The Instigator
Dilara
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Dorion Johnson (a witness in the shooting of Michael brown) should go to jail for lying.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 76313
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Dilara

Pro

Round 1. Acceptance and Introduction/opening arguments
Round 2. Main arguments
Round 3. Rebuttals
Round 4. Closing arguments
Dorion Johnson is a 23 year old man who is well known for witnessing the self defense shooting of Michael brown. He helped Michael brown rob a store and has recently been arrested for drug dealing. In other words this man is a criminal. But those crimes are nothing compared to what he did last summer, just minutes after robbing the convenience store. Dorion Johnson lied to police about the death of Michael brown. Several times. He a initially told us that brown was shot in the back. When three autopsies showed that brown was shot in the front Johnson changed his story and claimed brown was shot while surrendering with his hands up. Unfortunately many People took the word of a criminal over the word of a police officer with no disciplinary charges on his record, most likely because it promoted their race baiting agenda. People ignored the basic principal of innocent until proven guilty and decided that Wilson was guilty of cold blooded murderer based on the word of a criminal. Instead of being responsible and waiting for more evidence to come out People took to the streets over something that later turned our to have been a justified act of self defense. Finally a couple months ago the DOJ released a 102 page report on the ferguson PD. The DOJ admitted that brown was shot out of self defense, that Wilson was justified in shooting brown and that brown didn't has his hands up when he was shot. The repot also found that many witnesses including Johnson lied, as their stores weren't supported by physical evidence and changed several times.
Simply put Dorion Johnson ruined the life of an innocent man by spreading a lie. Darren Wilson can not go anywhere in public. There are many thugs who want him dead. People are calling him a racist murderer based in a self defense act. All that, based on a lie. Not only did Johnson ruin Darren Wilson's life, he also is partially responsible for ending the life of Zemir Begic, a 32 year old Bosnian American who was hammered to death by a group of black and Hispanic teens who yelled "kill white people" and had recently attended a Michael Breton rally. Johnson's lie also caused the death of two NYPD officers who were shot by a violent thug last year as revenge for brown and garner.
In my next argument I will describe the DOJs findings, the affects of Johnson's lie and why Johnson should be tried for perjury.
Wylted

Con

I take it round one is for acceptance. So I accept.

This next statement is an aside and not necessary, but I feel like it should be said. I do believe that Darren Wilson was justified in the shooting of Michael Brown. That's not to say there isn't problems of racism with-in the police department in that locality, but there are atleast a few unjustified police shootings a year, and it's really easy to race bait with the other ones, so it is a mystery to me why they'd choose to give attention to one shooting that is justified.

With that aside, Dorion Johnson should not be persecuted for perjury, for giving a story that doesn't line up with the evidence. If we locked people up for having stories that don't line up with the physical evidence in these adrenaline fueled use of force situations, we'd have to lock up virtually everybody who has been in those types of situations. As you will see, it is hard to differentiate between a lie and being mistaken in these situations, even with extremely big mixup a with the facts.
Debate Round No. 1
Dilara

Pro

Thank you.
I was talking to my friend the other day and my friend brought p the possibility that Johnson was told what to say or even threatened. This makes sense as he does not appear to be the sharpest toll in the shed. As someone who followed the story closely I know that this is unlikely. Johnson initially told us that brown was shot in the back. when this turned a\out to be false he changed his story. Johnstons lie did not only ruin Wilsons life, but too the lives of three people.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://nypost.com...
Johnson should at the very least be tried for purgery
Wylted

Con

Memory in Use of Force Situations

It's amazing how the mind works in situations that are high stress, when adrenaline is in full force. I remember a fatal accident I was in. I was driving along and a car passed in front of me, pulling out from a parking lot, while I was going 55mph. My vision got extremely narrow, only seeing the truck and knowing impact was inevitable. Everything seemed to move in extremely slow motion. It was as if I had hours to think about, what I would do in those few seconds. I hit the brakes, not to avoid the crash, but to slow the impact by only 1 or 2 mph, knowing that any ease in impact could reduce the chances of injury or fatality for all involved, had I known the crash was into a getaway car from a robbery, I may have stepped on the gas harder, but that information didn't come until much later, in the mean time I had no ideal whether this was an accident or whether I had just committed vehicular manslaughter. Everything was fuzzy. When I went to dial my Fiance, my fingers doubled in size, and I couldn't seem to press two buttons on my cellphone to get ahold of her. Fortunately some bystander knew how to operate a cell phone and made the call for me.

The reason I bring this up, is because many people reading this have been through high stress, adrenaline pumping scenarios. The brain works funny when recalling these events, maybe you didn't have time slow down, maybe it speed up. Maybe you got tunnel vision, maybe not. Some people lose hearing during these moments, some make better decisions, some make worse. I. Studies looking at officers memories in use of force situations, the following has been determined; "In another study a researcher surveyed law enforcement personnel over a 6-year period after their involvement in a shooting. She found that more than 60 percent experienced the incident in slow motion, while 17 percent recalled the pace speeding up. Almost 90 percent of the officers reported auditory lockout, and 16 percent heard intensified sounds. Similarly, more than 70 percent reported experiencing heightened clarity of vision and responding to the threat not with conscious thought, but, rather, while on "autopilot." Forty percent claimed disassociation"an altered state of consciousness commonly characterized as detachment from one"s emotions, body, or immediate surroundings"while 46 percent reported memory loss." http://leb.fbi.gov...

Officers have a special advantage in recalling use of force incidents. They're questioned after some passing of time, because studies have indicated that these high stress incidents are more accurately recalled after a few days has passed. Unfortunately, average citizens don't have the same advantages. They are questioned immediately after these incidents, and the are more likely to be inaccurate in how they report the incident. http://www.forcescience.org...

Memory issues can get extremely big in use of force scenarios not only for cops, but all involved. Take for example the following; "Wyatt had stated that the van had traveled "approximately fifty feet" in "less than ten" and possibly "less than five" seconds and was going about "50 miles per hour" when he shot the driver. As an "unbuckled passenger in a fast-moving vehicle driven by an escaping suspect," he felt he was in immediate and significant threat of death or serious injury.

However, the plaintiff's lawyer argued that "Wyatt's story fails to hold together." By Wyatt's own estimates, the attorney calculated, the van actually had to have been traveling so slowly that he could not have been in jeopardy. In her brief, the lawyer pointed out that a vehicle that travels 50 ft. in 10 seconds would have an average speed of only 3.4 mph.

One judge in the appellate panel seized on this "glaring inconsistency" to conclude that Wyatt's "self-serving account" was "physically impossible." He wrote: "Nobody should mistake 3.4 miles per hour for 50. If the time period is cut to five seconds, the average speed only increases to 6.8 miles per hour. That is hard to mistake for 50 miles per hour, as well."

If Wyatt was inside a vehicle that, in reality, "might have been slowly rolling forward," the judge wrote, "a reasonable jury might conclude" that his shooting the driver dead was "unreasonable." He voted in favor of kicking the case back to the district level for trial.

The majority of the panel, however, upheld the summary judgment. Given the circumstances, the majority ruled, the use of force by Wyatt and his partner was "not excessive or disproportionate to the quickly escalating situation." As a captive inside an accelerating car with a resistant subject at the wheel, the officer was clearly in jeopardy, and the "absolute certainty of harm need not precede an act of self-protection."

As to the "inconsistency" of Wyatt's recollections of time and distance, these should be regarded merely as "rough estimates," the prevailing justices said. Revealing a fundamental understanding of the effect of extreme stress on memory, the court noted: "It would be surprising if an officer could recount precise quantitative details about an incident which took mere seconds" to occur. "A minor inconsistency in officer testimony does not alone create a dispute of material fact"


These situations are quite common, we'll see huge discrepancies of what actually occurred and memory recall in use of force scenarios. If we charged everyone with perjury who incorrectly recalled events, than we'd have to charge everyone who has ever been in a use of force scenario.

One of the reasons, it is pretty rare for a prosecutor to file perjury charges, is because the prosecutor must prove that an individual intentionally lied. If the individual is mistaken than perjury has not been committed. With the high amount of stress involved in use of force scenarios, and the memory problems so common and associated with them, the charge should be extremely rare and certainly not used in the case my opponent mentions.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Dilara

Pro

I understand your argument. I find it hard to believe that Johnson, a thug who helped brown assault someone, robbed a store and was recently caught with drugs, didn't lie. How does one remember confuse a memory being shot in the back and a memory of seeing someone with their hands up? Johnson should have remembered what happened by the time he was asked again--after 3 autopsies showed he lied get first time. There needs to be a trial and he needs to go through what he put Wilson through.
Wylted

Con

I don't have a lot of time, but I don't need it. My opponent has dropped all of my arguments for the most part, but I'll respond in a generic fashion to some of the statements.

Being a liar isn't sufficient to charge somebody in a crime. Part of the reason is, because they're presumed innocent. Even if somebody is a proven liar, their memories still suffer from the same problems in use of force scenarios. So a liar is just as likely to have bad recall as an honest person. Another problem with my opponent's argument, is that he isn't even arguing that the dude should be prosecuted because of the incorrect statement. My opponent is arguing that Dorian should be charged because of completely unrelated crimes and non crimes.

The non crimes aren't crimes and he should clearly not be punished for that. The crimes for other things, he can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to commit, he should be prosecuted for.

Charging him for perjury, because he's a thief is silly. He should be charged with theft for stealing.

Charging somebody, merely for getting details wrong while involved in a use of force scenario, is bad because practically everyone has warped memories after these events.

Thanks to my opponent and I look forward to their upcoming concession.
Debate Round No. 3
Dilara

Pro

Johnson should be tried for purgery. He should be charged with theft too. He ruined Wilson's life and caused the murderer of zemir begic, a 32 hear old bosnian man who was hammered to death by a group of black and Hispanic teens who yelled kill white people and went to a pro mike brown rally.
Wylted

Con

Vote con. All of my arguments have been dropped and pro is arguing the ridiculous notion that a man should be charged with the crimes of some vigilante mob, he clearly has no control over.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Siladheil 1 year ago
Siladheil
DilaraWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: My vote goes to Con. Con gave a compelling argument and continued to follow his argument with sources and handily refuted all of Pro's points while Pro dropped off the radar after round two and started throwing out an opinion without sources or facts. Pro failed to rebuttal any of Cons arguments and thus Con's arguments stand.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
DilaraWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro dropped nearly every argument raised by Con, and instead simply kept re-iterating his initial points. Since Pro dropped all of Con's arguments including memory under stress, Con was left standing unchallenged for a majority of the debate. On the flip side, Con was also able to rebut the points raised by Pro, showing how perjury isn't applicable to his other crimes and how his mistakes aren't punishable under perjury. Pro needed to show how his mistakes were indeed lies, and just fell short of doing so. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources aimed at providing additional context rather than providing proof, and thus balance each-other out.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
DilaraWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's round 2 argument was partially ignored by Pro, at least the part which was relevant to the resolution. In that round, Con gives clear reasons as to why Dorion Johnson should not necessarily go to jail for lying, delving into the difficulty involved with solidifying a perjury charge. Whilst it seems true that what Johnson said was wrong, Con's explanation also shows how Johnson might have not actually been lying, in the sense of lying intentionally. So, because Con argued without contention that perjury is very difficult to affirm in a court of law, and Pro didn't respond to this crucial point, I'm left with the conclusion that Johnson shouldn't necessarily go to jail, which does not affirm the resolution, so Con wins arguments.