Skip to main content

St. Louis local news is reporting that the Attorney for the Ferguson store, Jake Kanzler said the the Ferguson store owner, nor any store employee called the police to report any shoplifting of cigars, but, rather, a customer called the police.

Please notice, the I was not able to embed the video of St. Louis local news but the video can be seen here)

REPORTER: The owner of the store dispute the claim that they or an employee called 911, saying a customer inside the store made the call.  They also say St. Louis County issues the warrants for the hard drive of surveillance video Friday.

[emphasis added by me]

the Ferguson Market attorney said police did not see the video until after the unarmed teenager, Michael Brown, was shot dead in the street.
REPORTER: "I asked the attorney for the owner of the store how the Ferguson police ended up with the video the Police Chief released this morning, the attorney said, 'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape."
WOW!

St. Louis news goes on to report:

... the attorney wanted to emphasize the 911 call did not come from the owners or an employee.
WOW!

In a separate news video (embedded below) the Ferguson Market attorney also says any alleged theft of cigars had nothing to do with Michael Brown being shot to death by Ferguson police:

KANZLER: "Whatever the police are looking for on the surveillance tape, has nothing to do with what went on in the street."
Well, well, well ... now the fact that no employee from the store, nor the store owner called 911 to report a 'theft' of cheap cigars, might explain why the DoJ did not want Ferguson Police Chief Johnson to release the tape.  Add to that, the fact that even Ferguson Market attorney acknowledges the obvious, "Whatever the police are looking for on the surveillance tape, has nothing to do with what went on in the street."

Take away: the alleged theft of the cheap cigars was so insignificant to the Ferguson Market that they did not even bother to call 911 about it -- yet -- the Ferguson Police Chief appears to want us to pretend that the alleged shoplifting of the cheap cigars somehow justifies Officer Darren Wilson killing the unarmed teenager who they claim was the alleged suspect.

Originally posted to TeamSarah4Choice on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:28 AM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  As far as I can tell (116+ / 0-)

      From various reports: Brown handed the box of cigars to his friend who put them down, but Brown grabbed a handful of cheaper cigarillos. According to one report the police chief said they were found on his body.

      Obviously, that kind of petty theft doesn't justify killing him, even if the cop knew about it, but it and the altercation with the clerk does serve the purpose of suggesting that Brown might have been aggressive and that he might have resisted for fear of being caught with evidence.

      It's all about setting up the defense.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:01:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (66+ / 0-)

        Unfortunately, whether the police knew or didn't know anything about the robbery, it destroys the idea of Brown as an innocent victim shot while randomly walking down the street.

        This creates a surmountable but real issue for prosecution. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Your doubt becomes a lot more reasonable when the guy that was shot was just involved with a robbery in the minutes before he was shot.

        Now, let's be clear: regardless of what Brown did before this altercation, shooting a man who is not threatening you is murder. But convincing a jury that this is what happened became harder.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:17:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's two things going on (23+ / 0-)

          One is whether Brown did attack the officer and whether he was justified in firing in self-defence at any point. The video is circumstancial evidence towards this.

          The second is whether, however the altercation started, the killing shots were fired in self-defence. This is where the forensics evidence and the witness statements come more into play. Even if Brown initially attacked the officer, if he then fled and/or tried to surrender, self-defence should be very hard to claim.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:55:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Being This... (10+ / 0-)
          ...an innocent victim shot while randomly walking down the street.
          ...didn't help Trayvon Martin, John Crawford III, or Eric Garner.
        •  Nonsense. (17+ / 0-)

          Even a non-lawyer like me knows enough about trials and US Law that:

          In a court trial, information related to the alleged theft in the video from the store WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED INTO EVIDENCE.

          Because in US Law, only the evidence collected FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME is allowed.

          Data from prior acts cannot be considered - other than in some cases, previous CONVICTIONS for previous crimes and I believe that THAT is generally limited to purposes of sentencing. As in the 3 Strikes Laws.

          So speculating that the store video would would "create a surmountable but real issue for prosecution" is no more than nonsense.

          A jury in a court trial over the shooting death of Michael Brown will hear and see not one word or allusion to the alleged theft in the store prior to his death.

          It would be considered prejudicial information and ordered not admissible by any judge.

          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:53:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only way that video will be an issue (5+ / 0-)

            is if things ever proceed to selecting a jury from Ferguson to try the cop for some crime in this killing.

            And I think it's quite possible that it was released for precisely that reason.

          •  These are pretty declarative statements (6+ / 0-)

            You've got some sort of correct statements in there (prejudicial vs. probative aspects of evidence) with things that are flat out wrong (e.g. " only the evidence collected FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME is allowed").

            In general, I agree that it's extremely unlikely that robbery video would ever be show to the jury, because it prejudicial value is so great. But at this point, the only accurate answer to whether information about the robbery itself comes into evidence in a potential trial is "it depends".

            Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

            by Pi Li on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:26:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you familiar with the history of US (5+ / 0-)

              jurisprudence and why our legal system works the way it does?

              The reason for my previous comment is fleshed out in this comment I also made:

              Two separate events in two separate locations involving the same individual DO NOT mean that the two events are related as far as the Legal system is concerned.

              Only evidence from a crime scene or evidence directly related to the crime scene (such as a getaway car parked blocks away from the scene but used by the suspects during the commission of the robbery they are accused of) are admissible as evidence in a court trial.

              The video from the store? Food for public consumption, sadly, yes.

              But evidence in any way related in a legal sense to the shooting of Michael Brown? No.

              I'm not a lawyer, but even I know this. Hell, why do you think our legal system works this way?

              Because in the days of Merry Olde England they could bring up events from your past and use THEM to convict you of a crime you are accused of NOW.
              It's a tentpole, foundational piece of our American legal system, and I'm now getting angry that so many people HERE on such a liberal and progressive site are showing such blatant ignorance of our system of Law and Order - and the history which created it.

              "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

              by Angie in WA State on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:31:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL (17+ / 0-)

                I'm a lawyer, a former prosecutor, and I've taught criminal law, criminal procedure and trial advocacy.

                So yeah, I'm familiar. And what you said about " only the evidence collected FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME is allowed" is flat out wrong.  Evidence collected from places other than the scene comes in ALL THE TIME.

                And again, with regards to the robbery, as I said it's very unlikely that any evidence of that incident would come into evidence, but under certain circumstances,  it could.

                I do agree that the robbery itself had nothing to do with the shooting.

                Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                by Pi Li on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:39:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Please identify circumstances that might (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sockpuppet, Maggiemad, kharma

                  allow that video into evidence.

                  Realistic circumstances. Thanks!

                  "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

                  by lunachickie on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:57:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sure (8+ / 0-)

                    Either to rebut good character evidence introduced by the State (either intentionally or unintentionally) or as evidence as to Brown's state of mind at the time of the shooting.

                    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                    by Pi Li on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:30:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK, to be clear (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Maggiemad, kharma

                      you're making a general statement. You are not stating that that video would be good enough, because you actually think it demonstrates:

                      the guy that was shot was just involved with a robbery in the minutes before he was shot
                      or
                       it destroys the idea of Brown as an innocent victim shot while randomly walking down the street.

                      AND:

                      it would be evidence in any way:

                      as to Brown's state of mind
                      as I said it's very unlikely that any evidence of that incident would come into evidence, but under certain circumstances,  it could.

                      Right? I don't see where it comes under such "circumstances", so thanks for the clarity.

                      "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

                      by lunachickie on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:54:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You know (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sparhawk, skymutt, VClib

                        The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that evidence of the robbery may very well be admitted if this comes to trial.  Perhaps not the video itself, that would be probably be way too prejudicial. But I'm beginning to think that there's just no way to get around introducing evidence with regards to Brown's state of mind when the confrontation occurred, considering the type of defence Wilson's lawyers are likely to mount...and the evidence the State is likely to present.

                        Need to give it a bit more thought though.

                        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

                        by Pi Li on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:28:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'll defer to your legal experience (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Maggiemad

                          as to the likelihood that Brown's state of mind might be considered relevant at trial.

                          What about Wilson's state of mind? What do you expect might be presented relevant to that? I know you can't answer in the specific, since we don't know a goddamn thing about Wilson, but what generally happens in the case of a cop killing an unarmed civilian?

                        •  Do tell us more... (0+ / 0-)
                          .considering the type of defence Wilson's lawyers are likely to mount
                          What defence might that be?

                          "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

                          by lunachickie on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:16:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I agree, the robbery comes in (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Pi Li

                          Assuming there is a trial, which I think is likely. the robbery will make the prosecution very cautious about any evidence regarding Brown's background or character. Any sliver will allow the defense to bring in the robbery and I don't think the prosecution's potential witnesses can be prepped well enough to stay on message, and not open the door.

                          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                          by VClib on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 06:06:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Well, I did say that, but I also said (0+ / 0-)

                  in the same paragraph:

                  or evidence directly related to the crime scene (such as a getaway car parked blocks away from the scene but used by the suspects during the commission of the robbery they are accused of) are admissible as evidence in a court trial.
                  I am aware that some evidence is admissible even if not found at the scene of the alleged crime, but it must be directly connected to the commission of the alleged crime.

                  Again, for the reason I noted above regarding conviction of current charges based on past acts.

                  "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                  by Angie in WA State on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:00:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's directly connected (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Jon Says, Sandika

                    No one can argue with a straight face that a robbery committed ten minutes before the incident in question isn't relevant. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

                    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                    by Sparhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:40:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Except that it's still an Alleged robbery. No one (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Maggiemad, Cassandra Waites

                      has been charged, arraigned or convicted of Robbery.

                      The video might be relevant insofar as Brown's "state of mind" at the time of the shooting, but since the Store Owner (and attorney) have now publicly stated that the store didn't report a robbery it is pretty murky that any crime even occurred (so far as the law is concerned).

                      I don't understand the insistence of some to try and tie that video to the subsequent shooting.

                      10 minutes may not be a long time, but certainly long enough for two entirely UNRELATED events to occur which happen to include the same person.

                      Ask any parent of small children. It happens all day, every day. Events occur between siblings. One sibling will try and get their way by demanding "justice" for what sibling B did in the other room 10 minutes ago.

                      What does a reasonable parent do? They ignore the past behavior because it's usually not relevant, but a tool to get the result the complaining child wants.

                      "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                      by Angie in WA State on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:59:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  No--it's not directly connected (0+ / 0-)

                       to THIS incident, but that's really a good muddy-point attempt:

                      a robbery committed ten minutes before the incident in question isn't relevant
                      Too bad you've got people to point that out, eh?

                      "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

                      by lunachickie on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:59:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, it is *directly* connected (0+ / 0-)

                        The shooting victim committed a robbery ten minutes before they were shot, and it's not related? It doesn't remotely pass the laugh test.

                        Brown's state of mind, what he was thinking at the time, the level of judgment that the robbery illustrates, all extremely relevant when you are trying to figure out the likelihood that he attacked the cop.

                        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                        by Sparhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:09:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So you're stating that Brown absolutely (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ginny in CO

                          committed the crime in question? I think you haven't proven that anywhere, let alone here.

                          Of course, if you had some links...

                          "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

                          by lunachickie on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:25:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Chief Jackson said that (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sparhawk

                          initially, Brown & Johnson were stopped by officer Wilson for jaywalking.

                          Johnson told MSNBC that Brown's hands at that time were "filled with cigarillos." Johnson lawyer said Johnson told the St Louis County Police, FBI & DOJ that Brown stole those cigarillos. They did recover the cigarillos at the shooting scene and they probably have Brown's DNA and fingerprints on them.

                          There was a 911 call on the police radio for stolen cigars at a store minutes away, with a rough matching description of Brown - prior to Wilson encountering the two

                          Chief Jackson said to CNN and MSNBC that Wilson joined the dots about the cigar theft after the jaywalking exchange. He backed up his cruiser and he and Brown got into it.

                          It explains a rationale for why Brown struggled with the officer and tried to get away. It explains why the officer backed up his cruiser and got into it with Brown. It explains why the altercation began. It reveals something about the state of mind of both parties in the altercation.

                          Now, I suspect excessive force got used by Wilson who remains innocent until proven otherwise. So I'm not arguing the above exonerates him entirely or maybe not tons. But, I think it would be absolutely outrageous to prevent a jury from hearing the above if the police maintain that is what happened and can present it credibly with evidence and testimony (as it appears they have).

                          If it isn't allowed, I'll be howling about the injustice towards Wilson - even though I may also be howling about the injustice he did to Brown.

                          I don't give a crap about fancy lawyer logic and silly laws. Be sensible. Hiding that from a jury would smell pretty bad if there is merit to what has been claimed.

                          •  where does that "appear"? (0+ / 0-)
                            I think it would be absolutely outrageous to prevent a jury from hearing the above if the police maintain that is what happened and can present it credibly with evidence and testimony (as it appears they have).

                            "Counting on people having nowhere else to go is the logic of a slumlord."--Wolf10

                            by lunachickie on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:18:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They have (0+ / 0-)

                            Police report
                            http://i2.cdn.turner.com/...
                            - has logs of the robbery
                            - reference to 911 call
                            - officer investigating the robbery reporting which employees he talked with, that cigars were stolen, gets description of Brown and they tell him which way Brown  headed
                            - officer broadcasts that on the police radio - such that it's plausible Wilson would hear it

                            They have the video of the robbery showing someone very much like Brown and Johnson in the store and the store employees reacting by trying to stop them from leaving the store.

                            They have the allegation of Johnson reported by Johnson's lawyer to NBC and that he alleged to STL police, DOJ & FBI that Brown stole cigarillos from that store.

                            Chief Jackson reports to CNN and NBC that Wilson heard the radio report and as he drove off from the jaywalking event, he saw the cigarillos in Brown's hands and it triggered him to backup his cruiser and go after Brown.

                            They have the Al Sharpton interview with Johnson where he describes Brown's hands full of cigarillos just before the altercation with Wilson starts at the cruiser.

                            The police recovered the cigarillos at the crime scene and they're very likely to get fingerprints and DNA belonging to Brown off them and match them to the type of cigarillos stolen from the store.

                            I'd say the police have a pretty strong case to establish Brown was involved with the theft of cigarillos, Wilson was in a position to know of the theft of cigarillos, Brown was holding cigarillos when Wilson started to pull away and therefore, it's not unreasonable for Wilson to claim that is why he got into it with Brown. From that, the prosecutor can claim that is why Brown resisted as he did.

                            Again, the above doesn't automatically give Wilson the right to end Brown's life. But it justifies some of Wilson's early actions in the original altercation.

                    •  But even the FPD Chief admitted publicly (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      snwflk, Maggiemad, myboo

                      that the Officer Wilson did not know about the "robbery committed 10 minutes before", probably because no one from the convenience store actually called the police and reported a "robbery" prior to the shooting. (Teenagers lifting a few cigars?  That's a "robbery"?  More like petty shoplifting, a misdemeanor.)  

                      The 911 call-log will clarify this point.  Before or after the murder?  And can the 911 (if the caller used 911.  Could've called police on local phone #) call logs be altered in any way that can't be detected?  (Glad AG Holder and the FBI are now pouring over all this.)

                      •  So what (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blairhoughton

                        This case isn't about Officer Wilson and what he knew or didn't know.

                        It does not matter.

                        It's about whether Wilson was reasonably in fear for his life. To understand that, we need to know what Brown's actions were during the incident that ended with him getting shot. That means that Brown and his actions are far more important here than Wilson's (since we already know Wilson shot Brown).

                        If Brown had (hypothetically) just shot another police officer in another part of town and then this entire fact pattern played out, would you still be arguing that it is "unrelated" with regards to this incident and whether Wilson's shooting of Brown was likely self-defense or not?

                        The robbery is the same thing. It helps us put ourselves in Brown's shoes and understand his likely actions and thought processes, thereby giving us clues as to whether Wilson's shots were self-defense or not.

                        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                        by Sparhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:30:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Uh, hold on there - first you say (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Maggiemad, sockpuppet, Sandika
                          This case isn't about Officer Wilson and what he knew or didn't know.

                          It does not matter.

                          So you are saying that whatever was in the Officers's mind at the time of the shooting has nothing to do with the shooting...

                          but then in the next breath you say:

                          It's about whether Wilson was reasonably in fear for his life.
                          How can WHAT the officer knew at the time NOT have an impact on his "state of mind" when the shooting occurred?

                          I think you are "fixing the facts to support your theory" here, and failing rather baldly.

                          Either the mindset of the man shot and the man who shot him is relevant - or it's not.  You can't have it both ways at once.

                          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                          by Angie in WA State on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:42:33 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's only relevant if it's logical (0+ / 0-)

                            The only thing that matters here, the only thing, is whether Brown attacked Wilson or if he didn't. That's it.

                            If Brown attacked Wilson, the shooting is probably self-defense.

                            If Brown didn't attack Wilson, the shooting is murder.

                            Wilson's state of mind is of only very tangential relevance. He either got attacked or he didn't.

                             (I mean, this is a slight oversimplification of a complex legal case with a lot of moving parts, but the basic gist is correct).

                            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                            by Sparhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:09:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  On that subject (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you agree per the known information that Brown and Wilson had this 'physical confrontation' while Wilson was still seated in his patrol vehicle?

                            That no further physical contact occurred after Brown left the immediate location of the door of the police vehicle?

                            Because I want to be sure we are both agreeing on what it is we are discussing.

                            "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

                            by Angie in WA State on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:22:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I haven't followed the forensics or witnesses... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that closely.

                            You seem to mistake me for someone with an actual opinion as to Wilson's guilt or innocence. I don't have one.

                            My only comment here is that (a) the robbery is absolutely relevant to the case for the reasons I describe elsewhere and (b) the robbery looks bad for Brown, both in a sense of "bad public relations" and in the sense of "will make it more difficult to legally convict Wilson."

                            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                            by Sparhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:31:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Local ph number calls (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sockpuppet

                        Local phone number  aka "Non Emergency"  calls on the PD's line are ALSO recorded for most departments---for just exactly this reason

            •  It's not about the robbery video being admitted (8+ / 0-)

              into evidence.  It was about making the video available to taint the jury pool

          •  Also, this relates to how women (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sockpuppet, snwflk, Maggiemad, white blitz

            have been demonized when they charge rapists with a crime. Their entire life history of sex and relationships becomes fodder for the defense. It's illegal when they do it to women, it's illegal to do it to Michael Brown.

            America Freedom to Fascism Be a solution not a problem Loosely Twisted

            by Loosely Twisted on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:16:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not necessarily. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maggiemad

            If the judge deemed it relevant to mental state and/or character, it could get admitted. Legally this sort of thing can be very squishy.

        •  Bullshit (5+ / 0-)

          It is wildly unlikely that this kid would have gotten violent with a white police officer because he had some cigarillos on him. That is really really really really really stretching it. Tussling  in s store does not equal likelihood of assault a police officer.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

          by anastasia p on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:29:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It does seem unlikely but... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maggiemad

            ...the officer did apparently have injuries.  Unless we are to believe that he fell on his face, there does seem to have been some kind of physical confrontation between them.

            The story about him "charging" or "bum rushing" the officer seems highly unlikely though.

            •  Injury? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sockpuppet, snwflk, Maggiemad, myboo

              Where are the pictures that show injuries to the officer's face? I could have sworn the man is in hiding and with no "incident report" where are his injuries documented?

              •  Wouldn't--- (0+ / 0-)

                Wouldn't this guy be ALLLLL over the news with a doctor in a white coat standing next to him--- while he is preferably in a WHEEL CHAIR---to SHOW OFF his extensive injuries inflicted by that Brown person?

                I don't buy it

              •  There has been a slow release of info (0+ / 0-)

                So it doesn't surprise me that if there were any injuries to the officer that the info has not been released.  We wouldn't have even known how many gunshot wounds Brown suffered if not for the family's autopsy.

            •  The latest video (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              white blitz, myboo

              CLEARLY shows Wilson standing around, pacing... and NEVER ONCE touching his head or face.  I don't know about you, but if I injure myself, I can't stop fiddling with it (rubbing, caressing, cradling).
              He wasn't injured.
              Previous videos also verify that behavior.

              Never trust anyone who considers "bleeding heart" to be an insult.

              by jayfrenchstudios on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:31:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He was likely in some shock (0+ / 0-)

                Also if it was a bruising type of injury it might not have swollen until a bit later, or it may not have been that severe at all (but still an injury).

                At some point I am sure we will see some kind of medical report to confirm it...or a refusal to relase a medical report which would indicate that there wasn't any actual injury to the officer.  Because if the officer was indeed injured, I'm pretty sure that info would get out there to try to help exonerate him.

                •  Illogical (0+ / 0-)

                  If he had incurred an injury severe enough for shock, the FPD would have been blasting that all over the airways.  Not to mention an injury severe enough for shock would've been noticed by his fellows who would've called for an ambulance or at the very least insisted he sit down.

                  The same qualifies if you're referring to emotional shock.  If he had sustained any type of injury that he was ignoring due to emotional shock, his fellow officers would have reacted in the videos and taken steps.

                  Also, most commonly, neither physical nor emotional shock will make a person ignore or not fidget with an injury.

                  A bruising injury that might not have swollen until later?  That doesn't stop it from HURTING in the meantime.  Again, back to the video.

                  This is really stretching.

                  Never trust anyone who considers "bleeding heart" to be an insult.

                  by jayfrenchstudios on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 01:34:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not necessarily (0+ / 0-)

                    The shock would have been from having just been through a traumatic event: shooting another person to death, and (possibly) while under threat from that person.

                    And as I said the injury may not have been that visible immediately.  Bruising or swelling can take time.  Plus we do not have enough info to know how other officers reacted to any potential injury this officer had.  It's also not unusual to not be aware of or the extent of  injuries because you are in shock.  I learned that firsthand when I was in a car accident and had an injury, but could not feel the injury due to shock.

                    As I said, we will find out eventually either through a release of medical records or by a rewfusal to relwase any.

            •  The injury easily could have been from (0+ / 0-)

              the car door rebounding back into his face.

        •  Robbery, or shop-lifting ? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ebohlman, sockpuppet, nicteis

          If it was not a store employee he was tussling with, but a friend, then was it really robbery?   Or, was it just shoplifting, and very low value shoplifting at that.   It's possible that the "tussling" was even a con intended to divert attention away from the shoplifting in some way.   And, was it a first offense?   It could be a first offense low value shoplifting charge that would result in a small fine (if it weren't the ticketing capital of North America), that in some other city might be comparable to a jaywalking offense.   Shoplifting is not a violent crime.

        •  considering the Zimmerman verdict (5+ / 0-)

          my guess is the defense will use the accusations that Brown stole from the store as a character explanation to convince a jury there's even a 0.01% chance he was charging at the cop when he was shot, hence the bullet in the top of his head.

        •  No it doesn't. (10+ / 0-)
          Unfortunately, whether the police knew or didn't know anything about the robbery, it destroys the idea of Brown as an innocent victim shot while randomly walking down the street.
          The police concede Wilson knew nothing of Brown's involvement in any robbery at the time he killed Brown. Even if he had known about it, that wouldn't justify executing Brown on the spot.

          You say Brown isn't an innocent victim.  What is he guilty of, then?  And why is it that Brown, the victim, should have to prove his innocence just to claim the right not to be shot to death?

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:41:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He appears to be guilty of robbery (0+ / 0-)
            And why is it that Brown, the victim, should have to prove his innocence just to claim the right not to be shot to death?
            If Brown attacked the police officer, the shooting was self-defense and the officer is not guilty of any crime.

            If Brown didn't, the officer is likely guilty of murder.

            The officer's guilt or innocence turns heavily on Brown's actions during this encounter (more so than the officer himself possibly in this trial).

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:14:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not surprised by this: (6+ / 0-)
              The officer's guilt or innocence turns heavily on Brown's actions during this encounter (more so than the officer himself possibly in this trial).
              Like most racists, you're already putting the dead black man on trial.

              Sure didn't take long.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:45:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk

                "Like most racists, you're already putting the dead black man on trial"

                So what are you selling? Because the victim is black, we're not supposed to examine his actions?

                Race should have nothing to do with it.

                Step back for a moment:

                A police officer shoots an unarmed man. You can swap races to your hearts content on which race did what in that example. The actions of both parties should be examined to determine if the actions of the shooter were justified.

                If the roles were reversed, would it be racist to examine the actions of the black cop?

                Just because in this case, the victim happens to be black, one wanting to examine the actions of a victim doesn't make that examiner a racist. Both parties have rights. You should treat both parties as equals, shouldn't you?

                Now I realize that in places like Ferguson, there is a disproportionate number of blacks getting knocked off, discriminated against, etc. And that is a horrific disgrace that seems to have frustratingly gone on all my life and still badly needs to be corrected. The bright lights on Ferguson right now are likely to bring about some good change in that regard such that Mike Brown won't have died for nothing. But let's correct it with real equality - even in the court cases that decide such issues. Take the high road.

                If Brown's actions didn't warrant him to be shot, we should be able to scrutinize them to pieces and still arrive at a just conclusion.

                To me, I wonder when someone says "you can't go there because he's black" if that isn't racism or a double standard.

                The sooner we stop with the labels and just say 'that man did this and that other man did that", regardless of race, the sooner we achieve real equality.

                To me, Mike Brown isn't a black man. He a man and that's how he should be treated in our discussions, our justice system and even in death. And I will never apologize for treating him that way nor accept being labeled as a racist when I look at his actions objectively that way in the interest of truth and justice - whether they're good or bad actions.

                •  Oh please (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  myboo, a2nite

                  Spare me the colorblind BS.  This country does not now see and has never seen black men as simply "men."  

                  And why do we need to examine the victim's actions in this case? Are you seriously contending Brown did something that warranted his summary execution?  Because if that's your contention then you should just come out and say it.

                  In every one of these cases, the police or the white killers make the victim the issue and put the victim on trial.  It was done recently in George Zimmerman's trial. The black man is made out to be a dangerous thug, and that racist -- yes, racist -- caricature is used to justify the victim's being killed.

                  The saddest part of it all is that there are all kinds of good self-proclaimed white liberals who buy into the very same crap.  Well I for one have had it up to here with this horseshit, so you can go try selling it someplace else.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:02:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Are you seriously contending Brown did (0+ / 0-)

                    something that warranted his summary execution?"

                    I certainly wouldn't express it that way nor do I think Brown did do something that justified him being shot dead. But that's just a strong feeling I have. I can't prove that in my own mind yet.

                    Having said that, I wasn't there. I didn't see it. I have to rely upon others.

                    Apparently, the officer feels (or says) Brown rushed him and he acted in self defence (Dana Loesch interview with friend of officer's family). Folks dismissed that because it was from a right wing source but then CNN corroborated that story with an unnamed official as being what the officer maintains happened.
                    Is that claim still highly questionable in my mind? Absolutely. My sense is that he's probably lying to save his own butt.

                    There is another alleged eyewitness video
                    https://www.youtube.com/...
                    that alleges Brown rushed the officer.
                    It's been alleged it has right wing sources but I have not seen proof of that.
                    Is that claim still highly questionable in my mind? Absolutely. I'm concerned someone got a hold of a video and edited in that account.

                    Brown was a big guy. 6'4" nearly 300 lbs and didn't look to be in bad shape. He looked strong to me. So there exists a sliver of plausibility to the officer's claim. It's something anyone interested in this case is going to have to face while, like so many, in the face of these two accounts, I still have enormous doubts about their accuracy or legitimacy.

                    When we look at where this happened and how black people have been treated there by their police, my pessimism meter goes way up on such an account. I get the "what else is this heartless prick murderer going to say?" and the mistrust because I possess it myself.

                    And this comes in the wake of cases like Trayvon Martin where many of us including me don't feel justice got done.

                    I have great sympathy towards the position "why should this cop, a man who is supposed to uphold the law, get fair treatment under the law when it appears he did not grant that to his victim?". But I come back to our justice system is the only legitimate option we've got. So we're going to have to look at the officer's claims - whether we like it or not and whether we believe him or not. Color of skin has nothing to do with it, if you will, - even though this may be proven to be a racially motivated murder.

                    And even if it turned out Brown did rush Wilson, how good was the quality of law enforcement that let it get to that point? How much did the oppression of him and other blacks in the area factor in? Unfortunately, that's more of a civil trial question than a criminal trial question. In other words, even if these accounts that I suspect are bogus were proven to have some accuracy, I'd still question the police work that leaves an unarmed young man dead in the street. I'd still feel some injustice was done even if everything they claim turned out to be true.

                    Prior to the shooting, there was an altercation between two people. It takes two people to fight. In order to pass judgement on the officer's actions, I think we need to understand what that altercation was about in order to fairly assess if the escalation to shooting the kid. One could easily say it was unreasonable no matter what and the legal question is to assess how unreasonable was it? Murder? Manslaughter?

                    And we'll need to look at Mike Brown's actions. Folks can call me ugly names like racist or whatever but it's inescapable that those who will defend Wilson are going down that road - whether we like it or not. If one is going to successfully prosecute Wilson, they'd better be prepared for this. Having it out on this forums is not an unhealthy thing.

                    I was not there. I didn't see it. I have to rely on others to sort it out. Right now, it's very roughly the word of four witnesses who I'm inclined to believe vs two that I regard as suspicious. I am trying to be fair and objective. Good quality due process should answer the question of which group of witnesses are telling the truth. We shouldn't be afraid of that in principle. There's a good chance the autopsy and ballistics can help us here. I hope they do. I also hope they learned from the Trayvon Martin case that they need to do a good job prosecuting this if the grand jury comes back with an indictment.

                    But I will not take the position nor ever accept that we cannot look at what the officer has claimed and what the victim was up to because his victim was black.

            •  No, he appears to be guilty of shoplifting (0+ / 0-)

              We know how the video has been characterized by the cops. We have no knowledge of whether the tussle it shows was actually with personnel at the shop - but we do know that none of the shop personnel thought the incident worth reporting.

              After a robbery  - theft subsequent to assault - it would be surprising if the shop personnel didn't think it worth reporting. So most likely this was a shoplifting of a few cigars. Let's stop calling it "robbery".

              I get your point that Brown's state of mind, worried over the jail time he might be facing for a robbery, is relevant to whether it is plausible that he initiated a struggle with the officer. But then it is certainly relevant to his state of mind that he knew he had committed petty theft, not a moderately serious crime.

              The real USA Patriot Act was written in 1789. It's called the Bill of Rights.

              by nicteis on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:40:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Sparhawk? Um... no. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CcVenussPromise

          According to what I'm hearing it isn't even true that he stole anything, according to the store.

          You really ought to slow down.

          Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

          by martianexpatriate on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:47:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Doesn't it seem odd that the market did not cal... (0+ / 0-)

          Doesn't it seem odd that the market did not call or want involved?

      •   I wince when I hear video is "irrelevant" (14+ / 0-)

        That's an ignorant thing to say. It may be what people who are angry at the police want to hear, but it's absolutely relevant. That's a legal term -- it means that the existence of that fact makes something more likely to be true. In this case, that would be that the shooting victim, Michael Brown, may have been agitated and also motivated to physically resist when approached by the officer for walking in the road. This would make a self-defense claim much more viable than otherwise would be true -- and would bolster witnesses who said Brown did get physical.

        There are plenty of reasons to be troubled by shooting this kid 6 times, including in the head -- and there are many more reasons to be troubled by the police response to protests -- but I'm bothered when I hear so many on the left attack the release of the video as irrelevant. It's not irrelevant, even if the officer didn't suspect Brown in the robbery. This kind of knee-jerk reaction to slam anything coming from the police is disconnected from reality.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:50:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can't agree. (65+ / 0-)

          As a recently retired lawyer with 37 years in courtrooms and hearings, I see you making a leap of faith when you assume that Mr. Brown "may have been agitated and motivated to physically resist." I cannot see an honest, impartial and capable judge accepting that bit of pure speculation as a basis for admitting the video into evidence for any purpose, in a case based upon Mr. Brown's wrongful death.

          Those insisting the store video is irrelevant do so with very good reason, considerably better, t me, than the argument you have offered.

          "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

          by LeftOfYou on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:09:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't call it a leap of faith (3+ / 0-)

            I'm not putting any faith in it. If Brown's state of mind was at issue, this would not be all that probative. It's a little distant in time -- legally long enough for him to calm down -- and potentially prejudicial. But, that's not what's at issue.

            What will be at issue is what the officer perceived. If he saw the cigars in the young man's hand, he might have concluded that Brown was a suspect -- and that would inform their interaction from his side. Perhaps he brought it up and that's what he was attempting to arrest him for. On that alone, the video likely would be admitted. However, the video could also be helpful to a jury in assessing the truth of how the officer will characterize their interaction -- because it's pretty close in time and would be somewhat predictive of how he might react if confronted soon afterwards by a police officer.

            I'm not saying it's enough by itself to create reasonable doubt, but that's not the standard here for relevance. It's enough that it makes that reasonable doubt more likely.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:22:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The "relevancy" standard is easy to meet (6+ / 0-)

            and I think the relevance of the video is exactly what Fischfry stated.  Evidence is rarely excluded on the basis of evidence.

            Without checking to see whether and how Missouri deviates, Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 401 and 402 provides that any evidence is relevant if "it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would without the evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action."  The official comments strongly suggest that Rules 401 and 402 are rules of liberal inclusion, and when you get to the rules of exclusion, like 403, even those comment suggest that the exclusion rules favor admission.  For example, a comment to 403 states "In weighing the probative value of evidence against the dangers and considerations enumerated in Rule 403, the general rule is that the  balance should be struck in favor of admission."

            Whether Brown had reason to believe he may be a suspect for a robbery he committed is relevant, as it makes it more probable that Brown was acting in a way to evade the police.  You have your head buried in the sand if you can't make that connection or too committed to a particular interpretation of everything that comes out.

            The video gets in as a matter of law.  Mark my words.

            •  Thanks for the defense. nt (0+ / 0-)

              Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

              by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:13:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That doesn't make sense. (5+ / 0-)

              If Michael Brown was trying to evade police, it seems strange that he would be walking in the middle of the street.

              •  When I said evade the police (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jon Says

                I meant, in this case, in his encounter with Officer Wilson.

                But I've always been amazed about how brazen criminals can be.  If they only knew how much more likely they'd get away with their crimes if they made some effort to lay low for awhile.  Instead, it has seemed to me, that they take on a sense of invisibility after initially getting away with something at the scene.

                Anyway, doesn't matter really.  This is an easy relevancy matter.  For awhile, many of us were left scratching our heads as to why in the world a kid who is just about to start college would, as the police claimed, get himself into a confrontation with the police.  Now we have at least one possible explanation.  And that makes it relevant at trial.

                •  He didn't get himself into a confrontation. (7+ / 0-)

                  He was confronted.

                  Barn's burnt down -- now I can see the moon. (Mizuta Masahide)

                  by Southcoast Luna on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:35:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  According to the officer (4+ / 0-)

                    Brown physically assaulted him.  That will be his defense at trial if gets to that.  My point was that most of us, hearing of this, wondered why Brown would have physically assaulted the officer.  It's a question a jury would be asking to.  Without a possible explanation, it seems less likely.

                    The evidence that Brown had committed a robbery and therefore had reason to believe he was a suspect in a robbery, the evidence is relevant because it makes a fact of consequence more likely.  Similarly, if 10 minutes before Brown was shot, he had been volunteering at a senior citizen center, for example, it would make it less likely that he was evading the police -- and evidence of that would also be relevant and admissible.

                    This is not a matter to dispute just to air our social justice grievances.  I appreciate that people honestly believe there was a grave injustice here, but the continued insistence that the robbery is irrelevant tells me that people get disconnected from reality when they feel so passionately about something.

            •  Evading police? So that gets you shot and killed? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Midwesterners, Maggiemad

              Right. OK then. Even IF admitted, isn't it a stretch to believe that the officer was justified in shooting, multiple times and with deadly force, a young man supposedly evading him after being stopped for jaywalking? How is that logical?

              Barn's burnt down -- now I can see the moon. (Mizuta Masahide)

              by Southcoast Luna on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:04:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let's isolate the issue here (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FischFry, 1500honda

                What I addressed was the issue of relevance.  The issue of relevancy won't turn on the question of whether the officer's actions were justified even if the evidence supports the theory for which it is offered.  The sufficiency of the evidence is not the issue here.  That's for the jury to decide.  Barring an applicable exclusion by one of the other rules of evidence, if the evidence makes a fact of consequence more or less likely, even by a smidgen, it's getting in.

                More likely to keep evidence out that has limited relevance is not Rule 401/402, but counsel's strategic decision not to bore the jury to death with somewhat but not entirely irrelevant evidence.

                •  Which is also all I was saying. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  1500honda

                  That doesn't stop people from carrying their own agenda into the discussion, nor even stop them from accusing you or me of staking out positions on all kinds of horribles

                  Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                  by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:55:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  If their position was so true would they allow the (8+ / 0-)

            police car to just leave and not be openly processed as forensic evidence?  Then the body did not go by ambulance that was already there?  What's with that?

          •  The Video Doesn't Come Into Evidence (6+ / 0-)

            in a real courtroom.  Clearly, its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value (assuming there is any probative value at all) - especially given what the store owner had to say.

            •  Prejudicial effect? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jon Says

              Leaving aside that Brown isn't on trial or even a witness, so the question of prejudice is a huge stretch, how would it be more prejudicial than probative? The question would be how was Brown behaving such that the officer thought he had to draw his gun either to stop a fleeing felon or to defend himself. How would this not be a useful piece of evidence for the jury?

              I have no idea what the store owner had to say -- I wasn't even aware that the store owner has been quoted -- but it there's anything that would be irrelevant, it seems that would be. It would certainly be no more probative than a video of the events. Also, anything the owner had to offer on state of mind would surely be inadmissible. That's why the video is so compelling.

              Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

              by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:01:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Your response seems very odd to me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jon Says

            I would absolutely expect someone who had just committed a robbery to be more likely to resist arrest than someone who had done nothing wrong.  The robbery--and the video to prove it--would seem to give a motivation for Brown to resist arrest.  And if the officer is going to argue that he heard on the police dispatch about the robbery right after the initial contact, then it would indeed seem relevant.

            And it seems to be more than just speculation that there was physical resistance if the officer did indeed have to go to hospital to treat an injury to his face from the event.

          •  Only character evidence can get the video admitted (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            1500honda

            The only way to get the convenience store video admitted is if the case is made to be about the character of Wilson vs. the character of the victim. As character evidence the video is not prejudicial.

            I think that the Police Department or the Police Union will hire a lawyer who is an expert at making cases about character. I give them 50% odds that they will succeed.

            If the case is about character then not only will the victim's recent actions be admissible but so will the officer's actions in a recent case where the Ferguson PD wrongfully arrested a black man and then beat him severely while he was handcuffed on the floor of their holding cell. After which they had the chutzpa to charge him with misdemeanor property damage for getting his blood on their uniforms.

            The officers have recently been deposed and they all committed perjury during the deposition. They said that all of their sworn statements on the misdemeanor charge sheet were false. This is compounded perjury, no matter which statement is true or false, the officers are guilty of perjury.

            So, if this case is made to be about character, you have to ask yourself; "Whose character is worse, Wilson's or the victim's?"

          •  Well said, Left (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LeftOfYou

            Though I understand wanting to avoid knee-jerk reactions, you pointed out quite well that this is quite irrelevant to the incident in question.
            Not to mention the grand canyon gap between shoplifting and trying to pull a cop's gun away from him while standing next to his vehicle.  It's akin to claiming that a beer-drinker might well shoot heroin suddenly, just because they're already tending towards "mind-altering" substances.

            Also, that guy can go ahead & trust the Ferguson PD... I shall not.

            Never trust anyone who considers "bleeding heart" to be an insult.

            by jayfrenchstudios on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:40:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Rubbish. (44+ / 0-)

          If the store did not call in the alleged crime, then no crime occurred.

          If no charges were pressed or pending, then no crime occurred.

          The police in Ferguson could not have had any knowledge of any crime at that 'Convenience Store' since there is no police report of any crime.  The manager/store clerk could not have 'filed' any police report since the store manager/clerk was not questioned by police until after Michael Brown was dead.

          The video was not taken from the store and obtained by police until after Michael Brown was dead.

          No statement(s) were obtained by police from anyone at the store until after Michael Brown was dead.  All that existed in the public record was a 911 call from a customer…..for an alleged crime for which the manager/store clerk was never questioned.

          Moreover, Michael Brown may or may not have fit the description of a person called into the 911 operator, but there is simply no reason to believe that Officer Wilson had any knowledge 'to be on the lookout' for a person fitting Michael Brown's description.  Matter of fact, according to Chief Jackson, Officer Wilson had no knowledge of any crime at the 'Convenience Store', and therefore, using that knowledge after the fact appears to be suspect.

          Plainly and simply, the police cannot walk up to random citizens and start accusing them of crimes to which the police have no information.

          Imagine you have an 'enemy' and they call your description into the police for having committed a petty crime at a store.  Are you OK with police randomly asking you (or anyone fitting your description) if you committed that crime….before even questioning the store manager to learn if a crime was actually committed?

          What if Michael Brown had a store credit or knew the manager so well that he would be coming back with money to pay for whatever.  Does the stranger know if a crime occurred or should;t the store manager be asked if anything was, in fact stolen.

          Now, if Officer Wilson and/or the Chief Jackson want us all to fully understand what transpired on August 9, then they could do all of us a favor and release what they are required to release - the darn police report of the shooting.

          Instead, all we have from the Ferguson Police Department is a video of a crime for which no police report was ever filed.  In other words, we have a video of a crime that never occurred.

          You might find the video at the convenience store relevant, but I'll bet you anything you'd like - the video will never see a day in court when Officer Wilson is sued for wrongful death.

          And I'll go one step further, the video will not be used in any defense Officer Wilson will mount that might grant him qualified immunity.

          The video has nothing to with the death of Michael Brown, since Officer Wilson had no knowledge of the crime alleged in that video.

          •  I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking is wrong (17+ / 0-)
            If the store did not call in the alleged crime, then no crime occurred.

            If no charges were pressed or pending, then no crime occurred.

            So if a woman is raped and doesn't report it immediately no crime has occurred? If someone is murdered "no crime has occurred" until someone finds the body?

            That's absolutely ridiculous thinking.

            Look, Mike Brown deserves justice. The police were 100% wrong here. Unless some serious new evidence comes to light I hope this cop is convicted and does serious time.

            But lets be completely honest with ourselves here. If, and I say IF Mike Brown stole those cigars and intimidated the employee he was wrong. Why can't we say he was wrong? He didn't deserve to be murdered. He deserves justice. A lot of good people make huge mistakes when they're young.

            But lets not pretend it's NOT a mistake.

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:08:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Report immediately" (10+ / 0-)

              As far as I know, the store still hasn't reported it.

              Your analogy thus makes no sense.

              History is a guide, not a destination.

              by NCJan on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:21:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ??? (5+ / 0-)
                "As far as I know, the store still hasn't reported it"
                What does this mean, and what is this supposed to mean? The police have the videotape from the crime scene. Obviously, they are well aware of the events there and were investigating them.

                As for what you know or don't know -- what is the relevance? Are you wondering about whether the store asked the police to press charges against a suspect that an officer had already killed? In what universe would that happen? Even if they had said something before the killing was known and the police became really interested in what happened at the store, you wouldn't know. It's not public information. Also, it's completely irrelevant to anything. The owners were not involved in what happened blocks away.

                There was a 911 call. Presumably there was even a bulletin that came to nearby police over their on-board computers, and/or over the radio. We'll know soon enough if that happened. Whether we know now means nothing other than that police aren't discussing most of the details...which is pretty standard.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:34:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  People aren't really making sense (13+ / 0-)

                  We seem to be more in the realm of passion than sense right now.  

                  If the store did not call in the alleged crime, then no crime occurred.
                  In a conversation where that gets 20 recs, you know things are getting pretty slippery around here.    

                  When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

                  by Sun dog on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:47:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Amen to that. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    falconer520

                    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                    by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:16:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Not quite (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sb, vcmvo2, JVolvo, Patate, Flying Goat, snwflk

                    The police called in the tape not out of law enforcement concerns, but to create a bias or prejudice toward Brown.  Whether a crime occurred there at the store is irrelevant - as the police have already acknowledged.

                    •  I know perfectly well why they released the tape (0+ / 0-)

                      when they did.  What the heck does that have to do with what I said?  

                      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

                      by Sun dog on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:59:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I already said above that the police released the (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Loosely Twisted, gratis4, snwflk

                      tape for self-serving reasons and to make the victim look bad. They were told not to and they did it anyway. The police were wrong to release the tape.

                      That has nothing to do with the separate question of whether stealing is wrong.

                      By arguing about whether taking the cigars was a crime we're doing just what the Ferguson PD wants us to do - we're talking about Mike Brown's background and not the murder of a kid and the systematic police abuse we see in low income communities.

                      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                      by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:46:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  ???!!! (4+ / 0-)

                  I wasn't making any assumption about whether there was a crime or wasn't a crime.

                  I was simply responding to what appears to be an erroneous assumption that the store was robbed and that the store reported it, but not immediately:

                  So if a woman is raped and doesn't report it immediately no crime has occurred?
                  However, the store never reported it--not immediately, not later, not ever, not before Brown died, and not after.

                  See this diary entitled "Attorney For Ferguson Market: NO ONE From His Store Called 911 To Report Cigar Theft"

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  History is a guide, not a destination.

                  by NCJan on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:09:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Come on. Police didn't have the video from the (6+ / 0-)

                  store til hours later.  LEO Wilson was not responding to store 9-11 call (customer, no employee called police) when he interacted with Micheal Brown for improper walking while black.

                  Multiple witnesses say Brown was leaning over at cop car and struggling to pull away (ie cop had grabbed his arm through window?).  Brown broke free and ran, cop got out, gave chase and fired.  Brown's body is nowhere near cop car - it isn't in frame of any of the video.

                  No time machine detective work allowed here, FF.

                  "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

                  by JVolvo on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:56:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why was it so important to stop him running (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo, sb

                    For jaywalking by death?
                    He was not armed and dangerous just annoying maybe

                    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

                    by merrywidow on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:09:41 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just the point. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jon Says, 1500honda

                      That makes no sense. So, unless you want to believe the officer acted so completely senselessly that he would shoot a jaywalker, it seems  probable that more transpired than you or I know.  Which is why getting some insight into what really happened is valuable.

                      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                      by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:04:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  That really is not relevant.... (0+ / 0-)

                    It doesn't matter when the police got the video. Yes, the officer was not responding to the robbery bulletin, but he may have developed some suspicion on his own -- or things just got hairy because Brown thought the cops were after him for the robbery.  The video is only relevant in that it offers irrefutable evidence of the crime.

                    Once again, it doesn't really matter who called the police-- I'm trying to understand why anyone thinks that's actually a significant fact...and I I'm stumped, because it really isn't in any way significant. If I'm beaten, and I hear someone else call the cops and they tell me that the cops are on the way, why would I then call the cops? Answer: I wouldn't. I'd wait for them to show up, as promised.

                    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                    by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:59:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting point. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                otto, eru, Patate, middleagedhousewife

                Unlike murder, most other crimes (against adults) are prosecuted and official existent pursuant to a victim's complaint, not on behalf a victim who can't speak for themselves like murder victims and children.

                It is difficult to imagine a normative crime that can be said to exists outside of a normative adult's desire to even address the issue.

                It is understandable that the business owners wouldn't want to pursue this. I wouldn't if I were them, and apparently they didn't even before Michael Brown was dead and his death became a national issue. Still, it would be quite a Gordian Knot to say that Michael Brown is guilty of a crime there is no record and may never be a record of.

                Obviously, the tape exists, and doesn't make Brown look good. But it might not be legally different than a tape of him   drinking beer in Germany, or somewhere else where the drinking age is 18, i.e., doing something that is not a crime in his current jurisdiction.

                •  Note another's point about rape. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  white blitz, roundhead, 1500honda

                  More often than not, rapes are not reported. Are they "normative crimes?"

                  As for the video -- it wouldn't be relevant, admissible evidence if it was just evidence of some lawbreaking. It's a video of a forcible crime only minutes before. That is quite different than your example. The question isn't whether he might be prone to lawbreaking behavior -- but whether he might have just committed a crime that involved a violent escape and might make it more  likely to believe he would do something similar when confronted by police. As a judge, I'd certainly listen to arguments on both sides, but my first impression is that this is likely very relevant.

                  Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                  by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:24:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The day the store tape was released, MSNBC.com (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  merrywidow, white blitz, roundhead

                  had a story and a link to various police reports. There were officers looking for Michael Brown (the unknown robber). Darren Wilson wasn't one of them. The reports said they weren't able to locate him. So there is a record.

              •  So you are doubling down that rape isn't a crime (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jon Says, white blitz

                unless it's not only REPORTED but the perpetrator is charged and tried?

                Do we really want to go down that route?

                Lets be clear. Mike Brown deserves justice. It doesn't matter if he stole cigars or not. The police are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG and should never have released the video.

                But if, and right now it's still and if, Mike Brown stole cigars he was wrong to steal cigars. A lot of people make mistakes, sometimes terrible mistakes when young.

                Honestly I think it's more than a little patronizing to low income communities to try to pretend that everyone steals things on a daily basis and there's nothing wrong with it.

                When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:44:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (8+ / 0-)

              You asked,

              "So if a woman is raped and doesn't report it immediately no crime has occurred?"
              Essentially, that is correct.  No crime occurred unless the woman is willing to press charges.

              In the Michael Brown matter, nobody at the store was even questioned by police, yet alone pressed any charges.  There was no crime unless the store said so AND the police said so.  Police cannot determine if a crime occurred until someone makes an official statement.  No police arrived at that store until after Michael Brown was dead.

              Now, if you'd like to suggest that the police could investigate a potential crime if a woman arrives at a hospital after having been assaulted, sexually or otherwise - then I'd agree.

              So yes, police can investigate if a crime had occurred, but this did not happen in Ferguson - no police arrived at that store until after Michael Brown was dead.  Therefore, both the video and any alleged crime are completely irrelevant to the Michael Brown shooting.  This may be convenient in the court of public opinion, but not a court of law.

              For instance, whether or not George Zimmerman was a racist was irrelevant at his trial, it had nothing to do with whether or not he shot Trayvon Martin.

              Whether Michael Brown stole cigars will be irrelevant at a trial against Officer Wilson - it had nothing to do with the circumstances involving the shooting of Michael Brown.

              You also asked,

              "If someone is murdered "no crime has occurred" until someone finds the body?"
              This scenario is a bit different, a 'missing person' can be presumed dead, but yet again, that would require some knowledge by police and in the matter in Ferguson, MO - there was no knowledge by police of missing cigars since they never bothered to stop into the store until after Michael Brown was dead.

              You keep suggesting that is a matter of fact that Michael Brown is guilty of the crime of having stolen cigars.  You make a leap of faith from a video that was unknown to the police until after Michael Brown was dead.

              Matter of fact, the only information the police were relying on as to whether a crime was committed was either a random 911 call or comments by Michael Brown's friend made after Michael Brown was dead.

              According to the lawyer, nobody at the Convenience Store provided any pertinent information until after Michael Brown was dead.

              So until the police file a report, in effect, there is no crime.

              Just to reiterate - if the rape victim is not willing to file a police report - there is no crime to be investigated.

              Similarly, if the police did not even stop at the Convenience Store and/or the Store did not file a police report - there is no crime.

              •  Except the police had been informed of the crime. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Demeter Rising

                There was a 911 call from the customer.

                Are suggesting that a police officer responding to a 911 call about a robbery, which included at least a sketchy description of the perpetrator, would not be justified in at least questioning a person matching the description fleeing the scene until after he'd questioned the victim and filed a proper report?

                Does it really matter whether the 911 call was from the victim or a witness? Obviously, before anyone is actually charged, they'll need more details and formal paperwork, but the idea that they can't do anything until then is nonsense.

                The Empire never ended.

                by thejeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:05:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Questioning a person matching the description" (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2, middleagedhousewife

                  The police themselves say that the officers who questioned Brown did not know of the convenience store incident at the time of the shooting.

                  History is a guide, not a destination.

                  by NCJan on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:12:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I know that. (0+ / 0-)

                    This was more theoretical, since the post I was replying was claiming no investigation could be done until the police report was filed.

                    The Empire never ended.

                    by thejeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:15:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I stand by that (2+ / 0-)

                      There could be no investigation until it was determined a crime was committed.

                      The idea of 'be on the lookout' is confirmation that a crime was committed.  It had not yet been determined that a crime was committed.

                      The 4th Amendment prevents police from just randomly stopping people…..in the absence of probable cause.  A broadcast 'be on the lookout' would be probable cause.

                      There was no 'be on the lookout' for anyone matching Michael Brown's description because Chief Jackson told us so.

                      This was not a 'Terry Stop' for which Officer Wilson had any "specific and articulable facts” that would indicate Michael Brown was guilty of anything other than jaywalking.

                      Now, if you'd like to suggest that police can investigate 'mischievous behavior' prior to knowing if a crime has been committed - certainly.

                      But once again, Michael Brown was not part of any 'be on the lookout', nor, from all the facts we know, could Officer Wilson have surmised Michael Brown had participated in a crime - Officer Wilson was not accusing him of being mischievous for anything other than walking down the middle of the street, an infraction, but not a criminal offense.  Even a 'Terry Stop' was unjustified.

                      •  So, leaving aside the specifics of Michael Brown (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Jon Says

                        What, in your understanding constitutes "determined a crime was committed"

                        If I call 911 and say "Someone just broke into my house. He saw my big dog and ran off down the street. He was a short white teen wearing a bright red shirt." and they sent an officer over to take my statement and on the way he saw a "short white teen wearing a bright red shirt" running the down the street, he couldn't do a thing, because he hadn't yet talked to me and filled out the paperwork?
                        Would it make a difference if it wasn't my house, but I'd seen the kid break a window in the neighbor's house? (To parallel the customer calling instead of the clerk.)
                        Is the call sufficient to determine a crime was committed? Or at least sufficient to act on?

                        Again, I understand Wilson didn't know about the alleged robbery and wasn't stopping Brown for that reason. Which is all that is really relevant here, so I don't see why you're insisting that the police can't act until they've interviewed the victim.

                        The Empire never ended.

                        by thejeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:08:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, It's not sufficient otherwise anyone would be (0+ / 0-)

                          able to charge anyone else with THEFT, or Injury, or harm.
                          What part of the 4th amendment evades your understanding?

                          America Freedom to Fascism Be a solution not a problem Loosely Twisted

                          by Loosely Twisted on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:19:03 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And yet you can stop and frisk (0+ / 0-)

                            black people for walking suspiciously.

                            You'll notice I didn't say "Charge". The charges would obviously wait until the formal complaint was filed and all the paperwork done neat and proper. It's not like the police don't detain people short term for questioning.

                            Of all the crap the police pull regularly, this would seem to be the mildest and yet this is what's flipping you out. Maybe we're talking past each other?

                            Another hypothetical: What if the guy's still in sight when the police show up and I point him out to them? Can they chase him down then or do they have to wait and fill out the complaint paperwork first? How is that different from getting the same information in a 911 call? (A little more specific in who the suspect is, but no different in terms of process.)

                            The Empire never ended.

                            by thejeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 05:46:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Also, to add to this, what I have been told (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          middleagedhousewife

                          by police officers themselves REPEATEDLY.  Unless they are the Witnesses, they can't do anything to help you unless and until you file CHARGES, and show probable cause.  That's the whole freaking point of a democracy, or are you arguing that we don't live in a democracy but the theocracy where in your belief of your neighbor is the law? Hm? That's so ignorant it's not funny.. We have protections, whether the police are following them lawfully or NOT. Those protections do NOT disappear because you find it inconvenient to your specific needs. Your rights, My rights, stop at someone's life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Do you get it yet? Or do we need an anvil to drop from the sky and smack you clear in the face. You can not illegally question someone else with out probable cause. Period, NO DEBATE. Those are the facts.

                          America Freedom to Fascism Be a solution not a problem Loosely Twisted

                          by Loosely Twisted on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:25:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  You make inferences about Officer Wilson (9+ / 0-)

                  You stated:

                  Are suggesting that a police officer responding to a 911 call about a robbery, which included at least a sketchy description of the perpetrator, would not be justified in at least questioning a person matching the description fleeing the scene until after he'd questioned the victim and filed a proper report?
                  We know from Chief Jackson that there was no broadcast of 'be on the lookout' and that Officer Wilson, therefore, had no knowledge of any perpetrator of any alleged crime or criminal activity at any Convenience Store.

                  I will not make a generalized comment about police work when we have facts about what occurred just prior to and after the shooting of Michael Brown.

                  Officer Wilson had no knowledge of a crime nor did he have any knowledge of a physical description of Michael Brown if there was no public broadcast of the alleged crime at the Convenience Store.

                  In other words, your hypothetical 'shoulda-woulda-coulda' is irrelevant.

                  You are making inferences about what Officer Wilson may have known; inferences that are contradicted by Chief Jackson's public statements.

                  Should we be believe your inferences or the public statements of Chief Jackson?

                  •  We do know that? (0+ / 0-)
                    "We know from Chief Jackson that there was no broadcast of 'be on the lookout' and that Officer Wilson, therefore, had no knowledge of any perpetrator of any alleged crime or criminal activity at any Convenience Store."
                    I was not aware that the Chief said that. I thought all he said was that Wilson stopped Brown for jaywalking rather than suspicion. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

                    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                    by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:07:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Per Chief Jackson, shooter LEO Wilson Did Not (5+ / 0-)

                  have a description of alleged cigar thief.

                  Your whole after-the-fact explaining is not supported by facts on the ground nor Hack Jackson's statements.

                  Nope.

                  "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

                  by JVolvo on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:59:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  By your logic.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Matt Z

                Why say that the commission of a crime doesn't begin until the police say a crime was committed? Really, there hasn't been a crime committed until there's been a conviction.

                Try telling that to the crime victims.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:53:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  If someone is murdered in 2014 and the body isn't (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jon Says, gratis4

                discovered in 2016 the crime was still committed in 2014.

                Just because a crime isn't reported does not mean a crime didn't occur.

                If we're saying that no crime was committed until someone is arrested then you are saying that the cop who killed Mike Brown committed no crime and did no wrong actions until he's actually arrested.

                Just to reiterate - if the rape victim is not willing to file a police report - there is no crime to be investigated.
                You're wrong. A crime has occurred but the perpetrator might escape justice. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

                What if the victim files a police report but the cops just ignore it or intentionally cover it up. I guess no crime then right?

                When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:49:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Under the law (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Loosely Twisted

              technically, yes, no crime occurred.
              If you want to use the rape as your go-to, even when a woman does report the rape 9/10 times it's dismissed and as far as the law is concerned, no crime has occurred.

            •  A lot of PEOPLE--- (0+ / 0-)

              A lot of PEOPLE make bad decisions at ANY age.

              But yes--agree completely here.

              But there seems to be some VERY agenda and emotionaly driven comments here that want to completely AVOID the chance that Brown might---MIGHT--have ever done anything wrong in his short life.

              I am NOT excusing the cop.

              But we had a case here where a cop hit and ran over and killed an older man in the pitch dark when the guy stumbled into the road.

              Lots of people were allll over the Demon Cop.  But--it turned out that the guy he ran over had Alzhiemers and was not able to comprehend that going into the STREET at night in the pitch dark in dark clothing was a DUMB thing to do.  

              So=-=the cop was not charged and now we have incredibly stupid traffic signs out in the MIDDLE of the damn road (that several people have hit and that keep vanishing!) and the "blame" -- if any-- is on the poor victim.

              The cop on the other hand will live with this forever.  

              So it's NOT always as clear as it first sounds.

          •  For real? How do you know? (5+ / 0-)

            wtf?

            If the store did not call in the alleged crime, then no crime occurred.

            If no charges were pressed or pending, then no crime occurred.

            Are you kidding? If a murder victim doesn't report the murder, then no crime occurred? Even if witnesses do?

            If the suspected murderer is killed before charges can be filed -- usually this requires either a grand jury or a preliminary hearing -- then no crime occurred?

            You can't really believe this "rubbish" (your word), can you? All ideological posturing aside, this is gibberish. Absurd.

            "for an alleged crime for which the manager/store clerk was never questioned."
            How do you know that the manager was never questioned? Oh, wait -- you also wrote this:
            "since the store manager/clerk was not questioned by police until after Michael Brown was dead."
            Obviously, the two things can't both be true. So, maybe you're acknowledging that the manager was questioned. Was it before or after the shooting? Why would that matter? It doesn't. Did an officer respond to and question the manage in the 8 minutes before the shooting? Possibly. Neither of us has a clue, and you make an assertion that this didn't happen with absolutely no basis in knowledge. But it's irrelevant -- and if it didn't happen in those 8 minutes, I'm betting it waited for awhile given that there was a this nearby shooting involving a police officer. Probably took up a lot of resources for hours.

            Furthermore, how do you know that no charges were pressed or pending, even under your sense of this? I assume by this you mean that no cop was investigating this. How do you know? Maybe police were at the scene of the robbery responding to the 911 call, and interviewing witnesses, including the employees. Maybe the 911 operator had asked everyone to remain there because police were being dispatched in response. And, maybe, the operator issued a bulletin about it, using whatever description came over the phone.

            Are you OK with police randomly asking you (or anyone fitting your description) if you committed that crime….before even questioning the store manager to learn if a crime was actually committed?
            I imagine that this is pretty much S.O.P. for police. If there is a suspect who has fled the scene of a reported crime, the first thing police should do is be on the lookout for the suspect...before he/she has time to get away. this isn't "shoot first and ask questions later." It's simply basic policing. Don't let the bad guy get away...you can sort it out after you've brought him into custody. Otherwise, the search area becomes awfully large...and the pool of possible suspects exponentially larger.

            Of course, this assumes there was a report with a description. Maybe there was.

            "The video was not taken from the store and obtained by police until after Michael Brown was dead."
            Of course not. He was killed 8 minutes later -- after a petty theft. Have you ever even seen a cop show, much less had any interaction with the police? Response and investigation takes a lot more than 8 minutes. Your assertion here is the least relevant thing I've ever heard or seen. What does that have to do with anything?
            "The video has nothing to with the death of Michael Brown, since Officer Wilson had no knowledge of the crime alleged in that video"
            How do you know this? If you do, you may be the only persons other than Officer Wilson. I don't even know if he's made a statement to any investigators. Do you? I'm willing to bet that no one outside of law enforcement know whether that's true, so how do you fell comfortable making such a wild assertion about the situation -- one which you cannot know to be true?

            You called my post "Rubbish." Considering the content of your post, I'm feeling pretty good about my post.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:26:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Huh (6+ / 0-)

              You stated,

              "for an alleged crime for which the manager/store clerk was never questioned."
              How do you know that the manager was never questioned? Oh, wait -- you also wrote this:
              "since the store manager/clerk was not questioned by police until after Michael Brown was dead."
              Obviously, the two things can't both be true.
              Sure they can both be true.

              The police, and Officer Wilson in particular, had no knowledge of what happened at the convenience store prior to the shooting of Michael Brown.

              No police stopped at the Convenience Store prior to the shooting of Michael.

              I stand by my comment that store manger was never questioned - about cigars - until after Michael Brown was shot dead.

              After Michael Brown was killed, his friend said something to police about the Convenience Store.  It was only then that the police arrived at the store.  So, not until after Michael Brown was shot dead and laying in the street did the police arrive at the store to speak with the clerk.

              It is safe to assume that the video was handed to the police only after the clerk/manager was questioned….all after Michael Brown was dead.

              My statements are entirely consistent with what we presently know transpired.

              And I'll say it again - the video has nothing to do with the shooting of Michael Brown if Officer Wilson had no knowledge of a crime at the Convenience Store - a fact told to us by Chief Jackson.  Or do you think Chief Jackson made that up to make Officer Wilson look bad?

              You also asked,

              Of course not. He was killed 8 minutes later -- after a petty theft. Have you ever even seen a cop show, much less had any interaction with the police? Response and investigation takes a lot more than 8 minutes. Your assertion here is the least relevant thing I've ever heard or seen. What does that have to do with anything?
              You are making my case, the police had not yet determined if a crime was committed and no 'be on the lookout' was broadcast - facts told to us by Chief Jackson.

              So I'll say it again - the police had no knowledge of any crime at the Convenience Store until after Michael Brown was dead.  All that exists in the public record is that a 911 call was made, but police had not investigated that alleged crime until after Michael Brown was dead.  No 'be on the lookout' was ever made - Chief Jackson told us so.

              So you asked,

              What does that have to do with anything?
              The fact that Michael Brown may or may not have committed a crime has nothing to do with why he was shot - if the police, and Officer Wilson in particular, had no knowledge of that crime having occurred - since Michael Brown was not stopped by Officer Wilson for anything related to a crime at a convenience store.

              We know this to be so - Chief Jackson told us so.

              You can suggest otherwise, or ridicule if you like, but then you would only be showing that you have not comprehended the facts as we presently know them.

          •  Excellent summation! (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sb, Patate, Loosely Twisted, snwflk

            Such bullshit explanations above, I will bet you that those claiming relevance have never spent anytime in court getting evidence entered into the record.

            That video was released by chief Jackson for one reason only , to smear Michael Brown!

            Blessed are the hearts that can bend; for they can never be broken Albert Camus

            by vcmvo2 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:04:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Police Report from Convenience Store (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jon Says, falconer520, Cardinal Fang

            Here's the report of the robbery from the convenience store.

            The first page shows the report was called in at 11:51 am as a "2120 Stealing /In Progress".
            An officer was dispatched at 11:53 and arrived at the store at 11:54.

            At the bottom of the second page there is a box checked called "Willing to Prosecute" next to the the type "BUSINESS".   This shows that the store is interested in  pressing charges.

            On pages 4-5 the officer gives a narrative of what he did and who he talked to upon arriving at the convenience store.  The clerk and the patron who called 911 advised that the "suspect took cigars and pushed _ on his way out".  They said he was going in the direction of the Quiktrip store.  At that point the officer called in the description of the suspect and drove over to the Quiktrip to look for them.  He did not locate them.

            On page 10 there is another report from an officer stating that at 11:58 he responded to "a stealing that had just occurred".  He also canvassed the area looking for the suspect but was unable to find anyone matching the description provided by the dispatcher.

            You are wrong about there not being a report or that the store clerk was never questioned.  It also appears that the Business is "willing to prosecute".

        •  I see what you're saying about "irrelevant" (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          putabirdonit, eru, sethtriggs, vcmvo2, Matt Z

          They should never have released the video. From what I understand the FBI and/or the Justice Dept. told them not to do it because it would just inflame tensions and make it seem like they were trying to smear the victim (which they were).

          The right response would be to name the officer immediately, conduct an investigation as openly as possible and try to calm the public as much as possible.

          Later on, when tensions have calmed, they could release the video or the defense could use it.

          The reason it's less relevant is that apparently the officer didn't know that Mike Brown did the theft and wasn't trying to arrest him for the theft. It reminds me of Trayvon Martin. It doesn't matter what Trayvon social media posted 2 months before because all Zimmerman knew was that he was a young black male walking home.

          I guess the cop could try to argue that maybe Brown thought he was being arrested and therefore tried to attack the officer but it seems kind of unlikely to me.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:03:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, they need time (13+ / 0-)

            to doctor the police report to fit the narrative they are trying to spin. The Ferguson police department is the same as the Sanford police department. The chief needs to step down. He's inept at best.

            •  I agree the police chief needs to stand down (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eru, vcmvo2

              and unfortunately the highway patrol guy who was supposed to be better isn't really doing a much better job it seems.

              Hopefully some good comes out of this tragedy in that police forces get less militarized and connect better with the community.

              When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

              by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:20:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who made the call (0+ / 0-)

                to bring out the heavy artillery? That's what I'd like to know.

                Being that the community is 70% black, I think these commandos were primed and waiting for a full military assault on the citizens of Ferguson.

                Johnson kind of stepped in it after his initial positive connection.

          •  You're assuming that the police dept. didn't want (9+ / 0-)

            to inflame tensions.

            From my perspective, just about everything they've done since Brown was shot inflamed tensions.  It's hard to imagine that the police couldn't foresee the reactions to each action they took.

          •  "Thought he was being arrested?" (0+ / 0-)

            As far as I've heard, all the witnesses -- even those that say the cop had no reason to shoot Brown -- agree that the officer was trying to wrestle Brown in to the police car and lost that wrestling match. Clearly, everyone knew that he was under arrest -- being put into forcible custody. Brown definitely resisted. Did he attack the officer? Or did he turn and somehow menace the officer after being grazed by a bullet when trying to flee? Those would be good questions.

            "apparently the officer didn't know that Mike Brown did the theft and wasn't trying to arrest him for the theft."
            Sorry, but you're speculating, completely baselessly. You have no idea about this and neither does anyone outside of law enforcement. All the police have said is that Wilson did not stop Brown because he thought Brown was a suspect. You have no idea what developed afterward -- and neither do I, other than what witnesses have described about the physical struggle that seemed to involve Wilson trying to get Brown into the back of the police car. Whether that was due to suspicions about the robbery or just in response to mouthing off (maybe refusing to get out of the street) and/or maybe striking the officer, or maybe suspicions of public intoxication -- we don't know, but they are all possibilities. I'm just imagining the possibilities. What is highly unlikely is that the officer tried to arrest him solely on the jaywalking. Surely there was more. We just don't know what.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:47:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Unlikely that the arrest was for jaywalking?" (4+ / 0-)
              What is highly unlikely is that the officer tried to arrest him solely on the jaywalking
              I take it that you don't live in any city that has a sizeable minority population, or have any minority friends....

                One of my coworkers called it DWM or "driving while Mexican."    It was unreal how many times he got stopped, and he was a good driver.  

              (Now replace that racist image ya'll have with the information that he also happened to be a highly skilled and well-paid manager at software firm in California and one of the most gentle guys that you could meet.)

            •  What initiated the incident might be relevant to (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              white blitz

              questions of profiling an whether or not the police officer was initially acting in good faith and within the law, but it why the incident ended the way it did that is relevant to the central and most important question - Did he use excessive force against Michael Brown or not?

              I think there is a strong case to be made that he did, and agree more investigation needs to be done. (The police department is not inspiring much confidence from me that such an investigation needs to be done.)

              The only two questions are

              1) When the officer opened fire, did he have a REASONABLE reason believe he was defending himself or others from a lethal threat?

              or

              2) Did he have REASONABLE reason to believe that Michael Brown was so dangerous, that he had to be put down immediately regardless of any attempt at flight or surrender less his freedom constitute a ongoing threat to the lives of others.

        •  Its relevance isn't relevant (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          otto, white blitz, FischFry, JVolvo, vcmvo2

          Even if, once an actual investigation has begun, it is deemed relevant, it was an inappropriate addition to Friday's discourse.  the fact that the idiot police chief's first words weren't the name of the officer, or a sentence that would conclude with the name of the office contributed to the problem.

          His use of the term "strong-arm robbery" for "shoplifting" was part of the problem.

          His suggestion that the at that an incident the officer knew nothing about in some way mitigated the use of deadly force and clear obstruction of an initial investigation of a homicide was part of the problem.

          His words led to the looting and his words led to where the story is today. I have no idea if there is a case against officer Wilson, but I can see a half dozen individuals coming up for obstruction or accessory after the fact.

          Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

          by textus on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:32:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not the "release" of information so much (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            notagain, happymisanthropy, JVolvo, sb, snwflk

            as the packaging of propaganda.

          •  That's a fair point... (0+ / 0-)

            I"m not saying that the police were acting appropriately at any point in this affair. All I'm saying is that we liberals are peddling some bullshit when we claim it isn't relevant. I think it's relevant to call out bullshit when I hear it.

            Having said that -- yeah, everyone needs to be smarter. However, that's on all sides. I heard Shabazz ( lawyer with the Nation of Islam -- I assume he's a descendant, perhaps even a son of Malcolm (Shabazz) X blaming provocateurs from Oakland for the violence last night. He wants the police to stand down and demilitarize and all that, but curiously he made the point that they didn't start the trouble. Sure, police have a responsibility to be responsible, but so does everyone else. The only difference is that we're paying the police salaries and we have to hold them accountable, just as they would hold the violent protestors accountable. So, I have no problem discussing that. I was just trying to inject some perspective about an argument that protestors are making which doesn't make sense.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:55:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Odds are the video won't be allowed as evidence, (0+ / 0-)

          IMO.

          But I'm not a lawyer.

        •  Right up until the young man raised his hands up (7+ / 0-)

          I'm kinda-sorta willing to not throw the officer to prison. He's a prick for even firing his gun and should be made to sweep streets with a toothbrush for it though. After the hands go up and the kid surrenders all those extra bullets should equal life sentences.

        •  I do not see how it is relevant (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sethtriggs

          I do not see how this video which was released by police in the same press scrum as naming the officer is relevant to the officer shooting this young man. You can only surmise Mr. Brown's state of mind...you are assuming that he thought he might have been stopped for the shoplifting [I refuse to call it a "robbery"]. Your only "evidence" that it is relevant appears to be based on what "might" have been on Mr. Brown's mind.

        •  Two separate events in two separate locations (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, snwflk

          involving the same individual DO NOT mean that the two events are related as far as the Legal system is concerned.

          Only evidence from a crime scene or evidence directly related to the crime scene (such as a getaway car parked blocks away from the scene but used by the suspects during the commission of the robbery they are accused of) are admissible as evidence in a court trial.

          The video from the store? Food for public consumption, sadly, yes.

          But evidence in any way related in a legal sense to the shooting of Michael Brown? No.

          I'm not a lawyer, but even I know this. Hell, why do you think our legal system works this way?

          Because in the days of Merry Olde England they could bring up events from your past and use THEM to convict you of a crime you are accused of NOW.
          It's a tentpole, foundational piece of our American legal system, and I'm now getting angry that so many people HERE on such a liberal and progressive site are showing such blatant ignorance of our system of Law and Order - and the history which created it.

          "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

          by Angie in WA State on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:06:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that it has relevance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          falconer520

          But I also agree that the video was released the way it was in order to smear Brown.

      •  Rec'd in memory of P.K. Dick. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dallasdunlap

        I preach the church without Christ, where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see and what's dead stays that way! Hazel Motes in "Wise Blood" (Flannery O'Connor)

        by chalatenango on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:59:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Has anyone (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mikejay611, KiB, indres, JVolvo

        confirmed that the man in the video was actually Brown himself?

        I have not seen it yet (but have been out of pocket for a couple of days).

        Everyone is is talking that it was in fact Brown, but I dont see a confirmation.

      •  After releasing the video and report, (8+ / 0-)

        and LATER admitting the cop did NOT know Brown was a suspect when he murdered him, I thought the police chief said the cop "might have seen" cigars in his hand, in an attempt to justify shooting Brown, apparently.

        "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

        by MartyM on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:28:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  or he might not have (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          white blitz, sb, snwflk

          No telling what that cop might have done. I like how cops put out a statement today that Michael "may" have smoked pot. Got to love it. Meantime killer cop is on paid vacation, where he might be doing anything. Hope there is no 18 year-old black kid jay-walking while holding cigarello's.

      •  If the penalty for theft of a few dollars of merch (5+ / 0-)

        is death, a LOT of people would be getting shot.

        Hell, how many teenagers have lifted a few cans of beer or bag of chips from a convenience store?  

      •  That's more or less what (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indres, JVolvo, sb

        Rikki Klieman, CBS News Analyst, said re Michael Brown's state of mind (paraphrasing) as to why the cop approached him, whether the cop knew of the shoplifting or not.

        Video:

        http://www.cbsnews.com/...

        A day or two later, CBS Morning News finally gave a disclaimer next time she was on that Klieman is married to New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton.

        Of course none of this justifies the cop murdering Michael Brown, but as you said, it's all about setting up the defense.

        Dallasdoc: "Snowden is the natural successor to Osama bin Laden as the most consequential person in the world, as his actions have the potential to undo those taken in response to Osama."

        by gooderservice on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:40:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That isn't what happened either. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        white blitz

        According to a story by Addicting Info he actually paid for the cigarillos. He put some back because he couldn't afford as much as he wanted, had a brief argument with the owner and left.

        Apparently it isn't even true that he committed a crime.

        Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

        by martianexpatriate on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:46:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's been reported that a box of cigars ... (6+ / 0-)

      were abandoned in favor of handfuls of them.  Regardless, did the 911 call result in a BOLO being broadcast over police radios?  And even if not, has Brown's friend commented on whether Brown assumed the police stop was related to the robbery?

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

      by Neuroptimalian on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:03:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup. You can see it right on the video (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indres, sb

      You can see Michael Brown returning 1 or more boxes of cigars back to the clerk. He only kept the 2(?) boxes that he picked up off the floor. Dorian Johnson was holding 1 box of cigars for Brown. He also leaned over and returned it back to the counter, before he turned and started to walk out.

    •  I don't know about cigars, but (4+ / 0-)

      the "tussle" was anything but friendly in my opinion.  When the owner approached Brown, he was physically shoved into a counter by someone who was 1' taller and 100 lbs bigger than him.    If I had been the store owner and wanted to get even, I would have called the cops and pressed charges for battery.

      If that video was of Brown, he was a bully at the very least.    What happened in the store, however, has nothing to do with what happened in the street.  The cop shot and killed an unarmed man.  

      I would hope that at least some of these diaries would be a call to action to ban the giving of military equipment to state and local police.   We can have all the righteous outage in the world; but if we fail to channel it to force the change we want, shame on us.

      Call the Chair of the Senate Armed Forces Committee or sign the dkos petition and tell them to stop dumping war and spy toys into our communities.  In fact, demand they come pick up the stuff already here.  

      I will not vote for Hillary..... #38067

      by dkmich on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:42:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That store owner (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Says, falconer520

      probably depends on the community for his business, and if he participates in any part of this situation, he knows the African-American community may damned well boycott his business and he'd lose out.

      "Washington, DC: Where Corruption is Rewarded, and Ethical Merit is DESPISED.

      by The Truth on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:33:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Article misinterprets owners statement intent (0+ / 0-)

      The owner who got openly, publicly robbed and humiliated....THEN had his store vandalized by the masses who then went nuts (who had to be chastised by Jessie &Co) when they heard it was HIS store that Brown robbed, is trying to distance himself from the insanity.

      Read: "Please leave me and my store and my family alone...I didn't call the police on Mr. Brown...I had nothing to do with this whole nightmare"

      Hard to fully grasp the non-focus on Furguson culture where a young man thinks it no problem to openly steal from a shop owner, who then tries to defend his business, and (thankfully!) only gets shoved back into his store shelves....I guess I am wondering how this social rubric is acceptable.

      Maybe I should ask the shop owner and all the other owners who were vandalized. I just wonder how commonplace robberies are there, seeing that Brown thought NOTHING of it....

  •  Is there reference to call on police audio rele... (13+ / 0-)

    Is there reference to call on police audio released by Anonymous?

  •  I figured (32+ / 0-)

    Speculated this the other day.  I figure the store owner is deeply horrified that this is going down in the name of a throw away pack of cigarellos.  He probably doesn't have a great relationship with the police either.

    The friend admitted they stole the cigarettes, if he had been less honest (which seeing as how he was being interviewed by the FBI I trust that baby told them EVERYTHING down to the cereal he ate for breakfast that day), we would have never found out as the store owner had already written whatever happened in that encounter off.

    •  I've been wondering about the store owners story (20+ / 0-)

      Why didn't an employee call it in? Was it because someone else already did? Was it because the police don't care about that shit? Was it fear of the thief? Was it because he knew it's dangerous to call the cops on a black man? Did he know Mike and plan on dealing with it by telling his folks?

      I wonder how often similar incidents occur. What is the typical police response? Was the 911 caller a local? a regular? Did she know Mike or the store owners? When are reports going to  go through that 911 call?

    •  Where and when (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      was it reported that Johnson admitted this? I have never heard that before now...

      Republicans are counting on the fact that fear makes people do stupid things. Like voting Republican.. ~ Ian Reifowitz

      by mikejay611 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:23:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What is the store supposed to do in this case? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kingfishstew, falconer520

      Lets just assume Mike Brown did steal the cigars. I don't know if he did and his friend seems to say it happened.

      Their store got looted and wrecked and they did nothing wrong. If they called it in, how can you blame them? If someone steals stuff from a store they're supposed to call the police, the police are supposed to come and the store should be able to trust the police won't execute someone for suspected petty theft.

      Apparently they didn't even call it in. So how can you blame them for this when they may or may not have just let it go?

      The cop was 100% wrong. But lets not pretend that theft, even petty theft isn't also wrong. That in on way means Mike Brown should have been executed by the police.

      But had the police been called and a normal arrest been made what would have been the problem? This is NOT an instance where some racist person calls the police on a kid for walking while black.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:14:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we can all agree that if Michael Brown (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sb

        had been arrested for shoplifting, or Eric Garner arrested for selling looseys, or Alex Landau even arrested for driving around with passenger in his carry who had marijuana on him, none of their names would be known to me or anyone else now. People get arrested, and get tickets all the time. It's the alarming frequency with which low level contacts with the police end in death for (black) people that is obviously causing all the consternation.

        Asking for shoplifters, and drunks, and rowdy kids, and speeders, mouthy and quarrelsome people ect. not to be arrested and fined is not the same thing as asking them to be more routinely taken into police custody without needless beatdowns and deaths.

        On thing to keep in mind is that freedom and equality isn't only the opportunity for the most gifted and driven black man to achieve the honors previously reserved for the most gifted and driven white man, but also when the most dispicable and loathsome black man is no more harshly punished than the most despicable and loathsome white man. (And no, I'm not say MB was despicable and loathsome)

        In the same way you can't sell fine house to the rich white man but refuse it to the rich black man, you can't hang the white murderer and draw and quarter the black murder and call it justice.

        No one should blame whomever called the police on Michael Brown, but I think we can fit Michael Brown neatly into a demonstrable pattern of American behavior which a persisting level of callousness on the part of police when black apples are compared to white apples in terms of what happens after they become involved.

        •  The whole thing could have been a misunderstanding (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          falconer520

          I honestly don't know. I really don't want to make it sound like I think Mike Brown was a bad person or I know he was shoplifting.

          But unless some new evidence comes out we really can't blame the store here.

          I just feel like we're getting dangerously close to arguing that maybe the store should have been looted because their actions may have led to Mike Brown being killed - but now that we know they didn't call 9/11 then they shouldn't be looted.

          The cop who did this, and police brutality and treatment of low-income communities, particularly those of color, are the problems here.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 04:00:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I, also, read the other day (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sb, snwflk, white blitz

      about it being a customer that called it in and that the store owner did not want that video released.

      By the time the police saw it, Michael was already dead, and that store owner certainly knew his business would be in trouble.

      I sure noticed that the cops were looking all great lined up protecting that store early that 1st night and then all went missing later for the looting to occur.  That's the store where the young local kids were blocking more people from entering store instead of the cops doing their "fucking" job. It seemed like a "fuck you" to the owner after the police had set up the owner's business for trouble.

  •  I have viewed the video a dozen times (41+ / 0-)

    and the actions of Brown and the clerk do not make sense in the context of a planned robbery.  There appear to be at least one other employee in the store in addition to two kids and a woman with a child and it was broad daylight in a well lit store.

    That being said, Brown also talks to the clerk before he takes the cigars and appears to return some cigars to the clerk and to take others, which makes little sense in the context of a robbery.

    The whole story has yet to come out because the clerk's actions do not seem to make much sense as Brown was not running out of the store but was leaving at an ordinary pace.  Why did the clerk then try to either lock the door, as some have suggested, or try to restrain Brown's companion, as others have suggested?

    The RW is doubling down on Brown's being a "thug" and "violent criminal" as have some Kossacks.  The crux of the matter, if the alleged robbery is germane to his death, is what transpired between Brown and the clerk in the period before Brown took the cigars?

  •  More proof that (33+ / 0-)

    the FPD is all about lying and smearing the victim and NOT interested in justice or truth. More independent investigations, please!

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:54:22 AM PDT

  •  It sounds like the ONLY reason Ferguson Police... (62+ / 0-)

    wanted the video for was to find something to use on Brown, in a vain attempt to connect the two incidents.

    Chief Jackson hasn't been honest from the start.

    Trust nothing they say.

    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

    by markthshark on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:54:26 AM PDT

  •  But a call was made from a customer? (31+ / 0-)

    Trying to determine the "wow" moment of this  - a 911 call was made to police regarding the incident in the market.

    The police have said the officer who killed Michael Brown did not know about the robbery -

    I think everyone knows why the police released the tape - to put their guy in the best light.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:55:11 AM PDT

  •  the store doesn't want to be a target (4+ / 0-)

    of local rage.

    I'm sure they filed some report, because they
    need to report the loss of product to the
    distributor.

  •  Read the report -- they couldn't EXAMINE the video (40+ / 0-)

    until days later.  Not a standard format.

    I'm really amazed that they bothered GETTING the video if the store owner didn't call it in.  For $49 -- who is making the manpower decisions around there?

    The answer, of course, is that someone was already doing damage control when they went back to get the video... which what NOT at the original time of the officer response. Typically first responders do NOT get video off of DVRs.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:58:16 AM PDT

  •  When did the 911 call come in (18+ / 0-)

    about a robbery? And the video wasn't obtained until a warrant on Friday morning, the day it was released? Kind of makes the FOIA requests for the tape pretty much impossible to exist.

    •  I want to see the 911 records. (14+ / 0-)

      But I don't think we'll find one.

      I can't trust them anymore.

      This better be good. Because it is not going away.

      by DerAmi on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:25:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is not correct (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Demeter Rising, white blitz
      And the video wasn't obtained until a warrant on Friday morning, the day it was released?
      A copy of the video was obtained when the investigating Ferguson Police Department officer personally requested a copy of the store security surveillance system, the contents of which were described in a supplemental police report filed the next day.  The store made and provided a DVD to the FPD officer assigned to the investigation.  I surmise -- but I can't tell from the report -- the same day while the responding officer was on the scene for the initial investigation.

      The warrant you're talking about is actually a St. Louis County warrant that was issued on the 15th for the security system's hard drive.  I don't know what St. Louis County's interest in the hard drive is, but that's separate from the means by which FPD obtained a copy of the relevant footage.

    •  Right! Chief Jackson said he released video b/c (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snwflk

      of "all the media requests for it; FOI requests."

      1) What?!?
      2) Will this be precedent: police release video at media request?
      3) Where's the effing incident report for the actual shooting?

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

      by JVolvo on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:15:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you so much for this! (11+ / 0-)

    Facts, we need them badly.

    There is something in us that refuses to be regarded as less than human. We are created for freedom - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    by Onomastic on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:17:06 AM PDT

  •  Of course, the usual extreme-rightwing Farcebook (21+ / 0-)

    feeds - The Blaze, The Daily Caller, Conservative News Service, among others - have been shrieking with glee about what a hardened criminal Michael Brown was and how this video just PROVES it!!!!!!!! Just like that HORRIBLE, VIOLENT, DRUG-DEALING CRIMINAL Trayvon Martin!!!!!!! And we're NOT racists!!!!!!!

    Unfortunately, I have actual Farcebook "friends" who subscribe to all that nauseating stuff and "share" it religiously, so I am subjected to it all the time. I really can't stand looking at it, but I suppose it's actually a good thing that I know about it; it's important to be aware of just how widespread and far-reaching the social-media-based racism really is.

    "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

    by blue in NC on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:18:59 AM PDT

  •  The release of the tape is why everyone involve... (7+ / 0-)

    The release of the tape is why everyone involved in this needs to be arrested. It has been used to enflame both sides, maybe Nixon needs to turn the Bational Guard on the true thugs, the police? Similar to Trayvon and the Ice Tea becoming "drank", it is a horse whisyle to label the dead kid an out of control druggie. These cops know that.

  •  Please correct diary... (16+ / 0-)

    It shoukd be Ferguson Police Chief JACKSON.

    Not Johnson.

    Oh... And on the story?

    Damn!  Just shows how Ferguson cops tracking back.... Covering things up.

    There will be no humanity without forgiveness. There will be no forgiveness without justice. But justice will be impossible without humanity. – Yolande Mukagasana

    by kishik on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:21:16 AM PDT

  •  dear city council people (8+ / 0-)

    will you please fire this chief before he embarrasses you with his lies any further?

    Thanks

    Der Weg ist das Ziel

    by duhban on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:22:26 AM PDT

  •  This will not end well. (6+ / 0-)

    The "authorities" are the criminals.

    How can the people put a stop to it?

    This better be good. Because it is not going away.

    by DerAmi on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:23:13 AM PDT

  •  This doesn't necessarily follow (4+ / 0-)
    the alleged theft of the cheap cigars was so insignificant to the Ferguson Market that they did not even bother to call 911 about it
    If the customer made the call in the presence of the employee, the employee would have no reason to call again himself.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:23:37 AM PDT

    •  It *also* doesn't necessarily follow that a 911 (8+ / 0-)

      call was even made. Until I see testimony about the existence of an actual, certified-not-tampered-with-by-DoJ-forensics tape of this alleged call I will continue to assume it is another fictional part of the coverup. It would be typical of this sort of thuggery to 'cunningly' suppose that they needed cover for demanding the tape.

      Enough fossil fuel remains on Earth to warm it 6 degrees C by 2100 AD if it is all used. A +6 C planet will only sustain half a billion humans. Human population will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Any questions?

      by davidincleveland on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:44:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Of course whatever happened in that video (9+ / 0-)

    does not in any way, shape, or form justify the officer shooting Brown.  

    The incident between the officer and Brown has to stand on its own, based on all the evidence of what happened in those moments.

    Personally, I think that the only reason that they put the video out there was to counter the "gentle giant" description of Brown that was circulating around.  If that was why, whoever made the decision made a serious miscalculation as to how the Ferguson community would react to it.

  •  getting video was not bad, releasing it was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge, NoBlueSkies

    The video was not related, i get that.  It should not have been released.

    I think it is also possible the officer thought Brown was committing some crime before shooting him. could have been as minor as disorderly conduct.  Regardless, in order to investigate this, they need to be thorough to figure out what happened.  They need to investigate the officer and Brown.  

    All signs point to this being a horrible crime committed by the officer, murder if you want to call it that.  But to make a timeline, the police should have all the facts.  

  •  Wasn't insignificant at all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dallasdunlap

    Just something you don't do in that neighborhood perhaps?

    I guess maybe he didn't deserve to have his business burned down after all.

    We are in definite need of balance and fairness regarding this incident and its consequence.

    Is it better to lose than be lost?

    by Publius2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:37:26 AM PDT

  •  Not a "wow" at all (11+ / 0-)

    In the battle of irrelevant information, this would top the list. If the store employees were aware that a customer called 911 to report the robbery, then there's literally no reason to expect that they would also make such a call.

    If you're implying that this indicates it wasn't in any way a robbery, or not seen as an incident by the store employees, that seems wholly unjustified. This is just silliness. Moreover, if you're suggesting that there was no police bulletin about a robbery there, this bit of info is also irrelevant, Either there was a police alert or there wasn't -- where that report began is not relevant or in any way significant.

    All of which brings me to something I've wanted to say -- I'm no fan of police militarization and I'm well aware of the history of differential racial treatment by police. However, the liberal line -- and while I'm a liberal, I cannot endorse this line of argument --- has been that the information (and the video that seems to confirm it) that Brown had just committed a robbery is "irrelevant." I've heard this from everyone from Al Sharpton to John Oliver.

    The problem is that is wrong. If there is any trial for the officer, this will most definitely be offered in his defense, and no judge would rule this irrelevant.

    It makes two things more likely -- 1) that regardless of whether the officer stopped Brown for walking in the middle of the road, Brown may have had some reason to be fearful of arrest and motivated to physically resist arrest; and 2) that Brown was in an agitated state that had only minutes before caused him to initiate a physical confrontation that would be in furtherance of illegal behavior. These make it more likely that there might have been a physical confrontation that led the officer to believe he needed to use force in his defense.

    Whether or not he was justified in using deadly force is a slightly different question, but to say that the video is irrelevant is simply and utterly wrong.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:42:11 AM PDT

    •  it's relevant to the response of the Ferguson (6+ / 0-)

      P.D.  They released the tape, after not even viewing it for a few days, knowing that it wasn't the basis for Wilson to stop Brown, and even though the store itself wasn't interested in pursuing the matter.

      Yes, if Wilson is prosecuted, it'll be part of his defense.  I don't see how it gets to reasonable doubt in lgiht of eyewitnesses describing Brown's words as "hands up don't shoot," but then again, I've never been called for a jury.

      It also sheds light on the emerging right wing counternarrative of Brown as a thug, where the store's take was there was some sort of dispute after which Brown walked out with a small amount of merchandise, not a premeditated "strong arm robbery,"   I think it may well have affected how he reacted to Wilson as an authority figure (maybe not just fear of arrest, but possibly "not this profiling shit again"), and indeed, he could have said the most inappropriate things about Wilson's mother imaginable.  That doesn't explain Wilson's reaction.  

      Further, by this point, the protests are largely in regard to how the police have dealt with expressions of legitimate grievance over their handling of the Brown shooting - like imposing curfew, use of tear gas, and letting the body lie in the sun for hours.  The fact that the police are clearly involved in inventing the story for Wilson's DEFENSE attorney in the immediate aftermath further will inflame passions and shows how out of touch the police are in this situation.  Why did they think this week is the time to drag Brown through the mud?  And why should it be their job?  

      If they want civil order, they should hurry up an impanel a grand jury for Wilson.  They don't want this, they want hegemony.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 09:57:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mostly, I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

        However, I'll only add that this was an investigation that was proceeding in the context of these massive protests and a similarly massive police response. I don't know the details of it all, but it might have taken days for the police to look deeper into the cigar store robbery and look at the store video. The release may have been ill-timed for the reasons you state, but I can actually understand why the local p.d. might have thought it would help calm things down.

        It's very facile to take apart this stuff from the outside, but some criticisms may bear little relation to what is actually going on inside the police department. Whether or not it feeds a right-wing counter-narrative that FOX is pushing is REALLY irrelevant. That kind of TV political nonsense should not be part of the police deliberations. It has nothing to do with anything.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:11:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's relevant that it feeds it, (4+ / 0-)

          because it looks to the people in the community of Ferguson that the police are feeding it.  Whether this is fair or unfair, it took years and years of discriminatory and hostile policing to lose any benefit of the doubt.  

          The police need to be concerned with how their actions are perceived by the people they police, and they are going out of their way to antagonize instead.  Even Jay Nixon figured out leaking the video was a bad plan.  Were these police expecting people to say, "oh, hey, this guy really was bad, so let's all go home?"  If that's their deliberative process, that's even worse than "we've heard your protests, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it."  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:14:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not that he's a bad guy.... (0+ / 0-)

            That's the whole point. If the video was wholly unconnected to events when Wilson confronted Brown, then it would be irrelevant. It would be the "he's a bad guy" thing. I don't think that's what the police had in mind.

            What the video shows is that less than ten minutes earlier, Brown was intent on committing a petty theft and strongly shoved a store employee to escape in furtherance of the petty theft. That has to have informed his reactions when Wilson confronted him -- and if Wilson saw the cigars, it might also have been the reason for Wilson's attempted arrest. It's more of a plea -- badly articulated -- for everyone to calm down because there might be reason to believe the shooting might have been justified.

            I agree that, under these circumstances, the police do need to consider the public reaction. I'm suggesting that they didn't anticipate the anger that followed the release of this video -- that the leaders of the protest and the public would see it the way you are seeing it. Just because they were wrong about how the public reacted doesn't mean that they weren't trying to consider that and calm things down. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what politicians say under these circumstances. They're too busy trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

            Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

            by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:36:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In some civilized country that might be credible (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sethtriggs, snwflk

              but not in AmeriKKKa.

              They were TOTALLY trying to taint any possible jury pool, and provide cover for doing jack shit to round up their own rogue cop.

              If it's
              Not your body,
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              And it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:00:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No, the video alone does not "show" intent (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sethtriggs, vcmvo2

              That is your interpretation that

              Brown was intent on committing a petty theft and strongly shoved a store employee to escape in furtherance of the petty theft
              .

              We have no audio and the only witness statement I've heard about is in the police report released by FPD.

              And you assume that Brown was in an agitated state that made him overact to any contact with police. Assuming that if Brown really had committed a "petty theft" he was just as likely to be trying to play it cool and deny anything and everything. You yourself use the word petty, implying it was a trifling occurrence and not likely to produce high emotion.

              If Wilson only stopped them to tell them to get on the sidewalk, and that's all, that could just as easily caused relief for Brown that no report had been made and he was safe.

              So I view all the speculation about Brown's actions and reactions to be an attempt to give the reason for the cop's overreaction. A reason other than loss of control, abuse of power, and/or racism. It just seems that it always has to be the black guy's fault because the white guy is always in control and justified in whatever action he takes.

            •  Again, this is just wrong: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Denise Oliver Velez, Loge, snwflk
              That has to have informed his reactions when Wilson confronted him -- and if Wilson saw the cigars, it might also have been the reason for Wilson's attempted arrest.
              The police have conceded that Wilson knew nothing about the robbery or Brown's alleged involvement in it when he encountered Brown and Johnson.  It couldn't have been the reason for his attempted arrest.  The reason for that "attempted arrest," according to the police themselves, was that Brown and Johnson were walking in the street rather than on the sidewalk.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:50:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You've made an unwarranted logical leap (0+ / 0-)

                The only thing the Chief said was that Brown wasn't stopped by the officer because of suspicion in the robbery -- that it was related to his jaywalking, if that's the right word.

                You have no idea whether the officer developed some suspicion DURING their encounter -- perhaps even seeing the stolen merchandise. Neither do I...and too many are making sweeping pronouncements about shit they don't know shit about.

                Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:15:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Suspicion of a crime he didn't know about? (0+ / 0-)

                  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

                  You know, the lengths to which some white people will go to justify police violence against black people never cease to amaze me.  

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 07:41:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This whole discussion is amazingly frusgtrating (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm not justifying what he did. I never justified what he did. I wrote that the video -- and, more importantly, the events that video captured -- will be very relevant to the cop's defense, and that this meme that sprung up saying it's relevant is just plain wrong.

                    As the discussion progressed people kept making bullshit assertions about what the cop knew or didn't know. No one other than the  cop knows what he knew or suspected. Anyone saying they know is full of shit -- regardless of their skin color. They may be reacting and speaking out of anger, but they're still making shit up.

                    I don't make assertions about black people in general -- or at least, I certainly don't try to.  That would be racist. It's no less so when you make assertions about white people.

                    A few weeks ago, a very muscular young black got in my face threatening to beat me up. This was because he apparently didn't like my standing in the crosswalk in a parking lot while I was waiting for my girlfriend to return with the car keys (he didn't know why I was standing there, but he never gave me a chance to explain as he berated me). He decided this meant I thought I owned all that space. And, despite walking away, he turned around to beat me, declaring he was "tired of all these white motherfuckers." His girlfriend (wife?) stopped him and talked some sense into him.

                    That was some crazy racist bullshit. And yet, I don't ascribe that behavior to anyone but him.

                    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                    by FischFry on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 08:39:32 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're uninformed. (0+ / 0-)

                      Or at least you're not following what the Ferguson PD is claiming about the incident.  They said Wilson didn't stop Brown because of the so-called robbery.  If you'd bothered to read the supposed police report of the robbery incident, you'd know that the officer who was dispatched said s/he never encountered the suspects.  

                      The only reason you're claiming this is "relevant" is because you're buying into a racist meme -- that all black men are thuggish, dangerous criminals who must be guilty of something and who are therefore asking for anything they get from the police.  

                      And I have no idea at all what your alleged encounter with some black dude has to do with this.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It "explains" his racist preconceptions? (0+ / 0-)

                        One black man gave him a hard time, therefore all black men are (potentially) dangerous criminals, yada yada yada.

                        ANYbody, of any "race", any nationality, any color, any gender, any sexual orientation, can be an asshole. And anyone who generalizes from one bad example to include all members of the same class is a bigot and/or racist.

                        (It's different when there is clear evidence of systematic abuse and/or corruption: then it's the system that is creating assholes.)

                        If it's
                        Not your body,
                        Then it's
                        Not your choice
                        And it's
                        None of your damn business!

                        by TheOtherMaven on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:00:06 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  No. You're being obtuse (0+ / 0-)

                        It's like I'm talking to brick walls. People -- not just you, but mostly you -- keep saying things along those lines. Yes, the Chief said that Wilson did not stop Brown because of the robbery. As I keep saying that's all he sad about that. Since the witnesses all agree that at some point Wilson tried to force Brown into the police car, we can be about 99.5% sure that something more happened after Wilson stopped. No cop tries to make a forcible arrest for just jaywalking, or draws on the citizen for resisting a jaywalking citation -- not unless he's had some sort of psychotic break.

                        My enconter has next to nothing to do with this, although I could draw an analogy. I was just saying that writing something about your perceptions of "white people" isn't a big step from this guy deciding I was worth pummeling because I"d given him some imagined slight that reminded him of "all these white motherfuckers." But, I could also draw some connection to the Ferguson events, and what likely happened -- why I say the robbery (and the video as the best evidence of that) are relevant...and it has nothing to do with believing all black me are thuggish.

                        The guy was instantly hostile towards me, for no obvious reason, but I could conjecture. I had been blocking the handicapped spot, standing where I was -- when someone (a female voice) in this huge SUV exasperatedly shouted "Well, are you ever going to move?" When I realized that this comment was directed at me, I moved and apologized. I said: "I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were waiting for the handicapped spot.." I actually felt guilty for making someone wait for that spot.

                        So, I walked down the crosswalk across the grass island next to the spot,. I had my back to the SUV, still looking for my girlfriend, when I hear a male voice say "You got a problem?" Mind you, all I've done to this point, was absent-mindedly block the handicapped parking spot, and then move out of their way and reposition myself about ten feet away. Then, three young black folks -- this dude and two women get out. They are obviously out for a night out, based on their dress and manner. They are also obviously not he least bit handicapped, though this huge SUV/truck thing does have handicapped plates. First the girl asks me -- in a loud, but teasing manner -- what I was doing standing in front of the spot and whether I was drunk?" Before I can say anything, the dude launches into his angry diatribe gesturing back to the lot, asking if I thought I "own all this?" To which I start to say "Of course not, I was just standing int he crosswalk where I'm allowed to stand." He repeats his diatribe about my thinking I own all that -- that white people think they own everything.

                        As I said, they walked past me, but then he turned around, and it was clear he was interested in a physical confrontation at that point -- and that's when he said "I'm tired of all these white motherfuckers!"

                        Even though his date or wife got in the way and ended this, I was pretty shook  up...for a couple of days at least.

                        I can't really make sense of his actions and his response -- except for one thing: They were clearly parking illegally in a handicapped spot, since they weren't handicapped (and this being a shopping center, they were almost certainly not picking up someone who was handicapped.

                        All I can surmise is that he felt a little guilt about parking there, and felt that I was judging them -- thus the anger directed at me would have sprung from being defensive. So, imagine how an 18 year old kid (white, black, or asian) -- who is not a hardened criminal, and maybe has never robbed anyone before -- how that kid will react when he's stopped a few blocks away five minutes later by a cop, while he's still got the stolen merchandise on him. He'd be scared shitless, and things could have gotten real ugly real fast. That's why I say the robbery -- and the video of it --are relevant.

                        Now, thank you for calling my encounter "alleged." You couldn't have been much more of a prick about it, at least not without saying straight out that I made it up...which, of course, yo'd have absolutely no basis or reason to do.

                        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

                        by FischFry on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 07:22:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a pattern (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          white blitz, vcmvo2, snwflk

          Look at what the Ferguson authorities have released and what they're keeping to themselves. It's a pattern that wouldn't happen with unbiased investigators.

          "Moron Labe": please come take our morons.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:37:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I would say it is significant for the first shot (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, white blitz

      fired, which happened right after Brown and the officer had a struggle through the police truck window. But the 2nd through the 6th shots, are very hard to justify. Especially the two (likely fatal) shots to the head, as Brown was  doubling over, and possibly about to collapse on the ground.

      •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        icemilkcoffee

        The only way I can see a shot into the top of the head being justifiable is if the person is rushing at the shooter with his head down. And as far as I know, even the police officer isn't alleging that. Certainly none of the eye-witnesses describe anything like that.

        "With all this manure around, there has to be a pony somewhere!" - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

        by jrooth on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:59:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It looked to me like a hassle over ID ... must be (7+ / 0-)

    18+ to buy them, the shop owner asked for ID and Brown got upset about it. What shop owner robbed and pushed around would NOT call the cops?

    But it seems there was NO THEFT at all, he didn't walk out with any product. If he did then the Police have the "stolen" ciggy-butts, right?

    Also, where is Brown's cell-phone? The only thing I can imagine the cop and Brown wrestling over through a car window is the phone .... maybe videotaping the encounter?

  •  No shoplifting or theft? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, snwflk

    Police had the video for several days and could have easiliy  Photoshopped it to show what they wanted.  Their holding it so long is very suspicious! Let someone else evaluate the video to verify it is not a cut and paste job - which is all I have seen on the net so far.
    Brown was probably in this local store many times and his images could have been spliced together.
    Plus we don't even know what was said!  Was there an insult in July that caused Brown to shove the other guy?  And that was spliced to make him not just a shoplifter but a STRONG ARM BANDITTO!

    Hey! Folks! Wake up!  All this recording is a mother lode of your actions, which can be spliced to make it look like YOU committed a crime rather than the true miscreant!

  •  Gasoline, candle (0+ / 0-)
  •  I originally thought (3+ / 0-)

    that the police only knew about that incident because Michael Brown's friend told them about it.

  •  What difference does it make whether an (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andrewj54, HCKAD, vcmvo2, Matt Z, snwflk

    employee or a customer called the police?

    The point is: this video, and the call (whoever made it) had nothing to do with the shooting. Rather, it's a post-hoc effort by the police to justify a killing.

  •  I suspect (10+ / 0-)

    one big reason the store didn't call 911 is that the last time they did, the cops didn't show up until 3 days later, then tied up a clerk for an hour while making out the report, while casually grabbing some munchies which they didn't pay for. And, never caught anyone.

  •  So it was actually petty theft (10+ / 0-)

    not robbery, as first announced. And now he had smoked pot. We may also learn that he had sex out of wedlock. Detention slips from high school are next. This is a replay of the Trayvon smear job.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:51:51 AM PDT

  •  Might need to update (10+ / 0-)

    "Speak with your chest, bro. You a man!" - Ferguson citizen to Gov. Nixon

    by jazzence on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:55:14 AM PDT

    •  Ah ... was expecting that. (9+ / 0-)

      As I said above, to me the confrontation on the video looks more like a dispute over what was paid for than a robbery.

      "With all this manure around, there has to be a pony somewhere!" - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

      by jrooth on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:58:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've watched this video over and over (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martini, snwflk

      The video is short but I see what appears to be Brown making a transaction with the person behind the counter, and then he and his friend start to leave the store.

      At this point, a man (the same man who waited on Brown?) comes from out behind the counter to confront them.

      Didn't he just 3 seconds earlier have a transaction with Brown? In the video Brown appears to be talking to someone behind the counter and there doesn't seem to be a problem that I can see.

      I haven't seen the rest of the video where the shoving took place but this 43 seconds looks like a normal transaction taking place with customer and store employee.

      While Brown is at the counter there is a man behind him in a white tee shirt; could the store employee have suspected him of shoplifting and was going after him?

      Or perhaps he went to confront Brown's friend, who admitted to the police of shoplifting?

      I don't see Brown doing anything wrong here on this video.

      I am very anxious to hear from all witnesses who were in the store as I am perplexed by the shoplifting accusations directed @ Brown.

      •  It is being speculated that this video (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        martini

        shows Brown robbing the store. I don't know the technical definition of robbery, but I have always assumed it means threatening with a weapon. Brown doesn't appear here to have a weapon, and right after he's done, the man who was robbed evidently comes out from behind the counter to confront Brown.

        Who does that after being robbed? Did Brown want money? Did he get it?

  •  Something doesn't jive here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs, Demeter Rising, Jon Says

    I read the police report.  I don't buy the store owner's attorney's line that the owner did not "file a robbery report."  It appears that somebody from the store in fact did report a robbery to the police and looking at the police report filed that day, it seems clear that the store manager -- maybe not the owner, but a person identified as the manager -- provided sufficient information to the police to complete the report, including suspect descriptions, direction of travel, what was taken, details of the interactions and what was said, etc.

    According to the witness' statement -- the lady who was coming out of the bathroom as the robbery was occurring -- an employee of the store called 911, though it isn't clear who that employee is, as his or her name is redacted.

    Also, looking at the CAD reports, it looks like cell phone calls come in with tower and carrier information.  The call for the robbery does not contain this information, suggesting it was received from a landline.  If, contrary to the witness' statement, another customer called 911, I wonder what phone that caller used.

    The 911 audio tape should clear this up handedly.  If I had to guess though, piecing all this together, it seems the store in fact did report the robbery, the store owner is now afraid of being looted or murdered, and the attorney is wise enough to make a nuanced but otherwise meaningless distinction between "filing a report" and reporting a crime based upon which the responding officer completes a report.

    •  I Agree With You (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, etherealfire

      IF the police report is a truthful accurate, comparatively contemporaneous (i.e. shortly after the officer returned to the station) report.  Which I think has not been proven yet.  That report has the box checked that the alleged robbery victim was "willing to prosecute." So, either the storekeeper is lying or the unnamed officers who filed the report (and when was the last time you saw THAT LOL?) were lying.

      Frankly, in my experience either is possible.

      At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

      by shanikka on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:30:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WaPo says store manager fears for his life (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      white blitz, ban nock
      The convenience store where the robbery took place was boarded up, but open for business on Friday. A store manager, who declined to give his name, said he fears for his life and pleaded with reporters not to suggest that he called police.

      “It’s very dangerous,” he said. “They kill us if they think we are responsible. People don’t understand that.”
      (Source)

      I believe the store's attorney is trying to make it clear that the employees did not call the police for fear of retaliation.
  •  The lies are starting to catch up (5+ / 0-)

    With Police Chief Jackson:

    The officer who shot Ferguson teen Michael Brown stopped Brown and another teen because they were walking in the street, not because of a robbery a few minutes earlier, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday afternoon.
    Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects. He stopped them because they were walking in the street, Jackson said.
    But Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that the officer, Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realized he might be the robber.

    Notice the last paragraph. Michael Brown might be the robber in a crime that was not reported.  Very nice.

    "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein

    by lynn47 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:56:52 AM PDT

    •  read post again (0+ / 0-)

      this post doesn't say the robbery wasn't reported

      it's saying it wasn't reported by the store's owner or employees, but was reported by a customer

      apparently even those facts are in dispute, but that's what this diary says

  •  The theft had nothing to do with the shooting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snwflk

    It it no way justifies his being shot and the police were stupid for releasing it. It was clearly a self-serving move by the police.

    That being said, if Mike Brown did steal those cigars and intimidate the employee that was wrong. It's two completely separate things but we should be able to admit it at least to ourselves.

    It sucks that when people are killed like this they're going to be dragged through the mud. From Trayvon Martin to other innocent kids getting killed we always see the "scary" pictures of a young black male. They try to put out facebook or twitter posts that make them look like gang members, and it's terrible.

    I think the best thing we can do is admit the robbery happened and move beyond it to the greater issue. EVEN IF THE ROBBERY OCCURRED it's completely irrelevant and Mike Brown deserves justice.

    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

    by PhillyJeff on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 10:59:08 AM PDT

    •  It's all about planting the idea in the minds (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      onionjim, sethtriggs, vcmvo2, sb, martini, snwflk

      of potential jurors that Brown was aggressive and criminal, and thus make the claim that he tried to grab Officer Wilson's gun more credible.

      "With all this manure around, there has to be a pony somewhere!" - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

      by jrooth on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:02:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  planting? (0+ / 0-)

        the video is going to be shown in the trial of officer wilson.

        there's no planting. there's evidence.

        if you think brown was a boy scout, you haven't been paying attention.

        now, whether wilson and his attorneys can convince a jury that brown continued to be violent, that's something we can't know because there's no evidence of the quality of a video of it happening.

        •  You know beyond all question (0+ / 0-)

          that the video would be admitted? Other lawyers commenting here have differed on that, but you just know it for an incontrovertible fact. Amazing.

          At no point have I said Brown was a boy scout. What I said is the police are playing a game of influencing potential jurors and I stand by that.

          "With all this manure around, there has to be a pony somewhere!" - Count Piotr Vorkosigan

          by jrooth on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:37:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Natch. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, sb, martini, snwflk

    This is SOP for dirty cops trying to cover their tracks.  Step one, smear the victim. Step two, limit any info on the perpetrator until the victim's reputation is thoroughly tarnished in the media.  

    Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

    by Big River Bandido on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:07:39 AM PDT

  •  SHARED on Independent Underground News & Talk FB.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sb, snwflk

    Page.....

    Thank you for this factual Account. More evidence that LIAR Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson, must go NOW!!

    Ferguson, MO Police Chief THOMAS JACKSON Must Resign NOW! This is why....

    @CharlesMBlow "No Evidence of a Struggle," Says Dr. Michael Baden should renew calls NOW for #THOMASJACKSONMUSTGO http://j.mp/... - @IUNewsTalk

    Check out Independent Underground News & Talk at http://www.rojsnews.com and/or Michigan's Top Politico Podcast, Independent Underground Radio LIVE at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/rojsradio.

    by IUNewsTalk on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:27:47 AM PDT

  •  Cheapness of the cigars (0+ / 0-)

    What does that have to do with anything?  And what's the big bombshell about the store itself not calling it in?  We already knew that Wilson wasn't responding to a robbery but confronted the boys because they were supposedly blocking traffic in the street.  

    What needs to be established is what happened there in the street at the time of the shooting.  The timing of this video coming out was obviously meant to distract from the shooting itself.  But how does it help to get into who did or didn't call in the alleged robbery or how 'cheap' the cigars were?  

    Did Wilson act with excessive force and kill Michael Brown unnecessarily? That's the only real question at hand from the day of the shooting.  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:32:08 AM PDT

  •  An 18 year old kid is not a thug. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indie17, Sassy, martini, snwflk

    A 36 year old cop can be a thug.
    Kids do make mistakes, cops must not make mistakes.
    The RW framing is atrocious.

  •  Don't they have insurance? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blairhoughton

    I'm sure that the market does not want to be seen as culpable in this situation in any way.  

    So, they would most definitely want to get as far away from the scene as they can.

    "We have nothing to do with this! "

    That should be their repeated statement.

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:35:41 AM PDT

  •  Has anyone Googled Mapped (14+ / 0-)

    Canfield Court, in Ferguson, Missouri?

    Here's what gets me about this situation: the officer allegedly approached Brown and his friend because they were "blocking traffic."

    Cue the Google Map of Canfield Court.  It's nothing more than a corner cut between four apartment buildings, lined with about two dozen parking spaces.  It's a parking lot.  That's it.  

    So WHAT "traffic" were these two blocking?

    They were being harassed, folks.  In your subdivisions - with or without sidewalks - kids walk down the middle of roads all the damned time; but if you're black in America, do so at your peril.

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAWGS!! Sic 'em! WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF

    by SouthernDemRon on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 11:36:53 AM PDT

  •  The tweeter who tweeted live.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    martini

    Bruh. who tweets as @TheePharaoh and who apparently live tweeted the Michael Brown shooting tweeted:

    @_takeitsleazy apparently he stole some rellos
    4:33 PM - 9 Aug 2014
    That is one thing that puzzles me.  How could Bruh. have known so soon?
  •  Thanks for clearing this up. It is a clear that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snwflk

    if someone performs a theft, and the owner of the property does not call 911 or the police, then no crime was committed.

    •  Wouldn't that depend on the circumstances. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, martini

      I've had people steal from me, and I didn't report the thefts for various reasons. That was my choice. Was my trust violated, and did I 'defriend' the thieves. I suppose if I was asked to be a character witness, my opinion of their character could be used against them. It's hard to imagine how they could be held responsible legally and procedurally though for something I refused to get the law involved with.

  •  The cops doing their best (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheRealAlasandra, vcmvo2, sb, martini, snwflk

    to smear him and make it look like he deserved what he got.  They do it to every single person the cops murder, it's always the victims fault.  

  •  KEYWORDS: (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    merrywidow, sethtriggs, vcmvo2, sb, martini, snwflk

    "police did not see the video until after the unarmed teenager, Michael Brown, was shot dead in the street."

    
    
    "Uh-oh... Ferguson, we've got a problem!"

  •  Police are out of Control (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kingfishstew, ickamaus, sethtriggs

    18-year-old Gil Collar, was shot by Officer Trevis Austin on the University of South Alabama campus. Collar was  naked and unarmed, October 6, 2012 when he was KILLED BY THE POLICE OFFICER

    They excused the shooting by saying he was under the influence of chemically engineered drug 25I-C-NBOMe (although they were never able to ascertain if he knowingly took the drug or it was slipped in something he ate/drank at Bayfeast.

    Austin was cleared of criminal wrongdoing in early 2013 and reinstated back on the force at USAPD where he remains an officer currently.

    There was hardly a mention of it in the national media, but then Collar was white, Officer Austin was African-American and no rioting occurred at the campus.

    My point is this isn't just a problem for the African American Community. Young Men are being shot and killed by Police Officers for no good reason.

    Police are also killing our pets (dogs and cats) for no good reason.

    All they have to do is say they were afraid and that justifies them whipping out their gun and shooting whatever they were afraid of.

    Police need to be held accountable for their actions and if they are that fearful they do not need to be carrying a badge and gun.

    "High-minded individuals are more dangerous than criminals. they can always find hypocritical excuses for committing acts of violence." Amelia Peabody Emerson

    by TheRealAlasandra on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:09:26 PM PDT

  •  It's the ad hominem fallacy. (5+ / 0-)

    Defense attorneys do it with prosecution witnesses all the time:  Smear them in any way possible in order to discredit their validity.  Same as the old "disgruntled employee" defense to any complaint against a company.  Just because they're disgruntled doesn't mean the accusation is false.

    "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson

    "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
    -- Aldous Huxley

    by ThePhlebob on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 12:24:00 PM PDT

  •  interview (5+ / 0-)

    I plainly heard the Ferguson police chief say that the killing officer did not know of the robbery that took place. Period. Some here can't seem to understand the relevance of that. Until anybody is convicted of that 'robbery' then that robbery didn't take place. Period. For those here who are desperate and ignorant enough to make that link, you don't know what you're talking about. The killing officer had no clue of any possible connection between the killed teenager and the robbery. Any other suggestion is pure ignorance, but that's what we have come to expect from those on the political right where lies and ignorance are a common form of communication.

  •  The kid who was killed by a cop (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz

    recently- was walking down the street with an airsoft gun- that cop wrote a guide on how to kill a kid and get away with it. Does this Darren Wilson have a copy of this guide? If so its one step away from premeditated murder.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:10:24 PM PDT

  •  Timeline (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Demeter Rising

    11:51

    Ferguson police receive a call of a robbery in progress at the Ferguson Market convenience store.

    11:54

    A different, unidentified officer arrives at the Ferguson Market and gets a physical description from an employee and customer of a suspect who took some cigars.

    11:57

    A police dispatcher broadcasts a detailed description of the robbery suspect, saying that he was wearing a red (St. Louis) Cardinals ball cap and yellow socks and was walking with another man toward another convenience store called QuikTrip.

    So within 6 minutes of a call about the robbery the police have arrived, interviewed the staff, and got a full description out over the wire.

    "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein

    by lynn47 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 01:23:32 PM PDT

    •  Not exactly. He was NOT a robbery suspect (5+ / 0-)

      at that time. The 11:51 call was "stealing in progress."

      It was not bumped up to "robbery" until after the police reviewed the video, apparently well after Mr. Brown was dead.

      The difference is enormous and significant.

      •  I just copied the Police timeline given (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snwflk

        It will be interesting to hear what the 9/11 call about the incident at the store, as well as the incident that was called into the police at or around 11:57

        All of this should not matter overall but the thing is, friends of the Police Officer are saying,(Possible a trial balloon to see if anyone believes it) that Officer Wilson did think that Michael Brown was a suspect during the incident.

        The timelines and facts around that seem a little hard to believe.

        Lastly, this idea that Michael was Bum Rushing the Police Officer while all of the shots were fired is pretty well refuted by the autopsy.

        "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein

        by lynn47 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 02:55:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Police Report of Convenience Store Robbery (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buckspamom, Villanova Rhodes

    Here is the link to the Police Report (PDF).

    Here is the most relevant information about the time of the 911 call, the officers who responded, who they talked to, and when the description of the suspect went out over the radio.  Note also that the "Business" was "Willing to Prosecute" at the time the report was submitted.

    Sorry that some of the images get cut off.  There are also redactions to the text that can make it difficult to understand.  Please refer to the PDF for any clarification.

    1. Stealing in Progress at 11:51

    2. Description of stolen item and Type of Charges: Robbery (F) 2nd Strong Arm Convenience Store (569.03)

    3.  Check box showing that the store is Willing to Prosecute

    4. Part 1 of narrative for officer who first arrived at the convenience store at 11:54.



    5.  Part 2 of narrative for officer who arrived at the convenience store.
    Here he relates that he talked with the store clerk/manager and the patron who callled 911.  He then gives out the suspect's info over the radio.

    6.  11:58 - A second officer responds to the stealing in progress and hears the description of the suspect from dispatch.   I presume this is what is referred to as BOLO?  (Be on the lookout)

    •  and that report may well be a complete fabrication (4+ / 0-)

      When did you ever see a preliminary police report identifying the suspect by name rather than "suspect"?

      Ever?

      This attorney should be asked on behalf of his client if they actually provided this report to the police.

      Even more, given this diary, the owner should be asked pointedly whether in fact Michael Brown actually stole the cigarillos, or if he laid down money on the counter for them before leaving the store.

      If the latter, it would make sense that he pushed away the other employee attempting to block his exit from the store.

      On the other hand, if Michael did in fact pay for the cigars, why did his friend Dorian tell his attorney that they stole them?

      Too many important questions not even being asked, and meanwhile, Michael Brown remains dead, shot down in cold blood.

      Inside of me are two dogs. One is mean and evil. The other is gentle and good. The two dogs fight all the time. Which dog wins? The one I feed the most.

      by bakeneko on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 03:01:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  time for a new police force in Ferguson (0+ / 0-)

    They've demonstrated that they are not serving the community. Time for a wholesale clean-out. I'm not sure how fast or best that can be arranged. Are there precedents from other towns, in which a police force has been replaced (almost) entirely? What's the best procedure?

    This:

    the Ferguson Market attorney said police did not see the video until after the unarmed teenager, Michael Brown, was shot dead in the street.
       REPORTER: "I asked the attorney for the owner of the store how the Ferguson police ended up with the video the Police Chief released this morning, the attorney said, 'during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape."
    So Darren Wilson had no inkling that Mike Brown had been involved in an altercation at the store, and might have swiped a few cigars.

    Minor point: there's a typo, it's missing the word "neither," should be: "Jake Kanzler said that NEITHER the Ferguson store owner, nor any store employee called the police to report any shoplifting of cigars, but, rather, a customer called the police."

    •  police don't need video (0+ / 0-)

      police have radios and give descriptions. the description in the reports is pretty clear. it could have gone out 4 or 5 minutes after the robbery occurred. it would have been expedited by the first officers on the scene at the store, so that others in the area could find the perpetrator while he's still nearby.

      but it's irrelevant. brown wasn't shot for stealing cancer sticks. he was shot because he, allegedly, assaulted a police officer and was threatening to do it again.

      darren wilson didn't have to know anything about the theft.

      that doesn't excuse what jackson was doing by tying the theft to the shooting. but he, like you, was probably working from sketchy second-hand information while trying to confirm his own biases. so it's not surprising he made mistakes, too.

  •  THe storekeepers dont want to be looted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    calwatch

    I agree, the shop incident has nothing to do with the murder. But I gotta say, the reason why the store is making it loud and clear is they know that if they are appear in anyway antagonistic towards Brown, they are history in that community.

    Having said that, the main point stands that it was such a minor incident that they did not feel like reporting it right away (no guarantee they wouldn't have reported it after an hour if the other customer didn't do so). I think whether the storekeeper reported the crime or not is irrelevant. For all we know, one of the customers saw the shaken clerk and offered to call 911 without being prompted to do so.

    I really think Dorian JOhnson has to own this issue 100% and talk about it frankly now so they can move on to the main issue - the murder of Michael Brown.

  •  SHould Kendall Jenner be shot for dine and dash (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz, a2nite, sethtriggs

    Because according to one waitress, she violently tossed money after Kendall Jenner and her friend were caught dining and dashing by the waitress. It is a different matter that a day later, Kendall's lawyer is fighting back. But what would have happened if the waitress phoned it in and a cop saw these rich brats and shot them after one of them mouthed off to the cop.

    •  no (0+ / 0-)

      kendall jenner should not be shot. that whole family should be left in a dinghy in the middle of an ocean with a pack of saltines and a mirror. just kidding. maybe.

      but look at what you're doing.

      you're attempting to pretend you know what happened between brown and davis before the shooting.

      how is that any better than what jackson did by conflating the robbery and the shooting?

      jackson was trying to justify the shooting by implying what he'd presumed, that davis had confronted brown about the robbery and it escalated; perfectly plausible circumstances.

      you're trying to un-justify the shooting by implying what you presume, that davis overreacted to simple disrespect; which are less plausible circumstances unless you're prejudiced against police by prior propaganda.

      •  of course, I am presuming. I wasnt there. (0+ / 0-)

        I was one of the few that actually put comments here urging the need to vet witnesses against the cops so that cops can't get away with credibility problems on part of the witnesses. And I just put up a diary bashing the lawyers who volunteered to represent DOrian Johnson or even Brown's family as not up to the task.

        Having said that, I just find it implausible what the cop said happened. I can believe Brown mouthing off pissing off the cop who engaged in that tussle and I can see Brown fresh off bullying a shopkeeper unwilling to meekly freeze right away. But I just find it hard this guy was stupid enough to reach for the cop's gun. I find it hard that once he was shot the first time and then he proceeded to run away , and then for whatrever reason decided to surrender, that he would bumrush the cop.

  •  Please correct the text (0+ / 0-)

    "...might explain why the DoJ did not want Ferguson Police Chief Johnson to release the tape."

    It's Ferguson Police Chief JACKSON, not Johnson.  Johnson is the Highway Patrol captain brought in days later.  He had nothing to do with the store video being released and apparently wasn't even informed that it was going to be released.  Thanks.

    If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. - Catherine Aird

    by steveannie on Mon Aug 18, 2014 at 06:36:29 PM PDT

  •  When you are trying to justify racism (0+ / 0-)

    any old excuse will do. This is exactly what we see in this case and it's really, really ugly. America should be ashamed of the fact we have allowed our society to get this racist and militant.

  •  Ferguson PD is using propaganda tactics... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that are normally seen in a third-world country with a brutal dictatorship, not in the United States.

  •  "300 lb asshole unjustly murdered by cop" (0+ / 0-)

    Would sum up the situation.

    It was an abuse of authority.  But that guy pushing the little guy on the video?  Asshole.

    I suspect he was an asshole right up to the time the cop shot him unjustly.  But that's not a capital offense.

  •  Good thing the defense is on the ball (0+ / 0-)

    with their own coroner and expert forensics. cheap cigar in the hands of an urban male is about to be a blunt in the minds of others- back in my old school time it would mean PCP or 'vitamin K" but am sure things have progressed- but all can be presented as the cause of a mild and good humored young man becoming "a monster" on Fox News or the jury room

  •  civil unrest (0+ / 0-)

    This is where a tough economy expooses all the warts in a society.  The high unemployment together  with the suppression of a great nunber of people exposes the hatered one group of people have for another. And addition to the social economic problem is the justicses system can't bring itself to enforce the law when whites are the criminals, but has no limits on how far the law is willing to go to enforce of blacks.

    There is a total lack of respect on both sides and until we see how our action insult the other person next to you there can be no peace. But dispite the obvious difference there is more values we share that should bring us together to over come those small differences.

  •  If no one called it in, then I wonder (0+ / 0-)

    why anyone would even care to look at video tapes from the market. Supposedly, it had no connection. So someone must have made the connection somehow.

  •  Feel bad for the shopkeepers (0+ / 0-)

    sucks to be them, they're being used as an apparently unwilling tool of the cops and they'll be the ones who pay--maybe.

    I hope not.

    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame/Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name/Mother of Exiles.

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:51:19 AM PDT

  •  BS (0+ / 0-)

    a report of the theft WAS filled. LOTS OF LIES FLYING AROUND

    https://twitter.com/...

  •  Mountains from molehills (0+ / 0-)

    No, the above incoherent account is irrelevant; the point is that the police WERE apprised of the theft from the store prior to the shooting; whether that notification came from the proprietors of the store or a customer does not alter that fact.

  •  The DOJ did not want him to release the tape . . . (0+ / 0-)

    . . . at the same time they named the officer responsible for the shooting. The DOJ (rightly) thought that it would further inflame the community, and would be (rightly) perceived as an attempt to smear the victim and justify the killing. Add to that the chief's comments about how Officer Wilson had no disciplinary record, etc., and we have the classic good-guy-shoots-bad-guy meme.

    Regarding the officer grabbing Mike by the neck and trying to pull him into the car: it is entirely possible. The police cruiser was an SUV, and I do believe that Ferguson buys Ford Explorers (or the Chevy equivalent). Thus, the officer was much higher off the ground than most people are assuming, and would easily be able to grab Mike's neck.

    Witness statements are remarkably consistent. Police statements have not been.

    However, it's pretty clear that Mike stole some Swisher Sweets from the store. The family lawyer and the friend (Darian Johnson) who was walking with him both admit that. That doesn't really matter, as it has absolutely no bearing on what happened between Mike Brown & Officer Wilson. The officer did not know about the suspected "robbery"/stealing. He was harassing the kids because they were jaywalking in the middle of the street.

  •  You misunderstand the owners statement intent (0+ / 0-)

    The owner who got openly, publicly robbed and humiliated....THEN had his store vandalized by the masses who then went nuts (who had to be chastised by Jessie &Co) when they heard it was HIS store that Brown robbed, is trying to distance himself from the insanity.

    Read: "Please leave me and my store and my family alone...I didn't call the police on Mr. Brown...I had nothing to do with this whole nightmare"

    Hard to fully grasp the non-focus on Furguson culture where a young man thinks it no problem to openly steal from a shop owner, who then tries to defend his business, and (thankfully!) only gets shoved back into his store shelves....I guess I am wondering how this social rubric is acceptable.

    Maybe I should ask the shop owner and all the other owners who were vandalized. I just wonder how commonplace robberies are there, seeing that Brown thought NOTHING of it....

kos, Meteor Blades, skybluewater, SME in Seattle, Thumb, Alumbrados, paradox, Angie in WA State, Mimikatz, Sylv, Bill in Portland Maine, Chi, filkertom, Phoenix Woman, teacherken, deben, tikkun, misscee, Geenius at Wrok, nicolemm, madmsf, PeterHug, Bob Love, bosdcla14, Yoshimi, Shockwave, Eman, jazzizbest, Wintermute, CleverNickName, meg, Stein, Troutfishing, xynz, Sandy on Signal, DFWmom, elfling, Matilda, jancw, hubcap, Heart of the Rockies, JLFinch, rasbobbo, opinionated, concernedamerican, redwagon, Zinman, missLotus, 88kathy, susans, TracieLynn, cyberKosFan, brillig, kalihikane, lippythelion69, annrose, susakinovember, whenwego, boadicea, shanikka, gayntom, roses, Frederick Clarkson, ivote2004, vmckimmey, retLT, sngmama, splashy, Cedwyn, hopeful, dksbook, Quege, Texknight, SneakySnu, manneckdesign, psnyder, hangingchad, sockpuppet, TexDem, figbash, pat bunny, exiledfromTN, Damnit Janet, texasmom, laughingriver, chrismorgan, NYFM, niteskolar, Sychotic1, defluxion10, Egberto Willies, lcrp, Brian82, zerelda, ybruti, randallt, KayCeSF, Steven D, Black Max, sbg, Jen Hayden, Josiah Bartlett, Frank Vyan Walton, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, sb, vcmvo2, davidincleveland, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, marina, Tinfoil Hat, capelza, wmc418, LakeSuperior, CTPatriot, mjd in florida, democracy inaction, sc kitty, Big River Bandido, one of 8, kefauver, basquebob, dewtx, viral, YucatanMan, Kevskos, reflectionsv37, eru, owlbear1, bleeding blue, SaraBeth, jimstaro, ladybug53, Overseas, Ice Blue, most peculiar mama, Steve in Urbana, Sandino, kaliope, Tool, Tunk, minidriver, Shotput8, Ginny in CO, Lisa Lockwood, peacestpete, Ekaterin, begone, barbybuddy, Philpm, martini, elliott, BachFan, The Sheeping of America, tarheelblue, Pinko Elephant, myboo, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, Mr Bojangles, Clytemnestra, edwardssl, emeraldmaiden, Gorette, Yellow Canary, raptavio, cookseytalbott, seefleur, zesty grapher, blueoasis, Silent Lurker, MJ via Chicago, erratic, Rosaura, gooderservice, SadieSue, middleagedhousewife, gratis4, justiceputnam, onionjim, rage, Unknown Quantity, CA Nana, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Stripe, blueoregon, lynneinfla, shaharazade, markthshark, HM2Viking, Pandoras Box, jobird, Aaa T Tudeattack, BentLiberal, sephius1, Sapere aude, marykk, timewarp, bluicebank, Habitat Vic, Russ Jarmusch, Cat Whisperer, camlbacker, yoduuuh do or do not, Wino, edsbrooklyn, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, cc, tbirchard, HeartlandLiberal, Matt Z, sfbob, bnasley, HCKAD, getlost, MI Sooner, jayden, Midwesterners, jedennis, cyncynical, Back In Blue, Killer of Sacred Cows, Bridge Master, carpunder, OIL GUY, CT Hank, leonard145b, madgranny, Assaf, keyscritter, TomP, Empower Ink, fb, JDWolverton, GANJA, JayC, revm3up, mconvente, TruthFreedomKindness, misterwade, flowerfarmer, HappyinNM, Johnny Nucleo, OleHippieChick, NewDealer, elwior, skohayes, CDH in Brooklyn, alasmoses, DCBlue, jakebob, jamess, mikeconwell, rssrai, Cassandra Waites, hwmnbn, MrJayTee, smartdemmg, triplepoint, catly, diras, Drewid, glendaw271, get the red out, Piren, dmhlt 66, vmdairy, tuckerm, CIndyCasella, BvueDem, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, enemy of the people, Bule Betawi, Rhysling, artmartin, cybrestrike, J M F, greengemini, bobatkinson, CanyonWren, indres, shopkeeper, mkor7, virginwoolf, jazzence, Denise Oliver Velez, moviemeister76, ArthurPoet, Tortmaster, nancat357, mahakali overdrive, dsmyre, davespicer, Tommymac, Vita Brevis, Larsstephens, Words In Action, cassandraX, BlueOak, Railfan, chambord, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, commonmass, political junquie, awcomeon, FogCityJohn, Captain Marty, The Jester, NJpeach, serendipityisabitch, Susan Grigsby, politik, leftywright, kjoftherock, michelewln, CcVenussPromise, mookins, VickiL, Things Come Undone, DrWhk, 2questions, appledown, ATFILLINOIS, NM Ray, renzo capetti, JoanMar, samanthab, pixxer, DerAmi, DiegoUK, Yasuragi, Jaimas, Funkygal, rja, Patate, DrTerwilliker, ericlewis0, Loose Fur, petesmom, Oh Mary Oh, soaglow, eviemarie, slice, Mister Met, theKgirls, Onomastic, Colorado is the Shiznit, kerflooey, MidwestTreeHugger, I love OCD, NJ elitist, StateofEuphoria, spooks51, slowbutsure, stone clearing, FarWestGirl, asterkitty, mikejay611, kiwiheart, Nicci August, Teiresias70, Alice Olson, MaryRW, Haf2Read, PorridgeGun, zukesgirl64, sethtriggs, Jasonhouse, badscience, IllanoyGal, thomask, Muskegon Critic, looking and listening, BarackStarObama, muddy boots, chickeeee, Grandma Susie, worldlotus, enhydra lutris, Calvino Partigiani, chira2, Imhotepsings, VTCC73, Caddis Fly, goleft333, Marihilda, bakeneko, Vatexia, redbaron, SteelerGrrl, stlsophos, imlpdx, leftykook, jadt65, Chitown Kev, caryltoo, nyer11Oak, Lucy2009, Auriandra, ParkRanger, ArtemisBSG, Mathazar, keepemhonest, SuWho, hulibow, mod2lib, clubbing guy, Liberal Granny, anodnhajo, sow hat, liberalfrombirth, DeadHead, Citizenpower, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, scyellowdogdem, turn blue, Eric Nelson, nellgwen, rustypatina, a2nite, Deep Texan, Trotskyrepublican, JGibson, congenitalefty, joeschmeaux, stellaluna, Mr Robert, hotheadCA, Nztorg, Lilredhead, MartyM, Just One More Dad, lunachickie, avsp, etherealfire, dotdash2u, George3, Robynhood too, CalBearMom, Lily O Lady, Chaddiwicker, nomandates, countwebb, SanFernandoValleyMom, Southcoast Luna, aresea, Alhambra, Aunt Pat, ggfkate, ORswede, howabout, Constantly Amazed, nice marmot, tuesdayschilde, GrannyRedBird, BadKitties, ET3117, Hey338Too, Ishmaelbychoice, suka, Jim Domenico, duhban, danjb, DarthMeow504, CenPhx, The Marti, Rich Lyles, richardvjohnson, karma5230, Tronsix2, Dodgerdog1, Kaylin, RightHeaded, gnosticator, Will Stark, ginimck, debris54, cpr4life, fields4ever, Sandika, AJayne, irocdk, Nilap Haras, ypochris, kfunk937, BMScott, okpkpkp, NewRomeIsBurning, bobcat41702, Coaster Freak, kenneth houck, Older and Wiser Now, nicestjerk, Blackwolf53, johnr49, Schneewolfe, Chiltepin, msaudrey, 22niel, CWinebrinner, Sojourns

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site