Right, let me clarify my stance on Ferguson because apparently Ive already lost several friends due to confusion on this matter. I believe that the protests and activism caused by Ferguson are good causes and come from a good place. I would be a tremendous asshole to say otherwise. I admire the passion people have for the cause of equality - racial or otherwise. Its an important battle, especially in a nation whose brief history was essentially built on the subjugation and slavery of non-European people and that is only recently (within the last 50 years or so) learning the true meaning of freedom - in this case, freedom from ones demographics and the social constructs built around them. However, as far as Ive personally investigated on the core incident that sparked all this awareness, conversation, and activism, all I see is non-concrete, ambiguous, circumstantial evidence - evidence whose implications and motives could easily be skewed by journalists to fit either the narrative of frantic self-defense on the part of the officer, or the narrative of cold-blooded hate-based murder of a young man. Either narrative would be sought after by different parties, only looking for evidence that affirms their position. I will admit, however, that being a busy college student attempting a double-major, I simply never have the time to both pursue my personal passions and to investigate fully into current events. That being said, Im naturally wary of most journalism, be it small-time or mainstream. The reasons not to trust mainstream journalism are obvious. On the other hand, just because an outlet is smaller doesnt automatically make them more reputable or honest. This being said, I can personally understand, given that there is no concrete (i.e. empirical and irrefutable) evidence found that the murder was in fact in cold blood, I understand the courts decision to not charge Darren Wilson (remember: innocent until proven guilty - an important point considering the intent of protests to prevent excessive force in legal systems). If solid evidence is found supporting the claim, then I absolutely believe the man should be locked up for murder. However, as well-intended as the protests are, the lynching of a potentially innocent man is not going to solve any problems. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. To compare to another current event worthy of protest, the rape allegations surrounding Norman High School are proven absolutely - the scumbag in question taped it himself and passed it around school. They caught him red-handed. Of course they will lock him up, once the superintendent ties up loose ends considering things like, for example, the possibility of unnamed accessories to the crime, or of other victims who have yet to speak up. Im just saying, its important with controversial topics like these, which are prone to strong reactions on either side, to take a neutral stance on things and look solely at the cold, objective facts, rather than subjective, biased impressions made on inconclusive and incomplete data. No matter how strongly you feel about the case, unless the evidence is concrete and irrefutable proof of your position, you simply cannot expect things to go your way, especially in a case like this where all evidence could literally be implied to support either narrative. Thank you to anyone who read this to the end and understood my stance on the topic.
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 07:14:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015