Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Front Yard: (Wait till you see this tape!)

Originally posted by Observer99
Please understand the law and how it works. People are allowed to videotape, people are allowed to stand in their yards.

Please understand the law as well as the incident. She was NOT arrested for recording. She WAS arrested for failing to obey a lawful command.

Originally posted by Observer99
What if the command had been "go burn your house down", must that also be legally obeyed? How about "stand on your head, immediately" or "strip down to your underwear immediately"?

Nice try, but the argument doesnt fly. He never gave any of those commands now did he? He told her to move away and she refused. She failed to obey a lawful command, and then decided to play point counter point with the officer. The command was lawful, and she failed to obey it. Her rights end when they intefer with other peoples rights.

Originally posted by Observer99
You just. don't. get it. You don't understand the concept of freedom, and the danger of a police state.

No, I do get it. What you and others dont get is how the law works, how your individual rights work, and what you can and cannot do when the police are in performace of their duties. Simply ignoring the law because you dont agree with it or even understand it doesnt make a totalitarian state.

Originally posted by Observer99
Irrelevant. Whatever happened prior wasn't acted on, the 3 police officers were all busy handcuffing some guy (probably also illegally.) If whatever happened before was so bad why would all 3 officers concentrate on handcuffing the guy in the car and none of them take action or pay attention to this woman? Given all the evidence, you are incorrect.

Actually its very much relevant, since it falls under the term totality of circumstances. Making comments at the police in and of itself is not illegal. However, when a string of incidents occur involving the same person on the same scene, it creates a problem and law violation.

Based on your logic and this hypothetical, if the cop was shot at by the suspect prior to the video recording, the person kicks on the camera in time to see a second officer returnung fire and killing the suspect, then that second officer should be charged with murder since you are dismissing any action prior to the recording.

Single actions in and of themselves are tolerable, but when they are taken all together, as in this case, it amounted to a law violation. She was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command, and she deserved that arrest.

Originally posted by Observer99
The police-officer (criminal) is heard clearly on video stating his invalid reasons for the arrest. Show me the laws where police can arrest someone in their own yard, a woman holding only a camera "because the officer doesn't feel safe." Good luck with that.

Again, people like you only see what you want. She was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command, and that comment is on the tape. She was not arrested for recording. Has she backed off a distance instead of continuing to argue its her "right" to record I would wager she would have been left alone. Instead she wanted to make a scene to get it on camera, most likely to try to get a pay off so she doesnt have to work anymore.

See what I did there? I stereotyped the female, like how you guys stereotype the police.

Originally posted by Observer99
Your attitude is disgusting and it's people like you who are to blame when freedoms are destroyed. Luckily there are still people like this woman willing to stand and even get arrested defending the principles of freedom.

Your ignorance of the law and indiviudal rights and how they work is disgusting. Your ability to accuse while not understanding the very laws and freedoms you hold so dear is hypocritical. How can you even claim to know a freedom was destroyed or a right violated when you dont have even a basic undersstanding of how they work?

She was told to back off, she refused to comply, and was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command. Notice how the guy who picked up the camera and recorded was not arrested? Notice how the other bystanders in the area were allowed to watch without being arrested?

If your going to make accusations, at least know what your talking about. At least then your argument would be more credible than it is right now.

Reply to post by chancemusky

Again, please show how she was obstructing.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by summer5


Good for your "friend" who is not on this forum to confirm what your saying. As an Officer I am telling you why she was arrested. As an officer I am pointing out that the guy who picked up the camera was not arrested, and neither were the other people present who were watching the event.

She was arrested for failing to obey a lawful command, not because she wasrecording. If your "friend" is that confortable with people being in that close of proximity while performing his duties, I fear for his safety.

Reply to post by Xcathdra

I would say, as an ex-officer, that the person you quoted is quite correct.

Your knowledge of the law and personal rights is abysmal.

And we wonder why people hat officers so much.

Look in the mirror, my friend.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

By distracting the officer, creating a potentially dangerous situation. Had she followed his command to step back,and go into her house, she would'nt have been arrested (most likely)

Since she didn't she was arrested for refusing to obey a lawful command, as x said above.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I am an ex-sergeant in the local PD. Don't get all self righteous on me.

Im not getting self rightous on you. I am correcting your mistakes and nothing more.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
In detaining a person, you are free to move them to a place you feel is safer. That would be a lawful order. In fact I have done that hundreds of times.

Correct, key word being safer. Absent being able to articulate the danger, its a defacto arrest since the person is now being moved against their will. In this case the lady who was recording who was in close proximity, who is not invovled in the incident, should have been relocated. Come to think of it, that was attemtped and she refused the command. The people who are present who are not involved in the incident should be the first ones to be removed from the scene, not the person who is the focus of the traffic stop.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
I do know the law, thanks. I know it very well.

I would say you are lacking some of the finer points of the law and updated case law based on some of your comments to date.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
That has nothing to do with the part of the post you quoted, unless you have an objection to me stating be will not be made fun of because of the reason of safety?

Complaceny kills.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
By all means you are in control of a scene.

we agree here for the obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Was this scene on the females' property? If not, there is no jurisdiction.

So if the lady is standing on her front lawn, and shoots a person across the street and kills them, do we not have jurisdicition because the incident occured on private property? As I have stated time and again, peoples individual rights end when they create a conflict with another person individual rights. If it was a felony traffic stop and she made the exact same decision to record, would the police be within their authority to arrest her then?

The argument of being on private property is mute when the actions on said property intefere with the officers duties.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
And I never said detainees were in charge of a scene. You brought that up.

It was the comment of the officer not being able to give her a lawful command because she was on private property, which is incorrect, as the officer can if he can cite / artiuclate the reason for his actions (IE close proximity, danger to self or others etc).

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
So how did the detainee take charge of the scene?

Again has to dow ith you stating the officer had no jurisdiction to tell the lady to move, when he does in fact have jurisdicition to do so.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Psychics
Textreply to post by Mister_Bit

 

I Really Feel That The Police Officers Were Just Doing Their Job, And They Asked The Women Politely To Go In Her House It Looks Like She Don't Like Law Enforcement

It dosent matter if the peace officer ask her politely, She has the right to stand where she is and observe. Observing is not obstructing. She didn't do anything wrong until the peace officer interfere with her being present.

The peace officer brought the woman into the event by confronting her. Making her a part of the main arrest taking place.

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
Who is expected to respect the law more -- civilians who are being arbitrarily persecuted under the veil of its name, or those who pretend enforce it and arbitrarily persecute instead, and are paid to do so by the former? The law has no integrity when those who enforce it only preach about its value when it suits their personal desires, and ignore it when it doesn't.

And yet another example of a lack of knowledge. The Police enforce the laws, the judicial branch prosecutes those crimes. We can make an arrest based on a law, and the PA can throw the charge out without any reason.

The law has values when its enforced, as was done in this case when the lay refused to obey a lawful command. Apparently there is some merrit to the charge since she has a second court date for it, which tells me the charge was not ignored and the PA went forward with the prosecution of it.

You make the accusation of personal desires. Please provide details on what you mean by this comment in relation to law enforcement and doing their job?

Originally posted by chancemusky
Even if she were just watching, if she is distracting, INCLUDING COMMENTS SHE MADE BEFORE THE VIDEO

Which were apparently so bad that afterward, all 3 police paid full attention to some unarmed guy in a car, and not her. Nope, I don't buy it. And everyone knows that most police, military personnel or anyone else in a position of power will lie to say to cover themselves. You still foolishly take them at their word while watching a video proving they're blowing everything out of proportion just because they don't want to be videoed.

They didn't want to be videoed, so in order to stop that, they forced the issue, invented ridiculous charges and arrested someone unlawfully. The only obstruction occurred by the officer himself forcing an issue which was a non-issue. He obstructed his own arrest by repeatedly illegally telling someone to stop doing something which was legal.

Originally posted by Xcathdrashe may be ordered to leave the immediate area. It doesn't matter if its her property

Please show me the law where police can legally order you to leave your property in order to make a traffic-stop arrest. I want to see that.

Originally posted by Xcathdrai mean, she cant shoot rounds into the air now can she?

Fallacy -- she had no gun, you're inventing a situation based on guns to lend invalid credence to your argument.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
And yea, im defending a police state, blah blah, whatever. Some people are going to endlessly villify the officer doing their job no matter what, and I can see no amount of reasoning will change their mind, it just agitates them into being rude.

Yeah, you are defending a police state. Some people are going to endlessly defend corrupt police officers no matter what, and I can see no amount of reasoning will change their mind.

If this person were anywhere near where I live, I would be out protesting the police dept. during her court date. And videoing if possible.

Originally posted by Observer99
Another glib defense of abuse of power and destruction of personal freedoms. "Your passive existence and videotaping from your own property is distracting from the situation at hand, and therefore obstructing" -- BULL %@!$%. What if she were just watching? The eyes are the video cameras of the brain, how is that any different?

Are you going to make that case that no one is allowed to even WATCH an arrest? From their own property? Can't you frigging understand what a dangerous precedent that is, what a nightmarish police state you are allowing to come into being by being in defense of this abomination of justice?

Well, she was not just observing, and she was not just recording. Her proximity to what was going on was not welcome, and the officer is within his authority to tell her to back off, which she did not do. Instead she decided to argue with the officer, who clearly states she would be arrested for failing to obey a lawful command.

What you are ignoring is the fact another person picked up her recorder and continued recording without incident. The people / neighbors who were present also were allowed to continue watching.

What does that tell you? Maybe that the lady was in fact to close to the scene? All we see in her recording is the officers, with not another person in as close proximity as herself.

Your argument is fail.

In Germany those who participated in genocide tried to hide behind "I just followed the orders".
Policeman is personally responsible for harassing this women.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by chancemusky

 

I have read. Thanks.

--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.--

Please provide proof of her obstructing, dimpairing, or perverting the admistration of the law..

Or how about where she 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 interference.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

her proximity to the officers, which caused one of the officers to divert his attention from the issue at hand to deal with her. When she decided to play point counter point with the officer. When she refused to comply with the officers lawful commands.

By doing those things, she interfered with a public servant in the performance of his job. In this case she cause the officer to divert his attention to her. Notice how no other people present were arrested or told to leave / back off?

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by aytacaksel
is that video from afghanistan? which country? why she keeping record while police says go home?

When you stand on your own property you are within the boundaries of your own home.

Personally i think its important that people take interest in how their local peace officers conduct their job. Its wrong to make laws that prevents people from taking interest in how authority manage the community they are a part of.

Again, quit seeing only what you want to see. The moment she got close enough to divert the officers attention, she violated the law, whether she was standing on her front lawn or not. Being on private property does not grant a person immunity from prosecution when they violate the law, as the lady did in this case by failing to obey a lawful command.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by chancemusky

 

Perhaps you and X should look up the legal definitions for the words in the law.

Just sayin'.

By the way. Shooting a gun in the air is unlawful. Recording something is not. Apples and oranges.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I appriciate the suggestion, but I really think it would be you that needs to go back and read the law and actually understand how it works. I am amazed, being that your also a police officer, that you fail to understand the basics.

Originally posted by Ellie Sagan
The title to this thread seems a bit misleading. The woman was not arrested for videotaping the police activity. She was arrested for refusing to go in her house as asked. The police did not say stop taping. He said he felt unsafe with her behind them and to go in her house. He did not go all out on her, he did not use force against her. He warned her more than once that she would be arrested for not doing as he said. Regardless if you feel that he shouldn't have told her that, he didn't arrest her for taping.

Considering all the negativity towards cops these days, I don't blame him for wanting to be cautious.

In reference to the fact that they let the guy go, perhaps there was no reason to arrest him, so they let him go.

That woman who was taping seemed to be looking for a problem so she could cry about it. If I were her, I would have went inside and inconspicuously continued to tape. Again, he didn't even make her turn off the camera or take it away from her.

exactly how was she looking for a problem or starting anything as she didnt speak or say anything to the police until they addressed her. if something is happening near or on her property she has the right to be curious.. the officer can ask her to step away from them but he cant make her leave or do anything on her own property unless she's breaking a law.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Well, she was not just observing, and she was not just recording. Her proximity to what was going on was not welcome, and the officer is within his authority to tell her to back off, which she did not do.

Actually she did back off. Watch it again. Shortly after that she was arrested.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Instead she decided to argue with the officer, who clearly states she would be arrested for failing to obey a lawful command.

And he was wrong in the assertion that it was a lawful command. It was not. I feel very, very sad for you that you want to live in a nation where "arguing with an officer" is valid grounds for an arrest.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What you are ignoring is the fact another person picked up her recorder and continued recording without incident. The people / neighbors who were present also were allowed to continue watching. What does that tell you?

It tells me that they already made one unlawful arrest, to serve the purpose of punishing someone who would defy any police order, lawful or unlawful. They knew what they could get away with and they got away with it. They had their pound of flesh, and had made their example of someone, to enforce their police state and culture of fear. Are these police dumber than dirt? Of course not. Anyone with half a brain would know that if they had proceeded to arrest anyone ELSE just for videoing, or caused any further stink without clear cause, it would have tipped the tide of public opinion against them.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Your argument is fail.

Your argument is treasonous.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by aytacaksel
is that video from afghanistan? which country? why she keeping record while police says go home?

When you stand on your own property you are within the boundaries of your own home.

Personally i think its important that people take interest in how their local peace officers conduct their job. Its wrong to make laws that prevents people from taking interest in how authority manage the community they are a part of.

Again, quit seeing only what you want to see. The moment she got close enough to divert the officers attention, she violated the law, whether she was standing on her front lawn or not. Being on private property does not grant a person immunity from prosecution when they violate the law, as the lady did in this case by failing to obey a lawful command.

She has the right to question any command given by a peace officer.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Again, what lawful command?

A lawful command is a command that is supported by fact and the law.

So what law supports his command?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Ma'am I dont feel safe with you standing behind us like that comes to mind. Her refusal to comply with the order to move elsewhere comes to mind. Her refusal to comply with multiple requests from the officer comes to mind. The fact the officer said she was failing to obey a lawful command comes to mind.

You pointed it out in the law in one of your posts. Her proximity and refusal to comply in addition to arguing, caused the officer to divert his attention from his duties and concentrate on her.

She meets the criteria you provided for being charged.

In this case, the officers actions and orders ARE supported by fact and law.

Originally posted by Observer99


Which were apparently so bad that afterward, all 3 police paid full attention to some unarmed guy in a car, and not her. Nope, I don't buy it. And everyone knows that most police, military personnel or anyone else in a position of power will lie to say to cover themselves.

Most people would lie, regardless of proffession, so this is not an issue.

They didn't want to be videoed, so in order to stop that, they forced the issue, invented ridiculous charges and arrested someone unlawfully. The only obstruction occurred by the officer himself forcing an issue which was a non-issue. He obstructed his own arrest by repeatedly illegally telling someone to stop doing something which was legal.

Wrong, they legally arrested her, on legitimate charges. Saying it's illegal won't make it illegal.

"Originally posted by Xcathdrashe may be ordered to leave the immediate area. It doesn't matter if its her property"

Please show me the law where police can legally order you to leave your property in order to make a traffic-stop arrest. I want to see that.

They can tell you to go inside or move away from the immediate area. They are in charge of the situation, allowing them to do this to make sure the situation is under control.

"Originally posted by Xcathdrai mean, she cant shoot rounds into the air now can she?"

Fallacy -- she had no gun, you're inventing a situation based on guns to lend invalid credence to your argument.

I am inventing a situation to show that the whole "she was on her property, she can do whatever" is not valid. I never said she DID have a gun and was firing rounds.

"Originally posted by Xcathdra
And yea, im defending a police state, blah blah, whatever. Some people are going to endlessly villify the officer doing their job no matter what, and I can see no amount of reasoning will change their mind, it just agitates them into being rude."

Yeah, you are defending a police state. Some people are going to endlessly defend corrupt police officers no matter what, and I can see no amount of reasoning will change their mind.

No, since it is NOT a police state. Go to North Korea, and then say how we are a police state. The officer is not corrupt. Many times I have taken the side of the person being assaulted by an officer, WHEN IT WAS UNLAWFUL. This is not an unlawful time, so your point is moot.