Rochester police ticket attendees where lady was arrested on front yard who are parked more than 12

Originally posted by SFA437
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.

Masic alleges on tape that Good and her friend made an “anti-cop” statement before the recording began, but Good, her friend and their neighbors have since disputed that.

This pretty much says it right here:

The official report filed says she was charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration, but Acuff writes that Good was taken to a parking lot of a nearby high school while cops pow-wowed for an hour on how to write up the case in a way that would “minimize their wrong doing.”

I have seen my friend who is a PBA rep sit on the phone an have similar converstations with officers on how to slant their version of the story to make BS arrests stick. If you were a cop then you know as well as me that they are not above lying to cover when they break the law themselves. That's their BPA reps #1 job.

Originally posted by defcon5

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.

It's been expanded to cover impact weapons as well. In an open area with nothing else going on other than an armed subject and the officer(s) a retreat and cordon would be the FAR better option versus lighting the person up. Nobody wants to put rounds into an EDP, or anyone else, unless it is absolutely necessary.

The generalization of distance involved can be expanded or contracted as circumstances dictate. In this case the officers were not focused on the female but rather on the occupants of the vehicle. This increases the reactionary gap and forces a compaction of the officer's OODA loop. Having the woman maintain a greater distance, or vacate the vicinity, is safer both for the woman in question and the officers.

Originally posted by defcon5

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.

Who were the woman's companions that night AFAIK. If this plays out and jives with the officer's mike recording then I'll state he was utterly and completely f**ked up in doing what he did. The goal should be to disrupt a citizen's life only when absolutely necessary and to the least extent possible.

Originally posted by defcon5
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.

The last part is the rub. Was she interfering by causing distraction? If there was a prior interaction then yes. If not then no. One side says there was, the other say not. Again there is a DVD somewhere with the audio from that night which will settle that.

Originally posted by defcon5

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.

If she showed previous hostility it does apply. That is something that has not been proven/dismissed at this point to the best of my knowledge.

Originally posted by defcon5
If you were a cop then you know as well as me that they are not above lying to cover when they break the law themselves. That's their BPA reps #1 job.

Refer to my post on PBA choads and baby raping

Can't STAND the PBA or FOP. They are unions and unions are good for two things and two things only:

1: Making money for themselves
2: Pulling s**tbirds behinds out of the fire whether they are right or wrong

Originally posted by SFA437
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.

She was never on "his scene." She was on her property, away from the "scene." The cop went onto her property. Did he bring the crime scene with him? I was really hoping you would give that honesty thing a shot.

Originally posted by SFA437
A couple quick questions for you...playing devil's advocate...

What was the woman doing with her hands? (Answer: You don't know)

Holding a camera,unless it was glued to her eye,your correct then I dont know.

Could the woman have been carrying a weapon concealed on her person or behind her back? (Answer: Yes)

Seeing it was dark and people have suggested that she could smashed him with the camera,she was carrying a weapon and therefore a deadly threat.

What was said to the officer prior to the woman's camera being started? (Answer: You don't know)

"tonight you`ll handcuff innocent black guys and arrest ladies who film it" *shrugs*

Have women ever shot at or otherwise attacked police officers in this country? (Answer: Yes)

Yep as has police officers shot or abused men and women,hence the lady with the camera.

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)

In the original footage did you see the officer with a tape measure,as you did in this one? and if she intended to shoot an officer (vomit) she could have done that from inside her house.

Has the woman ever had a history of violence towards the police? (Answer: You don't know)

You know nothing of women imo if you think she is capable of having been violent toward police in the past and your meth addict comments.Did you even hear her reaction? that was like a frightened 5 year old.Big man tough cop frightened of a lady with a camera on her own front lawn.

Now its big tough cops trying to silence those speaking out about it.

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.

I`m confident in what I observed.

I`m not confident in your judgements.

This video confirms police abusing their powers,that your in denial of,that I did not need to see to know.

Originally posted by imitator

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.

You wouldn't know me from a hole in the wall yet you could decide instantly my intentions? AWESOME!
Do the police work day in and day out with the subjects they deal with on the street?
So do police officers and occasionally they make mistakes. The problem is nobody has figured out how to make a perfect human being yet.

Originally posted by imitator

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 thing 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.

As for the first part- you object to training officers NOT to empty magazines into people right off the bat? Kind of an odd thing to say but OK....

As for the second you are incorrect. I left my department to work for the Department of Defense over 8 years ago and haven't looked back. I carry a pocket knife and my wife carries a can of OC. Have no interest in owning a firearm ever again. They are a tool for which I have no further use in my day-to-day life. They were fun to shoot when I was in Iraq but living in suburban NY- I have as much need for one as I need a rocket propelled chainsaw to fight the zombie hordes

Originally posted by gps777

I`m confident in what I observed.

I`m not confident in your judgements.

This video confirms police abusing their powers,that your in denial of,that I did not need to see to know.

You are the one who has judged by the "idiot cop" and "big tough cop" comments. I have reserved judgement and have played devil's advocate giving possibilities for the officer's thought processes based on my training and experience.

I originally had made up my mind but after some debate (kind of rough) I'm on the fence as to which way it is going to go and IMO it is going to hinge on the voice recording off the dashcam.

The video shows a woman being arrested. What caused that arrest to happen is up in the air- if there is a reason at all.

Originally posted by SFA437
It's been expanded to cover impact weapons as well. In an open area with nothing else going on other than an armed subject and the officer(s) a retreat and cordon would be the FAR better option versus lighting the person up. Nobody wants to put rounds into an EDP, or anyone else, unless it is absolutely necessary.

The generalization of distance involved can be expanded or contracted as circumstances dictate. In this case the officers were not focused on the female but rather on the occupants of the vehicle. This increases the reactionary gap and forces a compaction of the officer's OODA loop. Having the woman maintain a greater distance, or vacate the vicinity, is safer both for the woman in question and the officers.

Ok, that’s all well and good.

BUT here is where your logic falls down…

The 21 foot RULE is a law enforcement RULE, its like “never stop breathing” when scuba diving, or your “Personal area bubble”. What it is NOT is a LAW, STATUTE, or ORDINANCE…ANYWHERE, PERIOD! You cannot arrest someone for breaking your 21 foot rule, and as an officer if you feel that your 21 foot barrier is being violated and have the option to move to maintain it, then its YOUR responsibility to move to maintain that distance, not to trample on another’s Constitutional right to be on their property.

These guys SHOULD HAVE MOVED with their prisoner to the far side of the car if they felt in danger, but rather let one officer lose his temper over being filmed, and trample on a civilians Constitutional rights. That is why they had to spend an hour discussing how to slant the reports to make her sound more guilty then she really was, and that is why they are now having to use intimidation in an attempt to make this go away.

Originally posted by SFA437

You wouldn't know me from a hole in the wall yet you could decide instantly my intentions? AWESOME!

Yes I know your intentions, your character shows in your posts, your not of average mentality... I wouldn't turn my back on you.


edit: just kidding....

Originally posted by SFA437


You are the one who has judged by the "idiot cop" and "big tough cop" comments. I have reserved judgement and have played devil's advocate giving possibilities for the officer's thought processes based on my training and experience.

So when I said "I`ll have a guess in that particual post,you think it all right to call me anything you like,because you said "devil advocate"

My last post to you had in it "big tough cops" because now all of them are gtting in on the act in support of the other.

Maybe it would be educational for you to read this,its quite insightful on those given power over others....

en.wikipedia.org...

That has clearly affected these police officers.

Originally posted by defcon5
Ok, that’s all well and good.

BUT here is where your logic fall down…

The 21 foot RULE is a law enforcement RULE, its like “never stop breathing” when scuba diving, or your “Personal area bubble”. What it is NOT is a LAW, STATUTE, or ORDINANCE…ANYWHERE, PERIOD! You cannot arrest someone for breaking your 21 foot rule, and as an officer if you feel that your 21 foot barrier is being violated and have the option to move to maintain it, then its YOUR responsibility to move to maintain that distance, not to trample on another’s Constitutional right to be on their property.

These guys SHOULD HAVE MOVED with their prisoner to the far side of the car if they felt in danger, but rather let one officer lose his temper over being filmed, and trample on a civilians Constitutional rights. That is why they had to spend an hour discussing how to slant the reports to make her sound more guilty then she really was, and that is why they are now having to use intimidation in an attempt to make this go away.

You know- I've said on the last page retreat and cordon is an option but never got my brain to kick that concept over to this. Focused too much on the female and her actions and not on available options for the officers on the scene.

These guys SHOULD HAVE MOVED with their prisoner to the far side of the car if they felt in danger

That right there is the endgame. Like I said before the object is to interfere as little as possible with a citizens life and moving the occupants to the far side of the car would have fulfilled that objective.

The arresting officer screwed the pooch. Heck I even said in the other thread I would not have made the arrest but it never clicked in my mind why until you just said that.

I did a search for my area to see if it is unlawful to video police in action. There are cases pending. However, I found a posted reply to the article that I tend to agree with.

Source

Let me offer my reply to this topic in the context of criminal law. This is my first post here. Go OPB!

When prosecuting a criminal case, the state needs to have proof that the defendant did what they accuse him of. Not just any proof, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Objective proof is the best kind; it's incredibly difficult to argue with if you are a defense attorney, like me. DNA is a flashy example, but photos and video and audio recordings rarely leave room for interpretation.

I practice criminal defense in a small town in Eastern Oregon, but I believe most police citizen encounters across the state are not recorded in either a temporary or permanent format. I believe this is a shame given the relative affordability of decent recording equipment. Police officers need to be recorded nearly all the time for objective, truth-telling purposes. Partly because I would like to spend less time pursuing half-truths a small percentage of my clients may feed me, and partly because police officers are people too and are capable of forgetting from time to time. Police forgetfulness can impact a court hearing in many ways.

I have recorded police action on my cell phone. I was not told to stop, but for other reasons they told me to back away. I backed up and continued discussing the scene with a DA/friend of mine.

I like citizen observation of times when the power of the state encounters individuals. Usually it involves Constitutional Rights, which our founding fathers believed in. I believe police have largely treated me fairly, so I have never needed a recording. Some of my clients do not share my sentiment, and from time to time a recording would be nice to have to show my client or the court.

How could more truth be a bad thing?

Will
Eastern Oregon

Originally posted by SFA437

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.

Has the woman ever had a history of violence towards the police? (Answer: You don't know)

www.huffingtonpost.com... emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html

"The real reason they arrested her was because she was videotaping," Acuff said. Both he and Good are activists who have previously protested foreclosures in the area.

Originally posted by imitator

Originally posted by SFA437

You wouldn't know me from a hole in the wall yet you could decide instantly my intentions? AWESOME!

Yes I know your intentions, your character shows in your posts, your not of average mentality... I wouldn't turn my back on you.

edit: just kidding....

edit on 25-6-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)

Neither would I on you sir

Originally posted by Manhater

www.huffingtonpost.com... emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html

"The real reason they arrested her was because she was videotaping," Acuff said. Both he and Good are activists who have previously protested foreclosures in the area.

Solves that issue for me as well. Arrest was "payback" for other activity and she goaded the officer into doing something utterly stupid (NO the officer should not have risen to the bait).

Rochester PD and City Hall are screwed- a first year out of school civil attorney could win this one blind drunk while smoking crack in the courtroom.

Originally posted by SFA437

Solves that issue for me as well. Arrest was "payback" for other activity and she goaded the officer into doing something utterly stupid (NO the officer should not have risen to the bait).

I dont believe this.

What would be the chances of the original arrest being at that location that the police officer knew her,just for a payback.

She definitely made her presence known,but not in away that was interfering in their duties, she stood her ground because she was on her property.She has obviously been involved with protesting property foreclosures before and I`d say that she was forced to move on by police and took the opotuinty to stand on her own ground on her own ground that night.

Which only adds to how ridiculous all the"she was a threat" comments are.

reply to post by gps777


Don't you think that every cop in her neighborhood didn't know her on sight as a community activist?

I knew every one in my town on sight because they were such a royal PITA to deal with. Even when they committed offenses that complied with every single element of the charge they'd be in the Chief's office 24 hours later

I'll bet a month's salary that officer knew her or had dealt with her in the past somewhere in the neighborhood.

A second video of the same incident:
Davy V. Exposes Rochester Police Intimidation Tactics in front of 285 Clarissa St.
That’s a lot of officers writing tickets.

It’s also interesting in this second video that the police remained outside the building during their meeting to obviously attempt to intimidate them from having it.

Originally posted by SFA437
reply to post by badw0lf

 

*snip*
The woman insisted on entering the officer's reactionary gap after having a negative interaction with the officer prior to starting her own camera. That smacks to me of attention wh*re looking to make money and have a viral YouTube video.

Be nice to see what the officer's mike picked up when they release it eventually.

edit on 25-6-2011 by SFA437 because: (no reason given)

And what crime is it? Dont say interfering or obstructing since we already know that it doesn't even come close to that law. Not to mention you should probably watch the video once more. She was so threatening that the officers handled all their other business before this one power tripper started to harass her.

Originally posted by SFA437

Don't you think that every cop in her neighborhood didn't know her on sight as a community activist?

For someone who loved to write out a long line of devil advocate questions for me to answer,that ended with"see where I`m going with this?" you sure are definite now aren`t ya.

see where I`m going with this?

I knew every one in my town on sight because they were such a royal PITA to deal with. Even when they committed offenses that complied with every single element of the charge they'd be in the Chief's office 24 hours later

Yeah this cop tried to make out she commited an offense as well.

I'll bet a month's salary that officer knew her or had dealt with her in the past somewhere in the neighborhood.

How could you make it happen and be honest about it? to me it would be about 50/50 so I`m game.

I`m not short of a dollar.