Originally posted by Bardock42
In the full video of the store incident it appears that Mike Brown paid for the cigarillos that he took. Additionally, I believe, the store owner that Mike Brown pushed stated that he did not call the cops nor wanted to.
He attempted to purchase a box of 5 Swishers which cost $4.99+tax with a $5 bill, and when rebuffed by the Clerk that he didn't have enough money for the box, became irate and grabbed a handful of the singles (Loosies) which are $1.29 each, walking away with upwards of 8 cigars (about $12 worth). When the Clerk attempted to stop him from taking more than his money could cover Brown pushed and intimidated him on his way out the store. If he'd just bought 3 singles like a rational person would have he'd still be alive. Moreover, if he'd just walked on the sidewalk or not fought with the officer likely he'd still be alive. Mike was apparently on some very dumb shit that day.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
He attempted to purchase a box of 5 Swishers which cost $4.99+tax with a $5 bill, and when rebuffed by the Clerk that he didn't have enough money for the box, became irate and grabbed a handful of the singles (Loosies) which are $1.29 each, walking away with upwards of 8 cigars (about $12 worth). When the Clerk attempted to stop him from taking more than his money could cover Brown pushed and intimidated him on his way out the store. If he'd just bought 3 singles like a rational person would have he'd still be alive. Moreover, if he'd just walked on the sidewalk or not fought with the officer likely he'd still be alive. Mike was apparently on some very dumb shit that day.
Source?
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
There was no cash drop.Bardock are you blind or just playing stupid is as stupid does?
The consensus is that Brown did have cash and paid for his goods, or at least partial. That's the dispute, 'did he pay in full'; not 'did he pay at all'.
Originally posted by Robtard
The consensus is that Brown did have cash and paid for his goods, or at least partial. That's the dispute, 'did he pay in full'; not 'did he pay at all'.
However the video proves otherwise, he made no effort to pay for anything, all he does is reach over the counter and start handing stuff to his friend and grabbing stuff for himself then assaulting and intimidating the clerk.
Originally posted by dadudemon
haermm haermm crylaughYou aren't candycoating anything for anyone, are you?
I feel at this point, these ignoramuses are flat out just lying and ignoring actual footage of the assault and robbery and it is my job to shove it in Bardocks face even though he is playing roger dodger with the truth.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
However the video proves otherwise, he made no effort to pay for anything, all he does is reach over the counter and start handing stuff to his friend and grabbing stuff for himself then assaulting and intimidating the clerk.
It's a crappy camera and it's at an angle where you can't see Brown's hands when they're on the counter. The general consensus is that Brown had and used money; some versions of the story say he just didn't pay in full.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The video..retard.
MF DELPH claimed very specific numbers. Numbers that I have not heard previously anywhere, and wasn't able to corroborate independently with Google searches. I was asking him to provide a source for his very clear claims. The video does not prove anything in regards to numbers either way. However, contrary to your opinion, MF DELPH's account, that you celebrated in your infantile manner, also states that Mike Brown payed at least partially.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Source?
There was a link to a story about this back when it initially happened in August floating around on Facebook which I no longer have, but I referenced it in an earlier post back then (August 19th) when this first occurred and I myself posted that same video (see below) from Youtube (which was embedded in the article).
Originally posted by MF DELPH
YouTube video
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Been trying my hardest to stay out of this convo because my family and friends on Facebook have been going insane and I'm tired of the whole thing, but:Apparently Mike and his friend attempted to buy a box of cigars (the box you see his friend put on the counter) and did not have enough money for the box, so Mike decides since he's given the clerk the money for the box to grab a handful of the cheaper brand singles that the money he gave the clerk would cover and in doing so the box spills on the floor. It was an unnecessary dick move on Mike's part (he didn't need to get angry at not having enough cash for his purchase and then aggressively take the singles from the box, he could/should have just said "Fine, I'll just take the singles"😉. Anyway, he grabs a few of the singles from the floor and walks away. The Clerk comes around to ensure he didn't take more than he had paid for, Mike shoves Clerk for 'coming at him', and leaves. While this exchange occurs someone else present in the store assumes it's a robbery and calls 911.
Mike and his friend, however, were stopped for walking in the middle of the street, not a robbery pursuit, so this incident, while showing Mike made a dick move, had no connection to the shooting. It does, however, show that he was prone to unnecessary aggression. He didn't need to spill the cigars and disrespect the Clerk because he didn't have enough money for what he wanted.
The numbers come from the article and the video evidence. In the video Mike passes the box of 5 Swisher cigars to his friend, Dorian Johnson, who places the box back onto the counter at the point when Mike snatches the box of singles off the counter, spilling them on the floor, and then Mike bends down and picks several of them up. When he stands up he has approximately 4-5 of the singles in each hand.
So, you do not have a source for your numbers. Surely you must see how an alleged, random Facebook post, written in the early days after the incident, not to be found anymore, is very weak support for your claim, which was so authoritatively delivered.
Contrary to what you posted, it seems evident that it is still unclear what, if anything, was stolen, what, if anything, was paid for, and who actually reported this as a robbery, when the store owner, the alleged victim, denies that he, or any of his employees, reported it as such.
Originally posted by Bardock42
MF DELPH claimed very specific numbers. Numbers that I have not heard previously anywhere, and wasn't able to corroborate independently with Google searches. I was asking him to provide a source for his very clear claims. The video does not prove anything in regards to numbers either way. However, contrary to your opinion, MF DELPH's account, that you celebrated in your infantile manner, also states that Mike Brown payed at least partially.
I celebrate in many manners, knowing I always beat you in debates based off the fact that you ignore evidence and basically just refuse to see the truth.
While you stress, source and google away over pennies and coin change, I look at the big picture.
Brown was a guy who thought rules, laws and human abuse do not apply to him.
He paid the price.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, you do not have a source for your numbers. Surely you must see how an alleged, random Facebook post, written in the early days after the incident, not to be found anymore, is very weak support for your claim, which was so authoritatively delivered.Contrary to what you posted, it seems evident that it is still unclear what, if anything, was stolen, what, if anything, was paid for, and who actually reported this as a robbery, when the store owner, the alleged victim, denies that he, or any of his employees, reported it as such.
Yes cry more about what the stuff cost and how much he had in his pocket.
If it was $4.99+tax and he had $5.00, and it was not enough, did that give him the right to start pushing people around, no so quit dreaming....
The video proves you wrong, bank on that one buddy.