It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)

page: 11
143
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


No really by his logic we cant just state I feel unsafe and haul a person to jail. The safety factor must be articulated, and in this case it was. The incident started prior to her recording, and she ignored several times to cease her actions, which attraced the attention of law enforcement.

If a persons actions rise to the point of us arresting them, then obviously they failed to follow the multiple warnings being given to back off or cease a certain action, or the manner the action was being done.

Again, people have this skewed one track mind about law enforcement, and you guys just randomly guess as to why we do what we do, while ignoring the big picture.

I find it humerous people make statements about corrupt police, brutality, corruption when the person making those claims has absolutely no understanding of the law or how it works.

You think everything is one big conspiracy theory, and anytime an action si taken you dont understand, you automatically classifiy it as brutality, corruption, preferential treatment etc.

How can you make those legal arguments when you have no understanding of the law?
edit on 22-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by summer5
Personally, I could see if she was antagonizing the officer(s), disrupting, interfering, etc. She was doing NON of the above.


She did all 3
A) She clearly antagonized that officer by repeatedly refusing to step back and to go back into the house. It was so dark out, that camera may have had a sniper gun on it. Who knows. With technology these days, you can't be too careful.

B) She disrupted his investigation to go have a calm chat with her and asked her politely to go back into the house.But, she clearly became the woe is me, and argumentative towards him.

C) Interfered because he stepped away from his partners and his post to deal with a second situation. When all heck could of broke loose and put his partners in danger.

She caused the situation. Not him. She deserves to go to jail.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


i agree with you, my main point is they have no responsibilty for thier actions. police have a good secure job with good pay and benifits. if they abuse it they should be fired, charged and replaced.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 
The cop asked her to go inside because he didn't feel safe with her behind him(which he has a right to do). She could have continued filiming from inside, through the door or a window. Sometimes you have to use your head in this type of situation and not be confrontational.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MitchL61
reply to post by EmeraldGreen




By your logic cops can haul anyone from the street to jail and just say "I didn't feel safe". Watch the video again. It is not about safety at all. It's about the video. If the officer is concerned for their safety would they ask someone to step back into their house? No. They would cuff and search the person and if nothing is found they'd set them loose. That's how a real cop would handle a safety situation. If they think she may be armed and dangerous having her step back few feet wont increase their safety at all unless they think "she's a woman, she wont hit anything from that distance" or something.


The officer did ask her several times to go back into the house or to step back. She did neither. And, he wasn't rude about it either. Thought you watched the video?
edit on 22-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I don't know.... on one hand, I really hate this "video taping everyone is great" mentality sweeping the nation. but also I respect people's rights. I think she didn't have any special reason to film the cops and get all in thier business, but what gets me seeing red, is the cop telling her to go inside her own flipping home whilst she is already on her own property.

cops simply have no tact or respect anymore. I see all the points they make when coming across from thier POV. but still, at the end of the day it's another case of them coming across as intimidating. basically it always goes like this.......

"I am a cop, do as I say or you WILL be met with drastic consequences, of which I will see no reprimand for"

edit on 23-6-2011 by wingsfan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevooo
reply to post by whaaa
 


i agree with you, my main point is they have no responsibilty for thier actions. police have a good secure job with good pay and benifits. if they abuse it they should be fired, charged and replaced.



Again, another comment that is based on ignorance and lack of understanding and knowledge of how law works. Please explain what my pay is and what tyype of benefits I receive. Please provide information that supports your claim the pay and benefiets are good, and our jobs are secure.

What exactly did the officers abuse in this case?
Please cite your supporting laws to support your claim.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Does anyone know what happened to the poor young woman since this video was taken? I hope she sues!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by anon72
 


Does anyone know what happened to the poor young woman since this video was taken? I hope she sues!


On what grounds does she have standing for a lawsuit?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmeraldGreen
.....


sigh


that was quite sad at the end. I feel bad for all parties involved. cops have it tough, & it was unfair that he arrested her at That moment... but ... karma is a bitch... maybe... cops definitely need to learn compassion, & realise who is a threat and who isn't a threat... So do neurotic onlookers...

what a waste of everyone's time... this is another reason supporting my hypothesis about cops being trained to spot confrontational members of the public... it would seem like a waste of time, but they might justify it by arguing that the amount of time spent dealing with such pointless disputes is reduced the more people they arrest like that... words spreads and people wise up to these things they might hope...

Anti-government doesn't necessarily have to mean anti-police... they are just doing their job & need to feel grounded before all kinds crazy folk out there, its hard on the psyche and fragile egos easily erupt in those blue uniforms, We do well not to provoke them!!!
edit on 22/6/2011 by EmeraldGreen because: (no reason given)


What? That woman provoked no one. Neither is she a "neurotic onlooker". You do not automatically need to run inside your house just because there are police outside. You have every right to sit outside your home and quietly observe what is happening, just as she was doing.

You seem to paint the picture as if she was obstructing them in any way. She neither said a word to them, nor even approach them. Quite the opposite.

And you know what? If police have it hard, they can find another line of work. Taking out a hard day's work on innocent people, just to let off steam? If they have fragile egos, they should not be police officers. They willingly signed up for that job. At some point they forgot why they became officers, and this video is the result. Harassing the very people they joined the force to protect.

You are NOT required to do every damn thing a police officer tells you to do. Get that point tattooed onto your forehead.

edit -

@ Xcathedra

If you have a question for every responder in defense of this woman, go do your own research. The burden is upon you to answer your own questions rather than drill people about the questionable behavior these cops display.

No one is here to educate you on how a cop is supposed to do their job, nor fill in the missing gaps of information you are lacking entailing what it means to be a police officer. If you seriously have to ask the posters here that, then law enforcement is not for you. If you need lessons on how to differentiate right from wrong, then there's no hope for you.
edit on 23-6-2011 by yourignoranceisbliss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


She was arrested under false pretences.......she was well within the law and the Police officer abused his power and the law



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
The officer moves the goal posts at least three times in terms of why and how he feels threatened before finally arresting this woman.

1) “I don’t feel safe with you standing behind me, so I’m going to ask you to go in your house.”

First it’s that he doesn’t feel safe. Then it’s that she’s on the sidewalk (which she denies.)

2) “You sound very anti-police.”

Then it’s that she sounds very anti-police.

3) “It does not matter (if you are armed.)”

Then the officer acknowledges that she isn’t armed but says that doesn’t matter.

4) “You’re not moving even a foot further back.”

Then it’s that she won’t move even a foot back. She asks if that’s what he wants her to do, and even says she’s going to back up.

5) “You’re gonna go to jail. That’s just not right.”

Then it’s “just not right.” The officer has just had it so he arrests her.

Which was it? That they didn’t feel safe? That she “sounded very anti-police?” That she wouldn’t move a foot back (which she then offered to do?) That it’s “just not right?” All of the above? What a horrible crime. She clearly is a menace and needs to be kept off the streets for the safety of society and officers.

Seriously? I can picture them at jail now. Officer speaking in calm voice: "Ma'am, I know you're very upset and that you feel you weren't doing anything wrong. But when an officer gives you an order you need to obey it."

Indoctrination through fear.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 



Bud. You are simply speaking out of your ass.

This guy had all the right to record whatever he sees. Be a douchebag and think otherwise. You are what is wrong with this world in many ways. You can record whatever you want and this is simply intruding on peoples rights to do so and you're supporting in a round-about way. I can't wait till that's you. He handles himself very well and respectful, you would bow down to anything they say....if you believe what you believe.

Hey man football game tm @ 9 dont miss it!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2012king
am i the only one who sees that these people are only recording the police to try and get a reaction?
why else would they be doing it?
i know people have the right to do pretty much whatever they want on their own property (within reason) but why make a video of the police?
i could understand it if something serious was happening, wether it be police brutality or a serious crime happening, but to record them just to get a reaction, and possibly try and get them into trouble because of that reaction, is just plain stupid.

Why not considering the fact that these people have been caught again and again for police brutality, not following the constitution and so on.
We are also filmed by state everywhere we go, so i think it is only right that we are allowed to film them without being arrested or harassed.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


First off, you stated I was part of the problem? Sorry, I don't know your profession, or what state you are from, but where I live, I know exactly what I am talking about.

I had put all the laws, links etc and the definition for interfering with the duties of an office. My connection timed out, its late, I'm tired, and not looking all of that up again. But I will share with you this for now.

www.middletownpress.com...

HARTFORD — State Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, Wednesday testified in favor of a proposed bill that Textguarantees a person’s right to photograph or videotape a police officer in the performance of his or her duties.duties.

“There have been numerous incidents throughout the nation in which citizens have been harassed, threatened and arrested for recording what would seem to be public action by police officers,” Looney said. “It is difficult to understand how a police officer has any expectation of privacy in his or her public duties.”

Looney said that creating a possible cause of action against officers who attempt to intimidate citizens would serve as a deterrent. “Officers who are following appropriate law and procedure should not object to this recording, so long as the recording does not interfere with the officer’s ability to perform his or her appropriate duties,” he said.

There were two local incidents that prompted the proposed bill: an East Haven police officer arrested a priest who was videotaping him as he questioned a store owner; and New Haven police threatened and arrested Yale students who took pictures of police as they raided a local club in the city.

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr. has made it clear since then that Textcity police should not arrest citizens who videotape them or take photos, as long as they are not interfering with the officers’ performance of duty.

The American Civil Liberties Union agreed with Looney, but those representing police testified against it.

The Connecticut Police Chiefs Association was concerned that the “bill’s breadth would penalize officers for protecting the privacy of helpless crime or accident victims and could expose witnesses or informants to retaliation,” according to its written testimony.

The proposed bill says Textpolice officers would be liable in any suit or complaint brought by a citizen who is illegally charged after taking images of the officer.

Looney said he was willing to tweak the language to make it clear that Textobservers should not be crossing police lines. State Sen. John Kissel, D-Enfield, agreed that if it is fashioned correctly, the bill “can be beneficial to law enforcement officers” as it encourages good policing practices.

Eric Brown, a lobbyist for the Connecticut Council of Police Unions, AFSCME, Council 15, said, “To encourage members of the public ... to videotape police officers in the hopes that a mistake may be made, or a human indiscretion may occur, is shameful.”

Please don't make accusations that I don't know what I am talking about. This bill has not yet passed. But I have several people I know that are officers, and have been for many, many years. I asked them to watch the video, and they said personally it was over board. But, these are TNT members who take down drug dealers. So maybe they have tougher skin


Edited: to fix the link to article
edit on 23-6-2011 by summer5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I gotta say that the police were way out of line here. No need for this. It's like living in communist China.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Let's see, we have a cop who we know commited perjury by filing a false report (claim of stopping a car with three people known/assumed to be associated with a criminal organization, when in actuality there was only one presumably innocent, since he was released). By definition, a liar of the worst sort.

The fact that he freaked out over being videotaped and overreacted, accompanied by the fact that he actually turned in a false report implies to a reasonable person that the paperwork was falsified prior to the stop. The last time I checked, most official paperwork associated with arrests, traffic stops, etc. is serialized to ensure accountability. He had to know he'd get caught, but turned it in anyway. He'd have to be incredibly stupid to think otherwise. While that is certainly a possibility, his reaction to being filmed speaks otherwise.

I can think of quite a few charges he could reasonably be arrested for and tried on, especially if a DA wanted to make an example of him.

The fact that leos here defend an obvious criminal cop just tells you what their character is and where their values lie, and the extant of the problem.
edit on 23-6-2011 by apacheman because: grammar



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
It's as much for the woman's protection as theirs. They stopped someone for a traffic infringement. Perhaps he was drugged, drunk, pissed off, whatever. Police have to consider everything - just being on her lawn doesn't mean she isn't a threat.

If she had just quietly filmed from her porch, or through a window, I doubt there would be an issue. I understand there are some bad cops. But holy crap.. are they allowed to do their jobs at all? Why was the woman filming at all? Oh yea.. it's her "right" to do whatever she wants, because she is an American citizen.

I almost feel bad for cops at times - they stop someone.. who is potentially a hazard to others, if he was running red lights, speeding, or whatever. But they are apparently "scum" for doing their jobs - they have NO rights at all. They don't have the right to feel safe, or protect the woman, or say a thing. So, if they woman had been standing at the very edge of her property and filming from a few feet away.. is this perfectly ok?

Over the centuries, people have lost sight of what freedom means. Now, many think it means people can do whatever they want, say whatever they want, wherever they want, and all cops are evil scum. So many Americans feel entitled to everything and anything. Our ancestors knew what freedom actually meant. And it didn't mean harassing police doing their jobs, just because you feel it's your right to do so.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
While I will say that I starred and flagged this thread and post, I can also say that the young woman will definitely be found guilty in this case. You must obey an order from an officer if he says that he doesn't feel "safe." The courts will always uphold that to keep the goodwill of the officers.

This is a good lesson for people to learn. I know it may look like there's "no hope" for the U.S., but some of us do know the law. Some of us know when to pick our fights...that's when we'll win.
edit on 6/23/11 by FibroKat because: misspell



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What exactly did the officers abuse in this case?
Please cite your supporting laws to support your claim.


Xcathdra, I don't feel safe with you posting near me in this thread. Close your browser, turn off your computer immediately and leave the room. If you do not comply with this order, you will be placed under arrest.



new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join