BY JESSE WASHINGTON
ST. LOUIS (AP) - Lamont Jones and Keith Stephens stood 60 feet from
each other, separated by four lanes of pavement and a thousand miles of
perception.
Stephens was wearing a T-shirt printed with a police shield bearing
the phrase "OFFICER DARREN WILSON I STAND BY YOU," as part of a rally
supporting the white policeman who killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, who
was unarmed. Jones was across the street, holding up a sign that said,
in blood-red letters: "Darren Wilson is a Murderer."
There was no overlap in the facts as seen by Jones and Stephens at
the demonstrations staged a few miles from suburban Ferguson, where
Brown was killed. Like many who have closely followed the case, which
sparked riots and yet another national racial conflagration, Jones and
Stephens had made up their minds.
Like uncounted numbers of Americans, they saw no gray area in the killing of Michael Brown.
Many are convinced there was no justification for Wilson to kill
Brown because he was unarmed. Many others are certain it was justifiable
because they believe Brown threatened Wilson.
Not everyone is so sure. In a CBS News/New York Times poll, 64
percent of respondents said they didn't know enough to say whether the
shooting was justified. Only about half of respondents said they had
paid "a lot" of attention to the case.
But the national furor over Ferguson is fueled by those with strong
opinions. They are the people still marching, or calling Brown a thug,
or demanding that Wilson be convicted, or implying that Brown deserved
his death.
Such strong opinions can often be influenced by "confirmation bias,"
psychologists say. A large body of research shows that people search for
evidence to support their preexisting viewpoints - and then interpret
that information in a way that reinforces their beliefs.
"It's the tendency to seek out and give greater weight to information
that confirms what we think rather than contradicts it," said Scott
Plous, a psychology professor at Wesleyan University in Connecticut.
Confirmation bias seemed to be running rampant at the dueling demonstrations.
About 100 Wilson backers, nearly all of them white, gathered outside
of Barney's Sports Pub in St. Louis late last month, brandishing signs
like "Heroes Have A Right To Protect Themselves." A multiracial group of
about a dozen Brown supporters stood across the street. Passing drivers
honked in support of one side or the other, screamed obscenities, or
raised middle fingers out of windows.
Jones stalked the sidewalk with a silent, smoldering gaze. Asked why
his sign called Wilson a murderer, he said Brown was unarmed and was
shot with his hands up.
What about the police statement that Brown tried to grab Wilson's weapon?
"Where his witnesses at?" Jones demanded. "(Brown) ran away. He was unarmed."
"Use a stun gun. Taser," Jones added. "The facts are, Darren Wilson
fired a multitude of six shots into an 18-year-old, who was unarmed .
two shots in the arm, the rest in the head and upper torso."
An autopsy by the Brown family said Brown was hit with four shots in the arm and two in the head.
Might any information emerge that could change Jones' mind?
"No," Jones said, gaze steady. "Not at all."
His parting shot: "Unarmed!"
Across the street, questions about the case were met with a different selection of facts.
People at the Wilson rally brought up the arrest record of Dorian
Johnson, the first witness, who said Brown was shot in the back
(autopsies indicate the bullets hit him from the front) and with his
hands up.
They were quick to mention two unverified accounts that provided support for those who argue Brown rushed toward the officer.
No mention was made of the other three witnesses - Tiffany Mitchell,
Piaget Crenshaw and James McKnight - who also said they saw Brown's
hands up. None of those witnesses described Brown rushing toward the
officer.
Wilson's supporters mentioned that Brown stole a box of cigars from a
store and roughly shoved the clerk minutes before he encountered
Wilson.
"That'd say something about your character, right? And then you might
start a fight with a cop?" said a plumber who gave his name as James
Edwards.
Edwards mentioned a report, based on anonymous sources, that Wilson's
orbital eye socket was fractured. But what about another anonymously
sourced report that there was no fracture?
"I don't know if it's true or not. It makes no difference. He had
facial wounds when he was hit. He was 100 percent right to shoot,"
Edwards said, as a passing driver honked in solidarity.
Stephens, one of many people wearing the Wilson badge T-shirts
selling for $20, said that if Brown grabbed Wilson's weapon and
assaulted him, "that gives him every right to shoot him."
At first Stephens said he could see a gray area in the case because
there was so much unconfirmed information circulating. Then he said, "If
we assume this officer's account is accurate, there is no gray area in
the state of Missouri," meaning he believed what Wilson did was legal
under state law.
Did he assume Wilson's account was accurate?
"Yeah, I do," Stephens said.
Several witnesses described Brown breaking away from Wilson and
running away. They recalled the officer firing shots at the fleeing
Brown, and then Brown stopping.
The crucial question is what happened next.
The rallying cry of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" has become a powerful
symbol of Brown's death. But could "Hands Up" be more myth than fact?
Alternatively, could Wilson, facing possible criminal charges over
his decision to shoot, have exaggerated Brown's aggression, shading his
statement of facts about what happened?
With so much incomplete and sometimes conflicting information, some confirmation bias is bound to occur.
"If one were to view a police officer pointing a gun at someone, and
they also view police negatively, they may very well ignore whatever
events precipitated the officer drawing his/her weapon, even though that
action may have been entirely justifiable," Lou Manza, chair of the
psychology department at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania, said in
an email.
"On the other side," he said, "if one has a favorable view of police,
they're going to ignore the alleged assailant's behavior, and simply
assume that the police officer is correct, despite the fact that the
officer may very well be wrong and unjustified in their actions."
"Confirmation bias is a subtle but strong effect," Manza said, "and
once a belief is established, it can be VERY difficult to change it."
This helps to explain why Brown's killing, currently being considered
by a Missouri grand jury, has revived a dynamic seen in racial
controversy after controversy, from O.J. Simpson to Rodney King to
Trayvon Martin: People look at the same information and come to very
different conclusions.
In this particular case, with little unambiguous evidence, "people
are actually acting very reasonably," said Plous, the Wesleyan
professor.
"There is a void, and into that void, people will bring whatever they
regard as the most reasonable evidence," he said. "People are trying to
make sense of this tragedy using the most compelling evidence they have
available."
Such as their own perspectives and experiences.
"We're forced to reconstruct, to remember, to imagine what could have
taken place," Plous said, "and those are precisely the conditions when
we're likely to see bias."
