Those marching in the streets and demanding the
indictment of Darren Wilson are doing no less than taking chisels to the foundation
of our judicial system. More accurately, they are swinging sledgehammers at it.
I recognize that is pretty strong statement, but
please stay with me. I don't come to that conclusion lightly, nor do I
wish to offend. However, that is exactly what I mean to say...so I'll
just go ahead and say it.
One may be aware of the all the evidence available to
the public. One may also understand the legal system, the role of the
Grand Jury, and the constitutional rights of our citizens (including Darren
Wilson.) But nobody who satisfies both of those conditions could
possibly, in good faith, still call for the indictment of Darren Wilson.**
Should indictment come back from the Grand Jury (for
the record, I think it won't,) it could only mean that the citizens on that
Grand Jury chose to acquiesce to the demand of those threatening to turn North
St. Louis County into the Gaza Strip rather than fulfill their obligation to
justice.
As a 7th grader, I was taught by Jay Buck of Crestview
Junior High School that our constitution protects us from prosecutors charging
citizens with crimes without meeting a standard of proof. They need to
either convince a grand jury of citizens, or a judge, that there is probable
cause of a crime having been committed by the citizen he or she wishes to bring
to trial.
Just as our constitution protects our freedom of
speech and peaceful assembly, it protects our freedom from being
unmeritoriously charged with crimes. Like all of our rights, and
especially in this time, it is paramount for us to defend this gift from our
founders with vigor and fortitude.
We must not cast our rights overboard to appease a
mindless mob of angry voices...no matter how terrifying the threats. None of us
know who the mob will turn on next, nor do we know what demands it may make in
the future if empowered by the indictment Darren Wilson.
Riots we can live through. But we must not give
an uninformed and angry mob a voice in our judicial system. The Innocence
or guilt of a man is never to be tried in the court of public opinion, but
instead in a courtroom and only when merited by probable cause.
Be prayerful that the grand jury understands what is
at stake here.
** I obviously left a highly contentious point
completely undefended. I did so to enable a more expeditious unwrapping
of the crux of this biscuit. For those interested in the point's defense,
I submit a separate essay below....
There is zero credible evidence (available to the
general public) upon which to indict Darren Wilson for a crime in the death of
Michael Brown.
I realize that to some, this is quite an incendiary
statement. Yet I ask everyone to take a deep breath and hear me out. I reach
this conclusion neither mindlessly nor uninformed.
The initial story is quite harrowing. Michael
Brown is walking down the street when Officer Wilson (motivated by racial hate)
pulls him into the police SUV and initiates an altercation. Michael
Brown breaks away and flees, only to be shot from behind by Officer Wilson.
After absorbing the blow, Brown then turned and surrendered on his knees,
with his hands up. Un-accepting of the surrender, Wilson unloaded his gun
into the helpless Brown....his last round being execution style to the top of
Brown's head. A citizen had been executed in cold blood.
This story immediately hit the Twitter/Facebook feeds
of the world. Unaccountable, bomb-throwing bloggers amplified it loud and far.
Before the body was cold, this narrative had sparked outrage throughout the
community and would later birth a full scale riot lasting for days.
The problem is that the story has proven to be utter
bullshit. No evidence corroborates this story. None. The
science of the case and other evidence collected, absolutely and without
equivocation, refute that version of events.
Brown was not shot in the back. Brown was not
shot while kneeling on the Ground. Brown's hands were not up when he was shot,
nor were his palms facing out. The story of an execution is completely
false...either the result of lying or the inherent unreliability of
eyewitnesses...but absolutely proven
false nonetheless.
Furthermore, Darren Wilson was not capable of pulling
Brown into the police SUV with one hand. I don't think Andre the Giant
could have done that. Brown was 6'4", 300lbs., and had the mechanical
advantage of being on both feet. He would not have been moved by the
single hand of a seated man. This doesn't pass the
laugh-ability test. How a
sentient being could possibly believe it is beyond me. It is certain that Brown attacked Wilson in Wilson's police SUV and had is hand upon the officer's gun when the first round of shots were fired.
So we know for certain that it didn't start how the
initial eyewitnesses said it started, and we know it didn't end how the initial
eyewitnesses said it did. The whole encounter took like 40 seconds. There
isn't much more than a beginning and an end.
There is also a giant hole in the story making it
unbelievable on its face. Wilson has no record of assaulting random
citizens...yet we are to believe it was he, rather than Brown, who initiated
the fight...despite Brown having just strong-arm-robbed a convenience store. It
is infinitely more believable that Brown attacked Wilson than the other way
around. In fact, it is absurd to believe otherwise. (Sorry...that's just
reality.)
With initial incendiary reports from the scene having
been thoroughly and convincingly proven not-credible, one must ask "what
credible evidence remains?" The answer: none that I'm aware of.
There are many other questions being asked, but none
of them are germane to the decision whether to indict Wilson.
Further, I could lay out point by point how the
evidence and logical reasoning all adds up to Wilson's version of the events
being true. But I'm not going to because it doesn't matter.
We are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of
law and to a jury of our peers. The onus lies upon the state to prove a
citizen committed a crime. It does not place the onus of proof on the
accused.
So again....
What credible evidence is there that Wilson committed
murder?
The answer: none that I'm aware of.
