Monday, November 28, 2016
The real person at fault
After hearing others views and reading my transcript on the Ferguson case I believe Wilson was guilty. He used extensive force which ended up with a young life lost. I believe that the first shot fired was reasonable because Michael Brown was inside of Wilson's car trying to grab ahold of Wilson's gun. Wilson felt Michael's finger on the trigger and the gun had two blank fires due to Michaels hand on top of the gun. I believe that Wilson had every right to fire because he was threatened and if Michael got a hold of the gun it would have ended differently. When Michael started to run towards the light pole after the first shot Wilson still had the right to shoot I believe. When I think Wilson went wrong was when Michael turned towards Wilson with his hands up and Wilson still fired at him. Michael was surrendering. I think Wilson had not right to kill Michael. Michael knew he messed up by running away and was surrendering to Wilson but Wilson did not see it as surrendering. Michael was already shot in the stomach and was already in pain. Then Wilson took the last shot and it hit Michael through the top of the head because he was already falling down to his knees. I believe Wilson should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is your conclusion based off of the testimonies of the very few witnesses we've heard from so far. Based off of research and hearing from all of the witnesses, it appears that Darren Wilson was legitimately being threatened and needed to protect himself by incapacitating Michael Brown. I don't believe that Officer Wilson should be charged after only hearing two witnesses when there are many other accounts that need to be taken into consideration.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of officer Wilson feeling threatened, there is no reason to unload multiple shots when only one is necessary to take down an attacker- especially an unarmed one. You don't need to kill another person to defend yourself. Also, Wilson had the ability to use his taser, baton and mace on Brown, but instead he chose to use the deadliest of his weapons. Feeling threatened is not a reason to use a gun on someone. Imagine if it was reasonable to shoot everyone who makes you feel threatened!! smh
DeleteWhat it really comes down to was whether Officer Darren Wilson perceived Brown to be a threat. In my research CNN summed it up as officers are trained to shoot to stop if the officer thought they were a threat, essentially meaning I will shoot you until cannot possibly hurt anyone(i.e. dead or otherwise incapacitated). In addition, with the last point about firing while he fell, cops are taught to assess threat as they fire, and with semi-automatic handguns, they can put a volume of fire, making the fatal headshot reasonable. Thus, it doesn't really matter what any other witness, if Wilson perceived any threat that others did not, he had the right to shoot.
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point, police are there to enforce the law and protect the public. Technically Officer Wilson did have the right to shoot Mike Brown. But, that does not necessarily mean that he didn't use excessive force to stop the "threat".
DeleteIt makes sense that Wilson would have felt threatened and what you are saying makes sense. I do think that there is a limit to what you might need to do to eliminate a threat. I just don't know if the limit was reached and then possibly surpassed.
DeleteI agree with you and also believe that officer Wilson messed up in shooting Michael when he turned around because if he was putting his hand up showing that he had no weapons, then there was no reason for officer Wilson to keep shooting.
ReplyDelete