May I also add the fact that several of the supposed witnesses said he DID attack the officer, so should those witnesses be ignored? In which case, shall we ignore the witnesses that claimed that he didn't have his hands up? What about the ones that claimed he was flat on the ground and was shot through the BACK of the head? Even the other kid that was right there claimed things that didn't freaking happen! he claims that Mike was shot in the back, medical evidence disproves this. His mother claimed that he wasn't a violent kid and could never hurt a fly, so what about the store footage? She seems strangely quiet about that smudge on her son's character. But of course, this kid was totally innocent and didn't do anything right? Just another malicious white guy out to kill black people right? Get wrecked bub.

based on the officers testimony it should have been easily verifiable. what I read the officer claimed to shoot while struggleing for the gun. firing a gun leaves gunpowder residue on the shooters hands. I'd find it hard to believe it would not also leave residue on the hands of the person holding the other end of the gun.

^^^ you realize in this legal system we live in the prosecutor is not penalized for withholding valuable evidence to the defendant even if that evidence was enough to acquit the defendant. Cops do it all the time... It's hard not to be mad when a whole government system is working against you.

Actually many witnesses corroborated the officers story. These were also African Americans. The facts are the facts.

Clearly you have not done any research. Multiple african american eye witnesses confirm the struggle over the gun. Also how could he not hear over his radio a dispatcher reporting a robbery. Wilson did not know if he robbed the store but he knew that Mike Brown fit the description of someone who did, making him a suspect.

Btw avoid mainstream media for info, they be brainwashin yall k