I work with teens Michael Brown's age and the number one rule is

[KingCharlemagne]

261. I've watched the video numerous times. I've also read Dorian Johnson's

testimony in Volume 4 of the Grand Jury transcripts. It is not clear to me that any robbery took place at all. (Although Dorian Johnson's testimony seems to suggest he thought Mike Brown ha stolen a few single cigarillos, Johnson's testimony also suggests that Mike Brown did not think that he (Mike) had stolen anything.)

We know that some anonymous customer called 9-11 about a robbery and that 2 police cars soon arrived at the Ferguson Market to take a report whence a description matching Mike and Dorian was broadcast. But we also know that the store clerk and manager appeared 'bewildered' when police asked for copies of the surveillance tapes, perhaps because they did not consider that any robbery had taken place.

If it develops that the supposed 'robbery' ended up merely being a squabble over whether Mike needed to show ID proving he was over 18 to obtain tobacco and Mike taking umbrage at such a request, since he was a long-time resident of Canfield and presumably the store mangement knew or should have known he was of age . . . if it turns out that was the source of the squabble, then there really was no robbery -- strong-arm or otherwise -- at all, only a dispute over providing ID.

Although Wilson happens to be white and Brown happened to be black, I don't think this is at heart about 'race' as much as it is about 'abuse of power'. Race was necessary, but not sufficient for that abuse to go down. Thus, it doesn't really matter that there are no other reports of Wilson engaged in racist activities (although his employment record at the corrupt Jennings PD might bear some additional scrutiny). There was one report of Wilson reacting harshly to a resident who sought to video tape him, long before the Brown homicide, so again, his record is not completely unblemished.

You have clearly dismissed Dorian Johnson's testimony outright and I think the readership here deserves to know why (assuming you have read it). What allows you to impeach Johnson's testimony (which damns Wilson unequivocally) while crediting Wilson's fanciful and fantabulous tales?