Why it’s always best to wait and see how things develope:

The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck… (emphasis added)

As I said when the case first emerged – as a general rule, un-armed people should not be shot by the police. As the police did shoot in this case, I’d want to see some absolutely clear reasons why the officer fired. It looks as though we are going to get them: while this is still preliminary, the fact that the Feds are not coming up with any civil rights violations to charge Officer Wilson and the fact that forensics is starting to strongly support the accusation that Mr. Brown attacked, indicates that the shooting may well have been justified.

This doesn’t at all alter my view that the police are still not policing properly, nor that they are over-militarized, nor that deep reforms are needed – but it does kick a massive hole in the liberal narrative about gangs of racist cops out to kill black people. And that, in turn, leads me to wonder just why this particular incident caught on so fast in the national media. Just as with the Martin killing, I suspect a deliberate, orchestrated attempt to get the incident in the public eye.