re the store video: could the "altercation" have been over ID?

[Kali]

It looks like the store guy has something in his right hand, like cash - and he slips it into his right pant pocket when the two guys leave. I can see this play out. Guys walk in ask for box of whatever they are, and the transaction gets started, maybe they pick up some other item to add to the order then the cashier asks for ID. Young man leaves cash and takes what he thinks is correct amount of individual wrapped cigar-thingies and walks. Clerk comes around and tries to give money back and take cigars because transaction is "illegal" and he didn't want to sell to "kids"

This fits way better to me than either a completely "innocent" transaction (else why the need to stop customer and get shoved) yet was NOT an out and out robbery and not even shoplifting either since the clerk seemed to have the cash in his hand.

It also fits with the store not reporting the "crime" and rather a bystander calling it in.

Too bad there is no audio.

Is it stealing if you leave money?

[Action_Patrol]

1. No

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

This is the other young man admitting it was theft.

None of this excuses the outcome but it isn't made up.

[Kali]

15. do you know if there is a transcript or better, a video or recording?

because I can see how the store stuff could be a misunderstanding, even with the the friend. they did take the cigars when they weren't supposed to but it seems to me the clerk had the/some cash in his hand...

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

23. No

Johnson's attorney did not admit the theft and that radio station is misquoting MSNBC. Johnson's attorney didn't say his client admitted to robbery. He called it a taking of the cigars by Brown. Johnson's attorney also said that no charges were being filed against his client because he was told by the authorities that he did nothing wrong.

[Kali]

28. do you have some kind of link to that info?

this is what I was thinking. everybody says Johnson admitted, but I haven't seen any direct quotes.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

34. It's in the body of the DU link posted at response #12 below

There's a CNN interview of Johnson's attorney and an MSNBC report in which the reporter mentioned a conversation with Johnson's attorney on the phone. I have no idea what the attorney meant when he said Brown "took" the cigars, which is not a legal term to describe any crime. An unlawful taking would be clearer. But Johnson's attorney denies a robbery. Also, since Johnson stood behind Brown at the counter, a big man, I'm not sure if Johnson saw all that happened. Johnson saying that Brown took the cigars doesn't mean Brown took the cigars, whatever that means.

[Kali]

38. this is kind of what I am thinking too

off to find the CNN interview

[Ms. Toad]

2. Enough, already. Johnson admitted the theft.

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 08:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited after three responses: Name confusion. Johnson - Michael Brown's friend - the other person in the video tape.

[MohRokTah]

3. Who is Ferguson and why would them admitting theft mean anything? eom

[Ms. Toad]

8. Sorry - Johnson - the other person in the video tape. n/t

[VanGoghRocks]

6. Sigh.

[Ms. Toad]

10. There are plenty of things to be outraged about, and to question.

Spending time arguing over what happened in the store just makes it look as if we have to have a squeaky clean victim in order for our outrage to be justified. Sometimes people act badly - it is pretty clear that Michael Brown did. That does not justify the police's later actions.

[VanGoghRocks]

12. You are aware, I trust, that the question of whether Mr. Brown stole anything or (to

quote you) 'acted badly' is completely up in the air as we write. There's actually an assertion that he stole nothing and assaulted no one.

Here's a link to the DU thread to bring you up to speed. (Surprised it has only 13 recommendations so far, as it seems to undermine fatally the 'hit job' Ferguson PD tried to do on Mr. Brown in the last few days.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025400413

[Ms. Toad]

18. I am aware that people are spending quite a bit of time

analyzing a videotape when one of the individuals in the video tape has admitted the theft through his attorney.

It likely has only 13 recommendations for the same reason I won't recommend it. It is in the same vein as the analysis of the death photo and the images from the store - where people vigorously insisted that it wasn't Brown in the convenient store tapes. Even though the other party in the tape, the person who was with Brown 15 minutes later when the two were stopped, had already admitted through his attorney that it was the two of them. Now, even though that same person has admitted the theft, people are looking again at the convenient store images to contradict what the participant in the event has said happened.

Michael doesn't have to be squeaky clean to have a right not to be gunned down in the street. Arguing that what the other participant has acknowledged has happened didn't really happen just makes us look as if we believe that only squeaky clean individuals have a right not to be gunned down in the streets.

[WillowTree]

19. "There's actually an assertion that he.......assaulted no one." He DID assault the store clerk.

It's on the video. Right there. There may be a question in some folks' minds about whether or not he stole the cigars, but the fact that Dorian Johnson has acknowledged that they didn't pay for them goes a long way to proving that part in the minds of most people who don't have a vested interest in believing otherwise considering that there's no one to contest what he's saying.

Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the shooting. But this "assertion" that the incident in the store was totally trumped-up doesn't really comport with what we can all see for ourselves and what his friend, who was there at the time (and none of us was), has said.

[VanGoghRocks]

21. Well, excuse me, but if the store clerk was illegally detaining Mr. Brown, his actions

are consistent with self defense and fall wildly short of 'assault' (and may actually expose said store clerk to some liability). The video in the link I provided shows an exchange of cash for tobacco between Mr. Brown and the store clerk.

Dorian Johnson didn't pay for them. Mr. Brown did. Mr. Brown stole nothing. There was no strong arm robbery committed by Mr. Brown. Consequently, Mr. Brown did not assault anyone.

[WillowTree]

24. A store clerk does, as a matter of fact, have the right.......

.......to detain someone when there's a legitimate reason to believe that he's leaving the store with unpaid for merchandise. Look it up.

Look up the definition of "assault", too, while you're at it.

And no, that vides doesn't really show that. And if Brown did pay for them, how come Dorian put the ones that Michael Brown handed to him back on the counter and left without them. That's right there on the tape, as well.

[VanGoghRocks]

27. But he had paid for the merchandise. So the 'stop' was not for failure to pay, now was it?

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Why don't you look up someone's right to self defense while being unlawfully detained?

[WillowTree]

31. You don't know that. That's what you think you see on a fuzzy video.

If he did pay for them, why do you suppose Dorian Johnson says that he didn't. He's not claiming that Michael Brown was saying "I did pay for them, you stupid jerk" as he was shoving the clerk. He's saying that the cigars weren't paid for. Personally, I'm much more inclined to take his word, since he was standing right there, than yours.

And he put his hands on the clerk first. That matters in court. It's not as if that clerk slugged him in the arm or anything.

The kid shouldn't be dead. No one's saying otherwise. But whitewashing what happened in the store won't bring him back and doesn't strengthen the argument in his defense.

[VanGoghRocks]

45. "Whitewashing what happened in the store"??? You are aware that it's an open question whether

Brown stole anything at all??? You haven't heard Mr. Johnson speak (unless you're related to him or his attorney), so you're relying on what his attorney says Mr. Johnson said, NOT ON WHAT MR. JOHNSON HIMSELF SAID! So you're not taking Mr. Johnson's word, you're TAKING HIS ATTORNEY'S WORD!

Curious choice of words, that 'whitewashing' bit. There are a lot of people on rightwing boards insinuating that the supposed 'theft' was the proximate cause of Mr. Brown's death in that he thought Wilson was getting ready to bust him for theft. So don't go saying "No one's saying otherwise." You lose all credibility with that kind of statement. (If you don't believe me, head over to the Yahoo.com discussion boards if you can stay there without vomiting.)

[WillowTree]

46. No one in this conversation is saying otherwise. I'M not saying otherwise.

I wasn't referring to 'anyone in the universe'. Perhaps that was unclear.

I have yet to see where anyone on this board has so much as implied that Mike Brown deserves to be dead. I know for a fact that I haven't.......wouldn't.......won't. That's what my reference was meant to be. I'm not floating from forum to forum collecting opinions about this. Not that there's any reason why you would know that. Just sayin'.

[VanGoghRocks]

48. DU appears as a paragon of reason compared to venues like Yahoo.com. I happened to

be there b/c my email is with Yahoo and they had this big splashy article promising a 'scoop' on pictures of Darren Wilson. Turned out to be mostly hype as far as I can tell, but in the process of reading the article I happened upon the comments. Felt just like being back in the Deep South in the late 50s and early 60s (as in The Freedom Riders and that era). Once I saw them, I really wished I hadn't gone there, you know? I mean, it was really truly vile. I've since encountered similar types of comments (maybe not quite so virulent) on places like Mediaite and a couple other places I don't remember. The kind of comments that make one feel he or she needs to take a shower after reading them.

I have picked up some 'justifiable homicide' vibes off a couple comments I've read here. That's made me really assholish -- my wife has had to listen to me rant about this all week long! -- so I apologize if I came across a bit so. It's truly not my manner.

[WillowTree]

49. That was classy. No hard feelings whatsoever.

Emotions are running high all the way around. We all need to cut one another some slack. Please don't fret about it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

26. Assault is a legal term of art

Criminal assault and battery have to meet a certain standard as to the degree of intent to inflict bodily harm. I doubt that mere pushing without physical injury rises to that level.

[WinkyDink]

33. You would be incorrect. "Assault" need not include touching.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/assault_battery.htm

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

36. I agree with that and that's not what I wrote

Assault is the placing of the victim in the fear of an unlawful touching. Battery is the actual touching. I believe I wrote assault and battery.

Incidentally, assault is a lesser included offense of battery, meaning that assault merges into battery and that a defendant may be punished for one but not both crimes.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. Assault statute under the Missouri Penal Code

This is assault in the third degree, or the least punishable form (misdemeanor and sentence of 15 days in jail). I think it's genuinely questionable whether Michael Brown committed a criminal assault requiring a finding that he intended to inflict physical injury. A mere push of the clerk blocking his path didn't seem intended to injure but to merely attain exit. If every pushing in a store resulted in a criminal prosecution, we'd have our county jails full every time Walmart has a white sale.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5650000070.HTM


Assault in the third degree.

565.070. 1. A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:

(1) The person attempts to cause or recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

(2) With criminal negligence the person causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon; or

(3) The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury; or

(4) The person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death or serious physical injury to another person; or

(5) The person knowingly causes physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative; or

(6) The person knowingly causes physical contact with an incapacitated person, as defined in section 475.010, which a reasonable person, who is not incapacitated, would consider offensive or provocative.

2. Except as provided in subsections 3 and 4 of this section, assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

3. A person who violates the provisions of subdivision (3) or (5) of subsection 1 of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

4. A person who has pled guilty to or been found guilty of the crime of assault in the third degree more than two times against any family or household member as defined in section 455.010 is guilty of a class D felony for the third or any subsequent commission of the crime of assault in the third degree when a class A misdemeanor. The offenses described in this subsection may be against the same family or household member or against different family or household members.

[Kali]

17. I very much agree with this

and yet there it is - this video we are all looking at and talking about. I prefer to get the most accurate story that makes sense, as opposed to either squeaky clean or aggressive theft, and like almost everything in the universe I am pretty sure it will be more in the middle.

[Ms. Toad]

20. The theft itself was not aggressive -

what was aggressive was the shoving when the clerk tried to stop him from leaving the store.

What people are arguing about is whether there was a theft - which Johnson has acknowledged. The rest can be seen in the videotape, and is not what people are currently analyzing.

[Kali]

29. again, do you know of a source

with a direct quote? there seems to be a question, one that I have as well.

and what about the money or whatever it is, in the clerk's right hand that he puts in his pocket? maybe he was trying to take the merchandise back and return the money because he didn't want to make the sale.

[Ms. Toad]

32. Linked below, in response to your other request. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

35. Instead of watching the clerk, watch Brown.

He has nothing in either hand at 9 seconds (just after he hands the first box to Johnson). Both hands are visible and empty. He immediately leans over the counter both elbows on the counter - without sticking a hand in a pocket to get money. Leaning in with both elbows on the counter is a position from which it would be impossible to grab money to hand to the clerk without leaning one way or the other, making a shoulder or elbow visible, etc. He remains in that position for the entire interaction between himself and the clerk (if there is actually anyone there) - aside from stretching farther over the counter (a position from which it would be even more impossible to reach money he was carrying).

ETA: Or here - watch this one:

Near the end, you can see both of the clerk's hands silhouetted in the light of the door and can clearly see there is nothing in them. You can also see more of Brown - both hands tucked behind his back, clearly with no cash in them, and he does not reach for a pocket - or anywhere else from which he might pull cash to hand to the clerk.

[Kali]

47. huh, the video I watched a little earlier had more at the tail end of it and

it showed the clerk go out the door and he puts his right hand in his right pocket

after watching this part a bunch more times I think you are right - Mr. Brown doesn't seem to ever get any money out. still it is a strange interaction where instead of taking the two boxes that seemed to be there on the counter, he takes the time to bend over and pick up several loose items off the floor. It looks like they fell out of one of the boxes but why do that? why not grab the full box?

[JI7]

7. who is ferguson ?

[Ms. Toad]

9. Sorry - Johnson - the other person in the videotape. n/t

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

[Kali]

16. did he admit theft or just taking the cigars?

do you know if there is a transcript or recording? I can be pedantic enough to wonder if he used terminology like "we took them" or heck maybe he thinks they did steal them...but it sure looks to me like the store clerk had some kind of cash in his hand. I know these details will come out eventually but having watched the video I needed to make sense of it and the various narratives just didn't account for all that you see there.

[Ms. Toad]

30. Speaking through his attorney -

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

Freeman Bosley, a former St. Louis mayor and the lawyer for Brown’s pal, 22-year-old Dorian Johnson, said he has not seen the tape but confirmed that 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.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385499/attorney-brown-acquaintance-confirms-michael-brown-stole-cigars-greg-pollowitz

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

There is a third report I've seen with a little more detail, but I can't find it at the moment

[Solomon]

39. What dont you get about the need for a transcript

and direct quote? You keep quoting something that does not say that the cigars were stolen. To say they were taken if it's true that the clerk tried to stop him because no Id was presented is not the same as stealing them without paying. That story says the friend "reportedly"said they took the cigars. Perhaps he said somewhere that they stole the cigars but that's not in the link you keep relying on.

What's amazing to me is how readily his friend's alledged statement that they took the cigars is readily credited, but his statement that Wilson shot the kid with his hands up is not believed at all and despite the fact that it is corrobarated by other witnesses.

[Ms. Toad]

41. I have given you 3 links -

not "the" link I keep relying on.

Acknowledging, as an attorney, that your client accompanied someone who committed a crime is not something you say lightly. That statement would have been made after meetings with all the potential parties which might prosecute your client, to make sure that either no charges were anticipated - or that if charges were anticipated, my client would have immunity. I know that because I have been involved, as an attorney, in making statements to the press in equally inflammatory matters of national interest (although in the civil, rather than criminal realm).

I also know that the media is not very adept at legal language - and when legal language matters, they nearly always lose any nuance that existed in the original statement.

So - based on my experience, I have no doubt about what was being admitted.

I have not disputed the statement that Wilson shot the kid with his hands up - and I doubt anyone who believes the shooting was unjustified has.

I just think we make ourselves look like fools when we continue to try to make someone look squeaky clean, who clearly isn't. What that says is that our support (and our outrage) at the behavior of the police is contingent on people always behaving well.

If you really truly believe that Brown paid for them, then watch the video I linked to elsewhere in this thread, and identify the moment between when he has his hands clasped behind his back - clearly visible and without money in them - to when he picks up the packets of cigarillos from the floor - and tell me when he reaches into a pocket (or any place else he might be carrying money) so he can hand it over to the clerk.

[Logical]

4. He shoved the clerk then stepped towards the clerk again to....

Intimidate him. No reason to act like that. He was in the wrong!

The cop murdered him for no reason, but he assaulted the clerk.

[Kali]

22. If my little speculation is correct I would feel he was a little more justified in that behavior

if in his mind he paid and the guy was just being a dick about not wanting to do the sale because of ID or whatever...

as I wrote below, no previous record doesn't seem to jibe with outright theft and assault like that. being an obnoxious young man and acting tough while basically doing the right thing (paying) fits better.

[HooptieWagon]

5. It could have been ID.

It could have been he was slightly short of cash. It could have been a lot of things. The video doesn't have audio, so its impossible to know what was being said. And the store manager and clerk haven't issued statements. Whatever... it doesn't appear the store was intending to press charges. It was a customer, not the store, that called the cops. And the store didn't provide video to the police, until forced to by supoena. So whatever the altercation was, the store considered it pretty minor. And executing Brown with his hands up was grossly excessive force, no matter what he may or may not have done.

[Iggo]

11. In a completely separate incident, Darren Wilson murdered Mike Brown.

[Kali]

13. I know, and I felt sort of stupid posting this

but having watched the video and reading the various narratives about it, none really made any sense until this morning watching it again in one of the other dozen threads on it, and I saw the clerk pocket that money.

I just needed it to make sense. In the obvious "desired" narrative of the local cops, it was about a degree of criminality, but that didn't make since to me since the kid had no previous record. A shoplifting punk who pushes people around at his age would have a record. to me, he paid for what he took and he refused to be detained. I am not getting "angry thug running from a robbery" that would attack a cop. I am getting young man/teen who maybe is partying with his friends like most of us did at that age, but not getting into real trouble. The transaction in the store may not have been completely "clean" but I think it was an exchange of cash for items, and not theft.

[Iggo]

14. I hear you.

[VanGoghRocks]

25. If Brown did not step out the door with goods for which he had not exchanged cash or

other store of value, then there was no theft. The actions by the store clerk to detain Mr. Brown themselves are of highly dubious legality and make any assertion of 'assault' laughable and beneath contempt.

[LisaL]

44. Clerk couldn't sell him cigarettes without an ID.

[R B Garr]

37. That's what I noticed right away. Brown was at the checkout counter, but the dialogue

followed him out of the store, so it didn't seem like a straight up theft or robbery.

I thought maybe the clerk didn't want to sell him something because he didn't show ID for proof of age for a purchase. At one point, he's leaning in as if he's showing the clerk something he wanted to point out behind the counter. The dialogue looked more involved and ongoing, as if Brown was denied something and they were arguing about it.

[RebelOne]

42. That was my first thought.

The cashier confronted him because he did not show ID.

[LisaL]

43. Clerks are supposed to ask for an ID from anyone who looks like they could be under 18.

Since this guy was only 18, then it's possible clerk asked him for an ID. But why wouldn't he just show an ID then? Since he was of legal age?