I've read too many comments on this site that have included either an implicit or explicit acknowledgement that the video released by police of a black man roughing up a smaller man while shoplifting a box of cigarillos makes the death of Mike Brown less important than they first thought it to sit silent and accept their acceptance of police vigilantism. Because accepting that it's not a big deal if a police officer shot an unarmed man if that man might have not have been the nicest man who ever walked the face of the earth is accepting police vigilantism.
I've tried not to be angry with those who have posted such comments, because I know my initial reaction when I viewed the video from the store was "Wow. He was big. And he looks like he was a bully, too." From that point, however, I analysed that initial reaction and it wasn't many seconds before I realized that IT DIDN'T MATTER. It didn't matter if he was a thief. It didn't matter if he was a bully. It didn't matter if he was a hell of a lot worse than that video suggest he might have been. What happened in that store - even if committed by Mike, which we do not know - did not and could not justify what was done to him.
There are so many facets to this situation, it gets confusing to have a discussion since all the known unknowns and unknown knowns keep butting heads. So I'm going to spell out a few assumptions I'm making in writing this diary. At least one is specifically not true, but many comments appear to be believe it.
First, even though there is no proof that the video is of Mike Brown, I'm going to assume that the poor accused guy was actually guilty of stealing a nearly $50 box of cigarillos and intimidating, even physically assaulting, a smaller guy while doing so. In fact, for purposes of this diary, I'm going to assume a lot more. I'm going to assume that Mike Brown was an all around bully who used his size to intimidate and steal on a regular basis - or at least as regular as a guy who's only 18 and so hasn't been that size long can have behaved that way.
Second, I'm going to assume that the cop knew at the time he shot Mike Brown that Mike Brown was suspected of this act - and in fact, I'm going to assume that he knew that Mike Brown regularly intimidated and roughed up people smaller than him. I'm going to, like cops everywhere regularly do, assume that although Mike Brown had never been convicted of a crime, the cop knew without doubt that Mike Brown had committed numerous crimes which he's somehow managed to get by with without getting caught.
Third, I'm going to assume that Mike Brown had not assaulted the police officer prior to being shot and had not attempted to take the gun from the officer. The reason I feel comfortable making this assumption is because, had that actually been the case, those facts would have immediately been made public, would have been in the report about the incident, and the incident report would have been made public. Making that public immediately would have put a lid on everything that's happened since then.
Fourth, I'm going to assume that the police officer did not believe his or anyone else's life was in danger if he did not shoot Mike Brown. Again, I believe making that assumption is also safe, since the same reasoning as above applies. If it's not accurate, of course, then the use of force was probably justified, but there's been virtually nothing to suggest that's the case.
Now, with those two assumptions made, can anyone honestly tell me that the proper behavior of any police officer is to then shoot that person? Just go ahead and shoot? Numerous times?
We have a system in this country to deal with people who commit crimes and who are bullies. And that system does not include vigilantism by police or by citizens. We don't get to say "Hey, I don't think that guy's a good guy, and I think the world would be safer without him, so I'm going to just get rid of him." Doing that is murder. Vigilantism is murder. Police vigilantism is murder.
The ONLY facts that are relevant in this situation are the facts that surround this killing. We don't have all of them. The facts we do have are that Mike Brown was unarmed, that he was shot multiple times, that a nurse was refused to administer CPR to him while he lay in the road, that he was left uncovered in the road for four hours after dying while his family watched and allowed to do nothing for him.
We don't know if there was a physical altercation between Mike Brown or his friend and the police officer who shot him. We don't know if the police officer was just ticked off that Mike and his friend weren't sufficiently deferential to him. We don't know if Mike tried to run or, if he did, why. We don't know if the police officer had the slightest reason to fear death or bodily harm to himself or to another person. Those are the questions that need to be answered before it can be determined whether the officer committed murder.
But if the answers are that there was no reason for the officer to kill him, then it was murder, whether or not Mike Brown was a perfect human being.
If we wait for a perfect person before we become outraged about murder or other injustice, then we'll have to wait for a very long time. While you night not have ever bullied anyone and you night not have ever stolen a box of cigarillos, I have little doubt you've not done other acts you should be damn ashamed of. That doesn't mean someone is justified in killing you.
So please, if you're one of those who haven't thought this through and recognized how ridiculous the position that it's not such a big deal because he might have committed a petty theft and/or a minor assault please reconsider that belief? Because even if it's someday discovered that Mike Brown had committed murder, if the facts are as they now appear to be in this case, the police officer who shot Mike Brown would still be guilty of committing murder.
