Self-Control and Respect for Authority

If Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri fame had been properly brought up to have self-control and to respect authority he might be alive today.  Police have the authority to issue commands in certain circumstances as when people are violating laws by, say, walking in the street.  Cops are often rude and arrogant.  No doubt about it.  But you still must obey their lawful commands even if rudely barked. Here is where self-control and respect for authority come in.  If Brown had possessed self control, he would have kept a lid on his feelings and would have refrained from stupidly initiating an altercation with an armed officer of the law.  Apart from questions of morality and legality, fighting with cops is almost always a highly imprudent thing to do.  And if Brown had been properly brought up, he would have known that in a situation like this he had a duty to submit to the cop's legitimate authority.  What's more, it was imprudence on stilts for Brown to act as he did right after stealing from a convenience store and roughing up the proprietor.  

Similar lessons may be gleaned from the fateful encounter of Trayvon Martin with George Zimmerman. The case is worth revisiting.

One 'take-away' is the importance of self-control.  If Martin had been taught, or rather had learned, to control himself he would most likely be alive today.  But he didn't control himself.  He blew his cool when questioned about his trespassing in a gated community on a rainy night, cutting across lawns, looking into people's houses.  He punched a man in the face and broke his nose, then jumped on him, pinned him down, and told him that he was going to die that night.  So, naturally, the man defended himself against the deadly attack with deadly force.  What George Zimmerman did was both morally and legally permissible.  If some strapping youth is pounding your head into the pavement, you are about to suffer "grave bodily harm" if not death.  What we have here is clearly a case of self-defense. 

Does race enter into this?  In one way it does. Blacks as a group have a rather more emotional nature than whites as a group.  (If you deny this, you have never lived in a black neighborhood or worked with blacks, as I have.)  So, while self-control is important for all,  the early inculcation of self-control is even more important for blacks. Otherwise, the case  has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with a man's defending himself against a thuggish attack. 

Hard looks, hateful looks, suspicious looks — we all get them from time to time, but they are not justifications for launching a physical assault on the looker.  The same goes for harsh words. 

If you want to be successful you must learn to control yourself. You must learn to control your thoughts, your words, and your behavior.  You must learn to keep a tight rein on your feelings. Before leaving your house, you must remind yourself that you are likely to meet offensive people.  Rehearse your Stoic and other maxims so that you will be ready should the vexatious and worse heave into view.  

Unfortunately, too many liberals in positions of authority have abdicated when it comes to moral education.  For example, they refuse to enforce discipline in classrooms.  They refuse to teach morality.  They tolerate bad behavior.  They abdicate their authority when they refuse to teach respect for authority.  So liberals, as usual, are part of the problem. 

But that is to put it too mildly.  There is no decency on the Left, no wisdom, and, increasingly, no sanity.  For example, the crazy comparison of Trayvon Martin with Emmett Till.  But perhaps I should put the point disjunctively: you are either crazy if you make that comparison, or moral scum. You are moral scum if you wittingly make a statement that is highly inflammatory and yet absurdly false.

Had enough yet?  If not, read this and this.

Related:  Trayvon Martin Was No Emmett Till

Ferguson

I have been asked my opinion.  But before opining it would be better to wait until we know or at least have a clearer idea of what exactly transpired between Michael Brown, the 18-year-old black male, and the white police officer Darren Wilson. We know that Brown is dead and that the officer hit him with five or so rounds. (And we know that it was the shooting that caused the death.)

And we know that prior to the shooting, Brown stole some tobacco products (cigarillos in one account, Swisher Sweet cigars in another) from a convenience store, roughing up the proprietor on the way out.

The theft is not something that Wilson could have known about prior to the shooting, and even if he did know about it, that would not justify his use of deadly force against the shoplifter.  Obviously.

So those are the main facts as I understand the case.  I need to know more to say more, except for two comments:

1.  Al Sharpton's claim that the release of the store video was a 'smear' of Brown is absurd on the face of it.  One cannot smear someone with facts. To smear is to slander.  It is to damage, or attempt to damage, a person's reputation by making false accusations. Sharpton is employing the often effective leftist tactic of linguistic hijacking.  A semantic vehicle with a clear meaning is 'hijacked' and piloted to some leftist destination.   The truth about a person can be damaging to his reputation.  But if you cannot distinguish between damaging truths and damaging falsehoods, then you are as willfully stupid as the race hustler Sharpton.

2. The governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, called for "a vigorous prosecution"  in the case and to "do everything we can to achieve justice for [Brown's] family." These statements sink to a Sharptonian level of (willful?) stupidity.  For one thing, Wilson cannot be prosecuted for the killing of Brown until it has been determined that Wilson should be charged in the killing of Brown.  

That Wilson killed Brown is a fact.  But that he should be charged with a crime in the killing is a separate question.  Only after a charge has been lodged can the judicial process begin with prosecution and defense.

Second, talk of achieving justice for Brown's family  not only presupposes that Wilson has been indicted, it begs the question of his guilt: it assumes he is guilty of a crime.  More fundamentally, talk of achieving justice for one party alone makes no sense.  The aim of criminal proceeding is to arrive at a just outcome for both parties.

Suppose Wilson is indicted and tried.  Either he is found guilty or found not guilty of the charge or charges brought against him.  If he is found guilty, and is in fact guilty, then there is justice for both the perpetrator and the victim and his family  If he is found not guilty, and he is in fact not guilty, then the same: there is justice for both the perpetrator and the victim and his family.  Therefore, to speak of achieving justice for one of the parties alone makes no  sense.

People don't understand this because they think that the victim or his family must be somehow compensated for his or their loss.  But that is not the purpose of a criminal trial.  It is too bad that the young black man died, but the purpose of a criminal trial is not to assuage the pain of such a loss.  The purpose is simply to determine whether a person charged with a crime is guilty of it.