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: 36
143
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Did you watch the video? They were not in process of pulling 3 guys from the car. They were in posession of one guy in cuffs. Lying much?


There were 3 people in the vehicle. One had been removed at the time of the video. 4 individuals were involved, including the woman videotaping the scene. Reading comprehension issues much?

Perhaps English not your first language (in which case I will explain the article in small, single syllable words if need be)


Originally posted by PsykoOpsMiddle? Nice way to move the goal posts. I said quite clearly "sidewalk by...


Fine. Anyone with a modicum of common sense does NOT walk through an area where police officers are in the process of removing individuals from a vehicle, searching them and otherwise engaging in their jobs. A sidewalk is typically 18" from the curbside where the vehicle was so yes... for all intents and purposes it was the middle of the officer's scene. And by middle I did not mean someone walking over the car... I do not believe you are actually that stupid so I'll chalk that comment up as sarcasm.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

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.


See this right here, this is the RPD I know. As I said before, my experiences with them have been quite opposite this thread but I am pretty sure I bought half the curbs in the 19th ward because that is just how dangerously gang riddled it is over there that cops spend far too much time ticketing cars for being parked imperfectly. That is just par for the course in the city of Rottenchester right there. One thing you learn real quick is to pay special attention to how and where and when you park, or have cash handy. I went with the wrong one. This does sound like they specifically targeted this meeting perhaps but I know in my heart that if they were not there ticketing cars, they would have been on another street ticketing cars.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by SFA437

. . .

Seeing as how I explained in great detail that a crime scene can/will extend out from the exact place where the suspect is or where the crime occurred


--Strictly speaking, a crime scene is a location wherein evidence of a crime may be found.--

"A crime scene is any physical scene, anywhere, that may provide potential evidence to an investigator."


So what evidence was on her property?
edit on 6/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)


Those carrying narcotics typically throw them in order for them not to be found on their person. This would include the woman's front yard. I can articulate 1000 reasons why her yard could be included however that is neither here nor there.

There are a MILLION examples of officers doing stupid, effed up things that are WAY over the line. An officer asking someone to leave because he does not like someone being that close, explaining it in detail and that it is an officer safety issue and being told to pi$$ off is not one of them.

You want to see REAL law enforcement abuses start with the BATFE- not with some chick looking to make a name for herself by obstructing an officer.

*ETA* Hell... the parking ticket thing is more worthy of attention than this woman's actions and the consequences of those actions. That ticketing is some petty nonsensical BS of the HIGHEST order.
edit on 24-6-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:25 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.


No one was and that did not happen.


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.


No. You cannot pull a traffic stop at the curb outside my home and then start telling me which part of my home I have to be in because of where you decided to create a crime scene not involving me or my property. How about everyone that likes the sound of that Amerika raise their hand.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by SFA437

. . .

Seeing as how I explained in great detail that a crime scene can/will extend out from the exact place where the suspect is or where the crime occurred


--Strictly speaking, a crime scene is a location wherein evidence of a crime may be found.--

"A crime scene is any physical scene, anywhere, that may provide potential evidence to an investigator."


So what evidence was on her property?
edit on 6/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)


Those carrying narcotics typically throw them in order for them not to be found on their person. This would include the woman's front yard. I can articulate 1000 reasons why her yard could be included however that is neither here nor there.


If if if. That is all you guys supporting this officer can give. It is all what if's and theoreticals.

Given the evidence at hand . . . what would make her yard a crime scene?

If nothing, then they have no jurisdiction.

You can bring all the what-if's in the world to try and bolster your point of view. But they do not support the facts at hand. Not even remotely.



You want to see REAL law enforcement abuses start with the BATFE- not with some chick looking to make a name for herself by obstructing an officer.


And once again . . . by the legal definition . . . how was she obstructing?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Did you watch the video? They were not in process of pulling 3 guys from the car. They were in posession of one guy in cuffs. Lying much?


There were 3 people in the vehicle. One had been removed at the time of the video. 4 individuals were involved, including the woman videotaping the scene. Reading comprehension issues much?


Yeah 3 invisible people. Also you should know that the officer himself said it was a traffic stop.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
No part of that statement.

Seeing as how I explained in great detail that a crime scene can/will extend out from the exact place where the suspect is or where the crime occurred I'm going to assume you're slightly mentally impaired from now on.

TYVM for your input.


I still do not get how you do not understand that what you are "explaining" is not what happened though. There was no crime on her property. Her property was not a crime scene. LemonFresh said as much. You said incorrect because "if someone was shot...." NO ONE WAS SHOT ON HER PROPERTY. No crime happened on her property. Her property was not part of a crime scene. Help me find how lost you are.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

No one was and that did not happen.


A crime scene is a crime scene and that includes a bubble around the officers working it.


Originally posted by Kitilani

No. You cannot pull a traffic stop at the curb outside my home and then start telling me which part of my home I have to be in because of where you decided to create a crime scene not involving me or my property. How about everyone that likes the sound of that Amerika raise their hand.


Actually the officer can.

Would I have done it? Probably not but I wasn't there- I didn't see what the woman was doing, where her other hand was and a million other variables that raised the officers antenna enough for him to address her. My own personal take on being a police officer was to interfere as little as possible in people's lives. Blip of the lights before I'd pull a car. If I did pull them warning before ticket, ticket before arrest. Everyone's day went easier that way.

In this case something made the officer uncomfortable and this caused him to be distracted from discharging his duties, made more serious by 2 unknown individuals still within the vehicle. This woman was looking to make a point and talked herself into being arrested so she got what she wanted. Why is that an issue?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:34 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.




See, she made a big deal out of nothing, wanted to escalate things and now she has the city and it's citizens playing childish games. If she can do it, why can't they? Karma!

That is just too funny. Out with their rulers.
Can't say their not guilty now for not breaking the law.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
Seeing as how I explained in great detail that a crime scene can/will extend out from the exact place where the suspect is or where the crime occurred I'm going to assume you're slightly mentally impaired from now on.

TYVM for your input.


There was no crime scene for the woman to interfere with. The only crime that was committed took place when the officer trampled on the rights of this innocent woman and arrested her on trumped up charges.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


You are right and I apologize to ATS for spewing wrong info. I was incorrect to say that there is a law that states "It is illegal to record officers on duty" What the officers are doing is charging the video taper with violating a wiretapping law as I have quoted below from the following page - gizmodo.com...

Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, "[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want." Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, "The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law - requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense."

You can read more here:

www.boston.com...

You should be ok if you follow these tips-

-The officer must be in a place where there is no expectation of privacy. Filming him walking the street is fine, filming him on his lunch break in a restaurant is not.
-You must be in a place you can legally occupy. Standing on a public sidewalk is fine, parking your car on the freeway is not.
-Audio taping required consent of all persons in some states. If you are in one of these states, your audio must be off.
-Your taping can not distract or interfere with the officer while he is performing an official duty.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Manhater
 


I'm just surprised they didn't call SWAT and national guard for backup because of these fiendish parking terrorist
They now have a handy #list if this topic doesn't quite down.
edit on 24/6/2011 by PsykoOps because: reply to



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by Kitilani
 


If I had found the thread where the Pima County deputies shot Mr. Guerena earlier I'd have weighed in on those a$$hats flat out murdering him. I'd have said they were the most unprofessional, overzealous and undisciplined group of yahoos I have ever seen wear a badge.


OK? Why are you telling me what you would have done about some other topic if you had read about some other topic? You lost me.


I was an FTO for 7 years. I took a lot of rookies badges for playing Buford T. Justice and sent them home without a job. I tried explaining the difference between a law enforcement officer (new term) and a peace officer- some understood and became fine cops, others found a new line of work.


I did just make cookies too, so you want one is what you are saying?


In this case the woman refused to move despite the officer stating that her presence was distracting him from his job. Anything that distracts from the performance of the officers duty is by definition obstruction. End of story.


Oh, you either have not watched the video or are a liar. Not sure which but I think you know how your "opinion" on this is going to go over now that I see where it is coming from. She moved twice.


Had the woman in question not been such a dimwit and continue to goad the officer, causing him to shift his attention from his investigation to her actions guess what..... she'd not have gone to jail. Can you imagine that? If she had listened to the officer, understood his reasoning and said "You know what- I make this guy nervous I'll just video this from my porch" nothing would have happened.

UNREAL isn't it?


Right, if only she had just done what she was told, she would not be in jail. Heil RPD! You know what, if you watched the video you would see he was all finished up detaining his stop and that the woman backed up twice.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

If if if. That is all you guys supporting this officer can give. It is all what if's and theoreticals.


And if if if is all the guys trashing the officer can give.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Given the evidence at hand . . . what would make her yard a crime scene?


Don't know- I didn't make the stop


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

If nothing, then they have no jurisdiction.


So according to you an individual can walk up to an officer on a traffic stop and start screaming in his ear because they have no jurisdiction as there is no crime scene for a VTL misdemeanor...


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
You can bring all the what-if's in the world to try and bolster your point of view. But they do not support the facts at hand. Not even remotely.


As can you which is what we have been doing. Can you tell me what the woman's other hand was doing? What was her facial expression? Was she exhibiting signs of imminent attack and/or aggression? You can't answer those questions but the officers on the scene could.


Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

And once again . . . by the legal definition . . . how was she obstructing?


The legal definition is: A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court. (Accepted common law definition although this varies from state to state)

She interfered, by action, with the investigation by remaining in a place where the officer perceived her to be a threat to his safety.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
There were 3 people in the vehicle. One had been removed at the time of the video. 4 individuals were involved, including the woman videotaping the scene. Reading comprehension issues much?


The woman was standing with two people, bringing that total to 6. Watching comprehension issues much?


Perhaps English not your first language (in which case I will explain the article in small, single syllable words if need be)


You should watch the video before you go on insulting people for being ignorant.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by js331975
 


Sorry for being bit harsh on that reply. This issue however boils my blood. There are 4 two party consent states that had the same wording in the law. 3 of them including Massachusetts have revised their policy because of the "no expectation of privacy". Illinnois is the only one that is still holding on but that is being attacked with support from civil liberties groups and press rights activist. Also when a cop is having a lunch I'd think that he still is in public and doesn't have expectation of privacy



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani
OK? Why are you telling me what you would have done about some other topic if you had read about some other topic? You lost me.


Because I am not immediately pro-police and used that as an example.


Originally posted by Kitilani
I did just make cookies too, so you want one is what you are saying?


See above


Originally posted by Kitilani
Oh, you either have not watched the video or are a liar. Not sure which but I think you know how your "opinion" on this is going to go over now that I see where it is coming from. She moved twice.


One step backwards each time



Originally posted by Kitilani
Right, if only she had just done what she was told, she would not be in jail. Heil RPD! You know what, if you watched the video you would see he was all finished up detaining his stop and that the woman backed up twice.


Yup no personal responsibility on her part for her being in the situation she is in now.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SFA437
A crime scene is a crime scene and that includes a bubble around the officers working it.


None of which involved her property. Show me the report that claims her property was part of a crime scene or put that back in the sack where you took it from.



Actually the officer can.

Would I have done it? Probably not but I wasn't there- I didn't see what the woman was doing, where her other hand was and a million other variables that raised the officers antenna enough for him to address her. My own personal take on being a police officer was to interfere as little as possible in people's lives. Blip of the lights before I'd pull a car. If I did pull them warning before ticket, ticket before arrest. Everyone's day went easier that way.


Good for you. No the officer cannot.


In this case something made the officer uncomfortable and this caused him to be distracted from discharging his duties, made more serious by 2 unknown individuals still within the vehicle. This woman was looking to make a point and talked herself into being arrested so she got what she wanted. Why is that an issue?


He was made uncomfortable because he was being watched. Too bad. There is no law about that in Rochester. You get to watch the cops here.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I love this


Anything that distracts from the performance of the officers duty is by definition obstruction. End of story.


But comparing freeway traffic that distracts from the performance of the officers duty is trying to compare apples and oranges.

You said ANYTHING.

By YOUR definition, cars on the freeway are a distraction. Well played.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by SFA437
There were 3 people in the vehicle. One had been removed at the time of the video. 4 individuals were involved, including the woman videotaping the scene. Reading comprehension issues much?


The woman was standing with two people, bringing that total to 6. Watching comprehension issues much?


Well I was using the following statements made by you earlier in this thread:


Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Manhater
Excuse me, I thought you said 3 were in the car and 1, was in cuffs with the police. Pardon me.


That would make sense if perhaps I had been talking too fast but the luxury of written words is that you had the time to read them over and over again and wait until you understand them to respond. Here is what I wrote again. I will explain it this time.


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


Since the woman who was arrested was not one of the three men pulled over, I would guess that makes her that 4th person.


Were you lying then or lying now? Just want to clear that up before proceeding....



new topics

top topics



 
143
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join