We are now at the end of Women’s History Month after recognizing Black History Month in February. The United States Senate, appropriately, is now on the precipice of confirming the first Black woman to serve as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. When Senator Booker told Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson that he couldn’t help but look at her and see his own mother, I knew exactly what he meant. I saw my own mother, a Black woman, and I thought about her and what it might’ve meant to her as a little girl to have seen this moment.

Booker said “I’m not gonna let my joy be stolen, because I know – you and I – we appreciate something that we get that a lot of my colleagues don’t. I know Tim Scott does…And I want to tell you, when I look at you, this is why I get emotional. I’m sorry, you’re a person that is so much more than your race and gender. You’re a Christian, you’re a mom, you’re an intellect, you love books. But for me, I’m sorry, it’s hard for me not to look at you and not see my mom, not to see my cousins, one of them who had to come here and sit behind you. She had to have your back. I see my ancestors and yours. Nobody’s going to steal the joy of that woman in the street, or the calls that I’m getting, or the texts. Nobody’s going to steal that joy. You have earned this spot. You are worthy. You are a great American.”

Senator Booker cried, Judge Brown Jackson cried, I cried, and I imagine millions of Black people in America cried as well. This should be a moment of national solidarity and great celebration, as a Black twitter user said “If Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson gets confirmed she’ll be the first Black Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall to serve. And before you try to correct me with your thinky thoughts, I know what I tweeted. Thanks for understanding in advance.”

So why doesn’t any of this feel celebratory? Why does it feel like some of my joy has been stolen?

Black History month is something like a dark joke (no pun intended) among many Black Americans. We’d gladly tell you that February is an opportunity for White people to learn about what we already know (and then promptly forget in time for next February). It’s become as commercialized and hollowed out as every other holiday in America and so we’ve even developed our own traditions, like the collective gritting of teeth when coworkers inevitably say something along the lines of “at least you get a whole month!” and of course the corporate apology for the ill-thought racist product. The curriculum offered to children in school (more on that later) is so reductive that it usually consists of a listing of inventors, a poem from Langston Hughes, watching the “I Have a Dream Speech”, and some discussion of the civil war but generally not it’s cause (slavery). There’s a Frederick Douglass speech titled “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July” where he calls out the contradictions of a freedom centered holiday in a nation which at the time had over 3 million enslaved people. I’m reminded of that every year in February, and I’m reminded of it now with the President’s well-meaning gesture of nominating Judge Brown Jackson by the end of February.

I can’t say I’m as familiar with the dynamics surrounding Women’s History month, but I’m sure similar ironies and contradictions present themselves. What do I mean by contradictions? Consider the last several years which nonetheless has very public acknowledgements of Black History.

In 2005, many residents of almost entirely black neighborhoods in New Orleans were left scrambling after the worst Hurricane the region had seen in living memory. Many died without assistance during the flooding, and many of those who didn’t were met with silence from the federal government.

In 2012, Trayvon Martin was murdered in Florida and Barack Obama was pilloried for displaying a semblance of sympathy for an unarmed teenager who was killed by a racist.

In 2014, Ferguson Missouri was consumed by protests and police aggression after the shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer. A no-fly zone was instituted by the governor, to keep the cameras from showing the despair of the people on the ground. Eric Garner, another Black man, was strangled to death by police in New York City for allegedly selling individual cigarettes. Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old, was shot for holding a plastic toy rifle. Meanwhile in Nevada, a white rancher named Bundy claimed to “know a lot about the negroes” including how “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”  All while pointing dozens of actual loaded rifles at federal law enforcement.

In 2015, a white supremacist domestic terrorist killed 9 Black parishioners in South Carolina. He did it to start a “race war”. When he was captured, the police delivered him to burger king for a hot meal before delivering him to prison. A 5-year-old survived by laying in the blood on the floor pretending to be dead.

In 2016, the man who had popularized the racist myth that the first Black President was illegitimate because he wasn’t an American citizen was elected President himself and his party won a majority of the popular vote in Congress the same year, many of them not condemning the myth and others having trafficked in it themselves with no consequence from the voting public.

Then there’s everything that’s happened since. These past two years especially have made the contradictions clearer than they’ve ever been, beginning with the international outpouring of righteous indignation at the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. But as time went on, the government’s resolve weakened and the patience of the white public which has since soured on the idea that Black Lives Matter with the media glad to write stories making imaginary links between a nonexistent defunding of police and crime. Now just 2 years shy of the anniversary of the murder and the outrage, we’re confronted nationally with a wave of white parents successfully lobbying government at all levels to erase Black people from history. To quote Senator Booker, God Bless America.

So, we arrive in February once again, the Judge is nominated, the kabuki begins and the insincere niceties are written everywhere that they can be read. Then we entered March, and that was forgotten. If you watched the confirmation, you know what I’m talking about. There’s only so many times you can see someone accused of being soft on child pornography and pedophiles. There’s only so many times you can see someone’s intelligence and credentials questioned. There’s only so many times you can watch someone be talked over, shouted down, disrespected, and condescended to. There is only so much one can withstand and still maintain their joy.

Judge Brown Jackson will become Justice Brown Jackson, and the swelling pride I feel because of her success is shared by many other Black Americans. But the joy that Sen. Booker feels I reckon still escapes most of us, it certainly has escaped me. Sen. Booker is known for being this generation’s happy warrior, it is in his nature to see our better angels first. There is a liberal tendency to cope with these moments by imagining the “end of history” and the moral arc of the universe bending towards justice or the increasing diversity or the passion of the next generation. It should be said this is a step forward and it speaks of the progress that might be possible, though not inevitable.

As Booker and Brown-Jackson and myself and the 40 million Black people living in America must know, this nomination changes the racial composition of the Supreme Court, but it does not change the soul of America.

The post Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Confirmation Should’ve Been a Celebration appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson sent the United States Army into Detroit to try to calm the streets after rioting and police conduct had resulted in the deaths of forty-three. Fifty three years later, the governmental approach to civil unrest continues to be to send in armed police officers and national guardsmen.

It did not work well in Ferguson, MO in 2014; it certainly is not working well now in Minneapolis and a host of other cities. Are there other ways to deal with citizen concerns besides massive displays of armed power?

Here are a few suggestions as to how authorities in Minneapolis could have, and hopefully still can, try to communicate an understanding of the frustration of the citizens. Beyond that, the police forces still have time to try to make amends.

1. Immediately acknowledge that the cops messed up. Police officers on the street could acknowledge this. If they really wanted to get the point across clearly, some police officers could carry signs saying, “We messed up,” or perhaps even better, “We screwed up,” or “We fucked up.” It’s not what the community would expect to see, but these are not ordinary times. As Mark Twain said, “When everything else fails, try telling the truth.”
2. Instead of having police on the front lines opposing citizens, the municipal leaders could call out other public employees who are more skilled in conflict resolution. Imagine if the city sent hundreds or thousands of public school teachers, social workers, public defenders and others to talk openly with the protesters. They could hear out what the protesters had to say, document it, and commit themselves to passing along the concerns of the citizens to “higher-ups.” In the category of “truth in advertising,” we have to acknowledge that not all teachers, social workers and public defenders are terribly skilled in conflict resolution, but they would be a good group with whom to start.
3. Find ways to organize community truth and reconciliation gatherings. These would be on-going. Minneapolis seems to have an outstanding mayor in Jacob Frey and an excellent Chief of Police in Medaria Arradondo. Begin scheduling meetings now, and be sure to include on the beat police officers. Everyone would have to follow rules of civility.
4. Being somewhat facetious, but what the hell, the Minnesota Vikings could sign Colin Kaepernick to compete with Kirk Cousins to be quarterback. At the very least, Kaepernick could teach police officers the proper way to take a knee. As silly as this may sound, it could be an act of good faith within the community and would probably give the Vikings what they need to become a Super Bowl contender.

We have previously written about police officers also being trained to be social workers. Police are often the first level of government with whom citizens come in contact when there is discord. They should be the best possible representatives of the state. Their jobs put them in positions to be the first line of justice when troubles occur within our society.

Yes, this includes investigating crimes and apprehending those who have broken laws, but it also involves delicate situations such as domestic disputes or daily occurrences such as truancy.  When police interact with citizens who have broken laws, or people who are in distress, they need to be able to address the immediate emotional needs of the people. Additionally, they must be equipped with a wide range of resources that can direct citizens to agencies that can help them with their areas of frustration. In the case of domestic disputes, police should be able to direct parties to effective counseling, the type that can be immediately available. If a person has an alcohol or other drug addiction, police should be able to direct them to rehab programs. If a person just lost his or her job, police know how to help citizens effectively look for new job opportunities.

But, as we all know, most of today’s police are not trained that way. This is why they are perhaps among the least equipped people in our society to deal with the current justified anger on the streets of Minneapolis and other American cities. So, while putting alternate personnel besides police officers on the streets during this current outrage over what four police officers willingly did to George Floyd, the police in Minneapolis and every other community in our country must have their jobs radically redefined. Those who are currently police officer who have to quickly learn to adapt, or they will justifiably be replaced by many others who have the requisite skills to know far more about justice than Officer Derek Chauvin and his three colleagues.

The post Creative strategies that could have worked in aftermath of George Floyd Murder appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that described the way that the small St. Louis County municipality of Pagedale was condemning inhabited, livable houses and levying fines for petty housing code violations. A subsequent editorial  drew an explicit line between this practice and the over-reliance on revenue generated by traffic violations which was condemned in a recent Department of Justice report. In both cases, poorer citizens bear the brunt of the abuse of municipal power.

With my sincere apologies to those good people who have really tried to bring the lessons of Ferguson home and act upon them, a particular aspect of the misdeeds described seemed emblematic of how many in the St. Louis region have reacted to the issues that have risen in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown and the subsequent protests. This passage among others in the article struck me as jaw-dropping:

At a recent demolition hearing, Mayor Mary Louis Carter told one homeowner after another where they needed to focus their work if they wanted to keep their property: “The first emphasis should be the exterior,” she said repeatedly. One house needed new plumbing, electrical work, a new roof and foundation. Do the outside work first, Carter instructed the homeowner’s lawyer, “it’s a long time before he’s going to be able to use lights or plumbing.”

The mayor explained: “We want to bring our property values up and make our neighborhood look nice.”

Fix the outside and we don’t need to worry about what is on the inside. The folks who live in the houses can deal with the lack of plumbing as long as we don’t have to see or hear about it – and God forbid, as long as it can be kept from anyone looking to buy a house in the neighborhood.

Isn’t this emphasis on keeping up appearances what lies behind the bellyaching of those folks who, beginning a few days after Michael Brown’s death, began moaning about how all this negative publicity would “hurt” Ferguson and the St. Louis region in general? I can’t help but think it’s funny how I didn’t hear too much about any of these concerned citizens going out of their way to deal with issues of race and abuse of police power before the protesters who were the genesis of Black Lives Matter made a little noise. Maybe if anybody had been paying attention before, we might never have had had to deal with front page “Ferguson” on the national – and international – stage.

And isn’t it possible that it is genteel annoyance that our plumbing problems are out in the open for all to see that animates the desire to bring charges against the reporters who witnessed and told the world about the inept response to the Ferguson situation? According to Think Progress:

St. Louis County police are suddenly levying an onslaught of charges against journalists who covered the Ferguson protests last year, accusing them of minor offenses days before the statute of limitations is up. This week alone, three journalists have been charged for interfering with on-duty officers – a full year after their arrests. The recent developments follow an ongoing trend of criminalizing journalists for doing their jobs.

Two of the reporters possibly face $1000 fines and up to a year in jail for “interfering with officers.” Their crime?:

On a separate occasion, several officers – many of whom were armed with assault weapons – entered the restaurant and ordered patrons to leave. Journalists, including Lowery and Reilly, were told they could stay, but the officers later returned and told them they had to leave. Both were arrested and detained for not leaving fast enough, and were released without charges hours later.

As Martin Baron, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, which employs one of the Reporters, Wes Lowery, noted, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/arrested-in-ferguson-2014-washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery-is-charged.html?_r=0 he “should never have been arrested in the first place. That was an abuse of police authority.”

Let’s see. Abuse of police authority? Wasn’t that the problem to begin with? Only this time it doesn’t have anything to do with us getting our metaphorical linen all dirty, but about punishing and/or impeding folks who expose our dirty linen. Because if nobody knows we soiled our underclothes, doesn’t that mean we’re as bright and shining clean as a new penny?

The post The Ferguson dilemma: When keeping up appearances is not enough appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There’s a lot more to Ferguson, Missouri than what we’ve seen in the media. After Michael Brown was killed by a Ferguson cop, and during the uprising sparked by his death, the media swooped in: West Florissant Avenue and nearby streets became clogged with satellite trucks, police vehicles, miked-up reporters and every imaginable configuration of video recording devices—all chasing [literally] after the next police-citizen confrontation, flare-up, arrest or purported act of vandalism/looting.

But what we saw was not the full story. As has been the case ever since reporters helped stage anti-US demonstrations in Tehran in 1979–while most of that city was operating business-as-usual—what we saw of Ferguson was only a sliver of the bigger picture.

From what you were seeing on CNN and other media outlets in August 2014, you might have thought that Ferguson was burning—all of it—that the whole community was in rebellion, and even that Ferguson was just another rundown, down-on-its-luck African-American ghetto.

None of those impressions are true.

Last week, I learned just how untrue they are. [Yes, I admit that I am rather late to this party. I live just 15 minutes away, but over the many years that I have lived in my cushy, suburban St. Louis neighborhood, I’ve spent almost no time at all in the Ferguson area. ]

Last week, as part of a summer “active-citizenship, urban-discovery” program for high-school students, I organized a bus tour of the Ferguson area. We engaged a high-profile, Ferguson activist—Patricia Bynes—to be our guide. What she showed us and told us was eye-opening.

But before I share what she said, I want to note that our intent was not to be gawkers seeking “riot-porn.” We asked Bynes whether what we were planning was okay: Would we be trampling on neighborhood sensitivities? Would our presence be offensive? She assured us that we were within the bounds of propriety, because, she noted, people need to understand Ferguson. Also, she said, the issues raised by Michael Brown’s death at the hands of a police officer were not just Ferguson issues. These are everybody’s issues—society’s issues—and Ferguson is just a nearby example from which we can all learn.

And so, we boarded the bus and headed for North St. Louis County.

Along the way, Bynes pointed out many speed traps set by tiny, municipal police departments as a way of bringing in revenue to their otherwise cash-strapped city coffers. She also brought our attention to a dozen-or-so “Welcome to…” signs that exemplify the 90+ small municipalities that exist within the boundaries of St. Louis County and that contribute to many of the problems showcased by Ferguson.

Then, we arrived at West Florissant Avenue, the scene of the August 2014 uprising. And that’s when the myth-busting began. Here are a few of the surprising insights Bynes shared with us:

Graffiti: plus or minus?
We pulled over next to a boarded-up restaurant. It was covered with artful graffiti. Bynes explained that, in the view of some Ferguson residents and business-owners, the graffiti make the area look like a cliché—rundown, forlorn and hopeless. Others see graffiti as urban art—reflecting emerging, creative energy. And still others see the graffiti as rebellion against the status quo—a symbol that deserves to be preserved as a kind of “never forget” statement about what has happened in the Ferguson area. According to Bynes, the value and fate of Ferguson graffiti remains an unresolved issue.

“I love Ferguson”
Driving though Ferguson neighborhoods beyond the infamous Canfield Avenue where Michael Brown died, we saw many yard signs proclaiming “I love Ferguson.” Even these seemingly innocuous signs are controversial, said Bynes. For some, the sentiment is straight up: They love Ferguson, warts and all, and they’re standing by their city and with their city, sticking around to help correct injustices and make it a better place. But for others, the signs mean something else, said Bynes: “For some people, ‘I love Ferguson’ has a meaning that’s more like ‘I want my country back.’

Beyond Canfield, but not far away

Our bus tour taught us that Ferguson is not the burned-out, majority African-American ghetto we “saw” on CNN. We passed through many leafy neighborhoods, replete with spacious Colonial-style homes, large lots and manicured lawns and gardens. We could have been in Webster Groves, or some other well-kept, majority-white, suburban neighborhood with the occasional horse stable sprinkled in.

We also visited January-Wabash Park—a well-maintained park operated by the City of Ferguson. Watching the news coverage of the post-Michael Brown “troubles,” you’d probably never guess that Ferguson contains a well-maintained park with rolling lawns, a large fishing lake, and a big public swimming pool. Unfortunately, most of the media didn’t bother to travel even a few blocks from West Florissant and Canfield to see [and show us] the pretty parts of Ferguson, to get a grasp of the anger-creating economic disparities of the area, or to see the context surrounding the Michael Brown protests.

The “community” center
Buried deep in one of those leafy neighborhoods is the new Ferguson Community Center—a repurposed parochial school. Bynes made sure that we drove by it as part of our tour. You see, it looks like a nice place, she said, but if you don’t have a car, forget about going there. St. Louis’ Metro bus system doesn’t have a route that goes down that street. The nearest bus stop is about a mile away. It’s hard to call something a community center when a large portion of the community can’t get to it. It’s within two miles of Canfield, but it might as well be on a different planet.

Ground zero
Bynes also made sure that we visited Canfield Avenue,at the exact spot where Michael Brown died. We gathered around the recently installed memorial—a hand-drawn golden dove embedded in a section of sidewalk. The in-ground sculpture replaces the previous, unofficial agglomeration of teddy bears, flowers and notes piled up around a lamppost. We noticed the recently repaved section of Canfield Avenue: the place where Michael Brown’s body lay for four-and-a-half hours after he was killed. [His mother requested the repaving, Bynes explained.]

We could see that this was a special place—and Bynes treated it as such, talking to us in a hushed voice, and refraining from expressing anger or political opinions as we stood there. We were in someone else’s neighborhood—a neighborhood of people who have been traumatized by seeing Michael Brown killed essentially in their front yards.

She also noted that, since Brown’s death, people having been moving out of Canfield apartments in droves, some simply abandoning their apartments, even if they have to pay rent in two places. It’s just too traumatic and haunting to live there, she said.

I don’t know what our group of 15 teenagers took away from this experience, but judging from the earnest, insightful questions they asked, I’m guessing that there were probably some very interesting dinner-table discussions that night. I know that I’ll never think of Ferguson in the same media-distorted way again. And I’ll certainly be looking at future coverage of Ferguson and other “hot spots” with a lot more skepticism and desire for context.

Cost to charter the bus: $335. Experience: Priceless.

The post Ferguson bus tour: Beyond the riot-porn appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the interesting differences between the discord following the deaths of unarmed black men in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore is to what extent African-Americans are full participants in the police and justice system in each community.

In Ferguson, justice was certainly delayed, if not denied, because of a white power structure that did not question itself after Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown. Wilson was one of 54 white officers out of a total of 57 police in Ferguson. The police chief was an old-guard white man, Tom Jackson. The mayor of Ferguson is James Knowles, III, who is also white. The Prosecuting Attorney in St. Louis County is Bob McCulloch who is white.

A clear picture of what exactly happened on that hot August afternoon in 2014 was not presented until the U.S. government, specifically the Department of Justice, became involved. It is no small coincidence that the U.S. Attorney-General was an African-American man, Eric Holder, and his boss is of course our African-American president, Barack Obama. The Justice Department issued two reports, both in March 2015. One detailed the incidents on Canfield Avenue on August 9 that led to the death of Michael Brown. The other was a critique of the police department in Ferguson and the North County Justice System.

It was not until these reports were released that we received an honest understanding of what really happened on August 9. The DOJ applied the kind of critical thinking to the testimony of Grand Jury witnesses that the St. Louis County prosecutor’s office did not. Some might have expected the DOJ under Holder to conclude that charges should have been pressed against Darren Wilson, but instead it methodically explained that there was not sufficient evidence to do so. But in the separate report, it took to task the judicial system in Ferguson and surrounding North St. Louis County communities.

In Baltimore, the judicial power structure has far more African-Americans in vital positions. The chief of police, Anthony Batts, is African-American as is the State’s Attorney, Marilyn Mosby. The city’s mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, is also black. Forty-three percent of the police officers are African-American compared to Ferguson’s five percent.

In Baltimore, all six of the police officers (3 white; 3 black) who were involved in the arrest of Freddie Gray were indicted by the state’s attorney with a range of criminal offenses. Five of the six are charged with second-degree assault. The indictments of these officers indicates to citizens of Baltimore that justice has the potential to be fair in their city. The same cannot be said about Ferguson.

If the police officers in Baltimore are convicted and sentenced with real penalties, it will be strong evidence that the justice system can function well in that city when it comes to use of excessive force by police officers. In another sense, it will be a tribute to the significance of black power.

But black power can only do so much in Baltimore or any other community. Even if the judicial system works to perfection, it does not automatically raise people out of poverty, provide them with affordable, comprehensive health care, humanize the schools, raise the level of the housing stock, or open up thousands of new job opportunities. Only if the judicial system could rule that the country needs a massive redistribution of wealth in America could the problems of Baltimore and other communities like it be fully addressed.

It is not advisable for any of us to sit around and wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately rule that wealth is unevenly distributed in the United States and that this situation must be remedied “with all deliberate speed.” (borrowing language from their school desegregation ruling in Brown v Topeka in 1954). Yet such a ruling, if enforced, would give society the tools to correct many of the economic injustices that currently exist in the United States.

A second way to bring comprehensive change to Baltimore, Ferguson, and any community in economic distress, is for the United States Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a massive stimulus bill that would create millions of jobs, provide adequate health care universally, modernize our housing stock, update our infrastructure, sensitize our schools, and ensure an adequate economic and social safety net for all citizens. This is a much more realistic approach than a Supreme Court ruling, because it is doubtful that the Court would find economic disparity to be unconstitutional.

As much as we can cheer the racial justice that seems to be happening in Baltimore and applaud what Eric Holder’s Justice Department has brought to Ferguson, we cannot lose sight of the reality that to bring a more complete justice to impoverished communities, the federal government must lead the way with economic redistribution. Only the federal government has the taxing and spending power to do this. To focus on local solutions to national problems is paradise to conservatives because local communities cannot enact economic justice. Neither can most states. We need more progressives at the national level who can help solve our urban problems through more economic fairness.

The post Black power can only do so much to solve our racial problems appeared first on Occasional Planet.

They had to do it; they just had to do it. They had to gloat about the findings of the Justice Department’s Report on Shooting of Michael Brown.

What the report actually had to say about a complicated situation did not seem to matter to most conservative pundits. Many chose to ignore the details and instead expressed vindication, because the DOJ did not find sufficient cause to file federal charges against Office Darren Wilson.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News said, “Eric Holder now looked at Al Sharpton and said, ‘Wrong, sir, wrong.’”

Sean Hannity, also of Fox News said: ‘Everybody who rushed to judgment in this case I would say are guilty of creating an atmosphere in Ferguson that led to a disaster.

(video clip: one minute, eleven seconds)

So, Ms. Kelly fantasizes the thought of Attorney-General Holder scolding Rev. Al Sharpton and saying “Wrong, sir, wrong.” What Ms. Kelly seems to be missing is that the Justice Department simultaneously released another report, “Ferguson Police Department Report.” This report excoriates the city of Ferguson and specifically its police department for running primarily a revenue-generating system to fill the coffers of the city of Ferguson rather than a public safety organization. Instead of focusing on “serving and protecting” the citizens of Ferguson, the police stationed themselves throughout the city and essentially functioned as reverse ATM machines, collecting money from the poor citizens who could least afford to pay it.

If . Kelly is asserting that Rev. Al Sharpton’s contention that Michael Brown was a blameless victim of police abuse in Ferguson, she is probably right. The DOJ report on the shooting found that Michael Brown was in many ways the aggressor and he neither raised his hands in surrender nor shouted the words, “Don’t shoot.” So  Kelly scores one on Rev. Sharpton. Well, this neither gives her high ground nor puts her in an exclusive group. Despite being a thoughtful and often persuasive advocate for fairness and justice, Rev. Sharpton has been known to frequently get his facts wrong. Kelly might do better to come down from her perch and give closer examination to the underlying causes that created that bloody day last August.

Hannity is critical of those who rushed to judgment about what happened in Ferguson. Well, he might be right to some extent about what happened on Canfield Drive the day Michael Brown was shot, but he is absolutely wrong about conditions in Ferguson. I live only a few miles from Ferguson, but little did I know of the travesties perpetrated upon the citizens by a rogue police department. I am forever thankful to the protesters who repeatedly took to the streets to inform the nation of what was happening in Ferguson.  Hannity may characterize their work as leading to disaster; more level-headed people would describe the protests and rekindling the energy in a long-dormant civil rights movement.

I’m sure that there were progressives who were equally irrational in their jubilance or despair about the reports. That is not particularly helpful as we try to pick up the pieces and move ahead. This is a difficulty journey. Many thought that with the election of Barack Obama as president, the road to racial harmony had already been concluded. But recent polls on race indicate that during the Obama Administration, optimism about race relations has receded. This is understandable because the president gave those with racist tendencies a target for their vitriol that we had previously not had. Ferguson awakens us to what needs to be done. Frankly, this is a job where the grown-ups have enough difficulty figuring out what to do next. As a post on Occasional Planet urged us to do, ask bartenders, fitness managers, restaurant owners; whoever has a public TV, to find a more creditable source of news than Fox.

The post On Fox, Ferguson is a media sport and a blood sport appeared first on Occasional Planet.

From the moment that Michael Brown was gunned down by Officer Darren Wilson, it’s been virtually impossible to get credible and reliable information about what actually happened August 9, 2014 on Canfield Drive in Ferguson, MO. That came to an end on Wednesday, March 4, 2015 when the U.S. Department of Justice issued “Department of Justice Report Regarding the Criminal Investigation into the Shooting Death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson.”

Anything resembling the truth as to what happened on August 9 required a remarkable amount of separating the wheat from the chaff. Television coverage was too erratic and frantic to provide this. Print reporters offered on-site longevity, but they did not have subpoena power to hear from reluctant participants and observers. Whatever investigation the Ferguson Police Department might have provided has not seen the light of day. And St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s grandjury offered only a scattered written record with no interpretat,ion.

Thankfully, Eric Holder and the DOJ chose to do their own investigation. This is a report that I can trust. Why? Because Eric Holder is someone who reliably has the best interests of the citizens of Ferguson and other Americans like them in mind. American history is replete with attorneys general who saw their primary goal as one to protect the administration for which they worked and to not challenge the status quo. Consider AG John Mitchell with Richard Nixon or Alberto Gonzales with George W. Bush.

Fast-forward to 2014. Ferguson happened, and we happen to have an African-American president who has appointed an African-American Attorney General. This does not automatically mean there will be justice, but considering who Barack Obama and Eric Holder are and what they have stated on record about race relations, the odds are high that the DOJ report would truly address the issues at hand rather than papering over some unpleasant facts.

Yet for me, it was a “be careful for what you ask” moment. McCullough’s grand jury seemed, from the beginning, not to be inclined to issue an indictment against Wilson. I expected that the Justice Department investigation would clearly conclude what I wanted to believe, that Darren Wilson had acted improperly and possibly willfully killed Michael Brown. Not only would I feel vindication from this, but so would most Ferguson protestors, most civil rights advocates in the United States, and in fact most “sound-thinking” people in the U.S., at least as I saw it.

Well, now is the time when I have to eat my words. Most everything that I have said over the past seven months about how Michael Brown was an innocent victim of Darren Wilson’s aggressiveness and bull-headedness was wrong.

If I believed that a report from Eric Holder’s Justice Department would shed accurate light on the situation, then I had to accept the outcome of the study, regardless of what it was. In this case, the Justice Department studied and re-studied the occurrences in Ferguson on August 9 and they stated in the summary conclusion on Page 5 of the 86-page report:

Based on this investigation, the Department has concluded that Darren Wilson’s actions do not constitute prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits uses of deadly force that are “objectively unreasonable,” as defined by the United States Supreme Court. The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. Accordingly, under the governing federal law and relevant standards set forth in the USAM, it is not appropriate to present this matter to a federal grand jury for indictment, and it should therefore be closed without prosecution.

The report methodically examined what happened the day that Officer Wilson shot the unarmed Michael Brown. Getting a clear picture was an extremely difficult task, because forensic evidence was not completely clear and the recollections of dozens of witnesses often contracted one another. In fact many witnesses contradicted themselves in testimony with the St. Louis County Police Department, the F.B.I. and the County Grand Jury. The Justice Department sifted through the information and categorized each piece of forensic evidence as well as each statement by each witness. They essentially established a “credibility scale,” determining which evidence seemed most logical and had the greatest amount of corroboration from other reliable sources.

The purpose of the Justice Department’s investigation was to determine if there was sufficient evidence to try Officer Darren Wilson in a criminal court for the shooting. The fact that Wilson is a police officer raised the bar of evidence that was necessary for proof.

To prove a violation of Section 242, the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant was acting under color of law [i.e. had a legal right to do what he did], (2) that he deprived a victim of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, (3) that he acted willfully, and (4) that the deprivation resulted in bodily injury and/or death. There is no dispute that Wilson, who was on duty and working as a patrol officer for the FPD, acted under the color of law when he shot Brown, or that the shots resulted in Brown’s death. The determination of whether criminal prosecution is appropriate rests on whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that any of the shots fired by Wilson were unreasonable, as defined under federal law, given the facts known to Wilson at the time, and if so, whether Wilson fired the shots with the requisite “willful” criminal intent.

A thorough reading of the report shows that for the most part, Office Darren Wilson’s actions were guided by (a) a desire to initially question Michael Brown about an earlier robbery at the Ferguson Market, and (b) a desire to protect his life and that of others from actions taken by Michael Brown once a struggle began. The report clearly shows how Brown aggressively approached Wilson’s van and wrestled with the officer for his gun. Wilson finally gained control and shot Brown in the thumb. Brown ran off, about 180 feet, and while Wilson chased him, Wilson did not fire at him (forensic evidence confirms this). Brown then turned around and faced Wilson. He did not raise his arms to surrender and did not say “Don’t shoot.” Instead, he progressively moved closer and closer to Wilson, not responding to Wilson’s command to stop. Brown eventually clenched at least one fist and ran forcefully towards Wilson. Wilson, who did not have access to his Taser, fired several shots before killing Brown with his final shot, which  hit Brown in the crown of his head and fatally wounded him.

As previously stated, I had hoped that the Justice Department report would have found that there was sufficient evidence to indict Darren Wilson. But the report didn’t and I, along with many others whom I know, need to accept this reality.

The fact that what happened on Canfield Avenue on August 9, 2014 may not have been what many of us came to believe does not mean that the protests, the press coverage, and the national discussion since has been in vain. Because the Ferguson Police Department and the St. Louis County grand jury did such a terrible job of quickly getting to the bottom of what happened, millions of people were mobilized to one degree or another to rekindle the civil rights movement that seemed to be slumbering, particularly after the election of our first African-American president. Had Officer Wilson given an honest statement to the Ferguson Police Department, and had the FPD  released it immediately in a transparent fashion, this tragedy may have faded from the news in a matter of weeks. But that is not what happened.

The perception that Wilson acted in a highly improper fashion, coupled with all that we now know about the massive dysfunction of the city of Ferguson and many other North County communities, led the Justice Department under Eric Holder to investigate. While one report did not find cause to criminally prosecute Darren Wilson, the other report (called Ferguson Police Department Report), which may be far more long-lasting, found “a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct within the Ferguson Police Department that violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law,”

What is important now is that we make sure that to the best of our abilities we get our facts straight and that we look toward solutions in the spirit of Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s views on improving race relations, economic fairness, and responsive government. We may not always be so fortunate to have such a president and Attorney-General.

The post Holder’s Justice Department Report offers credibility on Ferguson appeared first on Occasional Planet.

At the risk of being labeled a wet blanket, I’d like to lodge a complaint against Gun ‘n’ Hoses. The event is an evening of amateur boxing and martial-arts matches pitting St. Louis police officers against St. Louis firefighters. Since its inception 28 years ago, it has been the biggest source of fundraising for St. Louis Backstoppers, an organization that offers financial assistance to police, firefighters and EMTs killed while doing their jobs.

Whoever came up with the name of the event was quite clever: It’s a pun on the once-popular alt-rock band called Guns ‘n’ Roses. Cute, right?

Unfortunately, the cuteness is no longer appropriate. Here’s why.

The 2014 Guns ‘n’ Hoses was originally scheduled for Thanksgiving Eve. But in late September, the organization announced that it was postponing the event. According to news reports, organizers “were concerned that participants would be weary from working long hours of extra duty”—meaning extra time spent dealing with protests and violence in Ferguson after the death of Michael Brown.

The delay is understandable. What I’m wondering about, though, is why—in the aftermath Ferguson, in which a police officer shot and killed an unarmed teenager whose offense was jaywalking—Backstoppers continues to use the name “Guns ‘n’ Hoses.”

It’s a tone-deaf name.

I can understand using ‘hoses’ to symbolize firefighters. But why—with all of the controversy around the police-shooting of Michael Brown—would you want to use “guns” as the symbol for police? If you’re trying to convince the community that police officers are more than just brute enforcers, you might want to de-emphasize the weaponry. The fact that the 2014 event was delayed precisely because of Ferguson should have made someone notice. Apparently, it didn’t. [Do I even need to mention that “Guns ‘n’ Hoses” is sponsored by Anheuser-Busch, whose product has contributed to untold numbers of drunken shootings?]

I understand that, after 28 years, the name “Guns ‘n’ Hoses” has become a brand. But so is Washington “Redskins,” and even that is on the verge of change, because it’s no longer appropriate.

So, Backstoppers, think about it. But be careful what you choose: It wouldn’t help much to change the name to “Shoots and Ladders.”

The post “Guns ‘n’ Hoses” needs a name change appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A member of the Darren Wilson grand jury is suing St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch, claiming that McCulloch publicly mis-characterized the grand jury’s deliberations, and asking for an injunction against the prohibition on grand jurors discussing cases. Some people think it’s a frivolous lawsuit. As a former member of a St. Louis County grand jury, I support it.

At the beginning of their term, grand jurors receive an explicit warning that they are prohibited, by law, from discussing the cases that they will be hearing. My understanding is that this violation of grand jury secrecy is a misdemeanor. But I wonder how that prohibition applies when the prosecuting attorney himself releases a full transcript of all of the testimony—as McCulloch did in the grand jury investigation of Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown. Purportedly, McCulloch broke the grand jury’s pact of silence in the interest of transparency. But in doing so, didn’t he imply that public discussion of testimony in this case is fair game? How can he prevent grand jurors from discussing the proceedings, when he has published the testimony himself?

It’s ironic. McCulloch’s transparency strategy—probably more of a public-relations move than a sincere attempt to open up the process—has backfired. If McCulloch had adhered to his own rules, he probably wouldn’t be facing this lawsuit and the further scrutiny of an already skeptical public.

Veering away from his own standard procedures has hurt McCulloch’s cause in another way, too. He should have handled the Darren Wilson case in the normal way—by presenting the outline of the case to a judge in a preliminary hearing, so that the judge could determine whether there was “probable cause” and whether the case merited going to trial.

Instead, he deviated from his own norm and took the case to the grand jury. It’s not the kind of case that normally qualifies for a grand jury hearing. More typically, the grand jury hears cases that merit a less-public venue for a preliminary hearing. Such cases include those in which the identity of witnesses or victims needs to be protected—cases, for example, involving undercover cops, victims of sexual abuse, or children. In a regular, open-court preliminary hearing by a judge, those witnesses’ and victims’ identities become public record—but if the judge determines that there’s no probable cause and rules against a full trial, the witnesses and victims have been exposed unnecessarily.

The Darren Wilson case did not fit these criteria. A straightforward preliminary hearing and possible full trial would have saved McCulloch a lot of problems, including this new lawsuit. But he decided against the normal route—possibly because he really did not want an indictment against a police officer, which he feared would happen if a court looked at the facts—or because he thought he could better control the presentation of facts in the grand jury setting.

And now, he’s in trouble—and possibly under investigation—himself. I’m rooting for the grand juror.

The post Rooting for the grand juror in his lawsuit vs. Bob McCulloch appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I recently had the misfortune of hearing KMOX radio [in St. Louis] while in the car. (Except for some Cardinals games, I haven’t listened to them in years– I stopped when they started carrying Rush Limbaugh.)

There was a “Roundtable discussion” with four people, one woman, one black male, and two extremely conservative (to put it mildly) white males discussing the upcoming grand jury announcement and the news conference to announce some agreement on “rules of engagement” for the protestors. These two men were complaining about who are these people to make agreements like this and how can they be given the right to inconvenience others and they’re holding the whole community hostage. And by the way, in the segment I heard, they never actually said what the agreed-to rules are, which are just some common sense guidelines protecting the protestor’s Constitutional rights while saying the police will do what is necessary to protect life and property. These guys made it sound like the rules call for outrageous unlawful anarchy.

It never even occurs to these jerks to ask themselves who THEY are to complain and question the protestors. That’s because they are two upper class conservative white males who have been given the privilege of having a microphone on a station that thinks carrying Limbaugh is a community service. THEY are the reason protestors are needed! One of them, State Senator John Lamping, got elected (extremely narrowly) by promising to be a moderate Republican who could work with both parties, and then when in office, was a right-wing extremist. Who is HE to lecture on morals and ethics?

The rules were put forward by a coalition of many groups, some longstanding, some new. They pulled themselves together and have become an effective voice for people who have previously been silenced and treated like they don’t matter. Like all citizens, they have the right to petition the government. Neither of these guys would have any problem with an ad hoc group from Ladue demanding gates for their subdivision. And I suspect both of them would have been telling the black residents of Montgomery not to inconvenience the white bus riders.

Yes, I want the protests in and around Ferguson to be peaceful. I don’t want people injured or businesses harmed. But this group of awakened citizens have reached the point where they feel non-violent civil disobedience is the way to be heard, and I sympathize with them.

And yes, I also think they need to register and vote. Of course, in Missouri, that means they might be able to elect some people who will be trivialized and treated like dirt by officeholders like John Lamping. Building support for the cause around here is going to be a long slow process.

The post After Ferguson: Who makes the rules? appeared first on Occasional Planet.