Michael Brown shooting II

[plague311]

I'm surprised you think that about a year is really that long of a time ago that it is entirely meaningless.

Once again, can you quote where I said it was meaningless? I said it didn't define a history of him being racist, or a bad cop. That's it, I never said it was meaningless. Keep bashing that strawman though. The video means that Wilson has been a dick before, not that he has a long-established history of being a liar, and a bad cop.

The same as the Brown video means he used violence and intimidation to get what he wanted. It doesn't mean that violence and intimidation were the only means of him getting the things he wanted.

I'm surprised that you haven't read the other recent comments in this thread like davefoc's above, or maybe you have and ignored the ones that don't fit the way you like.

I read it, understood it, and it made sense. He claims we're using the videos to make reasoned guesses at each individual. I agree. I didn't feel the need to quote it and state I agree. Once again, I just don't agree that it shows that either person has a defined history of the actions displayed in those videos. I have been in a car accident before, that doesn't mean I am constantly getting in wrecks. If I had 4-5 on my record, it would then be a history.

I'm surprised that you would hold Unabogie's analysis to a different standard than your own when perhaps he, too, has a more ...nuanced standard he is using, like yourself.

Unaboogie claimed that because of the one incident with Arman that Wilson has a history of abusing his authority and lying about it. He, also, avidly argued that the store footage showed that Brown performed some petty crimes that were not really descriptive of his behavior overall. To recap, his claim is, 1 video of Wilson = he has an established history of being a liar and an abusive cop. 1 video of Brown = he just happened to commit a crime which was petty.

Do you see that? Applying the same standard to both videos. I went on to clarify that the only reason that the Brown video was relevant at all, in any possible way, more than the Wilson video, is because it was directly before the confrontation. It states nothing towards Brown's history has a person. It can only be used to refer to what his state of mind could have been at the time of the altercation. He may have been hyped up from the robbery, adrenaline pumping, and a bit defiant. Wilson just got done with a sick infant call, probably not in that same state of mind.

I have held that same point of view this entire time, it's never changed. If you chose to continue to label that as a double standard than go right ahead. I don't view it as a double standard at all.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I’m curious what you think this “frame of mind” is, and how you are able to determine that if you are truly treating the incident as isolated.

The video of Brown demonstrates he had the capacity and willingness to be violent. This provides context for his encounter with Wilson.

The video of Wilson demonstrates he has the capacity and willingness to abuse his authority. This provides context for his encounter with Brown.

I think it’s just that cut and dried.

We know what violence Brown allegedly committed on Wilson in their encounter.

The abuse of authority that Wilson allegedly committed on brown is far less clear. In fact, I'm not even sure what it was, and how it relates to what happened in the video ?

 

[Unabogie]

We know what violence Brown allegedly committed on Wilson in their encounter.

The abuse of authority that Wilson allegedly committed on brown is far less clear. In fact, I'm not even sure what it was, and how it relates to what happened in the video ?

So police can arrest you for recording them, as Wilson clearly says in the video? Or was he lying to Arman and didn't really mean it?

 

[plague311]

You're essentially claiming that both of these videos are of people simply having A Bad Day™. And since the video of Wilson is so separated in time from the incident being discussed, you argue that it can't be used against him.

No, I'm not, that's another strawman. Holy FSM, are you reading my post? Use it against him all you want, you just can't claim that it establishes a history based on a single video. As previously stated, if I get in 1 car accident that doesn't mean I'm constantly wrecking cars. Look at all of the information recently brought up about that cop working as a security guard that shot that kid. They knew everything about this guy in a matter of a week. This incident happened over 100 days ago and we've found 1 other incident. JUST LIKE MICHAEL BROWN. There is NOTHING available that would state Michael Brown has a history of acting the way he did in the store video.

However, people have argued that the video of Brown establishes a history of violence and is not just a one-off moment of poor judgement. I don't know if you were among them, but I can be reasonably certain that I have not witnessed you opposing this characterization at the time.

Oh, well if you're reasonably certain then it must be true. That's how people research things as well. They just use their reasoning, and then if it coincides with what they want to be true, then boom. There it is, the truth. Well, let me help you.

Here is where I said exactly what I'm saying now. Here I said it again. Here I defend against the stupid pot, toxicology nonsense.

I didn't need to comment on it, because it wasn't being implied that he had a long history of committing violent crimes. This is about as close as I get to even addressing it, and it's in regards to his juvenile records. I still made no claim he was violent or that he had a history. Just that they should open the records to confirm that their claims of him being a gentle giant were true.

If I'm wrong, I'd greatly appreciate someone pointing out your post where this occurs. If true, however, it seems that only now that video of Wilson's behavior has surfaced do you take up this supposedly well-reasoned argument, and only to wield against the "Wilson ********** up immensely and needs to be severely punished" crowd.

I'd call that a not-so-cleverly disguised double standard.

As I previously said, I didn't need to argue against it because the argument never took shape. I have stood by my reasoning this entire thread, and the previous thread, when it comes to the video.

Another thing I've stood by, I don't know if Wilson is guilty or innocent and it's not up to me to decide it. If he gets charged and the evidence is released that shows all of the information available I hold the right to change my point of view when we have all of the facts. Your "only now" statement has been proven false, and I believe I have shown that the accusations that I am applying a double standard is false. I will be awaiting your recantation of those statements.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So police can arrest you for recording them, as Wilson clearly says in the video? Or was he lying to Arman and didn't really mean it?

1. What did Wilson arrest arman for ?

2. Did you know police are allowed to lie to you ?

3. Did Wilson threaten to arrest brown for recording him ?

 

[Unabogie]

1. What did Wilson arrest arman for ?

2. Did you know police are allowed to lie to you ?

3. Did Wilson threaten to arrest brown for recording him ?

1. "Failure to Comply" and violation of pitbull regulations (which by all reports were dropped).
2. Yep. Was Wilson lying?
3. Yes, he clearly did. "If you don't stop recording me I'm going to lock your ass up".

 

[plague311]

So police can arrest you for recording them, as Wilson clearly says in the video? Or was he lying to Arman and didn't really mean it?

I don't know this for fact, and I am saying this purely as a guess. What I "believe" happened is that Wilson came to serve the summons for court. When he attempted to do that Arman wasn't having it at all. Instead of going through the process, taking the court summons and battling it out in court. Arman, instead, resisted the process in lieu of attempting to film Wilson and interview him. Asking him his name, badge number, etc. when all of that information was easily available on his uniform.

Like I said, I don't know that for sure, the video doesn't provide as much context as I would like. It might be that Wilson is a jerk that gets off on lying to people. If that were the case; however, I would imagine there being more encounters than this one.

 

[RandFan]

2. Did you know police are allowed to lie to you ?

Only if the lie is in the interest of furthering justice. Law enforcement cannot lie as a matter of course. If you ask an officer if an activity you are about to engage in is unlawful then the officer cannot lie and tell you that is lawful. They cannot lie in order to entrap. They cannot lie to tell you that you do not have the right against self incrimination or that you don't have the right to leave if you are not being lawfully detained. Law enforcement exists to protect and serve citizens and not to intimidate or to abuse their authority. A lie that is told by law enforcement that is under the color of authority and is used contrary to the furthering of justice is counter to law enforcement policies in most if not all jurisdictions as I understand. INAL.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

1. What did Wilson arrest arman for ?

2. Did you know police are allowed to lie to you ?

3. Did Wilson threaten to arrest brown for recording him ?

1. "Failure to Comply" and violation of pitbull regulations (which by all reports were dropped).
2. Yep. Was Wilson lying?
3. Yes, he clearly did. "If you don't stop recording me I'm going to lock your ass up".

I see the disconnect. You missed a word.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't know this for fact, and I am saying this purely as a guess. What I "believe" happened is that Wilson came to serve the summons for court. When he attempted to do that Arman wasn't having it at all. Instead of going through the process, taking the court summons and battling it out in court. Arman, instead, resisted the process in lieu of attempting to film Wilson and interview him. Asking him his name, badge number, etc. when all of that information was easily available on his uniform.

Like I said, I don't know that for sure, the video doesn't provide as much context as I would like. It might be that Wilson is a jerk that gets off on lying to people. If that were the case; however, I would imagine there being more encounters than this one.

But as we know, the FPD had a process in place to obfuscate this. And as we've seen in this thread, the complaints of the poor and minorities are routinely scoffed at as being self-serving and unbelievable. The girl who claimed he yelled at her over the milk? She was roundly mocked here. Would the FDP have given her a hearing on any of that? No way. Most people who get abused by cops don't report it since they don't think anything good will come of it. When I was a teenager I was a passenger in a car when we went down a dead-end street in an attempt to bypass a long train crossing. Two police cars followed us in and pulled us over. They ordered us out of the car and then one of them physically jerked my over backwards to conduct a search, using his night stick in my back. It hurt like hell. They then proceeded to search the car for drugs that weren't there, throwing all of my friend's belongings into the street. Then they taunted my friend that his 1965 Mustang would be good for finding "penocha". He leaned into my friend's face and said "you do like penocha, don't you?". Then they all laughed at him and told us it was for our own good since we were in a "gang neighborhood" and "white boys" like us would be in danger there (my friend is Colombian). They left, laughing at us with all the stuff to put back in the car. Did we complain about this guy? No way.

You may be right that Arman was being a dick. But Wilson told obvious lies in his report. He claimed that he told Arman he could record him, when in the video he told him he couldn't. He threatened to arrest him for recording him, which is entirely legal. Wilson said that Arman put the camera in his face, and you can clearly see that Wilson was the one who went to Arman's face. When you put all of this together, it's really a stretch to deny that Wilson was in the wrong here, and displayed an easy willingness to doctor his reports.

 

[Unabogie]

I see the disconnect. You missed a word.

Oh, then I don't understand the relevance of your question. Wilson threatened to do something he had no right to do, then did it and lied about it in official report.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We know what violence Brown allegedly committed on Wilson in their encounter.

The abuse of authority that Wilson allegedly committed on brown is far less clear. In fact, I'm not even sure what it was, and how it relates to what happened in the video ?

So police can arrest you for recording them, as Wilson clearly says in the video? Or was he lying to Arman and didn't really mean it?

Oh, then I don't understand the relevance of your question. Wilson threatened to do something he had no right to do, then did it and lied about it in official report.

I think it started a couple posts before.

Also, I don't think you ever pointed out the specific lie in the report. Some of things in the report don't match what's in the video, but you have to admit the video did not cover the entire encounter.

 

[Lerxst]

Aren't we making reasoned guesses about both men based on those videos?

Was that the first time that Brown had done something like that? I doubt it. Would it be the last I doubt it. Does the video make it more likely that Brown attacked Wilson. Of course.

And similarly, was the confrontation with Arman the first time that Wilson had been a jerk when interacting with the public? Almost certainly not. Did Wilson see his role as a policemen to minimize the potential for violence? I doubt it. As the result of the video is it more likely that Wilson acted in a way that exacerbated the potential for violence in his confrontation with Brown. I think so.

I certainly don't know what happened between Brown and Wilson but both of those videos are part of the information that I use to make a guess about what happened.

I would agree, it is entirely possible, and looking likely, that Wilson is indeed a dick at least some of the time and Michael Brown was indeed a violent person at least some of the time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[RandFan]

The abuse of authority that Wilson allegedly committed on brown is far less clear. In fact, I'm not even sure what it was, and how it relates to what happened in the video ?

I'm not being confrontational. I will concede that perhaps I'm making unwarranted assumptions. I will also concede that the video is short. Could you provide a scenario that justifies the behavior of the officer? Anything is possible but there does not seem much confusion here. The man is standing on his property. He is making a video recording of his interaction with the officer.

I understand that anything that hinders an officer in performance of his or her duty is cause for arrest. I'm not sure how this particular recording is hindering the officer. Perhaps you have a different idea for why the officer would be justified in asking for the recording to stop.

 

[plague311]

But as we know, the FPD had a process in place to obfuscate this. And as we've seen in this thread, the complaints of the poor and minorities are routinely scoffed at as being self-serving and unbelievable. The girl who claimed he yelled at her over the milk? She was roundly mocked here. Would the FDP have given her a hearing on any of that? No way.

I mocked her, but only because her story and the way she told it was completely ludicrous. I just read it again to confirm I was thinking of the correct one. Her story doesn't make sense and contradicts itself at every opportunity it can.

*snipped for brevity*

You may be right that Arman was being a dick. But Wilson told obvious lies in his report. He claimed that he told Arman he could record him, when in the video he told him he couldn't.

He did say that a voice recording was fine. If we're speaking technically and all.

He threatened to arrest him for recording him, which is entirely legal.

It absolutely is unless it is hindering the work the officer is tasked with performing. If a cop shows up to your house to deliver a summons and instead of taking that summons you start filming him and asking him questions it might be an issue. You have the right to film a police officer, I am not sure that extends to interviewing and hindering a law enforcement official. Again, playing devil's advocate. Since the video is only 15 seconds it's tough to tell the entire story. The charges were eventually dropped, and we don't know the story behind that either. It could have been a plea deal. "Plead guilty to the charges in the summons and we'll drop everything else." It wouldn't be the first time it's been done.

Wilson said that Arman put the camera in his face, and you can clearly see that Wilson was the one who went to Arman's face. When you put all of this together, it's really a stretch to deny that Wilson was in the wrong here, and displayed an easy willingness to doctor his reports.

I don't know, 15 seconds really doesn't tell much of a story. I wish I knew more about it, but the evidence available supports that Wilson lied. As far as the 'easy willingness', that we can't possibly know. As I stated in the other thread, if this was something he did with ease then he would have a history of doing it. The other security guard had faced several complaints in the same PD that Wilson was in. Either Wilson is crazy good at doctoring his reports, is really lucky no one has caught him, or something. I don't know.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We know what violence Brown allegedly committed on Wilson in their encounter.

The abuse of authority that Wilson allegedly committed on brown is far less clear. In fact, I'm not even sure what it was, and how it relates to what happened in the video ?

I'm comparing the violence in one video, and the abuse of authority in the other video, and how they relate to the shooting.

I'm not being confrontational. I will concede that perhaps I'm making unwarranted assumptions. I will also concede that the video is short. Could you provide a scenario that justifies the behavior of the officer? Anything is possible but there does not seem much confusion here. The man is standing on his property. He is making a video recording of his interaction with the officer.

I understand that anything that hinders an officer in performance of his or her duty is cause for arrest. I'm not sure how this particular recording is hindering the officer. Perhaps you have a different idea for why the officer would be justified in asking for the recording to stop.

I think maybe you also missed the comparison was to Brown, not Armand, as I explained above.

Wilson seems like a typical cop who thinks they are immune to being recorded or that people must obey them at all times no matter what they order. Which always strikes me as a bit stupid more than anything else.

It was also brought up earlier that many police are simply misinformed about the right to record, and it was not necessarily an intentional disregard of the rules, but wilson may well have thought he was correct. Police are not lawyers, and often misunderstand the laws they are supposed to be enforcing, or apply them incorrectly.

 

[RandFan]

It absolutely is unless it is hindering the work the officer is tasked with performing. If a cop shows up to your house to deliver a summons and instead of taking that summons you start filming him and asking him questions it might be an issue. You have the right to film a police officer, I am not sure that extends to interviewing and hindering a law enforcement official.

How does video taping hinder an officer? You added "instead of taking that summons", one has nothing to do with the other. You either comply with lawful orders or you don't. If you fail to comply with an order and you are wearing a red shirt then the red shirt has nothing do with your failure to comply.

Since the video is only 15 seconds it's tough to tell the entire story.

What is it that we could be missing? Isn't that the purpose of the police report? If there is some circumstance that we don't see because the video is short, why isn't it in the report?

ETA: I'm happy with the response by TheL8Elvis. Feel free to respond but I'm out.

 

[RandFan]

Wilson seems like a typical cop who thinks they are immune to being recorded or that people must obey them at all times no matter what they order. Which always strikes me as a bit stupid more than anything else.

It was also brought up earlier that many police are simply misinformed about the right to record, and it was not necessarily an intentional disregard of the rules, but wilson may well have thought he was correct. Police are not lawyers, and often misunderstand the laws they are supposed to be enforcing, or apply them incorrectly.

I'll grant that. Thanks.

 

[davefoc]

...


I don't know, 15 seconds really doesn't tell much of a story. I wish I knew more about it, but the evidence available supports that Wilson lied. As far as the 'easy willingness', that we can't possibly know. As I stated in the other thread, if this was something he did with ease then he would have a history of doing it. The other security guard had faced several complaints in the same PD that Wilson was in. Either Wilson is crazy good at doctoring his reports, is really lucky no one has caught him, or something. I don't know.

The fact that the video is only 15 seconds is part of the story. Arman had a right to video Wilson. The probable situation is that Wilson interfered with that right. Wilson was not only guilty of being a jerk he probably committed a crime.

There was no reason beyond Wilson's need to be a jerk that the confrontation with Arman went the way it did.

An alternative interaction:
Arman: I'm going to video you.
Wilson: Have at it. I'm here to serve a summons because of the cars parked in your front yard
Arman: What is your name
Wilson: Wilson states his name and badge number
Arman: I have a right to keep cars on my yard. It's my property.
Wilson: That is between you and the city. You can explain your side to the judge
Arman: I'm not going to accept the summons
Wilson: You can do that, but you will be arrested for that
Arman: You (curses) jerk. Give me the (curses) I'll sign it.

The result
One less incident where a black citizen is pissed off at a white policemen
Arman isn't arrested
The policeman doesn't commit a crime.
The policeman completes the task that he was sent there to do.
Arman's tools and property aren't put at risk of theft because he is arrested.

My guess is that Brown would be alive today if Wilson wasn't in cowboy mode as his interaction with Arman shows that he is capable of. My guess is further that Wilson panicked and used excessive force.

Was it necessary to confront Brown and his partner at all until back up arrived? Did Wilson set this whole chain of events off when he went in to cowboy mode because he felt disrespected by the two guys when he asked them to get off the street and arresting them gave him a chance for some vengeance? I suspect that is what happened.

The key to Brown's death might be the state of mind of each man after the confrontation in the car. Wilson was pissed and went charging after Brown in a highly excited state. Brown was scared out of his mind. Would the cop shoot him no matter what? He had just committed a serious crime was there any way he could avoid the consequences? Was it appropriate police procedure for Wilson to charge after Brown in that situation? I don't think so. Brown had a partner who might pose a serious risk to Wilson. Brown was physically superior to Wilson. If Brown didn't calm down Wilson's only chance to control him might be to shoot him. Brown was clearly identifiable and it was not necessary to arrest him at that point because he couldn't be arrested at a later time. The crime that Brown committed, while serious, was not armed robbery and there was no evidence that he was armed when the pursuit began. So there was no need for an immediate arrest to protect the community.

My last guess is that Wilson's actions didn't rise to the level of manslaughter. He was just a cop either poorly trained or a cop with an inability to deescalate a tense situation. All of my guesses are subject to change, especially after we are aware of the witness testimony under oath.

 

[plague311]

The fact that the video is only 15 seconds is part of the story. Arman had a right to video Wilson. The probable situation is that Wilson interfered with that right. Wilson was not only guilty of being a jerk he probably committed a crime.

There was no reason beyond Wilson's need to be a jerk that the confrontation with Arman went the way it did.

An alternative interaction:
Arman: I'm going to video you.
Wilson: Have at it. I'm here to serve a summons because of the cars parked in your front yard
Arman: What is your name
Wilson: Wilson states his name and badge number
Arman: I have a right to keep cars on my yard. It's my property.
Wilson: That is between you and the city. You can explain your side to the judge
Arman: I'm not going to accept the summons
Wilson: You can do that, but you will be arrested for that
Arman: You (curses) jerk. Give me the (curses) I'll sign it.

The result
One less incident where a black citizen is pissed off at a white policemen
Arman isn't arrested
The policeman doesn't commit a crime.
The policeman completes the task that he was sent there to do.
Arman's tools and property aren't put at risk of theft because he is arrested.

My guess is that Brown would be alive today if Wilson wasn't in cowboy mode as his interaction with Arman shows that he is capable of. My guess is further that Wilson panicked and used excessive force.

Was it necessary to confront Brown and his partner at all until back up arrived? Did Wilson set this whole chain of events off when he went in to cowboy mode because he felt disrespected by the two guys when he asked them to get off the street and arresting them gave him a chance for some vengeance? I suspect that is what happened.

The key to Brown's death might be the state of mind of each man after the confrontation in the car. Wilson was pissed and went charging after Brown in a highly excited state. Brown was scared out of his mind. Would the cop shoot him no matter what? He had just committed a serious crime was there any way he could avoid the consequences? Was it appropriate police procedure for Wilson to charge after Brown in that situation? I don't think so. Brown had a partner who might pose a serious risk to Wilson. Brown was physically superior to Wilson. If Brown didn't calm down Wilson's only chance to control him might be to shoot him. Brown was clearly identifiable and it was not necessary to arrest him at that point because he couldn't be arrested at a later time. The crime that Brown committed, while serious, was not armed robbery and there was no evidence that he was armed when the pursuit began. So there was no need for an immediate arrest to protect the community.

My last guess is that Wilson's actions didn't rise to the level of manslaughter. He was just a cop either poorly trained or a cop with an inability to deescalate a tense situation. All of my guesses are subject to change, especially after we are aware of the witness testimony under oath.

That's a lot of guessing, assumptions, and hang wringing. I guess we'll see what happens when the time comes.