How does vandalism and looting accomplish anything???

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think when we have the video showing him stealing the cigars and assaulting a clerk in the process, we can drop the term "allegedly", but JMO.

And he was doing something illegal when they stopped him - he was walking down the middle of the street, blocking traffic, at least according to the police chief.

I keep the word so that those who think Michael Brown to be totally innocent cannot waste my time and argue legal drivel. ;-)

And I was just explaining his buddy's reasoning. His buddy may think walking I the street is perfectly acceptable.

 

[OurBigTrip]

you have a typo..."alleged" is not spelled "actually"...sorry, but in America, we have a system that we follow...it is in the Constitution, and while some people still won't accept it, its rights also apply to people like Michael Brown.

No, he's actually a thief. He's on video stealing the cigars, he's on video assaulting the clerk, and the cigars were found on his body.

Was he tried and found guilty? Nope, but it doesn't change the fact that he stole the cigars.

If I steal $50 from your wallet, I'm a thief, whether your call the police and I stand trial or not. If I steal $50 worth of cigars from a store, I'm a thief, whether the store owner calls the police and I stand trial or not.

 

[OurBigTrip]

I keep the word so that those who think Michael Brown to be totally innocent cannot waste my time and argue legal drivel. ;-)

And I was just explaining his buddy's reasoning. His buddy may think walking I the street is perfectly acceptable.

Got it!

 

[sunshinehighway]

Are you saying that the police chief should have let the narrative that Michael Brown was a big teddy bear on the way to Grandma's stand in the face of the facts that he was actually a thief?

And I want to reiterate that this doesn't mean he should have been shot, but this kid was no Boy Scout, and IMO, there was no reason to have let that narrative continue unanswered.

Yeah I am saying that. He should have left it alone. He should be setting an example and not fueling the tension. The rioting and violence was under control. It seriously seems like a high stakes whizzing match and as police chief he should not lower himself to participate.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

Would there have been a more acceptable time to release said video?

And his friend who was with him validated the accusation, btw. So he was indeed guilty.

Ken Lay was found guilty, was he not? Or do we sentence people before trial now? Not sure he legal reasons the family got to keep millions. But it didn't make the man less guilty because his death preceded the opportunity for jail time.

Ken Lay's guilty verdict was nullified by his passing before being sentenced.

I'm not saying that Brown didn't do it...BUT saying that since it had no connection to the reason the officer stopped him, even though it was first implied that it was, the video has nothing to do with the situation that happened.

It was a petty act. Doesn't matter if he did or didn't do it.

The acceptable time is for the shooter's defense attorney to introduce it at trial.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Would there have been a more acceptable time to release said video?

And his friend who was with him validated the accusation, btw. So he was indeed guilty.

Ken Lay was found guilty, was he not? Or do we sentence people before trial now? Not sure he legal reasons the family got to keep millions. But it didn't make the man less guilty because his death preceded the opportunity for jail time.

There would be no acceptable time for the video to be released for those that want the "gentle giant" narrative to be seen as fact.

As for Ken Lay, if memory serves, he died while in the process of appealing his conviction, so the conviction was vacated.

 

[Suger Mag]

So it's OK to assassinate the character of the police officer involved, but it's no OK to show video proving that Michael Brown was a thief.

True, he's legally not guilty, but anyone that saw that video would be hard pressed to say he's innocent.

Ummm... since his name was released only yesterday, I do not see how his character has been assassinated when he was only just identified. Yes... his actions at the time of the incident were called into question... yes his motivation and whether he was doing his job properly when he fatally shot a young man have been examined... but how and when has the police officer's "character" been assassinated?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Ken Lay's guilty verdict was nullified by his passing before being sentenced.

I'm not saying that Brown didn't do it...BUT saying that since it had no connection to the reason the officer stopped him, even though it was first implied that it was, the video has nothing to do with the situation that happened.

It was a petty act. Doesn't matter if he did or didn't do it.

The acceptable time is for the shooter's defense attorney to introduce it at trial.

Yeah--no.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The acceptable time is for the shooter's defense attorney to introduce it at trial.

Then I'm assuming that you favor ending the character assassination of the officer involved as well? Or is Michael Brown the only person that is entitled to the assumption of innocence?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Ummm... since his name was released only yesterday, I do not see how his character has been assassinated when he was only just identified. Yes... his actions at the time of the incident were called into question... yes his motivation and whether he was doing his job properly when he fatally shot a young man have been examined... but how and when has the police officer's "character" been assassinated?

He is racist, dontcha know!

I don't know about you--but just because a person of one ethnicity does something to another, it doesn't automatically make them a racist.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Ummm... since his name was released only yesterday, I do not see how his character has been assassinated when he was only just identified. Yes... his actions at the time of the incident were called into question... yes his motivation and whether he was doing his job properly when he fatally shot a young man have been examined... but how and when has the police officer's "character" been assassinated?

Whether his name was released or not, the officer's character has been called into question since the shooting occurred.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yeah--no.

If there even is a trial.

And it's a given that if there is a trial, it can't be held in Ferguson. No way the police officer could receive a fair trial there.

 

[Airship Ariadne]

No, he's actually a thief. He's on video stealing the cigars, he's on video assaulting the clerk, and the cigars were found on his body.

Was he tried and found guilty? Nope, but it doesn't change the fact that he stole the cigars.

If I steal $50 from your wallet, I'm a thief, whether your call the police and I stand trial or not. If I steal $50 worth of cigars from a store, I'm a thief, whether the store owner calls the police and I stand trial or not.

Not in America...we have a Constitution that says you are incorrect.

 

[penn19]

He is racist, dontcha know!

I don't know about you--but just because a person of one ethnicity does something to another, it doesn't automatically make them a racist.

It does too! They just don't know that they are racist.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not in America...we have a Constitution that says you are incorrect.

There is legally and there is reality. Surely you can distinguish between the two.

His friend backs up the theft accusation. So he DID steal the cigars. Obviously, he will not face theft charges. But his death didn't undo reality.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Not in America...we have a Constitution that says you are incorrect.

Wrong. We have a Constitution that says we can't face legal punishment until convicted of a crime.

Michael Brown wasn't convicted, so he won't face punishment for being a thief, but it doesn't change the fact that he stole those cigars, which by definition, makes him a thief.

 

[sunshinehighway]

For lack of a better term, they are splitting hairs.


Yes, Michael Brown (allegedly) stole cigars. BUT at the physical time police engaged him in the street, he wasn't doing anything illegal. And THAT is what they are focusing on. The police were in the wrong to engage at all--because at that moment (even if it was close in timestamp to the robbery), he wasn't.


It is an illogical connection--because IF police had seen they matched the description of the suspects while Michael Brown was walking an old lady across the steet like a Boy Scout--it doesn't change the fact that he was a suspect for something that happened moments prior. ( disregarding for a moment the story that the cop was unaware of the robbery.)

And putting aside this specific incident, this isn't white or black--this is how guilty people behave. They commit an infraction and then proceed as though nothing happened.


In my old neighborhood--we had a cops moment. This guy pulled into the driveway across the street and ran to the door and started banging. He was hollering to his buddy to tell the cops he was there the whole time. Too bad he didn't go fast enough as the police were following him and apprehended him while he was still knocking on the door. Not a sound alibi--but it didn't stop the guy from trying. (He was a white male in case anyone was wondering and the tenant was a druggie and his mom, who owned the house, finally had the good sense to evict him, spruce the place up and sell the house. New owners found lots of needles in the back yard.)

In any case--all that matters to the community is what Mike Brown was doing the millisecond before the cops stopped him. What happened 5, 10, or 30 minutes before is irrelevant even if it was breaking the law.


Think of busting your own kid in your house. "Whatcha doing?" "Nothing." "Doesn't look like nothing." "Oh, I thought you meant right NOW. That was before."

Its not splitting hairs. Its talking out of both sides of his mouth and adding to confusion and the community's mistrust of police.

The most important thing about the shooting is what was happening at the time of the shooting. You can't shoot someone because of something they did 5, 10, 15 minutes earlier.

 

[Suger Mag]

He is racist, dontcha know!

I don't know about you--but just because a person of one ethnicity does something to another, it doesn't automatically make them a racist.

I agree and I personally do not know the race of the officer. I think I remember one of the witness accounts saying that he was of the pale skin variety of human. I am trying to stay out of coming to a decision one way or another until the Feds have a chance to complete their investigation. At the end of the day, when all this is done... I suspect that it will come down to a combination of 'fault' from both parties... Mr Brown over-reacting 'negatively' to being stopped and questioned... and the police officer using excessive lethal force on an unarmed suspect in the process of surrender....Ms. Brown will still have to live with the grief of losing her son, and the officer will have to live with the fallout. Fair... no, only sad. Rarely are things in life pure black or white... usually they (like the truth) are some shade of grey inbetween....

 

[Airship Ariadne]

Then I'm assuming that you favor ending the character assassination of the officer involved as well? Or is Michael Brown the only person that is entitled to the assumption of innocence?

Yes...I have tried here not to call him racist. I am bothered by the dept.'s history of abuse, and by the fact that he shot Brown 7-10 times while Brown was several yards away...that is something that sticks out like a sore thumb if you take the police storyline as 100% factual.

I also don't like his behavior towards Brown's uncle minutes after the shooting when the uncle tried to get to Brown as he lay dead in the road, shoving him back, not letting people check on him, try to render aid.

And the fact that he didn't call an ambulance...that right there makes you wonder.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The most important thing about the shooting is what was happening at the time of the shooting. You can't shoot someone because of something they did 5, 10, 15 minutes earlier.

I agree 100% that you can't shoot someone for something they did 5, 10, 15 minutes earlier, and I'm not aware of anyone that's claiming that's why he was shot.

However, within hours of the shooting, the narrative had been formed...the police officer was a racist pig that shot down a perfectly innocent teenager that wasn't doing anything wrong...just a gentle giant, going to see Grandma.

The police chief had every right, and I believe an obligation, to correct that narrative. Michael Brown wasn't a gentle giant, as evidenced by his assault on the clerk. He wasn't just an innocent teenager, minding his own business, as evidenced by the video.

I don't understand why it seems to be fine to make baseless accusations about the motives of the police officer, but completely off-limits to show facts about Michael Brown.