I am ambivalent about the case of Darren Wilson. On the one hand, it seems pretty clear that no jury would have convicted him, and therefore the grand jury was justified in not indicting him. On the other, the facts of the case are confused enough that a trial could have sorted all this out. On the third, assuming he were to be acquitted—which, again, he almost certainly would've been, if the grand jury testimony is to be believed—we'd likely still be dealing with all the fallout: protests, riots, etc. So, you know, rock and a hard place and all that.
All of this is to say, I don't really want to get into the specifics of the Mike Brown case: he was either the best kid ever who never could have hurt a police officer and was murdered in cold blood by a crazed racist or not (more likely not). Instead, I'd like to focus on the ways in which people are calling attention to the case and trying to win support for their cause. You know, by horribly inconveniencing them.
For instance, rush hour traffic coming into Washington, D.C., came to a standstill because a bunch of knuckleheads decided to lay down in the middle of one of the city's busiest roads. Here's what this "protest" looked like:
Protestors lying in the middle of the street @wusa9 #dcferguson pic.twitter.com/5vDDX9MGv6
— Nikki Burdine (@NikkiBurdine) December 1, 2014
What, exactly, is the goal here? To "raise awareness"? As if people haven't had ample opportunity to see the riots in Ferguson following the refusal to indict Wilson? As if people in D.C.—the most media-saturated segment of the population in the country—have no idea what happened?
Freeways weren't the only target for these "protesters"; some went to the mall in order to shut down ... Santa's Village. Seriously.
I just can't quite grok the thought process here. I'm trying to imagine the conversation that led to these actions, and it just won't gel.
"Hey, Bob. Wanna raise awareness about racism in society and convince people to agree with us that we need to change our horrible status quo?"
"Do I ever, Don!"
"I've got a great idea, Bob!"
"Tell me, Don!"
"Well, we're going to get a whole group of people together..."
"GO ON!"
"...and then we're going to get people STUCK IN TRAFFIC and RUIN THEIR OUTING WITH THEIR KIDS TO THE MALL."
"That sounds amazin—wait, what?"
"You see, Bob, once we horribly inconvenience them and get their blood boiling with rage, they're sure to agree with our point of view!"
"Gee, I dunno. That ... that doesn't sound right, Don."
"What do you mean? Don't you love the people who make you late for work and block emergency vehicles and make your kids cry? Don't you want to, like, take their sides in all the arguments?"
"Um, no?"
You know what I mean? What is the thought process here? Is it the same thought process that ends up with a mob destroying a business because, hey, rage? In other words, is it just a temper tantrum? Help me out here. I'm honestly curious.