Ferguson’s Frauds Revealed?

EditorialBy Phil Erwin

The Ferguson result was telegraphed in media ruminations long before it was officially announced: “What’ll happen if he is not indicted?” and “We’ve seen this movie before, with Trayvon Martin…”

Yes, we’ve seen it before. It’s a staple in old Westerns to ‘Seventies TV. It’s called a “lynch mob,” and it’s always the same story: The Mob “knows” the “truth” about a murder, and demands “justice” at the end of a rope. Except it isn’t the truth, it isn’t justice; the “killer” is exonerated in the end, and the true culprit turns out to be the head rabble-rouser in the crowd.

Rev. Al Sharpton

Rev. Al Sharpton

Speaking of rabble-rousers: Here’s “Reverend” Al Sharpton, the nation’s Racebaiter-in-Chief, holding forth on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” (Nov. 26th):

“Imagine watching a prosecutor come out, and not only announce no indictment, but disparage the character of your son! Call him a thief… and then call all of the witnesses liars… To go through a whole sermon denouncing your son, and you have to find enough strength to tell people don’t be violent, while your child can’t speak for himself… How do we know what Michael Brown’s side of the story is? And the prosecutor said it like there had been a trial, rather than an inquiry.”

Sharpton delivers this accusatory sermon, implying the Grand Jury’s decision is suspect and the prosecutor’s announcement inflammatory. He conveniently ignores that the “Hands up, Don’t shoot” mantra being used by him and others to whip up mob frenzy is also not based on a trial; nor is it consistent with testimony released from the Grand Jury. That mantra rolled like prickly tumbleweeds across the country at a time when no sides of the story were actually known; and the only support for the narrative came from an “eyewitness” whose involvement in the incident was anything but neutral, and whose testimony has been directly refuted by several other non-biased witnesses.

But never mind the Truth. Inflammatory suspicions are Sharpton’s stock-in-trade. He must scour the news for any hint of possible racial “injustice” that he can parlay into another twenty-minute televised diatribe. The ironies in his statement are rich – insinuating that both Wilson and the prosecutor are liars, thus disparaging their characters; and conveniently ignoring that it was the Grand Jury members themselves who decided which testimony to trust, which to discard. The prosecutor presented it all. As to calling the teen a “thief” – Brown’s own behavior on video supports that description, and “bully” as well.

Niger Innis, of the Congress of Racial Equality

Niger Innis, of the Congress of Racial Equality

Niger Innis, of the Congress of Racial Equality calls Sharpton and his ilk “racial racketeers” who seek to profit from fanning the flames of racial strife. Innis raises an inconvenient truth “… that the ‘racial racketeers’ don’t want to confront: That 93% of Black men who are killed–are killed by other Black men, not by White cops or the Klan or Nazis.” Innis is not excusing bad behaviors of police; he is condemning community leaders who make things much worse by distorting the truth.

By race-baiting.

Innis especially decries such incendiary nonsense coming from the top: “As unfortunate and dangerous as Sharpton and …these racial racketeers are, I think exponentially more dangerous is a President [going] before the United Nations and [elevating] this Ferguson tragedy to that of a Human Rights or Civil Rights violation before knowing the facts. What is ten times more dangerous is the Attorney General of the United States comparing the Ferguson situation to Emmett Till, who was a young Black 14-year-old that in 1955 was lynched by a posse for whistling at a White girl. The comparison is absurd, it is nonsense, and the only purpose for that comparison is to instigate racial division…”

Were life to imitate those Westerns, Michael Brown’s killer would turn out to be Al Sharpton, or perhaps Eric Holder or even Obama himself. Those three have done more to legitimize the Mob-centric belief that Michael Brown was gunned down in cold blood than anyone else, save perhaps for rabid Liberal mongrels on MSNBC.

But the Truth is just never that clean.

We all knew, right from the start, that Michael Brown was killed by bullets from Officer Wilson’s gun. What was not known was whether Wilson had a choice in firing those shots.

The Grand Jury said, essentially: No. He did not. He acted in accordance with The Law, with his police training, and with the standard of self-defense that applies to everyone, even Police Officers.

The Mob would not be swayed. They would not be satisfied with anything less than a guilty verdict and an execution.

That is always what The Mob sees as “justice.”

So of course, the Grand Jury’s decision could not possibly be considered “justice.”

Could it?

Here’s the overlooked perspective: Once it was known that Michael Brown’s hands were inside of Wilson’s cruiser, it was obvious Brown was an aggressor. There is no conceivable reason for Brown to have had his hands through the window of the police car other than to threaten Wilson. (The notion that a policeman would deliberately reach out through his open window and attempt to pull a suspect into his car, as at least one “eyewitness” had suggested, is patently preposterous.)

And as all policemen are trained, and all young men should be taught: There is no way for a civilian to ever justify aggression toward a police officer.

Skin color has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Behave aggressively toward an officer, you’re going wind up in cuffs, the hospital or the grave. Period.

So the outcome of the Grand Jury was clear to anyone paying attention to the actual evidence, as opposed to the collective expectations of The Mob. Wilson may have fired carelessly, or too often; he might even have avoided gunfire entirely, had Brown submitted properly to arrest. But there is simply no doubt that Brown deserved to be detained and arrested. Given that he struck Officer Wilson in the face inside the car, he committed at least two felonies (assault and battery,) both of which justified arrest, and both of which demanded Brown be seen as a potential danger to the community.

That would have been true and obvious even before the video surfaced showing Brown in the act of bullying a shopkeeper.

And with a huge, powerful suspect charging aggressively at him after twice having hit him in the face, and wrestling with him for his gun, it’s completely understandable that Wilson would have kept firing until Brown stopped charging – which, unfortunately for all, was not until a bullet had entered his head.

It is this last fact – that Brown was shot near the crown of his head – that has many so convinced that Wilson must have had malice in his heart. After all, they think: Why else would he keep firing after Brown was already down?

Here’s another way to see it – one that not only explains the skull shot, but the “Hands up!” miss cue, as well. By testimony, Brown had reached to within ten feet of Wilson, was still charging, and Wilson was still firing. At that point, Brown was hit such that he flinched and stooped or stumbled, but kept coming. If you think of a man at full gallop taking a bullet to the trunk, it’s reasonable to think of him pitching forward, and putting his hands out to break his fall. That action could easily look, to a distant observer, like a man going to his knees with his hands up. But from Officer Wilson’s perspective, it could just as easily look like the man launching himself, hands out, toward Wilson’s body or gun. Firing at that point would be instinctive, and almost the only place a bullet aimed center-mass, as they are trained to do, would go would be the head.

The top of the head.

Seen this way, almost everybody’s right. For all we know, that is precisely what the Grand Jury figured out.

And a teen is dead because he acted stupidly. As young teens are so prone to do.

All you protesters, marching around the nation with your hands up: You want to do something actually useful? March over to the nearest schoolyard and chant at the children on the playground: “Hands up! Don’t Move! You want to live, that’s what you do!”


Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He was never particularly political – until he realized his country was in jeopardy. If his writing depresses you, he recommends you visit Chip Bok’s site for a more lighthearted perspective.

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE



2 Responses to Ferguson’s Frauds Revealed?

  1. Citizen Reporter December 2, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Well, we’ve seen the full gamut of opinions on Ferguson, right here on Citizensjournal.us, from Collectivo Todo Poder al Pueblo, to Armando Vazquez and now Phil Erwin.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *