Actually...

...it has everything to do with this situation.

No, whether he was an angel or not, no one should revel in the death of Michael Brown.

But Huffpost notes:

***
"No angel" struck many as a very jarring descriptor to insert. The reaction was swift: of course Brown was "no angel," because he was a regular human being, but what did that have to do with his death?
***

This case, from the beginning and much like the Trayvon Martin case, has been billed as the poor "good boy" who was shot for no reason.  Of course, as the data became more clear, it also became obvious that Trayvon was the not little cherub that the media and his family had tried to depict him as.  So should we celebrate his death?  Of course not.  But we do need to recognize that a child's, a man's, any child or man's, demeanor will influence their ends.  And so, if Michael Brown was no angel, then perhaps he did "do something" that set in motion this tragic sequence of events. And if he did, if he was, as the video of him suggests, inclined toward crime, strong-arm tactics, toward dominating others with his size, then he is easily conceivable as playing a part in this tragedy.  And, then to insist that he should not have been shot is to suggest that the officer should have allowed himself to be beaten, perhaps disarmed, and even shot.

Not every youth, no matter his race, is an angel.  We can talk about killing a child, a teen, but then we need to realize we are talking about a teen in a grown man's body (much bigger than most grown men). That turns out in many cases to be a really bad combination.  The disinhibited behavior of a teen male combined with the body of an NFL defensive lineman.

And, quite frankly, those teens who get in altercations with the police are even less likely to be angels (or it is clear that the definition has changed).  Bad shoots by LEO happen.  But not every black man who is killed by a white man or a white cop is innocent and not every such shooting can be avoided by the person who shoots. At some point a event is set in motion, and in such events someone is going to die; the arguments now really boil down to whose life one thinks was more important.

Of course, no mother and father who lose a child will say their child was no angel, certainly not say he deserved to die. And those (e.g., Rev. Al) who are motivated to see Brown as a victim of LEO violence are not inclined to see him as having any role in his death.  Just as with the idea that women can behave in ways that can help them stay safe, the idea that one is responsible for his own behaviors is a foreign concept.

Its a shame, because an unwillingness to see that side of this man, whether reflected in his parents' denial or the anger of the larger culture, means nothing is learned from it.  That a parent says he was a good boy, when video and other evidence show he was involved in crime, is as much a factor in his ultimate death as were the bullets that killed him.  The fact that his violence was accepted as normative in his local culture was as much part of his death as was the action of a white LEO. Excusing his behavior post-mortem teaches a dangerous lesson to others his age - you are not going to be held to account for your actions, you are immune from the natural consequences of your behavior.

Two cultures failed Michael Brown. His own prefers not to see its role.