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

Was Darren Wilson justified to shoot Michael Brown?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/5/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,070 times Debate No: 71173
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




First round- Basic outline
Second round- Main arguments
Third round- Rebuttals and closing statement


I strongly believe that Officer Darren Wilson was justified to shoot Michael Brown. I further believe that the race of Michael Brown did not play a role in the shooting and therefore, did not affect the Officers judgement when deciding to pull the trigger.


Darren Wilson was not justified to shoot and kill Michael Brown. Reports of what happened on the fatal day differ widely between sources and witnesses, but Brown ended up shot dead by Wilson. Without knowing without a shadow of doubt what had happened when Brown was shot it is not possible to justify the death of the 18-year-old, innocent until proved guilty, young boy.
Debate Round No. 1


Let me begin my argument with a question- What would a sane person do in Wilson's position?

Officer Darren Wilson was attacked by Michael Brown, while Wilson was still in his vehicle (Proven by facial injuries). Brown attempted to reach for Officer's firearm, which resulted in Brown getting shot in the hand (Proven by presence of gun powder of Brown's hands). After the first shot Brown ran away as Wilson pursued him (It was his job to do so). Brown turned around and started charging at the officer Wilson, who then fired multiple shots in order to stop Brown. Scratches present on Brown's face indicate that he was charging at the Officer. Scratches were created by his body's momentum when he fell to the ground.

Officer Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown as he was in fear for his life, as the suspect has already assaulted him as well as attempted to reach for his firearm. Wilson does not carry a taser and CS spray wouldn't do much good.


Unfortunately, Officer Wilson has a duty to protect the lives of all. Police officers are trained to use any other method of force to apprehend a criminal than use of a firearm. Michael Brown was innocent in the eyes of the legal system until a Jury of his peers unanimously state otherwise. That is how the United States Justice System works, and as an officer of the law Wilson has an obligation to act with that in mind. Also in court the number one rule for a jury is that you need to be able to understand the incident without a shadow of doubt. Scratches and gunpowder do not CLEARLY paint a picture of the incident so if we are "acting" as a jury ruling whether or not Wilson was justified we would have to say NO because we can not tell for SURE. There are also many differing eyewitness stories that cloud the events happenings even more. So we can not justify Wilson's actions based on so scratches and word of mouth.
Debate Round No. 2


I agree with what you said, that Officer Wilson has a duty to protect lives of all, INCLUDING himself! And NO! Police Officers are trained to use ALL methods of force INCLUDING the use of their firearms. Michael Brown was not innocent in the eyes of legal system, and jury already stated that his actions were justified. You attempt to school me on United States Justice System and yet you are the one who argues against it's decision. You keep on mentioning the "shadow of doubt" and yet you dismiss that the jury, after many months of analysing evidence and hearing witness testimonies, came to conclusion that Officer Darren Wilson was justified to shoot Michael Brown. Wilson's testimony was backed up by evidence. Let's not forget all those liars including the friend of Michael Brown who claimed that Officer Wilson shot Brown in the back, which of course has been rebutted by autopsy report!
Officer Wilson was in fear for his life, and he neutralised the threat just like he was trained to do


Unfortunately the one thing that needs to be brought up on my side is that Officer Wilson was not the one to judge and execute that boy. If we had officers that just ran around shooting guns every time a criminal resisted arrest, EVERY OTHER ARESTIEE would be dead. Officers of the law are trained to use Tasers, CS Spray, and other means to arrest people. He was not handed a badge and a gun to use against any old Joe. We as American citizens expect more from the police. Thank you to my opponent for a fair and valid debate. Thank you to all who have viewed and voted on this matter.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dilara 3 years ago
Brown was not a young boy. He was a legal adult and a thug who attacked Wilson. He also charged Wilson. The DOJ deamed the witnesses who said he had his hands up un trustworthy because they changed their stores and their stories weren't supported by physical evidenc.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jupiter1 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro & Con- there is no way for any of us to know exactly what happened that day, but in the eyes of the legal system it was justified. You both seem to think how 'the situation should have handled', but unless either of you have any experience in law enforcement, this argument is very subjective. Thus, I will only award conduct and spelling points to Con.