"If We Don't Have A RIGHT To Question A Police Officer Then We Are Living In A Police State!"

reply to post by Xcathdra


Shame on you - you are judging the lady because she cares and is trying to make a difference. The past should not be used against her ---Study your law --that should not be brought into it- but hmmm -it is anyway ---Police state where the few rule and cops do what is told like robots or n=unthinking beasts

reply to post by Xcathdra


Shame on you - you are judging the lady because she cares and is trying to make a difference. The past should not be used against her ---Study your law --that should not be brought into it- but hmmm -it is anyway ---Police state where the few rule and cops do what is told like robots or unthinking beasts

reply to post by WarmHeartedWorld


She's not making a difference. She doesn't care about that. She's getting attention.

And people are giving it to her. How would you like it if you were doing a routine thing at work and people came and started flilming it? Ok. maybe not a fair thing to compare it to. Lets add: At your job you are under constant threat of people pulling a gun and shooting you.

You'd be antsy about random people filming you too. I would.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by wardk28

 

Its going to take one of these people wanting to record and not knowing what they are walking up on getting killed, in which case we will have people arguing the police failed to protect the 3rd party by not keeping her away.

I almost agree with you here except what happened to personal responsibility! That is the problem as law enforcement treats people as they are kids.

The situation you referenced to is exactly how things get in Iraq during a firefight and if you are moving on the streets during one then you are most likely going to be shot. It was their choice to do this and it's is no ones responsibility but theirs as is the case you are trying to point out.

The problem lies with people being all to sue happy and not taking any personal responsibility for anything they do anymore.

The Constitution of the United States of America trumps all laws of of this nation and their are no laws above it as these are laws endowed by the creator. These are common sense laws and no state law, statute or case law is above it other than when it suits the revenue collectors.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I agree, I would try to do the same if I was a cop. On CNN she said that her intentions were (and I'm paraphrasing here, I don't remember what she said exactly) to catch the cops racially profiling.

I am going to need that exact quote because there is a huge difference between hoping to catch someone doing something bad and simply making sure it is not happening. Like I said before. If she were truly hoping to just catch wrongdoing, she would have taped from inside her house instead of walking outside with two other people where she was obvious to the cops. That does not even make sense. Given the apparent concern with racial profiling in the area, she actually had a reason to be concerned.

edit on 3-7-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)

In response to why were you filming. She says:

I was concerned about the racial profiling. I had just read an article that week in the local paper about racial profiling and about how difficult it is to prove. And when I saw the lights come in through my window I peaked outside and saw three white officers engaging with a black man and I decided to film it.

Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but when she says how racial profiling is difficult to prove and then she goes outside to film it, it seems to me like she was stating she wants to catch the cops racially profiling.

Here is the link: storyballoon.org... -arrested/

reply to post by Ryanp5555


So thats a crime now?

Trying to prove something?

If it is, then the whole topic is fully backed up 100%, police state USA

The way I see it, he violated her rights under the 1st and 4th amendments. If he, or any other officer, can't operate within the laws they are sworn to uphold, then they need to think about making a career change: I hear McDonald's is hiring.

off note but you heard wrong MCdonalds is not hiring!!! nor is about any other fast food restraunt here in Cali

Stay away from the police like the plague.

If an officer tells you to spread your cheeks you better comply.

Just follow those 2 rules and you will not get tazered or beat up.

But then again you might be unlucky and find the swat team busting down your home and putting 70 bullets into you for no reason.


Source

Haha someone's reply

To summarize:

1. All cops think they are SWAT.
2. All cops think you are the enemy.
3. If you ask a question, they shoot your dog.
4. If you cite the Constitution of the United States of America (a historical artifact, now defunct), they shoot you.

I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

We are the ones to blame for a police state im afraid, the longer we let them flex their authority, even when they are wrong or exaggerate offences, the more comfortable they got, typical of a high school bully...wouldn't you agree? just remember we outnumber them ...greatly

Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

So thats a crime now?

Trying to prove something?

If it is, then the whole topic is fully backed up 100%, police state USA

What? No it was a response to the question posed. It was not a reason or justification for arresting her. It was her reason for filming the officers. Trying to be an activist can be a good thing. I've never said otherwise.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


Ok my bad, just seemed like you were trying to bolster arguements throughout the rest of the thread in support of the action brought onto the woman... Maybe I jumped the gun there...

reply to post by morder1


Maybe it came off that way because it was the way I phrased it. But I was doing that because I didn't want Khitlina (sic) to say that I was putting words in her mouth. I was just saying what I heard.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I agree, I would try to do the same if I was a cop. On CNN she said that her intentions were (and I'm paraphrasing here, I don't remember what she said exactly) to catch the cops racially profiling.

Is it your contention that no LEOs engage in racial profiling? If they do not, they why would she waste her time trying to catch it? If they do, then is it "anti-cop" or is it "pro-citizens"?

/TOA

reply to post by morder1


Talking about being at the wrong place at the wrong time lol

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I agree, I would try to do the same if I was a cop. On CNN she said that her intentions were (and I'm paraphrasing here, I don't remember what she said exactly) to catch the cops racially profiling.

Is it your contention that no LEOs engage in racial profiling? If they do not, they why would she waste her time trying to catch it? If they do, then is it "anti-cop" or is it "pro-citizens"?

/TOA

First, that is a great academic question. I'd have to say that it would be pro-citizen. But I don't think that is either here nor there in the instant case. The officer viewed it as anti-cop. He had no idea why she was filming, just knew that she was for some agenda that she had. So, I think it's fair to characterize stopping racial discrimination as pro-citizen, but I think in this case the cop could only go on the facts he knew at the moment, and one of them was that Emily Good appeared to be engaged in filming for an anti-cop agenda. And then we run through what's already been said about how the transaction went down.

reply to post by ISeekTruth101

I proved my point about 10 years ago!

What happened was I was drinking at home and got into an argument on the phone got mad and started breaking my coffee table among other things. My ex-wife tried to calm me and I stormed out and walked down the street to a local gas station. After calming down some and sitting on the curb on the side of the building 2 officers walked up behind me, picked me up and slammed me face down. Handcuffed me and took me back to the house, they were there because the neighbor heard me yelling and breaking things.

Out front of the house while I was in the car I started banging my head on the cage knocking it loose trying to get out. One of the officers pulled me out of the car by the cuffs and I ended up body slamming him then knocking the other down. Eventually I was fighting 3 cops while handcuffed and having been pepper sprayed 5 or 6 times.

They took me to the local court for arraignment and I jumped up and over the desk and grabbed the judge by the neck.

When all was said and done I walked free of the charges of resisting arrest, criminal mischief, and assault. This was all because I was well within my right to resist an unlawful arrest, they took me in for an arraignment completely drunk, so they screwed up.

I can give the officer who pulled me out of the car credit though. He stopped in to see me about 3 weeks later in order to see how I was. He did apologize for things as did I, he was just being a good person. I don't hate most cops but their are those few out there who give others a bad name and it's up to the good ones to stop it.

You officers out there also need to stand up against the corruption and defend the constitution!

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I agree, I would try to do the same if I was a cop. On CNN she said that her intentions were (and I'm paraphrasing here, I don't remember what she said exactly) to catch the cops racially profiling.

Is it your contention that no LEOs engage in racial profiling? If they do not, they why would she waste her time trying to catch it? If they do, then is it "anti-cop" or is it "pro-citizens"?

/TOA

First, that is a great academic question. I'd have to say that it would be pro-citizen. But I don't think that is either here nor there in the instant case. The officer viewed it as anti-cop. He had no idea why she was filming, just knew that she was for some agenda that she had. So, I think it's fair to characterize stopping racial discrimination as pro-citizen, but I think in this case the cop could only go on the facts he knew at the moment, and one of them was that Emily Good appeared to be engaged in filming for an anti-cop agenda. And then we run through what's already been said about the transaction went down.

Could he not have asked why she was filming? Or to stop filming? He might've had a legal argument then, as well as a reason to detain her (I don't know the laws of New York as pertaining to filming police officers, but it's probably suitably fascist). But detaining her for for the reasons given is why it was dropped, and is why she should win her case. provided it's in a non-biased court.

/TOA

reply to post by IncognitoGhostman


#, remind me not to mess with you!

How about this. If you look into the story the kid had the camera on which is attached to his helmet. Put the video on youtube then the police raided his house and confiscated all of his families computers and charged him with recording a officer. Supposedly the kid was sentenced to serve 5 years in prison.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
I agree, I would try to do the same if I was a cop. On CNN she said that her intentions were (and I'm paraphrasing here, I don't remember what she said exactly) to catch the cops racially profiling.

Is it your contention that no LEOs engage in racial profiling? If they do not, they why would she waste her time trying to catch it? If they do, then is it "anti-cop" or is it "pro-citizens"?

/TOA

First, that is a great academic question. I'd have to say that it would be pro-citizen. But I don't think that is either here nor there in the instant case. The officer viewed it as anti-cop. He had no idea why she was filming, just knew that she was for some agenda that she had. So, I think it's fair to characterize stopping racial discrimination as pro-citizen, but I think in this case the cop could only go on the facts he knew at the moment, and one of them was that Emily Good appeared to be engaged in filming for an anti-cop agenda. And then we run through what's already been said about the transaction went down.

Could he not have asked why she was filming? Or to stop filming? He might've had a legal argument then, as well as a reason to detain her (I don't know the laws of New York as pertaining to filming police officers, but it's probably suitably fascist). But detaining her for for the reasons given is why it was dropped, and is why she should win her case. provided it's in a non-biased court.

/TOA

If this is a fourth amendment issue than all that is required is the cop act reasonably. He doesn't need to effectuate the least restrictive method. If the cop was reasonable in his belief that he felt unsafe with her 15 feet behind her, after she seemed to an anti-cop sentiment, and refused to listen to his commands, than he could seize her. Granted, probable cause needs to exist, but it is met by his reasonable belief that his safety could be endangered followed by her intentional failure to follow his commands. This is why I believe this was actually a lawful arrest. Whether or not it is right, and something we should actually allow in our society is a different topic.