I think we can all agree that the release of that video, especially in the context of the department's unwillingness to release information regarding the shooting incident, is a bald-faced attempt to influence the public's perception of Mike Brown and distract from the actions of the officer.
Following that release, there have been fierce debates going on here about what is/isn't shown on that surveillance video, and whether that video should/would be admissible in the future trial of officer Wilson. The thing is, it doesn't matter...
Here's why arguing over the admissibility of the video is pointless:
There is no way to prove Mr. Brown didn't reach for the officer's weapon. It seems beyond reason that someone in his position could or would attempt a move like that, which is why the defense will try to get the video admitted (That's all the video can do - make it more believable that the victim would have engaged in the aggressive and life-threatening behavior that would justify a lethal response by the officer). But the key here is that there are no definitive eye-witness accounts of what went down inside the car. In court the story of an officer will always trump the story of a citizen if there is no evidence to contradict the officer's testimony. When the victim is dead, the officer's story is the only story. With or without the video, the jury will hear that Mr. Brown reached for the officer's weapon, and unless the prosecution can show inconsistencies in the officer's story or a history of making false reports, they will have to believe it.
That will probably be enough to justify the first shot from inside the vehicle. What happened after that is where we and the prosecution must focus. No video is going to help explain putting 5 shots (assuming the one in the car hit the victim) into someone who is disengaged and either fleeing with his back turned or surrendering with arms raised. And it certainly isn't going to explain or justify how a bullet took a downward trajectory through the head of a 6'4" man.
They can show that video all they want in court. It isn't going to help.
It's understandable to want to defend the character of a victim who can't defend themselves against attacks like this, but bringing Mike Brown justice is far more important. The message must be clear: even if he robbed a store, even if he assaulted the officer, even if he reached for the officer's weapon, the physical evidence and witness testimony is clear that the fatal shot was not in self defense and the jury will have an obligation to convict. They could say he beat his wife, tortured his pets, and ran the largest drug gang in the midwest and it still wouldn't matter... executing someone who has surrendered is murder.