> Just witness how many people justify the recent high-profile police killings by pointing out that one victim had previously robbed a convenience store and another one was selling cigarettes on the black market
I haven't seen many people use Brown's robbing the convenience store (and assaulting the shopkeeper) to justify his shooting. It's his attacking the officer and trying to take the officer's gun that is typically used as justification.
The convenience store was relevant before the forensic evidence was available, because at the time we had to choose between two stories, neither of which made much sense:
1. Cop with no prior evidence of problems flips out for no apparent reason and blows away a young man who he had stopped for jaywalking, or
2. Young man who was kind, gentle, non-violent and never harmed anyone flips out for no apparent reason and attacks a cop who is just trying to tell him to walk on the sidewalk.
Both of these require someone to be acting way out of known character. Add in the convenience store, and we know that Brown was already acting way out of character that day, just moments before the shooting, which tips the probabilities way in favor of #2.
Now that the forensic evidence is available and backs #2, there are two questions that we should be asking.
1. Why was Brown acting so out of character that day?
Or were we seeing the "real" Brown that day, and the character he presented to family, teachers, clergy, etc., was a front? If so, then we should be finding out how he fooled them, so that in the future teachers and clergy can do a better job of recognizing such people and intervening.
2. Why did Officer Wilson allow himself to get into a position where Brown could attack him and go for his gun?