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

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
i imagine it went like this
"Get something on this kid, i don't care what. we need to spin it so we can justify the murder"
Shoplifting. really. Yeah hes a hardened criminal and deserved everything he got

You're the problem with America today. The guy was a proven thug and, as you saw in the video, has no problem with assaulting other human beings. If you go into something knowing you're going to cause a crime, not one but two, then you have to understand you may end up dead, no matter how small the crime is. Most of you on ats would rather defend a criminal and blame everyone else. I've read thread after thread and cannot believe most of what I'm reading. It's always someone elses fault from what I've read on here.

Furthermore, everyone commenting from Britain or any other country saying America has a gun problem, then stay in your country, I don't want to hear it. I plan on going and getting a gun to protect myself form thugs like this who think they can rob a convince store, smack around the clerk and get a slap on the wrist.

Instead of the black community and you liberals saying "See children, this is why you don't rob stores and assault people because it could cost you your life, whether it's just or not. Please show some respect to your community and help your neighbor, be productive and be a stand up person." They defend it and want to blame everyone else. I wish the shop owner would have shot his ass after being assaulted for fear of his own life but then again, most of you would say that was the shop owners fault for defending himself.

here is a thought (just because I am putting it out there, doesn't mean its my opinion, or that i agree with it)

1 - Police officer didn't know he had just committed a crime - OK
2 - Brown who is shot dead by police officer just committed a crime - OK
3 - Brown has no criminal record - OK
4 - Criminal record is only for those who get caught - OK
5 - to commit a strong arm robbery as your first robbery is ballsy, as you have no weapon - OK
6 - Due to #5 could it be this was not his first robbery/crime
7 - Releasing the video is a smear campaign against brown - OK

8 - He was a criminal, no smear campaign needed. he smeared himself by being a criminal
9 - Was Browns civil rights violated? Did Brown JUST violate the store owners civil rights?


conclusion a criminal is dead (weather it be first time criminal or repeat criminal), and therefore business in the area are safe from being robbed, and possibly next time at gun point. Should we be upset in which the way the police officer acted, yes, should we be upset a criminal is dead?

Again, not necessarily my opinion. just a thought.

a reply to: Greven

Did you miss the part where he reaches over the counter and grabs merchandise? That is theft.

Stop being an apologist for larcenous behavior.

So he apparently went home and changed his shorts and shoes before being shot, but after robbing the store?

Really?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Greven

Did you miss the part where he reaches over the counter and grabs merchandise? That is theft.

Stop being an apologist for larcenous behavior.

We see this all the time. "My baby didn't do nothin' usually turns out to be the exact opposite.

So CNN are doing this big Brown discussion panel.


person leading/conductin debate is african american, and the 3 people in the debate are all african american.

I find that interesting.

I also found it interesting one of the guests last words were. "We must keep this active, in a few months when it isn't in the news anymore we have to keep the topic active"

I sometimes wonder if the only reason racism is still so active in the USA is because the african americans don't want it to end...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Greven

Did you miss the part where he reaches over the counter and grabs merchandise? That is theft.

Stop being an apologist for larcenous behavior.

Did you miss the part where he puts nearly all of it back on the counter?

A couple of packs dropped down, which is what he may or may not have taken. The clerk moves the rest when Brown is picking up the fallen ones from the ground.

Did you read where the DoJ advised Ferguson PD not to release the tape?
Did you see him not pay? No, you can't due to the angles.
Did you see that the shopkeeper did not call the cops, that it was a bystander instead?

Edit: Watch it again if you don't believe me.

originally posted by: Greven
Did you miss the part where he puts nearly all of it back on the counter?

A couple of packs dropped down, which is what he may or may not have taken.

That was very considerate of him to not steal all of the merchandise he initially attempted to steal. I applaud him for his magnanimity.

Did you read where the DoJ advised Ferguson PD not to release the tape?
Did you see him not pay? No, you can't due to the angles.
Did you see that the shopkeeper did not call the cops, that it was a bystander instead?

The Department of Justice did not want it released as it appears he was stopped for a different reason then his felony assault depicted in the video.

As for paying, are shopkeepers in the habit of detaining paying customers? I think not.

Who calls is irrelevant, he committed felony theft and assault, the man was a criminal.

Mr. Brown acted like a felon, your gyrations do not make this any less accurate.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Greven

Did you miss the part where he reaches over the counter and grabs merchandise? That is theft.

Stop being an apologist for larcenous behavior.

Did you miss the part where he puts nearly all of it back on the counter?

A couple of packs dropped down, which is what he may or may not have taken.

Did you read where the DoJ advised Ferguson PD not to release the tape?
Did you see him not pay? No, you can't due to the angles.
Did you see that the shopkeeper did not call the cops, that it was a bystander instead?

And did you not see the part where he lay hands on the shopkeeper half his size? That's assault and it doesn't matter if the shop didn't call it in or not, that's still assault. Also, given what happened to the shop, the arson and looting, not # they didn't want to say anything. Seems that there very well may have been some intimidation going on. Who in their right mind does not call the cops after being assaulted?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Again, he had just turned 18 a couple of months ago.
He was buying tobacco, which requires an ID.
The ID listed in the police report is a driver's permit that expired nearly a year ago.

In this case it very well could have been another reason.

a reply to: NavyDoc

It was perhaps assault. The shopkeeper tried to lock him and everyone else inside the store.

a reply to: Greven

I see. In your stretch of a scenario the poor baby cannot buy his ciggies so he resorts to theft and felony assault.

I am still not seeing how that is not felonious behavior. His behavior was inexcusable.

You know it might help if people waited to judge after all the facts come out.

A young black man getting shot by police has happened so often in this country that people can be expected to be presumptuous but basically it would be advisable to wait for all the facts.

One thing is for sure, if this cop goes to trail, that video is going to be his defense lawyers dream.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
You see what you want to see.

The situation is more complicated than 4 photos released by the police.

If you cannot see that they have an angle for their presentation of the situation, heaven help you.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: NavyDoc

It was perhaps assault. The shopkeeper tried to lock him and everyone else inside the store.

The shopkeeper didn't even get to the door before Brown put his hand on the old mans neck and then even turned back after him before leaving. It is laughable to try to justify assault and theft that way.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The shopkeeper didn't even get to the door before Brown put his hand on the old mans neck and then even turned back after him before leaving. It is laughable to try to justify assault and theft that way.

What a lie.
Saying "old man" too, haha. Such spin.

originally posted by: Greven
You see what you want to see.

I see the facts; a man committing theft then assault.

The situation is more complicated than 4 photos released by the police.

Photos? There is a video, who needs photos? You can watch all his criminal behavior from beginning to end.

If you cannot see that they have an angle for their presentation of the situation, heaven help you.

'They'? How does 'they' conflate his felonious behavior? I can separate the subsequent shooting from Mr. Brown's thievery and criminal assault. Why is it so hard for you?

Instead you invent convenient scenarios in which him stealing and physically assaulting another person are justified. How very sad and pathetic.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Again, this whole thing hinges on if theft actually took place. You assume it is theft.

If it is not theft, then the shopkeeper is illegally trying to detain him - and definitely trying to illegally detain everyone else in the store. If that is so, then you, I, or Brown have every right to resist such detainment.

Here's a question that bugs me about the released surveillance video:
Why is there not a video watching the register with a direct line of sight?
I've never been in a convenience store or seen surveillance video where the counter itself isn't being watched by a camera.

"They" is obvious in the context that it is the police who are trying their damnedest to justify the shooting.

originally posted by: Greven
Again, this whole thing hinges on if theft actually took place. You assume it is theft.

Right, because if he paid for it his a accomplice would have put it back on the counter and the shopkeeper would not have confronted him.

Try using some critical thinking.

"They" is obvious in the context that it is the police who are trying their damnedest to justify the shooting.

The police already stated it was unrelated. Why are you having such a hard time with that?

I can differentiate his felonious behavior from the subsequent shooting, why is that so difficult for you?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Right, because if he paid for it his a accomplice would have put it back on the counter and the shopkeeper would not have confronted him.

Try using some critical thinking.

Says the person accusing an innocent man - even cleared by the police - of being an accomplice to a crime.

Your vision seems a bit prejudiced.