I put up my own reactions to the Ferguson grand jury verdict earlier today. There have been a few other very worthwhile articles and blog posts that I'd like to share with you.
My buddy Lawdog has some trenchant thoughts on the matter. A sample:
I think that the other old saying about actions having consequences should be followed closely in Ferguson, Missouri.
If you are a business owner, and a rampaging mob of Social Justice Warriors has looted and burned your place of business -- call your insurance company, take the cheque they're going to write, and use it to get the hell out of Ferguson, Missouri.
Take your vulnerable hide and your tax revenue somewhere that the local community doesn't think that it's perfectly okay for a bunch of thugs to burn you out because they've got a beef with the po-po.
There's more at the link. Recommended reading.
Another buddy, Larry Correia, responds to the ignorance displayed by many protesters and journalists by looking at the legalities of shooting people. It's a long, complex article, but that's the nature of the subject, I'm afraid. A sample:
Violent encounters are complex, and the only thing they have in common is that they all suck. Going into any investigation with preconceived notions is foolish. Making decisions as to right or wrong before you’ve seen any of the evidence is asinine. If you are a nationally elected official, like say for example the President of the United States, who repeatedly feels the need to chime in on local crime issues before you know any facts, you are partly to blame for the resulting unrest, and should probably go have a Beer Summit.
You can’t complain about the bias in our justice system against some groups, and how the state unfairly prosecutes some more than others, and then immediately demand doing away with the burden of proof, so the state can more freely prosecute. Blacks are prosecuted more and sentenced more harshly, so your solution is to remove more of the restraints on the state’s prosecutorial powers, and you think that’ll make things better? You want people to be prosecuted based on feelings rather than evidence, and you think that’ll help? The burden of proof exists as a protection for the people from the state. We have a system for a reason. Angry mob rule based on an emotional fact-free version of events isn’t the answer.
Again, more at the link, and well worth your time.
The (black) National Bar Association has decided to sound off against the grand jury's findings.
The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.
More at the link (if you want to waste your time on such racially biased claptrap). I find it supremely and bitterly ironic that an association of lawyers and jurists is objecting to the outcome of this case - an outcome produced by the same legal system within which they work. I submit that their protests would carry more weight if they all resigned their official positions and refused to operate within that system any longer . . . but then they'd have to actually work for a living, wouldn't they?
I note with gratitude that not everyone 'rolled over and played dead' in the face of screaming protesters. Faced with the almost complete absence of police protection, some citizens took matters into their own hands.
Along West Florissant just north of 270, in Greystone Plaza, about 20 men with handguns and AR-15 rifles stood around the perimeter of the parking lot, guarding the dozen or so stores.
They estimated that 100 cars had come by throughout the night, seemingly to check the place out, but turned away.
Mike Cross, the owner of St. Louis Ink at the plaza, said: “There's nothing in this strip mall open, so you're going to get scrutinized.”
Well done, those people! If I lived nearer to Ferguson, I'd have been proud to stand alongside you.
Finally, I note with anger and frustration that the bias of journalists and the mainstream media is as obvious over Ferguson as it was before and during the recent mid-term elections. The New York Times published the address of Officer Wilson and his wife, and Salon went so far as to publish a picture of the house. As you can imagine, protesters picked up on that right away and disseminated the information via social media. I suspect at least some journalists would like nothing better than to photograph, and report on, a screaming mob of protesters attacking Officer Wilson's house and torching it (preferably with him and his wife still inside it).
I have a suggestion. If Officer Wilson's home is damaged or destroyed by protesters, let's find out the names, addresses and other personal details - in other words, the same information they've reported about Officer Wilson - of every single journalist, editor and manager who collected, authorized the publication of, and helped to disseminate it. Let's publicize the information we've collected on our blogs, through our organizations, and in any other way that we can, and leave it up to our readers to decide what to do with it. After all, in the words of the proverb, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". Let those media scum experience for themselves the same fear - and possibly the same consequences - that they so blithely foist upon others. I doubt they'll enjoy it, but who cares? They certainly don't seem to care about those they endanger by their actions!