It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

page: 8
83
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


It's good to see the whole matter at hand being dealt with properly. It of course became a public relations nightmare though and that's most likely the only reason the woman was not charged.




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
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.

Correct on both counts. However, the last sentence, specifically the term violating a persons civil rights is key. The violation of rights is very specific, and usually follows on the heels of disciplinary action coupled with violation of state law.

Those lower areas must be sustained in order ot get Federal. I know there are a very few limited number of circumstances where its possible to violate a persons civil rights as an officer and still be within all local and state laws, in addition to departmental policy. As a general rule though, they all are tied together.



Originally posted by OldCorp
As far as understanding the law, as a journalist I'm something of an expert on the First Amendment.

As am I sir.


Originally posted by OldCorp
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.

Her 1st amendment rights were not violated. She was detained and arrested for interfering with government function. She was NOT arrested for any speech or video related charges. Her camera was not confiscated, nor was any video purposely deleted from it. The simple fact her camera was not seized as evidence proves that it was not a first amendment issue, as courts have ruled that as officers we cannot confiscate video equipment from the media or private individuals (there are a very few exceptions to that rule, and those usually involve a call to a judge for a warrant to seize the item. Since that action did not occur, and since no action was taken against the person who picked the camera up, its plain to see it was not a 1st amendment issue.

Also, the first amendment is not carte blanche either for people to use and hide behind. If you dont beleive me walk into a crowded movie theatre and yell fire. Walk downtown while screaming profanities at people standing around you. As an officer, my peace cannot be disturbed. However, non civilians can have their peace disturebed.

Your first amendment rights exists to the point of interfering with anothers.

As far as a 4th amendment violation goes? Please explain that one to me. The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual, it applies to the Government. The officers did not need a warrant to arrest the female since the officer was present during the exchange. They do not need a warrant to step foot onto her property since its curtlidge. They did not need a warrant to enter the property because the officer was effecting an arrest, which is covered under a 4th amendment exception - Check the exclusionary rule as well as mitigating circumstances and exceptions to 4th amendment application.

You guys can continue to state all you want she was arrested because she was recording, but it does not make it so. As a matter of fact the PA also follows that line of thought. At no point did the PA address any issues that touched on 1st or 4th amendment issues. The response was their is no legal foundation to go forward with the charges - which means base don the evidence at hand, its not strong enough to meet the established criteria for the female to be in violation of that charge.

The officer followed the law by issuing the charge, and the PA performed their job by reviewing the officers recomendation and then disagreeing with it by declining to prosecute.



Originally posted by OldCorp
I suppose we shall have to wait and see.

This works for me... Contrary to popular belief if an officer steps over the line, I have no issues seeing that officer punished. However, one of the reasons I am verbal in threads like these is because people dont adequately understand the laws, how they work or how their rights work.

This is very evident by people invoking the 4th amendment in there arguments.



Originally posted by OldCorp
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!

I appriciate that very much. While people assume that I side with cops all the time, that is the furthest from the truth. I have sided against officer actions before, and I am sur eI will again. People take my argument as absolute support for law enforcement while missing my actual point.

I take the opposing view oint in an effort to get information out there that the everyday citizens is not aware of. I take it as an opprotunity to not only learn and observe how non leos view an incident, but to also put the info out there as to why the leo may have taken their action. I point out thbe laws that support the leos actions in hopes people might learn a little about this side of the fence.

In almost all threads that ask what one of the biggest issues is between the police and the people we serve, my response is communication - actuially a severe lack of it. I think these forums would be a good place to try to bridge the gap, and I try to make the attmepts to do so.

I wont convince everyone, but if a person walks away with more knowledge, and I learn how my actions that I view as benign could be viewed entirely different, its win win as I see it.

The saying goes sometimes its hard to see the trees while standing in the middle of the forest. I am a firm beleiver in that saying for law enforcement. I also am a firm beleiver in that saying when applied to anti law enforcement members.



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

I wont ever forget who I serve. I believe being a Police Officer is a sacred trust that the people place on us, and violating that trust is grave.

With that being said, the Citizens need to be reminded that while the police patrol the streets, the citizens mut patrol the government. They just take an active approach to government at all levels, and must ensure they are active. Its not enough to vote once every other year and do absolutely no foolow up on those elected people.

Holding the Police accountible for a law we have nothing to do with in terms of it passing would be no different than the cops holding a person accountible for a supreme court ruling.

Anyways, Ill stop my wall of text here. Thank you for your response and thoughts. I look forward to hearing your answerrs / thoughts on the firt 2 questions.

Thanks again!



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
People. Think of it this way... as far as the officer and his fate.

Anytime you get the Police Chief, Mayor, Chief Counselperson & the DA having a press conference about a Misdemeanor II violation being decided to be dropped and an "internal review" is going to be conducted....

You can bet your bottom dollar that the officer is in a heap of trouble.

Again, he violate one of the worse things he could... he brought unwanted attention to the Department and City-on a National, if not World level. Especially with the follow-up attack on the parked cars (his buddies).

Rest assure that other officers will also be reprimanded also for the parked cars matter.

I will be keeping an eye on this one-to the end. Be sure to check back-it will take a few weeks and/or months for the official ending of this but I will do my best to follow this one to the end.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
In my opinion, the arresting officer did something wrong. If the world was right, he would be held accountable doing what he did.

My guess is that he will be terminated by Rochester and get some sort of severance package to keep him from suing for lost wages.

Then he will be working in another city or town, pulling the same kind of crap.
edit on 28-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
the arresting officer should be charged with wasting the police's time.....



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by fatdad
the arresting officer should be charged with wasting the police's time.....



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
People. Think of it this way... as far as the officer and his fate.

Anytime you get the Police Chief, Mayor, Chief Counselperson & the DA having a press conference about a Misdemeanor II violation being decided to be dropped and an "internal review" is going to be conducted....

You can bet your bottom dollar that the officer is in a heap of trouble.

Again, he violate one of the worse things he could... he brought unwanted attention to the Department and City-on a National, if not World level. Especially with the follow-up attack on the parked cars (his buddies).

Rest assure that other officers will also be reprimanded also for the parked cars matter.

I will be keeping an eye on this one-to the end. Be sure to check back-it will take a few weeks and/or months for the official ending of this but I will do my best to follow this one to the end.



I agree the officers will be reprimanded and possibly lose their jobs or get demoted.

However it is obvious that major covers have and do take place because someone at the top doesn't want this to turn into a political isht storm



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Score, People 1 cops 0, Cops need to be put in their place, and have they forgotten that they are public servants, and only here to uphold the letter of the law and make up there own.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I`m glad and not surprised the case got dismissed.

I have to confess that a part of me wanted her to be charged because this event had a lot of coverage with many people following it.It would have created such outrage that something may? have been done to change the laws eventually that allow Law Enforment Officers to get away with what they can and do(those who abuse it).This is the reason why I think mostly it got dismissed and that they will be investigating the harassment toward the local supporters of her also.I know some people may think my tin foil hat maybe on too tight,but it feels just fine and snug.

As it is it`ll be business as usual tomorrow.

It would be easy to imagine many people getting charged for similar offenses as this lady in the past and future who didn`t/won`t get let off,through lack of proof or public support and going by the Law Enforcement Officers word only.

I wonder if this case could be used to change and allow individuals to record with audio of Officers in the states that its illegal today.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
Groan....
I am at a loss of words here.
Amazing...

I think that may be because of my follow up posts and the manner people are viewing them.


Originally posted by elouina
Lets just let the police have their god complexes and move on.

Please show me where all Police have a God complex. Please qualify your statement as well. If you are not familiar with the law, exactly how can you come to the conclusion wrong doing occured? How can you claim officers have a God complex when again, you dont know how the law works?



Originally posted by elouina
I can't take anymore of this silliness.

Its silly to you and a few others because you are not seeing all the facts from any other viewpoint except for hindsight being 20/20, coupled with a rejection or refusal to acknowledge how the law is applied to the situation.

As I said earlier, if you walk into a tramua room at the hospital, and you see the staff cracking a person chest open in a violent manner, an untrained person who is not familiar could interpret the actions as brutal / violent / not needed / intentional / abuse etc etc etc.

I beleive a lot of people in the police threads fall into that example. Its easy to say the 4th amendment was violated. Its another thing entirely to actually show how the 4th was violated. In order to do that a person must be familiar with it. Simply reciting it while ignoring case law is not enough.

You guys dont seem to understand that the charge was for obstructiong, NOT because she was recording. This has been stated time and time again, and its even on the video, and yet its completely ignored by you guys.


Originally posted by elouina
Where did that apology go?

Its a few pages back in this thread, as well as the origional thead. All you need to do is just browse and you will find it. .

You guys make these claims on how the officer broke the law, violated civil rights, etc etc etc. Even when the law is presented as a source, you guys ignore it. Try to look at it this way if you can be open minded for a few minutes.

The statute we are talking about lists the elements needed in order for a person to be in violation of that law. The other factor is, for lack of a better term, mitigating circumstances or totality of circumstances.

Example - We will use murder in this example as well as you benig armed with a gun - ccw).
#1 - You are in your front yard and see a person walking towards you holding a knife. The knife is blade down and is displayed in such a manner that it makes you very nervous. He refuses when you tell him to get off your property, and continues to walk at you.

You pull your gun, take aim and you shoot to stop the threat. The guy goes down, dead from his injuries.

#2 - This scenario is exactly the same as the one above, minus the knife. The guy walks onto your lawn heading towards you, just like above except he does not have a knife, he refuses to leave, so you draw your gun and shoot him. The guy goes down, dead from his injuries.

Both examples are a homicide. Both charges are exactly the same. Both incidents meet the criteria for a murder charge (intentionally causing serious physical injury an or death). Both examples are completely the same, except for the knife. The PA receives the Police report for both incidents. The PA sees that both instances meet all criteria to issue charges for murder.

What would occur -
For incident #1 the PA would most likely not file a charge of murder, or any other criminal charges, even though its clear cut. The reason for that decision? The knife being present is a factor thats taken into account.

For incident #2 the PA would most likely file charges because at the time of the encounter, the individual was not armed, and none of his actions appeared hostile.

So you have 2 identical cases. Both meet the definition and elements of murder, yet only one is charged. The reason being is totality of circumstances. Both broke the law, but because one incident had a knife present, it created a factor that has to be weighed

The charge being dismissed against Good had nothing to do with the officer not having the authority to take that action in the first place. The PA reviewed the evidence and weighed all the info - and decided in this case the actions of the female (being on her property, identifying herself when the officer asked, stated she was recording) outweighed the evidence submitted with the charge by the officer. The PA felt in this case that the Scales of Justice, when all evidence and totality of circumstances are taken into account, favored the female and not the officer.

Having a charge dimissed / declined to prosecute does not imply criminal wrong doing or a civil rights violation by the officer. What occurs is the weighing of all available evidence, seeing all the sides of the story, and then deciding if Justice would be served by going forward.

Simply put - Its the PA job to prosecute. They get to decide what gets tossed and what is kept, and again, its based on ALL evidence present. Going back to the argument of letter of the law and spirit of the law....

Does my explanation help you guys understand my thought process and argument on this matter?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

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)


The fact that this post got 2 stars shows that there will be trolls.

The people that starred this comment are either: 1) cops themselves (with an understanding of the law equal to that of the officer that made the arrest), 2) married to an officer or 3) simple people with no life and are here to troll the boards.

Seriously.

Anyone with half a brain (of course this would eliminate most police officers from the equation instantly) can understand that the woman did NOTHING wrong. Other than disobeyed an unlawful order from an ignorant police officer.
edit on 28-6-2011 by tyranny22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by guitarist
Score, People 1 cops 0, Cops need to be put in their place, and have they forgotten that they are public servants, and only here to uphold the letter of the law and make up there own.



I don't get this distaste for cops that so many people on here have. Have you guys spent time in jail? I've had nothing but friendly encounters with officers (interesting story: in one of my many encounters with police officers, my friend and I were out walking late at night. All of a suddenly these cops pulled up and started asking us questions about a break in that occurred up the street. Of course we were not a part of that. However, they had the head of the investigation at the house and we were chatting with one officer by my house. He asked me if I had a younger brother or something. I said no. Then he asked me about pulling over one of us. I said it was me. About 5 years prior he had pulled me over for getting far too fast over the speed limit. Anyways, he then apologized for giving me the ticket. I was like, nope I deserved it).

Most officers don't abuse their powers. I understand a few can be cocky dicks. But that's with EVERYTHING ANYONE does. The problem is that you have to encounter them. I know a few others break the law. Again, every other profession. But most are just trying to make an honest living, and I think your criticism is unfair. With this case, the officers acted like brutes. This case is 1 incident out of the millions upon millions of NORMAL encounters people have with the police every day.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Lets be honest: the prosecutor probably chose the dismissal route as to avoid the extraordinarily negative publicity that was surrounding this event. While I agree that with your assessment on the totality of the circumstances, I do not know that a prosecutor would choose to dismiss this case had there been no publicity.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




You guys dont seem to understand that the charge was for obstructiong, NOT because she was recording.

I suppose it was just a fluke that he decided to pick her out of all the people that were present in their own yards, obstructing just as much as she was? (which was zero)

It didn't have anything to do with the camera in her hands???

He was scared, not of her, but what she had in her hands.

Now another fluke..... It appears that her Ipod that she was filming with has been stolen from her house. Hmmmm.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




You guys dont seem to understand that the charge was for obstructiong, NOT because she was recording.

I suppose it was just a fluke that he decided to pick her out of all the people that were present in their own yards, obstructing just as much as she was? (which was zero)

It didn't have anything to do with the camera in her hands???

He was scared, not of her, but what she had in her hands.

Now another fluke..... It appears that her Ipod that she was filming with has been stolen from her house. Hmmmm.


The recording kept going. She may have been obstructing because the officers were making a lawful arrest, at which point she interfered with the arrest/investigation by refusing to go into her home despite the officer telling her that he didn't feel safe with her behind him. Thus, interfering with the officers arrest.

Bottom line: there is no first amendment violation. You can argue that until your blue in the face, but there flat out was not. The video continued to roll on her being arrested. The video never left the possession of the officer. There was no restriction on speech here. At what point, in your mind, did her first amendment rights get violated? Answer this question knowing that the full video was placed on line, that the camera was still rolling, and that any expressive elements of the corrupt nature of that police department was shown, and even blown up by her being arrested.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 


Since your post in this thread runs contrary to your post in the other thread, does that mean I can call you out like you attempted to do with me?

Please explain why you think the officer committed a crime and support your argument with sources please. If you need a reference in the 40+ page thread there is a post in the middle from me that has the New York penal code on it.

Please, explain why you think im wrong.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Lets be honest: the prosecutor probably chose the dismissal route as to avoid the extraordinarily negative publicity that was surrounding this event. While I agree that with your assessment on the totality of the circumstances, I do not know that a prosecutor would choose to dismiss this case had there been no publicity.


I completely agree. My entire position has been that the lady was in fact in violation of the failing to obey lawful command / inteffering with government operations. People dont seem to grasp the concept a person can be in violation of a law, and at the same time not be charged or prosecuted for it.

Speeding comes to mind....

I am really not sure how to explain it in a manner they will understand.

Any advice?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 
I haven't been using the first amendment in the dicussion of this case.

I want to know what law she really broke. Other than making one of four officers feel uncomfortable while she was standing unarmed on her lawn. Mind you, it was just her that was arrested... none of her other neighbors that were doing the same thing that she was, with the exception of her being the only one with a camera.


edit on 28-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 



It's because of people like you that others have to fight and die to defend our freedom in our own land. Folks like you that just lay down empower them against us.. Don't ever lay down people! Stand up for your rights! Don't make it tougher for the people that have to stand up for you.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 



She may have been obstructing because the officers were making a lawful arrest,
But the officer made no arrest other than her. They had no traffic violations on the guy (I wonder why they pulled him over?) and in the end, found nothing in his car that was illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join