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

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by dubiousone

 

I have said repeatedly that beyond 21 feet she can record all day long. Any closer and it becomes a possible distraction and hazard. I have seen where a person getting too close with a camera was distraction enough to nearly get a cop killed. Sorry if you don't like the simple truth that closer than 21 foot makes you a distraction and indirect threat.

You have repeatedly failed to supply said law. My living room couch is less than 10 feet from my curb. If cops stop someone outside of my house, they cannot ask me to go further into my home because I need to put another 11 feet between us now can they? Why not?

I can tell you how the whole night went down.

Officers pull over a vehicle, Mrs. Thing is in her PAJAMA'S, getting ready for BED or, having some relaxation, and notices there are blue flashing lights outside, in front of her house. Mrs. Thing. "OH, MY, I got to see what's going on, make sure those, GOOD FOR NOTHING, EVIL REPTILIAN MASON DO-GOODERS, don't pull another MLK on us, let me go get my camera. We have to get this all on tape and post it to youtube." Opens the door, wants to be NOSY, steps outside, gets off her porch and onto HER LAWN. (It is stated, I guess on the police report that she was 10 FEET from the officers.) The officers were quietly and diligently making a simple normal stop at the time. UNTIL, She over stepped her bounds on the "OK, 21 FOOT rule, for officer safety." (I don't know, if that's in fact true.). They were just making sure a possible suspect was in fact, safe, and not a danger to others. (I'm suppose to take her word "BUT, BUT, IT'S MY FRIEND!" He so innocent he wouldn't hurt a fly. SWAT!!!!!)

Well, the officer diverts his attention to Mrs. Thing, in the PJs, videotaping, but, he's not sure if she has any possible weapons because it's a little too late at night to even really see in the dark. (UNLESS, He was using those HIGH-TECH NIGHT-VISION GOGGLES, that only make it possible to see in the dark.), so he gets in a little closer, to investigate, and he asked her to BACK AWAY several times or to go back into the HOUSE. NICELY, and CALMLY. (I know, I'm not losing my hearing, not that old yet). Probably for her safety, maybe she was too close, but, no, Mrs. Thing, decided to play the ALAS, IT'S MY RIGHT!!!!! to be here and film.

He didn't say stop filming, he said, back away or go in the house. I know, she has a ZOOM LENS feature built in the phone or on a simple camera, she could of easily ZOOMED in for ALL the ACTION, right from her very own FRONT PORCH or from her WINDOW. She refused.

It wasn't until after the fact of when the officer approached her, that she backed away like a scared, nervous, coward and started to still run her mouth. A little too late. I say, if you want to run your mouth with the "My Rights Attitude", then you better willing to face any all possible consequences of the outcomes of the authority figure.

She wanted to be argumentative. With possibly 3 suspects in a car, and one outside being arrested, and that late at night, about 10PM, something could have gone wrong in a split second and put those officers in danger and herself. Because, that officer had to now deal with her and her antic BS. All they were doing, was a simple stop with a simple pat down, to make sure they were safe. Those officers became unsafe the minute that officer diverted his attention from his original crime scene and his partners.

Moral of the story: If you want to be a spectator at a sport and don't want to get hurt. Then sit on your porch or film from the window with the ZOOM lens. I'm sure it worked perfectly fine for her.

You know, you CAN do it QUIETLY, without posing yourself a risk to the officers, yourself, or to others. He may have said the wrong words at the beginning, because WE ALL DO IT. He is not, AS PERFECT, as YOU or I or ANYBODY else. Even though, some do have this power trip that they never make mistake EVER in their life. But, WE DO. IT'S LIFE and IT'S NORMAL. But, he was right and she was wrong. PEACE!

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

That's just an excuse so people will accept corruption.

He doesn't say it always corrupts - just that it tends to and I think its more of an assessment than an excuse because of its context. It definitely wasn't said so that people would accept corruption.

This should explain:

en.wikipedia.org...

In 1870 came the great crisis in Roman Catholicism over Pope Pius IX's promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Lord Acton, who was in complete sympathy on this subject with Döllinger, went to Rome in order to throw all his influence against it, but the step he so much dreaded was not to be averted. The Old Catholic separation followed, but Acton did not personally join the seceders, and the authorities prudently refrained from forcing the hand of so competent and influential an English layman. It was in this context that, in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887, Acton made his most famous pronouncement:

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

If you don't understand that, basically John Dalberg-Action is saying that the King and the Pope shouldn't be presumed innocent and judged favorable to their presumed innocents. Furthermore, if there is any presumption to be made it is that they should be presumed corrupt because power tends to corrupt people.

You should watch this: The Standford Prison Experiment

Reply to post by Manhater

As an officer, I did hundreds of traffic stops on the freeway. I had to dive through the drivers window of a car twice because people not paying attention.

When pulling a traffic stop (which is a crime scene), zip had to divert my attention constantly during the investigation, to keep an eye on oncoming vehicles.

So each of those drivers should be arrested for diverting my attention while in a dangerous situation?

Or how about arresting them all for obstruction of government administration?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Undertough


X posted the law already. In the law it clearly says you can not obstruct. If you are causing a distraction that stops the officer from doing his job in a reasonably safe manner you are obstructing.

Obstructing is usually defined as willfully hindering, delaying, or obstructing any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

If the officer has to turn and focus on you because you are a distraction you are hindering and delaying the officer as he discharges his duties. If your actions prevent an officer from doing their job in a reasonably safe manner you are obstructing.

That is the way it goes.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh


Or how about arresting them all for obstruction of government administration?

Jesus man....

...Don't give them any ideas.

Or in six months we'll be here arguing with ats cops about how they can legally arrest a lane of traffic two miles long.

Reply to post by MikeNice81

The problem is he did not HAVE to turn to her. In fact, he searched the detainee, cuffed him, walked him to the back, and then approached her.

He made it a point to address her. None of the other officers acknowledged her presence. Nit even the closest on one on the passenger side.

And the 21 foot rule:

www.policeone.com...


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Exuberant1

lololol

Sorry, but that is a legit example, since all the others seem to be invalid. :shrug:


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Manhater

 

As an officer, I did hundreds of traffic stops on the freeway. I had to dive through the drivers window of a car twice because people not paying attention.

When pulling a traffic stop (which is a crime scene), zip had to divert my attention constantly during the investigation, to keep an eye on oncoming vehicles.

So each of those drivers should be arrested for diverting my attention while in a dangerous situation?

Or how about arresting them all for obstruction of government administration?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I am saying in her particular situation she was in the wrong. Not, every situation demands an arrest for a diversion that is unstoppable. Hers WAS stoppable. Everything could of been avoided had she just step back further on the lawn, on the porch, or inside her home. Like the officer asked. He didn't demand. The officer gave her plenty of chances and it wasn't until she started to run her mouth at him, that he said, forget it your going to jail. Because, she kept playing games with him, with the I'm taking my stand approach.

The officer's priority was to make it safe for him, herself, and others, and had to first take care of his original stop, before dealing with her. So, he diffused the situation in order to make it safe for him and his officers. That late at night, it's understandable and I would feel threatened from the commotion.

I'm surprised as you being an LEO that you stand up to this. She did put those officers in danger. As, for your situation, depends. People should slow down and go to the other lane while an officer is making a stop. Not zip right past them. It's disrespectful and can get you hurt. That situation though is unavoidable, and unstoppable. Besides, don't you have a dash cam with their license plate? Cite them a ticket for failing to obey traffic laws.

He tried to have a calm interaction with her, and she just couldn't drop it.

Like what one LEO has said in here, Why hasn't SHE pressed any charges against that officer? If he was in the wrong?

Btw. This is the cops business. You can find all kinds of fun stuff there. Including contact info

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Btw. This is the cops business. You can find all kinds of fun stuff there. Including contact info

OMG, Yeah, he looks so evil. NOT.. Beautiful dogs and that truly shows character of the officer. He did his job pure and simple.

Reply to post by Manhater

She ran her mouth standing up for her rights.

Again, the closest officer did not pay heed to her. They were able to do their thing while she was standing there. There was no diversion until the officer created one.

Just the fact that you are surprised at my responses shows the sad state of affairs.

The dash-cam is a strawman.

A diversion is a diversion. Obstruction is obstruction. An officer can make a traffic stop with cats whizzing by less than 10 feet from them, but can't make a traffic stop with a lady with a camera standing 15 feet from them.

That is utter nonsense. If one has that much of a lack of awareness (with two extra backups, mind you), than maybe being a LEO is not for them.

In my opinion, he had a personal vendetta with her because she had the balls to stand for her rights.

Nothing in the video even suggested that the officers were worried for their safety because of the lady with a camera.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Manhater

Because people who love animals and do not look evil, are the true signs of ones morality and character. Amiright?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Manhater

 

Because people who love animals and do not look evil, are the true signs of ones morality and character. Amiright?

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Yep. I used to own a husky. She's wrong and he's right. just in this one incident.

I need to clarify.

I am not anti-LEO. There are some good ones out there.

Do I think this man is morally corrupt? No. Do I think he has mental issues? No.

I do think that he was pretty polite in the video, and sounds like a nice Guy.

I do think that he powertripped when she did not listen to him, and felt like he needed to assert himself to show he was in control.

That is just my opinion from the video.

It was a mistake that escalated to something that it should not have become.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Manhater

Those dogs do look damn nice.

Might have to talk my wife into letting me get one when our old as bones collie dies.

I really want an Irish Wolfhound though. Those are HUGE and gentle dogs.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


My times were wrong. However even the article stil says that the attacker is faster than the cop. The attacker takes 1.5 -1.7 seconds to get there. The average cops takes 1.75 seconds to get his gun out of a level II holster and fire two shots. They count an unsighted first shot. Unsighted first shots tend to miss. So, they are counting an inaccurate shot plus one with a "flash" sight picture. Still far from the most accurate shot. Guns are not magic death rays. Two inaccurate shots do not promise a stop.

The "fastest, most skillful, most powerful" subject FSRC tested "easily" covered that distance in 1.27 seconds. Intense rage, high agitation and/or the influence of stimulants may even shorten that time, Lewinski observes...

Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. "Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance," Lewinski says,

What is the article supposed to prove? I never said he had the right to shoot her. I said that once she entered twenty one feet she became an indirect threat and distraction. I also said she could attack faster than he could react at that distance. Nothing I said was disproven by that article. They just said 21 foot doesn't always justify shooting somebody. I agree.

"If you shoot an edged-weapon offender before he is actually on you or at least within reaching distance, you need to anticipate being challenged on your decision by people both in and out of law enforcement who do not understand the sobering facts of action and reaction times," says FSRC National Advisory Board member Bill Everett,

Be ready for Monday morning quarterbacking from people that don't understand the job. Wow we haven't seen that here yet.

The rule can not be arbitrarily applied in all cases. If you are on a gravel road, if there is ice, if there are pot holes, if the officer is up hill, or whatever, you have to judge on a case by case basis before using force. I agree with that. The thing is he did not use force.

She moved with in the sphere where she could use force before he could reply. According to him she said something that made him uncomfortable, and then she aproached. She was making herself a distraction and stopping him from being able to perform his duty in a reasonably safe manner. That is obstruction.

When he had the original suspect tucked away he addressed her. She refused to obey a request, then she refused to obey a legal order. She even began to argue. In other words she was further distracting from the original stop. She did not move untill it became obvious he planned to arrest her. Then she moved back. She obeyed the legal order. However, she created a larger obstruction.

He did not charge her with failure to follow a legal order because she followed the order. She was charged with obstruction because she made a distraction and a nuisance of her self. She interfered with his ability to perform his job in a reasonably safe manner. That is obstruction.

More and more people are getting fed up with the steady trampling of our freedoms and rights and the police are on the front line of the assault of our liberties.
In countries all over the world we are seeing police forces following the orders of corrupt governments and beating and even killing their fellow citizens who dare to protest. In some countries police fire indiscriminately into crowds of protesters. They are not protecting the populace, but rather, the corrupt politicians.
This is where we are heading in the US.
I have had an officer point his gun to my head over a slow and go violation at a stop sign. I have also had them lie through their teeth and make up violations on the spot.

For example, and this is going back as few years, My first ticket I ever received happen one night as I was going to the store. A cop turned his lights on and pulled me over. I asked him why he pulled me over and he said I was speeding. I respectfully told him that the speed limit was 45 and I was only going 40. He makes me get out of my car and sit on the curb. Then he tells me that I was changing lanes and swerving in and out of traffic. I respectfully told him that I only passed 1 car and I used my signals and didn't break any laws.

Then he gets his flashlight and starts walking around my car. He looks under it and then proceeds to tell me that the real reason he pulled me over was because I had an illegal muffler. Well, by then I realized that I was getting a ticket no matter what. He wrote the ticket and told me that the next time he saw me I had better have a proper muffler. By the way, the muffler I had was perfectly legal. My dad told me to pay the ticket and consider it as a lesson that life isn't fair and cops cannot be trusted. This was my first experience with the police and it left a bad taste in my mouth.

That was minor compared to the abuses by police officers that some experience nowadays. I am glad that so many are recording what is happening and exposing the abuse and police brutality. This is the way to get these bad cops removed. While I don't buy into the whole "NWO turning us all into slaves" fears that many have, I do believe that we are going to continue to see a steady erosion of our rights and freedoms.

reply to post by MikeNice81


The only problem with all this is that she was no real threat to him and his claim that he felt unsafe was a damn lie.
He chose to come to her and closed the distance between him and her. He could clearly see that she was no threat and he proceeded to intentionally escalate the situation in order to assert his authority over a private citizen who was breaking no laws. He could have just ignored her and probably would have if she was not recording him.

Let's not get lost in hypothetical scenarios and lose sight of what really happened.

Just think about the emotional & financial grief this officer inflicted on this woman just so he could stroke his overblown ego. If he was any kind of man he would admit that he stepped on her rights and apologize for his actions.
Don't hold your breath for that to happen though.