Originally posted 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..
The actual law for the State of New York has been cited - Failure to obey a lawful command is what was used, and the charge itsellf was obstructing a
Obstructing governmental administration
§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he
intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law
or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a
public servant from performing an official function, by means of
intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any
independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not
physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other
telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county,
city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by
means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the
actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.
Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.
A lawful command is an command issued by law enforcemnt to another party, directing them to perform an action they would not nomrally to, while in the
performance of their duties IE move out of the area, telling a person they cannot drive down a road because of a fatality accident / shooting /
hostage situation. Stopping traffic on a public right of way is a command. A lawful command is given during the performance of our dities and entails
us issuing that command based on legal criteria.
in the case of Ms. Good - It was to move away from the traffic stop, being she was 10-15 feet away, which is to close.
People have given many contrived scenarios where they ask what if the police order someone to take their pants off and run around. Obviously its not a
If a car pulled up behind the straffic stop because they know the people stopped, and officer can tell those people to move on, since there presence
and location behind the officers can be a probolem / potential issue. Contrary to schools of thought on these forums, we dont have to wait for an
action to occur before we can take action.
He told the lady to back off and cited the reason for that command. She decided she was in the right and chose to challenege the officer, which is in
fact, at that moment, failing to obey a lawful command. In the officers own words, she made comments prior to recording that were apparently anti law
enforcement. The officer asked her, then told her to move away, and she refused to comply, insisting she had a right to record and be on her property,
when neither of those issues were the actual issue at all.
It was her proximety, which is a valid officer safety concern. The argument people make is she was no threat to anyone. How do you guys know this? How
do you guys know she never fought with the police in the past or was known to the officers from another incident?
It came out after the fact she has been arrested for that type of behavior before. You guys accuse the police of bieng overly paranoid or cautious
without taking into account what our job is, how its done, and what we can encounter while doing it.
In the case of this incident, the people in the car were known to the police as belonging to a gang. In this case, the cops knew who they were dealing
with, where as the peope watching did not. For the people watching to assume the officers were in no danger, quiet frankly, is not their job and is