It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 28
48
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve

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.


It seems we are just engaging in intelligent and respectful discussion.




posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

You make a lot of assumptions about the case in order to vilify Mr. Brown. I am not saying he didn't do those things, but I am not ready to say he did yet. I personally don't trust the account of the police officer involved or the eye witnesses claiming he was completely innocent either. Especially in a case as complex and important as this one I think it is too early to assess responsibility of anyone. Just my opinion.

I think what has happened since the shooting is much more important than the shooting itself though. Regardless of the culpability of the officer or of Mr. Brown, the actions of the police force using military tactics as well as arrest of media members and the attempt to strip people of their 1st amendment right can stand alone and be criticized regardless, and should be.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Heh, some of us are yeah but certainly not all of us. I think there is plenty of disrespect and ignorance to be had on ATS the last few days.
edit on 8/16/2014 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: feldercarb
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.

The shopkeeper was attempting to use force.
Brown used force to prevent that. If he were committing theft, this would be assault. If not...

Suppose you apply that logic to the shooting, where the police say that Brown reached for Wilson's gun.
Assuming their account correct, would you suggest that Wilson should have waited until Brown actually had his gun?
edit on 20Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:21:33 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

No. Becuase if Michael actually reached for the gun and touched Darren, then that is assault. He does not have to have the gun for it to be assault. Michael merely had to touch Darren in a violent manner for it to be assault.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
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.
The store owners race does matter in a community that is 75% the same and the owner is different. Even more so when poverty of one race is great and then it creates some resentment that grows inside of a young man. Couple that with that same race having a culture that glorifies the debo stereo type from the movie and simular characters in the music scene. One starts to look at people that are not from the same race in a different light. It is all relavent to creating the mindset of the ones in the events and the events that are following. Add to that peeps like sharpton and nbpanther mindset when coupled with reports that a child was shot and not some strong arm debo wannabee. it creates a mess that is downward spirling. yes karma is a major factor in all our lives sooner or later it all comes back to us.

Bottom line is that if you steal or assult then you need to be aware that your chances of being justifibly being shot is greatly increased and you should be expecting to die if you cross that line. If it were not that way then we would have zero peace as a society. however that does not mean things are just fine and dandy with the system but that certain changes can be made to create a different environment we live in so that things get to a point whereall our doors are unlocked and open again.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

I strongly disagree but I now understand what you are saying. Thanks for clarifying.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: feldercarb
I suppose it wasn't the best analogy. Let's put it this way:
If you cannot respond to an attempt to use force with preventive force, you are basically saying a great many rights do not exist.

For example, the Second Amendment becomes meaningless. You could not use a gun to prevent force until it had been used. Federal troops could, hypothetically, march up and surround you and you wouldn't be able to respond until you were surrounded. So, what's the point?
edit on 20Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:49:51 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: sputniksteve

I have always lived with the mindset that criminal activity opens the door to my demise. It has saved much grief of the world because of actions i would have taken otherwise. In today's world jesse james and robin hood would likely have been shot also. There is no justifing the thought that theft or assult does not put someone in a situation where they feel you need to be dead in order to protect their life or property.



posted on Aug, 16 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Okay, but Michael used an overuse of force. You cannot touch someone like that without the threat of physical harm. Just being detained is not PHYSICAL harm. And yes you cannot use force until force has been visited upon you or someone else. Again, don't touch somebody else.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman
The video is irrelevant other than to show his character at least during the video. The issue is the circumstances under which he was shot. The deputy's name should have been released as he is a public servant. RIOTERS SHOULD BE SHOT! If the police can shoot an unarmed suspect with his back turned, they can certainly shoot rioters that are destroying or stealing goods from innocent shop owners. A
civil protest should be no cover for rioting and looting, period. The police are supposed to serve and protect and so far..... they have done a poor job of both of them.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: jaxnmarkoPlease explain to me how the officer shot Brown in the back without leaving any stains on the back of his clean white shirt.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: abe froman

Was he wearing the same outfit as the person depicted in the photos (white shirt, Cardinals ball cap and khakis)?


Yup, if you look at his body at the crime scene, he is wearing the exact same things. Excluding the hat. But that was found at the crime scene. White shirt, brownish long shorts, and wearing what seems to be socks with slip on flip-flops. If you compare the scene with the stores video, there's no doubt it was him. You can find the video and picture of the uncensored scene on the web easily. Same shirt, same shorts, same hat, and same footwear. However, at the scene of the death, his hat was missing, although it was still at the scene, just not on his head.

www.usatoday.com...

Watch the video Inside of the above link, and skip to 1:24. There you will see a red STL cardinals hat laying on the ground. I wonder why that hat is in the middle of a crime scene, which may be marked as evidence, while the suspect was wearing everything but his hat from the stores video.

Also, if you look at Brown's accomplice, Johnson, while he's doing his interview after the shooting, he's got a black shirt hanging on his shoulder. And the accomplice in the store robbery was wearing a black shirt, with what seemed like a white tank-top like shirt under the black shirt.

I mean, it's not hard at all putting one and two together here.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

Wait a minute now. His parents said he was a good boy. Why, they even referred to him as a gentle giant and that he had never even been in a fight, so you just stop it you insane racist!!! Really,,, he wouldn't hurt a fly.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
You're driving down the road. An obvious police chase overtakes you. You would now be legally obligated to report that you saw someone fleeing the police, else you are guilty of something (per your suggestion earlier, being an accomplice to a crime).


Why? They are already aware of the situation.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Banteel
I have visually confirmed that, NO the person in these photos is not wearing the same clothes.


Good for you. You should speak to Mr. Johnson who was with Mr. Brown since he stated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and in interviews that persons in the video were himself and Mr. Brown and tell him otherwise.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
The shopkeeper was attempting to use force.


More gymnastics for you to stick to your failed premise.

This entire point is moot as Mr. Johnson said Mr. Brown stole the merchandise. Do you doubt this as well? How will you attempt to spin his affidavit incriminating Mr. Brown?



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

They release this video of Mike Brown and here is why. They are going to let Darren Wilson get away with Murder! They are just priming people to "Get Ready". For when they announce Brown was being aggressive to Wilson.
The video clearly shows Brown, not but hours before his murder, Acting aggressive to the store clerk. This is all part of the well placed plan to get Wilson off the hook.

You watch. I already see it. This video of Brown was put out, to sway peoples thoughts and feelings. Which it clearly has. The fairy tale is over, and Brown was aggressive. Hence that will allow Wilson's testimony stand up in court.

Just watch.. I already see it coming. Darren is going to get off on this. And this video release was just the first STAB at the people.
I don't agree with their tactics. It is a complete phy op.
They already know that Wilson is going to say it was in self defense.
Now they just have to hurt Brown and his family. Poor taste. But I get it.. I see what they are doing.

But make no mistake.. This goes beyond Mike Brown. This is more than just about one kid. This is really about Cops over reach, and military style presence all over the USA.
Do they not know about escalation? Cops get Body armor. Criminals get armor piecing rounds. Cops get Tanks, then Criminals gear up for war. This is coming to a boiling point. And it is not good.

I see the chaos to come.

I know I am not the only one..
But I am stating this here for the record.
Once they announce Darren Wilson innocence, I can come back to this post here, and be like.. Yep, saw it coming from the start..
Carefully crafted.

I stand behind all those who stand up against the Status Quo. I stand behind all those who seek to Fight the power!
Its what we have been doing here on ATS since the Start!
Now it is coming into reality. So now is the time to pick a side.

For once in my life, I am picking a side. And I stand with the people.
Even in light of Mike Brown acting like a "thug". Even in light that he was acting a fool. Still does not justify years of police brutality.
You know I get it .. I see the other side too. Police have a real hard job out here, working the mean streets. I get it. Don't think I am missing that part of the puzzle. But weight with everything else. Sorry the scale fall in favor of the people this time. Not the police, or TPTB.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: feldercarb
Okay, but Michael used an overuse of force. You cannot touch someone like that without the threat of physical harm. Just being detained is not PHYSICAL harm. And yes you cannot use force until force has been visited upon you or someone else. Again, don't touch somebody else.

Again, using your logic, you are essentially saying the Second Amendment is worthless.
If you have no right to resist being trapped behind a physical barrier, then the federal government could just surround you. Then, what's the point of having a gun? You wouldn't be able to use it at that point.

A physical barrier is an application of force, whether you like it or not.
If he did not steal or attempt to steal, he had every right to forcefully resist.
Like I said before, it is assault if Brown did not pay and attempted to leave.


originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Why? They are already aware of the situation.

Doesn't matter by your logic. You have a duty to report, according to yourself.
Thus, if you see someone fleeing from the police, you gotta report it or you're guilty of being an accomplice (also according to you).

The only times you may have a duty to report are if you are in a position of authority (ex: teacher & child abuse). Misprison requires concealment. It's slightly different in Texas, as they passed this law:

a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted; and
(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in which:
(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported; and
(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Which requires serious bodily injury or death - something that did not happen at the store. Even then, if this had happened in Texas, it would not make him an accomplice. Not reporting the crime would not make Johnson an accomplice as you have tried to claim.

"Accomplice" is a very narrow definition, as I've told you before. He does not fall within the definition of an accomplice.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
More gymnastics for you to stick to your failed premise.

This entire point is moot as Mr. Johnson said Mr. Brown stole the merchandise. Do you doubt this as well? How will you attempt to spin his affidavit incriminating Mr. Brown?

It's not mental gymnastics at all - you just don't understand law or your rights, apparently, and make them up in your head.

Can you please link a source where Mr. Johnson has said Mr. Brown stole the merchandise? I've said repeatedly, if he stole, then he committed assault, which elevates shoplifting to robbery. I've also said that it really looks like he stole stuff, but it isn't 100% certain from the video.
edit on 16Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:10:08 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
Doesn't matter by your logic. You have a duty to report, according to yourself.


Your reducto ad absurdum is devoid of logic. A police cruiser in pursuit does not need to be alerted that they are in pursuit.


Which requires serious bodily injury or death - something that did not happen at the store. Even then, if this had happened in Texas, it would not make him an accomplice. Not reporting the crime would not make Johnson an accomplice as you have tried to claim.


Ask yourself some simple questions, why was Mr. Johnson just given immunity? Do people that have not committed a crime get immunity? Why would Mr. Johnson need immunity if Mr. Brown did not commit a felony?


Can you please link a source where Mr. Johnson has said Mr. Brown stole the merchandise? I've said repeatedly, if he stole, then he committed assault, which elevates shoplifting to robbery. I've also said that it really looks like he stole stuff, but it isn't 100% certain from the video.


Seriously? Do you even bother to research the topic before you post? Attorney: Dorian Johnson confirms he was with Brown at store robbery

Mr. Brown was a felon, Mr. Johnson has said as much. Stop being purposefully obtuse.



posted on Aug, 17 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hence why it is not illegal to just not report a crime, save for the exceptions that I have noted previously. There is no law saying one has to (again, save for those exceptions I noted previously), there is no case law that backs up your belief, there is no law that says not reporting a crime makes you an accomplice in a crime. Seriously, get over yourself. You're wrong. I told you this before, but you just keep embarrassing yourself.

Johnson has immunity? Where did you read that? Only thing I've seen trying to find a source for that, other than speculation from various sources, is this:

The lawyer would not tell Lemon whether Dorian Johnson was able to make a deal with the FBI for immunity for telling them what happened

Simple question huh? Sounds like inviting speculation. Here's a simple explanation, from the Ferguson Chief of Police himself:

"We have determined he [Johnson] committed no crime," Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday.


I don't read all the forums on ATS. That thread is in one I rarely view. I must have missed this little bit, as there has been quite a lot going on. So, Johnson's attorney says Brown took stuff from the store and that reinforces the video. Assault on the clerk then, and robbery by Brown.
edit on 17Sun, 17 Aug 2014 17:08:03 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 25  26  27    29  30 >>

log in

join