The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

In The Sherlock Holmes story "Silver Blaze" the resolution of the mystery of a stolen race horse and a murdered stable man hinges on this famous exchange:

Scotland Yard Detective: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Detective: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Scotland Yard has a coherent theory of the crime, or it thinks it does. But Holmes isn't happy. He wants to know why the dog didn't bark at the horse thief. It's not explained by the Scotland Yard theory. It doesn't fit.

I'm driven to ask questions. Even when something seems cut and dry, I always ask questions just to be sure everything fits, just to be sure I haven't overlooked a dog that should've been barking but wasn't. This is where I need to be careful and not let my imagination fly off to the moon. Sometimes all I do is fill a few final gaps. Sometimes I find nothing at all. I ask anyway because sometimes what I find is gold.

A few days ago a video was release allegedly showing the act of shoplifting that prompted Michael Brown's pursuit by the Ferguson police. (If I ran a news operation of any kind, I'd find an alternative to the word 'aledged' and disallow its use. Aledged means the evidence is uncertain. When a news story says 'aledged crime', all anyone hears is 'crime'.)

Video is the epitome of the double-edged sword. It can provide an accurate depiction of events. It can also fool you into thinking you have a complete depiction of events. The first version of this video I saw was truncated. It showed only the portion of the video in which Brown tried to leave and was confronted by who we presume is a store employee. Brown is holding an object, and after pushing the store employee aside walks out with it. 

My encounter with this portion of the video was on social media. Everyone on the thread was already convinced they were watching a crime. Because we've been told that we're watching a crime, we assume he's carrying something he picked up in the store. The video doesn't show where the object came from. Did he bring it in with him? Maybe it's something from the store. This video doesn't show the checkout counter. Did he pay for it or not? How can I tell from this video?

This is the point. It turns out Brown was carrying something he picked up in the store. The full video seems to show that. I could not make that statement based on the part of the video that I saw. Being told Brown carried something he picked up in the store ins't the same as knowing he carried something he picked up in the store. 

Before I saw the full video, this was the thing that didn't fit. This was the dog in the night. Even after seeing the full video I still have questions. 

The employee steps in front of someone who is a head taller and a car-length wider than himself and who we are told is a criminal. I'm guessing that in a fair fight, Brown could pound the guy so hard his ancestors would beg for mercy. Yet the employee steps in front of him. This is another piece that doesn't fit. Why doesn't the store employee see Brown as a threat? It could be that said employee is a former marine. I can think of other explanations, some of which could indicate extenuating circumstances. I have no interest in any one possible explanation, but I want to be sure it's not something important.

The meme is already rising that Brown got what he deserved. Never mind that police don't decide guilt or innocence. Never mind that execution isn't a punishment for shoplifting.