Michael Brown shooting II

[plague311]

They were not pitbulls, they were bulldogs.

I didn't state what they were either way. I wasn't sure, thanks for the clarification, however.

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

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

The point I was attempting to make, and obviously failed at, is that we don't know what happened surrounding the video. We only see what happened in the brief video, and if we've learned anything from the Brown case, it's that without the entire context we just don't know what happened for sure.

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

^ that's what I was going for, that without knowing everything that happened....we don't know everything that happened.

 

[Upchurch]

I would say if I was on the Grand Jury I would treat it as the same as any eyewitness testimony. Right?

Ideally, yes. The problem is that, much like some in this thread, people are unduly biased in favor of police testimony. Although, to be fair, there has been a recent upswing in bias against police testimony as well.

I have no expectation that the Grand Jury will treat Wilson's testimony the same as any other eyewitness's testimony.

We don't know if he has history of a damn thing.

I said "if". It should certainly be taken into consideration, but probably won't. It is both late in game and, as you said, a single incident. There were other anecdotal incidences peppered in the media, but this is the first, that I'm aware of, that has video support.

 

[Unabogie]

They were not pitbulls, they were bulldogs.

I didn't state what they were either way. I wasn't sure, thanks for the clarification, however.

The point is that he charged him with violating pitbull laws, specific to that breed. As it turned out, they weren't even pitbulls.

 

[Unabogie]

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 ?

I have no idea what Arman did, and it's possible he did, in fact, shove the camera in his face when Wilson went to arrest him. The problem arises before the arrest, though, when Wilson threatens to arrest Arman for a completely legal act. This is huge abuse of power, but Wilson does it casually, and just says "if you don't stop recording, I'm gonna lock your ass up". When you combine this with the fact that he then proceeded to walk over and arrest the guy, him saying later that Arman "shoved the camera in my face" and "failed to comply" rings pretty hollow.

 

[JohnnyG]

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.



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.

Hi didn't say "shoved in his face", he said to "remove the camera from my face", as if Arman was "in his face" (def: in a confrontational way that shows annoyance or contempt. -dicitonary.com) with the camera. It is a perfectly appropriate idiom to describe Arman's behavior as demonstrated by the video.

While you are correct that it is legal to film the police, you still have to comply with the investigation. By filming and questioning the officer rather than complying, Arman was indeed violating the law. Threatening to lock him up to try to encourage compliance is not outrageous, especially for someone that has a previous resisting arrest charge.

The video is only 15 seconds long. It doesn't capture the entire encounter, so there is no way to confidently use it as evidence that something did or didn't happen before or after that one-fourth of a minute.

True, Arman does not have a pitbull. He has a bulldog, which is often confused with a pitbull.

The American Bulldog and Pit Bull are often confused as being the same breed due to their similar physical appearance and equal classification as working dogs in the Molosser family.
Source: http://www.access2knowledge.org/animals/whats-the-difference-between-an-american-bulldog-vs-pitbull/

I think this is a case of confirmation bias. Some people are wanting, perhaps needing, to find an abusive, violent, and racist cop, and nothing will stand in their way. Not even logic.

 

[Upchurch]

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

My apologies. I clearly missed it when viewing on my phone.

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

The "big lie" according to the Guardian, is that what Wilson put in his report does not match what happened in the video and, clearly, was meant to put Wilson in a better light than the reality.

 

[plague311]

Ideally, yes. The problem is that, much like some in this thread, people are unduly biased in favor of police testimony. Although, to be fair, there has been a recent upswing in bias against police testimony as well.

I have no expectation that the Grand Jury will treat Wilson's testimony the same as any other eyewitness's testimony.

I'm forever the optimist. I still think that the folks on the Grand Jury would be able to see through the BS. As in, if there are 8-10 witnesses that directly contradict Wilson, that they will see his story is a lie, and move forward with charges.

I said "if". It should certainly be taken into consideration, but probably won't. It is both late in game and, as you said, a single incident. There were other anecdotal incidences peppered in the media, but this is the first, that I'm aware of, that has video support.

The only other one I had heard of was the story where the woman got pepper spray in her eyes, and she claimed that Wilson wouldn't let her wash her eyes out. Which I think is a load of....

 

[Ammonitida]

The point is that he charged him with violating pitbull laws, specific to that breed. As it turned out, they weren't even pitbulls.

I only recently found out that pitbulls and bulldogs are different breeds. They look almost the same to me.

 

[davefoc]

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.



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.

This was a pretty good summary of how I saw things after watching the video and reading the report.

What was Wilson supposed to accomplish with this visit to Arman? Presumably he was supposed to give Arman a copy of the summons? Did Arman refuse to accept it and did that justify arresting Arman? Was Arman supposed to sign something acknowledging that he had received the summons and he refused and that was why he was arrested? What was the reason for arresting Arman if it wasn't that Arman was filming Wilson? Did Wilson explain this someplace in the report?

 

[bigred]

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.

Because Wilson is white, Brown is black. Duh! Where have you been the last 30-40ish years?

 

[davefoc]

Because Wilson is white, Brown is black. Duh! Where have you been the last 30-40ish years?

The sarcastic comments along this line aren't responsive to the points that Unabogie is making. If you think that Arman wasn't arrested because Wilson didn't like the fact that Arman was filming him then what was Arman arrested for?

Regardless of whether or not Wilson lied about the incident the video suggests to me that Wilson techniques for interacting with the citizens of Ferguson were problematic. He had a specific purpose when he went to Arman's house. He needed to state that purpose as clearly as possible and inform Arman of the consequences of non-compliance. I think there is an argument to be made that if Arman failed to do what was legally required of him with regard to acceptance of the delivery of the summons that Wilson should have called for backup before attempting to arrest Arman. The incident suggests to me a kind of behavior by Wilson that was the cause of the Brown shooting.

This idea is consistent with my view of the Brown incident right now. My view is that Wilson is probably not guilty of manslaughter. He was guilty of poor police procedure that led to an unnecessary death.

 

[davefoc]

I only recently found out that pitbulls and bulldogs are different breeds. They look almost the same to me.

Look again. They look very different although sometimes they can be about the same size. I would have guessed that Wilson could tell the difference but I wouldn't accuse him of lying over this. Maybe he really couldn't tell the difference.

 

[Unabogie]

While you are correct that it is legal to film the police, you still have to comply with the investigation. By filming and questioning the officer rather than complying, Arman was indeed violating the law. Threatening to lock him up to try to encourage compliance is not outrageous, especially for someone that has a previous resisting arrest charge.

"Resisting arrest" is the catch-all for anyone police arrest without cause. For instance, Arman now has another arrest for "failure to comply" even though all charges were dropped and Wilson announced the arrest was actually because he wouldn't stop recording. The internet is filled with videos of people who get roughed up after asking too many questions and then got charged with "resisting arrest" even though no actual crime had been committed.

 

[Unabogie]

I only recently found out that pitbulls and bulldogs are different breeds. They look almost the same to me.

Really? Bulldogs have the telltale folds of flab under the jowls. To me they are not that close.

YMMV

 

[plague311]

The sarcastic comments along this line aren't responsive to the points that Unabogie is making. If you think that Arman wasn't arrested because Wilson didn't like the fact that Arman was filming him then what was Arman arrested for?

Regardless of whether or not Wilson lied about the incident the video suggests to me that Wilson techniques for interacting with the citizens of Ferguson were problematic. He had a specific purpose when he went to Arman's house. He needed to state that purpose as clearly as possible and inform Arman of the consequences of non-compliance. I think there is an argument to be made that if Arman failed to do what was legally required of him with regard to acceptance of the delivery of the summons that Wilson should have called for backup before attempting to arrest Arman. The incident suggests to me a kind of behavior by Wilson that was the cause of the Brown shooting.

This idea is consistent with my view of the Brown incident right now. My view is that Wilson is probably not guilty of manslaughter. He was guilty of poor police procedure that led to an unnecessary death.

Your entire statement here has nothing to do with Unaboogie blatantly having a double standard when it comes to Brown and Wilson. Unaboogie is more than willing to use 1 instance as evidence of a "history" with Wilson, while at the same time, hand waving away the strong armed robbery as evidence of a "history" with Brown.

 

[Unabogie]

Your entire statement here has nothing to do with Unaboogie blatantly having a double standard when it comes to Brown and Wilson. Unaboogie is more than willing to use 1 instance as evidence of a "history" with Wilson, while at the same time, hand waving away the strong armed robbery as evidence of a "history" with Brown.

Again, no I didn't. I think the video is proof that Wilson abused his authority, and also that Wilson is willing to lie in his official reports. You can read them for yourself and see that he clearly lied about the incident. And all charges were dropped when the video surfaced, which means Arman was wise to record Wilson and that the FPD agreed with Arman that Wilson was in the wrong.

As for what I said about Brown, how about quoting something I actually wrote. I already said above that I agreed Brown committed a crime. I objected to the characterization of the crime as anything about petty theft and shoving. I agreed that Brown legally committed assault on the store clerk. I contend that with no prior record, there's no way on earth he would have been convicted of a felony over the cigars. What more do you want from me there?

 

[Upchurch]

Really? Bulldogs have the telltale folds of flab under the jowls. To me they are not that close.

YMMV

What’s the Difference Between an American Bulldog vs Pitbull?

The American Bulldog and Pit Bull are often confused as being the same breed due to their similar physical appearance and equal classification as working dogs in the Molosser family. However, a trained eye can easily distinguish that these two breeds are actually very different.

[/off-topic]

 

[William Parcher]

American Bulldogs can look very similar to Pitbulls.

English Bulldogs mostly don't look much like Pitbulls.

The classic and surely most common "mental image" is that of the English Bulldog and not the American.

The English Bulldog is historically common as a visual icon used in products, services and general advertising. The American Bulldog is not that.

For the general public who are not keenly aware of differences in breeds they are going to look at an American Bulldog and think "oh that looks like a Pitbull". They won't think that same thing for an English Bulldog.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My apologies. I clearly missed it when viewing on my phone.

No worries, I just wanted to know if I was missing something or not.

The "big lie" according to the Guardian, is that what Wilson put in his report does not match what happened in the video and, clearly, was meant to put Wilson in a better light than the reality.

Well, I would say it matches closely enough for a he said/he said.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Again, no I didn't. I think the video is proof that Wilson abused his authority, and also that Wilson is willing to lie in his official reports. You can read them for yourself and see that he clearly lied about the incident. And all charges were dropped when the video surfaced, which means Arman was wise to record Wilson and that the FPD agreed with Arman that Wilson was in the wrong.
?

In a nutshell:

<snip>
The video is only 15 seconds long. It doesn't capture the entire encounter, so there is no way to confidently use it as evidence that something did or didn't happen before or after that one-fourth of a minute.
<snip>

An incomplete video doesn't tell us the whole picture, about whether Wilson lied in his report or not.

Again, how should we use this information when discussing whether the brown shooting was legal or not ?