Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
WildCat said:
You're not even wrong.

He was arrested for not cooperating with the process of issuing summons for the derelict vehicles. In this case "not cooperating" involved recording Wilson and demanding his name, badge number, etc. It could just as well have been any other activity that didn't involve cooperating with the issuing of the summons, but in any case the arrest was not for the activity but for refusing to cooperate.
Click to expand...

So does that mean he didn't sign proof of service? Does that mean he wouldn't accept the summons when Wilson handed it to him? Does that mean he indicated that he wouldn't cooperate with the service in some way?

You don't know and only Wilson and Arman do.

But the facts are pretty clear that Wilson was rude and stated that he would arrest Arman for something that Arman was entitled to do. So why wasn't Wilson more specific about what Arman did to warrant arrest. Maybe he forgot to include it? Or maybe the obvious is true. Wilson got pissed and arrested Arman because he didn't like his attitude. And he attempted to cover that up with a long winded report that talked about everything else except what was relevant to the arrest, unless you believe his lie about the camera in his face.

Unfortunately your rationalizations over the obviously unacceptable behavior by a police officer is exactly the same kind of thing which has contributed to the problems in Ferguson. If somebody had called Wilson out on his nonsense maybe Wilson wouldn't have been in a position where he felt he needed to shoot Brown. And maybe if the police in Ferguson didn't act like this Brown would not have felt scared of the police and he would have surrendered voluntarily.

You're a white officer in a black jurisdiction, not being a jerk is really important if you want the citizens to respect you. For whatever reason a percentage of the police behave in problematic ways. In Fullerton, where I live the police beat the crap out of a mentally disturbed individual and killed him. If they had acted like that in Ferguson the town would reasonably enough assumed that the cops were racist violent ********. In Fullerton, all we know is that the cops were violent ********.


Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WildCat said:
In this case "not cooperating" involved recording Wilson and demanding his name, badge number, etc. It could just as well have been any other activity that didn't involve cooperating with the issuing of the summons, but in any case the arrest was not for the activity but for refusing to cooperate.
Click to expand...

It's already been established that to issue a summons does not require cooperation from the person to whom it's being issued, so Arman's cooperation is irrelevant.

But leaving that aside, I'm still not sure how recording Wilson and asking for his name interfered with Wilson's ability to issue a summons.

Please explain - in detail - how it does.
 
Last edited:
The grand jury will no bill and Darren Wilson will leave the FPD. Racism will still be an issue in Ferguson. And in 6 months this story will be old news.

~And the beat goes on~

:rolleyes:
 
I think the race mongers would love to turn this into a black vs white issue, when in reality it is a cop vs suspect issue. Also, it would seem no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room for fear of being labeled a racist.

Not saying I agree with this video, but it brings up some points of discussion that a lot of mainstream media seems to avoid like the plague.

 
Last edited:
River said:
I think the race mongers would love to turn this into a black vs white issue, when in reality it is a cop vs suspect issue. Also, it would seem no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room for fear of being labeled a racist.

Not saying I agree with this video, but it brings up some points of discussion that a lot of mainstream media seems to avoid like the plague.

Click to expand...

What a remarkably disingenuous video!

Sorry, we're long past this.
 
KatieG said:
The grand jury will no bill and Darren Wilson will leave the FPD. Racism will still be an issue in Ferguson. And in 6 months this story will be old news.

~And the beat goes on~

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, folks in Ferguson are, apparently, organizing for the long-term. I've said before that, after the amazing abuses they've inflicted, the Ferguson PD should be immediately disbanded and re-created from the ground up. Still believe it. Will that change things?

Maybe.
 
Wolrab said:
Can you tell us what points are disingenuous?
Click to expand...

Pretty much everything that I watched after and including the phrase "the ongoing riots". Since there were no ongoing riots (Unless you count the violent, week-long overreaction by the police as a "riot"), everything he says about this is wrong.

"Michael Brown was repeatedly referred to as a 'Gentle Giant'". Yes, by his famlyi. Who cares? Of course they'd remember him fondly. They're his *family*.

And the rest of the video is just a red herring. We're discussing what happened in Ferguson. Nothing else he says is even slightly relevant to Ferguson, as far as I can tell. It's just a bunch of crime stats. We're discussing a particular case, so they aren't significant.

Again, I'm not handing out info. There are plenty of videos of local police attacking protestors and media, of protestors *protecting* stores from looters as the heavily-armed police stay away, and so on. There are plenty of links on this board, you can do a Google search, Yahoo, whatever. Do basic research.
 
Distracted1 said:
Equating "robbing" a convenience store with what Mr. Brown did is placing his actions on a spectrum exactly where they belong.
Click to expand...


You are exactly wrong. It is improper to leave out facts. Period. End of story.

If you choose to leave out facts in any mater in life you are doing it for a reason.

Brown stole a pack of cigs and pushed his way out the door.

If you say "John Doe robbed a convenience store." to any average person they are going to assume it meant the cash in the register. Period. You cannot deny that because it is easily provable. The people who use that phrasing in this thread know this, and they know why they say it.

They are not going to assume you meant "John Doe stole a pack of cigs and pushed his way out of the door."

The very fact that you are arguing for the not telling the complete story to be the unbiased way to do it is very suspicious.
 
Here's kind of a more resolved timeline of events that the various narratives tend to agree on or that are demonstrated by recordings.


~1130: Wilson is assisting in the search for an unrelated male in reference to a report of a death threat. At some point, Wilson leaves the search to respond to a sick baby call on Glenark Drive about 1/2 mile east the Canfield Green apartments. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

~1151: Around 1/2 mile west of the Canfield Green Apartments, Brown and Johnson enter the Ferguson Grocery. Brown and the store clerk seem to argue, then struggle over two cartons of cigars. Brown takes them and as the merchant tries to prevent the pair from leaving Brown pushes, then threatens the merchant. Someone in the store dials 911. [Security video]

1153: The dispatcher reports a "stealing in progress at 9101 W. Florissant." Seconds later the dispatcher gives the first description -- a black male wearing a white tee and running toward QuickTrip. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]


1157: A responding unit radios a more complete description -- Cards hat, white tee, khaki shorts and with another male. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]


1200: Wilson clears the sick baby call with the dispatcher, radios units 22 or 25 to offer assistance and [presumably] drives west toward Florissant. One unit reports the pair had "disappeared into the woodwork." Wilson(?) asks the dispatcher to relay the garbled message. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]


~1201: Wilson encounters the pair and tells them to "get the **** on the sidewalk" [Johnson's narrative] or just kind of the regular get out of the street [Josie narrative] Wilson drives on, in some unclear way places Brown and Johnson as suspects then reverses back to the pair.

[This is where things start coming into dispute.]

1202: Wilson advises the dispatcher he's "on Canfield with 2" and asks for another unit. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

Both sequences seem to agree that an altercation began very quickly and have a similar narrative - Wilson reversed close to the pair and Wilson tried to open his door.

Johnson has claimed that Wilson struck Brown with the door as it opened and it might have closed back onto Wilson. "We were so close, almost inches away, that when he tried to open his door aggressively, the door ricocheted both off me and Big Mike's body and closed back on the officer." [CNN] The Josie narrative claims that Wilson was attacked and forced back into his patrol vehicle. [Josie narrative]

[This is where the first witness media narratives begin. The disputing narratives continue to agree on large-scale sequences]

~1202-1203: There is a struggle in and near Wilson's patrol vehicle where one or two shots are fired by the officer, one striking Brown in the right palm nearest his thumb from contact range. [Supplemental Microscopic Examination Report]Brown and Johnson run away with Wilson in pursuit of Brown. At some point, Brown turns around and returns toward Wilson where he is shot and killed.​

Hopefully as more detailed information is released, this should fill itself in with a little more detail and some of the disputes resolved.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
You are exactly wrong. It is improper to leave out facts. Period. End of story.

If you choose to leave out facts in any mater in life you are doing it for a reason.

Brown stole a pack of cigs and pushed his way out the door.

If you say "John Doe robbed a convenience store." to any average person they are going to assume it meant the cash in the register. Period. You cannot deny that because it is easily provable. The people who use that phrasing in this thread know this, and they know why they say it.

They are not going to assume you meant "John Doe stole a pack of cigs and pushed his way out of the door."

The very fact that you are arguing for the not telling the complete story to be the unbiased way to do it is very suspicious.
Click to expand...
Well, once again your own reasoning betrays you.

Mr. Brown stole the cigars right in front of the store clerk, then assaulted the clerk by grabbing his neck and violently shoving him back as he was confronted at the door, as the clerk recovered his balance and began to further attempt to stop Mr. Brown, Brown turned upon the clerk and advanced upon him exhibiting intent to do further physical harm to the clerk should the clerk continue to protest. When the clerk gave in to the intimidation, Mr. Brown left the store with his stolen merchandise.

Why do you leave out those facts? Is that not an 'improper' omission?

Have you ever witnessed or been involved in that kind of robbery? I have- more than once, and I can tell you that the biggest mis-characterizations in any of the Michael Brown threads thus far are the ones that attempt to label the crime recorded on that video as "shoplifting"
 
Distracted1 said:
I have- more than once, and I can tell you that the biggest mis-characterizations in any of the Michael Brown threads thus far are the ones that attempt to label the crime recorded on that video as "shoplifting"
Click to expand...
There's still people who claim that Brown actually paid for the cigars, I think that's an even bigger mischaracterization.
 
WildCat said:
There's still people who claim that Brown actually paid for the cigars, I think that's an even bigger mischaracterization.
Click to expand...

He paid for some cigars. He stole some others. No one knows why. The store never reported a theft, or a robbery, or assault, or anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom