Brown Vs. Wilson: Why There Should Be No “Vs.”


Google Images

Protestors react to the shooting of Michael Brown

As most know, 18-year-old Michael Brown was fatally shot by police officer Darren Wilson on August 9th, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. The result of this unspeakably tragic event erupted into conflict nationwide, leaving people wondering what exactly happened and who was in the right.

I firmly believe there should be no question that Darren Wilson was in the wrong for an excess of reasons, and that there is no question that this is a racial issue.

To begin, this wasn’t the first time Wilson was accused of racially profiling; the previous police department he was a part of before Ferguson PD, Jennings PD, was so racially discriminate towards their African American residents that the entire department was fired and immediately replaced.

One of the most common arguments used in defense of Wilson is that Brown attacked Wilson through the window of the cop car. However, all eye witnesses tell that Wilson pulled up to Brown and was forcefully pulling him in.

Dorian Johnson, Brown’s friend who was by his side the entire time recalls that Wilson began to threaten firing his gun. This is where Wilson testified that in Brown’s “attack” on him, he reached for his gun and accidentally pulled the trigger. However, the coroner who performed Brown’s autopsy discovered no traces of gun residue on Brown whatsoever, immediately debunking Wilson’s statement.

In the following event of Brown running from Wilson, four eye witness accounts say that Brown had his arms above his head and was shouting to Wilson that he was unarmed and to not shoot. Wilson followed by shooting Brown multiple times.

All these things are not to mention the numerous amounts of protocols that were broken in this event. Wilson broke the self-defense protocol, which states that police officers must only disarm or incapacitate, yet he shot Brown twice in the head after shooting him four times in his arm and torso. The Ferguson PD broke protocol by not interviewing all eye witnesses immediately after the event. Protocol was broken by the forensic investigator by not testing Wilson’s gun for fingerprints. The forensic examiner broke protocol by not taking any photos of the crime scene.

Ultimately what it comes down to is this: even if any of the claims against Brown’s case were true, Wilson was still not in the right. Killing an unarmed civilian is incontrovertibly wrong, and the fact that Wilson wasn’t even indicted should concern everyone in this country.

It's only fair to share...Print this page
Share on Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn