I’ve not yet written anything about the situation in Ferguson, Missouri for the simple reason that I haven’t had to. On stories like this, that’s the singular luxury of not having to fill column inches or airtime — you simply don’t have to speak up until you have something to say. I’ve often thought that’s the poverty of 24-hour cable news — when the red lights comes on, you start talking, whether or not you have anything intelligent to say and whether or not you have a clue in hell as to the facts of the story you’re supposed to be covering (I’ve just described CNN’s business model).

As the situation presently stands, we still seem to have remarkably little information about the shooting of Michael Brown. It’s plausible that information yet to come out may either vindicate the outrage over the incident or demonstrate at least some measure of culpability on Brown’s behalf. Those who are leaning strongly towards one side or the other are probably telling us more about their ideological priors than about the case itself. Still, a few words deserve to be said about some of the events that have followed in the wake of the shooting.

— Ricochet was littered last week with posts decrying the militarization of law enforcement, a trend that’s been on display in Ferguson, but one that the libertarian right in particular has been calling attention to for years now. (This is only part of a broader trend of civic-police disconnect: I believe I’m on record as noting that, in America, the indiscriminate killing of family dogs is probably the most expedient route by which law enforcement can lose the public trust).