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: 13
143
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Quick to go after law enforcement?? Did you not read that I have friends who are officers? The last thing I want is any harm to come to them in the line of duty. I have had to many of my friends killed in the line of duty. They are honored every year in DC at the annual police gathering for fallen officers. I wish that event didn't exist but it does.

The point is THIS particular video. I had my friend who is working night shift tonight, take a look at it (love when you can find people on Facebook late at night). He watched it, he said "it was over the top". His ranks are Detective, Sergeant, Lieutenant, been on the force for 35 years.

You keep pointing the finger at every one and making accusations, would you state what YOUR rank is? Are you an attorney? A police officer? If you are an officer, are you seasoned or a rookie? Also, could you please show laws and or codes that you make reference to? Thank you.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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
 



There is not an affirmative defense in court to resist even an unlawful arrest. Before you give out advice, you should know what the law says and not what you personally think it should say.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I am an ex-sergeant in the local PD. Don't get all self righteous on me.

In detaining a person, you are free to move them to a place you feel is safer. That would be a lawful order. In fact I have done that hundreds of times.

I do know the law, thanks. I know it very well.

That has nothing to do with the part of the post you quoted, unless you have an objection to me stating be will not be made fun of because of the reason of safety?

By all means you are in control of a scene.

Was this scene on the females' property? If not, there is no jurisdiction.

And I never said detainees were in charge of a scene. You brought that up.

So how did the detainee take charge of the scene?




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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
 



There is not an affirmative defense in court to resist even an unlawful arrest. Before you give out advice, you should know what the law says and not what you personally think it should say.


Who is expected to respect the law more -- civilians who are being arbitrarily persecuted under the veil of its name, or those who pretend enforce it and arbitrarily persecute instead, and are paid to do so by the former? The law has no integrity when those who enforce it only preach about its value when it suits their personal desires, and ignore it when it doesn't.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


BULL#

Sorry for T&C but I am calling this one like it is.

www.constitution.org...

--Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”--

I think a certain officer needs to learn their law a bit more.






 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Wow.. I hope she sues the crap out of those fascist pigs! That cop had absolutely no right to even confront her let alone arrest her, this is why we hate cops!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Unlawful. This arrest was lawful.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Reply to post by chancemusky
 


On what grounds?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
is that video from afghanistan? which country? why she keeping record while police says go home?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


As has been repeatedly said, she was distracting from the situation at hand, and therefore obstructing. If you want more reason, go and read again whats been posted, because everything here is going in a circle.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

As has been repeatedly said, she was distracting from the situation at hand, and therefore obstructing.


Another glib defense of abuse of power and destruction of personal freedoms. "Your passive existence and videotaping from your own property is distracting from the situation at hand, and therefore obstructing" -- BULL %@!$%. What if she were just watching? The eyes are the video cameras of the brain, how is that any different?

Are you going to make that case that no one is allowed to even WATCH an arrest? From their own property? Can't you frigging understand what a dangerous precedent that is, what a nightmarish police state you are allowing to come into being by being in defense of this abomination of justice?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Reply to post by chancemusky
 


I have read. Thanks.

--A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor`s intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.--

Please provide proof of her obstructing, dimpairing, or perverting the admistration of the law..

Or how about where she prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by
means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interference.





 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


We do know the officer filed a false report.

You still defend him?


What was false in his report?

Here is the article with some more information thats not on camera.
Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard

She was close enough to have this exchange -

Then one of the officers, identified as Mario Masic in the arrest report, turns to the camera and asks, "You guys need something?"

"I'm just -- this is my front yard -- I'm just recording what you're doing. It's my right," Good replies.


It goes on to talk about the officer stating not from the sidewalk, which as the article points out the officer was in the wrong with that comment. However, it continues after she was told to back off.


"This is my yard," Good says.

"I don't feel safe with you standing behind me so I'm going to ask you go into your house, you understand?" Masic says.

From there, the conversation escalates into a confrontation, with Masic alleging that Good is threatening his safety, and that she expressed other, unspecified anti-police statements before the videotaping began.


The simple fact the discussion continued does place her actions into intefereing and failing to obey a lawful command. The issue was the ladies proximity, not the recording. The issue was the ladies refusal to comply with the request / order, not because she was recording. She decided to argue with the officer for over a minute about his perception that she is a threat.

A person does not have to be armed to constitute a threat. Forcing an officer to divide his attention also creates a threat. The argument people are making is no threat was present. What people miss is we dont have to wait for the threat to be actualized before taking action. In lamens terms, if a person is walking towards me with a gun in their hand, I dont have to wait to be shot first in order to shoot back.

Her public defender has went on record stating other witnesses coroborate the ladies version of the story, including "Ryan Acuff, a friend of Good's who witnessed the exchange and picked up the video camera after she was arrested, agreed."

Why is that info important? Because of this:

"The real reason they arrested her was because she was videotaping," Acuff said


An intresting argument from a bystander... It makes one wonder about motive, since most bystanders will not make the connection between reocrding and police action. The reporter uncovered this:

Both he and Good are activists who have previously protested foreclosures in the area.

Acuff has posted his own account of the arrest on Indymedia. He said he and Good were videotaping the traffic stop out of concern about police misconduct.


There is nothing wrong or illegal about being an activist. There is nothing wrong with recording the police. It does raise questions about whether the actions by the female were legitimate though, or if they were done intentionally to foce an encounter with the officers while recording it.

Her argument its her right to be in her front yard in that circumstance is wrong. The Officer clearly states she would be arrested for failing to obey a lawful command, not for recording. When he directed her to back off, she refused to comply, which is where the violation occured.

The argument people are making about her rights being violated, or the police overstepped their authoirty would be wrong.

As far as the discrepancy about the number of people. Maybe we should get a copy of the police report to see the context its in. I have used the same language in my reports, dealing with multiple people, where I dealt with one person peronally, and another officer stopped a second vehicle at my direction because it was part of my initial stop and investigation.

It says only one man was pulled out of the car yet at the same time you have 2 more officers present at the vehicle looking in the entire time. The article states because of how dark it is, they dont know if anyone else is in the vehicle or not.

The other questions you guys are ignoring is what was the reason for the traffic stop? Did the officer observe this car stop on the street and talk to identified gang members through the window which can be taken as a possible drug deal. The act of stopping a car and talking to a person through an open window is not in itself illegal. However, if there is a law that prevents a vehicle from stopping in that manner, then there is reason to stop the vehicle.

If the officer has a prior history with the driver, or of the 2 other individuals, for criminal activity, then resaonable suspicion is already present to make contact.

I love how she turned on the water works when she was arrested and made sure to speak loud enough of whay she thinks she was being arrested. The entirety of her and her friends actions look contrived to me in an effort to accuse the police of something they did not do.

She was NOT arrested for recording.
She WAS arrested for failing to obey a lawful command.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by chancemusky
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

As has been repeatedly said, she was distracting from the situation at hand, and therefore obstructing.


Another glib defense of abuse of power and destruction of personal freedoms. "Your passive existence and videotaping from your own property is distracting from the situation at hand, and therefore obstructing" -- BULL %@!$%. What if she were just watching? The eyes are the video cameras of the brain, how is that any different?

Are you going to make that case that no one is allowed to even WATCH an arrest? From their own property? Can't you frigging understand what a dangerous precedent that is, what a nightmarish police state you are allowing to come into being by being in defense of this abomination of justice?


Even if she were just watching, if she is distracting, INCLUDING COMMENTS SHE MADE BEFORE THE VIDEO, she may be ordered to leave the immediate area. It doesn't matter if its her property, i mean, she cant shoot rounds into the air now can she?

And yea, im defending a police state, blah blah, whatever. Some people are going to endlessly villify the officer doing their job no matter what, and I can see no amount of reasoning will change their mind, it just agitates them into being rude.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by aytacaksel
is that video from afghanistan? which country? why she keeping record while police says go home?


When you stand on your own property you are within the boundaries of your own home.

Personally i think its important that people take interest in how their local peace officers conduct their job. Its wrong to make laws that prevents people from taking interest in how authority manage the community they are a part of.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Reply to post by chancemusky
 


Perhaps you and X should look up the legal definitions for the words in the law.

Just sayin'.

By the way. Shooting a gun in the air is unlawful. Recording something is not. Apples and oranges.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Again, what lawful command?

A lawful command is a command that is supported by fact and the law.

So what law supports his command?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Okay, so I justed watched the video, however I did NNOT read the 13 pages of comments. As a public servant myself (Firefighter/EMT in Michigan) I understand the ridicule we face with the public eye. Also I come from a law enforcement(LE) family(mom,dad,3uncles are all officers with 20+)

So here are the facts:

When they originally asked her what she was doing her response of “Im just recording what youre doing, its my right.” She was fine until the its my right part, that showed she had an attitude and a defiant attitude, which poses a threat to officers and their investigation

They NEVER asked her to stop recording, they asked her to go inside, ever watch cops? They do it all the time, its legal, multiple onlookers poses a potential threat and interferes with their investigation.

She never should have went to jail, the officer gave her several warnings(I counted 6)

She was breaking the law, its called obstruction of justice

The other law she broke was interfereing with an ongoing police investigation, the original “suspect” was NOT under arrest, he was simply being investigated.

Were the officers inappropriate with the traffic stop? NO

They don’t feel comfortable with onlookers, in LE you cannot treat anything like routine, and they have to always expect the worst.

Ok she was in her front yard, well if she was naked in her front yard that’s illegal too.

Witness claims she apologized for being behind the officers , no she didn’t.

Lastly, would you like it if someone showed up at your work and started video taping you? Theyre just trying to do their jobs. Also, they know wat happens in a video is almost always taken out of context, I myself have seen plenty videos of “officers gone bad” when they weren’t doing anything wrong but what is shown on tape is taken out of context.

Also, are there going to be some bad cops?sure, but that doesn’t mean they all are. Have you ever had a job with a bad co-worker? That’s what I thought

Oh and lol if you heard the friend with camera hold back a laugh when they put her in the car .



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Exactly, and so is obstruction. So no, theyre not apples and oranges. I used it to show that just because it is your property, you must obey the law.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Textreply to post by Mister_Bit
 


I Really Feel That The Police Officers Were Just Doing Their Job, And They Asked The Women Politely To Go In Her House It Looks Like She Don't Like Law Enforcement




top topics



 
143
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join