Maybe. But he describes the path as “upward, backward, and leftward”, and it’s in the middle of a pretty classic series of shots for someone shooting rapidly at an approaching threat.
I don’t know what the law is in Missouri about shooting after someone fleeing — some places, some circumstances, a cop has the legal right to shoot someone who is running away. But just about everywhere I’ve looked into it, if a cop feels justifiably threatened, he has the right to shoot someone approaching him. The law doesn’t care whether Michael Brown had his arms up or not; the very fact that he was moving in Wilson’s direction and refusing to stop means Wilson had the right to shoot.
Homicide rates for “unarmed” homicide (killing with just hands, fists, feet, etc.) in the US have been dropping — they were nearly three a day a decade or so back, I think they’re down to fewer than two a day now — but they still happen, and the law takes account of that. If it’s true that multiple witnesses have testified Micheal Brown was approaching Wilson, then it’s pretty likely that the law is on Wilson’s side.
I was writing about the shots placed by P. O. Wilson while chasing after Michael Brown -— both men going in the same direction.
One witness at least, states that P. O. Wilson fired 4 shots at Michael Brown as Michael Brown was fleeing.
The shot above the right elbow of Michael Brown, in particular, is what could cause Michael Brown to respond to the shot’s effect - tying in with observations made by known witnesses - and then Michael Brown stopped, and then Michael Brown turned to face P. O. Wilson, who kept moving toward Michael Brown.
“Could cause” - because of the enervation in that area of the inside of the arm above the elbow.