Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

reply to post by anon72


Sue them for deformation, wrongful arrest, losses of wages, embarrassment... etc etc etc make sure everyone everywhere hears of it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

no didn't know that. does it have something to do with road conditions like rain? i'm not surprised. apparently if you're in uniform you can get away with anything, as long as you "believe" you did the right thing.

Yes and no. If you are doing the posted speed limit and are on a stretch of road that has a yellow speed limit sign, which is the engineer suggested speed based on road conditions, and an accident occurs, a ticket can be issued. To date the only state I have ever see that occur in is Michigan - go figure.

Absent that scenario, there is no other reason to issue a citation. If your going to make the argument that the person was doing 1 mph over the speed limit, good lukc finding a PA that will go forward, or a judge that would entertain it.

I hope she didnt get massive amount of money. i dont understand how people in usa like the idea of some people getting huge monetary compensation. In the end its your own money you are giving away.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

how was she interfering? video taping him from her own property? that's illegal now? sounds more like the police officer didn't want to be taped by a citizen, so he arrested her, knowing he wouldn't really be punished. he had no probable cause or evidence.

You really need to learn to read instead of just seeing what you want. She was NOT arrested for videotaping the incident. She WAS arrested for refusing to back away.

Please point out in the video the lady took where the officer ever said stop recording. The officer kept telling her to back away.

Listen, read, comprehend, learn... please.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by Manhater
I am pretty sure, we will see her again. I think she should of been charged or at least have a fine.

edit on 27-6-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

What?Why? She didn't even do anything wrong...... Which is why the case got thrown out, she violated no laws.


So.... Why should she be in trouble

Because this is not her first encounter with law enforcement in this manner. Her and her friend, the one who picked up the camera after she was arrested, do this on a professional basis. They go to forclosures and protest, and since foreclosures are generally cariied out by law enforcement in most states (not all).

She has been arrested in the past for the same bahavior. People in these threads seem to ignore that fact.

reply to post by OldCorp


If he abused his authority, he would have charges filed against him from the PA, and the FBI would be notified of a civil rights violation. Have either of those 2 actions occured yet? Has the department completed its IA investigation yet?

As I said, your opinions are nice, but they are based on a lack of understanding of the law.

Funny enough you guys are once again going down the road of hypocrisy. You guys complain the officer made a false arrest based on his lack of knowledge of how that particular statute works, while in the very next breath you guys demand justice based on your lack of understanding of the laws and how they work.

Are you guys not seeing that little dilema you keep walking into?

reply to post by Xcathdra


OK, lets take her out of the picture here. How do you explain away the behavior of the rest of the cops that returned to harass her supporters at their meeting?

reply to post by Manhater


Oh, you must have the wrong adress this is ATS. Hitlers house is down the road on the left

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by OldCorp

 

If he abused his authority, he would have charges filed against him from the PA, and the FBI would be notified of a civil rights violation. Have either of those 2 actions occured yet? Has the department completed its IA investigation yet?

As I said, your opinions are nice, but they are based on a lack of understanding of the law.

As you said, the IA investigation isn't yet complete, so charges may yet be filed. Also, there have been successful prosecutions in the past for police officers violating a person's civil rights.

As far as understanding the law, as a journalist I'm something of an expert on the First Amendment. Her First Amendment rights WERE violated, and - if she can find a crackerjack lawyer - a case can also be made for the officer violating her Fourth Amendment rights as well.

I suppose we shall have to wait and see.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for donning a uniform and performing the duties of a LEO. As I said, it is largely a thankless job - well I'd like to correct that right now. THANK YOU!

Just please remember who it is you work for: the PEOPLE of the jurisdiction in which you work.

Glad see was able to get off without any further punishment.

I hope she takes some sort of legal action for wrongful imprisonment and false arrest. An easy 5 figure sum.

The reason I hope she does this is 2 fold, she needs to show others that the fight can be won. Blazing a path so to speak, the other part is money is the only language these people speak, if we can start ridding them of their cash with peaceful lawful means blood doesn't need to be spilled.

-Lightrule

reply to post by Xcathdra


The officer hasn't been seen charges because the woman hasn't pressed any...

Also lets not kid ourselves here, even if she did want to press charges for the assault against her everyone works TOGETHER in the legal system. From street cop to judge they are all on the same side and watch each others backs. Police cannot investigate police, end of story. Civilian panels are the only way to investigate police corruption/abuse.

-Lightrule

reply to post by anon72

So an initial miscarriage of justice is turned around and overturned! This is great, and just exactly why we need to be aware of what our law enforcement is doing, as they are supposed to be PUBLIC SERVANTS and not just supporters for tyranny. And that's a bit strong, as there are many wonderful people in law enforcement, but the ability to keep an eye on what is happening with our rights and with our tax dollars is crucial to responsive and responsible government. WE are supposed to be both the public AND the government! Yet I have to wonder how many similar situations don't turn out well due to the lack of media attention.

reply to post by pigwithoutawig


I live elsewhere, like the Twilight Zone of the Fourth Amendment.
There's another state where it's a felony to record LEOs while in
the performance of their jobs... but Illinois has made it a Class 1.

projectavalon.net... be445

Strangely enough the link is magenta, one of my favorite
colors for a shoulder repeatedly popped by a 1964 Colt-Sauer
Model 700 chambered .458 WinMag. Quite seriously though,
This act in Ilinois carries about the same potential hard time as
a serial rapist.
Can you spell nullification? One in two hundred potential jurors
can define it. We're tattoed with a jackhammer tipped with a Tanto
unless we can Zbignew everybody a cup of political coffee who needs
one. Most aren't here-- and I'm overjoyed the charges were dropped,
but there's a long way to go in respect to putting the jin back in.

This is good.

But it shouldn't get this far... For every one who says she should have just obeyed any instruction the officers instructed of her and gone inside then she wouldn't have been put in this position, I say : If the officer had just done his job, without any misconduct or mishandling of the detainee and had made his arrest and been on his way - without any interaction with someone who is on their own property - then both this would not be an issue and the police would not have yet another ding in their shiny metal badges.

Pretty soon the way things are going, in public if you are not obeying the law and performing your civil duties, and are caught out of line, you will be guilty of a crime. Determining what it is will be a bureaucratic nuisance rather than the point of an investigation.

Eyes forward and no thinking at any time. Any deviation will result in prosecution. Do not make eye contact with any Peace officer at any time. Any deviation will result in prosecution. Have your ID ready for inspection at any time. Any deviation will result in prosecution.

Why sir - would you like to shoot me in the back, or the head? I think my head is particularly gory today sir, shall I wear a blind fold, or do you want to see the life flicker from my eyes? Very good sir, no blindfold it is. How was the academy sir, must be rough for a young eighteen year old like yourself.. Very good sir, if you don't kill me with the first shot, don't think too much about it. You have another shot if you like. Goodbye sir...

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Is it against T&C to call people out?

Manhater
Xcathdra
MikeNice81

You should be ashamed of yourselves for letting the Blue Code come before the rights of the people. You should be ashamed that you fought tooth and nail, to prove that the charges were legit.

YOU and others like you, are the reason that peace officers are no longer trusted and respected. YOU and others like you, are the reason I resigned my peace officer license.

And quite frankly, YOU and others like you are the ones people worry about if TSHTF.

Pathetic.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Wow... is somebody gonna cry? You gonna squirt a little water? You are more than welcomes to pack up your marbles and head on home. It would be prefered rather than having you derail the thread beause you you opted to coast through until retirement instead of actually serving with honor and integrity.

Now, are we done with the name calling and personal attacks, or shall we contine them? I have about had it with people like you doing crap like this. There will always be a difference of opinion, and the manner in which you demand yours be taken as priority over everyone else's, is in fact dangerous.

The concept is to be able to accept more than one point of view, not whine because others happen to not agree with yours.

Now, act your age and please add thought to your posts that further the dicussion and debatee. If you cant do that, then please dont post.

its that simple.

Going back on topic - What do you think, if anything, should happen to the officer? I see a lot of people already lighting the torches and grabbing the pitchforks. Is it too much to ask that people understand how the law works before they decide to go on a witch hunt? Or is the purpose of threads like this to ignore all laws and only concentrate of law enforcement actions?

The PA agreed with both of our positions by the way, although im not sure you or anyone else actually sees that.

The PA agreed with you guys that there was not enough evidence to support the charge. The PA sided with my view in that the officer was not charged with a false police report or false arrest, or a 1983 violation.

Care to share your thoughts on why that is. Is it possible for oyu to do that using the laws and not your biased personal opinion?

Originally posted by Krycheck
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

OK, lets take her out of the picture here. How do you explain away the behavior of the rest of the cops that returned to harass her supporters at their meeting?

You see harrassed, and thats a valid viewpoint for sure. How do you explain to people that you are ok and supportive when the law is used against police officers, while ignoring those same laws when it comes to citizens?

Every single car that received a citation was illegally parked. Care to explain why, as supporters of the female, that they should be immune from prosecution when breaking a law?

Do I personally think targeted enforcement occured on that block? Absolutely.
Is that type of action illegal? Absolutely not.
Were the vehicles cited in violation of the law? Absolutely
Were any of the people present who recorded the officers arrested? Nope.

What exactly is your problem in this case if you dont mind me asking? The cars were parked illegally. If they broke the law, should they not be cited for it? Or are you saying they shold receive preferential treatment?

Originally posted by mortal
I hope she didnt get massive amount of money. i dont understand how people in usa like the idea of some people getting huge monetary compensation. In the end its your own money you are giving away.

Actually as of right now, she has no legal grounds to sue the officer or the department. Once the IA investigation is done, and if the results find the officer was within departmental policy, and if the PA does not charge the officer, then the officer still has qualified immunity from civil action.

S&F! I'm so glad to see this play out in the favor of the harassed party. It is stunning to think that without the video that woman would have most likely been ruled against and been put on probation at the very least.

Originally posted by anon72

Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

It's good to read of a case where a "small" person wins against the machine.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

how was she interfering? video taping him from her own property? that's illegal now? sounds more like the police officer didn't want to be taped by a citizen, so he arrested her, knowing he wouldn't really be punished. he had no probable cause or evidence.

You really need to learn to read instead of just seeing what you want. She was NOT arrested for videotaping the incident. She WAS arrested for refusing to back away.

Please point out in the video the lady took where the officer ever said stop recording. The officer kept telling her to back away.

Listen, read, comprehend, learn... please.

Groan.... I am at a loss of words here. Amazing... Lets just let the police have their god complexes and move on. I can't take anymore of this silliness. Where did that apology go?