The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article on the misinterpretation of classic Shakespeare line: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Uttered by Dick the Butcher in “Henry VI, Part 2,” the phrase is interpreted as an indictment of the opportunistic law profession. In the context of the play, however, the quote contains a whole new meaning. Instead of condemning lawyers, it’s demonstrative of a mob-mentality that threatens societal order. David Epstein, a trial lawyer, says that “Shakespeare’s point is to portray lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law who stand in the way of a fanatical mob.”
But that interpretation is not as sexy as assailing the ambulance-chasing mentality of lawyers. So the opposite meaning become apocryphal. Shakespeare’s politics were ambiguous enough; assigning ideologies based on his fiction is a shortcut to defining complex personal dispositions.
In the same fashion, presumption appears to be dictating the ongoing friction in Ferguson, Missouri. When news broke that unarmed black teenager Michael Brown was gunned down by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, the media had an epileptic fit. Prominent news outlets formed a narrative of racially-driven murder. Wilson, a 28-year-old cop with an impeccable record, shot Brown multiple times while he was prostrate on the ground shouting “hands up, don’t shoot!” – at least that’s how reporters framed the issue. MSNBC host Chris Hayes insisted that “charges” be “brought against Wilson” to end the protest. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos demanded the feds “come in, disarm, and arrest the entire Ferguson” police department.”
Unrest in the streets sparked from what many saw as case of police brutality and injustice. It didn’t take long for press agitators like Al Sharpton to descend on the scene, stirring up more anti-police animus. Reporters were arrested for entering closed-off areas. Looters found it necessary to promote justice by ransacking local businesses. Peaceful protesters were attacked with canisters of tear gas.
Lost in the mix was a plain and simple fact: nobody knows for sure what occurred on that Ferguson street on August 9th. Few journalists reported that Brown fractured Wilson’s eye socket before the fatal shooting. There were scarce reports that a gun went off inside Officer Wilson’s car before the shooting. Eye witness accounts differ on how exactly Michael Brown died.
The autopsy report commissioned by Brown’s family is indeterminate if he surrendered before suffering six bullets – including two in the head – or if he aggressed against Office Wilson. We don’t know how far Brown was from Wilson when the shots rang out. The federal government’s autopsy report has not been released, and even its findings will be in question.
The thing to remember in all the calumny being tossed around is that each side has their own agenda. The police have an incentive to cover their tracks and protect their reputation. The people with preconceptions about police brutality have an incentive to twist evidence to appease their own pathologies. It’s hard to discern the truth from both camps. As Rod Dreher writes, none of us are “going to know what really happened that night in Ferguson for some time. The haze of anger and the fog of war in the streets make clear sight impossible for now.”
The confusion over the killing of Michael Brown, and ensuing violence, is emblematic of the knowledge problem outlined by Friedrich Hayek. Hayek put great emphasis on the importance of “knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place,” since every “individual has some advantage” when it comes to every situation. Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are the only people who know what happened that fateful day. Brown can no longer share the story; Wilson’s account is automatically undermined by those who have their minds settled already. Even so, lack of knowledge rarely stops anyone from making a point.
From a libertarian view, the ongoing violence in Ferguson, and the armed police response, shows just how militarized local law enforcement has become. Tanks, tear gas, assault rifles, snipers, and camouflage uniforms are all being utilized to suppress demonstrators. One “peace” officer was caught on camera holding a loaded rifle up to protesters, threatening to kill them for seemingly no reason.
The so-called “demonstrators” are not completely innocent either. In between causing random violence and destroying private property, looters are undermining their own cause. You don’t gain public sympathy by smashing store fronts. You don’t win hearts and minds by saying you’re “proud” of mindless destruction, and you “deserve” stolen goods. Molotov cocktails and shooting at cops don’t ease tensions. Messy situations aren’t an excuse to break the law. Doing so only lessens the opportunity to reform what is seen as excessive government force.
There’s a common agreement among libertarians, conservatives, and even some liberals that order must be restored in Ferguson. After that, the debate can be had on whether it’s worth having local police forces armed with weaponry suited for a battlefield. But order must come first. The heated rhetoric of retribution from both sides isn’t helping the restoration of calm, orderly behavior. Bias and presumption are getting in the way.
Jonah Goldberg rightly characterized the events in Ferguson as a “race to be wrong.” In the grief and ambiguity of an unarmed teenager losing his life, we all have opinions waiting to be unleashed. The best of us already made up our minds about the shooting before all the relevant facts. In the words of the Bard, we “doth protest too much” about what we think we know. If justice is going to be served, then there needs to be a collective step back. The facts of the case will eventually unfold. Only then will a rational decision be possible. The government will attempt to consolidate its power and justify the aggression used on innocents. But defenders of civil rights only hurt their cause by continuing to assume the worst.