Dear sisters and brothers in Christ,
On Monday evening a grand jury in Ferguson, MO declined to indict officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting Michael Brown. Subsequently, in the days that have followed since then, there have been protests, mostly peaceful but some deplorably violent, across the nation. For many, even the peaceful protests, let alone violent protests, have seemed excessive given that officer Wilson was not indicted and thus declared innocent in his killing of Michael Brown. For most of America, it appears as though justice has been served, and those who claim it hasn’t are simply “playing the race card.” Remarkably, others have said on Facebook and in the news that, “a thug is just a thug” or “Michael Brown got what he deserved.” Yet these accusations share the same basic presupposition that officer Wilson was telling the truth about the course of events in the 90 seconds that led to Michael Brown’s fatal shooting at the hands of officer Wilson. Perhaps even more startling is the persistent and troubling myth that racism ended in the 60’s with the Civil Rights movement. After I have reviewed the evidence from the grand jury transcripts and compared expert analysis on the processes of the grand jury trial I can minimally say that justice has not been served but I will say much more.
Lady Justice weeps: First of all, it is virtually unprecedented that a grand jury would try a case in the way that Brown’s case was. The scope of inquiry and availability of “evidence” afforded the grand jury clouded the grand jury’s purpose which is simply to decide if there is ample evidence for a criminal trial. The grand jury is not supposed to try the case. It is also remarkable that officer Wilson, the defendant, testified in a grand jury hearing such as this. Further, that the prosecutor decided to simply lay out the “facts (the attempt to appear unbiased in this manner betrays the bias of the prosecutor – “the facts speak for themselves” or “I have no case to make”)” of the case and let the jury decide for themselves is an abortion of justice. That is, justice had no representative in the court room. Also, the prosecutor cross examined witnesses when they were giving their testimony, eye witness or otherwise, which serves to undermine the confidence and credibility of a witness. Cross examination is typically done by the defense attorney which is not present in a grand jury proceeding. So in the end, what side was the prosecutor on? The grand jury’s job was simply to decide wether there was enough evidence to indict officer Wilson on criminal charges. What follows is a brief list of the contradictions in this case. Even if you disagree with one item or most, if there is one item that you agree is dubious then you likely agree with me that this case should have gone to trial.
Here is what the grand jury uncovered from officer Wilson’s testimony alone: Officer Wilson claims to have politely stopped two black teenagers and asked them to walk on the side of the road instead of the middle of the street. Mind you, these two teenagers had just stolen Cigarillos from a store and were likely on edge about the police. Officer Wilson claims that his polite question about walking on the sidewalk instead of in the middle of the street was immediately met with expletives from Michael Brown who then started to assault officer Wilson in his police SUV. Does Michael Brown’s reaction seem plausible to you? If you had stolen something, wouldn’t you have done everything you can to not appear suspicious? This alone should have been reason enough to cause the case to goto trial. But, there is more. Officer Wilson claims that Michael Brown started hitting him in the face with his right hand. Wilson claims that Michael Brown was still holding the Cigarillos in his right hand and then, all of the sudden, in the middle of assaulting a police officer, Michael Brown decided that he didn’t want to damage the Cigarillos, so he stopped hitting the officer and gave the Cigarillos to his friend. Then, Michael Brown resumed hitting the police officer while the officer was pinned down in his SUV. Does this sound plausible? Was a man who had just committed petty theft brazen enough to begin pummeling an officer of the law able to show the presence of mind, and stupidity, to worry about damaging the Cigarillos he had just stolen? Does this sound plausible to you?
Alas, there is more. Officer Wilson claims that after calmly going over his options in his head for defending himself from Michael Brown (Wasn’t officer Wilson afraid for his life?) that his only recourse at this point was to draw his weapon. Mind you, officer Wilson said he was afraid of Michael Brown who looked like a “demon.” So, is it likely that officer Wilson, in this brief moment, after having been trapped in his vehicle simultaneously receiving multiple blows to his head and neck, was able to survey his options about how to respond to Michael Brown’s apparent rage? Given officer Wilson’s terror and fear of losing his life, and of course we cannot forget that he shot an unarmed man just 60 seconds later, it seems highly unlikely that he showed the restraint that he suggests he had when considering his options for recourse against Michael Brown’s onslaught. Officer Wilson had to show that he was afraid of Michael Brown, afraid enough to fear for his life. Yet, he had to also show that he was not in a blind rage for fear of being charged with manslaughter. The story is well told it seems….
Still, there is more. Officer Wilson, after much fighting over control of the gun and fearing for his life, managed to get a few shots off and hit Michael Brown in the hand. At this point, Brown ran away from officer Wilson who was till in his SUV. Officer Wilson then pursued him on foot. Michael Brown was now over 100 feet away from officer Wilson. At this point in the grand jury transcript there are multiple conflicting eyewitness accounts about what happened next. It would have been nice for trial attorneys to sort this out, but we will never know… But, going on officer Wilson’s testimony alone, Michael Brown turned and faced officer Wilson, put his hand in his jacket as if he was going to reach for something, and began to charge officer Wilson. Fearing for his life, officer Wilson then began to fire on Michael Brown. The fatal blow to Michael Brown was struck on the top of his head. From what we know now, we are certain that Michael Brown was not carrying a weapon, so why did he reach into his jacket as officer Wilson claims? What could he have possibly been doing or going for? After experiencing a hail of bullets fly by his head was he scratching that itch that had been bothering him since the beginning of the altercation with officer Wilson? Also, how is it that officer Wilson hit Michael Brown, who was 6 feet 5 inches tall, on the top of his head? Was Michael Brown charging at officer Wilson with his head down like a bull? Does officer Wilson’s testimony seem plausible to you?
But wait, there is more… After the shooting officer Wilson washed blood off of his hands before the blood could be recovered and analyzed by investigators. Suspicious… The first officer to interview officer Wilson after the shooting did not record nor take notes of anything officer Wilson said. Suspicious… Investigators did not immediately record the distance between Michael Brown and officer Wilson. Suspicious… Investigators did not test officer Wilson’s firearm for fingerprints. Suspicious… Officer Wilson did not immediately turn his weapon over to investigators and actually put his weapon into an evidence bag himself. Suspicious… Officer Wilson went to the hospital with his supervisors instead of conducting an interview with investigators. Suspicious… Officer Wilson’s testimony given shortly after the shooting conflicts with his testimony given at the grand jury. Suspicious… Again, it would have been nice to see a trial.
In the end, the outrage that has followed the grand jury’s decision not to indict does not come out of nowhere. It is not “playing the race card” as so many people seem to think. The facts of the case are contradictory and officer Wilson’s version of what happened in the 90 seconds that led to Michael Brown’s death do not make sense on their own, let alone when you consider the testimony of eyewitnesses, coroners, autopsy reports, and forensic evidence.
In fact, officer Wilson’s behavior as well as that of the Ferguson Police Department reflects poorly on the many police officers and departments who do their job honorably. That is, since the grand jury has chosen not to indict officer Wilson the grand jury is effectively condoning officer Wilson’s behavior and explicitly saying that his handling of the situation was completely normal. Thus, if you think that officer Wilson’s conduct in engaging Michael Brown is normal, then the grand jury, and the Americans who claim that those who disagree with the grand jury’s decision are playing the “race card,” are tarnishing the reputation and expectation of excellence that all police officers are supposed to maintain. So, in condoning officer Wilson’s conduct as “normal” all police officer’s standards are brought down.
But, I should think that this is not what we want as citizens. Police officers, by an overwhelming majority, do meet and exceed the standards of excellence that are expected of them. Officer Wilson’s conduct is an exception and should be tried as such. The pattern of unarmed young black men and boys being gunned down or strangled by white police officers is becoming one that we as citizens have come to understand as “normal.” It has become an assumption in our culture that those police officers who use lethal force on unarmed people are “justified” in doing so and that these police officers are simply “doing what they get paid to do.” But I beg to differ. There are many police officers who do not use lethal force but make arrests every day. There are many more police officers who put themselves in harms way for the sake of the citizenry. Still, there are even more police officers who would sooner take a bullet themselves rather than risk the chance of firing on and killing an unarmed and potentially innocent civilian. To say that officer Wilson’s actions on the night of August 9, 2014 in Ferguson, MO are “by the book” is to say that all those police officers who put the lives of citizens above their own are doing so in vain and the sacrifices of honorable police men and women around the country is mocked by officer Wilson’s actions and the grand jury’s decision to not indict him.
As a disciple of Jesus I cannot neglect the precedent that such decisions set. They lower the standards of our law enforcement officers and denigrate the value of black American’s lives. As I sit here surveying the reactions of the citizens of this nation, it becomes clear that those who claim that “race” is a “card to be played” do not understand nor care about what such statements imply about the state of racism in the United States. Such statements endorse the implicit assumption that segregation and racism ended with Martin Luther King Jr. This is a fantasy. Such attitudes rein-scribe the taboo that currently surrounds discussions about race and racism. If someone is accused of playing the “race card,” whether or not they are aware of it, they are saying that all Americans are equally held accountable before the law and that all Americans are at base given the same opportunities. But, given the preponderance of cases where black teens and men are shot by white officers it is striking that very few, if any, officers are prosecuted and found guilty. If this is justice, and officer Wilson’s actions are in fact normal as the grand jury suggests in its decision not to indict, then the problem of race is an institutional part of police procedure and culture. This is not playing the race card, institutional prejudice is racism and needs to be addressed as such.
As a leader of the Christian church, it is very difficult to see Christians sit back and do nothing about racism in our society. The Church should be the leading voice in condemning any and all forms of oppression. Members of any and all churches should be on the frontline of protests and reform movements.
As we approach Thanksgiving and take account of all those things that have inspired us to give thanks, I pray that the misguided understanding that slavery ended in the 19th century and that segregation and racism ended with Martin Luther King Jr. is recognized as the lie that it is. I pray for and with all those whom the justice system routinely “demonizes” and neglects. I pray that some day all people would fully come to terms with the reality that God’s love creates, sustains, and inhabits all people. And, that the myths we tell ourselves about an idealized past cease and the truth of our oneness in God becomes manifest. Let us give thanks for the greater awakening to our unity as a people loved and created by God.
May God have mercy on us all.
Pastor Pernini
