Did Michael Brown Steal Cigars — Or Pay For Them?

[specsaregood]

./

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It is 18 in MO, but not in all states.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_age

Thanks for clarification on that. I had not heard of entire states raising the minimum age.

I suppose things like this shouldn't surprise me but it does............ somewhat.

It's what happens when a majority declares law. When they burn books, I don't want to hear shit from a collectivist.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is one account that seemed legit, as it was captured right at the scene, by accident. It was very similar to the cop's friends account.

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck — cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran — the police got out and ran after him

{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus — the police had his gun drawn already on him —

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin’ on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing — he like — be like — but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots — the next thing I know — the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know ... I’m thinking ... the dude started running ... (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...y-captured-on-audio-corroborates-police-story

 

[Ronin Truth]

18. The same as any other state.

Nope, in some states it's 21.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Nope, in some states it's 21.

Which state?

(I like to know these factoids so that I can avoid ever so much as driving through said piece of shit)

Edit: New York, apparently. No worries. I'd never travel to that POS state again if they paid me.

 

[pcosmar]

I hate the police. I do not know what happened.

An Unarmed man was shot dead by police.

That should not happen.. Not over jay walking. Not over cigars. Not over beating his mother to death.

It should not ever happen. If he has committed a crime. Then Charge him with a crime and give him a trial. Capture him alive to do so .

It is not and never has been the Police Officers place to dispense justice. And certainly not to execute Justice.

 

[Origanalist]

Which state?

(I like to know these factoids so that I can avoid ever so much as driving through said piece of shit)

Edit: New York, apparently. No worries. I'd never travel to that POS state again if they paid me.

They are looking to raise it in mine.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Age-to-buy-tobacco-in-Wash-state-could-go-up-to-21-256401701.html

 

[Brian4Liberty]

William Norman Grigg

If Michael Brown committed a felonious strong-arm robbery at a convenience store just minutes before he was shot, why didn’t anybody from the store call 911? The report was made by a customer following what appeared to be an altercation between the 6’4″ Brown and a much smaller store employee.
...
Continued...http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/did-michael-brown-steal-cigars-or-pay-for-them/

Wouldn't the store owner be able to say exactly what happened? Unless he was afraid of being a snitch...

 

[kcchiefs6465]

An Unarmed man was shot dead by police.

That should not happen.. Not over jay walking. Not over cigars. Not over beating his mother to death.

It should not ever happen. If he has committed a crime. Then Charge him with a crime and give him a trial. Capture him alive to do so .

It is not and never has been the Police Officers place to dispense justice. And certainly not to execute Justice.

Police officers are still human beings and as such are rightfully afforded the right of self defense. The unarmed fact is a great indicator of what really happened and having experienced these thugs first handed, I can imagine exactly how it happened. Regardless, simply that someone is unarmed means little. If one is being beaten to the point of unconsciousness, or attacked savagely, etc. where they may have a reasonable argument that they were in fear of their life, shooting the perpetrator, whether as a cop 'or' citizen, is justifiable.

The problem with granting a certain caste qualified immunity and the benefit of the doubt is that many will shoot first and ask questions later. Some will flat execute someone for trivial reasons. This should not be tolerated. The criminal justice system is a joke, there will not be any justice and the people are by and large ignorant enough that even if justice was served (in whatever limited manner it could be) they'd still burn that city. Probably complain about the lack of employment while burning local businesses to boot.

But then the business owners aren't willing to defend their property, or they're unable given the laws enacted. It's a depressing scenario.

Regardless, I do not know the facts. The facts haven't even came out. They probably will never come out.

The people are becoming aware of an institutional problem but they will still call 'em. They will still ask why they do not do more. They will still think up half-retarded, hare brained schemes in how they envision society should operate. Not much will be gained.

A shame, really.

 

[Origanalist]

Wouldn't the store owner be able to say exactly what happened? Unless he was afraid of being a snitch...

He could certainly make clear what happened.

 

[RonPaulMall]

They still give you shit in many places,, and demand ID for a sale.

I don't care if he bought them,,stole them,, or argued about the transaction however it went down.
He was unarmed,, and was shot dead by police.

There is no excuse for the government to shoot an unarmed man. Period.

If he had already attacked the cop by the car, and was currently bum rushing him, then I would classify that as justified. The suspect was massive. If he reaches the cop, the cop would be done for and the suspect would no longer be unarmed. The standard for cops shouldn't be less strict than the standard for you or I, but it shouldn't be more strict either. If this guy was charging you or me, we'd be justified in killing him. No different for the cop.

 

[pcosmar]

If he had already attacked the cop by the car, and was currently bum rushing him, then I would classify that as justified. The suspect was massive. If he reaches the cop, the cop would be done for and the suspect would no longer be unarmed. The standard for cops shouldn't be less strict than the standard for you or I, but it shouldn't be more strict either. If this guy was charging you or me, we'd be justified in killing him. No different for the cop.

A whole bunch if ifs .

First off.. the Cop initiated the confrontation. If he gets his ass kicked it is deserved.
Secondly,, the Cop has other options,, and tools available. And allegedly has training in the use of them.

If, we are going to tolerate Police at all,, they need to be put on a very short leash.

 

[Valli6]

The clerk didn't call 911 because he feared for his life. Probably never even considered pressing charges. What would would be in it for him, except retaliation? Probably hopes to avoid having to testify.

A store manager, who declined to give his name, said he fears for his life and pleaded with reporters not to suggest that he called police. “It’s very dangerous,” he said. “They kill us if they think we are responsible. People don’t understand that.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8f5bc0-2588-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

The fact that he had just robbed the store and the cop didn't know...

If a 911 call was made about the robbery, most likely the crime was announced over the radio, the cop heard it, and put 2+2 together.

We know that the cop shot at him while he fled.

We don't know that at all. The autopsy shows all the shots came from the front. Baden said the shots to the arm could've happened while his arms were raised OR while they were lowered. They were also the earlier shots. We've heard no details of the struggle in the car. If there was a struggle over the gun, perhaps that's how he got shot in the arm a couple times?

From a logic standpoint, it appears the cop was justifying in discharging the weapon. Killing? We don't know.

The only time a cop is justified in shooting someone is when he believes he will otherwise be killed himself, and in that case he must shoot to kill - not to wound. It is against the law for a cop to use his gun to wound someone - that only happens on TV/movies. They are not permitted to use bullets like a cattle prod. Be realistic, if that were legal, they could shoot anyone for anything!

If a picture of the cop shows up showing him beat to hell it changes everything here.

How long did it take before they released the pictures of George Zimmerman's bloody head, and broken nose? Wasn't it after the trial? I think they hold onto that kind of evidence for the trial.

 

[SeanTX]

The clerk didn't call 911 because he feared for his life. Probably never even considered pressing charges. What would would be in it for him, except retaliation? Probably hopes to avoid having to testify.

I think I read that they had to use a subpoena to get a copy of the CCTV video. The owners probably feared possible reprisals, it sounds like.

 

[erowe1]

We don't know that at all. The autopsy shows all the shots came from the front.

Those are just the ones that hit him. That doesn't have anything to do with the shots that the cop fired at him while he fled.

It's also not completely true, since the fatal shot was down into his head from above, from back to front.

 

[erowe1]

The only time a cop is justified in shooting someone is when he believes he will otherwise be killed himself, and in that case he must shoot to kill - not to wound. It is against the law for a cop to use his gun to wound someone - that only happens on TV/movies. They are not permitted to use bullets like a cattle prod. Be realistic, if that were legal, they could shoot anyone for anything!

They are supposed to shoot to stop, not necessarily to kill.

Granted, as far as where you aim, shooting to stop and shooting to kill are the same thing. But as far as when you stop shooting, they are very different.

 

[Valli6]

Those are just the ones that hit him. That doesn't have anything to do with the shots that the cop fired at him while he fled.
It's also not completely true, since the fatal shot was down into his head from above, from back to front.

I haven't heard seen anything suggesting that other than from witnesses that were friends of Brown and I don't see then as the most credible. If true, that is illegal.

Badden said one head shot went across the top of his head and would've done damage that made him unconcsious. The other shot was very odd - As I recall, Badden said something like - it entered at the top/front and came out his eye, then went in again at the chin (I think) and exited again, still lower down - leaving 4 visible wounds. Hard to explain - my guess cop had to be above him somehow -or- Brown had put his head down? Maybe he was in the process of falling down? (Not saying I know what happenned, just guessing at possibilities)

 

[erowe1]

I haven't heard seen anything suggesting that other than from witnesses that were friends of Brown and I don't see then as the most credible. If true, that is illegal.

There was a conversation an eye witness had with another onlooker captured on a Youtube video that I've seen a lot of the cop defenders using as evidence that corroborates the account of Brown charging the cop. But in that same conversation the same person says that the cop first started firing while Brown was fleeing.

The lack of wounds from the back (aside from the fatal one shot down into the top of his head from back to front) doesn't make it any less likely that the cop did fire shots while he was fleeing.

 

[Valli6]

They are supposed to shoot to stop, not necessarily to kill.

I heard otherwise from a reliable source, but that was a long time ago, before the "war on drugs" got quite so insane, before the "war on terror", even before cops began doing stupid things like DUI checkpoints.
…

..But in that same conversation the same person says that the cop first started firing while Brown was fleeing.

The lack of wounds from the back (aside from the fatal one shot down into the top of his head from back to front) doesn't make it any less likely that the cop did fire shots while he was fleeing.

Could be, but that's an incredibly stupid, as well as illegal thing for a cop to do.

 

[erowe1]

I heard otherwise from a reliable source, but that was a long time ago, before the "war on drugs" got quite so insane, before the "war on terror", even before cops began doing stupid things like DUI checkpoints.
...

If you're talking about the de facto policy that cops follow and are probably instructed to follow, then I agree. But if you're talking about their official position, they can't just go into a trial and expect to get away with saying, "I shot him until he stopped and I was sure he was no longer a threat, but then I shot him again just to make sure he died." They may have roundabout ways of putting essentially the same thing. But they have to express it in terms of a protocol that's not quite that blunt.