As expected once again America’s so-called justice system has disappointed its Black citizenry and all who believe in justice — a White officer who shot and killed an unarmed Black male has been allowed to walk.
This time it was a grand jury in St. Louis, Mo., which returned a no true bill; declining to indict Darren Wilson who witnesses said shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown execution style in broad daylight in Ferguson, Mo.
Now the streets of Ferguson are on fire after the decision not to indict was announced tonight.
St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch read the decision shortly after 9:15 PM. He claimed the Grand Jury, after three months of testimony and after meeting 25 times had then deliberated for two days and decided that there was no probable cause that Darren Wilson had committed a crime.
There is a problem with McCulloch’s statement. If the Grand Jury had only just arrived at that conclusion based on the narrative McCulloch provided — an encounter between Brown and Wilson near the officer’s car; a chase after Brown by Wilson; Brown turning and facing Wilson; Brown either moving or not moving towards Wilson; Wilson definitely shooting Brown multiple times– then why is this scenario identical to the the “leak” published by The New York Times on October 17?
And that’s only the half of the story.
The more critical and important half is — how could have Wilson conceivably been engaged in any form of self defense when he chased after Brown, who was clearly unarmed? Wilson must have known this, otherwise he would not have run after someone whom he feared was a threat to his own life. He might have instead taken cover behind his own car door if he was expecting a gunfight with Brown.
No — If he was chasing after an unarmed boy who was fleeing, clearly he was not engaged in any form of self defense.
And once Brown turned around and faced him did Wilson order Brown to get down on his knees? Did he order Brown to raise his hands and surrender? And if, the unarmed Brown had indeed “moved” towards Wilson, as his spin masters contended in the “leaked” version of his justification to The New York Times and in the similar narrative provided by McCulloch today, did Wilson try to shoot Brown in an area of the body to immobilize him?
Was it by pure accident that Wilson shot brown in the eye and on the top of his head rather than in his legs?
There is an undeniable pattern now allover these United States.
The danger faced by Black males at the hands of White police officers who face no penalties reminds us of the infamous Dred Scott ruling that no Black man has rights that a White man need respect; especially a White police officer these days.
How else to explain cases of killing of Black men by White officers with impunity? Who for one second believes that had Michael Brown been a White teenager who became involved in similar interaction with Wilson that he would have been chased down and killed like an animal and the body left on the street for hours? And who also believes that Wilson would not have been arrested or that a Grand Jury would have returned a no true bill?
So when young Black males see others die like Brown, like Eric Garner, like Trayvon Martin, like Sean Bell, like Ramarley Graham, like Amadou Diallo, and many others, and no one punished for it, why should they have any faith in the so-called judicial system?
No true bill by a St. Louis Grand jury, given the set of circumstances in the Ferguson shooting, and the highly compromised position to the Prosecutor McCulloch who should have recused himself, does not mean that Darren Wilson did not commit a crime.
Wilson should have been tried by a criminal trial jury.
He was not engaged in self defense when he killed Brown and should face federal charges of violating the teenager’s civil rights.