Darren Wilson was in the right

Round 2 of 2ConMy opponent begins by attempting to rebut the legal side of my argument. Whilst he correctly asserts that Darren Wilson would have acted in an out of ordinary way to not take his weapon to work, my opponent does not adequately explain why Darren Wilson could not have simply refused to engage the two young men until backup got there. My opponent states: 'If Wilson were to ... wait for backup to arrive [he] would have provided an amount of time for Brown to continue beating Wilson and possibly even kill or severely injure him. This is, however, untrue, as if Darren Wilson had waited for backup before engaging Michael Brown, as I suggested in my previous argument, then Michael Brown would never have had the opportunity to start 'beating' Wilson and thus the entire skirmish between the two could have easily been avoided. My opponent drops this part of my argument, however.My opponent states: 'Also, I believe that you should use more sources closer to the area influenced by this event, not an article from a United Kingdom.' However only one of my 3 article based sources were from the United Kingdom, and an article from the Daily Mail about an event in America is likely to be less biased than, say, an article from an American newspaper which may have links to political groups which are either pro or anti gun control. My opponent also states this: '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".' The interesting part of this is that it clearly states that the person must use 'reasonably necessary' physical force. Darren Wilson claims that Brown charged at him, I am unsure as to whether or not somebody charging at you should be seen as a reasonable excuse to shoot them dead. I, personally, would not say that that is a 'reasonable' use of force. Even if it was, however, my opponent, as I have stated in a previous round, has no proof of what actually did happen at Ferguson as he was not there himself.My opponent states this: ' 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.' This ignores half of my source which stated that '[1]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.' My opponent concedes that McCullough was biased, and then refuses to rebut the fact that he was still largely in control of the grand jury that he handed the case over to. Thus my opponent drops this argument.My opponent asserts: '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.' Yet this is an empty statement, it is untrue. My opponent provides no sources for it to back it up, it is just his own personal opinion. In fact, my opponent, whilst eagerly criticising my sources, has not actually provided a single source of his own in the entire debate. This leads to many of his arguments being empty and subjective 'statements' with no actual proof of their truth.It is worth stating now that my opponent has just stated that all evidence indicating the direction of the shots and impact into the body would have been erased, and then goes on to state this: '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.' Yet my opponent has just discredited the physical evidence too, so he is accepting that the physical evidence should also be discredited. This further emphasises my point that we cannot know exactly what went on at Ferguson unless we were there ourselves.My opponent states this: 'He says from there his only option was his firearm. In that circumstance, he used the only possible avenue to subdue Brown.' My opponent doesn't rebut the necessary 'moral' argument in this debate at all. He even cuts it out of the definition I gave of 'right' earlier. In fact, it would be correct to say that my opponent has dropped my moral argument which is at least half of the debate. This is relevant to my opponent's statement because my opponent has not explained why Wilson was morally in the 'right' to subdue Brown in the first place. Legally, Wilson was probably correct to arrest Brown as he was suspected of theft and assault. However, morally, what gave Wilson the authoritative right to suggest that his morals were somehow 'better' than Brown's to the extent where Wilson could physically interfere with Brown. This has nothing to do with the law but touches on a side of moral philosophy. As there is no universally accepted system of objective morals, we can only assume that Wilson had no moral right to attempt to arrest Brown as there is no proof that Brown's stealing cigarillo's from a store was morally 'wrong.' Whilst people may believe that it is morally wrong to steal, you can have no absolute proof of that, you can only prove that it is unpleasant for the person being stolen from. But if it makes the person stealing happier than it makes the person being stolen from distressed, maybe there is a positive net gain which perhaps makes it moral to steal on that occasion. Was this the case with Brown? Perhaps. However, as my opponent has addressed none of the 'moral' side of my argument, he essentially concedes this half of the debate.I would like to make the point again that my opponent has not used a single source of his own in this debate, however he has quoted from them without actually sourcing them. This can be seen as plaguerism.Thank you for debating with me, Pro. Sources[1]http://www.philly.com...