I'd like to come back to what Chaqa said for a moment here.
"Armed robber" is the phrase you use. I wonder how you found out he was armed. I mean, typically, the case is described as an unarmed man getting into conflict with a police officer (over the gun) and the police officer defending himself (or not, as some claim) and killing the man. I have never before heard the theory that Michael Brown was armed - he may have been struggling over a gun, that isn't clear, as the case is poorly documented (can we please outfit our police force with cameras?). As for robber, I'll just mention that innocent before proven guilty is a thing, that even if he was guilty, it didn't justify the actions undertaken.
@Fairfax
I marvel that your mastery of the facts surrounding the case is so great that you simply *know* Darren Wilson was justified and thus innocent in shooting Michael Brown.
I note a lot of discussion of the weakness of this case. Indeed, there is very little evidence, and in the absence of evidence, we must take heed of the presumption of innocence, which is a foundation of the legal system. Of course, we would have evidence, which would then justify a verdict much better, if Darren Wilson had been wearing a camera on his uniform, in line with systems introduced by a number of police forces around the world, with amazing success.
)
Leaving a game.
)
)
)
)
)
)