Michael Brown shooting II

[Belz...]

Why yes it does, is English not your first language?

So, let me get this straight. He told him not to take pictures, while he was in fact filming, or he would arrest him, then went on to arrest him, but didn't arrest him for filming because he was not in fact taking pictures ?

English might be your first language, but you sure are twisting it for your own ends.

And while we're playing word games, movies are also called pictures.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But the fact remains that Arman was arrested not for recording Wilson, but for interfering with the delivery of the summons.

It's what was written in the report (failure to comply), that's a fact.

Would you care to try to explain what part of receiving a summons Arman failed to comply with ? Or interfered with ?

As I understand it, you don't have to accept a summons. Refusal of acceptance is proof of service. I linked to the MO code earlier...

What is it, do you think, arman refused to do ??

 

[RandFan]

But the fact remains that Arman was arrested not for recording Wilson, but for interfering with the delivery of the summons.

I cannot categorically state that this is not true. I see no evidence of failure to comply on the part of Arman but I will bow out for now.

 

[Wolrab]

I have no doubt Wilson will walk, and have said as much upthread.

However, I do find it interesting that you profess to know what happened in the incident with Brown with enough confidence to assign all the blame to Brown.

How did you come by this knowledge?

Because you don't rob a store (undisputed), assault the owner (undisputed), and attack an officer (disputed, but obvious) and not be at fault.

What does everything we know about Wilson point to? He More than likely said, "Get the **** out of the road."

He backed up and was prevented from exiting his vehicle. No one in their right mind would try to pull an attacker through his window. Someone not in his right mind...say someone knowing they had just attacked a store clerk...would be very capable of attacking someone else...say a cop that just let them go, then backed up after talking on the radio...connect the galaxy sized dots and Brown is a very bad boy.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10.

 

[johnny karate]

Why yes it does, is English not your first language?

Please explain the semantic differences between locking someone up for taking pictures and arresting someone for filming that make those two phrases completely different.

Of course he had the right to record, however the officer had the right to arrest Arman for ignoring the previous summons regarding his derelict vehicles. If Atman had been doing jumping jacks instead of cooperating with Wilson wrt the derelict vehicles summons would you be claiming he was arrested for doing jumping jacks?

If Wilson threatened to arrest Arman for doing jumping jacks shortly before actually arresting him, one could certainly make a case for that.

 

[johnny karate]

Because you don't rob a store (undisputed), assault the owner (undisputed), and attack an officer (disputed, but obvious) and not be at fault.

What does everything we know about Wilson point to? He More than likely said, "Get the **** out of the road."

He backed up and was prevented from exiting his vehicle. No one in their right mind would try to pull an attacker through his window. Someone not in his right mind...say someone knowing they had just attacked a store clerk...would be very capable of attacking someone else...say a cop that just let them go, then backed up after talking on the radio...connect the galaxy sized dots and Brown is a very bad boy.

See, I didn't realize we were supposed to assume things as "obvious" before all the evidence is in. As skeptics, I thought we weren't supposed to make such assumptions. Apparently, that changed at some point and I was not informed.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity in quote. Please see Rule 10.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I have no doubt Wilson will walk, and have said as much upthread.
<snip>?

Would you care to expound upon what evidence has convinced you of this ?

Or rather, do you think there is evidence (that we have not seen) that will explain why the shooting was justified, and why it appears as if Brown was surrendering (according to witnesses who gave interviews) ?

Or does it have more to do with the Grand jury process than the evidence.

Or, of course, something else entirely. I know you've not necessarily argued for the guilt of wilson, but asked, rather, where the exonerating evidence was.

 

[JohnnyG]

Americans have a constitutionally protected right to be provocative.

Not without the following qualification from the actual ruling.

The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of "provocative and challenging" speech, id. at 461 (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.

Source

Had Arman been recording Wilson serving someone else, there would not be a problem. However, since Arman was also the target of the summons, being defiant and confrontational can be considered interference. Did he have the right to video tape Wilson? Yes, but he had to do so without interfering with his duties.

 

[RandFan]

Had Arman been recording Wilson serving someone else, there would not be a problem. However, since Arman was also the target of the summons, being defiant and confrontational can be considered interference. Did he have the right to video tape Wilson? Yes, but he had to do so without interfering with his duties.

A.) You have not explained how video taping interferes with the officers duties. You just assert that it is so. B.) You provide no sources to demonstrate video taping "can be considered interference".

Would you please explain how video taping interferes with an officer then provide a citation that supports your explanation?

 

[tyr_13]

Let's clear this up and see if we can put all the info in one place if we are going to continue to argue about it.
SNIP

Great post. Thanks for putting that all together.

 

[RandFan]

Not without the following qualification from the actual ruling.

without impairing, their work in public spaces

I don't know how important the qualifier is but I'm curious if Arman's property is a public space.

 

[JohnnyG]

People have a Constitutional right to film the police. That is not in dispute.

So please explain how someone may exercise that right in a manner that you personally approve and differs from what takes place in that video.

What I personally approve is not important, but since you asked to nicely...

Had Arman began recording the officer and allowed him to do his business, that would be fine. Instead, however, he confronted the officer insisting he state his name. Do you see any progress in serving the summons in the video?

There is clearly something that happened before this video that is either edited out or was not recorded. At the end of the video Arman is heard saying "Sir, you just allowed me..." which isn't referring to anything in the video, therefore we can conclude that there was some dialog between the two before the recording.

 

[JohnnyG]

A.) You have not explained how video taping interferes with the officers duties. You just assert that it is so. B.) You provide no sources to demonstrate video taping "can be considered interference".

Would you please explain how video taping interferes with an officer then provide a citation that supports your explanation?

I have not made that assertion, I said Arman was in defiance of Wilson and interfering with his duties. Do you see Wilson making any progress in serving the summons in the video?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I have not made that assertion, I said Arman was in defiance of Wilson and interfering with his duties. Do you see Wilson making any progress in serving the summons in the video?

I think I already addressed this:

After that though ... we don't hear Wilson make any demands for Armand to comply with on the video. And the video. None of the things Wilson claims are on the video.

Here is link to to Issuance and Service of Summons or Other Process in MO : http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=871
I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a pretty straight forward process - you can post the summons. If the person refuses to accept the summons, that is also proof of service. So what is it Wilson needed Armand to comply with ?

The only command I heard Wilson give, that Arman was in defiance of, is stop taking pictures. Which I think we all agree is not a command Arman is required to follow.

I asked Wildcat, I'll ask you:

Would you care to try to explain what part of receiving a summons Arman failed to comply with ? Or interfered with ?

What is it, do you think, Arman refused to do ??

 

[Cylinder]

I don't know how important the qualifier is but I'm curious if Arman's property is a public space.

For the purposes of that particular encounter, yes. That is, it was a place and time where the person recording had a right to be and in a context where the expectation of privacy of the person being recorded is most limited. I don't have the right to record the smoking hot sheriff's deputy in the can. I don't have the right to record the search warrant briefing inside the police station.

 

[JohnnyG]

I think I already addressed this:

​

The only command I heard Wilson give, that Arman was in defiance of, is stop taking pictures. Which I think we all agree is not a command Arman is required to follow.

I asked Wildcat, I'll ask you:

Would you care to try to explain what part of receiving a summons Arman failed to comply with ? Or interfered with ?

What is it, do you think, Arman refused to do ??

There is clearly something that happened before this video that is either edited out or was not recorded. At the end of the video Arman is heard saying "Sir, you just allowed me..." which isn't referring to anything in the video, therefore we can safely conclude that there was some dialog between the two before the recording. I don't know what conversation took place, but it does tend to support Wilson's statement

I advised Arman that voice recording would be acceptable, however, that we need to move forward on the derelict video situation...[but Arman] refused to answer any questions or co-operate as he lifted the phone to begin a video recording of myself

more than Arman's statement that he

began recording within moments of Wilson approaching the property.

 

[johnny karate]

Would you care to expound upon what evidence has convinced you of this ?

Or rather, do you think there is evidence (that we have not seen) that will explain why the shooting was justified, and why it appears as if Brown was surrendering (according to witnesses who gave interviews) ?

Or does it have more to do with the Grand jury process than the evidence.

Or, of course, something else entirely. I know you've not necessarily argued for the guilt of wilson, but asked, rather, where the exonerating evidence was.

It's primarily just a gut feeling based on how things have played out so far. I don't think anyone is trying particularly hard to get Wilson indicted, and therefore it would require a preponderance of evidence against him for it to happen.

Personally, I don't know if Wilson is guilty or innocent. But I don't think the situation is as simple as "cop shoots bad guy, case closed".

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There is clearly something that happened before this video that is either edited out or was not recorded. At the end of the video Arman is heard saying "Sir, you just allowed me..." which isn't referring to anything in the video, therefore we can safely conclude that there was some dialog between the two before the recording. I don't know what conversation took place, but it does tend to support Wilson's statement

more than Arman's statement that he

Yes, I agree, and stated as much earlier:

However, Armand claims:
Arman disputed Wilson’s account of the start of their encounter, saying that he “began recording within moments of Wilson approaching the property” and that Wilson only mentioned a voice recording being acceptable after Arman had been arrested.

Then:
"I advised Arman that I would not comply with his demand and to remove the camera from my face in order for us to complete the process of the derelict vehicles Arman refused to abide by any of my requests and only replied by stating that he needed my name. It should be noted Arman was capable of reading my department issued name plate attached to my uniform.

I then ordered Arman off the porch and to place his hands behind his back, as he was being placed under arrest..."

Wilsons initial description seems reasonable to me. It seems rather unlikely that Armand started recording within moments of Wilson appearing, because there was absolutely no discussion on the video of why Wilson was there. Then during that discussion, Armand decided to record the summons process.
After that though ... we don't hear Wilson make any demands for Armand to comply with on the video. And the video. None of the things Wilson claims are on the video.

Still, doesn't answer my question:

The only command I heard Wilson give, that Arman was in defiance of, is stop taking pictures. Which I think we all agree is not a command Arman is required to follow.

Would you care to try to explain what part of receiving a summons Arman failed to comply with ? Or interfered with ? What is it, do you think, Arman refused to do ??

We have the arrest report.

Why do we have to guess what it is Arman wouldn't comply with ? What requests didn't he abide by ? Why aren't they plainly stated in the report ?

My answer is they aren't listed there weren't any, other than stop taking his picture. What's yours?

 

[JohnnyG]

Yes, I agree, and stated as much earlier:



Still, doesn't answer my question:

The only command I heard Wilson give, that Arman was in defiance of, is stop taking pictures. Which I think we all agree is not a command Arman is required to follow.

Would you care to try to explain what part of receiving a summons Arman failed to comply with ? Or interfered with ? What is it, do you think, Arman refused to do ??

We have the arrest report.

Why do we have to guess what it is Arman wouldn't comply with ? What requests didn't he abide by ? Why aren't they plainly stated in the report ?

My answer is they aren't listed there weren't any, other than stop taking his picture. What's yours?

We only have 15 seconds of video and there is clear evidence of missing dialog prior to the video. There is not enough evidence to say "there weren't any". And in those 15 seconds, Arman was trying to turn it into an interrogation of Wilson.

 

[rwguinn]

It is just amazing how much absolutely factual information can be discerned from a 15 second video. ..