Michael Brown had robbed a Quick Trip just before the fatal shooting

Use a legal dictionary so it can help you understand. The free one appears to be too ambiguous for you to figure out.

Legal Dictionary | Law.com


West's Encyclopedia of American Law is a legal reference, one that is far superior to "Law.com".

The reason I suggested a new source is because the definition keeps tripping you up. In order to have committed a felony you have to be tried and found guilty. Do you understand that point?
 
Sooooooo. Has it been confirmed that the person in the video clip is Michael Brown?

It's been confirmed the video is irrelevant.
Now all you haveee to do is explain the irrelevance to a jury. I don't think it'll get to that unless the race pimps are on another suicide mission.


Thats easy. The two incidents are unrelated. The cop was unaware of the alleged robbery. It wont even be allowed in court.
 
West's Encyclopedia of American Law is a legal reference, one that is far superior to "Law.com".

The reason I suggested a new source is because the definition keeps tripping you up. In order to have committed a felony you have to be tried and found guilty. Do you understand that point?

That is false.

If you murder me and are never apprehended, tried or convicted, you have still committed the felony.

And, as you have committed a felony, you are a felon...not a convicted felon...but a felon just the same.
 
Now completely irrelevant given the fact that the alleged robbery had nothing whatsoever to do with the stop.

:rofl:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/371042-brown-shooting-eyewitness-is-a-liar.html

^Plenty of 411 in that thread including the inconsistent stories from the accomplices and the video from the store.

:)

peace...

Hey dummy. The cop didnt even know about the alleged robbery. :lol:

Guess you were on the wrong thread.

Maybe this still needs to be clarified, but according to that police report posted, an officer was dispatched , and this particular cop stopped the boys in the vicinity of the conveinience store. The dispatched gave a discription and the direction where the guys were walking away from the store, based on what the store clerk said. Now I thought that if one officer is dispatched to a robbery, another officer with his radio on can hear the call and still respond if he is close by. Its still to early to state that everything here is fact, but the photos i saw seemed to show a guy wearing the same clothing and about the same body shape as the photo of the kid laying in the street. If that wasnt Michael Brown roughing up the store clerk and it was someone else, it was a hell of a coincidence.
 
like you are not guilty of doing the same thing......

Yeah...........but no. There is a CLEAR difference between right and left here when it comes to posting without waiting for facts. USMB nutters do this as a matter of daily routine. Our liberals are much more likely to reserve judgement until some time has passed and some details have been confirmed.

True.

Liberals for the most part are withholding judgement on the issue until the facts are fully known and an investigation concluded.

Most conservatives, however, are seeking to demonize Brown in a reprehensible effort to ‘justify’ his killing absent all the facts and a final determination of an investigation.

The disdain most on the right have for facts and objective, documented evidence that conflict with their dogma and subjective world-view is well-established and infamous – posts by conservatives in this and other threads on the same topic are proof of that.

No_Reply_Jones strikes again....
 
Hey black parents, (CNN tried to make a whine earlier) How about telling your children not to do crime for a living.

Jezzz....

How do you know if a crime was committed and even if it was Michael Brown in the video?

The Quick Trip employee said Michael Brown robbed & assaulted him.

Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

[Assaulting a police officer and/or going for their weapon is a felony]

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
 
Michael Brown’s rap sheet on casenet. Note that he also has a juvenile criminal record that is sealed.

Description: Burglary - 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Assault 1st Degree - Serious Physical Injury { Felony A RSMo: 565.050 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action {

Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
 
A short youtube version of the robbery
Michael Brown Store Robbery Surveillance Video Ferguson Teen Michael Brown Robbery RAW Video - YouTube
This link has the entire robbery video, and a picture of Brown in the street after being shot and how his clothes and shoes match.
Family outraged after police name Michael Brown robbery suspect | Mail Online



looked like a mean guy, made that store clerk feel like shit. What I dont understand is Michael was suppossed to be going to college the next day. So why all the anger?
 
And?

If there were no imminent threats to law enforcement or public safety, the shooting is not justified.

That one might be suspected of a crime does not warrant the killing of that suspect.

The photographs from the convenience store are irrelevant, all that’s relevant is what occurred during the encounter with police just before shots were fired.


They are not irrelevant. It goes to show the state of mind of Brown- as a cop approaches him and his friend right after they may have robbed a store.

Not to mention if they had just robbed a store, it puts the "witness" friend ( Guy who robbed store with Brown) credibility into question when it comes to the story he is telling about what went down.

Were they both on edge as the cop approached? And when he stopped them did a fight take place because Brown and witness thought they were getting arrested instead of just being told to move off the street.
 
Last edited:
@C_Clayton_Jones

I'd be interested to hear how Tennessee v. Garner applies to this case.

If Brown attacked the officer and attempted to wrest away the officers sidearm, and failing to do so attempted to flee...if those facts are assumed to be true for the purpose of this hypothetical...would the officer's use of deadly force against a unarmed fleeing subject in this example be justified?
 
Michael Brown’s rap sheet on casenet. Note that he also has a juvenile criminal record that is sealed.

Description: Burglary - 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Assault 1st Degree - Serious Physical Injury { Felony A RSMo: 565.050 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action {

Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Thats all the same date as I pointed out before. If the case is sealed how did you get?
 
:rofl:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/371042-brown-shooting-eyewitness-is-a-liar.html

^Plenty of 411 in that thread including the inconsistent stories from the accomplices and the video from the store.

:)

peace...

Hey dummy. The cop didnt even know about the alleged robbery. :lol:

Guess you were on the wrong thread.

Maybe this still needs to be clarified, but according to that police report posted, an officer was dispatched , and this particular cop stopped the boys in the vicinity of the conveinience store. The dispatched gave a discription and the direction where the guys were walking away from the store, based on what the store clerk said. Now I thought that if one officer is dispatched to a robbery, another officer with his radio on can hear the call and still respond if he is close by. Its still to early to state that everything here is fact, but the photos i saw seemed to show a guy wearing the same clothing and about the same body shape as the photo of the kid laying in the street. If that wasnt Michael Brown roughing up the store clerk and it was someone else, it was a hell of a coincidence.

The chief said on TV that's not why they stopped Brown and Johnson. Somebody needs to get their story straight.
 
@C_Clayton_Jones

I'd be interested to hear how Tennessee v. Garner applies to this case.

If Brown attacked the officer and attempted to wrest away the officers sidearm, and failing to do so attempted to flee...if those facts are assumed to be true for the purpose of this hypothetical...would the officer's use of deadly force against a unarmed fleeing subject in this example be justified?

No. If it is legal for you to shoot an unarmed suspect in the back or execute him when he turns around with his hands up then that law needs to be changed asap.
 
Michael Brown’s rap sheet on casenet. Note that he also has a juvenile criminal record that is sealed.

Description: Burglary - 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Assault 1st Degree - Serious Physical Injury { Felony A RSMo: 565.050 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Description: Armed Criminal Action {

Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }

Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000

OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD

Are you sure its not a different Michael Brown with a rap sheet?
 
West's Encyclopedia of American Law is a legal reference, one that is far superior to "Law.com".

The reason I suggested a new source is because the definition keeps tripping you up. In order to have committed a felony you have to be tried and found guilty. Do you understand that point?

That is false.

If you murder me and are never apprehended, tried or convicted, you have still committed the felony.

And, as you have committed a felony, you are a felon...not a convicted felon...but a felon just the same.

If I allegedly murder you then I have to be convicted. There are plenty of people walking around right now that "murdered" someone and are not called felons simply because they have not been tried and convicted of a felony.
 
Last edited:
Here is what I don't understand:

The documents released Friday name him (Dorian Johnson) as the second suspect in the convenience store robbery, but Jackson said Friday that he will not face any charges.

"We have determined that he committed no crime," Jackson said.

LINK

Okay so he committed no crime but the guy your fellow cop killed did? Nice. What a way to accuse someone who can't defend themselves. If he was with him and left with him, then they both committed robbery. If you say he committed no crime, then neither did Brown.

This seems very fishy.

Not at all. While they probably could charge him for shoplifting he didnt assault the store owner. When you consider what went down since then it a good idea to let the petty charge slide rather than piss off the locals again.
Common sense.
 
Hey dummy. The cop didnt even know about the alleged robbery. :lol:

Guess you were on the wrong thread.

Maybe this still needs to be clarified, but according to that police report posted, an officer was dispatched , and this particular cop stopped the boys in the vicinity of the conveinience store. The dispatched gave a discription and the direction where the guys were walking away from the store, based on what the store clerk said. Now I thought that if one officer is dispatched to a robbery, another officer with his radio on can hear the call and still respond if he is close by. Its still to early to state that everything here is fact, but the photos i saw seemed to show a guy wearing the same clothing and about the same body shape as the photo of the kid laying in the street. If that wasnt Michael Brown roughing up the store clerk and it was someone else, it was a hell of a coincidence.

The chief said on TV that's not why they stopped Brown and Johnson. Somebody needs to get their story straight.

I didnt see that, i need to look it up. But as an earlier poster piut it, Brown and his friend may have thought the Officer had just rolled up to arrest them, that could account for an altercation happening. If that was Brown in the video, he sure appeared to have a bad attitude. But having said that, I still believe he shouldnt have been shot multiple times, especially at a distance where he was not a threat, and if he was surrendering or disabled by previous shots fired. At that point the Officer could have continued out of adrenaline. All this could have taken place in a matter of seconds, sometimes its the ' fight or flight' part of the brain that takes over.
 

Forum List

Back
Top