The Immorality of Vigilante Injustice in Georgia

The killing of Ahmaud Arbery is one of the most despicably unjust and inhumane examples of community violence and aggression I've ever witnessed. From home security video, we see the last minutes of Arbery's life as he visits a home construction site during one of his routine daily jogs. Minutes later, a phone camera records him running for his life, confronted by and engaged in a tussle with one of his pursuers, and then fired upon and maliciously killed.

This all happened back in February in Brunswick Georgia, when Gregory and Travis McMichael (father and son) apparently fed up over recent burglaries and break-ins in their neighborhood, suspected Arbery of criminal behavior and decided to make a "citizen's arrest", or at least until they resorted to handguns and shotguns that ultimately stopped Arbery cold in his tracks. Again, this was a brutal, cold-blooded, and savage killing, and from all that we now know, the ends don't justify the means whatsoever. The McMichaels are now in police custody, albeit three months later and after fierce public outcry over the graphic video-footage that caused so much controversy and pressure. So intense was the protest, both locally and nationally, that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation decided to take over the case and arrest the McMichaels. So far, the circumstances proffered offer a very flimsy defense, one that speaks little to the realities captured in the lethal video that's gone viral.

From the local attorney general to local law enforcement, the reported police conflicts of interest, administrative incompetence, procedural injustice, and outright shenanigans combined to implode the case thus necessitating immediate state and federal intervention. Complicating matters even more, Arbery is African American, the McMichaels are white, and Glynn County, GA is notorious for cover-ups and various levels of police misconduct, thus making the civil rights implications obvious and indefensible. The handling of the Arbery case by local officials is unjust on its face. I, however, want to weigh in on the issue of vigilante justice, or as the title suggest, "vigilante injustice".

In the article Vigilante Justice in America that appeared in the Claremont Journal of Law and Policy (Nov. 7, 2018), the author, Daisy Ni, rightly points out the following:

Vigilante justice, as defined by the Legal Information Institute, is the “actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so.” Vigilantism itself is not illegal under U.S. law but involves actions that are oftentimes illegal. It is notably associated with Ku Klux Klan lynching, which clearly demonstrates its dangers. Differences in perceptions of justice—often based on preconceived world views—can lead to horrific abuses and widespread discrimination, promoting a system based on revenge and retaliation and the rise of anarchy. Even when vigilantes are well-intentioned, vigilantism can undermine or disrupt actual law enforcement operations to maintain order

Ni goes on to highlight the numerous benefits of vigilantism on a community level that are rooted in the Constitution, which allows for revolution when rogue regimes become despotic. Even in government systems today, you can easily find examples of state codes that authorize private citizens to make arrests when known crimes are committed. The famed Guardian Angels in New York are probably the most popular example of a modern-day neighborhood watch organization that exists to preserve public safety and apply citizen arrest powers when called upon. Ni's article then proceeds to make an important qualification to reasonable and justifiable vigilantism.

Citizen’s arrest seems to speak to the validity of vigilantism, suggesting that individual involvement within law enforcement could be necessary or even desirable at times. However, a legitimate citizen’s arrest must adhere to a stringent set of qualifications, limiting it in the scope of application. Citizen’s arrest commonly permits only reasonable, or not more than necessary, use of force, used only in the process of subduing the other person. Additionally, its validity is contingent upon the actual occurrence of a crime. Individuals invoking citizen’s arrest have less leniency for mistake and are held to a higher standard of accuracy when compared to law enforcement. Those who exceed the permitted limit of force, or those who arrest someone who has not actually committed a crime, risk criminal and civil liability.

The quote above is an excellent cautionary statement against "vigilante injustice". As such, "Actual occurrence of a crime" is a crucial qualification that should be emphasized by public officials to deter vigilante abuse. Unfortunately, it is the primary or necessary condition that's sorely lacking in the Ahmaud Arbery's case, one that the McMichaels failed to consider. This absence renders the Arbery case criminal and immoral. Whether ignorant, fearful, or overzealous, the McMichaels did not witness nor were the victims of a crime. Consequently, they, more than likely, will face the full weight of the criminal justice system and the ire of public opinion for many, many years to come. The fact that this occurred in a sleepy Georgia town where the "system" undermined procedural justice and suppressed fairness is an American travesty and outrage irrespective of race or region.

Now that this case has seemingly regained propriety and due process, as outsiders looking in, we have a duty to now allow the legal process to proceed without imposing cynicism or hostile judgement given our limited knowledge of the truth and facts from the ongoing investigations. Yes, we all have a profound sense of righteous indignation over what took place, and we must continue to follow the story and hold local leaders accountable in our remote and isolated way, but we must not resort to our own form of "vigilante injustice" by unlawfully arresting the truth out of fear, ignorance, or, even worse, racial or political bias. When justice has finally run its course, the pathway to reconciliation must begin without compromise so that community and civility, in both spirit and practice, are restored.

"March against whiteness" is "wrongness"

Despicable, deplorable, obscene, and intolerant are words that come to mind every time I see this story, "Mass Shooters & the March Against Whiteness". I pray this event fails due to low turnout and public disapproval. Americans should see this as hostile to unity and a direct threat to racial reconciliation.

With the words, "We the people" and "for domestic tranquility", our Preamble, in all its brevity, undergirds and proclaims the spirit, values, and principles in our Constitution as virtuous and essential to human flourishing in America. The event highlighted above does nothing to advance American ideals. In fact, it does sheer violence to our very notion of who we are as the "United States of America" no matter our faults and failures historically. That said, Christians must reclaim the argument on race by extolling the virtues of biblical truth and what it means to be made in the image of God as expressed in scripture. Equally, Christians MUST reclaim the public square by rallying around biblical truth and using it as THE source to challenge and defeat racial untruth and divisive racial dogma.

From the body of Christ to the body politic, America has been plagued by the problem of racism ever since(1). Slavery, injustice, oppression, inequality, conflict, violence, and stigma have been the destructive outcomes of racism and its pathology, and the American experiment has suffered greatly. In both spirit and practice, Christians must acknowledge the wrath of racism in our history, but affirm that humanity’s inherent value is centered in the eternal truth that we are beings created in the image of God and that this essence is inviolable and incompatible with any notion of racial superiority whatsoever. We affirm that through God’s sovereignty and authority, we are empowered over the evils of racism to reconcile with one another to create better realities whereby humanity can truly prosper and flourish. This is the message that must overcome and overwhelm all that the March against Whiteness represents. We must stand united as one race and for the common good in America.

___________________________________________

1. Harry Jackson Jr. and Tony Perkins make this point with the the following statement: "Racism is one of America's original sins and one of the toughest problems to overcome. It has plagued the nation since before its independence. At the same time, African Americans have embraced Christ almost as long as they have bee on this continent." See pg.134 in Personal Faith, Public Policy. Chapter 8 is devoted entirely to the topic of race and reconciliation and provides great historical analysis and perspective through a Christian worldview.

Governor Northam: Integrity is a Credibility Issue

It seems that Governor Northam will be a topic of interest for a while due to his recent political and integrity shortcomings. Last week I concluded that Northam's credibility as governor is irreparably damaged because he has no moral authority due to the racially offensive photos that surfaced and are on his 1984 medical school yearbook page. He is morally and politically challenged to promote the virtues, ideals, and principles of the US Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. In essence, his presence is a calamity of contradictions: racial fairness vs racial mockery, Hippocratic Oath vs euthanasia hypocrite, Constitutional authority vs political power, moral authority vs moral ineptness, moral accountability vs moral duplicity, credibility vs compromise.

I was intrigued by the February 4 article, Virginia Governor Contradicts Oath of Hippocrates, States Association of American Physicians and Surgeons that appeared online at globalnewswire.com. The article highlights Northam's ghoulish defense of legislative infanticide, which was the beginning of his political decline.

My primary purpose for this writing is simply to bolster my argument from last week which asserts that Governor Northam's moral credibility is irreparably damaged thus making him unfit for the title of governor. The embattled governor has no moral voice on matters of race, the unborn, the public trust, or leadership integrity and, as the above article notes, he has willfully disregarded and exchanged his professional oath to save life for legislation that betrays this fundamental duty. This is moral compromise at its worst, and if he is willing to abandon his oath and thereby make a vulnerable newborn expendable, his conscience is seared beyond recognition. Northam's race revelation proves his character and moral constitution are lacking and unfit for high office. His defense of legislation that supports infanticide is unconscionable. Northam's integrity is a credibility issue that makes his political leadership morally hazardous and mute.