So there's this riot going on right now

[Cerin]

So you're contending that it's a standard practice of police departments to deliberately give conflicting orders in order to make protesters look bad. I really don't know what to say to an assertion like that. It can't possibly reflect well on police departments, to have situations devolve into chaos and violence. I very much doubt there will be lots of commendations and promotions coming out of this for the officers who were relieved of duty by the Gov.

editd to remove sarcasm, per guidelines for political discussion

[Dave_LF]

It turns out that Brown was being picked up on suspicion of strong-arm robbery at the time he was shot:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Brown.html

The suspicion is technical; there are clear surveillance photos of the thief (same link) who, in addition to matching Brown's height and build, is wearing clothing identical to what Brown had on when he died. It's pretty easy to imagine why an officer being attacked by that man would reach for the gun before the taser--he wasn't exactly the little child the sensationalist media would have you picture with their endless parroting of the phrase "unarmed black teenager." Which doesn't mean it wasn't a wrong--even criminally wrong--decision.

What this means, if it isn't just a bunch of CYA, is that all the sound, fury, and rioting was over a petty thief who got himself killed by turning violent when the police tried to arrest him. Reality is banal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Cerin and everyone: please express your opinions without resorting to sarcasm, which violates the first of the guidelines for political discussions in this forum. If need be, please review those guidelines (which of course, you helped to write, Cerin).

[axordil]

Even if Brown were being accosted as a suspect in the robbery--and it's extremely curious they decided to not bring any of this to light until the press conference where they finally release the police officer's name--the core problem remains. By all accounts and the crime scene layout, it appears Brown surrendered. If Wilson shot him again, *that* shooting was illegal regardless of anything else that preceded it. Period.

[Dave_LF]

Yes, that is true unless Wilson can somehow make the case that he continued to have a legitimate reason to fear for his life.

And I agree that it's odd that they waited this long to release that information. Though it did concern what was (is?) an active investigation in which one of the two suspects was not only still at large, but actually making TV appearances.

[axordil]

And also not detained or approached in any way. If the other teen was a suspect AND a material witness, why on earth would they not bring him in?

I also understand the convenience store owner in question negatively identified Brown on Saturday after he was shot, that is, indicated Brown was NOT the person who pushed him around and robbed the store. False negatives are a lot less common in eyewitness testimony than false positives.

So it's very, very strange for him to retroactively become the chief suspect in the robbery. If they had this info, why not release it right away?

[River]

Yes, I've been wondering since I saw the news that, if there were two suspects and Brown and his friend were targeted because they matched the description, why is the friend still free? And why did they wait so long to release that information? And did either boy have cigars on his person?

[Jude]

That's also the first thing I thought of - if he really was a suspect in a robbery, that should have been the first thing mentioned to avoid all the outrage.

The friend claims that Brown was on the ground and in the act of surrendering when he was shot multiple times. So either he or the cop is flat out lying - there's no room for allowances for different perspectives here.

P.S. linking to an article from the Daily Mail? srsly?

[axordil]

P.S. linking to an article from the Daily Mail? srsly?

We all have our Paperback Writer moments. I linked something from The Onion once.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I find discussing these kinds of issues worthless, frustrating and depressing, until the dust clears and there is more evidence to sift through.

One thing is clear, however. The initial police response to the protests was ridiculously over the top. As evidenced by the highway patrol's comparatively successful policing efforts, there are good ways and bad ways to police protests in the United States. One particularly bad way involves treating Americans like Islamist militants.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As far as I am concerned, it is virtually irrelevant whether or not he was a suspect in a robbery. The crucial question is still whether there was any reason for the now-identified Officer Wilson to reasonably believe that he or anyone else was under threat of death of extreme bodily harm at the time that he shot his firearm. It almost goes without saying, but being a suspect in a robbery does not give the police a license to kill you (I'm not saying that I think that you are saying that, Dave, I'm just making it abundantly clear).

[Passdagas the Brown]

As far as I am concerned, it is virtually irrelevant whether or not he was a suspect in a robbery. The crucial question is still whether there was any reason for the now-identified Officer Wilson to reasonably believe that he or anyone else was under threat of death of extreme bodily harm at the time that he shot his firearm. It almost goes without saying, but being a suspect in a robbery does not give the police a license to kill you (I'm not saying that I think that you are saying that, Dave, I'm just making it abundantly clear).

This.

[Frelga]

Exactly! That's why we have courts and due process and rules about being innocent until proven guilty.

Dave, he WAS an unarmed black teenager.

I am also extremely suspicious of this part about Brown being a suspect. Why have we been led to believe for nearly a week that he was stopped for walking on the road? And what was that description, a black male in a hoodie?

Finally, I wonder why, with all this extremely well armed police being massed around, they still didn't manage to stop the looting before it got out of hand? What was the point of them even being there?

[Dave_LF]

Johnson has confessed to the FBI that Brown was responsible for the robbery and that he (Johnson) was there:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-pol ... 5_29822566

It's unclear exactly when he made the confession, but at no point during the interview(s?) he gave before the police spoke up did he bother to mention any of this. That does not help his credibility as an eyewitness.

As to why the police didn't arrest him earlier, I expect the shooting threw everything off the rails in its immediate aftermath, and after that he was busy making television appearances. Needless to say, having the police all but arrest him on live TV would not have gone over so well, even if he was still in their jurisdiction.

And what was that description, a black male in a hoodie?

No; according to the article it was something like "two young black males, one wearing khaki shorts and a red baseball cap." Which Brown and Johnson fit exactly, since they were the thieves.

Dave, he WAS an unarmed black teenager.

Yes, he was. But that phrase is media spin because, while it is technically true, it is pitched to convey something other than the truth.

[axordil]

Frelga--
They weren't in the right place. The protest Sunday night was centered around the intersection of West Florissant and Chambers Roads. Almost all the looting took place at least a half-mile from there, scattered up and down West Florissant, with the exception of a tire store a half-block away. Once the police formed a riot line, they effectively pinned the bulk of their forces down by the protesters, as opposed to being able to react to the looting.

Dave--
The truth is the truth: unarmed is unarmed. And there's still the open question of why Wilson approached Brown and Johnson in the way he did.

What the police are clearly attempting to do is justify shooting unarmed suspects after they surrender by painting them as less than ideal, appealing to the "they had it coming" mentality of the baser elements of society in an effort to distract from the dead body on the street. It's cynical and sickening.

[Dave_LF]

The police are either backtracking or "clarifying" now and saying that, contrary to earlier media reports, while Brown was involved in the robbery, Wilson didn't know that yet when he ordered him to get out of the street:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/poli ... t-24995354

(and the original article I linked to has been amended to reflect that, so I can't even demonstrate that it used to say otherwise)

Brown naturally must have imagined that Wilson was trying to arrest him for the robbery, which could explain why he fought back instead of just cooperating. But believing he was dealing with a robbery suspect couldn't have been part of Wilson's mindset unless that fact came out during the altercation.

[axordil]

Don't worry, Dave, I saw examples myself.

That fills in the gap in why the stories didn't quite mesh.

[Frelga]

Well, something is beginning to make sense.

Johnson (?) is not required to testify against himself on television. If the police didn't say anything about a robbery, why should he? That's actually about the only logical action by anyone in the entire mess, until the highway patrol stepped in.

Did they say at what point the police became aware that there was a robbery? Spotty connection right now, not news site friendly.

[axordil]

As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has it: Wilson and the other Ferguson officers were aware there was a robbery but had no information on suspects at that time. The initial contact was for the teens blocking traffic by walking in the street.

[Cerin]

What the police are clearly attempting to do is justify shooting unarmed suspects after they surrender by painting them as less than ideal, appealing to the "they had it coming" mentality of the baser elements of society in an effort to distract from the dead body on the street.

Are you suggesting that the police should be withholding the facts surrounding the robbery? It isn't their doing that the facts don't paint the victim in the best light. It isn't their doing that the victim happened to have robbed a store just before his death. In fact, doesn't it suggest a measure of sensitivity that they withheld this info in the immediate aftermath of the victim's death?