To begin with, recall the aftermath of the O.J. verdict in which Simpson was acquitted, by a largely black jury, of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman both of whom were white. The verdict was widely recognized as a travesty of justice, yet there were no widespread public demonstrations against it, let alone violent protests involving the destruction of private property and the looting of local businesses.
Had the race of the accused, the victims and the jury been reversed, would the aftermath have been the same?
Fast forward to Ferguson in which white police officer Darren Wilson shoots and kills black suspect Michael Brown in self-defense just moments after Brown, who had committed a robbery, attacked Wilson, tried to get his gun, then later rushed the officer, forcing him to defend himself. These facts were corroborated by physical evidence as well as by seven black witnesses who courageously came forward and confirmed the officer’s account of the shooting, even though they feared retaliation by the protestors. As a result of their eye-witness testimony and the accompanying physical evidence, the grand jury could find no grounds on which to indict the officer.
What was the response? Massive public demonstrations that took the form of a lynch mob demanding the officer’s conviction along with numerous death threats against him and his family. The demonstrations quickly turned violent with the burning and looting of over two dozen neighborhood businesses, which served and employed the city’s residents.
The riots, physical destruction and looting could have been largely prevented had the national guard been present the first day as backup for the police, but the governor was unavailable to dispatch them. The rioting could also have been prevented had the demonstrators not been allowed to assemble.
The idea that people have a free-speech right to take over the streets in order to voice their grievances is a myth. There is no such thing as free speech on someone else’s property absent consent of the owner. The city, which owns the streets, should have denied a public protest, because of the obvious threat that it posed for ensuing violence and public safety.
As for a rush to judgment, who was guilty of pre-judging the officer’s action? It wasn’t the grand jury. It was the lynch mob that demanded the officer’s head before any objective evaluation of the evidence.
In the wake of everything that transpired, the officer was forced to resign (and with no severance pay) not only out of fear for his life and the lives of his family, but also because the police department and its officers were themselves threatened with violence had he remained on the force and received any additional compensation.
With that, the protestors had effectively taken over law enforcement and were now dictating how the police department conduct its operations.
Adding insult to injury, five St. Louis Rams football players raised their hands on field in a clueless display of solidarity with the Ferguson protestors. They were quickly condemned by the St. Louis Police Officers Association.
We are now witnessing a descent into barbarism and the introduction of a new form of social order: mob rule. Yet in a society that enshrines public protests against perceived injustice, no one is bothering to protest the real injustice that occurred here: the burning and looting of businesses and the intimidation and railroading of an innocent police officer and his department.