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"?