I'm not sure what to say about the ongoing events in Ferguson, MO, the murder of Michael Brown by the police for jaywalking, the SWAT teams responding to what one would think were very understandable protests with tear gas and rubber bullets. The insistence of the usual crowd of "real" Americans that Mr. Brown definitely "deserved it" because obviously all young black men are thugs. But it's had me thinking a lot about what it means to be silenced even before you speak.

A few years ago I read an article in, I think, the New Yorker (now I can't find it) that talked about rape culture in the US. In particular, it discussed the belief on the part of a sizeable group of American men that when women say "No," as in, I don't want to have sex with you, they really mean "Yes." The writer went on to explain that this way of thinking is a powerful way of silencing women's speech without ever stopping them from speaking. The woman in this scenario can say no, and she can mean no, and she can read the whole NY telephone book out loud, but she still can't register her dissent effectively. Because anything she says means yes before she even opens her mouth.

I keep thinking about this article as I watch the infuriating, heartbreaking, unthinkable events in Ferguson. Can anyone really deny that this same kind of pre-emptive silencing is at work in our police forces (I say "our" nominally, since we may pay for them but we certainly don't exert much control) and our justice system? It didn't matter that Michael Brown held his hands over his head, that he surrendered. It didn't matter that what he was doing was jay-walking, possibly the most committed and least punished "crime" in America(well, next to police brutality, anyway). It wouldn't have mattered if he had hummed Bach. He was a black man. He was a "violent criminal" even before the police saw him. Even before he touched them, if he ever did (the autopsy seems to indicate otherwise), he was "resisting arrest."

And the people rallying because an innocent member of their community was shot for no reason, and it was pretty clear that the police weren't even interested in interviewing the witnesses? They were already "rioting" and "looting" before they ever set foot on the street. The situation "warranted" a crackdown, a curfew, tear gas, rubber bullets, before the police ever slid into their comfy SWAT gear. Because it doesn't matter if they're just holding signs or lighting candles or crying or singing, a low income community of color protesting police brutality is always already "out of control" and needs to be "put down."

Counter-protesters (their protest mysteriously not attended by cops in SWAT gear) have popped up in person and on the internet, saying that "everyone knows" people like Michael Brown are thugs and deserve to die. Just like "everyone knew" it about Trayvon Martin and Renisha McBride.  Darren Wilson, these people say, was just doing his best to rid the world of another "thug." He should be applauded, not charged. Because, of course, in the eyes of Mr. Wilson's supporters, he was always already innocent just like Mr. Brown was always already guilty. Irrespective of whether or not Wilson actually did shoot and kill an innocent man in cold blood. And the conversation begins its downward slide into the question of whether or not Michael Brown was a "thug"--did he really steal those cigars? Did he smoke marijuana? Of course he had a record, right? (no, actually). These are the "facts" that I am very much afraid will be the basis for any US court's decision on this case, if the case even comes to trial.

But y'know what? The crux of the issue here is that it actually shouldn't matter whether Michael Brown was a "thug" or not. The consensus of the media appears to be that he didn't have a criminal record, but even if he had, it should not have mattered. Because in no part of the United States in 2014 is jay-walking, shoplifting, or looking like someone who might or might not have shoplifted, legally punishable by death. If you're a conservative who for some reason has gotten this far in my blog, read that sentence again. Then read it again so that it sinks in. This is what the rule of law means. It means that the same law is supposed to apply to all of us.  It means that cops aren't supposed to be shooting because someone just "looks guilty" or because they're in bad moods and have guns anyway. It means that anyone who is suspected of a crime has a right to a trial, not an execution in the street. Even if he's male and black. And it means that anyone who is known to have shot another human being for unspecified reasons should be arrested and be tried. Even if he's a white cop. It shouldn't matter whether Wilson's record is as clean as a whistle, or whether Michael Brown was about to start college. It should matter that they were both human beings living under a single set of laws.

Of course we all know how far from this our justice system actually is. We're seeing it further illustrated in Ferguson every day. And as I said, I suspect that this case, if it ever comes to trial, will be argued precisely on the basis of Michael Brown's blackness and his possible marijuana use, and Wilson's copness and cleanness of record. But remind people who are concerned with these things that this is not supposed to be the way a legal system works. The fact that the possibility of arrest for an eye-witnessed murder is so controversial that the President is trying to steer clear....that tells you who and what's really criminal here. I'll give you a hint--it's not Michael Brown. And it's not the protesters in Ferguson or anywhere else.