Michael Brown 2: Electric Boogaloo

[Derec]

So there is this wannabe documentary filmmaker named Jason Pollock. No idea if he is related to Jackson Pollock, but I know he is a protege of Michael Moore.
Anyway, Jason made a movie about Michael Brown/Ferguson called "Stranger Fruit" (so you know it's not going to be unbiased lol) that makes some rather bizarre claims based on a video from the night before the "Gentle Giant" got killed:
- Michael Brown is a friendly neighborhood drug dealer who on that night sold the Ferguson Market clerk some marijuana in a baggie
- For some reason Brown decided to take his payment in Swisher Sweets rather than money
- For some reason he decided not to take the "payment" with him at the time
- He apparently came back to collect the "payment" but the clerk did not give it to him (probably not the same clerk who worked graveyard shift so I do not see why he would be expected to know of, much less honor, the supposed illicit deal Brown made the previous night) so he grabbed some and pushed the owner away

Of course, even if we take Pollock's tortured interpretation at face value, it becomes a drug deal with a dispute rather than a regular robbery. I do not see how that's any better. And the reason Wilson shot Brown is still that he attacked him and tried to take his gun away. This would not change anything about the shooting or the alt-facts of "hands up don't shoot".

But it looks like what Pollock is peddling is straight-up bullshit, with the video deceptively edited to make Pollock's point.
Ferguson film fallout: Video footage released, officer injured, charges for trying to set police car on fire

McCulloch said the footage had been altered, and the complete version shows Brown "attempting to barter," with store employees, who refused the package put on the counter. Brown returned the merchandise to the counter and took back the small package before leaving the store. The footage then shows the employees putting the Cigarillos back on the shelves after Brown leaves, McCulloch said.[..]
"This is a clear attempt to distort this and turn it into something it isn't...There was no transaction, but there certainly was an attempt to barter for these goods, but the store employees had no involvement in that, and when he left, they put everything where it belonged...It's very clear there was no transaction between Mr. Brown and the store employees and to suggest he's coming back to get what he bartered for is just stupid."

So the clerk did not want to give him Swisher Sweets in exchange for marijuana. He decided to put them back this time, but half a day later he return to steal them. Weird.
Of course, the wild claims were meant and succeeded to drive anger among the #BLM types.

About 100 people converged outside the market Sunday night. A Bellefontaine Neighbors man was charged Monday with trying to light a St. Louis County police car on fire during a protest outside the Ferguson Market.
Charges also were expected against a woman who allegedly punched a Ferguson police officer in the face, breaking his nose.
Several gunshots were fired nearby shortly before midnight.
In the first case, police say Henry L. Stokes, 45, of the 1500 block of Haviland Drive, was charged with felony counts of attempting to cause catastrophe and resisting arrest. Bail was set at $25,000.
During the protest, police say Stokes stuffed a napkin in the gas tank opening of a St. Louis County police car and tried to ignite it with a cigarette lighter.
Officers tried to stop him, chased him and arrested him.
Also Sunday, a woman punched a Ferguson police officer in the face and broke his nose during the protest.
Chief Delrish Moss said the officer was trying to arrest a man on the parking lot around 10 p.m.
Moss said he was unsure what led the officer to try to arrest the man during the protest, but that both the man and his girlfriend are in custody and police plan to apply for warrants against them Monday
The man was arrested on suspicion of trespassing, resisting arrest and possession of a controlled substance. The woman was arrested on suspicion of trespassing, resisting arrest and assault on a law enforcement officer, police said.

Nice!

So this video is much ado about nothing and the only thing it has led to and will ever lead to is to stir some more shit up in Ferguson. I suspect that's exactly what Pollock intended.

P.S.: Why has this stupid "pants down" trend not died down yet?

 

[untermensche]

Certain kind of people like to wallow in these tragedies.

None in themselves are proof of anything.

Except maybe cops and people should not have guns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't even see the point. If correct all it's saying is that Brown is a drug dealer rather than a robber. I don't see that it makes any difference in what came later.

 

[repoman]

Golly, the film maker is very amped up:



Is he Jewish?

 

[bleubird]

Only in backward states is selling pot a serious crime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Derec making with the female callers is completely moral, but selling weed means they are morally repugnant.

 

[bleubird]

I don't even see the point. If correct all it's saying is that Brown is a drug dealer rather than a robber. I don't see that it makes any difference in what came later.

Ohh a scary drug dealer.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Just more victim shaming. Doesn't change a thing about the case.

 

[Derec]

So Derec making with the female callers is completely moral,

Huh? "Making with callers"? Is that some slang I do not understand?

but selling weed means they are morally repugnant.

No, deceptively editing the video to try to sell the harebrained scenario that Brown did not rob the store is morally repugnant.

It looks like Brown offered the clerk some suspected weed, but the clerk rejected it. Pollock edited the video to make it seem he accepted the baggie to make his convoluted point that Brown left the "payment" (in form of Swisher Sweets) as some sort of layaway and tried to pick it up the next day.

But not only does this scenario hinge on deceptive editing of the video, it does not matter anyway. First of all, the store would have different employees the next day who would not necessarily be privy to any deals he made the previous night. Second, as the CNN crime analyst said, even if he had a deal, using force to take the stuff would still be robbery, as OJ Simpson found out the hard way. And he definitely used force against the owner, as can be seen on the store video.

And thirdly, none of that matters at all regarding what unfolded on Canfield Dr. a few minutes later. Whether or not he made a drug deal the previous night, Brown still attacked the cop and went for his gun (which earned him getting shot in the thumb), then fled but turned around and came back at Wilson (which earned him subsequent bullets, including the headshot Pollock got so unhinged over).

P.S.: Why do people use Swisher Sweets to roll blunts anyway? Would not rolling papers be much cheaper?

 

[Derec]

Golly, the film maker is very amped up:

Dude need to grab a Snickers and chillax. Or maybe "making with female callers" would calm him down a bit.

Is he Jewish?

Does it matter?

- - - Updated - - -

Just more victim shaming.

If you refer to Michael Brown as the "victim" here, Jason Pollock is trying to exonerate him, not shame him.
That he is failing spectacularly is another matter, and perhaps the reason he is so angry.

Doesn't change a thing about the case.

Exactly.

 

[laughing dog]

The video and its alleged story, if true, do make the what happened more tragic. If true, there was no robbery and there would be no reason to be stopped, so it would give a possible explanation for Brown's reaction to being stopped.

It is doubtful we will ever know if allegation is true. Certainly the employee has no reason to corroborate if it is true and very reason to deny it.

But the reaction in the area to this story shows that the wounds and scars from the racists tactics of the Ferguson Police force have not healed.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I don't even see the point. If correct all it's saying is that Brown is a drug dealer rather than a robber. I don't see that it makes any difference in what came later.

Did being a strong-armed robber make any difference? If not, this is a good point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't even see the point. If correct all it's saying is that Brown is a drug dealer rather than a robber. I don't see that it makes any difference in what came later.

Did being a strong-armed robber make any difference? If not, this is a good point.

As I see it the earlier actions are relevant to his state of mind: He was more worried about police contact because he had just committed a crime. Whether it's robbery or dealing I don't think matters.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Did being a strong-armed robber make any difference? If not, this is a good point.

As I see it the earlier actions are relevant to his state of mind

Ah.

So then your point is, in the end, asinine, because it makes a pretty big difference.

His state of mind, in other words, is that he had just sold a dime bag to his regular customer; he had some money in his pocket and was having a pretty good day. Along comes some an hero white cop barking orders to him, and he tells said cop what to go do with himself. So he is more surprised than he probably would have been when the cop pulls his car up alongside him, almost running him off the road, reaches out of his window and grabs him.

Basically, he's in a state of mind where he's not expecting to have to fight anyone.

He was more worried about police contact because he had just committed a crime.

Spoken like someone who has never been worried about police contact.

To put this absolutely clearly: people who are WORRIED about the police tend to behave deferentially when encountering them. If Michael Brown was WORRIED about police contact, he would have simply moved off the street when asked to because he didn't want any trouble. On the contrary: having already sold his last bag and being totally clean, he didn't give a flying fuck about the police because the only thing he had on him at the moment was a little bit of extra money. He was, at that moment, a little over-confident and a little full of himself.

"Dindus" being full of themselves is something that really pisses certain people off.

 

[bleubird]

legalize pot.problem solved.

 

[Derec]

His state of mind, in other words, is that he had just sold a dime bag to his regular customer;

That is the claim made by Pollock, not a fact.

he had some money in his pocket and was having a pretty good day.

Not even Pollock is claiming that. He claims he exchanged it for some layaway Swisher Sweets. It seems, however, that he only attempted the transaction, but did not successfully sell the baggie and contents thereof.

In neither case would he have money in his pocket, and even if he did, it would not be "pretty good day" kind of money.

The next day, there is an altercation at the store. According to Pollock, he tried to recover his Swisher Sweets but had to take them by force (which is still robbery, see Simpson, Orenthal James). Otherwise, he simply robbed the store, possibly because he was still angry they did not but his merchandise the previous night.

Along comes some an hero white cop barking orders to him, and he tells said cop what to go do with himself.

Note that under any scenario Brown was walking in the middle of the street, which is not only illegal (police officer enforcing the law, imagine that!) but dangerous for the pedestrians and annoying to the drivers.

So he is more surprised than he probably would have been when the cop pulls his car up alongside him, almost running him off the road, reaches out of his window and grabs him.

Why do you assume Wilson reached out the window and grabbed him? The fact that there was blood inside the car iundicated that it was Brown who reached through the window instead.

Basically, he's in a state of mind where he's not expecting to have to fight anyone.

Why? Because he just displayed his dominance by manhandling a short, old Indian guy?

To put this absolutely clearly: people who are WORRIED about the police tend to behave deferentially when encountering them. If Michael Brown was WORRIED about police contact, he would have simply moved off the street when asked to because he didn't want any trouble.

Yeah, if he was smart. Since he barely graduated high school he probably wasn't. Also he had THC in his system, which means he could have been high at the time as well, which interferes with reasoning skills.

On the contrary: having already sold his last bag and being totally clean, he didn't give a flying fuck about the police because the only thing he had on him at the moment was a little bit of extra money.

What money? All he had on him were the cigarillos he robbed from the store.

He was, at that moment, a little over-confident and a little full of himself.

That he probably was.

"Dindus" being full of themselves is something that really pisses certain people off.

Especially when they go for a police officers gun and then, after retreating, start coming back.

 

[Derec]

legalize pot.problem solved.

But then pot would go all legit man. Not gangsta at all.

 

[KeepTalking]

P.S.: Why do people use Swisher Sweets to roll blunts anyway? Would not rolling papers be much cheaper?

It is hard to find rolling papers that big, even king size papers are smaller than a cigar. Also, there is the disguise factor: a blunt looks like a cigar to a casual viewer, whereas a joint looks like a joint, because hardly anyone rolls their own cigarettes these days.

When I was younger, and only had a few years experience with weed, my much older BIL told me not to use rolling papers, because they were made from rice, and could be toxic due to the way the rice was processed into papers. Of course tobacco has it's own issues, but some potheads see it as more natural than rolling papers, and they reason that the more natural something is, the less harmful it is to people. My BIL did not encourage rolling blunts, in fact I don't think blunts were much of a thing back then. His point was to use a pipe, or a bong, and he taught me to use a one-hitter to be less conspicuous when smoking. The cops will refer to a one-hitter as a "crack pipe" though, so that they can look down on you more for being a crackhead instead of a pothead.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ It seems to me that it would be slightly harder to demonize Michael Brown for being the local pot guy than it for being a strong-arm robber.

 

[another1]

Is that what Michael Brown looks like? All this time I pictured a little kid smiling with shiny braces, holding a basketball and talking about Pokémon when he was brutally executed by those horrible police. But you're telling me THAT guy... the one in the four way security cam pic... that is Michael Brown? I should probably try a little harder to stay "up" on things. The guy in the picture looks um. Isn't he beating on an old person? And stealing????

And people are mad because? Actually just confirm that he is Michael Brown and go back to cold-shouldering, because I care very what that rich, white people think matters. That is Michael Brown?? Say it aint so