Micheal Brown deserved to be shot.

[Chad32]

Maybe with a taser for running away, but not with real bullets. You don't use real bullets on an unarmed person trying to escape. If you really feel that threatened by someone, as the cop described feeling like a five year old holding on to Hulk Hogan, he should turn in his badge. He is not fit to be a cop.

[Strider]

It is my opinion that he deserved to be shot. I think if someone is crazy enough to attack an armed policeman they deserve to be shot. I know it's not a popular opinion.


I also believe in other cases where a police officer has killed someone with no reason they deserved to be charged for murder but I don't think this was one of those cases.
If a policeman breaks a guys arm they should be fired and charged for GBH.
If a guy robs a store using intimidation and violence then walks down a street and from what I heard he attacks a police officer then yeh I think that deserves a shooting.

Police officers are trained to use an appropriate level of force. Even if a police officer is an a physical altercation, his first recourse should absolutely not be to shoot a person dead. Hell, they have ASP batons, pepper spray, tasers that fire at a reasonably long distance, but he had no other option than to kill him?

I'm not contending that Brown was an angel. That's inconsequential though. You can't kill somebody for being a shitty member of society. I say the cop had other options and chose the most lethal one first. He was in the wrong.

[Losty]

Police officers have plenty of nonlethal alternatives. I guess I should reaffirm my position here, I don't think he deserved to be shot dead. Shoot him in the leg/knee/shoulder if your only option is to use a firearm. There are plenty of ways to stop a person that don't include shooting said person six times, twice in the head. He didn't deserve that.

I don't know that he deserved to be shot in the first place, but once the decision to shoot was made I think most officers are trained to shoot to kill.

[FatAndFaithless]

Most officers are trained to shoot for center of mass because targeting specifically an arm or leg is extremely hard to do in any situation that isn't a totally stationary officer and target in a shooting range, and can lead to a lot of missed shots that have a high potential of hitting unintentional targets.

Thing is, I understand the limitations of accuracy when a firearm is used and the possible collateral damage and unintended injuries, so a cop should be trained to only shoot if they have the intention of killing the suspect. I honestly don't think Wilson exhausted the reasonable line of action up to the point where pounding a dozen rounds at an unarmed man would be justified.

[popeyespappy]

No one deserves to be shot. However we as a society have decided that there are circumstances when it is acceptable for one person to shoot another.

Were Michael Brown's actions in the minutes preceding his death a contributing factor in Darren Wilson's decision to shoot? Yes. If Michael Brown had reacted passively when confronted by Darren Wilson he would most likely still be alive today.

Was Darren Wilson's use of deadly force against Michael Brown justified? Well that's the real question isn't it?

The majority position of the grand jury that heard the case against Darren Wilson was that the use of deadly force was justified. The evidence presented to the grand jury is now public record. The volume of the information presented to the grand jury appears to be larger than what they would typically get. Was there something in there that shows the grand jury came to the wrong decision? If there was I have not seen it, but I haven't read the entire record either. However the DA's office has complete control over the evidence presented to the grand jury. As such it is possible for the DA's office to manipulate the evidence in such a way as to increase the likelihood of a desired decision. Did that happen in this case? Is there evidence that was not presented to the grand jury that might have caused them to reach a different decision? There could be but once again I haven't seen it if there is.

[Tonus]

I do think that cops need to be trained to back off in more situations. The risks of hurting or killing someone unnecessarily are too high, and the odds that something will go wrong increase when the situation becomes more and more stressful. It should also be noted that one of the things that "went wrong" in the Ferguson shooting is that after being shot and no longer being a threat, the victim was left on the street for four hours before an ambulance was called. Which to me is murder.

[abaris]

Unarmed man, no way. Simple as that.

[paulpablo]

It is my opinion that he deserved to be shot. I think if someone is crazy enough to attack an armed policeman they deserve to be shot. I know it's not a popular opinion.


I also believe in other cases where a police officer has killed someone with no reason they deserved to be charged for murder but I don't think this was one of those cases.
If a policeman breaks a guys arm they should be fired and charged for GBH.
If a guy robs a store using intimidation and violence then walks down a street and from what I heard he attacks a police officer then yeh I think that deserves a shooting.

Police officers are trained to use an appropriate level of force. Even if a police officer is an a physical altercation, his first recourse should absolutely not be to shoot a person dead. Hell, they have ASP batons, pepper spray, tasers that fire at a reasonably long distance, but he had no other option than to kill him?

I'm not contending that Brown was an angel. That's inconsequential though. You can't kill somebody for being a shitty member of society. I say the cop had other options and chose the most lethal one first. He was in the wrong.

I agree with everything you're saying although I still think he probably deserved to be shot just based on what I've seen which admittedly isn't much but it's all I have to go on which is why I voted for probably.

The situation as I see it is there's one huge guy, and another guy with dreadlocks and neck tattoos, they go into a store, intimidate everyone who gets in their way, steal, walk out into the middle of the street get in trouble with the police and one of them gets shot.

Admittedly a lot of my judgement is based on how they look and act. Not for being black, but even here in england I don't have a high opinion of guys who walk around like gangsters with neck tattoos bullying people and stealing. It doesn't matter if they're white black or asian. I wish more of those types of people would get shot to death here in England personally.

I could be wrong though it could just be my bias against people who seem to be wanna be gangsters. No offense to anyone with a neck tattoo by the way it's just my opinion that they make you look like a bit of a scumbag.

[Minimalist]

If Michael Brown had reacted passively when confronted by Darren Wilson he would most likely still be alive today.

If Mike Brown were white, would Wilson have hassled him for jaywalking?

[polar bear]

Michael Browns mistake was that he brought his fist's to the cops gun fight. If you punch a cop you should get punched back...not shot jeeeez