not stopping the looting?

to the looters. By doing so they did not add to the tension and trigger another angry riot. This also pointed up the fact that much of the community is not part of the troublemakers who were doing the looting. I understand they took down license plate numbers and it can be handled later.

The looters should be arrested but not at the expense of more rioting. There are two situations here.

The job of the police is to maintain order and protect property. They didn't do that and the people of Ferguson are wondering why in the fuck the police are there. Shop owners are now arming themselves to protect their property. Yeah, nothing can go wrong there.

"The alderman", Antonio French is an attention seeking self-promoter who is out of his jurisdiction. What in the fuck are his qualifications in police matters and why is he in Ferguson?

The owner of the convenience store didn't call in the cops about what is alleged to have happened between the clerk and Micheal Brown (a 'customer' supposedly did); The owner didn't want to press charges; The police had to served a warrant for the video of the incident; The store gets looted, and then the police won't respond.

The community worked to protect the store that was looted.

Odd, odd chain of events.

Then? Does that mean that Wilson could not have possibly known about the robbery when he stopped them?

did not know about the incident at the store when he stopped the two teens. The chief in fact explicitly corroborated what the jaywalker who was left alive said: that Wilson simply stopped them for walking in the street and blocking traffic. He did this though only AFTER releasing the timeline (that he read Friday morning to the media) that his office carefully constructed so that the media would infer what he had implied in the timeline: that Officer Wilson knew about the incident at the convenience store when he stopped the teens... totally untrue of course, but it allowed the chief to smear Brown without actually lying.

I have only read that the store did not file a complaint about the incident with Brown. The police clearly created a report about it at some point, because they released it (instead of the murder incident report being clamored for by the multitudes) on Friday, apparently in some clever attempt to smear the victim under the auspices of "you asked for it" (implying a FOIA was received seeking any document with Micheal Brown's name on it).

The department was busy, busy, busy this week working hard to get all the details for the convenience store incident report, which they desperately needed, (interviewed the surviving jaywalker about the store incident) and not the murder incident report, which they desperately avoided (didn't interview the surviving jaywalker, ever, about the murder incident). And now they could put Brown's name as the suspect in that report and, ta da, present it as a responding document to the FOIA requests.

The desperate thin blue line.

Later still, Jackson was quoted by the St Louis Post-Dispatch as saying that Wilson saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realised that he might be a suspect in the robbery.


How is this possible if the owner did not want to press charges? Would they have broadcasted about the event over the radio even though no charges would be filed?

a few days back. Was that a different store?