Obama: 'No sympathy at all' for rioters

On the one hand, I'm glad to give Obama one cheer - maybe even two - for giving no slack to the Ferguson rioters when he addressed the matter on Tuesday during a Chicago appearance:

The president said burning cars and buildings won't result in fairer enforcement of laws or diminish discrimination. He said destructive actions are criminal acts and those responsible should be prosecuted. "I have no sympathy at all," he said.

Those are the right words at least insofar as he is dealing with the perpetrators of the rioting. Of course, that's easy for him to say in the abstract. He doesn't have to make arrests, gather evidence, bring charges, conduct trials. Yeah, criminals should be prosecuted. Hopefully when the times comes for any of these trials - assuming any ever happen - Obama's political allies will reman as committed to the idea that convictions and prison sentences are appropriate. But there is a bigger problem here. In the same address in which he said violence does not accomplish anything, he also said this:

Instead, he said the anger over the decision in the case involving officer Darren Wilson and 18-year-old Michael Brown should be directed into political action to change the system. "The frustrations that we've seen are not just about a particular incident," Obama said before giving a speech about immigration. "They have deep roots." Obama, the nation's first black president, said that many in minority communities feel they aren't treated fairly "and it's not just made up." He promised to work with "those people who are constructively moving forward" to make changes.

---

Now let's consider the full context of events here. Obama has just made a promise - and I know, he makes lots of promises, many of them mean not a thing - to make changes to the criminal justice system. What is it that has prompted this promise? It is the decision of a grand jury not to indict a police officer because, according to the evidence, the officer acted in accordance with procedure when he fired his weapon in self-defense against a man who had just committed a robbery. Can someone explain to me what calls for change here? As far as I can see, rioters are upset simply because of the respective races of each participant in this conflict, and they wanted an indictment simply because the shooter was white. They are not engaging in any intelligent discussion of the evidence or of the law. They're reacting emotionally to a media narrative by throwing things, committing vandalism and burning down other people's property. They're not even making a substantive case for "changes", so what changes exactly does Obama think need to be made? Or he is promising to make changes just because there are mobs rioting in the streets? And if that's the case, how can you really argue that the rioters are not going to accomplish anything by rioting? It sure looks to me like they are. They riot. The president promises changes. And all because the law was followed and a man was not indicted in a situation where evidence did not suggest he should be. That doesn't call for change. That's how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. If anything is changed here, it will be precisely because the president rewarded the rioters after saying riots are no way to bring about change.