Michael Brown Shooting

Police Now Claim Michael Brown Was a Robbery Suspect UPDATE: Admit Officer Didn't Know That When Interaction Started


Michael Brown
via NBC News

This morning the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) identified Darren Wilson as the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown on Saturday afternoon. Despite some claims around the internet, this is not the same Wilson who heads a St. Louis police organization called "Police for an Ethical Society." That Wilson, who is black, is a cop in St. Louis proper.  No photo of Ferguson's Wilson is yet available.

The FPD did, however, post a still from surveillance footage it claims shows Michael Brown in the act of robbing a convenience store of a box of cigars. The claim is being cited by police apologists as important in the context of the shooting of Michael Brown. In my two and a half years covering police brutality issues here at Reason (and before that a year and a half of doing the same on Freedom Watch), and in my years of reading about these kinds of stories, I have never come across an incident where someone suspected of a crime who was shot by cops wasn't immediately identified as such in initial news reports. Cops make sure this information gets out, because they believe it will strengthen their narrative, provide the right context for their shooting. It's impossible to say for sure that Wilson didn't know Brown was a robbery suspect when he engaged him, but if he did know it, police have no compelling reason, and have given none, for why that information was withheld.  Considering that mainstream media are often quick to give cops the benefit of the doubt, police identification of Brown as a "suspect" may have kept the national media from covering the story at all.

The FPD says Wilson has no previous disciplinary record, although they did not release even excerpts of his personnel record. In the meantime, the Daily Beast uncovered a horrific case of police brutality in Ferguson in 2009. Then, a group of Ferguson cops picked up the wrong Howie Davis and then tried to accuse the one they had in custody with property damage, for getting blood on their uniform after they beat him up. When Davis sued, they denied he got blood on their uniform. They are still employed by the FPD as far as I can tell. They've even countersued Davis. (PDF) In 2010 they were among a few dozen officers who got commendations from the mayor and city council (PDF). Now please tell me how protections negotiated by police unions aren't part of the problem.

UPDATE: The FPD's police chief has admitted Wilson did not know Brown was a robbery suspect when the interaction began, making it irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified.

NEXT: Drug Warriors Try but Fail to Show That Marijuana Legalization Has Been a Disaster in Colorado

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s a teem?

    1. No fair!

    2. Probably the same thing as a yoot ?

  2. He was a SHOPLIFTER?

    Well, that’s different.

    1. Go check out the photo of the robbery. He was a fucking thug.

      1. And that makes it OK to shoot him in the back and continue shooting him after he surrenders?

        1. It dampens my sympathy, to say the least.

          1. thank you. and it the friend’s account is lacking in credibility now.

            1. Except that it’s corroborated by other witnesses too. The only person saying that Brown attacked the cop is the cop. Everyone else says the cop attacked Brown, and one person who looked out at the scene after the first gunshot saw Brown running away and get shot in face and chest as he turned around.

              1. Maybe I’m confused, but has the investigation already happened? The trial?

                If not, where are you getting your information?

          2. If the store owner had shot him, I might agree. But we ought to expect a lot more from the police.

            1. Crazy talk…

        2. No stupid. I haven’t said that. Stop projecting some other person’s views on to me. It’s not very libertarian of you.

          1. Then clarify what your point was… Since you didn’t make a point, Zeb’s question was a pretty fair guess at your point.

            1. Yes, thanks Curt. I didn’t say Lyle said that. I just assumed that there was some further implied point to saying what he did and took a crack at guessing what that was.

          2. Thanks for concern trolling. You don’t even know if that video was the same person shit for brains.

            1. Brown himself is difficult to recognize, but Johnson is easy to identify. Also Johnson’s lawyer admitted the robbery.

              In any case, why second guess any of this? Let’s wait for the trial.

        3. No, not if that was what happened. The principal witness was along for the robbery, though, and his credibility will be an interesting question.

        4. It makes the cop’s story, that Brown was the aggressor, a lot more credible.

        1. What’s your argument from the photo/video that he wasn’t a thug or bully, or maybe even racist?

          1. No one needs to make such an argument because it’s irrelevant.

            1. it’s character evidence if Brown’s defenders bring up facts like he was headed to college

              1. Character evidence is not admissible in a trial because trials are about the accused, not the alleged victim.

                Law 100 fail.

                1. Who said anything about the law? There’s not a court of public opinion?

                2. On the contrary, evidence of a victim’s violent disposition *is* admissible in a homicide case, to support a self-defense or defense-of-others claim. See Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2).

            2. Prove you’re not a thug, Tone Police. I dare you.

                1. Are you thugged out enough to wear socks with sandals, like the guy on the surveillance footage?

                  1. I think I sent you that photo already, you ratchet voyeur you 😛

              1. This is why Nicole is the worst.

            3. The officer claimed that he was attacked by Brown; his guilt or innocence hinges on whether that is credible. The observation that Brown had minutes earlier threatened and attacked a store clerk lends credence to the officer’s claim. The fact that he was getting away from a crime would also suggest a motive for an attack.

              1. The fact that he was getting away from a crime would also suggest a motive for an attack.


                While I was aware that after committing crimes, the criminal generally flees from the police, I wasn?t aware that it would also be reasonable to assume they would attack the police instead of fleeing.

                Well – on second thought – since we have lots of people in prison, yet no epidemic of arrests for officer assaults, it?s probably completely unreasonable and idiotic to assume a criminal, after committing a crime, prefers to engage in combat with the police rather than flee.

                1. You are right: reasonable people do not attack police officers when they get stopped. But reasonable people also don’t attack convenience store clerks. That’s why the video matters.

                  Of course, ultimately, a jury will have to look at the evidence and make a determination as to the officer’s guilt. And the officer’s state of mind and prior conduct will also be relevant.

                  I’m just saying that I think the video is relevant and will likely be presented at any trial if the prosecutor files charges. Sorry if that bothers you.

          2. Look people, Lyle is just asking questions. LEAVE HIM ALONE. Can you prove, based on that photo that this kid *isn’t* a lizard person from Alpha Centauri?


            We all know how aggressive Alpha Centauri lizard people are.


            1. Lizard people don’t like funions.

              1. That certainly satisfies me.

            2. You’re crazy Jesse! Everyone knows the lizard people are from epsilon eridani!

            3. I thought that the lizard people were from Omicron Persei 8?

          3. Your argument is that “he was a thug, therefore he deserved to be shot in the street.” That is a textbook ad hominem.

            1. No, his argument is that “he was a thug, so I’m much more likely to believe the cop when the cop claims he acted thuggishly than I would if I didn’t have this independent evidence of his thuggery.”

      2. More and more, little by little, I’m starting to get the Trayvon Martin vibe on this whole deal.

        You would think we would eventually learn to wait until all the facts are in before we render our judgment, but I guess that’s fated to never be the case.

        1. Ed never lets a good propaganda opportunity go to waste.

        2. Trayvon Martin was accused of attacking Zimmerman and putting him in mortal danger. This guy was walking away with his hands up, supposedly after having been shot once.

          For fuck’s sake.

          1. Haha… “supposedly”.

            1. You realize that doesn’t strengthen your case, right?

              I guess it is confirmed that he was shot once in a tussle and then shot again shortly thereafter. I wasn’t sure if that was still hearsay.

          2. Yeah, but when we first heard about Trayvon Martin, he was a sweet, innocent kid eating skittles and drinking watermelon iced tea. A person who would shoot somebody like that is an animal.

            But a POS thug is a different story. It doesn’t warrant a death penalty, but at the same time, I don’t really have much sympathy.

          3. I should be absolutely 100% clear here that I’m not saying that Michael Brown deserved to be killed or that the cop was obviously justified here.

            All I am saying is that it seems as though facts are starting to come out now that we didn’t know at first. There’s obviously a lot we still don’t know about this whole situation. It appears a whole lot murkier than it did at first.

      3. Go check out the photo of the robbery. He was a fucking thug.

        Lyle, you know goddamn well you don’t know if that’s him in the photo – we know all them darkies look all the same to you.

        1. Actually we know it is him.

          1. Weird, grainy illegible photos and the word suspect must mean something different in Lyleland.

            Beyond that, nothing justifies shot in the back “more than a few times.”

          2. Oooo, you must have exculpatory evidence to back up that claim. Care to share it with us?

          3. As noted below, compare the ‘body on the pavement photo’ of Brown with the convenience store video: Same white shirt, same tan/khaki shorts, same striped socks. Brown is the guy in the video

            1. The shorts were clearly salmon.

      4. 49 dollar theft = death penalty?

        1. OK, that’s bothering me: how in the fuck can you value a box of Swisher Sweets at 49.00? That’s some bullshit right there.

          1. Must be based on retail for singles, I’d guess.

            1. It’s based on him selling them as loosies on the street. Every illegal drug bust is valued at street prices

          2. I wonder if it was a whole box of 60:

        2. No. No one said that.

  3. Oh no Ed. Y’all can’t run away from the facts now. Michael Brown was a thug and a bully. The one fucking witness is also a robbery suspect and is no longer credible. Brown got shot for getting physical with the cop.

    Fuck the media. That’s you Ed.

    1. That you, Tulpa? Or is this sarcasm? I can’t tell any longer.

        1. You’re a fucking idiot.

          That more understandable?

          1. You’ve haven’t made a point yet. Now who is the idiot?

            Defend stupid Ed all you want to Idiot.

            1. You made the point that since the police made an allegation that Brown was a shoplifter, than anything that happened to him afterwards is okay.

              There’s nothing to debate there, because it’s so monumentally stupid that it’s not worth talking about. Ergo, calling you a “fucking idiot” is all you deserve. And it’s probably being too kind to your intellectual abilities. Go back to Michelle Malkin’s website.

              1. Was it robbery or shoplifting? They’re not the same thing, you know. Robbery is a violent crime, ie, it has to at least involve some violent threat. Shoplifting is when you stuff something under your shirt and walk out.

                1. It would be a robbery if he shoved the clerk and took something. It’s a letter-of-the-law argument.

                  Nothing in this post should be construed to condone anything that happened to Mr. Brown.

                2. It’s robbery–he physically assaulted the clerk when the clerk confronted him about his theft. (The guy had 100 lbs and about a foot on the clerk.)

                  That said, there was no gun or other weapon used, so there’s no reason to use deadly force in apprehending the guy.

              2. Sheesh, Andrew, calm down! I think it’s pretty obvious that Lyle isn’t implying that it’s okay for the cops to have shot the guy for being a robbery suspect – he’s implying that it’s okay for the cops to have shot the guy because he was a Negro. Normally, Lyle just posts his pearls of wisdom at Stormfront where they don’t give him a hard time about it at all.

                1. Wait. The kid was a Negro? That puts a different light on everything!

                2. No, I’m not implying that. You’re just projecting cause you ain’t go not good arguments.

              3. Not just a shoplifter! He allegedly pushed a guy! That carries the death penalty, right?

                1. Here’s the pic:


                  I had an image of a nice kid which made the cops’ story about him going for the gun sound wildly unrealistic. Not so much anymore. The guy looks like a POS thug. I can def. see him going for the gun.

                  1. And keep in mind that none of this means the cops did a stellar job during the incident or after. They’ve handled everything horribly.

                    The media, too, in some respects. Maybe they should stop claiming every kid is an honor student.

                  2. I have a hard time thinking of anyone that wears stripped socks with sandals as a “thug”.

                    1. Yeah, a Thug should have some style. This guy looks like more of a crook or maybe a yeg.

                2. Seriously, guys, it’s the difference between robbery and theft, likely the difference between felony and misdemeanor. Why is it so hard to follow? It’s relevant if it were broadcast and the cop who shot the kid heard it.

      1. Maybe it’s Michelle Malkin.

      2. Lyle is our resident neocon who thinks Edward Snowden should also be shot.

        1. He should go to jail for a bit.

          1. Well, he did say he was ok with going to jail…

            1. He’s sort of kind of starting to man up. We’ll know for sure when he actually gets off his ass and comes back to the U.S., if the dictator Putin will allow him to.

              1. He’s sort of kind of starting to man up.

                Just to echo what has already been said in this thread, “fuck off shit-stain”.

                When he placed himself against our tyrannical government he more than maned up. Submitting to a kangaroo court has nothing to do with being a man, or having Honor.

                So, since the first time really wasn’t enough, “Lyle, go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw”.

                1. When he placed himself against our tyrannical government he more than maned up.

                  He’s a lion among men.

          2. But for much less time then Keith B. Alexander should.

            Snowden gets 15 days time served while he was on the lamb while Alexander gets 98,000,000 years in prison with no parole.

            1. Yeah, let’s have those Federal shitstains explain how leaking/whistelblowing/whatever is bad, but lying under oath to Congress is A-OK.

            2. Did he toe the lion when he was on the lamb?

      3. The tone is more American to me.

    2. If I understand Lyle, a police force that fucks up apprehending a thief so badly that it leads to an uprising is A-OK as long as they had the right thief in their sights.

      1. Wait, the uprising is on the police? It’s not on the stupid people protesting wrongly perceived police brutality and rising up to defend a racist thug like Michael Brown?

        Look, I hat the armored up SWAT teams as much as anyone. Arresting reporters? Hate it, but the facts weren’t all out and now the dumbass ideologues are in super defense mode to protect their precious, fact-free narratives.

        Fuck the media! That’s you Ed.

        1. Lyle, isn’t it possible that there are two fucked up narratives in one story?

          First, the fact that police have taken a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality.

          Second, that the thug apologists climb on the racism bandwagon every time a black teen gets shot.

          1. It could be, but the friend’s testimony is about destroyed now.

            1. Which would be damning to any of the allegations of police brutality except for the fact that he wasn’t the only witness who saw the confrontation, and the police keep changing their story.

              Nice try at cherrypicking, though,

        2. So I guess it is pure coincidence that the protests became far less violent as soon as a different police agency took over?

          1. Who knows. I’m not sure what this has to do with Michael Brown bleeding out on the street though.

            1. You said “Wait, the uprising is on the police?”

              I assumed that meant that you were questioning that the more violent protests were at least in part on the police.
              At the very least, they did a terrible job responding to the uprising and with PR.

          2. An article I read today credited Obama for calming things down. Seriously.

            1. If I were the state police captain that got things calmed down I’d be mightily pissed.

            2. Jesus Christ, do people actually believe that the president has magical powers?

              1. He has the power of Hoodoo

                1. He has, I’ve seen it.

                  He can heal the sick
                  Raise the dead
                  Make the little girlies talk out of their heads

        3. It’s not on the stupid people protesting wrongly perceived police brutality

          So, an officer trying to drag someone through his opencar window, and then shooting him when it goes wrong is proper police procedure?

          Shooting a surrendering suspect multiple times is proper police procedure, Lyle?

          Let me guess,Lyle, the anti-cop residents are not rioting despite the different police force being present as some dastardly trick! That way they can fool people into thinking that the local police chief is a complete fuckup who antagonized the people he was supposed to protecting rather than as some competent fellow who was merely the victim of their cleverly hidden anti-cop bias.

          Initially, I thought Andrew was being a little harsh when he called you an idiot. Now I realize he was being charitable.

          1. Shooting Michael Brown could be justified, yeah. Right now, it seems more justifiable. Lets let the facts make the case though.

            1. The facts are they shot someone who was already wounded and surrendering. The shots killed him.

              Even if we paint the story in the most charitable light to the police, that is what multiple witnesses are claiming. Even if Brown were Ted fucking Bundy, ventilating him after he was wounded and had surrendered, would still be fucking murder, just as much as if the cop had walked up to the guy in a holding cell and filled him full of lead.

              So why don’t you get off your high horse, Gen. Custer.

              1. I’ll get off my high horse when propagandizing media types like Ed get off their fucking high horse.

                1. So you don’t like that people in media have opinions and you’re going to share your fucktard thoughts on this board in the hopes that Ed shuts up.

                  Whatever…you won’t be the first or last semi-literate troll anyone here has encountered. Plenty of you in trailer parks all across America.

              2. Even if Brown were Ted fucking Bundy, ventilating him after he was wounded and had surrendered, would still be fucking murder, just as much as if the cop had walked up to the guy in a holding cell and filled him full of lead.

                This happened with a pharmacy owner here in Oklahoma about year ago. The store owner shot someone attempting to rob him. The security videos show him go around the counter and put a couple more rounds into the guy while he was clearly down. The dude was convicted of murder, as he should have been. Pigs do not deserve anything less.

            2. Or it could not be justified, which means all of your harping on the “media” is entirely meritless.

              1. Yeah, it could not be. Lets have all the facts though before propagandizing too much.

                1. Hm, so are you retracting your earlier pronouncement? Because you said this:

                  Brown got shot for getting physical with the cop.

                  And now you’re saying something else.

                  1. I think it’s looking like the cops may be telling the truth. You yourself know they could be telling the truth. Right?

                    1. If the cops are telling the truth, it was still a bad shoot. The officer says he went after the gun, right? Well, I’m pretty sure that after Officer Wilson shot him the first time (from 10 feet away), control of the gun was clearly established. The other 3-6 shots were the result of what, sunspots?

                    2. Brown was a suspected felon who, if the cop is being honest, put the cop’s life in deadly harm. This means the cop can use deadly force to defend himself.

                      The cop may have gone to far, but it just depends on the facts or credibility of the witnesses and the cop himself.

                    3. No, I’m pretty sure the five-plus bullet holes in the dead kid speak for themselves on the “gone to far” question.

                    4. This means the cop can use deadly force to defend himself.

                      Not after a surrender he can’t.

                    5. How is a suspect running away putting “the cop’s life in deadly harm”?

                    6. Lyle, you’ve already excused the actions of the FPD because of the robbery, with little-to-no facts to base that conclusion on. You accused Brown of being a “racist” with no facts to base that on. You cannot demand that others wait for facts before drawing conclusions.

                    7. Brown was a suspected felon…

                      You can’t be a “suspected” felon. You’ve either been convicted of a felony or not. He might have been a suspect, but that isn’t a felon. Frankly, if it’s him in the video, I don’t think he does anything rising to the level of felony.

                    8. “The cop may have gone to far, but it just depends on the facts or credibility of the witnesses and the cop himself.”

                      Actually, whether the cop went too far depends entirely on a) his actions, b) the evidence of his actions and c)the law. It’s got nothing to do with whether you believe the witnesses or not.

                      The rest of your argument was a circular reasoning fallacy and an attempt to backtrack because you realized your “facts” are nothing more than half-assed opinions that you didn’t think through and aren’t man enough to simply retract when you realize you might be incorrect.

                      So yeah, you’re a fucking idiot and you have no intellectual integrity…you can go back to your trailer now, trash.

                    9. You can’t use deadly force (leaving aside the messed-up Missouri law giving special rights to cops)just because someone put your life in deadly harm some time in the past, even the immediate past. He has to still be putting you in reasonable fear of *imminent* harm. That means harm that’s about to happen, not harm that might have happened a few seconds ago if he’d carried through on his threat.

                    10. Well, “could be” is the reason you’re receving such a pile of shit here, because not 20 minutes ago, you were spouting off as if you were absolutely certain. You’ve now walked that back (to your credit) while not acknowledging your error (because you’re a coward).

                2. You calling for facts now? You sure were taking liberties with them two page scrolls up.

      2. Yes, because it’s better to kill 1000 innocent men than let one guilty man go free… That’s how that goes, right?

        1. No, it’s better to let the guilty go free if it’ll save the one innocent guy.

          1. Then why is justified to back shoot an already hurt and surrendering person, before any determination of guilt is made? The guy wasn’t fighting him or placing him in danger. If he was a “thug” you take him into custody and charge him, try him or he pleads out.

            Shooting the guy, leaving him to bleed out and then sending guys that had more fucking gear than I ever wore on patrol in Afghanistan into the streets to gas reporters, and clear out businesses is NOT THE RIGHT F’ING THING TO DO.

    3. Oh, sorry, I missed the part where cops announced they had arrested Brown’s friend on suspicion of robbery. Might be time for new kneepads.

      1. Oh, they’re saying he is a suspect or a witness to the robbery. He’s been lying though Ed.

        Time to face the facts man and do some real journalism work. Just take a timeout and stop propagandizing. I’ll respect you a lot more if you would do that.

        1. Time to face the facts man and do some real journalism work. Just take a timeout and stop propagandizing

          Says the guy who denies ISIS is getting support from the Saudis. ROFL!

          1. ISIS isn’t supported by the Saudi government. They are supported by individual Saudis though. I mean, there are lots of Saudis in ISIS.

            Learn to read my man.

            1. If you are your own man, then we have learned to read you just fine.

              Fuckin’ idiot, whether overtly or between the lines.

              1. No, I’m pretty sure your reading comprehension is poor.

                Especially since I expressly said that Qatar and Turkey (Erdogan) are supporting ISIS.

      2. The cops made the allegation, Ed. In the minds of people like Lyle, if the police make an allegation, it’s automatically the gospel truth.

        1. Cops never arrest innocent people. Guilty people mount effective defenses, but they’re all guilty. Cops never make mistakes and they always get the right guy. Always.

          1. Cops make all kinds of bad mistakes all the time. Cops have even murdered people. God’s honest truth.

            Fucking stupid ideologues some of you people are.

            1. Worse than tulpa.

            2. …according to someone making appeals in defense of the cop’s conduct with reference to a shoplifting incident earlier that day, to avoid responding to the author’s original point (vis-?-vis the timing of the release). But no, he’s the ideologue. Right.

          2. Shorter Sarc (and Quote from Inquisitor Tosh): “There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt”.

          3. And guilty people NEVER claim they’re innocent.

            So your point is?

            1. So your point is?

              My point is that most people seem to believe in guilty until proven innocent. Especially cops and their fellators.

        2. No, and I haven’t said that. This story undercuts the allegations made by Brown’s friend.

          You need to learn how to read.

          1. If you believe that it undercuts the argument, that means you believe the cops are telling the gospel truth, and not only that, but that being accused of another crime means that one would tell a lie as a witness.

            So yes. You are taking what the cops said as the gospel truth.

            1. What? No, actually saying it undercuts the friend’s testimony doesn’t mean the cops are telling the gospel truth.

              1. If the cops’ word here wasn’t true, how would anything they’re saying undercut the friend’s testimony?

                1. You’re idiot.

                  1. “You’re idiot.”

                    Deep thoughts by Lyle.

                    1. “You’re idiot.”

                      Hmmm…a conundrum. Did Lyle incorrectly use the contraction of “you are” in his comment rather than the possessive “your” in a sentence fragment (indicating a poor grasp of basic grammar), or did he simply forget to add the word “an” to his comment (meaning he’s too lazy to proofread a three word sentence before submitting it)?

                      Either way, that’s just damned amusing. 🙂

          2. No, and I haven’t said that. This story undercuts the allegations made by Brown’s friend.

            … and other witnesses. You leave that part out; I wonder why?

            1. Because he’s not going to let inconvenient facts get in the way of his two minute hate against Ed Krayewski.

          3. the allegations made by Brown’s friend.

            Those allegations are immaterial to ANYTHING claimed by the people here who say the police were in the wrong.

            You are setting up a strawman and being called on it. Idiot.

    4. Brown got shot for getting physical with the cop.

      Yes, that’s true. He got shot for getting physical with a cop, after the physical altercation was over. He was no longer a threat when he was shot. When anyone else shoots someone after they cease to be a threat it’s called murder. But I guess it’s OK if you’re a cop, right?

      1. It should be okay within reason for citizens to get off of murder for the same reason. I mean there are store owners in jail for running out their store and shooting down robbers. Some have gotten off with it though. It’s up the jury and judge, I guess.

        1. So you support revenge murder. You should move to India.

          1. Defending one’s self and property is revenge murder? You do realize I’m talking about people shooting people in the back after that person has robbed them.

            1. You might not know the definition of the word “defense”.

              1. Grand juries or juries have never failed to show cause/convict people who have shot people dead when the shooter’s life wasn’t in danger?

                I’m pretty sure they’ve taking the textbook definition of defense and said fuck that shit.

            2. Self defense and vigilante justice are not the same thing.

              Shooting someone while they’re in the act is self defense. As soon as they’re done it becomes vigilante justice, otherwise known as murder.

              1. Running away with my stuff is still in the act though.

                1. Running away with my stuff is still in the act though

                  I recall a taxi driver being charged with murder for shooting someone in the back after they robbed him. I don’t recall the outcome.

                  1. The law varies. The law is an ass.

                    1. I won’t argue with that.

                  2. In ky, for example, deadly force is not legal against a burglar who has left the property. So I couldnt “legally” shoot him. But morally, I got no problem with it.

                    Well, for someone else. I wouldnt do it.

                    1. I won’t argue with that.

          2. Revenge murder, or adrenaline murder? People get attacked and put in fear of their life, especially if they aren’t accustomed to it or prepared for it, they’re not going to necessarily react rationally. People who acting on panic-driven instinct and emotion aren’t fully responsible for their actions — it makes sense to put responsibility on the person who deliberately and maliciously put them into such a state, even if that person ended up dying on account of it.

            Now, I think it’s reasonable to hold cops to a higher standard, since they should psychologically prepare for confrontation.

            1. Good and fair points.

            2. If you shoot someone who is running away or surrendering, it doesn’t matter how much adrenalin you’ve got pumping though your veins. It’s still murder. Well, unless you’re a cop that is.

              1. If he is running away with my wallet, it isnt. Thats just collections.

              2. You keep repeating the fact that he was “shot through the back”.

                Can you point me to the piece of evidence that this is what happened? Not an internet second-hand account, but evidence?

                I know enough cops to say that the one thing you CAN’T do without getting into trouble, is shoot someone in the back. Every cop knows this.

                Until the official report comes out, I’m withholding judgment on what really happened. Maybe you should too.

                1. I know enough cops to say that the one thing you CAN’T do without getting into trouble, is shoot someone in the back. Every cop knows this.

                  That’s why they yell “Turn around!” before they shoot someone.

                2. The photo shows his body face down.

                3. Some years ago(7-8) a cop in Milwaukee shot a guy in the back eight times, and got away with it. Both the internal investigation and the Civilian Review Board found it justified. He’s still on the job as far as I know.

              3. Yeah, but thugs kill thugs every day. This was supposed to be thug kills innocent young boy. At least, that’s how it was sold to me at first.

                1. This was supposed to be thug kills innocent young boy.

                  I heard it as unarmed and surrendering. Being that he’d been physically fighting with the cop, I never thought of him as innocent.

        2. Let a judge and jury (just don’t move the trial to Orange County, CA) decide if this cop is guilty of murder. Why no charges yet?

          1. Maybe because there isn’t enough evidence yet?

            1. There could be cell video of the cop killing him execution style and no charges would be brought against him.

      2. All of the reports were that he was shot once while physically tussling with the officer. But the fatal shots were fired when he had allegedly surrendered, per witness testimony.

        1. Who knows if this is the truth. Maybe that’s the truth. We all don’t know that though.

          1. Brilliant interlocutor, you are. “We don’t know every fact, but this thug got what’s coming to him.”

            1. Who said the thug go what was coming to him? Not me.

              1. “Michael Brown was a thug and a bully. The one fucking witness is also a robbery suspect and is no longer credible. Brown got shot for getting physical with the cop.”

                This would be your comment…so yes, you said he got what was coming to him.

                1. Haha… that’s not what that means. I said he got shot because he confronted the cop. That’s not the same as he got what was coming to him. That’s your spin and projection.

                  1. Actually, that’s exactly what that means.

          2. Well it’s the consistent story of every eye witness except the cop. But heck, who knows?

    5. Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

      1. *Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it*

        Anyone who posts this unoriginal drivel should be banned and then catapulted into the sun.

    6. Whoa! Are you saying the cop’s story stands up because his witnesses are *not* thugs?

      The unseemly speed with which you back this sudden narrative colors my opinion of your opinion.

    7. What statute has the clause that defines “getting physical with the cop” as a death penalty offense? Which jury convicted him of that, and which judge passed that sentence?

  4. No photo of Ferguson’s Wilson is yet available.

    However, there is a photo of Ferguson’s Johnson here

    1. I was wondering if that was gonna be SFW.

      It was.

      1. that’s a ‘single white female’ to you

  5. Ed the photo shows more than a robbery you lying sack of shit. He was fucking bullying the little foreign owner. He’s a thug and a racist to boot. Fuck Michael Brown.

    1. .

      1. Haha… conspiracy theorist. I ain’t Tulpa.

        1. .

        2. You’re right. Even Tulpa isn’t this bad.

    2. This is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the shooting was justified.

      1. Not completely irrelevant to the initial shooting, so far as where the stories deviate. And here’s wher you can get the photo of a Brown physically towering over the poor Pakistani/Bangladeshi shopkeeper.

        As I suspected, Michael Brown was no bandleader and was likely being asked to stop for some reasonable cause by the cop (either he had indeed recently transgressed law or fit the APB for a perp who had).

        I was castigated on here and labeled a racist for suggesting that there is a decent possibility that he was being initially hostile with cop, that he may have indeed become physically aggressive with the officer (as per the officer’s story as well as several witnesses that are not also accessories in the strong arm robbery), and that may have actually been so violent that the cop was justified in the initial shot. However, if the stories hold that Brown fled, but ultimately turned around with his arms in the air in surrender, the subsequent rounds unloaded into his chest were excessive.

        1. I agree with this.

        2. Those pictures are way to grainy and out of focus for any reasonable person to conclusively identify either of the people.

          1. He’s wearing the same clothing as the infamous corpse photo and it matches up with the general size of Brown (6’4″, 300 lbs stands out).

            If nothing, there was reason for the officer to detain them momentarily in asking them a few questions about their whereabouts earlier. And it also fits with the notion that Brown may have indeed become violent with the officer, as the man in the photos did with the shopkeeper.

          2. The attorney for Dorian Johnson, the main witness, basically said, “Yeah, Mike Brown went into that store and stole cigars.”


            “We see that there’s tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery,” said Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney. “We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.”

            1. That does lend more weight to the photos.

              1. The video is even more damning, especially of Dorian Johnson. His credibility is shot, IMO. Good thing there are many other witnesses.

              2. Look at the shoes. Distinctive. Yellow strapped sandals. it’s the same guy.

                1. You’re such a chick.

                  1. What? Because I look at shoes or because I don’t know that lots of black men walk around wearing identical pairs of yellow-strapped sandals?

    3. Cops called it a robbery. Even bullying isn’t a crime punishable by summary execution. Being a thug and a racist, for that matter, isn’t either. Neither is being an idiot, nor someone who falls for the shit his betters try to push on him

      1. No kidding, but it makes the cop’s story of the physical altercation more credible.

        Wake up dude.

        1. I never said the physical altercation wasn’t credible. Michael Brown was reportedly shot from 35 feet away while running away or surrendering. His body went face down, suggesting getting shot in the back. I don’t give a fuck if Michael Brown was the leader of the Ferguson bloods, a cop shouldn’t be shooting an unarmed person from 35 fucking feet. And if they’re all too fat for a foot chase, they should break their own unions, for their own safety.

          1. “Reportedly”… lets see how these facts hold up with what is now coming to light.

            1. Oooh, suddenly you want to wait for facts.

              1. I’m only mouthing off, because some facts came to light man. Read and get a clue.

                1. Why don’t we know how the cop was from Brown when he fell to the ground? Why don’t we know how many shots were fired? How could this info possibly compromise an investigation in a way releasing surveillance video or the cop’s name wouldn’t?

                  1. We going to find out Ed.

            2. Put the cop who pulled the trigger in front of a jury, and call the eyewitnesses.

          2. Right on, Ed.

          3. Forget it, Ed, it’s Copsucker Town.

          4. And if they’re all too fat for a foot chase,

            Especially a foot chase with Michael Brown, who doesn’t exactly have the build of a Kenyan sprinter either.

        2. No it doesnt. We know the cop is a thug snd bully, so his story isnt credible either.

          1. I hate thug on thug crime.

    4. And the proper punishment for being a racist bully is summary execution, right? Fuck along now.

      1. No, I didn’t say that. I blame the death on the physical altercation that the officer alleges.

        1. Oh well then it’s ok that an unarmed man got shot in the back while fleeing.

          1. quite possibly

            1. Well, no. That’s textbook murder.

              1. it is and grand juries/juries don’t always go with that textbook definition

            2. How could that possibly be OK?

    5. “Nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law except thugs of course because come on right?”

      1. Racist thug bullies! Oh, and an extra FUCK YOU to Lyle for making me agree with Tony.

        1. The greatest outrage of all

        2. It is indeed pretty bad when Tony looks like the sane one.

      2. You don’t even have all the facts. That’s my whole fucking point. Jesus Christ you people are stupid. Ed leading the way as usual.

        1. You want facts? You can’t handle the facts. You don’t want the facts. Youw ant supposition in favor of cops, all the time, always, because cops rule, thugs drool, and cops are never thugs and thugs are never cops.

          Am I reading you right now?

          1. What are you talking about? What happened that day is what happened that day. We need to wait on all the facts before propagandizing this one way or the other.

            1. Except you. You get to propagandize all you want.

              Fuckin’ idiot.

              1. Guys, I’m not journalist.

                And I’ve just been pointing to facts.

                Aww… it’s so adorable that you guys don’t like the facts coming out.

                1. Except you don’t bring any facts.

                2. Every post is journalism.

            2. You already propagandized, remember?

              Brown got shot for getting physical with the cop.

              1. facts not in evidence.

  6. Cops make sure this information gets out, because they believe it will strengthen their narrative, provide the right context for their shooting.

    “They never would have shot that guy if he wasn’t guilty of something.”

  7. It licks the boot, or it doesn’t get the rubber hose.

  8. No photo of Ferguson’s Wilson is yet available.

    Why do you give a rat’s aft, Ed?

  9. In related news:

    Lyle is a disgusting little copsucker.

    1. Lyle’s getting to the point where he makes Tulpa look sane and rational when it comes to this stuff.

      1. Tulpa? That’s still a thing? I missed some time, but I was here when he was outed posting under a sock. Some kind of social worker, IIRC.

        1. Tulpa was pretending to be a drug addiction councilor and portraying his babbling as authoritative.

  10. Bull.



    It took four days for them to release this “information” when the town was in flames? They couldn’t have said it the night the murder happened? They couldn’t have held a press conference the next morning? Or any time in between the murder and now? Holy shot,meven the LAPD makes up their bullshit,stories faster than this. And they couldn’t give two shits if people buy their stories or not.

    1. Was put best here:

      Charles @Ugarles ? 3h
      “The victim was suspected of stealing…”
      *checks inventory list of Brown’s pockets*
      “a wallet that also contained his driver’s license.”

      1. Well, he wouldn’t be the first,person that stole something and then ditched it. But that’s beside the point. If they had evidence that thempolice officer was after a suspect when he made the stop, they would have released the radio call and every piece of corroborating evidence they had within a day of the murder. Instead they sat there until they came up with this fantastic bit of fiction.

        My guess is that they’ll find somebody else that may have robbed a store in the area (shoplifted, really) and will end up employing the “they all look alike” defense and then call for more diversity training for their white officers.

        I’d be willing to bet $50 that’s what happens within a week. Any takers?

        1. Not me.

        2. Same garb as Brown was wearing in the face down corpse photo, same gargantuan size.

          That photo is almost certainly Brown, and I’m willing to bet that the full security video shows a man with him wearing the exact same clothes as his buddy Dorin Johnson was the day of the shooting. In fact, they may have delayed releasing the photo precisely to make sure they had all their ducks in a row.

          Precisely why I, eventhough I was labeled a racist and bootlicker for saying it, suggested that it’s very possible, indeed even likely, that Brown did engage in a fight with the cop, rendering the initial shot fired valid (seriously, a guy that big is fighting me, I’m discharging my weapon). But the whole time I maintained that the fatal shots, if the witness testimonies are true and the physical evidence seems to support as much, were excessive and should be punished.

          1. (seriously, a guy that big is fighting me, I’m discharging my weapon)

            I think THIS is why you were called a bootlicker.

            Let the turd go, tail him, and call for backup.

            If you think the first reaction of the police should be lethal force, then we’ll never see eye to eye.

            1. Let the turd go, tail him, and call for backup

              If he’s going, yes (hence why I have painstakingly insisted through all of this drama that the fatal shots appear criminal). But in the course of being engaged in a physical fight with a man that large, you don’t have the option of “letting him go.” You’re getting you ass kicked by a guy that large and you have a piece on you, I don’t care if you have a badge or not, you fire that fucking weapon.

    2. ^THIS.

      If releasing this information in any way justified the shooting or made it more understandable, then they would have done it.

      Maybe they just wanted to try out all their new toys.

  11. This whole thing smelled like the cops were hunkered down trying to figure out a way to weasel the offending cop out of serious trouble. The absurd overkill of the protest response combined with everything else makes it all look like Ferguson’s police force is just one big racist douchefest. Of course I reserve judgment until all the facts are in.

    1. I won’t. I’m predicting now that whatever the outcome, it’ll leave the sensation of dull groin pain.

      1. Dull pain? You’re optimistic.

        I’m wearing my kevlar-lined athletic cup until further notice. I have a feeling I’m going to need it.

  12. Robbery suspect? Funny, when a white person lifts a small item from a store we call it “shoplifting” and we don’t murder him afterwards.

    1. It was a strong arm robbery. Photos from the CCTV camera at the East Indian blokes shop were included. Brown stood over this poor guy like a bear over a child and manhandled him.

      Can we not accept that Brown was a piece of human shit, that he probably did fight with the cop who was rightly investigating him for a recent strong arm robbery, that the first shot may indeed have been legit in that context, but that it became excessive and, manslaughter at the least, when said cop shot him several more times from 35 yards away while he was surrendering?

      1. I can accept that.

        When police end up killing or assaulting someone, I’ve learned to expect that it’s a jackass vs. jackass situation that’s about the same as a bar fight. In l’affair martin, the jackass Zimmerman was getting his head smashed open by the jackass Martin, at which point he shot him point blank. In l’affair brown, the (likely) jackass cop tangled with (apparent) jackass Brown, shot him once, then shot him multiple times from more than 10 yards away. That seems to be the pivotal difference.

        1. That seems to be the pivotal difference.

          Exactly. Although, from a legal perspective, I don’t think the officer is guilty of 1st degree murder, assuming there was a significant initial physical altercation.

          1. Perhaps not first degree, but I wouldn’t mind seeing him taken through the ringer on a count of murder if for no other reason than because it’s 2014 and they’re still foregoing dash or lapel cams. No, we’re not taking your word for it, officer.

            1. If there’s a populist angle to be found here among the unwashed conservatives, it’s the cameras.

              If only the officer had his camera on, we might’ve had hard evidence that this was a justified shooting. Therefore, our heroic public servants must keep their body and dash cameras on all the time so that we can exonerate them.

              Something like that, minus the standard shrill libertarian sarcasm.

      2. I’m willing to accept that as a possibility. But the pictures from the store really only show that it was a big black guy. There doesn’t seem to be a clear shot of the face.

        1. Dude, we know it was the SAME big black guy. Lyle’s grainy image facial recognition powers are that of a GOD. and Lyle has spoken. Be SILENT Zeb and suckle at the teat of Lyle’s brilliance!

          1. Goddamn it. His friend, the big witness, said it was him (in so many words).

            1. Now I know that. I didn’t half an hour ago.

      3. he probably did fight with the cop who was rightly investigating him for a recent strong arm robbery

        The cop had NO IDEA that Brown was involved in the robbery. When he killed Brown it was over not walking on the sidewalk (more precisely it was about not following orders).

        1. how do you know this?

          1. Hm, well I guess no one ever said that except Johnson, so this looks like a perfect out for the cop that shot Brown. “We stopped him because he robbed the store, not because of jaywalking. Then the obvious thug who we all now know is a thug now went for my gun. I had to use deadly force as the felony suspect fled.”


            There it is. Nothing will happen to the shooter cop.

            1. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.

              Damned if you do, and all that jazz.

          2. Ah, police chief now confirms it. The cop did not know that Brown was involved in the robbery.


    2. If a white person uses physical force against a shopkeeper to commit theft, believe me, it’s “robbery” in that case too.

  13. Lyle, you seem to have a lot of first-hand information, since you know who is lying and who isn’t. Were you there that night?

    There’s more witnesses to the shooting than just the dead guy’s friend. There’s also reportedly cell video (why hasn’t that been released?).

    Dunno about you, but I think we are a very long way from being able to say who is lying and who isn’t. My working assumption is that the police aren’t telling the whole truth, because they never do, and because they sure as hell have been acting like they have something to hide here.

    1. Are you fucking idiot? There is now evidence that undercuts the key witness’s testimony.

      I don’t know all the facts, but Ed and a bunch of other people seem to think they do.

      Let the facts fall where they may. Stop with the retarded propagandizing.

      1. Lyle|8.15.14 @ 1:41PM|#

        Are you fucking idiot?


        1. Oh, you’re a perfect typist?

          1. Lyle|8.15.14 @ 1:47PM|#

            You’re idiot.

            It just serves to paint a picture.

            1. Well, I ain’t perfect. I’m sure you are though. Prettiest picture ever, huh?

              1. You are so emotionally caught up in rapid firing responses to the “haters” you can’t even formulate a complete thought. That, to me, paints the most vivid picture of all.

                1. it’s a comment thread man.

                  1. “it’s a comment thread man”

                    And you’re an idiot man…an idiot man who doesn’t know how to use commas, apparently.

                    I guess you flunked English along with critical thinking.

              2. There, there. It’s okay, we understand.


      2. There is now evidence that undercuts the key witness’s testimony.

        Footage from a convenience store undercuts eyewitness testimony of the arrest and shooting, how?

        1. The only testimony it undercuts is Johnson’s claim that Brown was a nice quiet guy.

      3. What an immense pile of copshit packed into one short comment!

        The cops’ four day old evidence undercuts itself, and the dead guys friend undercuts the cop’s evidence. Or do things yonly undercut one way and not the other?

        You don’t know all the facts, no one does, but that doesn’t stop you from spouting the cop facts as bulletproof solid gold word of God Himself.

        You aren’t willing to consider anything a fact except what the cops say. Fall where they may my roal fucking ass.

        Fuckin’ idiot. Fuckin’ cop-suckin’ mouth-breathin’ snot-swiggin’ idiot.

        1. And that’s the nice way to say it.

        2. Fuckin’ idiot. Fuckin’ cop-suckin’ mouth-breathin’ snot-swiggin’ idiot.

          And of course this eloquence clearly demonstrates your own total impartiality on this.

          Please. Why is this so hard for fucking dogmatists to get through their skulls, that it is possible, and given everything we have evidentiarily speaking (limited that may be) to think that this kid was a fucking thug, but that even a fucking thug deserves due process rights.

  14. post a still from surveillance footage it claims shows Michael Brown in the act of robbing a convenience store of a box of cigars.

    Why not post the whole video? Why not post the cell video that they confiscated? “If you have nothing to hide . . .” works both ways, you know.

    Why not post the radio traffic around the “robbery” call and the search for Michael Brown?

    Since when is stealing a box of cigars “robbery” and not “shoplifting”?

    If you want me to believe you, try telling, what’s the phrase? Oh yeah “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

    1. One of the photos is pretty telling. It shows the store owner cringing away from the thief.

      I don’t see any reason to doubt that the surveillance video shows a theft in process. And the thief is using his size to intimidate the guy pretty obviously.

      1. Yes, this is some evidence.

        1. Yes, evidence that some large black guy committed a robbery.

          1. Yeah. Michael Brown robbed that store.

            1. Now I have seen enough evidence to be convinced that is the case. I do not apologize for always scrutinizing the police more and giving them less of the benefit of the doubt. And I still think it most likely that the cop murdered him.

              1. I’m glad you’re seeing the light. And the cop very well might have murdered him. Hopefully, we’ll find out.

                1. Yes, the light being information that wasn’t available several hours ago.

    2. Robbery is the forcible stealing of property.

    3. Never has anyone here taking the anti-cop side EVER suggested Brown wasn’t picked up on PC. The argument has always been that he was unarmed and therefore lethal force was not justified.

      All the stuff leading up to the lethal force is irrelevant IF Brown was in fact unarmed. The fact that there has never been any evidence that he WAS armed at the time of the police lethal force action is telling.

    4. Since when is stealing a box of cigars “robbery” and not “shoplifting”?

      Since when you use physical force to steal the cigars. That’s black-letter law, and not particularly arcane.

  15. Libertarians make their voices heard about Ferguson.

    What? I thought they were silent on this issue? When did that narrative end?

    1. next headline will be:

      “Smug Libertarians gleefully chant ‘WE TOLD YOU SO’ as they rub everyone’s nose in it showing crass disregard for Ferguson dead”

      1. That’s half of why I became a libertarian.

  16. The cop may well have been in the right to shoot the dude, who knows. But every single thing the police have done since then has been amazingly stupid.

    1. If I didn’t know better I’d say they’ve been altogether too happy to tear the shrink-wrap off the battle regalia and step into the role of ersatz National Guardsmen.

  17. Is there actual evidence making Michael Brown a suspect in the robbery or is he a “suspect” in that he was the first black guy the cops came across after the robbery occured?

    1. If you compare the video stills released by the police dept with the victim laying on the pavement photos that Anonymous broadcast, there is little doubt that it is the same person. Same white shirt, same long tan/khaki shorts, same striped socks.

      1. Yes, looking at the two photos, it definitely appears to be the same person.

        1. Eh… all those Missourians look alike to me.

    2. Having said that, if Brown was in fact shot in the back and/or shot 8 times (the only source I’ve seen for this tidbit are Dorian Johnson and Brown’s mother) it would be a homicide in my book.

      1. Not to nitpick, but I think you mean to say, “murder or manslaughte”, because homicides can be justified.

        1. That’s good pedantry. Homicide just means that a person got killed, and many people deserve to get killed in many situations.

        2. I like a good ol’ nit pickin’ as much as the next person, but I don’t think shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back would be manslaughter.

          1. Absolutely. I believe the technical legal definition is “Good Shoot”.

          2. You’re right PBR. When its done by a cop its a good shoot. Not a crime at all.

        3. If the homicide is justified, it isn’t manslaughter. Manslaughter is criminal homicide that lacks one or more of the elements (e.g., premeditation or intent) necessary for murder. Depending on the law of the jurisdiction, it may also be manslaughter if the killer acted under reasonable provocation. (The classic case of reasonable provocation used to be finding your spouse banging another person, at which you kill one or both of them. That isn’t likely to work these days, though, and even then it only worked if you killed them under the immediate, sudden provocation of finding them; you didn’t get to quietly close the bedroom door while you went down to the gun shop to buy a weapon to use on them. The adrenaline-laden excitement of the confrontation with Brown, however, might be the kind of provocation that would reduce the verdict in this case from murder to manslaughter, if we accept the story that Brown had ceased to be a threat and was running away.)

  18. It seems that the crime they are putting forth used to be called shoplifting…..unless you are trying to minimize the crime of the tyrannical police response by maximizing the victim’s infraction. Pathetic.

    1. Here is the photographic evidence:
      1) Washington Post has the highest quality image I have found (scroll down and look at the first slide)

      There you can see the clothing of the robber (this is important, so take a close look). And, since he used assault and battery to complete the theft, this is more than mere shoplifting.

      Basically the robber is confronted by the store owner. The robber assaults the store-owner, who then cringes away in fear.

      2) Now let us turn to the only picture I can readily get of the freshly deceased Brown, the first article on reason magazine. Again, note the clothes… and his position.

      a) The clothes Brown is wearing look very similar if not identical to the clothes the robber is wearing.

      b) The fact that Brown was on his front does not mean he was gunned down from behind; hand-gun bullets impart very little momentum to the people they hit, and people naturally will drop forward if they lose consciousness while standing.

      1. But with no large exit wounds in his back, which the photo in (2) seems to show, means that he was probably shot in the back, unless I’m missing something.

        1. But with no large exit wounds in his back, which the photo in (2) seems to show, means that he was probably shot in the back, unless I’m missing something.

          He is wearing a white shirt, there should be blood visible if he were shot in the back. Can you see any blood as the picture isn’t great quality.

        2. I can’t see much from that picture. It’s too small and doesn’t show a clear view of any wounds, entrance or exit. That said, there’s blood on the pavement which appears to be coming from under his body, which is facedown. That would seem to imply that he was shot in the chest.

          Also, don’t cops usually use hollow point ammo which doesn’t leave exit wounds anyway? That would also tend to lead me to conclude, based on absense of any obvious back wounds in the photo, that he was shot from the front.

          None of which is intended to excuse the cop’s shooting of him in any way. Also, take the above with a huge grain of salt. Probably not possible to draw any firm conclusions from that photo.

      2. The photos definitely show a robbery.

        So, are you saying that because he may have committed un-armed robbery and that he was definitely dressed like the perp, it was OK to shoot him?

        1. Nobody is saying that stupid. You need to learn to read and think.

          1. Nice name calling, dick-hole.

            As far a ‘read and think’, you’d be well advised to to listen to your own advice.

      3. The fact that Brown was on his front does not mean he was gunned down from behind; hand-gun bullets impart very little momentum to the people they hit, and people naturally will drop forward if they lose consciousness while standing.

        In fact, the eyewitnesses generally concur that he had turned around to the cop and put his hands up in surrended when he was shot umpteen more times.

        1. Hmmmm, of course that could be construed as “coming back at the officer.”

          Hands up could be fists up.

          Cops need to have dash cams and body cams. Period.

    2. No, it didn’t use to be called shoplifting. Shoplifting is simple theft, usually carried out furtively, as when you slip merchandise into your pocket and slip out of the store. Robbery is theft done with force or violence, as when you manhandle a South Asian shop clerk whom you outweigh by about 100 pounds.

  19. act of robbing a convenience store of a box of cigars.

    Robbery or shop lifting?

    They are very different things.

    If it was robbery what did Brown use to threaten the store clerk? Was a weapon involved or did it just threaten violence?

    1. The photos in the report do look like he threatened the clerk.

      1. The thief didn’t just threaten. There’s battery there too.

    2. The photos shows a robbery by a large black man, who uses threat of force to intimidate and take from the small store owner.

      A robbery did occur. Not the same as armed robbery.

      Those photos kind of suck, so I’d have to have witness corraboration to confirm who it actually was that committed the crime.

      Nothing in the photos support shooting anyone after the fact. If the store owner had shot the suspect while in the store, high-fives would be warranted all around.

    3. Robbery requires force or the threat of force. It’s been held that simply snatching an object out of a person’s hands is sufficient force to ratchet an act of theft up to robbery. Of course, the video in this case shows the use of a lot more force than simply snatching something out of the shop clerk’s hand.

  20. So to be sure I understand the fundamentals correctly, it’s undisputed that Wilson shot Brown once in a tussle (not speculating as to who began that confrontation), then Brown ran away, then Wilson shot him again multiple times from a distance of about 35 feet away from the police car?

    Whether Wilson was a serial killer, a shoplifter, or a chess prodigy is irrelevant if that’s what happened.

    1. It is not undisputed that Wilson shot a fleeing Brown multiple times from 35 feet away. That is what Johnson says, and it may in fact be true, but I don’t think it can be characterized as ‘undisputed’ unless there is some source other than Johnson that I’ve missed (entirely possible I missed such a thing).

      1. By undisputed, I don’t mean corroborated or accurate, just not contradicted by another claim.

        1. Ah. I agree with you then, it certainly has not been refuted.

        2. Because no one on the police’s side is MAKING any claims yet. So by default, you’re only getting one side. And conveniently, that’s the side that the echo chamber here believes.

          1. .

            1. I’ve said it before, but the board is more entertaining with Tulpa skulking around than it is without him.

              He serves as a potent reminder of the unpredictable nature of human action. In that sense, he’s a living embodiment of why positivist economics is mistaken and dangerous.

              Maybe I’m reading too much into him, I dunno.

              1. A reactionary yin to Tony’s yang?

                Trolls of a different color?

                And they don’t go on for 400 posts like a Sarc vs. John, Kiera vs. Christina donnybrook.

          2. Yes, that’s what it means to have a dispute. If I accuse you of assaulting me and you don’t respond for four days, it remains undisputed for that four-day period that you assaulted me.

          3. Hi Tulpa!

      2. I thought I read somewhere that the last couple shots were delivered after the cop walked over to the body.

      3. I believe that there are other witnesses saying basically the same thing about how the shooting went down.

      4. I’ve seen the 35 feet from the car factoid attributed to the police (not the fleeing part though).

    2. I would only add that the police’s military tactics directed against protestors, bystanders, and journalists was also not justified–if, in fact, Brown was involved in a robbery.

      1. No, the military tactics, justified or not, had NOTHING to do with Brown’s alleged robbery. They had to do with all of the lunatics looting, pillaging, destroying property, and threatening the police in general.

        Jesus. What would you guys have them do, just go hide somewhere? What about the rights of the business owners and employees, who lose their livelihoods or can’t go to work because they’re in fear of their lives?

        1. .

        2. Which is why the just retribution for theft is for the state to chop off the robber’s hand. Or to shoot him if he runs away.

          The defer-to-principals, authority-worshiping bull needs to go. This is not us and them; it’s them and them with private property owners caught in the middle.

        3. “They had to do with all of the lunatics looting, pillaging, destroying property, and threatening the police in general.”

          Was that before or after the police attacked them?

          Was the Washington Post reporter that was arrested for being in a McDonalds looting, pillaging, and destroying property–or is that something you just made up?

          P.S. If the black people of Ferguson are being preyed upon by unaccountable police, what do you expect them to do?

          Just go hide somewhere?

          1. *P.S. If the black people of Ferguson are being preyed upon by unaccountable police, what do you expect them to do?

            Just go hide somewhere?*

            Heavens, no! I’d suggest they go loot the subcontinental’s convenience store and then pick up a few pairs of Air Jordans on the way home.

        4. I’m pretty sure every report I’ve read says that the rioting started AFTER they were fucked with for marching on city hall in protest.

  21. So what would some Martian tourist think of this?

    Shop owner had already paid his protection money. New guy, fat and stupid, tries to muscle in. Protection racket enforcer enforces. The racket lieutenants leave the mouldering body on the street as a warning. Neighborhood outraged. Disproportionate punishment for trying to skim a little piece of the action. And an in-your-face display of the thuggish muscle’s indifference to the sensibilities of the local tribe. Racket bosses have to step in. Cooler heads know that all this swagger has been bad for business.

    No, no, no – that’s all wrong. We’ve got to remember:

    Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.

    1. This is the most succinct description of this chain of events I’ve ever heard.

      But RACIST! for refering to local tribe.

    2. I didn’t get to choose.

      Government is simply the name we give to the largest racketeering organization.

  22. The person in the video/stills robbing the store does appear to be the same size and wearing the same clothes as the person shot by police. If the shooting went down as police claim, I suspect they wish they had those dash and body cams in use.

    I’m afraid the fact that the witness to the shooting is also apparently the other person in the robbery doesn’t do his credibility any favors. The only thing those who want to draw attention to the militarization of police can hope for at this point is that this muddling doesn’t draw attention away instead.

    1. I suspect they wish they had those dash and body cams in use.

      Wait, you mean that body cameras flipped to the on switch can provide exculpatory evidence in instances when cops aren’t behaving like sociopaths?

      If only the police unions had known this advance!

      1. Apparently they purchased the equipment but haven’t implemented it yet. It might be interesting to see if other law enforcement agencies look at Ferguson and think that maybe they would see a net gain from having video evidence of all encounters with the public.

        1. Dash cameras are ancient technology, yet they’re not always on in instances when they’d be helpful. I’m not big on the police just buying the body cameras, as the average cop would resent being recorded performing his duties for the same reason you or I might.

          As there are too many Malkins out there who reflexively back the police to make this an anti-cop story, the best achievable outcome seems to be selling the always-on camera as police protection. Police and their unions will see through that instantly, but maybe beltway libertarians can hammer out a strong enough coalition of anti-cop lefties and politicians who don’t want this kind of headache to push it through in some municipalities.

          1. Not having them at all is an easier excuse as to why you don’t have video evidence than having them and claiming they malfunctioned. But it also robs police of the ability to defend themselves with said video evidence in cases it the facts back up their reports.

          2. the average cop would resent being recorded performing his duties for the same reason you or I might.

            I’ll make a deal with the average cop. Leave your weapons at home and give up any claims to immunity if you harm anyone or violate anyone’s civil rights and you can not wear the camera. You want special privileges that other civilian citizens don’t have, you get more scrutiny too.

    2. It’s over. Done. I hate to be the pessimist here but especially now with that video and the pics it’s going to signal to the media to move on, their view on the shooting has always been race war anyway, so the militarization angle was never their bag.

  23. None of this would’ve happened had the Indian clerk shot him during the strong-arm robbery. Fucking Indian pacifists.

    1. His shop might have still gotten burnt to the ground though.

      1. The shop that was robbed wasn’t the same one that burned down.

    2. While I personally couldn’t take a life to protect my private property, in many instances I wouldn’t begrudge anyone doing so. Whoever it was who robbed that store did so in a somewhat violent manner, which ups the ante.

    3. *None of this would’ve happened had the Indian clerk shot him during the strong-arm robbery. Fucking Indian pacifists.*

      But then NBC would’ve ginned up some phony “Pakistanis are all racist against black people” nonsense and we’d have to sit through 8 months of attention-diverting crap about how we should have a national dialogue about race, gun laws, what an inbred state Missouri is, etc.

      Then the guy would get acquitted and it would have been all for naught anyway.

  24. Finally got my browser to work. The stills are not good for Brown, and certainly make it look like any theft may have been more than shoplifting. But:

    Why not release the video? Why just the stills? What on the rest of the video undercuts the story they are trying to tell with just the stills? Does the video really show a theft in process? We don’t know, because we haven’t seen the video, have we?

    If he was stealing a box of cigars, where is that box of cigars? I don’t see it in those stills. I see nothing in those stills, in fact, that supports any charge of robbery or shoplifting.

    Whenever anyone releases partial evidence, and withholds evidence, I remain very suspicious.

    1. I saw the video but I don’t recall where now. It shows what happened from two different angles. In my opinion the video makes it look worse for the robber.

      1. It wouldn’t matter if he had walked into the store, punched the clerk, and run off with the cash register.

        The issue is summery execution of people by police officers. Everything else is a distraction, from racial disparity all the way to suspected robbery. All that shit serves to do is muddy the water. I’m not interested.

        The central point, which has not been contradicted anywhere yet to my knowledge, is that whatever else happened the cop executed this guy long after he could be considered a threat by any reasonable person.

        1. I seldom believe the official report and now, because of the video, I don’t believe the witness statement, either. In other words, unless new information comes out, I personally don’t think I’ll ever know how the shooting unfolded.

          1. unless new information comes out,

            There is supposedly cell video that was seized by the police. Who knows if it sheds any light.

            1. Whoa, plot twist. I had not heard this. I will withhold judgment. FOR NOW.

            2. If it sheds light, it will be released. If it portends darkness for the officer, I suspect we will never hear of it again.

    2. You should know by now to go to the Daily Mail for news about police conduct.


      There’s your video.

      1. Hmmm… Wetube… Theytube… must be some source where I can search for video… Itube?

    3. I just saw the video on CNN. It does make it obvious that “robbery” is the right word to use. But the stills seem to be the best image of the robber. The face is impossible to see clearly, but the clothes and body type do seem to be the same as those of the dead guy in the street.

    4. “The stills are not good for Brown”

      Not good for brown?

      “Mistah Brown–he dead.”

      What difference, at this point, does it make?

  25. Police Now Claim Michael Brown Was a Robbery Suspect. But Did the Officer Who Killed Brown Believe That When He Pulled the Trigger?

    Doutful. If he had been dealing with someone he knew to be a suspect in the robbery, the police would have most likely released that information immediately, as it states in the article. I’m also curious if they found a box of cigars on Brown’s body? I think that would be extremely relevant information.

    1. Note that the police are NOT claiming Brown is an ARMED robbery suspect.

  26. OT:

    Meet the Putinkinis: New propaganda push sees young women showing their support for Kremlin hardman

    Young women in Crimea show their support for Vladimir Putin
    The publicity bikini tops feature Russian president’s face
    Latest display of extreme patriotism spreading in Russia

    sarc approves.

    1. I never thought that I would want to kiss a likeness of Putin until now.

  27. This story by Reason reeks of “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

    Way to go, guys!

    1. Thanks for the contribution, but we prefer to call it the Shock Doctrine.

      1. I use Shock Doctorin’ to refer to what I do in bed with my index finger when I… well, if I told you it wouldn’t be shocking.

    2. .

    3. *This story by Reason reeks of “Never let a crisis go to waste.”*

      Yeah, this constant anti-cop crusade is getting tiring. It’s no wonder libertarians never win any elections with this single-minded obsessive stupidity forever on display.

      1. Maybe cops shouldn’t prove multiple times everyday that the stereotypes are fucking true.

  28. I will go on the record by stating that I had my doubts about the details of the encounter right from the get-go when the other guy said that the cop started the whole thing by calling out of the patrol car for them to get their fucking ass up on the sidewalk. I strongly suspected at that time that the witness was mistaken in what he claims to have heard, I suspected that the cop had called out to them to get their monkey ass up on the sidewalk.

    At that point, it would have been Brown disrespecting the officer by not only not getting his ass (monkey or fucking or monkey-fucking) up on the sidewalk but perhaps by approaching the officer to advise him that he (Brown) did not care for the disrespect the cop was showing him, the cop grabbed Brown, Brown fought back, Brown wound up dead for failing to respect the cop and having the effrontery to suggest that public servants might be expected to show some respect for the public.

    Complete unsubstantiated conjecture on my part, just an uneducated guess as to what actually happened.

    1. Did you cast a young Sean Penn in the role of your police officer? I think i saw that movie.

      1. Wow. That was terrible acting by all involved.

    2. The timing is what makes me wonder. How far from the store and alleged robbery did this happen? Cops don’t go solo on a call for a person playing their stereo too loud, let alone a robbery. If that’s what he was doing where was everyone else? Did a call come over the radio and he was right next door, or did he not know about it and it was totally unrelated to what happened?

  29. An unarmed man was shot and killed by an armed policeman.

    The particulars of the unarmed man’s activities have, to date, neither changed the above, nor made it any less pernicious.

    1. Unarmed doesn’t mean unable to hurt you. Ever gotten punched in the face? or does that not injure or hurt you?

      1. If you shoot someone for punching you in the face, you are going to jail. And rightly so.

        1. George Zimmerman would like to speak with you a moment.

          1. George’s skull was being bounced off of concrete. That’s a little different than being punched in the face.

            I was initially skeptical of his story, BTW, but came around to agreeing it was a good shoot as facts came to light.

          2. Zimmerman had a claim of self-defense; the shot was at close range.

            Brown, unarmed, was shot from a distance.

        2. *If you shoot someone for punching you in the face, you are going to jail. And rightly so*

          One SHOULD be able to shoot someone for punching them in the face. If you don’t like it, stop punching people in the face.

      2. .

      3. Unless he was Mr. Fantastic, the officer was in no danger after Brown was fleeing, fuckstick.

      4. And yet, here I am, expecting a policeman to be trained and cognizant to use the least amount of force necessary. He’s not a civilian. He’s not a hapless bystander. He’s supposed to be sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace.

        He failed.

      5. Ever gotten punched in the face?

        Yes, I have. And I’ve never felt it necessary to pull a gun and shoot the other person. Hit back? Yes. Shoot? No.

        And if punched by someone 6’4″ ~290 lbs? Break his fucking leg with a sidekick to the knee. Problem solved, no gun required.

    2. 1. A good person gets shot by a shitty person.

      2. A shitty person gets shot by a shitty person.

      Sorry, but there will always be a huge difference between those two scenarios in my book.

      1. No difference because the shitty person doing the shooting still has a gun.

      2. Even if this is a case of unarmed assclown gets shot by armed assclown. Armed assclown still needs to have the force of the law fall upon his assclownery.

        Point is: Unarmed (insert adjective here) is shot and killed by armed policeman is a bad scene. The subsequent efforts to make the investigation/cover-up as opaque as possible haven’t helped.

        Until the police admit wrongdoing… well, sorry, couldn’t type that without laughing.

      3. Glad to know you have the intellect of a 4 year old.

      4. If you want to defend liberty, you’re going to spend most of your time defending the liberty of narcissists, criminals, and idiots.

  30. Suspected of robbery? Capital punishment even before the evidence is in, before the verdict is out? What kind of police organization, what kind of state is this?
    Most importantly, what kind of human beings are these officers who cold bloodedly execute an unarmed citizen lying on the ground?

    1. Why does your concern about waiting for the evidence before coming to a conclusion not apply to the forensic evidence being used to determine whether he was indeed lying on the ground when he was shot?

  31. Witness how blacks and whites come together in this “completely randomized” slideshow which doesn’t attempt to emphasize white participation in these protests at all exactly every other photo.

    It could have been worse. They could have played “its a small world” while superimposing a montage of Hilary Clinton crying at gospel church ceremony, etc. I’m sure we’ll see the pander-machine produce some real winners over the weekend though

    1. I was rather hoping to see the same white person in one of several obvious disguises in each photo.

  32. White people have acted in Good Faith since the 60s with the Civil Rights Act, Welfare, College Funds, Public Housing, Youth Programs, open opportunities for minorities.
    White People even elected a Black president in 2008. This could not happen without them. You see and hear the “other white america” on tv all of the time. But they are losing influence.

    We blacks/latinos share the same situation and we need to address this.
    We need to have a non-violent CIVIL war among those of us that want to fit it and behave in America and those that do not. We need to have a discussion about this.

    1. Good points Alice.

      1. What points?

        1. Maybe you need to read her statement again. I’m not going to hold your hand and point it out for you.

          1. Alice is a Man. Man-Thing. Crazy Man-Thing.

            And ‘Its’ a crazy sockpuppet

            That you think it makes “good points” is pretty unsurprising.

            1. To each their own man.

    2. A discussion about what?

    3. Alice, i may have said this before, but i really, really want to buy drugs from you, because you’ve obviously got access to some good shit.

      1. Well, I don’t drink Alcohol or take PCP or Acid or heroin or pills No More.

        But I do everything else.

  33. Unless and until the cops release the recording of the radio traffic around the robbery call, my high-probability scenario is that the cop who did the killing here had no particularized suspicion of Brown, but “engaged” with him solely because he was a black man in the vicinity of a robbery call.

    We don’t know, yet, if the cop’s engagement was legal, much less appropriately and professionally handled.

    The (apparent) fact that Brown had just had an altercation and committed a theft would certainly make it more likely that he was uncooperative and confrontational.

    But: cops are only allowed to use deadly force on unarmed and fleeing suspects if that person is suspected of a violent felony (which may or may not be the case here, as we don’t know if this cop knew Brown was actually the suspect in the nearby robbery) AND poses a significant (maybe imminent?) threat of death or serious injury. We’re a long way from knowing that, in this case.

    1. I’m assuming he would’ve known that there were two young men walking together, that one was built like a linebacker, and not much else. That would be enough to stop them, though, as I don’t imagine there are too many people wandering the sidewalks (or the middle of the street, if that’s where they were) in the middle of summer in St. Louis.

      But as much as I would stand up for a clerk who holds a gun on thieves or even uses it if he’s attacked–I wouldn’t allow a 300-pounder to lay a hand on me before I open up, especially on my own property–the shooting still looks terrible for the officer and will continue to unless the police release hard evidence that he had reasonable fear for his life that would’ve prevented him from using a taser pain compliance device. The defense might entail thinking that Brown had a gun or that he wasn’t 35 feet away after all, but they’re going to need some argument other than “cop emptied clip in major-league asshole.”

      Between the Martin case and this one, I like to imagine that a whole generation of up and coming libertarian cynics has learned not to trust eyewitnesses, the race-baiting media, or the police. The clerk, on the other hand, seems like a decent enough guy.

      1. More like a lineman than a linebacker.

    2. Wait, police are authorized to use deadly force on an unarmed fleeing suspect, if that person is suspected of having committed a violet felony? Really?

      1. RC/MM’s point is lost on me, too.

        The police do this shit all the time – make it sound like the other person’s character is so bad that we will just excuse the lethal force against an unarmed asshole because asshole = poses-threat-of-serious-injury.

        There’s a reason we call it “cop-out”.

      2. It used to be the rule that a cop could use deadly force against any fleeing felon; the felony in question didn’t have to be one of violence. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner, thought, it’s a constitutional violation for a cop to use deadly force on a fleeing felon unless force may not be used unless it’s necessary to stop the suspect from escaping and the cop has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the cop or others. (In this case, since the cop didn’t know about the robbery, the use of deadly force could only be justified on the basis of what the cop learned from his own encounter with Brown.)

  34. http://www.breitbart.com/Breit…..From-Store

    Now it’s no longer conjecture, but fact.

    1. Ah, good. More facts. Those always help.

      1. Now we just need the radio traffic between the robbery call and the shooting.

        1. And the cell phone video/photos of the incident.

          1. Yeah, the only facts that matter. Still stuffed in a drawer until public opinion shifts into a more favorable position. Mean while lets compare grainy pictures of socks.

  35. As far as I’m concerned, Michael Brown was killed during apprehension.
    This was not a non warranted traffic stop. He just robbed a convenient store.

    I think the Ferguson Police Department could had avoided many of the riots and protesting if the public knew that Brown was a Robbery Suspect.

    1. That’s why people here are suspicious of the whole thing. If that was the case all they had to do was hold a presser that night. I think they just tied all this together into a convenient package days later due to crack police work.

      1. Police work? I doubt it. It was probably the store owner who later called the cops to remind them that he’d been robbed by someone who looked like the guy they killed. I doubt the cops put it together on their own. That robbery was a violent crime with a victim. Cops don’t investigate that shit. There’s no profit to be made. They just wait for the phone to ring.

        1. should have put “” around crack I should have been more clear that this conveniently fell into their lap after the fact. They probably wouldn’t have even tied into together if all this press hadn’t been staring the robbery people in the face.

        2. Yeah, I just can’t believe that the police knew he was a robbery suspect at the time of the shooting and didn’t release that information for 5 days.

    2. Jesus, people. The cop stop had nothing to do with the robbery. It was about jaywalking.

      1. Yes, we just learned that.

        I retract my statement above.

        However, Michael Brown is a ThUG.

        1. That was one of the first bits of info put out. At least that was a bit of info that seems to only be coming from the now discredited robbery accomplice, Dorian Johnson.

          1. Tell me how confirmation of part of Dorian’s story means he is now discredited?

            1. He said that Brown was a nice, gentle guy. That is now seen as obviously bullshit. And Johnson is also on the video taking part in the theft. Anything he says now is highly suspect.

              But the cops have also said that Wilson (the shooter cop) did not know about the robbery at the time, so Johnson’s testimony doesn’t matter anymore.

              1. Its funny: when a known criminal gives testimony that the police like, their testimony is gold-plated and unimpeachable.

                When they give testimony the police don’t like, well, hell, he’s a thug, why should you believe him?

                1. Its funny: when a known criminal gives testimony that the police like, their testimony is gold-plated and unimpeachable.

                  Do you think that I have ever thought or said that the testimony of criminal police informants was unimpeachable?

                2. Well, when the criminal makes a statement against interest, it’s reasonable to think it a lot more credible than when he makes a statement of the “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?” variety.”

                  The fact that the first kind tend to be the kind the cops like and the second tend to be the kind the cops don’t like doesn’t alter that fact.

              2. Johnson’s testimony doesn’t matter anymore.

                His testimony, now partially confirmed, about the stop and the shooting doesn’t matter anymore?

                I haz a confuse.

                1. The only part of his testimony that mattered was that the stop was about jaywalking and not about the robbery. Since the cops admit it themselves, we don’t need Johnson’s story to that effect.

  36. I’d just like to say that the Ferguson PD is still stupid and evil even if this is true and that Lyle is a retarded boot-licking POS that is all. For now.

    1. Aww, you know government force can do a lot of good in this world. You advocate for it all the time too.

      And like I don’t agree with you that murdering cops should get some prison.

      1. Except when they kill a darkie, then it’s excuses all round.

        1. As Obama might say, horseshit!

          Way to project buddy.

  37. I think the a bit of anti police bias is evident in this reporting.

    If the kid has a violent past, then it’s certainly plausible that he may have acted belligerent or resisted arrest, which may have led to a number of scenarios. It all depends on the eye witness testimony. This might be the first of many details to emerge, but Ed just dismisses it right away with a wave of a hand.

    If the officer actually knew Brown was a robbery suspect, then he would have been on alert from the beginning.

    You guys might not know this, but the NRO was actually on Trayvon Martin’s side when that story first broke out. Kid got shot for nothing. Then the photos of the injury, attempts to paint him as racist and prosecutor misconduct happened, and that’s all she wrote.

    1. You know, I think a little anti-police bias is appropriate. We know that the police violate people’s rights all the time and that they reflexively cover for each other even when they are clearly in the wrong. And the media has historically given them way too much credence.
      Fuck the police. Let them defend themselves. They have gotten away with too much for too long. They killed someone here and it is not at all clear that he needed killing. Let them make the case that it was necessary.

    2. Anti-police bias might be using the photo of Brown’s dead body in this scenario. Still unanswered is how far Wilson was from Brown when he kept shooting (witnesses say 35 feet) and hoe many rounds he fired, and where they hit. If it turns out he fired a few shots at the center of mass from a couple of feet away, this becomes a lesson on why police need to incorporate transparency into their culture, and use body and dash cams.

      1. ^^This. Exactly.

    3. When I was a kid I trusted the police. Then after being harassed and intimidated on numerous occasions for no good reason, after being treated like a criminal when I called them after being the victim of a crime (on more than one occasion), and after them filling out false paperwork of things that I witnessed (again on more than one occasion), I learned that that trust was misplaced.

      The cops are the last people I will believe about anything. I won’t even ask them for directions. Learned that the hard way in Boston.

  38. Well, Jackson (Ferguson police chief, to refresh memories) just confirmed on TV that Wilson did not stop Brown for any reason related to the robbery.

    1. That’s good to know.

  39. The police just admitted at the presser that the initial contact between the officer and Brown had nothing to do with the robbery.

    1. So, the robbery is completely irrelevant to the shooting, except as it may support the claim that Brown was combative/confrontational.

      Glad we got that cleared up.

      We can move on now, yes?

      1. Providing a motive is pretty important, though.

        Kid decides to attack police for no reason vs. kid just robbed a store is way different.

        (If its the truth, that he did attack at all.)

        1. If he just robbed a store an was stopped by the police, then he has reason to try resist the arrest.

          Meanwhile, his robbery partner will probably cut some deal with the prosecutor to reveal additional details about his deceased friend.

        2. I think I missed the part where it was said he attacked first. Didn’t the officer try to pull him into the car through the window?

    2. Although, since they admit that the shooting had nothing to do with the robbery,

      Why did they release the photo and video of the robbery WITHOUT a simultaneous statement that it had nothing to do with the shooting?

      1. Gee, I can’t imagine why they might do that.

      2. Why, it’s enough to shake my unquestioning faith in the veracity of police!

      3. At this point the only reason I can offer for anything they’re doing is that they’re legit imbeciles.

      4. I don’t think they can say it had nothing to do with the shooting, but they can say it had nothing to do with Wilson stopping Brown. I.e., Wilson could have been just harassing Brown, but Brown thinks he’s about to get popped for a felony so struggles with Wilson. Either way, Ferguson PD have mismanaged this at every turn.

      5. Establish the propensity of the deceased towards violence.

    3. These people are incompetent.

      1. I think they knew exactly what they were doing. Put out a story at a press conference that leaves a bunch of questions unanswered and then not take any questions? Then answer questions at a separate conference hours later? They knew that they needed to muddy the waters and then let the mud spread around for a while. Then after everyone already made up their minds, answer questions.

        1. You’re probably right. Vulgar, obvious, Biden-esque manipulation works far more often than it should.

          Reading between the lines, the police argument is that Brown was a bad guy, so we should accept that the inherently trustworthy police had a good reason to shoot him. Presumably because we’re a democracy and the police are public servants accountable to us through our representatives.

  40. Wow, according to the Police Chief, the legal contact Between Michael Brown and the Officer Darren Wilson and the Strong Arm Robbery that Michael Brown committed was a complete coincidence.

    The Stop that Darren Wilson made was petty.
    But it looks like Michael Brown is a THUG and died in the 2nd way that young black boys do, via legal contact.

    1. It’s probably time to ban the use of the word “thug” (socially, I mean)

      1. Michael Brown probably thought he was being apprehended for the robbery.

        It doesn’t matter the Officer Darren Wilson didn’t know.

        1. Is it common to apprehend someone for a robbery by telling them to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk?

          1. According to the other Thug, Officer Darren Wilson drove off, and then reversed. I bet Officer Wilson may had put 2 and 2 together.

            1. I bet Officer Wilson may had put 2 and 2 together.

              Sadly (for you), the top cop just told us otherwise.

            2. Lyle! Why aren’t you jumping in here with some spittle about waiting for all the facts to come in?

              I bet it’s because you believe it too, and thus it is factual.

          2. Is it common for someone to try and take a police officer’s gun?

            1. Is it common for Lyle to proclaim as truth one side of the story when that side spouts from a cop mouth?

              1. Based on the facts is it not plausible that the cop is telling the truth?

                Why are you so hell bent on stereotyping cops as liars?

                1. Why are you so hell bent on sucking their cocks?

                2. Because cops have stereotyped themselves as liars.

                  See, for instance, the Ramparts scandal in Los Angeles, where all the supposedly honest cops were either so willfully blind and deaf as to not know anything was amiss, or were too dishonest to rat out the bad cops. There is nothing honorable about either outcome. Cops are scum, a gang in every dishonorable sense of the word.

            2. Is it common for cops to lie about what happened?

              Do we have any testimony, other than the cop’s, that Brown tried to take his gun?

          3. CA (Bakersfield) has a bit of a problem with youth strolling in the street when sidewalks are available. A significant number of pointless deaths, unless you like darwinism, in our community is youth getting run down in traffic. Often the deceased is wearing black clothing and is not where a driver anticipates pedestrians. If a cop has handled a horrific and pointless ‘accident’ they may bullhorn for inattentive strollers to “Get out of the road, use the sidewalk” as a matter of public safety.

        2. It doesn’t matter the Officer Darren Wilson didn’t know.

          It may make a big difference. Cops have a lot more leeway to shoot fleeing people IF the cop knows they are a suspect in a violent felony.

      2. Only if i can still used “thugged out” to describe a certain way of dressing.

        1. Bitch my shit is tight, who you callin thug. this hear store bought jawns. not no goodwill.

          you juss hatin cause you aint pregnant yet

        2. I don’t know if I would describe the yellow sandals as thugged out.

      3. It’s probably time to ban the use of the word “thug” (socially, I mean)

        So what am I supposed to call a union boss?

        1. “Fuckwad” is still an option.

          1. Socially challenged.

      4. New rule: for every word the language mavens who have built their homes on the moral high ground suck out of polite vocabulary–retarded, idiot, and all racial slurs–a more offensive neologism shall be introduced as compensation for those who find prigishness as annoying as vulgarity.

      5. It’s probably time to ban the use of the word “thug” (socially, I mean)

        I live in the ghetto. It’s the correct nomenclature.

      6. *It’s probably time to ban the use of the word “thug” (socially, I mean)*

        Gosh, that’s very libertarian of you.

      7. So what am I supposed to call an Indian who tries to sacrifice me to Kali?

    2. “the Strong Arm Robbery that Michael Brown committed”

      Holy shit, your omniscient?

  41. via legal contact

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    1. Another opportunity missed for Lyle to pontificate on waiting for the facts to come rolling in.

  42. Why should we pretend a solo cop would confront a dangerous robbery suspect? That would require overwhelming force, preferable when the suspect was asleep.

    I’m going to presume the cop just felt like being a dick.

  43. …making it irrelevant to the question of whether the shooting was justified.

    I doubt that. The shooter is essentially off the hook, is my guess.

  44. The Chief of Police (Jackson) is doing everything he can to protect Officer Darren Wilson. This is why he released the tape.

    He wants the public opinion to think that Officer Darren Wilson didn’t know about the Strong-arm Robbery while Stopping Michael Brown for Jay-Walking. The Important thing the Chief wants us to think is that Michael Brown thought he was being apprehended for being a THUG in the grocery store.

    This is probably the truth. This is probably a justifiable homicide.
    However, what a shitty job being done by the Police.

    1. The Chief of Police (Jackson) is doing everything he can to protect Officer Darren Wilson.

      That’s nice.

      Too bad that’s not really his job.

    2. So robbery is grounds for justifiable homicide?

      1. Nope, not at all. If it were armed robbery, perhaps, depending again on the facts. But no one seems to want to wait for facts.

    3. Haha. No.

  45. This is probably a justifiable homicide.

    Still awfully early for that.

  46. So the pro-cop trolls are gone and the totally nutty troll is here?

    1. Lyle is waiting for the facts to announce themselves.

      1. Lyle is waiting for the facts to announce themselves the police to tell him what to believe.

        1. That’s harsh. Lyle sleeps comfortably in his bed at night because rough men safeguard him and his family. The taxes he pays are the price of civilization, which did not and cannot exist without a modern police force.

          If we were to get rid of the police and encourage an increasingly armed citizenry, young men would be gunned down in the middle of the street and in McDonald’s parking lots by irrational civilians left and right. To preserve civilization, we must defer to the police, because a lawful state must be a police state.

          1. [slow clap]

            Beautifully played, Knarf.

      2. Me thinks, you and Ed are too.

        1. I am not sure so Lyle a sentence order in can complete.

    2. I’m her propagandist Ed.

      We know a lot more about what Michael Brown was doing the day he was killed. Hope you tone down your propaganda now man.

      1. Hope you tone down your propaganda now man.

        “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

      2. And yet none of it is sufficient evidence for the killing of an unarmed, fleeing/surrendering person. Especially since at that point in time he wasn’t a suspect of jack and/or shit.

    3. By the way Ed. Way to project and stereotype supporters of Reason.

      Go fuck yourself you fucking idiot.

      1. What are you talking about? Do you even have a subscription? Cuz if you wanna keep talking to me like that you should get one. Thanks.

        1. haha… yes, I do asshole! Y’all take money from my bank account every month.

          Suffocate on my cock Ed!

          1. I suppose in that case I’ll have to tolerate it lol. You still need new kneepads 😮

            1. You know, Ed, while we’re all quite appreciative of Reason’s very tolerant policies on message board comments (and I’m sure some of my comments have tested them), I don’t think anyone is going to be too bothered if you ban Lyle.

              Dude’s a straight troll with a rather creepy obsession with you. Wouldn’t surprise me if he’s got some kind of shrine at home.

  47. Few points:

    1) That’s definitely Michael Brown in the photo. Look at the shoes.

    2) Doesn’t matter, as the cop didn’t know that at the time.

    3) The larger issue is really the militarization of the police and the unreasonable escalation of violence in response to civilian protests.

    1. Probably doesn’t matter that the cop didn’t know he was a suspect. The kid knew he’d done wrong and was likely acting accordingly, assuming the policeman DID know.

  48. So, what we know is this:

    Officer Wilson did not know that Brown was a suspect in the robbery. His encounter was with a couple of black men walking down the street, who he had no reason to believe were criminal suspects in any way, and who were not breaking any law when he saw them.

    With that in mind, we have been told the following (which is, as far as I know, neither corroborated nor contradicted by the police):

    Nonetheless, Officer Wilson decided to stop and order the two black men onto the sidewalk. Something he had no legal authority to do. For some reason, Officer Wilson saw fit to try to arrest or at least detain Brown. Why? Did Brown sass him (perfectly legally)? Did Brown commit some crime right in front of Officer Wilson?

    Frankly, this isn’t looking good for Officer Wilson. Everything from this point on (the struggle, the shooting, etc.) flows from Wilson’s initiation of the contact (and likely initiation of force) against Brown, for no apparent legal reason.

    1. My bet on how it went down:

      Wilson saw two black teenagers walking in the street instead of the sidewalk: a prime opportunity to lay down some AUTHORITAH. He yelled them down, and Brown – who had recently shoplifted/robbed/whatever some cigs, and as a kid with a clean criminal record had no experience dealing with police – panicked. Wilson doesn’t realize that Brown is freaking out because he thinks he’s being arrested for the incident at the store, and instead assumes that this is contempt of cop, which as we all know is the most serious crime in the world and must be met with lethal force lest the plebs lose respect for their betters, at which point society would crumble.

      1. Is this the John Singleton or Mario Van Peebles version of events?

        1. It’s the version where everyone involved is stupid, I’m not sure where on the continuum that falls.

          1. “Everyone’s an idiot” is slightly more van peebles than singleton.

            Singleton’s version casts Michael Brown as the hardened, street-wise rapper with a soul (starring a real, young streetwise rapper-actor), simply trying to survive in today’s America, but whose ambitions are thwarted by the inevitable drag of loyalty to peers and the glass ceiling presented by a racist America.

            Mario Van Peebles version is pretty much the same thing, only its a TV-movie. And everyone’s an idiot.

      2. This sounds about right. It also explains the delay in the cops releasing the video. Suburban cops take their own sweet time investigating petty shoplifting like this, if they bother to investigate it at all. The FPD had no idea that the black guy that they shot really was guilty of something. Bet they heaved a huge sigh of relief when the store owner pointed it out for them.

  49. https://reason.com/blog/2014/08…..en-spark-a

    Here’s Ed from the first HyR post about this:

    “shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown while he was going to his grandmother’s house, according to his mother,”

    “Brown was scheduled to start college in the fall.”

    Relevant: ‘going to grandmother’s’ and ‘scheduled to start college’

    Irrelevant: ‘just robbed a corner store’

    1. Bingo! We have a winner.

    2. ‘just robbed a corner store’ wasn’t in the article linked in that blog post, or it would’ve been in the blog post, the other information was. That post went up the day after the shooting. Nice try I guess.

      1. Ed,

        That’s his point Ed. You started off with one narrative and now you’re running away from a new one. It’s pretty fucking relevant that he robbed a store before being shot down in the street. This is because it might tell us why Michael Brown reacted the way he did to officer Wilson.

      2. Those two details were relayed from the article for reasons other than establishing the state of mind of the deceased … that’s what you’re telling me?!

  50. 1) POSSIBLE; Bakersfield has a bit of a problem with youth strolling in the street when sidewalks are available. A significant number of pointless deaths, unless you like darwinism, in our community is youth getting run down in traffic. Often the deceased is wearing black clothing and is not where a driver anticipates pedestrians. If a cop has handled a horrific and pointless ‘accident’ they may bullhorn to inattentive strollers in traffic to “Get out of the road, use the sidewalk” as a matter of public safety.
    2) PROBABLE; Brown had a combative streak,
    3) FACT; Fed grants are awarding local police with armored vehicles along with subtle telepathed suggestions.

    Welcome to modern America.

    1. Since cops don’t have the authority to tell you that the appropriate response is “Fuck off”.

      However, as that is obvious contempt of cop, you can expect a double tap to your brain pan as their response.

      1. *Since cops don’t have the authority to tell you that the appropriate response is “Fuck off”.*

        Really? So jaywalking is not a crime?

        1. Considering walking down the street is not the definition of jaywalking, no.

          I will concede that there may be other statutes which prohibit that.

  51. Bingo! We have a winner. I hope will respond to this.

  52. Seeing the video raises some questions for me.

    ?Was the neighborhood in which Brown apparently robbed a convenience store the one in which he lived? If so, did the convenience store workers know him or recognize him?

    ?There were other people in the store besides the employees and owner; did their testimonies corroborate the statements taken by the police?

    ?The robbery was weird. It looks like Brown’s accomplice, Johnson, set the box of cigars back on the counter. Why did he do this? Was he in on the robbery or not? Did Brown go into the store with the intent to rob it, or was it a spontaneous decision once he got inside? Was Johnson going along because he was Brown’s friend? I don’t know; maybe he figured that Brown had gotten enough cigars for them.

    I guess my expectations would be that Brown, if he intended to rob the store, would have hid his face from the cameras as he walked in, grabbed the cigars, and run like heck out the door. Johnson might have been standing outside as lookout.

    I guess the plan was that Brown would ask for a box of cigars, which he would then hand to Johnson, and hope that the clerk got distracted or something so that they could walk out without paying. But Johnson put the box back on the counter. That’s weird.

    1. I guess the overarching lesson to take from this is “Tobacco kills”.

    2. The video does show that, at the very least, Brown was capable of physical aggression. The policeman’s story that Brown became violent subsequently has some credence.

      Also, if Brown was running away and then suddenly turned around, whether he had his hands up or not, I can see the policeman entertaining the possibility that Brown had a weapon of some sort that he had just pulled out, and so reacted by shooting Brown.

      Another thing I’m wondering; did they find the cigarillos on Brown’s body? Did Officer Wilson notice Brown and/or Johnson carrying an armload of cigarillos? Why did he stop them again? to tell them to walk on the sidewalk? Why would Brown attack a policeman for that? It doesn’t make sense.

      1. The scenario I’m developing in my mind is thus:

        Brown and Johnson go into the store to get some cigars (not to steal them). Brown hands the box back to Johnson, the clerk says, “You’ll have to pay for those.” Brown gets upset either at the price or at the implication that he’s going to steal them. He shows out and grabs an armload of cigarillos as an “FU” to the clerk. Johnson, thinking “What are you doing, man?” puts the box back on the counter. Brown, having committed, is walking out of the store. The owner tries to block him, but Brown pushes him out of the way, then makes threatening moves to get him to back off. Then, a couple of blocks away, the police confront an angry Brown, who makes threatening moves. The policeman shoots Brown, who turns to run. Brown turns around to surrender, but the policeman interprets the abrupt change of direction as a threat, possibly that Brown now has a weapon, and so unloads into him.

        1. Brown appears to be an asshole. He appears to have been a simmering pot ready to boil. He apparently did more than tell the cop to fuck himself. He began to run away. And then, for whatever reason, the cop decided to put him down permanently.

          This is the type of thing that can be a good bell weather for libertarians. He didn’t seem to be an angle, but did he deserve “hot pursuit execution”? Probably not. But at this point, it’s a matter of “bias”. We see so many cases of cops and jailers going way over the line, that one stereotypes. Brown certainly seems to have caused the situation into the yellow area, but is the yellow area now the default for cops to unload? Or was this a decent cop who really shouldn’t have to play the odds.

          Certainly more gray than some other cops situations that get reported. But the long and the short of it is when cops bust in wrong doors, shoot people in their bed then say they were attacking them, killing dogs indiscriminately, blowing off toddlers’ faces, arming themselves with military style equipment, it’s hard to give them the benefit of any sort of doubt in cases like this.

          1. “…it’s hard to give them the benefit of any sort of doubt in cases like this.”

            I agree. Putting myself in the officer’s position, I think I would have left them alone; perhaps observed them–smiled and waved to try to alleviate any suspicion I was watching them, then report it if I thought necessary. Telling people to get onto the sidewalk…eh, what for? If they’re acting suspicious, then call for backup.

            Maybe we should go back to policemen having actual “beats” again (do they still do that?), where they get to know their neighborhoods and the people living there–and let the people get to know them. That way, if someone does something, the police would know in advance whether he might have to use his weapon, or if someone just needs a talking-to.

      2. If the officer had thought Brown had a weapon that would have been immediately released and this would be a local media sound clip.

  53. So the Ferguson police shot a violent fleeing felon?

    That’s probably the only thing they did right in the past week.

    1. And even that, if true, is only incidental.

      Sure, we don’t have “all the facts” concerning the shooting and Brown’s actions leading up to it.

      But what we absolutely do have “all the facts” about are the actions of the local government (especially the police department) of Ferguson, MO thereafter.

      And those actions paint them as an occupying force, not a government that represents the people.

  54. So much of this does have to do with Race.

    The sad reality for Blacks.
    Here in the Metro NY Area, white couples that want to adopt will actually pay some $20k, $30k to the white mother that is giving up their child for adoption.

    Black babies, they pretty much give those away for Free.

    When you look at something like this, I can imagine the feelings among blacks about themselves.

    1. The “sad reality” for poor black people in this country is that they live at the intersection of liberal guilt, race hustling, and welfare socialism.

      This trifecta has conspired to destroy the entrepreneurial spirit and leave its only expression in the form of criminal enterprises.

      It is a system built upon layers of lies and false promises, with all the incentives tuned to preservation of the system instead of the betterment of people’s lives.

      The real question is, when (and how) is it going to end?

  55. It doesn’t matter that the policeman didn’t know about the robbery. Brown and his fellow perp did know, which is probably why Brown initiated violence against the officer.

  56. Somehow, I doubt that the cop just shot someone who was running away with his hands up, without making any sudden movements.

    There’s no reason to dismiss or believe anyone’s account of the event yet. The only thing we know is that Brown is dead and he was involved in robbery. The circumstances that led to his death is not clear.

    1. The only thing we know is that Brown is dead and he was involved in robbery.

      Allegedly involved in a robbery. Innocent until proven guilty, what?

      1. Well, I don’t think he’s going to go on trial for that robbery, so are we perpetually required to he (like Adam Lanza, Dylan Klebold, and Adolf Hitler) is innocent?

  57. The initial contact would have been justified in that Brown and Williams were walking in the middle of the road and creating a potentially dangerous situation re vehicular traffic. I gotta think that everything after that is on Brown and Williams.

  58. A police officer doesn’t have to “know” that a person matches a description of a robbery to have reasonable suspicion they may be engaged in criminal activity. Running when seeing a police car, concealing something they are carrying, sweating profusely and acting hyper would be things that would get my attention if I was a policeman. Since he was a visitor to the neighborhood, residents and police who regularly patrol the area would notice he looks out of place.

    1. None of which means he should have been shot more than the first time.

      1. The dude was 6’4″ and 290 lbs.

        Look at the video. Look how he manhandled the store owner.

        Tossed him around like a doll.


        1. It wasn’t Brown’s fault he was the biggest and the strongest. He didn’t even exercise.

  59. I guess the bottom line here would be that regardless of the suspect’s intent after he was shot once, no one should deem themselves judge, jury and executioner. This is clearly another example of an ‘out of control’ police state where they ‘serve’ up their brand of justice and circle the wagons to ‘protect’ their own.

  60. If I was just involved in a scuffle over stealing something, I wouldn’t walk down the middle of the street.

  61. It’s all irrelevant to the question of deadly force. But it is interesting that the community is acting as if this is somehow faked. And questioning the timing despite the fact that the police chief said he had formal freedom of information requests and had to release the video.
    No excuse to kill the guy, but he was no choir boy.

  62. Mr. Krayewski – Based on still images taken during the “robbery”, Brown may have had someone with him. If, and I say “if”, there is another suspect wouldn’t it make sense for police to withhold the video evidence? Why let the “accomplice” know they’re being sought?

    1. The accomplice is Dorian Johnson. He is easy to recognize in the videos. His lawyer has already conceded that he participated in the robbery.

  63. How the fuck is this not relevant? The cop may not have known, but Brown and Johnson knew. And they didn’t know that the cop didn’t know. So you rob a convenience store that morning, later on a cop rolls up. Is your behavior the same as it would be if you hadn’t just committed a crime? No fucking way. It certainly has relevance to determine the mindset of Brown and Johnson. And fuck Brown anyhow. He is a victim of his own choices. He wasn’t some sweet innocent kid and I have zero sympathy for him. If people don’t like to be harassed by the po po, stop doing stupid illegal shit. it’s pretty fucking simple. The problem ain’t racism, it ain’t a “militarized” police force, and it ain’t poverty. It’s people who think the choices they make don’t have consequences. So yeah, him robbing the store is absolutely fucking relevant.

    1. I must have missed the part where Wilson was the shop owner who Brown robbed.

      The robbery speaks to Brown’s state of mind when he encountered Wilson, and there’s little doubt that the initial reporting on this, including that of Reason, tried to paint Brown as completely innocent.

      However, robbery is not a capital crime. Wilson was not defending the store. He may have been defending his own life, but that is for a jury to decide. Which is why he, like any non-cop in his position, should be facing charges.

      Police are not judge, jury, and executioner. They should be held to at the very least the same standard as any other citizen, if not a higher standard.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.