A lawyer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and a California-based journalist were in a Missouri court Wednesday seeking to get any juvenile records for Mike Brown, the 18-year-old black man shot and killed by a white police officer on Aug. 9 in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Missouri. What they were up to was a small but entirely legitimate part of the larger effort to get to the bottom of events in that troubled community.
It is unfair to suggest, as some have, that their intent was to blame the victim. Besides being wrong, that criticism misses the point.
Brown was unarmed, and some witnesses have said the shooting took place as Brown was holding his hands above his head in surrender. The episode triggered demonstrations, rioting and a national outcry.
It has also led to three official inquiries. A local grand jury is looking into whether charges should be filed. The Department of Justice is conducting an investigation into the shooting. And Thursday, it was revealed that it would also mount a second civil-rights investigation into the broader question of the practices of the Ferguson police. That would include an examination of the department’s patterns of stops, arrests, use of force and officer training.
There are a lot of reasons the situation should be investigated. The population of Ferguson is more than two-thirds black while its police force is almost all white. A report issued last year by Missouri’s attorney general said Ferguson police stop and arrest black drivers almost twice as often as whites. And an autopsy found Brown had been shot six times – twice in the head.
It should come as no surprise that news media are looking into things as well. Part of that is to tell Brown’s story and explain who this person was who became so central to an event that garnered worldwide attention.
One obvious question is whether Brown had a criminal record and if so, for what? Given that he was 18, any extensive record would likely include offenses committed as a juvenile. And so, at least the two news organizations asked about that.
A lawyer for Brown’s family responded to the request for his juvenile record by calling it “shameful” and an attempt at “character assassination.”
That response, however, seems to presume not only that the intent of the inquiry was malicious, but that Brown had a criminal record. So far, though, it seems he did not, at least not a serious one. Missouri law keeps juvenile criminal records confidential unless they involve major felonies, such as murder or robbery. In the hearing to decide whether Brown’s juvenile record could be opened, authorities said that at the time of his death, Brown faced neither juvenile nor adult charges, and he had never been charged with a serious crime.
Did he ever ditch school or shoplift a pack of gum? Who knows? Who cares?
The case does bring up interesting questions as to whether dead people have an expectation of privacy or whether people who no longer exist have rights. But it also puts in stark relief the ingrained notion that news organizations are intent on smearing people or care only about dirt.
In truth, however, the Post-Dispatch and the others have found nothing shameful or embarrassing about Brown. And that, too, is a good news story. Because at this point, any evidence of youthful infractions that may be found will most likely serve only to show him in the light in which he should be seen – as a human being.
