Michael Brown shooting II

[This is The End]

Police can threaten to arrest you for anything at all.

That is not true. Lying about whether or not something is illegal is a clear violation of police code, especially outside of a detectives interrogation room.

 

[This is The End]

Someone that's just robbed a c-store?

"Someone that's just robbed a c-store" would have a hell of a lot more than a pack of cigars.

He was a very blatant shoplifter and shoved his way out. Some of use don't see everything in black and white and realize that the contents of the cash register were not transferred to Mr. Brown.

 

[This is The End]

I'd like a link to, well, anything that says it's illegal for police to threaten arrest for taking pictures.

Your claim was specifically that they "can", and the other claim was that they are "allowed to". Your claim was not that it is "not illegal" as you wish us to now believe you meant.

Officers have a code of conduct that they must follow to be reprimanded.

Your claim was "can". They cannot. You have since realized you lied, so now you have moved the goalposts to "it's not illegal".

For instance, you are not "allowed to" post improperly masked profanity in these forums. If you do it, you will be reprimanded. That does not make it "illegal".

Police can threaten to arrest you for anything at all.

2. Did you know police are allowed to lie to you ?

 

[This is The End]

The officer said he would arrest him for recording him.

No, he didn't. He said "I'll lock you up if you don't stop taking pictures" or something similar.

LMAO!!

If I could fit that quote and response in I might have my first sig line ever.

Classic.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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".

yes, you totally got me. I always forget the "strongly implies" exception.

 

[davefoc]

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 ??

This is the key question with regard to that interaction. Did Wilson arrest Arman for failure to comply with an illegal order or did Wilson arrest Arman for failure to properly accept the Summons?

Wilson provided lots of details in that report but when it came to reporting what Arman did to justify a failure to comply basis for the arrest he provided zero details. I think it's very likely that Wilson got pissed and arrested Arman for his attitude or for the filming, both illegal reasons to arrest Arman and I strongly suspect Wilson committed a serious crime by arresting Arman. It's a crime that is unlikely to be prosecuted. For one thing Wilson probably caused Arman to stop recording before the critical facts occurred.

If Wilson had actually tried to serve Arman and Arman had failed to comply with the aspects of the service that he was legally required to comply with I think Wilson would have put those details in the report. As it is the report provides no basis for charging Arman with anything and strongly suggests that his arrest was an illegal abuse of authority.

 

[This is The End]

Filming someone isn't what makes it "in your face", and neither is the distance. It's the provocative manner in which it is done.

And that folks, is how one justifies something according to ones bias.

 

[Distracted1]

And that folks, is how one justifies something according to ones bias.

I would have thought post # 1282 an equal, or even better, example of such.

 

[This is The End]

I would have thought post # 1282 an equal, or even better, example of such.

You might have misread my post.

I'm not saying that he did not rob the store. I am saying that we should not shoehorn situations without examining all of the known facts.

The same goes with applying labels.

It would be smart to not try and diminish the convenience store hold ups on one end of the spectrum by equating those on the middle solely to conform to your bias.

Saying "He robbed the convenience store." is conforming to bias with a clear intention of not providing all of the facts. Saying the entire set of known facts of the situation is not. You accusing the latter of being the biased of the two though, is par for the course with how bias works.

 

[Cylinder]

No, I was being precise. Brown robbed the c-store.

 

[Distracted1]

You might have misread my post.

I'm not saying that he did not rob the store. I am saying that we should not shoehorn situations without examining all of the known facts.

The same goes with applying labels.

It would be smart to not try and diminish the convenience store hold ups on one end of the spectrum by equating those on the middle solely to conform to your bias.

Saying "He robbed the convenience store." is conforming to bias with a clear intention of not providing all of the facts. Saying the entire set of known facts of the situation is not. You accusing the latter of being the biased of the two though, is par for the course with how bias works.

Equating "robbing" a convenience store with what Mr. Brown did is placing his actions on a spectrum exactly where they belong. Stating that he " held up " the store ( as no one has done- in fact the only post which conflates 'robbing' with 'holding up' is yours ) would be placing his actions on a different place on the spectrum- one where they don't belong. Another example of placing his actions in a place on that spectrum where they do not belong is stating that he " shoplifted " from the store.
By your own rationale, you are exhibiting bias.

 

[rockinkt]

Equating "robbing" a convenience store with what Mr. Brown did is placing his actions on a spectrum exactly where they belong. Stating that he " held up " the store ( as no one has done- in fact the only post which conflates 'robbing' with 'holding up' is yours ) would be placing his actions on a different place on the spectrum- one where they don't belong. Another example of placing his actions in a place on that spectrum where they do not belong is stating that he " shoplifted " from the store.
By your own rationale, you are exhibiting bias.

I do not know the laws in the jurisdiction where this took place - but as a former police officer from Canada - Distracted1's description seems to be spot on.

In Canada - "Shoplifting" is not a legal term - but it is colloquially used to describe theft from a retail store without the use of violence or threat of violence.

"Robbery" - as pertaining to this case - is defined as: (S)teals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person...

It is obvious that Brown used violence against the person in the store in order to steal the cigars. That would be a clear case of robbery in Canada.
I think the same would apply in most - if not all - of the jurisdictions in the US.

To describe Brown's actions in the store as anything less than robbery is disingenuous at best.

 

[plague311]

My theory about that, for which I don't have evidence, is that Wilson who was already pissed by Brown's disrespect,

He was so pissed that he drove away from them? That's....kind of a weird reaction for anyone to have.

got the information that Brown fit the description of the man who had just robbed the store

The only problem with that is that Wilson already had the description of Brown:

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market.... In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.

About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared.

He already had their description, including the clothes they were wearing and their approximate area.

and he took off and turned his car abruptly in front of Brown.

Nope, it's reported that Wilson pulled up on Brown and Johnson's right hand side, not in front of him. It's further report that Wilson's door hit Brown in the leg or that Brown slammed the door shut on him. Depending on which story you believe, Johnson or Wilson.

Brown panicked and attacked Wilson through an open window after being startled when Wilson drove the car up next to him.

Hmmm....didn't you say it was in front of him? You lost me here. How would he have startled them? He drove passed them, and then backed up to their location. He hadn't disappeared from their vision, there was no opportunity to startle anyone. If Brown's first reaction to being startled is to attack a police officer then he has some serious mental issues.

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.

I think your argument has several gaping holes, and it is completely at ends with the evidence available. A trip back to the drawing board maybe in order.

 

[plague311]

I do not know the laws in the jurisdiction where this took place - but as a former police officer from Canada - Distracted1's description seems to be spot on.

In Canada - "Shoplifting" is not a legal term - but it is colloquially used to describe theft from a retail store without the use of violence or threat of violence.

"Robbery" - as pertaining to this case - is defined as: (S)teals from any person and, at the time he steals or immediately before or immediately thereafter, wounds, beats, strikes or uses any personal violence to that person...

It is obvious that Brown used violence against the person in the store in order to steal the cigars. That would be a clear case of robbery in Canada.
I think the same would apply in most - if not all - of the jurisdictions in the US.

To describe Brown's actions in the store as anything less than robbery is disingenuous at best.

^ this, thank you for summing this up so well.

 

[Cylinder]

He already had their description, including the clothes they were wearing and their approximate area.

This one has me puzzled. There were two descriptions, "a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip" wasn't really what rolled up on originally -- it was Brown and Johnson walking in the middle of the street.

The second description -- the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man would have connected the very large dots as another member alluded upthread.

Just speculating -- Wilson hears the first description but not the second while working the sick baby call. He clearly has a description in mind when he clears that call and joins the canvas. As Wilson is leaving the call, he's on the radio offering help in the search and trying to get the last location information relayed to him. So I can imagine Wilson rolling up on two black males walking down the middle of the street while he's trying to join the canvas. Wilson drives by, tells them to get the hell out of the street and that the pair can't record him because it's illegal, whatever and returns to his tunnel vision. Suddenly, Wilson gets/reads/remembers the second description and the he connects the dots.

The alternative, as correctly asserted by Wolrab upthread, is that Wilson took around 90 seconds to see what's staring him in the face -- and apparently cursing (back?) at him.

At any rate, the impetus and timing of the contact being escalated from a pedestrian violation warning to a felony detention is kind of an important detail here (to me at least) that is still fairly obscured.

 

[WildCat]

You can do better than that, although I think I should probably just take this

It's all in his report ... we really do know.

That says nothing about the disposition of the previous cases.

 

[WildCat]

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 ?

You're not even wrong.

He was arrested for not cooperating with the process of issuing summons for the derelict vehicles. In this case "not cooperating" involved recording Wilson and demanding his name, badge number, etc. It could just as well have been any other activity that didn't involve cooperating with the issuing of the summons, but in any case the arrest was not for the activity but for refusing to cooperate.

 

[RandFan]

In this case "not cooperating" involved recording Wilson and demanding his name, badge number, etc.

And round and round we go.

1. There is no duty to or cooperative.
2. There is no law that says you cannot ask for a name and badge number.
3. There is no law that says you have to answer questions.
4. There is only a duty to follow lawful orders.

Links have been provided demonstrating that the officer only needed to be rebuffed by Arman to be able to post the summons. The summons had been served. Nothing Arman did could technically be interpreted as interfering.

So let's all say the same thing over and over again. Until you can demonstrate that any of the above premises are wrong then all you have is an assertion that Arman was interfering with the officers duties.

I'll grant you this, many judges may very well interpret Arman's actions as interference since Wilson was simply trying to do his job and Arman was being a prick (he really was). If you want to hang your hat on that then I'm happy to concede that point. Of course we could agree to disagree. I really am tired of the back and forth. Damn ego.

 

[WildCat]

And round and round we go.

And frankly I'm sick of discussing it with people who deliberately misconstrue what I'm saying.

 

[Cylinder]

CNN reports that the grand jury will reconvene Monday to deliberate.

he grand jury convened on Friday, but did not reach a decision, federal and local law enforcement officials told CNN.

The spotlight is on Ferguson again because of predictions that the grand jury would reach a decision sometime in mid- to late November.

Friday came and went with no decision, and the grand jury will not reconvene until Monday, federal and local law enforcement sources told CNN.​