Does Ferguson Mean Clive Bundy Was Right?
Read Time:5 Minute, 34 Second
It’s usually not a good idea to comment extensively on unfolding current events. A situation that is fluid is likely to change at any given moment is not something that has an outcome that can be relied upon. Even when a first place team plays the cellar dwellers, the underdogs sometimes win. Such is the case with the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. It’s been over a week since Michael Brown was shot dead and left in the street by a Ferguson police officer.
Since that time, there have been demonstrations, protests and looting, met with a police response that, to put it mildly, has been over the top. Pundits on the left and right have offered their opinions with the usual effect. Anonymous published two names of Ferguson police officers supposed to have been the shooter, both of which the Ferguson Police Department called an error (the officer was later named by the FPD as Darren Wilson). This is what happens when information is released before a situation is resolved.
There are so many larger issues here, but there is something that has received little mention which has large implications. A recent study by the Malcom X Foundation reports that, in 2012, 313 black people were killed by police in the US. The Foundation calls these extrajudicial killings, defined as “…killing by police that happens without trial or any due process…an execution in the street.” The innocence or guilt of the victims is not an issue here; these are killings, like those of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, which denied the victims not only due process, but even any knowledge of why they were pursued, apprehended and killed. This amounts to nearly one a day, and it does not include other questionable killings like those of Renisha McBride or Trayvon Martin. It seems like there are more severe consequences to being black, unarmed and nonthreatening than there is in being a belligerent white with a gun.
Compare these to the case of a Kalamazoo, Michigan man, who appeared to be intoxicated and was carrying a rifle. When police were called to the scene, he confronted them, shouted obscenities, and, according to a safety officer on the scene, “went into an (expletive)-laden tirade, ‘the revolution’s coming, I don’t have to talk to you, etcetera, etcetera,'”. The man eventually put down the gun, which was seized by police, and was told it would be returned if he submitted to a breathalyzer test (he refused). He also made masturbating gestures at police and spectators.
The final outcome? According to that safety officer, he did not receive a citation, but was “spoken with further” the next day. No mention was made of charges of public endangerment, resisting police, public intoxication or lewd behavior. That’s easy to understand – the Kazoo was white. Not only was he not cited for his provocative behavior, but, had he submitted to a breath test, might well have been given his weapon back.
Meanwhile, the people of Ferguson have been met with an array worthy of Lord Vader’s imperial stormtroopers. Police in camouflage with helmets, shield and riot gear, riding in armored personnel carriers fresh off the boat from Iraq or Afghanistan. They’ve been shoved, arrested, subjected to curfew and fired on with tear gas, rubber bullets and lead bullets.
It leads one to wonder: where are the conservatives and libertarians who are always warning about jack-booted government thugs swooping in to deprive citizens of their rights? Where are the Wayne LaPierres, the Rand Pauls, the Sarah Palins, the Eduardo Cruzes and, yes, even the Michelle Bachmanns and the Louie Gohmerts who have been so vocal about the people’s rights being infringed by big government?
Oh, wait. This isn’t about the almighty second amendment. It’s about that pesky first amendment. This isn’t about the right to bear arms (meaning to brandish them in public), this is just about the right of free speech, the right of assembly, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. This is about the right of some people to walk down the street (even the middle of it) without being killed for doing so. This is about the right, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence but not actually part of our body of laws, to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
When Cliven Bundy forted up his ranch, gathered a cadre of armed followers and openly defied the government, the only shots fired came from his supporters. Bundy became a media darling of the right wingnut news industry. They sang his praises and supported his self-described role as a victim of big government. Meanwhile, the police and media have tried to paint Michael Brown as a vile criminal for allegedly stealing some cigars, while they dismissed the fact that Bundy legitimately owes the US government and taxpayers millions of dollars.
The honeymoon with Bundy, however, came to an abrupt end when he showed his racist colors when he said of, as he put it, The Negro: “And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.” Here’s the kicker: What if Cliven Bundy is right?
There is a War on Christmas and a War on Women. There are wars on white people, religion and traditional marriage. Some of these wars are real, some are imaginary. There is one war that has been overlooked: The War on Humanity.
Corporations have the same rights as people. According to some, a fetus, nay, even a fertilized ovum, has rights that trump its mother’s (and receives more consideration pre- instead of post-partum). The religious rights of one CEO overshadow the rights of employees to fair treatment. Hispanic immigrants are disease-ridden subversive potential terrorists with thighs the size of cantaloupes ferrying drugs into the country to take our jobs. Our first black president is somehow not legitimate. Everywhere, new definitions are being legally established that set degrees of humanity and assign relative value to some groups (or things) over others. Is it any wonder that, because the lives of non-whites are treated as less significant, less meaningful, less valued than those of whites, that Cliven Bundy may be right after all, that they might be more valued as goods than as fellow citizens? That non-whites are still three-fifth a person? That the man who shot Michael Brown would have more to fear from being charged with destruction of property than with wrongful death? Is this where we stand in 2014?
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Peaceful protesters are clearly within their rights. However looting, arson, and assault cannot be tolerated. Looters should be warned and arrested. If they resist violently they should be shot. Historical issues do not exempt individuals from behaving civially or expressing their discontent in non violent ways.
Clive B is a thug who lost multiple court cases, did not like the outcome, and responded by recruiting his tea bag nut cronies to point weapons at the Feds enforcing the law. He should have been bombed.
Violent response when you don’t like the answer is not acceptable from either side.
Yes I get the irony in my post. Ultimately, government has a responsibility to protect us all from anarchists. Both of these elements have a touch of that in them.
I agree that Clive B. is a thug, as are his “cronies.” I also agree with everything else you said particularly your closing sentence.
We do need to wait and see what the investigation reveals but, it doesn’t look particularly promising does it? A thug he may have been but shot 6 times and on the sixth in the top of his head when he was unarmed….not looking good but we will just have to wait and see – and hope….
Well written E.A. It does seem that one has to be politically of the right persuasion in order for it to be seen as a tragedy these day. I remember preparing to teach teach a cultural sensitivity training class to police officers in Alabama back in the eighties. One of the officers ask me why every time they stopped an African American it seemed that the entire neighborhood came out of their homes to see what was going on. I answered him with a question, “Do you know what makes up a subculture.” “Not really,” he replied, “but I guess it is a group of people who differ from the majority of the other people in some way.” “very good,” I responded. “Why is it”, I continued, “that when I police officer is accused of wrong doing that the police seem to close ranks around him?” Very quickly he responded, “Because no one understand what are job is like, they have been there in our shoes.” So, I paused for a few moments and said, “So your first instincts are to protect a fellow officer?” at this point a number of affirmative responses arose in the room. So I then asked, “How many of you tend to spend most of your off time with other police officers as opposed to non police officers?” About 95% of them raised there hands. When asked why several of them said, “we understand each other and do not have people telling us stories about other cops.” To this I said, “Exactly, you are a subculture, just as African Americans are a subculture. and you care what happens to other members to your group.”
Normally when these people come out of their houses they are wanting to see if they are being treat fairly. In Fergusen, was Michael Brown treated fairly? If he had been an 18 year white youth would the same thing have happened. I don’t know. We still do not have an objective, clear, transparent investigation yet. If I were the mayor I would ask the governor to send me his best investigators, one black and one white who are known for their shills and objectivity. I would order every person to give them unfettered access to any and all information, evidence, and paper work. I would them present thwm to the public and ask the public to stop speculating and let them do their job. I would suspend the officer, with pay until the investigation is over with assurances that appropriate actions would be taken upon the completion of the investigation. I would also explain that because the officer is, at that point, a respected member of the police department with no prior history of trouble he need not be arrested until the investigation is completed and that any further details would be coming from the investigators.
Subscribing to comments.