Officer Wilson Shooting Was 100% Justified Due to Brown’s Violent Physical Attack in Police Vehicle

I’ve heard people talking about the Michael Brown case, who seem to think that Officer Wilson shooting 6 bullets from his gun constitutes “excessive force”, but we completely disagree.

Michael Brown was a huge man, and very large people will undoubtedly need more bullets to stop, especially when the man is charging you and 4 of the 6 initial shots went into his arm.

Getting shot in the arm a few times wouldn’t stop a 300 lb charging bear of a man. If it would have, Michael Brown may be alive today. The first 4 shots probably just pissed him off more as Brown charged the officer.

Te Brown family’s main witness, Dorian Johnson, lied about the encounter with officer Wilson, and has changed his story multiple times. Mr. Johnson said that he and Mr. Brown were walking down the street minding their own business when officer Wilson pulled up and executed his friend.

The truth was that they both had just committed a strong-arm robbery about 11 minutes before, and were walking away with their bounty when the encounter took place. The autopsy report also shows that Mr. Brown was not shot in the back like Mr. Johnson claimed.

It also seems to be the case that Mr. Brown beat officer Wilson before the shooting, and possibly broke officer Wilson’s eye socket with punches, which prompted officer Wilson to pull out his weapon. That is when, as the officer will say that Mr. Brown fought the officer for his gun, and lost.

Even if officer Wilson did shoot Mr. Brown in the back, which he did not, I believe the shooting, by law, would still be justified. Here is why.

When an officer is trying to arrest someone who non-violently broke the law, and the person runs away from the officer, the offer definitely cannot shoot the criminal in the back to stop him/her.

When the criminal has committed a violent felony though, and then runs away from the officer, the officer has every right under the law to shoot the criminal in the back to stop him/her.

The difference between the two scenarios is that the criminal who was able to be shot in the back legally committed a violent crime, and would be a danger to others if not stopped.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org