Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

Same here.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

You're trying too hard.

If he was a suspect why did the cop drive up and tell him to get off the street, instead of just questioning him or taking him in?

Are we sure that's true? If anything, this new information should make us question every bit of the narrative we've been fed the last few days.

If witness statements are correct it is still quite a stretch to make.....Kid stole cigars so shooting him in the back and then executing him is justified.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that.

But if the robbery happened (and it is a robbery by clear definition) then in the last 12 hours we have gone from this huge civil rights issue and this rogue cop just randomly harrassing black people to a legitimate reason for police contact, a possible reason for the officer being concerned about officer safety because I am sure it came across his little cop computer as robbery suspect at large----now here is where it gets hazy and excessive force is used and I think the officer is in trouble for his actions.

Again not jumping to conclusions here, but we have been force fed this narative that Brown was this good kid, who just wanted to better himself and was going to college to now we may have a guy robbing people and off to smoke drugs (I make that assumption because most people don't use Swishers for anything but that).

Did he deserve to die for that? No, but the script has changed and we can see why this investigation wasn't just as cut and dry as so many thought.

The media generally clings to the people who are making the most sensational noise.

 

[Card Trader]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

But isn't this the problem? Everybody is reacting to an event that we really don't know much about?

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting. Others are reacting to the police response to protests (and yes some looting) about the police shooting and (the lack of transparency concerning it).

When an unarmed teenager is shot dead by the cops, it doesn't cut it to say "hey everybody, wait for the full story." Because the people in that community are going to (understandably, IMO) perceive that you're more worried about covering the department's ### than responding to the incident.

Why? Do the cops have a history of shooting unarmed teens in that area, unprovoked? Why would it be understandable to you?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

You're trying too hard.

If he was a suspect why did the cop drive up and tell him to get off the street, instead of just questioning him or taking him in?

Are we sure that's true? If anything, this new information should make us question every bit of the narrative we've been fed the last few days.

If witness statements are correct it is still quite a stretch to make.....Kid stole cigars so shooting him in the back and then executing him is justified.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that.

But if the robbery happened (and it is a robbery by clear definition) then in the last 12 hours we have gone from this huge civil rights issue and this rogue cop just randomly harrassing black people to a legitimate reason for police contact, a possible reason for the officer being concerned about officer safety because I am sure it came across his little cop computer as robbery suspect at large----now here is where it gets hazy and excessive force is used and I think the officer is in trouble for his actions.

Again not jumping to conclusions here, but we have been force fed this narative that Brown was this good kid, who just wanted to better himself and was going to college to now we may have a guy robbing people and off to smoke drugs (I make that assumption because most people don't use Swishers for anything but that).

Did he deserve to die for that? No, but the script has changed and we can see why this investigation wasn't just as cut and dry as so many thought.

The media generally clings to the people who are making the most sensational noise.

The same reason why people reply to your posts.

 

[fatness]

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting.

The officer currently in charge isn't happy about the way Ferguson PD delivers, and doesn't deliver, information.

Missouri Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, whom Gov. Jay Nixon has assigned to take over security in Ferguson, expressed concern that even as police released the robbery information and photographs of the incident, they refused to take reporters’ questions.

“These are two separate issues,” Johnson, speaking to reporters on the street after Jackson’s announcement, said of the reported robbery of Brown’s death. “I’m not going to say one justifies the other. I think if we’re going to give answers, we need not give hints. We need to say it.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fergsuon-shooting-police-name-20140815-story.html

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

You're trying too hard.

If he was a suspect why did the cop drive up and tell him to get off the street, instead of just questioning him or taking him in?

Are we sure that's true? If anything, this new information should make us question every bit of the narrative we've been fed the last few days.

If witness statements are correct it is still quite a stretch to make.....Kid stole cigars so shooting him in the back and then executing him is justified.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that.

But if the robbery happened (and it is a robbery by clear definition) then in the last 12 hours we have gone from this huge civil rights issue and this rogue cop just randomly harrassing black people to a legitimate reason for police contact, a possible reason for the officer being concerned about officer safety because I am sure it came across his little cop computer as robbery suspect at large----now here is where it gets hazy and excessive force is used and I think the officer is in trouble for his actions.

Again not jumping to conclusions here, but we have been force fed this narative that Brown was this good kid, who just wanted to better himself and was going to college to now we may have a guy robbing people and off to smoke drugs (I make that assumption because most people don't use Swishers for anything but that).

Did he deserve to die for that? No, but the script has changed and we can see why this investigation wasn't just as cut and dry as so many thought.

The media generally clings to the people who are making the most sensational noise.

The same reason why people reply to your posts.

Thank you for replying.

 

[Fennis]

Did the police explain why they didn't release the information about the robbery until now?

 

[Henry Ford]

good lord. Just stop posting.

This.

I will because....I have to go now and shake my head and laugh at you people.

Happier times.

 

[lod01]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

You're trying too hard.

If he was a suspect why did the cop drive up and tell him to get off the street, instead of just questioning him or taking him in?

Are we sure that's true? If anything, this new information should make us question every bit of the narrative we've been fed the last few days.

If witness statements are correct it is still quite a stretch to make.....Kid stole cigars so shooting him in the back and then executing him is justified.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that.

But if the robbery happened (and it is a robbery by clear definition) then in the last 12 hours we have gone from this huge civil rights issue and this rogue cop just randomly harrassing black people to a legitimate reason for police contact, a possible reason for the officer being concerned about officer safety because I am sure it came across his little cop computer as robbery suspect at large----now here is where it gets hazy and excessive force is used and I think the officer is in trouble for his actions.

Again not jumping to conclusions here, but we have been force fed this narative that Brown was this good kid, who just wanted to better himself and was going to college to now we may have a guy robbing people and off to smoke drugs (I make that assumption because most people don't use Swishers for anything but that).

Did he deserve to die for that? No, but the script has changed and we can see why this investigation wasn't just as cut and dry as so many thought.

The media generally clings to the people who are making the most sensational noise.

The same reason why people reply to your posts.

If I was going into battle, I would want Ditka Butkus representing me. The guy is full of it (knowledge).

 

[Todd Andrews]

Did the police explain why they didn't release the information about the robbery until now?

No, they didnt take any questions.

It is the police now saying that Wilson was responding to the call on the cigarillo "robbery". We dont know what really happened. We know he didnt call in to dispatch that he had sighted two suspects because we have the dispatch recordings.

I am not giving the police much benefit of the doubt at this point, given how they have handled this incident to date.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

good lord. Just stop posting.

This.

I will because....I have to go now and shake my head and laugh at you people.

Happier times.

What is it with you people, somebody who is not in your little clique has an opposing view and you all can't deal with it.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

But isn't this the problem? Everybody is reacting to an event that we really don't know much about?

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting. Others are reacting to the police response to protests (and yes some looting) about the police shooting and (the lack of transparency concerning it).

When an unarmed teenager is shot dead by the cops, it doesn't cut it to say "hey everybody, wait for the full story." Because the people in that community are going to (understandably, IMO) perceive that you're more worried about covering the department's ### than responding to the incident.

Why? Do the cops have a history of shooting unarmed teens in that area, unprovoked? Why would it be understandable to you?

I think anytime an unarmed suspect is gunned down, it is natural to have questions. "Hey, my unarmed neighbor is dead." I don't think he needs to be the 10th unarmed person shot. And if the community already has trust issues with the police, I suppose I'd defer to that community.

Not to go all Joe Bryant, but my black friends who are liberal and my black friends who are conservative have all reacted to this the same way. Because every one of them can tell me a story where he has felt singled out by the police for no reason. I don't have that story.

 

[fatness]

I read that police reported that a dozen or fewer people actually looted. What I read wasn't souced. Can anyone provide any source information about that?

I read that the police broke out the heavy equipment at 4:25 (or earlier) the afternoon of the shooting, which I think is before any looting was reported. Does anyone have any information on whether the looting started before or after that.

Thanks.

 

[lod01]

I read that police reported that a dozen or fewer people actually looted. What I read wasn't souced. Can anyone provide any source information about that?

I read that the police broke out the heavy equipment at 4:25 (or earlier) the afternoon of the shooting, which I think is before any looting was reported. Does anyone have any information on whether the looting started before or after that.

Thanks.

All I got is the pic of the dude riding a bike out of a store with a shotgun on his shoulder. Hope that helps.

 

[Dondante]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

You're trying too hard.

If he was a suspect why did the cop drive up and tell him to get off the street, instead of just questioning him or taking him in?

Are we sure that's true? If anything, this new information should make us question every bit of the narrative we've been fed the last few days.

If witness statements are correct it is still quite a stretch to make.....Kid stole cigars so shooting him in the back and then executing him is justified.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that.

But if the robbery happened (and it is a robbery by clear definition) then in the last 12 hours we have gone from this huge civil rights issue and this rogue cop just randomly harrassing black people to a legitimate reason for police contact, a possible reason for the officer being concerned about officer safety because I am sure it came across his little cop computer as robbery suspect at large----now here is where it gets hazy and excessive force is used and I think the officer is in trouble for his actions.

Again not jumping to conclusions here, but we have been force fed this narative that Brown was this good kid, who just wanted to better himself and was going to college to now we may have a guy robbing people and off to smoke drugs (I make that assumption because most people don't use Swishers for anything but that).

Did he deserve to die for that? No, but the script has changed and we can see why this investigation wasn't just as cut and dry as so many thought.

The media generally clings to the people who are making the most sensational noise.

You mean like the idea that Brown was murdered. Yeah, the media is having a field day with that one. The white guilt and conclusion jumping in this thread is frightening. I'm not sure exactly what it is that some of you are trying to prove, but maybe you should just let this one play out.

 

[Card Trader]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

But isn't this the problem? Everybody is reacting to an event that we really don't know much about?

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting. Others are reacting to the police response to protests (and yes some looting) about the police shooting and (the lack of transparency concerning it).

When an unarmed teenager is shot dead by the cops, it doesn't cut it to say "hey everybody, wait for the full story." Because the people in that community are going to (understandably, IMO) perceive that you're more worried about covering the department's ### than responding to the incident.

Why? Do the cops have a history of shooting unarmed teens in that area, unprovoked? Why would it be understandable to you?

I think anytime an unarmed suspect is gunned down, it is natural to have questions. "Hey, my unarmed neighbor is dead." I don't think he needs to be the 10th unarmed person shot. And if the community already has trust issues with the police, I suppose I'd defer to that community.

Not to go all Joe Bryant, but my black friends who are liberal and my black friends who are conservative have all reacted to this the same way. Because every one of them can tell me a story where he has felt singled out by the police for no reason. I don't have that story.

Pretty wide chasm between singled out and shot. Shockingly turns out this "innocent" kid was a criminal, when it comes to a criminal vs. law enforcement I'll side with the police, until I have a reason not to. Feel free to side with the "victim".

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am not giving the police much benefit of the doubt at this point, given how they have handled this incident to date.

Are you giving Brown and his friend the benefit of the doubt?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Can we stop referring to this as a "robbery," as if he pistol-whipped the cashier and emptied out the register? The guy apparently stole some cigars. That's more akin to shoplifting. Yeah, I understand he shoved the cashier, but come on.

This new information does make me doubt that the officer really just harassed the Brown and his friend for walking down the street, but it doesn't even come remotely close to justifying the shooting.

Not sure about Missouri but..."Under California Penal Code section 211, a person is guilty of committing the crime of Robbery when they take the property of another by means of force or fear. In 1983, the California Court of Appeal found in the case of People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 909, that a shoplifter is guilty of the crime of robbery if they use force or fear to escape a store after the taking of the property. "

That's great, but that's also not how people use that term in everyday English.

It most certainly is.

Yeah, this is bit of an odd angle from Ivan. I don't understand where he was trying to go with this.

When people talk about "robbery," they're usually not thinking of somebody swiping a few bucks of low-end cigars and trying to run away with them. To use that term in this context, as if it in any way justifies or explains what followed, is at best hyperbole and at worst (and I'm virtually certain this is the police department's intent) deliberately misleading.

Whatever the legal definition of robbery might be, Brown was not a dangerous criminal who had just blown away a bunch of people while stealing a briefcase full of diamonds. There was absolutely no reason for a responding officer to fear for his safety. Let's not pretend otherwise by exaggerating things.

 

[BigJohn]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

But isn't this the problem? Everybody is reacting to an event that we really don't know much about?

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting. Others are reacting to the police response to protests (and yes some looting) about the police shooting and (the lack of transparency concerning it).

When an unarmed teenager is shot dead by the cops, it doesn't cut it to say "hey everybody, wait for the full story." Because the people in that community are going to (understandably, IMO) perceive that you're more worried about covering the department's ### than responding to the incident.

It should.

 

[Limp Ditka]

good lord. Just stop posting.

This.

I will because....I have to go now and shake my head and laugh at you people.

Happier times.

What is it with you people, somebody who is not in your little clique has an opposing view and you all can't deal with it.

Only happens when the opposing view is a moronic one.

 

[kentric]

I read that police reported that a dozen or fewer people actually looted. What I read wasn't souced. Can anyone provide any source information about that?

I read that the police broke out the heavy equipment at 4:25 (or earlier) the afternoon of the shooting, which I think is before any looting was reported. Does anyone have any information on whether the looting started before or after that.

Thanks.

Are you arguing that there was no reason for the police to bring out the heavy guns or, are you arguing that the heavy guns contributed to the looting?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I am not giving the police much benefit of the doubt at this point, given how they have handled this incident to date.

Are you giving Brown and his friend the benefit of the doubt?

I'm giving the multiple corroborating eyewitness accounts and lack of call for backup/EMS/etc.. the benefit of the doubt.

 

[kentric]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

But isn't this the problem? Everybody is reacting to an event that we really don't know much about?

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting. Others are reacting to the police response to protests (and yes some looting) about the police shooting and (the lack of transparency concerning it).

When an unarmed teenager is shot dead by the cops, it doesn't cut it to say "hey everybody, wait for the full story." Because the people in that community are going to (understandably, IMO) perceive that you're more worried about covering the department's ### than responding to the incident.

Why? Do the cops have a history of shooting unarmed teens in that area, unprovoked? Why would it be understandable to you?

I think anytime an unarmed suspect is gunned down, it is natural to have questions. "Hey, my unarmed neighbor is dead." I don't think he needs to be the 10th unarmed person shot. And if the community already has trust issues with the police, I suppose I'd defer to that community.

Not to go all Joe Bryant, but my black friends who are liberal and my black friends who are conservative have all reacted to this the same way. Because every one of them can tell me a story where he has felt singled out by the police for no reason. I don't have that story.

Pretty wide chasm between singled out and shot. Shockingly turns out this "innocent" kid was a criminal, when it comes to a criminal vs. law enforcement I'll side with the police, until I have a reason not to. Feel free to side with the "victim".

If its a he said/he said argument then I'm with you, but when its a he said/he said and she said and he said and she said argument, I'll side with the volume.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

You're trying too hard.

If he was a suspect why did the cop drive up and tell him to get off the street, instead of just questioning him or taking him in?

Are we sure that's true? If anything, this new information should make us question every bit of the narrative we've been fed the last few days.

If witness statements are correct it is still quite a stretch to make.....Kid stole cigars so shooting him in the back and then executing him is justified.

I don't think anyone on here is saying that.

But if the robbery happened (and it is a robbery by clear definition) then in the last 12 hours we have gone from this huge civil rights issue and this rogue cop just randomly harrassing black people to a legitimate reason for police contact, a possible reason for the officer being concerned about officer safety because I am sure it came across his little cop computer as robbery suspect at large----now here is where it gets hazy and excessive force is used and I think the officer is in trouble for his actions.

Again not jumping to conclusions here, but we have been force fed this narative that Brown was this good kid, who just wanted to better himself and was going to college to now we may have a guy robbing people and off to smoke drugs (I make that assumption because most people don't use Swishers for anything but that).

Did he deserve to die for that? No, but the script has changed and we can see why this investigation wasn't just as cut and dry as so many thought.

The media generally clings to the people who are making the most sensational noise.

You mean like the idea that Brown was murdered. Yeah, the media is having a field day with that one. The white guilt and conclusion jumping in this thread is frightening. I'm not sure exactly what it is that some of you are trying to prove, but maybe you should just let this one play out.

Boy some of you...No the idea that the media reports on a situation and actually helps inflame that situation without gathering all of the facts.....The person who posted above basically said the situation went from a rogue cop murdering a person for walking down the street to what possibly started out as a legit police action.

 

[fatness]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/15/340585038/theyre-talking-to-people-tensions-ease-in-ferguson-as-police-change-tactics

Ferguson, Mo., saw more protests last night — but instead of meeting demonstrators with tear gas and armored vehicles, police walked with them, and posed for photos. The shift came after days of clashes sparked by the police killing of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.

The Missouri Highway Patrol, which has taken over security in Ferguson, says that no arrests of demonstrators were made Thursday, confirming reports of a peaceful protest. Capt. Ron Johnson said people, and the police, need to continue that trend.

"In our anger, we have to make sure we don't burn down our own house," Johnson said. He also said he welcomed the use of cameras to record police work, saying that they "don't change our jobs."

But the key difference in Ferguson on Thursday was that police had changed their approach to trying to prevent a repeat of the violence and property damage that occurred Sunday. Police were heavily criticized for using tear gas, deploying heavy weapons and arresting journalists.

"They made it look like they were over in Iraq, ready to attack us," protester Marquess Mull tells NPR's Cheryl Corley. But Thursday was different, he said: "They're talking to people."

Good policing.

 

[Uwe Blab]

We've got some fascinating allies in this thread suddenly. Thank you, Ferguson police.

 

[fatness]

I read that police reported that a dozen or fewer people actually looted. What I read wasn't souced. Can anyone provide any source information about that?

I read that the police broke out the heavy equipment at 4:25 (or earlier) the afternoon of the shooting, which I think is before any looting was reported. Does anyone have any information on whether the looting started before or after that.

Thanks.

Are you arguing that there was no reason for the police to bring out the heavy guns or, are you arguing that the heavy guns contributed to the looting?

I'm asking for information.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

But isn't this the problem? Everybody is reacting to an event that we really don't know much about?

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting. Others are reacting to the police response to protests (and yes some looting) about the police shooting and (the lack of transparency concerning it).

When an unarmed teenager is shot dead by the cops, it doesn't cut it to say "hey everybody, wait for the full story." Because the people in that community are going to (understandably, IMO) perceive that you're more worried about covering the department's ### than responding to the incident.

Why? Do the cops have a history of shooting unarmed teens in that area, unprovoked? Why would it be understandable to you?

I think anytime an unarmed suspect is gunned down, it is natural to have questions. "Hey, my unarmed neighbor is dead." I don't think he needs to be the 10th unarmed person shot. And if the community already has trust issues with the police, I suppose I'd defer to that community.

Not to go all Joe Bryant, but my black friends who are liberal and my black friends who are conservative have all reacted to this the same way. Because every one of them can tell me a story where he has felt singled out by the police for no reason. I don't have that story.

Pretty wide chasm between singled out and shot. Shockingly turns out this "innocent" kid was a criminal, when it comes to a criminal vs. law enforcement I'll side with the police, until I have a reason not to. Feel free to side with the "victim".

If its a he said/he said argument then I'm with you, but when its a he said/he said and she said and he said and she said argument, I'll side with the volume.

It wasn't even that. It was a they said/nobody said situation. Maybe everything goes down the same way if the police immediately says, "the officer was responding to a robbery and apparently was trying to apprehend the suspect."

What the police said, until today, was:

...

 

[Fennis]

None of this changes my perception of this much at all. It doesn't change my belief that the veil of silence around the shooting fostered distrust of the police in the community. It doesn't change my belief that the police's response to crowd control was straight out of a banana republic. And it certainly hasn't changed my impression, based on the facts that have been shared, that there isn't (yet) any evidence to support the need to shoot the kid once he disengaged from the car.

But isn't this the problem? Everybody is reacting to an event that we really don't know much about?

People are reacting to a number of events. Yes, some people are reacting to a police shooting. Others are reacting to a lack of transparency about the police shooting. Others are reacting to the police response to protests (and yes some looting) about the police shooting and (the lack of transparency concerning it).

When an unarmed teenager is shot dead by the cops, it doesn't cut it to say "hey everybody, wait for the full story." Because the people in that community are going to (understandably, IMO) perceive that you're more worried about covering the department's ### than responding to the incident.

Why? Do the cops have a history of shooting unarmed teens in that area, unprovoked? Why would it be understandable to you?

I think anytime an unarmed suspect is gunned down, it is natural to have questions. "Hey, my unarmed neighbor is dead." I don't think he needs to be the 10th unarmed person shot. And if the community already has trust issues with the police, I suppose I'd defer to that community.

Not to go all Joe Bryant, but my black friends who are liberal and my black friends who are conservative have all reacted to this the same way. Because every one of them can tell me a story where he has felt singled out by the police for no reason. I don't have that story.

Pretty wide chasm between singled out and shot. Shockingly turns out this "innocent" kid was a criminal, when it comes to a criminal vs. law enforcement I'll side with the police, until I have a reason not to. Feel free to side with the "victim".

the reason not to starts with a dead unarmed person.

 

[lod01]

Can we stop referring to this as a "robbery," as if he pistol-whipped the cashier and emptied out the register? The guy apparently stole some cigars. That's more akin to shoplifting. Yeah, I understand he shoved the cashier, but come on.

This new information does make me doubt that the officer really just harassed the Brown and his friend for walking down the street, but it doesn't even come remotely close to justifying the shooting.

Not sure about Missouri but..."Under California Penal Code section 211, a person is guilty of committing the crime of Robbery when they take the property of another by means of force or fear. In 1983, the California Court of Appeal found in the case of People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 909, that a shoplifter is guilty of the crime of robbery if they use force or fear to escape a store after the taking of the property. "

That's great, but that's also not how people use that term in everyday English.

It most certainly is.

Yeah, this is bit of an odd angle from Ivan. I don't understand where he was trying to go with this.

When people talk about "robbery," they're usually not thinking of somebody swiping a few bucks of low-end cigars and trying to run away with them. To use that term in this context, as if it in any way justifies or explains what followed, is at best hyperbole and at worst (and I'm virtually certain this is the police department's intent) deliberately misleading.

Whatever the legal definition of robbery might be, 1. Brown was not a dangerous criminal who had just blown away a bunch of people while stealing a briefcase full of diamonds. 2. There was absolutely no reason for a responding officer to fear for his safety. Let's not pretend otherwise by exaggerating things.

1. You can only say that after the fact.

2. You don't know that as fact.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

good lord. Just stop posting.

This.

I will because....I have to go now and shake my head and laugh at you people.

Happier times.

What is it with you people, somebody who is not in your little clique has an opposing view and you all can't deal with it.

Only happens when the opposing view is a moronic one.

See what I mean....I thought you were better than this.....What a disappointment.

 

[jonessed]

Did the police explain why they didn't release the information about the robbery until now?

They didn't release much of anything up to now. I believe the investigation was considered ongoing.

 

[timschochet]

Bottom line for me, as of this morning, is this: of all of the eyewitnesses, Johnson's story, as given to the media, is the most inflammatory. So much of what many people believe about this entire incident is based on that testimony.

Now it appears that Johnson was part of a robbery with Brown. If that's true, it has to call his story into question. That doesn't mean the police are to be exonerated.

 

[fatness]

Are you arguing that there was no reason for the police to bring out the heavy guns or, are you arguing that the heavy guns contributed to the looting?

Are you disappointed that the heavy guns are gone, the police are treating protestors decently, and that as a result the violence has gone down?

 

[tom22406]

Bottom line for me, as of this morning, is this: of all of the eyewitnesses, Johnson's story, as given to the media, is the most inflammatory. So much of what many people believe about this entire incident is based on that testimony.

Now it appears that Johnson was part of a robbery with Brown. If that's true, it has to call his story into question. That doesn't mean the police are to be exonerated.

This may be a first for me but I actually agree with Tim this time.

 

[jonessed]

Can we stop referring to this as a "robbery," as if he pistol-whipped the cashier and emptied out the register? The guy apparently stole some cigars. That's more akin to shoplifting. Yeah, I understand he shoved the cashier, but come on.

This new information does make me doubt that the officer really just harassed the Brown and his friend for walking down the street, but it doesn't even come remotely close to justifying the shooting.

Not sure about Missouri but..."Under California Penal Code section 211, a person is guilty of committing the crime of Robbery when they take the property of another by means of force or fear. In 1983, the California Court of Appeal found in the case of People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 909, that a shoplifter is guilty of the crime of robbery if they use force or fear to escape a store after the taking of the property. "

That's great, but that's also not how people use that term in everyday English.

It most certainly is.

Yeah, this is bit of an odd angle from Ivan. I don't understand where he was trying to go with this.

When people talk about "robbery," they're usually not thinking of somebody swiping a few bucks of low-end cigars and trying to run away with them. To use that term in this context, as if it in any way justifies or explains what followed, is at best hyperbole and at worst (and I'm virtually certain this is the police department's intent) deliberately misleading.

Whatever the legal definition of robbery might be, Brown was not a dangerous criminal who had just blown away a bunch of people while stealing a briefcase full of diamonds. There was absolutely no reason for a responding officer to fear for his safety. Let's not pretend otherwise by exaggerating things.

He assaulted the shopkeeper when he shoved him out of the way and into a food rack. This wasn't a simple shoplifting. It was a robbery. That's why it was called a robbery.

Brown clearly was dangerous. At least to the shop owner and possibly the officer (depending on how the initial confrontation transpired). That doesn't mean he deserved to be shot, especially if he was 35ft. from the officer and unarmed.

These discussions seem to be going around with the idea that these are mutually exclusive possibilities. That strikes me as very odd and unproductive.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

But the key difference in Ferguson on Thursday was that police had changed their approach to trying to prevent a repeat of the violence and property damage that occurred Sunday.

The police changing their approach certainly helped, but I wonder how receptive Ferguson's black population would have been to that changed approach if it was not spearheaded by a new black police leader (Ron Johnson). The appointment of a black man to lead the police likely made some residents feel that the black community's interests would now be considred more, and that likely played as significant a role in the new approach being well recieved as the approach itself. Smart move by the Governor appointing Johnson.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Bottom line for me, as of this morning, is this: of all of the eyewitnesses, Johnson's story, as given to the media, is the most inflammatory. So much of what many people believe about this entire incident is based on that testimony.

Now it appears that Johnson was part of a robbery with Brown. If that's true, it has to call his story into question. That doesn't mean the police are to be exonerated.

This may be a first for me but I actually agree with Tim this time.

Same here. The way this was handled by the cops, prior to the shooting, still seems questionable - there has to be a better way than riding up to him on the street and yelling at him from your car, if that is what happened - but Johnson's story is now hard to believe.

 

[roadkill1292]

I need to know more about this drug thingie with Swisher Sweets.

 

[Sabertooth]

But the key difference in Ferguson on Thursday was that police had changed their approach to trying to prevent a repeat of the violence and property damage that occurred Sunday.

The police changing their approach certainly helped, but I wonder how receptive Ferguson's black population would have been to that changed approach if it was not spearheaded by a new black police leader (Ron Johnson). The appointment of a black man to lead the police likely made some residents feel that the black community's interests would now be considred more, and that likely played as significant a role in the new approach being well recieved as the approach itself. Smart move by the Governor appointing Johnson.

Seems kind of racist and patronizing to me. How much is he getting paid for this appointment? Was he the most qualified?

 

[jamny]

Did any of the witnesses say the cop was white?

 

[Fennis]

I need to know more about this drug thingie with Swisher Sweets.

some people remove the ####ty tobacco and put weed in them.

 

[jonessed]

I read that police reported that a dozen or fewer people actually looted. What I read wasn't souced. Can anyone provide any source information about that?

I read that the police broke out the heavy equipment at 4:25 (or earlier) the afternoon of the shooting, which I think is before any looting was reported. Does anyone have any information on whether the looting started before or after that.

Thanks.

Are you arguing that there was no reason for the police to bring out the heavy guns or, are you arguing that the heavy guns contributed to the looting?

Rioting leads to riot gear. It's hard to fault the police for proper preparation considering what had gone on.

The rubber bullets and tear gas on crowds appears to have been used prematurely. I believe that sparked an escalation that didn't need to happen.

 

[Hang 10]

I need to know more about this drug thingie with Swisher Sweets.

Do you want the blunt truth?

 

[lod01]

Bottom line for me, as of this morning, is this: of all of the eyewitnesses, Johnson's story, as given to the media, is the most inflammatory. So much of what many people believe about this entire incident is based on that testimony.

Now it appears that Johnson was part of a robbery with Brown. If that's true, it has to call his story into question. That doesn't mean the police are to be exonerated.

This may be a first for me but I actually agree with Tim this time.

Same here. The way this was handled by the cops, prior to the shooting, still seems questionable - there has to be a better way than riding up to him on the street and yelling at him from your car, if that is what happened - but Johnson's story is now hard to believe.

Them FBI guys are goooood. Didn't take them long to get this guy to crack.

 

[jamny]

I need to know more about this drug thingie with Swisher Sweets.

Do you want the blunt truth?

That's even funnier looking at your avatar.

 

[jonessed]

I need to know more about this drug thingie with Swisher Sweets.

Yeah, I don't get that. I smoked Swisher Sweets sans drugs in my youth.

 

[Slapdash]

Great. Now it is time for everyone to come out of the woodwork and say he deserved to die because he was a criminal and probably was getting high. Just like Trayvon.

I don't think many people are saying that, but even as tgunz admitted, it appears with a possible theft involved, the context has changed at least somewhat. It's not as simple as "a rogue cop had it out for this kid."

Give it time for the Carolina Hustlers and Jojos of the world to show up.

I don't think the context changes at all. It is still this: Cop shoots a defenseless kid from 30 yards away.

 

[hagmania]

Ah, of course this inevitably devolves to the incoming Brown investigation/trial.

From my standpoint, it is terrible that young man died, but the immediate militarization of the PD and treatment of the protesters are the most disturbing things to come from #Ferguson.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Like most stories with opposing sides, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.