Body Cameras and the Ferguson Problem: Video won’t convince people who aren’t moved by facts.

In the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown’s shooting, before we learned that he had not been shot in the back, that he had not had his hands up, that he had, in fact, attempted to grab Officer Wilson’s gun, I wrote in favor of requiring more police to wear body cameras. Assuming nothing about Wilson’s guilt or innocence, I wrote: “Cameras cannot repeal aggression, bias, rage, or stupidity — but they can certainly diminish them. And with cameras, justice for the guilty — cop or civilian — is more attainable.”

In the wake of the grand jury’s decision not to indict Wilson, Michael Brown’s parents have called for police to wear body cameras. I remain in favor, but the outright denial displayed by so many opinion leaders in this case makes me doubtful that even video evidence will be enough to calm the next storm if the victim of violence is black and the perpetrator white.

There was video evidence in this case: the convenience-store robbery and strong-arming of the owner. Any fair-minded person would concede that while the footage didn’t prove that Brown attacked Officer Wilson a few minutes later, it did severely undermine the legend that was being spun of Brown as a “gentle giant.” Yet most commentators on the left either ignored the store footage or suggested that it was irrelevant. Missouri’s governor denounced the release of the video as a form of character assassination.

For reasons best known to themselves, Ferguson authorities chose to withhold Officer Wilson’s account of the fatal encounter for many weeks. Arguably, this silence permitted the legend of a brutal, unprovoked attack on an “unarmed black man” to proliferate more than it otherwise might have.

Still, by October, word had leaked to a number of news organizations about the three autopsy reports on Michael Brown’s body. The reports proved conclusively that Brown was not shot in the back, did not have his hands up, and had been shot at close range on one hand (consistent with Wilson’s story about a struggle for his gun in the patrol car). He also had enough THC in his body to cause hallucinations.

Again, fair-minded people, presented with this evidence, would give Wilson a hearing.

Finally, in the weeks leading up to the grand jury’s decision, reports surfaced that multiple African-American eyewitnesses corroborated Wilson’s account of the events that day in their testimony. There was a bullet hole in the police car. Brown’s DNA was found inside the police car and on Wilson’s body.

Lovers of the racist-cop storyline swatted these inconvenient facts away, noting that there was “conflicting testimony.” Well, yes. But the testimony of those whose accounts were at variance with the forensic evidence — such as those who testified that Brown’s hands were over his head when he was killed — are not as trustworthy as those whose testimony was consistent with the other evidence.

So who really failed Michael Brown? The “system” that refused to railroad an innocent cop to appease the mob, or the aggrieved parents themselves?

One must sympathize with parents who have lost a child. The image of Lesley McSpadden’s tears is piteous. But her refusal to face reality is also documented. Responding to Darren Wilson’s interview, she said: “I don’t believe a word of it. I know my son far too well; he would never [attack a cop], he would never provoke anyone to do anything to him, and he would never do anything to anybody.” But we have video footage of what happened at the convenience store. Doesn’t that count as provoking someone?

Imagine if footage surfaced from a security camera or cell phone somewhere of Darren Wilson making a racist remark. Would those who stoutly deny that the convenience store video tells us anything relevant about Brown say the same? Of course not. The outcry would shake the rafters. In America today, not all evidence is created equal.

I’m still for cameras on cops. Some police officers abuse their authority, and cameras will diminish that. In other circumstances, the video will provide police with proof that their actions were justified.

But we cannot imagine that body cameras will solve the “Ferguson problem.” Too many are too invested in the white-racism morality play to let facts — even videotaped facts — get in the way.

Exactly. You have a mob, in every sense of the word, that has been created by and for the prgressive liberals. The truth does not matter to them...just the narrative and getting their "stuff."

What has to change in America with respect to all of this is that the facts associated with how people like Michael Brown grow up to be thugs and criminals must be publicized and dealt with for the truth that it is.

Most of it is due directly to the demographics created by the welfare state and the progressive liberal programs and agenda put into place over the last 50-60 years.

Those programs have created an environment that is fertile for producing such individuals.

The liberal progressives continually wrest the truth about this in order to avoid these facts. They willfully ignore them and then blatantly pervert the truth into their false narratives in order to continue to advance their ideological goals.

The fact is, they are willing to lie to people in ordewr to get them to react in this manner.

That's what is really happening.

What Happened in Ferguson, MO...and Why

I do not care what color a person is, what their religion is, what their culture is, etc. when these set of facts come together, the outcome is not only predicatable, it is just:

A big, strong, (6'4" almost 300 pound) 18 year old man robs a convienence store. (Robbery)
When confronted by the clerk, on his way out with the stolen material, the big, strong 18 year-old man grabs the clerk by the throat and shoves him away. (Strong-arm Robbery)
After robbing the store, the bigh strong 18 year old man walks with his accomplisce right down the middle of the public street. (Jaywalking)
When a Police office sees the two men walking in the middle of the street, he drives up to them and asks them to get out of the middle of the street.
The big strong 18 year old man profanes the police officer and refuses to stop walking in the middile of the street. (Failure to follow instructions of a Law Enforcement Officer)
The police officer watches them continue, and then hears about the robbery and sees that the two individuals match the description of the robbers.
The Police officer now approaches the two with his car, pulls up next to them and indicates he needs to talk to them and tries to open his door.
The big strong 18 year old uses his body mass to block the door and not let the officer out (Obstruction).
The Police Officer and the big strong 18 yer old exchange words and a struggle insues with the officer inside his car and the big strong 18 year old outside, leaning in through the window. (Assault)
The big strong 18 year old attempts to wrestle the officer's gun away from him, striking the officer in the face as he does so (Battery)
The officer, in trying to maintain control of the weapopn, ultimately pulls the trigger, discharging the gun once inside the car.
The big strong 18 year old is struck in the hand and then turns and leaves.
The police officer, exits the car and follows the two robbers, telling them to stop and drawing his weapon.
The big sytrong 18 year old turns and again profanse the police officer, refusing to follow his instructions, and then, bum charges the police officer. (Assault)
The police officer, who had alread witnessed the strength and ill intent of the big strong 18 year old, decides his assailant will do him gross bodily harm if he reaches the officer, so he opens fire on his attacker.
The big srong 18 year old is struck several times, the last shot within 10-12 feet of the officer, striking him the head and killing him.

This is what occurred that day. It is cooberated by seven eye witnesses and the Police Officer's report. Most of those witnesses are African-American themselves.

The big strong Michael Borwn committred multiple crimes and was willing to assault and injure the officer in order to not get caught and apprehended. In the end, he was going to attack and seriously injure or kill that officer.

Michael Brown was a criminal thug who reaped the direct consequences of his own actions. Plain and simple, and it does not matter what color he was.

The officer acted approriately...even herocilally IMHO...and the grand jury, once they saw the evidence, made the only rational and just decision they could...NO BILL...no charges.

Liberal activists, race baiters, progressive liberals, and their politicans want to turn this into a race issue...but it never was.

Those people inciting these riots, IMHO, including the US Attorney General and the President, should themselves be charged with inciting the looting, arson, assault, and murder that have occurred as a result of their false narratives.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.