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: 12
143
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Reply to post by whaaa
 


That is actually a legit reason for cops.

I am not confining the actions. He could have easily moved himself and his customer further away.

But he will not be made fun of on that.

Also I do not know many cops that were roid-heads. Most are just power-trippers. They love to be in control.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
If these LEO's thought her a threat of any kind, they would have immediately arrested her at gunpoint.

This is obviously power-assertion. Do as I say, because I said so.

what utter bull(snip).



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Reply to post by jude11
 


It is because they don't have to give you all the info off-hand.

Cops will cite you for going 45 in a 30, and the citation would say speeding. They know basically what the laws says, but they do not need to know offhand the criminal code number, subsection, etc.

All that is either done later in the paperwork, or the judges office fills out the info.

The cops know what the law says, but not verbatim.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Sue Sue Sue! Sue them for breaching their civil duties to the public to uphold the law and protect.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
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


What false pretenses? How did the officer abuse his authority?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Just got one of these:



This is a keychain camera



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Niiice! Be careful, before you know it, they'll be taking away your keys before speaking to you!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


thats where this is heading, all the police are going to do by over reacting to being filmed is force people into buying camera's that are not visible or obvious. before they knew somebody was filming them, soon they will be unaware due to the fact if they were you'd be arrested so everybody is going for tiny ones.

at least when they knew they could smile and put on an act (if they were a bad cop).



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Reply to post by chancemusky
 


Nope. You do not have to listen to an unlawful order.

She was on her private property.

Not a damn thing he can do about it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


Yea it was only 12 bucks total including shipping. I mean I can put a BMW sticker on it and say it is my car remote lock and can take it where cell phones are not allowed.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Cops can't just make up laws any time they want. They seem to be doing this kind of thing a lot, these days.

He'll lose this case.
edit on 23-6-2011 by JRCrowley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
that's seriously just wow, never had that happen to me once, although i was filming myself buying something in a store then went into another store with those items which that other store doesn't even sell and was accused of stealing them as i was making my way out, but still those cops are idiots, amazing how easy it seems to be a LEO nowadays



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by summer5
 


Proposed law, not a law that is in effect.

Secondly, the officer articulated multiple times to the lady her actions were not welcome in the sense it forced the officer to divert his attention.

Third - We dont know what occured between the officer and the lady prior to recording. Funny how that part is left out, even though the officer made the comment about her actions prior to her recording.

The ACLU has taken this cause up in several states, and rightfully so. However, those cases involved actions by law enforcement that were inconsistent with the laws on the books (Illinois is the lone holdout, and their law will be refined when it hits the FEderal Appeals level which is forthcoming).

In those rulings the key question revolved around the law itself and if the actions of the accused violated that law (which is why Illinois is a holdout, since their law specifically states its a 2 party consent state). At no point did those rulings grant carte blanche to people to record the police while placing themselves, the offcier or the people the cops are dealing with in danger.

It does not trump the laws on the books dealing with obstruction and interrfering in an investigation.

People get stuck on the point of the cops having an issue and nothing else. What people fail to take into account is liability, the person the cops are dealing with as well as the person recording. We, the cops, are responsible for the safety of the people we are dealing with when they are detained / arrested. A traffic stop, per US Supreme Court rulings, is a temporary seizure under the 4th amendment, which means the driver and passengers are not free to leave, which places their safety into the hands of the officers present.

In addition to that, they also become responsible for any 3rd parties who intentionally / unintentionally involve themselves in the call.

A 3rd party who is recording can unintentionally escelate the overall situation. As I pointed out before, its not out of the realm of possibility for the 3rd party actions to piss of the people the officers are dealing with. If a person is recording the situation, and the people the cops are dealing with react to those 3rd parties, those 3rd parties are in fact interfering / obstructing the officer and their actions. Even if the Police dont have any issues with a 3rd parrty recording, the moment the the detained react to the 3rd party, it creates a problem.

You guys are so quick to go after law enforcement that you ignore any and all other circumstances. The notion the officers violated the law, or the 3rd parties rights, is based on nothing but a lack of knowledge and understanding of how the laws work. That lack of understanding translates into tunnel vision, concentrating solely on the officers.

Thats where my issue comes into play here. I could care less if people record us doing our jobs. I do care when those actions place the 3rd party, the people im dealing with, or myself / fellow officers in danger.

In this case was the lady targeted because she was recording the officers? Absolutely not.
She was targeted because she failed to obey several commands to stay clear of what was going on, not because she was recording the incident.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


We do know the officer filed a false report.

You still defend him?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by yourignoranceisbliss
@ 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.


I have done the research, multiple times for multiple threads now because people seize on a story without adequately understanding how laws work. I would respectfully suggest you and some others who are not police, lawyers or judges do some research and understand how it works, instead of making an argument based on how you think it should work.


Originally posted by yourignoranceisbliss
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.

I am a police officer, and I dont need people who are ignorant about the law trying to explain to me how the officers actions were illegal or how the femalkes rights were somehow violated. Where the education needs to come in, again, is for those people who dont know how the law or their rights work.

The only lacking information present in this thread so far is the opinions people are giving which are just that, opinions, which are not supported by case law.


Originally posted by yourignoranceisbliss
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.

Actually Law Enforcement is for me. It is NOT for those people who have a bias towards law enforcement, who place every single cop on the planet into the cateogry of corrupt brutal jack booted thugs. If you dont understand the difference between a 3rd party observing and obstruction / interfering with a lawful arrest or detention, then any argument you continue to give is based on a lack of knowledge, which means your argument holds no water.

If you cant understand that, then maybe critiquing law enforcement actions is not for you. At the very least, we at least know what the law actually says and how its applied. The same cannot be said for many people in this thread whose only argument to date is all cops are evil.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Are we so immature on this forum that we condemn every officer in the US because of one's actions?? Grow up a bit. I've met dozens of police officers in my life, heck 1/3 of my family is involved in law enforcement in one way or another, and i've yet to meet one that came off as rude or on a power trip. The stigma of "cops suck" or "i hate cops" is what makes you look unprofessional and immature. Oh yeah lets just get rid of all the cops. You'll find out what happens then, quick, fast and in an ugly hurry. The officer in this video did have the right to ask her to move back on to her own property, and even then we have no idea who this woman is, or what her history is with police.

I have to ask myself in the end, why was she videotaping the police to begin with? Don't give me the line of, oh the convicted person in the traffic stop may have been subjected to some form of abuse, that holds no weight. Every commission is equipped with a camera on 24/7 during patrol, and is one of the reasons they carry out arrests in front view of the car.

Put on the uniform, and go out, put your life on the line every day with people you've never met, and tell me how you feel. Is every police officer bad? Certainly not. Shoot here in this small town i live in, the police have to deal with the exact opposite. Drugs are invading neighborhoods, abuse happens, and the police can basically do very little without proof. Was he excessive with arresting her? In a simple sense, perhaps, but we saw a video, and we have no idea what else transpired before it.
edit on 6/23/2011 by JackBauer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99

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.


Nice try with the sarcasm, but if you are going to attempt it, then please understand the law and how it works. The officer told the lady several times her actions were not welcome, yet she continued to push it.

The officer finally took action not because she was recording, but because she failed to obey a lawful command, which was to get the hell out of the immediate area. Her actions continued to attract the attention of the officers present, even after she was told to stop.

Also, what took place prior to the lady recording. The officer mentioned an incident prior to her recording, yet again people are so determined to lay blame with the police because they simply hate the police, they ignore that.

Just because something was cuaght on camera does not mean that video is the entire story.

So please, either be open minded enough to allow for the possibility the lady acted innapropriately, or please close your browser and walk away, since your personal bias places the truth in danger.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


She was first arrested under failure to follow a lawful order.

There was no lawful order given. Telling her what to do on her private property is not lawful because he had no jurisdiction.

He then changed the charge of obstructing government business, which, by legal definition, she was not.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
He could have easily moved himself and his customer further away.

Not really. A traffic stop is a temporary detention under the 4th. When we detain a person, we can only move them if we can articulate a mitigatin circumstance (anything that can place the person we are dealing with in danger). Stopping a person / car is a detention. Ordering them to move to a different location without a reason is a defacto arrest since the criteria is would a reasonable person belive they were free to leave at that point? The answer would be now because they were rodered to a different location, which means not of their free will.



Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
But he will not be made fun of on that.

Yeah God forbid an officer who knows the law should follow the law instead of taking direction from people who dont know the law.



Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Also I do not know many cops that were roid-heads. Most are just power-trippers. They love to be in control.


You and some tohers just dont get it. When we initiate a traffic stop or are conducting an investigation, we are in charge. I am not sure why you would think its not the case. Please show me the info you have read that made you think we were not in control of a scene? Please show me the info that shows where a citizen who is detained / arrested is in charge of the scene?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Nice try with the sarcasm, but if you are going to attempt it, then please understand the law and how it works. The officer told the lady several times her actions were not welcome, yet she continued to push it.


Please understand the law and how it works. People are allowed to videotape, people are allowed to stand in their yards.


Originally posted by XcathdraThe officer finally took action not because she was recording, but because she failed to obey a lawful command, which was to get the hell out of the immediate area.


What if the command had been "go burn your house down", must that also be legally obeyed? How about "stand on your head, immediately" or "strip down to your underwear immediately"?

You just. don't. get it. You don't understand the concept of freedom, and the danger of a police state.


Originally posted by XcathdraAlso, what took place prior to the lady recording.


Irrelevant. Whatever happened prior wasn't acted on, the 3 police officers were all busy handcuffing some guy (probably also illegally.) If whatever happened before was so bad why would all 3 officers concentrate on handcuffing the guy in the car and none of them take action or pay attention to this woman? Given all the evidence, you are incorrect.

The police-officer (criminal) is heard clearly on video stating his invalid reasons for the arrest. Show me the laws where police can arrest someone in their own yard, a woman holding only a camera "because the officer doesn't feel safe." Good luck with that.

Your attitude is disgusting and it's people like you who are to blame when freedoms are destroyed. Luckily there are still people like this woman willing to stand and even get arrested defending the principles of freedom.




top topics



 
143
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join