Ferguson Revisited - Another PragerU Lie

 

In my previous blog post, I remarked about how Dennis Prager referenced a different PragerU video. That other video, he says, proves the narrative behind the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri is a lie. His exact words were, "See Larry Elder's video on PragerU. He tells you exactly what happened in Ferguson, Missouri."

Challenge accepted, fool! Let's see what ya got!

And if you want to see the video for yourself, you can do so here.

This subject really matters, and not just because Prager and his "PragerU" regularly piss me off with blatant and obvious lying. This is THE event which established Black Lives Matter! To attack this is to attack the whole point of the movement itself.

So let's begin.

The video starts in typical PragerU fashion, presenting Larry Elder, who happens to be black, himself. Now, it bears repeating that it never, EVER works when PragerU does this "Sheriff Clarke" routine, as I showed in my recent debunkings of Carol Swain. But they continuously put any Quimbo they can find in front of their cameras. (Yeah, I said it. Go read Harriet Beecher Stowe if you don't know what I'm talking about.) Elder has built his career being a Libertarian gadfly, so it's no secret what sort of views he might have about the Michael Brown shooting. That having been said, I will deal with him based solely on merit of argument.

He uses a "True or False" method of dealing with the events of Ferguson. "True or False," he begins. "A young, unarmed black man, Michael Brown, was killed by a white police officer, Darren Wilson." This he correctly states is True. but he's just getting warmed up.

"True or False," he continues. "Wilson stopped Brown for no good reason. False."

Here, I'll mostly agree with Elder. He recounts how Wilson was driving a police SUV when he got a call about a convenience store which had been robbed. He then saw two men walking down the middle of the street who matched the description of the store thieves. What was the description? That the thief was a black male who wore a red St. Louis Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks, and khaki shorts, accompanied by another male. Now, a red St. Louis Cardinals hat in a St. Louis suburb could be anybody. The same goes for khaki shorts. But yellow socks? That's unusual enough. Surveillance video does show Michael Brown and his friend helping themselves to two boxes of Swisher Sweets, for which they do not appear to pay, and then the store owner coming out from behind the counter to confront them about it. Brown pushes the owner away, seems to jaw at the owner some more, then leaves. So when Wilson spotted two men, one of them with the tell-tale yellow socks, it was reasonable for him to suspect them. He slowed down and ordered them onto the sidewalk. Brown refused. So far, so good.

After this, the story goes two different ways. Wilson tried to open the door to get out of his vehicle. Brown blocked him with his body, keeping the door closed. Brown's friend, Dorian Johnson, says it was at this point that Brown was grabbed by the throat by Wilson. Wilson's story is that Brown punched him through his open window and then tried to grab his gun. I think it's reasonable to conclude that, at the very least, Wilson shoved Brown to get him away from the door, and that's when Brown reacted by fighting back, and trying to grab Wilson's gun. Wilson got to his firearm first and shot twice, wounding Brown in the hand.

"True or False," Elders goes on, "Michael Brown's back was turned to Officer Wilson when he [Brown] was shot and killed. False."

Here, I only agree with Elders 75%. (I'll explain in a minute why I phrase it that way.) He's fundamentally right, Brown was shot in the front, not the back, but he gets the intentions of Officer Wilson dead wrong. 

After getting shot in the hand, Brown ran off. That's when Wilson was finally able to exit the vehicle, which he did, and then ran after him.

And here's where the stories really diverge. According to Dorian Johnson, after Wilson fired a few shots at Brown, Brown turned around and came towards Wilson with his hands raised. That's when Wilson shot him six times in the torso. But Wilson's story is that Brown stopped, turned and then charged at him.

Elder's favorite witness describes it this way in the video: "[Brown] ran towards the officer full charge. The officer fired several shots at him, and... Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion... When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say... three to four shots. And that's when Mike Brown finally collapsed."

Here's where I call bullshit. When you are unarmed, and someone else is firing at you with a gun, you don't stop, turn, and charge the person! That's purely insane! And contrary to every survival instinct out there! But it does make sense that you would stop, turn around, and raise your hands in the air as if to say "I give up! Don't shoot me!" That's entirely rational.

The real problem? The witness Elder quotes conflicts with what other witnesses say happen, and not just Dorian Johnson's! There were at least 68 witnesses according to a list provided by PBS! About a dozen or so got a good look. Those witnesses were organized into a nice, little chart so that people could see what each witness said about a particular aspect of the conflicting stories. So for Elder to pick one out of all those and base his opinion on that, he's being VERY selective about his cherry-picking! If you want to see the PBS list for yourself, you can find it here.

Here's the breakdown (in part) of the PBS chart of Ferguson, MO shooting witnesses:

Did Brown charge at Officer Wilson? Seven witnesses say yes, five say no. The rest aren't sure.

My conclusion: Defies sanity, survival instinct, and common sense. I say no.

Did Brown reach into Wilson's squad vehicle? Twelve say yes, three say no. The rest aren't sure.

My conclusion: Brown did. And I think he punched Wilson and grabbed for his gun, too.

Was Brown running away when Wilson first opened fire on him? Fifteen witnesses say yes. Five say no.

My conclusion: Yes. Brown was running away when he was initially fired upon (not counting the shots to the hand.) The number of shots Wilson fired totaled twelve. Two of those shots were fired at Brown's hand when he was reaching in through the squad car window to grab the gun. Six shots hit Brown in the body from the front. So that leaves four bullets shot at Brown when his back was turned while running away.

Was Brown facing Wilson when he was shot? Seventeen say yes. Two say no.

My conclusion: Yes. Brown was facing Wilson.

And HERE'S THE BIG ONE: Did Brown have his hands in the air when he was shot? Sixteen witnesses say yes. Only two say no.

In other words, Elder chose only one of the TWO witnesses who contradicted SIXTEEN others who clearly saw Brown with his hands in the air when he got shot!

Holy. Fucking. Shit!

Shame on you, Elder. Shame on you!

And here's where I say that I only agreed with Elder 75% about whether Wilson shot Brown in the back. No, Wilson didn't successfully shoot Brown in the back. He shot, and missed! And when Brown realized he was being shot at, he turned around and surrendered as his best, and only, realistic play at survival! In other words, Darren Wilson may not have shot Michael Brown in the back, but he meant to!

Larry Elder continues:

"True or False. Before Michael Brown was shot and killed, he raised his hands up in the air and shouted, 'Don't shoot.' False. Federal investigators from the Department of Justice found no credible evidence that Brown ever raised his hands in a 'Don't shoot' gesture, or in any way heeded the officer's commands for him to surrender."

 True, but the same report also didn't find any credible evidence that Brown didn't raise his hands!

"The federal report concluded that witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it. Investigators also concluded the now iconic phrase. Again from the report, 'The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said "don't shoot" as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any witnesses who stated that Brown said, "don't shoot."'

Elder is citing the Department Of Justice Report Regarding The Criminal Investigation Into The Shooting Death of Michael Brown By Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson, March 4, 2015. You can read the report for yourself, here. What the report actually says regarding witnesses recanting says, "Certain other witnesses [emphasis mine] who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media."

In other words, some recanted, but not all! And Elder deliberately leaves this out by phrasing it, "...witnesses who originally stated..." as opposed to the truth, which is "some of the witnesses who originally stated...." This isn't splitting hairs, it's a blatant lie by omission. He knows perfectly well that some of his viewers will assume that ALL the witnesses recanted! But that simply isn't true! And when you see by the PBS report that the witness count about Brown having his hands up was 16 - 2 in favor, even if 2/3rds of those witnesses recanted, the witness tally would still be 5 - 2 in favor!

If Michael Brown did have his hands up in surrender, even for a moment, that's enough for any reasonable person. Certainly it is for me. It should be enough for you, and Larry Elder, and anybody else as well.

Okay, but what about "don't shoot?"

Here, I actually agree with Larry Elder - sort of. The phrase probably came from Brown's friend, Dorian Johnson, and was probably made up. But does that matter? Hell, no! Once Brown's hands went up, that was it! "Don't shoot," isn't what Brown necessarily said, but it IS what Wilson necessarily should have done!

Yes, "Hands up, don't shoot!" became an anthem for activists, even though it wasn't actually said. But did it need to be? Did it really?

Okay, let's make a slam-dunk on this case once and for all. Suppose everything Elder argues about the Ferguson shooting were true. Suppose Michael Brown was charging. Suppose Brown was irrational, high, or whatever. Suppose Wilson had every reason to fear for his safety. Well, in that case...

WILSON SHOULD HAVE SHOT BROWN IN THE FUCKING LEGS!!! Why, oh, why, do we see cop after cop refuse to aim for the legs of the person they are trying to arrest? Why is it constantly one kill shot after another? Do they not know legs exist? Do they not surmise that an unarmed man can be taken down most easily if he sustains a leg injury?

And why do we constantly let these non-leg-shooters off the hook afterward?

Oh, yes, that's Elder's next point. "True or False: A local grand jury investigation and a federal investigation both concluded that Officer Wilson was justified in his use of force. True." But then Elder says, with emphasis, "The local grand jury, and the federal investigation, supervised by Attorney General Eric Holder, reached the same conclusion: Officer Wilson did nothing wrong."

BULLSHIT! "Justified in his use of force" and "did nothing wrong" are two separate goddamned things! The one does not presuppose the other! And as I said, Wilson should have shot Brown in his goddamned legs! Then, at least Brown would be alive!

You see, the line in the sand drawn by the African-American community, and by Black Lives Matter, is simply this: "DON'T FUCKING KILL US!" And that's a reasonable place to draw the line.

Whatever sins Michael Brown may have committed, whatever crimes he may have done, he did not deserve a death sentence! And for police officers in Ferguson and everywhere else, the message is, "If you must shoot, shoot to apprehend! Not to kill!" Is that so goddamned difficult to comprehend?

Elder quotes Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute regarding Ferguson. But this is a well-known right-wing think-tank. I won't waste time on it. Instead I will deal with Elder's own closing quote:

"The statement that an innocent black man was murdered by a racist white cop in Ferguson, Missouri, is a lie. Those who say otherwise are either willfully deceiving you for their own purposes, or are wholly ignorant of the facts."

Okay, at face value, maybe. Michael Brown was not innocent, that's a given. But he was murdered! So I'm not saying "otherwise," am I? But Elder is being deliberately misleading, and he knows it.

Was the white cop racist? Maybe, maybe not. But he was certainly vindictive. Brown had already punched Wilson in the face and tried to grab his gun before he got shot. It's more than fair to say that Wilson aimed for the torso instead of the legs because he was pissed off! Were I Wilson's captain, I would chain him to a desk job for the rest of his career. But I'm not. And sadly, there are those who want to give Wilson a gold star instead of a kick in the ass like he deserved.

Enough is enough. The cases of Michael Brown, and George Floyd, prove that it is possible to be a martyr without first being a saint.

Eric

*