I think this one was called for.
I don't really know how people are coming to hard set conclusions on the Brown shooting at this juncture. The results of the autopsies were not particularly conclusive and somewhat divergent in certain respects. You have witnesses on both sides saying very different things happened. You have Brown roughing up a convenience store clerk and some making the large logical leap that he did the same to Wilson that night (not logic I'd agree with really given the difference between a cop and a convenience story clerk). You have the officer with an injury ranging from a bruise to some sort of an orbital fracture, depending on the source, consistent with some sort of tussle (theoretically, he could have just had a fellow cop punch him after the fact if you get your tinfoil hat on). Even CNN has an article up right now about why using six shots was a plausible response in the situation:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t3
But if officers are trained for center of mass aiming, why the two head shots?
I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on the shooting itself. I do think the Ferguson police department's reaction to the protests (particularly early on) has been doing Wilson absolutely zero favors; they look like a bunch of militarized loonies which lends a lot of credence to the belief that Wilson was just one of said loonies.