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

Officer Darren Wilson Should Have Been Indicted

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 66727
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




There was enough evidence to at least take aspects of the case to trial. This is not a racial issue. This is not about political agenda's. This is about the simple fact a teenager was murdered in broad daylight.
15 witnesses say Brown had his hands in the air when the last shot was fired, 2 do not. Officer Wilson says he was in fear for his life "It was like a 5 year old vs. Hulk Hogan" but was not bleeding and did not have any visible facial injuries (besides a dime sized pink mark).
This is not about personal opinion. I am not saying he was guilty of murder.. but there was certainly enough evidence to warrant a trial. I find it hard to believe that there is anyone out there who thinks a cop can shoot at the back of a teenager as he runs away, kill him, and face no repercussions.


I accept this challenge and will provide some structure to this debate.

Resolution; Officer Darren Wilson should have been Indicted.

Round 1- preface
Round 2-cases ( no refuting this round.( doing so will result in loss of conduct.))
Round 3- refutation
Round 4- closing conclusions ( no new information, conduct rules apply here as well.)

BOP rests with pro.

This resolution is obviously related to the case of Michael Brown being shot by officer Wilson thereby dieing. In this debate I will prove that many threads could easily have ripped to threaten any case a prosecution could bring forth. I will prove eye witness statements to be unreliable due to the changing stories of Dorian Wilson and who was actually there. Autopsy results are consistent with Darren Wilson's story as well. We also have to add into the equation that he robbed a store earlier. There is simply no compelling argument to indict officer Wilson for simply doing his job within full legal scope allowed to him. Next round I will explain in depth. The only way pro can win is if HE/She proves the officer to have done something illegal. Emphasis on the word prove.
Debate Round No. 1


"The only way pro can win is if HE/She proves the officer to have done something illegal. Emphasis on the word prove."

Con has already deviated from the topic of the debate. This debate is about a grand jury indictment, not a guilty verdict from a jury.. There for I do not need to PROVE anything. What I need to do is show there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed by Darren Wilson. Not a murder, but a crime.

- I will start by highlighting inconsistencies in Darren Wilson's account.

1.) "I was doing the, just scrambling, trying to get his arms out of my face and him from grabbing me and everything else. He turned to his...if he's at my vehicle, he turned to his left and handed the first subject. He said, "here, take these." He was holding a pack of "" several packs of cigarillos which was just, what was stolen from the Market Store was several packs of cigarillos. He said, "here, hold these" and when he did that I grabbed his right arm trying just to control something at that point. Um, as I was holding it, and he came around, he came around with his arm extended, fist made, and went like that straight at my face with his...a full swing from his left hand." - Darren Wilson
- We are to believe it is logical that in the midst of attacking a police officer through a window of an SUV that Brown turned to his friend, paused, said "Here, Hold these", and then proceeded to hit the officer again. He didn't just drop them on the ground while "attacking" the officer, but took the time to pause and pass them to his friend in the midst of the alleged altercation.

2.) "I felt that another one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse. I mean it was, he"s obviously bigger than I was and stronger and the, I"ve already taken two to the face I didn"t think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right." - Darren Wilson
- Do the injuries in the image below even remotley look consistent with a man who has been punched twice in the face and one punch away from being killed? Can you show me where the swelling, lacerations, and bruises are?

It is very hard to imagine how the officer could look this way given his account of what happened. One punch away from death but not bleeding, broken facial bones, or bruises.

3.) "His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me." - Darren Wilson

Not only is this incredibly inconsistent with how a human runs, but it is incredibly inconsistent with eye witness testimony. Out of the 18 witnesses, 16 say Brown had his hands in the air when fired upon. These 16 include two white contractors that had no ties to Ferguson and no racial biased.

If Wilson's injuries are not consistent with his testimony, how can he have logically been in fear for his life. No matter what he say's happened, it is nearly impossible to see how he was one punch away from death. Given the size of Brown, it is nearly impossible to believe 2 of his punches (Of near fatal strength) could leave no injury.

If he was not in fear for his life, and Brown's hands were up when he was killed, there is probable cause to believe Wilson committed involuntary manslaughter. (at least)

an Indictment is not a verdict of guilt.. it simply means a case goes to trial. The inconsistencies of Wilson coupled with the eye witness accounts of the moment he was killed are sufficient to warrant a trial.



First lets define the standard for an indictment.

An indictment is a formal accusation of a felony, issued by a grand jury based upon a proposed charge. It is the grand jury's determination that there is enough evidence that the defendant committed the crime to justify having a trial voted by a grand jury. In order to issue an indictment, the grand jury doesn't make a determination of guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed, that the accused person did it and that he/she should be tried.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment of a Grand Jury…." . Therefore grand juries are often used in charging federal crimes.

A prosecutor uses the grand jury as a test to see if the case is strong enough to convince a jury. If they cant convince a grand jury then its very likely that the case is not good enough to charge someone with a felony. Unless the prosecutor can prove a felony was committed then a grand jury will not issue an indictment. My stance is that the case of pro is not sufficient enough to charge officer Wilson with a felony. We cannot use simply probable cause in a felony murder case. Probable cause is used when making a determination to search someone. Not for murder cases. Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt must be established in such cases.

Witness statements match Wilson's defense.

according to..

"The unidentified witness wrote that the 18-year-old Brown “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.”The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn't’t stop.”
This is also a description on Michael browns stats. 6’ 4”, 292-pounds.

witnesses saw him leaning into the window of the police car. They saw some kind of struggle. They heard a gunshot fired and they saw Michael Brown start running away.

Wilsons statement, "Wilson said, “…it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots…I tell him to get on the ground, get on the ground, he still keeps coming at me…I know if he reaches me, he’ll kill me…(his one hand) is in his waistband under his shirt…”

The story adds up.
The medical examiner explained that he saw what appeared to be “soot” in the wound, which was consistent with a shot from close range, the ME thought that the soot would be indicative of the gun that fired the bullet causing the wound having been only 6 to 9 inches away. Consistent to Wilson's claim that brown was trying to grab the gun. The examiner also states that browns injuries to his head and arms were made from brown being in a slightly downward position. Consistent to Wilson's story of brown charging towards him. Forensics also found in Wilson’s car skin tissue that appeared to be from Michael Brown’s thumb. The interior left front door of Wilson’s car also had DNA from Michael Brown on it.

I could give numerous examples of Darren Wilson's defense being substantiated. The prosecution simply cannot fight hard physical evidence. In order for a grand jury to indict an individual their must be an agreement beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony was committed. Frankly the prosecution cannot come up with the evidence it needs for a conviction therefore an indictment is useless. I cannot say what actually happened but I can say what the evidence says and the evidence says that Officer Daren Wilson acted in his legal scope of practice.

Below I will post the standard of gun use by police according to...

Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.

An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.

Michael brown earlier robbed a store and had the potential to cause harm to the officer by attempting to grab his gun and assaulting him. The use of a gun was definitely warranted in this case. Therefore Officer Darren Wilson cannot be indicted.
Debate Round No. 2


BillionBrainCells forfeited this round.


frozen_eclipse forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


BillionBrainCells forfeited this round.


pro forfeited so con wins
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
i guess ill do this to shut people up.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by cwt002 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Definitely gave more support and used evidence to defeat pro
Vote Placed by LDPOFODebATeR0328 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had less amount of forfeits.