The Policing of Freedom

The notion that we are free in America is arguable. I am not asserting that America has reverted to Marxism or any other oppressive style of government; however, it is clear that freedom in America is an ideal predicated on individual perception. That is, each of us sees the precept of freedom differently and, therefore, shapes our actions and/or reactions accordingly. This is neither a right nor wrong scenario as much as it is a salient fact about which intelligent creatures must coexist.

Man is a complex animal who has the ability to reason and the intellect to discern the meaning and purpose of his/her environment. This discernment allows man to not only understand but in many instances manipulate his environment to allow him/her to exist peacefully and safely in even the most questionable places. And though man has demonstrated the ability to adapt and assimilate to a plethora of environments and challenges, his ability to adapt and assimilate to the idea of civility and coexistence perpetually escapes him/her. In fact, the audacity of someone to be different is not only ridiculed in society, it is used as a weapon against another to debase, dehumanize, and destroy a person; thus making it easy for the assailant to objectify the person, seeing them only as the thing they abhor and not simply the diverse human being they are.

I am purposefully being broad with my opening because my statements are intended to apply to such a wide swath of society and the ilk of the hordes of perverse who judge, that applying it to one situation is inane and myopic. My intent in this blog, however, is to address the killing of Michael Brown from a perspective that does not dismiss racism, classism, or the indignation of perceived power yet explores a more visceral, intrinsic symptom that we fail to acknowledge and explore during our moments of incredulity.

A truth that is inherently missed, diminished, or ignored in many instances of perceived injustice, where an authority uses force to assail an individual, is the perception of each party. This perception is not only a precipitating factor in the concluding events but, arguably, the blinding catalyst to all that happens next.  Regardless what the officer saw when approaching Michael Brown, he did not objectively assess the situation and act on the fact that the circumstance was no more than two people in the street. Presumptively, he fashioned that the two people in the street were somehow disruptive or threatening to the environment and he sought to remove them forcefully, using inflammatory language and tone he knew would insight action – subsequently shaping Michael Brown’s perception of the situation. Thus he began the pendulum swinging towards confrontation. And though only the officer knows what was going through his mind just prior to escalation, it is not preposterous to think the officer concluded that his disposition was going to provoke a negative reaction from the teens. Moreover, he acted knowing that he held multiple advantages over those he was directing, possessing access to a host of weapons and manpower literally and figuratively at his fingertips.  

Why would a person charged to protect the freedoms of those he serves antagonize and assault them to such a point that the confronted felt it necessary to defend themselves? I can only find two reasons: provocation and confrontation.

We’ve seen this far too many times. The inanely self-appointed and those officially charged with the duties to protect are often the aggressors, providing the incendiaries and invectives needed to catalyze confrontation. Just as in the case with George Zimmerman, in Michael Brown’s case you have a man interpreting the freedoms of another, confronting and indicting an innocent person because of an irrational perception, one fueled by fear, prejudice, media bias, and ignorance.  So blinded by their indignation and emboldened by their perceived power, the faux-protectors press the situation until peace is untenable and freedom is compromised, falsely placing the innocent on trial, trying the innocent before a contrived, malevolent judge and jury that only exists in the mind of the brazen instigator, with fatal faux-justice exacted by a purveyor of distorted truths and despicable motivations. The sentence: execution!

Can it be that if my actions are such that I am doing nothing wrong when confronted by another who possesses unfounded perceptions and suspicions, the only reasonable consequence is my death? Ostensibly, precedent has been set in America that supports the precept that a person, without cause, can instigate and agitate a situation to such the point that another is threatened and faced with a decision of fight or flight. And should the accosted person decide to fight in an effort to protect his or her own freedom, the instigator or agitator then has the right to kill that person because he or she had the audacity to vigorously defend his or her right to coexist peacefully and lawfully in a mutual environment. This sounds stupid when I write it and foolish when I read it, but somehow it has become an unwritten addendum to our Constitution. Indeed Justice is blind, for if she cannot see the fallacy and idiocy of allowing the defense of one’s own freedoms to be a legal argument for their execution, then her truths are based on a warped perception of equality, giving the discretion to all people the right to define, tolerate, and revoke another’s freedom when and where it is convenient to them.


S. McGill
One of the most powerful things in the world can be obtained and used liberally by anyone who chooses to use it.  "If" can be the beginning of something great or the acquiescence to defeat. How will you use your "if"?  

A Simple Gesture?

Hello!

Indulge me this entry. I am feeling philosophical and thus taking a circuitous route to make my point (insert joke here). I find the following analogy apropos, illustrating the point better than a cathartic rant indicting an act.

I am opining about the simple person-to-person greeting. You know the tried and true good morning (or just morning for those who loathe the rising of the sun), hi, what's up, wave, nod, smile etc. It is an innocuous act that often is unremarkable. For some it is so instinctive they perform the deed with little regard for the recipient. Others, however, falter in the moment, offering an awkward gesture in return, avoiding eye contact in hopes that the moment quickly passes. And though some are more graceful than others, it is the intent not the gesture that holds the value.

My contention, however, is with the people who do not reciprocate. The snubbers. These are the people who willfully look you in the face and refuse to respond to your greeting; the self-righteous, overtly indignant persons who forgo decency, opting instead to embody arrogance and pomposity. Perhaps they deem the act trivial, perceiving it as an acknowledgement of friendship or personal acceptance. And though inane to assign such value to a simple, cordial gesture, what they don’t understand is the dichotomous nature of the moment and the inequitable swing of the pendulum when the gesture is ignored.

Consider this: As social beings human rationale is often porous, proving to be tenuous and flimsy even in the best situations. We are susceptible to our own perceptions and biases, allowing conjectured, frivolous information to act as valid, salient points when making decisions. What’s more is this information is used to fill in the blanks as we assess each other in both personal and professional interactions.  And as is the case with the greeting, where a person exposes themselves to judgment or acceptance, negative experiences arguably leave the more indelible marks on a person’s psyche. And though one may argue that this is exactly the purpose of not returning the gesture -- tallying one for the home team -- I contend the consequences of the snub could prove more costly than one may believe.

Our lives are an invisible web. Everything we do is inextricably linked. Some of us navigate our worlds oblivious to the role, needs, and feelings of others; failing to understand how the strength of our web is predicated on the wisdom of our choices. Truth is you never know the impact someone may have on your future. Reaping what you sow, burning your bridge, or whatever pithy counsel you choose to file this under is up to you. One thing is for sure, you may not understand why your web cannot carry your weight, but history tells us the fault most often lies in the architect not the material.

The calamity of a single loosened screw has no limits to its potential.  

S. McGill

One of the most powerful things in the world can be obtained and used liberally by anyone who chooses to use it.  "If" can be the beginning of something great or the acquiescence to defeat. How will you use your "if"?