Missouri law says it's robbery because of the assault and threat during the theft.
We can't pretend that the law doesn't exist, or that law enforcement shouldn't use proper terminology.

the large individual got into a physical altercation with the storekeeper who had every right to detain him under law if he suspected him of shoplifting (which was apparent given the story of him seizing the cigars). He apparently grabs his shirt or throat. That is a battery, and the standard for a robbery is forcible seizure of property.

Any shoplifter should keep this in mind. A petty theft can escalate into a robbery charge if the merchant tries to intervene.

Would you feel that if the same $10 to $20 came out of your wallet on the street by someone intimidating you and taking it?

569.030. 1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.

2. Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony.

Is the modifier necessary or inflammatory?

Kind of like "Drunk driving" and "Operation of motor vehicle under influence of alcohol"

or that it's utterly impossible he could have provoked the situation.

Does it mitigate what happened in any way?

St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch gave the following definition for strong-arm robbery:

"The use of physical force in a robbery. If someone is stealing, and another person makes an attempt to stop them, and then physical force is used to complete the act that is strong-arm robbery.

It's also called 'robbery in the 2nd degree,' and there is no weapon other than physical force used.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/strong-arm-robbery-definition-st-louis-county/14122545/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact is however, regardless of the fact Brown was guilty of strong-armed robbery or not, doesn't condone the fact the police officer killed an unarmed man. I hope he is held accountable.

in which case it shouldn't be used by the police or the press.

From the Missouri Highway Patrol Charge Code Manual, it appears to have come from how rape is referred to (to distinguish the levels of force used).

he is dead....

People seem to want to ignore that video.

if you are Black, that is.

if a white person did this, the idea of him being executed is foreign to us, for now

remember the alleged theft has zero to do with the shooting

Z E R O

We are talking about what happened in the store. I have been very clear about that in my posts. I am not even sure it is Brown in the video. Even so beyond the potential initial encounter (going to Brown's state of mind in possibly resisting a police officer) it has absolutely no bearing on shooting a fleeing suspect at a distance, shooting an unarmed person with hands raised, or shooting a suspect who is down. The third is definitely murder. The first and second probably could be murder but are at least manslaughter.

He didn't take the property by force.

detain him. He resists detention and removes the property then it is clearly a robbery. A good lawyer might be able to get the charges reduced, but in most states shoplifting can turn to robbery with resistance and removal of the item. In California it is called Estes robbery. It is prosecuted as such in Missouri.

Once he pushed the clerk, it became strong arm robbery, a Class B Felony in MO.

When a suspect uses force to resist reasonable attempts to stop a shoplifting or theft from occurring that changes the element of the crime in pretty much every state.

That's all that is happening here.

To describe a person who steals and then assaults a shopkeeper who tries to stop him from stealing?

Because it had nothing to do with his murder.

Worst case of character assassination I've seen in a long time.

Local media filed freedom of information requests for it.

I'll bet the owner just turned his tape over to media and police, not really thinking beyond his own interests. Unless you have a link?

at a press conference yesterday morning. The store's lawyer held a press conference yesterday saying they were complying with law enforcement warrants for the tapes. It's common knowledge to anyone paying any attention to this story. Find your own links.

The sunshine request was for the incident report for the shooting.

This incident report and corresponding video tape were not part of that request.

The police have still failed to comply with the sunshine request for the incident report for the shooting.

request for the store tapes on Monday.

You're talking about other requests. I would think those requests would have to go to St. Louis County, since they're in charge of that investigation. I would imagine that both departments were bombarded with requests.

that "they're just complying with sunshine laws!".

Because they are not complying with sunshine laws. They had 24 hours to release the incident report from the shooting. They still have not released it.

Either they have to comply with sunshine laws, which includes releasing the shooting incident report, or they don't have to comply and could have withheld the robbery incident report.

so the sunshine laws don't apply.

They cleared the investigation on the robbery because Brown was dead and Johnson was not an active participant, so they had to comply with the request.

Any time an event happens like this media will flood the department with requests for ANY information about the suspect, victim or officers involved. They can't withhold it.

When you want open government, sometimes info gets released you don't want seen. Would you prefer they have the ability to withhold info when they feel like it?

They failed to release the incident report for the shooting. Despite those open records laws requiring it to be released 24 hours after the shooting.

If the cop shot him in the back while his hands were raised, it is still murder.

Both cases can be true.

What do you call that?

Apparently, both can be true.

I said "and the cop murdered him for no reason"! Confused???

Read you loud and clear.

Of course, we need autopsy results to know that for sure.

When he accosted Michael Brown. So the incident at the store had nothing to do with the shooting according to the police accounts.

Nothing explains why the cop shot Brown in the back.

policeman may have known about the robbery (I don't see how he could not have if it was being broadcast on radio) -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/usanow/2014/08/15/ferguson-missouri-police-michael-brown-shooting/14098369/

Let's say for a moment the policeman didn't know anything about a shoplifting. The incident does indicate Brown MIGHT have grabbed or pushed the policeman in the initial encounter (not to grab his gun -- which is BS -- but as an excited reaction or trying to get away, just like the reaction in the store).

That is relevant in explaining the initial seconds of the encounter, and there is no reason to hide it.

But shooting someone for that -- especially if they were shot in back with hands up -- is just murder and charges need to be presented to a grand jury and monitored by the feds.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. This is nothing but a distraction from the fact that this kid was murdered by a police officer.

FPD is attempting to mitigate this massive fuck up.

and then act innocent if you point out they are claiming it's OK to shoot someone in cold blood in return for a shoplifting incident.

With Trayvon, they argued it was OK to kill that "thug" because of some thing he did long before, and Zimmerman wouldn't even have known about it.

He was clearly violent toward the much smaller shopkeeper. That is "thuggish" behavior, no?

That's unfortunate.

Don't make ridiculously false accusations just because you don't like to see facts.

I challenge you to link to one, just one, post showing that people here are elated by the murder of Michael Brown.

The clerk elevated the situation by trying to block the door and detaining the shoplifter and his friend. We don't even know for sure if this was Michael or not, so the point is moot.

The clerk deserved to be assaulted? Jeez, Salty.

That is all I said. It was just a couple of cigars the kid stole.

detain a suspected shoplifter. You don't like it then change the Missouri code. From his personal safety standpoint it was foolish thing to do. The other side is any resistance kicks it to robbery - a felony which serves as a deterrent for this crime.

On this board we have been critical of employers who make their employees responsible for theft (a recent incident about a minimum wage employee getting killed attempting to stop a theft comes to mind). Also if it is your store and you get the reputation of allowing five finger discounts - then what happens?

A shopkeeper is well within their rights, and fully justified in attempting to stop a theft and in most states fully justified attempting to detain a shoplifter until authorities can be called and arrive.

Blaming the shopkeeper in this is victim blaming at it's worst.

It is dumb for the clerk to attempt to stop the shoplifter. That's what police are for.

Stopping the shoplifter elevates the situation into a dangerous confrontation. What if the robber had a weapon? Now the clerk is dead over a few dollars worth of cigarillos, when the police were already on the way.

If the store has properly trained security personnel, then they can stop the shoplifter. If it's just a random clerk, let the police deal with it. It is not worth the clerk's safety.....and the subsequent lawsuit from the clerk's survivors is gonna cost the store a hell of a lot more than a pack of cigarillos.

Blaming the victim?

The policy of every single retail establishment in the country is the clerks are supposed to let security personnel and the police handle shoplifters. Because every insurance company requires that - a wrongful death lawsuit is much more expensive than the random retail items stolen.

Could the clerk be the owner or a family member. Whether it is his job as defined by his employer is irrelevant to the legality of the situation. Merchants have a legal right to detain suspected shoplifters. A large business is going to write off the loss. A locally owned business operating on a thin profit margin may do otherwise especially if it gets a reputation of being soft on theft. Perhaps the Missouri law needs to be changed to not allow detention by merchants? That is a different question. The law says nothing about security personnel.

Either they're an owner/family member or otherwise want to intervene. If the owner/management is intelligent, there will be some negative repercussions - a write up, or some other penalty.

Otherwise, it becomes a de-facto part of the clerk's job. And some clerk gets gravely wounded or killed over $20 in merchandise, costing the business much more money.

that legislation (possibly OSHA) could better define the terms low paid/trained employees responses to a theft. If a condition of your job (whether explicit or implicit) is to detain shoplifters, then I would see a roll for OSHA regarding that situation.

It sucks to expect a minimum wage employee to attempt to stop a theft because he desperately needs the job. That is the reason for labor laws to protect our weakest members of society.

The insurance company would be extremely pissed at low-paid and trained employees risking their lives for some merchandise. Resulting in the insurance company saying "either pay us a lot more money to cover your future wrongful death loss, or do something to that clerk"

Which is why, again, training for those employees is "comply with the robber."

on shoplifting escalating into deaths:

http://lptoday.com/deaths-resulting-from-shoplifting-incidents/

How big is Ferguson Market?

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-market-looted-overnight/

I doubt they have the resources to hire a loss prevention officer 24 hours a day. In hind site I am sure they would have left him just steal the cigars.

I wonder who else will decide to open a business in Ferguson.

"Stand down and let the store go"

Smiths, Albertsons, CVA, Walgreens, etc haven't gotten the memo.
Every one of those retail outlets will stop and detain shoplifters for the police so your comment is false.

Those stores have security personnel - often saddled with "manager" duties too. The security personnel are the ones who detain shoplifters.

The clerks are told they will be fired if they try to detain a shoplifter. They are supposed to notify the security personnel and get out of the way.

He could well have been the security officer/clerk also.
All you're doing is blaming the clerk for getting pushed, not the aggressor.

Not "the owner". Or "Manager". Or "security".

No, the one who started the whole incident was the shoplifter, if he hadn't allegedly stolen those cigars, then we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Once again, your blaming the clerk is worthy.

Probably something like $40.

How much money is the clerk's life worth? 'cause the shoplifter could have had a weapon and the clerk had no equipment nor training.

Often it is much smarter to get out of the way and let the people with training and equipment handle the situation. For example, it'd be pretty dumb to have random Air Force officers storming a beach, wouldn't it?

In a sense the robbery statute is in place as a roundabout way to protect merchants. It ensures that escalation will be treated more harshly than simple shoplifting. If you are caught shoplifting go passive or you are looking at a felony. It may not be the best way, but it is what the state of Missouri does today.

And again, the clerk started the confrontation. The law lets him, but that does not make it a good idea. Just like the law lets us invade another country using Boy Scouts instead of Marines.

Why are you so insistent on not admitting that you are blaming the clerk for getting shoved?
Why are you so insistent on not blaming the shoplifter for being the aggressor?

and demanding we ignore the video tape.

The confrontation started because of the shoplifting, no shoplifting, no confrontation.

But if blaming the clerk for being the aggressor makes your day, have at it.

You are not excusing stupidity.

but to blame the clerk for being the victim of a strong arm robbery, if that's what actually happened, is, IMO, pretty sick.

Despite your efforts to turn the clerk into a hero, one person touched the other person first. Who was that? That was the person that legally started the assault.

That was the clerk. The shoplifter was walking out of the store.

How was the clerk required to touch the shoplifter? What forced him to do that instead of calling the police and letting them find the shoplifter?

The clerk used his legal right to assault the shoplifter in response to the crime, in order to assault the shoplifter. The shoplifter, by resisting the assault, can be charged with a more severe crime. But the shoplifter can not be charged with assault. Because the shoplifter didn't start the physical confrontation.

You know by stealing. The clerk is within his rights to detain a criminal, which is what the guy in the video is. It may well be stupid to do so, but it's within his rights.

You can tell because the person doing the stealing wasn't the first one to touch the other one on the video. So when you're talking about which one touched the other first, you can use the fact that time moves in one direction to tell who touched who first.

Now, the law allows the clerk to assault the shoplifter in response to the shoplifting. The law even adds additional penalties to the shoplifter if they resist the clerk's assault.

But the first one to touch the other was the clerk. Which means the clerk started the physical confrontation.

Are you freaking kidding me?

I can't believe it myself, but he's insisting that because the clerk tried to stop the shoplifter, he's the aggressor.

has confirmed his client and Brown stole cigars from the store.

He was labeled by family and friends as a gentle young man getting ready for college and the police were thugs and murders. In response, the video comes out painting a different picture. And...ohbytheway...it is robbery when force is used.

Neither pictures of the young man are relevant to the issue: did he have his hands up surrendering when he was shot? It does not matter what crime he committed or what he did a minute before if he was surrendering.

I am waiting for the independent investigation.

executioners.



Let's Review

July 17, 2014

NYPD places Eric Garner in an illegal choke hold and strangles him to death.


July 27, 2014

Rosan Miller, seven months pregnant at the time, is put into an illegal choke hold by an NYPD officer for "illegally grilling", while her seven-year-old daughter watches.


August 2, 2014

NYPD enters the wrong apartment after a domestic violence call, and drags Denise Stewart, half-naked, across the floor and out of her apartment, then pepper sprays her four-year-old grandson


August 6, 2014

John Crawford was shot by Ohio police officers for holding a toy gun in a Walmart.


August 9, 2014

Mike Brown is shot ten times by the Ferguson police while walking home with his best friend from a convenience store. He had his hands up after the first shots and had surrendered after refusing to get on the sidewalk when he was shot several more times, and died.


August 11

LAPD shot Ezell Ford, unarmed, as he was lying on the ground. He was mentally challenged, and most in the area were aware of his condition.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025383560

...with many police officers who are kind, gentle humans and who abhor violence. When it is aimed at them or they aim it at another. You are attempting to paint all police officers as violent murdering thugs. I am sure you would agree it is more appropriate to look at each individually rather than attribute the behavior of some--to all.

When cops murder people, when they rape people, when they beat people within an inch of their lives - the response by the organizations that are responsible for restraining these officers' power is always the same: Circle the wagons.

Those gentle humans who abhor violence sure seem to have quite a stomach for it when it's done by their own.

You have dehumanized a group of people for some bad apples. "They" don't rape people. Your suggestion is a stereotype akin to suggesting that all women are bad at science and all African Americans are good dancers.

What happened is horrific. A young man died. We don't know how or why...yet. We have heard lots of stories, and jumped to lots of conclusions. I will wait for the independent investigation to end.

I am not going to dehumanize anyone.

Fight the power.

We should all wait to find out the facts about how, and why he was shot. Until then it's just speculation by anyone who was not there.

I mean every single point you made I have been pondering since this first came out. Recommended!

shooting an unarmed man with his hands in the air is wrong.

For one thing, the two young men went up to the check out counter as if they were ready to pay for the items. Shoplifters don't do that. I wonder if the clerk refused to sell them the cigars because the men were underage or didn't have ID to prove their age?

I don't know about Missouri law concerning tobacco products, but Florida law on alcoholic beverages puts the onus on the clerk. If the clerk does not check ID, the clerk can be arrested for selling alcohol to minors or for simply not checking the ID. Florida LE frequently runs stings with underage people to catch clerks of convenience store slacking off.

If Michael and Dorian were willing to pay - Dorian put the box Michael handed him on the counter - and the clerk refused to sell them the items, I can see teenagers thinking they were justified for taking them and getting angry when the clerk tried to stop them.

Just some things that have occurred to me since watching the video yesterday.

but enlightened at the same time. This should have occurred to me immediately since I had to card people all the time for cigs. They would get so angry at being carded even if they were clearly under 25 and looked closer to well 16. I would be thinking don't you know you look like a 16 year old? Anyway it doesn't excuse theft, but it's an excellent summation of what probably actualy did happen.

with extreme prejudice that occurred. If a person raises both their arms you don't continue firing. If the person gals down you don't continue to shoot into the victim

Must really bother people that this is on video and witnesses

wanted to not be considered a target. Interesting report in light of what happened last night. Ferguson Market was a symbol and whoever in LEO did not do their job and protect that market did not do their job (I am unclear whether it was supposed to be State Troopers, the local county militia (er sheriff's office) or the Ferguson PD.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/ferguson-market-asks-not-to-become-a-target/27525080

because of his skin color. EOM.

Now Wilson as a police officer shot an unarmed man, bet he doesn't get the death sentence he gave Mike Brown.