come check out my awesomness

Ferguson case

I am curious to hear everyones thoughts on the outcome of this case, do you think justice was served or not?


27 responses

  1. In no way was justice served.


    November 24, 2014 at 9:55 pm

    • Why do you say that? all the evidence that was presented plus witness testimony says it was self defense and a cop doing his job.

      Liked by 1 person

      November 24, 2014 at 9:58 pm

      • He shot an unarmed teenager dead for very little reason. If that is considered a cop doing his job then I feel sickened by this world.


        November 24, 2014 at 11:20 pm

      • He shot an 18 year old adult who had just stolen stuff from a store, then he attcked the officer and tried to get his gun. Many thousands of other people have lost their life for far less.


        November 24, 2014 at 11:32 pm

      • That doesn’t make it right. Stealing isn’t a capital offence and the extra judicial killing of a person when they haven’t drawn a weapon smacks of a shoot first and worry later attitude.
        Even if you disagree, a legal case would have allowed closure for the teen’s family and also given the cop a chance to formally and legally defend themselves. This would, regardless of opinion, been justice served.


        November 25, 2014 at 1:37 am

      • I think this sends a very bad message to police, it says if you do your job and protect yourself you may be charged with murder. Im sorry that this man lost his life but the officer shot and killed a criminal who just robbed a store and was attacking him. People keep saying that Michael Brown was murdered but murder means unjustified killing and that was not the case in this situation.


        November 25, 2014 at 6:45 am

      • I see your point but I can’t agree. I think it sends a message to police that it is safer to gun someone down because hey, even if they are not really a threat, no one will question it. I’d rather have a police force scrutinised for it’s actions in court than given licence to shoot without consequence.
        Also, surely there are levels of criminality. Someone robbing a store does not justify being killed. By that logic everyone can be shot by police as we have all, at one point or another, broken the law. Be it speeding or littering as a teenager or jay walking.
        I’m not sure we’ll agree on this but I’m glad we managed to have a grown up conversation on the internet with resorting to lazy name-calling.


        November 25, 2014 at 6:53 am

      • I am not interested in name calling or belittling someone because they have a different opinion than me. Also I know officer Wilson does not have criminal charges against him now but his career is over, so im certain this did not send a message of you can gun down anyone for any reason without consequences.
        If Michael Brown had only robbed the store I would agree that the officer should have been charged but he also tried to get officer Wilson’s gun and hit him several times.


        November 25, 2014 at 7:01 am

  2. Unfortunately nothing will bring him back…


    November 24, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    • Yes it is very sad that someone lost their life, especially someone so young, and the officers life will never be the same again either regardless of the outcome of this case im pretty sure his career is over.

      Liked by 1 person

      November 24, 2014 at 10:03 pm

  3. The Grand Jury were the only persons who saw and heard ALL the evidence and they spent 70 plus hours reviewing it. I respect their decision.

    Liked by 1 person

    November 25, 2014 at 8:56 am

  4. If the use of force can be seen as having been along the lines of “what a reasonable person would have done” in the same situation, then there is no reason to indict an officer. Deadly physical force is justified when a person poses an immediate threat of serious physical injury to himself or others…and ‘others’ does include the police officer. Brown might have been unarmed, but in a physical altercation he is still completely capable of causing serious physical injury to another person, and the Grand Jury needed to decide if, in this case- he did, and Wilson’s actions were along the lines of what any other ‘reasonable person’ would have done in the same situation. Johnson City NY had a case a few months back where an unarmed man attacked an officer, wrested his service weapon from him, then killed him. “Unarmed” does not equal “Not dangerous.” -In fact before he himself died at the hospital, the suspect told investigators that “I shot him with his own f*ing gun.”
    -Its fairly common knowledge that if someone wrestles away an officers gun what will happen next. And if Wilson was able to prove that he was in a position where he thought this was the case…I’m comfortable with the Grand Jury’s decision.

    Liked by 1 person

    November 25, 2014 at 9:27 am

    • Thanks so much for commenting I completely agree.


      November 25, 2014 at 9:30 am

      • You had to know I’d stick my nose in here 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        November 25, 2014 at 9:31 am

      • Lol, I was hoping you would comment. 😉


        November 25, 2014 at 9:58 am

    • As an addendum- I realize that Brown and Wilson were NOT in a physical altercation at the time, and that Wilson stated that be believed Brown was reaching for a gun- which could be just as, if not more threatening than an actual physical fight. If they were rolling around on the ground, the shooting could have been deemed justified- the higher threat of ‘possibly reaching for a gun’ could be, and was- in this case- deemed as much of a reasonable reaction.


      November 25, 2014 at 9:35 am

  5. No I don’t think justice was served. The police are just a little too quick on the trigger. Since it seems to be a matter of “he said verses he said” all police should wear a camera.


    November 25, 2014 at 10:05 am

    • I think justice was served, Michael Brown proved how dangerous he was when he attacked officer Wilson and tried to take his gun. However I do think it would be a good idea for officers to have little cams in the badges that they wear on their uniforms, or something like that.


      November 25, 2014 at 10:09 am

      • That would be the only way we could know for sure what happened.


        November 25, 2014 at 11:58 am

    • “Too quick on the trigger” is an in interesting theory. If someone is armed, acts armed, or attempts to disarm an officer, the window for observation, assessment, and reaction is incredibly tiny. Range qualification standards for officers often includes drawing and shooting from 3 yards from the target. Most armed altercations are taking place inside of that space. Close distance, and closing if youre being charged eliminates the opportunity to do little more than react to the threat, or perceived threat.
      Thinking about it, Brown matches the description of an armed robbery suspect. (Guilty or not is notwithstanding) He ignores a confronting officers order, then CHARGES him. If you’re the officer, and are confronting someone believed to be armed, then they charge you…what is your reaction?
      With 70 hours of testimony to go on, the Grand Jury needed to decide how they, or ANYONE else would have acted in the same situation. They came to the conclusion that Wilson acted in a manner that was reasonable given the circumstances surrounding the situation, namely his beging charged at by someone who he believed to be armed based on the description he had. Wilson killed Brown. But the the window of opportunity he had to make a decision based on circumstance and information was minimal, and the Jury realized that.


      November 26, 2014 at 6:41 am

      • No doubt it was a difficult call. I saw the interview with Wilson and he seems quite credible.


        November 26, 2014 at 9:54 am

  6. I think I would need to see what was allowed in the courtroom before the jury to decide if they made a fair decision. Sometimes not all the evidence is allowed, for whatever reason, nor all testimony. Sometimes they have more than what the media got it’s hands on. I don’t think I have enough information, I don’t even know what the officer was trained or required to do at each step in this situation. What was he supposed to do, did he behave as he was trained? I don’t know.


    November 25, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    • Well thats pretty much what the jury was deciding if officer Wilson did what was needed, and they decided he did.

      Liked by 1 person

      November 25, 2014 at 7:52 pm

      • So I guess I would need to see what they had access to, in order to come to any conclusion of my own. Then I would want to know if anything had been withheld, and why.


        November 25, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    • The training is fairly easy to ferret out. Department SOPs have to be in place which outline expected practices in most situations. Qualification guidelines for firearms and use of force topics are also pretty clearly outlined, and are usually standardized across the state. In NY, officers attend an annual “Use of Force” refresher course which reminds them of state laws regarding such circumstances. I would have to believe that there was very little guess work on the Jury’s part when it came to finding out exactly what Wilson had been trained to do…especially considering he had been on the job for eighteen years. His familiarity with practices and training should have been fairly well established.

      Liked by 1 person

      November 26, 2014 at 6:48 am

      • Yes, that is exactly the sort of thing I would want, as well as the play by play of the incident.


        November 26, 2014 at 5:21 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s