Michael Brown shooting II

[johnny karate]

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

But we don't know the context of that violence. Maybe Brown attacked a police officer for no reason other than he is a violent person. Or maybe Wilson overstepped his authority, behaved like a bully, and instigated the violence.

he 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 ?

But we know that Wilson does abuse his authority. So with this new information, the idea that Wilson is a straight-and-narrow, by-the-book peace officer should be just as laughably dismissed as the idea that Brown was a "gentle giant".

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But we don't know the context of that violence. Maybe Brown attacked a police officer for no reason other than he is a violent person. Or maybe Wilson overstepped his authority, behaved like a bully, and instigated the violence.

But we know that Wilson does abuse his authority. So with this new information, the idea that Wilson is a straight-and-narrow, by-the-book peace officer should be just as laughably dismissed as the idea that Brown was a "gentle giant".

I don't disagree with that.

In case it wasn't clear, I think Wilson comes across like a typical ******* cop in the video.

I'm just not sure his "abuse of authority" plays as directly in the course of events as browns "violence".

Either way, the witnesses and evidence are more useful and important.

 

[Cylinder]

The thing is -- how can Wilson bully Brown and Johnson in any meaningful manner in those 90 seconds?

He's rolled up on two felony suspects in a robbery committed 1/2 mile away and less than ten minutes earlier who are carrying the proceeds in plain view. The pair was subject to a kind of felony stop. They were likely to be placed face-down on searing pavement after having been not-so-gently cuffed.

What did he do, call them names...bump the car door into them?

Once they transition from smart-assed pedestrian code violators to felony suspects in a commercial robbery the game changes. The notion that Wilson grabbed Brown from inside his patrol vehicle is tactically laughable, but let's assume he did. Wilson had that authority by virtue of Brown (and probably tacitly Johnson) robbing the c-store up the road.

How did Wilson bully Brown in those 90 seconds?

 

[WildCat]

Meanwhile:

​

Brown's video speaks to Brown's frame of mind, but Wilson's doesn't, and that is not a double standard?

What "state of mind" do you think Wilson's video shows? That he acts lawfully?

 

[WildCat]

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.

Please detail the authority you claim Wilson abused, be sure to provide evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Excuse me for butting in here but how does Armon have the camera in Wilson's face, as Wilson claims in his report, if he has to order Armon down off his porch to arrest him?

You are assuming that he was arrested for filming.

Hint: he wasn't.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't disagree with that.

In case it wasn't clear, I think Wilson comes across like a typical ******* cop in the video.

I'm just not sure his "abuse of authority" plays as directly in the course of events as browns "violence".

Either way, the witnesses and evidence are more useful and important.

In determining the legality of the shooting? Absolutely. But I think that horse has left the barn. Wilson won’t be indicted.

However, I think this plays into the larger issue at hand. The fallout from this shooting didn’t occur in a vacuum, and in a lot of ways it’s not even really about Michael Brown. He just became the symbol – however flawed – of an underlying problem that has been festering for a long time.

And I think that what this video of Wilson demonstrates is that however innocent he may be in the shooting of Michael Brown, he is clearly a part of this bigger problem that will probably continue to be a problem long after this is all over and forgotten about.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Police can threaten to arrest you for anything at all. But Arman wasn't arrested for taking video, he was arrested because he had ignored previous summons regarding the derelict vehicles on his property.

Then when your hero was at the police station he went into sudden medical emergency, only to have a miraculous recovery minutes later when it was clear the cops weren't buying it.

 

[WildCat]

Only if the lie is in the interest of furthering justice.

Is resolving the issue of a person who has ignored a court summons regarding derelict vehicles on his property furthering justice?

Perhaps Arman wouldn't have been arrested if he had simply cooperated with Wilson regarding the derelict vehicles in his yard for which he had received previous summons and ignored. Might have been as simple as signing a document promising to show up at his next court date.

Instead, Arman decided to film Wilson and demand his name, which wasn't going to get the issue of the ignored summons resolved.

 

[WildCat]

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.

I have seen no evidence that any charges relating to the derelict vehicles were dropped. Perhaps they were, for example if Arman had them towed to the boneyard or something. But we know nothing of the disposition of the case.

 

[johnny karate]

Please detail the authority you claim Wilson abused, be sure to provide evidence.

His authority as a police officer that forbids him from threatening someone with incarceration for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights.

The evidence of that is in the video, in Wilson’s own words, when he explicitly and unambiguously threatened someone with incarceration for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights.

If helps to put in perspective for you, imagine Wilson tried to take away someone’s gun.

 

[WildCat]

The result
One less incident where a black citizen is pissed off at a white policemen
Arman isn't arrested.

You could tell the race of Arman from that video?

 

[WildCat]

His authority as a police officer that forbids him from threatening someone with incarceration for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights.

The evidence of that is in the video, in Wilson’s own words, when he explicitly and unambiguously threatened someone with incarceration for exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights.

If helps to put in perspective for you, imagine Wilson tried to take away someone’s gun.

The evidence would be you providing the statute that Wilson violated, or produce binding case law.

If you can't do that, then what do you have?

Your gun example doesn't change my perspective one bit, sorry.

 

[Cylinder]

...imagine Wilson tried to take away someone’s gun.

Someone that's just robbed a c-store?

 

[plague311]

I have seen no evidence that any charges relating to the derelict vehicles were dropped. Perhaps they were, for example if Arman had them towed to the boneyard or something. But we know nothing of the disposition of the case.

I apologize, I should have clarified. You are right. There is no evidence that the initial charges were dropped in regards to the derelict vehicles. The charges that mounted because of the encounter (failure to comply and the pitbull charges) we claimed to have been dropped by the defendant. AFAIK, the police have not made a statement.

 

[johnny karate]

The evidence would be you providing the statute that Wilson violated, or produce binding case law.

If you can't do that, then what do you have?

Your gun example doesn't change my perspective one bit, sorry.

Okay, just so we're clear, you need evidence that the police can't threaten someone with incarceration for merely exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights? Is that correct?

 

[johnny karate]

Someone that's just robbed a c-store?

No.

 

[Cylinder]

Not exactly a shocking development. Head of St. Louis Police Union: Wilson does not expect to be charged..

 

[WildCat]

Okay, just so we're clear, you need evidence that the police can't threaten someone with incarceration for merely exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights? Is that correct?

There's a Constitutional right to have derelict vehicles on your property?

 

[William Parcher]

Not exactly a shocking development. Head of St. Louis Police Union: Wilson does not expect to be charged..

But it might not even be accurate...


Ferguson officer's lawyer, union official, say AP story on grand jury confidence was misleading

An attorney for Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson and a St. Louis police union official both disavowed an Associated Press story Thursday that claimed Wilson and his lawyers were confident that he will not be indicted.