Darren Wilson was in the right

Round 1 of 2ConMy opponent has chosen to argue that Darren Wilson was in the 'right' when he shot Michael Brown.In order to argue this properly, we have to define 'right' in the context of action. The definition I am using is found in the English Oxford dictionary:Right - '[1]A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something:'Thus, in order for Darren Wilson to be considered to be in the 'right,' he must be considered to have acted with both legal consent and in a way that could be deemed morally acceptable. Did Darren Wilson act legally when he shot Michael Brown?A Ferguson grand jury decided that Darren Wilson should not be prosecuted for the shooting of Michael Brown. That particular jury, therefore, gave their after-the-fact legal consent for Darren Wilson to shoot Michael Brown. However, that was simply one jury which was imperfect, as stated here:'First, prosecutor Robert McCullough was in a no-win position. He didn't think there was probable cause to arrest Officer Darren Wilson but recognized the community would not accept his unilateral decision after questions had been raised about his affinity for law enforcement. That's why he turned to a grand jury, or as veteran criminal defense attorney Mark O'Mara described it to me, a "super" grand jury, where he presented all evidence without any recommendation. The net effect was a trial with little to no cross-examination.'The same source then continues:'[3]By submitting all the evidence to the grand jury, he added to the perception that this process represented an independent evaluation of the evidence. But there is little doubt that he remained largely in control of the process; aggressive advocacy by prosecutors could have persuaded the grand jurors to vote for some kind of indictment.'This makes the trial highly suspect, as do the claims of the eyewitnesses, some of whom reported that Michael Brown '[4]had put his hands in the air and said to Darren Wilson: 'I don't have a gun, stop shooting.' whilst others claimed that 'Mr Brown did not raise his hands at all or that he raised them briefly and then dropped them and then turned toward Officer Wilson, who then fired several rounds.'This means that nobody can know for sure whether Darren Wilson acted legally or not unless they were actually there. Thus, it is impossible to say that Darren Wilson acted legally 'right,' but it's also impossible to say that he did not act legally 'right.'Did Darren Wilson act morally 'right' when he shot Michael Brown?As far as I'm aware, there is no system of clear and universally accepted objective morality. However, as close as you can get to it is on the subject of killing. It is almost universally accepted that killing is wrong. No matter what. Even in situations of self-defence which don't involve American police officers, [5]the offender is usually still charged with manslaughter as self-defence is often not seen as a strong enough defence for having killed somebody.Having said that, laws and morals have little, or nothing, to do with each other. Darren Wilson argues that he had to shoot Michael Brown or his life could have been in danger as Michael Brown may have wrestled the gun off of him and shot him with it. However, had Darren Wilson not had a gun in the first place, then there could have been no danger of that as Michael Brown certainly didn't have a weapon himself. But that's an argument for another time.There is no way to argue that Michael Brown was morally right in his actions to steal cigarillos and then attack an officer. However, there is also no way to argue that killing somebody is morally 'right.' Darren Wilson could have simply waited for the backup that he called for and then confronted the two young men, instead of confronting them alone. Thus, the argument of 'self-defence' is not a moral justification for killing somebody. Darren Wilson brought a gun into the fight, which was the only reason there was any significant risk of loss of life, therefore the fact that there was a loss of life was Darren Wilson's fault. What Michael Brown had done to deserve arrest and prosecution was and is irrelevant as there is no justification for taking an action which significantly increases the risk of loss of life.Back to you, Pro.Sources:[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://www.philly.com...[3]http://www.philly.com...[4]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[5]http://www.nbcnews.com...