The first three items are comments posted under “How
Robert McCulloch Indicted Himself” HuffPost
Politics (25 Nov).
The most conspicuous failure was to make
the grand jury a trial jury. The job of grand juries is to ascertain whether
there is sufficient evidence to support a charge; it is not to balance that
evidence with the evidence which undermines that support—the job of the defense
at trial. A second failure is to pretend
that conflicting or even inconsistent testimony is something unusual and
discrediting to a case; if it were, almost no one would get charged, must less
tried, much less convicted of any crime with witnesses. The most obvious failure was of justice, not
just “for all,” but for any. McCulloch has
issues; he also has interests—like running for higher office, possibly? His partiality corrosive of the legal system
shows him to be unworthy of public trust in any capacity.
In response to which, Karen Nord writes, “Obviously
you have some vendetta against Bob McCulloch…..which is totally unfounded and
incorrect. He is an excellent prosecuting attorney and has been a great asset
to St. Louis for many years. You
certainly did not hear (if you listened to him the other night) what I heard. He did everything correctly and justice was
served…..it’s just sad that people can’t accept the facts and live with it. Yes, it is very sad a young man was killed,
however, the Police that protect us all, also have to protect themselves and
that is exactly what Officer Wilson did AND a Grand Jury proved that. You are entitled to your opinions, however,
hopefully people won’t take them as factual. Sad, sad, sad of you to lash out
like you have.” [I have to report that
almost every respondent took Ms. Nord to task for her bias and ignorance.]
To which I responded, “‘Obviously,’ my arse. ‘Totally unfounded and incorrect,’ also my
arse. I do not know the man, have had no
encounters with the police in Missouri, do not live in Missouri (wouldn’t, if I
had the chance), and have considered both diverse, reputable accounts of
McCulloch’s prosecutorial conduct, and widespread disapproval of his actions by
‘other prosecutors, lawyers, and legal scholars. It is absurd to claim that the police protect “us.”
Who are us? Middle-class, white Christians only? It would seem so. Only if those different from that narrow norm
live long enough to get to court do they get the possible chance at “justice for
all.” But usually, the non-middle class,
non-white, non-Christian get summary justice by police whose response too often
is the excessive use of force in dispensing summary judgment on the street.”
Widespread distrust of the police reflects the equally
widespread disregard of principles of accountability. The vague definition and virtually
unchallengeable exercise of discretion means that anything goes in enforcement;
the law is the law as the police apply it in the streets, with the connivance
of prosecutors and judges. Their
discretion is invariably conditioned by cultural, psychological, and social
factors. The result is too often a
prompt resort to excessive violence, with disproportionate casualties being
blacks, especially young black men; the emotionally distraught or mentally
unstable; the drug-influenced; and the homeless or the poor. Those presumed innocent until guilty if they
live long enough to get to court are not otherwise protected and served.
The most important reason for the unprofessional
behavior of police officers—how good are the “good apples,” since they tolerate
the “bad apples”?—is the unconscious governmental decision to employ those who
are in, or aspire to, the middle class to enforce a Norman Rockwell view of
America. Such a view either does not
recognize or does not respect diversity in what is regarded as the normative
white Christian America. The police are
thus the approved local, state, and federal government agents to maintain a
society which does not accept that “all men are equal” and denies “liberty and
justice for all.” Who can trust those
whose actions undermine their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution?
Not only is race a
factor in Michael Brown’s murder, but it is also a fact conditioning the
meaning of justice in America for all Americans. Ironically, the first black—he is really half
white and half black, but, in America, black is the dominant taint—Obama has proven
to be both not transformative, but not even informative, not to mention
helpful. He has never been, but has not
wanted to be seen as, an Angry Black Man.
He is, instead, and wants to be seen as a mild-mannered, agreeable, obliging
black man. So his words on race never
rise to the level of a conversation, which he claims we need, and, of course,
do not rise to an indictment of American racism, especially in the American
system of justice. Who better qualified
to address this issue and lead that “conversation” than a lawyer specializing in
Constitutional law and a black president?
So the disappointment in his lack of leadership on this issue is great
at the opportunity lost.
Long ago, it would have
done everyone a world of good if he had responded directly to the insults made
possible by prevalent racism. One such
opportunity was the reception he received when he landed in Arizona, when its governor,
Jan Brewer, waved a finger in his face.
He might have stopped right there and scolded her for her racist bad
manners exercised only because he was a black man. Let her explain her behavior. Another such opportunity was the response to
a portion of his State of the Union address, when SC Rep Joe Wilson called him
a liar. A presidential riff right there
on the state of race relations in America would have been a powerful one. Both responses, human responses to insult and
teaching moments as well might have given pause to racists in public office,
who always fear being called out for their racism. Who besides them and their racist supporters
would have been upset with his calling out these insults for what they and as
seen and heard by him and everyone else in those moments. But no; so Obama’s timidity on this subject
condones the very racist behavior which he presumably would wish to condemn. Obama is not a bad president because he is
black, but his self-concept as a black man in a white society has impaired his
ability to lead with confidence, courage, and conviction on this issue.
My final remark. It is long since time that the white people
of my generation especially—I am nearly 75—grow up, shed the various bigotries
which their bigoted parents taught them, stop being afraid of everything today
different from the way it was yesterday, and cease trying to preserve or
resurrect a discredited racist past.
When I think of the troglodytes of my times, I rarely think of racists
like John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and all the rest of the GOP
establishment. I think of their “base,”
people like Paula Dean, who seems perfectly happy to blame her parents for her
bigotry and then to think that she is blameless for continuing their bigotry
and for refusing to learn or change a thing in light of the civil rights
movement of our adolescence and youth.
