Rushing to judge
Can anyone tell me how you get “justice” in the Michael Brown shooting by rioting, looting, burning down local businesses (including the store the kid robbed earlier), and the dark threat of vigilantism among those who want the home address of the shooting officer? (As if they'd stop by to just chat awhile.)
We know the victim likely committed a strong-arm robbery minutes before he died; that the “witnesses” who described the shooting, one of whom was his friend in the robbery, lied (based on the autopsy findings); and that even Missouri's governor couldn't hold a healing assembly to discuss the issue without people shouting him down. This is “justice”? This is “honoring” the victim?
How about we “honor” the judicial system and wait for the facts, for both sides of the story, and (no doubt) for the white officer's conviction (to spare the suburb of Ferguson even more rioting after the verdict). That officer doubtless used excessive force, but until I walk a mile in his shoes and face the issue of drawing my gun, I won't condemn until the jury decides.
That, in my opinion, is “justice,” not pandering to agitators and letting them loot and riot because they're angry.
The writer is a former Leechburg resident.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.