career anti-police agitator Al Sharpton practically deputy police commissioner.
Smear? It’s a smear to recognize that Black Americans are not treated fairly on the streets or in the courtroom?
Also, Al Sharpton is anti-police? Got a citation for that? Not a twisting of his words, but actual quotes where he demonstrates that he is anti-police. Not quotes that call for a reform of law enforcement, but actual quotes where he demonstrates that he is anti-police. I wonder if they’ll be forthcoming.
It is why he considers the police a clear and present danger to his biracial son, Dante.
If it wasn’t already clear, Lowry demonstrates in this one sentence that he doesn’t understand the Black Lives Matter movement AT ALL. The reasons why Mayor de Blasio has talked to his son about police brutality are all over the country. We’re in the middle of having a national conversation about those reasons, remember? Is Lowry’s memory that poor? I doubt it. What is more likely is that he doesn’t believe the claims of African-Americans across the country. Or perhaps he simply doesn’t care about the experiences of Black people, which is entirely possible, scary though that may be. Either way, the end result is an article that attempts to undermine the entire Black Lives Matter Movement while not understanding the very reasons the movement exists.
Lowry also takes it as truth that people are lying about aspects of the Brown case. Given that many facts in the case are disputable, he has no reason to be as certain as he is that people are lying. How does he know that? How do we know these “lies” aren’t actual truths? I hope he’s not using Witness #40 as reason to believe people are lying, since she wasn’t even there to witness Wilson’s heartless murder of Brown. As I said above, there are facts that are disputable. Did Brown have his hands up was Wilson shot him? I don’t know. Was he pleading “don’t shoot”?I don’t know. I don’t know how the writer of this article knows either. But whether he was or not doesn’t change what the movement is about. By claiming that the entire Black Lives Matter movement is based on lies, the writer of this New York Post article dismisses the real experiences of countless people across the country. He also demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the complaints of African-Americans across the country as he sets up a massive strawman and sets about burning it to the ground.
On August 9, 2014, ex-Ferguson Police Department officer Darren Wilson unleashed a hail of bullets on an 18-year-old black man named Michael Brown. Supposedly, he’d done something wrong. Whatever mistake he did or did not make, whatever law he did or did not break, one thing is certain: his penalty should not have been death. The penalty for jaywalking isn’t (nor should it be) death. Even if Brown robbed a convenience store (which is still in question since the owner of the store did not call the police), the penalty for that is not death. Like all other citizens of the United States, Michael Brown ostensibly had the same rights as every other person. The right to a speedy and fair trial with adequate representation. He was robbed of his rights and his very life by ex-police officer Darren Wilson.
And with that, a movement was born. A movement by black people and for black people. Especially the young people. Using social media, they organized. On the streets of Ferguson they came together. To protest the execution-without a trial-of a black man. To criticize those police officers across the U.S. who choose to use extreme, and sometimes lethal force against black people, rather than less lethal means (or even talking to them to defuse a situation). The movement has vocally, loudly, and peacefullycriticized the problems in law enforcement that led to the death of Michael Brown.
Almost from the beginning, attempts were made by the defenders of the status quo to turn public sentiment against the protesters. The same day that Darren Wilson was identified as the Michael Brown’s killer (which took almost a week), the Ferguson PD released surveillance video from the Ferguson Market which purportedly showed Brown stealing cigarillo’s from the store. Many people saw this as an attempt to poison the well. To show that the protesters were defending a “bad guy”…that he wasn’t innocent (because if he wasn’t an innocent person, then that totes means he deserved to be shot and killed, amirite?). To show that their protesting was, at best, misplaced. It was a thinly veiled attempt at character assassination by poisoning the well. Narrative disruption achieved.
The LRAD can produce up to 149 decibels, which is higher than the 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss. It may be non-lethal, but this isn’t something that should be deployed against a civilian population. But I guess cops have to make use of all that military grade weaponry somehow. Why not use it on those uppity black people demanding recognition of their humanity?
In December, a judge ruled that police could not use tear gas against protesters.
Despite advances in technology, rubber bullets CAN kill. They also apparently hurt like the dickens.
Then the cops arrived on the streets of Ferguson, ostensibly to help “maintain the peace”. To better aid their peacekeeping goals, the police brought some weapons along with them. Among their arsenal was a long-range acoustic device, otherwise known as LRAD, tear gas, rubber bullets, and even attack dogs. This was a deliberate show of force. The intent was clear: intimidation. The message was clear: “Stop protesting. Stop complaining. Sit down and shut up. We want the status quo to continue. You black people need to be happy with how things are.”
Why do I say that’s the message? When you look at the weaponry deployed against the protesters–peaceful protesters, remember–it looks like the police are preparing for war. They’re supposed to be there to serve and protect, not intimidate the populace. Not to scare them into submission. Not to remind them of their place. None of the intimidation tactics worked, of course, but it did serve to remind some people of the history of state sanctioned violence against African-Americans, which only provided fuel for the complaints of protesters. Given the support law enforcement has in the United States, there are many people who would look at images of law enforcement using an LRAD or tear gas against protesters as a sign that they {the protesters} did something wrong and deserved that treatment. Because the police couldn’t be wrong. They couldn’t have fucked up. They are good and righteous and wouldn’t brutalize the very civilians they’re supposed to protect. The seeds were planted in the early days. Seeds intended to turn public sentiment against the protesters and change the narrative surrounding the protests.
Thanks to the police showing up with their intimidation gear, their intimidation tactics, and their intimidation weapons, the protests took a turn for the worse. Some opportunistic people began looting Ferguson stores (described in some circles as rioting; a term I refuse to use in reference to the protests). Despite the fact that there were precious few looters, the media focused on them, as if they defined what the movement was about. As if they were the face of the protests against law enforcement abuse of power and police brutality.
Frustration is now boiling over after decades of discriminatory policing, near-zero accountability, and lack of will from lawmakers to reel in the spiraling police state. In fact, as we have documented in depth, the militarization of the police is rising despite the increased outcry from concerned citizens against it. The overbearing presence of riot police in Ferguson deployed to contain peaceful protesters may have been the very spark which ignited the rioting in the first place.
To be clear, rioting did not start on August 24th until police began mass-deploying tear gas and other crowd dispersal tactics and an overwhelming majority of protesters remained peaceful.
In the predictable manner in which the corporate media operates, the news cycle has been shifted away from the tragedy of the killing of 18 year old Michael Brown, and switched to the few who lost their cool and began looting and rioting. While the riots are newsworthy, the main focus of the news coverage should be on the death of this unarmed young man, and the overall rise of documented police brutality that is permeating in all corners of America. More Americans have been killed in the last decade by the police than the total number of US soldiers killed in the entire Iraq war, but they won’t talk about that on TV.
No, we don’t see or hear that. That wouldn’t play into the narrative the media wants people to buy. From the beginning, organizers called for peaceful protests. They’ve condemned violence. They’ve helped clean up their own streets. They’ve helped protect stores from looting. They’ve policed their own community. But rarely is this shown by the mainstream media. I can’t speak to the why of it, but one of the results is clear. For some people, the looters came to embody the movement. The people who condemned the looters and rushed to characterize the protesters as being looters displayed more concern for stores being robbed than the extrajudicial killing of a black man. Priorities people. Priorities. You can buy more goods to sell. Michael Brown will never be alive again, and his family and friends will suffer that loss for the rest of their lives. But the damage was once more done. Some people in the public condemned the looting, the civil unrest, and the protest movement itself. Once more, the media sought to change the narrative around the protest movement, in what looks like a deliberate attempt to discredit the protesters.
There were other attempts made to shift public opinion on the protests. We saw people complain that protesters shouldn’t say “Black lives matter”. No, these people felt protesters weren’t being fair, and should more properly say “All lives matter”. Of course, doing so ignores the ugly racism at the heart of the criminal justice system. It ignores the fact that every 28 hours, a black person is shot and killed by a member of law enforcement. It ignores the fact that a USA Today study of the FBI’s justified homicide database found that in 96% of cases involving a black person dying at the hands of a white police officer, the officer was rarely indicted (what about a trial you say? Pish-posh. That hardly happens). It ignores the fact that young black men are 21 times more likely than young white men to be shot dead by police. Saying “all lives matter” would distract from the very point of the protests: that people of color are unfairly, unconstitutionally, and unethically deprived of their rights and their humanity on an ongoing basis by our criminal justice system. Or as Julia Craven said:
There is seemingly no justice for Black life in America. An unarmed Black body can be gunned down without sufficient reasoning and left in the middle of the street on display for hours — just like victims of lynching.
Strange fruit still hangs from our nations poplar trees. Lynching underwent a technological revolution. It evolved from nooses to guns and broken necks to bullet wounds.
Police brutality is a BLACK issue. This is not an ill afflicting all Americans, but that does not mean you cannot stand in solidarity with us. But standing with us does not mean telling us how we should feel about our community’s marginalization. Standing with us means being with us in solidarity without being upset that this is for OUR PEOPLE — and wanting recognition for yours in this very specific context.
Telling us that all lives matter is redundant. We know that already. But, just know, police violence and brutality disproportionately affects my people. Justice is not applied equally, laws are not applied equally and neither is our outrage.
You can breathe because you’re white, dumbass.
In December, a New York grand jury declined to return an indictment against NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo. Pantaleo is the NYPD officer whose chokehold move resulted in the death of Eric Garner. This followed on the heels of the non-indictment of Darren Wilson and served to further anger and frustrate protesters. Protesters around the country began wearing shirts emblazoned with the words “I can’t breathe”, the final words of Eric Garner, who suffered from asthma. The shirt expresses the idea that black people across the United States feel that the oppression, discrimination, and racism they feel from the criminal justice system is preventing them from living…from breathing. To protesters, any of them could be Eric Garner. Any of them could have been held down, been prevented from breathing, or killed by law enforcement. All for being black. One of the responses to the “I can’t breathe” T-shirts came from supporters of law enforcement. You can see the slogan “I can breathe” in the image above. It’s worn by people who are not experiencing systematic discrimination and racism. Of course they can breathe. They aren’t the victims of racism. They aren’t the ones dealing with racism in law enforcement or in the courts. They are the ones with the privilege of being white. Wearing that shirt sends a message whether they like it or not. That message is “I don’t have a problem with police violence and abuse of power from law enforcement”. As a response to one of the core problems the protest movement has been decrying, whoever came up with the T-shirts is an unequivocal asshole. Making such a shirt was a knee-jerk, unthinking response to legitimate protests. At best, wearing that shirt is privilege-laden, tone-deaf, and fails to acknowledge the very real problems that people have with law enforcement and the court system. At worst, wearing that shirt has been a way for people to justify the death of Eric Garner.
I asked one man wearing a “I Can Breathe” t-shirt what the phrase meant. “If he hadn’t resisted arrest,” the man said with a shrug, “he could still breathe.”
Watching the video [of Garner’s death], I’d be hard pressed to view Garner’s actions as resisting arrest. In any case, even if he had been resisting arrest, that should not be sufficient grounds to kill him! Once again, one of the key narratives surrounding the movement has been challenged by those who don’t want progress.
Those defenders of the status quo emerged once again this past weekend, following the murder of two NYPD police officers at the hands of a mentally ill man. This seemingly provided an opportunity to criticize the protest movement and attempt to demonize protesters, as if they (rather than killer Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley) were responsible for the tragic deaths of those officers. First up is former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani:
“We’ve had four months of propaganda, starting with the president, that everybody should hate the police,” said Giuliani during an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t care how you want to describe it — that’s what those protests are all about.”
Giuliani cited the nationwide protests against institutional racism and police brutality that followed the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York, and that flared up anew after the respective grand jury decisions not to indict the officers responsible in either case. Giuliani said those demonstrations, and the ongoing criticism of police tactics and the criminal justice system, were part of what led to the shooting of two NYPD officers in Brooklyn on Saturday afternoon. Police say the alleged shooter, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, traveled to New York from Baltimore with the intention of killing police officers.
“The protest are being embraced, the protests are being encouraged. The protests, even the ones that don’t lead to violence — a lot of them lead to violence — all of them lead to a conclusion: The police are bad, the police are racist,” said Giuliani. “That is completely wrong. Actually, the people who do the most for the black community in America are the police.”
The former mayor accused black commentators of creating “an atmosphere of severe, strong anti-police hatred in certain communities.”
Giuliani also accused New York Mayor Bill de Blasio of “allowing protests to get out of control.” But he said it was not the time to call for de Blasio’s resignation, as “a lot of other police officers were killed under a lot of other mayors.”
What Giuliani describes in not remotely an accurate representation of the protests in the US. The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. They have called for non-violent protests. They have not said “all police are bad” or that “all police are racist”. Nor has there been “4 months of propaganda”. This is a blatant attempt by Giuliani to whitewash the ongoing protest movement. Instead of treating protesters as having legitimate concerns…of acknowledging the very real problems People of Color face from law enforcement, Giuliani has attempted to change the narrative around the protests. In doing so, he dismisses the concerns of a great many U.S. citizens. Given the wealth of evidence that sits contrary to his views, it looks like Giuliani is attempting to rewrite history.
He’s not the only one though. The head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, had this to say recently:
“There’s blood on many hands tonight,” Lynch said. “Those that incited violence on the street under the guise of protest, that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day. We tried to warn it must not go on. It cannot be tolerated. That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall in the office of the mayor.”
Who are the people he’s talking about?
Who are these people who have incited violence under the guise of protesting? By not naming anyone, and generalizing about the protests, Lynch has subtly attempted to undermine protesters. Again, the protest movement is overwhelmingly peaceful and non-violent. To attempt to characterize it otherwise is an attempt to…change the narrative.
Look, I am firmly opposed to violence as a means of conflict resolution and I condemn any such actions. I am also saddened about the deaths of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. While their deaths were tragic, a mentally ill lone gunman does not represent the entire protest movement. I also condemn anyone who looted, committed arson, or engaged in violent activities under cover of the protests. But those people do not represent the protest movement either. The protests center around a desire for reform in police departments across the country, as well as reforming the criminal justice system. Referring to the protests as anything other than that does nothing more than dismiss the very real problems in our criminal justice system. Problems that disproportionately affect African-Americans and other communities of color in the United States. Though they may try, I don’t think the defenders of the status quo will succeed in retconning the narrative surrounding the current protest movement in the United States. They may have done some damage though, and that’s why I think these people need to be called out and criticized for what they say. Because black lives matter.
During the opening of his performance at Seattle’s Key Arena, legendary artist Stevie Wonder weighs in on the grand jury decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.
(here are the lyrics)
“Living For The City”
“A boy is born in hard time Mississippi
Surrounded by four walls that ain’t so pretty
His parents give him love and affection
To keep him strong moving in the right direction
Living just enough, just enough for the city.
His father works some days for fourteen hours
And you can bet he barely makes a dollar
His mother goes to scrub the floor for many
And you’d best believe she hardly gets a penny
Living just enough, just enough for the city..
His sister’s black but she is sho ’nuff pretty
Her skirt is short but Lord her legs are sturdy
To walk to school she’s got to get up early
Her clothes are old but never are they dirty
Living just enough, just enough for the city.
Her brother’s smart he’s got more sense than many
His patience’s long but soon he won’t have any
To find a job is like a haystack needle
Cause where he lives they don’t use colored people
Living just enough, just enough for the city…
Living just enough…
For the city..
[repeat several times]
His hair is long, his feet are hard and gritty
He spends his love walking the streets of New York City
He’s almost dead from breathing on air pollution
He tried to vote but to him there’s no solution
Living just enough, just enough for the city.
I hope you hear inside my voice of sorrow
And that it motivates you to make a better tomorrow
This place is cruel no where could be much colder
If we don’t change the world will soon be over
Living just enough, just enough for the city.”
But we didn’t get one. As I imagine most readers know, on November 24, the Ferguson grand jury released their decision: no charges would be filed against Officer Darren Wilson for the murder of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man. They said there was no probable cause to indict him.
No.
Probable.
Cause.
Really?! Seriously?! Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown and that’s not cause enough to charge him with a crime (I’m not kidding when I ask “isn’t that enough that Wilson shot and killed Brown”).
In many discussions online and in meatspace, I saw people make the same mistake over and over again. They thought the grand jury was deciding on the guilt or innocence of Darren Wilson. They were not. They were deciding whether or not to bring charges against him. Without charges, there would be no trial to determine his guilt or innocence. And there’s not going to be a trial (the parents of Michael Brown may sue Darren Wilson in civil court). Why?
At this point it’s fair to say that cops are above the law. I’ve written many posts highlighting how cops behave badly. From beating suspects, to raping people during routine traffic stops, to killing mentally ill homeless people, police officers across the country engage in acts of excessive violence against the civilians they are ostensibly supposed to be protecting. What’s worse is that all too often, those officers get nothing more than a slap on the wrist…IF that. In 1985, former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously said that if a prosecutor wanted they could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In the case of the Ferguson grand jury and prosecutor Bob McCullough, I can only surmise that they’re completely incompetent. After all, what grand jury decides not to bring charges against a man who shot and killed another man? Shouldn’t that be pretty damned easy…like indicting a ham sandwich?
Let’s be clear here though: many, many people felt that the grand jury wouldn’t indict Darren Wilson. Many of us knew the deck was (and continues to be) stacked in the favor of white supremacy and institutionalized racism. From the beginning the Ferguson PD mishandled the case (leaving Michael Brown’s body lying on the ground for hours…Wilson not filing a police report…the Ferguson chief engaging in character assassination of Michael Brown by trying to tie his murder into a theft at a local convenience store). It was clear that they were shielding Darren Wilson (remember, he was on paid leave for the 100+ days since he killed Brown; during which time he got married!) and were doing all they could to demonize Michael Brown. Then there was the police response in the wake of the initial protests in Ferguson. Tear Gas, attack dogs, sonic cannons, and rubber bullets were deployed against civilians as if they were an invading army. The governmental response, from the Ferguson PD up to the state level with Governor Nixon, was decidedly one-sided. Doubt was cast on Michael Brown. Doubt was cast on the protesters (this was noticeable in the media depiction of the protests, which often implied that looting and rioting were widespread when they weren’t). But Darren Wilson? Nowhere was he at fault. Governor Jay Nixon said nothing about him. The Ferguson PD said nothing about him. Even the media didn’t seem terribly concerned with a police officer shooting an unarmed civilian.
Why is that?
It’s hard to escape the feeling that in the United States, black lives don’t matter to many people. From Darren Wilson to the Ferguson PD…from Bob McCulloch to the Ferguson grand jury…the life of a black man was treated as inconsequential. The lives of the protesters (many of whom, though not all, were black) were trivialized (as seen in the militarized response to the overwhelmingly peaceful protests in the initial days following Brown’s murder). In the public discourse around the murder and subsequent protests, I frequently read of support for Darren Wilson and condemnation of the protests. This all has the net effect of telling black people that their lives aren’t valued by the society. By police. By the government. By the media.
All of that apathy towards black lives? It exists in a culture that has historically mistreated black people at best and treated them as slaves at worst. Black people have never been treated as equals in our culture. Whether you go back to legalized slavery in the United States, when blacks were treated as subhumans that white people could buy and sell like property or if you go back a few decades to the 1963 bombing of a Birmingham church (which killed four black girls) or as recently as the trial of George Zimmerman…it’s clear that society doesn’t treat black lives as if they matter. Oh sure people won’t come right out and say that (well, some of them do, but these are the honest racist fuckstains). No. They’ll say that blacks are equal to everyone else. They’ll say that blacks don’t need Affirmative Action because things are different today. They’ll say that racism only exists because black people keep talking about it.
But when push comes to shove? Far too many people devalue the lives of black people in the US.
How else do you explain:
police killing Darrien Hunt (who was “armed” with a toy sword)?
the Oath Keepers patrolling Ferguson ready to kill protesters?
people siding with George Zimmerman against unarmed Trayvon Martin?
police shooting and killing 12 year old Tamir Rice (who was “armed” with a BB gun)?
the public condemnation of the initial Ferguson protests?
police officers shooting (46 times) and killing Martin Hall?
police officers shooting and killing Milton Hall, an unarmed, mentally ill man?
the characterization of protesters as thugs?
police officers choking Eric Garner to death (for unlawfully selling cigarettes)?
A grand jury is currently deciding whether or not to indict the officers who killed Eric Garner. Given that black lives don’t matter in the US, who wants to place a bet that this grand jury won’t indict a ham sandwich?
Special Note on the civil unrest in Ferguson:
Following the grand jury’s decision, protests erupted across the United States. Some of these protests included arson and destruction of property. I don’t condone violence as a means to any end. I wish the violence and destruction that has ensued in Ferguson and around the country had not happened. However, I am aware of the decades of frustration felt by the citizens of Ferguson. I am aware of the larger social problem in the United States that results in the voices of black people being silenced. I can’t condone the civil unrest, but I damn sure understand where its coming from. What recourse is left when the justice system doesn’t even bring charges against a cop who killed a black man? What the fuck are people supposed to do? There is no other proper, legal recourse. Black people in the US are not being listened to, and some feel that civil unrest is the only avenue left for them. Can there be peace when there is no justice?
That’s officer Darren Wilson. Back on August 9, he killed this guy:
That’s Michael Brown for those that have been living under a rock. Why did Wilson kill Brown? We may never know (racism). We know it wasn’t because of stolen cigars (it was a racially motivated killing). We’ve heard that it’s because Brown got into a struggle with Wilson (not sure what the scuffle was about, but I’m sure racism on the part of Wilson played a role). Of course we also know that Brown ran away from Wilson and that Brown was unarmed and presented NO threat to the officer (being a large black man does not make someone a threat, but when you’re a racist shitstain, that doesn’t matter). We know that Officer Wilson chose to shoot Brown at least 6 times (because that’s what racist people do when empowered by and thinking they’re above the law). We know he did not file a police report (why would he? He shot a black kid, and black lives don’t matter, bc racism). We know that he has been on paid leave since the day of the shooting (because shooting and killing a civilian is a perfectly good reason to get a paid vacation. Don’t know how to tie that into racism, but I’m sure there’s a way). We know that he has not been arrested for the execution of Michael Brown (well duh, bc people don’t care that a racist cop killed a black kid. Why arrest him if they don’t care).
Now we know one more thing: if he is not indicted, he’ll be able to return to work immediately.
The Ferguson police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown will be “immediately” returned to active duty if he is not indicted, Chief Tom Jackson told Yahoo News on Friday.
Officer Darren Wilson has been on paid leave since the controversial shooting in early August.
He would come back to a “not yet determined assignment,” the chief writes in an email.
If the grand jury charges Wilson, Jackson said the officer would “most likely” be terminated “if it is a felony.”
Why the hell would you even say that?
Tensions in Ferguson (and around the country) are already high. The police should be working on repairing the damage to the community and building relationships with the citizens of Ferguson. This statement is yet another slap in the face to Brown’s family and friends, as well as all the people who have been protesting. It’s tactless and insulting. It should not have been made, no matter how truthful it is.
And if Wilson chooses to return, I can only imagine what kind of uproar that would cause. I fear that would inflame tensions past the breaking point. I’m almost certain he’s not going to get indicted (did I mention that black lives don’t matter in the US?), so he’s already going to get away with killing an innocent civilian. To add to that travesty of justice by allowing him to return to the police force…I can’t even…
If you don’t know who Michael Brown was, or if you’ve never heard of Ferguson, MO, please read here, here, here, here, or here.
Those that are familiar with the protests that erupted in and around Ferguson, MO in the wake of the execution of Michael Brown by the still roaming free and not arrested Officer Darren Wilson, may be interested in the results of a second, private autopsy of his body. Doctor Michael Baden and Professor Shawn Parcells conducted an independent autopsy at the behest of the Brown family, who did not trust local authorities to conduct an unbiased autopsy (indeed-I would not trust them either).
An independent, preliminary autopsy performed on the body of Michael Brown shows that the 18-year-old was shot “at least six times,” according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, formerly the chief medical examiner for the City of New York, one of two experts who performed the autopsy.
Dr. Baden said Brown’s family asked him and Prof. Shawn Parcells, a pathology assistant, to conduct the independent autopsy because they did not trust local authorities to conduct an unbiased examination of the teenager, who was shot by police officer Darren Wilson in circumstances that remain unclear. The town of Ferguson, Missouri, has been shaken by angry protests since Brown’s death and police have responded with tear gas and curfews.
Six bullets struck Brown, Dr. Baden said in a press conference earlier today. Two may have exited and re-entered Brown’s body, he said, resulting in multiple wounds.
Darren Wilson feared for his life from a black man that he had to shoot him at least six times. Remember, after the altercation in the police car, Brown ran away. That means that Officer Wilson fired several shots even after he was out of danger. He didn’t have to kill Michael Brown. He chose to. Scumbag.
The autopsy did not reveal signs of a struggle, Dr. Baden said, which casts doubt on an earlier statement by police that a struggle between Brown and Wilson precipitated Brown’s shooting. Police have said Brown forced his way inside Wilson’s cruiser, where Wilson shot at Brown for the first time.
Dr. Baden said he found no gunpowder residue on Brown’s skin, which could mean that the muzzle of Wilson’s gun was “at least one or two feet away” from Brown when he was shot. However, Dr. Baden was adamant that he would need to examine Brown’s clothing for gunpowder residue to make a conclusive finding.
I’m sure it will come as no surprise that Brown’s clothing was not made available for Dr. Baden. I wonder why. Is there something that the local authorities don’t want people to know? They wouldn’t possibly cover anything up or obstruct justice to protect Darren Wilson, would they? Naaaaah.
Brown’s clothing was not available for Dr. Baden and Prof. Parcells to examine, Baden said, though it was almost certainly examined during Brown’s first autopsy performed by the St. Louis County Medical Examiner. If no gunpowder residue was found on Brown’s clothing during the first autopsy, it will likely throw the Ferguson PD’s timeline of events into question.
Prof. Parcells said a wound on Brown’s right arm was “consistent with a witness statement” that Brown was first shot while facing away from Wilson, but he stressed that he and Dr. Baden could not determine conclusively the trajectories of the bullets that hit Brown—or which direction he was moving—when he was shot. The wounds “could be consistent with going forward or going backward,” Dr. Baden said.
An attorney for Brown’s family said at least some of the shots traced a “back-to-front” trajectory, indicating that Brown was shot from behind.
“Why would he be shot in the top of his head? A 6-foot-4 man?” the attorney asked. “It makes no sense.”
So much about this case makes no sense. Perhaps this question should be added to this list of 15 questions for Darren Wilson.
In related, but largely irrelevant news, an anonymous source familiar with the county’s investigation told the Washington Post that in addition to being shot six to eight times, he had marijuana in his system.Ah, lovely. People are going to take that character assassination and run with it as evidence that he deserved to be shot. Because marijuana turns black people into violent cop killers (no, it doesn’t; weed makes you lazy as fuck, not aggressive…in either case, the presence of a drug in the body of a victim is no justification for executing them).
Around the 1:20 mark, Lemon mentions the Facebook campaign to get black men to pull up their pants and wear them around the waist. Pharrell responds by asserting that no one can tell him how to wear his pants. He goes on to say that saggy pants aren’t a “black thing” bc white people also sag their pants. For the Facebook campaign to be mentioned in the same breath as the events in Ferguson skirts dangerously close to victim blaming. It’s an example of ‘respectability politics’ (which Lemon is quite agreeable to):
On Saturday, Don Lemon listed five steps the black community must require black men to take to become respectable: Stop sagging their pants, stop saying the n-word, stop littering, finish high school, and have fewer children out of wedlock. If black men do those things, they will show that they respect themselves, and then, you see, things will be better. (On Sunday, Lemon welcomed LZ Granderson and Ana Navarro on the air to pat his hand while he groused about the negative response to his comments.)
[…]
But in order to become “respectable,” the targeted group is always encouraged to change. And the changes always, always require the targeted group to become more like the dominant group. If black people act more like white people, or women act more like men, or gays and lesbians act more like straight people, they’ll all see the same outcomes. But the underlying goal of this is to stop being “different.” Act “normally,” and you’ll be treated normally, but if you step outside those boundaries, it is your fault and your fault only.
Of course, the problem with respectability politics is even if they sound good, they don’t actually mean all that much for real people.
[…]
What respectability politics assume, though, is that any bad outcome for black people is the fault of and can only be solved by black people. More importantly, anything black people do that the arbiter of “respectability” doesn’t like is also a black problem requiring a black solution.
Respectability politics alienate their target from the rest of society. They make their targets uniquely bad and irresponsible in a way that other groups aren’t. White dropout rates aren’t the problem of the white community. White men aren’t lectured as a group about the 627,541 out-of-wedlock births to white mothers in 2010. The only response respectability politics has is to treat the black dropout or the black out-of-wedlock birth as a black failure rather than a societal one. Not only are black people somehow uniquely and voluntarily flawed, all of them are responsible for the failures.
If you dress right, you’ll fit in.
If you carry yourself correctly, you’ll be allowed in the club.
If you act in the manner that the majority deems acceptable, you won’t be shot and killed.
This is at the heart of what Lemon is talking about. Respectability politics shifts the responsibility for the oppression and discrimination faced by a marginalized group from the shoulders of the oppressors onto the shoulders of the oppressed. It works by telling the oppressed that they can get by and get ahead in life (or not be killed) if they’ll subsume themselves to the desires of others. You can exist, just not on your own terms. If you choose to exist on your own terms and not do what we say, we can’t be responsible for what befalls you-that’s on you. That’s what “sagging pants” represents. The mere mention of the campaign pushes the idea that black people can be more easily accepted into white culture if they pull their pants up and act in a manner white people approve of.
Fuck.
That.
Noise.
As Pharrell rightly states, no one should be dictating to others what they can or cannot wear (this isn’t a discussion of parents telling their child what clothes to wear). I do wish Pharrell had taken a different tack with his response. Yes, no one has the right to tell him how he can dress. But the problem with bringing up sagging pants in a discussion about Michael Brown’s death is that it, somewhat subtly, makes the point that if black people would alter their behavior to make white people more comfortable they won’t get shot and killed. That’s victim blaming. Instead of Lemon excoriating the actions of Darren Wilson, he chooses to mention the no saggy pants Facebook campaign. As if it’s relevant to the discussion of the slaying of Michael Brown. To Don Lemon, it’s relevant because he feels that too many black Americans don’t “act right” or “dress right”-and if they started doing things “the right way”, they would be more accepted. That’s a great message there Lemon- ‘Act White. Stay alive’. Except not only does it not work that way, it shouldn’t work that way. Black people should expect to be able to express themselves as they see fit and white America should accept them on those terms. We don’t exist for the approval of white America. Yes, we live together in this country. Yes, we need to get along with each other. But that does not mean we need to lose our individuality or our culture. It doesn’t mean we need to alter our identities so that white America is more accepting of us. That’s not equality. That’s assimilation. As I said before, fuck that noise. The people who need to change their behavior are the Darren Wilson’s of the world. They are the ones who aren’t acting right. They are the ones continuing to deny black people the right to exist on their own terms. They’re not only NOT acting respectable, they’re acting reprehensibly. Don Lemon needs to wake up and recognize this and call them out.
Stevie Wonder said the mayor of Ferguson, Missouri, isn’t seeing the full picture a month after an unarmed black 18-year-old was killed by a white police officer.
“I don’t know if the mayor has blinders on,” Wonder said in an interview Wednesday. “But to say that he didn’t know that there was a racial or cultural problem in the city is unfortunate.”
Wonder said he approved of how President Barack Obama has responded to protests in the city following Michael Brown’s death last month. As the unrest drew worldwide attention, Ferguson Mayor James Knowles told reporters that there was no “racial divide” there.
Wonder spoke after announcing a fall North American tour highlighting his Grammy-winning 1976 double album “Songs in the Key of Life.”
The concerts will include performances of new songs culled from the 40 to 50 tunes Wonder wrote for an upcoming album, he said in the interview. He hopes to begin releasing singles from the album, titled “Through the Eyes of Wonder,” in February.
Wonder said his new music was partly inspired by monitoring world news, from clashes in the Middle East to cultural differences in the U.S.
A planned highway shutdown fell through Wednesday as a wall of officers in riot gear kept Ferguson police shooting protesters from walking onto Interstate 70 in a nearby St. Louis suburb during the late afternoon commute.
State troopers and St. Louis city and county officers warned the roughly 150 demonstrators who gathered to stay out of the road as they protested last month’s shooting of Michael Brown, a black, unarmed 18-year-old, by a white officer. There were nearly as many officers as demonstrators.
Organizers said the protest in Berkeley was designed as an act of nonviolent civil disobedience similar to a 1999 demonstration in the same location. During that protest, hundreds of people shut down the interstate in a dispute over minority hiring for road construction projects.
Highway Patrol Sgt. Al Nothum said that 35 people were arrested, most on charges of unlawful assembly. Nothum said protesters threw rocks, concrete blocks, bricks and bottles, leading to four charges of assault on a law enforcement officer.
A smaller group later went to the nearby Ferguson police station before a heavy, late afternoon thunderstorm dispersed most of the protesters.
The crowd included about 20 union workers who operate public transit buses and trains for the region’s Metro system.
“We’re out here to show support,” said Antoin Johnson, 30. “We feel that an injustice has been done.”
****
Here are a few photos from the thwarted highway protest
A line of law enforcement officers block the road at a protest aimed at shutting down Interstate 70 in Berkeley, Mo. on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014 near the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Mo. where Michael Brown, an unarmed, black 18-year old was shot and killed by a white police officer on Aug. 9. (AP Photo/Tom Gannam)
Police arrest a protester after she refused to leave the area during an attempt to shut down Interstate 70 in Berkeley, Mo. on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014 near the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Mo. where Michael Brown, an unarmed, black 18-year old was shot and killed by a white police officer on Aug. 9. (AP Photo/Tom Gannam)
St. Louis county police officers advance on protestors trying to shut down Interstate 70 in Berkeley, Mo. on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014 near the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Mo. where Michael Brown, an unarmed, black 18-year old was shot and killed by a white police officer on Aug. 9. (AP Photo/Tom Gannam)
Because important events are still happening there. In fact, a protest is going on today, September 10, 2014. The protest will shut down part of Highway 70 beginning at 3pm to protest the lack of a special prosecutor on the Michael Brown court case:
Long-time St. Louis activist Anthony Shahid will lead protesters across Interstate 70 today, shutting down the highway to protest the lack of a special prosecutor on the Michael Brown court case.
Protesters plan to meet at 3 p.m. at Hanley Road and then block the highway.
“It is going to cause people some discomfort, it is going to cause inconvenience to people,” says Eric Vickers, one of the organizers of the Justice for Michael Brown Leadership Coalition, about the highway protest. “That is a small price to pay to change the conditions for African American youth, and it is a very small price to pay to bring justice to Michael Brown. The Wednesday civil-disobedience action will be the start of a direct action campaign that will continue and will escalate until our demands are met.”
St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCullough, who is currently handling the local criminal prosecution of Darren Wilson, the Ferguson Police officer who shot and killed Brown in August, has refused to step down from the case despite repeated calls from Ferguson protesters for his removal. Now that Governor Jay Nixon has called off the state of emergency in Ferguson, he has no authority to name a new prosecutor in the Brown case.
But that hasn’t stopped protesters, especially the newly formed Don’t Shoot Coalition, from demanding a new prosecutor. Many have questioned McCullough’s objectivity since his father, a police officer, was killed in the line of duty by a black man when McCullough was twelve years old.
A grand jury has been considering evidence for three weeks now in the case of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, and the hearings will likely continue for at least another month despite the official term for the jury ending tomorrow.
Ed Magee, spokesman for the St. Louis County Prosecutor’s Office, tells Daily RFT that the grand jury will proceed to meet in special session after its four-month term ends Wednesday. Last month, St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch estimated that the grand jury would weigh evidence surrounding the August 9 shooting death of eighteen-year-old Michael Brown through mid-October. Today Magee suggested that that timeline might be optimistic.”The process won’t be concluded until next month at the earliest,” says Magee.
During its special session, the grand jury will only review the Wilson case. Jurists had been meeting on Wednesdays during its official term on the grand jury but that could change under the special session.
“There are twelve of them, so the meetings will probably be held at different dates and times to accommodate their schedules,” says Magee.
Yesterday the Washington Post reported that unlike most criminal cases, prosecutors are not telling the grand jury what charges they think Wilson should face. Instead, the prosecutor’s office is presenting evidence to the jurists as it receives it, allowing the grand jury to consider all the photos, videos, testimonies, ballistics and other details involved in the investigation. Such a process greatly adds to the time the grand jury convenes but is also viewed as a more transparent way of presenting evidence in high-profile crimes. After the hearings conclude, the grand jury will help determine what charges to bring against Wilson — if any.
Magee tells Daily RFT that the only grand jury in recent history to convene as long as the Wilson case was in 2000 when two undercover officers shot and killed two suspects in a drug sting at a north county Jack in the Box. In that case, which carried many of the same racial overtones and public outcry as the Michael Brown shooting, the grand jury declined to indict the officers.
After Michael Brown was fatally shot by a police officer near his grandmother’s apartment complex, his body stayed in the street — sometime covered, sometimes not — for about four hours.
Photos of the body spread rapidly on social media, fueling the anger of a crowd already distraught at the death of an unarmed black teenager. Weeks later, many point to the delay in moving Brown’s body as the first sign of police breaking trust and mishandling the case. Even Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told reporters he was uncomfortable with the long wait before Brown was transported to a nearby morgue.
So what took so long?
Jackson responded that “gun shots” nearby delayed investigators on scene, and St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar pointed to the complexity of the investigation into Brown’s death at the hands of an officer.
“This is a very complicated investigation, as it should be,” Belmar said. “We need to make sure this investigation is done right.”
But to get the whole story, you have to hear from Calvin Whitaker, the man responsible for moving Brown’s body. Whitaker, a funeral director who handles moving bodies for St. Louis County, explained his side of the story to John Pertzborn on Fox2Now.
Police called Whitaker and his wife, who is also a funeral director, to pick up Brown’s body at 2:01 p.m., two hours after Ferguson Police Officer shot Brown. Whitaker arrived at 2:25 p.m. to find a tumultuous, angry crowd.
“It was very hectic, you could cut the tension with a knife,” Whitaker tells Fox2Now. “Police could not control the crowd.”
At one point, Whitaker heard gunshots nearby, just as Jackson told reporters in the days after Brown’s shooting. Whitaker and his wife don’t carry bullet-proof vests, so police told them to “hunker down” in their car to keep safe.
“There were times when we feared for our lives,” Whitaker says. He and his wife stayed in the car for two hours waiting for police to control the crowd. “It took so long because we could not do our job. It was unsafe for us to be there…There was nowhere for us to go.”
The only thing that could calm the crowd down long enough for Whitaker to take Brown’s body away was a plea from Brown’s family. Whitaker says he remembers family members begging the crowd to step back, saying, “”They will not pickup my son, they are not safe.”
There were several extremely tense moments last night at Greater Grace Church at the first Ferguson City Council meeting since the shooting death of Michael Brown one month ago. Police presence in the lobby of the church was heavy as attendees walked through metal detectors. The first time proceedings screeched to a halt amid shouting came after Mayor James Knowles announced that, per normal procedures, each speaker would be allowed three minutes of public comment, but no one on the council would answer questions.
Knowles did, however, receive tepid approval at the first reading of several bills designed to reform parts of the municipal code that, in the wake of the shooting, have been highlighted as unfair to the city’s minorities and working poor. But as the public comment period began (the “fill out a comment card” system falling apart almost immediately), it was clear many in the audience felt the new bills were just platitudes.
“We’re not going to let you go back to business as usual,” said local activist Ashley Yates. “We’re going to hold you accountable. How many police officers have been let go? We’re gonna make sure they all get let go.”
The bills read last night would repeal an automatic fee for having a vehicle towed, toss out certain fees for municipal court cases, limit to 15 percent the amount of money the city’s general fund can receive from court fines and make a failure to appear in municipal court no longer a separate offense. Knowles also announced a bill for the formation of a citizen review board as well as an outstanding warrant recall program set for September 15 to October 15. Much of what Knowles said on these items was read from the same statement announcing the changes from the day prior — read more about that here.
If the changes to the city law were meant as an apology, it was clearly too late for Terri Franks, the mother of twin seventeen-year-old boys who she says have been constantly pulled over since they got their licenses a year ago, swamping her with court fees.
“You make your money off of our backs,” she said. “I’m constantly coming to court for something as frivolous as a blinker not being on.”
Michael-John Voss, an attorney with the ArchCity Defenders, told Daily RFT that the changes the city is making are “great,” though they stopped far short of what he and his colleagues are asking the city to do: Grant total amnesty to Ferguson residents with nonviolent warrants and fines sitting on their records, these being mainly for traffic offenses.
“You can see the anger and resentment here,” said Voss. “[The city] has to divide the administration of justice from the desire to raise revenue…there has to be a real commitment to show it’s not about the money.”
