Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
WildCat said:
There's a Constitutional right to have derelict vehicles on your property?
Click to expand...

No, but there is a Constitutional right to film the police, the activity for which Wilson explicitly threatened to incarcerate Arman.

Do you need the video linked again so you can hear Wilson make that threat?

Do you need links to the various courts that have ruled filming the police is protected by the First Amendment?

Do you need a link to the First Amendment?

Because I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing.
 
WildCat said:
Is resolving the issue of a person who has ignored a court summons regarding derelict vehicles on his property furthering justice?
Click to expand...
Go back and read what I wrote.

The LIE must be to further justice. What lie would further justice in this incident. What do derelict vehicles have to do with telling lies?

RandFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
No, but there is a Constitutional right to film the police, the activity for which Wilson explicitly threatened to incarcerate Arman.

Do you need the video linked again so you can hear Wilson make that threat?

Do you need links to the various courts that have ruled filming the police is protected by the First Amendment?

Do you need a link to the First Amendment?

Because I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing.
Click to expand...
I'd like a link to, well, anything that says it's illegal for police to threaten arrest for taking pictures. They can't actually follow through on the threats, and Wilson didn't do that, did he? Nor did he erase the video on the camera, even though there was certainly opportunity to do so.
 
RandFan said:
Go back and read what I wrote.

The LIE must be to further justice. What lie would further justice in this incident. What do derelict vehicles have to do with telling lies?
Click to expand...
What was the lie, exactly?

That video can be interpreted in many ways, since it's so short and out of context. One way is that Wilson wasn't going to arrest Arman for ignoring the summons if he would stop taking pictures and cooperate with him.

We do know that Arman was arrested not for taking pictures, but for ignoring the summons previously given for the derelict vehicles on his property. Funny Arman never mentioned the derelict vehicles or the summons about them he ignored, and tried to make it look like Wilson just walked up on his property to harass him for no reason.
 
WildCat said:
I'd like a link to, well, anything that says it's illegal for police to threaten arrest for taking pictures. They can't actually follow through on the threats, and Wilson didn't do that, did he? Nor did he erase the video on the camera, even though there was certainly opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...

Okay, here's one link:
The court explained that, much like police are expected to withstand verbal challenges from citizens without threatening arrest, this “same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of ‘provocative and challenging’ speech must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.”
Click to expand...

Here's another:
“Members of the public are legally allowed to record police interactions,” the memo states, according to the Daily News. “Intentional interference such as blocking or obstructing cameras or ordering the person to cease constitutes censorship and also violates the First Amendment.”
Click to expand...


Are we done?
 
WildCat said:
We do know that Arman was arrested not for taking pictures, but for ignoring the summons previously given for the derelict vehicles on his property.
Click to expand...
I read the police report. I didn't read anything about the officer obtaining a an arrest warrant. In the video Wilson says that if he continues to video tape then the officer will arrest Wilson.

I don't see any room for confusion here.
 
RandFan said:
Perhaps I missed something.

  1. Arman threatened to arrest Wilson.
  2. Arman arrested Wilson.
Darren Wilson Threatened And Arrested Ferguson Man For Recording Video Of Him

Or are you making some distinction about "locking your ass up" as opposed to simply arresting Wilson?
Click to expand...
He wasn't arrested for recording him, he arrested him for the summons he had ignored. Pro tip: when a cop already has grounds to arrest you (say for not showing up in court for a previously issued summons) and is willing to not arrest you if you'd just cooperate it's a good idea to just cooperate.

Perhaps if Armand had just said "I'm sorry, forgot all about that court date and I'll have those cars towed to the junk yard later today" Wilson would have just called it a day and left with a warning. But we'll never know, because Arman chose to be a jerk instead.

RandFan said:
I'm not arguing that. I'm disputing a claim by L8Elvis that police are permitted to lie. As I said, only in given cases. They cannot lie as a matter of course.
Click to expand...
OK, I'm just not seeing how it's applicable here.
 
WildCat said:
He wasn't arrested for recording him, he arrested him for the summons he had ignored.
Click to expand...
The officer said he would arrest him for recording him. There is nothing in the report about obtaining an arrest warrant.

  1. The officer didn't go there with the intent to make an arrest.
  2. The officer stated plainly that he would make an arrest if the filming continued.
Those facts are not going to change.

Pro tip: Pro tip: when a cop already has grounds to arrest you (say for not showing up in court for a previously issued summons) and is willing to not arrest you if you'd just cooperate it's a good idea to just cooperate.

Perhaps if Armand had just said "I'm sorry, forgot all about that court date and I'll have those cars towed to the junk yard later today" Wilson would have just called it a day and left. But we'll never know, because Arman chose to be a jerk instead.
Click to expand...
I have stated plainly on this forum countless times that IMO it is always best to simply cooperate. Only those who are willing to suffer the consequences of disobedience should do so.

None of that however addresses the points made. Could the officer have a technical get out of jail free card? Sure but that's not what we have been discussing.
 
RandFan said:
The officer said he would arrest him for recording him. There is nothing in the report about obtaining an arrest warrant.

  1. The officer didn't go there with the intent to make an arrest.
  2. The officer stated plainly that he would make an arrest if the filming continued.
Those facts are not going to change.
Click to expand...

This is a great point. Wilson said "I'll lock your ass up IF...". Had Wilson already been there to effect an arrest, there's be no IFs to worry about. He'd have said "I'm here to arrest you". Instead, he made clear his threat that IF Arman didn't stop recording him, THEN he'd arrest him, and he did. That's the language part of the evidence, which is pretty clear, but as you point out, there's no mention of an arrest warrant, so Wilson wasn't there with the intent to arrest anyone for having a dirty front yard which is the proof positive that Wildcat is just spinning. It was when he got MAD that he arrested Arman and threw the usual charge of "resisting" on him.
 
Last edited:
None of this is explaining to me how Brown came to find himself in or near the front seat of a marked patrol vehicle fighting with a patrol officer after robbing the store.

Did Wilson mistake Brown's cigars for a sandwich?
 
johnny karate said:
Okay, here's one link:


Here's another:



Are we done?
Click to expand...

From your first link...
The Glik ruling also acknowledged limitations to citizens’ rights to record public officials.
“It may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions,” the First Circuit explained. And though it did not specifically prescribe what those limitations might be, the court noted that “peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.”
Click to expand...

It seems pretty obvious in the video that rather than letting the officer deliver the summons, he was interfering by becoming confrontational (demanding to know his name) and got "in his face" with the cell phone camera. So I don't think Wilson was actually wrong in this instance.
 
CNN - Ferguson officer Darren Wilson in talks to resign from police force, sources say.

Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed teenager Michael Brown on August 9, is in the final stages of negotiations with city officials to resign, according to people close to the talks. Wilson maintains he hasn't done anything wrong, and the resignation talks have hinged on whether a grand jury returns an indictment against him in the death of Brown, people close to the talks said.

Wilson has told associates he would resign as a way to help ease pressure and protect his fellow officers. Wilson has expressed concern about resigning while the grand jury was hearing evidence for fear it would appear he was admitting fault. Wilson could announce as soon as Friday his plans to resign, the same day a St. Louis County grand jury meets to deliberate and possibly decide on an indictment.

The talks could still collapse, these people said. Wilson doesn't know what the grand jury will do and if they return charges he could change his mind.
Click to expand...
 
JohnnyG said:
From your first link...


It seems pretty obvious in the video that rather than letting the officer deliver the summons, he was interfering by becoming confrontational (demanding to know his name) and got "in his face" with the cell phone camera. So I don't think Wilson was actually wrong in this instance.
Click to expand...

That's complete nonsense.

Standing on your porch filming a police officer at the end of your sidewalk and asking his name in no way prevents him from delivering a summons and is no way is confrontational. Why, as a matter of fact, it's protected speech.

And the fact that you call filming someone who is 10 to 15 feet away being "in his face" is the nonsense cherry on the nonsense cake.

The only person in that video being confrontational and getting in someone's face is Wilson. And this the exact kind of slipshod, dishonest logic that corrupt cops use to get away with such flagrant abuses of Constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
No, he didn't. He said "I'll lock you up if you don't stop taking pictures" or something similar.
Click to expand...
The guy had a video recorder. That's why there is video. Not stills. I do not know if the officer misspoke or if he sincerely did not want his face captured on video but was fine with voice recording. It's clear that the officer was talking about the video recording. Which the resident had a right to record. I'm not making a distinction between voice and video here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom