I don't normally comment on stuff like this but I felt compelled to say something here.....I respectfully disagree with your analysis. You are focusing on the wrong things. Mr. Brown grabbed his pants and ran towards him.....yes it makes no sense to you but when your pants is drooping what are you going to grab first just before you take off running??? Witnesses testify that he did run in the direction of the officer. He just robbed a store......don't you think that someone with sense would not rob a store and then walk down the middle of the street drawing attention to yourself all of which happened according to witnesses??? Either he didn't know better, or didn't care. Not "It doesn't make sense." It makes perfect sense!
Different people react differently to all situations. So do we hold the officer emotionally accountable for shooting another human being? In other words should he have expressed more emotional remorse? I say No! Could he have done something different? Yes, but it boils down to his training. My Brother is a police officer and Veteran as I am, and when you are faced with a threat, you neutralize the threat by any means possible even if it means using deadly force. The only tool he had to neutralize the threat was his side arm. But not to defend him fully, he had the choice to carry a tazer but he didn't. At the same time, carrying a tazer is not a requirement by the police department. And also, and regardless, police officers are really not required to be warm and fuzzy and be all emotional. It doesn't matter what he feels. People get too emotional when it comes a police officer's job. You don't understand because you are not in his shoes as with being in a soldier's shoes in battle where it's either kill or be killed.
I disagree with your assessment that he should have appeared more sympathetic or not appear to be cold hearted. It doesn't matter! You are analyzing the reaction to a young thugs actions. The officer responded to Michael Brown's choices. We fail to realize how this all started in the first place. He did do his job according to his training. Now should he be blamed for doing his job the way he was trained? Personally, I don't think he is fully to blame. I'm sorry but that's the reality of being a police officer. Now that being said, I feel that the police department needs to change it's training regiment and they should be required to carry non-lethal fire arms and a body camera.
As insensitive as this may sound, feelings and emotions have no place in this. This is why the Grand Jury decided not to indict him. They analyzed the witness testimony and experts and left emotions out of it. They were not interested in emotions. I also hated all the race baiting the liberal media has done which helped fuel the riots and deepening the divide in our Black community. In this case, race should have been left out. The root cause of this situation is not the police officer's reaction. Let's get that straight! Had his parents done the right thing in raising this kid properly, he wouldn't have made stupid choices and put himself in this situation. I'm sorry but that's how I see it. I don't see race and I have a zero sensitivity towards thugs regardless of race. Now, do we have a race issue with some police officer's? Absolutely! I've experienced it first hand. Do all white police officer's act the same? No they do not!
This situation is a poor example of a race related police shooting. Try doing a root cause analysis of the whole situation and not emphasize race and emotions. Or try analyzing this same exact situation but switching the roles where the officer is Black and the "Unarmed child" is white...... :) Would your analysis be the same???