Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[JEDIYoda]

Looks clear that Brown assaulted the clerk. If you're gong to call folks idiots for seeing or asserting this you may consider that you are too biased to reason well on information that comes out down the road on the case. You would continue to be in limited but boisterous company.

Using a common law definition, assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.<-- that never happened plain and simple.....Brown cannot be responsible for his mere presence being intimidating....give it up -- there was no assault@!
The clerk was not in a position of creating that apprehension (nor did Brown show it), he (the clerk) did however clearly show apprehension by cowering in fear after being thrown forcibly by the neck into a shelf and then charged by Brown.

:\

 

[HumblePie]

They risk more blowback,

or,

If it makes more clear Brown's poor actions and character of that encounter they risk more blow back.

or,

They consider the released video demonstrably clear. In defense of this, it looks clear. Strong arm robbery (where the offender used any degree of force to complete the act).

Risk more blowback??!? Now that's stretching there. If the police were going to risk blowback in releasing 1 video they should have released them all. Seems shady to me at this point.

 

[waggy]

fuck they hired some shitty cops.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/ferguson-police-accused-of-assaulting-children.html

1 officer with a history of beating kids another with a history where he tied up and made false allegations on a 12 yr old

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Okay, I'll correct all my future posts to say "items belonging to the store" and "some dollar amount".

Your revelation only makes the odds of the clerk wanting to report the robbery even smaller. But it doesn't change the fact that the video very much so looks like a robbery.

And does it change the fact that people in the community burned places to the ground?

And, in my personal opinion, such revelations are only more and more proof that we all should not jump to immediate conclusions. Go back to my very first few posts in this thread. And my posts throughout. It is the exact same message. Don't jump to conclusions based on preconceived biases. We can see the results of jumping to conclusions in the images of every business that was burned to the ground.

This is exact same argument they failed to make with Trayvon's stolen jewelry situation.


Instead of debating the overwhelming issue (the fact that this violent thug robbed a store and attacked a defenseless clerk) they instead attempt to steer the argument into "well he didn't steal all that much and his violent assault was only kinda sorta violent!"

 

[HumblePie]

:\

Uhh it is quite clear in the video that Brown shoved that clerk away from him as he was attempting to exit the store. If Brown did steal some cigar boxes, either some or all, then it is within the clerk's rights to attempt to get them back even if that requires use of force to do so. Brown using force back against the clerk's attempt to stop a robbery is considered strong arm robbery and is a felony.

If Brown paid for all the cigars, acted like a massive douche bag, and the clerk was just trying to be a douche back by blocking his way then Michael's shove is not an assault.

It all depends on whether he was actually stealing at the time or not. Which is hard to see in the video. Personally I think he was by the way he just grabbed a bunch extra and tried to leave. He may have paid for some, but I highly doubt he paid for them all.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

fuck they hired some shitty cops.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/ferguson-police-accused-of-assaulting-children.html

1 officer with a history of beating kids another with a history where he tied up and made false allegations on a 12 yr old

This is every police department in the entire country, not just st louis.

It's incredibly rare for a cop to get fired due to cause, as it opens up major liability to the department.

Instead they "ask the cop to leave" and then when called for a reference only give out hire/leave dates.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You mean the same report that lists a $3.75 pack of Swishers as $48.99 box of cigars? The cops forced the store owners to give up the video because Brown had been shot by the officers and they needed anything to make Brown look like a super thug





http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/store-owners-talk-about-surveillance-released


Again I know, I know he's only saying this because he fears retaliation! The owner was also on CNN talking about it was a non issue and they only reason the tapes were released is because a warrant was issued for them. It's highly unusual for the police to continue to purse a report like this after they interview the source and get told "nothing happened"

As has been pointed out nowhere does that say no crime was committed. No one involved has actually said there was no robbery/theft.

In fact just now Wolf Blitzer was interviewing the Brown family lawyer and asked him about the NYT writing today that Michael was no angel and specifically asked about the robbery and no denial was made. He only said that what happened at the store shouldn't have been a factor in him being shot if he was surrendering as many claim.

 

[JEDIYoda]

OK, original comment was a little harsh so I changed it. If this guy hit a cop and robbed that store, then the world won't miss him.

Probably posted already but I'm not reading 100 pages of crap on this guy. He raps quite well. Videos below.

http://buzzpo.com/caution-graphic-po...illas-murders/

Nice try --


About BuzzPo


BuzzPo.com is a right-leaning blog that believes, as Andrew Breitbart said, culture is upstream of politics. We also love people, freedom and life and engage in politics because it’s necessary to protect people, freedom and life. The site was started by Todd Herman and Chris Widener, both entrepreneurs, conservatives and activists, as their personal blog … it has accidentally grown into more of a community. Chris is a world famous public speaker and New York Times and Wall Street Journal best-selling author; his books have been translated into thirteen different languages and his counsel is sought by some of the most successful business leaders. Todd is a former Microsoft executive, co-founder and CEO of the first Internet radio network, founder and CMO of SpinSpotter, a Demo god award-winning technology company, and co-founder of Crowdverb (acquired by WPP); he also agreed to serve for a term in Washington D.C. as the Chief Digital Strategist of the RNC (and that is why his hair is graying.)

BuzzPo accepts content from other writers, some named and some who use non de plumes. They are given a good bit of latitude in what they write and the ownership and editors of BuzzPo don’t always agree with what they think or how they say it. Sometimes they disagree entirely. But, we all agree on this: the bigger the government the smaller the person. We also allow comments on the site, some of which are quite good, life affirming or informative. Others are, well, trash; we try to block out hatred, racism or ad hominem nonsense, but with a site that gets as much traffic as we do, it’s hard. Let us know if something particularly insipid or hate-filled appears and we will nix it if we agree.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm actually surprised no one has yet made the argument that tobacco companies are to blame for this poor kid's woes.

 

[Ns1]

I'm actually surprised no one has yet made the argument that tobacco companies are to blame for this poor kid's woes.

Swisher sweets, so marijuana. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS VALID.

 

[TerryMathews]

I thought I read somewhere (I could be wrong) that he didn't file one that day because he went to the hospital.

Wouldn't it make far more sense to wait until the report is our there? Then you'll know when it was filed.

 

[Fern]

No, you have nothing, everyone else has actual witnesses. Feel free to discredit the witnesses, I await the facts you will present to do so.
-snip-

Somebody please tell me if I'm understanding correctly here

verifiable witnesses who have came forward saying Brown didn't attack the cop = of no substance what-so-ever.

"sources" which are completely unknown that have said the officer got beat the fuck up = the gospel truth!

I've seen people on CNN interviewed who saw it go down, I'm not saying I believe 100% they're telling the truth. But I can put faces to the story. The cop getting his face busted up, I can't put a face, not even a name to these "sources" Maybe they exist, maybe they don't. I generally I don't trust a story when it says "sources close to" But hay, that's just me.

At this point I think all information from 'witnesses' should be taken with a grain of salt. And if I understand correctly, none of this is official in any way.

'Real' witness testimony needs to be sworn to under threat of perjury. Speaking on TV, talking to a reporter or calling in to a show doesn't qualify as sworn testimony.

I think equally important, if not more so, is judging the quality of the testimony after cross examination has taken place. Plenty of witnesses have appeared credible initially only to fall apart upon cross examination.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

Uhh it is quite clear in the video that Brown shoved that clerk away from him as he was attempting to exit the store. If Brown did steal some cigar boxes, either some or all, then it is within the clerk's rights to attempt to get them back even if that requires use of force to do so. Brown using force back against the clerk's attempt to stop a robbery is considered strong arm robbery and is a felony.

If Brown paid for all the cigars, acted like a massive douche bag, and the clerk was just trying to be a douche back by blocking his way then Michael's shove is not an assault.

It all depends on whether he was actually stealing at the time or not. Which is hard to see in the video. Personally I think he was by the way he just grabbed a bunch extra and tried to leave. He may have paid for some, but I highly doubt he paid for them all.

Lol the old it's ok to break the law because someone else did argument. No, sorry, the clerk has zero rights in forcibly stopping anyone. I have no idea where you came up with that.

 

[JEDIYoda]

HumblePie ---Uhh it is quite clear in the video that Brown shoved that clerk away from him as he was attempting to exit the store. If Brown did steal some cigar boxes, either some or all, then it is within the clerk's rights to attempt to get them back even if that requires use of force to do so. Brown using force back against the clerk's attempt to stop a robbery is considered strong arm robbery and is a felony.

If Brown paid for all the cigars, acted like a massive douche bag, and the clerk was just trying to be a douche back by blocking his way then Michael's shove is not an assault.

It all depends on whether he was actually stealing at the time or not. Which is hard to see in the video. Personally I think he was by the way he just grabbed a bunch extra and tried to leave. He may have paid for some, but I highly doubt he paid for them all.

More seeing what you want to see...rofl

 

[ivwshane]

At this point I think all information from 'witnesses' should be taken with a grain of salt. And if I understand correctly, none of this is official in any way.

'Real' witness testimony needs to be sworn to under threat of perjury. Speaking on TV, talking to a reporter or calling in to a show doesn't qualify as sworn testimony.

I think equally important, if not more so, is judging the quality of the testimony after cross examination has taken place. Plenty of witnesses have appeared credible initially only to fall apart upon cross examination.

Fern

Your last scentence makes sense your first two were pulled from your ass. Exactly what reasons do you have to discredit the witnesses that have come forward? Would those reasons hold up in a court of law?

 

[JEDIYoda]

I watched the video, I saw money being put on the counter and I saw the teens putting some cigars back. Are you disputing these facts that you can clearly see on the video? I'm also speaking as a dude who works at a liquor store, and I've been robbed multiple times. The morons in this thread are laughable. I wish people would leave money and walk out when they robbed me.

It's weird all the people who have made out the exact brand and type of cigars in the video, yet they can't see the money placed on the counter or the excess cigars being put back.

They don`t want to see the truth...

 

[HumblePie]

Lol the old it's ok to break the law because someone else did argument. No, sorry, the clerk has zero rights in forcibly stopping anyone. I have no idea where you came up with that.

Uhh, in most states you can use force to stop a robbery of your stuff. That "in most states" does include Missouri. Here's the law as written for use of force for the state of Missouri. I'll quote below the subsection regarding using force to stop a person in the commission of stealing.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

Use of physical force in defense of property.

563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

You really need to learn the law. If Brown is stealing the clerk can use force to stop the theft. Brown's use of force to prevent him from being stopped then escalates the crime from theft to strong armed robbery. That is the law.

 

[ivwshane]

More seeing what you want to see...rofl

Kindly remove my name from that quote as I never said such a thing.

 

[ivwshane]

Uhh, in most states you can use force to stop a robbery of our stuff. Which includes Missouri.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm



You really need to learn the law. If Brown is stealing the clerk can use force to stop the theft. Brown's use of force to prevent him from being stopped then escalates the crime from theft to strong armed robbery. That is the law.

When there are restrictions on a law, such as referring to "subsection 2", you must also follow the restrictions, what does subsection 1 and 2 say?

 

[JEDIYoda]

so lets get this straight there have been no verifiable witnesses...for or against.....

It is like this whole thread and the video.......people seeing what is not there...people hoping for things that are not there.....

We just need to sit back and chill.......here is why....

The ramifications of whatever way the grand jury decides is just to great......
That's why the government is there.....
Because if this whole thing goes south you very well could have riots in quite a few places in this country......

For that matter the Police will be in fear of there lives......we do not want this to go south...

We want Justice......only a fool would ask somebody to define justice...

If the fact bear out that the officer is innocent then so be it........

If the facts bear out that Brown was killed...then so be it......

Iether way we do not want to give idiots a reason to riot and tear our lives apart......

 

[HumblePie]

When there are restrictions on a law, such as referring to "subsection 2", you must also follow the restrictions, what does subsection 1 and 2 say?

Those are regarding use of deadly force. You can use deadly force to stop a threat if they also fall in those subsections. Otherwise, you can only use the force needed to stop the theft by restraint only. If the person being restrained escalates the scene, then the person restraining them may up the use of force as afforded by those subsections.

It's really cut and dry. In most states, if not all states, you can usually use any use of force below the level of deadly force to stop most crimes including theft that are happening at the time of the crime. In some states you can use deadly force to stop crimes like a theft which include Texas.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Kindly remove my name from that quote as I never said such a thing.

done...I was more interested in the quote than whose quote it was...again -- sorry!!

 

[HumblePie]

so lets get this straight there have been no verifiable witnesses...for or against.....

It is like this whole thread and the video.......people seeing what is not there...people hoping for things that are not there.....

We just need to sit back and chill.......here is why....

The ramifications of whatever way the grand jury decides is just to great......
That's why the government is there.....
Because if this whole thing goes south you very well could have riots in quite a few places in this country......

For that matter the Police will be in fear of there lives......we do not want this to go south...

We want Justice......only a fool would ask somebody to define justice...

If the fact bear out that the officer is innocent then so be it........

If the facts bear out that Brown was killed...then so be it......

Iether way we do not want to give idiots a reason to riot and tear our lives apart......

There are witnesses to the incident at the store regarding Michael Brown's alleged robbery. I do state alleged because his guilt has not been proven in a court of law on that scene. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, nor can we not review evidence of that scene. It will always remain alleged since he cannot defend himself from his accusers of his actions at the time. Although his friend at the scene will be facing charges of robbery if he isn't already for that.

 

[Attic]

Risk more blowback??!? Now that's stretching there. If the police were going to risk blowback in releasing 1 video the should have released them all. Seems shady to me at this point.

😀, that's true. Picking a choosing of information probably shouldn't be giving the PD the benefit of the doubt as for motivations. I'd have to doubt that their motive to only release one was altruistic in nature.

 

[Ackmed]

Someone called the police, so a report was filed. that's how it works. I can call the police saying my next door neighbor's cooking meth in his garage. Guess what they'll do? File a report because, why? Because I called it it, but that doesn't mean my neighbor's cooking meth, it just means I made a report to the police.

Police investigate and make a report for anything... reported, crazy huh? And that report is clearly before they even investigated because I've already established proof that there's no way in hell the box of cigars stolen was $48. I mean paid for that a random customer thought was stolen.

Not even close to the truth. Unless a report is needed, one is not made. You claiming something, them going over there finding nothing, does not a report make. Don't be so stupid.