"If We Don't Have A RIGHT To Question A Police Officer Then We Are Living In A Police State!" , page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 60 times

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:38 PM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You do have a right to question the police. The problem is people dont understand there is a time and place for that. A 3rd party trying to question an officer who is on a traffic stop is not the time nor place. Demanding answers from an officer during the middle of a call or questioning doesnt quite work either.

Then clearly the cop in her instance was by far in the wrong. Thank you finally explaining why you actually agree finally. Obviously during a traffic stop was not the time for him to divert his attention and question the woman. Not the time and place.

Ah yes, I see you still try to twist to support your argument. The lady had no right to intefere in the traffic stop. Her actions got the attention of the Police, and only escalated it when she decided to lecture the officer on her rights to be in her front yard and to record, which had nothing to do with the officers request, which was to back away.

Because of her refusal to comply wiht alawful command, she was arrested, andher video shows that. Maybe you and the others should watch her video, specifically the part when the officer states why she is under arrest, instead of ignoring it and jsut making up your own reasons why.

She was in the wrong. She had no right to refuse the request.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:39 PM by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by SpectreDC

Thank you - and no its not the first time ive been invovled in this topic on this site -

ATS Thread - Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)
ATS Thread - Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

and in both of those threads the underlying argument is false. She never was arrested for recording the Police. She was arrested for failing to oey a lawful command.

Since the charges were dropped by the PA, MS. Good has since filed a civil suit for false arrest and violatin her civil rights - which wont go anywhere.

They also ignore that MS. Good has been down this road prior to this incident, up to and including being arrested for failing to obey lawful commands by other officers while proteting foreclosures.

If she wasn't arrested for videotaping then how come the three other individuals who were outside at the same time as her were not told to go back inside? The police report in this case had stated that these officers had pulled over 3 gang members and were only worried for this woman's safety and yet from the video we can clearly see that only one individual was pulled over. Also, he was handcuffed for no apparent reason. Now, if they were so worried for her safety then how come the three other people in the yard were not warned as well or even arrested? Face it. She was arrested for taping the police and they merely thought up a way to arrest her for doing so.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:41 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by PhantomLimb

An unlawful arrest did not occur. The statute used is clear that her actions met the criteria. Just because the PA decides not to go forward does not mean the officers actions were wrong or illegal, nor does it show the person who was charged was in the right.

Charges are reduced, raised, dropped, changed etc all the time by the Prosecutuing Attorney. The grasping at straws argument you guys are trying to use by stating since the charges were dropped the arrest was illegal is just that, grasping at straws. It also demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how the laws and the system works.
However, if thats what you guys wanto to use, go for it. 2 other threads with 40+ pages are full of the same arguments, so there is no point in trying to get people who are blind from actually reading and understanding.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:42 PM by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You do have a right to question the police. The problem is people dont understand there is a time and place for that. A 3rd party trying to question an officer who is on a traffic stop is not the time nor place. Demanding answers from an officer during the middle of a call or questioning doesnt quite work either.

Then clearly the cop in her instance was by far in the wrong. Thank you finally explaining why you actually agree finally. Obviously during a traffic stop was not the time for him to divert his attention and question the woman. Not the time and place.

Ah yes, I see you still try to twist to support your argument. The lady had no right to intefere in the traffic stop. Her actions got the attention of the Police, and only escalated it when she decided to lecture the officer on her rights to be in her front yard and to record, which had nothing to do with the officers request, which was to back away.

Because of her refusal to comply wiht alawful command, she was arrested, andher video shows that. Maybe you and the others should watch her video, specifically the part when the officer states why she is under arrest, instead of ignoring it and jsut making up your own reasons why.

She was in the wrong. She had no right to refuse the request.

What part of standing in her own yard can be classified as interfering in a traffic stop?

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:42 PM by TDawgRex

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh ok, you're an officer so you're obviously going to be an apologist for this shoddy police work. I guess you missed the part where the district attorney said that no crime was committed. Or are you willfully blind to that?

Wow! That's quite the assumption that the PA/DA will be at every scene. They don't get involved until AFTER the arrest. Or are you willfully blind to that?

The guy made a bad call and will more than likely be punished somehow. Myself? I think he was polite throughout and made his intention clear if she did not reply.

She was looking for something to sensationalize and she found it.

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

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:42 PM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh ok, you're an officer so you're obviously going to be an apologist for this shoddy police work. I guess you missed the part where the district attorney said that no crime was committed. Or are you willfully blind to that?

Ah yes, the other argument. Attack the person you dont agree with. At wehat point are you going to drop your blanket hatred against law enforcement? Do you really think that just because you dont understand how the system works that all cops are in the wrong and support each other?

For all we know your Ms. Goods relaive and you are on here schilling for her.

wow... see how easy that was.

Heres an idea.. read the law, see what occured and go from here. Think for yourself instead of being told what to think.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:43 PM by blueorder

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by Xcathdra

Was there a time and a place to question the Nazi Secret Police? Don't try and say that they are any different from our police in this era and this country. The only difference is which language they tell us to crouch down and relinquish our rights. Anyone who supports these men and women, is supporting traitors and oath breakers, as they swore to DEFEND the constitution, and instead they spit on it! You sir, have no right to call yourself an American.

there was no time and place to question the stasi, upholders of a left wing state!

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:44 PM by backinblack

reply to post by Xcathdra

Because of her refusal to comply wiht alawful command, she was arrested

Being an officer of the law yourself, could you please state what that "lawful command" was that she violated??

Please state the actual law..

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:47 PM by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh ok, you're an officer so you're obviously going to be an apologist for this shoddy police work. I guess you missed the part where the district attorney said that no crime was committed. Or are you willfully blind to that?

Wow! That's quite the assumption that the PA/DA will be at every scene. They don't get involved until AFTER the arrest. Or are you willfully blind to that?

The guy made a bad call and will more than likely be punished somehow. Myself? I think he was polite throughout and made his intention clear if she did not reply.

She was looking for something to sensationalize and she found it.
edit on 3-7-2011 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

Where did you get from my post that I think the DA was there?

I am quite aware that the DA is not at the scene of an arrest. Obviously, he watched the video and dropped the charges for a reason. If this was a clear-cut case of a crime being committed then he should have proceeded to let the charges stand.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:52 PM by Xcathdra

Originally posted by bumpufirst
reply to post by Xcathdra

so what kind of behavior is a protest of foreclosure?and what does it say about her?
are we also omitting the burglary unanswered plus the ticketing?

The ticketing of the vehicles is under investigation. The officer on that video was asked why they were there, and he said they received a complaint. If that is true, then there should be a 911 recording of that complaint.

Complaints aside, the vehicles ticketed were in violation of the law, and the video is evidence of that. Targeted enforcement is an intresting argument, and might carry more weight if the cars were cited in violation of the law, but they were not. Its going to be incumbent on the PA to review the citations and make their decision from there.

The burglary is just that, and as of right now there are no suspects in that crime. To assume its the police though makes no sense since the video was provided to the media and uploaded to youtube. The mindset the police broke in to steal the Ipod in an effort to get the video doesnt hold any water based on that fact.

Its not against the law to protest anything. It is against the law when the protest shut down an entrance or exit to private property, private business, or a public right of way (street). For a forclosure, the protest would need to be on the side walk, or adjacent private property with persmission from the property owners. Absent that, if their actions or location of protest intefere with the rights of those who are not protesting, then it becomes an issue, as your rights end when they interfer with others.

According to the media who carried this story, they stated she was arrested for the same thing at those protests, which would be failing to obey a lawful command, which if I had to guess would be to move out of the way, or to move to a different location.

She was not arrested for protesting, nor was she arrested for video recording the police. There is a difference, contrary to what the anti police contingent think.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:54 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by PhantomLimb

Good question. Since we cant see anything behind her, maybe its possible the other people who were outside with the lady did in fact move back away from when the officer told her to. Or maybe they were far enough back, and Ms. Good was the only person standing where she was at?

We can play the aht if game all day, but just as people have argued we dont know what occured prior to the video recording, we dont know what was occuring with those other parties while she was recording just the officer.

The fact her friend picked up the camera and continued recording though, who was not arrested, reinforces the claim she was arested for refusing to obey a lawful command.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:54 PM by newcovenant

reply to post by Xcathdra

She was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command.

And here in lies the rub. It was a command to conceal their actions and not specifically to protect her from bodily harm and so it was an unlawful command. It was an attempt to hide and not protect.

How do I know? How many people are harmed in Police cross fire? I was in the line of two Police guns myself about two months ago when they made a young woman exit her car and drop to her knees. I was in the car in front of her and stopped at the light. Slim consideration was made for my safety and so I know although it is a nice gesture to try and shield passersby from harm - it is hardly an order.

This woman standing on her own lawn has an absolute right to put herself in danger if she chooses. Just as if they evacuated the area for fire or other natural or man made disaster she cannot be forced to leave her home.

What rights are we left with if indeed we can be told to go indoors like children when standing on our own property? And rather than take this woman as an isolated incident add her to the evidence of a Police State that is mounting starting with the TSA and ending with the episode after episode now with the Police.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:55 PM by PhantomLimb

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by Xcathdra

Oh ok, you're an officer so you're obviously going to be an apologist for this shoddy police work. I guess you missed the part where the district attorney said that no crime was committed. Or are you willfully blind to that?

Ah yes, the other argument. Attack the person you dont agree with. At wehat point are you going to drop your blanket hatred against law enforcement? Do you really think that just because you dont understand how the system works that all cops are in the wrong and support each other?

For all we know your Ms. Goods relaive and you are on here schilling for her.

wow... see how easy that was.

Heres an idea.. read the law, see what occured and go from here. Think for yourself instead of being told what to think.

I don't have a blanket hatred for law enforcement. I only think a majority of them suck and they do circle the wagons in a lot of cases, at least where I live, when one of them has done something wrong. Case in point, in my area a Sheriff's Deputy sleeping with an under-age intern for well over a year and they all knew about it and did nothing until her father chased him through the streets in a car.

It wasn't an attack. I'm merely pointing out that you are on the side of the police in most cases like this trying to show how the police are always in the right and citizens are in the wrong. Only in this case it is extremely apparent that she did nothing wrong and did nothing to warrant a "lawful" order to go into her home. Sorry, but the police don't have the right to do whatever they want and order citizens around.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:56 PM by bumpufirst

reply to post by Xcathdra

another false statement,according to the followup video.
She was in the wrong. She had no right to refuse the request.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:57 PM by TDawgRex

reply to post by PhantomLimb

That's what I'm saying. It was a bad call on the officers part. I really don't know as I wasn't there. But she is a known agitator to that Police Dept. There is animosity on both parties there.

People are people, and if they think they are being unfairly targeted, whether police or the populace, there will be backlash.

I myself am all for cameras being everywhere. In the hands of the people and the police.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 02:59 PM by Xcathdra

reply to post by PhantomLimb

Interfering with the officers duties does not require a physical interaction. Standing in her front yard, when dealing with intefering, is irrelevant as well.

If a person is acting in a manner that distracts the officer from his duties, it is intefering, whether it be the 3rd party physically getting involved, or the 3rd party standing off to the side and yelling at the cops or the people the cops are dealing with. Any action taken that in the manner by a 3rd party, regardless of where they are standing, is in fact interfering / obstructing.

Is it illegal to be in your front yard with a gun? - No
Is it illegal to be in your front yard with a gun, and then point it at a person across the street? - Yes

In this case, the action taken, while on private property, interfered with the rights of the person who had the gun pointed at them.

Her right to be in her front yard and record and argue with the police only went so far as those actions interfered wiht the people who were the subjects of the traffic stops. I dont expect you guys to understand that concept, so I point it out as food for thought to those who may have questions.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 03:04 PM by Miraj

reply to post by Xcathdra

Starred for that..

It is the job of the person who is stopped to question the police officer.

Not just some random person who doesn't know whats going on.. Well unless the officer is doing something clearly wrong like beating or harming a person..

But that wasn't the case here. It was just some woman who felt like recording the cops.

Sure she should not have been arrested, but I think the officer had every right to ask her to turn the camera off and go back inside.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 03:06 PM by Q:1984A:1776

reply to post by Xcathdra

Well, I am German (half anyway) and my great-grandmother conveyed many first-hand accounts of the abuses on the German people by the Gestapo. The correlations with recent developments in The United States are unmistakable. To say that drawing attention to the similarities is irrelevant is asinine. Who would want to see our police behave like the police in countries such as China and North Korea? Well, you probably would. What I should say is, what true American would want to see the principals of this nation's founders eroded by power hungry men to the point of there being no human rights what-so-ever? If we don't draw the line in the sand somewhere, they will continue to take more and more from us until we might as well be living in The U.S.S.R. or Nazi Germany.
Also, your argument that there are no laws saying that we have a right to question authority plainly shows your incredible lack of knowledge of the foundation to all the laws of this land: The Constitution, and more specifically, the very first amendment.
For your reference: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How is it then that you think that any law that contradicts this has any authority? You think that a cop has the authority to tell somebody that they don't have constitutional rights?
This woman was clearly exercising her freedom of speech, of the press, right to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Also, SHE WAS ON HER OWN PROPERTY! Are you also ignorant of the fourth amendment?
For your reference: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These laws are the very backbone of what separates this country from countries like the examples given above, and gave us the right to be proud when we call ourselves American. People like you and your policies, have instead made any educated and informed person hang their head in shame or pretend to be a Canadian when in another country.
People who enforce unconstitutional laws are usurpers of this once great nation, and are not to be obeyed by anyone who takes pride in the principals of liberty and morality laid down by our forefathers.

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 03:07 PM by Youmakemewonder

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Ah yes, I see you still try to twist to support your argument. The lady had no right to intefere in the traffic stop.

She did not inerfere. She was standing in her yard just as the two people with here were. The cop chose to engage her during his very important traffic stop.

Her actions got the attention of the Police, and only escalated it when she decided to lecture the officer on her rights to be in her front yard and to record, which had nothing to do with the officers request, which was to back away.

Absolute BS. 3 people were standing there and only the woman with the camera was interfering? How so?

Because of her refusal to comply wiht alawful command, she was arrested, andher video shows that. Maybe you and the others should watch her video, specifically the part when the officer states why she is under arrest, instead of ignoring it and jsut making up your own reasons why.

She was in the wrong. She had no right to refuse the request.

Uh...court and the police have since said you were wrong and I already showed you that. You know the charges were dropped so you must think it was because they were just too right?

reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 03:08 PM by Kitilani

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Ah yes, I see you still try to twist to support your argument. The lady had no right to intefere in the traffic stop. Her actions got the attention of the Police, and only escalated it when she decided to lecture the officer on her rights to be in her front yard and to record, which had nothing to do with the officers request, which was to back away.

Nothing twisted here. You said the problem was the person who interfered. That would be the cop.

Because of her refusal to comply wiht alawful command, she was arrested, andher video shows that. Maybe you and the others should watch her video, specifically the part when the officer states why she is under arrest, instead of ignoring it and jsut making up your own reasons why.

She was in the wrong. She had no right to refuse the request.

That really is complete BS and I also showed you sources and links to the support of the courts decision to drop the charges. If they were right, they would not have been dropped.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^