I published a diary on Daily Kos on 8/17 concerning the events in Ferguson, Missouri. I had the impression that Daily Kos is an outlet for Progressive expression. Judging from the comments on this diary as well as others I have written I must conclude that (1) either I am not Progressive enough for some people’s taste; (2)most of the people who comment aren’t progressive even though they may think they are; or (3) I am not conveying my thoughts and attitudes accurately. I admit that some of the catch phrases and abbreviations used by certain commenters are incomprehensible to me.
In regard to Ferguson, Missouri, there is reportedly an on-going problem with police misconduct. I did mention that, since it was not surprising to me.
The Cato Institutes's 2010 National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project by David Packman (4/5/11) (http/www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/) involved a representative national sample of 6,613 law enforcement officers. Based on credible reports, 23.8% had used excessive force; 18% had engaged in forcible non-consensual sexual activity; 7.2% were reported for fraud/theft/robbery; 6.8% for false arrest; 4.6% for illegal raids/searches; 3.6% civil rights violations; 3.2% dishonesty. The same officers may have been reported for multiple abusive offenses. Nevertheless, there is evidence that at least 23.8% of police officers nationwide have practiced authority abuse.
23.8% does not equal 100%. If it did, then every time a police officer shoots a black man, it would be entirely probable that it would be a case of police misconduct. But 23.8% does not equal 100%. To jump to the conclusion that whenever anyone claims they saw a police officer shoot an unarmed black man without cause, the police officer is guilty of a crime, is wrong. You don’t know if the witnesses are honest, if they have a grudge against the police, how accurate their vision is, if they could see every thing that was happening. If being Progressive means you disregard the truth in order to side with the disadvantaged, I don’t belong.
Should people protest against police misconduct? Absolutely. It should be happening in every community where it’s a problem. Civil disobedience? Police misconduct may justify non-violent civil disobedience. One of my critics seemed to equate civil disobedience with looting, burning, rock throwing , etc. Civil disobedience does not have to be violent on the part of the protesters. But in large protest gatherings, it is not uncommon for emotions to escalate. Shared anger can easily turn into violence. That may help explain looting, burning, and stealing other people’s property, but it does not justify it.
Social change can happen non-violently. Ghandhi liberated India from English rule through non-violent civil disodedience. The British empire outlawed slavery decades before the Emancipation Proclamation without a civil war that killed 618,222 people.
Do I give the impression that the right to protest is less important than property rights, i.e. the right to gain, use, keep and dispose of material objects? At least two critics seemed to think that. I think they believe that because blacks and other minorities have been disadvantaged by the wealthier white majority, the property rights of the white majority should be forfeited. Human rights are intrinsic to each person. We are born with them. They cannot be legislated away, or at least they should not be legislated away. Nor should anyone have the right to coerce them away. All human rights are of equal importance. No human has the right to interfere with nor violate nor take away anyone else’s rights. If this does not sound progressive, you probably don’t understand it.
The following quotes from Ayn Rand may help clarify. While Rand is not the darling of Progressives, and understandably so, some of what she wrote has the ring of truth.
"
Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another."
"It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right."
A couple of critical commenters don’t seem to think that property rights are human rights. What are they then? Animal rights? Plant rights? Mineral rights? If it were your store that was looted, do you think you might feel differently toward the looters? If the looter's homes were looted they'd be screaming bloody murder about rights violations.
I agree with Ayn Rand on this point. She writes:
Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human.”
Getting back to Ferguson, I was accused of being on the side of the Ferguson P.D. I prefer to think I am on the side of fairness. Why is it not possible that Michael Brown, having been ordered off the street, approached the police car, leaned against the door, and then grabbed with one hand for the officer’s gun? Is it not possible that a struggle ensued, that the police officer might have hit Brown in the face and Brown, enraged, reacts by striking the officer in the head with all his strength, breaking the officer’s eye socket? Witnesses to the rear of Brown would not have been able to see clearly what was happening before the officer exits the car. They would have seen Brown backing away from the police car with his hands up, saying “Don’t shoot.” Is it possible that Brown was simultaneously watching the officer to see if he would pass out, with the intention of getting the officer’s gun if possible? Was it possible the officer’s eye sight was impaired by the injury inflicted by Brown? Was it possible that the officer felt he might pass out? Perhaps you think that, if that was what happened, the officer should have allowed himself to pass out rather than making sure Brown could not get a hold of his weapon because Brown was a black man. You are entitled to your opinion. If I am ever arrested for shooting an unarmed attacker who has broken my eyesocket before I pass out, I hope you are not on my jury. Especially if the attacker was black.
If the officer is found guilty in a court of law, then he should be punished accordingly.
Consider this. If Michael Brown had been white and the son of the richest person in Ferguson, the cop that killed him would have been fired or compelled to resign the next day. If he stayed in Ferguson, he would be lucky to get a job cleaning public restrooms. There would be no protests, no marches, nor looting. White people would not be burning black-owned businesses. There would be no Daily Kos diaries written about it nor comments from one-sided critics.
Wealthy white people undoubtedly value property more than they value other people’s human rights. That is obvious. That does not justify violating their human rights, however. I remember being taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. Don’t they teach that in kindergarten anymore?