Posted on 03/12/2017 5:21:53 PM PDT by ameribbean expat
A new documentary suggests Michael Brown did not rob a convenience store in Ferguson, Mo. before he was fatally shot in 2014 by police.
A new documentary that debuted Saturday at a film festival in Austin, Texas citing previously unseen footage instead reports that there was a possible drug transaction Brown had with employees at the store during an earlier visit, The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
and CNN has been pushing it all day.
Probably hoping for a few riots.
Does’t help his case a bit. Instead of a small time robber he was a drug enforcer.
Apparently the documentary producer thinks it is OK to exchange drugs for merchandise that the drug-buyer does not own—and then to return later to pick up the illicit payment.
Give it a rest already.
And that makes it better how? He did steal stuff from the store he man handled the owner at
And that makes it better how? He did steal stuff from the store he man handled the owner at
whatever the worthless POS was doing, he grabbed the store clerk by the throat and it’s on video!!
[ instead reports that there was a possible drug transaction Brown had with employees at the store during an earlier visit ]
So would that make it even worse for Michael Brown’s side of the story?
Total BS.
A two bit documentary producer comes up with a fairytale and now The Hill promotes it.
FAKE NEWS
“FAKE NEWS!”
I didn’t see your post! :)
New documentary = revisionist account
( how else he s’pose to got monies?)
More lies from the Media.
The store owner says that Brown returned the cigarillos the first time on the demand of the on-duty employees because he hadn’t paid for them that time, either.
Regardless, still a robbery.
But this will resonate with some people, amazing as that is to me.
Time to rile up the BLM folks. They’ve been awfully quiet latEly. Time for CNN and the rats to gin up some anti-cop sentiment and riots.
He didn’t die for anything he did at the store or at church.
Wow. So it wasn’t the crime of robbery, it was the crime of drug dealing .... splitting hairs are we?
And this makes Michael Brown’s position better, because why, exactly....?
He still assaulted someone in the store. He still attacked a police officer.
What changed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.