An Army in Ferguson tonight! Sporadic Twitter/Facebook censoring of #Ferguson hashtag

a reply to: Destinyone

I watched the presser the Brown family put out today, the spokesperson for the family said it was Brown. Pretty sure same kid, same day, same clothing....the family did not deny that it was there son in the store....Sorry, just jumping off your post Des, hope you don't mind
Disregard, already answered.....

a reply to: bbracken677

Ok so either the cigars are still in the store or DJ had them.

Where is the critical piece of evidence?

We have conflicting accounts between your post and the poster above you.

This is why people are innocent till proven guilty, and not shot dead in the street.

a reply to: Profanation

Yes, because child support makes one an evil criminal.

Way to stereotype millions of single fathers in this nation.

Which store did he supposedly take the cigars from?

a reply to: HauntWok

I am a single father... I didn't have to be taken to court and be ordered to pay $41 (seriously what he's supposed to pay) a month, because... I take care of my kids. 50/50, no child support.

BTW way to cherry pick. What about drug trafficking and drive by shootings?

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: bbracken677

Ok so either the cigars are still in the store or DJ had them.

Where is the critical piece of evidence?

We have conflicting accounts between your post and the poster above you.

This is why people are innocent till proven guilty, and not shot dead in the street.

According to the video, Michael walked out of the store with them.

Not conflicting...2 different points in time.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Not the QT, but one called (I think) Ferguson Market. At least that was what DJ said right after the shooting.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Profanation

Yes, because child support makes one an evil criminal.

Way to stereotype millions of single fathers in this nation.

What? What?

I see, so the child support thing should not have been mentioned? Why?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Which store did he supposedly take the cigars from?

According to this article, a place called Ferguson Market and Liquor, down the street from the QT.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Not the QT, but one called (I think) Ferguson Market. At least that was what DJ said right after the shooting.

This is correct, the Ferguson Market was also where the young man in the video I linked on the previous page said the cigars were taken from, not the QT. And while not named in the released police reports earlier today, the reports do say that the robbery did not occur at the QT, but at a near by establishment.

a reply to: j.r.c.b.


Welcome.

And Michael Brown had no criminal record. Dorian Johnson wasn't the one shot. Michael Brown was. Michael Brown, despite his clear criminal record, had undoubtedly robbed a store of $48.99 of Swisher Sweets. We live in the US here where we have a justice system and a thing called the Bill of Rights. Brown should've been arrested, taken to court and would've most likely seen 5-15 years behind bars for a Class B felony of robbery in the 2nd degree.

Brown, instead, died of multiple gunshot wounds by a police officer who admitted to not knowing that Brown was related to the robbery. Did the robbery a few minutes before affect Brown's behavior when the cop yelled at him to get back on the street? That's really for the DoJ and FBI to decide and whether or not the use of deadly force was acceptable or not.

Additionally, for all the witnesses who protested Brown's death, from their perceptions, Brown was gunned down without cause and there were ample witnesses. Did all of those people deserve teargas, rubber bullets, wooden pellets, LRAD use, and having a militarized police force taking over their neighborhood because a few people opted to loot on that first night and a store set fire to on that first night? Are they all "not really innocent" because they happened to live in the same community as both Johnson and those looters?

That's called a slippery slope.

a reply to: Greven

originally posted by: bbracken677

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Profanation

Yes, because child support makes one an evil criminal.

Way to stereotype millions of single fathers in this nation.

What? What?

I see, so the child support thing should not have been mentioned? Why?

My ex-husband has a child support order with an outstanding debt of $17k. He's not a criminal in my book and I'm the woman he owes that all to. He happens to be a guy who has been struggling with unemployment and doing temp work since the Financial Crisis.

Child support orders are usually put in place at the time of separation or divorce. Nearly any couple that has a child where one parent isn't in the home has a child support order. If having a child support order equals criminal, then I guess that means that a good chunk of Americans who have to pay child support as per orders are actually a bunch of criminals guilty with the crime of having a child.

Looks like Jesse Jackson is on site tonight...

a reply to: Profanation

I'm a single father too, with sole custody of my son. Till I received custody I was ordered to pay over five hundred per month for my son.

I'm no criminal. And I paid over half of each paycheck to my ex.

Now that I have my son, I still have to pay a hundred a month to her for back support, and this state refused to go after her for any support for him.

Do you know what abject poverty is? It's working over 80 hours in a two week period, and coming home with less than $170.00 for my work.

And according to you, I'm a criminal? That's what you insinuated, that because a man has a child support order, it makes him a criminal.

So does it?

Thanks for the quick answer guys. I'm going over the police reports in real detail and it just struck me as odd for wording on QT and the unnamed location.

The timeline is a whole different problem and they have some explaining to do unless they have psychics and fortune tellers on their police force. The devil is in the details...and there better be some certification at some stage for time stamps being contradictory for events. Due to the nature of this whole thing, rather than just refer and link, I'll make sure the data is posted for posterity here. Pay special attention to the bolded areas.

USA Today timeline:

Saturday Aug. 9

11:48 a.m. to noon – An officer responds to a call of a sick person.

11:51 a.m. – Another call comes in about a robbery at a convenience store. The dispatcher gives a description of the robber and says the suspect is walking toward the Quick Trip convenience store.

12:01 p.m. – The officer encounters Michael Brown and a friend as they walk down a street. Brown is shot to death as a result of the encounter.

12:04 p.m. – A second officer arrives on the scene followed by a supervisor one minute later. An ambulance responding to the earlier sick person call drives by and responds to assess Brown.

USA Today

Police Report released by GatewayPundit with store video times.



New York Times Police Report - Page 12 'Event Report'



Page 4 of the same set...



I'd note, less than this still carries a part of the Kennedy conspiracy today. They were starting to transmit his description while the incident was in progress, according to the store video time stamp. By 11:57, they had the full description going out with first contact on Mike Brown being 12:01. Now we have a problem here for saying the cop who stopped him had no clue he had anything to do with anything else ....after his rather unique description (Yellow socks?? how many wear those?) had been out 3-4 minutes by then.

That's still not what bugs me the most, and it'll probably get worked out by the store being shown to have a bad time stamp but..HOW bad? If we have events which MUST have come sequentially, coming simultaneously? (actually, before..because if the call came at 11:51, it means dispatch already took at least 15-20 seconds taking the call and determining a response). There is a big rat in this time woodpile. There are other times in the police report that add to the quandary, but I cited the points which make the difference stand out the best.

Also, the police report states the entire incident took 1 minute 02 seconds, according to the time stamp, in case anyone might wonder if the clerk contacted police sometime before coming into view. When inside the one minute of the whole thing happening?

Always the little things...and maybe nothing.

originally posted by: Profanation
a reply to: Greven

You show an image of the cases with the charges, but not one with the defendant. Look them up.
CASE# 11SL-CR00935-01 - ST V DORIAN J JOHNSON
CASE# 1222-CR01359-01 - ST V DORIAN JOHNSON
Wrong guy, buddy:

a reply to: Greven

I would say before you dismiss it out of hand, take a look at the website listed on the top of the screen shot in his post. I found them and they have cases for a Dorian J. (Jarvis) Johnson with a birth year of 1992. It could very well be a different person, which is why we need to take caution when looking at this. I will not post a link to the website or the cases because there is information in there that would be against the T&Cs (address and such). But if you are really interested, look deeper.