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

Darren Wilson is innocent

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 74755
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




The First round is acceptance.
The Second round will be arguments. I will present mine in the form of an article. You can present yours in an article or a video less than 30 minutes.
The Third round will be rebuttals
The 4th round will be conclusions. We will also tell each other what we learned form the debate, about each other's point of view.


I accept this debate and it will be interesting indeed.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.
My argument will be in the form of an article. The washington post article is called 'hands up, don't shot' was built on a lie". It is by Jonathan Capehart.
Here is the link shooting-of-micheal-brown
This article is by Jonathan Capehart, a man who initially believed the wrong side of the story, as to what happened to Michael Brown, the day he died. What happened was a tragedy but it was done justifiably. If Darren Wilson had not shot Brown, Wilson would have likely been harmed. Excerpts from the DOJ report on the incident are included in the article . These exerpts include facts that prove Darren Wilson to be innocent.


You're welcome.

After some online research, I ascertained that Darren Wilson was never convicted so instead I will post links to sites with legal clarifications.

The illegalities committed will not be stipulated in this round for that will make it a rebuttal, however, I will post links in this round.

Homicide law code in Missouri:

Police brutality law code in Missouri:

Hate crime law code in Missouri:

These will be stipulated and justified in the next round. I only placed the title above the URL links to clarify my sources.

Incident of shooting:

The above URL link is my stimulus for the next round.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you. I would like you to read the article I linked in my previous post. It has all the info about the false witnesses and so on, that prove that Wilson was justified in killing brown.
Your article plays with emotions and doesn't present logic and evidence. For example they call Michael brown a college bound teen--yet this man was robbing stores at 18. He didn't have much of a future. He likely would have ended up in jail or working some dead end job. He might have even harmed someone considering that he attacked a cop.
Three autopsies don't on his body show that he was shot at close rangs in the palm. Along with his blood being on Wilson's car, uniform and gun and gun res on browns hands and shirt, this supports wisp one claim that brown grabbed for his gun. The next white that were fired into browns body were done so as he charged the officer. The shot that he got ok his hands from a far entered him through the top of his arm. But if his hands were up in surrender position the bottom of his arms would be out facing Wilson making this impossible. How could you have the bottoms of his hands facing Wilson and a be shot in the top of the arm?
6 black witnesses claim that brown was surendering when shot. The DOJ deemed them un-trustworthy because their stories changes several times and weren't supported by physical evidence. 7 black witnesses support Wilson's claim, that brown was charging him. These witnesses are all anonomys understandably. If their names were relased they would be in danger.
Dorion Jonson who helped brown Rob a store minutes before the incident lied to police. He said that brown was shot in the back-but when three autopsies showed that all the bullets entered through the front of his body Jonson changed his story .
Dorion Jonson was arrested for drug offenses recently. I believe a cop with no disciplinary charges like Wilson rather than a criminal who lies to police, robs stores and is involved in drugs.
Dorion Jonson is a criminal who lied to police so he wouldn't get in trouble. Brown was charging Wilson when he died and was shot out of self defense.
Please read the article! Thank you!


Well, its a known fact that Darren Wilson was never convicted, or even tried for his reprehensible illegalities. As such, I will stipulate the crimes he committed and should have been convicted with:


My opponent's rebuttal clearly states that "Michael Brown was robbing stores at age 18" (Paraphrased) which instantly suggests you believe that he had a discerning criminal record, this may very well be true. On the contrary, it hasn't been made clear that Michael Brown was armed when he was shot, and even if he was armed it is unclear as to whether or not he was surrendering both himself and his gun. Further, it is an irrefutable fact that the shootings occurred in Missouri and Missouri homicide law code clearly states:

"Second Degree Murder (Killing without Premediation)

Even if Second Degree Murder is not an option as it is also unclear as to whether Darren Wilson inadvertently killed Brown or not. If so, then the grounds is manslaughter charges. Under Missouri law code, Manslaughter is defined as follows:

"Voluntary Manslaughter (Heat (sic) of passion murder)"

"Involuntary Manslaughter (Accidental Killing)"

The second crime that Wilson should have been charged with - Police Brutality:

Like with the first stipulated illegality, there are unclear circumstances such as Brown being armed or not etc. However, it is also unclear as to whether or not Wilson applied excessive force based on Brown's race:

Under Missouri law, Police Brutality can be ambiguously defined as follows:

Police Brutality: "Unequal Treatment based on race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, religious beliefs".

Lastly, the third crime he should have faced charges with is Hate Crime:

Unless if contrary evidence is available to prove that Wilson was targeting Brown solely based on race, then Hate Crime is on the cards. In accordance of Missouri law, Hate Crime is defined as follows:

Hate Crime: "...knowingly based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim..."

Very similar type of extract to the previous, yes, although this source also clearly states Hate Crime is a "Class D Felony" under "Statutory law" (Act of Parliament).

The reason for the similar extract to the previous was because I was stipulating a legal clarification to provide evidence of legal circumstance.

The link I posted of the incident provides no contrary evidence whatsoever to rebuke the admonishing of the "college-bound" individual Michael Brown in stipulating how "justifiable" Wilson's shooting actually was, in my defense, it isn't.

This is my rebuttal. Best of luck to my opponent in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3


Even if one could prove that what happened was illegal no one cold prove it was because of browns race. Again all the evidence shows that brown was charging Wilson.
Brown was shot in the top of his arm meaning he didn't have his hands up . He also tried to grab Wilson's gun in the car. All witness testimony saying otherwise was deemed not credible by the doj as those peoples stories changed several times and weren't supported by physical evidence. 7 black witnesses support Wilson.
Wilson is innocent.


really12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Dilara 3 years ago
Lexus. You can use your own words if you want.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
I'd accept but I want to use my own words, not a video or an article or anything like that :X
Posted by Dilara 3 years ago
TBR. You can debate me if you want. I'll try and prove that Darren Wilson killed michael brown out of self defense and you can try an prove that he did not kill michael brown out if self defense. My argument is the first and it will be in the form of an article witch has most of the info proving Wilson Innocent.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Perhaps the resolution should be changed to "Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown."
Do be prepared for some left field arguments, whatever you go with.
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
Yea, I would take con in "Darren Wilson was correct in his actions".
Posted by Dilara 3 years ago
He killed Michael brown out of self defense and is innocent of the cold blooded murderer people like to pretend that he did. I will argue that he was justified in shooting Michael Brown and my opponent will argue that he was not justified in shooting Michael brown
Posted by Luharis 3 years ago
I believe it would be better to rephrase the debate, as "Darren Wilson was correct in his actions"
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
What TBR said.
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
Innocent of what Darren? I mean, he is not being charged with a crime, so if that's what you are trying to prove, its done. If you are talking about is he innocent of civil rights violations, or... Just what?
No votes have been placed for this debate.