New Ferguson Video Adds Wrinkle to Michael Brown Case

If it's taken this long to come out people have gotten their story lined up to go with the video.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't change much about the outcome of the investigation IMO. It does, however, reveal a stunning lack of transparency in a very sensitive case. Oops.

crimsonaudio said:

Makes me wonder why there would be such a lack of transparency - what else was distorted or hidden away?

Click to expand...

A fair question and one the investigators need to address.

I seriously doubt there was any impropriety, but one can certainly see how this would give the appearance of it.

I'm curious as to why Brown's family attorney never brought this up. Would think if a guy doing a documentary could find out about it, a local attorney would as well.

RTR91 said:

I'm curious as to why Brown's family attorney never brought this up. Would think if a guy doing a documentary could find out about it, a local attorney would as well.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they didn't want to portray the deceased as a drug dealer as opposed to someone who assaulted a store clerk who thought he was shoplifting. (In another article I saw today, the older clerk was apparently unaware of the arrangement with the younger clerks. Also, the earlier footage was available to the DOJ and Brown's family.)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/03/13/us/ferguson-michael-brown-surveillance-footage/index.html

Really the only detail that changes is that the reported strong arm robbery was the result of a misunderstanding about a drug deal instead of an actual robbery. It doesn't really change anything about his interaction with the police officer.

So he went to the store earlier that day? So, what... the later visit when he commits armed robbery is the issue. I don't understand why the police should be expected to release this video where no visible crime takes place. Do they need to find and release all surveillance videos of him walking in and out of stores without committing a crime? People are just grasping at straws here IMO. This video doesn't change the outcome of the events later in the day at all. A criminal who committed armed robbery, and tried to attack a police officer, was shot and killed.

From the article: said:

Protesters were particularly offended by the Ferguson Police Department’s decision to release the video that showed Mr. Brown shoving the store clerk, perceiving it as part of an effort to defame and demonize the young man. Ms. McSpadden, who also spells her first name as Lezley, questioned why that tape was released publicly while her son’s earlier visit to the store had been kept quiet.

Click to expand...

Because that's when a crime took place. Who cares about all the other times he didn't rob the store, jeez people. This is just another version of the "he was a nice kid" argument. Well, everyone is nice until they aren't. This video changes nothing.

For those wondering where the title of the documentary came from, it's a reference to Abel Meeropol's Bitter Fruit, popularized in a song entitled Strange Fruit by Billie Holiday.

Southern trees bear strange fruit,

(Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,)
​

Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,

Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
​

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,

(The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,)
​

Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,

(Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.)
​

Here is the fruit for the crows to pluck,

For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,​

For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,

Here is a strange and bitter crop.​

Click to expand...

AV8N said:

Perhaps they didn't want to portray the deceased as a drug dealer as opposed to someone who assaulted a store clerk who thought he was shoplifting. (In another article I saw today, the older clerk was apparently unaware of the arrangement with the younger clerks. Also, the earlier footage was available to the DOJ and Brown's family.)

Really the only detail that changes is that the reported strong arm robbery was the result of a misunderstanding about a drug deal instead of an actual robbery. It doesn't really change anything about his interaction with the police officer.

Click to expand...

But if the attorney for the store says there was no drug deal and he returned to the counter because he was taking something without paying, the Brown family's attorney has nothing to worry about how it makes him look, no?

I just don't think the video is relevant at all. Even if it is true that MB traded for the cigs, left them there, came back later and just took them thinking they were his (which seems to be the case the filmmaker is making) - he took them without first reaching an agreement (apparently per reports and the previously released video from later in the day). You can't unilaterally decide what is yours when someone else is in possession of the item in question. You have to come to an agreement with that person or use legal remedies or suffer the consequences (having the police called on you, for instance). This is wholly separate from what happened later with the officer except that if he reaches an agreement over the item the police are never called.

NationalTitles16 said:

I just don't think the video is relevant at all. Even if it is true that MB traded for the cigs, left them there, came back later and just took them thinking they were his (which seems to be the case the filmmaker is making) - he took them without first reaching an agreement (apparently per reports and the previously released video from later in the day). You can't unilaterally decide what is yours when someone else is in possession of the item in question. You have to come to an agreement with that person or use legal remedies or suffer the consequences (having the police called on you, for instance). This is wholly separate from what happened later with the officer except that if he reaches an agreement over the item the police are never called.

Click to expand...

Yep. I was going to say the same thing. The whole situation is sad but anyone making a documentary implying this was a lynching is probably trying to make more of the events than the facts will support, so he's trying to make this video into a smoking gun when in fact it is pretty much irrelevant.

crimsonaudio said:

I don't know what to think about this, but it certainly doesn't look good for the Ferguson PD.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/...son-police-shooting-video.html?mwrsm=Facebook

Click to expand...

It really changes nothing. Even if it was a drug deal gone wrong, his interaction with Wilson was beyond stupid. DOJ most likely got it right in their investigation that the FPD was corrupt but Wilson's shooting was justifiable.

Two things quickly became apparent about the Brown case:

1. It was a justified shoot.
2. The Ferguson PD and DA stayed up nights coming up with new ways to screw things up. Given the crap they were pulling, it's no wonder the neighborhood was so outraged.

It took some kind of genius to think "he was dealing drugs" makes him look better than "he robbed the store."

Besides, we already knew he had THC in his system....and bottom line is that Brown's DNA was on the firearm and the door panel of the officer's car.

Folks can try to create whatever narrative they wish, but the physical evidence has supported the officer from day one. In all sincerity, it literally does not matter at all if he was dealing weed or robbed the store. There is no reason to believe that Brown would be dead had he not resisted arrest, plain and simple.

Some of the so-called officer involved shootings have some problems - this is not one of them.

crimsonaudio said:

I didn't say it changed anything - but it certainly makes the Ferguson PD look bad.

Click to expand...

Maybe to someone falling for the narrative created by folks with a certain agenda. After seeing AVN8's post and the linked video, it doesn't make the PD look bad to me.

crimsonaudio said:

I didn't say it changed anything - but it certainly makes the Ferguson PD look bad.

Click to expand...

They already did with the DOJ investigation report. I do find the new material interesting, but it is being used to say "see, the kid was just being a kid, and the cop had no reason to question him". I think the DA and FPD would look no better or no worse than they do today had they released this part of the story with the DOJ investigation into the department's practices.