Even if Wilson was a normal citizen this still might not be reasonable self-defense. Most self-defense laws are clear that once the immediate threat is over then further action or disproportionate action is no longer self-defense. In this case even if Brown had assaulted Wilson once Brown is trying to flee from Wilson and wounded already he no longer represents a threat.
Exactly. If someone strikes you and then runs away you can't gun them down. You are no longer in danger. I can't wait to see what happens when nut jobs try to argue against this. I wonder how for they will go. Can you legally gun someone down who punched you last week? What about the kid who beat you up and stole your lunch money in elementary school twenty five years ago? Can you blow him away at the high school reunion?
Why rationalize? Would it be like saying, well it seems after years of being harassed and discriminated against by the police, Brown finally decided to fight back at first. Then later he came to his senses and tried to surrender. I'm not saying that's what happened, but if you are going to rationalize one party's behavior you might as well rationalize the other party's too.
The police don't need to interview them, but it can certainly question how thorough their investigation was if they didn't. It might add to the concept that they had a scenario in mind and only set out to find evidence to back that particular scenario rather than interview and investigate as much as possible, and collect all the facts they could.
And it is incredibly damning. Two white construction workers from out of town, who weren't very far away, were watching the shooting as it took place. Just watch the video. This cop needs to be locked up for a very long time, in my humble opinion. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NR7VHs9wo0Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
This video doesn't prove a thing. Brown wasn't shot in the back, according to the autopsy report. This is just CNN stoking the flames for ratings
You seriously think this means nothing and that it is an attempt at ratings by CNN. What's next? CNN paid the dudes to show up at the scene in time to watch a cop gun down an unarmed man with his hands up? With all due respect, that makes as much sense as your post.
What do you mean by credible? It is a video of a witness, not the shooting, so unless the witness changes his story it is pointless.
After having watched the video, the witnesses didn't say that he was shot in the back, but that he was shot while his back was turned.
I know that you are rooting for the white man in this case against the minorities (as always) but at least try to show some objectivity.
