Michael Brown Shooting

[shuize]

If you were a prosecutor presented with a case where a kid tried to walk out of a convenience store with a handful of cigars and shoved the storekeeper you'd be looking to charge them with a felony and asking for a multi-year prison sentence? For a nineteen-year-old. And presumably a nineteen-year-old with no priors because if he'd had prior criminal convictions I'm sure we would have heard chapter and verse about them by now.

Brown may have been able to work out a negotiated plea for less. However, if he were so foolish as to deny the charges, I think prosecutors would have asked for prison time. A class B felony in Missouri is 5 -15 years. This case would have been a slam dunk for prosecutors. Not only that, in your post you're forgetting how after he knocked the shopkeeper out of the way, he then turned around to intimidate the man back into the store. That is like prosecutor crack. Getting the chance to show that sort of evidence to a judge is what they stay up at night fantasizing about.

 

[LTC8K6]

You can't make that assumption based upon the video.
The only reason ( apparently, according to some posters ) that you can come to that conclusion is because you are a racist.

It is well known by them that if you witnessed a non-black assaulting and intimidating someone in that manner you would write it off as childish mischief.
I am so glad to belong to a forum with so many who know me better than I know myself.

Let's just stick to the law.

Michael Brown took property by force from the clerk behind the counter, and then grabbed and shoved the clerk when the clerk tried to stop him.

Taking property by force is a class B felony in Missouri.

Snatching the cigars from the clerk is the felony. You can forget about the rest if you want.

 

[KatieG]

It doesn't seem right to send someone off to the pen just for stealing cigars, however, being willing to beat someone to a pulp over a few cigars one is trying to steal seems like a different kind of crime.

A giant leap there. No evidence that's what happened. Funny how we haven't seen the police report on the shooting or any pictures of the officer.

 

[Distracted1]

Seriously? No, that's not what I'm trying to do. I am in no way "justifying" what he did. I did not excuse what he did, offer an explanation for what he did, nor condone what he did. All I pointed out is that what he did is being used to extrapolate a whole hell of a lot of assumptions about him, and that those assumptions are not warranted from what Brown is seen doing on the video.

For that you feel the need to hurl insults?

It is being used to extrapolate only the two things clearly in evidence.
That he was a felon.
That he was violent.

Do you dispute that either of those points are in evidence?

 

[Cylinder]

Funny how we haven't seen the police report on the shooting or any pictures of the officer.

That's SOP. There are various active investigations into the shooting. None of those documents are going to be released until the active portion of the investigations are over.

 

[Unabogie]

It is being used to extrapolate only the two things clearly in evidence.
That he was a felon.
That he was violent.

Do you dispute that either of those points are in evidence?

Well, in point of fact he was not a felon, since he'll never be tried in court, the store owners don't even apparently consider it a "robbery", and we'll never know what really happened. As for "violent", I've pointed out that what he did was shove someone. He did not beat anyone to a pulp, he did not knife someone, and he did not even hit someone. It's absolutely being used to extrapolate, in this very thread, that he likely attacked the officer who shot him and in fact had returned -- after being shot -- to attack him some more. So in light of that, it's important to describe what he did realistically and not attempt to embellish it.

 

[Caper]

Seriously? No, that's not what I'm trying to do. I am in no way "justifying" what he did. I did not excuse what he did, offer an explanation for what he did, nor condone what he did. All I pointed out is that what he did is being used to extrapolate a whole hell of a lot of assumptions about him, and that those assumptions are not warranted from what Brown is seen doing on the video.

Isn't making assumptions what everyone's doing?

I don't know if he deserved to get shot. But that was a major sleaze bag move what he did at the store. If it was just shop lifting, I wouldn't hold it against him. But that was a whole lot more then that. That's a scumbag move. It's not hard to imagine the same guy scaring the crap out of the officer.

 

[Distracted1]

Well, in point of fact he was not a felon, since he'll never be tried in court, the store owners don't even apparently consider it a "robbery", and we'll never know what really happened. As for "violent", I've pointed out that what he did was shove someone. He did not beat anyone to a pulp, he did not knife someone, and he did not even hit someone. It's absolutely being used to extrapolate, in this very thread, that he likely attacked the officer who shot him and in fact had returned -- after being shot -- to attack him some more. So in light of that, it's important to describe what he did realistically and not attempt to embellish it.

Are you suggesting that it is some kind of huge leap to take the word of the police that he attacked the officer then returned to attack him again after watching a video of him doing the exact same thing to someone earlier that very day?

 

[newyorkguy]

Are you suggesting that it is some kind of huge leap to take the word of the police that he attacked the officer then returned to attack him again after watching a video of him doing the exact same thing to someone earlier that very day?

Yes I am.

 

[casebro]

He was technically an adult. He was nominally a teen.

No new data to discuss, so the thread has turned to petulant pedantic nit picking.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes. It's two preserved corpse husks, entrapped for all eternity at the horrifying moment of their incinerating deaths, talking to each other.

But it's very upbeat about it.

Hrm.

I wonder if I just got out smart-assed here?

In any event, well played sir!

 

[newyorkguy]

He was technically an adult. He was nominally a teen. No new data to discuss, so the thread has turned to petulant pedantic nit picking.

This isn't a petulant pedantic nit pick, arguing over the use of the word "teenager" as though this is some unseemly attempt to defend someone who is beyond defending. It's symbolic of the way this guy is getting what amounts to a virtual lynching on the Internet.

This is from the Oxford Dictionary.

Definition of teenager in English:
Noun: A person aged from 13 to 19 years

 

[shuize]

Well, in point of fact he was not a felon, since he'll never be tried in court, the store owners don't even apparently consider it a "robbery", and we'll never know what really happened. As for "violent", I've pointed out that what he did was shove someone. He did not beat anyone to a pulp, he did not knife someone, and he did not even hit someone. It's absolutely being used to extrapolate, in this very thread, that he likely attacked the officer who shot him and in fact had returned -- after being shot -- to attack him some more. So in light of that, it's important to describe what he did realistically and not attempt to embellish it.

From the video we clearly see Brown stealing items from behind the counter. On his way out he grabbed the shopkeeper by the neck and knocked him out of the way. Then, rather than just walking out, he turned around to intimidate the shopkeeper back into the store. Strong-arm robbery with the intimidation cherry on top prosecutors would have loved.

It is not embellishment to point out that Brown was a thug who didn't mind using his size to knock people around while robbing them. His acts on the video show him doing exactly that. His acts also strongly suggest he was willing to escalate things. He wasn't a gentle giant on his way to college to help mankind. He was a thug plain and simple.

 

[rwguinn]

This isn't a petulant pedantic nit pick, arguing over the use of the word "teenager" as though this is some unseemly attempt to defend someone who is beyond defending. It's symbolic of the way this guy is getting what amounts to a virtual lynching on the Internet.

This is from the Oxford Dictionary.

It is an attempt to play on emptions.
He was old enough to vote, enter into contracts, and do most other adult things
The fact that his age ends in "teen" does not make him an adolescent, which is what 95% of English-speaking adults mean when speaking of "teen-agers". Excessive pedantry is a last resort of someone losing an argument

 

[lionking]

From the video we clearly see Brown stealing items from behind the counter. On his way out he grabbed the shopkeeper by the neck and knocked him out of the way. Then, rather than just walking out, he turned around to intimidate the shopkeeper back into the store. Strong-arm robbery with the intimidation cherry on top prosecutors would have loved.

It is not embellishment to point out that Brown was a thug who didn't mind using his size to knock people around while robbing them. His acts on the video show him doing exactly that. His acts also strongly suggest he was willing to escalate things. He wasn't a gentle giant on his way to college to help mankind. He was a thug plain and simple.

Yeah, deserved to be executed......

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Yeah, deserved to be executed......

That's not what he is saying. You know this.

 

[Distracted1]

Yeah, deserved to be executed......

Deserved prison.
Do you dispute that?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

the store owners don't even apparently consider it a "robbery"

Gee, I wonder if this could have something to do with the "snitches get stitches" ethos which reigns in the neighborhood and "community" which this convenience store serves?

It's almost as though an owner of a business there might have to worry about something like oh... say... getting looted? Having his establishment burned to the ground? Or being targeted for a drive by or beating or flash mob or something because he was the guy who "snitched on my bruh, Big Mike!"

Naaah, I'm sure none of those considerations went into that shop owner just "not wanting to get involved."

If this were the 30's would you be talking about how swell of a guy Al Capone must be if all those witnesses didn't want to testify against him?

Way to reward a horrible community for being horrible.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We have evidence of *one* robbery - and frankly, a fairly minor one at that. You don't get from one spot to "shoves a cop into his car, jumps in through the window, and then tries to grab a gun". Which is part of why I'm saying, wait for the independent investigation.

One wonders if this was Brown's first "interaction" with the law. I'm betting not. Anyone want to bet against me?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

One wonders if this was Brown's first "interaction" with the law. I'm betting not. Anyone want to bet against me?

As long as we're letting Brown's character hide behind the cloud of intimidation he and his ilk created in that community (another customer had to call in the strong-arm robbery, the owner wouldn't), why not let it also hide behind his sealed juvenile record and pretend we don't all know he'd done stuff like this numerous times before?

I'm obviously not going to sit here and say I know it for a rock solid fact, but I also am not going to be willfully naive about it, in some silly attempt to side with a thug criminal as opposed to the police officer he likely nearly killed.