It will be hard to find anyone at this time who does not have an opinion about the decision of the grand jury, announced on Nov. 24, not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, a white man, for the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager.
The furor that was manifested after the shooting, and again after the announcement of the decision not to indict Officer Wilson, demonstrate molten anger and seething frustration barely under the surface of our society.
Racism and the sting of discrimination are not gone from our society; they are just largely swallowed, unmentioned or ignored.
The grand jury proceeding should have been handled in a manner that was above reproach. In our view it was not.
From the outset, there were cries for the prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, to recuse himself because of alleged bias.
His refusal to do so, we believe, leaves open the question of whether the proceedings were slanted and biased toward Officer Wilson.
Clarence Page, in his Nov. 30 column in the Chicago Tribune, said, “A grand jury normally is supposed to review a prosecutor’s evidence to see if the case is worth taking to court, where witnesses and evidence can be cross-examined and both sides can be argued.
“Instead, McCulloch presented both sides, raised doubts about contradictory eyewitnesses and gave Wilson four hours of unchallenged testimony that amounted to a case against the deceased.”
For us, there is a lingering question. Officer Wilson apparently had a strong advocate in the grand jury room.
Was anyone there to vigorously represent Michael Brown?