If "feeling" and "fact" disagree, flush the fact

A great deal of the media message addressing Ferguson seems to support the idea that the rioting and violence of protestors is understandable and should be tolerated.  This message is just one result of 50 years of subordinating thought and reason to “feelings,” and asserting that all “feelings” are created equal.

The thugs that looted and burned Ferguson were ostensibly troubled by the grand jury decision not to indict Officer Wilson, while Al Sharpton, and even Obama and Holder and other race hustlers, have done all they can to intensify the emotion.   The media has encouraged witnesses and principles in the area to share their “feelings” about the decision, but there’s been precious little attention directed to what people think, or to the facts on the ground.  If “thought” and “fact” were the basis against which this heinous behavior was judged,  then there would be a national outcry for the arrest and prosecution of each and every one of the thugs that have shown so little regard for the safety and property of others.

Those who are perpetrating thuggish behavior in Ferguson and elsewhere are incapable of thoughtfully defending their actions, but are heavily armed with “feelings.”  Those who have been questioned by media outlets speak primarily in terms of emotion.  They’re angry, livid, outraged.

It’s extremely telling that the “feelings’ crowd labeled the airing of Michael Brown roughing up the store clerk a “character assassination.”  That characterization was made because it was a fact that invalidated their feelings, and was therefore not worthy of being considered.  St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s release of all of the evidence that the grand jury considered is a further assault on those who defend rioting by virtue of “feelings.”  The grand jury was empaneled to consider physical evidence (e.g., autopsy) and the testimony of about 60 witnesses, and when it was all added up, the decision was that there simply was no evidence that Officer Wilson committed any crime.  This in spite of the fact that the grand jury process is a legal exercise that sets the bar for indictment very low (in contrast, an indictment would have been followed by a criminal trial, where the bar for conviction is very high), but even with the bar set so low, and even in the face of enormous pressure, the grand jurors found too little evidence to indict.

Weeks of considering tomes of evidence and hours of testimony were available to the grand jurors, and the decision of those who saw all of that was not to indict.  Though all of the evidence is available to everyone, the thugs and vandals that participated in damaging or ruining the businesses and livelihoods of private citizens in Ferguson completely disregarded that evidence, fully subordinating “fact” to “feeling.”

Unless they’ve first given serious consideration to all of the evidence considered by the grand jurors, the rioting and vandalizing in Ferguson and around the country are indefensible, regardless of the “feelings” of those perpetrating those crimes, and coddling people who behave like animals because we must “understand” their feelings will do nothing but lead to more of the same.  It’s part of human nature that if “feeling” and “fact” are in conflict, it’s just much easier to yield to “feeling.”  Reason and thought do require effort, and the result of that effort often leads to conclusions that cause a rational person to change their opinions which subsequently alter one’s feelings.  Those invested in getting “justice” for the gentle giant in Ferguson don’t really want a change to their opinions and feelings – not right now.  Sadly, the result is rioting and vandalism, and the thoughtless spewage of Al Sharpton and his race-hustling ilk demanding that we understand their utterly uninformed “feelings.”