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

Originally posted by YourPopRock
At what point can you envoke the local castle laws and shoot and kill the armed man approaching you on your property while you film him?

In Minnesota, you technically could have killed the cop when he was on your property within 10 meters of yourself since he was armed if you feared for your safety.

Don't think for a second I wouldn't fire.

Depends on if your state has a castle doctrine in place, and then it will be based on how that law is written. Some states only apply the castle doctrine to inside your home. Texas if I remeber right allows it in the yard as well.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


In response to this one and the prior...

The prior one is all kinds of messed up. Wonder what they would do if they worked in my old town- probably have a meltdown from being around all kinds of black folk, 95% of them armed (it is rural NC after all) and usually only 2 or 3 officers on duty at a time (poor city with a low tax base). They'd probably either pee their pants and quit or do something stupid and get pummeled

As for the second that was something I'd be damn sure to tell my rooks to avoid. First off it's just wrong. Second was that sooner or later if they engaged in such behavior that it would come back to bite them in the ass. It was always better to make a righteous stop than to have to hope you find something.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

I ask that question every time someone goes after me in the forums, and as of late I have been getting U2U that suggest I should be killed. *edited for spelling only*

Funny that I have been having the same experiences from certain members engaged in this thread.

They rant and rave about free speech and the exercise of the woman's rights yet seek to deny that same free speech and exercise of rights of other ATS members.

In doing so they act exactly like that officer in Rochester to include creating falsehood to support the suppression of one's right to their own opinion and the right to speak out in order to put the poster in the worst light possible.

Then the posts full of falsehood get stars by others in the clique... just as police officers get accused of sticking together behind the thin blue line.

Irony is indeed thick in here.

I'm done with this section of ATS. It's simply an online version of Rochester PD in here where you either toe the party line or you get threatened, lied about, and those sending the U2U messages get a free pass no matter how psychotic the behavior is.

Explanation: The problem isn't having a police state ... its who is in charge! And how many!

Every CITIZEN [hint! check out starship troopers movie for a heads up on what it takes to be a CITIZEN as opposed to a civilian] is able already to make a citizens arrest and if they can't then those laws are an ass regradless of whether they are in play or even enforced or not.

Therefor those CITIZENS need to man up and instead of passing the buck to someone with a badge to impose the law!

That way... when every freeman is a cop with no distinction between you and I and we all enforce the laws all the time [note being good requires one to do that when no one else is looking or your lying!] and we all take our own chances BOLDLY ...then and only then will this us versus them crap go away.

Who is in charge . I AM!

Personal Disclosure: Civilization and society is about being tame... we can all be bloody wild anytime we want BUT anything else requires mutual agreement!

Its that sacred cow shield position thats gotta go! Not the laws... because generally .. everybody stabbing each other in the freaking face... isn't a good thing and the laws generally cover that kind of stuff. Specifically though individual laws should be up for review and general consensus often so as to weed out weak laws.

In a republic it should be set up so that great laws can sell themselves!

reply to post by Xcathdra


You are the one who is laking knowledge in your own field.

You lost your case right here on ATS plain and simple because you don't understand the law.
Why do you keep on lecturing people about your poor working skills?

Originally posted by chancemusky
That shows death,not danger. Want to know why fewer police officers die in their job? They are trained to survive dangerous circumstances. You can't fight a sea, but you can defend from a criminal, especially if ITS YOUR JOB.

Whoever posted that the new recruits are of sub-par intellgence really hit it on the head.
I will point out and explain how to read workplace fatality statistics perhaps you might retain it until your next pitcher of beer at the local LEO hangout

The first number is the number of deaths the second are violent deaths.

Do you make a point of overlooking the facts that are contridict you?

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Nice try but you forgot to mention these dangerous fields, same source:

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting: 575 total/49 violent (This means 8.5% of the fatalities were violent deaths)

Construction: 834/41 (5% of them violent)

Retail trade: 307/170 (55% if them violent deaths People employed as a meek retail clerk have over twice the chance of a violent death at their minimum wage job than our overarmed overcompensated LEOs.)

Transportation and warehousing: 633/57 (10% violent deaths)

Healthcare/social services: 123/47 (8% violent deaths The humble nurse is braver than our armed boys in blue)

Professional and Business services: 422/62 (5% violent deaths)

Leisure & Hospitality: 231/116 (50% violent deaths not quite as dangerous as retail but still twice as dangerous as an LEO)

For all government (of which police are just a part) so we're comparing apples to apples: 461/115 (25% violent deaths. )

Which is the topic of the OP,its the same sort of attidude of just because they say so to a citizen that makes it right/lawful.

edit on 28-6-2011 by ..5.. because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

You are the one who is laking knowledge in your own field.

You lost your case right here on ATS plain and simple because you don't understand the law.
Why do you keep on lecturing people about your poor working skills?

Again please show me where I am wrong. Pleas provide your source that supports your claim. I have not lost any case at all. And as I said, people are arguing the officer shoulmd be arrested for a false arrest etc. If people were knowledgable about the law, they would see what ive been pointing out.

Instead you guys just say im wrong yet you dont privide anything to back it up. I have posted the NY law that she was charged with, which includeds the elemnts of the crime. You guys gloss over or just ignore it and continue the same round robbin game.

So seriously, you say I am wrong, show your sources. Mine are already posted for your review.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You miss the point of my arguments.

I think I understand it clearly enough,the law in the US for a LEO is if he gives a command it is therefore lawful,whether or not its seen as a criminal offense by a judge is beside the point.Is that about right,in a nut shell?

Yes, people are stuck on a non issue because they dont understand how the law works. Weve tried to explain it over and over, and you guys refuse to accept it.
Dismissal of charges does not make the officers actions illegal, nor does it violate her civil rights. Why do you and others have such an issue accepting that?

Thats because people are sick of being treated that way,simple.Why is that so hard for you to understand.

Your other posts to me- what was then the purpose of saying you would appoligize if you still believe the Officer was/is right,because thats saying you would have treated her exactly the same way and you still would.Whats the point?

Originally posted by gps777
I think I understand it clearly enough,the law in the US for a LEO is if he gives a command it is therefore lawful,whether or not its seen as a criminal offense by a judge is beside the point.Is that about right,in a nut shell?

Yes and no, and I answer that way based off examples others have given. In the op article, I feel the cop was within his autority to tell her to move away. We dont need to rehash that argument, since we both know where we stand on it. If an officer tells you to strip down and run around naked on the highway, then no, its not a lawful command.

Originally posted by gps777
Thats because people are sick of being treated that way,simple.Why is that so hard for you to understand.

No more difficult than to get people to acknowledge they base their arguments off opinions instead of facts. That people ignore information that doesnt support their argument.

Originally posted by gps777
Your other posts to me- what was then the purpose of saying you would appoligize if you still believe the Officer was/is right,because thats saying you would have treated her exactly the same way and you still would.Whats the point?

I said she was in the wrong and the officers actions were valid. I said she would be charged. The PA declined to prosecute, which clears the female and made me wrong on that account. However, the officer was within the law, making his actions correct also.

If he violated the law or Federal law, and charges are brought, then I will come back and appologize a second time. Until then though, no charges means no crime meaning his actions were valid. It means the PA used their discretion to dispoose of the charge.

The moment the charges were dropped people started screaming for the officer to be charged. Charged with what? he didnt break the law.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I dont know maybe assault, harassment, trespassing and kidnapping?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
No more difficult than to get people to acknowledge they base their arguments off opinions instead of facts. That people ignore information that doesnt support their argument.

Which is where I think your equally getting mixed up,by not taking into account how people distrust that law allowing Officers to make those rash decisions and be called lawful.

I said she was in the wrong and the officers actions were valid. I said she would be charged. The PA declined to prosecute, which clears the female and made me wrong on that account. However, the officer was within the law, making his actions correct also.

Do you think because of the video evidence and public support of her swayed the decision? I think it has.

If he violated the law or Federal law, and charges are brought, then I will come back and appologize a second time.

I dont think people will take it very seriously as the first,if they have been watching,but yep your call.

The moment the charges were dropped people started screaming for the officer to be charged. Charged with what? he didnt break the law.

Your kidding yourself if you think people have not been saying that from very early on in this thread,they have also reinforced those opinions after the case was dismissed in a bid to stop LEO`s from making those type of requests.

As far as law is concerned thats what most people are mad about,that he shouldn`t have the right nor was he justified in peoples opinions to tell her to go back inside her house on her own property and around we go I suppose.

Originally posted by e11888
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I dont know maybe assault, harassment, trespassing and kidnapping?

None of which apply.

reply to post by gps777


lol ok

Originally posted by e11888
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I dont know maybe assault, harassment, trespassing and kidnapping?

You forgot terrorisim. You don't have to blow something up to be one you know all you need is threats and intimidation.

Maybe this is why cops dont like to be photographed. When they screw up they screw up good. This is kind of sad incident actually. Noone beat up or framed but they drive around with an AR-15 on the hood of car in Seattle.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by The_Phantom
Hahaha! So first you apologize for being wrong after nonstop personal attacks against people for being unintelligent and not getting it,

For a few people absolutely. And I will say it again, people who are still saying the officer broke the law, are in fact, wrong. As far as personal attacks go its common in police threads, and it goes back to people not knowing how the law works, and insted of educating themselves they would rather just make coments and cite a law that has nothing to do with the topic.

Ignorance - lack of knwoeldge on a given topic.
Prig comes to mind as well for some.

Originally posted by The_Phantom
Americans are lazy and don't understand law like the cops do. Then within a few posts after the apology you go right back to insulting people for being unintelligent when you where the one that was wrong the whole time. Wow, that's special.

I went back and pointed out to people that the dismissal of the charges does not make the Officers actions criminal. I am correcting people who, as ive said before, make comments without knowing how the law works. Or would you rather I just let people make comments that are wrong and based on opinion and not fact? The theme of the site is deny ignorance, not embrace it.

If you hate the cops, thats your issue not mine. However, when that hatred becomes so blinding, people refuse to see all sides of the story and automatically go after the police, its a problem. It creates falsehoods and does nothing but drag topics of center.

Originally posted by The_Phantom
And telling that person that they are acting like a prig...how many personal attacks is one guy allowed?

edit on 28-6-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)

I ask that question everyime someone goes after me in the forums, and as of late I have been getting U2U that suiggest I hould be killed.

So before you try to lay the blame at my doorstep, maybe you should get the facts first.

If you think you can open your mind for a few minutes, see if this helps explain wha tIm trying to tell you.

The statute we are talking about lists the elements needed in order for a person to be in violation of that law. The other factor is, for lack of a better term, mitigating circumstances or totality of circumstances.

Example - We will use murder in this example as well as you benig armed with a gun - ccw).
#1 - You are in your front yard and see a person walking towards you holding a knife. The knife is blade down and is displayed in such a manner that it makes you very nervous. He refuses when you tell him to get off your property, and continues to walk at you.

You pull your gun, take aim and you shoot to stop the threat. The guy goes down, dead from his injuries.

#2 - This scenario is exactly the same as the one above, minus the knife. The guy walks onto your lawn heading towards you, just like above except he does not have a knife, he refuses to leave, so you draw your gun and shoot him. The guy goes down, dead from his injuries.

Both examples are a homicide. Both charges are exactly the same. Both incidents meet the criteria for a murder charge (intentionally causing serious physical injury an or death). Both examples are completely the same, except for the knife. The PA receives the Police report for both incidents. The PA sees that both instances meet all criteria to issue charges for murder.

What would occur -
For incident #1 the PA would most likely not file a charge of murder, or any other criminal charges, even though its clear cut. The reason for that decision? The knife being present is a factor thats taken into account.

For incident #2 the PA would most likely file charges because at the time of the encounter, the individual was not armed, and none of his actions appeared hostile.

So you have 2 identical cases. Both meet the definition and elements of murder, yet only one is charged. The reason being is totality of circumstances. Both broke the law, but because one incident had a knife present, it created a factor that has to be weighed

The charge being dismissed against Good had nothing to do with the officer not having the authority to take that action in the first place. The PA reviewed the evidence and weighed all the info - and decided in this case the actions of the female (being on her property, identifying herself when the officer asked, stated she was recording) outweighed the evidence submitted with the charge by the officer. The PA felt in this case that the Scales of Justice, when all evidence and totality of circumstances are taken into account, favored the female and not the officer.

Having a charge dimissed / declined to prosecute does not imply criminal wrong doing or a civil rights violation by the officer. What occurs is the weighing of all available evidence, seeing all the sides of the story, and then deciding if Justice would be served by going forward.

I said that the cop was wrong, I don't remember saying that he broke the law, there is a difference. Well, I'm glad to see that you can insult people whenever the thought comes to you, that's a fine way to debate.

"Or would you rather I just let people make comments that are wrong and based on opinion and not fact?" What would be wrong with people having opinions? Do you not like it when civilians have opinions? What is law after all, but the opinion of some men that is enforced by others? You have an opinion, I have a different one, I think that is just fine. I'm trying to get people to see things my way you are doing the same. I think that's fine. That's why I don't spend hours and hours telling people that they are ignorant for not agreeing with me.

When did I ever say I hate cops? You will find through my arguments several times when I make it clear that I would myself defend cops if they would stop acting like the military. In fact one of my most recent posts is about a cop that was killed for investigating truth, with all of the cops on this site, I'm not sure that even one of them has posted on that thread.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Maybe this is why cops dont like to be photographed. When they screw up they screw up good. This is kind of sad incident actually. Noone beat up or framed but they drive around with an AR-15 on the hood of car in Seattle.

Yeah, because all cops doi that.

You guys do know this has already been dismissed, right?

Charge dismissed against woman who videotaped police encounter

Prosecutors dismissed a charge Monday against a community activist who was arrested while filming a police encounter with her iPod camera because she was concerned it was initiated by racial profiling.
"I'm feeling vindicated, I'm feeling energetic" Emily Good, 28, of Rochester, New York, said of the decision to have the charge dropped.
Good had been charged with obstruction of governmental administration when she began videotaping the interrogation of a black man by three white officers in front of her house on May 12, she said.

Emily Good is filing a civil lawsuit against both the police department and the arresting officer. The ticketing incident is also being looked into.

reply to post by The_Phantom


Ya know what.. since you and oth4ers like to stereotype and insult me and recently receving a U2U that contained a threat, I think I will insult people who have no fricking clue as to whats going on. You guys are all over the place, and you refuse to follow anything but your opinion, subsituting it for law.

You guys ignore any law you fell is wrong, regardless of the fact whether you even understand ther law or not.

The charges were dismissed
The Cop did not violate the law, either Local state or FEderal
This lady has a history of baiting / behavior in order to force an encounter.

and even after all of that, you guys still come back with idiotic comments / situations that have nothing to do with whats going on, like equating an AR-15 on the trunk of a police car and saying thats why people hate the cops.

Or Spy who likes to make comments and accusations yet refuses to provide any sources to support his claims while he klings to whatever argument seems to be going on at the moment. Or Gps777 who is so lost when it comes to law and procedure its not even funny.

IF you guys want to hold the Police responsible thats fine.. However, you should learn what the laws are and how they work before opening your mouths.

Im not sure whats more ebarrasing.. Leaving an AR-15 on the trunk of a patrol car, or being ignorant on how laws and your civil rights work while reinforcing the fact the majorty of people in these types of threads dont even know how the government works.

I guess obfuscation is the choice defense by peolpe in these threads who make accusations they cant back up - Spy66 / Gps777 your at the top of that list. I am still waiting for you to provide sources t support your claims. Or would it be easier to jsut acknowledge you made the info up and that you have no sources to support your claims?

reply to post by Xcathdra


I never said that. Whatever.