I find many things wrong with the Brown/Wilson events, but am deeply concerned with justifications for certain actions by Wilson when being defended for shooting an unarmed person.
First is the "strong armed robbery" description of Brown at the store. Yes, it may appear he shoplifted cigars or something and pushed the clerk as he exited the door, but there is one problem here.
He was not shot exiting the store, was not shot seconds after he exited the store, and was never charged or convicted of such a thing. Instead of being charged or convicted of a crime of "strong arm robbery", he was shot by Officer Wilson.
If he can be shot for something in the past, even if it was the same day, but still in the past, then anybody can be shot for every fight or altercation they had in the past, as it proves the thuggish behavior of everybody.
And everybody, unless you was a hermit all your life, has been in a fight or altercation, whether with siblings, on the school playground, or elsewhere. If Officer Wilson is justified for shooting Brown for some past event, not for something he was currently doing, then everybody is free to be shot by police officers.
Now, as far as the events when Wilson and Brown interacted with each other, there is other troubling things stated as fact. First is that Brown went for Officer Wilson's gun, which is not a fact but something stated by Officer Wilson.
When I first heard the "He was going for my gun" and hearing that while doing so, Brown was shot in the right hand, I wondered how a person could reach that far to grab a gun holstered on somebody's hip. I have since learned that the gun was unholstered by Officer Wilson "as he was being attacked by Brown".
Yes we know something happened to Officer Wilson, but we don't really know who did what first, bt at the point that Officer Wilson was pointing the gun at Brown, there could not have been an attack happening. You can't "grab a gun" with your right hand and continue to be a "demon" attacking somebody with your left hand.
We have Officer Wilson also saying he felt like a 5 year old trying to hold onto Hulk Hogan. So, as Officer Wilson was holding onto Brown, he unholstered his gun and pointed it at Brown.
Now, here is part of the problem. According to autopsies, Brown was shot in the base of his right thumb, where it meets his hand and it exited near his wrist. According to such a description, there is no possible way Brown had a grip on the gun and was probably pushing it away so it was not pointed at him when he was shot in his right hand.
And there was to shots in the vehicle and one of the shots missed, so which shot was the shot in the hand and which shot was the missed shot. We don't really know because investigators failed to find the facts at the scene "because they knew what had happened."
After the shots in the vehicle, we know Brown headed east away from the vehicle that was facing a westward direction, and at some point Officer Wilson exited the vehicle to follow him.
Here is part of the problem with Wilson getting out of the vehicle. Brown was with another person. You follow/chase/pursue a person and don't think about what the other person at the scene could do if Brown and his companion were to both gang up on you? Do you not fear Brown's companion coming up behind you and you follow Brown, or even if Brown's friend has a weapon on him?
People defend you getting out of your vehicle to follow Brown because what if he cuts through a yard, but yet he did not do such a thing, but was shot in the street. Could of Officer Wilson not stayed in the vehicle and followed Brown and gotten out if Brown had decided to cut through yards?
Now, another problem is one of the bullets in the arm is not sure if Brown was facing Officer Wilson or had his back to him when the bullet hit Brown. We do know there was 12 shots fired, 2 of those shots in the vehicle and 10 shots while following/confronting Brown.
Some say Brown was shot in the back. We do know Brown was hit by 5 or 6 additional bullets, and that one of those might have been in the arm while fleeing, but not sure if that is the case. All the other shots were while Brown was facing Officer Wilson. What happened to the 4 or 5 missed shots? Some say Officer Wilson fired while Brown had his back to Officer Wilson, so could any of those missed shots be while Brown's back was turned to Officer Wilson?
We also know that blood was found east of Brown's body, but not how far east of Brown's body and not how that blood actually got there, either from Brown coming back towards Officer Wilson or some other way, like as bullets hit Brown and transferred blood east of Brown.
We don't know any of this because nobody measured anything because "they knew what happened" and failed to take photos because the camera battery was dead. Yes, there was photos taken by another police department, but from understandings, it did not detail the scene, but just photos here and there.
So, people claim Officer Wilson was justified cause of Brown's fight with Wilson, that did not result in any real damage to Wilson, except for a possible bruise here and there, and could have resulted from Brown struggling to pull away as Officer Wilson "struggled to hold onto Brown.", because Brown may have done something earlier that day, and because Brown may have been heading towards Officer Wilson, making Officer Wilson fear for his life, even though Officer Wilson exited his vehicle after "fighting with one suspect" and "dismissing the other suspect as nonthreatening'?
This is why you get mad at people protesting the shooting of Brown? Because it does not matter what is happening currently but because of past events? So, a police officer is justified to shot any person because of past events, according to you? You yelled threateningly, cursed loudly, pushed somebody, or fought a sibling, and according to you, a police officer can shot for those past events as they pertain to what is happening in the present?
Of course not, and Brown's previous incidents that day have very little bearing on the shooting, except to make Officer Wilson not look as bad in your eyes. And "the facts" you also use to justify the shooting are also not facts. What you quote is mainly a "he said" that has not been really countered except by Brown's companion somewhat, and others who say they saw hands up by Brown in an attempt to surrender.
We don't have the facts, the measurements and photos, retrieved missed bullets, because the investigators did not bother with facts, but "knew what happened", and so did not do their job.
Maybe if there was facts, then we could say "Yes, Officer Wilson is correct in his recollection" but Wilson helped hamper the investigation along with his fellow officers, and all officers who complain about protests and hands up are encouraging such shoddy investigations to continue in the future.