Posted on 11/16/2014 8:47:24 AM PST by Scoutmaster
Footage has emerged of Darren Wilson - the police officer who killed Michael Brown - threatening to arrest a man for filming him.
The video shows Wilson approaching a resident in Ferguson, Missouri, and demanding that he put away his camera. [snip]
The arrest was filmed in 2013, but was only posted online this week. It shows Wilson telling Mike Arman, a 30-year-old Ferguson resident, to put away his phone or be arrested.
Wilson, thinking he is being photographed rather than filmed, said: 'If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up.'
In response, Arman, identified by the Guardian, said: 'Sir, I’m not taking a picture, I’m recording this incident, sir.'
The clip cuts out after Wilson approaches, but an incident report which Wilson filled out after the event revealed that Arman was cuffed and taken to Ferguson police station.
There he was charged with failure to comply with Wilson, and also for breaching regulations on pit bull dogs. The charges were later dropped, Arman claims, when he showed police the video footage and proved his pet was not a pit bull.
The incident offers another insight into Wilson, whose behavior during the fatal confrontation with Brown is under intense scrutiny.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“Wilson lied to the resident”
So? Courts have well established that cops are not obligated to constant perfect honesty.
Read more carefully. He doesn’t say “in his face,” he says “remove the camera from my face” — Arman was filming Wilson’s face, when Wilson says he had agreed only to a voice recording.
I didn’t hear that he says the resident “did not have the right to record him,” and I don’t know what the law on that is anyhow, however in his report he says that he agreed to a voice recording, so whatever the law is, Wilson’s understanding is that he had the right to limit the guy to their verbal agreement of voice recording only. That could indicate he’s not up on the law, but it doesn’t prove he’s a liar.
It looks bad in the context of this article. In the context of what seems to have actually happened, it looks fine.
Although that’s the implication of the article, Wilson doesn’t lock the guy up for taking pictures. -- The guy was arrested for refusing to take a summons Wilson was trying to serve (the latest of many, as Wilson notes in his report).
.
OMG...lol
“Read more carefully. He doesn’t say “in his face,” he says “remove the camera from my face” — Arman was filming Wilson’s face, when Wilson says he had agreed only to a voice recording.”
How can you remove a camera “From” someone’s face if it is not “in” their face. (sigh) Now if Wilson had written he told the guy to stop filming his face, that would make sense, but he has no legal right to tell anyone that.
Yes. And if Officer Wilson had said "I will arrest you if you do not accept this summons", and if he made no other threats, then the cop is blameless here.
But - assuming the video here is legit - Wilson threatened the man with an illegal arrest. That's serious business. It's indefensible, and goes to the character of the cop.
By the way, I'm guessing Wilson probably did say something along the lines of "I will arrest you if you do not accept this summons". But that was probably cut out of the video. The video taker probably doesn't have clean hands either.
Well, IMHO you haven’t yet supported your claim that Wilson’s a liar. I read Wilson’s report from the perspective that witnesses — even trained, honest witnesses — are giving the facts as they experienced and remember them, which may or may not mesh perfectly with other people on the scene, and may or may not mesh perfectly with a video. That makes them human, not liars.
Anyone reading Wilson's report would assume the resident had his camera right in Wilson's face.
Is this not true?
??
So you are claiming that a short time later, Officer Wilson, a trained observer, couldn’t remember he was ten to fifteen feet away when he told the guy to stop videotaping him. Well, alrighty then...
He doesn’t say “in his face,” he says “remove the camera from my face” — Arman was filming Wilson’s face
Anyone reading Wilson’s report would assume the resident had his camera right in Wilson’s face.
Is this not true?
??
I think that is a reasonable assumption. Not all people are reasonable though.
Police who arrest people for filming them generally should sit in prison for decades.
.
Also, the vehicles were on the residents property at the “rear” of the driveway. Why would they be in violation of anything?
How convenient. Where's the beef?
They usually fall back on the good ol' "interfering with a police investigation". And if the actually do arrest them they can add "resisting arrest".
“Although that’s the implication of the article, Wilson doesn’t lock the guy up for taking pictures. — The guy was arrested for refusing to take a summons Wilson was trying to serve (the latest of many, as Wilson notes in his report).”
That is what Wilson wrote in the report, but he actually told the citizen in the video:
‘If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up.’
Then, Wilson advanced to arrest the citizen. Wilson isn’t stupid. He knew he couldn’t write up a charge for having his picture took. He used the much worn “Failed to comply” ruse.
And that question was answered in the story: failure to comply with the order of a police officer. Now stop and think about that. Police can arrest you for failing to follow their orders regardless of whether you are committing a crime or not. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.
Wilson telling him, “Do (or don’t do) this, or I’ll arrest you” is not an illegal arrest, because Wilson already had the grounds to arrest the guy based on the various summons Arman had already ignored. An illegal arrest is an arrest with no grounds; Wilson had grounds for arrest, but he wasn’t necessarily going to go that far if he didn’t think it necessary.
Best I can tell Wilson did not break any laws in arresting this guy. A lot of cops believe that videotaping cops is illegal due to wiretapping laws, and Wilson may be one of them, but since that wasn’t why Arman was arrested it’s beside the point.
I guess the next question would be, “If I’m videotaping you is breaking the law, shouldn’t you arrest me? If you saw a guy shoplifting, would you tell him to stop shoplifting or you’ll lock his ass up? If you saw a guy raping a woman would you tell him to stop raping her or you’ll lock him up? Where did you get your badge? At the bottom of a Crack Jack box?”
That would be the question if you want to be arrested. Most people don’t, so they quit recording it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
![”Image](http://i37.tinypic.com/xqf1br.jpg";)