Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

page: 14
83
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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?
In my eyes, that cop did a poor job of handling a simple situation. Especially from a public relations standpoint. If he was my employee, he would be looking for a new job.

Not really that hard to see.




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Which is the same in law enforcement as well. Your point?
In my eyes, that cop did a poor job of handling a simple situation. Especially from a public relations standpoint. If he was my employee, he would be looking for a new job.

Not really that hard to see.

Wow.. You would fire a person simply because of PR?

lol you are what you despise in the Government.

But hey, its your opinion so what ever works.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Government and politics are all about PR. People get fired every day over it.

Learn to live with it, since you work for the government.

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



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Government and politics are all about PR. People get fired every day over it.

Learn to live with it, since you work for the government.

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


I work for the citizens...



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Government and politics are all about PR. People get fired every day over it.

Learn to live with it, since you work for the government.

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


I work for the citizens...
No, you persecute them.(yeah, that's the word I meant)

You work for the government.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Lol.. too funny.

I work for the citizens, and I dont persecute anyone. That would be you based on your personal views and depending on what laws you are going to pick and choose to like today.

Now do you have anything thats on topic?
edit on 29-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' ";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".[2] Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime.

PROBABLE CAUSE

A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992). In terms of seizure of items, probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer warrants a "man of reasonable caution" to conclude that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. U.S. v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 619 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. Denied, 112 S. Ct. 401 (1992).

It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 1984). Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).

When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. And probable cause will be presumed till the contrary appears.

In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.

Courts have ruled (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) that a stop on reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer (court officer on court grounds) for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. If it is a violent crime (robbery, rape, gun run), the courts have recognized that an officer's safety is paramount and have allowed for a "frisk" of the outermost garment from head to toe and for an officer to stop an individual at gun point if necessary. For a non-violent crime (shoplifting for example) an officer may frisk while at reasonable suspicion if he noticed a bulge in the waistband area, for example, but can frisk in that area only. In the city of New York, once a person is released in a reasonable suspicion stop, a "stop, question and frisk report" is filled out and filed in the command that the stop occurs.

You fail in your argument since where is the "reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime" while recording from privet property.

You sound like most of the boneheaded grunt cops, that need to cover their asses, I had to work with and the reason I decided to leave LE to peruse other more life affirming pursuits.
edit on 29/6/11 by sirric because: added more info for you



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Now do you have anything thats on topic?


Yeah, you're long-winded and most of it is hot air.

Other posters mentioned as much, also that you need to look at how the public perceives you and your ilk. Concentrate more on that and less on bailing out the sinking ship with a coffee can.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Now do you have anything thats on topic?


Yeah, you're long-winded and most of it is hot air.

Other posters mentioned as much, also that you need to look at how the public perceives you and your ilk. Concentrate more on that and less on bailing out the sinking ship with a coffee can.


Lol.. typical response from a person with your views. I could care less what you or other posters think of my posts. If you dont like em, dont read em and dont reply to them. When you reply, I will reply.
edit on 29-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirric
...snip...


Yeah, I know all of the info you just posted. Its been posted time and again and yet you guys still continue to ignore it.


Originally posted by sirric
In an action, then, for a malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is bound to show total absence of probable cause, whether the original proceedings were civil or criminal.

The officer did have probable cause when she wanted to play point counter point, and she was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command.

Again, this is in the article and is nothing new to this debate. Second, malicious prosecution is for Prosecuting Attornies, not the Police. See, the Police are not responsible for the prosecution of the case, the PA is.



Originally posted by sirric
You fail in your argument since where is the "reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime" while recording from privet property.

And you are just as dense as all the other poeple who make your exact same comment. She was NOT arrested for recording. She was arrested for refusing to move away form the officer when he told her to. Its irrelevant if she is on private propert or not in this case. You guys can try to push that all you want, but even the ladies video shows the officer arresting her for refusing to obey a lawful command.

When the lady was told to back off, and she refused to comply, she started herself down the road of reasonable suspicion a crime was comitted by not complying with the command. She continued down that road for over a minute, and when she did not comply, she was arrested. The PC you want for the arrest is everything from the point the officer says do you guys need something up to her refusal and subsequent arrest.



Originally posted by sirric
You sound like most of the boneheaded grunt cops, that need to cover their asses, I had to work with and the reason I decided to leave LE to peruse other more life affirming pursuits.


Sounds like that was a good career move for you since you obviously have no idea what you would be doing if you stayed in Law Enforcement. More life affirming? Or was being an officer to hard for you?

Actually.. nevermind about answering the last questions.. I already know the answer.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You again fail to grasp the error of your argument.

"The officer did have probable cause when she wanted to play point counter point, and she was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command."

No he did not have probable cause, She did not instigate the confrontation, the police did! A typical Problem Reaction Solution by a bully cop. She was not committing a crime yet he confronted her, everything else is mute point.

This is why the police are getting no love from the citizens. Bully tactics and a disregard for any civil liberties when it questions the police powers. Protect and serve has been replaced with "papers NOW" or you'll be arrested for failing to comply, then for resisting arrest then beaten up because you look like you might cause harm to a police officer. It becomes the normal tactics which goes against the Constitutional rights of the people.

I'm not saying all or even most are cops are bad, it's just the system that is and has failed to train officers to obey the law while upholding it more times than not.

You know the "code" and it is really a shame to uphold it against the people you are hired to protect.

edit on 29/6/11 by sirric because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sirric
 


Btw you should probably not mention the whole private property thing about this incident so much. Some people might get the misinformed idea that it playes a role in the matter. It doesn't matter if you're on public property or even someone elses property the cop was still in the wrong



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Actually, yes it does. The SC now allows police to question you if you are on public property while filming, hence no reasonable suspicion needed at that point to engage, which is my argument that she was on her privet property and the cop had NO right to engage in this situation.


This is the legal slant that needs to be taken into context to fully understand how wrong the police officer was in this case and why the DA could not bring charges.

But yes you are correct, filming in public is not a crime unless it is for criminal purposes.
edit on 29/6/11 by sirric because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.


Can you please clarify how it is constituted as a lawful command? How can you lawfully command somebody on their own property who is not badgering the police, asking questions or interfering in any way that I can see from the video?

At no time was he asking her to go inside until after she clarified that she was video taping. He even continued about his business after asking what she was doing, then suddenly again decided she was a problem after processing the fact she said she was recording their actions.
edit on 29-6-2011 by zarlaan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirric
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Actually, yes it does. The SC now allows police to question you if you are on public property while filming,
*Snip*


Source for that. Of course they can talk all they want to you but you dont have any reason to respond.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I would if I could, I'm citing this as it was relayed to me during police training, as much as I can remember.

It happened right after 9/11 around late 2002 and it was a case that the S.C. refuse to hear. A person videotaping a public building in DC was arrested and found to have weapons and drugs on him. The argument was that he wasn't committing a crime when the police stopped him so they had no Probable Cause to detain and search him. The courts found that video tapping a high value pubic building was enough to warrant the police to evoke the Reasonable Suspicion clause and question the video taker about his activities to asses his intent. Hence, when he popped off at the police and became defensive, he lost. His appeal was not overturned and never made it onto the SC docket. So in fact they upheld the ruling by not hearing it.

This is the law that most police will refer to when assuming they have the right to question everyone who videotapes the police, but this is different than someone video taping from their privet property into the pubic domain, which has never been legally question as wrong to do.

Hope this clears up some of the misinformation circulating here.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Just for my own curiosity I looked up "failure to obey an order."
All I found referred to articles 91 and 92 of the UCMJ.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Emily Good was not in the US Military. Further I doubt that she was in the officers chain of command, nor did she ever swear an oath of allegiance* to the officer or the police force so was under no obligation to obey. She was well withing however rights the officer was not, by failing to stop him the other LEOs were just as guilty (I forget the statute but it went on the books after the Rodney King beating.)

Here are the codes.
She could have a heck of a counter suit against the officer

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -

They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.


§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

HEAD

Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

STATUTE

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death.




*And no saying the pledge of allegiance in school doesn't apply - since the children do not know what they are swearing allegiance to.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sirric
 


I really really want to know where that is from. I've paid attention to this issue for many years and I have not heard of this case. Can you provide any other details? I'm thinking this could be a smoking gun to some degree for photo activist who get harrassed all the time for filming in public.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.


What? Then how do I come across as a cop hater by specifically stating that this one man did something wrong which is different from all my personal experience with the RPD which has been the opposite of this? You are not making any sense at all. Just admit you were wrong.



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.


Just because you think she violated that law does not make it so. How did that turn out in court? I know what that law says and she did not break it. What kind of source would you like for that? Have you read the dismissal?



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.


Which is no different from what I said. The judge heard the dismissal and ruled on it. I never said whether it was necessary or just procedural. Just admit when you were wrong, it is ok to do.


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.


You seem to be the only one in your box here.


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.


Considering you did not refute what I said, you just danced around what you originally said I would say all you know about is BS.


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?


Did you even read the articles in the OP?


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


Need a link to the first page of this thread or should I hold your hand or perhaps carry you there?


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.


I said they supported the ruling which hardly means they support the cop now does it?


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.


No. They specifically said they supported the charges being dropped. How can you interpret that as supporting the cop arresting her?


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.


I never said cops work for the courts.
What do you think you just caught me on? I said you obviously do not work for a court. I also said I do not believe you are a cop. I sure as hell never suggested you were did both. You ok?


And your right.. It is impossible to teach you something.


That is not even what I wrote so amazing reading skills you got there, "chief."


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.


Your personal insults really mean about as much as your claims of being a cop so please go on.


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.


Are you stupid or what? That is exactly my point. I have a problem with what this officer did and not a problem with the RPD but you keep calling me a cop hater because I have a problem only with what one cop did?


Topic - Officer
Your answer - RPD


You called me a cop hater more than once now. Unless you think this man is the only cop on the planet, you are not making any sense. You do not even know what you are arguing anymore. You are just arguing to argue.


There is a difference.


No Sh!t!!!!! That would be why I am not a cop hater.


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.


Right, the judge dismissed it. Like I said. What is your point?


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?


In NY, she walked out of court uncharged.
What part of that do you not get?


If I stop you for speeding, and it trurns out during the encounter you are actually intoxicated.


You cannot stop me for speeding unless you are a cop though so whatever.


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?


If you failed to mirandize me? Uh yeah.


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?


Nope but I see you are not a cop. I see that pretty clearly.




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.

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


You might be waiting a while for that judge and that PA to retroactively find you correct.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
well its payback and this time they are not playing nice...






top topics
 
83
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join