According to preliminary release of Wilson's hospital records, he suffered, among other gruesome injuries, a fractured eye socket. This especially serious break not only showed the brutality of Brown's attack, but also completely blinded the police officer, making him at the very least see double. If I were being beaten bloody, hardly able to see and losing consciousness, I would shoot as many times as it takes, and I would shoot to kill.
Michael brown was 6 ft 4 and 292 pounds. He had robbed a convenient store just before his death. He was for lack of a better word a thug. It's sad he's dead but if you don't want to get shot than don't rob stores. He best up Wilson as the reports show and he slammed the food in him than tried to grab his gun. Why would he want to grab Wilson's gun? To shoot him. It's better if a thug does than a cop. Don't believe Dorion Jonson because he was also a thug. A women called 911 and said that brown was beating Wilson. Believe the cop and the witnesses but don't believe a thug. If you rob a store you'd lie for your thug friend.
Show me where Law Enforcement, in ANY state, is limited to the number of bullets they can fire. The cold, hard truth is they are NOT limited. And if they feel threatened, in most states (if not all), that is the ONLY justification needed to pull the trigger. So, yes, he was justified.
How can you argue that he wasn't? First off, Ofc. Wilson suffered a broken eye socket amongst other injuries caused by Michael Brown. Secondly, he was not shot at a close range which just goes to show that he was charging the officer again after trying to reach for his gun. Third of all, he had deadly intent after committing a more major crime. People need to quit downplaying it like it was just "jaywalking". Ofc. Wilson was responding to a robbery at a gas station. Surprise surprise, Michael Brown was the one who fit the description of the robber. What else? Security camera footage shows Mr. Brown holding the store clerk by his collar threatening him. If this doesn't show malicious intent, I don't know what does.
I basically say what Ameliamk1 Said. He was wounded, and the man tried to take the officer's handgun. And the guy just stole 50$ worth of Cigarettes at a convenience store nearby. The man had committed a crime, and assaulted a police officer. Good lord, people are so foolish to overlook things like this!
Are you asking if he was justified to the right of self defense? In all reports and eye witnesses say brown was assaulting Officer Wilson, if he was defending himself (and don't say he was not) he had every right to do so. Wilson can no longer see and has plenty of other injuries, this was clearly self defense. I support Officer Wilson.
There are probably certain situations where it might be acceptable to shoot an unarmed man. Just one example is the police officer in Wyoming who had to shoot behind his back as a rape suspect was STRANGLING HIM TO DEATH. That's not what happened in Ferguson. Michael Brown was many feet away from the officer, and whether his hands were raised or not doesn't really matter. Brown was not armed, he was at a distance where the officer was at least momentarily out of danger, and the officer could always have chosen to let him run away in order to save himself further physical damage. They do it all the time. Ever seen a police chase end? It's because it's determined to be safer for the officers to cease pursuit rather than continue because the danger of the pursuit is now higher than the possible repercussions of letting the suspect go. It is not acceptable to shoot someone when this is the scenario. Further, he didn't just shoot him once and then stop to see what sort of effect that had on the situation. He didn't pull the trigger and then wait to see if he had removed the danger by doing so. And I don't want to hear that "in the heat of the moment" bull, people do extraordinary things in moments of terror all the time. If it's not police procedure to shoot once and wait until a new danger assessment can be performed (like "is this guy still capable of harming me or others now that he's on the ground bleeding?") then it absolutely should be. He shot Brown over and over and never took half a second to consider the likelihood that the situation had been diffused to a point where he could holster his weapon and call for help. And you know what? Considering the recent history of police, I am inclined to believe Michael Brown was raising his hands and this guy just killed him anyway...
The media completely twisted what happened and Officer Wilson also lied about what happened. He shot Mike Brown just because he was jaywalking and he thought Mike Brown was armed. Which evidence proved he wasn't armed. It also disproved the fact that Mike was the aggressor. So, I don't think Officer Wilson is justified in the amount of the force he used.
Mike Brown definitely provoked Officer Wilson, and
Wilson was trying to defend himself. But however, it wasn't necessary to shoot Mike Brown. Being simply hit with a gun in a certain place could've hurt enough, which is sufficient defense, instead of shooting someone and killing them. Only as a last resort should gunfire be used.
Even though we don't know all the facts, we do know that the suspect was unarmed. The police officers were in a vehicle. Suspect was shot several times. These facts are backed up by both parties. So if the officer was in danger by having the suspect at his window. The other officer could have driven away to bring him out of harms way especially since victim was unarmed. The police also have other weapons to neutralize a suspect who is unarmed like mase or a night stick. Since the suspect was unarmed and police are shielded by the vehicle, there is no justification for the use of deadly force. If the allocations from witnesses for the prosecution are true, then we have a case for second degree murder. This looks more like an execution of the victim by the officers to me.
There are, I'm sure, some situations where it is reasonable to shoot an unarmed suspect. Take for example the Wyoming police officer who had to shoot behind his back while a rape suspect was STRANGLING HIM TO DEATH. This was not one of those situations.
Whether Michael Brown provoked the officer, whether his hands were raised or not, the autopsy revealed he was feet away when he was repeatedly shot. So far in fact, that there was exactly 0 gun powder residue on him (http://www.Cbsnews.Com/news/michael-browns-autopsy-what-it-can-and-cant-tell-us/).
This officer had a reasonable amount of distance between him and his alleged aggressor, certainly enough to assess the level of danger to his person before pulling the trigger.
Further, he didn't shoot Michael once, then stop for half a second and reassess the situation. If it is not police procedure to shoot once and then assess the likelihood of further violence ("is this guy still capable of harming myself or others now that he's bleeding on the ground?"), then it absolutely should be. And I don't want to hear any of that nonsense about the heat of the moment, because normal citizens make good decisions in moments of terror every day, and this guy was a cop, who is certainly more equipped based on his training to do so compared to average Joe.
And you know what? Based on the recent history of police in this country, and the less recent but ever present devaluation of the black male life in this country, I'm inclined to believe Michael's hands were up.
One bullet should have sufficed. Maybe two at the most. There was no reason to shoot an unarmed civilian five times, and twice in the head. He shouldn't have attempted to kill him, as now Michael Brown doesn't get a fair trial. I think it's despicable that he used so much force.
If a cop shoots an unarmed civilian twice in the head... I don't care what the situation is, that is unacceptable and he should be tried for murder. I could understand it, maybe, if he was opening fire on a cop, but he wasn't. "Protect and Serve"? Nope, shoot you in the head if you piss me off and you're black. It's shocking and inadmissible.
I repeat: He should be tried for murder.
The autopsy revealed that micheal was shot 6 times, 2 in the head, based on these we can assume that the 2 shots in the head lead to his fatality, meaning that he was shot 4 times before the lethal shots were fired. Someone who is shot 4 times is most likely already incapacitated and making sure they are dead by shooting them twice in the head, whether or not they may of attacked you simply isn't morally right even if it is legal.
Mike brown, even if he was attacking, or about to attack the officer, the key evidence is the two shots to the head, it is almost certain that the two shots to the head were the fatal shots, and based on that we can also assume that he was shot 4 times before the fatal shot occured, it is highly unlikely that someone shot 4 times regardless of their weight is in the physical capability aren't incapacitated at this point, whether shoot to kill is their policy and this was legal or not dosen't matter, it was morally wrong to make sure someone shoot 4 times is DEAD
Was unessecary, even if micheal brown attacked him or was threating to attack him walking towards him, the 2 shots in the head were most definitely fatal, therefore its most certainly accurate that mike was shot 4 times atleast before the fatal shots were fired, even being 300 pounds it only does take a couple of bullets to completely stop a person, darren willson shooting him twice in the head to be certain he was dead, whether it was policy shoot to kill or not was simply morally wrong.