A friend of mine just was hired and started his training as a cop. He’s 35 years old - not a yahoo, and smart.
Based on what he’s learned and told me ... in my opinion ... given the evidence of the assault in the car, unless there is probable cause that Brown was headed away from the officer, there is no way to indict.
The standard seems to be here, the cop has the right to use the gun if ‘a reasonable person would have feared for his safety’.
Also, once you start shooting, you don’t shoot to wound. 2 to the mid section, one above the nose. That seems to be the general pattern Wilson followed.
So ... unless there is probable cause that Brown was headed away, not towards, Wilson is in the clear. Once he started shooting, wouldn’t even matter if Brown raised his hands in surrender after the first bullet hit him. Once you shoot at all, you shoot to end it, fast.
I am the friend of a good guy in training but not yet at the academy ... I’m not an authority and nor is he yet.
I’ll copy what I wrote and send to my friend, see if he has anything to add. I’m sure some real coops have already commented.
coops = cops, and even contains the word ‘oops.’ A self correcting mistake.
What if he was standing still?
I would like to offer that the standard is not what a reasonable person would do, it’s what a reasonable police officer with similiar training, experience, knowledge and in a similar situation would do.
Wilson would have been justified in shooting Brown in the back based on the case law of Tennessee v. Garner.