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

Originally posted by Observer99
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.

Wow.. I dont know how I am going to sleep tonight. Why is it so difficult for you to actually do research and understand how the law works? I know its easier to just stand on the outside and throw rocks, but it doesnt make you right.

The law is clear in this case.
The elements of the crime are documented by the lady hersefl while recording.
If you are so adament about civilk rights and rule of law, why do you ignore it when people break the law, and then go after the police who enforced the laws you demand be enforced?

Originally posted by Observer99
You're the one ignoring facts. You're the one without credibility. You're just another police officer defending corruption.

Ive stated the facts
Ive supplied my background and directed people what to look at for the complete picture. Again, your a person when faced with the facts and the knowledge you are wrong, resort to personal attacks.

If you are so right, then show me the new york law that the officer violated.
Is you ar so right, show me which section of 42 USc 1983 the officer violated.
If you are so right, then show me where in New York statutes the officer is not allowed to enforce a law on private property.
If you are so right, show me that she did not violate any of the elements of the law she is accused of violating.

Please, put your moeny where your mouth is and prove me wrong. Maybe leave out the personal attacks while your at it. We are all adults here.

Originally posted by Observer99
If I don't step out of the thread in one minute, officer, are you going to arrest me?

No, I have better things to do than babysit a person who wants to scream at the sky because its raining.

It's all about the greed for authority by a pathetic little person who can get no respect unless he uses intimidation. With the widespread use of cameras in phones, etc., cops will have a hard time covering their posterior in the future. These scumbag cops who have no respect for citizens rights are usually given the OK by judges who are a part of "the system", so I doubt the citizen has a chance for redress.

Cops today are being used as "revenue generators" by local cash strapped governments against it's own citizens. Best advise for the public is avoid cops as much as possible. Calling a cop may very well result in your own arrest.

Originally posted by Observer99
No, I have better things to do than babysit a person who wants to scream at the sky because its raining.

Im curious, is it better to scream at the sky because its raining or scream at a woman because shes filming. How dare that sky rain on you officer. We shall have it arrested at once my lord.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You know you are right. You do as you are bin trained.
I look thru Dutch glasses at this situation, and theres the conflict.

I am sorry for being so fired up. This just would not happen in the Netherlands.
You are really enforcing law with an aggressive approach, maybe you should try the Dutch approach

I stop debating, cause indeed my mind is made up.

Originally posted by TheBrontide
She deserved what she bought.

"It's my rights",... just buys you trouble.

And if thats what you want,....

It might buy you trouble, but it's people like you that is the reason why we don't have many more freedoms. To know your rights and to not stand up for them (unless you like being infringed upon) is simply cowardice. These cops today are not taught under the banner of a free nation they are taught nothing but terrorism crap, which doesn't really even exist.....they are taught fear. They are thaught that they are above the law and that citizens of the U.S. are nothing but homeland terrorists and that all of us are sleeper cells just waiting to happen. I disagree with you 100%. I hope there's at least ONE person out there to cover the back of every coward that says "just let them kick us around and arrest us for just standing on our own property with a camera". As far as her saying,
"this is my property, it's my rights", that's called freedom of speech....something many have forgotten about in law and clearly, because of your statement, many citizens have been trained to forget as well. So, YOU can cower from them all you want, the rest of us REAL Americans will pick up your slack and carryt the flag of freedom right on up that hill. I don't care about the arrogance of abusive power. We all have forgotten history, but I do know enough about history to know that evey tyrannical empire falls because of it's abuse towards the people and many of the abusers pay hard. Every tyrannical police state believes IT will be the one to hold total power and last......this tyranny we see here is no different. It will fall just like all of the others. You can thank everyone that stood up to these guys who trample on our freedoms like they are rugs under foot.

Originally posted by e11888
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.

We agree on all of the above. She did all of the above and was present on all of the above. However, being on private property does not make a person immune from criminal prosecution if they violate the law while on that property.

Originally posted by e11888
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.

Well, you would be arrested for tresspassing, possibly false arrest or kidnapping, depending on how the state law is written.

What you fail to understand is in your scenario, you entered onto the property. The officer in this case walked onto her property in order to effect an arrest, which he is allowed to do under law. Again being on private property does not make one immune from criminal prosecution.

The officer did not tresspass since he was performing his duties, which at that point in time was to stop and arrest the female.

Originally posted by e11888
Would I not? Explain to me how you have the right to do that which is illegal yet I do not.

Simple - Under law a police officer is empowered to enforce the laws of the state, where as a civilian can not to the extent of law enforcement. I am empowered to investigate criminal acts by virtue of being part of the executive branch of government, which enforces the laws, which a civilin is not. I am granted the ability to temporarily "seize" and individual while doing a preliminary investigation where as a civilian is not. I am granted the ability to arrest and individual and submit a report and recommended charges to the PA, where as a civilian is not.

The actions we take, in this case as well, are not illegal.

How do you come to the conclusion that our actions are illegal? Please cite your source and supporting court cases to show that.

Originally posted by e11888
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.

He did not tresspass on private property. Under law an officer can enter private property while persuing an individual who is going to be arrested. In this case, he entered her property to effect that arrest.

He did not assault the lady, he arrested her. Under Supreme Court rulings officers can use force, which must be reasonable and measured to the threat present, to effect an arrest. In this case, she was arrested, not assaulted.

Under law, effecting an arrest is compliance with local state and federal law, as well as 4th amendment considerations, allows an officer to deprive and individual of their rights temporarily until they can appear before a competent authority (A judge). An officer acting under color of law, while in performance of their duties, and in complaince with all laws and departmental policy, does not meet the criteria for kidnapping, nor false imprisonment, or false arrest, or excessive use of force, police brutality etc.

I have stated from the begining we are not above the law. That argument keeps comeing from people, mush like yourself, who dont understand how the law works. Your hatred for the police is so complete, that you are unable to see any other side to an issue other than the one involvin police actions.

If the only argument you have is the same broken record of cops are above the law, then why take part in this thread? The onlything you can get out of it is the ability to judge based on ignorance. You have demonstrated no desire to be open minded or learn the law and how it works.

Your mind is made up and its clear. So why continue?

reply to post by Observer99

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.

At 12 feet I can close the distance, and crack you in the head with the camera repeatedly before you can unholster any weapon for defense. At twelve feet it will probably happen before you register the action coming from your blind spot and turn.

Anything less than 21 feet is considerred the red zone. At that distance a person can attack before you can draw any form of weapon for defense. If you've ever worked around psych cases or gang members you know they hide things in wierd places. I've even seen a ring that had two small razors that were released with the press of a button. Luckily the guy didn't get a chance to use it. I've run in to people that hide razors in their gum line. Ive seen crucifix necklaces that hid double edged razors, knifes, and even a .22lr derringer.

At 12 feet a cop is in great risk. Even if the woman wasn't a threat getting distracted during an arrest can be fatal.

reply to post by Kitilani


AAhh...direct to me where i said that "ALL" are corrupt...because from what i am seeing you can't read and comprehend!

Originally posted by e11888

Originally posted by Observer99
No, I have better things to do than babysit a person who wants to scream at the sky because its raining.

Im curious, is it better to scream at the sky because its raining or scream at a woman because shes filming. How dare that sky rain on you officer. We shall have it arrested at once my lord.

Care to show me where she was screamed at for recording? What I see on the ladies tape is the officer articulating why he wanted her to move away. What I saw on the tape is a minute plus of back and forth by the lady, while she ignored serveral lawful commands to move away.

To answer your question, its easier and more productive to take the time to understand why its raining, rather than not understanding the why, and just screaming at the sky just because.

And you can drop the Lord BS. If you dont agree with my comments and explanations, thats perfectly fine. We are adults here, please act like one.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If you are so adament about civilk rights and rule of law, why do you ignore it when people break the law, and then go after the police who enforced the laws you demand be enforced?

The clear intent of the police officer was to accomplish either of the 2 following things: to stop the videotaping, or to create and escalate a situation which would lead to an arrest on bogus charges, to punish the woman for videotaping. You seem to keep avoiding this obvious fact. Everyone else here knows it from watching the video. Maybe that's why you keep rambling on about legalese, that's easier than constantly lying about what you know to be the officer's true intentions.

I'm actually not adamant about the letter of the law, I'm adamant about the principle of freedom and constitutional rights. The police officer was in the wrong because he purposely created a situation whereby he could claim to be within the law, to accomplish the goal of arresting someone who certainly was NOT breaking the law prior to his interference. Again, it's painfully sad that you support this behavior.

What if he applied this behavior consistently? What if the officer went around to every single citizen he encountered, confronting them with police orders (either legitimate or bogus -- in this case they were bogus orders) and upon encountering any citizen who did not immediately comply with his orders, they would be arrested. That, too, would be fine with you, since he would be acting "within the confines of the letter of the law." But in reality, he is simply abusing the law and abusing his power, just as he did in this video.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If you are so right, then show me the new york law that the officer violated.
Is you ar so right, show me which section of 42 USc 1983 the officer violated.
If you are so right, then show me where in New York statutes the officer is not allowed to enforce a law on private property.
If you are so right, show me that she did not violate any of the elements of the law she is accused of violating.

I've already explained it. He created the situation which escalated and became his excuse to make an arrest. He's in the wrong, you're in the wrong for supporting it. Any true American can see that. As to the technicality of the law, and what this officer will be able to actually get away with -- we'll see, won't we?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Anything less than 21 feet is considerred the red zone. At that distance a person can attack before you can draw any form of weapon for defense. If you've ever worked around psych cases or gang members you know they hide things in wierd places. I've even seen a ring that had two small razors that were released with the press of a button. Luckily the guy didn't get a chance to use it. I've run in to people that hide razors in their gum line. Ive seen crucifix necklaces that hid double edged razors, knifes, and even a .22lr derringer.

At 12 feet a cop is in great risk. Even if the woman wasn't a threat getting distracted during an arrest can be fatal.

So it takes 3 police officers to subdue one already-handcuffed black male, and there are none left over to look out for the "potential danger!!" from a woman holding a camera? K. How many police officers does it take to arrest one guy who is already handcuffed, anyway? Maybe they should have called for backup?

"She was a potential threat!" This is the same mentality that allows the TSA to run roughshod over our rights. We're all potential threats! Every citizen is a potential threat. It's true! I just can't argue with that fact, because it is very true and is the reason behind all of this insanity.

In closing -- I understand that distractions could be dangerous in an arrest. I do. I can appreciate that point when applied in a vacuum. However, what is also dangerous is allowing unchecked police powers, and police who want to stop people from being informed or witnessing their actions. Since this is not a vacuum, but in fact a real case that we can witness on the video, we have to weigh which is more dangerous in this situation. 3 officers vs. already-handcuffed guy - very little danger by some woman with a camera filming ~12 feet away.

As posted -- I wonder what would have happened to this black guy if the people hadn't been filming it. Luckily for him, we'll never know.

reply to post by MikeNice81


The 21 foot rule is as much about covering one's ass as it is a safety issue.

Basically you can brutalize a person if they are within 21 feet, then afterwards you cite the '21 foot rule' as part of your reasoning for why you did the thing you did to them and all is well.

As you did one should include frightening hypotheticals that make the situation appear as dangerous as possible. Your post included such a great example of this that I shall repost it so people can see what I mean:

"At 12 feet I can close the distance, and crack you in the head with the camera repeatedly before you can unholster any weapon for defense. At twelve feet it will probably happen before you register the action coming from your blind spot and turn.

Anything less than 21 feet is considerred the red zone. At that distance a person can attack before you can draw any form of weapon for defense. If you've ever worked around psych cases or gang members you know they hide things in wierd places. I've even seen a ring that had two small razors that were released with the press of a button. Luckily the guy didn't get a chance to use it. I've run in to people that hide razors in their gum line. Ive seen crucifix necklaces that hid double edged razors, knifes, and even a .22lr derringer. "

*This is pretty much a great example of how to use the '21 foot rule' to justify infringing on a person's rights.

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You know you are right. You do as you are bin trained.
I look thru Dutch glasses at this situation, and theres the conflict.

I am sorry for being so fired up. This just would not happen in the Netherlands.
You are really enforcing law with an aggressive approach, maybe you should try the Dutch approach

I stop debating, cause indeed my mind is made up.

I dont enforce the law aggressively, and the fact you even made the comment shows me you arent understanding my argument. Personally, I approach my job with the theme of firm but fair. I acknowledge that talking to a person who violated the law at times is way more effective that writing a ciation or arresting them and taking them to jail.

I remind myself everytime I deal with someone that none of us are perfect. I remind myself that the person I am dealing with could be having one of the worst days of their lives, and any outbusrt towards me may not be intentional or in reality even directed at me.

I have shown, and people refuse to read, the law enforcement side of this equation. I take every opprotunity I get to see the flip side of the story since it allows me to do my job better by being able to see the situation through a different set of eyes.

The term is not being able to see the trees while standing in the middle of the forest. That is a 2 way road however. People demand cops see there point of view, while they refuse to see things from our point of view. They acknowledge laws to be used against police, while ignore laws that the police enforce on a person who violated the law.

I ahve made several arguments now in other threads that one of the biggest issues Law Enforcement and the Citizens we serve have with each other is a lack of communication. If we come across an individual who distrusts the police, what do you think your demeanor is going to be during that encounter?

People say they dont trust the cops, and then make the blanket accusations as to why. They blame the officers, while ignoring the fact that it is also a 2 way street.

In this arena, knowledge is power, to both sides. Why do you think I constantly tell people to read the laws and understand how government works?

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours

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.

Fact: All she was doing was talking
Fact: She was on her own property and he needed a warrant to arrest her there without probable cause

CONSTITUTION: ("The right of the people to be secure [safe] in their persons, houses, papers, and effects [personal belongings] , against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause [“probable cause” means a valid reason in presuming someone is guilty of some illegal act], supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")

Fact: The woman can say what she wants as long as it's not a direct threat to the officer...."Freedom of Speech"
Fact: He was not supposed to arrest her. He was supposed to 'guard' her and observe her if he thought she might be a threat, while the other cops took care of business...or call for backup if there weren't enough men.

Fact: The extra film footage is our rights as people to document the police or anyone else whom WE perceive as a threat, to be able to use in court to protect us. Cops, as you can clearly see are getting power hungry today and many of them beat people for no reason at all, other than they are having a bad day. These events MUST be documented for us to reclaim our justice system.

Fact: Maybe YOU need to educate YOURSELF about our constitutional rights which was her long before you or any of these NWO power hungry cops of today.....who don't even know OF it, let alone know the words IN it.
She was merely trying to enlighten an ignorant abuser of the law and our constitution.

Fact: She was a little woman, and after he confronted her, she claimed she had no weapons....at the very least he could have had a female officer to search her and then let her continue to use her freedoms to say whatever. He could then choose to overlook what she said unless verbally provoked.
These police are supposed to be professionals, not take things personal like the average street person.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Fact - The lady is required to comply with the lawful command, because the command was in fact lawful.

Quoted for prosperity Best defense of a cop abusing their power ever.

I'm shocked by some of the comments here yes she may have done it for a reaction but who cares if it is your right of freedom in your country you are not doing anything wrong and to be basically saying whatever you can against her shows why you lot are slowly losing your freedoms. Stand up you cowards FFS because sure enough you'll be the lot that first complain asking how they can get away with this.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by anon72

 

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

I was trying to post a similar scenario before my connection got lost. You said it way better than I did and that's the truth. I doubt it will get through their thick skulls though and I amazed, at how many people are for this lady, when she could gotten one of those officers killed. Not all cops are out to get you. I don't speak for those Florida cops. Now, that was just overkill.

Be Safe...

Originally posted by Observer99
The clear intent of the police officer was to accomplish either of the 2 following things: to stop the videotaping, or to create and escalate a situation which would lead to an arrest on bogus charges, to punish the woman for videotaping. You seem to keep avoiding this obvious fact. Everyone else here knows it from watching the video. Maybe that's why you keep rambling on about legalese, that's easier than constantly lying about what you know to be the officer's true intentions.

Again a lap of logic based on fats that are not present. Why must all officer actions be based on subterfuge and conspiracy? His goal was to get the lady to move away from their location, which is a reasonable request based on thier traffic stop.

As far as "rambeling on with legalese" comment, thats nothing but a copout on your part. The Legalese you refer to is the foundation of what is occuring in the OP article. Without legalese we cannot conduct a traffic stop, enforce the laws, protect people etc. Without legalese civilians cannot hold the government accountible, cannot file complaints against the police, sue the police, seek compensation for acts against yourself etc etc etc.

Its a 2 way street. Just because you dont understand the law, or agree with its application, does not excuse the fact its present.

Speaking of lieing though, please explain to us how you know for a fact what the "officers true intentions" are? Further more explain to use what the true intentions of the lady recording are?

Originally posted by Observer99
I'm actually not adamant about the letter of the law, I'm adamant about the principle of freedom and constitutional rights. The police officer was in the wrong because he purposely created a situation whereby he could claim to be within the law, to accomplish the goal of arresting someone who certainly was NOT breaking the law prior to his interference. Again, it's painfully sad that you support this behavior.

Letter of the law and spirit of the law. A person rushing to the hospital in their private vehicle, driving 80mph in a 40 mile per hour zone, is in fact breaking the law. The Law hoever is not a suicide pact, which means the persons actions, while a technical violation, are offset because of the intent.

Its like the story of a doctor who broke into a pharmacy to get medicine for an emergency.

A window is broken, a life was saved.

The end result outweighs the criminal action because of the intent.

Originally posted by Observer99
What if he applied this behavior consistently? What if the officer went around to every single citizen he encountered, confronting them with police orders (either legitimate or bogus -- in this case they were bogus orders) and upon encountering any citizen who did not immediately comply with his orders, they would be arrested. That, too, would be fine with you, since he would be acting "within the confines of the letter of the law." But in reality, he is simply abusing the law and abusing his power, just as he did in this video.

What if the lady behaved like the majority of people who would ahve moved away when asked to do so the first time?

Saying the actions of the officer is bogus is based on what? your extensive background in criminal law?
Saying he abused his authority is based on what? your extensive background as a police officer?

Originally posted by Observer99
I've already explained it. He created the situation which escalated and became his excuse to make an arrest. He's in the wrong, you're in the wrong for supporting it. Any true American can see that. As to the technicality of the law, and what this officer will be able to actually get away with -- we'll see, won't we?

No really you have not. What you HAVE done is offer your opinion based on what you think and your limited understanding and knowledge of the topic.

I dont want your opinion. I want you to support your claims using the laws you say are being violated.
Hes not in the wrong, and neither am I for supporting it.

Hypocritical on your part though, demanding laws be enforced, apparently to no one except law enforcement.

Originally posted by Observer99
So it takes 3 police officers to subdue one already-handcuffed black male, and there are none left over to look out for the "potential danger!!" from a woman holding a camera? K. How many police officers does it take to arrest one guy who is already handcuffed, anyway? Maybe they should have called for backup?

Complaceny kills. Again you are showing your lack of knowledge about how law enforcement works. Its one thing to sit behind a computer monitor and criticise officer actions and make comments that it takes 3 people to subdue one black male.

Its quite another to actually be present and doing that.

Question -
Whats the neighborhood like?
Does the officer have prior knowledge / experience dealing with the black male?
Does the black male have a criminal record with caution indicators attached?
Has there been any major incidents in that area of the city where officers have been placed in danger simply because they are police and are present there?
Does the police department have good working relations with that community?
What was found in the car?
Guns?
Knives?
Drugs?
Bombs?

I fail to see how you can critique the officers when you dont have the required knowledge to even understand what we do and how we do it. You dont even bother to ask for the information to maybe understand it.

All you have done is proposed your opinions based on nothing but your opinion.

Originally posted by Observer99
"She was a potential threat!" This is the same mentality that allows the TSA to run roughshod over our rights. We're all potential threats! Every citizen is a potential threat. It's true! I just can't argue with that fact, because it is very true and is the reason behind all of this insanity.

edit on 23-6-2011 by Observer99 because: added new quote

Ugh... Learn would you please.

For starters airports are considered private property operating under federal guidlines.
The bulk of TSA officers are not federally commissioned, or even locally comissioned law enforcement, making them private security. Because they are classified as security and not acting under color of law, they are not subject to the same restrictions comissioned law enforcement is.

If you dont want to go through a TSA checkpoint, then you have the option of not flying.

As I said, complaceny kills. For some reason you guys are under the impression that minors, or even geriatrics, are not a threat. Care to show me sources that support your claim about threats and age groups?

reply to post by Exuberant1


You really should learn before posting. Seriously man, the comments you make are not based on any laws, and there is no documentation to support your claim.

brutalize... what a joke.

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by anon72

 

Thats the thing though she doesn't have to obey his orders she didn't do anything wrong

The Police Officer is in the wrong she was standing on her own property and the police officer Molested her he should be charged and thrown in Jail

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

Yes she is, she's interfering with a stop and she was extremely argumentative and she was well forewarned to go back into the house. I'm not going to take the word that she has no gun. For all I know she could be packing. The officer wasn't enraged and was showing no brute force. That dark of night you can't really see anything. She made a big deal out of nothing and went to jail for it. The officer didn't feel safe and was protecting his other officers. I would of done the same thing.

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

The only prob is their is no law that says you cant be in your own yard cops cannot tell you to go inside its not their right you can sit outside all day and night if you like you can record stuff with your vid cam if you like if she was precived as a threat they should had concluded their buisness and left. The police in these videos have to relize that this is the best thing that could have happened for them if the people they had pulled over had large amounts of drugs and guns on them the video would have been very usefull esp if they resisted. So in short the police should think of the cam as a extra safety. Witch I would like to have if I was on patrol. No matter the reason she was recording if they would have ignored her and not reacted to the camera etc.. The video would have never hit the net its that simple. I understand they might find it anoying but ignoring it does more for them then they relize( ie. it would make the thought of a conspiracy to be laughable and if they need could provide an un bias witness). However he did violate her rights and should be punnished so should the other officers that where with him and did not stop him. Not all cops are bad or confused like these in the video but if it was a video of a good cop how many people would watch it really.
Note: people with cameras filming police a little respect goes a long way I understand their is always a officer trying to get you to shut off the camera but if you will not comply then do it with respect and if you catch something that might be helpfull to the officer offer that tape or sd card to them after you change cards ( I mean the cards are only 20$ for a huge one now a days) that way they dont catch you with it off if thats what you fear ty.

reply to post by Observer99

So it takes 3 police officers to subdue one already-handcuffed black male, and there are none left over to look out for the "potential danger!!" from a woman holding a camera?

I can promise you those guys were there for back up well before hand. If you've never had to wrestle with a handcuffed psych case, or a runner, save the judgement.

Besides that, the report says their were three men in the car. None of the lady's neighbors dispute that. She doesn't dispute that. The only person saying she isn't aware of other people in the car is the defendant's attorney. If she hasn't read the original report on the purpose of the original stop she might never come across that information.

For all we know there were two more people in the car. The car is blocked for part of the video by an officer. For another long portion of the video is obscured by the cops flashlight. The rest of it was really too dark to see anything. Those other two might have been securing the car and more worried about potential gang members in the car.

In that case, no they didn't have time to keep an eye on the lady with the camera.

"She was a potential threat!" This is the same mentality that allows the TSA to run roughshod over our rights.

That is why it sucks that we can't hear the conversation her and her friends were having before hand. If she didn't say anything threatening, or that might escelate the situation, I would call the cop out. I have done it before here on ATS. I have done it on my own job.

However, according to the taped portion of the event it sounds like she made some comment that made the officer uncomfortable. Was it threatenin or just agitating, who knows. Did she say anything? Well at this point it is a matter of he said she said. If she said anything that was threatening or potentially agitated the situation he had every legal right to ask her to back up to a safe distance.