Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnnyG said:
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.
Click to expand...

If by an "interrogation of wilson" you mean, he wanted him to state his name, yeah.

Do you find it to be a particularly onerous request, for a public official to identify himself ?

Aside from a video, we also have an entire police report, which, strangely enough, does not identify what this "non-compliance" was. Aren't you even the least bit curious why ? I guess not, since you've dodged the opportunity twice now to let us know what requests you think Arman didn't he abide by, and why they weren't plainly stated in the report.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
If by an "interrogation of wilson" you mean, he wanted him to state his name, yeah.

Do you find it to be a particularly onerous request, for a public official to identify himself ?

Aside from a video, we also have an entire police report, which, strangely enough, does not identify what this "non-compliance" was. Aren't you even the least bit curious why ? I guess not, since you've dodged the opportunity twice now to let us know what requests you think Arman didn't he abide by, and why they weren't plainly stated in the report.
Click to expand...
What happened before the video starts? Context is important. I am absolutely sure that the guy had no self interest in mind when he edited the video down to 15 seconds.
 
rwguinn said:
What happened before the video starts? Context is important. I am absolutely sure that the guy had no self interest in mind when he edited the video down to 15 seconds.
Click to expand...

Wilson covered that in his report, which I included in this post here

In wilsons words:
"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..."

The only thing Wilson writes in his report that he told Arman to do was "remove the camera from my face"

Again, we have more than a video - we have a whole report that lacks a description of what it is Arman refused to do.

We also know Wilson was there to serve a summons, which doesn't, afaik, require any particular action by the party being served.

I don't doubt some exchange happened before the video - I'm just not sure of the relevance.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
If by an "interrogation of wilson" you mean, he wanted him to state his name, yeah.

Do you find it to be a particularly onerous request, for a public official to identify himself ?

Aside from a video, we also have an entire police report, which, strangely enough, does not identify what this "non-compliance" was. Aren't you even the least bit curious why ? I guess not, since you've dodged the opportunity twice now to let us know what requests you think Arman didn't he abide by, and why they weren't plainly stated in the report.
Click to expand...
Whether the request is onerous or not is irrelevant, it was done to be defiant and confrontational.

It is pointless to speculate on what requests were made by Wilson. The 15 second video is clearly missing important parts of the encounter.
 
JohnnyG said:
Whether the request is onerous or not is irrelevant, it was done to be defiant and confrontational.
Click to expand...

So? Acting defiant and confrontational when served with a summons is not illegal. Neither is "contempt of cop", but it's pretty clear that is what the arrest was about.
 
JohnnyG said:
Whether the request is onerous or not is irrelevant, it was done to be defiant and confrontational.
Click to expand...

How does one exercise their Constitutionally-protected right to film the police without being what you consider to be "defiant" and "confrontational". Please be specific, and explain how this scenario would differ from what took place in the video.

It is pointless to speculate on what requests were made by Wilson. The 15 second video is clearly missing important parts of the encounter.
Click to expand...

As TheL8Elvis has pointed out - repeatedly - we have a detailed account of the incident in Wilson's report. Feel free to peruse it and let us know what additional requests aside from "stop filming me" Wilson made the Arman allegedly denied.
 
JohnnyG said:
Do you see Wilson making any progress in serving the summons in the video?
Click to expand...
Yes. Of course (see below). This has already been addressed. Why are you asking this question? Are you not reading the responses to you?

TheL8Elvis said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
What happened before the video starts? Context is important.
Click to expand...

  1. Give us a scenario or explanation that would provide context and justify the arrest.
  2. Why wasn't that "context" provided in the police report?
 
Cylinder said:
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.
Click to expand...
:) Thank you. I should have been able to figure that out on my own. I thought I was missing something.
 
johnny karate said:
How does one exercise their Constitutionally-protected right to film the police without being what you consider to be "defiant" and "confrontational". Please be specific, and explain how this scenario would differ from what took place in the video.
Click to expand...
The main difference would be politely to notify the officer that you will be recording the incident and let the officer start asking the questions rather than insist he answer yours.

johnny karate said:
As TheL8Elvis has pointed out - repeatedly - we have a detailed account of the incident in Wilson's report. Feel free to peruse it and let us know what additional requests aside from "stop filming me" Wilson made the Arman allegedly denied.
Click to expand...
He was trying to ask Arman for "further descriptive information on the vehicles".
 
JohnnyG said:
The main difference would be politely to notify the officer that you will be recording the incident and let the officer start asking the questions rather than insist he answer yours.
Click to expand...
IMO: I would advise people to be polite with any law enforcement personnel. In most instances law enforcement are simply professionals doing their job. I think it is clear that Arman contributed to this incident.

That said, Americans have the constitutional right not to answer questions. There is no law that compels Americans to be polite or cooperative beyond obeying lawful orders of law enforcement.
 
RandFan said:
That said, Americans have the constitutional right not to answer questions. There is no law that compels Americans to be polite or cooperative beyond obeying lawful orders of law enforcement.
Click to expand...

To that end:

civilliberties said:
[FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial]http://www.civilliberties.org/sum98role.html

Civil Disobedience is the act of disobeying a law on grounds of moral or political principle. It is an attempt to influence society to accept a dissenting point of view. Although it usually uses tactics of nonviolence, it is more than mere passive resistance since it often takes active forms such as illegal street demonstrations or peaceful occupations of premises. The classic treatise on this topic is Henry David Thoreau's "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," which states that when a person's conscience and the laws clash, that person must follow his or her conscience. The stress on personal conscience and on the need to act now rather than to wait for legal change are recurring elements in civil disobedience movements. The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it. [/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Cylinder said:
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?
Click to expand...

My theory about that, for which I don't have evidence, is that Wilson who was already pissed by Brown's disrespect, got the information that Brown fit the description of the man who had just robbed the store and he took off and turned his car abruptly in front of Brown. Brown panicked and attacked Wilson through an open window after being startled when Wilson drove the car up next to him. I suspect that Wilson had a sense that he had embarrassed himself by allowing Brown to be in a position where he could grapple with Wilson and Wilson decided to take it on himself to singlehandedly capture Brown as a way of making amends for his error and as a way of exacting some vengeance on Brown for his attack in the car.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
2. Did you know police are allowed to lie to you ?
Click to expand...


Your sentence strongly implies always, so it is false.

Officers are only "allowed to lie" in specific situations, like interrogation, and in a limited capacity.

An officer can say something like: "We have your fingerprints all over the gun." That can be a complete lie, and it is allowed. That is how they catch criminals in interrogation.

An officer cannot say something is illegal if it isn't, especially outside of interrogation, like pull you over and say: "It is illegal to drive with shoes on. Take off your shoes right now or I am going to arrest you."

The latter would be a clear violation of the oath each officer takes and an officer that did something like that would at least be admonished in some fashion, depending upon prior history.

And since your question to Unabogie was specifically about a case similar to the latter then your flailing attempt and justifying a double standard is false even if you did not mean to imply the word "always".
 
davefoc said:
An alternative interaction:
Arman: I'm going to video you.
Wilson: Have at it. I'm here to serve a summons because of the cars parked in your front yard
Arman: What is your name
Wilson: Wilson states his name and badge number
Arman: I have a right to keep cars on my yard. It's my property.
Wilson: That is between you and the city. You can explain your side to the judge
Arman: I'm not going to accept the summons
Wilson: You can do that, but you will be arrested for that
Arman: You (curses) jerk. Give me the (curses) I'll sign it.
Click to expand...



Exactly.

Police officers are ordered to behave accordingly for a reason. We have clear evidence that this officer did not behave accordingly at 3 completely distinct incidents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom