Clearly, from the onset, this was a local community issue. Until a grand jury was convened to either indict or not, any/all potential "civil rights" issues should have been held in abeyance.
Almost immediately, however, AG Holder sent in a team to "investigate". Clearly, THIS was a display of racial bias. Holder has a history of favoring blacks in a questionable manner. (See the new black panther party and the 2008 presidential elections in Philadelphia.)
A grand jury was convened to adjudicate the correctness of bringing charges against the policeman or not. The grand jury returned a "no bill" - or, no charges will be filed.
As was expected, riots ensued. The president, shorthly after the grand jury decision, called for any demonstrations to be peacefull and for a lack of violence. His admonitions went unheard. See the CNN report found at the bottom of this positing.
As yet, it has not been reported that the vast majority of rioters were from Ferguson or not. During the riots of last August (due to the same issue) it WAS determined that "out-of-towners" were the rioters.
Cries of unjust verdit were echoed. So, is this an accurate assessment? Let's take a look at the grand jury process for just a minute:
A grand jury is comprised of 12 persons. Testimony is ONLY allowed by the prosecution - no defense evidence or witnesses are allowed. The potential defendant MAY offer testimony, but it is not required. But, if the potential defendant does elect to testify, his/her lawyer is NOT allowed to be present. (In the Ferguson case the police officer, indeed, testified.)
This grand jury heard testimony from 60+ witnesses plus thousands of pages of documentation - again with no defense representation.
This grand jury was comprised of 9 white persons and 3 black persons. In the state of MO it takes 9 out of 12 votes to indict or to NOT indict. We, as yet, do not know the demographics of the vote - and, most likely will not know. Therefore, at least 9 of the jurors voted to not indict.
It seems reasonable - not rational, but reasonable - for some to conclude from the above that the vote HAD TO BE 9 whites against indictment and 3 blacks for indictment.
And, this could have been the case. However, consider:
In order for the above equation to be the case, ALL 12 persons would have had to be die-hard racists; 9 whites voting for no indictment because the police officer was white with the person shot being black AND 3 blacks voting for indictment because the police officer was white and the person shot was black. Not statistically rational.
So, if 9 out of 12 (and maybe 12 out of 12) people being privy to all the prosecution's evidence and no evidence from the defense, find no reason for indictment, then it may be reasoable to assume no wrong doing. The jurors had more evidence than do we - or anyone else, for that matter.
Now, at no time is it reasonable for a person, even a person shown on tape committing a minor crime, to be shot and killed with no other factors involved. Such would be just wrong! And, such is a tragedy for the community, the family of the person killed, as well as anyone with a positive view of human life.
It seems, however, that such MAJOR attention was garnered in this case purely due to the fact that a white policeman shot and killed a black man. The inflaming of this issue was created by the media and certain black leaders. They all expressed outrage.
But, consider the following:
In 23 years of military conflict (including Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan) some 65,000 Americans lost their lives - 13% of these brave Americans were black. The percentage of the US population being black, coincidentally, is approximately 13%.
During the last 10 years in this country some 90,000 blacks have been killed in a violent manner in this country. A full 93% of these unecessary deaths have been at the hands of other blacks.
Where is the outrage by black leaders, our president, and the media? It is not to be found. Why? Personally, I believe it has to do with not serving the "message" these people desire to promote. Such a message is to heighten discord among different racial and economic demographics. "Divide and Rule!", this is.
Racial harmony does not sell news stories, does not increase the "influence" of certain black leaders, and tends not to lower the economic levels of minorities - thus decreasing the number of voters who favor government dependence vs. individual responsibility.
Or, "follow the money and power" if one wishes to find true motives.