I've seen multiple interviews with witnesses that described a struggle through the window of the officer's vehicle.
What you've seen is multiple interviews with just two witnesses. One of them was the robbery accomplice walking with Brown, and the other only appeared after the first one's account was splattered all over the news (so great potential for her modifying what she saw based on what she heard). It's telling that both accounts claim that Brown was shot in the back while fleeing the cop, but Brown's body has no bullet entry points in his back (or any indication he was shot while facing away from the shooter). So either they both managed to miss-see events in the exact same way, or she adjusted her version of events to match his.
So you're really just hearing one account. From a guy who was an accomplice to strong arm robbery and has every reason in the world to point the finger of blame at the police.
I've seen no interviews where the witnesses described Michael Brown as instigating the struggle.
How on earth do you suppose a 6'4" 290lb man ends out face first halfway into a car door struggling with a police officer if all he ever did was try to avoid or escape the cop? Seriously. The entire claim that the cop reached out of the window and tried to pull Brown in is absurd as ****. A 5'9" person attempting that on someone so much bigger? And for what purpose? So as to ensure that the guy with no leverage or height or size or strength advantage is now in close proximity with the guy who has all of those things? It's far more likely that Brown chose to reach/climb into the car on top of the officer for some reason. We can speculate as to why, but it's hard to imagine that he could have been forced into such an advantageous (for him!) physical position by the officer.
I've seen one where the witness states the cop "started it" by essentially giving Michael Brown and the witness **** for jaywalking, exchanging words with Brown, attempting to open his door which bounced back at him because he hit Brown with it being so close, the cop reaching out through the window and struggling with Brown, a shot being fired in the car, Brown fleeing while bleeding from a gunshot, & Brown being shot & shot at while fleeing and surrendering.
Again, the only witness who saw anything prior to Brown and the officer struggling in the car was Brown's friend. He's a poor witness at best. And even his story kinda skips past the whole "bounced back into the car" and to "Brown and cop struggling in the car" without really explaining how they got into that position. Also, the whole "shot while fleeing" bit doesn't work when none of the injuries indicate being shot from behind.
All of the physical evidence we've heard of so far points to someone who had just committed a robbery being accosted by a police officer, not realizing the cop didn't know about the robbery, he reacts violently to a cop whose guard is down (cause he doesn't realize this is a robber suspect), gets the drop on the cop, a struggle ensues, and the cop shoots him in the car. Brown backs out of the car, and the officer pursues him, ordering him to surrender. Brown chooses to charge the cop again rather than give up, and the cop fires several more rounds at him, hitting him in the right arm and then in the head, finally killing him.
This is a far more likely scenario than the alternative. It just doesn't match up with a "racist cop kills black teen" narrative that so many want to talk about.
That doesn't mean Brown didn't "start it", but it'll be the officer's word against the witness's. Multiple witnesses have stated they saw Michael shot multiple times while running away & attempting to surrender.
And the forensic evidence. Which, I suspect, just like in the Martin case, will turn out to tell a very different story than that being claimed in the media. But maybe you're right. We should just not bother to learn from the past examples of rushing to judgement in cases like this. Cause that works so well.
Even if Brown was the "bad guy" throughout most of this, the cop didn't have the right to execute an unarmed man who was surrendering.
Correct. But that kinda hinges on whether he was actually surrendering, right? You're taking one person's word as gospel truth. Maybe you shouldn't do that.