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

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

In a pointlessly pedantic, literal sense, which of course goes against the whole "intelligent" qualification above.

 

[Mumbles]

Um...how is this any different than any other local protest of any store? "Set up a scholarship, and stop selling addictive substanecs!"

Well..the second sounds fine, the first...probably unaffordable.

shrug. So what?

 

[barbos]

Um...how is this any different than any other local protest of any store? "Set up a scholarship, and stop selling addictive substanecs!"

Well..the second sounds fine, the first...probably unaffordable.

shrug. So what?

It's different in its rationale behind it, which is flat out ridiculous.

 

[Derec]

In a pointlessly pedantic, literal sense, which of course goes against the whole "intelligent" qualification above.

It's robbery in the legal sense. What sense should police use? Koysense?

- - - Updated - - -

Um...how is this any different than any other local protest of any store? "Set up a scholarship, and stop selling addictive substanecs!"

Well..the second sounds fine, the first...probably unaffordable.

shrug. So what?

I do not know how things are in your neighborhood, but around here stores usually do not get protested. And certainly not to demand a store set up a scholarship to honor somebody who robbed the store four years earlier.

- - - Updated - - -

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

You have to answer a survey.

 

[Derec]

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

The old "if you deny it you must be guilty fallacy" ...

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.

The third option is consistent with him taking the baggie with him, as can be seen in the video. Which would mean that he wasn't owed any payment which means that the robbery the next day is not connected with his attempted drug dealing the previous day.
Congratulations Jason Pollock, in your attempts to exonerate St. Michael you merely showed that he was a drug dealer in addition to being a robber.

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.

So what? What does some clerk the night before possibly wanting to buy some weed have to do with the robbery the next day. A rejected offer means no payment. Means it's a robbery, not taking that he thought was his.

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.

I do not see how all that is relevant.

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.

So how does that entitle him to take some cigarillos the next day.

And let me point out that even if he had sold the weed, and arranged to pick up the payment in merchandise, he made that deal with a clerk, not the store. So coming later, taking the merchandise and pushing the owner is still robbery. Just ask OJ. His defense was that he was recovering his own property, but he was still convicted of robbery.

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.

It was Michael's actions toward the cop that got him killed, from attacking him at the car window to walking toward him after initially walking or running away for a bit.
That said, do you really think police would have been on a lower alert over a robbery due to a drug deal vs. just regular 2^nd degree robbery?

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.

How was Michael being cheated? If his intended customers were not there, how is he cheated? If the clerk could not buy because the owner was there, how is Michael being cheated? He didn't sell anything, he is not out any product, so what is owed to him?

And again, how is robbery connected to a drug deal any better than regular robbery?

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.

I think it was a customer, but again, why do you think a robbery connected to drug dealing warrants any less of an alert?

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 he robbed the place because he was angry that his product was rejected and not purchased, how is that better? How does it not warrant calling the police?

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?

The customer who called it in would not have known about it. The owner probably did not know it. The day clerk might not even have known it.

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.

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.

Regardless of the deal he was still robbing the store.

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

 

[Derec]

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)

Do you have any evidence Darren Wilson applied jaywalking, or any other, laws in a biased fashion? Fact is, jaywalking is against the law. It is also very annoying when you drive down the street and some punks insist at treating the pavement!US as pavement!UK, especially when there is a perfectly good pavement!UK (aka sidewalk!US) available. He didn't even give them a ticket, he just told them to get out of the road and use the sidewalk. Which he should have done (as should any police officer seeing you jaywalk). Brown, probably still riding an adrenaline high (in addition to any THC high) from manhandling the owner, attacked Wilson in his SUV.

, get positive ID, \

He got positive ID for jaywalking since he witnessed it. He also witnessed Michael Brown attacking him through the window of his SUV, so there was positive ID for the felony assault as well. Whether or not Wilson recognized Brown from the robbery call is irrelevant once Brown attacked him.

and only shoot people who actually have guns.

Unarmed people or people armed with non-gun weapons can still be a threat. Somebody attacking an armed police officer can disarm him or her and use it against the officer. This has happened several times in recent years, sometimes fatally.
Police Officer Shot and Killed With Own Gun During Arrest Gone Wrong
Chesna should have shot the perp, don't you think? It would have saved his life!
Wisner Desmaret held without bond in killing of FMPD officer
Officer Jobbers-Miller shot to death with his own gun
Had Jobbers-Miller shot the perp instead, there'd be protests against police for killing an "unarmed black man" ...

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.

Are you saying police should not engage suspects at the time they commit crimes?

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,

No, the situation arose because
a) Brown stole some Swisher-Sweets and pushed the store owner
b) attacked the police officer who shot him

It's St. Michael's actions that led to his death, not any "harmless flowers".

but which was demonized purely to disenfranchise people who tended to vote Democrat.

Huh? Democrats have been, up until recently, as big on outlawing marijuana as Republicans.

 

[Derec]

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.

- 4 years is not that long, and besides it's likely the same protesters as from four years ago. Actually some protest leaders are definitely the same.
- The decision not to indict was the correct one based on evidence. Charging decisions should not be made based on threats by a violent mob.
- The store owner had nothing to do with the lack of charges against Wilson. If the rioters were not such cowards picking on those weaker than them, they'd have tried to attack the DA's office.
- "Unarmed" is irrelevant. Unarmed attackers can still be a threat, especially when they are big and strong, and can disarm you.
- He was an adult, not a "kid".

AND it now makes even more sense in light of the revelation of the video surveillance.

The Revelation of Jason is as bogus as the original by John of Patmos. Jason Pollock misleadingly edited the video to appear as if the transaction was accepted, for example.
But it simply makes no difference that Michael also tried to sell some weed the night before. He still robbed the store the next day. He still attacked Wilson. Nothing changes in light of these "revelations". All Pollock has is to shout at everybody.

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.

If somebody offers your employees drugs and later comes back and robs you, he still robbed you. All this changes is that the robber is also a drug dealer.

I know you're not well versed in using your brain,

A 1,000,000 times better than you.

but 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?

Since the offer was rejected, how is it his box of cigarillos? That's some bizarre Koyaconomics right there.

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?

Yes, he would. He didn't shoot Brown because he robbed the store - robbers get apprehended peacefully all the time - but because Brown attacked Wilson.

 

[Derec]

No, he didn't. Taking a cheap box of cigars--that he evidently believed were already his as part of a drug deal--

Tell that to OJ. He believed he owned the items he took too, and yet he went down for robbery among other charges.

does not constitute robbing the store in anything but the most pointlessly pedantic Fox News bullshit sense.

It has nothing to do with Fox News. It's the legal definition.

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 569.030. — Robbery in the second degree.
569.030. 1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.

2. Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79

(1986) Sufficient force to constitute robbery in the second degree was found in a purse-snatching. State v. Butler, 719 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App.).

...

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.

First of all, I think a customer called the police.
Second of all, the interaction between Brown and Wilson was initiated because Brown and his friend were walking in the street. And it escalated into violence because Brown attacked Wilson.
Had the robbery not been called in nothing would have changed really.
The real significance of the robbery is to destroy the narrative of Michael Brown as a "gentle giant" who on "the day he was killed he was out spreading the word of Jesus Christ" and therefore had no reason or inclination to attack Wilson. Pollock makes the case for debunking the "gentle giant" myth even stronger because now Michael is not only a robber but also a drug dealer.

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.

Wilson wasn't responding to the call per se. He just finished with another call and came upon Brown and his friend jaywalking. That's when Brown, no doubt high on adrenaline from the robbery and also on THC decided it would be a great idea to attack Wilson. That's what got him shot!

 

[ZiprHead]

Um...how is this any different than any other local protest of any store? "Set up a scholarship, and stop selling addictive substanecs!"

Well..the second sounds fine, the first...probably unaffordable.

shrug. So what?

To be pedantic, Dormin is just diphenhydramine. It's not addictive.

 

[barbos]

Um...how is this any different than any other local protest of any store? "Set up a scholarship, and stop selling addictive substanecs!"

Well..the second sounds fine, the first...probably unaffordable.

shrug. So what?

To be pedantic, Dormin is just diphenhydramine. It's not addictive.

So it's basically "aspirin".
As if this protest was not stupid enough already. What they should have demanded to ban is cigarillos, that would make at least some sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Tell that to OJ. He believed he owned the items he took too, and yet he went down for robbery among other charges.


It has nothing to do with Fox News. It's the legal definition.

2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 569.030. — Robbery in the second degree.
569.030. 1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.

2. Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79

(1986) Sufficient force to constitute robbery in the second degree was found in a purse-snatching. State v. Butler, 719 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App.).

...

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.

First of all, I think a customer called the police.
Second of all, the interaction between Brown and Wilson was initiated because Brown and his friend were walking in the street. And it escalated into violence because Brown attacked Wilson.
Had the robbery not been called in nothing would have changed really.
The real significance of the robbery is to destroy the narrative of Michael Brown as a "gentle giant" who on "the day he was killed he was out spreading the word of Jesus Christ" and therefore had no reason or inclination to attack Wilson. Pollock makes the case for debunking the "gentle giant" myth even stronger because now Michael is not only a robber but also a drug dealer.

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.

Wilson wasn't responding to the call per se. He just finished with another call and came upon Brown and his friend jaywalking. That's when Brown, no doubt high on adrenaline from the robbery and also on THC decided it would be a great idea to attack Wilson. That's what got him shot!

Dude, you need to chill out, maybe smoke a bowl or something, since it is legally available in a number of states now. You might realize that your thinking takes a page directly from "reefer madness". Weed doesn't make people violent, and trying to demonize him based on the claim that he was high just doesn't fit (which is exactly as substantiated as the observation that a cop giving shit about jaywalking is out of the ordinary, but apparently it is only unacceptable for others to make unsubstantiated assumptions; when you do it, it's perfectly fine, apparently).

Hell, maybe if you didn't hold people to double standards, you could possibly relate to another human enough to have a relationship that doesn't invoke slavery.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, after being spanked by the board because Derec apparently got butthurt, I did some digging and although I couldn't find any transcripts of the 911 call from the market to the police, I did find the next best thing (sort of): the (redacted) police reports.

It's difficult to tell the chronology of the reports and/or which officer is reporting, but it appears as if this is the chronology: Police dispatch reports a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson market. The officer is nearby and goes to the market, where he is then given a description of the suspects. Note that the box marked "suspect identified" is checked, but the box marked "drugs" is not.



So at that point, the only information being sent out by dispatch is as "stealing in progress" and a description and that's it. The responding officer evidently searches for the suspects, but can't see anyone. The next page has the officer return to the market:



He gets additional information and reports that back to dispatch. This is evidently where dispatch got the information--and later dispatched it--regarding the details of what was stolen ("cigars") and that someone was shoved ("strongarm").

So, we do in fact have a situation where the initial announcement from police dispatch was far more alarming--from a police perspective--than what actually happened, regardless of whether or not their was a drug deal involved that may have started it all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He gets additional information and reports that back to dispatch. This is evidently where dispatch got the information--and later dispatched it--regarding the details of what was stolen ("cigars") and that someone was shoved ("strongarm").

So, we do in fact have a situation where the initial announcement from police dispatch was far more alarming--from a police perspective--than what actually happened, regardless of whether or not their was a drug deal involved that may have started it all.

What the report says is irrelevant.

The incident started when the cop told him to quit jaywalking, not because the cop recognized the robber.

He reacted in street fashion--go after the guy who was trying to boss him around. Oops--beating a cop because he told you to obey the law generally has a pretty poor outcome.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He gets additional information and reports that back to dispatch. This is evidently where dispatch got the information--and later dispatched it--regarding the details of what was stolen ("cigars") and that someone was shoved ("strongarm").

So, we do in fact have a situation where the initial announcement from police dispatch was far more alarming--from a police perspective--than what actually happened, regardless of whether or not their was a drug deal involved that may have started it all.

What the report says is irrelevant.

Wrong. It is relevant to the question of why there are still protestors four years later and why they are demanding the store owner make changes (and why the store owner agreed to those terms). They evidently believe--and now we know why--that the store owner is partially to blame for getting Michael killed.

He reacted in street fashion--go after the guy who was trying to boss him around.

And if Michael actually were a "robber"--instead of just a kid who tried to exchange a small amount of pot for some cigars the night before and had some sort of personal beef with one or two of the store clerks that bled into the next day--who had just "robbed" a market nearby, do you think he would be reacting "in street fashion" (whatever the fuck that is) to a cop just minutes after he supposedly "robbed" the store, let alone be walking down the middle of the road like he was king shit, or something?

He didn't mastermind a Brink's robbery ffs; he took a handful of worthless cigars and pushed a guy he evidently knew from at least the night before, if not every other day of his life considering it's a local market. Hardly the sort of high stakes crime that would lead an eighteen year old kid to suddenly try to murder a cop with the cop's own gun, especially since the tox report showed only that he was stoned and not on any kind of amphetamine or the like that would better explain such disparate bravery/rage and/or looking "like a demon"--after supposedly being shot, no less, for the first time through the police cruiser's door, as Wilson testified. Pot typically doesn't enrage people, particularly after they've been shot by a police SIG Sauer P229R .40 caliber.

A shot, btw, that is not corroborated by the autopsy report.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong. It is relevant to the question of why there are still protestors four years later and why they are demanding the store owner make changes (and why the store owner agreed to those terms). They evidently believe--and now we know why--that the store owner is partially to blame for getting Michael killed.

He reacted in street fashion--go after the guy who was trying to boss him around.

And if Michael actually were a "robber"--instead of just a kid who tried to exchange a small amount of pot for some cigars the night before and had some sort of personal beef with one or two of the store clerks that bled into the next day--who had just "robbed" a market nearby, do you think he would be reacting "in street fashion" (whatever the fuck that is) to a cop just minutes after he supposedly "robbed" the store, let alone be walking down the middle of the road like he was king shit, or something?

He didn't mastermind a Brink's robbery ffs; he took a handful of worthless cigars and pushed a guy he evidently knew from at least the night before, if not every other day of his life considering it's a local market. Hardly the sort of high stakes crime that would lead an eighteen year old kid to suddenly try to murder a cop with the cop's own gun, especially since the tox report showed only that he was stoned and not on any kind of amphetamine or the like that would better explain such disparate bravery/rage and/or looking "like a demon"--after supposedly being shot, no less, for the first time through the police cruiser's door, as Wilson testified. Pot typically doesn't enrage people, particularly after they've been shot by a police SIG Sauer P229R .40 caliber.

A shot, btw, that is not corroborated by the autopsy report.

What you still don't get is that the robbery had no bearing on what happened.

The cop told him to quit jaywalking. He reacted by going after the cop and died for his stupidity.

Bringing up the prior situation is simply about finding a reason to blame someone else since obviously a black wouldn't have done this out of the blue.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What you still don't get is that the robbery had no bearing on what happened.

Wilson testified to the fact that he heard a call regarding a "stealing in progress" while he was on another call (about a sick infant) in the area. He testifies, in fact, that he didn't hear the entire call (because he was out of his cruiser and it came over his portable receiver, which "isn't exactly the best"). So all that he heard was a "stealing in progress," that one of the suspects was wearing a black t shirt and that, at least a box of cigars was stolen, but that was it.

He then testifies that it wasn't his call (that other officers were on it) and that he wasn't going to respond. Got it?

So, from his perspective, he's heard that a robbery is in progress and that there are two suspects and other officers are responding and basically nothing to do with him. He continues to go about his beat and drives here and there until turning onto Canfield drive, which is where he sees two kids walking in the middle of the street.

He tells them to get out of the middle of the street, they evidently don't listen and Brown basically tells him to fuck off and it is because of that response that Wilson says he took another look at them and suddenly realizes (because Brown had a handful of cigars, not a box and Johnson was wearing a black t-shirt) "Hey, these are the robbers from that call from ten minutes ago!" (my paraphrase).

So, now he's definitely in a heightened state of alert and considers them to be dangerous. We know this because his first action after the gestalt was to call for backup. "Send another car." He then puts his cruiser in reverse and uses it to block them, instead of just getting out of his cruise and drawing on them or the like, which is also indicative of someone thinking these two are dangerous. And why wouldn't he? All he had to go on was a dispatch (that he didn't fully hear) about two robbers.

We know that there was no mention of drugs being in any way related to the call from the police report (in spite of the fact that Wilson notes in his testimony the fact that Brown was wearing socks that had marijuana leaves on them) and the dispatch alert was "stealing in progress," and not something more benign, like "personal dispute" or "disturbing the peace" or even something like, "assault in progress, one guy shoved a market clerk."

At least not that Wilson evidently heard. From his perspective, these are robbers who apparently eluded capture from the responding officers. He's called for backup and is now using his car for protection. All of which, again, indicative of an officer--rightfully so from all of those givens--in a heightened state of precaution/reaction. A heightened state that was evidently caused by the 911 call from the market to begin with. A call that evidently did not include any of the possibly mitigating information that the surveillance video reveals (i.e., that it was a much more benign event and not a full blown robbery and all that that generally entails, like guns/weapons and a criminal intent, instead of a couple of kids pissed off about a routine exchange--albeit it pot for cigars--between the clerks and the kids).

What happens next, then, according to Wilson, is bizarre to say the least and only makes sense if in fact Brown and Johnson are far more dangerous/trigger happy or just plain insane than one would normally expect a couple of eighteen year old stoned kids to be even if they did just straight up steal some cheap cigars from a local market. How the fuck do you go from they owed me those cigars to I will steal your cop gun and shoot you with it for telling me to get out of the road! (again, while stoned) in like ten seconds?

If they actually did have guns and had actually robbed the store--stick em up, gimme your cash, anyone moves and you're dead kind of robbery--and they had a list of priors or the like, such that if they were arrested, three strikes they're in jail for life, then it makes sense that one might try to murder a cop with his own gun. Maybe.

If the pot they were smoking were laced with PCP, then maybe all of that makes sense (but it wasn't). Maybe.

But they owed me cigars to murder a cop with his own gun! Makes no sense at all.

The cop told him to quit jaywalking. He reacted by going after the cop and died for his stupidity.

Wrong on both counts.

Bringing up the prior situation is simply about finding a reason to blame someone else since obviously a black wouldn't have done this out of the blue.

"A black"? Wow. Well, there you go. Those uppity "blacks". Who knows what will just set them off and try to murder a cop with his own gun while stoned just because they stole some cigarillos.

That explains everything and why you're not at all curious as to how some kid who took a handful of cigars would just--out of the blue--think I'm not going down for cigars! KILL THE COP!

 

[Derec]

Dude, you need to chill out, maybe smoke a bowl or something,

If I were to partake it would be an edible, certainly not smoking.

since it is legally available in a number of states now.

Alas, not Georgia!

You might realize that your thinking takes a page directly from "reefer madness". Weed doesn't make people violent,

Are you sure about that? From what I have read, it is far from "demon weed" or anything, but it certainly can increase violent behavior in some people. That Michael Brown might have been one of those people is consistent with him being violent to both the store owner and the police officer while high (toxicology report yielded high levels of THC)

and trying to demonize him based on the claim that he was high just doesn't fit

I am not demonizing him based on him being high but on his behavior, which weed may have contributed to.

(which is exactly as substantiated as the observation that a cop giving shit about jaywalking is out of the ordinary, but apparently it is only unacceptable for others to make unsubstantiated assumptions; when you do it, it's perfectly fine, apparently).

Huh?

Hell, maybe if you didn't hold people to double standards, you could possibly relate to another human enough to have a relationship that doesn't invoke slavery.

I never have relationships that involve slavery.
Oh wait, you must be one of those Swerfs who believe that women can't choose to engage in sex work of their own free will.

 

[Derec]

Well, after being spanked by the board because Derec apparently got butthurt,

Nobody got butt-hurt; you must have violated TOU.

I did some digging and although I couldn't find any transcripts of the 911 call from the market to the police, I did find the next best thing (sort of): the (redacted) police reports.

Good find!

It's difficult to tell the chronology of the reports and/or which officer is reporting, but it appears as if this is the chronology: Police dispatch reports a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson market. The officer is nearby and goes to the market, where he is then given a description of the suspects. Note that the box marked "suspect identified" is checked, but the box marked "drugs" is not.

Well given that the whole "drugs" thing is a speculation by a disciple of Michael Moore made years later based on some grainy video from the night before the robbery and the shooting, why would you expect the box to be checked?

Note also that on both sheets it says "robbery(F) 2nd stongarm", i.e. a strongarm robbery, which is a 2nd degree robbery and a felony. So much for your denials that it was a robbery.

He gets additional information and reports that back to dispatch. This is evidently where dispatch got the information--and later dispatched it--regarding the details of what was stolen ("cigars") and that someone was shoved ("strongarm").

So, we do in fact have a situation where the initial announcement from police dispatch was far more alarming--from a police perspective--than what actually happened, regardless of whether or not their was a drug deal involved that may have started it all.

How was the initial dispatch more alarming than what actually happened? 'Stealing in progress' is actually less alarming than the 'strongarm robbery' to which the incident was upgraded one it became clear that St. Michael stole the cigarillos with force, i.e. had committed a robbery.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He tells them to get out of the middle of the street, they evidently don't listen and Brown basically tells him to fuck off and it is because of that response that Wilson says he took another look at them and suddenly realizes (because Brown had a handful of cigars, not a box and Johnson was wearing a black t-shirt) "Hey, these are the robbers from that call from ten minutes ago!" (my paraphrase).

Doesn't mean they were going to ignore being told to fuck off. We already have the incident started before the cops realized they were the robbery suspects.

So, now he's definitely in a heightened state of alert and considers them to be dangerous. We know this because his first action after the gestalt was to call for backup. "Send another car." He then puts his cruiser in reverse and uses it to block them, instead of just getting out of his cruise and drawing on them or the like, which is also indicative of someone thinking these two are dangerous. And why wouldn't he? All he had to go on was a dispatch (that he didn't fully hear) about two robbers.

So what if they're at a heightened state of alert?

What happens next, then, according to Wilson, is bizarre to say the least and only makes sense if in fact Brown and Johnson are far more dangerous/trigger happy or just plain insane than one would normally expect a couple of eighteen year old stoned kids to be even if they did just straight up steal some cheap cigars from a local market. How the fuck do you go from they owed me those cigars to I will steal your cop gun and shoot you with it for telling me to get out of the road! (again, while stoned) in like ten seconds?

It's not bizarre. What you're failing to recognize is that Brown was working by street rules: don't back down when you're dissed.

Now, I doubt that Brown was intending to kill the cop. Rather, it was just street rules at work--make the cop back down.

Bringing up the prior situation is simply about finding a reason to blame someone else since obviously a black wouldn't have done this out of the blue.

"A black"? Wow. Well, there you go. Those uppity "blacks". Who knows what will just set them off and try to murder a cop with his own gun while stoned just because they stole some cigarillos.

No--I said "a black" implying that the argument you're using is racist.

 

[Derec]

Wrong. It is relevant to the question of why there are still protestors four years later and why they are demanding the store owner make changes (and why the store owner agreed to those terms). They evidently believe--and now we know why--that the store owner is partially to blame for getting Michael killed.

It's the thug mentality. "Snitches get stitches". I guess when you are a victim of a robbery by a "gentle giant" you should not call police.

And if Michael actually were a "robber"--

He was a robber.

instead of just a kid

He was 18. Not a kid.

who tried to exchange a small amount of pot for some cigars the night before

Operative word being "tried". A failed drug transaction does not entitle him to help himself to some complementary Swisher Sweets the next day.

and had some sort of personal beef with one or two of the store clerks that bled into the next day

How does this make it any better? A robbery motivated by a personal beef is still a robbery.

--who had just "robbed" a market nearby, do you think he would be reacting "in street fashion" (whatever the fuck that is) to a cop just minutes after he supposedly "robbed" the store, let alone be walking down the middle of the road like he was king shit, or something?

According to the toxicology report he consumed marijuana a few hours before his death. Having one's executive functions compromised by being high, in addition to riding an adrenaline rush from the Swisher Sweets heist could well have caused him to act as "king shit" as you put it. Or it could just be that he acted that way because he just wasn't too bright. His mother admitted that he barely graduated high school.

He didn't mastermind a Brink's robbery ffs;

No, that would be Tupac's stepdad.

he took a handful of worthless cigars and pushed a guy he evidently knew from at least the night before, if not every other day of his life considering it's a local market.

Note that the robbery statute does not have a value minimum. Once violence is introduced there is no more "petty theft", which this would have been had he not shoved the owner. And why do you think violence against people is more justified if you have met them before? Your attempts to justify Brown's behavior are getting more and more bizarre. And there is zero evidence that the guy who was shoved (pretty certain it's the owner) was at the store during night shift the night before.

Hardly the sort of high stakes crime that would lead an eighteen year old kid to suddenly try to murder a cop with the cop's own gun, especially since the tox report showed only that he was stoned and not on any kind of amphetamine or the like that would better explain such disparate bravery/rage and/or looking "like a demon"--after supposedly being shot, no less, for the first time through the police cruiser's door, as Wilson testified.

While we can't be certain what went on in Brown's head during the confrontation with Wilson, we have a pretty good idea what happened.
After being told to use the sidewalk, Brown went to the SUV's window and attacked Wilson through it.
Wilson then shot him, grazing his right thumb.
Brown initially fled but then turned around and started walking back to Wilson. We know that because of blood spatter relative to where Brown fell.

Are you denying any of this?

Pot typically doesn't enrage people, particularly after they've been shot by a police SIG Sauer P229R .40 caliber.

Typically. But apparently it can lead to violence for some people.
Smoking cannabis increases violent behaviour in young people with mental health disorders, finds study
Michael Brown was probably one of those people.

A shot, btw, that is not corroborated by the autopsy report.

Why do you think it's not corroborated? IIID is the thumb wound he sustained when he went for Wilson's gun.