re the store video: could the "altercation" have been over ID?

[Ms. Toad]

41. I have given you 3 links -

not "the" link I keep relying on.

Acknowledging, as an attorney, that your client accompanied someone who committed a crime is not something you say lightly. That statement would have been made after meetings with all the potential parties which might prosecute your client, to make sure that either no charges were anticipated - or that if charges were anticipated, my client would have immunity. I know that because I have been involved, as an attorney, in making statements to the press in equally inflammatory matters of national interest (although in the civil, rather than criminal realm).

I also know that the media is not very adept at legal language - and when legal language matters, they nearly always lose any nuance that existed in the original statement.

So - based on my experience, I have no doubt about what was being admitted.

I have not disputed the statement that Wilson shot the kid with his hands up - and I doubt anyone who believes the shooting was unjustified has.

I just think we make ourselves look like fools when we continue to try to make someone look squeaky clean, who clearly isn't. What that says is that our support (and our outrage) at the behavior of the police is contingent on people always behaving well.

If you really truly believe that Brown paid for them, then watch the video I linked to elsewhere in this thread, and identify the moment between when he has his hands clasped behind his back - clearly visible and without money in them - to when he picks up the packets of cigarillos from the floor - and tell me when he reaches into a pocket (or any place else he might be carrying money) so he can hand it over to the clerk.