Wilson drew the gun. He was being held and assaulted, he had no option to retreat, few options for fighting back, and being knocked out or worse was a serious possibility in his mind, as it would be for anyone that's being attacked unprovoked. Brown put him in this state, both physical and mental. Brown had the upper-hand, and he was the attacker. Pulling the gun here falls under self defense in almost any state. The responsibility is on the attacker to not attack or bring the defender to that point.
All well and good, but
again, these are not the circumstances under which Brown was most repeatedly, and ultimately fatally, shot.
If Wilson shot at his back and missed, then we are again talking about Brown stopping his momentum, turning, and sprinting at Wilson in only a few seconds.
I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion at all. Analysts say that Brown's rate of movement could not be inferred from the physical evidence, and every eyewitness account that isn't Wilson's has quite clearly contradicted Wilson's claim that Brown was anything close to sprinting when he was hit for the second through final times.
Autopsy shows his palms were not facing Wilson when he was shot.
Autopsy shows that his palms were not facing Wilson when he was shot again
in the arm. By all eyewitness accounts, the position and direction of all of Brown's limbs changed drastically over the course of taking several shots to the front of his body, which is entirely to be expected when that sort of thing happens. Which bullets hit or missed in what order is completely unknown.
Residue was found in a wound on Browns thumb from a shot fired at close range. His blood was also found on the gun.
That's anywhere between 'ambiguous' and 'misleading', since "close range" isn't well defined and could actually mean literally anywhere in the front of the car, which Michael Brown's blood could be found all over. (Given the lack of powder residue on any part of him, however, it's unlikely to include the immediate vicinity of the barrel.)
Wilson's testimony is in fact supported by all known physical evidence. Many other testimonies completely contradict known physical evidence.
Correction, again, that Wilson's testimony is
not directly contradicted by any known physical evidence, and that no physical evidence contradicts any eyewitness accounts except, arguably, that of Brown's friend Dorian Johnson.
All accounts that claim he was shot at from behind lead to Brown charging Wilson when taking physical evidence into account. All accounts that claim he was surrendering negate the "shot at from behind" accounts, since they require him charging at some point.
But they don't, though, and that doesn't make any sense. The witnesses aren't all wrong just because you say so.
That means, for the surrendering claim to have any validity at all, Brown would have had to walk back while not being shot, put his hands up, and then be fired at 10 times with a short pause in the middle. Wilson somehow missing the completely stationary Brown about 3-4 times.
How's that work?
Autopsy reports suggest his palms were not facing Wilson when he was shot so even that claim would be very dodgy. I'm also doubting it was ever made.
Again, autopsy report only suggests his palms were not facing Wilson
one of the times he was shot. Evidence suggests, and everyone agrees, that Brown fell over and died while Wilson was shooting at him. This means that even if, say, 3 other shots hit Brown while he had his hands up, another one still could have hit his arm on his way down. This is another example of why "doesn't directly contradict the shooter's statement" and "supports the shooter's statement" aren't the same thing.
Anyone that tries to grab a cops gun can be considered dangerous to physically engage by that cop. Seems perfectly reasonable to me not to physically engage someone who has shown intent to seriously harm or kill you. Physical evidence shows Brown moved toward Wilson.
We're not implying that any cop who allegedly has his gun grabbed by somebody then has carte blanche to use lethal force on them whenever they feel like doing so from that point forward, are we?
The shooting while fleeing theory doesn't hold much water timing wise. And again, he wasn't shooting him for the cigar theft, he has no authority to even claim Brown was the cigar thief or decide his fate on that matter. He was shooting because he felt that Brown meant him serious harm. His cigar theft doesn't enter into this matter at all.
Unless your position is that seven seconds is too little time to stop one direction and turn to face another, the shooting while running theory is fine timing-wise. If anything the timing suggests it's highly unlikely that Wilson was telling the truth about not opening fire until Brown "charged" at him, since witnesses and physical evidence agree on that the shooting took place with Brown being positioned less than 30 feet away from Wilson, and I've seen people Brown's size take less than five seconds to run 120 feet. So, here the evidence actually is more consistent with eyewitness testimony than it is with Wilson's, and suggests that he didn't open fire out of necessary self-defense at all. (Even if I were, like you, to start accepting "unload a mag into him" as necessary and acceptable self-defense against an unarmed approaching stranger.)
Wilson would probably not have been aware of where he had hit Brown, if he had hit at all, in the struggle in his car. And again, once you overpower someone, it's pretty much your call how far you want to go. He could have killed him in any number of ways, or he could have taken his gear and used it to harm others, or both.
Brown could also have taken Wilson's wallet, found his address, burned down his house and shot his dog, then stolen his squad car and run over the President with it. Again, not all theoretical possibilities in any given scenario are reasonable expectations. And Wilson should have been very aware of where he had hit Brown in the car, since Brown bled all over him, his car, and his gun from the wound immediately afterward.
Wilson could not have known Brown's intentions, and neither can you. All he knows is that he was attacked, his attacker attempted to take his gun, and his attacker was coming back at him. It's reasonable for him to think that his attacker meant him very serious harm, and things could have gone a lot worse for him had he not taken his firearm with him.
He's paid tax money to be a trained professional and to handle potentially dangerous situations without discharging his firearm everywhere every time, and also had pepper spray and a baton on his person. And on top of that, which assumes he's telling the truth in the first place, we also have plenty of reason to doubt that he could, in this case, even have reasonably expected that Brown was attempting to attack him or otherwise meant him serious harm when he stopped chasing and started shooting at him.
If you don't set out to execute someone, you are not by it's very definition executing someone. Brown's actions led Wilson to believe him to be an ongoing threat. He shot to defend himself. Unless you have something to suggest otherwise, it was a reaction to being attacked, alone, and his attacker not surrendering, not some plan he had to seek out Mike Brown and kill him.
If you do set out to execute someone, then kill them in the process, you are by its very definition executing someone even if you say you aren't. Eyewitness accounts, recordings of the shots, and distance between the body and shell casings give plenty of reason to believe that Wilson may not have opened fire in response to anything that could reasonably be interpreted as an attack, but instead aggressively and recklessly. Even if not, there really shouldn't be any argument that his use of force was excessive; and given that it resulted in an unnecessary death, that it's something that people in his position should have to answer for.
