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

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Whoa whoa whoa.... Lawful command? I want proof from you that this was a lawful command. Innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove guilt not the other way around.

Uhm yeah.. again, learn the law and how your rights work.

A person is presumed innocent until found guilty ina court of law. Law Enforcement does not determine guilt or punishment. I wish you guys would learn that concept.

The officer articulated why he wanted the lady to move away. The officer gave the lady multiple opprotunities to comply, and she refused. After the minute of back and forth, she was arrested for failing to obey the lawful command to move away.

Being on private property in this case is irrelevant. It does not grant a person immunity from criminal prosecution.

There is a post a few pages back that has the law cited in it and the elements required to be in violation of that law.

You know what? You can't possibly be a real police officer. You are being downright ridiculous. First of all, police officers may not determine guilt, but they must have a reasonable suspicion of guilt in order to arrest someone. You just can't go out and arrest everyone willy nilly. Plus you are stating that this woman is in fact guilty of a crime. So I want to hear what backs up your claims of guilt. A guilt that will stand up in a court of law.

And a police officer "claiming" that a woman scares him does not justify arrest. Does that mean if that cop is afraid to walk in a New York subway, he should make everyone leave? He is the one with a gun. And back up to boot. Being a frightened little baby doesn't justify making a woman leave her property. And if his fear is in fact real, then perhaps he needs to see a psychologist to get over his unreasonable fears. This is his problem, not hers.

Correct one is not immune to arrest on personal property. But one should not be arrested just because they are standing on it either. If anyone was being threatened, it was the woman. He walked onto her property. And not the other way around.

Are you talking about the obstruction law? She was obstructing justice as good as any ol tree could. Everyone knows that law is used everytime someone is wrongly arrested. And 99% of the time , when it is wrongly used, it does not stand up in court. And often the charges are dropped even before court.

Your defense of this wrong act proves that you are the one who needs to learn how law and rights should work.

Originally posted by dizzie_lizzie79
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!

Not at all certain what it is you mean. I just pointed out that the Greece Police Department and the Rochester Police Department were actually two completely different police departments. You said "close enough." So a 15 minute drive transfers guilt? Hardly. The Greece Police have always had their rep and most other PDs around here, including the RPD look down on them. You want to pretend they are the same thing. I guess that really just means I can read, I just cannot imagine what you can from it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.

And with this in mind, how was she intentionally obstructing, imparing or perverting the administration of law. She was NOT in the way. (being noticed, is not a criminal offence AFAICS) How was she preventing a public servant from performing an official funtion by the means of intimidation, physical force, or interfering? She didn'tprevent him in doing anything. She was just watching, whilst filming. That is not interfering, or intimidating.

Originally posted by Kitilani

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?

Again -
She was not arrested for being on her own property.
She was not arrested for recording the police.

She WAS arrested for failing to walk away when the offcier told her many times to do so.

People have a right to be in their front yard, and they have a right to record the police. They DONT have a right to act in a manner that distracts the officer, forcing the officer to divert his attention to the outside issue. A person does not have the physically touch or be standing in front of an officer to intefere with their duties.

Originally posted by Manhater
I don't speak for those Florida cops. Now, that was just overkill.

Pretty good thing there was video of that event now isn't it?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kitilani

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?

Again -
She was not arrested for being on her own property.
She was not arrested for recording the police.

She WAS arrested for failing to walk away when the offcier told her many times to do so.

People have a right to be in their front yard, and they have a right to record the police. They DONT have a right to act in a manner that distracts the officer, forcing the officer to divert his attention to the outside issue. A person does not have the physically touch or be standing in front of an officer to intefere with their duties.

So with this stance, you can override any law

reply to post by jonco6


The cop told the lady to go elsewhere and away from them. The lady refused, and was arrested.

The report / charge is sent to the PA. They will review and decide if the charge is dropped, prosecuted or amended up or down.

As I have stated many many times now, being on private property does not make a person immune from a criminal charge.

Also, the officer is not tresspassing. He was effecting an arrest, and as such has a legal right to be on that property to effect the arrest.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner

I wasn't suggesting her being female had anything to do with it. It was her reaction. You can hear her voice shaking throughout the entire exchange. If it's an act it's a good one. I am willing to admit no one apart from her or someone who knows her very well can be certain of this.

Some of the filthiest cussing, hardest fighting criminals I've ever seen started crying when the cuffs went on. I mean out right boo hoo tears. Guys with gang tattoos and previous arrests for some of the most obscene debauchery break down like an infant and start asking to call their mother. What happens afterwards doesn't always match up with the intent or actions before hand. The tears aren't an act. It comes from a realization that there is a price for their actions.

Like many such videos, we miss any interaction between the officer & person concerned before the tape starts running. I'm usually quite wary of that.

But, in this case, if the officer had no grounds to arrest the woman before the tape started running, he surely had no reasons to arrest her after she started the camera rolling. Because she did nothing wrong in the clip we see. She was polite, articulate, receptive to what he was saying ... she wasn't obstructing the officers at all, she didn't try to prevent them detaining the guy they'd pulled in. In fact, the officer was the one who initiated the conversation with her in the first place.

In that sense, her arrest was entirely arbitrary & entirely at the whim of one individual.

That's no way to run a justice system.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
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.

He was so crazy they just let him go!

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.

Actually a few pages back it explained where this is disputed and if you believe her lawyer is claiming it but she is not, then I do not know what to tell you. I do need to ask for some help with my math though.

They pulled over "3" people. They arrested a 4th person and they let one suspect go. Tell me what is missing.

The only time police allow you to do whatever you want is when like a flood or similar situation happens. You probably will get warned. But if you want to drown in the flood. Your choice. Your freedom.

reply to post by shadowx089


This statement ^^^ is not true. My husband was a Military Police Sergeant with the National Guard during the great Mississippi River flood of 1993. The National Guard exists to *protect and serve* (just as with for civil police officers, in theory at least). They are called out when Federal LEOs are needed to protect the public. He was stationed at a barricade which was blocking the road going into a completely flooded town.

A lady approached the barricade and him in her car, with every intention of driving right around the barricade and onto the barricaded, patrolled road. He stopped her and politely stated that she could *not* drive past the barrier, as her car would have been swept away into the flood-waters. She insisted she "just wanted to go to the bank."

He had to persuade her that she was not going into the flood-waters, because it was unsafe for *her.* How idiotic is a driver who sees a Federal Law Enforcement Officer AND a barricade, AND flood-waters, and still wants to *just go to the bank."? She NEEDED someone there, to save her from herself.

There are some excellent, highly moral persons in law enforcement. SOME. There are also those who are bullies, egomaniacs, and criminals. Just like in every sector of our so-called "society."

It's more the luck of the draw, who you get. My daughter and I were stranded in the freezing cold when my car broke down 5 miles from home. We phoned for assistance. A female LEO stopped to help us, clearly annoyed. She did NOT help us push the car away from under the bus-stop sign where it had stalled. She made us do it ourselves. (I am all of 110 lbs dripping wet fully clothed, and my daughter was even smaller, and only 16). She stood and watched as we pushed the SUV into a neighboring parking lot.

And THEN, she wasn't even going to give us a ride home!!
She relented, with MUCH attitude that she was SO put out. It was shameful.

OTOH, I have had LEOs *help* me to file a complaint against a neighbor who had threatened me a la: "I'm gonna kill your dog and then kick your ass." The LEOs knew of this guy - he was a former police officer who had a record of brutality and other civil charges - and because I did not know his name, birthday, and social sec number, (WHAT?!) I did not have enough info to file a complaint. (Which all by itself is ridiculous - if a person is assaulted by a stranger, they can't file charges without vital info? Huh?) They charitably - and appropriately - handled it for me anyway.

I was grateful.

sigh.
It's just who you get. It just seems there are few decent people *anywhere*. If you find *one* in a hundred, you are fortunate. My husband is one of the last of the truly chivalrous "knights in shining armor", as far as I can tell. If you find one, befriend them. Your life will be better for it.

Cheers, all,
WT
RE the video: I would have pitched a fit, too, and held my hands out for the cuffs. What a charade and misuse of authority. Now, if they were concerned that this suspected "gang-banger" was possibly a threat to themselves or to her, I could understand. If they told me, "Ma'am, this is a volatile situation and in order to secure your safety I would recommend you take shelter indoors for now," that would be different. But to say *I* seemed threatening? What?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

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.

Ah ha! Learn how to interpret what you read. Obviously this must have been the first time you read this since you don't understand it. You are not a police officer. Tell me exactly how she broke this law. I dare you.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

It must be easy to sit behind a computer, be ignorant of the law, how it works, and how your rights work, throwing rocks, while never being present either.

This is the part you dont understand. You don't understand the difference between how the law works and what is law. There is a big difference in how a law is being used/practiced and what the law stats.

Uhm... riiight. Please oh great and knowing oracle, school me in the ways of the law and how they work. Please show me your sources that show the officer broke the law. Please show me what law he broke. Please show me where the lady did not brea the law.

Facts, not opinions please, and please cite your sources.

No one broke the law as far as i know until the cops arrested the female observer on her own property
For interfering in their case.
Its a false accusation made by the peace officer. The interference occurred when the peace officer brought the female into the event taking place, She was initially a by-standard observing a possible arrest.

Originally posted by Observer99
And you have to love the corrupt defense of the "indeterminate radius of safe arrest overriding any other laws within the radius, such as personal property laws." Reminds me of Newsradio when they asked Bill McNeal where he would like his smoking area setup. "How about a 10 foot radius around ME?"

Yeah and if they really expect at least 21 feet of no property rights being observed or at least 21 feet of just not feeling uneasy, then they need to transfer out of the 19th ward in a big hurry. It is a little crowded in there.

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.

Devils Advocate: There is no way a cop can tell if someoen is armed, or not, just by looking at them.

And yes, a person wielding a knife can get in killing strikes from as much as 20 feet away - against armed law enforcement officers - I've seen it done.

Does that make what this cop did right? Absofreakintootly NOT!

e point is the cop used his knowledge and training to TWIST the facts into making his actions seem reasonable.

But were they? No.

I state again, it's only because she didn't comply that she was arrested.

peace

Originally posted by rcanem
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.

Are you suggesting all cops are criminals? Please clarfiy for me.

Originally posted by rcanem
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.

Then apparently you missed the day in class where they discussed totality of circumstance as well as use of force. Its not based on what you think, or what other posters think. The legitimacy of the officers action,s per the Supreme Court, is based on what the officer perceived the moment force was used. And again, the fact she is on private property is irrelevent in this case.

Originally posted by rcanem
If an officer handcuffs you you are being detained, ie. arrested, otherwise they would not need to handcuff you.

Not entirely correct. We can place a person in handcuffs for officer safety. At that point we cannot ask any guilt seaking questions unless we mirandize since custody + guilt seeking questions = in custody with miranda. Also, if the person the officer is dealing with have past histories daling wth each other, or the person detained is know to fight with law enforcement, then they can be placed into handcuffs based on prior knowldge of prior bad acts.

Originally posted by rcanem
And about transporting the male and female together, well I saw more than one cruiser, so that argument is bust.

That was in responde to another posters comments.

Originally posted by rcanem
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.

You would be incorrect.

Review DWI/DUI laws, starting from the moment ofobservaion, to moment of stop, to moment of conact with the driver, to field sobriety tests.

Glassy eyes, slurred speech, loss of hand eye coordination, inability to multi task, odor of intoxicants. All of thes signs can be used to build to PC and perform a field sobriety test. Using the gaze nystagmus and officer looks for the person eye to track in a jumping motion, instead of fluid. If the person acts intoxicated, but shows no clues in the horizontal gaze test, DRE officers can move to a vertical gaze test which can show certain drugs in the system based on the movement of the eye.

Inconsitent behavor, mood swings, inability to concetrate on simple tasks or questions, - all clues.

Youve already established reasonable suspicion when you made the traffic stop. From that point you either build to Pc and an arrest, or you let the person go with a warning or citation.

Originally posted by rcanem
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.

On the contray, its alive and well. The issue though, and its prevailent among certain posters, is they view every single encounter as if its the exact same encounter, and we both know thats not how it works. Officers have discretion on how we do our job, and we operate within those guidelines, as well as departmental policy, local and state law, and federal law that governs our actions.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kitilani

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

They DONT have a right to act in a manner that distracts the officer, forcing the officer to divert his attention to the outside issue.

Was perhaps she breathing too loudly?

Oh and by the way, where does your above quote of the law state this? You just can't go adding to laws on whim. No where does it state that it is against the law to stand a good distance away while watching.

Wake up folks this forum is being trolled.

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

You cannot treat people like crap just because you have a uniform and a badge, and just because you have a uniform and a badge you shouldnt be treated like crap either, it's called mutual respect for individuals, it's called being polite, and it doesnt work if both parties arent involved.
Two wrongs doesnt make one right.
Gawd Damn seriously this must be a hard concept to learn.

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

"This gang is known for drugs guns and violence," Masic notes, underscoring the danger of the situation.

The video, while dark, appears to only show one man led out of the car. Good's public defender says that as far as she has been able to determine, only one man was pulled over.

The Rochester Police Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement released to the press, Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard said that while he had "researched" the incident, "With the case still pending and my unfamiliarity with the specific details, any assumptions at this time would be premature."

The police department has launched an internal investigation.

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."




www.huffingtonpost.com...

endthelie.com...

www.democratandchronicle.com...

rt.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Kitilani

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?

Again -
She was not arrested for being on her own property.
She was not arrested for recording the police.

She WAS arrested for failing to walk away when the offcier told her many times to do so.

People have a right to be in their front yard, and they have a right to record the police. They DONT have a right to act in a manner that distracts the officer, forcing the officer to divert his attention to the outside issue. A person does not have the physically touch or be standing in front of an officer to intefere with their duties.

sorry but if a officer is distracted by your presence in or on your own property with or with out a camera and thinks that law applys that is the officers lack of practical application of the law. that being said if a girl walks by in very slutty clothes it is distracting to most officers and pulls their attention but it not punishable by arrest. Also you have the right to act in any manner you chose police do not get to dictate how you act on your own property. and all she was doing was standing their with a camera that in no way interferes with their duties. Unless you think her mail box should be brought up on charges also.

Originally posted by elouina
You know what? You can't possibly be a real police officer.

Why? because I know what im talking about and you dont? Or do you have some other reason? What exactly is your profession?

Originally posted by elouina
You are being downright ridiculous. First of all, police officers may not determine guilt, but they must have a reasonable suspicion of guilt in order to arrest someone.

Uhm yeah, ive stated time and again law enforcement does not determine guilt or innocene, a court of law does. Reasonable suspicion allows us to investigate further in order to either determine no law violation occured, or a violation did occur. If we discover enough evidence to suggest a crime occured then we can arrest the person and book them into jail

We write the report / pc statment, submit it to the PA, and they decide from there what happens.

Also, what police agency do you work for?

Originally posted by elouina
You just can't go out and arrest everyone willy nilly. Plus you are stating that this woman is in fact guilty of a crime. So I want to hear what backs up your claims of guilt. A guilt that will stand up in a court of law.

No kidding... I never said we could, so please dont put words in my mouth that I never said. What I have stated is the charge she is accused of is valid based on her actions. I said the officers actions in this case are valid. Nowhere did I say guilt, so please show me where I did.

Originally posted by elouina
And a police officer "claiming" that a woman scares him does not justify arrest. Does that mean if that cop is afraid to walk in a New York subway, he should make everyone leave? He is the one with a gun. And back up to boot. Being a frightened little baby doesn't justify making a woman leave her property. And if his fear is in fact real, then perhaps he needs to see a psychologist to get over his unreasonable fears. This is his problem, not hers.

You guys have some very active imaginations. The SCI FI stories you come up with are great. However, as ive stated time and again, its not the same thing. While I respect your opinion on this part, I dont agree with it because you dont have an adequate understanding of the law or law enforcement.

Originally posted by elouina
Correct one is not immune to arrest on personal property. But one should not be arrested just because they are standing on it either. If anyone was being threatened, it was the woman. He walked onto her property. And not the other way around.

Man, you guys really do only see what you want and damn the rest. She was arrested for Failing to obey a lawful command, and the command was lawful based on new york law and her actions. She was NOT arrested for simply standing on her property.

Why is this so hard for you and others to understand? Hell even the officer stated on camera she was under arrest for failing to obey a lawful command.

Originally posted by elouina
Are you talking about the obstruction law? She was obstructing justice as good as any ol tree could. Everyone knows that law is used everytime someone is wrongly arrested. And 99% of the time , when it is wrongly used, it does not stand up in court. And often the charges are dropped even before court.

BS.. quit sterotyping and making stupid comments would you please. Please provide your source that supports your claim that we use Bs charges to jsut arrest a person all the time.

and once again, we have nothing to do with how the PA files a charge, drops it or amends it. We have nothing to do with the judicial side except to be called as a witness, and thats it.

Please, learn, educate yourself on this topic.

Originally posted by elouina
Your defense of this wrong act proves that you are the one who needs to learn how law and rights should work.

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

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

Says the person who does not know how the law works, thinking instead it should be based on your wrong opinion. Tell ya what, if I need legal advice, Ill contact my training sgt or the PA. If I need bad info based on ignorance and lack of understanding, you will be my first call.