ferguson

jeff_w.md

On Ferguson: We all have biases. And the events of the last 24 hours have placed them on full display - in the news media, on the streets, and in social networks. It's interesting how very different people's definitions can be regarding basic principles like justice, morality, and the law. To some, the outcome means a criminal got what he had coming. To others, the grand jury's decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson was another brick in the wall that keeps minorities from getting a fair shake. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Last night I posted very briefly on the topic, implying that underneath all the fog, this specific situation is one where Michael Brown's choices led to a predictable outcome. This sparked a series of comments that surprised me with their emotion and racial overtones. I initially thought I would delete the post and comments, but I think I'll let them remain. The comments speak for themselves and I stand by mine. Some may have thought my post over-simplified the situation or devalued the life of a suspect or minimized the racial tensions involved. That's an unfortunate misunderstanding. I may not have the life experiences to address the many aspects of race relations in America, nor was I attempting to do so, but as an FBI agent with 22 years of experience, I can certainly comment on the law and criminal justice. Some of the facts in the Ferguson incident are in dispute, but the ONLY people who have seen ALL of those facts and thoughtfully evaluated them are the men and women who comprised the grand jury. And after thorough consideration, they decided Officer Wilson was acting within the scope of his duties under the law and committed no crime. If too many people -- especially our elected officials -- begin to question the decisions of those grand juries and the law enforcement officers who protect us, we are doomed as a society to live in a state of anarchy. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I am always going to side with the officer. If you haven't gone through a door with your gun drawn, not knowing exactly what's waiting on the other side; if you haven't confronted a violent person whose intentions are unclear; if you haven't had to make a split-second life-or-death decision, you don't know what a police officer faces and aren't in a position to pass judgment. (As a brief aside, don't even start talking about how many shots were fired. If an officer is justified in using deadly force, he shoots until the threat is eliminated. Unlike what you see in the movies, one bullet is NOT going to knock a person off his feet. Even after sustaining a gunshot wound that will eventually prove fatal, a suspect can continue to charge, continue to fight, continue in his attempt to kill the officer, for seconds or even minutes. That's long enough to get the job done.) Some of those who believe the grand jury got it wrong have concepts of social justice that are idealized and morally relative and more robust than their understanding of actual justice. In a perfect world, every police officer would be able to de-escalate each situation with simple words, would be able to read the minds of everyone they encounter -- even those who are mentally ill or under the influence of drugs -- and use only the precise amount of force required at all times. Every suspect would react predictably and in line with the level of offense they have committed. Then there would be fewer mothers who lose their sons and children who lose their fathers. Sadly, it's not a perfect world. We have children who shoot each other in school and criminals bent on destruction and racist officers who engage in brutality. As an FBI agent, I helped investigate and prosecute a number of those officers. It was unpleasant, but necessary, and it's part of the reason our justice system still works. Not perfectly, and not as well as it would if our social fabric weren't unraveling so quickly, but it works. If we abandon faith in it, we do so at our own peril.