Michael Brown, Ferguson Victim Paid For His Rellos

[octoberlib]

Joy Reid just tweeted this.

[MohRokTah]

1. CAn't really tell.

And notice, nobody is using the words "alleged strong arm robbery", not even the media.

[Bluzmann57]

4. Good observation

To be honest, I never paid all that much attention to the use of the word "alleged" but now I will thanks to you.
In actuality, I haven't had time to watch much tv this weekend, but when I did, I guess I never did hear the word "alleged". Thanks for pointing that out. I am going to contact the our local tv stations and ask that they use that word.

[Quayblue]

6. oooh thank you!!!

[JaneyVee]

45. I wonder if the clerk came around the counter because

Mike bent down and the clerk suspected him of stealing something and Mike knowing he didn't shoved the clerk out of frustration for accusing him of something he didn't do.

[R B Garr]

46. Do you think any of the so-called altercation might be about Brown's age to buy

tobacco? I don't know what the tobacco age is in MO. Maybe the clerk was questioning his age? It looks like he was at the counter for payment of something, but there was some extra dialogue that seemed ongoing and then followed him out of the store.

I haven't followed this story that closely from the beginning, so I'm trying to get caught up on what you all have pieced together so far. Thanks!

[JimDandy]

159. I thought the altercation might have been over their ages

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)

also, because, after Brown hands Johnson the cigarellos, there appears to be words between the clerk and Brown. Perhaps the clerk was objecting to the transfer of tobacco to someone who hadn't produced ID. Johnson is 17, correct? And Brown was 18. In any case, Johnson rather meekly puts the cigarellos back on the counter.

Johnson has already stated that he sought out Brown when he saw him on the street. I've been wondering if it was to get Brown to purchase the cigarellos for him.

I seem to recall that Johnson, who appears to have something in his hand, slips out the door behind Brown when Brown is being confronted (Who exactly is confronting him?). Johnson has said Brown shoplifted the cigarellos. Brown is dead and can no longer say otherwise.

I've read that the police will not be charging Johnson with their theft. Nice and tidy for everyone who is living...

This is all conjecture that I wasted my time on. Don't waste yours on my conjecture.

ETA: Johnson is actually 22 years old according to CNN, so he could have purchased the cigarellos on his own if he had ID on him.

[R B Garr]

178. This makes a lot of sense! Great analysis. That seemed like a disagreement rather than

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:28 PM - Edit history (2)

a robbery. You can even see the clerk take off the counter what was placed back there, it looks like from Johnson. They were discussing something about the purchase and what you said about Johnson being underage makes a lot of sense.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

2. I've read that the clerk at the counter who handed him the Swisher Sweets

was not the owner who confronted him at the door. Could this be a misunderstanding, the owner thinking he hadn't paid and then calling 911 before he knew the entire story? In this segment, I noticed that Brown handed the cigars to his friend who witnessed the shooting, making him an accomplice to any potential robbery. I see that the witness has not been charged with anything. Any DA worth two cents would be going after this witness for eventual impeachment if he takes the stand to testify on the shooting (suggesting maybe there was no theft in the store0.

[Shrike47]

101. I believe per police report, the friend put what he was handed back on the counter.

I know I read that somewhere. Anyway, if true, that part wasn't a robbery.

[JimDandy]

169. Yes, Johnson puts the unopened big box of cigarellos

that Brown handed to him, back on the counter. He does that after Brown jerks backward when the clerk releases the box of opened, individual packages of cigarellos that they apparently were both holding. Brown puts the container of cigarellos back on the counter and leans down to pick up what are probably the packages of cigarellos that went flying out of the container (seems to be those in his hand when he is by the door.)

What is interesting to me is, when brown is being confronted, Johnson slips behind Brown and out the door with what looks like something in his hand.

[tblue37]

175. The store owner says *they* did not call the cops.

Some customer did.

[earthside]

3. If it turns out he paid ....

... and, of course, there is a presumption of innocence here, too, ... then what are the right-wingers and bigots going to fall back on to justify and rationalize the Michael Brown murder?

[Michigander_Life]

5. Probably that he punched the clerk and the officer.

They'll assassinate his character any way they can by bringing up irrelevant details to the execution.

[MohRokTah]

92. They'll talk about how big he was. Overpowering. Incredible strength.

Dogwhistle.

That's what Friday was all about.

[Jim__]

7. Well, the cop thought that he might be a suspect in an alleged robbery.

What could he do but shoot?

Sadly enough, I think they might ask that.

[LiberalElite]

10. as I understand it -

the cop didn't know about the alleged robbery.

[Jim__]

12. Apparently, Wilson is going to claim he did know.

A friend of Wilson on the radio.

[LiberalElite]

114. ugh. -

of course. Well, they HAVE had several days to come up with a story...

[cleduc]

142. This one as well

which like Dana, appears to be from a right wing leaning source analyzing audio recorded shortly after the shooting

But I can't make out their claims for sure one way or the other on that audio. I have not had the time to conclude one way or the other yet - I'm just trying hard to be objective.

But it is a claim of a second account, like the one made to Dana, maintaining Mike Brown came at the officer before the final shots (note: that claim was also disputed in the comments under the video).

Hopefully, the evidence of where the shell casings were found and the double autopsy can sort out fact from fiction here. If it can't and the officer and a credible witness or two contradict others by saying Mike came at the officer, then they've established reasonable doubt and they will not be able to convict the officer. (don't crucify me as I remain skeptical over the right wing stuff above - I'm just pointing out how this might go in light of the above)

[cleduc]

150. At 6:28 of this video, this part seems clear

&feature=youtu.be
"Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him" (6:52 or so)

Since the officer was in pursuit and Mike had been running away, I can't imagine how the officer could ever get described as "doubling back" towards Mike.

Therefore, it does appear there is conflicting testimony from the person recorded by the audio of the above video about what happened before the final shots that suggests Brown came back at the officer just before he was fatally shot.

Is that the final word? No chance. That's just one person's account. But if it's a legit recording, and as of this moment, I didn't hear anything to suggest it wasn't, it would increase the challenge for the family of Mike Brown to get a conviction against the officer who killed Brown ... IF they can find the person who said it and get them to testify (BIG IF right now).

[cleduc]

152. Here's someone else's attempt to transcribe the audio

&app=desktop

[FreakinDJ]

153. Rodger Elliot who up loaded that video is DEAD

obviously strange that some one would use the name of mass murderer to upload a video that has possibly been "Tampered"

[cleduc]

180. It seems to be a clip from BlackCanseco

&list=UUmhRp3o1thoxFB9VOrvzz3A

Though I'd sear I'd seen it elsewhere before BlackCanseco posted it. Instagram?

The audio seems to match.

Graffiti has gone up in Ferguson like "snitches will get stitches"

In the early hours after the shooting, when some folks tweeted about the robbery, they were lambasted for snitching and in at least one case deleted their tweet.

Some folks on the street where the shooting took place, who had leases, have up and moved away frightened - not just of the police.

And when the early reports came out about the shoplifting, they errantly mentioned QuikTrip being the store. One of those QuikTrip stores in Ferguson got burned and another one or two looted.

Getting to the truth in such circumstances isn't going to be easy.

[FreakinDJ]

181. It was being mass emailed from Gun-nut websites this morning

I listened very carefully to the original

and I would not interpret it as Brown turned to attack the officer - yet that is how it is being portrayed

and all the conjecture without proof is not compelling in my opinion

[cleduc]

186. "all the conjecture without proof is not compelling in my opinion"

Absolutely no doubt about that. Completely and emphatically agree.

It cuts both ways for me.

I do have concern with quotes like this but only if it's legit and accurate: "The next thing I know he coming back towards the ??? (police?)" "Dude started running ... coming toward the police" "Then he (I interpret as Brown) kept coming towards him (I interpret as the police)"

The gun nut sites may have been mass emailing it this morning. But that guy posted it Aug 14th and I'd swear I saw it before then.

[Blue_Roses]

23. Wilson didn't know per the police chief's

Press conference. He acknowledged that.

[Jim__]

25. According to Wilson's friend, Wilson is claiming he did know.

Post #12 links to an interview that confirms he's making that claim.

[Blue_Roses]

27. But, this is just a friend's word

compared to the police chief's statement. Which one do you think carries more weight?

The inconsistencies are what make this look even more like a cover-up. Glad the DOJ is investigating.

[kelliekat44]

52. If he knew why didn't he stop him and ask about a robbery instead of stopping him for walking in the

street? If he suspected him of robbery he would have stopped him, command him to either get on the ground or put his hands up and announce a search or arrest.

[Jim__]

61. Actually, if you listen to the interview they talk about that.

I think the real problem is, what does the police incident report say? And, if it makes this claim, why didn't the police release it? Since they didn't release the report, any report they release now can have its legitimacy questioned. I doubt the story can stand up to tight scrutiny; and whatever the police report claims is open to question because we don't know what it said immediately after the incident.

[Hoyt]

127. Now, they are saying Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect when he first saw him.

But, then saw the cigs and then thought Brown might be the suspect.

Truthfully, I cannot see how Wilson did not know there had been a robbery (although a minor one) when it was all over the radio.

Whatever the truth, Brown should not have been shot.

I also think broadcasting things like "strong-arm robbery" when we are talking about cigs, might cause a policeman to over-react. It's one thing to try to stop someone who has robbed people at the point of a gun, and what apparently happened on the video. I doubt the communication made the distinction that the alleged crime wasn't worth shooting someone over.

[jeff47]

14. You're assuming reality is important to them.

They have a story. They'll stick with it no matter what reality turns out to be.

[840high]

40. Your eyes are better than

mine - I can't tell if he paid.

[earthside]

8. And why wasn't this portion of the video released earlier?

More evidence it would seem of obstruction of justice on the part of the Ferguson Police Department.

[rudolph the red]

11. It was, this isn't new video

[Bjorn Against]

9. Well this changes the whole narrative a bit

The police need to be grilled on why they did not show this part of the footage.

[cui bono]

16. This footage was in the initial release. Why are people thinking it's new?

Some else thought is was new too.

[Bjorn Against]

20. It is quite interesting that no news outlets showed it then

If he paid for the cigars then there was no robbery, this video casts serious doubt on the entire narrative of the last two days.

[cui bono]

36. They did show it. That's how I saw it.

We still don't know if he paid. We still don't know if he stole. You can't see enough on the video.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

26. No, it was not. The initial release only showed the shoving match, not the part at the counter. nt

[cui bono]

28. Yes it was. I guess it just depends on where you saw the video. I saw the entire exchange on Friday.

Here's one of many youtube videos of it posted on Friday, Aug 15:

[ChisolmTrailDem]

41. The initial release showed only Brown and Johnson entering the store and then the

video cut to the altercation as they were exiting the store. The extended version to which you linked, as far as I know, and I followed every moment of those events, didn't come out for another couple of hours. The initial video was an attempt by the Ferguson police to assassinate the character of Mike Brown, which did not include the interactions at the counter.

I'm not perfect and it's possible I missed something, but the only parts of the video I saw after it was initially release was the entrance and exit of the store and nothing in between. I caveat this by saying I didn't see a Youtube version until a couple hours later and what I did see was what was being shown on CNN/MSNBC.

[cui bono]

43. That was posted on Friday. It came out before today. Two days ago.

So yes, it was already released prior to today, which is what we were talking about.

I never saw the shorter version, I only saw the longer version, but I wasn't watching live since I was sleeping on the west coast during the presser. I think the news agencies only aired part of it for their own reasons be they nefarious or just due to not taking up too much time with it.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

49. Cool. I mentioned on Friday, after the extended video surfaced, that it looked like maybe

the clerk had an issue and that the interaction at the counter DID NOT look like a case of "robbery" or even shoplifting.

We need that clerk's statement and initial report to police, or even if police were notified at all as a result of the robbery.

Where is the clerk and why have we not heard his side of the story? That's what I want to know. I heard someone inside that store did not want to call police about the incident. So, where is the truth and where is the clerk?

[eridani]

193. In my state, government agents do pretend shopping trips to see if--

--clerks check ID for tobacco and liquor. The store is in deep shit if they get caught not doing it.

[Politicalboi]

56. You're right

I saw it that way on MSNBC till they finally showed the entire video later. They showed him and his friend coming in, then the shove going out. No video of him at the counter.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

65. And that was done, IMO, to assassinate Brown's character by a PD steeped

in racism and racist attitudes towards "these animals" (cop's words, not mine).

[exboyfil]

90. Well one thing is for sure he does not have a box in his hand

Just four to six of those things? It really looks more of a dispute about an underaged person trying to purchase tobacco. Changes the entire tone of the the incident. Still does not make what Brown did right, but it was no grab and go - something else is going on.

[cui bono]

94. And another thing for sure is that Dorian Johnson put that box back on the counter

before leaving. I'm sure he's more than thankful there's video evidence showing that. You can bet if there wasn't he'd have been arrested by now.

[exboyfil]

99. The police report puts the box as the value

I think that will be crucial. Effectively the store clerk (owner) filed a false police report. It is right there in the video.

[cui bono]

102. I don't think the clerk did that. I think the police did it.

I read that the clerk didn't even want to press charges, that a customer called the police. And there was an OP that went over the police reports in detail and there were so many instances of mismatched descriptions it seemed made up.

[exboyfil]

104. Wow heads are going to roll if that is the case

I wonder if the original of that police report will ever get into the DOJs hands. That is enough to close down the department right there.

[cui bono]

106. I saw it posted as a pdf online, must have been on MSNBC or CNN.

I'll try to find that OP for you...

[Live and Learn]

39. First time I've seen it and I have been paying close attention.

In fact I had wondered what transpired before and thinking we had no idea if Brown actually stole anything.

This part of the video does change the entire perspective and most people have not seen it. In fact, what is usually shown is just the slowed down version of the clerks shirt being grabbed to make it look a lot scarier than it actually was at full speed.

To me it looks like he could have been planning to buy the box of cigars that he handed to Dorian but something the clerk said (not enough money?, don't take the box?) made him reach for packs instead. Dorian doesn't look like they were planning to steal anything either. He replace the box in full view of Brown and Brown doesn't look the least surprised by the action.

[cui bono]

42. Weird. I'm on the west coast and I was watching video of the conference that had happened while I

was asleep and then saw this whole video immediately afterwards.

Perhaps because I was watching online and those who didn't see it were watching broadcast news? I most likely saw it on MSNBC or CNN website. I would say that most people have seen the entire thing since most get their news online, but that doesn't really matter in any case.

[Live and Learn]

44. Funny, West Coast here too and I was watching online.

I did see people mention the box of cigars later on but never saw any video. Guess I should have searched harder. I just assumed I had seen all there was. But, I think most people only saw what I saw and that is really not fair at all.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

47. I think the confrontation with the clerk was not a clear-cut case of robbery but something

more along the lines of some other sort of altercation. For instance, maybe the clerk was the problem and not Mike Brown? Brown and Johnson were not acting as if they were robbing anyone; they were not running away from potential trouble with the police. And they did not initially run from Wilson, as if they had just committed a crime. I think there's more to this alleged "robbery" story.

We need to see the clerk's statement and hear his side of the story. Why has this not happened? Who is this clerk? What is the history between this clerk and Brown, this clerk and Johnson, this clerk and black people, etc.

[Live and Learn]

50. That is what it looks like to me too.

And they would have known there were cameras. The entire episode has been shown out of context.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

53. Maybe Brown THOUGHT he fully paid for the cigars

If the clerk thought he was shorted and Brown thought he'd fully paid then there was no intent on Brown's part to commit a theft. We could be dealing with a couple of bucks here.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

62. Yes. Or Brown felt he was the one being cheated and took what he felt had had...

paid for and the clerk took exception to that.



The one clear thing about all of this is that nothing in that video justifies being gunned down a few minutes later by a cop who pumps him dead while he's begging for him to stop and holding his hands up.

If Brown thought he was innocent, his reaction to having the cops door slammed open on him (so hard it bounced of him and back closed) would not have been unreasonable and even the cop pulling up on him didn't send him into flight as he was close enough to have his throat grabbed from inside the police unit by Wilson, as multiple witnesses have stated.

Nothing I've seen or heard, even the worst things, do not justify Mike Brown being dead right now at the hands of a cop.

I submit we're dealing with a PD that is steeped in racism and racist actions and in overbearing dealings with the black community in that town and that is why we're seeing all the obfuscation, character assassination, and stalling by the FPD and the SLCP.

[winter is coming]

82. Could have been that the confrontation was over showing ID. n/t

[ChisolmTrailDem]

83. Good catch, winter. I had not thought of that! Quite possible, indeed! nt

[JimDandy]

172. That's what I would guess is the most likely explanation for all this.

Not sure why Johnson has said Brown stole some cigarellos, though. Did the police tell him that if Brown didn't show ID that it was theft, even if Brown actually paid for them? Things are just not adding up right.

[RebelOne]

126. Maybe the clerk wanted some proof of his age,

because a person must be 21 to buy alcohol and tobacco products.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

128. Good point, RebelOne! nt

[winter is coming]

133. That varies by state. I think the age for tobacco in Missouri is 18. n/t

[Travis_0004]

139. why the confrontation then

Mr Brown was 18 so he could have showed his ID or left with nothing if he didnt have an ID on him.

[Alittleliberal]

160. How olds Johnson?

I remember being 18 and going to buy a pack of cigs with a friend who was 17 and we both got ID'd. I couldn't buy them because he was 17. Perhaps a similar situation?

[Travis_0004]

161. Sounds reasonable. But Brown then should have left without them

[bravenak]

177. No.

It is Illegal to hand anyone tobacco products without ID. (Unless their age is known or very apparent) You can get a red card and get fined and lose the right to sell tobacco products if you hand a customer tobacco without ID.

The fact that the cigarillos were placed on the counter shows that the shopkeeper or clerk knew the person making the purchase or judged him to be of age. It appears that they did not call the police themselves. Therefore, there must have been a misunderstanding at the register.

Also, you are trained to NEVER place the product within reach of the customer prior to taking the money to prevent run-outs. Something else happened.

[JimDandy]

174. No, tobacco can be purchased at age 18 in Missouri.

Most states it is age 18-in only a few is it age 21.

[cui bono]

13. Yeah, we can't tell if he actually stole or not.

Where is the store clerk's statement though? I heard that a customer called it in, that the clerk didn't want to press charges. So what if there was no theft, just the shoving and the police falsified the report? Is the clerk afraid to speak out lest he get killed?

[CatWoman]

15. wasn't that store destroyed by rioters a couple nights ago?

[cui bono]

17. I think so, and then the people of the community helped clean it up.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

19. If there was no theft, the store owner wasn't justified in confronting Brown at the exit

and the shoving by Brown is justified. If the store owner was trying to detain Brown for no valid reason, then he is the one guilty of the attempted crime of false imprisonment.

[cui bono]

30. Yeah. We can't tell what happened, and unfortunately for Brown it doesn't matter

anymore since he can't be charged.

At this point I'm thinking that there might have been a misunderstanding on how many he had paid for because otherwise why was he dealing with the clerk at all? And the clerk is not the one who called it in and did not want to press charges.

[Quayblue]

18. i bet that 911 call isnt about Mr. Brown

[rudolph the red]

21. I've watched this video several time, at what point does he pay?

I am just not seeing it I guess.

[CatWoman]

22. on You Tube, found in the video description

Published on Aug 16, 2014

At 36 seconds you can clearly see the clerk clasp currency in his hands.

[rudolph the red]

24. Thanks

[Live and Learn]

29. Yep, and he certainly doesn't look in a hurry to get out of there.

It may have been a simple misunderstanding. The point is we don't know and the chief releasing it as proof of a robbery was wrong.

[cui bono]

31. I can't see it.

I see his hands grab the box of cigarellos that Johnson put back on the counter. But anyway, it doesn't really matter. This is a sideshow.

[JimDandy]

173. Look behind Brown as he straightens up from picking up the cigarello packages off the floor...

Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

The clerk comes out from behind the counter through a half door and has currency in his hand as he walks to the right of Brown.

Sigh, yes this is a distraction.

ETA: it is actually not clear that he has currency...I looked again frame by frame. He COULD have something in his hand, or it could be my imagination.

[exboyfil]

103. It looks like he is trying to give it back to Brown

and get the tobacco product back.

He also initiates the contact at the door. That is a battery unless he is compelled/allowed to by the tobacco statute (assuming Brown did pay).

For all the suburban white folk out there lets say you walk out of a restaurant and the manager attempts to stop you because there is a perceived problem with a bill. The manager attempts to lock you in and puts hands on you. You push the manager away and leave - are you guilty of a 2nd degree felony????

[JimDandy]

176. If he's attempting to give the money back to Brown

because Brown didn't show ID, then the transaction wasn't completed. There was no "meeting of the minds" then and a contractual purchase did not occur, therefore I suppose Brown technically could be charged with theft, if the law said he must prove he is 18 to purchase tobacco...not just be 18.

[bravenak]

179. If he handed his the tobacco prior to getting age verification then an infraction was committed.

By the store. Most chains like that have a computer training program where they teach you the steps. Age verification, cash, THEN product. Doing these steps out of order is against procedure. Skipping the first step is illegal and can cost the store the right to sell tobacco products. Most stores ID the entire group of people who are together in order to prevent selling to minors. I have had my husband come back outside from holiday station stores to get my ID before he could purchase the product.

[JimDandy]

183. That's supposed to be the exact procedure all right.

I worked at a convenience store some time ago... No computer training program for me. Just explicit written and verbal instructions on procedure to follow... We were NOT required to ID everyone we thought might be with the purchaser, though. Only the purchaser.

[bravenak]

184. We have problems up here with minor consumption.

And our age is 19. We did it to prevent kids from getting hooked on tobacco.

[Travis_0004]

141. I wonder if the clerk refused to sell him cigars because he didnt have an ID

If thats the case maybe Mr brown got upset and walked out without actually paying.

[OneGrassRoot]

32. I hope the woman standing there toward the end of this video...

has been found. Surely she and the clerk are both federal witnesses now?

She may not have witnessed the very beginning of the interaction with the clerk, but surely she witnessed/heard something before the shoving took place.

[Live and Learn]

33. So, it appears that Brown was involved in a small altercation at the store

and not a "strong arm robbery." A small altercation is all it should have been called. We have no idea what actually transpired but he certainly didn't just go in and start grabbing things.

[Robbins]

34. Don't get distracted

Even if he shoplifted that doesn't justify murder.

Now since they showed full video and not cherypicked stills it looks like he was at counter to pay.To steal from story by going to counter and pushing clerk around Is kind of stupid.If your going to shoplift you don't want to attract attention of clerk.

Could he have pushed clerk because he was harssing him for some reason.

Also If he had these In one hand it kind of cuts into police claim the officer was threatned.

What went down at store may not be picture ferguson police are trying to frame.

[Live and Learn]

63. I don't think we are distracted.

I think we are just reacting to the attempt at character assassination that was obviously taken out of context.

I don't really care what the guy did. Nobody should be shot in the back or with their hands up.

In addition, nobody should have evidence taken out of context used against their character by an agency of the law. This stinks to high-heaven.

[VanGoghRocks]

86. Someone yesterday posed the question: if Brown's hands were full of cigars (or 'rellos'), then how

could he be reaching for Wilson's gun???

[cui bono]

37. I didn't hear that. When did he say that? What did he say?

Do you have a link?

[840high]

38. Can't tell.

[Lee-Lee]

48. Umm, his friend who was there with him and also on the video has admitted that they stole them

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) - The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.

That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC. Police in Ferguson had earlier announced that Brown was suspected of taking cigars from the convenience store in what was described as a "strong-arm robbery."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/darren-wilson-identified-killed-18-year-old-michael-brown-article-1.1904539

Freeman Bosley, a former St. Louis mayor and the lawyer for Brown’s friend, 22-year-old Dorian Johnson, confirmed the slain teen took the cigars.

“My client did tell us — and told the FBI — that they went into the store,” Bosley said on MSNBC. “He told the FBI that he did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.”

Playing amateur CSI with a grainy video trying to convince yourself it shows what you want it to is a fools errand when even Brown friend and participant in the theft has admitted that they did, in fact, steal the cigars.

[Rex]

51. Not much of a 'strong arm' robbery...but I'm sure the police called it that

because they were mistaken.

[Lee-Lee]

55. By the law, it is "Strong Arm Robbery" or second degree theft because of the assault

Taking the cigars was simple shoplifting/theft. Assaulting the store owner or clerk who attempted to stop the theft (and was legally within his rights to do so to protect his property) changed the elements of the crime and elevated a simple shoplifting offense to a greater charge/crime.

[Rex]

57. Where was the assault? All I saw was 3 or 4 images...is there a video

that shows him assaulting someone?

[Lee-Lee]

59. Here

About the 1:20 mark.

[Rex]

67. So pushing the guy out of his way so he could leave, is considered 'strong arm' robbery?

Learned something new today. Thanks I've never seen the video and some of it must be missing since the 3 or 4 still shots I saw are not in that video. How strange is that?

[Lee-Lee]

73. If you push someone aside to facilitate a theft, yes

A theft is one offense. Shoplifting or robbery.

A theft that uses physical violence or the threat of it is a greater offense. "Strong Arm Robbery"

A theft that uses a deadly weapon or threat of one is an even more serious offense. "Armed Robbery"

"Strong Arm Robbery" is a common term for a robbery that used force, but not a weapon so it did not meet criteria for "Armed Robbery".

Lots of shoplifters make life a lot harder for themselves by resisting store clerks or security when caught and confronted, changing a relatively minor crime into a greater offense.

[Rex]

74. Kinda like people that run from the cops imo.

I know this is off topic, but when they get caught they HAD maybe a unpaid traffic ticket or other minor offense...and now they have a felony charge, because they ran from the cops! Stupid stupid stupid.

[Lee-Lee]

85. Yep. I saw people turn a fine and maybe CS hours and turn it into years in jail

Nothing like turning a simple offense with a fine and maybe some community service into a jail term and a felony conviction that stays with you for life because you make bad decisions.

[Live and Learn]

76. He is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Store clerks have no right to impede a person from leaving a store.

[Lee-Lee]

79. "Shopkeepers Privilege"- a store owner or clerk CAN keep you from leaving if they suspect theft

If a store owner or employee has reasonable cause to suspect a person it stealing or attempting to steal they can detain that person for a period reasonable to investigate if they are stealing and call authorities.

[Live and Learn]

84. In some jurisdictions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege

Mine is not one and I doubt most people know this. It is a silly practice anyway. If you want security, hire them.

[Lee-Lee]

89. Its that way in most every state, but here is the relevant MO statute

Shoplifting--detention of suspect by merchant--liability presumption.
537.125. 1. As used in this section:

(1) "Mercantile establishment" means any mercantile place of business in, at or from which goods, wares and merchandise are sold, offered for sale or delivered from and sold at retail or wholesale;

(2) "Merchandise" means all goods, wares and merchandise offered for sale or displayed by a merchant;

(3) "Merchant" means any corporation, partnership, association or person who is engaged in the business of selling goods, wares and merchandise in a mercantile establishment;

(4) "Wrongful taking" includes stealing of merchandise or money and any other wrongful appropriation of merchandise or money.

2. Any merchant, his agent or employee, who has reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a wrongful taking of merchandise or money from a mercantile establishment, may detain such person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time for the purpose of investigating whether there has been a wrongful taking of such merchandise or money. Any such reasonable detention shall not constitute an unlawful arrest or detention, nor shall it render the merchant, his agent or employee, criminally or civilly liable to the person so detained.

3. Any person willfully concealing unpurchased merchandise of any mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such establishment, shall be presumed to have so concealed such merchandise with the intention of committing a wrongful taking of such merchandise within the meaning of subsection 1, and the finding of such unpurchased merchandise concealed upon the person or among the belongings of such person shall be evidence of reasonable grounds and probable cause for the detention in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time, of such person by a merchant, his agent or employee, in order that recovery of such merchandise may be effected, and any such reasonable detention shall not be deemed to be unlawful, nor render such merchant, his agent or employee criminally or civilly liable.

4. Any merchant, his agent or employee, who has reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that a person has committed a wrongful taking of property, as defined in this section, and who has detained such person and investigated such wrongful taking, may contact law enforcement officers and instigate criminal proceedings against such person. Any such contact of law enforcement authorities or instigation of a judicial proceeding shall not constitute malicious prosecution, nor shall it render the merchant, his agent or employee criminally or civilly liable to the person so detained or against whom proceedings are instigated.

Store owner was well within his rights based on the video.

"If you want security, hire them" is a nonsensical statement, most small business owners can't afford to hire dedicated security, and they shouldn't have less right to deal with shoplifters than a big corporation like Wal-Mart who can afford security does.

[Live and Learn]

95. I'd nix you on reasonable grounds then

Just saying there is no way I would convict based on that video alone no matter what lawful BS anyone said.

[Lee-Lee]

97. Well most reasonable people udnerstand the law is what it says, not what you want it to be

As I said, assault is a slam dunk on that video. Theft would be a 99% chance of conviction.


In the real world...

Any defense attorney would look at that video and tell his or her client to take whatever plea deal they got offered, and wouldn't let it near a jury. Prosecutors office will let them plead to one lesser offense, maybe simple theft or simple assault, give them some community service if it is a first offense, and put another notch in the "win" column for the next election and the stats they put up on conviction rate.

[Live and Learn]

98. Yep, there are a lot of bad defense attorneys out there

and a lot of self-righteous prosecutors too.

[qazplm]

68. an assault is just an offensive touching

so the grab was the assault. Obviously labeling it as a "strong-arm" robbery makes seem a lot more ominous than it is. And even more obviously, regardless of whether he paid or did not, it doesn't remotely justify the shooting and death that follows.

[Rex]

71. Well the officer that allegedly shot and killed Brown had no idea of the robbery at the time he

killed him, so to me they are two completely separate topics of interest.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

129. I doubt this even rises to the level of a criminal assault and battery

Assault is the placing of the victim in fear of an unlawful touching and battery is the actual touching. This probably doesn't even constitute a Class C criminal assault and battery in Missouri which is a misdemeanor involving 15 days in jail. The possible circumstances:

Attempting to cause or recklessly causing physical injury to another person,

Cause physical injury to another by acting with criminal negligence using a weapon,

Placing someone in fear of immediate physical injury,

Recklessly engaging in behavior which creates a grave risk of death or serious injury,

Knowingly causing physical contact with another person knowing it will be considered offensive by the other person, or

Knowingly causing physical contact with someone who is incapacitated.


The push by Brown didn't look intended to cause injury and I don't believe resulted in injury. The clerk might have a cause of action for civil assault and battery against Brown, if he were still alive. Of course if he actually stole the cigars, he could be guilty of robbery.

[WillowTree]

140. That meets the legal definition of assault.

In most jurisdictions, even the threat of harm by force is considered assault.

[Live and Learn]

54. It has always seemed like an odd thing for an attorney to admit to me.

I'll wait till we can hear the entire story from those that were actually there.

[kelliekat44]

58. Something really fishy about this. Is that video of the same incident? What was in Brown's hands

after the transaction? Is this the same day, time etc? Did Browns friend admit that they stole cigars that day or had stolen cigars on other occasions? If Brown was being pursued as an alleged robber, why did not the police stop him and announce potential arrest and ask them to either raise their hands or lay down on the ground? That's the usual way a suspect is treated. How many shots in the front and back of Brown's body? Was a receipt found on Brown's body? Did his friend have a receipt? There appears to have been a woman in the store at the same time as the alleged incident. Was she interviewed? Did she come forward?

[Live and Learn]

66. And why didn't they look to be in a hurry?

They simply meandered down the street and even partially blocked a cop which started the final confrontation? Makes no sense at all.

[Rex]

70. The pics I saw, were of the same man and Brown...but were NOT in that video.

In the pics that man has his fists balled up like he is ready to fight and is standing toe to toe with Brown... i wonder why that wasn't in the video? Maybe different footage...strange.

[Schema Thing]

91. and the person tweeting right after it happened somehow

knew about the 'rellos.


I think it will come out that the person tweeting had already heard, either first or second-hand, from Dorian Johnson (who successfully ran from the cop).


Which, btw, still doesn't mean the killer cop knew anything about "the 'rellos".

[Ecumenist]

190. Schema, that's EXACTLY what I wanted to know.... HOW THE HELL did the person

who was LIVE TWEETING the situation know about the Cigarellos? ESPECIALLY considering that the cops DID NOT?

[countryjake]

191. Maybe they have a scanner?

Listening to cop dispatches is quite common, you know.

[Ecumenist]

192. I find that hard to believe because they NEVER mention that although they talk about what

they were witnessing in the street LAST SATURDAY. He was freaked out and was trying to figure out what was happening and why...NO MENTION of a scanner. NONE

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

105. Can't find an MSNBC interview of attorney Freeman Bosley

Here's the CNN interview in which he does not admit that his client Dorian Johnson robbed the store. He uses the word "take" regarding the cigars. It's not clear whether that applied only to Brown. I would expect a legal term to come from an attorney's mouth an I don't know what that term means coming from Bosley. He also says the authorities told him his client did nothing wrong and won't be charged. At least in this videotaped interview, there's no admission his client committed a theft. I'd like to see the MSNBC tape, unless the newspaper made a mistake as to which network did the interview.

Here's an MSNBC reporter's second hand description of what attorney Freeman Bosley told him on the phone (half way down the page). It seems that the word "take" was again used and there's only reference to "a pack" of cigarillos.

There's no reference to "they stole them" (involving Dorian Johnson) and of course we can't be certain that Johnson knew exactly what happened since he was away from the counter and Brown was perhaps blocking his view. Brown isn't around to describe what happened and we haven't heard from the clerk yet.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown

[WillowTree]

149. One more time.

Dorian Johnson has admitted that the cigars were not paid for. You can clearly see on the video of the two them by the counter that Brown passed a handful to him and then he (Johnson) put them back on the counter before they walked away. And there is nothing on the films from either camera angle that would lead one to believe that Dorian had anything whatsoever to do with the shoving incident. There's nothing give any indication that there's anything for him to be charged with.

[n2doc]

112. How much pressure was he under?

What sorts of deals did he have to make to stay out of Jail?

If he admitted theft why isn't he in jail or at least arrested?

No lawyer admits guilt without a deal in place.

The whole thing stinks.

[Travis_0004]

143. The cops have bigger issues to deal with

It would suprise me if a prosecutor gave him immunity for the theft to allow him to freely talk about everything that happened. If I was a prosecutor I would make that deal in a heart beat. Evidence on the shooting is much more important than a shoplifting charge.

[Moosepoop]

146. Not so fast.

The article at your link quotes Johnson's attorney Bosley as saying "He told the FBI that he did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police."

You take that to mean that the "he" in question is Johnson.

The article at this link: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown quotes Bosley the same way except that instead of "he" it substitutes the word "Brown" in brackets. I can't replicate it here because the formatting won't let me -- anything in brackets completely disappears. But you can see it at the linked article.

I'm sure the word used was "he," but the writer in this case replaced the word "he" with "Brown" in brackets. The writer evidently believes that the word "he" was in reference to Brown, not to Johnson. I have not heard the audio of this statement, so I don't have the inflection with which it was said. But perhaps the reporter did hear it, either live or recorded, and has the context in which to determine that the "he" referred to was Brown.

If Bosley was saying that Johnson has already told the FBI, the DOJ, and the St. Louis cops that BROWN took cigarillos, then your assertion that "they" both stole cigars and that Johnson was a "participant in the theft" is simply wrong. Since the police have already said that Johnson has not committed any crime and therefore will not be charged with anything, I'm fairly certainly that Bosley did mean "Brown" when he said "he."

See what a difference one little word can make?

[JimDandy]

187. This is the exact quote from Bosley's interview with Don Lemon:

"The officer did not know that they had robbed that pla... Not robbed... I'm sorry. Let me take that back. The officer did not know that they had gone into that store and taken some of those cigarellos. He just did not know it."

In the video at the store, Johnson puts the box of cigarellos that Brown had handed to him back on the counter, but when he's going out the door, he appears to have something in his hand. Probably one of the individual packages that flew onto the floor out of the 2nd open container of them that came away with a jerk into Brown's hand.

In any case there is a reason why Johnson's own attorney says "they" in that interview. He is very careful to backtrack where he feels it is need and yet consistently uses the word "they".

[Politicalboi]

60. In this video it looks like

Brown handed the cigars to his friend, and then reached in to grab another box of cigars. But moments later, his friend puts the original box back on the counter then they leave. Maybe the clerk didn't see him put the other box back, and thought they were stealing it.

[gordianot]

64. If he paid could that be why the Police Chief presented then discounted the video?

Subsequently the Chief says the officer that shot him may have suspected he took the cigars and there is even a Police report filed. Sheer total incompetence before and after with publicly changing stories. No wonder people suspect conspiracy, if not that it does prove levels of profound Police incompetence in the Ferguson Police Department.

[Live and Learn]

72. One thing the video shows is that Brown couldn't have been convicted

of anything based on it alone.

[Lee-Lee]

77. I could easily get an assault conviction of that video, probably the theft too

Coupled with the clerks cooperation and report.

The theft they might could argue, but wouldn't win. The assault they can't dispute.

[Live and Learn]

78. Not if I were on the jury.

Your definition of assault and mine are quite different. In fact, with your definition, I could have had hundreds of people arrested for doing it to me through my lifespan, from teachers to co-workers.

[Lee-Lee]

81. "your definition" of assault doesn't matter. The LAW matters

Don't like how the law defines assault? Get it changed. In every jurisdiction in this country grabbing a person by the throat and shoving them is assault.

[Live and Learn]

88. Brown didn't grab anyone by the throat.

But I will agree with you that it appears the officer assaulted Brown by grabbing him by the throat.

[Lee-Lee]

93. Has dashcam been released yet showing that?

I am awaiting video and audio from the car before I make my mind up either way about the confrontation between Brown and the officer.

In the store he either grabbed the clerk by the throat or shoved him by the side of the throat.

[Live and Learn]

96. Funny, I only saw a shirt tugged.

And per the officer I did say "appears". The "appears" is based upon what witnesses are alleged to have said.

[countryjake]

189. Last Sunday, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said there's no video...

from any patrol car dashboard camera or officer-worn camera. He said that they have 18 cop cars and earlier this year they'd bought two dash-cams and two body-cams, but the department can't afford to install them.

According to Paul Walker, the first eye witness to be interviewed, who was outside sitting on his porch when he heard the first gunshot, the cop continued to fire his gun at Michael Brown after he was already subdued, giving up, hands raised. There was no substantial risk of death or any serious bodily injury to that cop or anybody else when he used deadly force to empty his gun into an unarmed kid.

[Live and Learn]

154. ALLEGED thief. I guess you forgot that part.

And the only ones alleging it are the cops. And yes there are varying degrees and big differences between a tug and a say a punch in the mouth. Good grief.

[countryjake]

125. The LAW has never mattered to cops who are bent on getting a conviction...

to hear you talk, you act as tho every law enforcer alive possesses the character of both George Washington and Abe Lincoln, combined.

Cops lie. In a court of law, they are almost always taken at their word, despite evidence to the contrary, because the prosecutors are complicit in those lies.

The Criminal Justice System has been corrupted for decades, working deliberately now to continue a systemic repression of Blacks, Latinos, and other people of color. Its version of "the LAW" has never mattered, throughout the entire history of this country, in terms of gaining justice for any minority peoples.

You're right about one thing, something needs to get changed. But it ain't the LAW, it's the system.

[BlueCaliDem]

130. Thank you, countryjake! This needed to be said.

Cops lie under oath all the time, and they're never held to account for those lies because it's actually encouraged. Their perjury have sent innocent people to prison or, in some tragic instances, even the DP.

Why Police Lie Under Oath
By MICHELLE ALEXANDER
Published: February 2, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

{snip}
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.

That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”

[Live and Learn]

157. +2 nt

[Starboard Tack]

117. With your attitude, I doubt you'll ever serve on a jury. You seem very confused.

You appear to have very little understanding or regard for the law. Looks like Brown stole the merchandise and then pushed the clerk. That makes it a strong arm robbery. Deal with it.

What happened later is totally unconnected. He was murdered.

[Live and Learn]

118. So you've already convicted a dead man without a trial?

I am sure you make an excellent juror.

[Starboard Tack]

120. No, I haven't convicted anyone.

We're talking about what constitutes a robbery here. If he were alive, he would've been charged with "strong arm robbery", because that's what the evidence points to. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe his buddy was mistaken and Brown and the clerk were just joshing. Maybe Brown paid for the 'rellos. But, from what we know, it looks like a charge would've been justified. A conviction is a whole other thing.

Same as it looks like he was murdered, but the cop should have his day in court to decide that. That's how the system works.

[Live and Learn]

122. All I said was that based on the video ALONE,

I could not convict. I stand by my statement.

You are correct. We have no idea what was said or really transpired.

[Logical]

134. Well, then you are biased! nt

[Live and Learn]

158. I'd say the same about you. nt

[Logical]

162. If my son or daughter was treated like that clerk was I would be pissed....

Maybe that is normal behavior to you.

[Live and Learn]

163. Well at least I wouldn't be sending your child up river

for a prison term for a simple tug on someone's shirt. We don't even know what happened and you are ready to hang the guy even though he is already dead.

[Logical]

164. Who fucking said prison term? Link to where I said that. nt

[Live and Learn]

165. That is the sentence for robbery.

And a record that would haunt him the rest of his life.

By the way, I am sure your children have or will have to at some point endure much worse in life than what he did to that clerk. The clerk wasn't even traumatized enough to want to call the police.

[Logical]

166. LOL, so let me get this straight, customers in your world....

Would get to shove clerks when pissed at them? Wow, sounds great!

[Live and Learn]

167. And in your world, nearly everyone would be in prison.

Wow, that sounds great. I really am done with this silly conversation that has nothing to do with what I originally posted which was that based on the video ALONE I couldn't convict him of anything. If you could, fine. That is why we have 12 jurors.

[Logical]

171. Lol, where did I say prison? Link please! You are silly! nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

107. You would send an 18 year old to prison for 5 years for what we see in that video?

If so, it's no wonder our justice system is so fucked in its root.

[Live and Learn]

109. Exactly. Over zealous prosecutors are a big problem. nt

[Lee-Lee]

110. For a first offense nobody is getting 5 years for that

As I explained already, real world result is defense attorney sees the videos, advises client to make a deal, prosecutor pleas it down to a smaller charge that would probably get community service and maybe some sort of diversion program.

[alcibiades_mystery]

113. If you don't think he deserves the minimum for Robbery 2, then you don't think it's Robbery 2

I love this "real world" dodge. That just means your real practice is absurd and corrupt, overcharging beyond any reasonable and just analysis of the action in order to terrify people into a plea deal.

Do you think he should have been sent to state prison for a minimum of five years for what you see in the video? Yes or no? If not, then you don't believe it's a crime at the level of Robbery 2. If so, then you are so beyond the mainstream of thought that your opinion is laughable.

Don't "real world" me. Deal with the question.

[Lee-Lee]

115. You don't understand how a crime is judged

It isn't judged based on the possible punishment. The law lays out elements of a crime, and in determining of actions equal that crime the only thing that matters are what are the elements of that crime, and are those elements present.

Are the elements for robbery 2 present in that video? Looks like it- theft + physical force against another person.

That is why in a criminal trial a jury determines guilt or innocence without regard to sentence and in fact are not even told what possible sentences are. Only after a guilty verdict is reached is the sentencing phase entered into.

[alcibiades_mystery]

121. Would Michael Brown deserve 5 years in state prison

For what you see happen in that tape? Your position.

[Lee-Lee]

124. No, but as I said in the real world he wouldn't get it

If someone deserves a punishment at a certain level doesn't change the fact that they committed a certain crime.

What it does do, as I have pointed out, is make the prosecution more likely to use the discretion the law provides to charge with a lessor offense.

Should that deserve 5 years? No. Is it still robbery 2 as described by the law? Yes.

That doesn't speak to his innocence of the crime, but rather to the need to review the law in that state.

[Logical]

135. Would you want your kid treated like that as a clerk? nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

144. Of course not

That doesn't make what he did a Robbery 2 with a 5 year minimum in state prison, though.

[Logical]

148. I agree, probation at the most. Nt

[Travis_0004]

145. He would not go to jail for 5 years

I doubt he would get any jail time. With no record he would probably get a fre hours of community service.

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. Of course he wouldn't, but the charge on the incident report is Robbery 2

And everybody screaming that it was a strong arm robbery agree that it was Robbery 2, which is a felony carrying MINIMUM 5 years in prison. That is the minimum penalty in Missouri for the charge in the incident report that many people are agreeing with.

In the "real world" that some here love to trumpet, it would be pleaded down significantly, and he'd likely get 12 months probation. Obviously. But then we don't really think this was a strong arm robbery in the same way knocking over a woman in the street for the express purpose of grabbing her bag is a strong arm robbery, right? We know it's not the same as that, so all this nonsense about the "elements" of the charge is just that: bullshit. Even the people arguing that it is a strong arm robbery don't really believe it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

108. You're not going to get an assault charge if there was a wrongful attempt to detain Brown

If there was no theft and the attempt to detain him at the exit was unjustified, Brown is within his right to push the store owner out of his way. In fact, the store owner would face an attempted assault charge and possibly an attempted false imprisonment.

[Lee-Lee]

111. I already posted MO law, shopkeepers can detain if they suspect theft

So there doesn't have to actually be a theft, just a suspicion of one.

Based on the video they can easily say the shopkeeper has reasonable cause to suspect theft and detain him long enough to investigate.

Pretty much in any encounter a shopkeeper can briefly detain to investigate, even if the person has in fact not taken anything, just long enough to determine they did in fact not take anything. So because he used force to resist right off the bat the claim can't be made he was resisting an improper detention by a shopkeeper. Now had he shown the person what was in his hands and a receipt or explained he paid, then after presenting proof he didn't steal used force to resist continued detention you could maybe debate it. But initial use of force with seconds? Can't claim to be resisting improper detention given the law that allows a shopkeeper to detain for a period reasonable to investigate.

Ever had the receipt checker at Best-Buy stop you to check your bags and receipt? Same concept. If you shoved that guy out of the way it would be assault.

[Live and Learn]

119. The law is not as black and white as you are trying to depict it.

Jurors understand the intent of the law and will judge accordingly.

By the way, nobody is obliged to stop and show their receipt. The only action the store can take is to revoke your privilege to shop there.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

123. If a shopkeeper is pushed aside by someone who turns out to be innocent of theft

where that shopkeeper could have apprised himself of that innocence through other means (consulting with his clerk), I doubt that any jury will find that there was probable cause or reasonable grounds for the detention. Besides the difficulty in getting a jury to convict that shopper innocent of theft, you have the reality that this was a very minor battery committed by Brown consisting of a push, resulting in no apparent physical injury. What kind of DA is going to take that case?

I don't think you're looking at this correctly. The shopkeeper's privilege statute was enacted to protect merchants from charges of false arrest or false imprisonment, not to prosecute those who fail to allow themselves to be detained. If Michael Brown was prosecuted for failing to allow himself to be detained and committing battery against the shopkeeper, he just has to describe that it was not his intent to do so or to commit any crime, that he felt any detention was unreasonable because he had paid for the cigars and was innocent of theft. If he walked out of the store and went home and didn't steal anything and the police verified he didn't steal anything, what crime has he committed? Resisting arrest applies to law enforcement officers, not shopkeepers.

[Live and Learn]

168. +1 nt

[csziggy]

69. I wonder if the clerk was trying to get ID from him

I posted about this the other night but now I've looked up Missouri law on it. While Missouri law allows 18 year olds to buy tobacco products, they may be asked for ID. Clerks at stores are the ones who are required to enforce this law and they can face serious penalties if they do not check for ID on people who might be under 18. The stores can lose their tobacco and liquor licenses if they don't make sure that their clerks are careful about this ID verification.

Michael Brown was 18 according to the reports but he may not have had ID to prove it. If he did not, the clerk was within their rights - and had a duty - to not sell tobacco to a suspected minor. I can see Michael Brown getting upset if the clerk took his money, then refused to give him the cigarellos he had paid for.

The clerk seen at the door was not the clerk at the register, according to what I have read - some videos show a woman in a red shirt coming from the restrooms, and I've read that she was the one at the register. The man at the door may have been a manager or owner. It would have been very much in his interest in stopping the two young men from leaving with the tobacco items - as a liquor store proprietor, losing his license for two years (see below) would likely have put him out of business.

Many state governments do stings with under age people to try to catch stores not checking ID. That could explain why the store manager/owner called the cops and claimed shoplifting even if Michael Brown had paid for the cigarellos. It would have been protection for his clerk and himself to claim that.

The interaction at the counter seems to fit with this scenario. The store clerk, according to what I have read and the video, was not at the counter for at least a few seconds while Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson were there. They could have easily grabbed the cigars and taken off out the door. Instead there was some interaction, it appears that Michael Brown tried to pay for the items, then he grabbed some cigars and started to leave.

While Michael Brown looks 18, Dorian Johnson does not - I'm not sure how old Johnson is. That may be why Johnson put back the box Brown gave him. But Michal Brown WAS 18 and probably would not have understood why he could not buy the tobacco products without ID.

The confrontation at the door would also fit - that the manager/owner tried to stop the men, Brown told him that he was 18 and that he had PAID for the items and shoved the man out of his way. I can see that Michael Brown could have been upset - he had paid for the goods, he was legally old enough to purchase them, and he may have been embarrassed at not yet having a driver's license or ID.

No persons or entity shall sell, provide or distribute any tobacco product or rolling papers to any minor, or sell any individual cigarettes to any person in Missouri. This subsection of the law does not apply to the distribution by family members on property that is not open to the public. (RSMo 407.931)

<SNIP>

A person or entity selling tobacco products or rolling papers or distributing tobacco product samples shall require proof of age from a prospective purchaser or recipient if an ordinary person would conclude on the basis of appearance that such prospective purchaser or recipient may be under the age of eighteen. (RSMo 407.929)

<SNIP>

The Division of Liquor Control has the authority to inspect stores and tobacco outlets for compliance with all laws related to access of tobacco products to minors. The Division
may employ a person seventeen years of age, with parental consent, to attempt to purchase tobacco for the purpose of inspection or enforcement of tobacco laws.

<SNIP>

Any person or entity who sells or distributes tobacco products by mail or the Internet in
Missouri to any person under eighteen years of age shall be assessed a fine of two hundred fifty dollars for the first violation and five hundred dollars for each subsequent
violation. (RSMo 407.926)

<SNIP>

Owners of establishments where tobacco products are sold who unlawfully sell or distribute tobacco products to minors shall be reprimanded for the first violation within two years and will receive citations and be banned from selling tobacco for subsequent
violations. (RSMo 407.931)
http://health.mo.gov/living/wellness/tobacco/smokingandtobacco/pdf/Kidsread.pdf

[winter is coming]

87. It could even be that Brown had some ID but not a state ID card. n/t

[Quayblue]

156. I see where you're coming from...

But I think they may have already had an established relationship with that store; probably went there for rellos all the time. And now all of a sudden, this particular day, he is being hassled for ID. This doesn't sit well with me.

JMO.

[countryjake]

137. And Michael Brown had no valid photo ID, according to police reports

I also brought this up on Friday, after I'd watched that video about fifty times. The attitude of the person who they're claiming is Michael Brown, with all of the time he spent at that liquor store counter and then, afterward as he picks the packs of swishers up off the floor, does not seem to be that of a person who is robbing someone. I don't know when Michael turned 18, but that was the neighborhood he lived in and if that clerk knew him as a 17 yr old, they would automatically deny him tobacco. And if he had no photo ID, he could not purchase what he went into the store to buy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5394200

Yet, absolutely none of this matters, not that video, nor the liquor store, or any swisher sweet cigars.
Michael Brown was shot dead for walking in the street. He was assaulted by a cop and then murdered, with his hands in the air pleading, "Don't Shoot!".

Witness to Michael Brown’s Killing Explains What He Saw

http://colorlines.com/archives/2014/08/witness_to_michael_browns_killing_explains_what_he_saw.html

[csziggy]

138. What does matter is that if my theory is true Mike Brown was no thief

He may have been a young man who used poor judgement in leaving without providing proper ID and by pushing the store employee but if he left payment on the counter, he did not steal anything.

That disposes of the effort to smear his reputation.

It also highlights the need to get ID for young people as soon as they reach the age of majority so they can exercise their rights - to buy liquor, tobacco products, and most importantly to vote.

[JimDandy]

185. Dorian Johnson could easily provide the answer as to whether they had a problem with ID

Wonder why he hasn't? Law enforcement agencies have told him he isn't being charged... Not the same as "won't be charged by any law enforcement agency" or if he had been given immunity by all law enforcement agencies involved, but still...

And so could the clerk, unless he is facing possibly trouble for not following ID laws.

[VanGoghRocks]

75. Thank you for posting. I've updated my thread from yesterday to

cross-reference this. (And please feel free to weigh in there if you are so moved.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025390934

[ChisolmTrailDem]

80. He is interacting with the clerk, they are clearly having a discussion. Then, at :19,

Brown lunges over the counter and grabs the rellos. I think at that point he's arguing maybe about the amount of money that was exchanged and there is a disagreement. So, he lunges to get what he feels he is owned and then continues his interaction with the clerk. He doesn't run. He gathers up the rellos that fell and probably took what he felt he paid for and puts the rest back and at that point Johnson also puts back the pack Brown handed him earlier on the video. Then they make their way, nonchalantly, to the door, the clerk walking right beside Mike. Then the clerk steps in front of Mike and looks as if he's gesturing to Johnson, not Brown (not in this version of the video). That's when Mike shoves him out of the way, as if he's keeping the clerk from Johnson, who put the pack back on the counter. The clerk DID NOT see Johnson put his pack back on the counter because he is coming around the end of the counter at that moment.

Robbery makes absolutely no sense, going by the full-length video.

Edited to add: A new thought from winter is coming in post #82: "Could have been that the confrontation was over showing ID."

Absolutely, winter is coming. Could very well have been so.

[Mr.Bill]

100. I've worked in the retail industry.

It was a long time ago, and not in Missouri. I have witnessed apprehension of suspected shoplifters by both store personnel and professional security. As an employee, I have also attended training sessions about shoplifting. One thing that stands out is that I was always told that it isn't a theft until the person walks out the door with the merchandise, and you don't confront them until then. Now, the clerk could have just been ignorant of the law, but he confronted Brown before he left the store. Something doesn't smell right as far as this being a robbery.

I also don't think I have ever seen a shoplifter stop at the cashier and have a conversation with them after grabbing the item they were stealing.

[Marr]

116. That doesn't look like paying to me.

The video doesn't actually show anything clearly, but insofar as it looks like anything, it looks to me like he was reaching into the clerk's area and grabbing something.

[Ms. Toad]

131. Except that Ferguson admitted, through his lawyer, that they stole them. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

151. Johnson (not Ferguson) admitted that they TOOK them

Find a quote that says "stole" and I'll give you that. All the quotes I see say "take."

[alcibiades_mystery]

195. I don't know that he didn't pay

That's what the police are reporting. It's not what Johnson's lawyer said. He could have laid down money, then got into a dispute about the ID, then took the cigarillos and left the money on the counter, which is a different thing than stealing, in my view. Point being, Johnson hasn't confirmed that he stole them, just that he took them.

[cyberswede]

196. What do you think is a reasonable penalty for shoplifting? nt

[w4rma]

155. grabbed numerous packs of Swisher Sweets and turned to the leave the store. [redacted] calls “911”.

Had just come out of the restroom and returned to the counter where she observed Brown tell [redacted] that he (Brown) wanted several boxes of cigars. As [redacted] was placing the boxes on the counter, Brown grabbed a box of Swisher Sweet cigars and handed them to Johnson who was standing behind Brown. [redacted] witnessed [redacted] tell Brown that he had to pay for those cigars first. That is when Brown reached across the counter and grabbed numerous packs of Swisher Sweets and turned to the [sic] leave the store. [redacted] calls “911”. Meanwhile, [redacted] comes out from behind the counter and attempts to stop Brown from leaving. According to [redacted], [redacted] was trying to lock the door until Brown returned the merchandise to him. That is when Brown grabbed [redacted] by the shirt and forcefully pushed him back in to a display rack. [redacted] backed away and Brown and Johnson exited the store with the cigars.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/aug/15/ferguson-police-officer-michael-brown-darren-wilson#block-53ee5b8fe4b06c461acbb5c2

[whereisjustice]

170. kick

[Kalidurga]

182. Oops

I thought Mike Brown's reps would want to keep this out of sight. I was so wrong. Looks like Ferguson PD will want to suppress this.

[jwirr]

197. Why hasn't the media talked with this clerk? Not that it matters. You cannot shot an unarmed

person with their hands up in surrender.