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: 34
143
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
She moved with in the sphere where she could use force before he could reply. According to him she said something that made him uncomfortable, and then she aproached. She was making herself a distraction and stopping him from being able to perform his duty in a reasonably safe manner. That is obstruction.


Wasn't her property within that sphere? So she is in the wrong for owning property within 21 feet of where they decided to make a traffic stop or cops can arbitrarily redefine rights depending on where they decide to go in pursuit of basically anything else?

What did she say to the officer before she started filming that upset him so much? She asks in the video for him to tell her what it was. Apparently you know. Please share.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
This may have already been said since there are so many pages but in case it hasen't
It sounds to me like cops now have 'buz phrases' to cover their actions when they end up in court for tromping our rights such as " I don't feel safe when" and probably others.
Maybe it's time to put some thought into coming up with good replies etc. of our own.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


So if she was within her rights and the law she still has to pay?
Why?
I hope she gets a good atty.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


OK, I've observed you throw straw all around this thead with your responses. Look, I see that you are strongly for police authority, but really?

The truth in th pudding is that the guy being a cop, is very good at manipulating the gray areas in the law. Which is exactly what he did, possibly to the point where with the help of a corrupt judicial system, he will be adjudicated as being in the right. Mind you, just because a judge rules the officer as being within his lawful Right doesn't mean he actually was.

The laws and statutes we have on our books leave a LOT of wiggle room for LEO, and they are very good at wiggling within that room. When he made the claim that the woman made him feel unsafe, that was a key phrase he intentionally used to tilt the situation in his favor. Could he have felt unsafe because of THAT woman, and no one else...possible but highly unlikely. That's the wiggle room he has and where common sense SHOULD rear its head.

Anyone who wasn't born last night can plainly see that the cop didn't want the woman taping him and he manipulated and brainstormed the situation until he tilted the law (interpreted law) in his favor. The question is, SHOULD he have been allowed to do this? That's what you are skirting all around!

It's the gray area where it has to be interpreted rather he gave a lawful order or not. I guarantee you, he pondered this in his head greatly before attempting it.

Where others in this thread are dismayed at this video is THAT officer and yourself and the other officer are basically saying LEO have the authority to tell a citizen what to do. I know it comes as a shock to some LEO but that is not the case. LEO can only order someone to do something if they have jurisdiction over that PERSON (through that person being detained or arrested) OR what some of the anti-police people are missing, that officers scene. The gray line again is, where does that officers scene cease? Of course we can all deduct that a civilian can't just walk up to a crime scene recording, trampling all over evidence, so there's a reason civilians can be restricted from that area. But where does the officers scene and jurisdiction end in this case or any other case where there isn't a crime scene?

If I'm 100 feet from the arrest, but do something to draw the officers attention, and I obstructing justice even from that distance? Well looky, looky, more wiggle room!

What a judge should review in this case is rather that woman ACTUALLY obstructed that cops pursuit of justice. The cop will state that his HAVING to address her and watch her watching him, obstructed his arrest. Which would be a lie. He chose to engage her. After seeing the woman was in her pj's and armed only with a cellphone he should have forgotten all about her. The problem was, he may not have been planning on doing anything wrong but was nervous about possibly being caught on tape making a mistake (I give him the benefit of the doubt). He was probably accustomed to being able to tell civilians to do something and they would break their necks doing it, because that's how most citizens are these days. He was taken aback, that this woman dared to defy his false sense of authority over everyone. He had to save face and at the same time send a message to the other witnesses that police DO have authority over civilians at all times (which is false).

He proceeded to ponder what method to use to tilt the situation in his favor. Similar to a technique we used in the Army to tilt a situation in our favor when given an order we didn't like. We could cry that we felt the situation would place us in danger, etc. In training when ordered to do push-ups we quickly learned to cry, "Muscle FAILURE" which was the cue for the Drill Sergeant to let you up.

What this officer did was a method that many of us citizens say we will use if we ever shoot someone...we say we will cry "self defense, I was scared for my life". Even if it isn't the actual case.

You are aware of all this and are just deflecting and tossing straw around. Just admit the officer used a gray area and a HOT phrase to tilt the situation in his favor when he realized he had no jurisdiction.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
This may have already been said since there are so many pages but in case it hasen't
It sounds to me like cops now have 'buz phrases' to cover their actions when they end up in court for tromping our rights such as " I don't feel safe when" and probably others.
Maybe it's time to put some thought into coming up with good replies etc. of our own.




What the woman should have done was assert that she was no threat once the officer made the statement about her saying anti-police remarks. She should have stated loud and clear that she has no ill intentions toward the officers and she was unarmed.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 

To me, it sounded like she did that at around minute 1:51.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
This is complete and utter disregard to her rights as a citizen!!! Truly a display police ego at its mDoes any one know what happened to her afterward? Were the charges dropped? Has she taken legal recourse against the officer and the department? She has the video evidence, so in theory, the law should be on her side.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Must admit I just watched the video...

ANYONE and I mean ANYONE defending the LEO here is straight up the problem with America! I read the entire thread and had a picture of what happened before. Now that I've watched it....ARE YOU DEFENDERS of the officer kidding me!

That woman did nothing wrong, and posed ZERO as in no threat! That officer was attempting to flex his supposed authority and she refused to comply.

She was not behind them and she was far enough away that she was not interfering with their traffic stop.

She should get herself an attorney and sue the department and have that officer fired.

No other outcome will be justice! I was of the mind that the woman was much closer and much more confrontational and rude. She did absolutely nothing, but refuse to bark when that officer said so.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


i'm not a legalist like you. nor do i want to distort my thinking processes.

that said. there is a difference between rational and irrational authority, and the difference is not hard to tell.


"All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." - H.L. Mencken


neither you nor any one orders me around on my property, force your way onto it and i will "Teach The Superman" to any such fool.

now if you show up with one of those devices used to test for gas leaks and you can show me a dangerous leak is occurring at or near my property and i need to evacuate, that is not obeying orders, that is being rational.

true "leaders" do not need to resort to compulsion or force.

hope that answered your question, if not, let me know.

oh and re not following an order to disarm the public, goodie and a star
,

but you still have a ways to go IMO.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Omg.


The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb.


Source has video.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 


The financial grief may include court or attorney fees, loss of pay or even loss of job. this cop intentionally made a choice to cause harm to this woman. Maybe not physically, but definitely emotionally & financially. He has no business wearing a uniform in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
More from your link> (which I think you could do it's own thread).

reply to post by PsykoOps
 

At approximately 5:30pm, four police cars were seen driving east on Troup St. and then turned right onto Clarissa St. The police cars parked a block down from the Flying Squirrel and got out of their cars holding clips boards and ticket books. They proceeded to walk down the line of parked cars on Clarissa St. checking registrations and inspections directly across from where the meeting was taking place. They then proceeded to pull out rulers to measure the distance from the curb to the tires of each car. They stated that they had received civilian complaints regarding cars being parked too far from the curb on Clarissa St.



What a Crock of Male Bovine Feces. If this is true, I hope the State AG's office is alerted and the NY Gov's office.

First thing they need to do is obtain the "report of compliant" about the cars being more than 12 inches .

You know what, I don't need to write more. The story and vid is self-explanatory.

People in that area better MAN UP and start bitching up a storm. This is just crazy on the Cops points.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ..5..
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 


How much are these cameras?
I might get one.


15 bucks for one disguised as a key chain car remote: here. Just tell the cop that you're trying to make sure your car is locked, since there are apparently "bad guys" about. No need to go into detail as to who you think the bad guys really ARE!

If a key-fob remote is not to your liking, there are other choices.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I wish I could say, "Unbelievable!" But that would not be true. It is totally believable that these worthless LEO's would take part in such intimidation tactics.

Are the defenders of the officer we have been talking about going to come to the defense of these cops too? Are you defenders going to actually go on record that you believe that there were citizens complaints about the way these cars were parked?

Thanks for posting this....This in my opinion confirms that the police in this area are not worthy of respect or admiration.

edit on 6/24/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


Supposing that every bit of what you say is true. She still shouldn't have been arrested.
No matter what you say.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yeah I just read that too.
Sounds like the whole force is working for the people right?

When cops want to make things personal and are spiteful they shouldn't be allowed to be cops anymore.
If that's how they are willing to work.. fire them all.
edit on 24-6-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I emailed Officer Malik and told him what I thought of his actions. I know it will probably fall on deaf ears but maybe if enough people express their feelings about his behavior and that of his fellow officers he will learn to respect peoples rights.

I will not give out his email address, but you can contact the Rochester Police Department,

This link should take you to a page that will provide contact info:
www.cityofrochester.gov...
edit on 6/24/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Going to be a very unpopular comment but the arrest was good.

If someone is shot on your property (creating a crime scene) you do NOT have the right to go over and stand on the body, walk around as you see fit and do whatever you want. Sorry- it doesn't work that way.

In this case the traffic stop is a crime scene. Having someone standing in my vicinity while my attention needed to be focused on the vehicle and occupants is a distraction that could get me killed. Even disregarding the distractions of now having to look behind me to see what is going on- someone within 25 feet of me (even if I was facing them) can get a knife from a belt and stick it in my chest before I can draw my weapon to defend myself.

Those officers did not know who this woman was, what her intentions were or whether or not she might be armed and react with violence to the arrest of someone inside the vehicle. Just because she said she was doesn't mean Jack Scatology. I could tell you I am unarmed and have any number of weapons on my person and the intent to use them.

The officer then asked the women to clear his scene and return to her house because she was dividing his attention away from his job because he now had to watch her AND the vehicle. She refused- numerous times. Game over. She could have recorded the scene from her house with no issues whatsoever- she wanted to play "I know my rights" (The oft forgotten right to stand in my yard) and lost.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Omg.


The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized cops were outside issuing tickets for having parked more than 12 inches from the curb.


Source has video.


What a spectacle! Uniformed police officers running around like mindless robots measuring the distance between the tires of parked cars and the curb. And they claim they're responding to citizens' complaints that some cars are parked more than 12 inches from the curb. They're not only behaving like vindictive petty tyrants, they're obviously lying about their reasons for ticketing those cars. Why send uniformed police officers? Where are the parking violation enforcers, you know, the meter-maid persons?

The Rochester Police Dept has shown the whole World its attitude toward law-abiding citizens who dare to challenge the department's illegal practices. Their attitude is nothing new. What's new is that they openly display it for all to see. I wonder what the City Council is going to do about this. Maybe its time for a new police chief and replacement of the department's entire administrative staff.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
Going to be a very unpopular comment but the arrest was good.

If someone is shot on your property (creating a crime scene) you do NOT have the right to go over and stand on the body, walk around as you see fit and do whatever you want. Sorry- it doesn't work that way.


The crime scene was the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle, neither of which were on her property.


In this case the traffic stop is a crime scene. Having someone standing in my vicinity while my attention needed to be focused on the vehicle and occupants is a distraction that could get me killed.


STanding ten feet from 60+mph traffic can get you killed while your attention needs to be focused on a traffic stop crime scene on the freeway.


Even disregarding the distractions of now having to look behind me to see what is going on- someone within 25 feet of me (even if I was facing them) can get a knife from a belt and stick it in my chest before I can draw my weapon to defend myself.


And an errant car can cross lanes and hit you on a traffic stop from more than 25 feet.


Those officers did not know who this woman was, what her intentions were or whether or not she might be armed and react with violence to the arrest of someone inside the vehicle.


I agree. An officer does not know who most of the people at the truck stop are when he stops to take a leak. Does that mean everyone must clear out the store?

An officer does not know all the people passing by him on th freeway. SO the freeway must be shut down for a traffic stop?


Just because she said she was doesn't mean Jack Scatology. I could tell you I am unarmed and have any number of weapons on my person and the intent to use them.


Indeed.

But even IF she did have a weapon is not sufficient evidence to do anything.

--As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)--

Never mind the fact that the officer did not even acknowledge her presence until he was done with his suspect, and the other two officers (one who would have been "more in danger") said nothing to her.


The officer then asked the women to clear his scene and return to her house because she was dividing his attention away from his job because he now had to watch her AND the vehicle.


Because officers NEVER have to divide their attention. See freeway example.


She refused- numerous times. Game over.


Because the officer had no authority to tell her to do as such.


She could have recorded the scene from her house with no issues whatsoever-


And freeways could be closed for every traffic stop. Alternate routes can be found.

That is a red herring.


she wanted to play "I know my rights" (The oft forgotten right to stand in my yard) and lost.


So rights are just a game . . .

edit on 6/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
143
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join