Micheal Brown,
an unarmed black teenager, was recently shot by a white police officer at least 6 times, including 2 in his head and 4 in his arm. Some witnesses said they saw "a scuffle between the officer and Brown" while several other witnesses said Brown raised his hands and wasn't attacking the officer. Many theories have been composed about Brown's case including CNN senior media correspondent Brian
Stelter claiming," the shots were on the arms (and head) on the front. Does that mean his arms were up?" This current event is very controversial because it deals with race and police procedures.
Questions for Discussions:
-Do you believe race played a factor in the offer's decision to shoot Michael Brown?
-Do you believe the officer was justified shooting Michael Brown?
-Did the officer use excessive force against Michael Brown?
-Does the autopsy support the the officer or Michael Brown?
No I do not believe that race had a factor in the officer's decision to shoot Michael Brown. Police officers are ordered under oath to not discriminate people in the line of duty. Their goals are not to hurt people, but to help them and keep the people safe. I believe that the officer was justified to shoot Michael Brown. Yes, in this case there is not substantial evidence supporting the theory that Michael Brown was acting violently around the officer. However, I believe that this officer would never intentionally kill a teen for no, or for racial reasons for that matter. From a different article, the police chief talks only good about the officer, and that the officer has been apart of the department for a long time and has gained a reputation there. The officer did not use excessive force against Michael Brown , and I am convinced that every bullet has a justified reason. The autopsy report, in my opinion, still supports the officer. There is still no hard evidence that Michael Brown was surrendering with his hands up. There is a specific reason for each bullet that the officer fired. A cop who has been at a department for large amount of years, would ever kill a boy half his age without a very justified reason.
ReplyDeleteYes I believe that race played a part in this because everyone is always overly suspicious about what a black or Hispanic does no matter where they live. That is because if stereotypes that have been put out in the world about different races. The officer was in no way justified for shooting an unarmed person because they are also supposed to carry tasers. why is it that the first weapon that is brought out is a gun? In my opinion the officer did use excessive force because I would kinda understand if it was one shot but no it was six. A normal person doesn't try and still fight off someone after being shot unless they are used to the pain. Therefore the autopsy report does support Micheal Brown.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Janice! I'm not positive that race played a role; just because the officer was white and killed a black teenager doesn't mean he's racist but the fact that Michael Brown was unarmed and shot 6 times is brutal and unjustifiable. As Janice pointed out, the officer should've used a taser if Brown was coming at him. Emily said that officers are meant to protect people and not harm them, but shooting an unarmed minor 6 times is unbelievable. One bullet in the leg would've knocked Brown down, and the officer would be safe and Brown would be alive. The article stated that no gunpower residue was on Brown, meaning he was shot from afar. How could this officer be so endangered by Brown with that kind of distance? The autopsy proves that this officer must be arrested. It seems clear his intentions were to kill Michael Brown
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI do believe that race played a factor in the decision to shoot Michael Brown because he was unarmed and even if he was charging towards the officer, the object is to wound the offender not shoot him six times in an attempt to disable him. Age, might have an effect too because if it was an old black man approaching the officer, but because he was a black teen, he was more likely to shoot him. If Michael Brown was charging towards the officer, he would be justified in shooting him, but he did use excessive force towards Michael Brown. No matter what the circumstances were, but he was not armed and he should not have shot him six times. I believe the autopsy supports Michael Brown’s case because if there was no intent to shoot him based on race, I do not believe he would have been shot six times, and twice through the head.
agree with Logan and believe that race did play a huge role in this case. Excessive force was used in this altercation. The autopsy does support Michael Brown because the way the shots were looks like Brown's hands were up in the air. The shots would've been close to each other considering his arms and face may have been right next to each other and so were the shots. This case relates to the Zimmerman case where a black person was also shot. Ever since this case, it seems like this event just keeps repeating itself and i truly wonder why.
ReplyDeleteI* (sorry i didnt copy the I at the beginning oops)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe and Logan. The force used in this case was excessive. In no way could six shots be necessary in defending oneself from an unarmed minor. The shots in the head also show that Brown (who was 6'4") was most likely on the ground and not attacking. An officer with years of training and a Taser is more than capable of dealing with an unarmed minor, without firing six shots. The signs all point to this being an issue of race. This was definitely police misconduct and I believe that the officer should be tried with murder.
ReplyDeleteI believe that although six shots may not have been necessary, race did not play a role in this incident. Although Michael was unarmed, the officer may have felt threatened and acted only as he was taught. Also, the officer, if threatened, is very justified in his decision to shoot the teen. Not only are the facts unclear, but the autopsy supports the officer, there is no way of telling if Michael was surrendering and many different stories say he may have been reaching for the officer's gun or attacking him.
ReplyDelete