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: 26
143
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


Tell me all about it.


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.


Well, the difference between you and me is that I understand that you do not use "I" when referring to the object of the preposition so at least get your grammar straight before diving into your diatribe about my ignorance of things you made up.

I understand the law just fine. Casting dispersion with no back up is weak and comes across as fearful. I am not sure you understand what a civil right is, let alone how they work but how you can judge me on a topic barely being discussed makes you even more amazing. I had no idea just how psychic you were. I never claimed a camera shows the whole unadulterated truth. In fact, I am pretty sure I made the exact opposite argument in a different thread recently. I never even suggested such a thing so for you to comment on it as you did is actually kind of cute. If you understood the laws and guidelines, you would not still be dancing around the simple question of what lawful order she was given. You would have answered that by now.


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.


I never ignored it. Show me where I ignored it? I just noticed that you had several posts in a row where your entire argument was based on what you decided might have happened prior to what you saw. Then suddenly you tried to call someone out for doing the same thing, I pointed this out to you, and it stopped.


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?


My first post in this thread was to express my surprise as my experiences with the RPD have always been so positive. You might want to pay attention to what you are chastising people for and make sure it makes any sense to do so before you go full head on into it. I am not ignoring things but you need to not pretend you are enlightening anyone as to something we ignore by making up things that you have no clue about. You do not know what happened but you kept using what might have happened to make your point.


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?


Honestly I see no evidence you have experience in anything more than going online and claiming you are someone. I am sure you just expect others to take your word for things but I am a tad less trusting. I even belong to a conspiracy site just because of that sort of thing. You would not like it.


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?


This "other half" you are referring to is the made up BS you keep putting in place of before the video starts. Yes, there is a problem with someone assuming their claimed position of authority gives them the credibility to just make things up and expect them to be taken into consideration with concern to the facts of the situation.

Do not try to justify imagining what you never saw by claiming you are presenting another half. You are just guessing and you know it.


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


This was nothing but you insulting me about things I never said with no actual salient argument. It would have been better if you got some of it right.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You asked for clarification so let me clarify that I was refering to the local cops I had personsl contact with, not all cops are criminals or even behave badly. But the few that do puts a bad light on the rest of the ones that are out there everyday trying to do a thankless job that is VERY dangerous at times.
I understand that what the cop percieves is indicative to how he will react, but cops are human and sometimes predjudices have a way of distorting anyones perceptions, that is what I see a lot of lately, again a few bad apples but it casts a bad light on the rest of you.
OK i can conceed on the proceedures for the handcuffs, it has been almost 20 years since I was in that course.
about the guesswork, you just proved my point, you listed off all the obsrevations a cop can have that lead him to reasonable believe someone may be under the influence, but he can't from the start assume that someone is under the influence.
ok agin on the procedures, my statement was a little far reaching so i shall withdraw that particular argument, like i said before a few bad apples....



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by balon0
When will people learn if they don't want to be a victim of police brutality, just do whatever an officer says and cut the smart aleck. Rights? Constitution? Sorry they don't exist anymore today in Amerika. Sorry but we live in a police state. Just be glad they're not as corrupted as Mexican police.


If everyone retains your attitude they will soon be as corrupt as Mexican police. How do you think Mexican police got that way?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

Obstructing Government Administration

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
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.




Ah ha! Learn how to interpret what you read. Obviously this must have been the first time you read this since you don't understand it. You are not a police officer. Tell me exactly how she broke this law. I dare you.

Well yes I am a police officer. What are you?

Pay attention. Look at the above and read what I underlined.

intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law


She intentionally moved to the position she was standing at in the yard. She intentionally was recording the police during a traffic stop. She was intentionally close so as to record and hear what was going on. She intentionally responded to the officer by saying she was on her property and was recording.


next -

prevents or attempts to prevent a
public servant from performing an official function, by means of
intimidation, physical force or interference


The officer was on duty, on a traffic stop, performing his duties. He is classified as a pulic servant under New York Law.


in·ter·fer·ence (ntr-fîrns)
n.
1.
a. The act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding.
b. Something that hinders, obstructs, or impedes.


The moment the officer was forced to divert his attention to the lady, she was interfering with the officers actions. Interference does not mean physical, which some of you guys think. Since she was not part of the traffic stop, and since her actions of refusing to move away when told to do so, she was in fact, by definition interfering / hindering / obstructing / impeding the officers ability to deal with the task at hand.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I don't speak from law enforcement experience. I speak from common sense. They shouldn't be afraid of such objects. They should use common sense to determine threatening circumstances. Neither you nor the cops in question did that. Maybe if we were talking about people who should be so paranoid such as.. I don't know mobsters.. but not cops standing in front of a regular citizens resident. She had every reason to be there, the cop knew that, she had every right to video, there was no reason to think she would be a threat.

Get real or get out.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


OK.. please cit your source to support your claim its false and illegal.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.


Once again, before you go off calling me stupid or ignorant again you should learn to read.

Emily Good was charged with obstructing governmental administration.

If you see the word "state" in there, help me out. The last time I checked, the federal government was still the 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.


But that ill defined "law" still means that a cop can come along and charge you with

obstructing governmental administration.


I am sure you get my point but do not want to.



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.


So you covered the info supplied in the first page of the thread again?


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.


You are really kind of starting to sound like a teenage boy. You are not making cops look good. You are not swaying anyone about this case. You are not educating anyone with any actual laws or facts. You are just angrily repeating that she was told to do something and most of us are just ignorant. I hope your plan was to foment a little more distrust of the cops because you win that one.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 





Actually a few pages back it explained where this is disputed and if you believe her lawyer is claiming it but she is not, then I do not know what to tell you.

***Edit To Correct
Actually the lawyer didn't really dispute it. She said that she was unable to determine if there were more people in the car. That is completely understandable if she didn't read the report on the traffic stop. Nobody is denying the people were there. They just haven't determined if they were or not. That is completely different than disputing it and much easier to do. Just refuse to read the relevant report and you will be "unable" to determine a lot of things.




They pulled over "3" people. They arrested a 4th person and they let one suspect go. Tell me what is missing.


They didn't address the people in the car. So, let me give you a scenario I have seen numerous times. A car is pulled over and there are multiple occupants. You run the license plate and it comes up belonging to a person that is a "known gang affiliate." You call for back up because you have no idea who is really in the car or their plans. Back up arrives and you aproach the car. You see the driver and realize that he is a suspected gang member. You ask him to step out of the car so you can keep him in the open where it is relatively safer. Back up stands by and monitors the other two guys. You cuff the guy and detain him while you do a Terry search and call for possible warants. It comes back that he has no wants or warrants so you cite him for the infraction and send him up the road.

Do you understand how it can work that a person is pulled out cuffed and not arrested? There is a difference between detained and arrested.

Once an officer has enough reason to detain someone they can perform a Terry Search. According to the Florida Supreme Court a Terry Search is defined as,

In most situations police officers conduct a search during the course of investigating a particular crime and the officers have probable cause either for an arrest or a search. However, in those circumstances where an officer simply encounters a suspicious situation, the officer still may be able to detain the suspicious person and engage in a protective search for weapons. Such a detainment and weapons search is referred to as a "stop-and-frisk" and may be constitutionally permissible even though there is no probable cause for either a full arrest or a full search.



edit on 23-6-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Fact - She was to close to the scene which caused the officer to notice her


They DONT have a right to act in a manner that distracts the officer, forcing the officer to divert his attention to the outside issue.


Was perhaps she breathing too loudly?
Oh and by the way, where does your above quote of the law state this? You just can't go adding to laws on whim. No where does it state that it is against the law to stand a good distance away while watching.

Wake up folks this forum is being trolled.
edit on 23-6-2011 by elouina because: (no reason given)


So you finally have joined the ranks of a few others. When your argument fails, and you learn your wrong, you decide to just answer with snide comments. Also, you should find a person that can read. Have them read the statute to you. Then have them read the meaning of obstruction, interference, impeding etc is. Then go look at the females actions.

Also, please stop trolling in an attempt to derail the thread.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jonco6
 


and yet again... An officer acting under color of law, while performing his duties an arrest a person for obstructing/interfering/impeding his actions.

Since the slutty dressed girl is not a polic eofficer, and since the perosn who sees her is not a police officer, then no, she is not interfereing/impeding/obstructing.

Compare apples to apples please, and please read the entire posts before responding. This has been stated and answered about 6 times now and why there is a difference.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I agree with alot of the people in this thread when they say she should'nt have been arrested. What the cop should have done is pulled out his pistol and whiped her with. Then she would have been much more aggreable to his commands. Some people are just stupid and don't understand verbal commands very well, so you have no choice but to physically explain the situation to them.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


To bad she wasn't filming for that TV show cops.
Then she would have been able to tape the police 24/7.

Hypocracy rules.

edit on 23/6/11 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99

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.



The only thing I can honestly say to that is that I never really thought a one person protest would do too much good, especially since they announced them after they were purchased and schedule for installation. I agree with you but I honestly do not know what I can do. Most people do not care. It does not seem to hamper drug traffic much so I am not sure what they are using them for anyway. It is hard to get people riled up with you about things they do not really care about. Then again, like I have said before I have never really had much reason to fear or distrust the RPD and never heard about any abuses with the cameras. That is probably why no one really cared. Maybe the tide is changing. See, I have neighbors with cameras all around their houses. These multichannel home surveillance systems are getting so cheap and easy to install that I am fairly certain I am on more private video than any of the city cameras. Sometimes I am not sure who I am more worried about watching me when I least expect to be seen. No one likes to be seen pulling their undies out of their crack.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
UPDATING: Bulletpoints:

* A Rochester woman is due in court on Monday

* Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard has ordered an internal investigation of the incident,

* Good was "certainly trying to engage the officers" and that that made the situation dangerous "because it's a distraction to what these officers are doing."

* Good's attorney, Stephanie Stare, as saying she has filed a motion to have the charges thrown out.
"Basically the grounds for the motion to dismiss are that her actions did not rise to the level of a crime. It doesn't fit the statutory elements of obstructing governmental administration."

* WHAM-TV reports that Good was arrested in March on a similar charge at a protest at a house eviction in the neighborhood.

Source: content.usatoday.com...< br />
Continue.... (very interesting responses-and points being made about Law)

(I bet you the officer wishes he would have just stayed focused on the traffic stop now-remembering that statement that the academy instructors kept on saying..... Officer Discression and how they also kept saying it can work against you too)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
Tell me all about it.

Nice.. only 11 more steps for you to go now.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Well, the difference between you and me is that I understand that you do not use "I" when referring to the object of the preposition so at least get your grammar straight before diving into your diatribe about my ignorance of things you made up.

Ah yes, the ever present attack the spelling and grammar because I am in the wrong and cant admit it tactic. You need a new one since that is over played on this site. Oh, and you would be ignorant on how the law works.



Originally posted by Kitilani
I understand the law just fine. Casting dispersion with no back up is weak and comes across as fearful. I am not sure you understand what a civil right is, let alone how they work but how you can judge me on a topic barely being discussed makes you even more amazing. I had no idea just how psychic you were. I never claimed a camera shows the whole unadulterated truth. In fact, I am pretty sure I made the exact opposite argument in a different thread recently. I never even suggested such a thing so for you to comment on it as you did is actually kind of cute. If you understood the laws and guidelines, you would not still be dancing around the simple question of what lawful order she was given. You would have answered that by now.


Maybe you should find a person who can read, since I answered that question one page back, and it was also answered on page 13. I can judge your respoinses based on the fact you stated you knew what you were talking about, when clearly you do not.

I understand laws and guideline, and the last 20 pages bears that out. Other people though.. not so much.


Originally posted by Kitilani
I never ignored it. Show me where I ignored it? I just noticed that you had several posts in a row where your entire argument was based on what you decided might have happened prior to what you saw. Then suddenly you tried to call someone out for doing the same thing, I pointed this out to you, and it stopped.

Uhm, wrong again. What I did was pose questions for people to ask to place things into perspective. People want to know why this occured, or what this didnt occur. I answered those questions. I also made the list of questions for people to take into consideration since we have the video and the arrested ladies side of the story, and we dont have the officers side of the story.


Originally posted by Kitilani
My first post in this thread was to express my surprise as my experiences with the RPD have always been so positive. You might want to pay attention to what you are chastising people for and make sure it makes any sense to do so before you go full head on into it. I am not ignoring things but you need to not pretend you are enlightening anyone as to something we ignore by making up things that you have no clue about. You do not know what happened but you kept using what might have happened to make your point.

You are the one who responded to me and made the effort to correct things I said. I responded back to you, pointing out why you were wrong.If you dont like being challeneged, then dont respond directly to my post.


Originally posted by Kitilani
Honestly I see no evidence you have experience in anything more than going online and claiming you are someone. I am sure you just expect others to take your word for things but I am a tad less trusting. I even belong to a conspiracy site just because of that sort of thing. You would not like it.

Once again, no argument you can make, so you resort to personal attacks. Another common tactic used by people on this site.


Originally posted by Kitilani
This "other half" you are referring to is the made up BS you keep putting in place of before the video starts. Yes, there is a problem with someone assuming their claimed position of authority gives them the credibility to just make things up and expect them to be taken into consideration with concern to the facts of the situation.

And yet ive supported my statements with facts and links to the New York Penal code website. If you knew what you were talking about, the comment the officer made about an incident prior to her recording is telling and requires further ivnestigation. Or did you just make your mind up about the officers actions based on just the one side of the story and the intenional refusal to read and understand the law.



Originally posted by Kitilani
Do not try to justify imagining what you never saw by claiming you are presenting another half. You are just guessing and you know it.

Im not guessing, that would be what others are doing by ignoring the facts and the law.


Originally posted by Kitilani
This was nothing but you insulting me about things I never said with no actual salient argument. It would have been better if you got some of it right.

Then dont launch personal attacks at me.

Do you have anything to add to the topic at hand? Or are you going to just continue attacking me personally?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I don't speak from law enforcement experience. I speak from common sense. They shouldn't be afraid of such objects. They should use common sense to determine threatening circumstances. Neither you nor the cops in question did that. Maybe if we were talking about people who should be so paranoid such as.. I don't know mobsters.. but not cops standing in front of a regular citizens resident. She had every reason to be there, the cop knew that, she had every right to video, there was no reason to think she would be a threat.

Get real or get out.


You really need to quit seeing what you wan while ignring the facts. The problem was not the camera, it was her proximity to the scene. She was told to move back multiple times, and she refused. Shehad ampl opprotunity to comply and refused.

She was arrested for failing to obey a lqawful command, not because she was recording. Based on your logic, then they wouldhave arrested the guy who picked the camera up and continued recording.

Has it ever occured to you to even consider the other information present?

The assumptions of who is or is not a threat coming for you guys is funny. Tell me, what constitutes a threat?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 





Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard has ordered an internal investigation of the incident,


You do understand that is supposed to happen any time there is a complaint of wrong doing, right. You also understand that is the official line any time a case gets media attention. Even if the officer is 100% right they will do an investigation and release it as public record. It was a CYA move by the chief in a time when the average chief is more political player than cop.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I havent read evey page (I am at work and dont have the time). But I would like to know the back story. Obviously something was said to the police before the filming (or it was edited out). Plus, this woman may have some sort of history that the police are aware of. If the driver was an gang member, then this could be the case, as she said it was her friend.

Its upsetting to me that so many people show such disrespect to police in this thread. Is this how your raising you kids? And we wonder why kids today hate the police so much? And we wonder why police get so defensive?

Im not saying there arent bad cops, there are. But to bash ALL cops is out of line.

Does anyone have the FULL back story?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I'm thinking that the whole police angle here is almost a non-issue. Why can't people just respect each other all around, police or no. What's the world coming too with everyone minding and poking their noses into everyone else's business and recording each other? It would annoy the hell out of me on so many levels to be recorded no matter what I was doing,..my job or otherwise. And I'd probably ask them to stop too.

What's was this recording even FOR? I guess I just don't get why this meant so much to her. Did she want to catch something juicy and sell it to the news? Protect her property rights in case someone stepped on it? Catch the cops doing something "wrong" so she could post it on ATS?


Ironic considering CGI is getting so sophisticated that it can be nearly impossible to tell a real video from a fake anymore.

Ironic too that so many of the recorders are the very same people who freak out about all the big-brother cameras everywhere. Fighting fire with fire? Dumb.

This recording trend is kinda dumb and if it continues this way we're going to become a bunch of zombified souls standing around pointing cams and cell phones at each other all day long to cover the parts that aren't already recorded.

She's lucky all she got was arrested. Whatta world.
edit on 6/23/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


Artfully dodged. The way you pretended not to read the question and push it far enough out of context that your answer really does nothing to address the point, the reason I asked it at all. That was clever.




top topics



 
143
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join