Barack Obama returns today from his vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, to receive briefings on the myriad trouble-spots that are aflame throughout the world, and will presumably meet with Eric Holder to discuss the investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, this past week.

As Michael Brown’s Attorney (Benjamin Crump) holds a Press Conference, to announce the findings of their “independent autopsy”, he is having to now convince the public that while the facts, as they are coming to light, don’t comport to the initial narrative proffered by the eye-witness accounts, they still point to an “execution” of Michael Brown (emphasis, Benjamin Crump).  Not murder, or manslaughter, which are terms that a lawyer might use, to draw a picture of what his legal strategy will be in prosecuting a shooter, in this case, the Ferguson Officer.  No, the term “execution” is one used by a “community activist” to stoke the flames of racism and bigotry, and frankly to inspire vigilantism.

First, a couple thoughts about the autopsy findings.

1. Eyewitness accounts had Michael Brown fleeing the officer, and presumably shot in the back. All the entry points were from the front.

2. If threatened with bodily harm, and when discharging a gun is deemed necessary, Police are trained to shoot an assailant in the chest. Several of the eyewitness accounts (save, the unscripted account found here) have stated that Michael Brown’s hand were in the air, in a compliant position. If this is the case, how are so many shots registered in the right arm? Is it more likely that the officer hit Michael Brown’s arms, as shots were left of his target, or did the officer intentionally shoot above the assailant’s head, and hit what would have been the smallest target points in the compliant Brown’s body?

If the local authority’s autopsy, the independent autopsy, and a subsequent Federal autopsy show the same findings, a case of intentional willingness to shoot Michael Brown, or murder, will be hard to make. Of course, as asserted above, it doesn’t appear that a “legal” case is what Benjamin Crump is after.

Back to Barack Obama. While Ferguson burns, how easy would it be for Barack Obama to call a Press Conference and implore the citizens of Ferguson, the local and national clergy, the myriad activist groups on the ground, to return to calm, and allow the “legal process” to run its course. Will the result of the case of the shooting of Michael Brown be prosecuted any differently by local, state and federal authorities if calm were restored to the community, versus chaos and turmoil?

Many questions are yet unanswered as to what transpired in Ferguson, on the afternoon of August 9^th. 

The parties involved have a personal stake in the outcome of the investigation. The president’s interest is, or should be, the health of our nation, and the totality of its people, to include the people of Ferguson inclusively, but not exclusively. He should adamantly reinforce his support for the “rule of law”, for either we have justice (true justice, premised on findings, not emotion), or we have chaos and anarchy.

Will President Obama’s subsequent actions serve the interest of America, or will he take sides on an issue, where he (once again) doesn’t have all the facts, at his disposal?