PDA

View Full Version : Did Michael Brown Steal Cigars — Or Pay For Them?




Origanalist
08-18-2014, 09:14 PM
William Norman Grigg

If Michael Brown committed a felonious strong-arm robbery at a convenience store just minutes before he was shot, why didn’t anybody from the store call 911? The report was made by a customer following what appeared to be an altercation between the 6’4″ Brown and a much smaller store employee.

According to the store’s owner, police didn’t issue a subpoena for the store’s surveillance video until last Friday — the day it was provided to the media by police officials, along with the name of Officer Darren Wilson, who fatally shot Brown a few minutes after the incident at the store. Wilson was not aware of the alleged robbery, and he was not pursuing Brown as a suspect. The fatal encounter began when Wilson rebuked Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, for jaywalking.

An excerpt of the security video shot from a different angle shows the figure identified as Brown at a check-out counter paying for the cigars before the apparent confrontation with the store clerk.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=maA1FUJqhew

Continued...http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/did-michael-brown-steal-cigars-or-pay-for-them/

AuH20
08-18-2014, 09:31 PM
Grigg is seriously off the reservation with this. Johnson's lawyer is on the record confirming that his client did indeed steal cigars with the victim.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385499/attorney-brown-acquaintance-confirms-michael-brown-stole-cigars-greg-pollowitz


Freeman Bosley, a former St. Louis mayor and the lawyer for Brown’s pal, 22-year-old Dorian Johnson, said he has not seen the tape but confirmed that the slain teen took the cigars.

“My client did tell us — and told the FBI — that they went into the store,” Bosley said on MSNBC. “He told the FBI that he did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.”



And then you have the over-the-top reaction to boot before leaving the store.

hardrightedge
08-18-2014, 09:41 PM
You have video...

You have a confession from his partner...

Grigg is a psycho...

Origanalist
08-18-2014, 09:45 PM
Are you two joined at the hip?

Origanalist
08-18-2014, 09:47 PM
You have video...

You have a confession from his partner...

Grigg is a psycho...

Lol, I'm sure he would be crushed if he knew you thought that.

Mani
08-18-2014, 09:51 PM
I mentioned it before. He may be a thug or a criminal or guilty of petty theft or a misdemeanor. But that doesn't justify getting gunned down while unarmed from 35 feet away.

Origanalist
08-18-2014, 10:02 PM
I mentioned it before. He may be a thug or a criminal or guilty of petty theft or a misdemeanor. But that doesn't justify getting gunned down while unarmed from 35 feet away.

Well, now the story is that he was "charging" the cop. But we'll never know will we?

Mani
08-18-2014, 10:15 PM
Well, now the story is that he was "charging" the cop. But we'll never know will we?


So the story is he beat up the cop while the cop was getting out of his car...Then ran away and then turned around and charged?


Well that makes a lot more sense....if he thought his name was juggernaut and he needed a running start...

AuH20
08-18-2014, 10:20 PM
You have video...

You have a confession from his partner...

Grigg is a psycho...

Grigg is alright but his occupation is police brutality so he's extremely biased for good reason. When you get so far down the hole, you never come back for air. That's Grigg.

Constitutional Paulicy
08-18-2014, 10:34 PM
Sure glad I wasn't born into a subculture like Ferguson and I'm sure as hell glad I'm not a cop, let alone one who is assigned to Ferguson. Come to think of it, just move somewhere else. As far a job as a cop, you'd have to be insane to accept this as a career.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-18-2014, 10:40 PM
As far a job as a cop, you'd have to be insane to accept this as a career.

Why would you be insane? You have a secure job. Many have good salaries and benefits. You can take practice on Labrador pups or taze grandma with impunity. You can sit at checkpoints and give a hard time to soccer moms instead of pursuing real criminals. Many jurors will support you. If something bad really happens, then the taxpayers foot the lawsuit bill. Worst that might happen is that you go to the next town to take another job.

I'll bet a lot of lice never saw a Ferguson situation coming, let alone the continuation. The chickens have come home to roost.

amy31416
08-18-2014, 10:46 PM
I think the timing of releasing the video was questionable, but I don't question that he stole the cigars and got violent with the clerk. It's on video. I don't know whether I should condemn the cops for gunning him down, I've heard several different versions and I doubt that a government employee will give anyone the genuine version.

TheTexan
08-18-2014, 10:50 PM
As far a job as a cop, you'd have to be insane to accept this as a career.

It's not a career. It's a duty. Some people just have this inner drive to dedicate their lives to the safety of others.

This inner heroism is why it's so critical that these cops take such high precautions to guard their own life; if they didn't, they'd get killed and then they couldn't be a hero to anybody.

Origanalist
08-18-2014, 10:52 PM
It's not a career. It's a duty. Some people just have this inner drive to dedicate their lives to the safety of others.

This inner heroism is why it's so critical that these cops take such high precautions to guard their own life; if they didn't, they'd get killed and then they couldn't be a hero to anybody.

That is so very true....+rep.

cindy25
08-18-2014, 10:53 PM
the store probably did not want the hassle of filling out police reports for a minor amount. even if caught the man hours wouldn't justify it. and Brown could not legally buy them, being under 21.

Origanalist
08-18-2014, 10:56 PM
the store probably did not want the hassle of filling out police reports for a minor amount. even if caught the man hours wouldn't justify it. and Brown could not legally buy them, being under 21.

18 in Missouri.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-18-2014, 10:57 PM
It's not a career. It's a duty. Some people just have this inner drive to dedicate their lives to the safety of others.

This inner heroism is why it's so critical that these cops take such high precautions to guard their own life; if they didn't, they'd get killed and then they couldn't be a hero to anybody.

And don't forget that many get into law order enforcement because they say they want to help people.

Origanalist
08-18-2014, 11:05 PM
And don't forget that many get into law order enforcement because they say they want to help people.

And puppies, don't forget puppies.

http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/mcgraw.jpg

LibertyEagle
08-18-2014, 11:12 PM
I think the timing of releasing the video was questionable, but I don't question that he stole the cigars and got violent with the clerk. It's on video. I don't know whether I should condemn the cops for gunning him down, I've heard several different versions and I doubt that a government employee will give anyone the genuine version.

I would imagine they released the video when they did to put the kibosh on the media's narrative they had started about Michael being a "gentle giant". I never heard that again from the media after the video was released.

CPUd
08-18-2014, 11:19 PM
I bet that store sold singles, too.

enhanced_deficit
08-18-2014, 11:42 PM
But some news outlets have reported that leaking video that shows eye witness as robbery suspect undermines that witness' credibility.

Constitutional Paulicy
08-19-2014, 05:19 AM
It's not a career. It's a duty. Some people just have this inner drive to dedicate their lives to the safety of others.

This inner heroism is why it's so critical that these cops take such high precautions to guard their own life; if they didn't, they'd get killed and then they couldn't be a hero to anybody.

The way you say it sounds so glorified and righteous. The way I understand it to be is miserable and depressing.

Working in a jailhouse. The worst of the worst mocking you all day. Trying to get under your skin with foul behavior etc. etc.

Enforcing traffic violations for law abiding citizens on their way to work or to take their kids to school for meaningless technicalities all in the name of getting your quotas up.

Responding to calls with regard to domestic disputes between husbands and wives who were never taught how to behave by loving and caring mothers or fathers. All the while playing referee.

Protecting thugs conducting lawless behavior from other thugs conducting lawless behavior.

The list goes on...............

Sounds like just the job for me. I'm anxious to get started. Perhaps after several years of mind numbing insanity I might snap and go rogue just like the bad cops we are condemning for so many unjust practices.

Origanalist
08-19-2014, 05:46 AM
The way you say it sounds so glorified and righteous. The way I understand it to be is miserable and depressing.

Working in a jailhouse. The worst of the worst mocking you all day. Trying to get under your skin with foul behavior etc. etc.

Enforcing traffic violations for law abiding citizens on their way to work or to take their kids to school for meaningless technicalities all in the name of getting your quotas up.

Responding to calls with regard to domestic disputes between husbands and wives who were never taught how to behave by loving and caring mothers or fathers. All the while playing referee.

Protecting thugs conducting lawless behavior from other thugs conducting lawless behavior.

The list goes on...............

Sounds like just the job for me. I'm anxious to get started. Perhaps after several years of mind numbing insanity I might snap and go rogue just like the bad cops we are condemning for so many unjust practices.

That's why when one dies in the line of duty we send them off like the heroes they are.

http://www.cityoftaylor.com/files/resize/images/DSC_3452%20cr%20rs-832x355.JPG

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133eca8d6f1970b-800wi

http://crimevictimsmediareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/20111017rad_funeral_001_500.jpg

http://pumabydesign001.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/washington-state-police-ofcrs-funeral-procession-of-over-20000-2.jpg

http://www.jim3dlong.com/police_officer_funeral_procession_on_118_freeway-wl400.jpg

ghengis86
08-19-2014, 05:53 AM
I bet that store sold singles, too.

I believe they call those "loosies"

specsaregood
08-19-2014, 06:00 AM
I mentioned it before. He may be a thug or a criminal or guilty of petty theft or a misdemeanor. But that doesn't justify getting gunned down while unarmed from 35 feet away.

The fact that he had just robbed the store and the cop didn't know makes it more believable that he attacked the cop as the cop would have just thought he was coming across a random citizen but the dead guy knew he had just committed violent crime and if caught would see the inside of a jail cell.

Constitutional Paulicy
08-19-2014, 06:19 AM
That's why when one dies in the line of duty we send them off like the heroes they are.

I get that and I can appreciate it. But those images are for officers who died in the line of duty. The cops who don't end up loosing it psychologically before they retire, should be admired as well. Problem is there are far too many who can not endure the hardships of the job and are broken by them. This is why we see so many instances of bad cops.

I honestly don't think there are that many capable people willing and able to fill the demand for law enforcement duties across the country.

There are an endless number of jobs out there where you can find peace and prosperity. Which is why I say you'd have to be insane to put yourself on the front lines of Ferguson and it's cesspool of malcontents.

fisharmor
08-19-2014, 06:47 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133eca8d6f1970b-800wi

http://crimevictimsmediareport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/20111017rad_funeral_001_500.jpg


Are they subconsciously adding in horses to take our eyes off the hundreds of asses?

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:11 AM
Grigg is alright but his occupation is police brutality so he's extremely biased for good reason. When you get so far down the hole, you never come back for air. That's Grigg.

Far down the hole?

Is there any possible way to defend the murder of Michael Brown by that cop?

donnay
08-19-2014, 08:21 AM
Whether he stole cigars or not, what is disconcerting to me is the excessive lethal forced used, in this situation. This should never be tolerated in a free society.

specsaregood
08-19-2014, 08:21 AM
Far down the hole?
Is there any possible way to defend the murder of Michael Brown by that cop?

Sure. Is there nothing that Michael Brown could have done to deserve being killed by that cop?

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:24 AM
Sure. Is there nothing that Michael Brown could have done to deserve being killed by that cop?

We know that the cop shot at him while he fled. There is nothing that could justify that. I don't know if Brown subsequently charged a cop who had a gun pointed at him that he had already started firing, or did something that could have made it look like he was charging him, but I highly doubt that he did. And, even if he did, that could have been avoided by letting him run away, rather than shooting at him while he fled.

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:25 AM
Whether he stole cigars or not, what is disconcerting to me is the excessive lethal forced used, in this situation. This should never be tolerated in a free society.

Unless he beat up this cop and threatened his life. According to leaked reports, the cop's face is very messed up, including possible eye damage. Now the real question for the jurors is, did Brown provide enough of a threat for Wilson to kill him? Honestly, I don't know.

specsaregood
08-19-2014, 08:28 AM
We know that the cop shot at him while he fled. There is nothing that could justify that. I don't know if Brown charged a cop with a gun pointed at him after already being shot at, or did something that could have made it look like he was charging him, but I highly doubt that he did. And, even if he did, that could have been avoided by letting him run away, rather than shooting at him while he fled.

We do? I would have expected bullet entry points in his back if that was the case and the kill shot not being from the front. Have you seen some video of the incident that I missed or some evidence other than unreliable witnesses that I missed?

JK/SEA
08-19-2014, 08:30 AM
Unless he beat up this cop and threatened his life. According to leaked reports, the cop's face is very messed up, including possible eye damage. Now the real question for the jurors is, did Brown provide enough of a threat for Wilson to kill him? Honestly, I don't know.

maybe (if) the hero does have facial wounds, its possible the gun kicked back hitting him a couple times. Cops are not the best at weapons handling....

thoughtomator
08-19-2014, 08:30 AM
The fact that he had just robbed the store and the cop didn't know makes it more believable that he attacked the cop

Don't you find it interesting that NO ONE in the PD is publicly asserting that Brown attacked the cop?

The only "evidence" we have of that is a pseudonymous radio caller who related what her friend was allegedly told by the shooter. That's it, 100% of the information that says Brown attacked - a third-hand report relayed from the most interested of interested parties in the case.

Innocents don't operate by spreading rumors and putting nothing accountable down on the table. Only someone who is looking to get away with something behaves like that.

JK/SEA
08-19-2014, 08:31 AM
We do? I would have expected bullet entry points in his back if that was the case and the kill shot not being from the front. Have you seen some video of the incident that I missed or some evidence other than unreliable witnesses that I missed?


shot in the back or front. Irrelevant.

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:34 AM
maybe (if) the hero does have facial wounds, its possible the gun kicked back hitting him a couple times. Cops are not the best at weapons handling....

But he was probably using a 7mm Remington. Not a lot of kick or recoil. It's not like he was shooting a Desert Eagle that kicks like a horse.

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:35 AM
We do? I would have expected bullet entry points in his back if that was the case and the kill shot not being from the front. Have you seen some video of the incident that I missed or some evidence other than unreliable witnesses that I missed?

According to multiple eye witness accounts we do. The pro-cop story I've seen being peddled is that the alleged charging only happened after the cop already shot at him while he fled and missed, with the cop defenders not bothering to explain why the cop was justified in firing at a fleeing suspect in the first place.

IIRC, we also have multiple eye witnesses saying the cop shot him after he stopped and surrendered, which would also be clearly unjustified.

specsaregood
08-19-2014, 08:36 AM
Don't you find it interesting that NO ONE in the PD is publicly asserting that Brown attacked the cop?


Sure it is. I'm forming my opinion based only what I've seen.
AFAIK, this officer doesn't have a history of police abuse claims or previous killings. If I'm incorrect on this, please point it out as it very well could change my opinion.

If that is the case, then I see it like so, which is more likely?
Cop with no history of random killing just decides to randomly kill a teen in broad daylight for no reason.
or
A person that just minutes before had assaulted an innocent store owner and stole their property did something to cause the cop to feel like they needed to shoot them in defense.

As much as I've seen of police abuse, I lean towards the 2nd at this point.

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:38 AM
But he was probably using a 7mm Remington.

Why is that probable? Has that been reported? Don't cops usually use .40 S&W?

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:38 AM
Sure it is. I'm forming my opinion based only what I've seen.
AFAIK, this officer doesn't have a history of police abuse claims or previous killings. If I'm incorrect on this, please point it out as it would very well could change my opinion.

If that is the case, then I see it like so, which is more likely?
Cop with no history of random killing just decides to randomly kill a teen in broad daylight for no reason.
or
A person that just minutes before had assaulted an innocent store owner and stole their property did something to cause the cop to feel like they needed to shoot them in defense.

As much as I've seen of police abuse, I lean towards the 2nd at this point.

From a logic standpoint, it appears the cop was justifying in discharging the weapon. Killing? We don't know.

specsaregood
08-19-2014, 08:39 AM
From a logic standpoint, it appears the cop was justifying in discharging the weapon. Killing? We don't know.

If you are justified in discharging the weapon then you are justified in the natural expected result of such action.

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:40 AM
Why is that probable? Has that been reported? Don't cops usually use .40 S&W?

Supposedly, the county has been dragging their feet in upgrading their sidearms. 7 mm is the standard issue for that particular PD.

agitator
08-19-2014, 08:40 AM
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/michaelbrowngunhawaiianpunchcash.jpg
I would imagine they released the video when they did to put the kibosh on the media's narrative they had started about Michael being a "gentle giant". I never heard that again from the media after the video was released.

Warlord
08-19-2014, 08:40 AM
Auh20 says Brown did this to himself. of course it's irrelevant whether he's a robber or not but not in AUH's world where robbery means street execution

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 08:41 AM
Supposedly, the county has been dragging their feet in upgrading their sidearms. 7 mm is the standard issue for that particular PD.
Source?

And what do you mean 7mm? 7.65?

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:41 AM
If you are justified in discharging the weapon then you are justified in the natural expected result of such action.

True, but the last 2 shots were the kill shots according to the autopsy, which certainly makes you think that maybe Wilson never wanted to kill him but the assailant kept closing distance.

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:41 AM
From a logic standpoint, it appears the cop was justifying in discharging the weapon. Killing? We don't know.

How could he be justified in discharging his weapon but not in having that discharge result in the death of the person he had it pointed at?

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:43 AM
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/michaelbrowngunhawaiianpunchcash.jpg

Is that Dorian Johnson in the background?

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:43 AM
True, but the last 2 shots were the kill shots according to the autopsy, which certainly makes you think that maybe Wilson never wanted to kill him but the assailant kept closing distance.

That certainly makes you think that?

It certainly makes me think that the cop was shooting to kill, and not just to stop.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 08:44 AM
How could he be justified in discharging his weapon but not in having that discharge result in the death of the person he had it pointed at?
He is speculating that the first shot was justifiable but that perhaps Michael Brown was running away after that fact and was possibly killed when it was no longer an act of self-defense but rather as the means taken to stop the flight.

Early reports said that the officer first discharged his weapon in the car after having some sort of scuffle with Brown. Then the reports stated that Brown was shot again while fleeing, and then shot a couple times more than a few times after he put his hands up.

JK/SEA
08-19-2014, 08:48 AM
Is that Dorian Johnson in the background?

i have a pic of me holding my Glock...

your point?

...nevermind...90% of the members in here, including Mods know what your motives are.

carry on...

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:48 AM
That certainly makes you think that?

It certainly makes me think that the cop was shooting to kill, and not just to stop.

Inside 50 feet. The 5th and 6th shots are head shots. Sure, he's under extreme duress and accuracy suffers, but why not snuff him out on the 2nd and 3rd shots?

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:48 AM
He is speculating that the first shot was justifiable but that perhaps Michael Brown was running away after that fact and was possibly killed when it was no longer an act of self-defense but rather as the means taken to stop the flight.

Early reports said that the officer first discharged his weapon in the car after having some sort of scuffle with Brown. Then the reports stated that Brown was shot again while fleeing, and then shot a couple times more than a few times after he put his hands up.

If that is what AuH2O is speculating, then he shouldn't be arguing on the cop's behalf, because the cop would, according to that explanation, have had no justification for shooting Brown while he fled.

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:49 AM
Inside 50 feet. The 5th and 6th shots are head shots. Sure, he's under extreme duress and accuracy suffers, but why not snuff him out on the 2nd and 3rd shots?

What are you suggesting? That the cop deliberately aimed his first 4 shots to be non-kill shots, and then adjusted his last two for the kill? That's completely implausible. This isn't the movies.

pcosmar
08-19-2014, 08:51 AM
18 in Missouri.

They still give you shit in many places,, and demand ID for a sale.

I don't care if he bought them,,stole them,, or argued about the transaction however it went down.
He was unarmed,, and was shot dead by police.

There is no excuse for the government to shoot an unarmed man. Period.

AuH20
08-19-2014, 08:51 AM
What are you suggesting? That the cop deliberately aimed his first 4 shots to be non-kill shots, and then adjusted his last two for the kill? That's completely implausible. This isn't the movies.

You are taught to not deviate from center mass targeting but being that close changes that dogma abit. He's inside 12 to 15 yards.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 08:51 AM
If that is what AuH2O is speculating, then he shouldn't be arguing on the cop's behalf, because the cop would, according to that explanation, have had no justification for shooting Brown while he fled.
As I recall, despite his many apologies, he has stated in other threads that he does not know what happened.

I believe he even stated that had the cop shot from a distance of thirty or whatever feet, at a fleeing suspect, then he would not have been justified.

He is more than capable of speaking for himself though; I am simply trying to clear up some of the confusion by offering the way I took what he said.

JK/SEA
08-19-2014, 08:53 AM
Inside 50 feet. The 5th and 6th shots are head shots. Sure, he's under extreme duress and accuracy suffers, but why not snuff him out on the 2nd and 3rd shots?

he might have had better success with one shot if he hadn't been pissing himself from his fear of the BIG, SCARY black guy...

erowe1
08-19-2014, 08:53 AM
You are taught to not deviate from center mass targeting but being that close changes that dogma abit. He's inside 12 to 15 yards.

That doesn't answer my question.

CPUd
08-19-2014, 08:54 AM
Maybe some shots were fired between the first and last autopsies.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 08:59 AM
They still give you shit in many places,, and demand ID for a sale.

I don't care if he bought them,,stole them,, or argued about the transaction however it went down.
He was unarmed,, and was shot dead by police.

There is no excuse for the government to shoot an unarmed man. Period.
People are individuals. There is sometimes a reason to shoot an unarmed man. Size advantage, and the surrounding circumstances can mean that one's life is reasonably in danger.

Was that the case here? Most probably not. It is not for me to decide having not seen the facts of the case. It is for a jury to decide.

And as you are well aware, the police should not exist.

But had he stole those cigars and threatened the worker with violence, I'd be perfectly behind the worker (owner?) confronting the man with a pistol. And if Michael Brown were to advance on said person defending their property, I'd be perfectly behind the worker shooting said assailant. And if the man happened to die, because he was stuck in his possible thuggish ways, I'd simply offer a 'good riddance.' Perhaps a few of these idiots getting shot would change some ways?

The police gunning down a man who was not known to have committed a crime aside from walking in the street is unacceptable.

libertyjam
08-19-2014, 09:01 AM
Supposedly, the county has been dragging their feet in upgrading their sidearms. 7 mm is the standard issue for that particular PD.

7mm pistol has been used as popo service weapons exactly never!

In fact go try to find such a non-existent firearm as a 7mm Remmington semi-auto pistol.

JK/SEA
08-19-2014, 09:03 AM
That doesn't answer my question.

he had to hand this question off to his supervisor for consultation...be patient.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 09:04 AM
7mm pistol has been used as popo service weapons exactly never!

In fact go try to find such a non-existent firearm as a 7mm Remmington semi-auto pistol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_51

Though I do doubt that they use this pistol. Or any .32 for that matter.

libertyjam
08-19-2014, 09:11 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_51

Though I do doubt that they use this pistol. Or any .32 for that matter.

Modern Model 51s are chambered in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 acp. .32 is about equivalent of 8mm is diameter and .32 acp probably hasn't been carried by any LEO since the 1930's as the last one made chambered in that round was made in 1927.

AuH20
08-19-2014, 09:13 AM
Modern Model 51s are chambered in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 acp. .32 is about equivalent of 8mm is diameter and .32 acp probably hasn't been carried by any LEO since the 1930's as the last one made chambered in that round was made in 1927.

Most departments use a variation of the three that you listed. Based on what I read, the Ferguson PD are using real relics (not back to the 1930s though) but a caliber below even 9mm.

jbauer
08-19-2014, 09:19 AM
maybe (if) the hero does have facial wounds, its possible the gun kicked back hitting him a couple times. Cops are not the best at weapons handling....

oh come on. If a picture of the cop shows up showing him beat to hell it changes everything here.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 09:21 AM
Modern Model 51s are chambered in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 acp. .32 is about equivalent of 8mm is diameter and .32 acp probably hasn't been carried by any LEO since the 1930's as the last one made chambered in that round was made in 1927.
It is a dying cartridge, sure. The .32 ACP is a 7.65x17mm for those who care. I've never heard anyone call it a 7mm... and I've never heard anyone call it an 8mm. I seriously doubt that the police carried what was mistakenly called a 7mm (a .32 ACP), a 7mm obscure pistol, or anything in between. Most officers are given the ability to carry personal weapons. No one would carry a .32 ACP.

I am curious as to where that piece of information came from. You can buy a Glock or M&P for 400-500 dollars (even cheaper with their discount). It's ludicrous to think that the police could not outfit their officers with a more reliable handgun. The amount of shots fired makes it simply unbelievable that the officer was carrying anything different than a modern 9mm or .40 S&W.

I'd bet quite a few dollars that it was either a Glock 22 or M&P40.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 09:21 AM
Most departments use a variation of the three that you listed. Based on what I read, the Ferguson PD are using real relics (not back to the 1930s though) but a caliber below even 9mm.
What did you read?

erowe1
08-19-2014, 09:27 AM
It is for a jury to decide.

I agree with this.

Unfortunately, what is the likelihood that an opportunity for a jury to find the cop guilty is even given?

jbauer
08-19-2014, 09:28 AM
As for the cost...they did "fail" to install dashcams although it sure looks like they has one hell of a supply of teargas.


It is a dying cartridge, sure. The .32 ACP is a 7.65x17mm for those who care. I've never heard anyone call it a 7mm... and I've never heard anyone call it an 8mm. I seriously doubt that the police carried what was mistakenly called a 7mm (a .32 ACP), a 7mm obscure pistol, or anything in between. Most officers are given the ability to carry personal weapons. No one would carry a .32 ACP.

I am curious as to where that piece of information came from. You can buy a Glock or M&P for 400-500 dollars (even cheaper with their discount). It's ludicrous to think that the police could not outfit their officers with a more reliable handgun. The amount of shots fired makes it simply unbelievable that the officer was carrying anything different than a modern 9mm or .40 S&W.

I'd bet quite a few dollars that it was either a Glock 22 or M&P40.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 09:33 AM
I agree with this.

Unfortunately, what is the likelihood that an opportunity for a jury to find the cop guilty is even given?
Slim to none.

The outcry over this case will lead to the cop being charged. He will be acquitted and Ferguson will burn.

Whether there is enough evidence of murder, manslaughter, etc. he will not be convicted.

Brian4Liberty
08-19-2014, 10:03 AM
We know that the cop shot at him while he fled.

No, "we" don't.


According to multiple eye witness accounts we do.

Which accounts? His [the cops] friend didn't say that the cop fired at them as they fled. He [she] said the cop fired after Brown stopped, started to return, and was taunting the cop. That was his [the cops] friend's story. The disputed portion is whether he was stopped and had his hands up, or whether he was charging the cop.

Edit: I haven't heard all of the eyewitness accounts. I just listened to Dorian Johnson's account, where he sad that the first shot occurred during the "struggle" at the car, and that the cop did fire one shot while they were fleeing, which is what caused Brown to stop. So that is in dispute. Was he hit with that second shot? Doesn't sound like it. According to the autopsies so far, if there was a shot while fleeing, it didn't hit him.

Ronin Truth
08-19-2014, 10:08 AM
What is the minimum age requirement for buying tobacco products in Missouri?

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 10:15 AM
What is the minimum age requirement for buying tobacco products in Missouri?
18. The same as any other state.

klamath
08-19-2014, 10:16 AM
No, "we" don't.



Which accounts? His friend didn't say that the cop fired at them as they fled. He said the cop fired after Brown stopped, started to return, and was taunting the cop. That was his friend's story. The disputed portion is whether he was stopped and had his hands up, or whether he was charging the cop.honestly I don't think the truth will EVER come out.. but then again maybe it will but nobody will know which one it is out of the thousands of different versions of the story coming out. Those that believe cops and the official story will believe what stories supports that bias and those the hate cops will believe only those stories that supports their bias.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 10:19 AM
honestly I don't think the truth will EVER come out.. but then again maybe it will but nobody will know which one it is out of the thousands of different versions of the story coming out. Those that believe cops and the official story will believe what stories supports that bias and those the hate cops will believe only those stories that supports their bias.
I hate the police. I do not know what happened.

jonhowe
08-19-2014, 10:19 AM
This is NOT Michael Brown. Check your sources!


https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/michaelbrowngunhawaiianpunchcash.jpg



http://www.oregonlive.com/north-of-26/index.ssf/2014/08/ferguson_shooting_michael_brow.html

Officer Marc Catron is facing internal review after posting about Brown, along with the photo of Cain, according to the news station.

KCTV reports that Catron identified Cain, posing with what appears to be cash in his mouth and a gun in his hand, as Brown. With the photo, he posted this commentary: "I'm sure young Michael Brown is innocent and just misunderstood. I'm sure he is a pillar of the Ferguson community."

CPUd
08-19-2014, 10:30 AM
I wonder if that dude knew where that money had been would he still be putting it in his mouth.

specsaregood
08-19-2014, 10:31 AM
./

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 10:38 AM
It is 18 in MO, but not in all states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_age
Thanks for clarification on that. I had not heard of entire states raising the minimum age.

I suppose things like this shouldn't surprise me but it does............ somewhat.

It's what happens when a majority declares law. When they burn books, I don't want to hear shit from a collectivist.

Brian4Liberty
08-19-2014, 10:42 AM
This is one account that seemed legit, as it was captured right at the scene, by accident. It was very similar to the cop's friends account.


#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck — cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran — the police got out and ran after him

{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus — the police had his gun drawn already on him —

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin’ on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing — he like — be like — but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots — the next thing I know — the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know ... I’m thinking ... the dude started running ... (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/18936-ferguson-shooting-shock-witness-unwittingly-captured-on-audio-corroborates-police-story

Ronin Truth
08-19-2014, 10:43 AM
18. The same as any other state.
Nope, in some states it's 21.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 10:44 AM
Nope, in some states it's 21.
Which state?

(I like to know these factoids so that I can avoid ever so much as driving through said piece of shit)

Edit: New York, apparently. No worries. I'd never travel to that POS state again if they paid me.

pcosmar
08-19-2014, 10:45 AM
I hate the police. I do not know what happened.

An Unarmed man was shot dead by police.

That should not happen.. Not over jay walking. Not over cigars. Not over beating his mother to death.

It should not ever happen. If he has committed a crime. Then Charge him with a crime and give him a trial. Capture him alive to do so .

It is not and never has been the Police Officers place to dispense justice. And certainly not to execute Justice.

Origanalist
08-19-2014, 10:49 AM
Which state?

(I like to know these factoids so that I can avoid ever so much as driving through said piece of shit)

Edit: New York, apparently. No worries. I'd never travel to that POS state again if they paid me.

They are looking to raise it in mine.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Age-to-buy-tobacco-in-Wash-state-could-go-up-to-21-256401701.html

Brian4Liberty
08-19-2014, 10:51 AM
William Norman Grigg

If Michael Brown committed a felonious strong-arm robbery at a convenience store just minutes before he was shot, why didn’t anybody from the store call 911? The report was made by a customer following what appeared to be an altercation between the 6’4″ Brown and a much smaller store employee.
...
Continued...http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/did-michael-brown-steal-cigars-or-pay-for-them/

Wouldn't the store owner be able to say exactly what happened? Unless he was afraid of being a snitch...

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2014, 10:54 AM
An Unarmed man was shot dead by police.

That should not happen.. Not over jay walking. Not over cigars. Not over beating his mother to death.

It should not ever happen. If he has committed a crime. Then Charge him with a crime and give him a trial. Capture him alive to do so .

It is not and never has been the Police Officers place to dispense justice. And certainly not to execute Justice.
Police officers are still human beings and as such are rightfully afforded the right of self defense. The unarmed fact is a great indicator of what really happened and having experienced these thugs first handed, I can imagine exactly how it happened. Regardless, simply that someone is unarmed means little. If one is being beaten to the point of unconsciousness, or attacked savagely, etc. where they may have a reasonable argument that they were in fear of their life, shooting the perpetrator, whether as a cop 'or' citizen, is justifiable.

The problem with granting a certain caste qualified immunity and the benefit of the doubt is that many will shoot first and ask questions later. Some will flat execute someone for trivial reasons. This should not be tolerated. The criminal justice system is a joke, there will not be any justice and the people are by and large ignorant enough that even if justice was served (in whatever limited manner it could be) they'd still burn that city. Probably complain about the lack of employment while burning local businesses to boot.

But then the business owners aren't willing to defend their property, or they're unable given the laws enacted. It's a depressing scenario.

Regardless, I do not know the facts. The facts haven't even came out. They probably will never come out.

The people are becoming aware of an institutional problem but they will still call 'em. They will still ask why they do not do more. They will still think up half-retarded, hare brained schemes in how they envision society should operate. Not much will be gained.

A shame, really.

Origanalist
08-19-2014, 11:00 AM
Wouldn't the store owner be able to say exactly what happened? Unless he was afraid of being a snitch...

He could certainly make clear what happened.

RonPaulMall
08-19-2014, 11:17 AM
They still give you shit in many places,, and demand ID for a sale.

I don't care if he bought them,,stole them,, or argued about the transaction however it went down.
He was unarmed,, and was shot dead by police.

There is no excuse for the government to shoot an unarmed man. Period.

If he had already attacked the cop by the car, and was currently bum rushing him, then I would classify that as justified. The suspect was massive. If he reaches the cop, the cop would be done for and the suspect would no longer be unarmed. The standard for cops shouldn't be less strict than the standard for you or I, but it shouldn't be more strict either. If this guy was charging you or me, we'd be justified in killing him. No different for the cop.

pcosmar
08-19-2014, 11:37 AM
If he had already attacked the cop by the car, and was currently bum rushing him, then I would classify that as justified. The suspect was massive. If he reaches the cop, the cop would be done for and the suspect would no longer be unarmed. The standard for cops shouldn't be less strict than the standard for you or I, but it shouldn't be more strict either. If this guy was charging you or me, we'd be justified in killing him. No different for the cop.

A whole bunch if ifs .

First off.. the Cop initiated the confrontation. If he gets his ass kicked it is deserved.
Secondly,, the Cop has other options,, and tools available. And allegedly has training in the use of them.

If, we are going to tolerate Police (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) at all,, they need to be put on a very short leash.

Valli6
08-19-2014, 11:46 AM
The clerk didn't call 911 because he feared for his life. Probably never even considered pressing charges. What would would be in it for him, except retaliation? Probably hopes to avoid having to testify.

A store manager, who declined to give his name, said he fears for his life and pleaded with reporters not to suggest that he called police. “It’s very dangerous,” he said. “They kill us if they think we are responsible. People don’t understand that.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-three-minutes--and-two-lives-forever-changed/2014/08/16/f28f5bc0-2588-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html


The fact that he had just robbed the store and the cop didn't know...
If a 911 call was made about the robbery, most likely the crime was announced over the radio, the cop heard it, and put 2+2 together.


We know that the cop shot at him while he fled.
We don't know that at all. The autopsy shows all the shots came from the front. Baden said the shots to the arm could've happened while his arms were raised OR while they were lowered. They were also the earlier shots. We've heard no details of the struggle in the car. If there was a struggle over the gun, perhaps that's how he got shot in the arm a couple times?


From a logic standpoint, it appears the cop was justifying in discharging the weapon. Killing? We don't know.
The only time a cop is justified in shooting someone is when he believes he will otherwise be killed himself, and in that case he must shoot to kill - not to wound. It is against the law for a cop to use his gun to wound someone - that only happens on TV/movies. They are not permitted to use bullets like a cattle prod. Be realistic, if that were legal, they could shoot anyone for anything!


If a picture of the cop shows up showing him beat to hell it changes everything here.
How long did it take before they released the pictures of George Zimmerman's bloody head, and broken nose? Wasn't it after the trial? I think they hold onto that kind of evidence for the trial.

SeanTX
08-19-2014, 11:49 AM
The clerk didn't call 911 because he feared for his life. Probably never even considered pressing charges. What would would be in it for him, except retaliation? Probably hopes to avoid having to testify.


I think I read that they had to use a subpoena to get a copy of the CCTV video. The owners probably feared possible reprisals, it sounds like.

erowe1
08-19-2014, 11:51 AM
We don't know that at all. The autopsy shows all the shots came from the front.

Those are just the ones that hit him. That doesn't have anything to do with the shots that the cop fired at him while he fled.

It's also not completely true, since the fatal shot was down into his head from above, from back to front.

erowe1
08-19-2014, 11:54 AM
The only time a cop is justified in shooting someone is when he believes he will otherwise be killed himself, and in that case he must shoot to kill - not to wound. It is against the law for a cop to use his gun to wound someone - that only happens on TV/movies. They are not permitted to use bullets like a cattle prod. Be realistic, if that were legal, they could shoot anyone for anything!

They are supposed to shoot to stop, not necessarily to kill.

Granted, as far as where you aim, shooting to stop and shooting to kill are the same thing. But as far as when you stop shooting, they are very different.

Valli6
08-19-2014, 12:10 PM
Those are just the ones that hit him. That doesn't have anything to do with the shots that the cop fired at him while he fled.
It's also not completely true, since the fatal shot was down into his head from above, from back to front.
I haven't heard seen anything suggesting that other than from witnesses that were friends of Brown and I don't see then as the most credible. If true, that is illegal.

Badden said one head shot went across the top of his head and would've done damage that made him unconcsious. The other shot was very odd - As I recall, Badden said something like - it entered at the top/front and came out his eye, then went in again at the chin (I think) and exited again, still lower down - leaving 4 visible wounds. Hard to explain - my guess cop had to be above him somehow -or- Brown had put his head down? Maybe he was in the process of falling down? (Not saying I know what happenned, just guessing at possibilities)

erowe1
08-19-2014, 12:18 PM
I haven't heard seen anything suggesting that other than from witnesses that were friends of Brown and I don't see then as the most credible. If true, that is illegal.

There was a conversation an eye witness had with another onlooker captured on a Youtube video that I've seen a lot of the cop defenders using as evidence that corroborates the account of Brown charging the cop. But in that same conversation the same person says that the cop first started firing while Brown was fleeing.

The lack of wounds from the back (aside from the fatal one shot down into the top of his head from back to front) doesn't make it any less likely that the cop did fire shots while he was fleeing.

Valli6
08-19-2014, 12:18 PM
They are supposed to shoot to stop, not necessarily to kill.

I heard otherwise from a reliable source, but that was a long time ago, before the "war on drugs" got quite so insane, before the "war on terror", even before cops began doing stupid things like DUI checkpoints.


..But in that same conversation the same person says that the cop first started firing while Brown was fleeing.

The lack of wounds from the back (aside from the fatal one shot down into the top of his head from back to front) doesn't make it any less likely that the cop did fire shots while he was fleeing.
Could be, but that's an incredibly stupid, as well as illegal thing for a cop to do.

erowe1
08-19-2014, 12:21 PM
I heard otherwise from a reliable source, but that was a long time ago, before the "war on drugs" got quite so insane, before the "war on terror", even before cops began doing stupid things like DUI checkpoints.
...

If you're talking about the de facto policy that cops follow and are probably instructed to follow, then I agree. But if you're talking about their official position, they can't just go into a trial and expect to get away with saying, "I shot him until he stopped and I was sure he was no longer a threat, but then I shot him again just to make sure he died." They may have roundabout ways of putting essentially the same thing. But they have to express it in terms of a protocol that's not quite that blunt.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 03:20 PM
This is one account that seemed legit, as it was captured right at the scene, by accident. It was very similar to the cop's friends account.

This Conservative Treehouse transcription nonsense keeps making the rounds on the internet without much critical evaluation. The version is anything but consistent with the anonymous woman on the radio show. It actually raises more questions than it answers:



1. The anonymous woman clearly states that she gets the story from Wilson's significant other, not Wilson himself. If the Conservative Treehouse article can't even get a clear cut fact right, then why would I even continue reading their source?

2. The Conservative Treehouse article acknowledges that technical equipment would be beneficial for transcribing the audio. The transcriber even says, "...my seriously rough attempt at transcription..." In other words, he has no training in audio, transcription, or anything related. In other words, he listened to the video like everyone else and typed what he thought he heard.

3. The transcription is technically done incorrectly. It does not even follow basic rules of transcription. It is, for example, riddled with punctuation errors, potentially changing the meanings and context.

4. The woman's version is chronological and provides clarification. The video is multiple conversations providing no clarification. Video pronouns, for example, are not attached to proper names. The witness phrase "he took it from him" is possibly nonsequential because it is at the end of the transcription. This phrase is virtually meaningless in the context of the video/audio.

5. The final position of Brown's body is in no way indicative of how he is facing when positioned on two feet. The idea that this corroborates anything about being shot in the back/front is forensically ludicrous.

6. The article saying things such as "The eye witness talking on this video describes the exact same scenario" is not even factually correct, let alone the same interpretation. The words Bum-rushing him, let alone Brown running at Wilson, for example, is nowhere to be found in the video.

7. The woman sounds more like a defense attorney for Wilson, as she goes well beyond describing events. For example, she just doesn't talk about Wilson exiting his car and shooting, but how Wilson exiting the car is in compliance with police policy. Again, people are believing an anonymous woman on a radio call in show who is talking about police policy.





This whole article is one lacking facts and professional analysis. The woman's narrative--unlike the video--actually sounds very scripted. THE STORY IS NOT ONLY HEARSAY, IT'S THIRD HAND HEARSAY.

One could choose to believe an anonymous woman relating third hand information, OR, the police could just release Wilson's first hand version of events.

KingNothing
08-19-2014, 03:42 PM
A whole bunch if ifs .

First off.. the Cop initiated the confrontation. If he gets his ass kicked it is deserved.
Secondly,, the Cop has other options,, and tools available. And allegedly has training in the use of them.

If, we are going to tolerate Police (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm) at all,, they need to be put on a very short leash.

Indeed, a lot of "ifs" -- but that hasn't stopped the media and the left from creating a narrative that is utterly bereft of facts. Everyone needs to just slow down with this and wait for the facts to be released.

Deborah K
08-19-2014, 04:54 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't see him pull any money out of his pocket and pay for anything. I saw him reach way in over the counter and come back with a bunch of cigars and then drop them all over the floor, pick them up, and while doing so, the clerk came out from behind the counter and approached him.

Deborah K
08-19-2014, 05:00 PM
It's not a career. It's a duty. Some people just have this inner drive to dedicate their lives to the safety of others.

This inner heroism is why it's so critical that these cops take such high precautions to guard their own life; if they didn't, they'd get killed and then they couldn't be a hero to anybody.

They shouldn't be cops then because SCOTUS has ruled that cops are not constitutionally bound to protect the citizenry. They are enforcers of the law. Period.

newbitech
08-19-2014, 05:50 PM
Couple things about the whole stealing cigars from the store.

1.) There was some old black guy saying that the video being released is from a different date, dunno about that.

2.) Perhaps Brown was a regular at the store and had store credit.

3.) Perhaps the dispute was over store credit.

4.) If the store owner did not report a robbery, how can he be accused of robbing the store? No victim no crime.

5.) Yes, Brown pushed the clerk, but the clerk initiated the contact.

6.) I don't believe the "friend" has much credibility. The quote from the friends lawyer just says "he took them". So yeah, he took them. So what? The store didn't report a theft and denying calling the cops about it, saying instead it was someone else in the store that called 9/11.


So, from what I can tell looking at the two videos, listening to what the store had to say, and listening to what the lawyer of the "friend" had to say I don't think there is anything solid and convincing that what I saw and heard was a robbery.

Yes there was a scuffle at the door and it appeared the clerk did successfully get one of the packages back. But, since the store owners aren't willing to discuss this any further, I have to look at this in the most favorable way towards the person being accused of stealing.

I think he probably did pay for some of the stuff he tried to walk out with, but I think he probably tried to tell the clerk that he'd pay him next time he saw him or perhaps later in the day. Or it's possible that there was some kind of arrangement made with a different clerk from a previous day that this clerk was not honoring.

Regardless, the clerk jumped in front of the big guy on his way out of the door and put his hands on the big guy first.

It could even be possible that the big guy was short maybe .10 and give a penny take a penny thing was empty. Maybe this was a new clerk and the big guy was used to the old clerk letting him short change and pay back later when he got some pocket change.

We don't know cause the store thinks it is better for their business to not try to go after a guy over pocket change. They'd rather maintain their relationship with the community by not reporting a theft of $0.50 especially when it's likely the big guy would be back later to buy more stuff and perhaps pay back the store credit.

Maybe the clerk was having a bad day and offensive words were exchanged. Who knows, the store clerk and owners don't want to be in the middle of it.

I doubt that the big guy walked out of there worried about getting caught for stealing $0.50 worth of stuff.

I think the whole robbery/strong armed robbery thing is more of an attack and justification on the guys character.

I believe the cop pulled up on the pair cause they were jaywalking. At some point close to the vehicle, the cop and the big guy made contact. At some point, the big guy made it 10-15 yards away from the cop car and ended up face down in the street.

Also, one other thing. Looking at the preliminary autopsy report, all of the wounds are on the front side of the body. INCLUDING the wounds to the arms.

The arm wounds are on the inside of the arms, which would be consistent with the big guy having his hands UP in the air.

The candid recording that supports the claim that the big guy was running at the cop ALSO says that the cops was missing him with the gun fire. ALSO, that same witness says when the big guy turned around, the GUN WAS ALREADY DRAWN.

SO, the big guy tried to run away, the cop jumped out of his car weapon drawn and began firing at the big guy while the big guy's back was turned missing a couple of times. The big guy stops in his tracks at the sound of gun fire and turns with his hands up to surrender. The big guy gets hit a couple times in the arm and THEN realizing his only chance for survival is to disarm the cop begins running towards the cop. The cop continues firing and finally lands a kill shot.

phill4paul
08-19-2014, 06:05 PM
Couple things about the whole stealing cigars from the store.

1.) There was some old black guy saying that the video being released is from a different date, dunno about that.

2.) Perhaps Brown was a regular at the store and had store credit.

3.) Perhaps the dispute was over store credit.

4.) If the store owner did not report a robbery, how can he be accused of robbing the store? No victim no crime.

5.) Yes, Brown pushed the clerk, but the clerk initiated the contact.

6.) I don't believe the "friend" has much credibility. The quote from the friends lawyer just says "he took them". So yeah, he took them. So what? The store didn't report a theft and denying calling the cops about it, saying instead it was someone else in the store that called 9/11.


So, from what I can tell looking at the two videos, listening to what the store had to say, and listening to what the lawyer of the "friend" had to say I don't think there is anything solid and convincing that what I saw and heard was a robbery.

Yes there was a scuffle at the door and it appeared the clerk did successfully get one of the packages back. But, since the store owners aren't willing to discuss this any further, I have to look at this in the most favorable way towards the person being accused of stealing.

I think he probably did pay for some of the stuff he tried to walk out with, but I think he probably tried to tell the clerk that he'd pay him next time he saw him or perhaps later in the day. Or it's possible that there was some kind of arrangement made with a different clerk from a previous day that this clerk was not honoring.

Regardless, the clerk jumped in front of the big guy on his way out of the door and put his hands on the big guy first.

It could even be possible that the big guy was short maybe .10 and give a penny take a penny thing was empty. Maybe this was a new clerk and the big guy was used to the old clerk letting him short change and pay back later when he got some pocket change.

We don't know cause the store thinks it is better for their business to not try to go after a guy over pocket change. They'd rather maintain their relationship with the community by not reporting a theft of $0.50 especially when it's likely the big guy would be back later to buy more stuff and perhaps pay back the store credit.

Maybe the clerk was having a bad day and offensive words were exchanged. Who knows, the store clerk and owners don't want to be in the middle of it.

I doubt that the big guy walked out of there worried about getting caught for stealing $0.50 worth of stuff.

I think the whole robbery/strong armed robbery thing is more of an attack and justification on the guys character.

I believe the cop pulled up on the pair cause they were jaywalking. At some point close to the vehicle, the cop and the big guy made contact. At some point, the big guy made it 10-15 yards away from the cop car and ended up face down in the street.

Also, one other thing. Looking at the preliminary autopsy report, all of the wounds are on the front side of the body. INCLUDING the wounds to the arms.

The arm wounds are on the inside of the arms, which would be consistent with the big guy having his hands UP in the air.

The candid recording that supports the claim that the big guy was running at the cop ALSO says that the cops was missing him with the gun fire. ALSO, that same witness says when the big guy turned around, the GUN WAS ALREADY DRAWN.

SO, the big guy tried to run away, the cop jumped out of his car weapon drawn and began firing at the big guy while the big guy's back was turned missing a couple of times. The big guy stops in his tracks at the sound of gun fire and turns with his hands up to surrender. The big guy gets hit a couple times in the arm and THEN realizing his only chance for survival is to disarm the cop begins running towards the cop. The cop continues firing and finally lands a kill shot.

I'm gonna have to say this is a very well thought out scenario of possibilities. Many things to consider that have not been. +rep.

newbitech
08-19-2014, 07:44 PM
someone posted a video of MB's friend explaining what happened, then removed it.

Brian4Liberty
08-19-2014, 07:59 PM
This Conservative Treehouse transcription nonsense keeps making the rounds on the internet without much critical evaluation.

Rest assured, it will probably get "expert" evaluation from both prosecution and defense if it comes to that.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 08:10 PM
Couple things about the whole stealing cigars from the store.

1.) There was some old black guy saying that the video being released is from a different date, dunno about that.

2.) Perhaps Brown was a regular at the store and had store credit.

3.) Perhaps the dispute was over store credit.

4.) If the store owner did not report a robbery, how can he be accused of robbing the store? No victim no crime.

5.) Yes, Brown pushed the clerk, but the clerk initiated the contact.

6.) I don't believe the "friend" has much credibility. The quote from the friends lawyer just says "he took them". So yeah, he took them. So what? The store didn't report a theft and denying calling the cops about it, saying instead it was someone else in the store that called 9/11.


So, from what I can tell looking at the two videos, listening to what the store had to say, and listening to what the lawyer of the "friend" had to say I don't think there is anything solid and convincing that what I saw and heard was a robbery.

Yes there was a scuffle at the door and it appeared the clerk did successfully get one of the packages back. But, since the store owners aren't willing to discuss this any further, I have to look at this in the most favorable way towards the person being accused of stealing.

I think he probably did pay for some of the stuff he tried to walk out with, but I think he probably tried to tell the clerk that he'd pay him next time he saw him or perhaps later in the day. Or it's possible that there was some kind of arrangement made with a different clerk from a previous day that this clerk was not honoring.

Regardless, the clerk jumped in front of the big guy on his way out of the door and put his hands on the big guy first.

It could even be possible that the big guy was short maybe .10 and give a penny take a penny thing was empty. Maybe this was a new clerk and the big guy was used to the old clerk letting him short change and pay back later when he got some pocket change.

We don't know cause the store thinks it is better for their business to not try to go after a guy over pocket change. They'd rather maintain their relationship with the community by not reporting a theft of $0.50 especially when it's likely the big guy would be back later to buy more stuff and perhaps pay back the store credit.

Maybe the clerk was having a bad day and offensive words were exchanged. Who knows, the store clerk and owners don't want to be in the middle of it.

I doubt that the big guy walked out of there worried about getting caught for stealing $0.50 worth of stuff.

I think the whole robbery/strong armed robbery thing is more of an attack and justification on the guys character.

I believe the cop pulled up on the pair cause they were jaywalking. At some point close to the vehicle, the cop and the big guy made contact. At some point, the big guy made it 10-15 yards away from the cop car and ended up face down in the street.

Also, one other thing. Looking at the preliminary autopsy report, all of the wounds are on the front side of the body. INCLUDING the wounds to the arms.

The arm wounds are on the inside of the arms, which would be consistent with the big guy having his hands UP in the air.

The candid recording that supports the claim that the big guy was running at the cop ALSO says that the cops was missing him with the gun fire. ALSO, that same witness says when the big guy turned around, the GUN WAS ALREADY DRAWN.

SO, the big guy tried to run away, the cop jumped out of his car weapon drawn and began firing at the big guy while the big guy's back was turned missing a couple of times. The big guy stops in his tracks at the sound of gun fire and turns with his hands up to surrender. The big guy gets hit a couple times in the arm and THEN realizing his only chance for survival is to disarm the cop begins running towards the cop. The cop continues firing and finally lands a kill shot.

This is a lot of nuance that will be lost on most Americans. It's already lost on many here. I thought the whole video required more explanation than someone who just picked up an item and walked out the door.

I wondered why Brown did not run home or away after "stealing" cigars. He did not seem to be in a hurry walking from the store. He did not make a run for it when Wilson first pulled up. Was he ever really concerned about it, or did Wilson aggressively open a car door on Brown, prompting Brown to instinctively push it back on Wilson? Was the incident just about somebody lipping a cop? We've seen Labrador pups shot, grandma tazed, and people shot for a whole lot less. I don't see how it's so unbelievable that the cop just shot Brown with the same mentality a cop has when shooting these barking dogs.

The popular narrative seems to be that Brown must have slugged or hit Wilson to cause some eye damage. A slamming door pushed back could have done the same damage.

SeanTX
08-19-2014, 08:18 PM
I don't know if this is true, just saw this :

https://www.facebook.com/1007TheViper




***BREAKING NEWS***
Remember, you saw it and heard it here first. We have heard (from a VERY connected national media source) that Ferguson officer Darren Wilson will be cleared in the shooting of Michael Brown.

The key: Dorian Johnson has now admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun. OFFICER WILSON WILL NOT BE CHARGED! This is scary. When this news is made official, we all have reason to be concerned about the reaction.

CPUd
08-19-2014, 08:27 PM
Feds are concerned that the local prosecutor is biased towards the police:



(CNN) -- While protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, are demanding justice for the killing of Michael Brown by police, questions are being asked about the man who at the moment is responsible for pursuing any prosecution and whether he can be impartial.

Some residents and community leaders contend St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch has deep ties to the police and has favored law enforcement in criminal cases.

...



http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-prosecutor-mcculloch/index.html

squarepusher
08-19-2014, 08:31 PM
I don't know if this is true, just saw this :

https://www.facebook.com/1007TheViper

Officer is heading to grand jury

outspoken
08-19-2014, 08:36 PM
The video of him taking what he wants and then physically pushing the store keeping indicates the individual does not operate within the realm of what normal people do regardless of color. Eyewitness accounts caught on tape immediately after the shooting (I find it appalling people who weren't there using the word execution) corroborate the officers account that all 300 lbs. of Mr. brown was charging him at the time his gun was discharged.

I don't doubt that there are instances of cops using excessive force but in this instance it does a grave disservice to true justice to characterize this as a saintly, young individual minding his own business gunned down for no reason. I would think those who want to improve the lot of the black community would have a little more intelligence and due diligence than to use this specific case as their catalyst for positive change. This whole fiasco just makes the push for color-blind justice look ridiculous and completely lacking credibility.

phill4paul
08-19-2014, 08:39 PM
The video of him taking what he wants and then physically pushing the store keeping indicates the individual does not operate within the realm of what normal people do regardless of color. Eyewitness accounts caught on tape immediately after the shooting (I find it appalling people who weren't there using the word execution) corroborate the officers account that all 300 lbs. of Mr. brown was charging him at the time his gun was discharged.

I don't doubt that there are instances of cops using excessive force but in this instance it does a grave disservice to true justice to characterize this as a saintly, young individual minding his own business gunned down for no reason. I would think those who want to improve the lot of the black community would have a little more intelligence and due diligence than to use this specific case as their catalyst for positive change. This whole fiasco just makes the push for color-blind justice look ridiculous and completely lacking credibility.

Thank you for weighing in. Many here have been waiting for your expert analysis. We truly flounder about until you make one of your rare appearances and set us straight.

phill4paul
08-19-2014, 08:42 PM
Officer is heading to grand jury

I wonder what the jury of *peers* will be comprised of.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 08:43 PM
Eyewitness accounts caught on tape immediately after the shooting...corroborate the officers account that...Mr. brown was charging him at the time his gun was discharged.



There is no evidence of that in the video, even in the amateur transcription that was made by a person with no skill in transcription.

Wilson's account has also not even been released.

The whole thing about Brown charging Wilson was an account from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show. The woman said she got the story from Wilson's significant other.

Brett85
08-19-2014, 09:06 PM
We know that the cop shot at him while he fled. There is nothing that could justify that. I don't know if Brown subsequently charged a cop who had a gun pointed at him that he had already started firing, or did something that could have made it look like he was charging him, but I highly doubt that he did. And, even if he did, that could have been avoided by letting him run away, rather than shooting at him while he fled.

There's no evidence that the cop shot at him when he fled. The evidence shows that the cop shot him 6 times from the front.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 09:10 PM
There's no evidence that the cop shot at him when he fled.

Yes, there is evidence. Eyewitness Tiffany Mitchell said the Wilson was shooting at Brown as Brown was running.

mosquitobite
08-19-2014, 09:10 PM
I think the timing of releasing the video was questionable, but I don't question that he stole the cigars and got violent with the clerk. It's on video. I don't know whether I should condemn the cops for gunning him down, I've heard several different versions and I doubt that a government employee will give anyone the genuine version.

But there's more to that as well. I don't think they went to the store with the INTENT to steal, otherwise it makes no sense that Johnson put his back on the counter. The witness who called the police said that the clerk told Brown "you need to pay for those" when he handed them to his friend. Seems like that comment is what ticked him off and set off the rest. So the clerk stereotyped and here we are.

Brett85
08-19-2014, 09:11 PM
There is no excuse for the government to shoot an unarmed man. Period.

It's wrong for the cops to shoot an unarmed man when the man runs at them and tries to attack them? They don't have the right to defend themselves? I don't know what happened for sure, since there are conflicting reports. I'm still undecided on all of this. But if Brown actually charged at the cops as is being reported now, the police officer was absolutely justified in shooting him.

Brett85
08-19-2014, 09:13 PM
Yes, there is evidence. Eyewitness Tiffany Mitchell said the Wilson was shooting at Brown as Brown was running.

The eyewitnesses testimony isn't consistent. The eyewitnesses are telling all kinds of different stories. Some of them are saying that Brown charged at the police officer. Since I wasn't there, I don't know what happened. No one knows for sure. I'm just going to take a wait and see attitude and wait for all of the evidence to come out.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 09:22 PM
The eyewitnesses testimony isn't consistent.

Eyewitness testimony is still evidence. You're now questioning the veracity of the eyewitness testimony, but that does not discount that that eyewitness testimony is evidence.



The eyewitnesses are telling all kinds of different stories. Some of them are saying that Brown charged at the police officer.

No, they are not telling all kinds of different stories. The different stories are coming from people who--like you--were not there. The whole thing about Brown charging Wilson was an account from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show. The woman said she got the story from Wilson's significant other.

The account about Brown charging Wilson is not from Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, or Dorian Johnson. It is not from the video in the immediate aftermath.

The account about Brown charging Wilson is from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show. This account has been swallowed up so wholeheartedly by people that I will not be surprised if it will now be in Wilson's account of what happened.

CPUd
08-19-2014, 09:27 PM
Eyewitness testimony is still evidence. You're now questioning the veracity of the eyewitness testimony, but that does not discount that that eyewitness testimony is evidence.




No, they are not telling all kinds of different stories. The different stories are coming from people who--like you--were not there. The whole thing about Brown charging Wilson was an account from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show. The woman said she got the story from Wilson's significant other.

The account about Brown charging Wilson is not from Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, or Dorian Johnson. It is not from the video in the immediate aftermath.

The account about Brown charging Wilson is from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show. This account has been swallowed up so wholeheartedly by people that I will not be surprised if it will now be in Wilson's account of what happened.

It could have been some misinfo put out there to tell if witnesses were giving accurate statements.

AuH20
08-19-2014, 09:29 PM
Eyewitness testimony is still evidence. You're now questioning the veracity of the eyewitness testimony, but that does not discount that that eyewitness testimony is evidence.




No, they are not telling all kinds of different stories. The different stories are coming from people who--like you--were not there. The whole thing about Brown charging Wilson was an account from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show. The woman said she got the story from Wilson's significant other.

The account about Brown charging Wilson is not from Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, or Dorian Johnson. It is not from the video in the immediate aftermath.

The account about Brown charging Wilson is from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show. This account has been swallowed up so wholeheartedly by people that I will not be surprised if it will now be in Wilson's account of what happened.

It's on the eyewitness tape as well. So that's two sources.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 09:30 PM
It's on the eyewitness tape as well. So that's two sources.

No, it is not on the tape.

An anonymous woman on a radio call in show is hardly what I call a source. She got the information from Wilson's significant other. That not only makes it hearsay, but third hand hearsay. Hardly admissible in a court of law, but gospel in the court of public opinion. The court of public opinion is now the internet, where people believe practically anything written on any website.

phill4paul
08-19-2014, 09:35 PM
I'm done for the night.

Michael Brown is a crisis actor and this is all a Psy-Op.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwgfuh862F1qd99dz.gif

CPUd
08-19-2014, 09:38 PM
I'm done for the night.

Michael Brown is a crisis actor and this is all a Psy-Op.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwgfuh862F1qd99dz.gif

That's what "they" want you to think ;)

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 10:31 PM
So what you have now are two eyewitnesses who said that Brown had his hands up versus an anonymous woman on a radio call in show who said Brown "bum rushes" Wilson.

I'm guessing that Wilson will give an account similar to the anonymous woman, but with modification. He might say that Brown had his hands up at some point. Maybe just briefly, but then he put his hands back down at some point. Wilson won't use the term "bum rush," but he will probably say that Brown advanced on him. Perhaps Brown was walking toward Wilson with hands up. The speed at which he was walking might be a point of contention. Wilson, of course, will not possibly be able to mathematically gauge that speed, but will say that Brown was close enough and walking fast enough that he thought he was in danger.

I have yet to hear Mitchell or Crenshaw say if Brown moved with his hands up, but I've not seen all of their interviews. This movement might also be a point of contention. Did Brown move at all? Did he move a couple of steps? More?

Moreover, did Brown have his head down when he took the shot that went over his eyebrow, through his jaw, and then his torso? A head down posture would likely indicate his hands were up in the surrender position. A head down would be a more likely explanation for that bullet's path. Unlikely that he put his head down at the last second in an attempt to charge Wilson because there would not have been enough time for Wilson two get off the two head shots, especially without leaving powder burns. Or, was Brown just convulsing from the previous shots that put his head in that position?

This case will be far too muddled for any conviction.

Mani
08-19-2014, 11:09 PM
For me, it's not about the cigarettes or being a thug or whatever.


I just don't follow the logic of FLEEING and CHARGING. Those are 2 very different things. If you are fleeing for your life or fleeing to not get arrested, it seems inconceivable to me to turn around a charge.

If he accidentally or purposefully gave the cop a black eye, then I could see Big Mike being afraid that now he's in deep shit and he's going to be arrested or shot. Or if the weapon did discharge in the vehicle, that could also scare him.

I don't see a logic where he's beating the cop into submission, and THEN as he's winning the fight he THEN decides to flee, so that really doesn't make any sense.


So back to him running for his life or to avoid arrest, I could see where a couple shots are fired and he realizes no matter how fast he is, he can't escape the speed of a bullet. Or he gets hit a couple times and realizes he'd rather get arrested and not shot dead because he's not going to outrun this guy. So he basically gives himself up.

But how does one go from thinking..."I CAN'T ESCAPE THE BULLETS, I can't run away FAST ENOUGH...But maybe I can run towards him!?!? " What!?! Has that ever worked in the history of mankind (not in the movies) where a guy in an OPEN area (not backed up against the wall) is fleeing, and then gets scared and gives up..And then says..."Hey, why don't I charge right at him?? I should be able to cross 35 feet fast enough to disarm him as he shoots me 10 times and I make myself an easier target every 1 foot I go toward him..." How is that even considered an option by anyone??

I'm not able to follow that logic at all. The guy ran....I think that's not being debated. There was a possible scuffle in the car...Then there was a distance between where the guy was..and where the cop was.....So...The logical explanation is..The guy ran away...

I also think it's not being disputed the cop chased after...



So how do we go from FLEEING to charging??? I can't see it. He's not roided up, drugged up, cocained up, or drunk, to use as an excuse as to why anyone would flee then turn around and rush a guy shooting at him.

If anyone is claiming he didn't flee...Then why was his body not laying next to the cop SUV. The only explanation is he ran away from the cop and the SUV.

And if he DID beat up the cop so badly and was winning the fight...Why the heck would he leave and run away, and then turn and run back to finish off the cop?? Huh!?! That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.




Personally, I could very well see the following scenario:


Big bad Mike is strutting along on his home turf through the street. The cop who loves to throw around his authority as he drives by, tells the guys to "Get the fuck off the road and onto the sidewalk."
Big bad Mike doesn't take shit from anyone and says, "We almost hom bitch!" and to his friend, "Fucking pigs!"
Cop hears something...Cops don't like thugs who try to talk back to authority figures. He reverses and surprises the 2 guys and slams open his door open looking to teach some thugs their place. The Force knocks the guys but the door bounces back and hits the officer. "Now you DONE it!" thinks the officer believing this is an act of aggression.
He grabs at big Mike and a struggle ensues. Mike maybe takes a couple swings at the officer to get him off. The officer realizes this is escalating and Mike is strong and begins reaching for his holster. Mike sees this and reaches for his arm to prevent the cop from getting out the gun. There's a struggle to get the gun out and it goes off. Mike wants to get the fuck outta here. He gets one clean haymaker at the officers face and it stuns the cop enough to make the cop let go.

Mike and his friend run for their lives. The cop with his bloodied face jumps out of the vehicle and gives chase, he starts firing. Mike gets hit and realizes he's fucked, he's not going to be able to escape, this cop might shoot him dead, his only option is give up and live to see tomorrow....He puts his hands up and surrenders. Cop adrenaline pumping through his veins, one eye closed and blood all over his face just continues to fire as he runs towards big Mike, and fires again and again and again. Cop's last couple of shots were from closer distance and Mike was already face in the sidewalk by then or slumped forward by then, which is why some of the bullets seem to have a downward trajectory in the autopsy.

Cop realizes he might be in the wrong side of town to gun down a thug and doesn't bother to call it in.


I don't know if that's the real scenario, but I could definitely seeing this as a probable scenario. In the end it doesn't matter if Mike stole cigarettes are not. Mike should have to go to court and be charged with striking an officer, and in court prove it was self defense (if the cop pictures appear with him having a broken face). The moment he disengaged and ran away the cop no longer has a right to use lethal force. And enough witnesses are saying his hands were up, and that's how the whole hands up act formed during these protests. Regardless of his hand were really up, I don't see how lethal force was still OK after he disengaged and ran away. Does the cop need to pursue and apprehend him? Sure. OK. I can give you that. But gun him down??? Not in my opinion.


Mike's character doesn't matter. Mike being a thug doesn't matter. Mike robbing cigarettes doesn't matter. When he disengaged and ran away, IMO lethal force is no longer an option. His hands were up, there's no story saying he reached into his pocket, I thought I saw him reach for a weapon. None of that B.S. Maybe the cop was in fear of his safety while struggling in the car...But after Mike ran away....that fear of safety doesn't apply anymore.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-19-2014, 11:25 PM
For me, it's not about the cigarettes or being a thug or whatever.


I just don't follow the logic of FLEEING and CHARGING. Those are 2 very different things. If you are fleeing for your life or fleeing to not get arrested, it seems inconceivable to me to turn around a charge.

If he accidentally or purposefully gave the cop a black eye, then I could see Big Mike being afraid that now he's in deep shit and he's going to be arrested or shot. Or if the weapon did discharge in the vehicle, that could also scare him.

I don't see a logic where he's beating the cop into submission, and THEN as he's winning the fight he THEN decides to flee, so that really doesn't make any sense.


So back to him running for his life or to avoid arrest, I could see where a couple shots are fired and he realizes no matter how fast he is, he can't escape the speed of a bullet. Or he gets hit a couple times and realizes he'd rather get arrested and not shot dead because he's not going to outrun this guy. So he basically gives himself up.

But how does one go from thinking..."I CAN'T ESCAPE THE BULLETS, I can't run away FAST ENOUGH...But maybe I can run towards him!?!? " What!?! Has that ever worked in the history of mankind (not in the movies) where a guy in an OPEN area (not backed up against the wall) is fleeing, and then gets scared and gives up..And then says..."Hey, why don't I charge right at him?? I should be able to cross 35 feet fast enough to disarm him as he shoots me 10 times and I make myself an easier target every 1 foot I go toward him..." How is that even considered an option by anyone??

I'm not able to follow that logic at all. The guy ran....I think that's not being debated. There was a possible scuffle in the car...Then there was a distance between where the guy was..and where the cop was.....So...The logical explanation is..The guy ran away...

I also think it's not being disputed the cop chased after...



So how do we go from FLEEING to charging??? I can't see it. He's not roided up, drugged up, cocained up, or drunk, to use as an excuse as to why anyone would flee then turn around and rush a guy shooting at him.

If anyone is claiming he didn't flee...Then why was his body not laying next to the cop SUV. The only explanation is he ran away from the cop and the SUV.

And if he DID beat up the cop so badly and was winning the fight...Why the heck would he leave and run away, and then turn and run back to finish off the cop?? Huh!?! That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.





This is more nuance that will be lost on most Americans. Brown charging Wilson comes from an anonymous woman on a radio call in show.

Mani, most people here don't even want to read posts as long as your post. Hearsay is the easy and lazy way. Many people here believe the charging scenario that has zero evidence.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-20-2014, 01:00 AM
I don't see a logic where he's beating the cop into submission, and THEN as he's winning the fight he THEN decides to flee, so that really doesn't make any sense.


So back to him running for his life or to avoid arrest, I could see where a couple shots are fired and he realizes no matter how fast he is, he can't escape the speed of a bullet. Or he gets hit a couple times and realizes he'd rather get arrested and not shot dead because he's not going to outrun this guy. So he basically gives himself up.



The real kicker in this story is how the anonymous woman on the radio call in show said Brown was taunting Wilson, asking Wilson if the officer was really going to shoot him when he was walking back towards the cop (paraphrase: What are you going to do, shoot me?!). If I had to bet money, then I'd say that woman is nothing but a piece of garbage liar. They planned to float that story on the internet and gauge the reaction. Good for them that so many fell for it, including the people here.

orenbus
08-20-2014, 03:04 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfwjcz8irmU

outspoken
08-20-2014, 07:53 PM
I find it amazing how many professed Ron Paul supporters can have such varied opinions on this situation. The paramount principle that RP espouses is that of non-violence. Assuming this guy fractured the cops face and based on the video of him strong arming the store clerk it is readily apparent this guy had a propensity for violence. We haven't seen his rap sheet but would be curious as to what it would show... I am sure many would be afraid this could be construed as character assassination. Painting this guy as a saint is rediculous and blacks are only hurting their often valid case but using this individual as the calling cry. It appears the cop was doing his job as even Mr. holder can see.

TheTexan
08-20-2014, 11:24 PM
I find it amazing how many professed Ron Paul supporters can have such varied opinions on this situation. The paramount principle that RP espouses is that of non-violence. Assuming this guy fractured the cops face and based on the video of him strong arming the store clerk it is readily apparent this guy had a propensity for violence. We haven't seen his rap sheet but would be curious as to what it would show... I am sure many would be afraid this could be construed as character assassination. Painting this guy as a saint is rediculous and blacks are only hurting their often valid case but using this individual as the calling cry. It appears the cop was doing his job as even Mr. holder can see.

That's probably a safe assumption. The cops did indeed say that's what happened.

orenbus
08-20-2014, 11:44 PM
I find it amazing how many professed Ron Paul supporters can have such varied opinions on this situation. The paramount principle that RP espouses is that of non-violence. Assuming this guy fractured the cops face and based on the video of him strong arming the store clerk it is readily apparent this guy had a propensity for violence. We haven't seen his rap sheet but would be curious as to what it would show... I am sure many would be afraid this could be construed as character assassination. Painting this guy as a saint is rediculous and blacks are only hurting their often valid case but using this individual as the calling cry. It appears the cop was doing his job as even Mr. holder can see.

He didn't have a "rap sheet" or criminal record, the media already checked into this, although not surprising since he was only 18. He may or may not have had a juvenile record, but we will never know since if any record existed it's most likely sealed.

AFPVet
08-21-2014, 12:20 AM
This is classic race baiting. If it were a white kid, we wouldn't hear so much about it. http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/cops-guns-down-unarmed-white-boy-in-salt-lake-city-mainstream-media-goes-silent-kutv-video

orenbus
08-26-2014, 06:12 AM
I don't agree with everything these guys are saying, they make some interesting points about the Chief tho:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgqWT-iqJ4g


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGR9GGjxt9c

BlackTerrel
08-26-2014, 07:59 PM
I haven't been here in a while but we now have people who support a cop shooting an unarmed man?

What happened over the last few months?

Anti Federalist
08-26-2014, 08:05 PM
I haven't been here in a while but we now have people who support a cop shooting an unarmed man?

What happened over the last few months?

I was wondering when you were going to check in...how ya been?

Well, we have a few people of the "Mike Brown did this to himself" persuasion.

AuH20
08-26-2014, 08:06 PM
I haven't been here in a while but we now have people who support a cop shooting an unarmed man?

What happened over the last few months?

I don't think it is that simple.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MJohVce3X48/0.jpg

Now the cop could certainly guilty of utilizing excessive force after the confrontation escalated, which is what we're waiting for confirmation on. Obviously, if the emotionally manipulated masses had their way, there would be no trial. Wilson would be simply be hung for being a white cop.

AuH20
08-26-2014, 10:16 PM
What did you read?

Now hearing Sig Sauer P226 or P229 with 9x19mm Parabellum rounds. I think that's why they referred to as 9mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9719mm_Parabellum


The 9×19mm Parabellum (abbreviated 9mm, 9mmP, 9×19mm or 9×19) cartridge was designed by Georg Luger and introduced in 1902 by the German weapons manufacturer Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken (DWM) for their Luger semi-automatic pistol.[5] For this reason, it is designated as the 9mm Luger / 9mm Luger +P by the SAAMI[6] and the 9 mm Luger by the C.I.P. (differentiating it from the 9mm Makarov and 9mm Browning cartridges). Under STANAG 4090, it is a standard cartridge for NATO forces as well as many non-NATO countries.[7]

The name Parabellum is derived from the Latin: Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you seek peace, prepare for war"), which was the motto of DWM.[8][9]

According to the 2006 edition of Cartridges of the World, the 9×19mm Parabellum is "the world's most popular and widely used military handgun cartridge."[10] In addition to being used by over 60% of police in the U.S., Newsweek credits 9×19mm Parabellum pistol sales with making semi-automatic pistols more popular than revolvers.[11] The popularity of this cartridge can be attributed to the widely held conviction that it is effective in police and self-defense use.[12] Its low cost and wide availability are self-sustaining contributors to the caliber's continuing popularity.

kcchiefs6465
08-26-2014, 10:28 PM
Now hearing Sig Sauer P226 or P229 with 9x19mm Parabellum rounds. I think that's why they referred to as 9mm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9719mm_Parabellum
Ah. Thanks. I know what 9mm is. The Sig would be his personal weapon that he opted to carry. If not he'd have been carrying the Glock 17 or 22 or the M&P 9 or 40.

I, and someone else, apparently, just were curious of what firearm the 7mm that he was possibly carrying was referring to and why anyone would carry one.


Supposedly, the county has been dragging their feet in upgrading their sidearms. 7mm is the standard issue for that particular PD.
I was particularly curious of what other 'facts' might have come from the article that supposed the department carried 7mm pistols. Do you know which article it was by chance?

AuH20
08-26-2014, 10:38 PM
I was particularly curious of what other 'facts' might have come from the article that supposed the department carried 7mm pistols. Do you know which article it was by chance?

There was originally a blurb on AR-15.com about it. That's where the 7mm rumor came from regarding the department issue. Let me go look.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-27-2014, 11:17 PM
Here's a more complete video than that posted in the OP. It looks to me like Brown puts two items on the counter. Is it two items for purchase? Is it one item and money? He then takes an item and hands it to Johnson. Johnson eventually puts that item back on the counter.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMAUgRfzJDU