The legal process

Some public figures have called for the prosecution of the Ferguson police officer whose actions, lawful or unlawful, caused the death of a young person. For so doing, these public officials have been roundly criticized, particularly by the leading lights of talk radio, who are only too willing to take to their bosoms any Euro-American accused of unjustly shooting an African American.

For the life of me I cannot understand the basis of the criticism. A trial before a judge and jury is nothing more than an exercise in fact-finding. Those whose opinions lean toward the officer being innocent should welcome the trial that would vindicate their opinions.

Of course, counterposed to those individuals are others who are totally unable and unwilling to summon up empathy with a poor schmoe in a stressful, dangerous job. These, too, should welcome having this sad event carefully examined.

Which brings me to this: We are in the 21st century; if Ferguson had diverted some of the spondulix, actually spent on tanks and weaponry, toward dashboard cameras instead, perhaps all of this tumult would have been avoided.

If the officer at the center of the event avoids trial without a load of exculpatory evidence having been brought forward, the customary presumption of his innocence will always have that distinctive bouquet of rotten meat; in that case, the "dream deferred" might indeed explode. (Thanks, Langston Hughes. "A Dream Deferred.")

DONN S. MILLER, Tamms, Illinois