Though it has hit a glitch (which will be described further on), the quest to open Michael Brown\’s records continues. And the Professionally Oppressed crowd continues to protest that it is not simply taken on good faith that Michael Brown was a choir boy – and that it is “character assassination” to find out whether he wasn\’t.
Excerpted from Nick Chiles\’ article at the Atlanta Black Star:
MichaelBrown\’s body may be gone, but a serious effort is afoot in St.Louis County to assassinate his character – just as a Missourigrand jury is deciding whether to charge police officer Darren Wilsonin his killing last month.
JudgeEllen Levy Siwak, a St. Louis County Circuit Court judge, had to denytwo separate petitions Tuesday by media outlets trying to get theirhands on Brown\’s juvenile criminal records. The St.Louis Post-Dispatchand GotNews.comare both seeking the records, even though a juvenile court officialsaid last week that Brown had no serious felony convictions as ajuvenile.
Butthat hasn\’t deterred the media outlets.
St.Louis County police officials made their first foray into characterassassination when they released images shortly after his deathallegedly showing Brown assaulting a store clerk while stealing a boxof cigarillos. Though it has been well established that Wilson had noknowledge of any allegations that Brown had committed a crime when heencountered the teen walking down a Ferguson street, thepolice were clearly trying to let the public know that Brown was abad guy.
Journalisticstandards certainly do not dictate that the public “deserves” anyinformation about Brown\’s background if that information hasnothing to do with the case at hand.
Thesewere the same calculations made by the jury when deliberating thefate of George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin: If the teenreally did present a danger, perhaps Zimmerman was justified inkilling him.
Now,it appears the same story is being repeated.
I have a few questions for Mr. Chiles.
If there were evidence that Police Officer Darren Wilson had made racist comments in the past, or had a record of complaints about his treatment of Black suspects, would you like to know about it? Would it be worth taking into consideration when trying to determine what happened the day he shot Michael Brown? Or would you demand it be suppressed, because revealing such information would be a case of character assassination?
We know that Michael Brown – whether or not he had a previous criminal record – had just stolen from a convenience store, and had just roughed up the owner/clerk in that store. The autopsy told us that he was on marijuana at the time of the incident. And we know that there is an eye-witness – who spoke immediately after the shooting, when no one knew it would turn into a major story – describing what happened in a way that fits with Officer Wilson\’s version of events.
Why, then, is it unimportant to know whether this incident was just an amazingly coincidental one-time situation, or if Michael Brown had a past suggesting it might not have been? The fact that there are no “serious felony convictions” on his juvenile record does not – repeat not – answer this question.
Let\’s suppose a best-case scenario for young Mr. Brown. Let\’s suppose he had no criminal record at all – i.e. he was a choir boy. Would it not stand to reason that his parents would be asking – make that emphatically demanding – his records be opened, so the world could see what a fine young man was gunned down?
Funny, I haven\’t heard about that happening. Have you?
Bottom line: when people like Nick Chiles and Michael Brown\’s parents make it clear that the less I know about him the better it is, I immediately assume there are things about Michael Brown that they do not want me to know. Which makes me want to know those things all the more.
I hope Michael Brown\’s records are unsealed, Mr. Chiles. Just as I hope everything about Darren Wilson\’s records as a police officer are. I don\’t have any problem with learning the truth, wherever it leads.
Too bad that you do.
