It is, and RoS is absolutely correct that the MO statutes specifically define "forcibly steals" to include the victim's attempt to recover the property.Is the case still good law?
If so, that sucks for Brown because that's almost right on point, unless in the above-mentioned case the taking of the property and pushing the manager were essentially instantaneous as opposed to the slight delay seen in this situation.
Also, another case:
Defendant was still in act of taking, removing and carrying property from store at time he struck security officer and knocked her off balance so as to support conviction for second-degree robbery through use of physical force, where defendant struck security guard as he exited door of store after security guard approached him and claimed that he had shoplifted. State v. Cates (App. W.D. 1993) 854 S.W.2d 17.
It's irrelevant as far as the shooting, as it has been reported that the shooting officer was ignorant of the earlier robbery (or theft). However, it's relevant to the forthcoming smear campaign of Michael Brown. And if it's true that the officer was ignorant of the robbery, then any labeling of him as an "alleged robber" or "alleged felon" will be nothing more than a smear campaign.