• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Brown was a robbery suspect before he was shot to death, police say

At this point there is no denying Brown was a suspect in a robbery. It has been confirmed and verified that it is him in the surveillance video.
There's been a lot of opinions in this case being reported in the media as facts. The whole "gentle giant" depiction of Brown that was repeated over and over nationwide in print and continuously in social media and newscasts embarrassed the media yesterday when the video of Brown strong arming a little guy while stealing $50 worth of sweet cigars was released. Another thing that was embarrassing for the media that showed Brown not to be a "gentle giant" is when the reports came out that the officer that shot him had to seek medical attention because of injuries he received from Brown during an altercation. This too takes away from the whole "gentle giant" depiction the media has been spinning. Another thing that bothers me is the media also reported that Brown did not have an arrest record. He was only 18. If he had been in trouble with the law prior he would have been a juvenile and it is my understanding that juvenile records are sealed and can not be opened except by court order. So they really don't know about Brown's past because they have no way of verifying such things except through the court. Surely because he hadn't been in trouble the few months he by law was considered an adult hardly gives a full and honest account of his history. But it does play into the "gentle giant" they were portraying.
 
Where did the "gentle giant" motif come from anyway?
 
You don't mind speculating by questioning the victim's alleged suspect status making him guilty in his own death..... right.

Whipping out the death card because you're afraid your politics have been hurt?
 
Whether Brown was truly a robbery suspect or this is just more police misinformation we will soon find out.

What is more disturbing is the police reaction to the protests, they forcefully went after many people and arrested quite a few including a few journalists on false pretenses. There ought to be a follow up on that and any cop acting above and beyond their mandates ought to be fired.

Apparently, since there was more rioting last night, they didn't arrest enough.
 
How do you know they did?

If your going to make claims like this, you should at least back it up with some evidence.

Um, logic 101: the burden of proof rests on those making an accusation.

Or else, how do we know it wasn't you? :rolleyes:
 

His attorney is a week-kneed kook.

One easy giveaway that is that Dorian Johnson wasn't charged w/anything by the police. Normally, anyone who robs a store w/video to prove it is arrested and convicted after the store owners' press charges but the cops are letting him walk free.

Most likely, it's because the cops coerced him into saying that he robbed the store or else they would charge him w/something else (i. e. some minor drug possession charge of which he was actually guilty) and jail him for that, and his week-kneed attorney agreed to the deal.
 
Anyone mention yet that last night the liquor store Mike Brown had allegedly robed was looted. Why? The owner was robbed by Brown so now he deserves to have his business destroyed? Something wrong with people.
 
Um, logic 101: the burden of proof rests on those making an accusation.

Or else, how do we know it wasn't you? :rolleyes:


yes the burden is on you. Your the one who made the statement that LE may have faked the vid.

The reverse burden of proof ploy by you is noted.

It is also noted you provided no backup information to support the claim.

So using your what if.

- Didn't The other teenager with Brown admit to the robbery?
- Didn't the lawyers for the Brown family admit it was Brown in the vid?
- So the shop owner, LE, and Browns accomplish, and laywers are all in on it in making the fake vid.

I am not a Libertarian, hence it could not be me.:mrgreen:
 
Anyone mention yet that last night the liquor store Mike Brown had allegedly robed was looted. Why? The owner was robbed by Brown so now he deserves to have his business destroyed? Something wrong with people.

It really is a viscous circle in these communities...Riots like this happen, and the businesses who serve them are destroyed, then the very businesses that were destroyed don't reopen in the community, and the charges of racist businesses who won't serve the community start...Who the hell would invest in a place where the people that you want to serve want to destroy you at the first chance?
 
That story does not pass the smell test. If he were truly a robbery suspect, then why didn't the officer detain him the first time he stopped him, instead of telling him to get out of the middle of the road? If Brown had actually committed a robbery, then why did he talk to the officer the first time he was stopped, telling the officer that he was only a minute away from his destination, instead of running? Add to that the fact that the kid had never been in trouble with the police, has a clean record, has been described by everybody as shy and soft spoken, and was about to be a college student, then this smacks of a police department cover up. Something smells in Ferguson, Missouri, and it ain't the toilets.

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.
 
His attorney is a week-kneed kook.

One easy giveaway that is that Dorian Johnson wasn't charged w/anything by the police. Normally, anyone who robs a store w/video to prove it is arrested and convicted after the store owners' press charges but the cops are letting him walk free.

Most likely, it's because the cops coerced him into saying that he robbed the store or else they would charge him w/something else (i. e. some minor drug possession charge of which he was actually guilty) and jail him for that, and his week-kneed attorney agreed to the deal.

IMO he wasn't charged with anything for two reasons.

He wasn't the one doing the strong arm robbery, Brown was. You'll notice he (Johnson) put something on the counter and stood back and also when Brown was shoving the clerk at the door Johnson was standing back trying to get out the door.

Second reasons he (Johnson) is an FBI witness and was given immunity from anything they might charge him with, even though his attorney wouldn't admit to any deal.

As to the attorney being a "week-kneed kook", I love the way he starts to say they "robbed" the store and then catches himself and says they had "taken" some cigarillos.... :lamo
 
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.


Attorney Confirms That Is His Client and Michael Brown in Surveillance Video | Mediaite



Burglary vs. Robbery vs. Theft: What's the Difference? | Criminal Law
 
His attorney is a week-kneed kook.

One easy giveaway that is that Dorian Johnson wasn't charged w/anything by the police. Normally, anyone who robs a store w/video to prove it is arrested and convicted after the store owners' press charges but the cops are letting him walk free.

Most likely, it's because the cops coerced him into saying that he robbed the store or else they would charge him w/something else (i. e. some minor drug possession charge of which he was actually guilty) and jail him for that, and his week-kneed attorney agreed to the deal.

:shock: :doh :lamo

Or, the video proved Dorian didn't carry out the violent strong-arm robbery Brown did, and under the circumstances it didn't make sense to pursue the case.
 
:shock: :doh :lamo

Or, the video proved Dorian didn't carry out the violent strong-arm robbery Brown did, and under the circumstances it didn't make sense to pursue the case.

Nope, doesn't make sense. Aiding/abetting robbery is also a crime. Try again.
 
:shock: :doh :lamo

Or, the video proved Dorian didn't carry out the violent strong-arm robbery Brown did, and under the circumstances it didn't make sense to pursue the case.

I don't think that's the case. You see, although Dorian Johnson's attorney confirmed it was Michael Brown in the video, he:

[The lawyer] would not tell Lemon whether Dorian Johnson was able to make a deal with the FBI for immunity for telling them what happened, and possibly pinning the “robbery” on Michael Brown.

Attorney Confirms That Is His Client and Michael Brown in Surveillance Video | Mediaite

So, was Michael Brown a thief, a thug, a low-life punk kid or is he being blamed for a crime he didn't commit? Stay tuned.
 
I don't think that's the case. You see, although Dorian Johnson's attorney confirmed it was Michael Brown in the video, he:



Attorney Confirms That Is His Client and Michael Brown in Surveillance Video | Mediaite

So, was Michael Brown a thief, a thug, a low-life punk kid or is he being blamed for a crime he didn't commit? Stay tuned.

You know, you got a point. Brown may have just been trying to straighten the shopkeepers collar and forgot to pay for the cigars when the shopkeeper reigned praise on him for his thoughtful gesture.
 
Odd to say the least that you can't tell that it's two different people in still images, but a blurry video... no problem!

Even I could tell it was that big prick in the store. And he's laying dead in the street photo with the SAME clothes on.

Mike Brown.jpg
 
You know, you got a point. Brown may have just been trying to straighten the shopkeepers collar and forgot to pay for the cigars when the shopkeeper reigned praise on him for his thoughtful gesture.

You speak as if I'm defending the kid. I'm not. I'm just saying there's a lot going on with this situation that we don't know about. I've merely stated some things that are obvious:

- The store video doesn't show Michael Brown present a weapon of any sort, but it clearly shows him grabbing the store clerk by his collar and then leaving the store with merchandise in hand.

- We see Michael Brown at the counter with said merchandise, but we don't see if he actually paid for said merchandise. The assumption then, rightfully so, is he walked out of the without paying for the merchandise after assaulting the store clerk = theft (or robbery).

- The police who stopped Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson didn't know they'd allegedly robbed a convenient store before stopping them. So, the question that really should be asked at this point is what was the probably cause for stopping them? Jaywalking? We'll get to that in a second...

- We don't know why these two young adult males got into an altercation with the police any more than we know why they were stopped other than the fact that they were walking down the street presumably blocking traffic. But if that were the case, why didn't the police simply flash their police lights, get on their PA system and tell them to clear they way? Makes perfect sense to me.

- We don't know why the police fought with Dorian Johnson or how/why shots were fired inside the police car.

I could presume that Michael Brown began to run because of the incident at the store, but it's also very possible he ran because he heard gun shots coming from the direction of the police car where his friend and the police where wrestling about with each other.

In the end, Michael Brown did halt w/his hands up and was shot. The question people rightfully are asking is "Why?".
 
Last edited:
I just gave you examples. Less babies, innocent people, and by-standards don't count as "innocent" in your book.

My statement was that being around cops increases your probability of being shot, and that's not 100% determined by one's own behavior. You disagreed to that. That was the statement, and I have demonstrated for my hypothesis.

Try again.

I understand. Critical thinking is my specialty.

Put another way, it is 100% accurate to say, "The statistics of suffering a gunshot wound are directly proportional to the exposure to guns." Since the police, among others, are armed with guns, being in that environment increases the risk of being shot. Plain and simple.

If an individual could isolate themselves to an environment totally devoid of guns, (like in a bulletproof bubble,) the odds of them being shot drop close to zero. If an individual prefers to be in the environment where guns are commonplace, be it thuggery, sport, counter sales, military or dealing with armed law enforcement, etc., your chances of being shot increase exponentially.

More bullets = more bullet holes.

"Doc! I broke my arm in 3 places!"

Well, stay out of those places.
 
Last edited:
Smearing?
I have done no smearing, so stop with the lying. Stating the known facts is not smearing.
Your displayed bias in saying so, just means your bias is irrational.
If anybody smeared anyone, Brown smeared himself with his actions.


Yes, let's: The police said he was a suspect in a robbery that an officer had not stopped them for. You do know what suspect means? Yes?
...
You do know what alleged means, yes?
:lamo
In this case, "suspect" and "alleged" means the person who did it (as the video shows, as the family admitted it to being him, and the cohort confirmed), as they will not be charging him because he is deceased.
All it is is word play on your part, and accuracy on the report part because the individual has not been convicted of a crime.
So stop with your silly game. It has been confirmed it was him.

Anthony Gray, a local attorney for the family, said no one ever said Brown "was a perfect kid." He warned protesters that, in viewing the video,"You may see images or depictions that don't paint him in the most complimentary light."
The Rev. Jesse Jackson shows up at protest site as Brown family calls for calm : News


Like you didn't know that the cohorts attorney confirmed it either.
:doh
In an interview with msnbc shortly after the report was released, Johnson’s lawyer confirmed that Brown had taken cigars from the store.

Police: Michael Brown stopped because he blocked traffic | MSNBC

Or if you prefer a different source.

Attorney: Dorian Johnson confirms he was with Brown at store robbery
Attorney: Dorian Johnson confirms he was with Brown at store robbery

If you do not understand these to be confirmations, you are fooling yourself as well as smearing your own intelligence.


And the video and images show it is him wearing the same damn thing, accompanied by the same witness who gave a contrived account.
Really? Hm:
Yes. Are you blind? Besides already being confirmed it was him - Same everything.

All of the following so-called witnesses? :lamo

Nonsense. Total nonsense.
Local residents confused or deliberately lying, as it has already been confirmed.
Their accounts change nothing to that confirmation.


I don't cast doubt on it. I dismiss its relevance... which is exactly what the Fergusson Police Dept is doing. Actually, here is what the people who released the video had to say on the matter:
No, that isn't what the Police have done, and what you are doing is ignoring reality. That is all.


Michael Brown shooting: Officer stopped teen for blocking street, 'that was it' - World - CBC News

"[The robbery] had nothing to do with the stop," Ferguson, Mo., police Chief Thomas Jackson told reporters.

So... any more smearing you'd like to do today? Or what are we discussing here? How he deserved to be shot for being a nameless suspect in a robbery that the police officer had no clue about? Or are we discussing the fact that the police who supposedly have both Brown and Johnson in the video in the video won't consider Johnson an accomplice? Or are discussing the fact that the police themselves say the shooting has nothing to do with the stop or the shooting? Keep smearing Excon.
Wow. Look at you ignoring reality and what is already known.

Do you, or do you not understand that what is being spoken about is the initial encounter where the Officer told them to get off the street? That is what had nothing to do with the robbery? Do you not understand that?

Do you also not understand that after disengagement from telling them to get out of the street, the Officer returned to reengage because they appeared to be the suspects, with Brown carrying the cigars.
What about these simple things do you not understand?
Huh? Really?



Wow!
Really. Wow!

You blew a lot of hot air to say absolutely nothing of relevance.
And you have clearly shown you do not know the evidence.
Your comments fly in the face of what is already known.


So again.
Hmmm? Let's see.
The police say it is the same person and even revealed that the Officer saw that same person with the box of stolen cigars.
The family's lawyer says it is him in the video.
And the video and images show it is him wearing the same damn thing, accompanied by the same witness who gave a contrived account.

And yet here you are after the fact of the above trying to cast doubt? :doh
Odd to say the least is right, except that it applies to your position.

:lamo
 
This is what gets me about these bleeding hearts... They act as if this POlice officer went out of his way to shoot some black kid that day? Like he was planning on it, that nothing would stop him from getting him some bad arse looking black kid. They convince themselves that this could be the only thing that happened, and that the story of the blacks at the scene would be wholesome testimonies to the integrity of the loving son that got shot down in the street. It boggles my mind how incredibly gullible people are. It's like they've never been to the hood or seen ghetto culture up close, and to think that wearing your pants down to your knees, dreads and Tat's up the neck, and unable to form a coherent sentence in English would remind us all that it's really nothing to be concerned or evaluated, no, we only need to condemn the cop that undergoes periodic psychological testing, intense training, and situational awareness because he's the evil PIGS..

Jesus Christ almighty.. Granted, no rush to condemn the kid, but hell, utilizing a modicum of common sense one cannot possibly rush to condemn the cop either, if anything, this would be the last person to blame.


Tim-
:applaud:yt:agree:dito::applaud

This is the way it always is.
Zimmerman, Dunn, Wafer, etc...
 
You speak as if I'm defending the kid. I'm not. I'm just saying there's a lot going on with this situation that we don't know about. I've merely stated some things that are obvious:

- The store video doesn't show Michael Brown present a weapon of any sort, but it clearly shows him grabbing the store clerk by his collar and then leaving the store with merchandise in hand.

- We see Michael Brown at the counter with said merchandise, but we don't see if he actually paid for said merchandise. The assumption then, rightfully so, is he walked out of the without paying for the merchandise after assaulting the store clerk = theft (or robbery).

- The police who stopped Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson didn't know they'd allegedly robbed a convenient store before stopping them. So, the question that really should be asked at this point is what was the probably cause for stopping them? Jaywalking? We'll get to that in a second...

- We don't know why these two young adult males got into an altercation with the police any more than we know why they were stopped other than the fact that they were walking down the street presumably blocking traffic. But if that were the case, why didn't the police simply flash their police lights, get on their PA system and tell them to clear they way? Makes perfect sense to me.

- We don't know why the police fought with Dorian Johnson or how/why shots were fired inside the police car.

I could presume that Michael Brown began to run because of the incident at the store, but it's also very possible he ran because he heard gun shots coming from the direction of the police car where his friend and the police where wrestling about with each other.

In the end, Michael Brown did halt w/his hands up and was shot. The question people rightfully are asking is "Why?".


Under your laundry list of maybe's and could haves, it's remarkable you seem to know for a fact that he raised his hands up. Why don't we just stick with, "let's see what the investigation concludes with."

Oh, that's right, the kid was a gentle giant and if the investigation doesn't prove the cop was guilty, relight the torches.

Absurd.
 
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.

Oh yes, just a misunderstood customer....Good grief....:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom