Darren Wilson was in the right

Thank you for accepting the argument. To begin, I would like to quote a point made in your argument, "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." Although you say that this is an argument for another time, what you had to say here highly pertains to the debate today. You say that had Wilson not had a firearm at the time of the shooting, (which by the way is a standard practice for all departments, that is, to carry a sidearm) that the risk for loss of life would be significantly less. While this is undoubtedly true for the side of Michael Brown, this is not true for Darren Wilson. Officer Wilson, without his sidearm, would have been at a disadvantageous position against Michael Brown. While you say that Brown had no weapon, he, in fact, did. A clenched fist is still a viable weapon. Someone punching another is considered assault with a deadly weapon, and can fall under both class B and C felony charges in the state of Missouri, to quote state law, assault is "attempting to kill someone or knowingly causing or attempting to cause serious physical injury to someone." Michael Brown charging at Wilson and also punching him repeatedly classifies under this, and a man can be killed simply from a brutal beating if he is given the opportunity. If Wilson were to do what you suggested and report for his job without his firearm and at the time of the altercation wait for backup to arrive would have provided an amount of time for Brown to continue beating Wilson and possibly even kill or severely injure him. Thank you for using the Oxford definition for right, as it further proves my point. That definition states that one must have legal entitlement to do something. Under Missouri statute 563.031, "1. A person may...use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person". Wilson had clear justification to protect his own person. Also, I believe that you should use more sources closer to the area influenced by this event, not an article from a United Kingdom. Another important point is that your "credible source" philly.com's article that you quoted twice actually is titled 'Close read shows Ferguson grand jury got it right'. You say that McCullough was biased, and he quite possibly could have been, and that is why he handed this case off to the grand jury. In addition, the jury personally asked to hear all the evidence in the case, to summarize what McCullough said, and that they often asked back several witnesses and eliminated all that had a drastically different story. They also examined physical evidence from the case which showed that Wilson was telling the truth. The autopsy ordered by the Brown family could also not have been accurate because all bodies are washed after the initial autopsy by the city coroner. any and all gunpowder and blood evidence indicating the direction of the shots and impact into the body would have been erased, meaning that that autopsy has no credibility. To quote also from your source, "Another unconventional aspect of this grand jury was that Wilson testified for 90 minutes without once asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Experienced criminal lawyers will tell you this is unheard of and might dramatically confirm that Wilson knew he had nothing to hide." The combined evidence from multiple sides of the altercation and questions asked by jury members provide the cross examination. As you also state in your position, many say that Brown had his hands up, and many say he did not. Since that was true and ONLY IF those sources were found to be 100% credible should they be accepted, and if they are not, be discredited. Without the evidence from the witness testimonies, you are left with physical evidence, which points to Darren Wilson as not being the instigator. To further add justification for officer Wilson's use of his sidearm, we go to his testimony, which says that his baton is beneath him, wedged between the seat and his body. He also says that his pepper spray canister was on his left side, and to reach it he would have had to sacrifice his only defense from Brown's punches, his arm, to grab the canister, and by that time Brown would most likely had overpowered him. He says from there his only option was his firearm. In that circumstance, he used the only possible avenue to subdue Brown. If Brown would have listened to what Wilson had asked him to do at first, simply to get onto the sidewalk, and cooperated with Wilson from there on, he would still be alive, albeit probably in a jail cell for marijuana usage as well as assault on the store clerk and theft.