Since that fateful incident on August 9th, 2014, the number of Facebook lawyers has grown exponentially. All sorts of reasons have been given as to why former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson should not have shot Mike Brown. The main reason that many have given was that Mike Brown was “unarmed”.
Some people have the idea that if the assailant isn’t armed with a weapon then they don’t pose a threat to your life. The problem with that line of reasoning is that it couldn’t be more ludicrous.
As you can see in the F.B.I. crime statistics recorded in the image below, more people were killed by hands/feet/fists than by blunt objects such as clubs, hammers, etc.
What’s more telling is that more people were killed each year by hands/feet/fists than rifles and shotguns combined.
This bit of information largely dispels the idea that someone who is unarmed should be considered harmless because as you see in the image above, that clearly isn’t the case.
(The man in the video is not Mike Brown)
As you saw in the video above, the female officer was brutally and viciously assaulted by a much larger man who was using nothing more than his bare hands.
Would the #MikeBrown supporters be creating the same ruckus had Mike been armed with only a knife? I’m sure they would because people tend to make all the excuses in the world for the suspect, and lay all the blame squarely on the shoulders of the officer(s) involved.
The next time you hear someone make the statement that the suspect posed no threat of bodily harm because they were unarmed, share this link with them so they can see the ‘he was unarmed argument’ doesn’t hold much water when someone is filled with rage and is hell-bent on inflicting bodily harm that could result in you being permanently injured or killed.