Posted on 08/28/2018 3:28:33 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
Protesters have been gathering outside of Ferguson Market and Liquor since Aug. 9 — the fourth anniversary of the police shooting death of Michael Brown Jr. — calling on the convenience store to take more ownership of its role in the saga and submit to a list of requests.
Brown had just left the store before the fatal skirmish with then-Officer Darren Wilson in the street near Canfield Green apartments in 2014. After the shooting, Ferguson police released a surveillance clip from the store indicating that Brown had stolen cigarillos and shoved a store clerk.
Protesters believe that the surveillance clip mischaracterized Brown and that the store should have done more to say so. Recent protests at Ferguson Market have been strong enough to close the store the first week, Jay Kanzler, an attorney for the store, said Saturday when the store was open again.
Police said there had been no arrests.
In an effort to move forward, Kanzler said, he was part of a formal meeting Aug. 17 at Ferguson police headquarters that included Michael Brown Sr., state Rep. Bruce Franks, D-St. Louis, activist Anthony Shahid and attorney Anthony Gray, who listened by telephone. The protester group had the following requests:
• Address Michael Brown Jr.’s character. • Close the store for three days on the anniversary of his death. • Create a scholarship in his name. • Find ways to interact and give back to the community. • Stop selling Dormin, a sleeping capsule, and other items that can be misused to get high. • Retain a black-owned security company to protect the store.
“It seemed like everyone in the room was open to working it out,” Ferguson Police Chief Delrish Moss said. “It was a friendly, robust discussion.”
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Kanzler said the store ultimately agreed to all of the requests by Wednesday, other than closing the store for three days. Instead, he said, the store would close on the anniversary of Brown’s death and provide a free barbecue the day before.
Protection racket, civil rights violation.
FREE STUFF--dats da zhit we been after, yo!
“Hands up! Don’t shoot!” never happened.
TWENTY FIVE TOP QUOTES FROM THE DOJ’S REPORT ON THE MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
[01] The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition. (Page 5)
[02] when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. (Page 6)
[03] Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101. (Page 6)
[04] Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. (Page 6)
[05] there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s account of what occurred inside the SUV. (Page 7)
[06] autopsy results confirm that Wilson did not shoot Brown in the back as he was running away because there were no entrance wounds to Brown’s back. (Page 7)
[07] witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts (Page 8)
[08] several witnesses stated that Brown appeared to pose a physical threat to Wilson as he moved toward Wilson. (Page 8)
[09] The physical evidence also establishes that Brown moved forward toward Wilson after he turned around to face him. The physical evidence is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses. (Page 10)
[10] evidence does not establish that it was unreasonable for Wilson to perceive Brown as a threat while Brown was punching and grabbing him in the SUV and attempting to take his gun. (Page 11)
[11] Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses (Page 12)
[12] Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence.8 Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible. (Page 16)
[13] Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. (Page 78)
[14] Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson’s account and are consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 78)
[15] several of these witnesses stated that they would have felt threatened by Brown and would have responded in the same way Wilson did. (Page 82)
[16] there are no witnesses who could testify credibly that Wilson shot Brown while Brown was clearly attempting to surrender. (Page 83)
[17] There is no witness who has stated that Brown had his hands up in surrender whose statement is otherwise consistent with the physical evidence. (Page 83)
[18] The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said “don’t shoot” as he held his hands above his head. In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said “don’t shoot.” (Page 83)
[19] Wilson did not know that Brown was not armed at the time he shot him, and had reason to suspect that he might be when Brown reached into the waistband of his pants as he advanced toward Wilson. (Page 84)
[20] Wilson did not have time to determine whether Brown had a gun and was not required to risk being shot himself in order to make a more definitive assessment.
[21] In addition, even assuming that Wilson definitively knew that Brown was not armed, Wilson was aware that Brown had already assaulted him once and attempted to gain control of his gun. (Page 85)
[22] Wilson has a strong argument that he was justified in firing his weapon at Brown as he continued to advance toward him and refuse commands to stop, and the law does not require Wilson to wait until Brown was close enough to physically assault Wilson. (Page 85)
[23] we must avoid substituting our personal notions of proper police procedure for the instantaneous decision of the officer at the scene. We must never allow the theoretical, sanitized world of our imagination to replace the dangerous and complex world that policemen face every day.” (Page 85)
[24] “It may appear, in the calm aftermath, that an officer could have taken a different course, but we do not hold the police to such a demanding standard.” (citing Gardner v. Buerger, 82 F.3d 248, 251 (8th Cir. 1996) (same))). Rather, where, as here, an officer points his gun at a suspect to halt his advance, that suspect should be on notice that “escalation of the situation would result in the use of the firearm.” Estate of Morgan at 498. An officer is permitted to continue firing until the threat is neutralized. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2022 (2014) (“Officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended”). For all of the reasons stated, Wilson’s conduct in shooting Brown as he advanced on Wilson, and until he fell to the ground, was not objectively unreasonable and thus not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. (Page 85)
[25] Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses, to include aspects of the testimony of Witness 101, there is no credible evidence that Wilson willfully shot Brown as he was attempting to surrender or was otherwise not posing a threat. (Page 86)
For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed.
Where is Al Sharpton to spread oil on troubled waters?
And if there is violence at this barbecue, whose fault will it be?
Dumkoffs!
“Retain a black-owned security company to protect the store.”
Provided by a local gang, of course.
L
Words fail me.
In honor of thug Brown, they strongarm the store owner. He should let them burn the store down, take the insurance money, and leave.
The protest video gets really funny when they start flinging their own feces.
The store gave in to the demands. The protests continued. The cause and effect sequence of the two preceding statements should be obvious!
"...He should let them burn the store down, take the insurance money, and leave..."
Bookmark
I’ll drank to that!
In an effort to move forward, Kanzler said, he was part of a formal meeting Aug. 17 at Ferguson police headquarters that included Michael Brown Sr., state Rep. Bruce Franks, D-St. Louis, activist Anthony Shahid and attorney Anthony Gray, who listened by telephone. The protester group had the following requests:
• Address Michael Brown Jr.’s character. Close the store for three days on the anniversary of his death. Perfect. Do that Buy a 70 inch screen with the store footage running in a loop with the words Gentle giant or large thug and show it on a bullet proof window
. Create a scholarship in his name. - put in $2 and tell the community to fund the rest.
• Find ways to interact and give back to the community. - yes give back the cigars this POS stole. Lucky to have a store in the community
Stop selling Dormin, a sleeping capsule, and other items that can be misused to get high. -raise the price so only the stupid buy it.
Retain a black-owned security company to protect the store - go to Boomers house and get 72 of his pitbulls to guard the store
But by the way where is this place located,
Shakedown St.?
Where is Sleepy B. S. elf to put the kibosh on
this racket??
"...I’ll drank to that..."
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.