iswydt
<---- Perhaps it’s the specific word “TEST” that gets green-flagged, the above inoffensive acronym invoked the feature. As you can see. ETA: While illogically still leaving the words “Test” and “Racist” in mixed case while clobbering everything else including your name. :smack:
all caps
Are you talking about the rules of evidence in any part of the above commentary?
Oh yeah, well I saw on FB that he actually paid for the items and that part of the video was intentionally cut out. So there. 
So the Asian shopkeeper is on the conspiracy to keep the black man down!
This is what I just saw on FB. I have no idea if it’s true or not, so I come to you, my beloved Straight Dopers.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/18/ferguson-pd-busted/
And just now this: Attorney For Ferguson Market: NO ONE From His Store Called 911 To Report Cigar Theft
Really? When did you see money? I see him reaching across the counter into the booth where customers are not allowed. Those items are kept behind the counter in ever I convenience store I know. Easily stolen. Grabbing a bunch, dropping some on the floor and leaving after pushing the clerk. The clerk may have called or maybe someone else in the store. I don’t find it hard to believe that the store owners might be trying to distance themselves from it now.
I will find it very hard to believe that all the calls to the police station aren’t taped. This will be easily verified as false or not after the evidence is presented formally. No need to rely on incredibly biased sites.
The cigars he leaved with are the bunch that fell on the ground after he grabbed the entire display box. He immediately went for the door after scooping them off the floor. When did he buy them?
From that clip it is easy to see why they are not charging Johnson. He is handed some cigars but he puts them back on the counter. It looks like he wants nothing to do with the theft and did not take part.
I can’t view it myself. That’s why I brought it here. Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was just curious. I have a feeling we’re never going to know the truth about any of this.
We may not know what happened on the street. That’s unclear now since we don’t know yet what the witness information is or if it fits the physical evidence. But it’s pretty clear what happened in the store.
I linked a cite in post 18 that says his buddy testified to the theft.
I know! Good job!
I’m trying to decide if I agree with RNATB that the prosecution can keep the video out by stipulating to the theft.
Normally, the purpose of admitting evidence is to assist the jury (or the judge at a bench trial) to decide the truth of any issue of fact. In this case, the video is admissible for the purpose of showing Brown’s state of mind immediately after the robbery. The defense’s theory of the case will be that Brown violently attacked the officer; the prosecution enjoys the presumption that people don’t typically violently attack others, especially police, for no reason. So the defense is entitled to show the tape in order to say to the jury, “Look, see this? Here’s the reason Brown was willing to be so violent: he thought he was in danger of arrest from the cigar robbery.”
So RNATB says that the prosecution can keep the video out by saying to the jury, “We and the defense both agree that there was a cigar store robbery, and that Brown was guilty of that robbery, and the robbery happened just a few minutes before Brown encountered Wilson.” Now the jury knows the fact, and the defense can’t claim it’s prejudiced by the existence of the robbery being hidden…but there’s no need to show the tape.
If I were on the defense, I’d probably try to argue some kind of res gestae applied. I’d say that the mere stipulation doesn’t completely or correctly capture the whole story. But in reality, it kinda does, especially since the prosecutor’s obvious rebuttal is, “OK, what should I add – what else do you want to tell the jury?”
I’d also argue something akin to the Best Evidence Rule. Generally, if there’s a choice of how to prove a fact, you are obligated to use the best way to do so (a document original instead of a copy, for example). That’s a weak argument too, for reasons I’m too lazy to type out.
I’m beginning to think that I was wrong in my blanket claim. The FACT of the robbery will come in; the video might not.
The tape has more than just a possible robbery. It shows a man, possibly Brown, shoving a convenience story clerk. This makes officer Wilson’s story - that Brown physically attacked him, leading to an injury, much more believable.
Well, yeah. That’s what robbery is. If there wasn’t force it would be a theft. Bricker is saying that it’s possible that the video may not be allowed once the theft with force is stipulated.
That last question was basically my thought process. I considered what inferences the jury might make from viewing the video that it could not make from a “dry” stipulation regarding the facts of the robbery. Then I eliminated all the impermissible and irrelevant ones and there was nothing left.
The real question (that is, the one I couldn’t answer) was whether there were tactical considerations which might make it less attractive for the prosecution to stipulate to the facts of the robbery.
It has been confirmed by the chief of police, several times, that Wilson was, in fact, aware of the robbery, that the initial stop was not related to the robbery, but during the stop, seeing cigars in Brown’s hands, Wilson suspected him of the robbery.
With all due respect to the lofty station to which he has risen, I’m not sure the chief has a whole lot of credibility at this point.