Your HW is to help solve the Michael Brown case.  What really happened?  Should the policeman that killed Brown be brought to trial, or, was he acting properly because he felt he was in mortal
danger?

Your job as an historian:  Use the internet, news, or CNN

1.  Sourcing:  Name one or more sources of information.  Is it reliable?  Biased?  why or why not?
2.  Context:  What information provides context clues?  Ex. Were there problems with police
relations before?  The police force is mostly white, the town is mostly black.  What about the
video of Michael Brown robbing a store ten minutes earlier and pushing the storeowner out of the way?  Does this tell us about his 'state of mind'?
3.  Corroboration:  Are there 2 or more pieces of evidence that are similar or identical and
make the evidence provided reliable?

Think:
town context
interaction between policeman and Brown
reports of witnesses or bystanders
video of the robbery
report that the policemen had been hit by Brown

Argue:  What really happened?  Should the policeman that killed Brown be brought to trial, or, was he acting properly because he felt he was in mortal danger?.
Support with 3 pieces of 'evidence' that bring you to this conclusion.