The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

I feared for my life so I killed an unarmed person

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 81790
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This is my first time. Hopefully I wont make myself look supid. But I really want to hear other people's stances on this.
Okay... Its a shame that at least once a week you see a video o hear of a police officer killing someone. With the same played out excuse of I feared for my life as to justify a murder. I feel like us as citizens should be worried by this because they are trained to deal with situations like this. Knowing policeman have atleast 3 other options instead lethal force, why cant they explain their actions instead of pulling the "I feared for my life.


Well the first thing you have to realize is that the media is very skewed to the left and loves to report on police shootings. It makes it even better for the media when it happens to be an unarmed black man. Also, they're trained to use nonlethal force only when the suspect does not pose as a deadly threat. In the case of the Michael Brown shooting, he did pose as a deadly threat. No person is prepared to deal with a six foot four, 290 pound man charging at you.

I've also never heard the quote, "I feared for my life." If you could pull up an article of an officer saying that, that would be great.

Officers are trained to protect those who are innocent. If you don't commit a crime, there's no need to worry. It's sad that you don't hear about the stories of an officer helping a black man, or when there was a clear reason for the cop to use deadly force. That doesn't play into what the media's beliefs are so they just happen not to report those stories.
Debate Round No. 1


I am fully aware of what media reports and understand why they do it. I've always believed it to not be a white vs black thing. Of course the media wants it to be that. that's irrelevant because we both agree the media doest help. In the case you referenced, yes Mr.Brown was 6'4 290 but let's be clear Darren Wilson wasn't a small guy himself. So as far your argument for nt being able to deal with browns size is your opinion. Wilson was 6'4 210-250 from what I've read. All you have to do is Google police use of fear for my life. You'll find plenty articles. Yes It is easy to say that if you don't commit a crime then you don't have to worry. But in case like Freddie gray which in he wasn't shot he didn't do anything. He ran from police. It wasn't a traffic stop he was minding his business. So it doesn't matter at any give time you could have a run in. Just basically you match the description. just because you used him. I do agree the media won't report stories of good police compared to questionable police.

One more thing just s theory I've been think about. Say you sit in your car or doing what ever. You are a licenced ccw holder. An unidentified person/persons approaches you aggressively gun drawn in you shoot them. The unidentified person was a cop do we as citizens have the right to claim we felt threatened or feared for our life. Its well documented of the use of the phrase.


The two were the same height, but I've only seen Wilson reported as 210 pounds. Still a big guy, but 80 pounds is quite a big difference. After Michael Brown's case, it was proven that he did in fact reach into Officer Wilson's car, assault him, then reach for his firearm. I'm having a hard time thinking of someone who wouldn't fear for their lives. This video shows that Brown started charging back at Wilson.

In Freddie Gray's case, I don't think that pertains to your argument. That was just one instance of police abusing their authority.

And that's an interesting question. Police have dashcams now, and the, by law, show their badge to prove they're not an impostor. If a man or woman not in uniform pulled a gun on me, and did not show their badge, I as a citizen protecting myself can shoot to kill. The court would be able to prove that if all the evidence fits that description.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes he was cleared of charges but based on what you said about their training. In any story I've read he never tried the non leathal way. We as citizens would fear for our lives but they are trained for this. It may be a training problem. I understand they are still human. But they are not on the front lines with marines fighting terrorism. Were I believe they should shoot first ask questions later. This the us I don't believe they be so quick to shoot an unarmed person. I have a few links for you to review. Some were police unjust shootings And some justified(persay)
The last link is is the most recent I've read about. I feel it will be unjust. Based off the specifics.

I have one more link for you pertaining to the last question I asked you
We just want some accountability for the police. I personally think we need to repair this relationship. We can't do it by ourselves. I appreciate this debate.


In all these cases, the shootings were reviewed and the court gave the punishments or not. In Magee's case, he was considered innocent due to the facts that were in place. I'm sure that will also happen with Guy's case. However, in the case of any shooting, there will be a court case in place to prove the innocence or guilt of a certain person. You can't just drop charges from any sort of murder and that applies to anyone.

In accordance to the "gawker" article, the evidence of that case showed that it was an airsoft gun, but the child took off the orange tip to prove it was fake. This was an extremely sad case, but airsoft guns are scarily realistic in the sense that they're modeled after real guns and made of metal as well. The child pointed the gun at the officer and that's when he got shot. It's really a tragic case, but children aren't innocent from horrific crimes either.

This is why "shoot to kill" is acceptable. However, I feel as if you're straying from your initial argument which was police officers using the excuse, "I feared for my life." The one story that had that was the Michael Brown case, and yes he didn't use nonlethal force. But you have to realize that non lethal force doesn't always work and if a man with clear, violent intents, is charging at you, you must protect yourself. Wilson wasn't "so quick" to shoot. He tried to chase after Brown, but when Brown turned around, Wilson shot. And he shot multiple times. In the YouTube video, the man recording said that Wilson was shooting, but he thought Wilson was missing because Brown kept charging. So if Brown didn't react to bullet wounds, do you think he would react more to a taser?
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 11 months ago
If the person had arms, then they were not unarmed, fools.
Posted by Dgriff 11 months ago
Thank you. Understood
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bosoxfaninla 12 months ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to be off topic at times, the question was regarding whether self defense against someone who may be unarmed is justifiable when said person is fearing for their life. Both sides presented interesting points although I could have seen this debate go either way. Pro had better grammar and Con made a number of grammatical errors. Quick note to con, I suggest in the future to not use as a source.