When I watch the local news and see a segment about a robbery and the arrest of a suspect, I say to myself, “Good, they caught the guy,” ignoring the obligatory word “alleged” used by the reporter. At the same time, I know that if I were picked to sit on the jury for that suspect’s trial, I would do my best to be fair and impartial in helping to reach a verdict. And the same would hold if I were on the grand jury charged with deciding whether he should be indicted. In other words, my threshold for forming a judgment while watching the evening news is quite low, because I know that it does not matter, whereas my threshold as a juror would be much higher.
In the case of the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, not even my normally low threshold appropriate for the nightly news allowed me to reach a conclusion about what happened, whether Wilson was guilty of murder or acted in self-defense. As a result, I will accept the decision of the grand jury whatever it is. And if Wilson is indicted, unless I hear new evidence at his trial that persuades me as to his guilt or innocence one way or the other, I will not second guess the jury for their verdict. Though our criminal justice system is imperfect, yet it is better than the alternatives, and thus I am inclined to accept that which results from it as a general rule. Occasionally, as in the O.J. Simpson case, I may decide that the defendant got away with murder, that justice was not done, but that is the exception.
There are a lot of people, however, who already have a strong opinion as to Wilson’s guilt or innocence, and they will not accept the decision of the grand jury if it goes contrary to their own opinion as to what happened when Wilson shot Brown. On the one hand, there are those who believe that Brown was a “thug” who got what was coming to him when Wilson, fearing for his life, shot him dead. On the other hand, there are those who believe that Brown was murdered while trying to surrender and that Wilson should be indicted and convicted.
But this case is more than just a matter of one man’s guilt or innocence in his killing of another. These two men are symbols for something much larger. For the first group, Brown is more than a victim; he is a martyr in the cause against racial injustice and police brutality. For the second group, Wilson is not just a cop; he represents the thin blue line that stands between law-abiding citizens and the vicious criminals that want to rob, rape, and kill.
So what will happen if, as it is rumored, the grand jury fails to indict? We all remember Rodney King. In that case, there were indictments, but the results were mostly acquittals, which precipitated a riot. This was followed by federal trials for the violation of civil rights, resulting in the conviction of two of the officers. The nomination of Loretta Lynch for attorney general could not have come at a more interesting time. When someone is nominated for the Supreme Court, the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee always try to figure out whether the nominee is pro-life or pro-choice without coming right out and asking how he or she would rule on a particular case. It is likely that during Lynch’s confirmation hearing, she will be questioned in an effort to see whether she will want to bring civil rights charges against Wilson, especially since Lynch is herself African American, just like Eric Holder, who a lot of Republicans believe to be a racially prejudiced, angry black man.
A logical possibility of the grand jury’s failure to indict would be one of acceptance. The black leaders announce that they accept the jury’s decision, and the black community completely acquiesces, not even bothering to protest. I mention this only to set it aside of unrealistic. A second possibility would be peaceful protests with nothing bad happening. This possibility is not completely unrealistic, but somewhat unlikely. The third possibility is that there will be violence: either the police will act with violence against the protesters, or the black community of Ferguson will loot and riot.
From a purely Machiavellian point of view, each side should hope for violence from the other side. In fact, they should try to provoke it. If the protesters can get the police to start beating them with clubs, lobbing tear-gas canisters into their midst, shooting them with rubber bullets, and even killing some of them, the cause for racial justice will be advanced, much in the way the Boston massacre helped bring about the American Revolution or the Soweto massacre helped bring about an end to apartheid. In particular, a demand for the federal government to bring charges of civil rights violations will intensify. Loretta Lynch’s confirmation will practically be guaranteed.
If, on the other hand, the police show a weak response to any arson or looting, thereby encouraging more, until a complete riot takes place (while being sure not to let any of this spill over into the middle-class, white areas of town), this will harden the American people against the rioters, making them support the police more than ever, even if it means occasionally violating someone’s civil rights. In this case, Lynch’s confirmation will be in jeopardy.
Though it is in the long-term interest of each group to let the other side be violent, yet the temptation to violence can be irresistible. It’s a little like running when you have been bitten by a snake. You know you shouldn’t do it, but it sure does feel good.