Originally posted by gps777
How funny that this lady was closer to the police doing? their job.Than the lady on her front lawn,that was so threatening to the other cop.

A couple quick questions for you...playing devil's advocate...

What was the woman doing with her hands? (Answer: You don't know)
Could the woman have been carrying a weapon concealed on her person or behind her back? (Answer: Yes)
What was said to the officer prior to the woman's camera being started? (Answer: You don't know)
Have women ever shot at or otherwise attacked police officers in this country? (Answer: Yes)
What is the reactionary gap for the average human being from start of hostility? (Answer: From 21-25 feet with the 21 foot "rule" being accepted)
Has the woman ever had a history of violence towards the police? (Answer: You don't know)

See where I am going with this? It's too easy to jump to conclusions based on a snippet of video. I will reserve judgement until the officer's dashcam recording is released.

One point that I am VERY unclear on is if the woman was with 2 other individuals within the reactonary gap on the original video why was she the sole person arrested?

I don't have an answer but I suspect either something underhanded went on (officers had history with her) or that whatever was said prior to her camera getting turned on REALLY tweaked the officer.

Originally posted by SFA437
One point that I am VERY unclear on is if the woman was with 2 other individuals within the reactonary gap on the original video why was she the sole person arrested?

I`ll have a guess,it,it was because that idiot cop was the only one among them at the time,stupid enough to be bothered by her.

I don't have an answer but I suspect either something underhanded went on (officers had history with her) or that whatever was said prior to her camera getting turned on REALLY tweaked the officer.

Maybe she stopped the idiot cop from doing what he wanted to do and really asault the guy even though he was innocent.The women with the camera stopped him.

Just guesses.

Originally posted by SFA437
What was the woman doing with her hands? (Answer: You don't know)
Could the woman have been carrying a weapon concealed on her person or behind her back? (Answer: Yes)

That line of thinking can be dangerous, remember the Seattle cop?

Example:

Could the woman have been carrying a knife carving out a wooden Indian? (Answer: You don't know)

Would the cop see it as an offensive concealed weapon and shoot her 5 or 6 TIMES in the chest? (Answer: Probably)

Originally posted by defcon5
Those rules apply for when police are in a hostile crowd, not simply because someone is standing in their front yard filming them.

That is incorrect sir. A reactionary gap is the distance someone can cover before the average human being can react to counter it. This applies to everyone around the officer- not just when he/she is doing riot control or attempting to direct & control a dynamic mob/crowd. This does not mean everyone is kept that far away however... There was a previous negative interaction with the woman prior to her starting her camera. What that was I do not know but it was enough to make the officer uneasy and for him to be concerned about her proximity.

Originally posted by defcon5
What would you have the police do cordon off a 1 mile parameter every time that they have a traffic stop?

I have said nothing about a 1 mile cordon, or anything even remotely similar- nor would I ever. I did mention a 21-25 foot buffer zone which is far short of 1 mile in distance.

Originally posted by defcon5
With the way this officer was reacting we would never have any news footage of anything as the police would have to arrest all the news cameramen for being too close to the scene.

Again incorrect in regards to news cameras which typically stay out of the officer's AO and allow them to do their jobs without interruption, do not interact with them in such a negative fashion that the officer is set on edge nor do they intrude into the above mentioned reactionary gap.

Should you wish I can scan in my old department's SOP in regards to the "21 foot rule" and post them in the morning.

Originally posted by imitator

Originally posted by SFA437
What was the woman doing with her hands? (Answer: You don't know)
Could the woman have been carrying a weapon concealed on her person or behind her back? (Answer: Yes)

That line of thinking can be dangerous, remember the Seattle cop?

Example:

Could the woman have been carrying a knife carving out a wooden Indian? (Answer: You don't know)

Would the cop see it as an offensive concealed weapon and shoot her 5 or 6 TIMES in the chest? (Answer: Probably)

But the officer did NOT shoot this woman in Rochester. He asked her 6 times to leave his scene and she refused AFTER having a negative interaction with him.

As for the above shooting- the officer has a fraction of a second to decide if what is in someone's hand is going to kill him/her or not and run an OODA loop.

The last person claiming perfection died around 2000 years ago after getting nailed to a tree. Do you claim some supernatural ability to see into he persons mind to determine their intent with a weapon with 100% accuracy 100% of the time? (A knife, no matter it's size or shape IS a weapon) If not then you realize that certain behavior with a weapon, no matter if it was carving a wood indian or a newborn baby into cat food, is going to elicit a deadly force response.

Rather than everyone rushing to judgement maybe a calm analysis with a basis in fact rather than emotion might be a better way for this thread to go.

Funny how Mike Mazzeo, who was very vocal in defense of the officers actions in regards to the original arrest, suddenly has very little to say now that his pals got caught with their utility belts around their ankles:

Rochester Police Union President Mike Mazzeo told News 10NBC that he has serious concerns about releasing the names and addresses of the officers online. He wouldn't comment directly on charges police were deliberately intimidating citizens. He says he doesn't want to put more fuel on the fire.

Originally posted by defcon5
Funny how Mike Mazzeo, who was very vocal in defense of the officers actions in regards to the original arrest, suddenly has very little to say now that his pals got caught with their utility belts around their ankles:

Rochester Police Union President Mike Mazzeo told News 10NBC that he has serious concerns about releasing the names and addresses of the officers online. He wouldn't comment directly on charges police were deliberately intimidating citizens. He says he doesn't want to put more fuel on the fire.

I can see the addresses part but names not being released?

That kind of smells... but it is a PBA rep and those choads will back an officer who got caught raping babies on live TV.

Originally posted by SFA437

The last person claiming perfection died around 2000 years ago after getting nailed to a tree. Do you claim some supernatural ability to see into he persons mind to determine their intent with a weapon? (A knife, no matter it's size or shape IS a weapon)

Rather than everyone rushing to judgement maybe a calm analysis with a basis in fcat might be a better way for this thread to go.

Objects are a extension of the human weapon, I know a MA lady with sharp finger nails that can take out your eyes in a matter of seconds..... A knife, no matter it's size or shape is a NOT a weapon unless you USE it as a weapon.

The fact is intellectual capabilities are lacking in today's law enforcement. There needs to be a new mentality for cops to think before reacting carelessly destroying the innocent.

Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by SFA437
One point that I am VERY unclear on is if the woman was with 2 other individuals within the reactonary gap on the original video why was she the sole person arrested?

I`ll have a guess,it,it was because that idiot cop was the only one among them at the time,stupid enough to be bothered by her.

Or maybe it was because that idiot chick told the cop she was going to f**k him up for hassling the driver

Originally posted by gps777

Originally posted by SFA437
I don't have an answer but I suspect either something underhanded went on (officers had history with her) or that whatever was said prior to her camera getting turned on REALLY tweaked the officer.

Maybe she stopped the idiot cop from doing what he wanted to do and really asault the guy even though he was innocent.The women with the camera stopped him.

Just guesses.

Maybe the idiot broad was the local violent meth freak who had a history of coming at the local police with brickbats and flamethrowers.

Just guesses. See how easy that was?

Now should you wish to continue any kind of rational discussion please feel free. If you wish to engage in histrionics and screeching like a crippled shrew I'll kindly ignore you and ask you to do the same of me.

Originally posted by imitator

Originally posted by SFA437

The last person claiming perfection died around 2000 years ago after getting nailed to a tree. Do you claim some supernatural ability to see into he persons mind to determine their intent with a weapon? (A knife, no matter it's size or shape IS a weapon)

Rather than everyone rushing to judgement maybe a calm analysis with a basis in fcat might be a better way for this thread to go.

Objects are a extension of the human weapon, I know a MA lady with sharp finger nails that can take out your eyes in a matter of seconds..... A knife, no matter it's size or shape is a NOT a weapon unless you USE it as a weapon.

The fact is intellectual capabilities are lacking in today's law enforcement. There needs to be a new mentality for cops to think before reacting carelessly destroying the innocent.

OK if we are going to get all metaphysical then my mind is a weapon and everything else is a mere accessory. I will concede that point.

Now if I am coming towards you with a knife, firearm, bat, sharpened stick... do you KNOW what I am going to do with it? With 100% certainty? Do you allow me to get close enough to stick whatever is in my hand into/through your body or do you defend yourself from a perceived threat?

As for the second part if you ever went through a police academy what is DRILLED into your head (and reinforced by Field Training Officers like myself) is that every single ting you do, include doing nothing, will get you sued. If anything today's police officers are FAR more restrained than those of the previous generations. I don't mean that overzealous a$$hats don't exist- just that they are an exception rather than a rule.

Originally posted by SFA437

Now should you wish to continue any kind of rational discussion please feel free.

There are plenty of members with whom we can have a rational discussion.

Do you truly count yourself among them? after the display you just put on?

Originally posted by SFA437
A reactionary gap is the distance someone can cover before the average human being can react to counter it. This applies to everyone around the officer- not just when he/she is doing riot control or attempting to direct & control a dynamic mob/crowd.

That would be incorrect, it only applies to someone 21 foot away who is armed with an edged weapon. 21 feet is supposedly the distance that someone armed with a knife can cross before and officer can draw and shoot. The police have other rules in regards to dealing with situations in which it can turn into a mob.

Besides this, watch the original video again and you’ll see that until the officer approaches her, she is at least 20 feet away from the scene in a nightgown with a video camera.

Originally posted by SFA437
There was a previous negative interaction with the woman prior to her starting her camera. What that was I do not know but it was enough to make the officer uneasy and for him to be concerned about her proximity.

According to the witnesses the first interaction between the officer and her was when he started talking to her. He said that to make it appear that there had been a previous discussion with her while the camera was off.

The officer has no right to interfere with someone that is on their property, and within their rights, as long as they are not armed, or directly interfering with police business.

Originally posted by SFA437
Should you wish I can scan in my old department's SOP in regards to the "21 foot rule" and post them in the morning.

No need, I know all about it. It does not apply to this case despite how officers may want it to appear to the public.

Originally posted by SFA437
No just no but HELL no. If I got one of those tickets I'd be organizing a mob with pitchforks and torches to march on the mayors office.

Flat out intimidation and smacks of the old Soviet Union to me. If I was on that department I'd have refused to participate in the ticketing.

So you have no problem with a woman being arrested based on arbitrary standards dished out over what amounts to refusing to leave her own yard.

But actually ticketing illegally parked cars for being parked illegally is too much for you?

You sure are a bundle of contradictory thoughts, aren't you? To be honest, these people do not get much sympathy from me because if you live in Rochester you know you either better park right, or you will get a ticket. You know, these cops were being vengeful pricks but they were actually enforcing a law. The other cop was being a vengeful prick and had to make up a reason to arrest the woman.

Originally posted by SFA437
OK if we are going to get all metaphysical then my mind is a weapon and everything else is a mere accessory. Now if I am coming towards you with a knife, firearm, bat, sharpened stick... do you KNOW what I am going to do with it? With 100% certainty? Do you allow me to get close enough to stick whatever is in my hand into your body or do you defend yourself from a perceived threat?

Most people have the mental intellect to know if they are a threat.
Do kitchen Chefs stab the other cooks with knives? NO!
They have the normal ability to judge a threat.

Originally posted by SFA437
As for the second part if you ever went through a police academy what is DRILLED into your head (and reinforced by Field Training Officers like myself) is that every single ting you do, include doing nothing, will get you sued.

You see that's the problem, you've been brained washed. You probably eat lunch at the gun range and watch the GUN training channel 24/7.