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

Originally posted by chancemusky
reply to post by Acidtastic

 

So you hate yourself? You just effectively said that. And using the small percentage of abusive officers to say all are abusive just shows the ignorance inside of you. And If you have nothing to contribute to the thread and topic, please do not respond, or expect a response from me

I acknowlege the hatred inside me, but it stems from seeing the police doing wrong. Over and over and over again. You want me to love them for it?

reply to post by dantanna


Can we get a mod in here, people are getting pretty dang offensive, and not contributing to the thread.

Originally posted by jam321
Funny how police have no problems being filmed on Cops, Police POV, or other similar shows.


Yep, the lady got busted for not following orders, but IMO her filming was the real issue.

yea so if a cop gives me an order to take a sh#t in my hand eat it would that be not following orders from the law.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Lawful order is an order based on fact and law.

Show me the law that supports the officers directive.

My English teacher was very non-conformist for an old guy. I like to quote something he said (paraphrasing/summarizing) "grammar is defined by popular use." Microwave -- what is it? By common parlance it is the device in your kitchen you may heat up things like popcorn inside. "Microwave oven" is the correct usage, whereas "microwave" defines a band of the E/M spectrum. Since most people aren't physics majors, the common use of "microwave" has become, according to the masses, a grammatically correct term for a microwave oven.

My point? The same thing is becoming true of law. If someone resisted unlawful arrest, and killed the arresting officer as you quote in your cited law -- sorry but I just don't see that person avoiding a murder charge. So who is correct? I guess that's up to interpretation, but at the end of the day if the law you are citing doesn't protect you, it doesn't mean anything. Just like how the IRS can send you to prison and/or ruin your entire life for not paying taxes, even when it can be shown that they have no legal basis to do so.

So in that respect, the corrupt police officer here defending the corrupt police officer in the video is technically correct -- this woman is probably going to be ramrodded through the system, the law probably won't protect her and if so, the laws which were supposed to protect her rights and freedoms don't mean anything.

Originally posted by o0pinMind0o
yea so if a cop gives me an order to take a sh#t in my hand eat it would that be not following orders from the law.

People would defend the cop on ATS you know.

Originally posted by SpunGCake
to be honest i probly would have arrested her also she was distracting the police from there duty and not being complient with there wishes but i also respect what she was tryen to do. now if she didnt play dumb and would have backed up to lets say her steps or somewhere farther away and they still arrested her than that would have been obvious that they were abusing there power.

Totally, if she had backed up as ordered, or removed herself, yet they still went after her, that is a totally diff situation haha

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Its is irrelevant if she is standing on her front lawn, or on the roof of her car. When her actions force the officer to divert his attention to her, she is in fact and by law interfering in his duties. As I said before, private property does not grant a person automatic immunity from being charged with a crime.


***slightly off topic***
I got a question for you copper. Picture, if you will, that what is happening in Lybia, is happening in the USA. You have been told to go and open fire on the public to protect goverment interest. Will you carry out those orders?

Good Lord - As I have stated in many many many other threads, my oath is to protect and defend the constitution of the state I live in and the city I work for against all enemies foreign and domestic. Almost the exact same oath taken at the fdederal level and by the military.

If I were ever given an order to confiscate firearms, to round people up without regard for due process, or ordered to open fire on protestors, not only would they have my badge and resignation, they would be missing any weapons I had access to as I would be passing them out to people to resist until the last man.

The assumption that the military, FLETC or state/local law enforcement is going to blindly follow orders to that extent is not only naive, but just plain stupid, on the part of the person who thinks it.

What you and others take as me defending an officers actions, is me pointing out how the law works.

An example - If you have a family member who is involved in a car accident. The person is rushed to the hospital as a trauma activation (worst type of injury). When you arrive you somehow manage to make it back to the trauma room. As you enter you see someone hitting the chest of the patient as hard as he can, would you assume the person is not doing their job and is breaking the law?

While cardio thumps are not commonplace anymore, they are still used on occasion. To a person who is not trained in the area of emergency medicine, the action is going to look like gross incompetence and brutality. To a person who is trained in emergency medicine, they will understand what is being performed is called a cardiothump, and the reasons for doing them. That person is going to say the medical person was in the right.

Now, with that being said, why would you think its would be any different with law enforcement? We have people making accusations and giving opinions on the law when in fact the people making those cooments dont know the law, how it works, how its applied etc.

All I see are people who hate the police for perceived actions that are incorrect. I get called names when I point this out, and one person called me treasonous. People claim the police are afraid of the truth, when in reality its very apparent people in this thread not only dont want the truth, they will do wahtever they can to ignore it in an effort to push the actual reason they are here -

To go off on the cops and call them anything and everything under the sun.

The motto is deny ignornace, not embrace it. Our goal is to ind the truth, where ever it may be.Just because people donlt like where the truth leads, doesnt mean we should ignore it.

Originally posted by chancemusky

Originally posted by SpunGCake
to be honest i probly would have arrested her also she was distracting the police from there duty and not being complient with there wishes but i also respect what she was tryen to do. now if she didnt play dumb and would have backed up to lets say her steps or somewhere farther away and they still arrested her than that would have been obvious that they were abusing there power.

Totally, if she had backed up as ordered, or removed herself, yet they still went after her, that is a totally diff situation haha

So she should have listen to the cop? You guys have the wrong idea about being here on earth.
The cop had no reason to talk to her, everybody was acting within legal terms.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


But the cop didn't feel safe.

His feelings of safety are more important than her rights.

The other two cops were fine, but Masic was scared and his right to not feel fear trumps her right.

Such is life in 21st century USA.

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


Have you not read the previous pages? She broke the law, and was arrested. She failed to obey a lawful order.

reply to post by Xcathdra


If this, if that....I could play the same game with equal validity, since some cops have been convicted of being part-time hitmen, who's to say this wasn't a hit interrupted?

Look, just admit that this particular cop on this particular night screwed up and abused his authority for whatever reason and move on.

Does it really kill you that bad to admit that a cop might be wrong in a concrete example?

www.huffingtonpost.com... emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html

Good's public defender, Stephanie Stare, told HuffPost she believes from her conversations with several neighbors who were present that Good made no threatening comments before the tape begins.

Ryan Acuff, a friend of Good's who witnessed the exchange and picked up the video camera after she was arrested, agreed.

"None of us was talking to them until they came to us," Acuff said. "The first contact was definitely on tape."

Good is scheduled to appear in court on Monday, where her public defender hopes the case will be dismissed.

If that doesn't happen, Stare said, she was not afraid of bringing Good's case to a jury trial.

"She was well within her rights."

Game, set, match.

The link doesn't seem to work, I reposted it to try to fix someone else's. But just go there and type "emily good" into the search.

WOW, now "emily good" won't even come up on a search for me. What's up with THAT eh? It seems to work if I don't make it a defined link here:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Its is irrelevant if she is standing on her front lawn, or on the roof of her car. When her actions force the officer to divert his attention to her, she is in fact and by law interfering in his duties. As I said before, private property does not grant a person automatic immunity from being charged with a crime.


So everybody must kneel at anytime, no safe havens? You and I would have problems eye to eye, I am burning from the inside. You protect the constitution, I protect the people.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Xcathdra

 

My lack of knowledge of the law?

Please show me my lack of knowledge. I can show you yous on page 13.


Mr. "There is not an affirmative defense in court to resist even an unlawful arrest."


Lawful order is an order based on fact and law.

Show me the law that supports the officers directive.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Yes,m your lack of knowledge and understanding of the law.

You provided the info yourself. You should really read what you quote so it cant be used against you when your wrong.

The offcier told the lady to move away, she refused. The back and forth lasted over a minute, resulting in her arrest. The officer had the authority to tell her to move away since she was diverting his attention.

Its not relevant what you think, whats relevant is the facts present -
Fact - She was on her property recordin the officer
Fact - She was in close proximity to the scene
Fact - She was asked by the officer if he could help "you guys"
Fact - The lady replied no, that she was on her property and recording -

Gee, thats not a suspiciuous statement to make in responde to an inquiry if they need help.

Fact - The officer articulated he did not like her being behind them.
Fact - The lady began to argue with the officer about her right to record
Fact - The offceir told her time and again to back off, go inside, move away.
Fact - The lady did not comply, conttrary to what people are claiming.
Fact - She was arrested for failing to obey the lawful command of the officer.

Based on your text quote, she met the elements of intefering with government action (failing to obey a lawful command).

Again, with you being an officer I find it intresting that you ignore the fact that as an officer we can amend our charges at any point. You also seem to ignore that the PA attorney has the authority and ultimate say on a person being charged at all. They have the authority to read the officers report and make their own determination if the suggested charge, in this case failing to obey a lawful command, is supportable based on the evidence. If its not the PA has the authority to amend the charge to either higher or lower charge depending on supportable information.

Again, learn the law before you attempt to make an argument with it.

reply to post by chancemusky


You'd say it was lawful if it wasn't.

An officer could also request you to drop your pants - refusal would still be disobeying a request or a order, doesn't mean it's illegal.

And yes, people would say you disobeyed a 'lawful order' - or claim to believe it so as to troll you hard.

Originally posted by apacheman

The police report of the arrest contains another apparent discrepancy from what appears on the video: Masic writes that the traffic stop targeted three individuals who "were all chalkem south gang members."

"This gang is known for drugs guns and violence," Masic notes, underscoring the danger of the situation. The video, while dark, appears to only show one man led out of the car.

Good's public defender says that as far as she has been able to determine, only one man was pulled over.

www.huffingtonpost.com... emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html

Discrepancy does not equate to perjury.

There were 3 officers present on the camera. Do we have all 3 of their reports? Do we know if a traffic stop a few blocks over was related to this one?

To make an argument for perjury based on incomplete information, again, reinforces my statements about people hating the cops so much, you ignore the basics and go straight for the conspiracy and corruption charge. Since the entire report has not been relased yet, we dont know what all the officers narrative contains.

Unless of course your intending to go for the 100 meter rush to judgment?

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Police officers face conditions everyday where their lives are in danger. I for one have no problem with them telling this lady to not stand so close to them. She was obviously fishing with a camera to try and capture something. How would you feel if someone followed you around your job with a camera? I sure as hell wouldn't like it.

think out side the box you don't get the picture here they are getting a feel on that they can get above the law, you give them an inch and they'll take the whole ruler.
this is only the beginning the worst is yet to come.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by chancemusky

 

You'd say it was lawful if it wasn't.

An officer could also request you to drop your pants - refusal would still be disobeying a request or a order, doesn't mean it's illegal.

And yes, people would say you disobeyed a 'lawful order' - or claim to believe it so as to troll you hard.

edit on 23-6-2011 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Oh, Im sorry, you know what I would say? Really? Wow, you must be psychic!
Please, youre being pathetic now, claiming to know what I would do.
Unfortunately for you, thats not a lawful order. This was. So your so called example is not valid.

Originally posted by o0pinMind0o

Originally posted by jam321
Funny how police have no problems being filmed on Cops, Police POV, or other similar shows.


Yep, the lady got busted for not following orders, but IMO her filming was the real issue.

yea so if a cop gives me an order to take a sh#t in my hand eat it would that be not following orders from the law.

are you really that inept hat you cant understand the argument being given?

Sine her front yard is private property, does she have a right to go out on her lawn, drop pants and take a dump on the front lawn in front of everyone in the neighborhood?

The answer by the way is no, she can not.

A persons individual rights only extend to the point they interfere with anothers.

Her actions interfered with not only the officers duty, but the suspects rights. By distracting the officer, it causes the person to be detained even longer. Her "right" to record while on private property does not trump the suspects "rights".

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


ok you do understand what there job is right to protect and serve. by her distracting them is obstructing them from completing there task at hand dont forget they are trained to defuse a situation. if for any reason that person isnt being complient gives them reason to react. all she turned into was an example. who looked stupider there her or the cops?