St. Louis "protesters" want to "take over" store their hero Michael Brown robbed

[Patooka]

Every time I try to load up the article to read, the text is just "------- ---- -----".

 

[Axulus]

There is no evidence other than a misleading edited video released by a "documentary" maker with an agenda, and plenty of counter evidence:



https://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsb...back-protests-follow-selectively-edited-video

That is indeed what the store's attorney claimed. Here's the documentary maker's response:

Pollock responded by calling St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch a “master of deception” and standing by the video shown in his documentary “Stranger Fruit.”

“He’s trying to make it seem like I did something that I didn’t,” Pollock said of McCulloch on Monday in a phone interview. “He’s a master at deception, I’ll give him that, and he tricked the world for a long time, but he can’t trick us now. Because anybody who sees that video knows exactly what they see.”

The documentary, which premiered Saturday, includes earlier and previously unseen surveillance footage showing Brown inside the store at 1:14 a.m. getting what appears to be two drinks from a cooler, then going to the counter and requesting cigarillos. The clerk puts the drinks and cigarillos in a bag.

Brown gives something to a clerk, who appears to sniff it. A second clerk also sniffs what appears to be a small bag. Brown starts to leave but then returns to the counter, talks to the clerks and leaves without the bag containing the drinks and cigarillos.

Pollock said he believes the footage shows Brown trading a small amount of marijuana in exchange for the cigarillos. Pollock reasons Brown returned 10 hours later to pick up the bag of cigarillos that he simply had set aside earlier not to steal cigarillos as police claimed.

The grainy unedited footage, which Ferguson Market attorney Jay Kanzler also released, shows a clerk pulling both boxes of cigarillos from the bag after Brown leaves and putting them back on a shelf. Another worker takes the drinks back toward the cooler.

Pollock said those actions are not relevant.

“I didn’t edit the exchange,” Pollock said. “I decided to end my scene after Michael left the store because after that it is irrelevant what happened to the (cigarillos) and it is irrelevant what they (the clerks) did with them. The exchange is over, they had the weed, and then he decided to leave the store. He did not rob the store.”

Pollock said the clerks lied because they didn’t want to admit to involvement in a drug deal. But McCulloch said there was no evidence the workers did anything wrong.

It isn't just the store attorney and the prosecutor who make the claim. The store clerks also say they rejected the offer and the store owner is standing by them. It makes no sense why Michael wouldn't just take the goods the first time instead of leaving them if an exchange had taken place. It makes way more sense on the grounds that the offer was rejected. Especially considering that there is evidence Michael took the marijuana back before he left (there is an object in his hand that can be seen in the footage as he leaves the store, consistent in appearance to the small bag of marijuana, as far as can be determined from the resolution available).

Furthermore, the store clerks have no authority to exchange the cigarillos for marijuana. If the clerk says "no" upon his return, it is still robbery to take the goods by force (the cigarillos are not the property of the clerks but rather of the store owner).

More still, the exchange is also an illegal transaction, so there is no legal obligation to hand over the merchandise. If a drug dealer roughs up someone and takes their property by force, even if they claim they are owed money from a drug deal, that is also still robbery. This would be true even if someone owes you something legally. You can't collect something you are owed by force unless you have a legal judgment against them, and even then you still can't collect personally by going up to them and robbing them of what you are owed. There are legal and illegal methods of enforcing a court order (which Michael obviously didn't have).

Bottom line, no matter how you want to spin it, taking the cigarillos by force is still committing the crime of robbery, and it is perfectly reasonable for the store clerks to report the robbery that took place.

Notice that reporting the robbery to the police is also consistent with behavior that the marijuana exchange was rejected. If the illegal exchange was accepted and the bag of marijuana taken, who in their right mind would get the police involved in a crime you yourself participated in, as well as likely get yourself fired from your job?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why did they sniff the pot?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The store clerks also say they rejected the offer and the store owner is standing by them.

Well, gee, you think? What a shock that the clerks would deny engaging in an illegal activity while working on the premises.

It makes no sense why Michael wouldn't just take the goods the first time

There are any number of reasons why he wouldn't, number one being that he was stoned at the time and just forgot, or he had other things to do and didn't want to carry around a box of cigarillos or the clerks--after smelling the merchandise--didn't think it was high enough quality and said as much, so Michael said he'd get better stuff and bring it by later, etc., etc., etc.

It makes way more sense on the grounds that the offer was rejected.

Again, such an offer could have been rejected, and yet still desired (i.e., not the right strain of pot; not the right amount; wanting something other than pot; etc). We don't know what they all talked about, but we do they were engaged in a transaction, because they sniffed whatever Michael presented to them. Iow, they sampled the goods.

If, as you are evidently arguing, they rejected the very idea of some stranger trying to trade drugs for goods, then when that someone comes into your store and says, "I'll trade you a bag of pot for that box of cigars," you don't then say, "Let me smell the pot." Smelling the pot indicates a negotiation is underway and the underlying transaction is common for all parties. That it may have been rejected doesn't mean it wasn't; it just means the current terms--whatever they may have been--weren't acceptable to the clerks and Michael would need to up the ante or the like.

Especially considering that there is evidence Michael took the marijuana back before he left (there is an object in his hand that can be seen in the footage as he leaves the store, consistent in appearance to the small bag of marijuana, as far as can be determined from the resolution available).

Yeah, again, even if that is the same thing one of the clerk's sniffed, the fact that he took it with him does not indicate the clerks rejected the very notion of a stranger daring to trade drugs for goods. The sniffing, in fact, tends to argue the opposite; that they knew Michael and that his offer was not uncommon and that the only issue was either the grade of pot wasn't good enough, try again later or it was good enough, but what Michael had was just a sample or otherwise not a large enough quantity, etc.

Furthermore, the store clerks have no authority to exchange the cigarillos for marijuana.

Yeah, well, that's pretty much a given.

If the clerk says "no" upon his return, it is still robbery to take the goods by force (the cigarillos are not the property of the clerks but rather of the store owner).

No shit. But if the clerk didn't say "no" or did not explain to his boss--or whoever called the cops--as to why Michael may have been taking the cigarillos (because it was part of an earlier negotiated drug deal) then calling the police on Michael with the accusation of robbery may not have put the local police on such high alert and/or may not have resulted in his death. Indeed, whoever labeled what Michael did as robbery is who ultimately got him killed, because if it were just part of an earlier negotiated drug deal--even if it went south and Michael took the cigarillos out anger at having been screwed or the like--it is likely no one from the store that knew any of that would have involved the police at all.

See the difference? One scenario is: out of nowhere a guy just burst into our store and tried to rob us! Call the police! Police are now responding to a robber and therefore on guard for their lives since robbers are typically armed, etc., etc., etc.

Another scenario, however, as potentially evidenced by this video is: someone evidently well enough known to the clerks had a deal with them for a cheap box of cigars in exchange for something (presumably pot), but for whatever reason the exchange didn't happen in that moment. When he came back later to the same store (possibly with a better deal or to try to convince them of the same deal or because that was the agreed upon arrangement earlier in the day), either the clerks weren't there, or they were there, but changed the deal again, etc., and so, angry at being cheated, Michael took what he thought was legitimately his and the clerks to get back at Michael, called the police and lied to them, saying that they had been robbed.

Or the boss called, who might have been there, but in the back or the like and, of course, didn't know about the deal, etc. I don't know who actually called the police.

Regardless, the point being that scenario one puts the police in a heightened state. Scenario two--in different circumstances--may never have escalated to the involvement of the police and the fact that the police were called would be, at best, based on mistaken information or reaction.

If a drug dealer roughs up someone and takes their property by force, even if they claim they are owed money from a drug deal, that is also still robbery.

True, but then the question arises as to why the report to the police was not "A drug dealer just tried to rob us" or the like? Wouldn't that information--the fact that the guy was a drug dealer--be just as pertinent to report? And equally suspicious that it was not so reported?

Bottom line, no matter how you want to spin it, taking the cigarillos by force is still committing the crime of robbery, and it is perfectly reasonable for the store clerks to report the robbery that took place.

Again, no, not so bottom line, spun or straightforward.

Notice that reporting the robbery to the police is also consistent with behavior that the marijuana exchange was rejected.

Again, no. Reporting to the police that a drug dealer--who earlier came in and tried to make a deal then when it was rejected came back later to rob the store--would be consistent with a rejected drug exchange.

Sniffing the pot (or whatever it was), however, is entirely consistent with someone familiar with the drug and willing to negotiate/transact/exchange.

If the illegal exchange was accepted and the bag of marijuana taken, who in their right mind would get the police involved in a crime you yourself participated in, as well as likely get yourself fired from your job?

Which, again, goes to the protesters "demands" and why the store caved in regard to them; because it was discovered later, perhaps, that Michael was not actually robbing the store and that the clerks--or the owner--are partially to blame for his subsequent death.

- - - Updated - - -

Why did they sniff the pot?

Exactly. They were in negotiation, not rejecting anything out of principle or the like.

 

[Derec]

It's amazing that the store "caved" to all of the demands when they allegedly had done nothing wrong.

The store getting looted in 2014 to honor Michael Brown probably has a lot to do with it.

Ferguson Market looted overnight

But why let that fact stop anyone from pointing to the uppity niggers "somebody" stirring up "racial hatred" for personal gain?

It is those who defend this extortionist behavior by the "protesters" who are stirring racial hatred.

 

[Derec]

Or maybe "lean into this" by talking with the protestors and seeing what would be agreeable to both sides. The convenience store owner could very easily help this community heal, and end up looking like a hero...

What for example? Honoring a violent criminal?

I've read articles in the days after the killing wherein the convenience store owner was as distressed as everyone else that Michael Brown had been killed over something so stupid, and that he regretted calling the police given the outcome. I doubt HE would have a problem saying a few kind words about the dead young man.

The "young man" robbed this store, remember? Do you think in general victims of violent crime should say "a few kind words" about their victimizers or is Michael Brown somehow special?

• Close the store for three days on the anniversary of his death.

Probably too much to ask of a small shop owner, but the owner could offer to do something else - maybe something community oriented - to remember Michael Brown

Why should the victim of a violent crime have to offer anything to "remember" the perp?

• Create a scholarship in his name.

Doesn't have to be a big one, and (from a purely capitalistic perspective) great PR for the shop owner.

Why should the victim of a violent crime start a scholarship to honor the man who robbed them?

• Find ways to interact and give back to the community.

This should be a given anyway - for the shop owners and the police officers.

Obviously you have to interact with the community. What does "give back" mean concretely?

By the way, do you think, just as an example, an Italian-American pizzeria owner should be forced to put photos of black people on his restaurant walls just because young Gus Fring some race warrior off the street demand he does? Do you think it's ok to burn that pizzeria down if he refuses?
And do you think the community in either neighborhood is helped by losing yet another business because of assholery of many residents?

• Stop selling Dormin, a sleeping capsule, and other items that can be misused to get high.

good idea

Why? Many things can be abused. That doesn't mean they should not be sold. FDA approves this drug as safe and effective. Use as directed.

• Retain a black-owned security company to protect the store.

Assuming the shop owner pays for a security company anyway, employing people from the community he is serving is not only an excellent way to engage with the community in a positive way, but would also help protect his store in the long run.

Demanding that the company hired be owned by members of a particular race is racist by definition. The "protesters" don't care if the company is local or not, just the skin color of the owners.

And note that after the owner agreed to most of the demands (foolishly) the protesters started demanding he sell the store.

To sum up: it is one thing to say that Michael Brown did not deserve to die. But it's quite another to say that he should be honored at all, much less by one of his victims. This glorification of thugs in the part of black community needs to stop!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This might be a racist thing for me to say, but at this point how do you ignore the truth? This kind of campaign is exactly what promotes "white flight". Rather than forgive and forget, the blacks now feel a need for a ceremony every year to celebrate how they rioted and pilfered a community over a petty thief.

Just who in their right mind would ever want anything to do with Ferguson at this point?!! If I were a white individual who lived in Ferguson, I would be selling (at any price) and moving out so fast it would make your head spin. Who the hell wants to live in the midst of all that crap! And I would be seriously thinking the same if I owned the store too. Probably everything that guy has worked for in his entire life now going down the tubes.

The whites will let the blacks have that community... they have conquered it now. And we can all watch and notice how all the real estate prices in that location plummet to a low point where homes will not be given away. Causing the black community to become even poorer than it is already is. I guess it is what the blacks want.

Agreed, it is only a matter of time before the blacks start killing the white farm owners by the dozens in Ferguson.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no evidence other than a misleading edited video released by a "documentary" maker with an agenda, and plenty of counter evidence:



https://m.riverfronttimes.com/newsb...back-protests-follow-selectively-edited-video

That is indeed what the store's attorney claimed. Here's the documentary maker's response:

Pollock responded by calling St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch a “master of deception” and standing by the video shown in his documentary “Stranger Fruit.”

“He’s trying to make it seem like I did something that I didn’t,” Pollock said of McCulloch on Monday in a phone interview. “He’s a master at deception, I’ll give him that, and he tricked the world for a long time, but he can’t trick us now. Because anybody who sees that video knows exactly what they see.”

The documentary, which premiered Saturday, includes earlier and previously unseen surveillance footage showing Brown inside the store at 1:14 a.m. getting what appears to be two drinks from a cooler, then going to the counter and requesting cigarillos. The clerk puts the drinks and cigarillos in a bag.

Brown gives something to a clerk, who appears to sniff it. A second clerk also sniffs what appears to be a small bag. Brown starts to leave but then returns to the counter, talks to the clerks and leaves without the bag containing the drinks and cigarillos.

Pollock said he believes the footage shows Brown trading a small amount of marijuana in exchange for the cigarillos. Pollock reasons Brown returned 10 hours later to pick up the bag of cigarillos that he simply had set aside earlier not to steal cigarillos as police claimed.

The grainy unedited footage, which Ferguson Market attorney Jay Kanzler also released, shows a clerk pulling both boxes of cigarillos from the bag after Brown leaves and putting them back on a shelf. Another worker takes the drinks back toward the cooler.

Pollock said those actions are not relevant.

“I didn’t edit the exchange,” Pollock said. “I decided to end my scene after Michael left the store because after that it is irrelevant what happened to the (cigarillos) and it is irrelevant what they (the clerks) did with them. The exchange is over, they had the weed, and then he decided to leave the store. He did not rob the store.”

Pollock said the clerks lied because they didn’t want to admit to involvement in a drug deal. But McCulloch said there was no evidence the workers did anything wrong.

The fact of the matter is, if someone gets shot over a call you made and it turns out there was a drug deal involved on your side, you deny it to your dying breath or else insurance will go up, which could kill your business anyway.

And again, all the way back to the beginning of this, is the facts that the shooting officer had on hand which again didn't justify the shooting, namely that the officer that shot didn't know he was shooting MB, didn't know that MB was the robber, and where he shot an unarmed person all over jaywalking.

First, the police officer had a duty to be neutral in his application of the laws (not bother people over petty shit like jaywalking; if I can literally jaywalk in front of officers without getting bothered, so should an anonymous black guy), get positive ID, and only shoot people who actually have guns.

Then later if the police do real investigative work, maybe then they get to go someone's address and make a real arrest, maybe without having to use a gun at all. And let's not forget that this whole situation arose because someone in this situation allegedly had some harmless flowers he was selling that he would probably want to sell in a store himself, but which was demonized purely to disenfranchise people who tended to vote Democrat.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's amazing that the store "caved" to all of the demands when they allegedly had done nothing wrong.

The store getting looted in 2014 to honor Michael Brown probably has a lot to do with it.

That was not only four years ago, it was directly in response to the grand jury announcement that the police officer would not be charged with killing an unarmed kid. AND it now makes even more sense in light of the revelation of the video surveillance. Iow, the community evidently knew what really went down that night and that the market owners/clerks were partially to blame for falsely accusing Michael of "robbing" them.

... do you seriously think that if the store owner had known about the earlier drug deal he would have called the police when Michael came back to get his cheap box of cigars? Or, if whoever called the police had simply said, "This guy we know from the neighborhood just took a cheap box of cigars he claimed was owed to him" instead of something like, "We've just been robbed!" that the responding officer still would have shot Michael?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The "young man" robbed this store, remember?

No, he didn't. Taking a cheap box of cigars--that he evidently believed were already his as part of a drug deal--does not constitute robbing the store in anything but the most pointlessly pedantic Fox News bullshit sense. ... If the store owner had known about the earlier drug deal he would likely not have called the police when Michael came back to get his cheap box of cigars, nor would he likely give much of a shit about a cheap box of cigars.

Or, if whoever called the police had simply said, "This guy we know from the neighborhood just took a cheap box of cigars he claimed was owed to him" instead of something like, "We've just been robbed!" then the responding officer likely would not have shot Michael or even responded to the call at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's amazing that the store "caved" to all of the demands when they allegedly had done nothing wrong. But why let that fact stop anyone from pointing to the uppity niggers "somebody" stirring up "racial hatred" for personal gain?

It's generally cheaper to pay off extortionists. Doesn't mean you're guilty.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why did they sniff the pot?

Exactly. They were in negotiation, not rejecting anything out of principle or the like.

I think people who have an opposing view to yours really need to honestly answer this question.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's amazing that the store "caved" to all of the demands when they allegedly had done nothing wrong. But why let that fact stop anyone from pointing to the uppity niggers "somebody" stirring up "racial hatred" for personal gain?

It's generally cheaper to pay off extortionists. Doesn't mean you're guilty.

Doesn't mean you're not, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Why did they sniff the pot?

Exactly. They were in negotiation, not rejecting anything out of principle or the like.

I think people who have an opposing view to yours really need to honestly answer this question.

I've been thinking that very thought for almost two decades of posting on boards like this, but rarely if ever does anyone actually honestly answer the questions .

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Jarhyn]

Doesn't mean you're not, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Why did they sniff the pot?

Exactly. They were in negotiation, not rejecting anything out of principle or the like.

I think people who have an opposing view to yours really need to honestly answer this question.

I've been thinking that very thought for almost two decades of posting on boards like this, but rarely if ever does anyone actually honestly answer the questions .

Well, sometimes I know I sniff the pot because I'm worried I got sold something wet, young, or moldy. I've been screwed a few times. Still, I know no better way to serve the community of low-income youths beyond buying their 20 dollar grams. Maybe in another 10 years, they might do what the prohibition mobsters managed and create a political group from those untaxed earnings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The "young man" robbed this store, remember?

No, he didn't. Taking a cheap box of cigars--that he evidently believed were already his as part of a drug deal--does not constitute robbing the store in anything but the most pointlessly pedantic Fox News bullshit sense. ... If the store owner had known about the earlier drug deal he would likely not have called the police when Michael came back to get his cheap box of cigars, nor would he likely give much of a shit about a cheap box of cigars.

Or, if whoever called the police had simply said, "This guy we know from the neighborhood just took a cheap box of cigars he claimed was owed to him" instead of something like, "We've just been robbed!" then the responding officer likely would not have shot Michael or even responded to the call at all.

He proposed a drug deal, it was rejected. He took the cigars anyway.

 

[Jarhyn]

The "young man" robbed this store, remember?

No, he didn't. Taking a cheap box of cigars--that he evidently believed were already his as part of a drug deal--does not constitute robbing the store in anything but the most pointlessly pedantic Fox News bullshit sense. ... If the store owner had known about the earlier drug deal he would likely not have called the police when Michael came back to get his cheap box of cigars, nor would he likely give much of a shit about a cheap box of cigars.

Or, if whoever called the police had simply said, "This guy we know from the neighborhood just took a cheap box of cigars he claimed was owed to him" instead of something like, "We've just been robbed!" then the responding officer likely would not have shot Michael or even responded to the call at all.

He proposed a drug deal, it was rejected. He took the cigars anyway.

Rejected? From the transcripts of the tape, it doesn't sound like he took the drugs back. Sounds more like the clerks kept said drugs.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The "young man" robbed this store, remember?

No, he didn't. Taking a cheap box of cigars--that he evidently believed were already his as part of a drug deal--does not constitute robbing the store in anything but the most pointlessly pedantic Fox News bullshit sense. ... If the store owner had known about the earlier drug deal he would likely not have called the police when Michael came back to get his cheap box of cigars, nor would he likely give much of a shit about a cheap box of cigars.

Or, if whoever called the police had simply said, "This guy we know from the neighborhood just took a cheap box of cigars he claimed was owed to him" instead of something like, "We've just been robbed!" then the responding officer likely would not have shot Michael or even responded to the call at all.

He proposed a drug deal, it was rejected. He took the cigars anyway.

1) you don’t know that, 2) even if true, that it still not “robbing the store.”

You are intelligent enough to comprehend the difference between calling the police and saying, “Help, our store has been robbed” and “Help, a guy we know took a box of cheap cigars he believed to be his.”

The first results in police officers being on high alert and killing an unarmed man. The second results in a footnote in the daily log.

 

[Axulus]

Why did they sniff the pot?

Exactly. They were in negotiation, not rejecting anything out of principle or the like.

I think people who have an opposing view to yours really need to honestly answer this question.

That indicates only that they were possibly interested by inspecting the merchandise. That in and of itself does not confirm acceptance of any sort of exchange at agreed upon terms. Especially so given that payment wasn't collected at the time of the alleged transaction (as would be expected when payment is immediately offered in a drug deal) and given we have some evidence that the item being bartered for, the bag of weed, was still in the possession of Michael as he left the store (video footage of item in hand). What evidence do you have that an agreement took place and the clerk took possession of the bag of weed?

All of this is of course irrelevant to whether the crime of robbery took place as it is still robbery to forcefully and with violence to collect on an alleged debt. Even more so given that the store owner wasn't in any way a part of any alleged transaction and is therefore in no way obligated to fulfill any alleged terms.

 

[Axulus]

He proposed a drug deal, it was rejected. He took the cigars anyway.

1) you don’t know that, 2) even if true, that it still not “robbing the store.”

You are intelligent enough to comprehend the difference between calling the police and saying, “Help, our store has been robbed” and “Help, a guy we know took a box of cheap cigars he believed to be his.”

The first results in police officers being on high alert and killing an unarmed man. The second results in a footnote in the daily log.

That is robbery. Why are you justifying violent collection of an alleged debt and not calling it robbery? The legal system certainly defines it as such and with good reason. You seriously have no problem with violent collection of an alleged debt (a debt by the way which is a story invented by Brown supporters based only on conflicting video footage with no further collaborating evidence) and blame the victim of said robbery for getting the police involved?