If the current discussion about the use of body cameras on cops and cellphone videos taken at the scenes of encounters between police and people in the streets runs the apparent course, we won't need courts or judges in the future.
Just download the latest take on a cop shooting or a neighborhood brawl and let public opinion be the final word.
Ah, but there's the rub: There seems to be no final word.
You won't find it here, either. I'm just raising some questions here that don't seem to show up in any of the coverage – on line or on what passes for television news – of events that are highly emotional. PBS came as close as anyone.
Racism remains the ugliest smudge on the American identity. It ruins the idealistic story of a land where people are born free and able to transcend class or money or lack of title to seek and make the most of opportunity. Racism exposes the biggest lie of our history.
But can we move past that history without something more than emotional and sensational news coverage of a part of a story?
My questions include the following: Is the story about police abuse of power, or the public's emotional reaction to it? And how much can you exploit a story and still deserve respect?
Can we have a rational discussion about the issues of crime and justice if we are going to predicate every story on the premise that past or ongoing injustices justify automatic defiance toward law enforcement officers?
Is there more to cause and effect of a street shooting than racism or police arrogance? Who are the other victims?
Who is blameless?
Non-whites are charged with crimes at rates incredibly out of balance with charges against white suspects, but is there something more to that than color? Could we discuss it if there were? If that is a racist question, why?
What about community attitudes and support for education? What about inter-community support systems to ensure fair distribution of all revenues for health, education and welfare?
As we are appalled by the disclosures of institutional racism of the kind unveiled by the events in Ferguson, Mo., should we not also be concerned about the consequences of rushing to judgment – based on cell phone videos and TV coverage – in assuming the police officer involved in the initial shooting was wrong in his actions?
Should it not be an assumption, but a point for clarification, before the city erupts into chaos, with local lives and businesses trashed not just by the national attention, but the activities of out-of-town elements that came to wreak havoc and stir up rage?
Is it politically incorrect to point out that in that case and the case of the homeless man shot by police in New York that the number one rule of a cop was being enforced: Don't let a suspect take your weapon in a struggle?
Others were standing in the street watching the activity. One, a woman, picked up a cop's nightstick and seemed to be jockeying for position to take a swing at someone.
Was she ready to take out a cop or two?
What would have happened to other bystanders if the enraged man had obtained possession of a cop's automatic handgun with up to 15 rounds in the clip?
Was that video complete? Did I see what I thought I saw? Did I interpret the events accurately?
I have no answers. Only questions.
Few, it seems, would dare to ask them. Until we have more responsible leadership and a less sensational media approach, things won't get any better.
Dean Minnich writes from Westminster. His column appears Thursdays. Email him at dminnichwestm@aol.com.
