Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by MikeNice81
I can promise you those guys were there for back up well before hand. If you've never had to wrestle with a handcuffed psych case, or a runner, save the judgement.

He was so crazy they just let him go!

Besides that, the report says their were three men in the car. None of the lady's neighbors dispute that. She doesn't dispute that. The only person saying she isn't aware of other people in the car is the defendant's attorney. If she hasn't read the original report on the purpose of the original stop she might never come across that information.

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. I do need to ask for some help with my math though.

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

Didn't know there was 4 people in the car, that situation could of gotten ugly very quickly, all from this lady. If those officers had been KIA, do you think she would feel a bit responsible for it? Wonder if they would charge her with 2nd degree manslaughter? Really can't believe that you people are backing this lady up. Those cops were obviously outnumbered. And the situation could went awry at anytime while dealing with her antics. So, yes, I agree that the officer per say felt threatened in that situation. Yeah, I say, she clearly got what she deserved. Hopefully, she learned her lesson. And, maybe the cop took her to the High School for like a pep talk to try to calm her down and explain how things could have gotten out of hand, if only she had just listened to him. Maybe, she was still confrontational with him and he said "screw it, I'm taking you to jail".

I'm on his side. She's lucky I'm not on her jury.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

Embhasis mine. Now show me how standing and filming someone fits the law. She could've jumped up and down, flipped the cops and yelled at them and even then it doesn't fit. You're just perverting the law to protect your fellow boys in blue.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
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.

did you even read what she was arrested for before? eirther way you look at it the side walk is on her property and by law she is responable for it that is y you have the right to take it out after it is put their she had every right to be their also it dosnt matter what you think. she does not have to follow said request because it is not legal as a crime did not take place in her yard or on that sidewalk if she got in his face that would be a diffrent story she did not she did not show respect but with their previous altercation i cant say i blame her.I had a case simular with out ever being arrested (because the required warrent for my arrest was laughed out of court) then soon after the charges where thrown out of court and got a formal apoligee for it altho i was not filiming and my neighbor who is a cop also came to my aid in the court case because he belives in the oath a good cop. And if you still feel that way dont come crying to us when you feel your rights are being violated. Although we would gladly still defend. You might want to watch the video again she was never a few feet away until he tresspassed on her property. I do however think she could have backed up out of respect for the officer.

reply to post by unityemissions


NVM, i got my answer

2nd

reply to post by elouina


The article has been posted several times. The discrepancies they found were based on a person saying that she didn't say anything. The other was based on her lawyer being "unable to determine" if there was anybody else in the car. If it was in the report it would be easy to "determine" by simply asking for the communications traffic in regards to that stop. The officer would have informed communications as to how many people were in the car when he made the stop.

A typical call sounds like this,
(the officer identifies himself) I am stopping a vehicle for speeding and failure to yield near the intersection of Markham and Oswald. I need a (insert ten code) on a gray Toyota Corolla license number xray - charles - young 1-9-4-3. Again that is xray - charles - young 1-9-4-3. The vehicle is occupied three times. I will advise on additional units.

Communications: 10-4 that number is xray-charles-young 1-9-4-3 and the vehicle is occupied three time?

Officer: 10-4.

It goes on from there. However, in my department the number of occupants should be called in with the initial stop and confirmed by communications. If you want to know how many people where in a car, run the tapes back.

If the officer didn't call it in it should be on the dash cam or in his report of the initial stop. The number of people would not be hard to determine. It should be real easy for a defense attorney that could file a motion for discovery.

The article says only one person was pulled out of the car. I outlined a common scenario that would explain that a few pages back.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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

If it takes 11 more steps to be more like you then that is already 12 steps too many.

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.

No, actually that is the response you get for your "ever present" accusations of how ignorant I am because of arguments you made up. You only get to call me ignorant so many times, especially over things I never wrote or stated, before I turn that mirror back on ya. If you do not like the reflection, stop shining that light in everyone else's face.

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.

No you never actually did. You have only stated that she failed to follow a lawful order. What lawful order seems to fail you.

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

Strange that 3 posters claim to be LEO's and neither of the other two agreed with you and yet you are the one that is right.

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.

Call making up what happened before the tape started rolling whatever makes you feel most comfortable. You need to be at ease with your lies.

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.

You sure did avoid every point I made there didn't ya? Tell me all about what a cop hater I am some more since you could not understand my first few posts.

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

All you have done is personally attack me. I did no such thing here. I am not calling you a liar about being a LEO. I am saying I see no evidence of it. If you feel attacked by that then there is probably a good reason. Call your therapist because I do not really care that much.

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.

How the hell do links to NYPC prove what happened before the tape started rolling?

It is indeed telling in that she asks him what before the taping was an issue and he failed to provide an answer. Did you watch it?

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

You are not even in reality anymore. By suggesting what happened before the tape started rolling with no evidence of what happened other than your imagination, you are guessing. Show me any of the scenarios you think happened before the tape started rolling actually did happen and I will gladly retract and apologize.

Then dont launch personal attacks at me.

Well when you start off attacking me on things I never said, you do not get a ton of ass kissing in return.

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

You are too funny. I already pointed out that was all you were doing to me. So you decide to then try and turn it back on me. I have added. I know the area pretty damn well. I have past relationships with the RPD. Maybe that gives me no insight at all. Maybe you should just move on to post your pro cop propaganda to someone else because you are not convincing me of anything other than that you are most likely not actually a cop.

reply to post by Kitilani


The eye witness said that the person was a young black male. He never addressed the existence of other persons in the car. So, I think you might want to rethink your correction.

I never said that my scenario is what happened. I said that there are reasons it can happen and that is one I see often. Would you like me to answer the question with a list of every possible scenario that makes the math work out?

There is a difference between being detained for suspicious activity while a crime is investigated and being arrested. Obviously they had enough suspicion to detain him. They found there was not probable cause for an arrest and let him go. Why? None of us can answer that. All I can do is offer scenarios from personal experience in hopes that people understand not every detention leads to arrest.

Yes, why?

Because you asked for help understanding the situation. I explained how it could work out and that not every detention leads to arrest. I was honestly just asking if I made it clear.

reply to post by jonco6

eirther way you look at it the side walk is on her property

In most citys the sidewalk belongs to the city, is deemed a municipal right of way, or granted to utilities as an easement. In other words, no usually the sidewalk is not your property.

she does not have to follow said request because it is not legal as a crime did not take place in her yard

She did commit a crime by becoming a distraction by getting to close to the officers while doing their job. She obstructed their ability to do their job in a reasonable and safe manner.

Also you do have to follow legal commands on private property. It doesn't matter if the crime occured in your yard. If somebodey kills a person and runs in to your house you can not obstruct the police from entering. You can not stop them from carrying out their legal duties in your home. It is the same thing with a traffic stop on the curb. They are using that property to execute their duties. You can not obstruct their ability to carry out said duty in a safe and reasonable manner.

If someone who is standing there is a distraction to a cop then they need to find another line of work. If it distracts them and obstructs them as you claim then the problem is in their own head.

reply to post by badw0lf


what really screwed her was her nervous tone.

when you talk down to cops just be cool,calm and collected.

if you are afraid then ...

you know what they say about animals smelling fear.


ahh!!! so that's why your sharpening your claws.

edit
whoaa from p1 i've wound up on 28

heres the 114th flag and a star for OP

reply to post by MikeNice81


I wonder what is more 'distracting' to the process...

...being videotaped...

...or stopping everything you are doing to tackle someone who is videotaping you...

The officers excuse is that he doesn't feel safe. I don't pay him to feel safe, I pay him to do the exact opposite so that I can feel safe.

Zero logic. If you want to hide behind the 'moron shield', go ahead, but that's all that argument is -- moronic.

reply to post by 2012king


a few years ago, one of my uncles [actually the son of my great-aunt] arrived at his house [i was staying there] from work at 2AM.

as he got out of his van two cops on bikes parked behind him and started harassing him, probably cause he is obviously gay

i'm up on 2nd floor balcony watching all this unnoticed. when it started looking nasty i coughed, loudly.

result: harassment stopped immediately, they returned his license and vehicle registration, and left.

keep living in a dream world, and you will eventually be rudely awakened.

Originally posted by o0pinMind0o
sounds to me like your afraid of the authority

To the contrary. They are quite predictable and controllable if you are smart enough in how you interact with them.

Most people think being "honest" with a cop is the best route. The video in the OP is an example of why that approach is wrong.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by spy66

 

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

Your arguments wouldn't hold in Court. Neither will the statements from the peace officers.

Criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution – that is, it is up to the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, as opposed to having the defense prove that s/he is innocent, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the defendant.

The video from the female speaks for it self. She will walk out of Court with a few dollars more.

You know, when I evicted someone from my house, (X-Asian friend) brought crummy movers with her and was loading it in the truck. Well I got my video camera out, and I documented everything that left my house, the way it came IN, and the condition it was LEAVING. Well, needless to say, these movers were dragging her stuff, that's worth over $10,000, of her merchandise, that I can't afford to pay back if anything should happen to it. I did not document any faces. Only the feet. They dragged her bed, scuffing it up, a $5000 bed, extremely huge. They dragged her China cabinets, from China, scuffing those up, and they dragged her $3000 sectional coach ripping the ends of it and back of it as well. Well, she called the police, complaining about me filming and that the movers didn't want to be filmed. Well, they never told me. So, the police came to swoop right in Female and Male cop, yes, I had half a jager shot so wasn't all that buzzed. I stayed on my porch, sat in my chair, with my aggressive dog inside, and I asked the female cop "What's the problem?", I had to shut my door because my dog is very aggressive and was showing aggression towards the female cop. She was like "Yeah, that's a good idea." She wasn't coming in. Not unless she had a warrant. I had my camera, but, was not filming because all the movers were off the property. Well, the female cop asked me politely to stop filming the movers. And, I told the female cop flat out, I know this girl and if she has anything to say, she'll try to take me for anything I have left. She wouldn't pay her rent for 2 months, took 6 months to remove herself from the home, and if you want pay over $10,000 worth of merchandise in a lawsuit, than I'm going to keep filming that furniture. I showed her the pictures and the officers left. I kept filming the furniture until she left with no further incident of the cops.

the cop screwed up when he first said i asked you to go back in the house not ordered you. you can ask i can say no. which is a cop tactic when they say something to you in a gruff tone they will say in court they were just asking you to do something and you volunteered. you should ask the pigs(at this point there all s#$t now) if they are asking you or ordering you. in some situations they have the legal right to order you though they will try and make it seem like they allways have the right to order you this is not true. take your own risks/decisions, pigs lie. this is why i now root against the pigs i laugh when there killed or injured if im the jury id award this woman the biggest setelment allowed.wanna end this kind b.s. fight to ban unions for public servants. they are overpaid over protected and have too much political power. plus fight for a system of checks and balances. police should not be policing the police. its why they rarely go to jail or get fired. cue NWA F@CK THE POLICE !!!POPO ARE THE ENEMY!! btw videos like this make the so called gun hoarding nut cases in the wilderness sane and the rest of society as insane.

Im glad I live in Scotland. Although part of the UK and politicaly connected to london and governed by westminster (we do have our own parliment, but its devolution, not independance).
We come under different rules than England and Wales.

I have TAUNTED the police in the past. Was once stopped, FOR NOTHING, I have a disabled parking badge as I am a disabled person who cant walk far and in constant pain.

I was saying things like "You enjoying this"..."You get a pay rise for this"...." I called one officer orifice" and laughted.

I couldnt live in the US, seriously, Id be fighting that, what you guys in the US have to put up with.
The USA goes stomping around the world to FREE other Countries, Its just a pity they dont give it to their civilians.

Crap state of affairs.

The Scottish Way >>>>>

If this "cop" doesn't "feel safe" because a woman is standing on her lawn video-taping a traffic stop , even though he has two other officers as back up. When Does he feel safe? This guy needs some anti-anxiety meds.

How is he gonna react/feel when there's a REAL altercation? I guess he'll feel so "Unsafe" that he'll pull his firearm and shoot the person dead. He is a danger to the public, imo.

It's a shame that a couple bad apples can spoil the bunch.

This guy is a poor excuse for a Law Enforcement Officer; and if he doesn't feel safe in this situation..., I think he should be put on desk duty. Then again he might not "feel safe" with all those people coming and going through the precinct and walking behind him

It seems to me that a lot of people here have some major issues with authority. You are probably the same people who don't take advice when there is an extreme weather event about to happen. You are the people we find on roofs & in rubble, alive & dead. Whatever reason the cop gave for wanting the woman out of the area doesn't matter. What is going through your & her head approaching a situation where someone is being cuffed & wanting to record this? If you saw some uncouth behavior going down, then by all means record away. This doesn't seem to be the case. The officer seems to be trying to remove her for her own safety & his. Could she not have done this recording from the safety of her own home window? I think yes. I'm not a cop, but I've been out on a ton of ride-alongs with my buddy who is. I am not allowed out of the car on traffic stops, domestic calls etc...for my own safety. He told me the first time we ever went to an altercation: "Stay in the car. If any sh** goes down, there's a pistol & extra vest under your seat. If it gets real bad, take the car & get the F outta here & call dispatch." He showed me how to use the radio, what to tell them & where to take the cruiser. The point is, you don't know wtf might happen at any given moment. Its just plain stupid to involve yourself in police business like this. Its not that there was a mental disorder with the cop(there could be also, but neither you nor I know this unless you personally know the officer), but just think about how many cop killings, shoot outs with police, etc...have occured recently. Is it in your best interest to put yourself as close as possible to this potential situation? The common sense factor of a lot of people here in the good ol' USA is nil. She made her bed, she got to lay in it. In cuffs. You can't fix stupid.

The only problem I have is the cop asking the woman to "go in the house". He can legally ask her to back up from his scene, but what would give him the thought that he can order her into house? That alone shows his arrogance.

The woman will probably be railroaded because our legal system can't risk us citizens becoming too watchful or hopeful.