No one has asked any of the professional race-baiters stoking the flames of racial hatred and violence in Ferguson: “What if the officer actually didn’t commit a crime?” Then, there’s the obvious follow-up: “Is it still okay to riot?”
There are a bunch of questions to the rioters and their leaders that come from that simple, logical question, and it’s follow-up:
- How do you know that a crime was committed against Michael Brown? What real evidence do you have? Sean Hannity asked that question to one of the Brown family lawyers, who said that the trajectory of one of the bullets “proved” that Wilson shot Brown from above. Yet, it was easy to see that the trajectory of the bullet described by the lawyer could have been observed in the case of a “football-style,” head-down charge as described by the officer. In other words, the only piece of actual evidence brought forth publicly by the people siding with the rioters… did not indicate guilt.
- Is it at all problematic to you that no evidence has been made public that strongly indicates that the officer committed a crime? Remember: it’s lawful for a police officer to use deadly force if he believes his life to be in peril. Are you absolutely positive, not a shadow of a doubt, that Michael Brown was not imperiling Officer Wilson?
- Do you really not see the irony in the strong resemblance between your attempts to convict Wilson without due process and lynching?
- Would you like it if the races and roles were reversed — black cop shoots unarmed white teenager — and hordes of white people were crowding into the streets to call for the indictment and conviction of the cop? With no evidence or due process?
- What kind of “justice system” would that be — where people are convicted of crimes, or not, based on their race?
- Is that really a “justice system” you would want to live under?
- Under what legitimate reason would you not allow at least some investigation to take place before you riot, threaten the life of the cop, call for his trial, etc.?
- Why were there no riots after the acquittal of O.J. Simpson?
- A commonly-viewed slogan in the riots was: “Black Lives Matter.” Okay. Doesn’t your insistence that Officer Wilson be charged with a crime before an investigation, constitute your declaration that white lives don’t matter?
- If so, culturally speaking, should white people just sit back and accept that from you? Or — and it’s a big one — are you not actually justifying, or at least causing, prejudice against you?
- Don’t you find it ironic that you almost never hear about it when a black person commits a crime against a white person? Yet it happens quite a lot.(1)
- Are all acts of hostility by a white person against a black person automatically crimes?
- Are all acts of hostility or violence by a black person against a white person justified?
- Things done by white people, that would normally be crimes, are they not crimes if done by black people?
- Same question in reverse: Things done by black people that are not crimes, are they then crimes when done by white people? Same example as above: Imagine the races of the two people in Ferguson were reversed. It’s pretty obvious that if a black Darren Wilson had shot a white Michael Brown, outside of Ferguson we’d have heard nothing of it.
The reason the answers to these questions are important is: they show the difference between third-world, tinpot dictatorships — in which certain groups are overtly favored to the detriment of others — and real countries that offer their populace real opportunities for freedom, security and prosperity.
In vain can you point to segregation, Jim Crow, slavery, racism and discrimination against blacks, and say, “See? See? The United States was a third-world, tinpot, dictatorship! According to your own words!” Nope.(2) Those unsavory aspects of our past — developed, and vociferously defended by, or widely prevalent in, the Democrat Party — were perpetrated by an élite, but fringe, government faction — Southern Democrats — against a small minority of the population.
Such things were all, plainly, illegal. There was no legal justification for any of them, and they were doomed to go away — which they did — as soon as people focused on them for more than a moment or two.
When Republicans first began to propose Civil Rights legislation all the way back in the Eisenhower Administration, it was to end discrimination against a small minority. In third-world, tinpot dictatorships, it’s the reverse: a tiny, illegitimate minority imposes its will against the vast majority of the people.
It’s for this reason that racism is a staple of socialism, since the principal characteristic of socialistic countries is: a tiny élite imposing its will on the people.
Sure enough, our country’s accelerating trajectory toward socialism has accompanied a steady worsening in race relations.
(1) According to the great Jason Riley: “…liberals spend their time spotlighting white racism, real or imagined, and touting it as an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes.
Ferguson helps further that agenda in ways that Chicago does not. Hence, the left posits that the Michael Brown shooting is the norm, even though the data show that it’s the exception. And if black criminal behavior is a response to white racism, how is it that black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher, racial discrimination was rampant and legal, and the country was more than a half-century away from twice electing a black president?
Racial profiling and tensions between the police and poor black communities are real problems, but these are effects rather than causes, and they can’t be addressed without also addressing the extraordinarily high rates of black criminal behavior—yet such discussion remains taboo. Blacks who bring it up are sell-outs. Whites who mention it are racists. (Mr. Dyson accused Mr. Giuliani of “white supremacy.”) But so long as young black men are responsible for an outsize portion of violent crime, they will be viewed suspiciously by law enforcement and fellow citizens of all races.
Pretending that police behavior is the root of the problem is not only a dodge but also foolish. The riots will succeed in driving business out of town, which means that Ferguson’s residents will be forced to pay more at local stores or travel farther for competitive prices on basic goods and services. Many Ferguson residents today can’t go to work because local businesses have been burned down.
Even worse, when you make police targets, you make low-income communities less safe. Ferguson’s problem isn’t white cops or white prosecutors; it’s the thug behavior exhibited by individuals like Michael Brown, which puts a target on the backs of other young black men. Romanticizing such behavior instead of condemning it only makes matters worse.”
(2) These late, unlamented things are indeed important characteristics of third-world, tinpot dictatorships. Their disappearance proved that the United States was not such a country. More to the point, their disappearance was evidence of the way a healthy society deals constructively with damaging parts of itself. No society is perfect. The way to gauge the health of a country is to observe how it deals with its imperfections over time