Michael Brown Shooting and Politicized Environment It Has Created
What is it about the Michael Brown shooting that has all corners of the media so riled up. You got your typical responses from Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals protesting that he was unarmed and he was Black whilst the cop was white and most cops are corrupt in general(according to them). Then you got your Conservatives, bringing up the fact that he had stolen Swishers(cigarillos) at a liquor store before the shooting and that he was a bad kid up to no good who probably agitated the police officer in a way so dramatic that the officer had no option but to shoot him down. This is not my thoughts, this what the Conservative media appears to be dictating. What's the Progressive view? Well look no further than facts, because that's all that matters here. Well facts and empirical analysis(empirical basically means you deduce an occurrence based on other facts; doesn't necessarily mean the analysis is correct but there is a high chance it is). Well first off, we can throw the robbery out the window. I'm not generally concerned with that fact, as it doesn't justify the shooting. Sure that can point to an aggressive behavior, but that means little when you want to be as objective as possible. Now if you ran out of evidence, and had to use this as a basis, then you'd be making a very loose reasoning but nonetheless better than one not at all. Here's what happened: Michael Brown and friend Dorian Johnson robbed a liquor store. Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson were walking down the street, blocking traffic, then officer Wilson pulled up and told them to get on the sidewalk. Everything after that is almost all Hearsay. Various Liberals have questioned whether or not they actually robbed the store, most notably John Oliver, who claimed Michael Johnson could be seen paying for them. Whether this was him joking or not, I don't know, what is known, however, is that Dorian Johnson admitted that he and Michael Brown robbed the store. You can argue that he may have even be coerced by the police as a way to tone down the protests. But that's rather unimportant, since the robbery only makes Michael Brown a thief, but it doesn't quite explain why the officer shot him. There are many eyewitness accounts of the shooting. The ones on the side of Michael Brown have said that the officer tried to pull him inside the police car. I seriously doubt any sensible officer would do that. That's just putting yourself himself in danger. So right when I heard the witness say that, I knew it was bullshit. The other side of the story is that Michael Brown attacked him first. There is very little to doubt that a physical altercation occurred. The Young Turks put out a video with the title resonating that Officer Wilson didn't have a fracture eye socket like a source in Fox News did. What The Young Turks did leave out is that the officer nonetheless had a swollen face and was treated at hospital for his injuries. Heck even both testimonies to the shooting agree that there was an altercation, though the aggressor is disputed depending on who you listen to. TYT made a poor attempt to criminalize Officer Wilson by default in finding an error in wording, or rather in something that was misreported. Kudos to them for finding this misreporting, that really makes no difference. It's as if somebody crashed and the media reported that he broke his leg rather than fractured his foot. An important video surfaced a few days ago where a witness recants his story to another person, and that story matches the police story. Different witnesses, those who support Michael Brown, have said that he was simply running away when the cop's gun discharged whilst at the car, and then the officer shot him as his running away, striking him in the back. The autopsy showed he was shot from the front. That invalidates the witnesses who said he was shot in the back. Certainly this takes away a lot of credibility from them, after all they attempted to portray Michael Brown as terrified kid. If he was shot from the front, then that definitely means he was facing him. I see no possible reasoning with the witnesses. The only real question here is if Officer Wilson was in a dangerous situation, why was Michael Brown shot 35 feet away from the car. Apparently the story went that Michael Brown attacked the officer, then tried to reach for his gun when it discharged. After that he ran off, but must have realized that Officer Wilson would probably catch up to him so he tried to rush towards him when Officer Wilson discharged his gun. The same witness who said Michael Brown was shot from the back also said that Officer Wilson tried to pull him in. As we know the gun discharged in the vehicle so there's very little doubt that at one point Michael Brown reached for the gun and they wrestled for it. Some sources, many Conservatives sources in fact claim that Michael Brown simply walked away after struggling with Officer Wilson. That also makes no sense, as why would he just walk away hearing the gun discharge. This might not seem importance, and it may look like I'm just picking out the technicalities of the case. However this is critical in realizing that the Conservative media is quick to make Michael Brown seem like a thug. There's very little to prove that Michael Brown charged back at the officer, other than autopsy showing he was shot in the front and bystander recanting this story to another person. So I'd have to say that he did try to charge back at him. This is really tough detail to believe in, because there is no proof of it, and there is a slight bit of evidence that say he did. He could have in fact realized he was screwed and decided to stop running. But one thing to note is that the autopsy also showed that a bullet penetrated the top of his head. The only way for that to happen is for Michael Brown to be heading towards the police officer, when he was shot and then fell to the floor, but before hitting the floor the officer managed to get another shot at him. This is empirical evidence that is worth noting, as this is the only it could have happened and follows the testimony of the bystander. Out of this I found both Liberals and Conservatives eager to politicize the event and the protests to energize votes. Both sides argued without merit, because the center of discussion for Conservatives was more about the robbery than anything else. And that's the exact problem we have. Rather than face the facts in a nonpartisan effort, media icons sought after support for their party out of this. There's very little doubt about that and all you need to do is look at their ideology to see how they will react. I saw one of Cenk's videos where he talked about the shooting. And to me, it seemed like he wasn't so confident in his thoughts about the shooting. I wouldn't either. If Officer Wilson is found innocent, and unquestionable evidence comes into play, Cenk will be quick to state that this was police brutality. Remember, in the political spectrum it is wrong to say you are wrong. Just like Bill O'Reilly and his so-called Benghazi scandal. Now onto more important topics. Conservative media has criticized the protested, not only as unfounded but unnecessarily violent. And the main problem with that is although unnecessarily violent, it is not unfounded. There exist many legitimate claims to which the protest have been about. The disenfranchisement of African Americans is extremely high. I recall something about only 6% of African Americans voted in the last city elections or something of that sort. According to the DailyKos who points out to other sources states that the area is 2/3 African American and overwhelmingly Democrat. I don't really understand what they mean with overwhelmingly Democrat, but it must certainly mean more than 50%. The real problem is that nearly all of the local government is white, and the mayor is apparently Republican. If African-Americans in Ferguson make up 2/3 and they are at least 50% Democrat, then that must mean at least 1/3 of the people in that town did not vote for him. I find it hard to believe that the African American population voted for him, and I find it more likely that the White population did. And although this may not seem like a problem, this definitely creates tension, as you have people who don't care about you preside over you, especially if they don't agree with your voting record. But I cannot say that without hesitation, as who is to blame for this? We certainly can't blame Whites for being responsible in whom they want to preside over them. But the problem is there, and the fact of the matter is that there is a very strong chance that African Americans are treated very poorly. There is another interesting figure that has been circling around for a while and that is, the police department is composed of 50 whites and 3 blacks bringing the total to 53 members. Liberals tout this as evidence of a system that punished Blacks while Conservatives are smugly saying that the department has been looking for Black officers to hire but they can't find none. In a town which is 2/3 Black, they can't find more willing officers? Just goes to show how little Conservatives hide their racist attitude. But the main point is that Blacks are lacking in a system that represents them, a system that they favor. I understand that they didn't vote, but that's no grounds to justify unfair treatment. In cases like this, it often comes down to uninformed people who don't know the candidates or even know when elections are held. In cases like Republicans are hoping for the lowest voter turnout possible, knowing full well than only other whites and a small sample of blacks will show up. For that reason it is worthy to simply not make much of upcoming elections and give few details. Unlike the Presidential elections, who are very well publicized and often have better turnouts than Congressional elections and municipal elections. As a result of the underpinnings of an unbalanced town that go from shooting to rioting. Michael Brown wasn't really innocent, but that people of Ferguson are certainly angered by the government.
