Mike Brown was a shoplifter who used his size to intimidate people.
When faced with arrest, Mike Brown started using his size to intimidate the officer.
The officer pulled out his gun to equalize the situation.
Mike Brown tried to take the gun from the officer.
The narrative of the prosecutor is: If Mike Brown took the gun, he would have immediately turned around and killed Officer Wilson.
The major premise of this narrative is: "People with guns kill."
Mike Brown had size on the officer. If he successfully took the gun, he would have humiliated the officer. Why would he shoot the person he just humiliated?
If you remove the premise "People with guns kill;" then you are left with the view that the officer's pride was a stake.
The premise behind the conservative narrative leaps out at me because I live in an area where one is not allowed to utter in any form the sentiment "People with guns kill" without being vilified.
I am not even allowed to say that people with guns shouldn't shoot across public roads and trails without attracting the venom of the right.
Yet this is the central argument in the conservative argument that Mike Brown deserved to be shot down.
If you are a member of the NRA; Please, answer this question: Does the possession of a gun warrant your being gunned down?
If Mike Brown successfully took Officer Wilson's gun; he would have humiliated the officer and established a local legend for himself. He had size on the officer. Why would he kill the disarmed officer?
Fortunately, the disarming did not happen. Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown in the hand and Mike Brown fled.
This first shooting was clearly justified. Officer Wilson was right to protect himself and to keep control of the weapon.
After this first justified action, Officer Wilson chose to pursue, on his own, a suspect who made it clear that he would resist arrest. Officer Wilson chose to pursue a person he could not restrain without lethal force.
This leads back to the argument in the last post. Officer Wilson is a professional hired by the public. A professional should be able to foresee the likely outcome of his actions.
Pursuing the suspect on his own would lead to a second shooting. Officer Wilson chose to pursue a course of action that would inevitably lead to shooting.
Officer Wilson was not the primary detective involved in the shoplifting case. There were other police resources near by. There was no compelling reason to continue the pursuit. There was simply high risk with low reward. Prudence would demand waiting for back up ... which was near by.
The decision to continue the pursuit, with pride on the table, led to a petty thief being gunned down over a handful of Cigarillos.
While the idea of indicting Officer Wilson is absurd, his decision to continue the confrontation shows lack of the sound professional judgment.
Officer Wilson is a public servant hired by the people. He is not entitled to his job any more than I am entitled to a job. I lost a job because a client didn't like the colors used in a graph. It is completely appropriate to dismiss Officer Wilson.
The conservatives who are jumping up and down yelling schreeching that the Ferguson shooting was a just kill and we should be slapping medals on the brave hero who shot the vicious shoplifter in Ferguson are a bit off base.
NOTE: If Officer Wilson were fired, he could always go into journalism and would be immediately welcomed as a paid news contributor on Fox News. Fox News is an outfit that rejects the premise: "People with guns kill" when it suits their political desires, but waves the premise when it fits their desired narrative.