Amazon.com Widgets
  • The officer did his job

    A thug who robs a store, attempts to vandalize a police vehicle, assaults a police officer, and attempts to take his firearm is asking to be shot. People say that the officer could have used non-lethal force. But that jeopardizes his own safety. A taser is a one shot, thus if you miss it's game over. If he let the brawl continue, he would have lost his weapon and died. I don't understand why the media even brings race into this. It's textbook self defense.

  • He picked the thug life

    This has nothing to do with race like the media wants everyone to think and that I find annoying. Micheal Brown wasn't some innocent little kid like the pictures that the media shows. He was a big, bad, robber and the last person that we need to be on this planet with us.

  • Visual evidence says so.

    In the beginning of the Michael Brown case, the media showed video evidence of Michael Brown charging at the police officer. The officer saw Brown as a threat and made the decision to shoot Michael Brown. A police officer is trained to lethally fire at all threats in the field. Michael Brown robbed a gas station, and then charged through the door and towards the officer, (probably thinking the officer witnessed his robbery) which is when the officer pulled his service weapon out and fired six shots, including two in the head. He did not shoot Brown 13 times. Most pistols do not even hold 13 shots, unless they have a double stack magazine. Police officers are trained to fire several times in the torso to stop the target, then twice in the head. Michael Brown had a criminal record before he robbed the convenience store. He deserved to be shot.

  • He was shot in self defense.

    All scientific evidence plus many eye witnesses corroborate officer Wilson's testimony. What do you think would have happened had Brown not been shot? You are kidding yourself if you think he would have just given up and let Wilson arrest him. Wilson rightfully believed his life was legitimately in danger and did what he had to do to protect his life. I am a firm believer in your right to defend yourself and I believe that anyone who maliciously threaten someone else's life deserves to be shot 100%.

  • I don't like the phrasing...

    Did he deserve to be shot as punishment? No. However, I have no doubt that the officer was in fear for his life, and shot Brown in self defense. Michael Brown was not the "gentle giant" the media portrayed him as, and what happened to him was of his own doing.

  • Not for Robbing the store, but for assaulting the officer

    There was no "bias" or "discrimination" for the officer attempting to halt brown. He responded to the description giving in the emergency call that someone (fitting brown's description), had just robbed a store and was in said location. Officer went, confronted brown, and incident ensued. Forensic evidence, which was released, along with eyewitness testimony, showed brown charged Wilson, after first attempting to get his firearm, and then running after Wilson shouted for him to stop. He came back, in attempt to get to Wilson, which caused Wilson to open fire. He shot multiple times, after each group of shots pausing. Brown continued to charge despite being shot at. So yes, Brown deserved to die for assaulting an officer, attempting to get his gun, and charging him. Wilson is no "hero" for protecting his life. He is not a villain for shooting a non-compliant, aggressive man with violent intent. Also, brown was on weed, had a previous criminal record, and was never on the ground with his hands up saying "don't shoot". If anyone is biased, it is all the people saying Wilson killed a "black kid" on purpose, when race doesn't make a difference when you are about to be assaulted.

  • The shooting of Michael Brown was Required (not deserved).

    The taking of a human life is never deserved, but is sometimes required to protect those who uphold the law. I am angered at the stupidity this young man displayed by first robbing and then having an altercation with police (not cooperating with police). His stupidity caused his death of himself and the grief of those close to him. The officer no doubt has suffered for Michael Browns stupidity as well. When did fighting the police become an acceptable way to act. It should be no suprise when someone like this gets shot. If you break the law and fail to cooperate, this is the unfortunate consequence.

  • Without a doubt

    It seems to me that there are issues with shooting an unarmed person. If a person of larger stature and more physical strength attacks you, then you should have the right to shoot them. Officers are not supermen. They are people just like everyone else. The officer was physically outmatched and possible would have been killed by Michael brown had he not shot him. If he had complied with the officer's commands, then he would still be alive today. He made a poor decision and now he no longer has to make anymore.

  • He Was a Criminal

    Michael Brown robbed a store and expected to get away with it. He then started to strangle the employee and people wonder why he got shot? This is a clear and simple thing to understand, those who commit criminal activities will have bad things happen to them. That is exactly what happened to Michael "Thug" Brown.

  • Thug deserved it

    He was a fat thug who deserved it. Tubby ass wanna be thug should have listened to the officer. I would have done the same thing. He went for the officers gun. His fat ass desered to eat a few more rounds if you ask me. It's an easy fix. Stop being some thug ass low life and you won't get blasted.

  • I feel as if he didn't need to be shot.

    Micheal Brown shouldn't have been shot because he didn't do anything to be shot. What provoked the policeman to shoot him 13 times? Self defense? You don't need to kill someone to just make sure you are okay and safe. While Micheal may or may not have done something that alerted the police, you don't need to be shot right then and there. Along with the sterotype that all African-Americans are bad, and all policemen are good, this just fueled bias into prejudice.

  • No, he did not...

    The officer had no injuries despite his claims of being "viciously attacked". Brown was shot a few feet away from where the officer was standing, a far enough distance that would prevent him from even being able to touch the officer. Not only that, the witnesses at the scene even said he did not touch him or his weapon. But even if he did attempt to attack the officer, it was not necessary to shoot him 6 times, twice in the head. That is not "self-defense", that is murder. Officers are not trained to shoot unarmed people with the intent to kill them, even if they are attacked. What he should have done if he were attacked is to shoot Brown to subdue him, then call for backup to arrest and prosecute him. Whether a person is a criminal or not, cops murdering people unjustifiably is WRONG but people still defend those who are guilty of doing so. Officers are trained to kill when it is absolutely necessary, and lately there have been too many cases where law enforcement shoot aimlessly and even end up murdering innocent people without facing the consequences of their actions.

  • No he shouldn't have got shot.

    He shouldn't have got shot because he was a innocent bystander and then all of the sudden he gets shot 13 times because he was black. I think policemen should go to jail or lose their job for ''doing their job'' He put his hands up then he got shot, just racist.

  • People are ridiculous.

    1.The definition of rob is to take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force. "Michael Brown" was caught shoplifting, not robbing a store, another idea perpetrated by mass media to demonize the image of another black man in order to keep police sake. 2. The store employees and owner did not call the cops or identify Michael Brown as the shoplifter in the surveillance video, and deemed the unlawful act too petty to ask for police assistance, so a customer called the police with possibly the wrong vocabulary, claiming they were witness to a robbery and not a shoplifting, which would urge police to immediately be on the search of the "robber" that fit the description. Michael brown was stopped on the pretenses of being the "robber", which he wasn't so he was unlawfully stopped. Had you not unlawfully stop Michael Brown, this would've never happened. And for everyone claiming that the police had every right to use self defense, i think it's safe to say the police officer was not only the instigator, but the aggressor. You obviously aren't going to take the police seriously if you have been stopped for robbery, knowing you did no such thing. An act of self defense by Michael Brown is most likely what happened and was interpreted as aggression by ill informed bystanders. Only an innocent man would defend himself against the armed police man since you know your void of any crimes. The autopsy reports that Michael Brown was shot "at least 6 times" not 6 times. So it's most likely that 13 was an over exaggeration but don't disregard the possibility of him being shot more than 6 times since you all love autopsy reports and biological evidence. Regardless, 6 times is unnecessary. Any police officer that values the life of others and isn't an authority seeker and only a real figure of justice would have the common sense to shoot Michael brown somewhere that would immobilize and not kill him, for example anywhere in the lower body; not the head, which is a much harder target. I think Michael Brown just encountered the wrong officer at the wrong time. It's a shame.

  • Disciplined, not shot

    He did attack the police officer, after committing a crime. But was lethal force really necessary to handle the situation? The police officer could have at the very least used his baton to subdue the attacking teen.

    Michael Brown was trying to take the gun out of the police officer's hands, which could have been seen as a threat, but actually SHOOTING Michael Brown was a little bit carried away.

  • Are you people even reading the question?

    The question does not ask whether or not Wilson should have shot him. The question asks whether he deserved to be shot. Michael Brown was no model citizen by any means and should have been arrested. On the other hand the kid did not deserve to be shot god knows how many times. If he charged at the officer or whatever, then sure, (in a court of law) that is something that can justify the shooting, but Michael Brown did not deserve to die for his actions. He deserved jail time or whatever.

  • That is sad

    What if you got killed and your mother/family missed you would really want revenge and that your going to be missed as well as Along with the sterotype that all African-Americans are bad, and all policemen are good, this just fueled bias into prejudice that is just sad really sad

  • He wasn't a saint

    But he didn't deserve to get shot. He could have had a chance to turn his life around but he didn't. He didn't get that chance because he decided to assault a cop. He was a troubled man who robbed a store, assaulted the much smaller store employee, tried to grab a cops gun, wrote Violent rap music and charged a cop. Gun powder was on his clothes and his blood was on Wilson's clothing, car and gun. He also had a shot to the hand. This indiacates that he was trying to grab the cops gun. There was also a 20 foot trail of his blood indicating that he charged. Many witnesses support Wilson's claim that mike was charging him. Other witnesses claimed he had his hands up but later admired they lied, had seen the incident from far away or heard that from someone else. Dorion Jonson who helped brown rob the store lied and said brown was shot in the back but when autopsies showed that all the bullets entered through the front he had to change his story. Why believe a thug who helped someone rob a store and. Lied all ready?. It was a terrible event but it was justified.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Gahere says2015-01-30T10:48:59.427
I think you should get rid of or at least "re-word" the topic. "Deserve" means that it is perfectly justifiable with no moral gray area. Since the Mike Brown incident is extrmely gray, this is an extremely one sided topic. No one in their right mind would right "YES" to this, because to imply that he deserved to be shot implies many things that perhaps, might not have been the writers purpose.
Octavion says2016-01-08T17:43:40.697
Dilara would you please tell me why you put your opinion is the "No" section when you said it was justified. I do not understand why your opinion contradicts what side you chose.