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

Originally posted by spy66

The moment her actions caused the officer to divert his attention, she is interfering in their duties. The officers duty at that moment was to deal with the focus of the traffic stop. Instead, he had to also deal with this lady, which is by definition interfering with his duties.

She never interfered with their duties. She replied she was just observing from her property. That is within her right. She was never in-between or close to the peace officer and the main suspect.

You can keep making the same argument, but there is absolutely no law or case law that supports your claim based on this type of incident.

The law covers many arias, even how peace officers should conduct their job peacefully.

And talking in circles in hopes of ignoring the truth doesnt make your argument right.

She interfered with the officer by refusing to comply with his lawful command.

It really is that simple. And the laws you talk about when it comes to how an officer behaves is 42 USC 1983.

Originally posted by apacheman
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?

So your answer then is NO, you cannot provide any information that supports your false claim the officer committed perjury.

He did not screw up in the least.
She broke the law by her actions of refusing to comply with a lawful order.

Maybe you should take the time to learn the law before arguing it and making claims you cant support.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
And talking in circles in hopes of ignoring the truth doesnt make your argument right.

She interfered with the officer by refusing to comply with his lawful command.

It really is that simple. And the laws you talk about when it comes to how an officer behaves is 42 USC 1983.

I already quoted her neighbors and her public defender all confident that she was well within her rights. What are you going to say when she is acquitted? I'm sure in your eyes it will be a travesty of justice, that someone still has the right to be in their yard.

Originally posted by Observer99
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...

edit on 23-6-2011 by Observer99 because: (no reason given)

The same people who were interviewed by the guy who picked up the camera and continued recording. The guy who is also an activist along with good, who protest forclusres on property, which conicidentally enough occurs with.... wait for it....

uniformed sheriffs deputies.

Yep., no possible conflict of itrest or contrived situation here.

Its one thing for people to make comments off the record. Its something entirely when they are asked to put those comments in writing to make them offical, and to testify in court to what they saw.

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)

You guys can keep coming up with out of left field examples for this, it still does not fly since she was told to move back and she refused. Care to show me where any person has been ordered to drop their pants in public with people watching to support hte continued claim in this area?

Originally posted by Gargamel

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.

I too hate it when I'm in a grocery / department store and they have those pesky cameras just fishing, trying to catch me doing something wrong like stealing or something stupid like that. Don't they know I'm just shopping? Nevermind the fact that there seems to be a CCTV camera on every corner just waiting for me to do something wrong. Man it just pee's me right off. Then I go to work (a casino) and EVERY where I go and everything I do is recorded by camera. I literally have someone following me around with a camera everywhere I go when I do my job, and I don't even have any power to abuse.

this is why all this is happening please watch this video linked below you will like it:

www.youtube.com... < < < < < (The All-Seeing Eye)

reply to post by Xcathdra


Look up the page a bit: there are several witnesses who disagree with the cop's version.

One observer was so appalled by the incident she called 911 to report the cop's assault and battery upon the woman. I don't know about the laws where you are, but around here assualt means threatening behavior and battery ensues upon unwanted touching, such as poking your finger into someone's chest.

The video shows one guy in cuffs, not three, the report states "the traffic stop..." implying three together, not one and two.

He was wrong, period.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The same people who were interviewed by the guy who picked up the camera and continued recording. The guy who is also an activist along with good, who protest forclusres on property, which conicidentally enough occurs with.... wait for it....

uniformed sheriffs deputies.

So now:

- (previously) Being an activist -- CRIME
- (previously) Protesting -- CRIME

What other crimes are awaiting us in your utopian police state?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its one thing for people to make comments off the record. Its something entirely when they are asked to put those comments in writing to make them offical, and to testify in court to what they saw.

Opinion of the woman's public defender > Opinion of police officer on ATS protecting his buddies

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by Xcathdra
And talking in circles in hopes of ignoring the truth doesnt make your argument right.

She interfered with the officer by refusing to comply with his lawful command.

It really is that simple. And the laws you talk about when it comes to how an officer behaves is 42 USC 1983.

I already quoted her neighbors and her public defender all confident that she was well within her rights. What are you going to say when she is acquitted? I'm sure in your eyes it will be a travesty of justice, that someone still has the right to be in their yard.

What you are failing to understand, or flat out ignoring, is it doesnt matter what those people think or saw. The officer told her to back off, she refused to comply, multiple times. She forced the officer to divert his attention to deal with her.

All the people are saying is yes, she was in her yard, she was recording, and the cop arrested her.

Screw the fact she argued with the officer for over a miunute.

The witnesses can make all the claims they want, but it still does not negate the fact she broke the law. In the end, those witnesses are going to be used against her by the prosecution if this goes to court because they are going to confirm what the officer was saying.

She was on her lawn
She was recording
She had a minute long back and forth with the officer
She was arrested by the officer

Its irrelevant if the witnesses said she was a distance away as they are not in control of the scene, nor are the empowered to make an arrest in the same capacirty as a law enforcement officer.

If you were involved in a court case, and you heard testimony from 2 people.
The first person is the next door neighbor who has absolutely no training or expeirence in working on brakes for a car, and the second person is a state certified mechanic who does nothing but work on brakes for a car, who do you think is going to be able to provide the expert testimony?

Reply to post by Xcathdra

fact AND law.

Perhaps you missed the conjunction.

Fact -The officer articulated he did not like her being behind them. (Fact: She was not behind them, but was beside them, about 10 feet away from the closest officer, and 15 feet from the officer talking to her)

Fact -The lady began to argue with the officer about her right to record (Fact - She WA asserting her rights)

Fact -The offceir told her time and again to back off, go inside, move away. (Fact - She was resisting an unlawfull order)

Fact -The lady did not comply, conttrary to what people are claiming. (Fact - she did not need to compy as they did not have jurisdiction)

Fact -She was arrested for failing to obey the lawful command of the officer. (Fact - you still have to show a lawful command)


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The same people who were interviewed by the guy who picked up the camera and continued recording. The guy who is also an activist along with good, who protest forclusres on property, which conicidentally enough occurs with.... wait for it....

uniformed sheriffs deputies.

So now:

- (previously) Being an activist -- CRIME
- (previously) Protesting -- CRIME

What other crimes are awaiting us in your utopian police state?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its one thing for people to make comments off the record. Its something entirely when they are asked to put those comments in writing to make them offical, and to testify in court to what they saw.

Opinion of the woman's public defender > Opinion of police officer on ATS protecting his buddies

I see once again you just decide to see what you want. Apprently you missed the part where I aid being either was not criminal. Wha tI said is with that background, their motives can be called into question, and in this case should be explored.

If the incident was planned in an effort to capture something on camera, then she deserves jail time.

But by all means, continue to see just what you want and quote it in such a manner that twists the meaning to fit your argument.

yeah, nothing wrong with that.....

Originally posted by SpunGCake
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?

The cop focused on her, don't blame here for being there??
Its a shame living in America these days. Really in the Netherlands things are so so so different.

We steel the cop cars here. ( reality not fake)

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Xcathdra

 

fact AND law.

Perhaps you missed the conjunction.

Fact -The officer articulated he did not like her being behind them. (Fact: She was not behind them, but was beside them, about 10 feet away from the closest officer, and 15 feet from the officer talking to her)

Fact -The lady began to argue with the officer about her right to record (Fact - She WA asserting her rights)

Fact -The offceir told her time and again to back off, go inside, move away. (Fact - She was resisting an unlawfull order)

Fact -The lady did not comply, conttrary to what people are claiming. (Fact - she did not need to compy as they did not have jurisdiction)

Fact -She was arrested for failing to obey the lawful command of the officer. (Fact - you still have to show a lawful command)

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Fact - She was standing behind him. Based on her recording the officer is facing away from her. He has to turn around and look at her, which means she was not in his direct line of sight.

Fact - The lady is required to comply with the lawful command, because the command was in fact lawful.
Fact - The officer does in fact have jurisdiction
Fact - I have shown the lawful command portion, as well as the actions she took which violated the elements of said law, which by the way YOU posted.

Continually ignoring my respoonse where I give you that information does not constitute me not giving you the info. She meets all the criteria for the charge. The PA has agreed with that since they went forward with the charge. If the officer was in the wrong and did not have standing to arrest her, the charges never would have moved forward and would have been dismissed by the prosecuter for cause.


also-

If I remember right from a previous thread, you did law enforcement in Florida and "resigned" because you flt law enforcement was infringing on peoples rights.

If I remember you are / were a soveregn citizen member.

and If I remeber my research correctly, you were fired from your department because of your extreme viewpoints and open criticism of the laws you felt were illegal.

I could be wrong though.. Ill spend some time checking my posts to you to find that exchange.

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours

Its a shame living in America these days.

It's not so bad if you work for the government.

It's actually kind of nice.

Originally posted by EmeraldGreen
some of you are so shallow and conceited
Put yourself in that uniform if you have the ability to empathise for the length of this text...

Your coming to the end of a long shift, you might still even be a rookie & have many thoughts still surfacing in your mind from earlier encounters with the public on duty... your feel a little insecure about the arrest you are about to make... you know in you mind you are in no real danger, you have you partner with you and the station is probably only about a mile down the road from where you are.. it's been a long day, all you can really think about as you approach the suspect is wanting to get out of the unfamiliar neighbourhood..but anyway your mind nervously goes through all the protocols for dealing with a suspect as beneath you are still unsure about how to approach every encounter with the public in your new uniform. From Day 1 your identity underwent a dramatic shift according to societal prejudices of police. Suddenly in the shadows you spot a red dot coming from what appears to be a camera floating on the side-walk...its a woman filming you... you ask why and are immediately met with a passive aggressive tone & this really grinds your gears, not as a police officer upholding the constitution but as just another guy born and raised in the American dream land trying to do his job without being harassed by someone who's sole intent in that moment is to release pent up frustrations against the establishment by ungraciously sticking all that emotional-baggage to you! Really what's happening is a symbol is being attacked, & you may even know this, but gradually it is a symbol you have become fond of so take this personally and get perhaps too emotionally involved with the dispute... it soon descends into an adolescent hormonal back and forth as her grip on reality weakens faced with the human beneath your uniform something she wasn't prepared for... So you think to yourself .. You know what, she's not following my simple requests she was rude from the moment i asked her what she was doing (creeping in the shadows behind a camera) & has shown an extreme lack of sympathy respect for the job I do day after day, so why not give her a taste of what my reality is like by taking her back to the station in hand-cuffs & tears because oh yea she wasn't prepared for a cold reaction to her cold hearted attitude. & ultimately though controversial you felt it has been for the best...

Case in point, she placed perhaps years of anti-authoritarian baggage on a young cops tired shoulders, but he was more human than she wanted to know so he took her down town

Cold... but in my considered opinion .. a kind of karmic justice.

Enough of all this crap about injustice & police brutality.. this is almost a petty as a domestic dispute, no one was injured no one was traumatised or shocked.. this is Nothing, childish to talk about in fact, even more childish to be casting all kinds of wild aspersions about the moral fibre of the police officer who we know nothing about beyond the video evidence. Morally I'm a realist who recognises daily those individuals who can't face their own reality, which in many fascinating ways is often fed back to them in loops, feedback loops of projected frustrations failed to have been processed or understood.. & to those who so self-righteously declared they would INTENTLY provoke similar conflict with the long weary arm of the law, i suggest you find a big bucket, fill it with water plunge your head into it 5 times and humbly reconsider your reaction to these mere symbols... better to change an establishment graciously than to oppose it directly ... it just escalated conflicts beyond reparation... have your ideal firmly in you mind when you engage in moral disputes otherwise you'll get humiliated and worse might ended up crying in a police cell because of your immaturity.. So what do i mean by Graciously? BE CIVILISED about it.. recognise a senseless argument will achieve nothing & its sole purpose is merely for you to vent frustration, whereas actual progressive conversation occurs when you imply in your tone a level of decency and respect for the human you are talking to about the idea, & not the idea you are talking about because of an [ignorant] human!!
Big difference, wise up folks!

ha but what if your wrong all the way, what if that was only the beginning of there shift and that's no rookie and that he is really familiar with the neighborhood but because its in a black neighborhood and thinks that he can do what pleases him.

Reply to post by Xcathdra

Funny how you accuse others of going in circles when you can't even show what law she broke (lawful order - no supporting law…obstruction - does not fit the legal definition).




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What you are failing to understand, or flat out ignoring, is it doesnt matter what those people think or saw.

Because the word of the officers will be taken as absolute truth. Except in this case, the video shows what actually happened.

So glad they still have the videotape. I can't imagine how much worse the horrors of the modern age would be, and how much more power would be abused, if we didn't have things like camcorders and the internet on our side. No wonder the police hate them.

I wonder if the fabricated claims of the officer of wrongdoings prior to the video will hold up in court. I guess that's all they really have to do in any case like this -- invent something fictional that happened prior to taping, to muddy the water and subvert the hard evidence on the tape.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The officer told her to back off, she refused to comply, multiple times. She forced the officer to divert his attention to deal with her.

No one forced the officer to initiate the confrontation or attempt to stop a legal practice. You don't have a leg to stand on, just give it up.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Screw the fact she argued with the officer for over a miunute.

Or did the officer argue with her for over a minute? He initiated the confrontation, he made something out of nothing. He didn't want to be taped and did his best to try to create a situation where he could bend the law in order to legally arrest someone who wasn't previously breaking the law. Everyone here can see that except you.

There is no question about the abuse of power of the police officer in this video. He abused his authority, he created the conflict and then arrested her for the conflict, and the reason he did that is that he didn't want to be videoed. There is no rational rebuttal to that. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the spirit of the law and American freedom will win, or if this woman will be unjustly imprisoned.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If you were involved in a court case, and you heard testimony from 2 people.
The first person is the next door neighbor who has absolutely no training or expeirence in working on brakes for a car, and the second person is a state certified mechanic who does nothing but work on brakes for a car, who do you think is going to be able to provide the expert testimony?

Car mechanics aren't above the law. Police officers are. Or at least you hope so.

You better hope I am never on your jury, because it's actions like those in this video, like those in other videos of police abuse of power, and actions by you yourself in this thread, defending an officer abusing his power, that would guarantee that you or any other police officer would have an uphill battle making me believe you weren't the ones in the wrong.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

She interfered with the officer by refusing to comply with his lawful command.

No. HE interfered with HER, by interacting with her in the first place. Before he interacted with her, how was she impeeding him or the job he was trying to do? She wasn't, pure and simple. He can claim he felt unsafe, but we all know that's pure unadulterated BS.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Funny how you accuse others of going in circles when you can't even show what law she broke (lawful order - no supporting law…obstruction - does not fit the legal definition).

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

and again, ignoring the elements that have already been provided a few times does not mean you are right. She broke the law.

Fact - She was to close to the scene which caused the officer to notice her
Fact - She was asked several times to move elsewhere
Fact - She refused to move and continued to argue her "right" to record
Fact - She was ordered to move away
Fact - She refused that command

FACT - She broke the law by failing to obey a lawful command.

All elements of that crime were met, and she was charged with it. If you dont agree with that, then take your lack of knowledge and substandard police career and go argue with the PA for the case, since they obviously agree with me and not with you.

Or are you going to argue now that the PA is acting in an illegal manner by going forward with the charge?

Another big conspiracy by the "man" to opress the people?

Reply to post by Xcathdra

Texas. I resigned (not forcibly), was NOT fired. Not a sovereign, though the idea is interesting, though legally questionable on many important points.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com