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: 27
143
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Seems to me that the law is designed in such a way, that cops always can make something up to arrest everybody just like that.

Ohw, i dont feel safe, go inside.

Civilian


Your under arrest for ...bla bla bla bal bla




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


I am not saying that she was guilty of anything. I just quoted what the article says she was charged with. I am still trying to find out exactly what she was guilty of myself but we will see.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
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.


Uhm yeah.. and since local officers are not empowered to enforce Federal law, your point is lacking. The fact you are assuming that government means federal government, is just scary. Go back and read the law in its entirety instead of cherrypicking words in an attempt to change the meaning while trying to invoke the federal government, and get back to me.


Originally posted by Kitilani
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.


Actually no I dont get your point, since its incorrect and lacking. Did this cop just decide to get out of his car, find a lady with a cell phone camera recording, and then decide she is going to jail? NOPE. So again, if you are going to attempt to make a comparison or a point, at least be in the same galaxy.

You guys are so paranoid that you percieve any and all police as evil. You perceive every encounter we have as us illegally harrassing a person. You guys completely ignore and and all evidence that may suppor thte officers actions, specifically the laws.

The thought that we are just going to randomly stop a person and arrest them completely confirms what ive been saying about ignorance of the law and how the system works.

Please quit being paranoid, please quit being a follower, and do some research. Its all im asking.



Originally posted by Kitilani
So you covered the info supplied in the first page of the thread again?

Only because you said she had legal standing to file a lawsuit, which she does not.


Originally posted by Kitilani
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.


Ah yes, once again with personal attacks when you cant refute facts that dont suppoort your position. Just so I know for future reference, when you make disparaging remarks and insults towards people, I am assuming you prefer they just keep quiet insted of responding back to you?

Please, let me know so I dont hurt your feelings.

I have provided facts, where as you have not.
I have provided sources, where as you have not.

Please, show me where I am wrong, and please cite the sources that support your claims / accusations against me.

Please, prove me wrong.

/end sarcasm

Grow up please. This is a straightforward issue, not some grand conspiracy based on a subversion of civil rights.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
When she conceded and decided to turn around to go into her house, they started pulling her away. Proving that the cops were not intimidated, and were not "giving orders". They were harassing her, and this proves it. As she turns around to go inside, he basically says, "You know what", as in 'nevermind, I'm going to arrest her anyway'.

I find the cop's words chilling, "You seem very anti-police."

What is that even supposed to mean? Are the police on the streets the same type of dimwits we have on these forums, who think everyone is a criminal unless you love cops?

He seemed very "anti-human" to me.

Scum of the highest order. When you act like that with people, you wouldn't "feel safe" with people behind you, would you? Guilty conscience? Paranoid much? Gee, I wonder why.... probably because he's a scumbag?
edit on 23-6-2011 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
That's why we need a police reform and law. I don't think they have a right to arrest that lady. She didn't do anything wrong.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Alright then... Ive made my case and offered up the info. People can take what they want from it. I am heading out of the thread to give others a chance to either bash the cops, myself, or the other side of the fence.

Its been enjoyable and I did learn a few things. I thank you guys, regardless of what you think about me, for providing me with that opportunity.

Have a great day and I will see you in the next thread.

As a side note, to those who are going to follow this to the end, let me know how it turns out. If its disovered that I am wrong, I will gladly come back and appologize to you guys.

Night



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Also, what police agency do you work for?


The same one you do.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
No kidding... I never said we could, so please dont put words in my mouth that I never said. What I have stated is the charge she is accused of is valid based on her actions. I said the officers actions in this case are valid. Nowhere did I say guilt, so please show me where I did.


You said that she broke the obstruction to justice law. And then you mentioned the method that she broke it. Which BTW, is nowhere to be found in that law.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
You guys have some very active imaginations. The SCI FI stories you come up with are great. However, as ive stated time and again, its not the same thing. While I respect your opinion on this part, I dont agree with it because you dont have an adequate understanding of the law or law enforcement.


If that police officer was truely scared, he has psychological issues. That is no active imagination or Sci Fi story on my part. And who are you to state how much I understand about the law? How do you know it is any less or even more than yours.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Why is this so hard for you and others to understand? Hell even the officer stated on camera she was under arrest for failing to obey a lawful command.


And what made this command lawful? Yes we are back to the law you quoted.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
BS.. quit sterotyping and making stupid comments would you please. Please provide your source that supports your claim that we use Bs charges to jsut arrest a person all the time.


You have no right to call this stupid. You know darn well, I could go out and pull thousands of cases about this. And you know I will not bother. I mean really, some of us actually work.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
And once again, we have nothing to do with how the PA files a charge, drops it or amends it. We have nothing to do with the judicial side except to be called as a witness, and thats it.


But you need reasonable suspicion of guilt to arrest the person that ends up in court.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Please, learn, educate yourself on this topic.


No you educate yourself. Because if god forbids you are not a troll and actually a police officer, you need to learn the laws you are following.


Originally posted by Xcathdra

Says the person who does not know how the law works, thinking instead it should be based on your wrong opinion. Tell ya what, if I need legal advice, Ill contact my training sgt or the PA. If I need bad info based on ignorance and lack of understanding, you will be my first call.


Me ignorant?
You don't know how to even read and interpret the very law you quoted.
Oh gosh you know what, I am done replying to you. It is impossible to get through to someone with rocks for brains.


Oh and I see you responded to my request to cite the portion of the law that she broke. Once again YOUR IGNORANCE proves itself. Look up the definition for the word obstruct.

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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
So it appears she was arrested for something similar before. Thats a bit suspicious. Almost like she trying to get the cops to misbehave so she can sue them(I have seen this before). Also, I dont know what kind of neighborhood it is, but if it a lower income "rougher" area any witnesses will side with her. Having lived in an area like this before I know this is a fact. They all hate the cops and will always side with each other over the "po po" every time.

Again, back story. I would be willing to bet this woman may have more on her police record them we have been led to believe.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 

Yeah right. Being annoying isn't a crime, right? Being a potential threat or putting yourself in harm's way isn't a crime. Being self-centered for who knows what reason isn't a crime. Possibly inciting a potentially volatile situation isn't a crime. Distracting someone from doing their primary job to worry about all of the above isn't a crime. But refusing to do as instructed to diffuse any and all of the above might be a crime.

P.S. Tell ya what though. Testing all the aforementioned limits for grins and giggle, or again who knows what reason, and then whining like a little child is pretty funny.


edit on 6/23/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
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 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.


When people can't comprehend the difference between a populace policing its government, and a government policing its populace, we're all doomed to tyranny.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by jonco6
 


The cop told the lady to go elsewhere and away from them. The lady refused, and was arrested.

The report / charge is sent to the PA. They will review and decide if the charge is dropped, prosecuted or amended up or down.

As I have stated many many times now, being on private property does not make a person immune from a criminal charge.

Also, the officer is not tresspassing. He was effecting an arrest, and as such has a legal right to be on that property to effect the arrest.


I think you are missing the point he has no right to tell her what to do on her own property unless she is in violation of a law witch she is not filming is not interferance or obstruction their for he had no right to affect an arrest and was infact tresspassing. She had commited no crime she was well with in her rights and any defence of the the act as shown in the video means you should not be a cop if you infact are because that would prove that you do not understand the law. You have stated many things on this thread that dosnt make you right in your defence of this act. Dont get this wrong I like cops I go to the bar with a group of cops they are some of the best people I know they even come over for bbq's but they would not defend the actions of this officer even if they where plastered. Every good cop knows that sometimes cops make mistakes all the people are asking for is that they admit it instead of trying to defend a mistake made by another officer. You would not be hanging him out to dry. People dont want the death penelity for his actions. Because everyone makes mistakes.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
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 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.


When people can't comprehend the difference between a populace policing its government, and a government policing its populace, we're all doomed to tyranny.

And what, per se, what this "government" doing here that needed policing? I just don't get what she was doing that was so vital.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here though. Sorry but this whole topic annoys me. I guess I should bail.
edit on 6/23/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

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


It was pretty obvious in my post that my question was not the definition of the word but your use of it.


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


I never said it did. You just make up things to argue about in your fake defense. There was no reason for the cops to be on her property and they had no reason to tell here what part of her property she needed to be on. Totally different argument.


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


Obviously. It has become more than apparent they can make up all kinds of crap.


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.


How so?


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


I do not care if he gave her a million. Check those links about the Greece police and see how many times they usually ordered sexual favors before getting them. It makes me wonder how many you would defend simply because they gave that order.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

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


By being on her own property? Why is this not making any sense to me.
Is there a law or ordinance somewhere that explains the limitations on my own movement around my property during a police stop in the street?


Again -
She was not arrested for being on her own property.
She was not arrested for recording the police.


Can you read? Can you show me anywhere that I ever said either one of those things happened? Why are your responses to me full of made up arguments against points I never made? Is that all you got?


She WAS arrested for failing to walk away when the offcier told her many times to do so.


I got that. She was arrested on her own property for choosing which part of that property to be on.


People have a right to be in their front yard, and they have a right to record the police. 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. A person does not have the physically touch or be standing in front of an officer to intefere with their duties.


You know that is BS as much as everyone else here does. She was as distracting as any other person or object there. She was standing with at least two people and had a history with this cop. Why did the people with no cameras not present such a threat? Was it exactly where they were standing?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jonco6
 





I think you are missing the point he has no right to tell her what to do on her own property unless she is in violation of a law witch she is not filming is not interferance or obstruction


Filming is not obstructing. Getting too close and becoming a distraction and indirect threat is. It obstructs the officer's ability to do his job in a reasonable and safe manner. When you put another person's safety in danger your right to tape comes to an end. That applies on private and public property.

From her own tape she aproached the cop and got on the sidewalk. She then began filming from a distance of just a few feet. She inserted herself in to the traffic stop in a way that she knew would be a distraction in an attempt to get a reaction. She has done this before and been arrested for it. She knew that she was in violation of the law and creating an unsafe enviroment.

In my opinion it was an attempt to cause an issue and get attention. She was probably doing it for what she believes was good reason. However, she endangered others and was refusing to follow a simple legal request. She then proceeded to refuse to follow a direct legal order untill she saw that the officer intended to arrest her. Then she fled for her house. The officer had already asked her multiple times and had to leave the stop to aproach her and ask her to move.

He had to leave the person being detained in relation with the stop to ask her to move. He was unable to complete his initial duty because she was there and refusing to move. That seems like a clear cut example of obstructing the performance of a duty.



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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I'm going to start keeping a pet beehive with me for protection from these uniformed mafia thugs.

They will shoot you or your dog without a thought other than how they can spin it in their favor. Bees are small, individually armed and have them outnumbered.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Although I am done with this thread. I wanted to do what everyone of us should have done all along. And BTW, I had always had the suspicion that the police officers comments about what was said before the video taping were a lie. And I was right. Please everyone read the entire article. There are a ton of important facts you don't have. Since the OP's link is a dead link.


NEW YORK -- In May, the Rochester Police Department arrested a woman on a charge of obstructing governmental administration after she videotaped several officers' search of a man's car. The charge is a criminal misdemeanor. The only problem? Videotaping a police officer in public view is perfectly legal in New York state -- and the woman was in her own front yard. The arrest report of the incident also contains an apparent discrepancy from what is seen in the woman's own video.



The police department has launched an internal investigation. Good is scheduled to appear in court on Monday, where her public defender hopes the case will be dismissed. If that doesn't happen, Stare said, she was not afraid of bringing Good's case to a jury trial.


Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard






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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I just have to say that after reading all Xcathdra posts defending this officer, I have even less respect for the police than I did before.
If Xcathdra is indeed a LEO as he claims, he probably accurately represents the attitude that most police officers have regarding personal right and freedoms of American citizens.
When the rights of citizens are up against the authority of the police, I will side with my fellow citizens every time.
edit on 6/23/2011 by Sparky63 because: punctuation



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
***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.


No one?


On Thursday night I was at my friend's house when at about 9:45pm my friend and I saw flashing lights in front of the house. We both went outside to see what the commotion was about and we found two police cars blocking the street as they were performing a traffic stop. Later on a third police car pulled up making a total of four officers on the scene. The person pulled over was a young black male. It was unclear why the man was originally pulled over but one of the officers interrogated the man and accused him of possessing drugs. Not satisfied with the man's answers, the police took the man out of his car, handcuffed and put him in the back of a police car. After the man was detained, the police officers searched his car and found no drugs. The officers then released the man and said he was free to go. As the man drove away about 9:55pm he didn't appear to receive a ticket.
link

I will take the correction on the lawyer and present the eyewitness account in return.



They didn't address the people in the car. So, let me give you a scenario I have seen numerous times.


Oh good. You are going to make something up and present it as something that just maybe, might have, could have happened and I am supposed to take it seriously. It is not. working for the other guy either.


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.


Too bad your fantasy relies on nothing to do with what actually happened here or any real knowledge of the Rochester, NY "gang" activity.


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.


Yes, why?


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)


Great little tangent. Thanks. It was fun. I cannot wait for the next post full of "Imagine if..."



new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join