Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Jayjay]

The police report says otherwise.

If the policeman was responding to a call about a store robbery, why would he let a suspect get close enough to his car to reach in the window and hit him?

I did not say that Wilson was responding to a call about a robbery. I was merely pointing out that the robbery was in fact reported to the police by the store owner or an employee, even if the 9/11 call may have been dialed by a customer.

 

[marc]

No we don't as the store owner never reported a crime.

The police report says otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236914260/Michael-Brown-Police-Report

Page 3. Note that "willing to prosecute" checkbox is ticked.

Ah, ok, I was wrong.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If the policeman was responding to a call about a store robbery, why would he let a suspect get close enough to his car to reach in the window and hit him?

I did not say that Wilson was responding to a call about a robbery. I was merely pointing out that the robbery was in fact reported to the police by the store owner or an employee, even if the 9/11 call may have been dialed by a customer.

That's not what the store says:

The store's owners, through their attorney, sent the message that they want to stay as far away from the situation as possible. In fact, he said, even after the initial alleged theft, it was a customer who called police.

"It's not about them. They didn't call the police, they didn't ask the police to come and take the video," said attorney Jay Kanzler.

 

[Jayjay]

I did not say that Wilson was responding to a call about a robbery. I was merely pointing out that the robbery was in fact reported to the police by the store owner or an employee, even if the 9/11 call may have been dialed by a customer.

That's not what the store says:

The store's owners, through their attorney, sent the message that they want to stay as far away from the situation as possible. In fact, he said, even after the initial alleged theft, it was a customer who called police.

"It's not about them. They didn't call the police, they didn't ask the police to come and take the video," said attorney Jay Kanzler.

The store is obviously trying to distance themselves because another Quik Trip was looted and vandalized in the wake of the Brown shooting incident. But at the time, the store employees were interviewed by the police and they did say that it was a robbery, and the police report says the business was willing to prosecute.

 

[Bronzeage]

If the policeman was responding to a call about a store robbery, why would he let a suspect get close enough to his car to reach in the window and hit him?

I did not say that Wilson was responding to a call about a robbery. I was merely pointing out that the robbery was in fact reported to the police by the store owner or an employee, even if the 9/11 call may have been dialed by a customer.

Okay. If as you point out, a robbery was in fact reported to the police[by person or persons unknown], why would a policeman let someone get close enough to the car to reach inside and hit him. It seems a person ready to shoot to kill because he feared for his life, would be a little more vigilant about someone approaching so close.

Which ever way the scenario is spun, there are plausibility problems.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's not what the store says:

The store's owners, through their attorney, sent the message that they want to stay as far away from the situation as possible. In fact, he said, even after the initial alleged theft, it was a customer who called police.

"It's not about them. They didn't call the police, they didn't ask the police to come and take the video," said attorney Jay Kanzler.

The store is obviously trying to distance themselves because another Quik Trip was looted and vandalized in the wake of the Brown shooting incident. But at the time, the store employees were interviewed by the police and they did say that it was a robbery, and the police report says the business was willing to prosecute.

If we're speculating, one could just as easily imagine that the report was fabricated by the police. It's been mighty handy, and its a little late for planting a gun or drugs on MB.

BTW, the store is the Ferguson Market, not Quik Trip.

Let them release the radio call, the 911 call, along with statements from the 911 caller and the store personnel. Until then, I'm skeptical.

 

[Cobalt]

No we don't as the store owner never reported a crime.

The police report says otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236914260/Michael-Brown-Police-Report

Page 3. Note that "willing to prosecute" checkbox is ticked.

Maybe it is my browser or something, but when I view the linked document, I see no marks in the relevant checkbox.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The police report says otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236914260/Michael-Brown-Police-Report

Page 3. Note that "willing to prosecute" checkbox is ticked.

Maybe it is my browser or something, but when I view the linked document, I see no marks in the relevant checkbox.

Two boxes on that sheet. Top one isn't checked, bottom one is.

 

[Bronzeage]

The police report says otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236914260/Michael-Brown-Police-Report

Page 3. Note that "willing to prosecute" checkbox is ticked.

Maybe it is my browser or something, but when I view the linked document, I see no marks in the relevant checkbox.

There are two sections for victims information. The box in the second section is checked.

 

[Jayjay]

I did not say that Wilson was responding to a call about a robbery. I was merely pointing out that the robbery was in fact reported to the police by the store owner or an employee, even if the 9/11 call may have been dialed by a customer.

Okay. If as you point out, a robbery was in fact reported to the police[by person or persons unknown], why would a policeman let someone get close enough to the car to reach inside and hit him. It seems a person ready to shoot to kill because he feared for his life, would be a little more vigilant about someone approaching so close.

Which ever way the scenario is spun, there are plausibility problems.

I don't know if Wilson knew the description of Brown as the robber or not, but that is not the point being made about the robbery. It's that the fact that Brown had just recently laid his hands on a shop keeper who tried to stop him from committing a crime, makes it that much more plausible that he may have laid his hands on a police officer as well.

That's not what the store says:

The store's owners, through their attorney, sent the message that they want to stay as far away from the situation as possible. In fact, he said, even after the initial alleged theft, it was a customer who called police.

"It's not about them. They didn't call the police, they didn't ask the police to come and take the video," said attorney Jay Kanzler.

The store is obviously trying to distance themselves because another Quik Trip was looted and vandalized in the wake of the Brown shooting incident. But at the time, the store employees were interviewed by the police and they did say that it was a robbery, and the police report says the business was willing to prosecute.

If we're speculating, one could just as easily imagine that the report was fabricated by the police. It's been mighty handy, and its a little late for planting a gun or drugs on MB.

BTW, the store is the Ferguson Market, not Quik Trip.

Let them release the radio call, the 911 call, along with statements from the 911 caller and the store personnel. Until then, I'm skeptical.

Ok, my bad. But Quik Trip was the store that was looted and I can imagine that the Ferguson Market is not too keen to make themselves a target for similar events.

You can find some statements from the store personnel from the police report (though hard to read, as names have been redacted). But consider this: if the store employees did not in fact consider it a crime, why would it end up as being reported as such by the police who interviewed said employees? Are you suggesting that the police are just making up crimes that nobody reports, or are reporting robberies even if the store that is supposedly robbed says it isn't because someone called 9/11?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know if Wilson knew the description of Brown as the robber or not, but that is not the point being made about the robbery. It's that the fact that Brown had just recently laid his hands on a shop keeper who tried to stop him from committing a crime, makes it that much more plausible that he may have laid his hands on a police officer as well.

There is no thin line between assaulting a shop keeper and trying to take a police officer's gun. There is a large, thick line between those two actions.

That's not what the store says:

The store's owners, through their attorney, sent the message that they want to stay as far away from the situation as possible. In fact, he said, even after the initial alleged theft, it was a customer who called police.

"It's not about them. They didn't call the police, they didn't ask the police to come and take the video," said attorney Jay Kanzler.

The store is obviously trying to distance themselves because another Quik Trip was looted and vandalized in the wake of the Brown shooting incident. But at the time, the store employees were interviewed by the police and they did say that it was a robbery, and the police report says the business was willing to prosecute.

If we're speculating, one could just as easily imagine that the report was fabricated by the police. It's been mighty handy, and its a little late for planting a gun or drugs on MB.

BTW, the store is the Ferguson Market, not Quik Trip.

Let them release the radio call, the 911 call, along with statements from the 911 caller and the store personnel. Until then, I'm skeptical.

Ok, my bad. But Quik Trip was the store that was looted and I can imagine that the Ferguson Market is not too keen to make themselves a target for similar events.

You can find some statements from the store personnel from the police report (though hard to read, as names have been redacted). But consider this: if the store employees did not in fact consider it a crime, why would it end up as being reported by the police? Are you suggesting that the police are just making up crimes that nobody reports, or are reporting robberies even if the store that is supposedly robbed says it isn't because someone called 9/11?

What I'd be more interested in is why the case is "Exceptionally solved" and the accomplice isn't being charged.

 

[Bronzeage]

What I'd be more interested in is why the case is "Exceptionally solved" and the accomplice isn't being charged.

I'm sure it is because the primary suspect in the initial crime was killed a few minutes later, relieving the need for a trial to settle the matter, and I imagine no one really wants to charge the accomplice, if for no other reason than they don't need that kind of trouble.

 

[Jayjay]

There is no thin line between assaulting a shop keeper and trying to take a police officer's gun. There is a large, thick line between those two actions.

Not really. And we don't actually know if the gun entered the picture before or after the scuffle started.

You can find some statements from the store personnel from the police report (though hard to read, as names have been redacted). But consider this: if the store employees did not in fact consider it a crime, why would it end up as being reported by the police? Are you suggesting that the police are just making up crimes that nobody reports, or are reporting robberies even if the store that is supposedly robbed says it isn't because someone called 9/11?

What I'd be more interested in is why the case is "Exceptionally solved" and the accomplice isn't being charged.

The accomplice is not seen in the video taking anything, or in any way assisting with the robbery. In fact he returns the box that Brown handed over to him. As far as I can tell he cooperated with the police and it doesn't really strike me as odd that the case was dropped after the shooting, unless of course you think it is odd that a black man is not charged with a crime he didn't commit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not really.

No really, the two things aren't even remotely related.

And we don't actually know if the gun entered the picture before or after the scuffle started.

That is the allegation.

You can find some statements from the store personnel from the police report (though hard to read, as names have been redacted). But consider this: if the store employees did not in fact consider it a crime, why would it end up as being reported by the police? Are you suggesting that the police are just making up crimes that nobody reports, or are reporting robberies even if the store that is supposedly robbed says it isn't because someone called 9/11?

What I'd be more interested in is why the case is "Exceptionally solved" and the accomplice isn't being charged.

The accomplice is not seen in the video taking anything, or in any way assisting with the robbery. In fact he returns the box that Brown handed over to him. As far as I can tell he cooperated with the police and it doesn't really strike me as odd that the case was dropped after the shooting, unless of course you think it is odd that a black man is not charged with a crime he didn't commit.

So the other guy wasn't a partner in crime, as was alluded to by others here?

 

[Shadowy Man]

There is no thin line between assaulting a shop keeper and trying to take a police officer's gun. There is a large, thick line between those two actions.

Not really.

I'm sorry, but this comes across as being highly intellectually dishonest. Without some other kind of information, it is extremely reasonable to suspect that a person who is willing to push someone smaller than him would not assault a police officer and attempt to take his gun. It would take much more than a video of him pushing a shopkeeper to make me believe that he was the kind of person to take on the police this way. I'm not saying he wouldn't, just that I wouldn't assume so simply from the video shown.

 

[Jayjay]

No really, the two things aren't even remotely related.

I guess we can't but agree to disagree. A person who lays a hand on an authority figure (shopkeeper) to get him out of his way, would be more likely in my mind to also lay a hand on a police officer attempting to do the same thing.

And we don't actually know if the gun entered the picture before or after the scuffle started.

That is the allegation.

You can find some statements from the store personnel from the police report (though hard to read, as names have been redacted). But consider this: if the store employees did not in fact consider it a crime, why would it end up as being reported by the police? Are you suggesting that the police are just making up crimes that nobody reports, or are reporting robberies even if the store that is supposedly robbed says it isn't because someone called 9/11?

What I'd be more interested in is why the case is "Exceptionally solved" and the accomplice isn't being charged.

The accomplice is not seen in the video taking anything, or in any way assisting with the robbery. In fact he returns the box that Brown handed over to him. As far as I can tell he cooperated with the police and it doesn't really strike me as odd that the case was dropped after the shooting, unless of course you think it is odd that a black man is not charged with a crime he didn't commit.

So the other guy wasn't a partner in crime, as was alluded to by others here?

I can't speak on behalf of anyone else. Some may have alluded that he was an unreliable witness in the shooting case because he was Michael Brown's buddy, but there is no evidence that he was an accessory to the robbery in any capacity except not stopping it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Ok, my bad. But Quik Trip was the store that was looted and I can imagine that the Ferguson Market is not too keen to make themselves a target for similar events.

You can find some statements from the store personnel from the police report (though hard to read, as names have been redacted). But consider this: if the store employees did not in fact consider it a crime, why would it end up as being reported as such by the police who interviewed said employees? Are you suggesting that the police are just making up crimes that nobody reports, or are reporting robberies even if the store that is supposedly robbed says it isn't because someone called 9/11?

Those are statements written by the police. I want to hear what the individuals involved say, not what the police say they said.

I'm suggesting that the police may have been creative trying to spin a scenario wherein Wilson knew MB was a robbery suspect. And yes, I think they would fabricate crimes to clean up Wilson's mess, although in this case I wouldn't suspect it's the crime that was fabricated, we know cigars were stolen, Dorian Johnson has admitted it, but the response, namely the times. Police chief Jackson suggested that Wilson saw cigars in MB's hands, and that that was the motivation for the stop. Later, he said Wilson was unaware of the robbery. It appears that that part of the gambit, if such, has failed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But since we know that black people are magic and can commit suicide with their hands handcuffed behind their backs by shooting themselves in the face with a gun they did not have and leaving no powder burns, then it is entirely possible that the officer was legitimately afraid for his life no matter how far away Brown was when Wilson shot him.

In cases like this you can basically assume there will be some witnesses who say he wasn't a threat no matter what he was actually doing.

 

[arkirk]

But since we know that black people are magic and can commit suicide with their hands handcuffed behind their backs by shooting themselves in the face with a gun they did not have and leaving no powder burns, then it is entirely possible that the officer was legitimately afraid for his life no matter how far away Brown was when Wilson shot him.

In cases like this you can basically assume there will be some witnesses who say he wasn't a threat no matter what he was actually doing.

Yup! Your answer for Ferguson is just like your answer for Gaza. Big brother has a right to defend himself. At least you are consistent when it comes to people not of your race. You failed to answer the contradictions Toni noted in your quote. Try again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The police report says otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236914260/Michael-Brown-Police-Report

Page 3. Note that "willing to prosecute" checkbox is ticked.

Maybe it is my browser or something, but when I view the linked document, I see no marks in the relevant checkbox.

It's hard to tell exactly what's going on but there's a very clear checkmark in "willing to prosecute" near the bottom of page 2. The box higher up the page has no mark.