Liberals claim new Michael Brown video shows innocence; SILENT on one key fact…

Video footage was released today giving a new angle to Michael Brown’s final hours before his death. The footage, obtained by documentary filmmaker Jason Pollock, allegedly challenges the narrative that Brown had robbed a convenience store before being stopped by officer Darren Wilson (for the robbery).

According to the New York Times, The footage shows Mr. Brown entering the store, Ferguson Market and Liquor, shortly after 1 a.m. on the day he died. He approaches the counter, hands over an item that appears to be a small bag and takes a shopping sack filled with cigarillos. Mr. Brown is shown walking toward the door with the sack, then turning around and handing the cigarillos back across the counter before exiting.

Mr. Pollock believes that the new video shows Mr. Brown giving a small bag of marijuana to store employees and receiving cigarillos in return as part of a negotiated deal. Mr. Pollock said Mr. Brown left the cigarillos behind the counter for safekeeping.

Watch the video below:

There are of course, a handful of Black Lives Matter activists who view this as vindication at last.

But a few quick points:

> Michael Brown’s death has nothing to do with his robbery of a convenience store – and no rational person would believe Brown deserved his fate simply because he stole some cigars. Rather, it was the following confrontation with officer Wilson, which, according to evidence from an autopsy, suggests that Brown had reached for Wilson’s gun, that he was shot.

> Even the Times acknowledges that this doesn’t change much, stating that “Regardless of what happened at the store in the early-morning hours, the new security footage does not resolve long-simmering questions about Mr. Brown’s encounter with Officer Darren Wilson along a Ferguson street that day. Officer Wilson, who claimed that he feared for his life and had been assaulted by Mr. Brown, was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by a county grand jury and federal civil rights investigators.”

> Even if Brown wasn’t committing a strong-arm robbery, there’s no doubt he did assault the actual owner of that convenience store (who probably wasn’t thrilled drug dealing was going on in his store), which would still justify Wilson stopping Brown.

> Isn’t it worse if Brown assaulted Wilson without having even committed a crime (well, except for the drug-dealing part – which his mother calls “an exchange.”)

And sanity is apparently prevailing, as most people are scratching their heads at how this “revelation” actually changes anything.

One can only wonder how the “drug dealer” defense would’ve held up in court.

[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of