Michael Brown was a Casualty of a Victimization Culture

Many years ago I worked as a sales clerk in a retail department store. One day I was working in the bedding department selling blankets and comforters. In the center of the department was an advertising display. A plywood platform about half the length of a bed covered with a comforter, pillows and two china dolls. Suddenly two small children ran through the department. They jumped up on the platform, thinking it was a mattress, and tried to bounce. The only thing that bounced were the china dolls, one landing on the floor shattering. The department manager, immediately called for housekeeping to clean up the broken glass and for merchandising to fix the display. I walked over and asked the children where their parent was. They lead me to a woman on  the floor below us whom I confirmed was their mother. The children stood next to her smiling precociously. Introducing myself to the woman, I asked her if she knew her children had been unaccompanied in the store.

She said, "Yeah, when I shop. I usually, let them have some freedom."

I said, " Ms X (I don't recall her name) they jumped on one of the displays, and broke one of our china dolls. To avoid any incidences, and for the safety of your children, we  would appreciate it if you kept your children within your sight."

Surprisingly her only response was, "Are you going to charge me for that doll?"

I said, "That is up to our department manager, Mr J (I don't remember his name either)."

She said, "I'd like to talk to him!" and immediately started walking to our department without paying any attention to where her children went. (By the time we arrived in the department, the children were no longer in my sight or hers). I introduced her to Mr. J, who was standing at the display with our merchandiser, straightening it, and re-positioning the remaining china doll. Before anyone could say anything to her she said, "I do not feel. My children would have done this! They are  well behaved children!" Introducing herself to Ms X the merchandiser  said, "We understand Ms X. Children are sometimes rambunctious; accidents happen. We want you and your family to be comfortable in our store, so nothing to worry about today. We would appreciate it, though if you would keep your children, at least with in your sight to avoid these kind of incidences."

"Thank you!" Ms X. said, and walked away, making no eye contact with either the manager or me.

A half-an-hour later, the same two children ran through the department again, jumped on the same display and broke the other china doll. This time the woman's department store card was charged $400 for both dolls and she and her children were asked to leave the store. She left protesting that "My children would never do that!" A few days  later she complained to the store manager that the department manager, merchandiser and I had accused her children of breaking the dolls because of their ethnicity, claiming we did not want to serve her and her children. She did not believe they broke the dolls and refused to pay for them. The lesson I learned from that incident was any parent who says, "My child would not do that," is either a naiveté or a neglectful parent.When I heard Leslie Mc Spadden, the mother of Michael Brown Jr, and Michael Brown Sr, his father, say in a CNN interview that their son would "never have taunted a cop" I concluded they were either  naiveté or  neglectful .

Now before anyone excoriates me for criticizing grieving parents. When a grieving person chooses to grieve in public, going on interview shows, speaking at public gatherings, hiding behind their grief to avoid criticism is irresponsible. If you chose to grieve privately, your privacy should be respected, but when you place yourself in the public forum and use your grief as a platform to defend the deceased person's reputation, comment on policy or procedure you give people permission  to respond to your public statements and actions. Secondly, as a hospital chaplain I deal with bereavement everyday. I am familiar with the defense mechanisms people use to assuage grief. Often in difficult or embarrassing situations families initially deny the reality of what has happened to their loved ones. I can only imagine what it is like to lose a child, but,  I do know loss, having been widowed myself. I know what pain is! Grief can make one irrational. Those who help people grieve help them adjust to new realities, rather than reinforcing their denials or misconceptions.  I can appreciate how grief must be especially difficult for Ms. Mc Spadden and Mr. Brown Sr.  given that the grand jury concluded that their son, Michael, was the aggressor. It must make it more difficult for them. Yet, given Michael's history how can the parents be surprised? Those who care about them will help them cope with the reality of what has taken place in the shooting death of their son rather than reinforcing a false racial narrative.

When the media, the clergy,  and politicians support a false narrative about events (such as the view that Michael Brown was a "gentle giant," minding his own business, a victim of "white privilege' raising his hands saying, "don't shoot") they patronize these parents and exploit their grief. The parents become victimized all over again. Regardless of whether one thinks Officer Wilson used justifiable force that day, Michael Brown was no innocent victim of white privilege; he was a casualty of a victimization culture.

Last week I heard Mc Spadden respond to the mixed testimony concerning  her son's action, siding with those who said he was putting his hands up and crying "don't shoot.""People that come forward ... saw things and they were just compelled to let us know what they saw." She said, "My son was running for his life [A testimony most witnesses recanted under oath and which the physical evidence belies]  and as his father has said before he's had a conversation with him about how to deal with the authorities if you are approached." This from the mother of a child who had a sealed juvenile felony record. Did she not know that? Of course, she did. This from the mother who no doubt saw the tape of her son robbing a convenience store, pushing and threatening the owner and customers. Has she not seen that? Of course, she has. The physical evidence, including the autopsy her family paid for independently, supports that Michael was the aggressor. Does she reject all three autopsies? Apparently, she does! I have heard her and her supporters declare that they feel the grand jury was unjust or that the prosecutor was biased. Don't they understand that justice is not about feelings? Of course, they do!

 The reason grand juries meet in secret is to separate fact from feelings. Feelings portend vigilantism; facts lead to justice. These parents want to cherish the fond memories of their son. In an interview with CNN the parents say, their son [w]as" humble, silly and soft spoken. He could fix almost anything and loved animals, his siblings and being a grandson.'He was different, but he still was like any other teenager -- wanted to explore different things, do different things, be around different people,' " McSpadden said. "He's young. He's growing up. He's finding himself." All those things may be true but away from home Michael Brown was a goon.

Even a goons deserves justice; but what is justice? Justice doesn't replace the loss of their child, or assuage their grief. Justice may not relieve anyone's pain or make anyone feel better. It means the choices of both parties, the officer and Mr. Brown are examined equitably under the law. The situation did not end well for the officer or Mr. Brown, although Mr. Brown's loss is certainly greater, than that of the officer's. The officer has now resigned. His police career is probably over (certainly in Missouri), and he will in all likelihood be forced to leave his home town. Justice can not bring back Mr Brown his parents have the greater loss. Justice will never undo the damage caused to Officer Wilson either. The grand jury was charged to decide whether officer Wilson committed a crime. Did his actions damage someone unnecessarily or did they damage the infrastructure of society?  He, too, is someone's son, husband, father. Police officers are paid to confront goons. The contempt for law and morality shown when Mr Brown robbed the store, then confronted Wilson created the perception in the mind of the officer that Brown was a danger to him and to society. The officer was responding to his perception of reality. The officer had no way of knowing how far Brown would carry his aggression. His duty was to stop it by any means necessary! If someone is breaking into your house, or store do you want to place your confidence in police, who are restrained from using force? If the police can't use deadly force to protect people or property, somebody else will.

In the American system when an officer uses deadly force we investigate the incident to see if they acted justifiably. Not did they have alternatives. In those situations officers don't have time to consider alternatives. Certainly they should be trained to know their options. But in a dangerous situation it is the officer who must decide how to respond. We always regret taking life, but when faced with a threat to his own life or to a citizen's life or property the officer must act. Should officers given the responsibility to use deadly force be arrested and brought to trial any time they do their duty? They have to make timely decision about how to act based on their perception of the situation. How do suppose the threat of arrest will affect their reaction? Do officers have civil rights? Are they innocent until proven guilty? Even if a a special prosecutor is assigned and the officer is charged a hearing of some kind will be held to determine probable cause. If Wilson is charged, this event may still never go to trial. The investigative body's role is to determine whether deadly force was justified.  Brown's supporters have argued that Brown's state of mind or actions leading up to the shooting has no bearing on the incident.They say that when a white cops shoots a black unarmed teenager race plays into it because we are a "racist nation." Yet their own statements belie that thinking.

McSpadden said in the same interview that Officer Wilson was looking for "someone to shoot that day" (implication because of his white hubris). She is talking about the officer's state of mind and actions leading up to the shooting. If she is going to talk about the Officer's state of mind, and his attitude and actions before the shooting, how can she and her supporters say her son's state of mind and history is irrelevant? When you compare Officer's Wilson's history to Mr. Brown's  it is harder to believe that he was a racist cop, than it is to believe that Michael Brown was a goon. To argue that officer Wilson was looking for someone to shoot is making an assumption, or that he was more inclined to use force against an African American is conjecture. There is no evidence to support that claim. It is racism of the worst kind. That Michael Brown was a goon and a danger to the officer and the community is evident. The Officer had reason to suspect him and Brown gave the officer grounds to shoot him.

Michael Brown was a victim, but not of white privilege. He was a casualty of a victimization culture. Whether it is the supposed police brutality committed against Harvard Professor Gates, or the tragic death of Trevon Martin, or the death of Michael Brown modern civil rights leaders have replaced an endeavor to give the disenfranchised people equality of opportunity with an attempt to treat socially, morally or politically irresponsible people as victims. Ferguson is no Selma. There are no water cannons pushing back the crowds. There is no Bull Connor, no Emmit Till no Medgar Evars. This case shows the devolution of civil rights movement into an orchestrated campaign to blame so called white privilege for the dysfunctionality of much of the African American community . The charge of "white privilege" has in some cases scapegoated one group for another. Over the last twenty years there has been a growing trend among civil rights advocates to rationalize black crime due to victimization by "white privilege." The trend goes back at least as far as  the O.J. Simpson trial.

Simpson was a popular African American star former football player turned actor. Simpson had never been a civil rights advocate. Many in the black community had criticized his close association with white people. Simpson was married to a white woman Nicole Brown, who along with her friend Ronald Goldman were found brutally stabbed, beaten and murdered in her home. Simpson was in Chicago when the bodies were found and rushed back to L. A. He was obviously a suspect. Many in the African American community assumed that as a black man married to a white woman he could not get a fair trial. Simpson hired a team of lawyers to defend himself. The evidence against Simpson was incontrovertible, but his dream team defense sought to create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind with the notion that Simpson was a victim of racism. The defense argued that former LA police detective Mark Furhman and other LA policemen planted a bloody glove and sock in the mansion because of their racial animus to Simpson and resentment of his formerly mixed marriage. There defense was that OJ was the victim; Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were collateral damage of white privilege. The majority of African Americans assumed that if the white wife of a black man were murdered the police would automatically charge and convict the black man because of their animus toward black people and inner racial marriage. 25  years later even most black people recognize what a travesty the trial was. Victimizing O.J. Simpson denied justice to Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The victimization defense  for African American's is pervasive in white on black crime

Reginald Denny was a casualty of the  victimization culture. Reginald Denny was a white concrete truck driver who was driving his construction truck through downtown LA during the riots in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict. Denny's truck was surrounded. He was pulled from the cab and beaten by four black men. He sustained head injuries so severe that he remains disabled to this day. The whole incident, including the beating was caught on the video below and broadcast on TV. The only thing he did was tried to go to work that day and he was beaten by four thugs upset about what they believed to be a racial verdict against Rodney King. The only thing about him that provoked the attack was the assumption that the color of his skin made him somehow responsible for a bad verdict rendered against a black man. Six black men were charged with the attack.

The "L.A. Four" was a nickname given to the first four men charged with the attack on Denny: Damian Williams, Henry Watson, Antoine Miller and Gary Williams. Two additional men, Anthony Brown and Lance Parker, were also charged with the attack on Denny but not until after the "L.A. Four" nickname had spread. The six were redubbed the "L.A. Four Plus".The six were charged with felony assault, five other felonies and various misdemeanor on Denny, five motorist who drove by and two firefighters. Two of the six pleaded guilty advised by their attorney that the evidence against them was too strong. At trial the attorney for the four did not deny the charges but argued they were not guilty because of the "ethnos of blackness." The legacy of slavery their personal disenfranchisement caused them to lose control, and they were just being  scapegoated for the riot by privileged white police. The trial resulted in a hung jury on four of the charges. Only Damiam Williams was convicted of one count of misdemeanor assault and given some probation time.The other three poor unfortunate victims of white privilege got away with destroying a man's life and livelihood because some of their progenitors may have been slaves. Mr Denny was a casualty of the victimization excuse, as is Michael Brown.

Michael Brown's supporters are essence making the same "victim of white privilege" argument. Officer Wilson should have used restraint due to the suffering and oppression Brown had incurred as a black man. I am not black I do not claim to know what discrimination is like but I have a question for my black friends. "How much of the poverty and disenfranchisement that occurs in black communities occurs because of systemic racism and how much due to the excuse of the victimization?"  The grand jury in Michael Brown's case determined that his death was justified; in other words, it wasn't caused by a racist or incompetent cop. All three autopsies came to that same conclusion. Brown was "charging the officer." The physical evidence supports that conclusion. White privilege? Really?

 If African Americans want to prevent this from happening again, they examine t how the victimization myth is perpetrated in schools, homes, churches and communities. The victimization enable by a welfare system that encourages "fatherlessness," and a justice system that sometimes ignores criminal behavior in the interest of righting past wrong unrelated to the particular crime. The culture that encourages "food stamps," and mandatory "living wages," rather than earning a living and upward mobility. A culture more concerned for "everyone getting their fair share," than for anyone being rewarded for responsibly. Perhaps they should separate from charlatans like Attorney General Eric Holder, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who call for a perversion of justice which does nothing more than enable thuggery and irresponsibility. Perhaps they should understand that liberty flourishes when people act responsibly.

 Michael Brown and his family are products of the culture they have embraced. Brown's death is a result of a culture that excuses irresponsible behavior of black males due to hardships of the ghetto. The lesson of Brown's death is the destruction and dysfunction that results from living life as a victim. Perhaps instead of arguing for better training for cops, or for a special prosecutor, civil right advocates need to be working to transform the victimization culture prevalent in some African American homes, churches and communities. A trial to punish Officer Wilson will do nothing but create another scapegoat   and continue to enable the destruction and dysfunctionality of many black communities. Instead of disparaging "white privilege and burning down cities an appropriate celebration of Michael Brown's legacy might be for African American men to cast off the chains of victimization and to embrace liberty and responsibility.