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

reply to post by unityemissions


Why isn't it? They arrested her for standing on her property filming the street that just so happen to have a cop in view... I never heard of against the law to film police, I've heard of a law where your not suppose to film the outside of government buildings thats it.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Why isn't it? They arrested her for standing on her property filming the street that just so happen to have a cop in view... I never heard of against the law to film police, I've heard of a law where your not suppose to film the outside of government buildings thats it.

Because the cop decided that she might commit a future crime.

Originally posted by rcanem
1. She was asked to step back, even to go into her house. When she stepped back onto her property that should have ended it. He has no right to tell someone that they can't be in thier own yard, that is ridiculous

He does have a right to tell a person to leave the area while he is in performance of his/her duties. Call it ridiculous all you want it doesnt change the fact that in that particular instance, the officer can make the request or order.

Originally posted by rcanem
2 The cop said he was feeling threatened by her standing there, from the video she looked about 120 pounds, and all she had was a video camera. If he was threatened by that he doesn't need to be a cop.

Ignorance for the win. You guys have no clue how this profession works, let alone human behavior.

Was the lady drunk?
Was she on drugs?
Was she mentally disturbed?
Was she one of the gang members?

I can keep going with the questions that you guys completely ignore if you want me to.

Originally posted by rcanem
3. Why did they release the original guy to take her? He was handcuffed which means they had detained him for some reason, why let him go to take in this "dangerous" woman with a camera? Maybe what ever his crime was it wasn't as bad as hers, or maybe they can't do two things at once?

Maybe because the police were finally able to finish their traffic stop and determined the guy either didnt break any laws, or was given a warning and released, or was issued a citation and released etc etc etc.

It also possible that they got good info, but not enough to justify an arrest at that time. Maybe they officers got information from the guy that needs to be followed up with. Maybe the officers submitted a PC statement to the PA for their review and charges?

Also its generally prohibited to transport a male and female together, even more so when they are not involved in the same incident.

Again, you guys ignore facts and obvious lines of questions.

Originally posted by rcanem
4. She was arrested for not obeying a lawful order, I can't see where he gave a lawful order, so now he will have to prove that he was in the right and that will be hard to do with the video evidence that I saw.

The law was quoted a few pages back that listed the elements of the crime. Its irrelevant that you think no law was broken, since you arent the officer who made the arrest and nor are you versed in the law.

You guys think I enjoy being in these discussions in this type of manner? Absolutely not. However I will continue to respond to comments I see that are based on anything but fact and law.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Yeah, if your going to go off on me, at least go off on me for the right reasons, and not made up ones since you obviously did not read nor comprehend my post.

A person made the statement that why should cops be afraid when a camera / cell camera comes out. I provided the video to demostrate one of the reasons why.

But hey, by all means keep twisting my comments and placing them out of context so you can make your argument.

Exactly how many years have you been in law enforcement? I mean since you seak with such authority on the topic, I assume your a police officer.

reply to post by Xcathdra


If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

She had an obligation to not abide by an unjust order for her retreat. She could have recorded and posed an equal threat from 5 feet away in her doorway. It wasn't about that, it was about his previous encounter with her at an anti-government protest. He had it out for her, and his command was both useless, unjust, and unlawful.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Yeah but he was in the wrong completely. You can't always get what you want. If he was a citizen telling her to move away because hew as uncomfortable would he have the right then? A firefighter saying the same thing? No he isn't God he's a cop and he had no right to tell her what to do. He isn't the law he is just supposed to uphold it and she wasn't breaking the law.

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

Constantly stating he was in the wrong over and over while ignoring the laws and her actions that met the elements of the laws does not make the officer wrong.

And once more, civilians are not acting under the color of law. As a matter of fact, yes a citizen can tell any person they dont feel comfortable being in their presence. Why would they not be able to?

A Fire fighter can also issue commands to people close to fire scenes, and failing to obey can again result in an obstruction or failing to obey a lawful command charge against them.

Well, again, she did break the law. As I said before, ginoring the law because you dont like it doesnt make it go away so you can be right.

And reasons like this is why im leaving USA.

Lmao I love it how the brave public defender of evil arrests the girl for taping them, and then someone else picks up the same camera and continues taping

She did have an attitude though, she obviously is not good with handling cops.

I would of

A. Sat down on the grass and asked if I am still posing a threat to your security.
or/and
B. Moved back 5 feet and avoided being arrested....

reply to post by Xcathdra


Cell phone gun? Are you serious? This is getting ridiculous. If she really had any intentions on harming the officer or if he was truly concerned for his safety why would he allow her to go back into her home where she could possible pick up a real gun or rifle and shoot him from the safety of her home? The cops arguments and lies are pathetic. Bottom line, she wasn't breaking any laws. I have had cops lie and harass me in the past, that is why I do not trust them.

reply to post by Exuberant1

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

Incorrect. A person with a knife or blunt weapon can close 21 feet in about 2 seconds. It takes the average person about 2.6 seconds to draw a gun or taser for defense. It takes about 2.8 seconds to draw mace get it pointed and engaged. I love when people that have no idea what they are talking about start opining.

Think about it like this. If you run a 10 second fifty yard dash you are considerred slow. Even that "slow" person could cover 30 feet in 2 seconds. Covering 21 feet is a sub 2 second chore even for a slower person. So, there is plenty of reason for a cop to be nervous about a person walking to within 12 feet while they are conducting a search and/or arrest.

The 21 foot rule is not about getting to brutalize people. Officers aproach people at much closer range dozens of times a day. You have to in order to have a conversation with a person. However, if somebody is acting agitated, confused, angry, or is verbally unresponsive despite being physically fine, it is time to put distance between you and them. If somebody aproaches you while your are taking care of other duties you try to maintain that distance because you can not control both situations and there is an increased possibility of danger.

(Here is something for any gun owner to try. Stand back to back with a friend. Have a third person observing to give the "draw" order. Pull your gun, aim down range, and fire two shots in to the critical stop zone of a target. While your doing that have the friend behind you run as fast as they can. The third person will measure the distance the runner covered while you were drawing, getting the sight picture, and firing. It can be startling.)

As you did one should include frightening hypotheticals that make the situation appear as dangerous as possible

I don't know how dangerous the situation was. I know this much, I don't know most of the people I aproach or that aproach me. I have no idea what there background is, I have no idea if they have a weapon, I have no idea about the person, their motive, or their intent. So, I treat everyone politely but with caution. I've seen what even the most angelic loking people can do. I also know that if I get distracted bad things can happen. So, if you are aproaching closer than 21 I am automatically looking for any bad signs.

If I am in the middle of dealing with a "situation" and you get closer than 21 feet you become an obstruction and at best an indirect threat to my safety. Not a good combination of things. If I ask you to back up and you don't you become a direct threat to my safety because I have to keep an eye on you while dealing with a potentially dangerous person. Me going home instead of to the hospital is more important than your percieved need to film me at 10 or 12 feet.

You have no right to put my life in danger. I have no right to put your life in danger. Your rights and mine both end when we endanger the safety of others. That is what she did when she aproached to 12 feet to record. Then she wanted to act like she couldn't understand a simple request to back up. So, he ordered her to go inside. She was at the distance that she became a distraction and indirect threat. She refused to stop being a threat and obstruction so he ordered her to back up to a safe distance. She refused to move so she got cuffed.

error

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Fact - She was to close to the scene which caused the officer to notice her

By being on her own property? Why is this not making any sense to me.
Is there a law or ordinance somewhere that explains the limitations on my own movement around my property during a police stop in the street?

This, my friends, is un-believable.

How this was allowed to happen is beyond me. Really.

If ever there was a call for 'change' this is it!

Does anyone know if she was released, charged (charged with being on her property..)

Go back to 1776, put a British uniform on this cop and imagine that the woman with the camera was George Washington's wife. Do you think our founding Fathers would give the Redcoat a nod and pat on the back and say that Mrs. Washington got what she deserved?

Heck no! Americans have had their rights trampled on by the own government, their elected officials, and public servants for so long that many, I fear, no longer know what freedom & liberty really mean.

Whilst I may disagree with the actions of the officer in this case it is within the realm of possibility that the lady standing in her front yard may have been in potential danger for being too close to an arrest scene. I could see the officer asking her to go back in her house for her safety, but not for his.

Has anyone ever seen a LEO officer actually admit they were wrong? That's the perception that I and I believe many others have is that they never re-evaluate their actions in process. Sorry, but if feels like LEO's now have a "mission first" mentality that doesn't allow for personal reflection,

The arresting officers real failure was to communicate effectively with the woman in question.
Good old fashioned people skills seem to be riding at the back of the bus.

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Then please post that law with your comment.

Obstructing Government Administration

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he
intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law
or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a
public servant from performing an official function, by means of
intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any
independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not
physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other
telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county,
city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by
means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the
actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.
Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Why isn't it? They arrested her for standing on her property filming the street that just so happen to have a cop in view... I never heard of against the law to film police, I've heard of a law where your not suppose to film the outside of government buildings thats it.

Any particular reason you are lieing?

She was arrested because she didnt move away when she was told to do so. She then distracted the officer for a minute while she argued, all the while ignoring repeated request and then commands to go elsewhere.

But hey, way to see what you want and pawn it off as truth.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kitilani

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

Proximity? Where do you think this took place? They were in the street. She was in her yard. Who was in proximity of whom here? Did she move her house to a traffic stop or did the cops come into her yard?

Yes, proximity. Where she was located and where the officers were located, meaning the distance between her location and the officers location.

And once again, its irrelevant if a person is on private property. It does not make a person immune from criminal prosecution.

The safe distance, or proximity, is up to the officer, not the lady.

This is not a hard concept to understand. She didnt move her house ot the traffic stop, but her own actions did make her part of that traffic stop.

The officer gave the lady multiple opprotunities to move away and she didnt.

So what you are saying is they prosecuted ( cops cannot prosecute) her on her own property what no they trespassed ( I got a apoligee for the police tresspassing on my property as thats all I asked the lawyer to seek the judge thought I should have pressed for more) and arrested her for excersizeing her rights. that has nothing to do with criminal prosecution. ( that takes place in court) Also they tried to get her to go inside thats not their right if they would have asked her to back up in the first place she probably would have complied or should have out of respect but I hate to tell you as a cop you cannot come on or in my property and tell me what to do and arest me if I dont comply. Either way both sides should have and could have shown more respect for each other and their would not have been a problem. btw she is not required to move away when it is her property unless she is in a 3ft bubble of the officer. the only time this would be ok is if they chased someone and arested them in her front yard or if she was chased to the property after commiting a crime. She was clearly not a part of the traffic stop and if weapons where found in the car would not have been held responsable. Just give up you maybe one of the good cops but to be a good cop you have to understand that their are bad ones and not all deserve your blind devotion and defence( some do but not these ones).

Originally posted by Tephra
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

She had an obligation to not abide by an unjust order for her retreat. She could have recorded and posed an equal threat from 5 feet away in her doorway. It wasn't about that, it was about his previous encounter with her at an anti-government protest. He had it out for her, and his command was both useless, unjust, and unlawful.

Any particular reason your are ignoring the laws of the State of New York? I am assuming its because it doesnt support your argument or agenda but thats just a guess.

Originally posted by Jrocbaby
And reasons like this is why im leaving USA.

Lmao I love it how the brave public defender of evil arrests the girl for taping them, and then someone else picks up the same camera and continues taping

She did have an attitude though, she obviously is not good with handling cops.

I would of

A. Sat down on the grass and asked if I am still posing a threat to your security.
or/and
B. Moved back 5 feet and avoided being arrested....

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

and once more, point out where it says she was arrested for taping the police? Or have you guys decided to just add your own versions of the story so it makes your argument better?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Ok, first of all I did go through 2 years of training at a local college for law enforcement, until I got to ride with some of them and noticed they were bigger crooks than the ones they were arresting. Now I do know how it works, she was on her property and well back from the actual scene and was in no way obstructing anything. If an officer handcuffs you you are being detained, ie. arrested, otherwise they would not need to handcuff you. And about transporting the male and female together, well I saw more than one cruiser, so that argument is bust. The cops cannot guess at whether someone is on drugs, in a gang, or anything else guesswork is not a part of the procedure, and that is the key word here today, procedure. Cops have a defined set of rules that is suppose to dictate how they react to any given situation, that seems to be less and less the case these days.