Sounds like a real winner of a police force. Guessing 95%+ of them should be out of their jobs if this is the type of department they run.

It was a honest question. I don't know what cops have in their trunk and will hopefully never find out.

My view is anything they could have done would have been better than what they did in this entire incident.

LOL how did that guy make police chief? He looks and sounds like Chief Wiggum. They should have had someone more equipped to handle that kind of press stuff up there.

Should have taken questions just so he could have clarified that Brown wasn't the robbery suspect, cause it sure sounded that way with his disjointed speech.

Absolute cowardly horseshit display by the Ferguson PD. Releasing the information on the shoplifting...sorry...ROBBERY...but no Use of Force report, nothing relating to the issue of an unarmed teen being shot dead and left to bleed out in the street, in plain view, FOR HOURS.

BLACK CRIMINAL HAD IT COMING.

Yes, run on sentence, too many caps...ANGRY TYPING.

CNN is saying that Brown WAS the robbery suspect even though the police didn't say that directly.

I think it does show that this wasn't the innocent little angel that he has been portrayed as. Strong arm robbery of a lady clerk which he manhandles at a convenient store.

That's not a woman in the pictures according to the report.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/im....documents.pdf

All this over Swisher Sweets...

My bad, it does mention a woman in the report. Is that a customer or the clerk?

Obvious question, why for the past week was the PD's story "get on the sidewalk," if they knew all along that this was a stop about a robbery? The Ferguson PD inspires zero confidence.

Fair enough. And my reply wasn't meant to be flippant either.

In my reporter days I worked a fair number of death scenes -- drownings, fire, car crashes, etc -- and I actually sat here trying to think back about the body bags & where they came from. All I could come up with was ambulance/ coroner, I never could visualize one coming from a patrol car. Nor even fire department. Might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction though, which is why I phrased my reply in the form of a question.

That was the witness's story, the one who relayed the account in the interview with the media posted earlier.

So from a prosecution standpoint, that's a big issue off the bat. If the robbery can be proven (and it appears it can be), and if it can be proven that this officer stopped Brown because he was a suspect in the robbery (not a necessary implication from part A, but the officer may have called that fact into dispatch pre-shooting, and there may be audio of some of the encounter), then it doesn't look great for the witness's credibility because ya, you don't approach a suspect in a robbery by telling him to "get on the sidewalk" or whatever it was. It's not necessarily fatal to the prosecution, because you may have overwhelming physical evidence and not need the kid at all. (Edit: And if the witness was the guy who was with Brown during the robbery, then, he's probably worthless to the prosecution at all.)

I never really considered definitions here, is it as obvious as it would seem that a robbery involves a threat or implied threat?

Meaning if someone shoplifts something, gets called on it and makes a threat it then becomes a robbery at that point?

Not saying anything about this situation, just curious in general.

The key eyewitness looks to be the guy with Brown at the store. Your story loses credibility when you've lied already in your story about where you had been.

Generally robbery is theft by force or threat.

Edit: Actually in Missouri, 2nd-degree robbery requires force.

569.030. 1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.

1st-degree robbery requires stealing by force AND either causing injury, being armed, or threatening with a weapon (whether or not the defendant actually has a weapon).

I wonder if they held back the name because the name is so common, and because there's actually another police officer in the St. Louis area with the same name who is not the shooter here. So there was a few extra security steps.

St. Louis has like 50 municipalities some of which are basically traffic ticket money generators for a town of like 50 people. I'm guessing this guy oversees maybe 10 officers? I wouldn't expect him to be national news polished.

Yeah hard to defend he cop but good God the lengths people will go to to justify looting and criminal behavior is insult to black people. Like they are just animals with no ability to follow the laws. It's almost as racist as the people they are telling "racism" at.

So will Anonymous apologize to the guy they outed yesterday as the officer? Dude's name was exploding on twitter yesterday.

Anonymous is literally the mom from "Bewitched" who always gets Darren's name wrong

— Degenerate Gandhi (@Bro_Pair) August 15, 2014

Evidently there are dueling Anonymous sources. One of them came out yesterday and said the name that was released wasn't one they were sure of, but the other source stuck with the name.

Anonymous = Random people on the internet posting under a brand name. Anyone on this board could pick any name at random and post as a member of Anonymous.

Not sure what can be done with that information, but that's what "Anonymous" is, why it gained relevancy quickly(their crowd sourcing lead to a few hits) and why it's crumbling at the same speed(now that they have a spotlight, the misses are obvious).

So I guess, Easy Mac, you could tweet an apology as a member of Anonymous :).

So police officers are collectively evil but you needed to break your promise to leave this discussion to emphasize that Annonymous members are individuals and we shouldn't be quick to judge.

I meant the discussion around police officers. And no, that wasn't the point I was getting across at all about Anonymous, judge all you want, there are a lot of idiots out there under the anonymous umbrella causing obvious harm. Just providing some context.

Feel free to utilize the ignore function if you won't be able to keep yourself from baiting me.

Really, I'm the baiter here?

You not knowing saldana the whole damn point. You've judged him (and me) to be beneath you, without offering any evidence that you're so much better, that you went into your job for altruistic purposes, that you help people, etc.

And you're a liar on top of that because you're still here.

Again, specifically meant the argument that sent you over the edge. Not commenting any more on that, regardless of what comes out during this situation. Now chill out and kindly put me on ignore. Otherwise, yes, if you keep trying to drag me back in that same discussion you are indeed the baiter.

Nah, I kind of want to see what else you come up with.

Then PM it. Done blowing this thread up over that. Which other than my initial emotional response, has been civil despite a tense situation.

I'm trying to add some information in this thread. I have experience on both sides of this. I've been involved with prosecuting and firing police officers. I think I've been able to help fill in the gaps with some of the procedure, provide some possible reasons things happen, discuss some of the issues a prosecution might face. Trying to contribute to the thread in productive way. You haven't. You've just antagonized. That's frustrating. I'm not to send PMs to someone who has no respect for me and who sees me as beneath them despite what I've tried to add to this discussion. I will try to do better to ignore you, but if you say more stupid shit, I'll respond.

I posted something emotionally I shouldn't have at all, that absolutely was antagonistic. I think I've said that, at least alluded to it. I'd be a hypocrite if I kept posting about it. My opinion is most people in this thread(other than you, which is fine) don't want to see that argument continue further, maybe I'm wrong?

If anything I should delete that post, but what's said is said and I don't believe in deletion. So I'll just deal with people seeing my name and thinking I'm an asshole.

Also, keeping in mind, all your responses to me recently were to my Anonymous post. I don't think that one was antagonistic or stupid. But if it was clue me in please.

I just thought it was interesting that you see all officers as the same but were able to recognize that people who post to Annonymous are individuals who might not all be on the same page. I made the point earlier, I think people who have biases going in against groups will see those groups as thinking and acting collectively, where people within those groups are actually very different and can have harsh disagreements. It's like how if you're inclined not to like black people, you're going to see the riots and looting as what the "black people in Ferguson" are doing in response to this. Where in reality, most black people want to smack the looters and rioters in the face for making the situation worse. I can't imagine what you can post in this thread that won't be relevant to your stated stances, but I can't wait to find out!

No, I really just meant to point out that Anonymous is not a group with a hierarchy, order or control that a lot of people think. Anyone who says they are part of anonymous, literally anyone, is. The motivating factor for people to fly the anonymous flag is so they can get attention of the mainstream they ordinarily wouldn't get.

Like I said, just adding some context. I guess the only two comments that I'd make is

1: If the media as a whole understood Anonymous was just random internet people they'd pay them the same attention they do random people on twitter.
2: Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad. Which applies to a large part of "anonymous".

You can certainly read into everything I say and draw connections however you want. If you like. Especially point #2.

Fucking Durwood.

Why was #Ferguson PD still looking for the suspect 7 hours after Brown had been killed? pic.twitter.com/vJcnOn4AF7

— AnonAustria (@AnonAustria) August 15, 2014

Fuckfuck fuck pic.twitter.com/UpPNMEzuwf

— Bruh. (@TheePharoah) August 9, 2014

.

The video of Mr. Brown pushing around a clerk while committing the robbery is not going to help paint him as a sympathetic figure.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...111336&fref=nf

The fact that he was shot to death for something that had nothing to do with the robbery isn't helping much, either.

Sure does heighten questions about what he did to get himself shot however.

I know many people disagree with me on the death penalty. It is a passionate subject and good arguments can be made on both sides. But surely nobody thinks we should execute people for robbery.

So I don't see how that video is relevant at all, especially since the police chief has admitted that the officer who shot Brown did not know he was a robbery suspect.

You're right, but it does make me wonder what the mind-set of Mike Brown was after the robbery when the police rolled up on him. Did it turn him into survival/flee mode? Fight to flight mode? Just more questions to ponder as we go through this trial publicly.

No, that sort of character evidence would not be admissible in Darren Wilson's trial.

It will if we're establishing why he attacked the officer who then fired in self-defense.

edit to add: Thinking he was about to go down on the robbery provides motive for an otherwise random assault. Hypothetically speaking, since right now we're talking about a hypothetical trial anyway.

Couldn't it be used to suggest or prove he was in a fighting mood?

"Robbery?"

Didn't the kid steal a fucking candybar or something?

Can we call a spade a spade - that's shoplifting, not "robbery."

Although i guess he's black and maybe he had words with the cashier, so I suppose that makes it "robbery."

(and no - i haven't watched the video yet, so I'm talking out my ass).

Okay - so it was cigars. And oh gee...he pushed the guy. I guess that's "robbery."

What a joke.

Even then - since when does stealing a couple cigars warrant a full-on search by local PD and a confrontational response that ends with someone getting shot? That's a pretty extreme overreaction.

The legislature gets to define what crimes are, and in Missouri, they didn't specify any minimum amount of force gets you to 2nd-degree robbery. Though, there would need to be physical injury to get to 1st-degree robbery. (And it's all moot now, but I could see an argument that the shove came AFTER the theft, so maybe its misdemeanor theft + misdemeanor battery rather than one felony 2nd-degree robbery.) He might have gotten a break down the road, but it isn't necessarily racist just to identify him as a suspect of committing the actual crime he was arguably observed committing on video.

And whatever confrontation, or non-confrontation led up to the shooting, it didn't have anything to do with the robbery, at least from the officer's end.

As for prior acts evidence, you can't admit evidence of prior acts to show that because someone did something bad before, they must have done something bad again. But you can introduce it for other reasons. Like state of mind, motive, absence of mistake, plan, etc. Some states have evidentiary rules and caselaw interpreting those rules that make prior acts and prior convictions even tougher to get in when it comes to defendants, but remember that Brown will not be the defendant.