Until now, I've stayed clear of this thread topic waiting instead for more details/evidence to come out. I think folks need to take a step back on both sides.
Those who are saying wait until the details come out are correct. We really don't know why the Ferguson police stopped Michael Brown and his friend/associate. However, danarhea makes some good points. For example, people have jumped on this "Michael Brown robbed a store before being shot" storyline but there's no proof of that as this
video would indicate. Ferguson police didn't even know about the store incident before they approached him. So, why stop the guy?
If you watch the alleged robbery video, it doesn't appear that Michael Brown had a weapon. To me it looks his hands were filled with merchandise he intended to buy. The footage shows him (or a man who looks like him) approach the counter and it appears he laid his stuff down. The next cut shows the altercation between Brown and the store clerk, but again you don't see a weapon. All you see is Brown grab the man by his shirt collar, still with merchandise in hand, as attempts to leaves the store. And then he stalks out. That's it. (
Sidenote: Furthermore, it doesn't look like cigars he's carrying. It looks more like he has fists full of snack cakes or Slim Jims - too bulking and too long to be cigars. But if such were found on him, at this point I'd be hard pressed to support the claim that he stole them. After all, empty Cigarillos shells are often used to smoke marijuana. He may have already had those beforehand.
Now, is it possible that the police were made aware of a robbery after they'd already stopped Michael Brown and his friend and one of them panicked? OR that Michael and his friend both refused to go quietly because they believed they were right to walk the streets without harming anyone? Is it possible the cops acted wrong or had the wrong men? Again, from the video it doesn't appear that Michael had cigars in his hands and you don't see a weapon. Of course, the news report never says "armed robbery". Think about that for a moment...
You see, folks who are laying blame on those who they claim are "jumping to conclusions" about the police shooting a robbery suspect who many say was a good kid are also being quick to judge the kid as a criminal similar to how Treyvon Martin was portrayed when word go out about his troubles in school. Is it possible that Michael Brown was, in fact, a good kid who believed he was being cheated at checkout and pushed the store clerk simply because he was frustrated? We don't see whether money was placed on the counter any more than we see Michael draw a weapon. So, we really don't know if the kid entered the store with criminal intent. But, I would agree on principle that if you walk out of a store without paying for merchandise it is theft. But robbery in this case? Looks like a stretch to me.
Nonetheless, Michael Brown was obviously a big 18 yr old Black male when compared with the store clerk. Is it possible that the Ferguson police officer jumped the gun here? Again, could he have received word of a recent robbery, believed that Michael Brown and his friend fit the description given, panicked when they heard the word "robbery suspects" (assuming that's how they were described) and then upon seeing how big this kid was acted hastily?
Regardless of what one believes happened here, one thing is clear: You DON'T shoot an unarmed man with his hands up.
I'm still listening attentively to the news reports and such, but I'd have to agree with danarhea here. Something just isn't right about this.
