Michael Brown shooting II

[WildCat]

Those images are in the link I provided:


The lies were outlined in the Guardian article as well as several other articles quoted in this thread. Perhaps you should take the time to read those so we don't waste more time rehashing items that have already been discussed.

I was unable to find lies by Wilson in the Guardian article. I don't want to play whack-a-mole, can you detail the lies in your own words?

 

[Locknar]

Based on a review of the last several pages, I have removed this thread from Moderated status. Be warned, the Mod Team will be watching this thread (especially in light of the pending Grand Jury announcement) and will deal harshly with members who's posts are not in compliance their Membership Agreement. Please keep the discussion civil, address the argument, and stay on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[plague311]

I was unable to find lies by Wilson in the Guardian article. I don't want to play whack-a-mole, can you detail the lies in your own words?

I have to say that I am having the same issue here. I can't really see the lies, and considering the video is so brief we have no way of knowing what happened previously.

 

[JohnnyG]

I was unable to find lies by Wilson in the Guardian article. I don't want to play whack-a-mole, can you detail the lies in your own words?

The lie is right there under your nose. It is boldly stated right in the title: "SHOCK VIDEO: Darren Wilson Violates 1st Amendment “I’ll Lock Your Ass Up”- Arrests Man for Filming" (hilite mine). But the arrest report says he was arrested for refusing to comply with the officer during an active investigation.

Oh wait, it wasn't Wilson that lied, it was the reporter. I guess that doesn't count then.

 

[casebro]

But he refused to comply with an illegal order, the one to stop filming.

I've got to say Wildon was wrong that time.

 

[Upchurch]

I was unable to find lies by Wilson in the Guardian article. I don't want to play whack-a-mole, can you detail the lies in your own words?

I'm pointing out the basis of the Guardian's claims, which were ...conveniently cherry picked in the the page you linked to.

Here are all the relevant pieces:

source

The Guardian article

Wilson wrote in his report that Arman became upset and said he wanted to record the encounter. Wilson said he told him “a voice recording would be acceptable” but Arman “refused to answer any questions or co-operate as he lifted the phone to begin a video recording of myself” and “stated that I must state my name to him” as Wilson asked for more information on the vehicles.

Arman disputed Wilson’s account of the start of their encounter, saying that he “began recording within moments of Wilson approaching the property” and that Wilson only mentioned a voice recording being acceptable after Arman had been arrested.

Despite being shown at the other end of Arman’s garden path, Wilson wrote in his report that he told Arman “to remove the camera from my face”. He claimed to have asked Arman to place his hands behind his back, which is not visible or audible from the recording. “I was forced to grab his wrists one at a time and secure them into handcuffs,” Wilson wrote.

Disagree with them all you like, but don't pretend to debunk something by cherry picking the report.

 

[JohnnyG]

But he refused to comply with an illegal order, the one to stop filming.

I've got to say Wildon was wrong that time.

But that isn't why he was arrested. The arrest report clearly indicates he was arrested for not complying with the officers request to investigate the derelict cars. "Arrested While Filming" =/= "Arrested For Filming".

 

[plague311]

This Wilson sure is some kind of jerk. He made sure this individuals items were put away for him so that they wouldn't get stolen. Thanks Police!

 

[Unabogie]

I have to say that I am having the same issue here. I can't really see the lies, and considering the video is so brief we have no way of knowing what happened previously.

He said the man shoved the camera in his face, when you can clearly see Wilson threaten the man with arrest for the crime of filming him. It's legal to film the police. Darren Wilson didn't care, and arrested him anyway.

“Do I not have the right to record,” Arman asks.
“No, you don’t,” Wilson responds.

He wrote in his report that he told Arman he COULD record him, which as you can see in the video is a lie because he told him he couldn't.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/246727189/Ferguson-police-incident-report-Darren-Wilson-arrests-Mike-Arman

He claimed Arman had the camera in his face. That wasn't true, as you can see in the video that they were 20 feet away from each other.

He charged Arman with breaking pitbull regulations, and then it was revealed that Arman didn't have any pitbulls and all charges were dropped.

Arman was also arrested for "Failure to Comply", when in the video Wilson clearly says the reason for the "locking him up" was that he was filming him.

 

[Unabogie]

So, wait. If Brown has video showing that he performed a strong-armed robbery minutes before the altercation with Brown, it's hand-waived away. You've rationalized it several times throughout this and the previous thread. Now that one, single, individual encounter has shown up, to which we don't know the circumstances, it establishes a "history". It's almost like there is more than 1 set of standards or something.

I never hand-waved away the video of Brown in the store. I hand-waved away the characterization of the video as a "strong-arm robbery" or evidence of being a "violent felon". We don't have to get into that again (I don't think the mods will allow it) but once it was clear that this was Brown in the video, I agreed that he was guilty of a crime.

 

[plague311]

I never hand-waved away the video of Brown in the store. I hand-waved away the characterization of the video as a "strong-arm robbery" or evidence of being a "violent felon". We don't have to get into that again (I don't think the mods will allow it) but once it was clear that this was Brown in the video, I agreed that he was guilty of a crime.

Unaboogie, you're doing it again, and it's blatant. While you will not acknowledge that one incident as being evidence that he is a violent felon (as the crime was violent, and a felony), you will use this one incident to state that Wilson "has a history of abusing his authority and then lying about it on official reports."

That's a double standard, I don't know why you refuse to just acknowledge it, and I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. You're applying different standards to two people. Care to explain how that ISN'T a double standard? Don't worry, I'll wait.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm pointing out the basis of the Guardian's claims, which were ...conveniently cherry picked in the the page you linked to.

Here are all the relevant pieces:



[qimg]http://tftppull.freethoughtllc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/police-report-2.jpg[/qimg]
source

The Guardian article

​

Disagree with them all you like, but don't pretend to debunk something by cherry picking the report.

The same page of the report you posted is in Wildcats link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/246727189/Ferguson-police-incident-report-Darren-Wilson-arrests-Mike-Arman



I am not sure what you are claiming is different.

As far as the guardian article:
Wilson wrote in his report that Arman became upset and said he wanted to record the encounter. Wilson said he told him “a voice recording would be acceptable” but Arman “refused to answer any questions or co-operate as he lifted the phone to begin a video recording of myself” and “stated that I must state my name to him” as Wilson asked for more information on the vehicles.

Arman disputed Wilson’s account of the start of their encounter, saying that he “began recording within moments of Wilson approaching the property” and that Wilson only mentioned a voice recording being acceptable after Arman had been arrested.

So the big "lie" here is about when Wilson said voice recording was acceptable - before or after the video.

Despite being shown at the other end of Arman’s garden path, Wilson wrote in his report that he told Arman “to remove the camera from my face”. He claimed to have asked Arman to place his hands behind his back, which is not visible or audible from the recording. “I was forced to grab his wrists one at a time and secure them into handcuffs,” Wilson wrote.

Is that the whole recording ? Again, where is the big lie ?

I agree, Wilson was wrong to tell him not to record him. That is a standard dick move by cops. But I don't really see how that informs us about wilson or the brown shooting.

 

[plague311]

He said the man shoved the camera in his face, when you can clearly see Wilson threaten the man with arrest for the crime of filming him. It's legal to film the police. Darren Wilson didn't care, and arrested him anyway.

Do you know he DIDN'T shove the camera in his face previous to hitting record? You clearly see what this individual wants you to see, you don't see the entire context of what happened. It could have been edited out, the individual that was recording could have clipped the part of him being a jerk to make himself look better. I am always skeptical of video that comes out 100 days after the officer is painted as a bad guy, and more than a year after the initial incident happened. That's just me though.

He wrote in his report that he told Arman he COULD record him, which as you can see in the video is a lie because he told him he couldn't.

He said that an audio recording would be enough. Wilson was investigating a situation, is it lawful to record an investigation? I don't know, that's the question I'm asking.

He claimed Arman had the camera in his face.

Which he could have.

That wasn't true, as you can see in the video that they were 20 feet away from each other.

At the time of the video you are seeing, yes. We don't have the entire incident on video.

He charged Arman with breaking pitbull regulations, and then it was revealed that Arman didn't have any pitbulls and all charges were dropped.

Then what were the dogs doing in his backyard? Was he dog sitting? Are you implying Wilson made up 3 dogs, with descriptive colors, in order to arrest him? Why?

Arman was also arrested for "Failure to Comply", when in the video Wilson clearly says the reason for the "locking him up" was that he was filming him.

He failed to comply with the request to stop filming an investigation. If there's a murder they certainly don't let the media inside the room where the body is while police are trying to solve the crime.

Is this legal or not? I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer.

ETA: It is legal, I stand corrected:

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) was a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated the citizen's First and Fourth Amendment rights.

 

[Upchurch]

Unaboogie, you're doing it again, and it's blatant. While you will not acknowledge that one incident as being evidence that he is a violent felon (as the crime was violent, and a felony), you will use this one incident to state that Wilson "has a history of abusing his authority and then lying about it on official reports."

That's a double standard, I don't know why you refuse to just acknowledge it, and I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. You're applying different standards to two people. Care to explain how that ISN'T a double standard? Don't worry, I'll wait.

To be fair, Wilson's official report is the basis, in part, for which the Grand Jury is deciding whether or not to indict. If Wilson has a history of ...casting himself in a better light in his official reports, that might have some particular relevance in the trustworthiness of his side of the story. Wouldn't you say?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Then what were the dogs doing in his backyard? Was he dog sitting? Are you implying Wilson made up 3 dogs, with descriptive colors, in order to arrest him? Why?
.

They were not pitbulls, they were bulldogs.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you know he DIDN'T shove the camera in his face previous to hitting record?

What, from 10-15 feet away with a whole bunch of visible tools between them?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What, from 10-15 feet away with a whole bunch of visible tools between them?

I agree it seems silly to try to make the case the camera was in his face prior to the start of the video.

Is there some reason to believe he didn't shove the camera in Wilsons face after or at the end of the recorded video we have seen ?

And it was possibly either not recorded or not included in the uploaded video ?

 

[Unabogie]

I agree it seems silly to try to make the case the camera was in his face prior to the start of the video.

Is there some reason to believe he didn't shove the camera in Wilsons face after or at the end of the recorded video we have seen ?

And it was possibly either not recorded or not included in the uploaded video ?

Prior to the end of the video, Wilson is on record saying that Arman wasn't allowed to record him (he was) and that he'd "lock his ass up" if he continued to record him. So if Arman did "shove the camera in his face", it was after Wilson threatened him with arrest for a completely legal act and Wilson approached Arman (again, on the video) and grabbed him to effect his arrest.

 

[plague311]

To be fair, Wilson's official report is the basis, in part, for which the Grand Jury is deciding whether or not to indict.

I would say if I was on the Grand Jury I would treat it as the same as any eyewitness testimony. Right? The same as anyone who gave an official, documented statement as to the series of events. Once again, that's just me. We all know that pro-Brown advocates have tried to have this case judged in the court of public opinion by giving statements to news agencies that have been proven incorrect by the physical evidence.

If Wilson has a history of

We don't know if he has history of a damn thing. This is a one off case that we have limited knowledge on. We have the individuals "story" as to what happened, a short clip, and the police report. There is no history, we don't even have the full story behind the case you claim creates the "history".

...casting himself in a better light in his official reports, that might have some particular relevance in the trustworthiness of his side of the story. Wouldn't you say?

I mean, maybe. If there were more than one case, if he actually had an established history of this happening. A one off situation with nothing other than a brief video doesn't really establish a history to me. I require more than that, and I don't believe that is unreasonable.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Prior to the end of the video, Wilson is on record saying that Arman wasn't allowed to record him (he was) and that he'd "lock his ass up" if he continued to record him. So if Arman did "shove the camera in his face", it was after Wilson threatened him with arrest for a completely legal act and Wilson approached Arman (again, on the video) and grabbed him to effect his arrest.

I'm glad you agree it's perfectly plausible he shoved the camera in Wilsons face. Wilson saying he'd "lock his ass up" makes it a rather dumb move for him to shove the camera in his face after that, doesn't it ?

Police can always find something to arrest you for, even if you are never charged, or the charges don't stick. Obstructing, interfering, etc.

I already agreed wilson should not have told him not to record him a few posts above

So after all that - what does that inform us about Wilson and the shooting ?