The Instigator
Ja50n
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
YaHey
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

The decision to not indict Officer Darren Wilson was justifiably correct

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
Ja50n
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,461 times Debate No: 65840
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (6)

 

Ja50n

Pro

1st round acceptance
2nd round arguments
3rd round arguments and rebuttals
4th round conclusions

No Racism or abusive language
No trolling

As I'm still quite inexperience please no bombarding of information.
Note: I'm not saying the death of Michael Brown is not justifiable, it is sad that a young man like him has departed. But I feel inclined to inform people why the decision was made about the indiction trial.
YaHey

Con

I accept the debate and will attempt to shot that Darren Wilson should have, at the very least, been indicted.
Debate Round No. 1
Ja50n

Pro

As someone who has only studied law for 1 semester, my terminology maybe incorrect and if so, please feel free to correct me
Darren Wilson was not indicted for a variety of factors.
The main factor was the defense team casting doubt on the actual case. As the prosecution has Burden of Proof, he/she is required to prove to the judge that the accused is proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" and that the accused has reasonable evidence against him. However, the witness' testimony throughout the trial noticeably changed as more physical evidence came to light. Also, there were conflicting witness testimony when the truth finally came to light that some witnesses simply made up their "evidence". (1) for example, the witness testimony's stating that Michael surrendered and raised his hands is false because he was found deceased with one of his hands in his waistband. (3) It seems highly unlikely, that when someone's shot, there hands would suddenly drop and miraculously slip underneath the shirt and into their pants/ shorts.

Another point is the forensic evidence already confirming certain parts of Wilson's testimony, for example, "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." (2) follows suit with the foresenic report "The deceased was lying in the prone position. His right arm was extended away from his side. His left arm was next to his side his lower arm was beneath his abdomen and his hand was
near the waist band of his shorts. " (3) This adds credibility to Darren's testimony giving it more credibility than other witness testimony's as that is the one true fact on what happened the night the crime happened.

What Darren could have been successfully charged with was severely limited. The options possible for him being charged include first degree murder, second degree murder or manslaughter. (5)
The first degree murder charge can easily be brushed aside due to the fact that evidence would be needed to prove that Wilson maliciously set out to murder Michael with clear motive and with mens rea. However, this is simply not true as Brown was called out to stop the attempted robbery conducted by Brown (4) and had no personal motive to murder Brown in anyway
Second degree murder can not be proven due to the statements of Michael charging at Darren, thus it would be acceptable circumstances to believe that the situation is life threatening when a bulky 18 year old graduate is preparing to shoulder charge you. The fact that Michael had the intention to cause grievous bodily harm towards Darren would definitely intimidate most policemen by themselves no matter how much experience they had. Due to the fact that Darren had fired multiple times at Michael should have caused him to run away or retreat. Due to Wilson firing multiple times with Michael showing no signs of retreat, it can be deduced that Michael clearly wanted to assault Darren even if he had a gun. Thus self defense would be a valid defense when defending Wilson (4)
Last of all manslaughter charges can be pressed however, i doubt that protesters would be satisfied with manslaughter charges, also, the same defense of self defense as it is still valid and there was no intention to kill when firing the shots initially as they were only warning shots.

(1) http://www.businessinsider.com...
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
(3) http://www.documentcloud.org...
(4) http://www.theatlantic.com...
(5) http://www.vox.com...
YaHey

Con

There is a saying in the legal world, that you could "indict a ham sandwich" showing just how easy it is to get someone charged from a grand jury. In fact, in 193,000 cases, 162,000 were prosecuted and only 11 weren't because the grand jury did not return an indictment(1). And in each grand jury case, there is always conflicting evidence and always problems. The purpose of a grand jury isn't to decide whether or not they are guilty, it is to decide whether or not they could be pursued.

But let's talk about the Grand Jury for a moment. Was it entirely fair? How about the fact that in a town where 67% of the population is black, only 3 black people were present on the jury? Something also interesting, 9 of those people were white, and only 9 votes are required for an indictment. But maybe you don't buy how that was unfair. The let's talk about the prosecutor, one Bob McCulloch himself. Did you know he has a fund raiser set up for officers of the law? And did you know that his charity held a fund raiser for Darren Wilson(2)? Sounds kind of like a conflict of interest? Even if this is not enough to show that this Grand Jury was rigged from the outset, then how about the fact that the jury was given an outdated statute that said an officer could shoot a fleeing subject (3)? Who gave the jury this outdated statute that was deemed unconstitutional in 1985? The prosecutor. Yes, the person that is supposed to try and indict Wilson misled the Jury so that Wilson could get off.

I was going to right this out in paragraph form, but there turns out to be just so many things that it belongs in a list.
Breaches of Protocols/Mistakes in Investigation: (4)
  1. Wilson, after the shooting, washed his hand of blood evidence. Michael Brown's blood, by the way. Wilson admitted he was not cut in any place.
  2. The officer to interview Wilson did not take any notes. They also did not record the conversation. His testimony of Wilson's account was given from memory.
  3. Wilson called that officer to go over his account again, which could have influenced his testimony.
  4. A medical examiner at the scene didn't take any measurements because they seemed "self explanatory".
  5. This same examiner didn't take any photographs because her camera batteries were dead.
  6. Wilson's gun was never checked fro fingerprints. As Wilson said Brown went for the gun, this was obviously something crucial to the investigation. I wonder why they didn't test the gun...
  7. Wilson bagged his own gun in evidence.
  8. Wilson's initial interview was delayed to go the hospital. Darren Wilson would testify that he didn't believe he needed to go to the hospital, though he would also say his life was potentially in danger from Brown hitting him. Hmm...
  9. Wilson's initial interview contradicts with his testimony. In the interview, he would say that he had no idea Brown was the suspect for the theft. When he got on the stand, however, he seemed to be very confident that Mike Brown was the robber and would even say he saw the cigarillos.

Does the evidence even support the account Darren Wilson gave? The experts disagree.

https://www.youtube.com...

Oh, and the National Bar Association is questioning the Grand Jury decision (5)
Sources:
1:http://www.washingtonpost.com...
2:http://www.addictinginfo.org...
3:http://www.vox.com...
4:http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
5:http://theurbandaily.com...;

Debate Round No. 2
Ja50n

Pro

"Wilson's initial interview was delayed to go the hospital. Darren Wilson would testify that he didn't believe he needed to go to the hospital, though he would also say his life was potentially in danger from Brown hitting him. "
This is not considered a breach of protocol because it is considered common to prioritize medical treatment over giving an interview. By deferring from protocols even in this scenario it does not directly intervene or change Wilson's testimony.

"Does the evidence even support the account Darren Wilson gave? The experts disagree."
http://www.youtube.com......
What the forensics person is stating is all hypothesized because he has no solid evidence that directly suggests that Michael Brown was shot prone. However. what we can defer from Wilson's testimony was that Michael bent over and charged at him. This fact corresponds with the autopsy report provided by the forensics person that Michael was shot twice in the head with the bullets entering parallel to the ground and twice in the arm and twice with the bullets in a downward trajectory in his chest. Thus it is plausible to hypothesis that Michael Brown was shot in the arms twice (his arm was sticking out and angled out due to him tucking it in his waistband) as warning shots. It is also important to note that the video stated that 2 bullets entered on the outer arm (outer arm meaning the side of the arm that's facing outwards when the arm is laid parallel to your body or the side where your elbow its), this fact correlates with the possibility that the bullets entered his arm when he was charging towards Wilson when his hand was tucked in his waistband when charging at Wilson. (Try it yourself, when facing someone tuck your hand in your shorts with your knuckles touching your hip and you'll find that the other person can only see your outer arm) Only when Wilson believed his life was in danger he fired shots aimed towards his head and because his head was bent over the bullets entered parallel into Michael's skull. The shots in the chest can be explained because Wilson may have missed a couple of times when Wilson aimed for Michael's head. because he was bent over when charging, the bullets appear to have gone straight but when Michael's body straightened it gave the impression of the bullet entering in a downward path.

"Oh, and the National Bar Association is questioning the Grand Jury decision (5)"
oh and your reference doesn't work so your claim is invalid

"Wilson's initial interview contradicts with his testimony. In the interview, he would say that he had no idea Brown was the suspect for the theft. When he got on the stand, however, he seemed to be very confident that Mike Brown was the robber and would even say he saw the cigarillos."
After looking briefly on the internet for this scenario, i find no sources stating this because without references this argument is invalid.

"This same examiner didn't take any photographs because her camera batteries were dead."
This is not a breach of protocol for police, cameras running out of battery does not change the evidence presented to the court as there are already pictures of the crime scene available on the internet which can be used in court.

" And in each grand jury case, there is always conflicting evidence and always problems."
Generally in a court case, the prosecution normally would be confident when trying to press charges and evidence presented would support the prosecutions claim entirely. If their is conflicting evidence or if the prosecution doubts that the accused would be indicted then there is a problem. Also please provide sources to back up your claim.

"Showing just how easy it is to get someone charged from a grand jury. In fact, in 193,000 cases, 162,000 were prosecuted
and only 11 weren't because the grand jury did not return an indictment(1)."
An interesting fact but i see no relevance between that statistic and the topic at hand.
YaHey

Con

Since I was never told that I could not, I am going to choose to make a rebuttal for both your second and third rounds.

Second Round:
"As the prosecution has Burden of Proof, he/she is required to prove to the judge that the accused is proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" and that the accused has reasonable evidence against him."

Actually, if the case were to go to court, then the evidence would have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a grand jury does not operate under this standard of proof. Instead, a prosecutor must show that there exists a case against the defendant. We are talking about a police officer, who should be trained to deal with unarmed suspects peacefully, killing an unarmed teenager, breaching protocol in several ways, and later stating that he has no remorse for what happened. In a fair universe where prosecutors that have serious levels of conflict of interest would not be chosen, Darren Wilson would have undoubtedly been indicted.

"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."

Um, what? I'm sorry, but did he just say that Mike Brown tucked one arm to the side and another in his pants? So, not only is this boy of similar height a "demon", "it", and "Hulk-Hogan", but he is also... a f*cking anime character? At this point Brown would have been shot several times, and yet this boy still posed a life threatening risk? This man is an officer of the law! What use are police officers if boys, not men, boys, that have been shot several times and is now 30 some feet away, can still pose a threat to his life. I don't buy the story. Nothing other than his hand was supposedly tucked into his shirt and Darren Wilson's testimony suggests that Brown actually made a run for him. And as for the forensic report? I could think of something else that would cause on arm to be outstretched and another to become possibly tucked into their shirt. Kneeling, with your arms up?

I agree that first degree murder isn't on the table; there is nothing to suggest that this murder was planned beforehand.
"Brown was called out to stop the attempted robbery conducted by Brown (4) and had no personal motive to murder Brown in anyway"

So... Brown was called out to stop the robbery conducted... by Brown? And then Brown shot himself? I think you mean Wilson, but even that doesn't hold up, as the robbery had nothing to do with the murder. To quote from source 1, "In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown.

You say that this shooting couldn't be second degree murder because some bull crap about a heavy set 18 year old that didn't participate in sports posing a threat from at least 35 feet away, but before I prove this could very well be 2nd degree, let's see what that just means. To quote from source #2, "Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life." I would argue that as this murder was not committed with a reasonable "heat of passion", that it would qualify for #1, but the second option is a definite fit. How, you ask? Darren Wilson didn't have a tazer (3).

As a police officer, one would at least suspect that a days work could involve a physical altercation, so having the tools to best deal with such a predicament would also be expected. Let's see, which tools are best for dealing with physical altercations in which the least amount of people die? Would it be a gun or a tazer? The thing pretty much invented to kill people, or the device kind of created to deal with a situation in which someone's child doesn't end up in a casket. But he had a good reason for not having that, right? Well, according to Mr. Wilson, he didn't have a tazer because they don't feel comfortable. Well, I wonder how comfortable bullets feel, Mr. Wilson?

Also, self defense is only valid when 1) you are in immediate danger (35 feet, buckaroo, to run away. There's also reason to believe Brown did run further than the 35 feet, as he was found somewhere around 150 feet away from the SUV [4]) and 2) when all other means have been exhausted. TAZER, ANYBODY?????

Round 3:

Darren Wilson stated that he didn't need medical treatment at all. Yes, the man who was just in a life threatening situation, said he didn't need medical treatment after said life threatening situation. And as it gave Wilson even more time to think, and as he rode with others, to coordinate, his story out.

Okay, well no, doing what that man did was kind of like his job. He had the same info but I guess had either more intelligence to properly understand what was going on or maybe he was less corrupted. Who knows? You still stick with this rather odd idea that Mike Brown, seemingly channelling the devil spirits that run through his body, placed his hand in his jeans because he's just so much better at running like that. Oh, and I did that little exercise, and I am pretty sure the bullet would have entered my stomach if I was shot in the arm like that. You're also kind of putting a lot of faith into the testimony of Darren Wilson, kind of the man that would benefit from getting off with this. This doesn't mean he's lying, but he also called an unarmed black teen that has been shot a couple of times a "demon", so...

Here's another source (again, source 5.) But I mean, seriously, you could just Google it. I'm not hiding the info; the Bar Association is calling BS on the entire grand jury.

"After looking briefly on the Internet for this scenario, I find no sources stating this because without references this argument is invalid." Jesus, if I had to count how many times you have presented conjectured "plausible" account of this, I'd be here all day. But if you're goanna demand a source, the read source 6.

"This is not a breach of protocol for police, cameras running out of battery does not change the evidence presented to the court as there are already pictures of the crime scene available on the Internet which can be used in court." Oh, because photos on the Internet have to be real, right? Like we're living in a post-photoshop world in which every photo on the Internet, especially by those untrained in taking reliable photos for a police investigation, can be used for said police investigation? Besides, protocol was breached. Just because someone makes up for your mistake, doesn't mean no mistake was made.

This isn't a court case. This is a grand jury, where the standard of evidence is significantly reduced.

My point in bringing up the statistic, was that not getting an indictment is so rare and so easy, that when an unarmed teenager is shot 30 feet away, and that of all things doesn't get an indictment? A black police officer recently got indicted for hitting a man with his baton, another great way to diffuse a situation in which someone doesn't die, and he got a federal charge (7). DARREN. WILSON. SHOT. SOMEBODY.

Source:
1. http://www.newsweek.com...
2. http://criminal.findlaw.com...
3. http://www.dailydot.com...
4. http://www.dailykos.com...
5. http://us7.campaign-archive1.com...
6. http://www.dailykos.com...
7. http://www.dailydot.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Ja50n

Pro

"What use are police officers if boys, not men, boys,"
Please don't twist definitions of boys and men. Legally Michael Brown was 18 years old when he was shot. The guy just recently graduated from college, he has had 18 years of deciphering what is right and wrong. Also, a boy is "a male child or youth." thus i believe that Michael doesn't fit this description.

"You're also kind of putting a lot of faith into the testimony of Darren Wilson, kind of the man that would benefit from getting off with this."
I'm not blindly putting faith in Darren Wilson's testimony. Like I said before, his testimony gains some credibility due to the forensic oexamination of the corpse crresponding with Wilson's given testimony at the time. (the hand tucked in the waistband)

"So... Brown was called out to stop the robbery conducted... by Brown? And then Brown shot himself? I think you mean Wilson, but even that doesn't hold up, "
I was not stating that the robbery had connection of the murder. The purpose of that statement was to justify that Wilson did not plan to murder Brown.

"heavy set 18 year old that didn't participate in sports"
I know this is a bit persistent, but please provide sources to prove he did not participate in sports.

"2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life."

Their are no psychology tests that show that Darren Wilson was not of sound mind when committing the crime so he did have some concern for human life because he did not fire the shots immediately, he fired the shots after he was assaulted. Also, Wilson was not dangerously acting as Wilson was physically assaulted before he fired shots (1) ended up with some physical injuries,

"35 feet, buckaroo, to run away."
10 meters away is considered sprint-able distance for most people. Thus it is perfectly reasonable to shoot in reflex when someone is charging towards you. (1)

"seemingly channelling the devil spirits that run through his body, "
I don't think anybody was saying that.

"placed his hand in his jeans because he's just so much better at running like that. "
Evidence shows he had marijuana in his system when the event happened. Thus, Michael was not of sound mind when deciding to charge at Wilson. (2)

" Oh, and I did that little exercise, and I am pretty sure the bullet would have entered my stomach if I was shot in the arm like that. "
that wasn't the point of the excercise, the point of the excercise was to prove that Michael could not have put his hands up in surrender. That would mean that he would expose the fleshier bit of his arm, and if that was the case, the fleshier part of his arm would have been shot, not the other half. Also, because shots entered the nonfleshier half of the arm, it corresponds to the forensic evidence and Wilson's testimony with the hand tucked in the waistband.

"Kneeling, with your arms up?"
Ditto argument above

"unarmed teenager is shot 30 feet away"
Like i've said, Michael did charge at Wilson and at the end Wilson shot him. Perhaps a deductible outcome was as Michael was charging at Wilson, He got close enough that Wilson shot many times out of reflex, thus making it seem he was shot 35 feet but in fact he was closer when the shots were fired and Michael was propelled back because of the shots.

"2) when all other means have been exhausted. TAZER, ANYBODY?????"
Whether police officers carry batons or guns, it is up to the individual to bring what they think is necessary with them, the fact that Darren went out of the office with a gun is not relevant to proving that he should be indicted.

(1) http://www.frontpagemag.com...
(2) http://reason.com...
YaHey

Con

"Legally Michael Brown was 18 years old when he was shot. The guy just recently graduated from college..." No. He graduated from high school, but this doesn't make him an adult. My point in phrasing it in such a way had more to do with how police see black teens and even toddlers as older than white ones. Black people are expected to grow up much more quickly than white people.

" he has had 18 years of deciphering what is right and wrong." Wrong again. He has lived 18 years but I don't think any of us can say that they could remember their entire life and that it all contributed to the upbringing of Mike Brown.

So Brown's hand was in his waistband, and thus his entire story must be taken as the truth?

"However, this is simply not true as Brown was called out to stop the attempted robbery conducted by Brown (4) and had no personal motive to murder Brown in anyway" I was making fun of how you said Mike Brown was called out to respond to a robbery conducted by Mike Brown and then Mike Brown shot Mike Brown.

To quote source 1, "
Trying to piece together the incident that killed Brown has been tough for his friends and family. Seeing Brown on the street, he looked intimidating. He was a big man. But he was not threatening, they said.

The county prosecutor said Brown had no adult criminal history. And Brown’s family didn’t think it was in his nature.

“We called him the gentle giant. He was a gentle giant,” said Charles Ewing, Brown’s uncle.

His family tried to get him to play football. Brown was too timid for the sport, Ewing said.

“He had never gotten into a fight in his entire life,” said Duane Finnie, a family friend.

At school, he was that kid who was full of jokes and trying to make others laugh."

I was saying NOT having a tazer on Wilson showed a disregard for human life, as it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than a tazer.

But you just said above that he showed a regard for human life by not shooting immediately, but this was a reflex shooting? This doesn't match up with what you said earlier, claiming he tried "warning shots".

Actually, it is well documented that Darren Wilson did call Mike Brown a "demon" during his testimony. I was being sarcastic when making fun of your theory, so I did take it further than what has been said, but I thought that was obvious.

Weed is a well known drug that relaxes a person. It does not put people in the state of mind to charge a cop (2).

"Like i've said, Michael did charge at Wilson and at the end Wilson shot him. Perhaps a deductible outcome was as Michael was charging at Wilson, He got close enough that Wilson shot many times out of reflex, thus making it seem he was shot 35 feet but in fact he was closer when the shots were fired and Michael was propelled back because of the shots." I'd like for us all to take a moment and appreciate what we are listening to right now. Mike Brown, a heavy set 18 year old, was shot six times, and his body was propelled backwards. Do... do I need to explain how stupid this is, or are we good?

The point is that Wilson made a conscious decision to not have a less deadly weapon with him, which is an egregious display of disregard for human life. He didn't know who he would have to deal with that day, but from the time he put on his bade he had already decided their life wasn't worth him feeling "uncomfortable".

Conclusion:

I think it must be mentioned again just how easy it is for a case to be indicted by a grand jury. There is a less than 1 percent chance that a grand jury will return with a no indictment, because their job isn't to determine the verdict of the accused, but to determine if a case exists against them. A cop shoots an unarmed teen to death? Even I could get an indictment from that. The grand jury isn't supposed to be given ALL of the evidence. They aren't supposed to hear the testimonies of every witness. The sessions shouldn't last for months. The cops shouldn't be given months to perfect their testimonies. The families shouldn't have to wait 110+ days to see if the lives of their sons, daughters, wives, and husbands are valued enough to be seen equally in the court of law.

The prosecutor had ties to the police force. There was a known conflict of interest. There were known breaches of protocol. He gave out an unconstitutional statute that stood uncorrected for 100+ days. A statute that could only ever serve to help Darren Wilson.

The police have been on Wilson's side from the firing of the first bullet. No, they've been on his side from the first time they handed him a badge. They released that Michael Brown was a suspect in a robbery before they released the name of Darren Wilson. Not only was the promising future of Brown murdered that day, but the assassination of his character would soon follow. Suddenly, he is no longer the gentle child as reported by those who knew him; he was a thug. He deserved it, right? Because James Eagen Holmes, and John Wayne Gacy, and Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, they deserved to be taken in alive. The right to a fair trial is protected for these murderers, these legitimate murderers and rapists.

Mike Brown had a one person trial--Darren Wilson. The verdict was guilty. The punishment was six bullets and an early grave.

Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop. Pop, order in the court.

Sources:
1: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
2: http://www.medicaldaily.com...

Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
I made a mistake??? It's not like the Grand Riddle
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
All Con has to do here is argue that there was a reasonable doubt that Wilson committed manslaughter, why didn't con make this argument? Pro basically admits that Wilson could have been indited of manslaughter and it doesn't seem like Con ever makes or pushes that point.
Posted by Ja50n 2 years ago
Ja50n
Didn't expect this debate to hit the front pages :)
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
My reasoning for bringing up tampering of evidence was to show a case could and did exist against Darren Wilson, but an indictment wasnt given due to the grand jury being rigged from the start. Pro admitted that there was grounds for Manslaughter, and I argued, with very little rebuttal, that second degree murder applied. The daily-Kos isn't a nonreliable resource because it's a blog.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Conduct: Con's R3 case near the end was a little more than slightly rude. Con came off as making fun of Pro's exercise and spoke in an immature manner. That was unnecessary and unprofessional.

Spelling: Is completely unimportant.

Arguments: Pro misused the principle of invalidity a lot. Not having a source doesn't make a claim invalid, for example.

I found a lot of issues with Con's case. This debate was ultimately about indictment for murder. Con's case was largely about tempering with evidence. That doesn't warrant an indictment for murder. An indictment for tempering with evidence, perhaps, but not murder. Con's case also found itself with many factual flaws by the end, as Pro points out, including the distance between Brown and Wilson. Ultimately, Con had to prove there was a case. As I see it, Pro doesn't have to prove a lack of a case... We enter assuming a lack of a case, and Con is the one who must prove there is something were we thought there was nothing. A debate on if something exists will almost always put BOP on the guy proving it does.

Pro started with a case about what forms of murder Wilson could be indicted for, and why they don't apply. This was a good starting point. Both cases were lacking, and I could think of a great many cases Pro could have used. Ultimately, I don't feel Pro proved Wilson should be indicted for Murder. Tempering with evidence? Yes... But not murder, and the decision in question is of whether to indict him for murder.

Sources: Con's sources were questionable at best. Daily Kos, by-the-way, is not a reasonable source. I've no reason to trust a blog to represent facts honestly. It'd be a little more acceptable in a petty debate, but one about Law, Justice, Court Room level stuff, requires more substance than that. A court debate requires a higher standard in sources. While Pro's sources were better in quality, they lacked in numbers. This isn't normally an issue, but here, Pro didn't cover all of his ground like
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Gomergcc. You're whole rfd was cherry-picking excuses. Even your reason for giving out Arguments was based on a nit-picked part of Pro's statement in R2.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Ugh I didn't care to write that much lol..... I did take off the source point I could swear you had a source for how easy it is to indict and Pro forgot to put there source link in.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
The Daily Kos article cited by Con definitely appears to be false in claiming Brown was 100+ feet away.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Yes.
Posted by Ja50n 2 years ago
Ja50n
wait what happened to all the people that voted, were there votes removed by admins
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Ja50nYaHeyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sources are more reliable.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Ja50nYaHeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Both presented great arguments and I originally was 100% on Pro's side, however after hearing Con's case, I understood a bit more where he's coming from. Pro was able to explain how the final decision was justifiably correct, whereas Con did bring up some good points, was unable to show how it was unfair. The main thing that got me right off the bat was that Con brought up race in the jury, which is irrelevant and a horrible argument. Con also got quite sarcastic and rude at the end.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
Ja50nYaHeyTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a very low BoP simply because it does not take much to have a grand jury indict. He showed that there is probable cause and the jury failed to properly act. Furthermore Pro did not seem aware of some of the details of the case, like the Nat Bar Associate's outcry and Darren Wilson reffering to MB as a demon.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Ja50nYaHeyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
Ja50nYaHeyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Very close arguement, but I'm going mostly for Pro.
Vote Placed by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
Ja50nYaHeyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost and admits it in round two by stating. "manslaughter charges can be pressed however" There argument its that it was evidence does not support an indictment on any charge. Pro misused "," when a ";" should have been used and lack of capitalization in several paragraphs. In round 3 Pro cites a source but does not include the link. Conduct to Con because of the impolite way they informed con of a broken link.