Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I ahve taken the time to counter the BS people spout in these forums, while at the very same time they ignore it and offer their opinions as law.

You have not. You have just written a lot of crap. The judge sided with all us ignorant peons. Now the mayor has too. The only person agreeing with you seems to be just one other poster on ATS. Good luck with that. The judge ruled. You were wrong. It is kind of over for this argument for you.

Originally posted by dubiousone
No, Xcathdra, you are missing their point.

No really im not...

Originally posted by dubiousone
They get your point perfectly. I don't think your lengthy post was over his head. He obviously gets it.

No obviously he does not get it. If he did, we would not be arguing fact vs his opinion.

Originally posted by dubiousone
It seems that you have a very large blind spot that makes it impossible to for you to comprehend what others are saying.

Not at all.. Ive listend to what others have said, and when you compare their opinions with how the law actually works, their opinons are just that, and in many cases are wrong when comapred to the facts. Simply saying the officers actions are illegal and then throwing out what he should be cahrged with is the blind spot. It clearly highlights the fact people dont know what their rights are or how the laws work. Instead they opine about how it should be based on their personal views and experience, which none are based in actual law.

Actual law - keyt term here apparently you and others dont seem to understand.

Originally posted by dubiousone
They're simply saying it like it is. You're so obsessed with protecting the cop from blame and accountability for his own bad behavior that "nothing else is relevant" in your eyes. Ms. Good did nothing that could be construed as obstructing him - - - unless recording his activities on video from a safe distance is within the definition of obstructing.

And once again you display the ignorance I come to expect from people who just dont get it. They are saying it like it is, which means they are saying it like they thin it should be going while ignoring those pesky things called facts, and oh.. did I forget to mention the law?

Ms. Good obstructed. As I have said many times that you guys cant seem to grasp is the PA dismissed the charges. It does not mean there is not enough evidence to go froward. In this case the PA reviewed the case and facts and opted not to prosecute. Several people, once again who are ignorant on how the law works, have taken that decision and protrayed it as the officers actions being illegal, hwich they were not.

I dont expect you guys to understand that concept because so far to date, not one of you has actually taken the time to do the research, let alone show any information that supports your argument that she was in the right and the officers actions were illegal.

The claim must be supported by the facts, and in this case your argument and the others are not supported. You guys are so determined to see what you want, that you ignore everything else. You seize on one issue without due regard for case law or uynderstanding the process.

To drive my point home about your ignorance and refusal to see anything but what you want, your last sentence proves my point.

She was NOT arrested for recording, no matter how many times you guys continue to repeat that fallasy, it does not make it true. She was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command, and the command was lawful.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand? NOT ARRESTED FOR RECORDING, ARREST FOR FAILING TO OBEY LAWFUL COMMAND.

Ill try the all caps to see if it helps you comprehend that info. You guys are making an assumption not supported by either the video or facts. If she was arrested for recording, then so would the guy who picked up the camera when she was hooked up, yet he was not. Even though that clown partners with Ms. Good with protesting forclosures and professionaly baiting the police in order to record because thy would rather leach off society by lawsuit instead of working for a lviving - See what I did here? I used your technique to describe her actions.

Originally posted by dubiousone
It's obvious that he's a petty bully who became a cop and now believes that the public must obey his every command regardless of how inappropriate and pointless the command may be.

As opposed to being a professional protestor who has baited the police in the past and has been arrested for the exact same behavior elsewhere.. Gee.. What possible motive could she have had to force this encounter with the police?

Better yet, how come you and the others monday morning quarterbackers ignore that fact about Ms. Good?

Originally posted by dubiousone
I wouldn't be surprised if it was revealed that he is a prime mover in the parking ticket debacle. He certainly displays that mentality. He should be demoted to the job of office file clerk.

edit on 6/28/2011 by dubiousone because: Clarification

You last comment again proves my point that your paranoia and lack of knowledge of the law forces you into a position of a losing argument. You make comments and state them as fact.

Please show your source that says the officer involved in the incident is behind the parking tickets? The officeron camera said they received a phone complaint.

How do we know it was not Ms. Good herself who called the cops and filed the complaint in order to once again go record their actions to better enhance her position through subterfuge by once again baiting the police?

She is an expert at that, so logic would dictate that she is behind the incident, not the police, and this is just a continuation of her selfish behavior to steal money from the citizens of Rochester by creating contrived scenarios in order to sue the police and the city.

Originally posted by Kitilani
You have not.

I have.. Simply refusing to acknowledge doesnt help your argument. Go back and read, I even provided links to the law itself.

Originally posted by Kitilani
You have just written a lot of crap.

Really now.. My "crap" has sources, where as yours doesnt. Speaking of crap, read your sentence below -

Originally posted by Kitilani
The judge sided with all us ignorant peons.

Ignorant.. at least you got that right. The judge did not side with you "ignorant peons". If your going to introduce facts, you should at least make sure you have the correctly instead of just making them up. The PA delcined to prosecute, which means there was no case, which means the case was dismissed.

By the PA, not the judge. Again learn how your legal system works would you please.

Originally posted by Kitilani
Now the mayor has too.

This comment has been made before, and whe nI asked for a source, I got the typical obfuscating reponse because they cant support that comment with a source.

Show your source where your claim about the Mayor comes from.

Originally posted by Kitilani
The only person agreeing with you seems to be just one other poster on ATS. Good luck with that. The judge ruled. You were wrong. It is kind of over for this argument for you.

There are others, but they choose to not argue every point because they know it will not change any of your minds. I would prefer to argue and poiint out where your wrong in the hopes you might actually learn from your mistakes instead of being doomed to repeat them.

2 threads and over 50 pages now of nothing but cop bashing, people quoting the constitution without understanding what they quote, comments about charges against the officer where once again the people kaing that comment dont know what they are talking about.

People say the cops is wrong - They refuse to support that claim with facts
People say the cop broke the law - Yet people fail to provide sources to support their argument
People say the cop should be charged, and the list of charges given are not even applicable to the situation.

I am waiting, for even one person, to make their argument and support it with facts. So far, its been nothing but your opinons and guesses.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have.. Simply refusing to acknowledge doesnt help your argument. Go back and read, I even provided links to the law itself.

No, you have not. Simply insisting you have is not helping you at all. Kind of like calling me a cop hater after I defended the RPD did not help you very much.

Really now.. My "crap" has sources, where as yours doesnt. Speaking of crap, read your sentence below -

What sources would you like? Your sources do not support anything but your crap. Good for you!

Ignorant.. at least you got that right. The judge did not side with you "ignorant peons". If your going to introduce facts, you should at least make sure you have the correctly instead of just making them up. The PA delcined to prosecute, which means there was no case, which means the case was dismissed.

By the PA, not the judge. Again learn how your legal system works would you please.

Who heard that motion to dismiss and ruled on it?

It took less than a minute for a judge to dismiss an obstructing governmental administration charge against Good, saying there was no legal basis to move forward.

Do you know how a court works?

This comment has been made before, and whe nI asked for a source, I got the typical obfuscating reponse because they cant support that comment with a source.

I can.

Show your source where your claim about the Mayor comes from.

A joint statement issued by Mayor Tom Richards, City Council President Lovely Warren and Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard says they support the decision of the District Attorney's Office to dismiss the charges against Good

Click on the article in the OP just like I did and try reading it.

There are others, but they choose to not argue every point because they know it will not change any of your minds. I would prefer to argue and poiint out where your wrong in the hopes you might actually learn from your mistakes instead of being doomed to repeat them.

You have nothing to teach me. I am sorry that you think you can. I am still waiting for any reason to believe you are a cop. You sure as hell do not work in a courthouse.

2 threads and over 50 pages now of nothing but cop bashing, people quoting the constitution without understanding what they quote, comments about charges against the officer where once again the people kaing that comment dont know what they are talking about.

There you go again. I said several times how nice and respectful the RPD always were with me and how shocked I was by this one incident. But we already went over that once. Why would you remember it?

People say the cops is wrong - They refuse to support that claim with facts
People say the cop broke the law - Yet people fail to provide sources to support their argument
People say the cop should be charged, and the list of charges given are not even applicable to the situation.

The case was dismissed by the judge that heard the move to dismiss the charges. What more facts do you need?

I am waiting, for even one person, to make their argument and support it with facts. So far, its been nothing but your opinons and guesses.

What exactly are you waiting for?

Originally posted by Kitilani
No, you have not. Simply insisting you have is not helping you at all. Kind of like calling me a cop hater after I defended the RPD did not help you very much.

Actually yes, I have, and so have other people. The key to understanding that would be to read the posts. I never asked for your help, and yes, you come across as a cop hater in the sense the RPD is not the issue, the officers actions and the Ms. Goods actions are however.

--A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor`s intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.--

Interference -

n.
1.
a.The act or an instance of hindering, obstructing, or impeding.
b.Something that hinders, obstructs, or impedes.


Read more: www.answers.com...

Originally posted by Kitilani
What sources would you like? Your sources do not support anything but your crap. Good for you!

Read the law for yourself then above. That is the statute she violated. You know, you amke a good point.. I keep demanding you supply sources. Since nothing you have stated is valid, I suppose there wont be any sources that you could actually cite. Good for you.

Originally posted by Kitilani
Who heard that motion to dismiss and ruled on it?

Beause the charge was on the dockett. The PA declined to prosecute. A procedural motion to dimiss is done to remove it from the document. Since there is no court action / prosecution, the judge never heard any oral arguments, facts or evidence. He never made any ruling aside from the procedural to remove it from the dockett.

Going back to understanding how the law works. I say this not to annoy you guys, but to get some of you to step outside of your preconceived notions and take an intrest and actually learn how things work.

Originally posted by Kitilani
Do you know how a court works?

Yes I do - see my response above. The question then becomes do you know how it works? Based on your answer above I would say no.

Originally posted by Kitilani
I can.

Well so far you have not.. Are you going to post your sources, or just ignore the request in hopes you can somehow sneak by without having to support your claims with facts and sources?

Since you said you can, then do it. Post your sources.

Originally posted by Kitilani

A joint statement issued by Mayor Tom Richards, City Council President Lovely Warren and Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard says they support the decision of the District Attorney's Office to dismiss the charges against Good

Click on the article in the OP just like I did and try reading it.

Supports dismissing the charges, not going after the officer as peope have stated. They have never said they dont support the officer, as people have claimed.

Its taking a statement and truncating it to the extent of changing the context of the comment. Its twisting their words and actions to make it something its not.

Originally posted by Kitilani
You have nothing to teach me. I am sorry that you think you can. I am still waiting for any reason to believe you are a cop. You sure as hell do not work in a courthouse.

Again thank you for showing your ignorance and once again proving my point. Police dont work for the courts. I dont work for the courts. The courts are judicial, police are executive. I could care less if you think im a cop or not.

And your right.. It is impossible to teach you something. You have no desire to learn, which is evident by your posts. Its sad that you refuse to open your mind, yet not surprising. Eventually you will figure it out, hang in there.

Originally posted by Kitilani
There you go again. I said several times how nice and respectful the RPD always were with me and how shocked I was by this one incident. But we already went over that once. Why would you remember it?

What part of the officer instead of RPD do you not understand? The Officers actions, not that of the RPD. As I said, you only see what you want, and twist the rest when you get called out on it.

Topic - Officer
Your answer - RPD

There is a difference.

Originally posted by Kitilani
The case was dismissed by the judge that heard the move to dismiss the charges. What more facts do you need?

The charges were dropped by the PA, and the judged dimissed on a procedural motion to remove the case from the docket. Why is that so hard for you to understand.

Dismissal of charges does not indicate improper or illegal activity by the officer who went forward with the report to the PA. What part of that are you not getting? Under New York law, she met the criteria for the charge, why do you not understand that?

If I stop you for speeding, and it trurns out during the encounter you are actually intoxicated. I send you through all the required tests, place you under arrest. During transport to the jail I ask you guilt seeking questions and you answer them. The answers you prvide become the basis of my charges for the DWI.

The PA / or Defense can make the argument that since I did not Mirandize you, any info gleaned from those questions are inadmissable in court since its fruit fo the poisonous tree.

Did I illegaly / falsely arrest you?
Did I violate your rights?

Your actions met all criteria for me to arrest your for DWI. You were not charged.

Do you see what I am getting at with my explanation of actions for the op officer and the PA?

Originally posted by Kitilani

What exactly are you waiting for?

For people to understand the law, how it works, how the courts work, the responsibilities and authority of the Prosecuting Attorneys Office, the ability for you guys to see beyond your own preconceived notions and apply the law, to understand how their rights work, to understand the difference between a State and the Federal Government, chain of custody and the proper collection of evidence, the definition of Obstructing / hindering and officer in the performance of his duties, the understanding that a decline to proecute / dismissal of charges are do not equate into unlawful actions by the officer....

Ill stop the above list here so you can respond.

I couldn't bear to watch the original video of the arrest.

No kidding. I've seen so many like it and every time I see them I'm filled with murderous rage for hours afterward. I can't bear to see people abused and downtrodden and treated like cattle by these enemies of freedom and humanity in uniform. The injustice of it makes me sick.

But the general reaction of forum members to these events gives me hope. Well adjusted and compassionate human beings who possess a functioning moral compass immediately know when something is wrong and unjust, and respond with revulsion. I trust that general reaction.

I was pleased to see this thread and hear that this case was dismissed. But even in this thread there are those present who are part of the problem and have no true sense of justice. Do they really feel this way, or do they derive energy and enjoyment from the pained reactions they get to their comments supporting tyrannical injustice and the abuse of power? Is it just vampirical trolling? I don't know.

Some questions.. Im playing devils advocate so bear with me.

Originally posted by Malcram
I couldn't bear to watch the original video of the arrest.

Then how can you make the statements you do without knowing for yourself what transpired? Wouldnt that make your argument an opinion based on incomplete information then? Opinions are fine dont get me wrong, but trying to use an opinion as a fact doesnt really work.

Originally posted by Malcram
No kidding. I've seen so many like it .....

The ones you witnessed, what were the circumstances behind law efnorcements action and their reasons for arrest? While I respect your view, coul dit be posible that you did not have all of the info while observing the arrests? If you were not involved, and just witnessed, how do you know the arrests were not legal?

Originally posted by Malcram
and every time I see them I'm filled with murderous rage for hours afterward.

You state that you have hope by comments of people in these forums who are condmning the actions of the Police. Exactly how is stating you are filled with murderous rage not sinking to the same level the police are accused of? What justifies your murderous rage, and why do you feel that justification is different from the accusations against the police?

Originally posted by Malcram
I can't bear to see people abused and downtrodden and treated like cattle by these enemies of freedom and humanity in uniform. The injustice of it makes me sick.

Yet you didnt watch the video. If we base this comment on your post about seeing it in other places, I go back to my question on what information you had when witnessesing those arrests?

Originally posted by Malcram
But the general reaction of forum members to these events gives me hope. Well adjusted and compassionate human beings who possess a functioning moral compass immediately know when something is wrong and unjust, and respond with revulsion. I trust that general reaction.

Yet your reaction was murderous rage. Where exactly is your moral compass at if you think murderous rage is justified, and lawfully arresting a female for obstruction is somehow worse?

Originally posted by Malcram
I was pleased to see this thread and hear that this case was dismissed.

Its how the system works.

Originally posted by Malcram
But even in this thread there are those present who are part of the problem and have no true sense of justice.

What should our sense of justice be though? Being filled with murderous rage? How can something be a problem when the people saying its a problem dont know the law and how it works? When the case was dropped by the PA, people assume that the officers actions were illegal. How can it be a true sense of justice when the people proclaiming that justice are not familiar with the laws or procedures of the Police, the Courts or the Prosecuting Attorney?

Is being filled with murderous rage a true sense of justice?

Wouldnt a true sense of justice revolve around the laws on the books, the enforcement of those laws, the PA going forward with those charges, and a court deciding if the law was indeed broken, not broken, or broken with mitigating circumstances.

The Officer followed the letter of the law by arresting the female. Could it not be argued that even though the letter of the law was valid, the spirit of the law was intended to keep officers as well as the people we are dealing with safe by preventing 3rd party involvement in situations they should not be interjecting themselves in?

Does the rights of the female trump the rights of the person who was the target of the traffic stop?

Originally posted by Malcram
Do they really feel this way, or do they derive energy and enjoyment from the pained reactions they get to their comments supporting tyrannical injustice and the abuse of power? Is it just vampirical trolling? I don't know.

Exactly how can you make an argument using moral compas and sense of right and wrong, while using the term murderous rage, tyrannical injustice, abuse of power? How can you draw a conclusion whitout watching the video? At any point did you stop to actually look at the entire situation, which starts prior to recording, going all the way back to the officers first encounter with the vehicle?

People are stuck on one issue and only one issue, the female who was arrested, while dismissing all other circumstances surrounding the situation. How can it be considered a valid sense of justice when no one has the entire picture from start to finsish?

Would your argument in this post not be akin to the civilian equivelant of what you are accusing the officer of?

The reason I ask this is because I keep arguing that people dont understand the law.
They argue I am ignoring their side of the argument.

Wouldnt a true sense of justice then be to get all the facts, as well as review the law the officer was acting on, in addition to all relevant information minus opinons that have no bearing on the outcome (making an argument to charge the officer for a crime when the law the person cites cant even be applied?

If you guys want the police to understand you, would it not be appropriate then to stop and listen in an attempt to understand the officer?

Im not yelling at you or attemtping to be an ass. I am just curious about some of your comments and how you have come to those conclusions.

Anyways.. Thanks for reading and I look forward to your reponse.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Hi,

In answer to your questions:

I didn't make comments on this case. I was speaking of my reaction to what I have seen in the past. My only comment about this case was that I was pleased it was dismissed. This was based on something else I explained: that I trust the reaction of the vast majority of posters, who almost all reacted with horror. I was right to trust it. I have now seen the tape and saw exactly what I had been lead to expect.

My 'murderous rage' at injustice and abuses of power is a natural human reaction to the cumulative effect of a world filled with such abuses. Its what you might call a revolutionary spirit which eventually fuels change,
one way or another. By peaceful means if nonviolent revolution is made possible, or by force if it is not made possible.

Its a feeling I don't act on. Its a feeling I attempt to control by not watching every video like the discussed here. So how I FEEL is nothing like what those who abuse power DO. One is an emotional reaction, an effect, not acted upon, the other is it's cause, an action, or rather a continuous series of actions. You are wrong to claim they are the same.

It sounds to me that as well as supporting abuses of power you now attempt to 'blame the victims' (all of us) and those who support them by saying 'how dare you feel angry at being abused, that makes you no better than those you claim abused you.' What a ridiculous line of reasoning.

Please don't try to tell me what I am allowed or not allowed to feel, as a reaction to endemic abuses of power. Its enough that you think we can be rightfully arrested without any wrongdoing, nevermind that you try to lecture us about how we should feel about it too.

As for the rest of your comments, they can be addressed by pointing to a fundamental difference between me and you and between most of the posters in this thread, and you: we have an internal sense of right and wrong and a potent sense of when that is being violated. We understand that laws and the technicalities of law are a construct created by a small section of society. The law is changeable and subject to corruption, as is its enforcement. It doesn't matter to us how you interpret or bleat about all these technicalities. That's all you have, in lieu of any internal moral compass or any internal sense of justice. You have the codes written and rewritten and imposed by self-serving men in place of a healthy sense of humanity, and it is this you are preaching, insisting we join you in your dysfunction.

But we can't because we're not machine men with machine hearts and our minds aren't filled with the inhuman code written by your authoritarian programmers.

We know that the concept of law originaly sprang from an internal sense of right and wrong, not the other way around. So that law is supposed to be an expression of and servant of that common human internal sense of justice. It is primary and has primacy. When the vast majority feel violated by law or the application of law, then that signals that law has been perverted and corrupted and deviated from its purpose, twisted to serve other ends. But only those who still have an internal sense of justice can see and feel this disharmony. Those without it are oblivious, and will even defend injustice, if its enshrined in 'law'. People like you.

You'll never see it. And we will never accept your illusions because we have what you lack. So there is no point in us discussing it futher.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I mean why actually provide you with a reliable answer when you are unable to that yourself?

In other words, you have no answer to that one.

At least since the 'bad apples' one has gotten old.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You sir, are clueless.

1. If not committing a crime, there is no probable cause for the officer to even approach her.
2. No law requires you to speak to an Officer, the right to remain silent is always true, even though you now have to verbally evoke it to the police. oxymoron...
3. On your privet property, you can recorded anything you damn well want to including the Po-Po.
4. Your "speeding " example is misleading. Speeding is a probable cause to be detained and questioned, recording on you privet property is not!
5. The SC has said many times, when an officer breaks the law to advance the arrest of a law abiding citizen, the charge is thrown out, ever hear the fruit of the poisonous tree? Hence this is way the DA decided to not bring charges, because the arrest was predicated from NO Lawful stance.

Again ,stop trying to defend the Wrong actions of a corrupt officer. Action speak loud and screamed "I'm a power hungry, corrupt Police Officer" and not a protect and serve officer.

Sirric

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Hi,

In answer to your questions:

I didn't make comments on this case. I was speaking of my reaction to what I have seen in the past. My only comment about this case was that I was pleased it was dismissed. This was based on something else I explained: that I trust the reaction of the vast majority of posters, who almost all reacted with horror. I was right to trust it. I have now seen the tape and saw exactly what I had been lead to expect.

Actually you did, which is why I responded to your post in the first place.

Originally posted by Malcram
My 'murderous rage' at injustice and abuses of power is a natural human reaction to the cumulative effect of a world filled with such abuses. Its what you might call a revolutionary spirit which eventually fuels change,
one way or another. By peaceful means if nonviolent revolution is made possible, or by force if it is not made possible.

Of course the people have the right to change their government when it fails to govern by the consent of the people. However, where has anyone in these forums made an effort to effect change? The predominate numbe ro posts use the same standard - my vote doesnt matter / the government is corrupts and rigs elections etc etc etc. Is that in fact the truth in all actions done by the government? Or is it an excuse by the people who think a revolution would be easier than actually becoming involved and assisting in making the changes through hard work?

Originally posted by Malcram
Its a feeling I don't act on. Its a feeling I attempt to control by not watching every video like the discussed here. So how I FEEL is nothing like what those who abuse power DO. One is an emotional reaction, an effect, not acted upon, the other is a cause, an action.

Whether you act on it or not it speaks volumes about your perception of the Government and the Police, as well as how you stereotype the same. It has a direct impact on how you form your opinons and thoughts, and its reflected in your argument.

Your argument is coming from a place of blanket anger, not rationale thought based on logical choices..

You say abuse of power. Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

Originally posted by Malcram
It sounds to me that as well as supporting abuses of power you now attempt to 'blame the victims' (all of us) and those who support them by saying 'how dare you feel angry at being abused, that makes you no better than those you claim abused you.' What a ridiculous line of reasoning.

Again, read my posts. What Ihave been saying, and what people are not getting, deals with the officrs actions. People say the officer had no right to take those actions and they make that argument based on what they think they know, and not fact or law. She was not arrested for recording as people continue to insist is the case.

They seize on the decision of the PA to decline to press charges, and interpret that reaction into the officers actions being ilegal. Wha tI ahve been arguing is its possible to meet the elements of a crime, only to have the charges dismissed if the actions that ook place mitigate the crime itself.

People ignore this explanation, again going off the deep end with an argument of guilt and wrong actions. His actions were within the law. The PA opted not to go forward. No where does it say the officrs actions were illegal, and I have been saying this, and people have just ignored that fact and went off on their own witchunt based on what they think, and not the law.

As far as abuse, funny how you can claim the government abuses everyone, yet when the table is reversed, you dismiss and go off on a poor police rant.

Again, your showing your bias in this case, and doing it in such a manner that proves my point. You have no desire to learn how the law works, instead relying on what you think it should be and getting pissed when it doesnt turn out that way.

Originally posted by Malcram
Please don't try to tell me what I am allowed or not allowed to feel, as a reaction to endemic abuses of power. Its enough that you think we can be rightfully arrested without any wrongdoing, nevermind that you try to lecture us about how we should feel about it too.

You can feel anyway you want, and since you placed those feelings in the thread I will comment on them any way I see fit. If you dont want people to comment on someting, then I suggest you not include it in your posts. Its bad enough that you and the rest think its ok for civilians to break the law and not be held accountible for their actions. When they are you guys go off the deep end and blame the police insted of going back to where the blame bnelongs - personal accountability. I hope the citations issued after the fact are kept since every person there cited broke the law.

Yet people argue thats an abuse of power.Hypocritcal and funny all at the same time.

As far as wrongdoing, repeat it all you want, but again the fact remains the perceived wrongdoing is based on your own sense of right and wrong, while ignoring everyone elses. Who are you to say the law is not valid while arguing that people cant tell you how to feel? Do your personal moral views and sense of right and wrong trump those citizens who agree with the law and wants them enforced?

Are those citizens going to be lumped in with the Government since they dont agree wiht your view? Or do you accept the fact those citizens can have a differeing iew, unless they work for the Government, in which case you dismiss them?

Whic is it?

Originally posted by Malcram
As for the rest of your comments, they can be addressed by pointing to a fundamental difference between me and you and between most of the posters in this thread, and you:

The difference is I know what im talking about and understand how the law works, where as you guys dont. You see an action by the PA, latch onto it and try to run with it without understanding the action itself. I have tried to explain where as you guys have just accused and dismissed. I have cited the law and how it works and you guys ignore it because its not in line with your personal moral beliefs of right and wrong. I've taken the time to debate and discuss and try to explain the side people just refuse to look at, where as you guys have accused and continue to make blanket accusations that are once again based on your opinion and not actual fact.

Originally posted by Malcram
we have an internal sense of right and wrong and a potent sense of when that is being violated.

Personal beleifs are fine, but they dont trump the law. Whats worse is you guys are pissed because you perceive the cops actions as breaking the law, and demand he be punished when there is no crime present.

How can I not poiint that out to you guys without using the term hypocritical? How can you argue no one can tell you what do to, no one an tell you whats right and wrong, and in the same breath do exactly what you despise
being done to you?

A sense of right and wrong and violation. If you dont acknowledge the law as being valid and you consider the cops ctions as abuse, and this is based on your moral center, then dont you open the door for people who dont agree with you to make the same argument against you?

If so, how can yours be right, and theirs be wrong? How can you dismiss law you dont agree with, while trying to enforce a law on someone you dont agree with who didnt violate the law based on thetir interpretations?

again would that not be hypocritical?

Originally posted by Malcram
We understand that laws and the technicalities of law are a construct created by a small section of society. The law is changeable and subject to corruption, as is its enforcement.

Actually you dont, and your argument so far bears that out. What you understand is you dont agree with the law, a law you dont understand, and because of that, you dont feel it should apply. You are now blaming a group of people from a small section of society?

You are a part of that society - So you are just as guiltyas those you are attempting to blame for passing a law you dont care for. If you understood laws and governments, then you would know we live in a Representative Republic and not a democracy. In a Representative Republic, the people elect representatives to act on their behalf in Government.

Did you somehow miss that section when formulating your response? Or do you ignore it because you dont care for:? what? How do you claim to know while ignoring sections of the Constitution? A Representative Republic is designed to be inefficient. Its in place to guarantee the minority position is heard, and that system does in fact work.

As far as being subject to corruption, any person on the planet is. So again, you make blanket claims with no evidence to support the blanket claim. Technicalities created by small groups.... Thats a paranoid obfuscation and I suspect its present because you do not know how the laws work. Your paranoia is showing with that claim and as a matter of fact its so present that, as I said before, prevents you and some others from engaging in a debate and being able to see both sides. It clouds your view and is the reason you distrust anything you dont agree with.

Originally posted by Malcram
It doesn't matter to us how you interpret or bleat about all these technicalities. That's all you have, in lieu of any internal moral compass or any internal sense of justice. You have the codes written and rewritten and imposed by self-serving men in place of a healthy sense of humanity, and it is this you are preaching, insisting we join you in your dysfunction.

An intresting albeit off topic off base response. So because you dont know the technicalities, or you dont like those technicalities, you dimiss them completely and impoose your moral right and wrong on others.

Again, you are doing exactly what what you claim the government is doing to you. Enforcing their will on you. Again, how can I not point out the hypocrisy in your argument? As far as the discussion and me preaching, again pay attention to what im posting.

As far as your last comment, thats good advice actually. Funny enough its also hypocritical because in this post and the other, you are insiting we abide by your and other peoples dysfunction.

Or do you guys have some type of superior sense of moral character when you can look down on others while arguing you are exempt from the same treatment?

Originally posted by Malcram
But we can't because we're not machine men with machine hearts and our minds aren't filled with the inhuman code written by your authoritarian programmers.

Ah yes, the mindless automaton argument. A classic and not suprising.

Originally posted by Malcram
We know that the concept of law originaly sprang from an internal sense of right and wrong, not the other way around. So that law is supposed to be an expression of and servant of that common human internal sense of justice. It is primary and has primacy. When the vast majority feel violated by law or the application of law, then that signals that law has been perverted and corrupted and deviated from its purpose, twisted to serve other ends. But only those who still have an internal sense of justice can see and feel this disharmony. Those without it are oblivious, and will even defend injustice, if its enshrined in 'law'. People like you.

So again, you are saying you and everyone else is being abused 24 / 7 / 365 by all governments and governtment agencies inside the US and its territories. You made the comment earlier about effecting change first by particiapation and then by vioence.

What I get from your argument, is you would be ok with the Government, if it saw things in the same manner you did and it more represented your moral beleifs. You are the type of person who is dangerous in the sense that if a violent incident occured and the government changed, you would be putting something in place that other people wont agree with.

In essence, you would be doing what you hate. Forcing your opinion and sense of moral right and wrong onto the masses. Except in your case, you would defend those changes as whats best for the people.

Originally posted by Malcram
You'll never see it. And we will never accept your illusions because we have what you lack. So there is no point in us discussing it futher.

edit on 29-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

Ah yes, the drive by snipe and post. Stick around and engage in debate. Or are you afraid you might actually learn something? Or is it something else? Maybe your moral sense of right and wrong is preventing you from engaging in conversation because you dont like the ideas or other side of the coin. Wouldnt a moral sense of right and wrong be indicative of actually engaging in the conversation and debate instead of running away from it?

Wouldnt right and wrong, and the moral ability to know whats what, demand you see and consider all sides of a story before making a decision? Wouldnt your moral sense of right and wrong know the difference between the actions of one police officer from another? One Government entity from another?

In order to decide what you morally think is right and wrong, you would need the truth, regardless of the possibility to truth might lead you to a place that you dont like.

Because you dont like it, doesnt make it wrong, either in law or moral values.


Don't look now, but you are exactly what you despise.

Ironic.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Exactly what did you do growing uop that caused you to have contact with law enforcement all the time?

As I said, my uncle was the county sheriff for twenty years. I knew the state police through that connection. We sold them meat from our shop. We butchered their animals. We went to BBQs at each others homes and attended picnics together. We would sit at the county jail and 'shoot the bull'. My father and I would swing by the state police barracks to visit. They would come to our house to sight in their hunting rifles. I would hunt with some of them. Nothing abnormal about that, is there? I'm sure you have been to a picnic or two where cops were present, no?

You apparently have issues with authority figures.. Someone tell you no and you could not handle that or what?

Not really. Of course I have been told 'no' in my lifetime, who hasn't? I believe that I've handled it just fine. I've never been in handcuffs(only my wife has put those on me, and my son's toy ones) in any of my interactions with LEOs(of a police business nature), so I guess I must treat them with their due respect, eh?

I am actually in a position of authority where I work. I manage a company that installs, repairs and services multi-million dollar pieces of industrial equipment.

Originally posted by sirric
You sir, are clueless.

Really.. lets find out...

Originally posted by sirric
1. If not committing a crime, there is no probable cause for the officer to even approach her.

Learn the terms
- Probable Cause
- Reasonable Suspicion
- Investigative Detention
Police can approach any person they want, even without that person commiting a crime. How can we do that? Its called voluntary contact, and the person we approach is under no obligation to talk to us or even stick around.
In this case, the officer arrested the female, and because of that action he could walk onto her property. I dont have to have probable cause to speak to an individual (I refer you to the terms listed above).

Originally posted by sirric
2. No law requires you to speak to an Officer, the right to remain silent is always true, even though you now have to verbally evoke it to the police. oxymoron...

If I am performing an investigation, there is certain information that is required. Contrary to what your posting, a person has the right to remain silent when they are in custody and the officer is asking guilt seeking questions. You do not have to verbally tate that to the police. The Supreme Court ruled if we mirandize, and the person refuses to answer or speak, then they have in effect invoked their 5th amendment right. When a person behavior is in doubt, the assumption is they are invoking their rights, regardless.
If you are not a suspect, you have no 5th amendment protection, nor can you invoke it. You need to go back and read the 5th amendment, understand how its applied and how it works with the law.
If you are a witness, and refuse to provide infomration, you are hindering prosecution and obstructing, and you can be charged for it. In addition, as a material witness a material witness warrant can be issued, and you can be held until such time you provide that infomration to the court.

Why - because in the intrest of justice for the accused, they are entitled to any and all information that has a bering on their case. By refusing to provide information as a witness, you are screwing over both the Prosecution as well as the defence.

Originally posted by sirric
3. On your privet property, you can recorded anything you damn well want to including the Po-Po.

No kidding.. Go back an read the article She was NOT arrested for recording the Police. Also, being on private property does not give a person immunity from criminal prosecution. Your rights extend to the point they begin to interfer with others. Not a hard concept to understand.

Her actions of refusing to move away created a confliuct with the rights of the person detained. By Supreme Court decisions, a traffic stop should run no longer than 20 minutes since its a temporary seizure under the 4th amendment. If it goes beyond, we are required to justify the reasons. By playing point counter point, she ate up about 2 minutes of that time.

Her rights ended the moment they started to interfere with the driver.

Originally posted by sirric
4. Your "speeding " example is misleading. Speeding is a probable cause to be detained and questioned, recording on you privet property is not!

Uhm no really its not. I do not have to have probable cause to stop you. All I need is reasonable suspicion you committed a crime. If I clock a car doing 90mph in a 30, I have reasonable suspicion the law was broke. When I stop the person to determine whats going on, we are building from RS up to PC. If we get pc, then we can issue a citation or make an arrest. If we dont, we let them go. It very much applies to the recording on private property as you say.

Originally posted by sirric
5. The SC has said many times, when an officer breaks the law to advance the arrest of a law abiding citizen, the charge is thrown out, ever hear the fruit of the poisonous tree? Hence this is way the DA decided to not bring charges, because the arrest was predicated from NO Lawful stance.

No, in my 10 yers of law enforcement, I have never heard of the fruit of the posionous tree. Can you explain it to me? While your at it you should learn a couple terms - inevitable discovery, exception to the exclusionary rule,
As far as the charge being dismissed, you are making leap of logic, and because of that assumption, you are drawing the wrong conclusion.

If you are in your front yard and see a person approaching you with a knife in their hand, and they are bearing down with no signs of stopping, you decide to draw your gun, you tell the guy to stop, he doesnt so you shoot him, resulting in his death.
Same scenario, excpt this time the guy does not have any weapons, and you shoot and kill the guy because hes coming at you.

Both scenarios involve the taking of a life, qualifing both scenarios as murder. The PA will delcine to prosecute the first incident, because its self defense. The PA can prosecute the second incident because no threat existed that rose to the level of use of deadly force.

Thats the same process applied here. The PA is saying, based on all information, it would not be in the intrest of justice to go forward with the charge. The PA is saying by their actions that although the officer is correct in his application of the law, after reviewing all info present, the intent of the female was not to obstruct.

Letter of the Law verse the Spirit of the Law. As I said, I dont agree with the PA on that decision because I feel its politically motiviated.

Originally posted by sirric
Again ,stop trying to defend the Wrong actions of a corrupt officer. Action speak loud and screamed "I'm a power hungry, corrupt Police Officer" and not a protect and serve officer.

As opposed to being an ignorant fear mongering, blanket accusation, ignorant on the law and lacking any ability to understand how all this works aside from your own wrong opinions?

The onlything corrupt here is your thought process and what you think you know.

..........and you call me clueless... If thats so I can only imagine what defintion would apply to you based on your post and rationale.

oh well.. too each their own.

reply to post by butcherguy


Then why is it you refuse to even look at the other side of the fence to make an informed opinion? Why ignore the laws and the totality of cirumstances?

Im sure you've had staff members do their job correctly, being within policy and law, only to have circumstances pop up at the end that negates the result. Would you fire that employee for doing their job, correctly lawfully and legally because someone else higher up decided its not needed?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Then why is it you refuse to even look at the other side of the fence to make an informed opinion? Why ignore the laws and the totality of cirumstances?

Im sure you've had staff members do their job correctly, being within policy and law, only to have circumstances pop up at the end that negates the result. Would you fire that employee for doing their job, correctly lawfully and legally because someone else higher up decided its not needed?

Ours is a private enterprise that competes with other businesses.

Police have no competition. They are a group that are paid with tax dollars. The people that ostensibly provide oversight are also paid with tax dollars and the divisions are populated with.... Guess who? Police officers.

Not a fitting analogy.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thanks for your reply.

But I won't be responding to you further because, as I said, I see no point. I've read your other posts here. No minds will be changed.

To be clear though, I don't think you're a 'bad person'.

I just think there is something very wrong with you, on a fundamental level.

Internet debate won't solve that. I wish it could.

So, I'll end our discussion here and wish you well, and a speedy recovery.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Ours is a private enterprise that competes with other businesses.

Police have no competition. They are a group that are paid with tax dollars. The people that ostensibly provide oversight are also paid with tax dollars and the divisions are populated with.... Guess who? Police officers.

Not a fitting analogy.

Convient way to refuse to answer the question. Especially when the question is based on a hypothetical.

It would have been easier to just say you have no interest in seeing any other side of this except for what you want to see.

Originally posted by Malcram
Thanks for your reply.

and yours.

Originally posted by Malcram
But I won't be responding to you further because, as I said, I see no point. I've read your other posts here. No minds will be changed.

Which is sad people cant open their minds to see all sides of this incident. I do agree though about changing minds, so I wont be responding to anything of yours in this thread either.

Originally posted by Malcram
To be clear though, I don't think you're a 'bad person'.

Actually I think you do.

Originally posted by Malcram
I just think there is something very wrong with you, on a fundamental level.

So when a person does not agree with you, or your view point, they have a fundamental problem?
Thats funny.. Hate to burst your bubble though but there is nothing wrong with me.

Originally posted by Malcram
Internet debate won't solve that. I wish it could.

There is nothing to debate really. On a personal level you dont agree with the Officer or the law. Thats fine, but it doesnt change the fact the law is present an was used.

Ignoring facts wont help solve the issue either, no matterhow much you guys try.

Originally posted by Malcram
So, I'll end our discussion here and wish you well, and a speedy recovery.

edit on 29-6-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

and I wish you well on the operation to remove your rectal-cranial inversion condition and a speedy recovery.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by butcherguy

Ours is a private enterprise that competes with other businesses.

Police have no competition. They are a group that are paid with tax dollars. The people that ostensibly provide oversight are also paid with tax dollars and the divisions are populated with.... Guess who? Police officers.

Not a fitting analogy.

Convient way to refuse to answer the question. Especially when the question is based on a hypothetical.

It would have been easier to just say you have no interest in seeing any other side of this except for what you want to see.

Here's your answer:
We lay people off that don't put out quality workmanship or if they simply are too slow. That's what gets someone their walking papers here. They don't have to violate any laws, just not being good enough is a reason.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Here's your answer:
We lay people off that don't put out quality workmanship or if they simply are too slow. That's what gets someone their walking papers here. They don't have to violate any laws, just not being good enough is a reason.

edit on 29-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Which is the same in law enforcement as well. Your point?