Prejudice is a prejudgment. Generally such prejudgments are formed without proper examination of facts. This is how the word is most often used. Such prejudice or prejudgment is wrong. However, prejudgments are, at times, formulated upon the history of behavior associated with a particular group. For example, it is common to hear people say that rich people are bad. If incidents of corruption, greed, conniving and selfishness are too often identified among rich people, this group earns themselves a reputation. This does not justify the conclusion that all rich people are bad. It must, however, be seen that repeated or common behavior among a certain group of people earns them a reputation which forms the foundation for prejudgments, right or wrong.
Enter Ferguson, Missouri. Is it conceivable that prejudice of the first type mentioned inspired people to determine what the verdict of the grand jury should have been, prior to examination of evidence or evaluation of witnesses? Is it possible that prejudgments of the second type are now being more firmly established in light of the violent, unproductive and destructive behavior demonstrated in Ferguson in response to the verdict? Does destroying the property of a hard-working business owner indicate such people (the perpetrators) have a concern for justice? What kind of reputation has been earned with this behavior?
 Knowing how people think (or don’t think), let me clarify that I do not hold the view that rich people are bad and this article is not about my view of rich people.