Home / North Carolina Cops Assault Videographer After Arresting Man For Cursing in the Street

North Carolina Cops Assault Videographer After Arresting Man For Cursing in the Street


In a video post titled “This ain’t the first time,” Greensboro, North Carolina resident Devin Scales was recording the aftermath of an arrest when two officers showed up. One of the arriving officers immediately grabbed Scales’ camera, ending the recording.

Scales had just witnessed an arrest similar to Michael Brown’s, where the man being arrested was being confronted simply for walking down the street.

The arresting officer can be heard on video saying, “You can not run your mouth and start cursing in the middle of the street.”

As Scales wrote, “all this for walking down the street,” – in a place with no sidewalk no less, and right outside the arrested man’s house.

The arresting officer called for backup – most likely because Scales was recording him – as he held the arrested man face down on the grass for some reason.

When backup arrived, one officer ordered Scales to “Get back” while the other grabbed at Scales’ camera as if it were a weapon. It would be interesting to hear what the officer who assaulted Scales says about his actions in court if he’s sued – the old “his camera could have been a gun” excuse is getting more ridiculous by the minute.

For news tips on aerial photography and drones, contact Andrew Meyer, PINAC’s staff writer covering UAV photography, the First Amendment, and more. Follow him on twitter @theandrewmeyer.

About Andrew Meyer

For news tips on aerial photography and drones, contact Andrew Meyer, PINAC’s staff writer covering UAV photography, the First Amendment, and more. Follow him on twitter @theandrewmeyer, on Tsu @AndrewMeyer, and at TheAndrewMeyer.com.
  • Bigguy22

    Cops are out of control

    • A Default

      So are some people in Ferguson.

      I watched one video taken closely after the shooting where a couple of bangers where loudly spreading the false rumor that after Big Mike was shot the cop stood over his body and shot him a few more times.

      Out of control lynch mob spreading false rumors and utterly oblivious to the thought that their buddy Big Mike might have been the agent of his own doom.

      • Joseph Murray

        ‘some people in Ferguson’ aren’t on the public payroll. Nor did they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

        • A Default

          OK, I guess if you aren’t on the public payroll (but probably the public dole) it’s OK if you are out of control.

          • Kerfuffulator

            Great Googly Moogly! You argue like you never met a fallacy you didn’t like.

          • A Default

            Just so we are on the same page, are you asserting that the fallacy is that most of the rioters aren’t on the public payroll or is it that most of them aren’t on the public dole?

          • Kerfuffulator
          • A Default

            I guess you aren’t sure what I’ve said that constitutes a fallacy.

            Or maybe you misunderstand the thread, Joseph Murray, attempted to deflect my assertion that some people in Ferguson are also out of control by suggesting that it was irrelevant because they weren’t public employees or swear an oath to the US Constitution.

          • Kerfuffulator
          • A Default

            That wouldn’t be a logical fallacy, it could be an untrue statement or an incorrect assumption but I have good reason to believe a majority of the out of control protesters were on the dole.

            There are about 39 million black americans.
            http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

            There are at least 47 million Americans on the dole and 40% of them are black or roughly 18.8 million black americans
            http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

            So over the entire country there are about 48% of black americans on the dole. Making the reasonable assumption that the affluent blacks are less likely to be looting and rioting than less affluent black americans and also considering that people who don’t work are more likely to be out on the street at midnight looting their local Walmart and lastly noting that my metric of who is on the dole is limited to roughly the number of people receiving food stamps, I think it is a quite reasonable assumption, as opposed to a fallacy to state that the majority of the out of control protesters were on the public dole.

            But you are welcome to counter my argument.

            Or you can accuse me of being a child molester and prove it by linking to a website that defines child molester.

          • Cheese & Peanut Butter

            There will always be thugs and criminal activity among the general public and civilians. There have been criminals since the beginning of time. But when there are thugs, corruption, discrimination, and hate among the people supposed to be protecting you – now that is a dangerous, dangerous world. There are out of control people and there are out of control cops.
            Pick your poison.

          • b33bl3br0x

            Strictly speaking, your initial response to Bigguy22 was a non sequitur.

            Your second response, this time to Joseph Murray, appears to have taken the form of reductio ad absurdum (which is not, on its face a logical falacy) though you did feel it necessary to include an element of ad hominem (whether or not the people are on some form of government support is irrelevant to the point you seemed to be making).

            Since the point you were trying to make in your second response (the absurd conclusion of the position Murray was espousing) did not hinge on the element of ad hominem present in your comment, I can’t see that your second response can be called fallacious from a logical standpoint (it was just bad form). However, this entire string of conversation becomes fallacious due to the fact that your first response did not follow from what you were responding to.

          • A Default

            Thanks for correcting the poster who falsely accused me of a fallacy.

            My first post did follow the person I replied too, his subject was out of control cops in Ferguson. I merely expanded his subject to include other out of control people in Ferguson. Perhaps bad form but not a non sequitur.

            If you tell me there are a lot of poisonous snakes in Mississippi I could reasonable follow up by pointing out that there are also a lot of poisonous centipedes there as well without it being a non sequitur.

          • b33bl3br0x

            His subject, actually, was out of control cops. The story, though it makes a mention of Brown, was about police in North Carolina, not Missouri. You ascribed the bit about Ferguson to him/her. That makes your comment fallacious*.

            *Unless of course the comment has been edited in the mean time to remove a mention of the situation in Ferguson.

          • A Default

            My mistake about Ferguson.

          • Joseph Murray

            Poor attempt to change the subject.

      • disqus_owOP020tXs

        ‘The cops are acting like criminal gangsters.’

        ‘That may be true, but there there are also other people who act like criminal gangsters!’

        Fascinating.

        • A Default

          There are lots of people who act like gangsters and I don’t like any of them.

          Unlike some people I wouldn’t try to justify my being a gangster by asserting that the cops are.

          • disqus_owOP020tXs

            Clearly you deserve to pat yourself on the back for showing such integrity.

      • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

        and you know exactly what happened, because. . . ?

        • A Default

          I don’t know what happened and that’s reason enough for ME to not spread false rumors.

          I wish others, including yourself would do likewise.

          • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

            If you don’t know exactly what happened, what qualifies you to dismiss any account as a rumor, false or otherwise?

          • A Default

            I would dismiss it on the same basis as you put forth.

          • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

            pretty sure the account of wilson murdering brown is accurate. Can’t really see how this is justifiable, but who knows? i don’t know how many bullets brown took, but it sure doesn’t sound like 1 or 2 bullets were fired.

            sure lets wait till all the facts are in. I’m sure we’ll see a prompt, accurate, and comprehensive report from the “police” any minute now. along with complete dashcam recordings and other communications.

          • A Default

            There has never been any official claim that only 1 or 2 bullets were fired.

            Read my latest update, from an audio recording shortly after the shooting of a witness. I tells a story that makes perfect sense, fits all the facts and gives complete justification to the cop shooting Michael dead.

          • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

            still waiting for the imminent “official” reports.

            i doubt if we’d agree on when lethal force ought to be used, nevermind what is “legal.” I dispute that police should even be permitted to routinely carry lethal weapons. Protection racket, no better. If this means that 10 policemen have to be killed before 1 mike brown is killed, great! Too many innocents are killed, maimed, etc. by collateral damage of routine gestapo blundering and murderous ineptitude (or worse). Bullets fired ALWAYS creates more risk than ANY officer’s life is worth. A real policeman would agree.

          • A Default

            Feel free to read the Missouri statute on when a cop can use lethal force.
            http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

            that way we don’t have to argue about the legality

            I’m fine with disagreeing over whether it SHOULD be used as opposed to whether it is legal. I’m not a big fan of cops being given such wide discretion in the use of lethal force.

          • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

            Not interested in legalistic rabbit holes, thanks. The legal system has long since been subverted by oligarchs and generally acts against most folks interests and well-being.

            Murder, by any other name, is still murder. just as a nazi, by any other name, loves to kill.

        • PINAC Troll

          Another mouthful of words Gustav.

      • getoveryourself

        A couple of ‘bangers’? Do you not recognize the prejudice in your own words?

  • jackassletters

    I’m pretty sure you can just walk down the street running your mouth and swearing…if you are white.

    • A Default

      Are you sure? I had a friend, many years ago, who was floating down a river on an inner tube with a few thousand other people. In protest of the Sheriff Dept’s presence, attempting to close a cliff where people had regularly jumped into the river, he quietly and peacefully expressed his opinion of them by giving them the finger as he floated by.

      He was promptly cited for disturbing the peace. A bogus citation but a good way to send a message that they have the power to upset your life if they choose. He was white.

      Walking down the street and swearing could be considered disturbing the peace if done loudly. I don’t appreciate members of my community for doing so without good cause, perhaps it is different where you live? Should it be a crime? Maybe, but not everything that isn’t a crime is something that good neighbors do.

      • stk33

        > Walking down the street and swearing could be considered disturbing the peace if done loudly.

        No, it could not. The test is whether the behavior is intended to cause significant public disturbance, plus whether that possibility actually exist. See for instance Cohen v. California :

        “Third, the mere use of an untoward four-letter word did not place the speech into a category of speech that has traditionally been subject to greater regulations by the government, as in Roth v. United States, for example. Similarly, Harlan and the Court refused to categorize the speech at issue as a “fighting word” under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, because no “individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant’s jacket as a direct personal insult”. Finally, the Court was unwilling to give credence to the idea that the government could suppress the type of speech at issue here in order to protect the public at large.”

        Merely inconveniencing or offending someone is not enough for disturbing the peace.

        • A Default

          Bizarre, you cite a US Supreme Court case that involved the LANGUAGE used and not the CONDUCT while I hypothesized a situation that involved CONDUCT and not LANGUAGE.

          My hypothetical case didn’t involve inconveniencing or offending someone, it involved something that could (see that word COULD) involve a public disturbance. Not the “mere use” of a word.

      • lewknukem

        Many court cases and settlements have been won by people who have been arrested for merely using their middle finger.

        http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/tag/obscene-gesture

        http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982405

    • Joseph Murray

      Assuming that’s what happened. Don’t take the cop’s word for anything.

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    COPS hate black people. They love to keep black people down by causing them financial hardship by arresting them, giving them tickets, towing their cars etc. Blacks across America need to rise up like Ferguson Missouri or things will never change. Make them listen! Civil Disobedience is the ONLY WAY. Only vote into office people from your communities.

    • Charlie

      Ferguson could have been anywhere. Yes there is a special breed of unique racial animus in the echelons of power in St Louis County, but the police have turned black, brown, and poor neighborhoods into powder kegs and the spark just happened to be lit in Ferguson by OFFICER DARREN WILSON. Every city in this country is ready to erupt and all it will take is a spark. This one was different

    • A Default

      They tow black people’s cars because they hate them? Isn’t it more likely that they tow their cars because they are driving without a license, without insurance or with fake plates?

      You want a free pass for black people to violate the law and not face the consequences? I’m honestly not sure what it is you are demanding. What is the change you want to see? I want to see the police be more respectful and engage with people on the street as opposed to making authoritarian demands. I’d also like to see communities demand that members of the community lead productive, peaceful lives instead of being thugs.

      • Kerfufflulator

        Mmm.. I was thinking they tow cars because it makes $$ for PD.

        • http://cynicalinny.blogspot.com/ Cynic in New York

          All traffic violations are nothing but money making schemes, the notion of safety is a damm farce.

  • Chris Melton

    A complete and utter over reach of power… most cops belong on the end of a rope. All oath breakers do!!! If this guy broke his oath, which it looks like, then he belongs there with them

  • A Default

    We have a photographer that clearly hasn’t been interfering with the arrest or doing anything threatening to the officer. Two cops pull up and immediately attack him even though they have even less reason to believe there might be a problem. Naturally they go for the camera.

    The most basic solution would be legislation making it unlawful for any police officer to demand that a video recording of public activity be stopped or for a police officer to personally stop a recording. Deleting any recording or demanding that a recording be erased by a police officer should be a felony and grounds for immediate termination.

    It shouldn’t be policy, it should be black letter law. Officers can continue to require people to move a safe distance away from an active investigation but they can’t be asked to move simply to prevent them from recording and the distance must be reasonable.

    • StreyDawg

      I fear that “the most basic solution” isn’t even going to get an honorable mention let alone a shot at a committee vote in regards to the ignorance of the shitbags known as modern police officers.

      There are only two cops I know of in recent history who the citizens guaranteed to not interfere with photography ever again.

      • A Default

        Your solution is to shoot cops? Yeah, that’s a sure fire winner, NOT.

        I do think legislating photographer’s rights to film the police does have a chance of passage and efforts to do so would be far more productive than running around insisting people should shoot cops.

        You complain about police anarchy and suggest the solution is more anarchy. I suggest we give the police clear legal guidelines as opposed to relying on police department policies that don’t have any teeth.

        • stk33

          This legislation is hide-and-seek game. There’s no shortage of case law etc. already clearly showing to anyone interested that photography is not a crime. Dozens of municipalities have already paid millions in total in settlements. Yet, this continues, because what matters is the motive and lack of real responsibility. Remove the motive, make the offenders really responsible, and things will change overnight. Legislation will only make them invent yet another excuse or find yet another loophole in order to continue the same, like this ridiculous “it might be a weapon”.

        • ENTWAFFNUNGDERGESTAPO!

          How about we take away their FUCKING GUNS?

        • StreyDawg

          I’d like to hear how people responded to the guy who brought up “the most basic solution” to the British problem before the American Revolution.

          • A Default

            It’s certainly true that Sons of Liberty, one of the early groups that led to the American revolution, engaged in acts that could reasonably be called rioting, perhaps looting, arson and other acts that were criminal under British law and would be criminal today.

            But they didn’t generally go out looking to murder people who were British and had a more noble aim than snagging a free TV from Walmart.

            Cops are good at following the rules when the rules are clear and their actions are easily scrutinized. Killing cops isn’t a solution, cops being a necessary part of life in a world where not everyone respects your property rights. The solution is redefining what we think local police forces should be, how they should police, narrow their rules of engagement, make them more accountable and make it easier to hold them accountable.

          • Richard Lord

            The lawyer who defended the british soldiers charged in the boston massacre was John Adams. He won of course. Nothing has changed.

          • A Default

            He only partly won, two of the soldiers were convicted of manslaughter.

            I’m proud of John Adams for standing up for the principle of due process and a fair trail.

            Everyone deserves their day in court if they stand accused of a crime, even British soldiers.

          • Richard Lord

            Yes they do Adams was one a very moral and principled man.

          • StreyDawg

            I’m pretty sure quite a few Brits died during the American Revolution.

            And it solved the problem.

    • SJCINTN

      In some cities police are wearing cameras that will record everything they do. In a city in CA I just read that complaints have gone down by 87%. The police have been out of control for too long! The place to start is in the voting booth. Your vote is equal, whether you are rich,poor, black or white. If we had a Republican in the White House does anyone think the U.S. Attorney General would be investigating the Ferguson Police Department? Everyone needs to VOTE in every election.In today’s world there is more power in a vote, than in the courts.

  • NJHC

    I was pulled over in Harmony, NC back in 1990- the cop grabbed my wallet, took my money out and put it in his pocket, then thumbed through my wallet, finding my press pass. He then gave me back my wallet and money while telling me to get a motel room in Statesville because he thought I was tired.

    NC are wannabe rural folk, but really are city folk trying to talk with a southern accent.

    Don’t vacation or invest in anything in North Carolina, let them starve.

  • DocRambo

    Not like Brown’s Ferguson incident, Brown rushed the officer, and would not stop according to immediate witnesses.

    • Republicannt

      Another bigot liar

      • A Default

        A bigot liar? A recording of what appears to be a black male witness, inadvertently recorded shortly after the shooting tells the story of Brown attacking the officer and being shot when he charged the officer.

        If the autopsy confirms that all shots were to the front of Michael Brown it is going to completely exonerate the cop.

        A story that matches all the known facts and makes perfect sense. You can’t even claim it was rehearsed as it wasn’t spoken for the camera and occurred within minutes of the shooting.

        • Das Carl

          The independent autopsy done over the weekend showed a gun shot to the top back of the head that went down and came out the right eye socket. Brown was 6’4. That type of shot is not possible unless the cop was a giant or Brown was already on the ground.

          • A Default

            The autopsy, which is incomplete at best, did not suggest “a gun shot to the top back of the head that went down and came out the right eye”

            The gunshot to the center top of his head went through his brain and killed him.

            The gunshot wound to the eye was an entry wound that was not fatal, it existed through his jaw and then re-entered at his shoulder.

            You are mistaken that Michael had to be on the ground for the head shot that killed him.

          • Das Carl

            Autopsy Press conference today shows otherwise.

            http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html

          • A Default

            It shows nothing of the sort, from the webpage the following quotes:

            “”Why would he be shot in the very top of his head, a 6-foot-4 man?””

            The autopsy drawing shows the same thing, shot to the top of the head on the frontal diagram, NOT on the back diagram.

            He was not shot in the back top of the head and the autopsy makes that clear.

            But I can see why you would be confused when the attorney and guy they paid to do the partial autopsy are themselves confused:

            “One of the bullets entered the back of his head and came out through his eye, another — likely the fatal wound, Baden said — struck Brown on the top of his head and caused irreparable damage to his brain”

            What bullet entered through the back of his head? There was no rear entry wound. But it was ANOTHER bullet that entered through the top of his head, not the one that they mistakenly claim here exited through his eye.

            What a CF for the family attorney, flaying around.

            For a less contradictory and clearer story, try the New York Times:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

            “One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone.”

            There were TWO shots to the head, one entered the top of the head. Where do you think the other shot entered? Only ONE possibility, the right eye.

          • Guest

            First, off the the guy(s) did the autopsy for free. They waived their normal 10k fee cause the case was so high profile.

            Second, to say Dr Michael Baden is “confused” shows how bad you are reaching for straws to try to prove your point. Hes one of, if not the most well known high profile autopsy expert in the field. His reputation is great and he knows a lot more then people just reading about it on the internet.

            Third, there diagram shows two shots on the top of the head. They even talk about them in the video from the link i provided. The big one is not the one i was referring to. There is a little dot. That is the shot that ruptured the eye and traveled down to the collarbone. So that “ONE possibility” as you so condescending typed is not one of the entry wounds at all.

            Word of advice. You have been wrong so many times in your responses all through out this thread. You have twisted facts and lied to try to prove your points. I don’t know if you have an agenda here but just stop.

          • Das Carl

            First, off the the guy(s) did the autopsy for free. They waived their normal 10k fee cause the case was so high profile.

            Second, to say Dr Michael Baden is “confused” shows how bad you are reaching for straws to try to prove your point. Hes one of, if not the most well known high profile autopsy expert in the field. His reputation is great and he knows a lot more then people just reading about it on the internet.

            Third, the diagram shows two shots on the top of the head. They even talk about them in the video from the link i provided. The big one is not the one i was referring to. There is a little dot. That is the shot that ruptured the eye and traveled down to the collarbone. So that “ONE possibility” as you so condescending typed is not one of the entry wounds at all.

            Word of advice. You have been wrong so many times in your responses all through out this thread. You have twisted facts and lied to try to prove your points. I don’t know if you have an agenda here but just stop.

    • James

      Which witnesses? The police who weren’t there, or the 10 or so witnesses that match with the coroners report that he was shot twice in the top of the head from a distance greater than 10 feet?

  • Mahonri Young

    Set up the cops. Have the phone attached to a strong monofilament clear fishing line and when they grab it – let go and the friend holding the other end of the line JERK it out of their hands and pull it into the house.
    Or, attach a few treble fishooks to it and watch them cry when they grab it and get hooked.

  • Ward Chartier

    You never know, the police officer’s gun could be a camera.

  • fergusonCivilrights

    “It would be interesting to hear what the officer who assaulted Scales says about his actions in court if he’s sued”
    That’s assuming that Mr. Scales is able to retain the services of a lawyer who’s willing to take the “violation of 4th amendment” and assault case on a pro bono or contingency basis. This article mentions no credible or reputable legal organization or lawyer that Scales (or other subscribers who might face a similar violation of their rights by LEOs) can at least talk to, to find out whether they would be willing to represent him in a civil lawsuit against the LEOs and the city.
    Let Mr. Scales know that there is a legal organization named “National Police accountability project” whose members might perhaps agree to represent him (and other subscribers to this blog in future possible altercations with LEOs, if the subscriber is an innocent party). One good civil rights lawyer to contact is mr. Layton (paul.layton@gmail.com), and another is Mr. brucato (ben@benbrucato.com).

  • ben dover

    time to destroy all police equipment

  • Yr

    I live here in Greensboro.

  • b33bl3br0x

    Scales had just witnessed an arrest similar to Michael Brown’s, where the man being arrested was being confronted simply for walking down the street.

    While I don’t support the murder of an unarmed man, by the accounts, Brown was fleeing a strong arm robbery when confronted by the police.

    At this point, I can not imagine any circumstances in which firing (I think the ME reports are now saying) 6 shots into an unarmed man can be justifiable (whether fleeing from a crime or not). That being said, we don’t need to falsely paint Brown as an innocent for him to be the victim of a horrible and (in my mind at least) criminal murder.

    • James

      “While I don’t support the murder of an unarmed man, by the accounts, Brown was fleeing a strong arm robbery when confronted by the police.”

      This is a statement made by the police, to which the owner of the store in question states it never happened.

      They also state that Brown was wrestling with the officer in his car, which witnesses say never happened, Brown was shot 2 times in the top of his head, while on his knees, hands in the air.

      Even if it were true that he had just robbed the place, the police officers job is to detain, arrest, book and release the suspect, he is innocent until proven guilty. It is not the officer job to carry out unsanctioned murder.

      We arent painting Brown as innocent, but the simple fact of the matter is he is innocent, he was neither tried nor convicted of any crime at the time of his death, until proven guilty in this country a man is innocent.

      • b33bl3br0x

        This is a statement made by the police, to which the owner of the store in question states it never happened.

        Just so I’m clear here. In spite of the fact that there is video evidence and that police were dispatched in response to a robbery, you think that a post facto recantation of a store owner who’s in the middle of a horrible situation, who has legitimate reason to fear for his livelihood and life should he back the police’s narrative in this situation is believable?

        They also state that Brown was wrestling with the officer in his car,which witnesses say never happened, Brown was shot 2 times in the top
        of his head, while on his knees, hands in the air.

        Even if it were true that he had just robbed the place, the police officers job is to detain, arrest, book and release the suspect, he is innocent until proven guilty. It is not the officer job to carry out unsanctioned murder.

        This reads as though you read my first sentence and then stopped reading.

        We arent [sic] painting Brown as innocent

        Wait maybe you did actually read the rest of the comment which pretty much makes your previous two paragraphs a non sequitur in response to my comment

        but the simple fact of the matter is he is innocent,

        I must have just had a stroke because I thought you just told me that you’re not painting him as innocent yet here you are painting him as innocent.

        he was neither tried nor convicted of any crime at the time of his death, until proven guilty in this country a man is innocent.

        Innocence, in the context I was using, had nothing to do with a court of law.

        Let’s try this, turn off your filter that perceives my comment as somehow trying to justify the shooting (A conclusion that you somehow came to in spite of me repeatedly stating that I thought the shooting was murder and I didn’t think it could be justified). Now read it again. The point that I was making was that the initial stop of Brown by the police, seems to be the only part of the whole situation, that seems to not have been wrong. [STOP]

        Pointing out that the initial stop appears to have been justified, in no way justifies, or even attempts to justify, the events which followed.

        Now if you want to hold the view that I’m wrong that the initial stop was justified, I’ll disagree with you. We can converse on that topic. However, anything beyond the initial stop, will be irrelevant to that discussion, because we agree that the shooting can not be justified.

        [I’ve emphasized several areas which are the take home points because your previous comment suggests that my initial posting was unclear]

        [Editted to format a broken html code]

        • A Default

          The store owner has not claimed a robbery didn’t occur, he has said the store clerk didn’t make the 911 call. Graffiti claiming the store ratted on Michael has been seen.

          The robbery clearly occurred, the clerk said so to the police, the video and witnesses confirm it.

          But as you said, that is utterly irrelevant, at the time of the shooting the police had reason to believe that a robbery had occurred and had broadcast a description that matched Michael Brown.

          Michael Brown’s response to being confronted about the robbery is what matters. If in fact he did assault the officer and then attack him a second time when ordered to stop fleeing, the shooting was justified.

  • Winston Varn

    just keep repeating “I am free” – merica

  • Christopher Dorner

    In the wake of the Michael Brown murder and the Eric Garner murder I would venture to guess that there will be an increase in the number of officers being gunned down. I’m not condoning it of course. I’m just saying it seems probable.

    • Boko Hos

      I’m condoning it, as long as the right ones get shot.

    • A Default

      I’m thinking there will be an increase in civilians killed as they attempt to assault officers.

      • b33bl3br0x

        I’m thinking that these are both correct.

        It’s unfortunate, because there will likely be a lot of collateral damage.

        • A Default

          I agree that would be an unfortunate outcome.

PINAC

PINAC Logo cutout copy
Be the Media