Ninety days after Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Mike Brown, the general consensus among activists on the ground is that a decision from the grand jury is coming soon and that it will be to pass on an indictment of Wilson. When a grand jury opts not to go to trial in an officer-involved shooting, it's easy to feel as if all is lost, but it isn't. While the deep resentment and anger would be real, let's use this space below the fold to discuss what the options are if Darren Wilson never even faces a trial. The Don't Shoot Coalition of over 50 grassroots organizations on the ground in Ferguson is
a leading voice in the discussion of should follow if Darren Wilson is not indicted.
(IMPORTANT NOTE: This post is not advocating violence or riots, but was written to explore the possible/likely outcomes in the weeks ahead in Ferguson.)
Riots
The anger over the shooting death of Mike Brown is real. It's real in Ferguson to those who knew and loved him. It's real in St. Louis to tens of thousands of men and women who've been mistreated by the so-called justice system for decades. It's real to millions of African Americans and concerned citizens all over the country who are sick and tired of young, unarmed black men and women being killed with little to no reciprocal justice.
If Wilson doesn't even face a trial, the response will be a furious anger and righteous indignation. Yes, riots destroy property, harm lives, and cause new arrests. This much is true. What is also true is that when oppressed people try to use the justice system in the murder of a loved one and feel it fails them, the primary outlet for their anger is removed.
Just imagine if you believed a police officer shot and killed your beloved son while he had his hands up and you were told the officer wouldn't even go to trial for this murder. How would you feel? While a legitimate argument exists that riots are counterproductive, that same argument, if Wilson is not indicted, could be made from the point of view of people suffering in Ferguson for trusting the justice system. Why trust the system? Why wait on the system? Why believe in those who run the system, if you feel it fails you and your people time after time when you need it the most?
From the point of view of African Americans well-versed in this country's history, it appears hypocritical for those who love George Washington and Patrick Henry to then say the use of violence in response to an oppressive government is categorically wrong. The point here is not to say that riots are the best optional available, but it is to acknowledge that when people feel their backs are against the wall, it feels like the best option.
Peaceful Protests
For almost all of the 90 days since Mike Brown was killed, protests have been peaceful. If anything, the most excessive use of force has been demonstrated not by protestors, but by police themselves. If a decision not to indict Wilson comes down, these peaceful protests could continue, but to what end? Yes, peaceful protests are an effective way to display that you disagree with the government and if this is the primary hope, they should continue. However, it needs to be understood that the current protests have primary goals in mind to not only see Wilson indicted, but to see substantive changes take place with the way justice is administered in Ferguson and beyond. The fight for these things to take place will have to shift if an indictment does not happen, but the protests will not stop.
Non-violent civil disobedience will likely kick into overdrive if Wilson is not indicted. Peaceful demonstrations designed to shut down businesses, roadways, offices, schools, and more will likely happen in St. Louis instantly and could spread nationally. Boycotts of St. Louis and of all of Missouri will be considered as will boycotts of businesses and sports teams valuable to Missouri all around the country.
Appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
If Wilson is not indicted, it will be, in part, because of Missouri laws and Supreme Court rulings that allow police to act with lethal force in almost every case imaginable—even if the victim is unarmed—if the police claim that they have some level of fear. In the cases of Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor, it took years and years of appeals through the system before the Supreme Court chimed in on what police can and cannot do regarding lethal force.
What is not explicitly stated in those rulings or in Missouri law is whether or not police have the right to use lethal force against an unarmed suspect who has been shot multiple times or is seen and heard submitting. In other words, the conditions in which an officer can claim to be in fear are murky and need clarification under the law. As the law is currently written, the fear, like that of Amadou Diallo's wallet in New York City, can be irrational or imagined as long as officers believe it in the moment. This interpretation of the law appears to have the effect of leaving African Americans paying a disproportionate price and should be fought.
Local advocacy for smarter, safer policing
On this past Election Day, voters in the state of Washington approved a new ballot initiative requiring all gun purchases to be preceded by a mandatory background check. This simple, but important, change has bipartisan support across the country, but could never really get off of the ground in Congress. The people of Washington decided to take this measure into their hands and became the first state in the country requiring background checks for gun purchases.
This very effective action, done with voters and not politicians, could also be taken with ways to make local law enforcement smarter and safer for officers and especially for citizens. It is preposterous that entire countries like England have fewer police-involved shootings in two years than the United States has in an average week. While the United States has its own unique concerns and challenges, the shoot-to-kill mentality of our police is killing far too many unarmed citizens who could've been apprehended with the use of stun guns or even non-lethal shots. Furthermore, if lethal force is going to be so common in this country, it only makes sense that all police wear cameras that document exactly what happened from their perspective.
If Darren Wilson is not indicted, and even if he is, protestors and concerned citizens around the country will likely begin acting on these efforts to make our country a safer place.
