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: 23
143
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
She made the "typical right to video tape im on private property argument"

Yes, that's so typical of the peasants to make that silly argument.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I don't understand the law?

She was acting well within her rights, in fact it was the Officer who was trespassing on her property.

If you had the intelligence to do a little research you would find out that the Officers in question dropped her off at the local high school and had a little get together to decide how to cover their asses.

The Rochester Police Chief as well as City Councilman have spoken against the actions of the Officers.

I'm not surprised to watch you recklessly and blindly defend each and every instance of abuse that pops up. This is common behavior, especially from an Officer who clearly thinks himself above his other fellow Officers.

I'm not unintelligent, or cowardly for getting away from the monstrosity that has become Law Enforcement in this country. The Rule of Law is dead in our once great nation, leaving behind a corrupt cancerous mass.

You say you stay in the system to try and fix it from the inside, I say you stay in the system because you're clearly one of the twisted minds that populates the ranks nationwide. Your ethics are clearly questionable at best, and if your ethical compass is something you are trying to defend, I'm sorry to tell you, but they are already gone.


If I could give you 5 stars I would. Yours was the best post in this entire thread. I couldn't have said it any better.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


OH PLEASE!

Here we go again with the mobile phone gun...

You know, you just really love to stretch it to the max don't you.

If a person wanted to bring harm to a Police Officer, they could do it in at least a thousand ways. Anyone driving by could ram their car into that little crowd of Officers, anyone in their home could open fire on you. What is your point? That the woman clearly recording an Officer, could potentially bring harm to them, from some ludicrous source? The more likely scenario would be that a shot would be fired from INSIDE the home.

Please get a grip. Where does it end? Any Police Officer could say that he felt threatened from just about anything. Where does it end?
edit on 23-6-2011 by Tephra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chancemusky
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.


Where I grew up in the 19th ward, there was the most hideously painted bright purple house. It was such a distraction that people actually had accidents at the corner and said they were looking at the freaky house. Where do the cops legally get to draw the line between what you are legally doing on your own property being right and being an unlawful distraction? I think that seems to be the only question being asked that no one cares to answer. Where exactly is that line drawn? Where is that line between following a lawful order and just following orders come in to play?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
If Rochester is anything like it was when I grew up there many of the cops have mafia ties and earn a little extra retirement income that way. They were probably going to shake down a minor dealer but camera lady here was being a problem to them.
Sad thing is if she sues and wins it's not the cops that pay but her and her neighbors through taxation.
Rochester is a dying city, all the big industry left years ago so I'd be willing to bet drugs are the now the biggest money maker there, even for cops.
That lady had no clue what she was getting involved in.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
She was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command, not because she wasrecording. If your "friend" is that confortable with people being in that close of proximity while performing his duties, I fear for his safety.


Proximity? Where do you think this took place? They were in the street. She was in her yard. Who was in proximity of whom here? Did she move her house to a traffic stop or did the cops come into her yard?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" -MLK


Freaking LOVE THAT QUOTE, thank you. I will save that one. Maybe it will go on future protest signs.


Originally posted by The_Phantom
Yes, some women in history have killed, so let's assume that all women are dangerous, no let's go a step further and arrest them on the basis that they may commit a future crime.


She didn't do anything wrong, that's the point, if the law is that she was wrong then something is wrong with the law. That's the point of MLK's quote in case you didn't get it, law doesn't equal being in the right.


In effect she was arrested for a potential future crime, the order to leave was given on the basis that she may pose a threat and commit a crime in the future.


YEP. You nailed it. American citizens are ALL POTENTIAL CRIMINALS. We must be treated as such, and searched without cause at any time, especially when boarding planes and trains and buses. All in the name of safety folks, it's all about YOUR safety. Don't you dare look the wrong way at the gestapo, they will haul you away.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Observer99 because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   
1. She was asked to step back, even to go into her house. When she stepped back onto her property that should have ended it. He has no right to tell someone that they can't be in thier own yard, that is ridiculous
2 The cop said he was feeling threatened by her standing there, from the video she looked about 120 pounds, and all she had was a video camera. If he was threatened by that he doesn't need to be a cop.
3. Why did they release the original guy to take her? He was handcuffed which means they had detained him for some reason, why let him go to take in this "dangerous" woman with a camera? Maybe what ever his crime was it wasn't as bad as hers, or maybe they can't do two things at once?
4. She was arrested for not obeying a lawful order, I can't see where he gave a lawful order, so now he will have to prove that he was in the right and that will be hard to do with the video evidence that I saw.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Whoa whoa whoa.... Lawful command? I want proof from you that this was a lawful command. Innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove guilt not the other way around.


I am still waiting for my answer. Where is the proof that their comment was lawful?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by rcanem
1. She was asked to step back, even to go into her house. When she stepped back onto her property that should have ended it. He has no right to tell someone that they can't be in thier own yard, that is ridiculous
2 The cop said he was feeling threatened by her standing there, from the video she looked about 120 pounds, and all she had was a video camera. If he was threatened by that he doesn't need to be a cop.
3. Why did they release the original guy to take her? He was handcuffed which means they had detained him for some reason, why let him go to take in this "dangerous" woman with a camera? Maybe what ever his crime was it wasn't as bad as hers, or maybe they can't do two things at once?
4. She was arrested for not obeying a lawful order, I can't see where he gave a lawful order, so now he will have to prove that he was in the right and that will be hard to do with the video evidence that I saw.
That video camera could have been a missile launcher, or incendary bomb, for all we know. Hell, she herself could have consumed a load of fertilizer, ready to explode at the mere thought of it. This dirty pig, sorry, brave cop. Should be put on a pedestal and be given the keys to the freakin city.


I've still not been told how "being noticed" by a police officer is a criminal offence. I need to know, becasue I certainly don't want to be "noticed" by a pig. Wouldn't want to end up on ludricros charges now, do I.
Law enforcement is a joke, and so are those who uphold it.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Whoa whoa whoa.... Lawful command? I want proof from you that this was a lawful command. Innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove guilt not the other way around.


Uhm yeah.. again, learn the law and how your rights work.

A person is presumed innocent until found guilty ina court of law. Law Enforcement does not determine guilt or punishment. I wish you guys would learn that concept.

The officer articulated why he wanted the lady to move away. The officer gave the lady multiple opprotunities to comply, and she refused. After the minute of back and forth, she was arrested for failing to obey the lawful command to move away.

Being on private property in this case is irrelevant. It does not grant a person immunity from criminal prosecution.

There is a post a few pages back that has the law cited in it and the elements required to be in violation of that law.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
The police cant get away with treating people like that in the UK. But they try anyway. This video is very funny

Film-maker Darren Pollard was clearing up flood rubbish from his front garden when he noticed the police and a teenager opposite his house. Darren retrieved his camera and this is what he filmed!
edit on 22-6-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


OMG I love this video, and being a British citizen I love it even more...
I would like to know what test they have to pass to get into the force!

Jay



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Are you serious with this B.S.? Mobile phone gun? I have seen many instances of people walking up and asking police what is going on when there is something going on and have seen police discuss with them. It is completely the fact that she was recording.

Did she have a cell phone gun? That is the most ridiculous irrelevant argument I have ever seen. Why not say she could have been wearing explosive underwear? What if she was radioactive.

That phone gun b.s. is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen you post and you have posted some absurd things. It is so obvious that them saying they werent comfortable was the best thing they could come up with and it was all about the filming. He must not have what it takes to be a cop if that makes him uncomfortable. How on earth does he pull people over on the highway having cars zoom by at 60 miles an hour if a girl in a pajamas with a camera makes him feel uncomfortable?

Get out of here with your garbage comments.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Phantom
She made the "typical right to video tape im on private property argument"

Yes, that's so typical of the peasants to make that silly argument.


I agree. It is typical of certain people who have ulterior motives in an effort to file a lawsuit so they dont have to work anymore.

And yes, its a typical respons people give who think they are immune from laws while on private property.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Then please post that law with your comment.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Whoa whoa whoa.... Lawful command? I want proof from you that this was a lawful command. Innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove guilt not the other way around.


True story
or should I go
fact - I have never had to serve jury duty due to the fact that every time I am selected after spending all day going threw the process they ask if I have any preconcived notions of the defendants guilt I always say with pride he or she is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then I am asked kindly to leave. I would say coincidence but 8 times and every time that happens. I wonder what that is all about.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yeah but he was in the wrong completely. You can't always get what you want. If he was a citizen telling her to move away because hew as uncomfortable would he have the right then? A firefighter saying the same thing? No he isn't God he's a cop and he had no right to tell her what to do. He isn't the law he is just supposed to uphold it and she wasn't breaking the law.
edit on 23-6-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Tephra
 


I see you are ignoring my request to your post.

Please provide us with the links where you claim city council spoke out against the officer etc.

Or were you just making that up, and now that you were called out, you are going to obfuscate by making comments about my video on the cell phone gun?

Again, provide your source that supports the claims you made, or admit you made the whole thing up.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I didn't have time to read the entire thread but because of my background, I do feel I want to weigh in on this matter. The clip of this video doesn't include the entire incident but in this particular situation I find it hard to pick a 'side'. On the one hand there is this cop who says he doesn't feel safe and is very articulate about his feelings of unsafety. A discussion ensues.. (imo its utter pointless to start discussions with police officers.)
Although I question if the cop doesn't have some alteriar motive about why he doesn't wanna be filmed. Maybe it is some kind of power trip or worse, but thats completely besides the point. He approached this woman in a very correct manner and the lady should have followed his orders because its the law. According to me it's his job to serve and protect but in order for him to do his job his orders should be followed and he should put peoples safety first (including his own).

Where I come from filming an officer on duty isn't illegal but neglecting his orders can be depending on the situation. A judge should always be the judge of that. It is mindboggling to me that so many people these days think they can do a judges job just from watching a video. Eventhough the camera doesn't lie, it doesn't show the entire truth, and as a judge its your job to search for truth. He or she does that with comprehension of the law. I have a lot of faith in our judges and I know that our personal freedoms would always be weighed into this discussion. It's with a reason that article 5 of the european treaty for human rights protects both personal freedom and safety in the same article:

ARTICLE 5
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra
She was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command, not because she wasrecording. If your "friend" is that confortable with people being in that close of proximity while performing his duties, I fear for his safety.


Proximity? Where do you think this took place? They were in the street. She was in her yard. Who was in proximity of whom here? Did she move her house to a traffic stop or did the cops come into her yard?


Yes, proximity. Where she was located and where the officers were located, meaning the distance between her location and the officers location.

And once again, its irrelevant if a person is on private property. It does not make a person immune from criminal prosecution.

The safe distance, or proximity, is up to the officer, not the lady.

This is not a hard concept to understand. She didnt move her house ot the traffic stop, but her own actions did make her part of that traffic stop.

The officer gave the lady multiple opprotunities to move away and she didnt.




top topics



 
143
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join