Noted.
This seems quite vague. "If nature has not provided the means," could mean a number of things. Also is there an "equal force" statute? Just curious and have not done proper research at this time.
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion based on the un-cited quotations you used to back up the claim. Not trying to be a jerk, but I do not see a logical connection between the words "weapon" and "hands" in what you quoted. As a matter of fact, the word hands does not exist in any of your quotations.
The comment was made that hands are not weapons under the Missouri statutes. Definition of WEAPON:1weap·on
noun \ˈwe-pən\
: something that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you.
Missouri has no Equal force statute, that I could find by searching.
Just because Brown was unarmed, no gun, knife, doesn't mean his hands weren't being used as weapons. The LEO had every right to shoot him IF, he was getting beat by Brown. More people are killed by bare hand beatings than firearms.
FBI Statistic I looked up :
As of 2008, the mortality rate for shotguns was 14%, for rifles was 8% – but the mortality rate for severe beatings was 55%.
Overall, you have roughly a 90 percent chance of surviving being shot. You have less than a 50% chance of surviving a severe beating. A couple of rehabilitation experts say they see a far higher percentage of persons who have been beaten who are permanently disabled than those who have been shot, as well.
Bottom line? If you have a choice, a gunfight is a better option than a beating.
Brown used his size to intimidate and strong arm , as shown in the video. He COULD have very well beat the LEO senseless or to death, would it have been better for the LEO not to fire, IF indeed he had to, and have Brown beat him? Especially if the LEO was sitting in the car, trying to fend off punches.