To charge the officer with murder, you need three thing. Motive means and opportunity. Obviously, the last two exist, in fact, we know the officer shot Brown. The problem is, what is the motive? If we are to believe the most vocal witnesses, they say that Brown did nothing to provoke being shot. If we are to believe the so-called witnesses, the officer had no motive, nothing to gain, and as we know, a great deal to loose.
I doubt the motive was race related because he would have shot more than just Brown and it would have happened sooner in his 6 years of service. Obviously, jaywalking would not be a motive. This just leaves the only other event that is in somewhat agreement with all present. The struggle in the police car. If Brown assaulted the officer, then the officer can legally react to the assault. Seeing that it is likely part of the struggle involved the officers firearm, it would be likely that Brown was trying to get the firearm away from the officer, possibly to shoot at him. We also have some of the witnesses saying that Brown was unarmed. Seeing that the first four shots that hit Brown were in the right arm, it is possible that the officer targeted his arm because of a weapon or the belief one was there. The weapon could have been taken from the scene while the officer went back to his squad car to report the shooting. Another thing is obvious from those shots is that it was not meant to kill Brown. If the officer meant to kill him, he would have targeted his head or chest on all shots. The last two shots hit Brown toward the top of the head going downward showing that Brown had to be leaning in the direction of the officer at that time. One reason for this is if Brown was charging the officer. If this is the case, the officer would have been right to use his firearm in self defense.
There are pictures on the internet of Brown throwing gang signs. It is likely that he was a gang member. In fact, he was also a suspect in a robbery that occurred earlier. The fact that he has no criminal record means nothing. It is likely that his juvenile criminal record was expunged. If the officer recognized Brown as a gang member, it is likely that he would have drawn his weapon out of caution.
Another problem with the witnesses, primarily his friend is that they paint people they know in the best light. They also know that testifying against a known gang member can have bad repercussions. Police also get a bad reputation because, most people only interact with the police when they have been caught doing something wrong.
I am not saying that the shooting was justified, just that there is still evidence that is not yet known to the public.
There is limited evidence to support the idea that Brown was killed for being black. While there are racial tensions in Ferguson, some aspects of the society people point to as signs of racism are not so cut and dry. There is said to be little representation of the black community in the local government, especially considering that blacks make 2/3rds of the city. However, voter turnout from the black community is very low, explaining why there are only a select number of black govt officials.
Some might look at the incredibly low number of black police officers. The belief of racism is understandable to an extent. There black officers barely make a fraction of the whole force, which raises the question, why? There are too many variables to definitely cry racism, unless we had records to how many people apply, their race, and all other information about people who have attempted to become cops.
Perhaps the strongest possible indication of the possibility of racism is the 93% arrest rate of criminals being black. This certainly raises a number of questions, but again, more information is needed than just the race of the criminal to cry racism.
An independent autopsy reports that 6 shots hit Brown. Even one shot is too many against an unarmed opponent. There is not enough evidence to support the idea of this being a racial murder.