Ta-Nehisi Coates at
The Atlantic writes
The Gangsters of Ferguson: Darren Wilson was innocent. If only the city's cops offered their own citizens the same due process he received. An excerpt:
Yesterday the Justice Department released the results of a long and thorough investigation into the killing of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. The investigation concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove a violation of federal law by Officer Wilson. The investigation concluded much more. The investigation concluded that physical evidence and witness statements corroborated Wilson's claim that Michael Brown reached into the car and struck the officer. It concluded that claims that Wilson reached out and grabbed Brown first "were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence."
The investigation concluded that there was no evidence to contradict Wilson's claim that Brown reached for his gun. The investigation concluded that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back. That he did not shoot Brown as he was running away. That Brown did stop and turn toward Wilson. That in those next moments "several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson." That claims that Brown had his hands up "in an unambiguous sign of surrender" are not supported by the "physical and forensic evidence," and are sometimes, "materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time."
Unlike the local investigators, the Justice Department did not merely toss all evidence before a grand jury and say, "you figure it out." The federal investigators did the work themselves and came to the conclusion that Officer Wilson had not committed "prosecutable violations under the applicable federal criminal civil rights statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242." [...]
The Justice Department conducted two investigations—one looking into the shooting of Michael Brown, and another into the Ferguson Police Department. The first report made clear that there was no prosecutable case against one individual officer. The second report made clear that there was a damning case to be made against the system in which that officer operated:
Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes.
Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities...
Partly as a consequence of City and FPD priorities, many officers appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson’s predominantly African-American neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue...
|
The "focus on revenue" was almost wholly a focus on black people as revenue. Black people in Ferguson were twice as likely to be searched during a stop, twice as likely to receive a citation when stopped, and twice as likely to be arrested during the stop, and yet were 26 percent less likely to be found with contraband. Black people were more likely to see a single incident turn into multiple citations. The disparity in outcomes remained "even after regression analysis is used to control for non-race-based variables."
One should understand that the Justice Department did not simply find indirect evidence of unintentionally racist practices which harm black people, but "discriminatory intent”—that is to say willful racism aimed to generate cash. Justice in Ferguson is not a matter of "racism without racists," but racism with racists so secure, so proud, so brazen that they used their government emails to flaunt it.
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2004—Remember the Ladies, with apologies to Abigail Adams:
Today is International Women's Day, and women's peace groups around the world are issuing backgrounders and statements galore; in particular they are drawing attention to the very important issue of the decline of rights and security for women in Iraq since the US "liberation." [I've gotten four different ones in my inbox already.] One of the best ones I've seen came from Madre, and since this is a resource we don't see cited very often in dKos land, I thought it might be worthwhile to pass it on.
Before you start to complain that security isn't a woman's issue per se, it might be helpful to remember that when social structures break down, it is women (and the weaker in society) who bear, in particular ways, the burdens that arise from that collapse. Thus these issues offer a good indicator of "bigger picture" state security questions.
Women: the canaries in the proverbial national security coal mine.
Tweet of the Day
Clip n save. RT "@SecretsBedard: Jeb in Iowa: 'There’s nothing in my record that would suggest that I’m a moderate.'”
— @MikeGrunwald
Monday through Friday you can catch the Kagro in the Morning Show 9 AM ET by dropping in
here, or you can download the
Stitcher app (found in the app stores or at Stitcher.com), and find a live stream there, by searching for "Netroots Radio."
High Impact Posts • The Week's High Impact Posts • Top Comments
The Evening Blues