It would be constructive if…

Crossposted as a comment on DK regarding the decision of the Grand Jury not to indict in the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Wilson in Ferguson Missouri:

It would be constructive… (1+ / 0-)

In situations like these, emotion is not very helpful. I would like to see a careful deconstruction of the narrative that McCulloch constructed.

One example is McCulloch’s claim that Mike Brown suffered a “graze wound” to his thumb. Yet, as I understood his presentation, blood and tissue were spattered all over the car, both inside and out. This does not sound to me like a graze wound.

A second example has to do with the question of whether Mike Brown “charged” at McCulloch after being shot several times. If that’s so, there should be a blood trail that is miniscule when Brown allegedly turned, then much larger when he was hit by several bullets, leading a considerable distance to the place where he collapsed.

A third question is whether Officer Wilson had heard about the theft. McCulloch said yes. The reporting I heard early on said no.

Without seeing all the evidence, it’s hard for me to know what basis the Grand Jury made its judgment.

The most powerful rebuttal to an opponent is to take what they claim happened and interrogate it– carefully, without pre-judging, and without hyperbole.

The narrative that much of white America understands is that a young man, high on drugs, robbed a store. A police officer confronted him with the intent to arrest him, the suspect feloniously attacked the officer, the officer shot him and then pursued a fleeing felon. If I as a Grand Juror believed that narrative, I’d support Darren Wilson. As much as I see the clear evidence of racial bias in Ferguson, a juror has to focus on the facts of one particular case. But I don’t believe McCulloch’s narrative, because of all of these threads hanging off of the story begging to be unraveled. By someone. Someone who can set aside their feelings and make the precise truth plain.

It would be constructive to see a careful, dispassionate deconstruction of the McCulloch narrative. I haven’t seen it anywhere yet.

I don’t think we’ll see this done about this case.

By the way, if you want to see the quality of evidence presented to the Grand Jury, consider Witness #40 (via Betty Cracker). If that link–which shows that this is a legitimate item–fails, try this one from Chris Canipe of the Wall Street Journal. Very strange.