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

a reply to: sputniksteve

I didn't make that arguement at all and you are making rather large leaps. All the video does is two things.

1). It dispels the narrative that Brown was a little kid we got from the MSM and activists who only used old photos if him as a kid in their reports to create the illusion that it was a child that was killed. He was a full grown and rather large man.

2). Establishes a pattern of violent behavior when challenged that supports the officers account.

That's it.

a reply to: Greven

If it wasn't theft. It was still assault. You don't get to go physical with someone outside of self defense and only a moron will suggest that Brown acted in self defense from that tape.. He left with something that was not his. How is that not theft?

a reply to: deadeyedick

Just so I can be clear, when you say Debo you do mean Michael Brown correct? Is there a reason that you only refer to him as Debo other than it is supposed to be funny? For some people who have never seen "Friday" it might be quite confusing on who you are actually talking about.

Also are you suggesting that if you are accused of theft and assault you should expect to be shot by police for it? Note that while feel there is sufficient enough evidence to believe that he is most likely guilty of these crimes I am reserving judgement about whether or not he actually assaulted the officer, I don't trust either eye witness account (the officer or the friend). Like a "live by the gun, die by the gun" type of thing?

Also I have to say while you are free to express your opinion, I find your stereo typing of the different reactions from different races of store owners pretty disheartening. I still fail to see the relevance of the race of the store owner.

While I might be coming off as condescending or passive aggressive it really isn't my intention, I am just fascinated on your take on the whole situation while being confused at the same time.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: sputniksteve

I didn't make that arguement at all and you are making rather large leaps. All the video does is two things.

1). It dispels the narrative that Brown was a little kid we got from the MSM and activists who only used old photos if him as a kid in their reports to create the illusion that it was a child that was killed. He was a full grown and rather large man.

2). Establishes a pattern of violent behavior when challenged that supports the officers account.

That's it.

Ok good, I didn't think that was what you were actually arguing that is why I asked. That is how it can come across as though without any clarification. Like I said, there have been others on the board that have actually made that argument which is why I was curious.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Greven

If it wasn't theft. It was still assault. You don't get to go physical with someone outside of self defense and only a moron will suggest that Brown acted in self defense from that tape.. He left with something that was not his. How is that not theft?

Wrong. The clerk was trying to lock him inside the store. If it was not theft, it was not assault.

a reply to: Greven

No it is still assault. You cannot touch someone in a violent matter. You stop, wait for the police, and give your side of the story. You cannot touch another human being. And yes, that include bar fights.

a reply to: Greven

Nope. You are wrong. You cannot lay hands on another citizen. Are you silly enough to inply that Brown acted in self defense? Really?

So he paid for the goods he left with? If not, that's theft. How can you say it's not?

Why are people upset when a bad thing happened to an OBVIOUS bad person? Save your feelings for dying kids in Africa or children with leukemia, not for a thug who finally ran out of luck...

a reply to: deadeyedick
You are correct. Something changed here in America after the accident in Bhopal, India. There was an agreement made between governments, and that's the reason that every gas station, Dunkin' Donuts, etc. is owned by Indians. The owner of the Ferguson Market and Liquor looks possibly like an Indian. Think about what could possibly be the reason why Indians now own almost every gas station. It's because they get special tax exemptions for about ten years, then they turn over the business to a family member and start another ten years of not paying taxes. It's quite an advantage and the reason for them owning everything.

Fair enough. I am still not convinced if the shooting was justified or not, just that it seems that the more information we get, it sheds doubt upon th victim narrative we've been fed thus far.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Before making a judgement:

1) Look at official autopsy.
2) Look at family asked for autopsy.
3) Review Michael's toxicology report.
4) Review ballistics from Michael's shooting.
5) Review all forensic evidence related to case.
6) Look at any studies done on Michael's and Darren's psychological makeup.
7) Cross examine ALL eyewitness testimony.

Then and only then will a true picture emerge.

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: Greven

No it is still assault. You cannot touch someone in a violent matter. You stop, wait for the police, and give your side of the story. You cannot touch another human being. And yes, that include bar fights.

You can't lock up anyone either that is considered force.

You are legally allowed to resist that sort of thing with force.

This is why the assault hinges upon there being theft.

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: NavyDoc

Before making a judgement:

1) Look at official autopsy.
2) Look at family asked for autopsy.
3) Review Michael's toxicology report.
4) Review ballistics from Michael's shooting.
5) Review all forensic evidence related to case.
6) Look at any studies done on Michael's and Darren's psychological makeup.
7) Cross examine ALL eyewitness testimony.

Then and only then will a true picture emerge.

Which is why I said that the situation is unclear. What we do know however, is that there are activists and looters acting with a preconceived narrative.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: Greven

No it is still assault. You cannot touch someone in a violent matter. You stop, wait for the police, and give your side of the story. You cannot touch another human being. And yes, that include bar fights.

You can't lock up anyone either that is considered force.

You are legally allowed to resist that sort of thing with force.

This is why the assault hinges upon there being theft.

In that case, Brown had committed assault because there definately was theft.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

It's like ALL black criminals hates white people now, especially because Barack Obama (illuminati puppet that he is) said they are all evil.

Where did you get the info for his hatred of whites? Or did you just project that because you, like so many damn people repeat mindlessly on the internet, that blacks hate whites? Jeez! If my black behind had a dispute with a white cashier for shorting me $20 in my change, people like you will say the frustration comes from my hatred of the white cashier oppressing me. White and black man fighting because they are drunk and stupid? Black man hates white people.

Get a grip. Please.

a reply to: Greven

Using your own thought process. The door was never locked. We only have that the shopkeeper intended to lock the door. Thus the crime of forced enclosure did not occur. Michael should have waited until the door was locked before he grabbed the shopkeeper.

a reply to: NavyDoc

from NavyDoc:
Which is why I said that the situation is unclear. What we do know however, is that there are activists and looters acting with a preconceived narrative.

My reply:
Which is why I added a list of all the situation that need to be reviewed before people really have a handle on what happened between Michael and Darren.

Sorry but I am not good withthe quote function.

a reply to: feldercarb

I don't disagree.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Still the shooting is only justified if he was armed and had his gun drawn.

Maybe its my wimpy British Upbringing and weird British Values

But the police should NEVER shoot EVER unless a suspect is armed and a direct threat to the public.

The police are NOT there too be judge jury and executioner.

How are the police supposed to know if he is armed or not without getting a chance to search him?

What if he quickly reaches into his pockets and pulls out a weapon? Should the police wait until after they are put in danger? Should they wait until after they are shot by a gun and or stabbed by a knife to take action? Or should they not hesitate?

Maybe if people didn't want to get shot by the police, they wouldn't attack them. They would keep their hands in the air, where they can see them, and out of their pockets where police can be sure they are safe.

It is really easy to get shot by police when you are unarmed. Just violently rob a store. Wait until police get that short dispatch message that an "armed robbery" occurred, or should I say "211". And right when they show up, just put your hands inside your pockets. When they pull their guns out on you, quickly pull your hands out of your pockets as fast as you can.... you will surely get shot.

Or you can get in close proximity of a police officer and start attacking him/her before they get a chance to search you for knives. To prevent a fatal stabbing they will just shoot you without question, even if you didn't have a knife.

It appears the only reason people care about this case is because of the original headline that hit the news... "police shoot and kill an unarmed man". It's a nice play on emotion. Police instantly look like the bad guy whom shot an innocent person. The title should have been, "police shoot and kill possibly-armed man who just robbed a store. They didn't know if he was armed yet, because they were being attacked by him before they could search him"...

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: feldercarb
a reply to: NavyDoc

Before making a judgement:

1) Look at official autopsy.
2) Look at family asked for autopsy.
3) Review Michael's toxicology report.
4) Review ballistics from Michael's shooting.
5) Review all forensic evidence related to case.
6) Look at any studies done on Michael's and Darren's psychological makeup.
7) Cross examine ALL eyewitness testimony.

Then and only then will a true picture emerge.

Which is why I said that the situation is unclear. What we do know however, is that there are activists and looters acting with a preconceived narrative.

Heck, there are posters and users doing the same thing all over ATS. Both sides of the coin are cherry picking the "facts" and points of the case which fulfill their notion of what has and should happen. I am not suggesting that this is you, I know it seems like I am suddenly picking on you or something but I promise I am not.