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

reply to post by HelloJCneedsomehelp

If a police officer feels threatened by a little lady then he does not have the skills to be a police officer.

Though I applaud you standing up for the 'little lady' - If you really truly believe the above statement then you're living in a very sheltered community/life. And no, that isn't an insult, I'm just saying... I'm 5'3 and I can take down someone twice my size with my bare hands. I also am a proficient gunwoman and edged weapon competent. Beyond that? The last thing you want to get in line for is a good tongue-lashing from yours truly. You'll feel the pain for days. 'Little woman'? Wow. The stories I could tell you about little women.

This video is awesome. A GREAT ‘little woman’ with temerity and integrity and a huge sack who’s determined to defend her rights and I bow down to her. She was RIGHT, they were WRONG. I'm just sorry she turned on the tears, but, I turn on the tears in the middle of 'woop-arsing' someone, it's just my way of dealing with stress.

About the cops?
Their reaction was more to do with her refusing to comply than anything else.
Once you refuse to comply with a cop?
They're compelled to take it to the next level until-they-win.
Period.
So keep that in mind folks. Cops DO NOT back down. There's no more Andy of Mayberry or Officer Friendly out there anymore. So, if you're going to confront a cop, be ready to go all the way, and I mean ALL the way.

peace

Added Note: After the many videos in circulation of white cops vs. black citizens, I can understand why she was videotaping. I'd of had mine out also - I mean come on - One big guy getting arrested by 3 tighty Caucasian cops?
Oh yeah baby... I just don't think she was prepared for the 'rest of the story' but she still did a GREAT JOB!

We need to find her and get her on ATS!

reply to post by TribeOfManyColours


did you just say dont blame her for being there she chose to be there and play dumb. she said i dont understand what your saying and yet there speaking the same language. she just was pushing the wrong buttons if she would have backed off and kept recording and he advanced i would have a different view but she chose what she did so dont tell me otherwise.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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

How is "being noticed" by the police a criminal offence?

Originally posted by anon72
I found this to be the most up-to-date account of what is going on.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I don't think the Cop will fare well in court. One because the woman didn't do anything wrong and

two, it appears the Cop may have manipulated his report a little bit. not good on his part.

thanks for the link good find.

Reply to post by Xcathdra

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. (You should rewatch the video then. The officer that confronts her is facing her almost the entire time, save for the first few sends where she is on his right side)

Fact -The lady is required to comply with the lawful command, because the command was in fact lawful. (It was not lawful, no matter how you try and twist it. A lawful order is an order based on fact and law. You MIGHT have a case for fact. Definitely not for law.)
Fact -The officer does in fact have jurisdiction (private property. Neither the original crime (the traffic stop), nor any element of the crime happened on her property. No 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.

No you have not. Perhaps you should look into getting a law dictionary.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Observer99
Because the word of the officers will be taken as absolute truth. Except in this case, the video shows what actually happened.

Can you tell me what next weeks lottery numbers will be? You seem to be able to predict the future with this comment. Also, the video will not exonerate her. It will be used in court by the defense, which will allow the prosecution to use it to confirm the officers side of the story which is this -

She was asked, then ordered to move away and she refused to comply. She had ample warnings giving and continued to argue. She is guilty of failing to obey the lawful command given.

Originally posted by Observer99
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.

Ah yes, another fear mongering person who is afraid of their own shadow. Just because you and others dont have an adequatre grasp of how the law works, or even what your rights are, does not mean every single police officer / deputy etc is involved sine some grand conspiracy of "TPTB" to help bring in a new world order.

All it takes is some dedication to reading, you know, letters formed into words, grouped together, read from left to right top to bottom to complete a thought or explanation of something to help people understand and learn.

Ignoring the law just because you dont agree with or understand it doesnt make law enforcement actions illegal, brutual, gestspo like etc etc etc. Trying to even make that correlation is absurd and again shows your lack of intrewst in the truth.

Originally posted by Observer99
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.

I wonder if the collusion of her other protester, who picked up the camera to record her arrest, will show that they planned this out in order to amke the police look bad to forward their agenda against the corrupt forclosures and the police?

So now your saying the tape is going to be used against her.. Some grand conspiracy by the police and prosecuting attorney?
Its simple - She says she is innocent. Its up to the PA to prove her guilt, and you are right, the video will be used against her since it documents her actions and argument, and demonstrates first hand her refusal to comply with a lawful command.

Originally posted by Observer99
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.

I do have a leg to stand on and so does the officer. Again just because you dont know or understand the law does not mean the officer acted illegally, or the lady acted legally.

Originally posted by Observer99
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.

And if everyone here was working the case your opinions might mean something. Since you arent, coupled with your lack of knowledge of the law and its application in addition to knowing your rights and how they work, you fail to see what occured.

Its simple - He told her to move, she countered, he went from nice and requesting to oredering, and she failed to comply. In that instance, you dont have any rights to argue with the officer. If you dont care for that answer, guess what, I dont care. She interfered with his duties by diverting his attention.

And again, you ignore the point that the guy who picked the camera up was allowed to continue recording, and the people watching were not arrested and were allowed to continue watching.

Why? Because none of those people acted in a manner that drew the attention of the officers present. One person out of a huge group.

Yeah.. good luck.

Originally posted by Observer99
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.

What power did he abuse and what law did he break. Please, be specific and cite your source.

Originally posted by Observer99
Car mechanics aren't above the law. Police officers are. Or at least you hope so.

And cops arent above the law, and neither is the lady who broke the law by refusing to comply with a lawful verbal command.

Originally posted by Observer99
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.

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

So lets see, you hate the police so much that if you were ever sitting on a jury that involves me, your mind is already made up.

Dont look now, but you just lost all credibility and showed yourself to be biased against the police, regardless of what occured and the facts present.

You should step out of thei thread now, since you have absolutely no credibility left.

You hate cops, all cops, no matter what. Thank you for confirming that for us.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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?

If you are a cop, you should be fired. You are a great danger to the average American people. A disgrace.
Yes you protect, only the constitution. What about the people.

You and your made up facts.

Originally posted by silo13
I'm 5'3 and I can take down someone twice my size with my bare hands.

Can you do it from 12 feet away without a weapon? Cause otherwise I dunno why you want to make this statement here, except to bolster the unwarranted opinion that the officer was in the right to "feel threatened" by a woman with a camera 12 feet away.

Actually, I find the whole "I am a woman who will floor you" attitude kind of threatening and offensive. Lucky for you I'm not a police officer! Or you would be going straight to jail for that attitude!

Originally posted by silo13
About the cops? Their reaction was more to do with her refusing to comply than anything else. Once you refuse to comply with a cop? They are compelled to take it to the next level until-they-win. Period. So keep that in mind folks. Cops DO NOT back down. There's no more Andy of Mayberry or Officer Friendly out there anymore. So, if you're going to confront a cop, be ready to go all the way, and I mean ALL the way.

This is true. There are only 2 outcomes nowadays -- either you back down, bend over and let the police officer "win", or you end up in jail. Doesn't matter who did what, if anything. Case in point -- our friend Xcathdra thinks he was being lenient by letting someone go with just a quote "*ss chewing" for videoing from the street. Oh you noble police officer you.

I'd just say this -- it's great to be a hero, but save it for when it matters. I'd say it mattered in this case. If she hadn't come away with the video, though, she'd have gone to jail for nothing and no one else would have cared.

Originally posted by silo13
Added Note: After the many videos in circulation of white cops vs. black citizens, I can understand why she was videotaping. I'd of had mine out also - I mean come on - One big guy getting arrested by 3 tighty Caucasian cops? Oh yeah baby... I just don't think she was prepared for the 'rest of the story' but she still did a GREAT JOB!

The only thing I will say to her discredit is -- I think she was either more motivated by standing up for her own rights than the rights of the person being arrested, or just plain stupid. Because if she really just cared about getting the arrest on tape, she would have been smarter to be filming from inside the house, to ensure that the tape would survive. I'm surprised the criminal cops in this video didn't destroy the tape.

Originally posted by Acidtastic

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.

Try again...

She was ignored by police until she got close to them. The officer asked if he could help her, she said no, stated she was on her property and recording.

She continued her rebuttals after the officer wanted her to move.

She has no choice but to comply in that case. Contrary to what you personally think should happen based on your lack of understanding of the law, she broke the law.

How is the claim utter BS? Were you there? are you psychic or empathic were you know the officer is lieing?

Just like the other poster, its probably easier for you to just say I hate all cops and move on.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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

 

Then my appologies for the insinuation of the florida incendent and belonging to soverign citizens. I was wrong and I appologize.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I`d like to say that in reading your stance that the US lost a good police officer.

Also in reading all these posts I can understand why there is a lot of dislike and distrust toward the police in the US if thats what it takes to be one and remain one.

I cannot believe people are actually defending these cops.

For all the crap that happens in the US with their police force,it shouldn`t be any wonder why anyone should want to film them at every oppotuinty.Even if its just in the hope of bringing these guys down to earth from their lofty positions a tad.

reply to post by anon72


She said something to the officers before she started taping. What ever she said made them uncomfortable. She then came out on the side walk a short distance from where they were handling a stop. When asked to back up and go inside she got mouthy. When told again to back up she made no attempt and started acting like she couldn't understand the request. So, the cop ordered her to go inside where she could not interfere. She started talking about her clothing instead of moving.

If she would have just came out and started taping instead of running her mouth, and stayed at least 25' - 30' back there would have been no problem. She comes out says something to the officers trying to get a response then acts clueless when asked to back up. She was baiting the officers trying to get a response. She got one and started crying like a baby.

No sympathy for her at all. I've been video taped working with the police. We don't care as long as you maintain a safe distance and stay quiet. When you start saying things and asking questions while we're trying to handle a situation people get testy. Especially if you are saying anything that might escelate the situation. The distraction and the agitation can lead to potentially fatal consequences for the officer. If you want information ask after the situation is over.

If you are going to try instigating something or you want to say something "anti-cop" and then act like a clueless jerk when confronted, you will get a rough time. That is the same as if somebody did something to annoy you or put you in danger and then acted like an innocent.

Also, remember anyone closer than 21 feet is a potential threat to an officer. There is a very real reason for this. If you start creeping in closer than that while an officer is trying to work you will be seen as an obstruction and a threat. That officer wants to come home alive. He doesn't have time to deal with unknown people getting that close while he is carrying out a search or arrest. As far as he knows you could be about to attack. The other side is that while he is distracted by you the suspect has an opening to turn violent.

I have seen a simple case of a man begging for money turn in to a fight for the officer's life. The officer aproached an individual that was wandering in to traffic begging for money. Somebody came up with a camera saying, "see how they treat us for trying to survive." When the guy with the camera got to about fifteen feet the officer turned and told the guy to back up. The beggar lunged for the cop's gun. If it hadn't been for a second officer showing up in the nick of time either the first officer or the beggar would probably be dead.

Instead the beggar ended up with a broken arm and a fractured sternum. The second officer couldn't use mace or a taser because the two men were grappling. If any mistake was made in their deployement the first officer could have lost control of his gun. That would have left no option but to shoot an armed and clearly dangerous man. Instead the officer used a batton to strike the beggar's arm twice. The beggar released the first officer and the gun. He turned to come after the second officer. The second officer struck him in the sternum with the end of the baton. It knocked the wind out of the beggar long enough for them to take control and arrest him.

All of that because some guy got too close and distracted the officer.

Here is an example of how fast it can all go wrong even when the cop is doing everything politely and above board.



Would you want people distracting you when your job has that kind of danger?

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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

How is "being noticed" by the police a criminal offence?

Owning a gun is not a criminal offnese
Having that gun on your person while on your own property is not a criminal offense
Having that gun exposed, on your hip (open carry) is not a criminal offense.

When you draw that weapon and point it at the person across the street, the fact your on your property is irrelevant since your actions are whats reviewed. Just as with this lady. In the above hypothetical, you can be arrested and charged with a crime, all the while you were on your own private property. Contray to popular belief and comments by some in here, being on private property does not make a person immune to criminal charges for actions committed on that property.

What it does do is make a few laws non enforceable. For example if you live in a state where you are required to have a permit to carried concealed. That law generally does not apply to a person who is on their own property, or the private property of another with consent and knowledge you are armed.

Being noticed is not a criminal offense.
Not liking the police is not a criminal offense
Recording the police is not a criminal offense
Arguing with the police is not a criminal offense
Disagreeing with the police is not a criminal offense.

However, when you take her actions, in this case her proximity and location to the scene, he exchange with the officer, the fact that exchange lasted over a minute, the fact the officer gave her ample warning to move away, and the fact that in the end she failed to obey the command, she committed a criminal offense.

Totality of Circumstances - A good term for you and others to know.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
So lets see, you hate the police so much that if you were ever sitting on a jury that involves me, your mind is already made up.

You personally? Yep, since you've demonstrated in this thread repeatedly that you are a police officer who supports the destruction of personal freedoms and the defense of abuse of power by police. You're continuing to do it, even in the face of the statements of eyewitnesses and the woman's attorney, showing you, in fact, are the one who has their mind made up and is not listening to evidence.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Dont look now, but you just lost all credibility and showed yourself to be biased against the police, regardless of what occured and the facts present.

You're the one ignoring facts. You're the one without credibility. You're just another police officer defending corruption.

Originally posted by XcathdraYou should step out of thei thread now, since you have absolutely no credibility left.

If I don't step out of the thread in one minute, officer, are you going to arrest me?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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?

Fact - She was to close to the scene which caused the officer to notice her even though it was the front yard of HER property.
Fact - She was asked several times to move elsewhere even though it was her property.
Fact - She refused to move and continued to argue her "right" to record on her property.
Fact - She was ordered to move away on her own property.
Fact - She refused that command that was unlawful.

FACT - She broke the law by failing to obey an unlawful command.

If I were to trespass onto someone's property without their consent and demand that they go into their house because I felt threatend by them and they refused and I decided I was going to place them under a citizen's arrest while placing them in handcuffs, I would be thrown in prison. Would I not? Explain to me how you have the right to do that which is illegal yet I do not. Not only did this officer trespass onto this woman's property, but he assaulted her and then kidnapped her. You are not above the law that you uphold.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I have.. The problem I see is you are not understanding how the law works. I ahve shown the elements of the crime she violated, again, based on YOUR example a few pages back where you quoted the text of the law from New York.

Ignoring what im saying does not make your argument right.

She broke the law, she met the criteria, she was charged.

As with the other poster, feel free to take your complaint up with the PA who went forward with the charges, because apparently they say you are wrong as well.

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours
If you are a cop, you should be fired. You are a great danger to the average American people. A disgrace.
Yes you protect, only the constitution. What about the people.

You and your made up facts.

So because I am a cop, know what the law syays, how it works, understand and know how your individual civil rights work, and am disagreeing with people who are apparently unaware of any of the above, I am a danger.

Law Enforcement is not hear to protect the individual they are here to protect society.
Per the Supreme Court, law enforcement is not required to protect an individual.

Why are you willing to throw the rights of the detained suspect out the window in an effort to support the actions of a female that were in the wrong and a violation of state law?

How does her "rights" get to trump the "rights" of the individual detained at the stop?

As I said, your individual rights end when they interfere with anothers.

Feel free to dislike me based on who I am. Dont do it because you dont understand the law and therefore fail to understand my argument in this thread.

The first is valid, the second is just paranoid ignorance.

Reply to post by Xcathdra

No harm, no foul, no worries.

On a side, please excuse my grammatical and formatting errors. Debating on a phone is tough.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by gps777

I was trained by an old-schooler.

I will say that X stated the truth that I left because I woke up to and did not agree with the direction law enforcement is heading.

I thank you for your kind words.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

No really by his logic we cant just state I feel unsafe and haul a person to jail. The safety factor must be articulated, and in this case it was. The incident started prior to her recording, and she ignored several times to cease her actions, which attraced the attention of law enforcement...

...How can you make those legal arguments when you have no understanding of the law?

edit on 22-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

"Incident" you mean standing in her yard filming? Cease her actions? So when cop tells you to stop doing something that is completely legal then they "attract attention" of leo's? And that's the argument you present?
You claim to be a cop. How can you make that legal argument when you have no understanding of the law?