Standing around at the cashier might be a good indication...
And grabbing a handful of smokes, passing them to his buddy, then reaching in and grabbing a bunch more, dropping them on the ground, then reaching again, having the shopkeeper come around to confront him, pick up the ones he dropped on the ground and walking to the exit while still followed by the shopkeeper? Did you see him get a wallet? Did that seem like a normal transaction to you?
Who effing cares what he was doing prior to being shot and killed for nothing more than Loitering and potentially resisting arrest.
All it does it work exactly the way it's working, running down his character and absolving the individual(s) responsible for his death by turning him into less of a human being.
Even if he, Michael Brown, had just killed someone, unless the arresting officer fears for his life, shooting and killing him is an inappropriate response.
You can't just shoot someone because you think they are acting strange and then justify it afterwards because they happened to commit a crime before your encounter. That's just killing someone.
This, as much as its tempting to say that Brown was a criminal and deserved it, we don't know enough to say that.
I personally don't know if the officer was afraid for his life or a gun touting lunatic, its still way to early into this and there's not enough information out there for me to reach a conclusion.
But I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. the question is, how is the investigation going to happen, is it going to be open and fair, or is it going to be buried?
Brown could be the worst thug in the world, but the police officer isn't a paid executioner, and if he acted like that then he has to be punished. If the officer freaked out and let fly a hail of bullets, then he's got to pay the price for this.
However one of the tenants of a lawful society is the concept of innocent until proven guilty, but it seems that we as people are constantly falling Short of reaching that lofty tenant.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I'm sorry, but how do you possibly interpret that clip as him paying for items?
I also don't see how you interpret him as a violent criminal from that.
It all seems highly irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Even if he, Michael Brown, had just killed someone, unless the arresting officer fears for his life, shooting and killing him is an inappropriate response.
Also, in most countries, being scared does not make it legal to kill people.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I know the alleged robbery has nothing to do with this case but here is the rest of that surveillance video. You can see Mike Brown at the cash register, although not confirmed it appears that he is paying for the items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater
We have enough information to know that the police murdered this teen who had his hands up in surrender.
Oh wow, you're one of the people who didn't care about facts and was/is going to label the police officer as a murderer anyways but the grasping at straws here is pure lunacy. Michael Brown robbed the place, the surveillance cameras and the friend he was with have already confirmed this. I understand, and agree with, the argument that him robbing the place shouldn't be reason enough to shoot him but trying to argue he didn't rob the place? Insanity.
I also don't see how you interpret him as a violent criminal from that.
The real video that shows him attacking the cashier and turning around to intimidate/threaten him prior to leaving. There's no interpretation here, he's a violent criminal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
I also don't see how you interpret him as a violent criminal from that.
It all seems highly irrelevant.
Also, in most countries, being scared does not make it legal to kill people.
Where did I say he was a violent criminal? I'm saying I don't think he paid. Your jump to conclusions mat is out I see.
And fearing for your life or "being scared" as you trivialized it is absolutely justification for defending yourself and if that results in the aggressor dying then it's unfortunate.
Despite the fact that this event has zero to do with the killing of Michael Brown other than to attempt to posthumously attack his character my question is this: in what world is that a "robbery"? Or make him a "violent criminal" as some keep parroting? Just pure lunacy from some of you on this.
The Following User Says Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
Despite the fact that this event has zero to do with the killing of Michael Brown other than to attempt to posthumously attack his character my question is this: in what world is that a "robbery"? Or make him a "violent criminal" as some keep parroting? Just pure lunacy from some of you on this.
He physically attacks a cashier after taking cigars that didn't belong to him?
Is the argument now that it was just "a little push"? Yawn, look what he did at the shop should absolutely not have been reason to shoot him. But what he did at the shop was make him a violent criminal. You can't attack someone who's trying to stop you from leaving and then claim not to be a violent criminal. Period.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Not sure what your axe to grind here is but you and I have wildly different ideas about what constitutes a violent criminal.
There's degrees of violent criminal. My interpretation is using violence during a crime. Did he not do that? No one is calling him a rapist or anything but when he committed a crime he resorted to physically attacking a person. Violent criminal.
Please describe your view of violent criminal and explain how Michael Brown isn't one then?
Despite the fact that this event has zero to do with the killing of Michael Brown other than to attempt to posthumously attack his character my question is this: in what world is that a "robbery"? Or make him a "violent criminal" as some keep parroting? Just pure lunacy from some of you on this.
If that isn't a robbery then what is? He mugged the store owner plain and simple and his friend has confirmed it
There's degrees of violent criminal. My interpretation is using violence during a crime. Did he not do that? No one is calling him a rapist or anything but when he committed a crime he resorted to physically attacking a person. Violent criminal.
Please describe your view of violent criminal and explain how Michael Brown isn't one then?
My definition of a violent criminal would include someone who was convicted of committing a violent crime. Again this incident has nothing to do with his killing, it is being used to justify it after the fact.
My definition of a violent criminal would include someone who was convicted of committing a violent crime. Again this incident has nothing to do with his killing, it is being used to justify it after the fact.
Way to move the goalposts. First you were asking
Quote:
in what world is that a "robbery"? Or make him a "violent criminal" as some keep parroting? Just pure lunacy from some of you on this.
Now it's because he wasn't convicted?
We're looking at the robbery. Was it a robbery? It's a very easy yes. He stole some items, he attacked and threaten a man while doing so. Robbery is a violent crime. No, he wasn't convicted, but that wasn't what your original question was.
And yes, you're right, it does not mean he deserved to be shot.
How useful are witness versions that don't support the physical evidence?
It depends on the witness. His friend who was with him is probably the number one witness but the cop's lawyer is going to destroy him if he testifies
I've been saying it since the beginning that the cop is going to walk away from this. Police defend their own and they would need to have him dead to rights to actually send him to jail
It depends on the witness. His friend who was with him is probably the number one witness but the cop's lawyer is going to destroy him if he testifies
I've been saying it since the beginning that the cop is going to walk away from this. Police defend their own and they would need to have him dead to rights to actually send him to jail
So without knowing anything except some very basic facts you determined the cop was gonna walk away from this? And what if the investigation clears him? It appears you'd made up your mind on who was in the wrong as soon as you first heard about the incident.
We're looking at the robbery. Was it a robbery? It's a very easy yes. He stole some items, he attacked and threaten a man while doing so. Robbery is a violent crime. No, he wasn't convicted, but that wasn't what your original question was.
And yes, you're right, it does not mean he deserved to be shot.
Yes my answering your question was clearly moving the goalposts
So without knowing anything except some very basic facts you determined the cop was gonna walk away from this? And what if the investigation clears him? It appears you'd made up your mind on who was in the wrong as soon as you first heard about the incident.
Cops never have to pay, just ask Rodney King. The feds may get him on civil rights charges, but usually a cop gets to do what they want.
