Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unabogie said:
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.
Click to expand...
Failure to comply with the summons process for the derelict vehicles on the property. It's right there on the report.

He wasn't arrested for recording.
 
WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who "the guy" is doesn't matter at all. Darren Wilson is a cop who arrests people for doing things that are legal, and threatens to "lock their ass up" for recording it. Then he lied on his report. Perhaps "get the **** on the sidewalk" isn't such a stretch after all, eh?

No matter, he's definitely going to walk. There are a lot of people who just don't care when the "wrong" people are victimized by police. What's ironic is they're the same people who hoard guns to protect themselves against "tyranny".
 
Unabogie said:
Who "the guy" is doesn't matter at all. Darren Wilson is a cop who arrests people for doing things that are legal, and threatens to "lock their ass up" for recording it. Then he lied on his report. Perhaps "get the **** on the sidewalk" isn't such a stretch after all, eh?

No matter, he's definitely going to walk. There are a lot of people who just don't care when the "wrong" people are victimized by police. What's ironic is they're the same people who hoard guns to protect themselves against "tyranny".
Click to expand...
You're now claiming that it is legal in Ferguson to have 4 derelict vehicles on your property and then refusing to comply with orders to remove them and summons to appear in court? :eye-poppi
 
plague311 said:
Can you show me where it says all the charges were dropped? I see where it says the one charge was dropped, but I don't see where it says all chargers were dropped. Thanks.
Click to expand...
It appears that Unabogie has tossed out another big fat lie in the hopes that no one would notice.

By his own standards that means that everything he says should not be believed. Oh dear!
 
Unabogie said:
Apparently it is, which is why all charges were dropped.
Click to expand...

The is the only information I can find at all where it says any charges were dropped:

was charged with failing to comply with Wilson’s orders. He claimed in an interview on Saturday that the charge was dropped after he told his lawyer he had video footage of the incident
Click to expand...

and

Arman claimed that the charge relating to pit bulls was dropped when he proved his pet was a bulldog.
Click to expand...

That's it. There is absolutely no mention that his initial summons was dropped or that "all" of the charges were dropped. Unless you can provide something to the contrary you're falsifying your statements, and as WildCat said, we all know what that means.

ETA: Bolding mine, if you notice it's also Arman CLAIMING, it hasn't been confirmed. There has been absolutely no confirmation on if those two charges were dropped. It sounds an awful lot like someone trying to toot their own horn.
 
Last edited:
McCulloch says grand jury will meet Friday, possibly to deliberate.

The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.

St. Louis County prosecutors are preparing to present more evidence to the grand jury before starting deliberations, and a decision on an indictment is expected soon after, the law enforcement officials said.

If a decision comes Friday, prosecutors are expected to provide law enforcement with 48 hours notice before making a public announcement, possibly on Sunday.

The current plans could still change and prosecutors could shift the planned grand jury session, the officials said.​

The court also has to iron out details regarding taking the unusual step of releasing grand jury evidence such as releasing witnesses' names.

Concerns have also been raised that some witnesses could be put at risk once their testimony and identities become public, law enforcement officials said.

In some cases, witnesses might have testified differently under oath, providing different accounts than the ones they gave in media interviews, the official explained. Others may have provided testimony that may be interpreted as helpful to the officer's account of the August 9 shooting.​
 
Unabogie said:
The half dozen other people who were there and saw Brown with his hands up before Wilson shot at him 12 times?
Click to expand...

The hilited seems relevant ...

Cylinder said:
McCulloch says grand jury will meet Friday, possibly to deliberate.

The grand jury hearing evidence on the Michael Brown shooting is preparing to meet Friday for what might be its final session, and a decision on whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson could come the same day, law enforcement officials briefed on the plans said.

St. Louis County prosecutors are preparing to present more evidence to the grand jury before starting deliberations, and a decision on an indictment is expected soon after, the law enforcement officials said.

If a decision comes Friday, prosecutors are expected to provide law enforcement with 48 hours notice before making a public announcement, possibly on Sunday.

The current plans could still change and prosecutors could shift the planned grand jury session, the officials said.​

The court also has to iron out details regarding taking the unusual step of releasing grand jury evidence such as releasing witnesses' names.

Concerns have also been raised that some witnesses could be put at risk once their testimony and identities become public, law enforcement officials said.

In some cases, witnesses might have testified differently under oath, providing different accounts than the ones they gave in media interviews, the official explained. Others may have provided testimony that may be interpreted as helpful to the officer's account of the August 9 shooting.​
Click to expand...
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
You're talking about the video of Brown stealing a box of cigars right?
Click to expand...

You just hijacked my point and attempted to make it your own. Look at the last few pages of the conversation between Unaboogie and myself. I get that you want your "gotcha" moment, but you're a few pages behind.
 
plague311 said:
You just hijacked my point and attempted to make it your own. Look at the last few pages of the conversation between Unaboogie and myself. I get that you want your "gotcha" moment, but you're a few pages behind.
Click to expand...

So, does that mean the point is valid or that it isn't?
 
Upchurch said:
So, does that mean the point is valid or that it isn't?
Click to expand...

Considering I was the one that initially pointed it out, I would say it's completely valid. I also made it a point to lay it out clearly. Did I say something that gave a different impression? It's a double standard.
 
plague311 said:
Considering I was the one that initially pointed it out, I would say it's completely valid. I also made it a point to lay it out clearly. Did I say something that gave a different impression? It's a double standard.
Click to expand...

So, in lieu of a double standard, you would say that we should not judge Brown based on earlier video evidence, if we are not also judging Wilson on his earlier video evidence. Is that correct?
 
Upchurch said:
So, in lieu of a double standard, you would say that we should not judge Brown based on earlier video evidence, if we are not also judging Wilson on his earlier video evidence. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

With some exceptions, yes. While the video of Wilson was over a year before this incident, the video of Brown was less than 20 minutes before the altercation. I feel that the Brown video, logically, speaks more to his frame of mind and emotional status directly before the altercation.

That being said, I don't believe "judging" is the correct term, I just don't feel either video by themselves shows a history of anything for either person. That's what my point was this entire time. Seriously though, I really feel I explained this thoroughly in my previous posts. What was confusing?
 
Upchurch said:
So, in lieu of a double standard, you would say that we should not judge Brown based on earlier video evidence, if we are not also judging Wilson on his earlier video evidence. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Unabogie said:
"Might have"? Sure, sounds like winner.
Click to expand...

I think it seems pretty likely that one or more witnesses will have given testimony to the grand jury that differs from their public interviews.

Especially witnesses like Dorian Johnson.

Does your response mean you don't think that will happen ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom