For good reason. Every time the police shoots somebody, the police are pretty quick to say the person was a suspect of something, whether it's true or not. And since the police also say the officer involved in the shooting didn't know about the convenience store incident, it's irrelevant anyway.

Whether he committed the petit larceny or not, the fact remains he was unarmed when the police shot him. That doesn't necessarily men the officer didn't have a good reason to shoot him, but it sure raises questions. And it's pretty darn convenient that there is no video footage of the shooting.

Onward and upward,
airforce