Category Archives: Federal Politics

Ferguson Witness #40

Although I have been vigilant I haven’t seen any articles or heard much said in the mainstream media about what a reporter from The Smoking Gun revealed about a witness who testified in the shooting death of Michael Brown.  Mr. Brown was killed by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri after they had a brief scuffle.  I must admit that I expected to read and hear a lot more news on this discovery especially since, based on the story in The Smoking Gun, this witness has proven to be a complete farce.

The witness is Witness No. 40.  This witness played a vital role in the support of Officer Wilson’s version of what happened that fatal day and a key statement made in their version of what happened was quoted repeatedly by Sean Hannity, host of the Fox News Channel show, Hannity.  The problem is that, again based on the story in The Smoking Gun, this witness was not even in Ferguson on the day that the shooting occurred.

This could present a big problem for the prosecutors who presented this case to the grand jury because if they did not know the background of this witness, they should have known it.

According to William Bastone, one of the authors of the article in The Smoking Gun, he was able to find out who this witness is, research their background – which is highly questionable, and write his article in about three days.  He said that since he was able to do this in a matter of days, since the prosecutors had weeks and resources available to them that he did not have, such as subpoena power, they also should have been able to look into this witness’s background.  Had they done this, he said, they would have known that this witness should not have been allowed to testify before the grand jury.

It is not yet clear what this might mean in terms of getting the grand jury’s decision set aside or if Michael Brown’s family will even consider going down that road.  Whatever the family’s decision may be, this case should not be left as is because Michael Brown still has not received justice.  My thoughts are that justice will not have been done until Officer Wilson faces a trial by jury in a court of law and not via a secretive grand jury process.

There are still too many questions left unanswered in this case, especially in light of the dismantling of Witness No. 40, and the race problem that America has and refuses to acknowledge will only be made worse if they are not answered.

What do you think?  I solicit your comments on this and any of the articles on this website.  Remember, this site is meant to bring awareness to us regarding our responsibilities as citizens and voters and to generate reasonable discussion among reasonable people.  We can agree to disagree.

By the way, in the event that you would like to read the story about Witness No. 40 in The Smoking Gun, I provided a link to it immediately following this article.  The title of the story in The Smoking Gun is “Witness 40”: Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson.

Eulus Dennis

President Obama and Jamie Dimon

It is hard enough for Democrats to accept the title of this piece let alone the fact of these two men working together to lobby Democrats to vote for the passage of a bill!  What?  President Obama working with Jamie Dimon to get the House to pass a bill that both feel is in the best interest of the American people.  Is this some kind of a sick joke?

No, this is something that actually happened.  If Jamie Dimon is for the passage of this bill, it speaks volumes since he is chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer of one of the big four banks in America.  And although House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Elizabeth Warren came out against the passage of this bill, it passed in the House and is awaiting approval by the Senate.

I love and strongly support President Barack Obama but I must side with House Minority Leader Pelosi and Senator Warren on this issue.  The bill that President Obama is supporting would once again allow Wall Street to flex its political muscle.  Although there are a lot of good things in the bill that President Obama is supporting, the fact that it would reinforce Wall Street’s long unchallenged feeling that it actually is the POTUS is worth the stance taken by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Elizabeth Warren.

This bill would do many things to help the majority of American citizens but it would also allow big banks that took America and the world economy to the brink of disaster, until American taxpayers bailed them out, to go right back to the way that they were operating before their bailout in 2008; without being held accountable.

The banks did not lose anything but many average Americans lost everything; their homes, their pensions, their savings and their dreams.  That is why it is so baffling that the President would support the passage of this bill.  It is also why Senator Warren’s question to congress should resonate with the preponderance of Americans; “Who do you work for, Wall Street or the American people?”

The majority of the American people are not strangers to hurting, being ignored and jerked around by politicians.  So to give big banks a second chance at ruining America’s economy and the world economy in order to underpin fledgling programs does not make sense.  It is as if this administration does not recognize the magnitude of what our country and the world narrowly escaped.

I do not want the government to shut down because I am retired and depend on my Social Security payments along with my retirement checks to survive.  But to put our children’s future in jeopardy as a result of putting our country’s economy and the world economy in jeopardy so that big banks in America can hedge their bets against derivatives in the event that they fail in order to protect their bottom lines is ludicrous.

What this amounts to for banks and their foray into derivatives is that if they win they make tons of money to keep for them and if they lose then taxpayers pay and, if anything, get a salute; a one finger salute!  For far too long banks, especially big banks, have been allowed to have their way with us.  They have become accustom to this and now expect everyone to lie down, roll over, and fetch at their command.  And if we don’t, although they have tons of money in reserve, they withhold it from the American people.  Enough already!

There is no doubt that it is going to hurt and be a struggle if we fight back against this kind of unfairness.  Powerful people never tire of raking more onto their plates for fear that other powerful people will have more than they have because they are blinded by their greed.  But all Americans must fight back if we are to save our country.  American greed is already out of control and if average Americans do not stand up to this egregious attack on fairness and the true American way, who knows where we will end up.

Eulus Dennis

Senator Elizabeth Warren Is Right

Senator Elizabeth Warren and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are absolutely right to push back against President Obama for supporting the Continuing Resolution and Omnibus (Cromnibus) bill that the Republicans are trying to pass at the last minute before they head out of town.  Minority Leader Pelosi has been there for President Obama time-and-again in the past when he sought her support.  This time, however, she said that she is disappointed in the White House.

I, too, have always been a strong supporter of President Obama and I remain as such but I agree with Senator Warren and Minority Leader Pelosi that this so called Cromnibus should not pass with the help of the Democrats because it once again throws average Americans under the bus while putting big banks back in a position to take advantage of taxpayers and, potentially, put America at risk again of the need to bail them out just like in 2008.  In the meantime, they will make a lot of money.  I hope that it does not pass at all but if it does, let it be with the sole support of House Republicans.

The Republicans have not been sincere in working with the president via compromise or any other reasonable method since he was first elected so why are they so suddenly interested in doing so now?  They are not.  They are employing the old sleight of hand trick that magicians use.

They are skillfully directing our attention to the meaningless hand while they are just as skillfully manipulating the system with the other.  And when all of the voting is completed something will pop out of the hat…, I mean system as a result of all of the caucusing, meetings, and whip sessions; but I am afraid that it will be something that most Americans won’t like.  Not to worry though, the big banks and Wall Street will love it.  Hold on…  Update!  Cromnibus passed the House with the help of 57 Democrats.

I started this article before the House members gathered for a final vote.  You now know what the outcome of that vote was.  During a test vote earlier during the day, only 2 Democrats supported the bill.  But if what Representative Maxine Waters said during an interview on MSNBC is correct politics indeed make strange bedfellows.  Representative Waters said she was told that both President Obama and Jamie Dimon – chairman, president and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase, were lobbing House members before the vote was taken to vote ‘yes.’

The Senate still has to approve the bill before it goes to the President for his signature.  The House vote, which split 219 to 206 to pass Cromnibus, was close despite lobbying by the White House and other supporters because Senator Elizabeth Warren came out against it and lobbied House members to vote ‘no.’

Although President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell support the bill, since Senator Warren opposes it, it will be interesting to see how things flesh-out over the next day or two.  Another ingredient that should help to make things even more interesting is Senator Ted Cruz.  Showtime!  Or, maybe not.

Eulus Dennis

A Political Decision

Do you remember that movie ‘The Firm’ where a law enforcement agency suspected that a prestigious law firm was breaking some major laws so they forced a young lawyer employed by the firm to help them secure information they needed to indict and prosecute the responsible executives?

Even if you don’t, try to follow me anyway because there is a point that I want to make that is exemplified by that movie and many others like it.  Anyway, this law enforcement agency was able to force this young lawyer to help them because they had incarcerated his brother who would face a lot of years in prison unless he cooperated with them; and if he cooperated, his brother would be released and his record would be completely cleared.

The truth of the matter was that the law enforcement agency had no real intentions of releasing the brother.  The plan was to release him for a short period of time as a show of good faith and once they had the documents that they needed they would put him back in prison to complete his term.

The young lawyer agreed to cooperate but somewhere along the way found out about their plans so demanded to renegotiate the deal and, because of their attempt to scam him, also demanded that a large sum of money for himself be included.  The law enforcement agency agreed to the new terms but planned to stick to their original plan to place the brother back in prison with the only new part of their plan being to take back the money as well.

By now you might be thinking, how is this story in any way related to politics?  Here is how.  My point is wrapped up in what this law enforcement official said to the young lawyer when he became concerned that he was on to them again and about to outsmart them.  When the young lawyer demanded that the money be wired to an offshore numbered account ahead of time the official exploded in anger.  This is what he said when the lawyer refused to withdraw this demand; and what he said is also my point.

I’m the government.  I can kick your teeth down your throat and pull them out of your backside (he used a more colorful word) and there’s not a (expletive delete) thing that you can do about it.  When the young lawyer showed the law enforcement official that he had recorded his words on a tape housed in a remote location, the official calmed down and agreed to wire the money.

In other movies like ‘The Firm’ many law enforcement officials have made the well worn ‘I’m the law’ statement.  Unfortunately, many of these officials have come to believe that they are the law personified and not an instrument that is there to enforce the law.  And since they are ‘the law’, it applies to everyone else but not to them.

This is not something that happens just with low-level law enforcement officials but instead ranges from the most low-level local official to law-enforcement officials at the highest levels in the United States government.  As a matter of fact, it is not just law enforcement officials but many other powerful officials as well who are exacerbating and perpetuating this problem.

I gave this particular example because there was a time when most of us looked at movies like these as unquestionably pure theatrical entertainment.  But take a close look at what is happening in our country right now and the rhetoric in those movies no longer seem so far-fetched.

There are two key situations that are at the forefront right now, one of which symbolizes a deep-seated American problem that is playing out in a number of cities around our country.  The other is something that is wrapped in a domestic and foreign policy wrapper.  One is associated with race and the other is associated with torture.  Despite what might appear to be a great gap between them, they are both deep-rooted in human rights and who we are as Americans.

In both of these cases the words political decision seems to be a common thread and it appears that these officials also expect to be placed above the law.  Don’t you get tired of hearing the words ‘it was a political decision’ from pundits?  Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear the words ‘it was a governance decision’ being tossed around by them at least as often as ‘it was a political decision’?

Politicians like the perks of the office.  They like the photo ops, the admiration of their constituents, the special treatment that they receive and making the easy decisions.  But when it comes to the tough decisions that they were also elected to handle – like indicting a cop and assuring that the indictment process is fair or confronting the problem that we need to address concerning torture and, if they are different, the enhanced interrogation techniques, they cower and refuse to do their job.  They take the easy way out and make a ‘political decision.’

I guess we can’t blame them because if they confront these things and make an actual governance decision, they might not be reelected.  And if they are not reelected, they will no longer have a platform to not confront problems like those in Ferguson and the one regarding torture.  Wouldn’t that be a shame?

America must address and solve tough problems like those mentioned or, rather than us controlling our own destiny, those problems might play a key role in the outcome.  As voters we can force politicians to do their job, including the unpleasant parts of it, or be fired.  It is as simple as that.  But in order for that to happen, we must first do our job.

Eulus Dennis

Ferguson From A Victim’s Perspective

I read an 18-page story online by writers for The Washington Post in which they detailed the Ferguson, Missouri shooting of Michael Brown tragedy.  My thoughts are that the article was written from a professional and objective perspective but it seemed to me to be favorably skewed toward law enforcement.  That is probably because I am in favor of a jury trial and biased by the decision of the grand jury not to indict.

The writers covered a lot of material while trying to keep the length of the article reasonable so even if it was skewed in favor of law enforcement, it would be unfair to say that they purposely did this so must be given the benefit of the doubt.  There are a number of reasons why I say that it was skewed in favor of law enforcement and I will explain those reasons in this article.

The sad fact is that this article will not be read by the masses anytime soon and when it is read, it will be read by far fewer people than the number that read the one in The Washington Post.  To even say ‘far fewer’ is an understatement; in reality I could easily say 0.000001 people and still likely be too high.  But I will tell it from a victim’s perspective anyway.

I will also provide a link to the story in The Washington Post following this article so that you can read the entire story for yourself should you decide to.  If for any reason the link does not work properly, the title of the article is “In three minutes, two lives collide and a nation divides.”  Do a computer search for the article under that exact title and you will find it.  Six writers contributed to the story; five in Washington and one in Ferguson.

The Washington Post’s story begins to chronicle Michael Brown’s last day alive on this earth starting shortly before noon.  By the time that it ends 18 pages later it is only shortly past 12:01 p.m., which is about the time that Officer Darren Wilson radioed the following message that included his call signal – Frank 21 – after he encountered Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson on Canfield:  “Frank 21, I’m on Canfield with two, send me another car.”

It started with Michael Brown striking up a conversation with a contractor who was trying to cut away some tree roots with his hatchet.  The article says that Michael Brown talked to the contractor for about half an hour before he left and returned a short time later with his friend, Dorian Johnson.  They talked briefly with the contractor before they headed off to the market where Michael Brown would strong-arm the clerk and take some small cigars.

The clerk reported the robbery and a description of Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson was broadcasted to the police.  When Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson turned onto Canfield they had a chance-meeting with Officer Wilson.  That is where things quickly went wrong and escalated and Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown to death.

The Washington Post story said that Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown at least six times and that by the time he stopped shooting, his magazine was empty.  All evidence of the shooting was turned over to a grand jury so that they could determine whether or not Officer Wilson should be indicted for killing Mr. Brown.

The Washington Post story went on to say that “no video of the incident has emerged, leaving the nation, like the grand jury that completed its work two weeks ago, dependent on a vast encyclopedia of evidence, a mountain of witness statements, forensic reports and police narratives.  It all adds up to a close consensus on the basic chronology of events and wildly varying interpretations of a few key moments.  Scientific analysis can determine how many times Brown was shot, where he was standing, even what direction he was moving in.  But the only window into Brown’s intentions come from witnesses, and what they saw blended all too confusingly with who they are.  What witnesses saw was sufficient to persuade the grand jurors not to indict Wilson…”

After this statement The Washington Post story cites statements made by various witnesses and that is where it starts to skew favorably toward law enforcement and lose sight of the victims’ perspective.  Again, I want to emphatically add that the writers covered a tremendous amount of material in 18 pages so must be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of whether or not the skew was deliberate.

It seems to me that the story was skewed favorably toward law enforcement because it seemed to be making a subtle effort to justify the grand jury’s decision by explaining that the jurors were saddled with a large amount of evidence, much of which was challenging and confusing because of witnesses incongruent statements.  But this only supports the need for a transparent trial rather than giving all evidence to a grand jury and charging it with making a decision in secret.

It is important to remember that the grand jury is not responsible to determine Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence.  The grand jury’s responsibility is to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to show that there is probable cause to have Officer Wilson face a jury trial.  That jury would then weigh all of the evidence and determine whether he is guilty or innocent and both the prosecuting attorney and defending attorney would have the opportunity to cross-examine the other’s witnesses.

Following are some specific examples from the story in The Washington Post that caught my attention:

  1. “When one witness told the grand jury that she was certain Brown had charged Wilson, the prosecutor pushed back: ‘You characterize it as a “charge;” could he have been staggering?’ The witness stuck with her account.”

“On another day, when a witness said he was certain that Brown had tried to surrender to Wilson, the prosecutor again pushed back, from the opposite direction: “It does not appear he was charging the officer?”  No, the witness said, ‘he was not charging’.”

It would not be unfair to describe what the prosecutor did in both of these instances as a gentle nudge rather than a pushback.  Can you imagine what a defense attorney or prosecuting attorney would have done upon cross-examination in this situation?  A trial by jury would have been better.  It would have been better perceived by the citizens of Ferguson and by the rest of America.

  1. “One witness who testified to the grand jury, 19-year-old Piaget Crenshaw, said in an interview with The Post that although the jurors let her give her full account, she thought prosecutors were not paying attention. Crenshaw said she saw Brown put his arms up to let them know that he was compliant.”

If this is true, it sent a message – whether intentional or not – that the prosecutors either felt that this witness was unreliable or that she was not credible.  It is unlikely that this kind of conduct would have happened in a jury trial, and if it had, it would have been challenged.

  1. “Witness No. 46, a woman who was listening to gospel music in her car, said she heard Brown say ‘I don’t have anything,’ loudly, ‘in a holler voice.’ That same witness said Brown kept calling out to the officer even as bullets flew: The boy kept saying, I got, my hands is up, I don’t have anything, what do you want’.”

Again, a jury trial would have been better for the purpose of arriving at what really happened, better perceived by citizens of Ferguson and the rest of America, and a verdict of Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence would have been better accepted.

  1. “Another man, who had stepped outside his apartment after the first gunshots, said he heard Brown say, ‘Don’t shoot me, stop shooting.’

“With so many versions flying about, the grand jury pressed some witnesses to be more precise.  ‘I need to know what you heard, not what you think you heard,’ one juror told the man who’d come out of his apartment.

The man replied: ‘He was getting pierced by some bullets.  He was pleading for his life’.”

  1. “Brown’s hands ‘were down at his sides’ (Witness No. 30), or they were ‘into the air’ (Witness No. 16). Witness No. 10 said Brown ‘turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything… I’m not sure if he pulled his pants up or, or whatever he did, but I seen some type of movement and he started charging the police officer’.”
  2. ” ‘It wasn’t really a run,’ said witness No. 44, ‘cuz he didn’t get far. Well, after he stopped, he turned around, and he put his hands about shoulder length. It wasn’t in the air like everybody doin’.’  This witness said Brown was ‘scrunching forward’ but not moving toward the officer.  (Later, the witness said it was possible that Brown did come forward toward Wilson but that the witness had turned away and missed that.)”

The fact that different witnesses saw different things or gave different versions of what they saw is not uncommon.  The fact that Michael Brown was shot multiple times, including shots to his face and the top of his head, and a number of witnesses said that his hands were raised when he was shot all but demanded an indictment.  It should not matter whether his hands were shoulder-level, head-level, or high above his head.

The decision to shoot Michael Brown should have been based on whether or not he was still a threat to Officer Wilson at the time that he was killed.  A regular jury would have been a better way to determine to the best degree possible if he was.

Following this article is a link to the story in The Washington Post that I said I would provide you with.  You can read the entire story for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Eulus Dennis

In three minutes, two lives collide and a nation divides over Ferguson shooting – The Washington Post

JUST BEFORE LUNCHTIME on Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Mo., a contractor who was losing a battle between his hatchet and some deep-set tree roots began to fuss and cuss. A stranger who was walking by watched the laborer for a bit and then offered some soothing words. Why are you so riled up, Michael Brown asked. The Lord Jesus Christ can help you with your anger.

via In three minutes, two lives collide and a nation divides over Ferguson shooting – The Washington Post.

Click on the title/link immediately above to read the entire story in The Washington Post.

(At)Tension Surrounding Policing Is Mounting

The attention surrounding policing in America is continuing to mount thanks to peaceful protesters of all colors and ages.  Despite the cowering and political antics of some politicians who may agree with these protesters that there is a problem and the pushback from some who believe that Officer Daniel Pantaleo is a model police officer, protesters are keeping the media’s attention trained on our country’s justice system dilemma.  Thank you protesters!

Most of us are aware that simply by virtue of the fact that we are a democracy – and a very proud one, things many times happen slowly.  Some legislation that needs to be passed quickly to keep America operating at her optimum might churn through our governmental system at a painfully slow pace; but this should come as no surprise because that is the natural nature of the democratic process.

This is why no matter which side of this policing issue that you stand on you should want America to step back now and take a real close objective look at this situation and bring all of the various reasonable leaders together to work to resolve it.  It pains me to speak the words but they must be realized and spoken.  Resolving this problem will take a long time and a tremendous amount of dedication and effort.

We need all of our elected leaders – who should have been engaged at the first sign of this problem instead of using it to hone their political thespian skills – to get engaged now because of the long road ahead of us to reach a solution.  We also need Business leaders, Civil Rights leaders, Faith leaders, Law enforcement leaders, and layperson citizens – especially youth leaders, to be a part of finding this solution.  We need this to begin now!

Our country is strong and resilient.  We have proven this in the past; now, let’s prove it again.  This is something that we absolutely have to do.  The likelihood is that none of us will be completely satisfied with the final product but again, America is a democracy and if we are and want to remain a part of her we must be willing to take part in her messiness.

All of us have to be willing to do whatever it takes to assure that America remains the great democracy that it is.  We can bask in our political victories but we must also be willing to accept our political defeats, no matter where we fall along the political spectrum, and continue to work to make and keep our country great.

I know that as a lifelong Democrat, I have suffered many political defeats but still consider the democratic battle to be one worth waging.  I hope that you feel that way too.  So let’s get to work on this problem, resolve it and once again show the rest of the world what a resilient nation that we are.

Eulus Dennis

Americans But Second-class Citizens?

Coach Mike Ditka commented on the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture that some members of the St. Louis Rams made before their November 30, 2014 game against the Oakland Raiders.  Coach leaned on some of the same evidence and spouted some of the same rationale that others, reasonable and unreasonable, have used in their public statements to draw the same conclusion.

According to the article in Sporting News Coach said “What do you do if someone pulls a gun on you or is robbing a store and you stop them?  I don’t want to hear about this hands-up crap.  That’s not what happened.  This policeman’s life is ruined.  Why?  Because we have to break somebody down.  Because we have to even out the game.  I don’t know.  I don’t get it.  Maybe I’m just old fashioned.”  The article went on to say ‘Yes, Mike Ditka pulled out the “I don’t know exactly what did happen, but I know that’s not what happened” line.”

From what I know about Coach Ditka based on his public persona, he is a reasonable man who holds strong feelings about certain things and who will stand fast on his opinions about those things when those opinions are based on his foundation of well-grounded principles.  He has a right to his point of view just like those of us who still want to see Officer Darren Wilson tried in open court have to ours no matter how badly we want him to see things from our perspective.

I know just as well based on that same public persona that he probably could not care less about what I think about him and would be p##ed off that I sided with him and decided to defend his right to his point of view.  That notwithstanding, since Coach mentioned that the reason that people like me are clamoring for a trial in open court to determine Officer Wilson’s guilt or innocence is “because we have to break somebody down”, I am going to break down the statement that he made in Sporting News.

I am going to break his statement down, not in an effort to do my part to try to beat him into submission so that he will agree with my point of view but rather in an effort to show why reasonable people like him should sit down and discuss this problem with other reasonable people who disagree with him.

If Coach Ditka and others who feel the same way that he does would do this then that would be a major step toward narrowing the gap of this great divide between people that think like him on the matter of Ferguson and people that think like me.  The only way that we are going to make any progress is through reasonable dialogue so I hope that by breaking down his comments I will have done something that will help to begin to generate reasonable discussions on race issues in our country; this is not just a Ferguson, Missouri problem.  So here is my rationale for breaking down Coach’s statement and asking that he take a retrospective view of what he said and then take some time to ponder as to whether or not he should try to make a contribution to help bridge the gap between these completely opposite points of view.

According to the article in Sporting News Coach Ditka said “What do you do if someone pulls a gun on you or is robbing a store and you stop them?”  The robbing a store part of the preceding sentence likely came from the video that was released of someone who was alleged to be Michael Brown, the young man that Officer Wilson killed, robbing a store of some cigars shortly before Officer Wilson shot and killed him.

The problem with this is that even if this was Michael Brown, it is disputed as to whether Officer Wilson knew this before he shot and killed Mr. Brown.  Further, even if he knew this was Mr. Brown in the video it did not give him the right to be judge, jury and executioner.

Coach also said “I don’t want to hear about this hands-up crap.  That’s not what happened.  I don’t know exactly what did happen, but I know that’s not what happened.”  This “hands-up” may be “crap” to Coach and people who think like him but it is not “crap” to those Black Americans and others like them who feel that Michael Brown’s life was assigned a cheaper value than that of his white counterparts and snuffed out unfairly as a result of that: especially if Coach Ditka and those others who feel as he does are basing those feelings partially or totally on information that they are aware of from the grand jury proceedings.

There was no information made available about Officer Wilson’s past let alone any derogatory information about him.  Neither he nor any of the grand jury witnesses faced legitimate cross-examination as they would have in a regular trial by jury in open court.  The information that Coach and those who think like him are basing their conclusions on appear to be totally biased and one-sided.

“The Policeman’s life is ruined.  Why?  Because we have to break somebody down.  Because we have to even out the game.  I don’t know.  I don’t get it.  Maybe I’m just old fashioned.”  Coach, the policeman’s life is ruined?  What about Michael Brown?  His life is beyond ruined.  What about Michael Brown’s parents and loved ones; are their lives ruined?

We have to break down all of those witnesses who testified to the grand jury about the Ferguson shooting, including Officer Wilson.  If character is going to be considered in making a determination, we need to examine the background and character of Officer Wilson just as thoroughly as we do that of Michael Brown.  That is why all citizens of Ferguson in particular and all Americans in general need to see Officer Wilson tried by a regular jury in open court.

Coach Ditka and people who look like him have always only lived on the white privilege side of life so they tend to believe that law enforcement is applied equally to all citizens and that a policeman is not prone to lie.  This is probably because it is unlikely that they have been followed around in department stores while shopping or suspiciously eyed by policemen for no apparent reason.  And if they are stopped and questioned it is unlikely that they are treated with loathing and disrespect.

Situations like the one in Ferguson is why it seems to me to be such a waste not to take advantage of the experience and insight of the first African American President of the United States of America when he has experienced both the white privilege side of life and that of the Black underclass side of it.  It seems apparent that if there were someone who could identify with and effectively relate to both sides of the issue, he would be that someone.  But instead of taking advantage of this exceptional opportunity politicians waste it fighting meaningless political battles and ignoring the American people and the dire situation that we are in.

Yes, Coach, you are old fashioned but so am I and so are a lot of other Americans who are watching to see what the final results will be on the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown.  Not only the final outcome in Ferguson but the first meaningful step toward bridging the racial divide in our country could rest with you.  What are you going to do?  Sure, it sounds like a real stretch for me so say that but stranger things have happened.

Eulus Dennis

A Country Divided?

I was sitting in my computer room surfing the Internet when I came upon a picture of a 12-year-old African-American boy hugging a white police officer.  The young boy was crying.  When I read the short article I became overwhelmed with emotion and cried.  I didn’t make any crying sound but I felt like I was hyperventilating so I took a few moments to take some deep breaths and calm myself.

It felt physically painful.  I did not cry for me but for all of the young African-American boys like this 12-year-old who, simply because of the color of their skin, would be prejudged by a myriad of white people and as a result be treated like second class citizens.  At best their hopes and dreams would be stymied and at worst they would be given up on.

Even if they did not grow up to be labeled as ‘angry black men’ far too many of them would become just a shell of what they could have become and thus less productive and effective citizens.  This article is not meant to be an indictment of white people but a plea to those reasonable African-American and white people and all of our country’s leaders to sit down, talk, and resolve this problem.

Although I was in the computer room alone I still felt embarrassed because I had allowed my emotions to show and I was crying.  I turned and checked the open door to make sure that my wife was not there to witness this display and quickly dried my eyes.  How sad it is that I felt embarrassed about this.  Unfortunately, this is what too many men of all colors – whether consciously or subconsciously, teach our sons.  But that is a story for another time.

The point is that the article said that this picture was captured at a Portland, Oregon protest over the events that occurred in Ferguson and the boy was holding a “Free Hugs” sign.  The article went on to say that “Portland Police Sgt. Bret Barnum saw the boy’s sign and asked if he could have a hug.  The boy gave him one.”

I have been following the Ferguson saga from its beginning.  I was hurting inside, and continue to hurt, because of what appears to be the cheap value that some white people assign to African-Americans’ lives; especially those white people who are in positions of authority.  Too many young African-Americans’ lives have been snuffed out while too many white Americans turn their heads the other way and continue to say let’s move forward from hear, change things and heal.

Many young African-Americans have decided that they have heard this too many times and are demanding change now!  It appears that they are no longer satisfied with accepting the advice of older African-American leaders who say that there is a proven way to bring about change and they must be patient and take that approach.

Although I am a product of the old school thinking and do not believe that violence is the way to bring about this change, I can certainly understand why young people of all colors have become impatient.  We, all Americans, must come up with a way to pressure those in power to stop playing politics and step up to this glaring American problem!  Let me give an example that will illustrate why it is such a real and glaring problem that we cannot continue to ignore.

Let’s address the case of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; however, let’s reverse all roles – except that of the prosecutor and make those who are white African-American and those who are African-American white.  The story would go as follows:

An African-American police officer on a police force that is majority African-American in a majority white community comes upon two white male subjects, one of which is 18 years old, walking down the middle of the street.  He respectfully or derogatorily (this is disputed) asks them to get on the sidewalk and begins to drive away.  The 18-year-old subject makes a derogatory remark and the officer backs up his vehicle and confronts him.

The subject then reaches into the police car window and grabs the officer or the officer grabs the subject by his shirt and causes him to lean into the police car window (this is disputed).  A struggle ensues and the subject tries to grab the police officer’s gun or the police officer draws his gun and the subject grabs it because he is afraid that the officer is going to shoot him (this is disputed).  During the struggle a shot is fired wounding the subject’s thumb.

The subject breaks free from the police officer and he and the second subject run away from the officer.  The officer exits his police car and chases the wounded subject while firing at him.  A bullet hits the wounded subject or didn’t hit him (this is disputed), his body jerks from the impact, he stops running and turns and faces the officer.

He raises his hands in a gesture of surrender or did not raise his hands (this is disputed).  The subject is wounded so stumbles toward the police officer or the subject clenched one hand into a fist and put the other in his waistband and rushed toward the police officer at ‘full charge'(this is disputed).  The officer began to shoot the subject and continued to shoot him until he stopped coming toward him.  Bullets struck the subject in the arm, the chest, the face, and the top of his head.

The second subject and other witnesses said that the subject that was shot had raised his hands in an effort to surrender but the police officer continued to shoot him.  Other witnesses backed the police officer’s version of what happened before he killed the subject.

As a crowd gathered while the shooting was being investigated, the police officer that shot the subject drove himself back to the police station.  While there, he washed the blood off of his hands and sealed his weapon in an evidence bag.  Meanwhile, the subject’s body laid in the street where he was slain for more than four hours before it was removed.

The police officer that killed the subject was put on paid leave and was not charged in the shooting.  Rather than seek an indictment on the officer and let a regular jury determine his guilt or innocence in open court, the prosecutor turned all of the evidence on the case over to a grand jury composed of 75% African-Americans and left the decision to indict or not to indict up to them.

While the grand jury was in session, various information favorable to the police officer was leaked to the public and the officer was allowed to testify before this jury.  Before and after his testimony to the grand jury he disappeared and did not reappear in public until after he was exonerated and a ‘no true bill’, meaning that he would not be indicted, was issued.

After the grand jury made its decision, the prosecutor announced the decision to the public.  However, before he revealed  the decision he gave a 20 minute speech, which sounded like that of a defense attorney, that concluded with the announcement that the police officer who did the shooting would not be charged.

There are many questions that beg to be answered and I will provide those that I have and also answer them.  But before I do that, let me add that this prosecutor had relatives on the police department including a father who was killed in the line of duty by an African-American man.

First, would the prosecutor have asked a grand jury to decide whether or not this police officer should be indicted?  No.  And if by some miracle he would have, you can bet that he would have provided the grand jury with only the evidence that supported his request for an indictment and not all of the available evidence.

Second, had the prosecutor sought an indictment via a grand jury, would he have allowed this officer to testify before the grand jury?  It is highly unlikely that he would have.

Third, had the prosecutor wanted an indictment would the grand jury have issued one?  It is highly likely that they would have.

Forth, could the prosecutor have charged this police officer, which would have required him to face a trial by a regular jury in open court rather than have a grand jury deliberate in secret and consider evidence to determine whether or not he should even be indicted? Yes.

Finally, under the circumstances in the above example, would you have been outraged at the issuance of a ‘no true bill’ by a grand jury?  Would you have demanded from authorities that justice be done?  Would you have been frustrated and hurt had the officer in the preceding story been set free and you were once again told that you should move on and make changes from here especially when this had happened to you numerous times before?  How would you feel…Think about it; how would you really feel?

There is an obvious racial divide when it comes to the Ferguson situation and many others like it.  The divide is not so much with young Americans as it is with the old geezers.  If we want to help these young people to help us as we attempt to share our experience with them and guide them; we do not know everything and we can learn from them while they learn from us, we must first admit that this problem exists and then maybe we can stop burying our heads in the sand and do something about it.

Eulus Dennis