Michael Brown shooting II

[Unabogie]

In a nutshell:


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 ?

He clearly lied. He wrote down that he told Arman that he COULD record him. In the video he said "if you record me I'll lock your ass up". How can those both be true? As for the Brown shooting, if Wilson is known to lie in his official reports and abuse his authority, then he's a bad cop and his word about how he came to kill an unarmed teenager should be disregarded as the words of a liar.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He clearly lied. He wrote down that he told Arman that he COULD record him. In the video he said "if you record me I'll lock your ass up". How can those both be true?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...darren-wilson-arresting-man-for-recording-him

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

"I advised Arman that voice recording would be acceptable"

Again, since we only have a small snippet of the event, we have no idea what else, if anything, was said before or after the recording.

As for the Brown shooting, if Wilson is known to lie in his official reports and abuse his authority, then he's a bad cop and his word about how he came to kill an unarmed teenager should be disregarded as the words of a liar.

And of course, the definition of a bad cop is someone who "abuses authority" and "lies in his reports", right ?

So we can't believe Wilson, he's a liar.

And we can't believe Johnson, he's a liar.

And Brown is dead.

Who's left to believe ?

 

[Unabogie]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...darren-wilson-arresting-man-for-recording-him

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

"I advised Arman that voice recording would be acceptable"

Again, since we only have a small snippet of the event, we have no idea what else, if anything, was said before or after the recording.



And of course, the definition of a bad cop is someone who "abuses authority" and "lies in his reports", right ?

So we can't believe Wilson, he's a liar.

And we can't believe Johnson, he's a liar.

And Brown is dead.

Who's left to believe ?

The half dozen other people who were there and saw Brown with his hands up before Wilson shot at him 12 times?

 

[Mike!]

The half dozen other people who were there and saw Brown with his hands up before Wilson shot at him 12 times?

What about the half dozen people we're told saw something else?

 

[Unabogie]

What about the half dozen people we're told saw something else?

We are? What are their names and can we read what they say they saw?

 

[Cylinder]

When those records are released, it will be proclaimed that the act of releasing them was a racist attack against Michael Brown.

He was murdered, then assassinated.

 

[plague311]

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.

As L8Elvis said, there's no way to tell for sure that he lied. You're stretching it. Also, technically he said he could record him, he said he could record his voice

...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.

Evidence that the charges were dropped BECAUSE the video was released, or were the charges dropped and a video was released. Considering the article says:

The 15-second clip was uploaded to YouTube on Friday but recorded in 2013, according to police documents.

Neither articles say that because the video was released all the charges were dropped; however, one does say that a single charge was dropped because of the video.

He claimed in an interview on Saturday that the charge was dropped after he told his lawyer he had video footage of the incident

Once again, I see claims, but nothing confirmed. It also refers to a single charge, didn't you say he was charged with multiple charges?

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.

Which I'm not saying you're denying.

I objected to the characterization of the crime as anything about petty theft and shoving.

Ok, but if I object to the Wilson video as something that is incomplete and a he said\he said scenario, you've consistently disregarded it. Stating that there can be absolutely no confusion that the big bad Wilson lies and abuses his authority. There would be no reason why the person recording would lie, or edit a video to make himself look good. The ONLY option in this case is that Wilson is lying. Yet it's also caught on video that Brown is pushing the shopkeeper into the counter, and coming back at him using his size to his advantage. Then using his size to steal items that do not belong to him at a local store. That's just petty stuff

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?

I just want you to admit that you're holding the officer to a standard that you aren't holding Brown too. It's clear as day.

Fine, I'll change it to see if it's more acceptable.

Would you say that Brown is a violent person that can and will use violence and his size to get what he wants or to get out of trouble?

We have 1 incident of that being true, and as you have 1 incident where Wilson was "caught lying" and you have no problems with labeling him a liar and a bad cop then they should be equal, no?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The half dozen other people who were there and saw Brown with his hands up before Wilson shot at him 12 times?

But you didn't address the part about Wilson not lying in his report, because it's a 15 second video and a he said/he said.

We are? What are their names and can we read what they say they saw?

As soon as no bill is returned, and the grand jury evidence is released as promised, you'll know all that.

Until then, we can either believe the newspapers, who have reported on the 6-8 witnesses who confirm Wilsons version, or we can imagine it's all part of some vast anti-Michael brown conspiracy to mislead.

And I'm not sure what you make of fact the that what Wilson has reported apparently matches the forensic evidence we have. That doesn't make him much of a liar, does it ?

 

[davefoc]

Why was Arman arrested?

 

[BenBurch]

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 ?

They can INVENT something to arrest you for any time.

A sour look at an officer has become resisting arrest more than once.

Once long ago I was coming home from a party at 3 AM (totally sober) and was stopped by the North Aurora police. He walked up behind my car, smashed the tail light with his Maglight and then proceeded to write me a ticket for a broken tail light.

 

[Lerxst]

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.

Logic left this thread a long time ago.

 

[johnny karate]

Whether Wilson definitively lied in his report is irrelevant and a bit of a red herring.

His abuse of authority is plainly evident and undeniable. He threatened a man with incarceration for engaging in a perfectly legal, Constitutionally-protected activity.

Wilson's penchant for abuse of authority is at least as well established and relevant to the encounter as Brown's penchant for violence.

 

[tyr_13]

Whether Wilson definitively lied in his report is irrelevant and a bit of a red herring.

His abuse of authority is plainly evident and undeniable. He threatened a man with incarceration for engaging in a perfectly legal, Constitutionally-protected activity.

Wilson's penchant for abuse of authority is at least as well established and relevant to the encounter as Brown's penchant for violence.

No. 'At least' implies it could be more well established than Brown's penchant for violence. That's simply untrue. They might be as well established as each other, but there is no way that one incident each means the one with less clear evidence of the pertinent accusation is more establishing than the one admitted to by everyone involved.

Sadly, police believing they can order people to stop recording is common in the US. Yes, it's a violation of rights and an 'abuse' of power but is often because the police are mistaken, and not from intentional abuse. The pitbull laws are pretty confusing, and silly, so that mistake isn't even worth knocking someone over. It was straightened out.

Now I hold the police to a higher standard than the general public, so obviously that Wilson made this mistake or abused his authority intentionally is a problem. However, it does not mean that his word is now more useless. It doesn't make him 'even' with Brown. It doesn't mean that he's lying in his report of the Brown shooting. If this is the worst (that 'if' is important!) that he has in his history regarding abusing his authority, then it's a huge leap to conclude that he specifically is an overall 'bad cop'. His 'lying' on the report has plausible alternate explanations that the fifteen second clip does not negate.

It simply isn't as problematic, in and of itself, as several posters here seem to believe. It's nowhere near as problematic from a believability standpoint as the strong-armed robbery with regards to each parties alleged actions.

Ultimately, it's going to be the physical evidence and witness testimony anyway. If those are consistent with his report on the shooting, then it doesn't matter if he has falsified reports in the past (not saying that's in evidence right now), there won't be charges.

 

[davefoc]

Logic left this thread a long time ago.

I don't think that's true.

I doubt there is a more balanced discussion of this incident on the web. My guess is the vast majority of the discussion on the web is made up of people who have developed non falsifiable beliefs about the incident and are doing the best they can to present the reasons why their beliefs are supported by the facts.

IMO, the majority of the people participating in this thread realize that the available facts are not sufficient to support a categorical conclusion.

 

[davefoc]

No. 'At least' implies it could be more well established than Brown's penchant for violence. That's simply untrue. They might be as well established as each other, but there is no way that one incident each means the one with less clear evidence of the pertinent accusation is more establishing than the one admitted to by everyone involved.

Sadly, police believing they can order people to stop recording is common in the US. Yes, it's a violation of rights and an 'abuse' of power but is often because the police are mistaken, and not from intentional abuse. The pitbull laws are pretty confusing, and silly, so that mistake isn't even worth knocking someone over. It was straightened out.

Now I hold the police to a higher standard than the general public, so obviously that Wilson made this mistake or abused his authority intentionally is a problem. However, it does not mean that his word is now more useless. It doesn't make him 'even' with Brown. It doesn't mean that he's lying in his report of the Brown shooting. If this is the worst (that 'if' is important!) that he has in his history regarding abusing his authority, then it's a huge leap to conclude that he specifically is an overall 'bad cop'. His 'lying' on the report has plausible alternate explanations that the fifteen second clip does not negate.

It simply isn't as problematic, in and of itself, as several posters here seem to believe. It's nowhere near as problematic from a believability standpoint as the strong-armed robbery with regards to each parties alleged actions.

Ultimately, it's going to be the physical evidence and witness testimony anyway. If those are consistent with his report on the shooting, then it doesn't matter if he has falsified reports in the past (not saying that's in evidence right now), there won't be charges.

I don't disagree with this. However I think that the video provides some support for my view that Wilson acted in ways that unnecessarily ramped up the possibility of violence. Wilson was delivering a summons. That is a pretty straightforward thing to do and his actions and words needed to stay focused on that goal. Whether Arman could keep cars in his front yard or not was a dispute between the city and Arman. Wilson wasn't there to prove his manhood or to convince Arman of the wrongness of his ways. At the point that Arman refused service Wilson needed to calmly inform him of the consequences and at any point where Wilson noticed that Arman was not going to cooperate Wilson needed to call for back up.

In the end, Wilson issued a report that failed to cover the issues he went there to deal with and it appears he realized that as he crafted a report that attempted to cover up his poor handling of the situation.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't disagree with this. However I think that the video provides some support for my view that Wilson acted in ways that unnecessarily ramped up the possibility of violence. Wilson was delivering a summons. That is a pretty straightforward thing to do and his actions and words needed to stay focused on that goal. Whether Arman could keep cars in his front yard or not was a dispute between the city and Arman. Wilson wasn't there to prove his manhood or to convince Arman of the wrongness of his ways. At the point that Arman refused service Wilson needed to calmly inform him of the consequences and at any point where Wilson noticed that Arman was not going to cooperate Wilson needed to call for back up.

In the end, Wilson issued a report that failed to cover the issues he went there to deal with and it appears he realized that as he crafted a report that attempted to cover up his poor handling of the situation.

Fair points. It could point to a tendency for pointless adversarial behavior.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Still not understanding what you claim the lie is. Perhaps if you hilited it?

 

[WildCat]

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 didn't arrest him for filming, and you don't know what happened before or after the 15 second film clip.

Also, you just lied when you said Wilson claimed Arman "shoved the camera in his face". Isn't it ironic that you lied to support your claim that Wilson lied?

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

Well, if we go by the video then Arman was never arrested since we do not see any arrest on the video. Or perhaps the 15 second clip doesn't actually show the entire encounter?

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.

How did he arrest him from 20 feet away?

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.

He was arrested for failing to allow Wilson to complete the summons process for all the derelict vehicles on the property.

As for the pit bulls the best you can say is Wilson didn't properly identify a pit bull.

 

[Unabogie]

He didn't arrest him for filming, and you don't know what happened before or after the 15 second film clip.

He said, on the record, "if you don't stop recording I'll lock your ass up". And then he proceeded to walk over and arrest him for "Failure to Comply". Really, what sort of mitigating context do you think there is for threatening to arrest someone for doing something that's completely legal? And if he wasn't arrested for filming, what was he arrested for and why were all charges dropped when this video came to light?

You're flailing.

 

[WildCat]

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".

And remember the "story" is by the guy that had a sudden, catastrophic life-threatening medical condition at the police station only to have a miraculous recovery minutes later when it became clear said sudden life-threatening medical condition wasn't going to save him from the charges of having derelict vehicles on his property.