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: 21
143
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

For some reason you guys are under the impression that minors, or even geriatrics, are not a threat.



Anyone can become a 'threat' once a cop has brutalized them. It is par for the course.

Just like any Iraqi can become 'an insurgent' after the military kills or injures them.

It doesn't matter what they actually are. Justifications must be made and they are.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


Fact - The 4th amendment does NOT apply to the individual, but the Government
Fact - The officer was not conducting a search of her house or car
Fact - The officer made a probable cause arrest, not a warrant arrest
Fact - The Supreme Court has ruled a person can be held for 24-48 hours while PC statement is written and submitted to the PA for review and approval or denial or modification.

Fact - Its irrelevant if she is on her own property or not.
Fact - Being on private property does not make you immune from criminal charges.

Fact - Quit citing the FEderal Constitution for local / state law enforcement. We use state and local law, and are governed by 42 USC 1983 as a FEderal backup

As I have said before, please learn how the law works, how your rights work and then come back and debate your point.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manhater
I'll answer that, many get handcuffs put on so this way they don't do something stupid while the officer is doing his/her investigation. Like when they call in the suspects car and ID and check for warrants they may have or may have not been issued for that suspect.

It's called being temporarily detained. From an those officers standpoint, I bet, they were just being cautious of a possible suspect that may or may not have warrants out. Not arrested. Now if you get hauled to the station. I would fairly assume that you are being arrested.

She was acting like they were doing a Martin Luther King beating to that suspect, for crying out loud.

She deserved what she got.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


The question, again was why was he let go. I specifically asked that question for the reason apparent in the context of my post and the one prior to it. I never once asked why he was handcuffed.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I hold no hatred for honest police officers. I do not respect corrupt police officers on power trips that think that they are not only above the law, but somehow above the entirety of the human species. You want to know why the majority of the people in this thread are against your argument? Because everyday we see videos of police abusing their power by either beating the living snot out of someone or bending the law to their will to justify their actions. Even when these officers are caught they seem to serve a far less punishment for their actions than anyone else would.

You want to talk about the law? Lets talk about people sitting in jail right now waiting in a room with 20 other people for up to two weeks to see a judge. Oh you dont have money to pay me to let you out? Rot. It just goes to show you how well the law works when you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not when everything is run by for profit institutions that call themselves "correctional facilities". Im sure we can argue that holding a non violent pot smoker with rapists and murderers goes a long way towards correction for that individual. You argue that you are an officer to protect and serve society? Is that why the majority of what it is that you do is revenue generating?

You cannot demand respect simply because you have a badge. It is not given to those that would so blatantly spit on the personal rights and freedoms of an individual regardless of how you want to dance around the law to justify the actions of this officer.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Fact - The lady is required to comply with the lawful command, because the command was in fact lawful.


Quoted for prosperity
Best defense of a cop abusing their power ever.


Best response quote for you for supporting ignorance and advocating stupidity while ignoring the law.

Show me the law the officer violated and how he abused his authority?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Seems to me that all of you Americans need to rise. At least rise up, against the implementation of law against citizens.

Why do other countries go fine without these power trip cops?

I am not saying you over there should be so free as us over here in the Netherlands



(found this video today, I just cant stop laughing.) Its a bunch of kids, that took an police car. Another civilian on bike noticed that, and started filming. He enjoys it too, and yells Hey put the sirens on..

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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.


Everyone of your posts sure does seem to go on and on about what happened before you got to see what happened. It must be amazing to be able to defend your fellow cops because you can see events that happened before the camera started rolling from your chair. How do I see what you saw?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
If anything like this happens to anyone reading this. Don't get upset.

These officers were probably getting off on how upset this woman became.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by e11888
I hold no hatred for honest police officers. I do not respect corrupt police officers on power trips that think that they are not only above the law, but somehow above the entirety of the human species.


We arent perfect, however we arent all the same cops that end up making case law either. You can make the argument that you think we are above the laww all you want, but the fact remains that you are ignoring the very laws you say we are above.

You guys make posts all the time showing police misconduct or brutality and claim that they are aboive the law, yet in those same sources it talkes about the investigation and charges against those officers. If we are above the law, then how can we be charged with violating it?


Originally posted by e11888
You want to know why the majority of the people in this thread are against your argument? Because everyday we see videos of police abusing their power by either beating the living snot out of someone or bending the law to their will to justify their actions. Even when these officers are caught they seem to serve a far less punishment for their actions than anyone else would.


The reason they are against my arguments is because they dont understand the laws or how the work. They make claims that are not true, and invoke laws that dont apply. They dont grasp what the 4th amendment is, or who it applies to. They dont understand case law that has reshaped / defined / expanded or outright rejected other laws.

They dont take the time to understand how their government works, leading to mistrust based on ignorance. They dont like my arguments because they hate cops so much, thery are'nt intrested in the facts.

We swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
We dont swear to tell the truth, the half truth and whatever helps your argument out.


Originally posted by e11888
You want to talk about the law? Lets talk about people sitting in jail right now waiting in a room with 20 other people for up to two weeks to see a judge. Oh you dont have money to pay me to let you out? Rot. It just goes to show you how well the law works when you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not when everything is run by for profit institutions that call themselves "correctional facilities". Im sure we can argue that holding a non violent pot smoker with rapists and murderers goes a long way towards correction for that individual. You argue that you are an officer to protect and serve society? Is that why the majority of what it is that you do is revenue generating?


Yes lets talk about the law, and I will throw in another example of ignorance and non understanding of the system. The law is important, if for no other reason that it would show law enforcement has nothing to do with the judicial branch of government. It would show that law enforcement does not find people innocent or guilty. It would show law enforcement has nothing to do with sentencing.

It would show that the Prosecuting Attorny (judicial) reviews and files charges and decides if they will prosecute or delcine prosecution. It would show that a judge or jury determines guilt or innocence. It would show that a judge or jury is responsible for sentencing.

So yes, lets discuss the law. I have been asking you guys to do that from some time now.


Originally posted by e11888
You cannot demand respect simply because you have a badge. It is not given to those that would so blatantly spit on the personal rights and freedoms of an individual regardless of how you want to dance around the law to justify the actions of this officer.


No kidding. Respect is earned, not given or demanded. That is a 2 way street. And once again, your personal rights and freedoms are present until the moment they interfere with nother person personal rights and freedoms.

You guys use that term al the time, but I dont think you actually understand what it means.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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?


On what grounds did they have to arrest her? Do you know what she was charged with? Looks like they really had to dig through the books to find that charge.

Emily Good was charged with obstructing governmental administration.

So talking to the mailman about the weather qualifies. What a country!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Lets see if I was this woman, here is how I would twist this. This appears to be a theft of property issue. The police officer illegally confiscated her front lawn. Her property was not part of a crime scene since a crime did not happen on her property. And the lack of a crime scene was further substantiated by the fact that the man was not charged. I would get a really good attorney and sue the police department.
edit on 23-6-2011 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Emily Good was charged with obstructing governmental administration.

So talking to the mailman about the weather qualifies. What a country!


Seems to me they could use the same charge to imprison protesters anywhere near government buildings. "Hey, I can't think about my paperwork with all that chanting outside, they're obstructing governmental administration!" That would actually be more legally defensible than what was done here.

And you have to love the corrupt defense of the "indeterminate radius of safe arrest overriding any other laws within the radius, such as personal property laws." Reminds me of Newsradio when they asked Bill McNeal where he would like his smoking area setup. "How about a 10 foot radius around ME?"

Remember kids! There's an undefined radius around every police officer, inside which your rights will not be observed or upheld.
Oh, if only that statement WEREN'T true...


Originally posted by Xcathdra
In all honesty, I dont blame a lot of you. It is possible for a person to be afraid of something they dont understand.


Like cops afraid of people with cameras. They just can't understand why we don't trust them anymore.

edit on 23-6-2011 by Observer99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.


Everyone of your posts sure does seem to go on and on about what happened before you got to see what happened. It must be amazing to be able to defend your fellow cops because you can see events that happened before the camera started rolling from your chair. How do I see what you saw?


It must be easy to sit behind a computer, be ignorant of the law, how it works, and how your rights work, throwing rocks, while never being present either.

The difference between you and I.

I understand how the law works, where as you dont.
I understand how civil rights work, where as you dont
I understand that a camera does not always show both sides of the story, where as you dont
I understand the laws and guidlines established that law enforcement operates in, where as you dont.

I am glad you borought up the comment about prior to the video. Something occured prior to her recording. Funny, yet not surprising, that you and others ignore that, instead going directly for the 100 meter rush to judgment and then onto the blame relay.

So yes, I will respond and explain the aspects you guys ignore or dont know about. Its only fair to have a opposide when in a I hate cops thread dont you think?

Or would you prefer those who have a background in this area just sit quietly and allow the other side to go on and on about a legal issue they dont understand?

Why is it so bad for someone to explain the other half? Are you that threatened by the truth? Do you hate the cops so much that you dont care about their side of this issue?

In all honesty, I dont blame a lot of you. It is possible for a person to be afraid of something they dont understand.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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?


On what grounds did they have to arrest her? Do you know what she was charged with? Looks like they really had to dig through the books to find that charge.

Emily Good was charged with obstructing governmental administration.

So talking to the mailman about the weather qualifies. What a country!


And once again, respectuflly, if you are goin to make a comparison, at least do it correctly. The mailman will fall under Federal Law, since they are employed by the federal government.

Secondly, a Mailman is not a federal / local police officer with arrest authority. Which means anyone can talk to him as long as they want.

As far as what grounds does she have for a lawsuit. Based on the info we have right now, she has no standing. The officer was within the law, within department policy, and not in violation of 42 USC 1983, which makes him immune from civil prosecution.

The exchange between the officer and the lady started out as a conversation, and ended with the officer telling her to move away. She refused, she was arrested, she has been charged by the PA.

Lol.. the comment about having to dig to find a staute is funny. At least they did that, as opposed to just randomly pulling stuff out of their butts like the majority of you guys do.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Police Overt Digital Surveillance System

In 2008, the Rochester Police Department announced another crime fighting tool used to increase the protection of our citizens and the safety of our officers. The City of Rochester purchased fifty cameras that are strategically placed throughout the city based on criminal data developed. Surveillance cameras provide the Rochester Police Department an added tool in keeping our streets safe. Technology has allowed us through the use of surveillance cameras to have an extra set of eyes on our streets. By the end of 2008, fifty surveillance cameras were installed with additional cameras to be ordered. The Rochester Police Department remains committed to ensuring its citizens receive the best protection available. The department will continue to fund and promote resources into ensuring that public safety remains a priority in this community. Several innovative ideas continue to be explored implementing the cameras in conjunction with programs linked to our 911 system.


We have well over 100 cameras ringing our city now. I highly doubt this woman had infrared on her camera and I did not see her aim it at anyone's open window or force her way into a home. If the RPD can watch us pick our nose through our walls, or read our magazines while we sit outside for lunch, we can at least video tape them doing the job we pay them to do.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by KitilaniWe have well over 100 cameras ringing our city now. I highly doubt this woman had infrared on her camera and I did not see her aim it at anyone's open window or force her way into a home. If the RPD can watch us pick our nose through our walls, or read our magazines while we sit outside for lunch, we can at least video tape them doing the job we pay them to do.


Have you protested it? If not, you're partly to blame.

You see, the founders of this country wanted government to be accountable to the people. They would support public citizens with video cameras but never mass surveillance of public citizens by law enforcement or the government. The cameras are being pointed at us when they should be pointed the other way. Society has it backwards as usual.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Come on man are you really defending this?

What could possibly have happened before the video starts? Judging by her tearful reaction to the cops taking her from her own property she doesn't seem like she would be aggressive.

Also judging by how quick the officer was to arrest her following his AWESOME orders, if she had been doing something illegal before, she would have been in the back of the van alot sooner.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





It must be easy to sit behind a computer, be ignorant of the law, how it works, and how your rights work, throwing rocks, while never being present either.


This is the part you dont understand. You don't understand the difference between how the law works and what is law. There is a big difference in how a law is being used/practiced and what the law stats.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


How many times did you say "we," in your little speech up above. It's that right there that is the problem. Police in this country feel like some kind of brotherhood, a national gang of thugs lording over the peasantry.

You are part of the problem, each and every police officer defending further usurpation against the people of this nation is part of the problem.

I would know, I left the field because the majority of police officers are like yourself, and in this video.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Manhater
I'll answer that, many get handcuffs put on so this way they don't do something stupid while the officer is doing his/her investigation. Like when they call in the suspects car and ID and check for warrants they may have or may have not been issued for that suspect.

It's called being temporarily detained. From an those officers standpoint, I bet, they were just being cautious of a possible suspect that may or may not have warrants out. Not arrested. Now if you get hauled to the station. I would fairly assume that you are being arrested.

She was acting like they were doing a Martin Luther King beating to that suspect, for crying out loud.

She deserved what she got.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)


The question, again was why was he let go. I specifically asked that question for the reason apparent in the context of my post and the one prior to it. I never once asked why he was handcuffed.


Because he probably most likely checked out with no warrants coming back to him. The car probably didn't come back as stolen. He was given the OK from the HQ to let him go. Look at that, if she didn't interfere in the first place, no one would of gotten arrested and everybody wins.. But, she made the scene dangerous and she deserve to go to jail, do not collect $200 after passing GO. Besides, how long was she in jail for? Surprised you guys aren't asking that question. I think they just booked her, got her on file, made her spend a couple of hours in there and had someone pick her up. I mean the lady was in PJ's, Whose going to be on their front lawn in PJ's at that time of night, if they were not asking to be a spectator in some event? She should of listened and taken a step back or go in the house. Either, Or. She did neither.

BTW, I'm not in L.E. but I do have a C. J. Degree.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join