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

Bottom line up front is that both of these individuals handled the situation poorly and lied to manipulate the situation. However, in this instance I would have to take the side of the citizen as the police officer is supposed to be the professional de-escalator.

I usually side with the police; being a retired Military Officer I understand the stress of having to face risk in the line of duty and give them a lot of lattitude.

However, in this case it is pretty clear to me that the Officer manipulated the event using key phrases on camera as he (being a professional) knows that once he claims to feel “threatened” he has a lot more leeway and options in giving the lady orders.

Based on my training in HUMINT collection and interrogation by using statement analysis it is likely he lied about feeling threatened. I am not 100% sure that he lied about his perception of threat but using the information available it seems to me that a reasonable person in the same position would not consider a female with a cell phone standing in her yard as a threat. He didn't feel threatened by any of the other people you hear on the tape who were also behind him?

Further, I very much doubt that she threatened them with her words before the tape started rolling as the officer claims in the video. The first thing he says to the people is “Do you guys need something” – Ok, if the lady had made previous statements that the Officer perceived to be as he says “anti-police” why are his first words a question about if she needs something. He knows she is tapping the event before he asks – he states so later.

I am sure that he can see the phone in her hand and a reasonable person would conclude that she is videotaping the event. Why did he not tell her then to back up if he felt threatened – I would? I would not pussy foot around with a interrogatory about her need – my first statement given the situation of her “anti-police” sentiments and her proximity along with the location behind the officers would have been an order to move along or go inside. I think the reasons are clear later as to why he didn’t in the first place. He didn’t feel threatened by her location at all but rather the presence of the camera. However, he knows that if he claims a perceived threat he has a lot more leeway in what he can do.

I see this all the time with people who know the system; kids in school don’t just fight anymore they are being bullied. See if a kid says we got in a fight it’s no big deal really but to say I have been bullied opens a whole new avenue of consequences for the aggressor.

Likewise when someone reports an off color or vulgar joke at work they could say John has been exhibiting poor judgment and lack of maturity when they make the complaint to management. However instead people know that to say they fell sexually harassed makes the whole thing more serious and therefore manipulates the management into more definitive action.

Ok back the interaction; she then says that she is recording and states that it is her right to do so. He says that it is not her right on the sidewalk. She states that it is in fact her yard. None of us know exactly where she was standing but honestly if it is her yard does it really matter if she stands in the grass or on the concrete? It’s in front of her house. The officer takes the suspect back to the other car. Notice at this time that he is facing her as is the other officer at the driver side window. (i.e. she is not technically “behind them”. ) There are other people out there in the area as well but he chose to single out the one lady with the camera to direct to return to her house. What about the others you can hear in the video. Actually it appears that there are people on the other side of the street who actually are behind him.

I suspect that this point he takes this as a challenge to his authority in front of his peers and takes it personally so he has to come up with a way for him to be right so he can save face.

So, then notice the delay there between the first question and the exchange and his claim that he feels unsafe. He had to think of the right legal phrasing of words so that he could make her comply with his order to return to the house. Why? Because he knows that she is right and that she is within her rights to tape him and to be outside in her own yard and not just occupying public space on the public sidewalk as he likely originally thought. She gave him all that information because she thought it would help her case. (i.e. she is being manipulative as well)

However, being a professional counter-manipulator as all police are he knows how to make every situation into a win for him. This is where he claims she “seemed anti-police” with her statements made before the taping began.

Ok, so he knew she was taping the event but asked her anyway what she wanted instead of telling her right away to go inside he is gathering information on how he can control the situation and establish legitimate authority he initially doesn’t have. I also here have to ask since when is expressing anti-police sentiment a threat? I think that’s probably a first amendment issue.

It all goes down-hill from here. He asks her if she understands his order the lady lies to the police officer to manipulate her status into that of an innocent bystander rather than an agitator by claiming no. Any reasonable person would understand the order if not the legitimacy of it. Further she claims to “need the fresh air” after he repeats the order several times. She does this so she can claim she was just innocently outside.

Both parties are telling lies to manipulate the situation to their advantage. Had the cop just said sure you can tape that is your right but please stand where I can see you ok and she then refused to comply I’d be on the cops side. However, it appears he wanted to win and assert his dominance in front of the suspect and his peers.

reply to post by anon72


This is a DIRECT result of Right Wing "law and order" ignorance of the last 40 years. Everyone wants law and order, but the Right Wing demand for a police state has gotten us exactly that.

reply to post by anon72


She's going to go free, and probably with a lot of money.

www.democratandchronicle.com...

reply to post by Scytherius


It's far beyond right wing at this point. It's simple federal policy. And, because of that, everyone's fault. Voter and politician.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by dubiousone
Is that a serious question? Do you really believe that you have to do anything and everything a police officer tells you to do? What if the cop had told her to stand on her head for ten minutes followed by 20 jumping jacks and a jog around the block running backwards? Does she have a right to question that command and refuse to do it?

edit on 6/23/2011 by dubiousone because: Grammar.

Are you really that stupid?

* * * *

You guys are missing the point that the Prosecuting Attorney filed the charge against the female. How do you keep coming back to the officer being at fault for that?

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

That's how it's done, isn't it, professor?

The fact that a prosecutor feels more pressure to blindly support his police officers than to make an unbiased assessment as to whether or not a criminal charge should be filed does not validate what that cop did.

The point the people on this thread are making is that she should not have been arrested in the first place and the cop's command that she go inside her house and not watch or film what is going on was not a lawful one. She had every right not to comply with it.

I won't call you stupid, just dense, and unwilling to acknowledge that your point of view on this issue is that of a small minority.

Why did the cop arrest her? Because she stood her ground and didn't succumb to his command. The cop didn't even have the support of his fellow officers. But, unfortunately, all too often, once a bully who is too full of his own sense of authority just because he's wearing a badge and a uniform gets the ball of oppression rolling he either doesn't know how to stop it or is too proud, self-important, and narcissistic to acknowledge his mistake, rectify it, and apologize. It's patently obvious that this is what happened here. It's too bad that cops like this waste public resources, i.e. their time, their department's resources, the jail's resources, the prosecutor's resources, and the court's resources with pointless bullying antics and stupidity of this kind. If he's afraid of the public when they behave peacefully and lawfully like this woman did then he should quit law enforcement, and the sooner the better.

Please spare me and the rest of us a long-winded reply to this post. It isn't necessary. Everyone already knows how you feel about this event.

reply to post by Xcathdra


It doesn't matter where the scene was. The cops knew there was no danger she was arrested for recording under the guise of disobeying a lawful command, but there was no justification for the command. She had every right to be there. IT WAS THE VIDEO TAPING.

You know it that is why you used the poor example of the cell phone gun. I'll defend you one day if you are ever yakking on a cellphone too close to a car crash and you get shot because your phone could have been a gun. Then I will have your back. Won't happen though. Youd be more likely to be shot because your phone has video capabilities than the ability to fire 22 bullets.

reply to post by Xcathdra


She did back up off the sidewalk into her own yard at the officer's request. So she obeyed his command, so even by your flawed logic he should have issued a new command.

This was about videotaping you know it you just want to argue.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You are the one saying she was a threat.. you tell me what constitutes a threat.
I think it's pretty obvious myself.

The police officer is clearly in the wrong but I don't think he is to blame.
The problem as I see it is his mental state. He seems to be suffering, like most police officers, from a touch of narcissism and or megalomania. I think its highly unlikely that he or any other police officers purposely induced narcissism into their way of thinking and there for the problem is in and of itself formed from being a police officer.

"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." John Dalberg-Action

Technology needs to hurry up and produce some robots who can police us in an ethical and law abiding manner. Until that time, I think there needs to be regular psychiatric evaluations to determine when the power of being in law enforcement starts to corrupt the mind and then make changes so that police officers, and others in law enforcement, are able to preform their duties without breaking today's code of ethics. Maybe even require police officers to take and pass ethics courses before being aloud to go out into the field.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ReverendCrow
I don't usually post here just randomly read but I had to post on this one. Pathetically...thats where I live.

Maybe 5-10 minutes from my house...Welcome to Rochester NY.

Out of curiosity, what is the local media saying about this? Its been reported she has pulled the same stunt in the past )recordingto be arrested). Has that been verified? Anything else about this lady, or the officer, coming out?

She was arrested on the exact same charge for filming the Rochester Police evicting a widow from her home after the bank refused to accept her payments.

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ReverendCrow
I don't usually post here just randomly read but I had to post on this one. Pathetically...thats where I live.

Maybe 5-10 minutes from my house...Welcome to Rochester NY.

Out of curiosity, what is the local media saying about this? Its been reported she has pulled the same stunt in the past )recordingto be arrested). Has that been verified? Anything else about this lady, or the officer, coming out?

She was arrested on the exact same charge for filming the Rochester Police evicting a widow from her home after the bank refused to accept her payments.

There you go! Thanks for that! There's no room for doubt about where you stand when you refer to a citizen's act of recording what police officers are doing as a "stunt". Is the act of exercising one's freedom in the U.S.A. now to be derided as a mere "stunt". Is that becoming the prevalent attitude of those in law enforcement where you live and work?

Originally posted by EmeraldGreen
WOW

This will probably sound controversial, but i suspect they are trained to confront individuals who have personal vendettas against police officers... the clues ( as they will have been trained to notice ) are in her tone... if she was cool about it, there would have been a human reaction... but she was RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE about it & so received the inhumanity she projected.. that's how i felt watching half the clip before making that conclusion

anyway

peace

edit on 22/6/2011 by EmeraldGreen because: (no reason given)

Yeah you are right, you've got to learn some psychology to deal with certain issues. Or, remember the saying others reflect what you put out. Not those exact words but carry the big stick and keep your mouth shut.

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by ReverendCrow
I don't usually post here just randomly read but I had to post on this one. Pathetically...thats where I live.

Maybe 5-10 minutes from my house...Welcome to Rochester NY.

Out of curiosity, what is the local media saying about this? Its been reported she has pulled the same stunt in the past )recordingto be arrested). Has that been verified? Anything else about this lady, or the officer, coming out?

She was arrested on the exact same charge for filming the Rochester Police evicting a widow from her home after the bank refused to accept her payments.

There you go! Thanks for that! There's no room for doubt about where you stand when you refer to a citizen's act of recording what police officers are doing as a "stunt". Is the act of exercising one's freedom in the U.S.A. now to be derided as a mere "stunt". Is that becoming the prevalent attitude of those in law enforcement where you live and work?

I think you have your posts mixed up. I never called anything a stunt.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

That's just an excuse so people will accept corruption.

Originally posted by js331975
It's illegal in the state of Massachusetts to video tape a police officer. The law was put into effect a few years ago.

This is just BS. It's not. Dont spread the lies please.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You certainly love playing your games dont you. She was arrested at an event where she was protesting. The arrest was for the same thing she was arested this go around for.

I do love games. Not with you thought. Where was the event then? Where is she protesting now?

Since you seem to be the expert, please explain to us how she did not violate the law. Pl,ease explain how the officer acted innapropriately, and please cite the law to support your argument.

Well first of all it's the other way around. I don't have to prove she is innocent. She is innocent untill proven guilty. Standing around is not a crime in any place. Officer acted innapropriately when he went on a power trip and start chucking around unlawful orders. You yourself posted the law in question few times. You know that standing around is not obstructing or interfering. You seem to claim otherwise. "Excuse me officer for being alive and present here..."

reply to post by Undertough


You're right. That comment was in reference to Xcathdra's post that was contained as a quote within your post. Sorry for that error. Thanks for pointing it out.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Pl,ease explain how the officer acted innapropriately, and please cite the law to support your argument.

Please cite the law where it states that you can perform arbitrary arrests? Or at least to where it says that civilians on their own private property must void their rights and adhere to all commands given by law enforcement regardless of what it is that he demands?

reply to post by dubiousone


I kind of figured that was what happened but I wanted to make sure it was clear that my screen name and the things being said by that fake cop should be in no way confused for being inline with each other. Thanks for the correction.

reply to post by dubiousone

She did nothing that could in any way be construed by any rational person as interfering with or obstructing the officers' performance of their official duties. The officer's command that she stop filming or that she go inside her house was not lawful. It is ludicrous and dangerous to assert that citizens do not have the right to peacefully observe from a lawful vanatge point when police officer's are conducting an arrest or are in some manner interacting with other citizens.

I have said repeatedly that beyond 21 feet she can record all day long. Any closer and it becomes a possible distraction and hazard. I have seen where a person getting too close with a camera was distraction enough to nearly get a cop killed. Sorry if you don't like the simple truth that closer than 21 foot makes you a distraction and indirect threat.

There is no law against filming cops in most places. I highly encourage citizens to video tape cops from a safe distance. Cops are already being verbally and visually recorded by their car systems. Citizen video usually helps exonerate more cops than it convicts. So, go ahead and tape from 25 foot. As long as your not agitating or distracting I am fine with it.

Other people were outside watching as well. Why did that cop focus on her, a woman in her night clothes filming the spectacle from her front yard?

According to the officer she said something before the tape started that made him uncomfortable. She may have been agitating or attempting to distract. If that was the case her aproach to within 21 feet would be seen as threatening or distracting. Both of which obstruct him from doing his duty in a reasonably safe manner.

This is not yet Nazi Germany where the police are an all powerful unrestrained Gestapo who can do to whomever, whenever, and wherever, whatever they want.

I agree and that is why corrupt cops and abusive cops are fired everyday. Cops are fired for violations of policy are law every day. It doesn't make the paper because it is done quietly and privately. Just like an emloyee of Tartget or IBM is usually fired quietly and privately.

How strange that they completely lost their focus from what they were doing, let their original targets go, and re-focused all their activity on her who had done nothing illegal!

Being detained does not mean you will be arrested. That has been explained multiple times. Detention just means their is enough suspicion to investigate for commission of a crime. It does not mean they have to arrest the person. Keep ignoring that and using a common - completely legal - procedure to bash. It really proves your point.