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 ...
I think less of the videographer after reading the report.
However, I'm much more concerned about Officer Wilson's veracity in written reports now. At best it smells to me as if Officer Wilson is fast and loose with the facts. At worst it appears to me that Officer Wilson lied in at least one written incident report.
I'd refer you to Askedwhy5times' post #91, although the video does not show whether the videographer previously had the camera in Officer WIlson's face.
If Officer Wilson exaggerated or misstated facts one incident reports, or simply made up facts, that goes to his credibility in the Brown report.
That doesn't mean was unjustified in his actions against Brown. It does mean that the incident may well not have happened exactly as Officer Brown reported.
A police report of the Arman incident written by Wilson states he went to the home on Oct. 28, 2013 because Arman had multiple derelict vehicles on his property, which violated a local ordinance.
That’s a lot of “what ifs”.
When I first read Askedwhy5times’ post #91, I had to go back to find the reference to the videographer holding the camera “in Officer Wilson’s face,” because that wasn’t how I read it and isn’t what he actually says. So I don’t see Wilson as being “fast and loose with the facts”, because those weren’t the facts I saw presented.
Does illustrate one reason why police reports are inadmissible in a criminal court unless the police officer is available for cross examination; two people may read the same statement very different ways.
The offensive phrase in the article is conjecture and isn’t recorded.
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)."
Yep already figured so. Just more nonsense hyping from another BS Internet article.
However, Officer Wilson doesn't say that in the video. Officer Wilson tells the videographer that he (Officer Wilson) is going to arrest the videographer if he continues to take his (Office Wilson's) photograph.
After Officer Wilson approaches the videographer, we never hear what Officer Wilson says before the arrest, during the arrest, and after the arrest. We also never hear what Officer Wilson says before the start of the video.
Hmph.
So Wilson got put out because someone didn’t respect his authoritah.
Doesn’t mean that Michael Brown didn’t earn what he got through his own poor behaviour.
But it still looks bad for him - not because it has anything to do with the current issue, but because critical thinking is sorely lacking. People aren’t taught how to think, but unfortuantely they’re told what to think by the media and other agenda-setters.
In my top 10.
The you tube video says the guy making the video has a criminal record and history of resisting arrest and officer was there serving a court summons. How can anyone make a firm opinion about character or lying from a few seconds video that doesn’t show what happened before or after those seconds. Talk about rush to judgment!
Nothing like you siding with a guy who had just committed strong-arm robbery a few minutes earlier.
As the officer approached the man they were no longer 10 feet apart but then you don’t have video of that or actually anything other than a couple of seconds of video to base your opinion. In reference to what the officer said do you really know what time frame he was speaking of about the camera being in his face.
NO doubt about it.
What rush to judgement are you referring to? If you could be specific.
Thanks
The only clear takeaway from this is that Officer Wilson is a 'don't photograph me or I'll arrest you' LEO, because Officer Wilson says that. It doesn't mean that's why Officer Wilson arrested the videographer.
The other possible takeaway is that Officer Wilson's brief description of the camera moment doesn't seem to mesh completely with what video we see. Obviously, Officer Wilson can't write everything in his report. However, the videographer is never shown with his camera in Officer Wilson's face in the clip provided, although that's what Officer Wilson says in the incident report.
The incident report certainly doesn't address Officer Wilson's 'you photograph/I arrest' moment - but I wouldn't expect it to do so.
As I said in Post 1, I thought people may want to be aware of the video before it appears elsewhere. As is clear from these FR posts, different people draw different conclusions from it. And if conclusions vary so widely on FR . . .
But would that not reasonably seem to suggest that is about when the initial contact or exchange between the two started?
Geeeeee .. I never thought of that ..?????
Especially ludicrous, when information leaked out about nine witnesses who agree with what the Officer said about the incident.
The very fact that these nine people have to be in hiding for telling the truth, tells me the attack upon what the officer said and did is being made up by those who were not even there.
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.