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

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Try reading the follow up response.

I did.
I stand by my post.

Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

The system which is totally corrupt?

Are you a corrupter then? Since you have such vast knowledge of it all

I don't even know how to respond to this. She asked how I knew that. I responded honestly. Doesn't mean you have to believe me. Hell you can ignore everything I'm saying, go out onto your lawn next time a cop pulls someone over in front of your house film it and then see if you get arrested.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by morder1

 

This is true but for the first time in my life I feel threatened and powerless, more terrified of law enforcement than criminals. In fact I live in a pretty safe area and so the Police have nothing to do but stop people for petty traffic violations to bulk up the Police Retirement Fund.
I never received anything other than parking tickets in my life but here a short time and already two tickets. Changing lanes quickly which was deemed hazardous driving and then again going 8 miles over the speed limit. Cost for the two tickets to keep points off my license, $500 and only because one of them I bargained down.

The over use and indiscriminate use of the taser, also shooting unarmed suspects in broad daylight...I know it is tough battle field being a Police Officer in today's dangerous climate especially when crime is rampant and you are outgunned by thieves.
But when the mentality turns on the citizens and old women are tased during traffic stops to keep them in line, it has gone over the top of what is permissible to protect the community.

Police deal with corruption within ranks like the church deals with abusive Priests.

A tete et tete between the Cops and whatever entity of the government or State that "owns them" on behalf of "the people" needs to take place, and soon.

Identify the problems and reasons cops feel excessive force is required.
Try to eliminate as many of those reasons as possible in order to meet them halfway and then in no uncertain terms and at risk of severe penalty and expulsion -

FORBID excessive force, entrapment, coercion, quotas or any other abusive, invasive or revenue producing trick tactics to be performed on the public at large.

I would not necessarily fine the Police Department or do anything that limits their capacity to do their job but I would make their record of abuse public and keep it in the open as a factor for or against new growth and prosperity of the area and that department.

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

You make it way to complicated.
Legalize drugs,gambling, and prostitution.
Execute violent offenders.
Fire 3/4 of the police,prosecutors,judges,and close 90% of the prisons.
Problem solved

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
The difference would obviously be the camera and who was dictating the responses.

The camera you say? So all this time that people have been screaming that she was not hassled over the camera but interfering and you undo it all just like that? Yeah, I thought the camera was the problem too. How about them apples?

They didn't get arrested because they weren't the ones who were vocalizing their opposition at that point.

They were not being addressed. You get how two way communication works don't you? If you hassle the guy next to me and not me, I am going to be quiet. That does not make the guy next to me more guilty than me. It makes you obvious for singling that person out.

The officer clearly sees her as the agitator. Could they have been arrested? I would say yes. But the officers mentality is not the issue here, it's whether or not Good was lawfully arrested.

He arrested her for having a camera, responding when spoken to, and looking like an agitator?
Heil RyanP! All save the fatherland Amerika!

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
My proof of that is my knowledge of the system.

So....
...none then.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Try reading the follow up response.

I did.
I stand by my post.

So you're really going to stand by your post? Despite the fact that my post to Unity was not even about Good? Despite the fact that her argument was that anything goes on your property? Okay...

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I wish I had a carnival job....

.

Well of course you do. The demolition derby is usually free for fellow carnies so that's a big plus right there.

And I'm not sitting on a chair but one of those new fangled Fitness balls. So yep, I'm having a ball with this debate.

So sorry. You seem even tougher sitting on your fitness ball. Empty threats from a keyboard about what you would do if you could in any way shape or form from your ball. Cool. Scary stuff.

I look forward to seeing how this case plays out.

You root for Ms. Good.

I'll root for the Officer.

Deal?

And no hard feelings, no matter how it plays.

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

it was dismissed. I win.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Either way, you do NOT have the right to question an officer when he is making an arrest of someone else. You can think what you'd like but you don't have that right.

I agree, when an officer is making an arrest or investigating someone, you don't have the right to unreasonably question them during said arrest or investigation. And, again, just like I said before, she never, ever questioned them while they were investigating the gentleman. She ONLY began questioning them when she began to be the subject of suspicion. And you absolutely do have the right to question an officer at that point. You can think what you like, but you do have that right.

Yes, she is 15 feet away from an officer who is making a separate arrest with his back turned. She conveyed a negative police attitude, showed that she would defy the orders of an officer. Moving one foot back doesn't make a difference, she refused to actually comply with them, except for the smart ass one foot back she took.

How do you know she displayed any attitude? She said nothing while filming until asked a question and she's behind the camera. We don't even know what she looked like in this video. True, she could've been making faces at them, but there's no evidence to support that. Stick to provable facts, please.

And her "smart ass one foot back" was compliance, was it not? He (finally) made a reasonable request, and she complied.

A look? It was her videotaping them that conveyed her negative police attitude. Again, an officer has absolutely no reason to allow someone who is only 15 feet away, conveying a negative police attitude, and when asked to comply with orders refuses to, just stay there and continue on their way. There are many things we give up in the name of officer safety. One of them is the right to stand 15 feet away from an officer while the officer tells you he doesn't feel comfortable with you behind his back, while you sit there and get your anti-police agenda in!

Officer safety does not trump citizen safety, except in very specific circumstances where it is pointless to risk the officer's life rather than the citizen's. Police officers get paid to put themselves in harm's way. Citizens don't. And it is her right to dance widdershins covered in honey while singing "God Save the Queen" if she wants to on her own property, while taping the police.

Oh, and I'm pro-police, BTW. I only even use the word "cop" in context because I find the word disrespectful. Ask anyone on ATS that has seen my posts on the subject. WTG.

I don't know if you know this, but in executing a search warrant an officer can put everyone in the house in to handcuffs, dressed or undressed, regardless if they suspect these people of committing a crime.

What? I think I've been trolled. Fool me once and all that rot.

/TOA

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Try reading the follow up response.

I did.
I stand by my post.

So you're really going to stand by your post? Despite the fact that my post to Unity was not even about Good? Despite the fact that her argument was that anything goes on your property? Okay...

Yes I am because no one made the argument that "anything goes on your property." You added that yourself to someone simply pointing out that being on your private property does exempt you from certain police actions like them arbitrarily entering your property and ordering you into your home without cause.

So I most certainly do stand by my post. If you did not put words in other people's mouths and then pretend that was the argument they actually made you would understand why.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
The difference would obviously be the camera and who was dictating the responses.

The camera you say? So all this time that people have been screaming that she was not hassled over the camera but interfering and you undo it all just like that? Yeah, I thought the camera was the problem too. How about them apples?

When did I say she wasn't arrested because of her camera. My argument has been this entire time the officers made a lawful arrest. I've made no comments on my feelings of the officers ethics. I've merely commented on what I believe was ultimately a lawful arrest.

They didn't get arrested because they weren't the ones who were vocalizing their opposition at that point.

They were not being addressed. You get how two way communication works don't you? If you hassle the guy next to me and not me, I am going to be quiet. That does not make the guy next to me more guilty than me. It makes you obvious for singling that person out.

The officer clearly sees her as the agitator. Could they have been arrested? I would say yes. But the officers mentality is not the issue here, it's whether or not Good was lawfully arrested.

He arrested her for having a camera, responding when spoken to, and looking like an agitator?
Heil RyanP! All save the fatherland Amerika!

I'm going to take this as a whole. I'm not sure what your point is with the singling a person out train of thought. I agree, he singled her out because she was talking and taping. She was the one vocalizing her refusal to comply. Does that mean the officer couldn't have arrested the guy? NO!

Further, he didn't arrest her for video taping. He arrested her for not following police orders! He asks her multiple times to stop, he tells her to go back, he warns near the end to stop. He clearly doesn't want to arrest her. You think I'm wrong, go to about 2:00 in the video.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


Now your taking it a little extreme, she didn't have a weapon and she was on her property and yes, you can do whatever you want on your property if it's LAWFUL. Unless your implying we live in a police state! Why are people digging into so much damn detail about this that doesn't matter. She stepped off the side walk onto her property and did not interrupt the police while on duty, she kept to herself and asked how he could arrest her on her property. It's simple, that cop was out of line and if there was enough public out cry to let her go then the cop was wrong. Majority rules, or do you believe one person should have a say over everyone?

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Depends upon what you view as "The System." I see her as a vexatious litigator, nothing more. I believe that she thinks she sees easy money, or a way of screwing over “the man.”

“The system” is always a work in progress and the subject of other threads than this.

Stop the hate.

I wonder.

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

I am not sure if I agree on this stand. I do feel that this girl is exaggerating her cause and looking for attention. She seems to enjoy all the attention she's getting. She can hardly contain the excitement in her a voice when describing her victory. She obviously is still a child with little to no real life experience as she begin crying the moment the officer arrested her.
Perhaps she is a vexatious litigator after all.



I find these cases very typical. It's the American attitude. I am always right, no matter what.

''if you cannot question authority, you are living in a police state'' This were her words. What textbook did she borrow this from?

She was filming the police officers. She was not questioning anything at all, I don't think she has the brain for it.

One day people need to get over their black and white world view.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Try reading the follow up response.

I did.
I stand by my post.

So you're really going to stand by your post? Despite the fact that my post to Unity was not even about Good? Despite the fact that her argument was that anything goes on your property? Okay...

Yes I am because no one made the argument that "anything goes on your property." You added that yourself to someone simply pointing out that being on your private property does exempt you from certain police actions like them arbitrarily entering your property and ordering you into your home without cause.

Show me where she said any of that. Instead, you are writing into her argument something that she never vocalized. Not even remotely. All she said was: She was on her property! Enough said. Seems to me that the enough said implies that's all you need. I don't see anything about being on your private property exempts you from certain police actions. All I see is a blanket response that all you need to do is be on your property. If she had meant more, don't you think she would have said it in her first post directed towards me? Maybe you don't, but I do.

So I most certainly do stand by my post. If you did not put words in other people's mouths and then pretend that was the argument they actually made you would understand why.

ME put words into other people's mouths! Do you understand what you just did! You just added an entire sentence which completely changes the landscape of her point. If her entire point wasn't about being on the property exempts you from ANYTHING why say ENOUGH SAID? She didn't make any little caveats like you did!

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
When did I say she wasn't arrested because of her camera.

I never said you said that? Are you reading this thread? You are the only one defending this cop that has not said that.

My argument has been this entire time the officers made a lawful arrest. I've made no comments on my feelings of the officers ethics. I've merely commented on what I believe was ultimately a lawful arrest.

Ultimately it was dropped. Your reasoning that it was a lawful arrest based on the facts at hand is...?

I'm going to take this as a whole. I'm not sure what your point is with the singling a person out train of thought.

Because out of 3 people, she was singled out. She did not address the cop. The cop picked her out of 3 people to address. Where is the confusion here?

I agree, he singled her out because she was talking and taping.

Wow, what? You just asked what I meant with singling out and then you say she was singled out?

Um...she was not talking until after he singled her out. You know, your opinion on this would probably be more inline with reality if you were familiar with the incident at hand.

She was the one vocalizing her refusal to comply. Does that mean the officer couldn't have arrested the guy? NO!

BECAUSE THE COP SINGLED HER OUT BEFORE SHE SAID A WORD. Chinstrap too tight?

Further, he didn't arrest her for video taping. He arrested her for not following police orders! He asks her multiple times to stop, he tells her to go back, he warns near the end to stop. He clearly doesn't want to arrest her. You think I'm wrong, go to about 2:00 in the video.

You are very wrong. He never asked her to stop. Not once. Her told her to move back, move back again, and get inside. You should actually get up to date on what happened and try again.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Kitilani

 

I wish I had a carnival job....

.

Well of course you do. The demolition derby is usually free for fellow carnies so that's a big plus right there.

And I'm not sitting on a chair but one of those new fangled Fitness balls. So yep, I'm having a ball with this debate.

So sorry. You seem even tougher sitting on your fitness ball. Empty threats from a keyboard about what you would do if you could in any way shape or form from your ball. Cool. Scary stuff.

I look forward to seeing how this case plays out.

You root for Ms. Good.

I'll root for the Officer.

Deal?

And no hard feelings, no matter how it plays.

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

it was dismissed. I win.

No, you didn't. Wrong case

C'mon now, such irritable unmitigated meanness. Tsk, tsk. Never said I’m tough.

But I know I am. And now that I’m retired, I can afford to get soft and grouchy, not that I plan to get to soft and even am thinking about upping the grouchy part.

I’m talking about her upcoming lawsuit against the Officer & the RPD. You seem to be stuck 2 threads ago. Remember where this one started?

Stay with the program, er, thread…c’mon, I know you can do it.

You. just. have. to. concentrate.

Originally posted by morder1
reply to post by dadgad

 

I didnt say to speak out against defeatism on ATS, I said on the COUNTRY!

ATS are some of the most informed people left in this rotting country...

I dont care what you listen too or dont... It doesnt matter to the subject at hand...

Of course I have watched Alex Jones... Who hasnt on ATS?

Let me guess you listen to glenn beck instead? And also Obama? Isnt this fun? Just stupid accusations which mean nothing in the end

edit on 3-7-2011 by morder1 because: (no reason given)

ATS is not a country the last time I checked. It is an international internet forum for intelligent discussion and information sharing. Perhaps you forgot that.

SPEAK OUT EVERYBODY, We need to get over this fricking defeatism that is a plague on our country

Who else are you addressing other then the reader here on ATS? The rest of your country is not hearing you from here I am afraid. Try to realize who your public is.

I am getting used to certain Americans and their limited world view. It's black and white as usual. I have a different opinion... I must be with the enemy. I must be with Obama.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
Show me where she said any of that.

What?
I just said she did NOT write those things, you did.
Damn.

Instead, you are writing into her argument something that she never vocalized.

Um...no. You did. That is exactly what you did.

Not even remotely. All she said was: She was on her property! Enough said.

And you somehow added in that she claimed and I quote "anything goes" on private property which is nowhere to be found in her post. You made it up.

Seems to me that the enough said implies that's all you need.

Right because it is enough said in regard to this case. No one was murdered in this case so there was no sane reason for you to add things and then talk about murder being deemed ok on private property. No one ever made that argument. You made it up.

I don't see anything about being on your private property exempts you from certain police actions.

But you think the argument was made that private property makes you exempt from murder charges? Uh ok.

All I see is a blanket response that all you need to do is be on your property.

Because all you need is to be on your property to be protected from trespass and unlawful search and seizure, you know the topic at hand. Not murder.

If she had meant more, don't you think she would have said it in her first post directed towards me?

Yes which is why I do not understand why you added "anything goes" when she never wrote anything like that.

Maybe you don't, but I do.

You are seriously delusional.

ME put words into other people's mouths! Do you understand what you just did! You just added an entire sentence which completely changes the landscape of her point. If her entire point wasn't about being on the property exempts you from ANYTHING why say ENOUGH SAID? She didn't make any little caveats like you did!

No sweety. That is what you did. You said she argued that anything goes on private property. You added that on your own. I added nothing. I just understood that her post was not about murder. You added that too.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
No, you didn't. Wrong case

C'mon now, such irritable unmitigated meanness. Tsk, tsk. Never said I’m tough.

So you are not tough but if you were that cop boy, you would sure punish her for...not going inside when she was told. That is what you said, right?

But I know I am. And now that I’m retired, I can afford to get soft and grouchy, not that I plan to get to soft and even am thinking about upping the grouchy part.

Further proof of the emptiness and lack of conviction behind armchair "woulda shoulda coulda" chariforce one agents! You go, girl!

I’m talking about her upcoming lawsuit against the Officer & the RPD. You seem to be stuck 2 threads ago. Remember where this one started?

Stay with the program, er, thread…c’mon, I know you can do it.

You. just. have. to. concentrate.

Actually no. I am not rooting for her to win money from the city of Rochester. If anything what I would like to see happen is the bad cops be called our for being bad cops and steps taken to change the corrupt atmosphere creeping in from Greece to Rochester.

As a taxpayer, I am not exactly hoping anyone wins a windfall from the city. That does not really help anyone in any real meaningful way in this case. If financial reparations are necessary for lost work or injury then fine but there are better solutions than cutting her a check with my money.

reply to post by dadgad


That is what I meant exactly.

You can see the smug smile on her face throughout the interview. She's enjoying her time obviously.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The police were dealing with a gentleman who was stopped in the street. The woman was recording from her front yard. Why should she have to move back. Watch the video. What was the point of ordering her to return to the interior of her home other than an attempt to stop her from recording?
Please, try to be real