Let's look at the events in Ferguson from a human rights perspective. Respect for human rights would go a long way toward preventing similar tragedies.
All I know about what has happened in Ferguson, Missouri is what’s been reported on TV. If I don’t have all the facts and nothing but the facts, sorry. I am looking at these perceived events through the lense of human rights. It’s a tragedy when anyone is shot and killed. Shock and sadness are natural reactions to such happenings. It is good that people are concerned with race relations and unjustified police killings and other abuse. I am glad these things are being protested. Shock and sadness, however, do not justify throwing respect for human rights out the window.
First of all, what happened to the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? People are saying Mr. Brown had his hands up in a sign of surrender. Many people seem to think that proves the police officer shot Brown unnecessarily; therefore, he must be guilty. Let’s back up. Should the officer have confronted Mr. Brown in the first place? If he hadn’t confronted Brown, the shooting would not have taken place. According to news reports Brown and his friend were obstructing the flow of traffic by walking down the middle of the street. If people do not have the right to drive their cars without unauthorized obstructions, then the officer should not have confronted Brown and his companion. If people do have the right to drive without unauthorized obstructions, then it was the officer’s duty to stop Brown and his friend from interfering with that right.
Now that the officer is in the process of carrying out his duty, what motivated him to shoot an unarmed man with raised arms? I don’t know. But consider the following scenario:
You are a police officer, 5’7” tall, weighing 150 lbs., confronting two unarmed suspects one of which has the build and swagger of a prizefighter. The prizefighter is approaching you with his arms up. What would you do?
It is natural for people to assume that Brown was standing motionless when he was shot if they have not heard anything to the contrary. I don’t think that has been proven.
So the suspect is approaching you, the lone police officer. You order him to halt. Rather than halting he continues to move toward you. He is now ten feet away and still approaching. The prizefighter’s companion has done nothing/said nothing to stop the prizefighter’s approach. Do you reach for your gun? Or do you pause to assess? Do you stop to wonder about the racial implications of what you may do next? Does he have deadly intent in his eyes? Is this person possibly deaf? Is he drunk or high on drugs? Should you fire a warning shot or perhaps aim for a leg and hope that stops him? If he is high, you can’t count on a wound stopping him. You can’t assume the suspect does not have a black belt in karate in which case his hands and feet are weapons.
Sorry. But in the time it took for all those questions to go through your brain the suspect attacked and you are now dead or permanently disabled. In my opinion, in that scenario, the policeman would not only be within his rights to kill the suspect, he would be duty-bound to protect himself.
I don’t know what actually happened in the Ferguson killing, but it is wrong to assume the policeman used excessive force.
Many think the subsequent military-type police action with tear gas and rubber bullets was excessive. What I find more disturbing than that, and which newscasters seemed to gloss over, was the picture of the police standing around watching a store being looted. I believe this took place on the second evening after the killing. When we think about human rights we tend to think of the right to free assembly, the right of free speech, the right to protest, the right to breathe clean air, the right to know what’s in the food we purchase. It seems to me that the right to private property, however, is rarely included. Ayn Rand writes of the right to property
It is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
The looters in Ferguson disrespected the property rights of the store owner. And the police allowed it to happen.
The Ferguson police chief released a video of Brown robbing a convenience store and strong arming the attendant minutes before he was killed. What I learned from watching that video was that Brown was acting in a bullying fashion toward the store attendant and violated the property rights of the store’s owner. He and his companion then proceeded to violate the rights of motorists. Did he deserve to die for his bullying and disrespect for the rights of others? Certainly not. But let’s not pretend this is not part of the story. Had Mr. Brown respected people’s rights that day, perhaps he would still be alive.