The disturbing interpretation of ‘justice’.

In the past few months, you have heard protesters clamber for ‘justice’. But, just what is justice?

“jus·tice noun 1. just behavior or treatment. “a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people”. Synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, even-handedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, honesty, righteousness, morals, morality.”

I have served on a grand jury, so I have more than a modicum of knowledge regarding the workings of a grand jury. In fact, the grand jury on which I sat refused to return an indictment in a murder case, infuriating the local district attorney at the time. The circumstances are not at all unusual. All grand jurors are sworn to secrecy lest their individual lives be endangered. Why is that important. It’s simple, grand jurors sit for a specific calendar term and may hear many cases. Additionally, they return indictments regarding the presence of “probable cause”, not on guilt or innocence. Therein are the two principal differences between a criminal jury and the grand jury.

In the Michael Brown case, grand jury testimony was released by the judge overseeing the grand jury. We know much more about that case, and there was an abundance of cause to not return an indictment of the officer involved. However, in the case of the New York Garner incident, we know nothing of what the grand jury heard. The video that has played multiple times on television, appears to show Mr. Garner was taken down in a “choke hold”. Still, we don’t know what was the testimony in that case.

Mr. Brown attempted to take the officer’s pistol, struck the officer, and charged the policeman when Brown was ordered to stop. I can understand why the grand jury refused to indict the policeman in that case. Brown never raised his hands and never said “don’t shoot”. Video from a convenience store clearly demonstrates Mr. Brown was a local thug and thief. Not so in the New York case. You and I do not know what was said or testified in the grand jury room in New York.

In the Missouri case, marchers cried out for ‘justice’. But, what justice did they seek. Clearly, sworn testimony indicates the officer was justified in firing at the charging Michael Brown. Would justice be served if an indictment were returned? Do marchers really want vigilante justice based on supposition? Justice is blind. Justice is upholding laws, not indiscriminately changing them to suit individual purposes.

Here is what Al Sharpton’s marchers say they are marching for in a planned January 2nd demonstration:

Immediate Demands

  • The firing of Officer Daniel Panteleo
  • Reparations to Garner family
  • Outside(Independent) review of all cases involving police brutality and murder of civilians
  • Firing of prosecutor Daniel Donavon in this and recall elections involving prosecutor
  • Independent Prosecutor (with no ties to the police department) in this and all future cases
  • Firing of Police Commissioner Bill Bratton
  • Immediate end of the Lowest level priority prosecutions (marijuana)

Intermediate/Institutional Demand Include:

  • Community Control of Police.
  • Elimination of test Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory /Publish curriculum of training of NYPD
  • End of drug war and funding involving the militarization of the police

(See more at:

Did you notice the last three demands. Do we really want the police controlled by neighborhood radicals? And, do we really want to abandon enforcement of illegal drugs? Is this really “justice”? Do we want to abandon the most widely used psychological test that may determine fitness of an officer to serve?

“The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was developed in the late 1930’s by psychologist Starke R. Hathaway and psychiatrist J.C. McKinley at the University of Minnesota. Today, it is the frequently used clinical testing instrument and is one of the most researched psychological tests in existence. While the MMPI is not a perfect test, but it remains a valuable tool in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”  (

In both of these tragic cases, Sharpton, and others, have participated in race-bating. In my view, Sharpton has single-handedly done more to roll back the gains made by the followers of Rev. Martin Luther King than any other person in recent time.

Sure, there are a multitude of problems in the black community, but marching for the kinds of demands that will produce a lawless anarchy is not the way to achieve solutions to those problems. But, that’s just me. –D. C. ‘Dan’ Lee