Pretty much so. Just like many of you are going to continue with your presumed conclusions that Michael Brown was asking for it by virtue of his being black.
No one thinks Brown was asking for it because he was black. What people are doing is assuming the officers story is true.
That story is that Brown was charging the officer even when his gun was drawn at him. Brown was hedging that the officer would not fire.
Now let's assume for a second that the officer's story is true.
A. We already have a guy (Brown) that already attempted to grab the officers gun.
B. The officer knew he was no physical match for Brown not to mention he had two (Dorian) people to combat if he had to use physical means.
C. With Brown charging the officer, the officer had no time to use any other means ( or less -lethal) to subdue Brown.
So if the officers story is true, he was justified in shooting Brown (under those circumstances). The only issue here is to assume the officer's story or Brown's criminal friend's story.
In lieu of any conclusive facts, most rational people will assume a decorated police officers story then a criminal's story.
What aspect of this is so difficult for you to understand?
