Should Michael Brown's parents be able to sue the city over son's death?

Enough said

Like it or not the standard of proof in criminal court and civil court are different. The standard in criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt. You could theoretically quantify that as 99%. The standard in civil court is prop inference of the evidence. Defined as more likely than not and theoretically quantified as 51% sure. These concepts are part of the system we of government we are sworn to uphold. I approve of their right to the civil justice system and a judge and jury can make a decision.

There is a difference between criminal and civil trials. Just like OJ got away with murder he still had to pay in a civil suit

Although I voted No this is a civil suit matter similar to what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. OJ as we all know was innocent and Nicole Brown's family sued OJ in civil court and won, I don't recall how many millions but OJ was ordered to pay and had he not been dumber than he already was he would not have tried to rob some collector in Las Vegas and end up in prison anyway.
Michael Browns family will most likely win a wrongful death suit because I doubt any jury is going to want to deny it for fear of more destruction in Ferguson if they vote not to pay off a "grieving family". In the end I doubt though that a few million dollars is going to change anything about that tragic day.

No matter how correct or legal an individual or company was, anyone can sue that company and get some money out of them by settling the case. Going to court is expensive. The preponderance of evidence is much lower also in a civil tort case than a criminal case as well.

Of course they have the right to sue. It would likely be a "Wrongful Death" case wherein the "preponderance" of evidence would have to show it was a wrongful death. That's one step lower than "beyond reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases. Preponderance has a variation of definition depending upon jurisdiction as does rules of evidence. I have next to no knowledge of the case but a majority of the evidence would already be available to the plaintiffs.

The OJ Simpson criminal case failed in a combination of ways including the judge allowing stuff in that many judges might not, prosecution botching some key presentation, potential of witness misconduct (earns money on TV ever since). The subsequent civil case was competently presented albeit with a lower standard of proof required and the rest is history.

I won't follow this case but will be interested in the hot wash to get an idea whether it was brought forward by attention seeking attorneys, a calculated ploy to strive for settlement, etc. The City and/or insurance carrier (if there is one) for the city may very well want to throw some money at a settlement as a lower expense than dragging out a trial and all the secondary costs with PR that goes with it. That's a business decision.

In my small town some current and former police employees have been piling on with hostile workplace suits, one after another. Some merit was found in an earlier case. Not knowing what's valid or not, small jurisdictions can get tied up in knots because they may not have the resources to fight well in the ring with shadow funded opponents.

We talking a man killed in "self defense" but in armed and away given up???? That's your child would you want justice or just let things go so it can happen again????

Just because they file doesn't mean they are going to win the 75K. They are free to file. I think 75K isn't enough. If they file, they should ask for six figures.