Video of Michael Brown robbing store just before being shot to be released today.

Wow..so DOJ - who is investigating the FPD for procedural or civil rights violationss - advised FPD *not* to release the video. FPD did anyway, obviously.

a reply to: crazyewok


So do you condone all the looting and rioting going on? What about the store that was originally robbed by Wilson, completeley innocent party, but now it is once again the victim of in controlled looting, or what about the Dominos that was firebombed by these thugs, who cares if there might have been someone in there? Where is your condemnation of these events and your calll to justice for them? Ignorant Hypocrit.

a reply to: kosmicjack


Advised...... Hmm so nothing about orderded?

Oh hey, wasn't Eric Holder ADVISED to release all details of his fast and furious tapes? Nobody cares about the DOJ, under Holder and Obama it is just a tool to divide and conquer this country.

Typical thought process: We want any and all information released, as long as we agree with it.

If this is correct, said video is not from that day.
Check timestamp.

a reply to: abe froman

Your absolutely right, this is proof that shows Mike Brown was indeed engaged in criminal actions that very day.
I just was really hoping this was not true.
As in many other posts and threads, I claimed Mike Brown as an innocent "kid".

This at this point is more than about just "Brown". Its decades of police abuse. This was the straw that broke the camels back.

But as to what happened that lead to Brown getting shot. I will just button my lip here, for the simple fact, I was the one spreading dis info, by saying Mike was just some innocent Kid.

Boy.. They just made a HUGE shift in the way people will view this and how they act.
I so much wanted this to be the ONE good thing we needed to reign in these abusive police officers. But seems they are going to get away with this one. If I was going to try to see the future.

I See the cop who killed Mike Brown, get off with a slap on the wrist.

Anyway, enough from me.. I am taking a BIG step away from this stuff here.
And again.. Sorry Abe.
And sorry to all other members who had the displeasure of reading my post, and watching me make a fool of myself.
*facepalms*

Zy5

a reply to: Black_Fox

Looks like it is within a couple of minutes of the call to police.

a reply to: roadgravel

You mean MONTHS, the date on the vid is JUNE, so not minutes.

originally posted by: Black_Fox
a reply to: roadgravel

You mean MONTHS, the date on the vid is JUNE, so not minutes.

Go to the raw video. that capture just looks like a 6 instead of 8 because of the background.

a reply to: Black_Fox

Well ...my voice mail thinks it's Monday so...how subject is that time stamp to being incorrect, in need of manual setting, etc? Just curious, ya know?

a reply to: roadgravel

That is A 6.
Doesn't look like an 8 due to the background,if that were the case that 9 would resemble an 8 then, due to the background.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Black_Fox

Well ...my voice mail thinks it's Monday so...how subject is that time stamp to being incorrect, in need of manual setting, etc? Just curious, ya know?

This is not about your voicemail.

originally posted by: Black_Fox
a reply to: roadgravel

You mean MONTHS, the date on the vid is JUNE, so not minutes.

Who wears the same clothes for months at a time?

a reply to: Black_Fox

LOL! I'm just saying time stamps are subject to being incorrect. ...

But, regardless......it's an "8" not a six. He was killed on 8/9

Here is a capture, not done to mislead people who don't check out what they read on the net.

2014 08 09

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Black_Fox

LOL! I'm just saying time stamps are subject to being incorrect. ...

But, regardless......it's an "8" not a six. He was killed on 8/9

I do get what your saying, but id find it concerning IF the security cam for a business, to be that far off.
Seeing as it would be very important to have correct dates and times during a crime investigation.

And sorry to hear about your squirrely voicemail,lol

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Incorrect. Attempting to remove merchandise from the property is theft. When he reached across the counter and grabbed the stores property he was in violation of Missouri statutes regarding theft or property and the shopkeeper, as was previously shown to you, was well within his rights to detain Mr. Brown.

Brown did not conceal merchandise, so 537.125.3. does not apply and he cannot be presumed to be intending to commit wrongful taking according to the statute. Therefore, it was not a situation that falls under citizen's arrest. As previously cited, citizen's arrest requires a crime to have been committed. He had not yet walked out the door.

A private person acting on his own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force to effect arrest or prevent escape only when and to the extent such is immediately necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed a crime and who in fact has committed such crime.

537.125.2. is the part that matters here, which is pretty broad compared to other states - many require the person to have left the store, not be inside the store still, for it to be considered shoplifting.

2. Any merchant, his agent or employee, who has reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a wrongful taking of merchandise or money from a mercantile establishment, may detain such person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time for the purpose of investigating whether there has been a wrongful taking of such merchandise or money. Any such reasonable detention shall not constitute an unlawful arrest or detention, nor shall it render the merchant, his agent or employee, criminally or civilly liable to the person so detained.

Locking the door with yourself, the person you allege committed shoplifting, and multiple innocent parties inside is not what I would call reasonable detainment. Detainment in shoplifting is usually not done through force, but through consent. It's a bit hazy, but it's hard to find cases where a shopkeeper locked the door on someone to prevent shoplifting.

As to Brown shoving the shopkeeper away from the door, you have the right to resist such detainment. While I certainly wouldn't advise doing so against cops these days, this was a shopkeeper.

Of course, this still assumes that the he actually did shoplift. If he did not take anything, then this all falls apart. Maybe he paid for what he took - we can't see from the camera angles. Maybe he gave what he was taking back to the storekeeper at the door as some have suggested, but it's hard to tell from the grainy footage. Johnson certainly put back what Brown gave him on the counter, so he is entirely innocent of wrongdoing.

Maybe he paid for what he took - we can't see from the camera angles

So clerks routinely harass customers who paid for items and are leaving.

a reply to: Black_Fox

The first thing I did was compare the clothing to the street body images. Shirt, shorts, underwear and socks all match.

originally posted by: roadgravel

Maybe he paid for what he took - we can't see from the camera angles

So clerks routinely harass customers who paid for items and are leaving.

Remember, from the police report, he had an expired Driver's Permit and had just turned 18 not three months ago, which is perhaps the reason for the confrontation at the register.

Assuming he did pay - which he very well may not have - clerk might have been wary of a sting.

edit - just saw this bit:
It seems that the DoJ asked the Ferguson PD not to release the video.