"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


People dont' hate police....they hate the things they do..

They hate their arrogance and they hate that they use their title to do what they want..

Not all police.....But a larger number than other officers want to admit....

I'd say 40% are worthless human beings....the other 60% of police are just doing their job to the best of their ability..

reply to post by Kitilani


Cities have the courts drop charges all the time if they think it shows then in a bad light, it's politics. Please don't believe that we are so naive to believe that every citizen filming something has a just agenda.

Some (which in this case is Emily) are just out to cause a ruckus and maybe monetary gain. If she wins her court case, I wonder how much she'll donate to the cause.

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
I don't have a blanket hatred for law enforcement.

I stood up for the very police department in question and he called me a cop hater several times. It is his standard MO and why he keeps trolling these threads is beyond me. The more he writes the less he seems like a cop.

The only difference between Good and her counterparts is that she said no. Then again, she was the only one ordered inside. Then again, she was the only one filming. It all becomes pretty clear pretty fast when people stop just calling us cop haters and look at what happened.

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

And you would be wrong then. She could have waited until after the stop ended. She could have gone inside and called the police, asking foir a supervisor to respond. She could have gone to the police station and filed an offical Ia complaint, which by the way she failed to do until just prior to her lawsuit.

As I stated, there is a time and palce for everything. A 3rd party questioning the police while they are doing their job is not a good idea, especially when you take into consideration the reason for the stop, the numberof pople in the car, and the report of a gun being present.

She herself stated the reason for recording is because she saw all white officers and all black people in the car. She automatically assumed the stop was illegal in the first place because white officers targeted blacks, and she has said as much.

So without knowing the reasons for the stop, she took it upon herself and assumed what the reasons were, which is dangerous.

The other thing you guys are not aking into account is how the people they have detained are going to act with outside interference. If a 3rd party is present and intefering, its not out of the realm of possibility for them to attempt to take advantage of that. Its also not out of the realm of possibility for the people who were stopped to direct anger at people who are close to the scene. We dont know if anyone witnessing the traffic stop are related to the people watching. We dont know if they are enemies with any of the people wacthing.

Asking people to move away is not done because the officer wants to be a jerk about it. There are reasons we do what we do, and there is criteria we must take into account, whether you or others agree with it or not.

Those officers that night were not only responsbile for themselves, but also for the people tehy stopped, in addition to every single person who was watching.

reply to post by Xcathdra

what is a lawful command and some think is a lawful command ,the judge is there to decide who is correct.to asume why it was dropped is just that.but in the view of many cases,it seems even judges have that issue or inclination.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.

She was a good 10-15 yards away from the officer as she was filming. How exactly was she in a position to "interfere" with anything?

Because of her refusal to comply with lawful command, she was arrested, and her 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 just making up your own reasons why.

It was obviously NOT a "lawful command," as evidenced by the fact that the DA refused to prosecute her. If his command were lawful, the DA would have pursued prosecution.

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

She had every right to refuse an UNlawful command, and I applaud the fact that she stood her ground.

I was once in a similar position. I was in contact with a police officer in the early 80's and he told me that if I didn't "shut up" he would arrest me for "disturbing the peace" even though I was simply speaking to him in a conversational tone. I told him, "I'd like to see you make it stick." Well, long story short, he hooked me up and I spent the night in jail.

When it came time for me to appear before the judge, he heard the facts of the case and called both the officer and the ADA to the bar and told them, "If either of you bring a case like this before me again, YOU will be the ones facing sanctions. Case Dismissed." The ADA kind of hung his head, but the cop was livid.

People DO have a right to question the police, and they DO have a right to disobey an unlawful command. It's not only a right, but it is a duty. I've said many times that I am pro-law enforcement, but any police officer who abuses his authority is deserving of nothing but scorn, and deserves to have his badge taken away. Police officers who violate the rights of the people they are sworn to protect have nobody to blame but themselves when those people get pissed off and stand up - en masse - to reclaim their constitutional right to "be secure in their homes from unlawful search and seizure;" especially when the thing seized is their person.

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.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Cities have the courts drop charges all the time if they think it shows then in a bad light, it's politics. Please don't believe that we are so naive to believe that every citizen filming something has a just agenda.

Am I supposed to believe that everyone filming the police has only nefarious intent? If the police being filmed behave, what is the problem? Are you denying charges are also often dropped for lack of legal ground to move on?

Some (which in this case is Emily) are just out to cause a ruckus and maybe monetary gain. If she wins her court case, I wonder how much she'll donate to the cause.

How do you cause a ruckus and make money by standing in your yard? Was it the taping? Go on. Say it. Her crime was the taping. That is what you are getting at, right?

If cops just behave, Good goes back inside and erases her boring tape.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You keep saying "lawful command"..

What's "MY" rights when an officer gives me a command that I know is "not lawful"??

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 government action.

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 lawful command.

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 irrelevant.

reply to post by newcovenant


Actually it was not. Unless you can go into a court of law and prove your case, its nothing more than your opinion based on a hatred of the police. Why must everything involving the police be some grand conspiracy?

The cop didnt like her standing where she was at.
The cop made no reference or had anyt issues with the camera, which he knew was present
At no poiint during his argument was the camera addressed, except by Ms. Good.

All the cop wanted her to do was to move back, a simple and valid request based on the reason for the traffic stop.

She refused without knowing the entire set of circumstances for the traffic stop, nor was she aware there was a report of a gun in the car.

Of course she would not know, because she was a 3rd party. The request from the officer was valid, and when she rfused to comply, she was arrested to remove the distration from the situation.

Originally posted by PhantomLimb

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.

Why do you think he dropped the charge?

reply to post by Kitilani


Please trust me; I see corruption on the part of county politicians against the police weekly. Charges dropped, out of court monetary awards, etc. All because of race, gender, sexual affiliation and etc. People with actual criminal records are released daily throughout this country.

I know that there are bad cops as well, forunately, they are in the minority, but the press brings the bad to the forefront, which they should, but then many see all cops as bad. That is not the case. I am strting to think that Cop bashing is the new hate mongering, here on ATS anyways. I guess they're just easy targets.

If both are being filmed, then it will come to light in court.

Originally posted 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.

Huh?

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


Again attempting to make a comparison between the police and the Gestapo is naieve at best. Its not even close to being the same and you know this, however you are going for the cheap attack because the predominant feeling of people in the thread is to go after anything law enforcement.

Secondly, I am not ignorant of the 4th amendment, however I beleive you and other people are.

The 4th amendment does not apply to the individual.
There are no 4th amendment violations present in the ofifcers actions.

Please, feel free to share with us who the 4th was violated and how it works.

reply to post by Xcathdra


How can you state the officers command was lawful if the charges were dropped??

Doesn't that FACT infer that it was NOT a lawful command??

Seems to me that you think ANYTHING uttered by an officer is lawful until later questioned in court..

The way I see it, he violated her rights under the 1st and 4th amendments.and this is why i say it was not a lawful command,this here,renders void your argument and what you been told to do,mr. officer.you been acting out of the law if you do it as well.and to accept when one is in the wrong is a mans thing to do.or comply with many things going on out of the law,you been told to do.is of cowards and certainly not the person we want as peace officers when big fish scares there pants off.

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
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 proximety to the stop is what fdrew the officers attention. He had valid reasons to ask her to move elsewhere, and had legal grounds to order her to move away.

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

Please show me on the video where the other 3 people were standing. Were they right next to Ms. Good, were they farther behind her? Did they move after the officer asked her to move back? So before you use the term BS, know all the facts. The other people are not present in her video, and as such we have no idea where they were at.

So while you argue they were present, I will argue they complied and moved back away from the stop.

Originally posted by Youmakemewonder
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?

The dismissal of charges does not equate into an unlawful act on the part of the officer.

As I have used before, I will use the example again.

A person is standing in their front yard, holding a gun. A person comes walking at them with a knife behind held in a threatning manner. After telling the person to stop, you shoot and kill them.

A person is standing in their front yard holding a gun. A person comes walking at them with no weapons at all. After telling the person to stop, you shoot and kill them.

Both scenarios meet the state statute for murder. The actions of the shooter in both scenarios meets every single element required to be charged with murder.

The person in scenario A has a mitigating circumstance of self defense.
The person in scenario B has no mitigating circumstances.

Charges against scenario A will not go forward.
Charges against scenario B will go forward.

Yes, its possible to be charged witha crime, meeting every single element of that crime, and still have the PA decide they are not going to prosecute. The question they ask thmsleves is will this prosecution be in the intrest of justice?

Just because its declined, does not mean the officer violate any laws, or that the person arrested didnt violate any laws.

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.

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.

In the video I saw she didn't attempt to speak to the officers or the suspect, she was several feet away, and she was on her own property. She was filming silently.

A) How was she interfering, and what method did use to interfere and,
B) Property rights don't end at the threshold of your house. How is an order to relinquish your rights as covered under the 1st and 4th Amendments at all lawful, especially before you've been formally charged with a crime?

/TOA

Originally posted by Kitilani
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.

And your problem is your inability to understand how it works. I cant say this enough with you, and yet you refuise to acknowledge it every singel time because the truth wont support your argument.

You can break the law and not be charged with the crime. It happens all the time. Just because the PA decides not to prosecute, does not mean the actions of the arresting officer are illegal.

Nor does it mean the person arrested never violated the law. It simply means circumstances are present that the the PA has weighed and made a decision.

Please, learn how the system works instead of just guessing.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You can break the law and not be charged with the crime. It happens all the time.

True, but only if you're another cop..