http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675
What if Brown did assault Wilson and try to take his gun before fleeing—the account put forward by the St. Louis County police? Would that make him a dangerous fleeing felon?
“It’s conceivable that there might be a determination that Mr. Brown had committed an assault that was equivalent to a felony against a police officer and that might be viewed legally as a justification for the use of force—and in this instance, deadly force,” Joy said.
But assuming Brown didn’t charge at Wilson, as his friend recounted, other legal experts say that argument would be shaky at best.
Assuming "that Brown breaks away from the police officer and the police car, is not armed, and is at some distance away from him—not presenting any immediate threat to the officer or anybody else—then it's plainly illegal to shoot him,” said Bowman.
Did a struggle with the police officer turn Brown into a violent fleeing felon? After all, police department’s account claims Officer Wilson’s face was hit during the altercation and he was treated for his wounds at a hospital.
Not according to Bowman. “If you’re a police officer and I walk up and punch you in the nose and turn around and run away, you can’t pull out your glock and shoot me in the back. You just can’t. The law insists on far more restraint than that from police officers.” he said.
Generally, the law requires more than an altercation to justify the use of deadly force against someone who is fleeing the police, like assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon, or committing a crime with a deadly weapon.
“It’s pretty hard to think of any legal justification for the officer firing at this guy once contact is broken and the guy is moving away,” Bowman said.
Bowman was a little wary of Josie’s account, but stressed that an investigation will have to sort fact from fiction. “The idea that, once out of the car, the kid would then charge an obviously armed policeman seems to me less probable,” he said. “But, who knows? We'll see what the actual investigation decides.”
It's not a bad read.
From that, the only legal defense I can imagine for Wilson is trying to convince some members of the jury that Brown charged at him (which as noted and bolded above is a stretch because that's a pretty crazy thing to do against a cop with a gun drawn). Wilson would also need the ballistics to back him up. And a bunch of witnesses since they've interviewed about 200 folks and at least four have come out against him publicly. Without that, based on the above article, he's likely to get convicted (if the prosecutor doesn't put his thumb on the scales of justice).
= new reply since forum marked as read