“Unarmed” doesn’t mean doing “no harm.” A man can rape and assault a woman without being armed. A man can overpower an armed policeman and injure or kill him without being armed.
When a police officer or a white person kills an “unarmed black teen,” it doesn’t automatically mean that a police officer or a white person committed a hate crime. Yet ever since the race baiting mob led by Al Sharpton, rushed to judgment in Trayvon Martin’s death, even before charges or a trial ensued, it’s become de rigueur for the mainstream media to use the phrase “unarmed black teen” when black teens are killed by whites or police officers.
The word “unarmed” inherently suggests that a black teen bears no culpability in his or her tragic demise. But during the George Zimmerman murder trial of Trayvon Martin, evidence and testimony showed Martin fought with Zimmerman. Here we are again with the same narrative and cast of characters being played out in the tragic death of Missouri teen Michael Brown before the facts are in.
Benjamin Crump, the same lawyer who represented Martin’s parents, is representing the Brown family. No investigation or autopsy has been completed. And Al Sharpton, who never met a race war he didn’t like, headlined a protest in Ferguson.
These familiar faces injecting themselves into the situation makes one wonder are they in it for “justice” or money. Michael Brown was a high school graduate, preparing to start his freshman year of college, something his grieving mother reminded us is rare for black men these days. Michael’s death is awful.
But the mainstream media, many blacks and self-appointed “civil rights leaders” immediately pulled the race card on Twitter and hit the streets crying, “no justice, no peace,” as conflicting facts continue dribbling in. Some blacks used it as a reason to loot and damage buildings. A black teen dies and blacks respond in kind with violence on “unarmed” people of Ferguson? Isn’t that why blacks were upset in the first place, because a violent act was allegedly committed against an “unarmed black teen”?
And why did President Barack Obama once again weigh in before an investigation was completed on the death of Brown like he did when Martin was shot by “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman?
“The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time,” Obama said in a statement.
Vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, Obama succumbed to pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and other “black advocates” and spoke publicly about the situation. Without an investigation being completed, Obama, as the nation’s first black president, is further stoking racial unrest in Ferguson and the nation.
If Obama is going to make it a matter of practice to comment on every black teen that is killed in this country daily, he has some catching up to do. Why don’t we see Obama sending condolences to the families of the hundreds of black teens killed in his own hometown of Chicago every year? Is it because the majority of these kids are killed by other blacks and that’s OK?
Is Obama saying the lives of blacks allegedly killed by cops or whites warrant national outrage? Why isn’t the FBI investigating the hundreds of homicides of black teens and adults across the country daily as possible hate crimes, like it is Brown’s death?
Yes, Brown was unarmed but that doesn’t mean he didn’t allegedly attack the police officer. Nor does it mean the police officer shot him simply because he was black. But facts be damned. “Hell”, said blacks from near and far, this is a race crime plain and simple. Only it may not be.
In a press conference, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the police officer and Brown engaged in a “violent confrontation” before Brown was shot. “The side of his face is swollen,” said Jackson.
After days of pressure from the public, Jackson finally released the officer’s identity as Darren Wilson. During the same news conference, Jackson released new evidence suggesting Brown and his friend Darion Johnson were suspects in stealing a $48.99 box of cigarettes. But Johnson repeatedly insisted the officer ordered them onto the sidewalk, grabbed Brown by the neck and tried to force him onto the sidewalk. Johnson said when Brown ran away, Wilson shot him.
There are a lot of unanswered questions in this case. If Brown was brutalized by a police officer for stealing a package of cigarettes, the officer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But while the court of public opinion has made up its mind that Wilson is guilty, the reality is, due process of the law hasn’t taken place.
Is it good that in the town of Ferguson where about 70% of the 21,000 residents are black that of that only three of the police officers are black? No, not necessarily. But does it mean the non-black officers are racist? No, not necessarily. Could the Ferguson police do a better job of recruiting black officers? Yes, probably.
A black St. Louis, Missouri councilmember, Antonio French, blamed Brown’s death on whites controlling government.
“Ferguson has a white government and a white mayor, but a large black population. This situation has brought out whatever rifts were between that minority community and the Ferguson government,” French said.
The District of Columbia has had black mayors and predominately black city council for nearly the past 30 years and blacks are killed daily most often by other blacks. I wonder if Mr. French considers the “black government in DC to blame” or if the race card is reserved only for blacks, who are allegedly killed by cops or white people?
Black advocates like French, Sharpton and President Obama need to start playing the honesty card for a change and allow true justice be served.