Comments by "Brand131" (@Brand131) on "The Absurdity of the Michael Brown Case Not Going to Trial" video.

If he has his hands up doesn't mean he can't be a threat. If he is running away doesn't mean a police officer isn't allowed to shoot him. Both these possible cases didn't happen, but even if they did, it doesn't matter. Evidence supports that Brown was shot when facing Wilson. Evidence also supports that Brown assaulted Wilson. The facts are that Michael Brown used drugs before hand, then robbed a convenience store, assaulted the clerk, then went jaywalking, then assaulted a police officer. Why are people so ready to ignore the fact that Michael Brown was a thug? If you want to address how badly the system is treating black people, taking him as your mascot only hurts your case.
2
dffykvn If that would be the case, then he's still innocent for all we know. Ofcourse, we still have the footage of Michael Brown assaulting a store clerk, we have evidence of the gun having gone off inside Wilson's car,his bruised face, multiple autopsy reports. I know where my money is.
2
dffykvn He wasn't shot in the back. As for the store robbery, it shows that Brown was already in a violent mindset. It gives credibility to Wilson's account that Brown behaved hostile.
1
dffykvn We have video footage of him assaulting the store clerk. As for the "shot in the back" part, you said: "I didn't know that we lived in a Judge Dredd movie where someone can be shot in the back or shot at when they're running away or while they're surrendering and their actions in a completely unrelated incident can be used to justify it." He used drugs, he robbed a store, he assaulted the clerk, he jaywalked, he assaulted a police officer in his car, making a grab for his gun. He was shot in the front. All of this is corroborated. We can't say if this 'gentle giant' was "surrendering", but seeing his behavior up until that point, I strongly doubt it.
1