I read the article. For one thing, much of the article’s arugment that the shooting was justified even if Brown was fleeing is based on the premise that the officer knew that Brown was a suspect in the robbery. That has not been established, and the Chief has made statements today that suggest that the officer may not have known.
Also, the article ignores the eyewitness statements that Brown was shot at least once while attempting to surrender (hands up, etc.). While there are arguments in favor of justifying shooting Brown in his initial flight from the officer, there is simply no way to justify shooting someone who has his hands up and is trying to surrender. (assuming that is what happened, of course - if not, then it’s a whole other story).
Apart from the robbery, the idea that he tried to get the cop’s gun from him while beating him means he was highly dangerous if at large. Plus, the key person who claims that his hands were in the air has been discredited, as the article states. That person had plenty of opportunity to network and coach others near the scene, friends, as to what to say.
That is, you don’t let a person who has just tried to kill a cop get away, in hopes of safe capture later. Capish?