Furguson, Missouri

[Kreekakon]

I read a couple of the articles, and these seem to be the key points as to who is at fault here:

1. The circumstance of Micheal Brown's death. Who was the aggressor? Him or the police officer?

Mr Brown was days away from heading to college when he was stopped by a police officer for walking in the middle of the street on Saturday August 9.

What happened next remains contested, with witnesses claiming Mr Brown was shot multiple times by the officer while holding his hands over his head, and police saying he had hit the officer in a struggle for the officer's gun.

2. When did the protests become violent, and which side started it? Did the protesters become violent after Brown was killed resulting in the police retaliating?

Or was it that the protests only became more passionate, but still peaceful after Brown's death. And did the police not take kindly to this, and start using more militarized methods which made the conflicts begin to snowball?

---------------------------------------

Either way though I would say that neither side as of now though is any longer in the right given various circumstances.

However my own opinion goes towards the protesters being wrong, because engaging in violent protesting despite what spurred you to do so is just wrong for reasons of disrupting the peace of the community. Peaceful protesting is fine, but escalating it to violence is not, and I personally find it more likely that the police are acting self-defense. This is my bias, and could very well be wrong.

Also worthy of note however is that people have a right to peacefully protest (As long as it does not conflict with the community), and police should not be able to forcefully run them away...which depending on the circumstances also puts the police at fault.

So both sides I believe are at fault, but it is unclear as to who was in the more wrong.