On Believing What We Want to Hear and Missing the Point

I am amazed (though I shouldn’t be) at how in our ‘question everything’ culture people so readily jump to conclusions. We see this most clearly in relation to politics—especially scandals. Republicans eagerly and excitedly pounce on every whiff of scandal by a democrat—whether or not there are sufficient facts to substantiate it. The reverse is obviously true as well. But I guess in a ‘I’m not as bad as him so vote for me’ political landscape, the only way to win is to make your opponent look worse than you, so this shouldn’t be surprising.

We see this too with the recent death of Michael Brown. Those distrustful of authority or who believe there is institutionalized racism plug this event into that framework and immediately assume this was an act of profiling and murder. Those who trust authority and (though they are less vocal about this) distrust young black men, assume that if Brown had been acting as he should have, this wouldn’t have happened.

We have a story like this and everyone, based on what they think they know, immediately jumps to conclusions. No one is sitting back waiting dispassionately for more facts to come to light before they reach a conclusion. But more facts are needed. For example, are there signs of an assault on the officer or in the police vehicle, at what range did the bullets hit (i.e. close in a way that would indicate a struggle, or far away), where did the bullets hit (e.g. in the chest or back) what are other witnesses saying, etc.?

I’ll admit that the distance of the body from the car and the number of rounds that are said to have hit the body (8) are very fishy. But more information is needed before people react with the type of certitude (and this is true of both sides) that they have reacted with.

Second, regarding this case, I have read a number of articles that have made a big deal about the fact that Michael Brown was unarmed. This is completely immaterial! If he was in fact doing no wrong and was murdered by a police officer, should it matter one iota if he was armed? If he had a gun on him, but did not use or brandish it, the police officer’s culpability would not in any way be lessened.

And if he in fact assaulted the officer (as the police department asserts), then the fact that he was unarmed is likewise irrelevant.

The issue of being armed or unarmed is a red herring so long as the weapon does not come into play. This issue distracts from the facts that need to be uncovered before we can come to a correct judgment.