Your recent article regarding the lessons of Ferguson caught my attention in the first paragraph's discussion of how racism is on the rise in the U.S ("Lessons from Ferguson," Dec. 6).
However, why must the case of Michael Brown always be connected to the subject of race?
This is a pivotal question because many people seem to have forgotten that Mr. Brown committed a crime and resisted arrest.
As a journalism student, I feel that many people are turning a blind eye to the facts in this case. Mr. Brown not only resisted arrest, but also assaulted Officer Darren Wilson, leaving him with an injury to his head.
It is crucial that we take race out of this case and look at the facts: An officer attempted to arrest a large man — weighing more than 300 lbs. — who committed a small crime and then resisted arrest.
On the face of it, one might easily believe that Mr. Brown deserved to be arrested. Yet when the issue of race is introduced it somehow changes the facts, spurring violent protests across the nation.
I agree that there is a growing distrust of police, and I believe it stems from the media's portrayal of officers and race.
The media are supposed to play a crucial role in portraying such events by removing race from the picture and focusing on the basic facts of each case. Why is this still such a problem for so many journalists today?
Grace Elizabeth Beal, High Point, N.C.