Case Dismissed Against Woman Arrested While Videotaping Police

reply to post by cerebralassassins


241. Conspiracy against rights

Ding Ding Ding!
This department is stepping all overthemselves on this one. If they don't back off I could see the entire department coming under heavy fire.

reply to post by zarlaan


Asked and answered. The problem is people refuse to acknowledge the facts in the case, instead seeing only what they want. Contrary to personal opinions, the officer told the lady to move back. Its irrelevant where she was standing, again contrary to what people think and their private property argument.

She was not arrested for filming, again contrary to what people want to beleive. She was arrested because the officer continually told her to move away and she did not. Instead she argued with him about it, and at then end of that exchange, she was arrested.

The problem people are having is they view this incident through what they think should occur, which is based on their opinions, rather than what the law actually allows, which runs contrary to their opinions.

When officers are doing their job, any action that distracts them from that job intentionally can be construed as obstruction / interfering / impedeing.

What people are refusing to see is how the law is written, how its applied, and her actions which did meet the elements of the crime she was charged with. They then, again incorrectly and based on their opinion, are seizing on the PAs ability to withdraw charges as adefact sign the officers actins were illegal, which they were not.

reply to post by Xcathdra


can you provide a law that says she must comply with the police officer? she didn't break any law, nor was she a suspect, or a threat. just because a police officer tells you to do something, doesn't mean he has the legal standing to enforce his mandate.

seems like he got his ego hurt because she wouldn't obey, and the retaliatory tickets at the support meeting confirm this and show the attitude of the police.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I can and I have several times now. People seem to be confusing what they think happened with waht actually occured. The lady was outside in her front yard recording the police. Both actions are legal and valid. The Officer told the lady to move away, which is a valid legal request on the part fo the officer.

The lady decided she didnt have to comply because she was in her front yard. The problem is under the law for New York, its irelevant if she is on provate prperty or not. The officer, based on the video itself, did not feel safe with her location behind the officers and asked her to move away.

By her continued argument with the officer, she was in fact distracting that officer from his duties, thereby obstructiong and interfering.

People dont agree wiht that and thats fine. However it doesnt change the fact of what it is. She was not charged with recording the police. She was charged intially with failure to obey a lawful command and then it was changed to obstruction of a government function, which form wha tI have seen is essentially the same charge.

The PA received the charge and opted, based on all the circumstances, to not prosecute, and as a formailty to remove the case from the docket, had the judge dimsmiss, which is procedural The Judge never ruled on the charge in any way.

People have attempted to use the dismissal and judges actions as a legal basis for the officer to charge him with false arrest, which is not the case at all. It happens on a daily basis where people are arrested, and the charges are dropped for wahtever reasong, whether it be because the charge did not fit the action, because they are going to charge the person with a higher or lower charge, or the person comitted the offense, but mitigating circumstances outweighed the crime itself.

That is what im trying to explain to people. People are seeing wehat they want, inserting their own opinons as facts and trying to argue this from a point of consitutional law, when it does not apply. If people would stop personally attacking me, they might see this.

Out of curiosity - Hypothetical for you guys.

If the traffic stop was a felony traffic stop, which means the officers have their guns drawn, would the lady stil be allowed to stand 10-12 feet away? If the cops ordered her to leave the area, do you feel she should have to comply?

why or why not?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Now you and I have had the legal vs lawful debate before... You know the difference. The officer attempted to use the legal system to make a lawful arrest but failed miserably. That is why she should press charges for assault and unlawful arrest, because you are right the arrest wasn't false it was unlawful.

While there may be a statute that states an officer must only believe his order to be lawful for it to be lawful. That doesn't make the statute itself lawful.

The police have no jurisdiction on private property to begin with, private property is private for a reason. The police serve the public. The police officer was not serving the public when he ordered a woman on private property to act under his wishes on her own property, he had no jurisdiction. You should know better than anyone police can only enter private property under certain conditions, they are invited, they have a warrant, or there is immediate danger to the public. I saw none of this occur at any point in the video.

In my opinion as an attorney the arrest was an assault and unlawful.

-Lightrule

Originally posted by Lightrule
Now you and I have had the legal vs lawful debate before... You know the difference. The officer attempted to use the legal system to make a lawful arrest but failed miserably. That is why she should press charges for assault and unlawful arrest, because you are right the arrest wasn't false it was unlawful.

This standard is already established by the Supreme Court, and that standard is what the officer perceived at the moment the use of force occured. Hindisght being 20/20 is not allowed, and you know this. The standard falls on the officer to justify the actions, and its hard to challenge those actions with whats stated on the tape, regardless of what people think should have occured.

If the female feels her rights were violated, she needs to file a complaint, which she finally got around to doing, after several weeks of not filing a complaint. Funny how that works.

Originally posted by Lightrule
While there may be a statute that states an officer must only believe his order to be lawful for it to be lawful. That doesn't make the statute itself lawful.

I agree, but until that standard is challeneged in court and changed, it is what it is, regardless of how people peronsally feel about the law. Simply stating its should be this or that doesnt mean the standard changes.

Originally posted by Lightrule
The police have no jurisdiction on private property to begin with, private property is private for a reason.

This is not true, and you should know better. The officer did not enter her property until he was affecting the arrest, which is a valid and lawful action. Also, check into the exceptions of private property and law enforcement before making a blanket statement.

Originally posted by Lightrule
The police serve the public. The police officer was not serving the public when he ordered a woman on private property to act under his wishes on her own property, he had no jurisdiction.

The officer articulated his reasons for wanting the female to move away. He never ordered her to stop filming, but to move away, and she refused. Not only did she refuse, she bagan to argue the point with him, which is in fact obstruction, interfering, etc etc etc. As I have stated before, you do not have immunity from criminal prosecution while on private property.

Your rights exist up to the point they begin to interfere with the rghts of others. In this case, removing the police from that argument, she was in fact intefering with the rights of the detained driver by distracting law enforcement. They had to divert their attention towards her, instead of the job at hand, which was the diurver and the search of the vehicle.

What people dont seem to realize, or refuse to acknowledge is we are responsible not only for the people we have detained, but any person in the immediate area. If I feel the situation is dangerous, and there are 3 parties near the area, regardless if they are on private property or not, I can lawfully order them to leave the area.

Next time a gas leak occurs, watch what happens. Next time there is a shoot out with police, whatch what happens. I ahve no idea where you guys get the notion that jsut because you are on private property the police have no jurisdiction.

Please show me the law you think that comes from.

Originally posted by Lightrule
You should know better than anyone police can only enter private property under certain conditions, they are invited, they have a warrant, or there is immediate danger to the public. I saw none of this occur at any point in the video.

And the problem with this statement above is the part where you say "you saw nothing". As I said, hindisight 20/20 is not allowed when reviewing a use of force, and an arrest is part of that scenario. Its what the officer perceived, not what you or others think it should be. If you dont agree with his actions, as ive said before, thats fine. But it doesnt mean his actions are any more wrong than you think your opinion is any more right. The burden of proof falls on the officer, not you or anyone else present except the female who was arrested.

Originally posted by Lightrule
In my opinion as an attorney the arrest was an assault and unlawful.

-Lightrule

Its my opinion as a police officer that under the statute used, and the manner the officer articulated his order, coupled wiht the amount of time she argued, she had more then enough warning to m,voe somewhere else and refused to do so. being a lawyer you know the standards in place for law enforcement, and how those standards are applied. You also know 20/20 hindsight is not allowed when reviewing use of force.

You also know as well as I do that there are reasons some laws are vague. This is done because, as a lawyer, you know that no law can be created that can adequately deal with all possibilities or outcome of actions by the police or people we serve.

The Officer never enetered her property illegaly. He entered her property to effect an arrest. The statute and criuteria used for that arrest are valid on its face, and you know this.

Her recourse is to file charges, and she has, even though the IA review is not completed, and regardless of the fact those charges were filed several weeks after the fact. Even the complaint against the officer, lawsuit aside, took place an inordinate amount of time after the incident.

She went for the trial by press first, instead of filing the complaint like she should have. That, coupled with her history of doing this the media has turned up, should be intresting to say the least.

Originally posted by ..5..
reply to post by cerebralassassins

 

241. Conspiracy against rights

Ding Ding Ding!
This department is stepping all overthemselves on this one. If they don't back off I could see the entire department coming under heavy fire.

A conspiracy involves more than one person.. Care to point out how this applies to this situation?

reply to post by Xcathdra

By her continued argument with the officer, she was in fact distracting that officer from his duties, thereby obstructiong and interfering.

the officer was arguing with her! if the officer left her alone like he should have--since she was breaking no laws--do you really think there would have been an argument? he created the situation that he used to justify her arrest.

looks to me like defending your rights verbally is "obstruction of justice" these days.

The officer, based on the video itself, did not feel safe with her location behind the officers and asked her to move away.

i'm going to bring back my earlier analogy because you're very fond of basing right and wrong off of how someone "feels"

if a cop comes on my property, and i feel threatened, can i shoot them? uniform or not doesn't change how i feel about the situation.

reply to post by Xcathdra

A conspiracy involves more than one person.. Care to point out how this applies to this situation?

The crew of cops ticketing the cars outside the meeting (harassment) may be evidence of a conspiracy. Whoever sent them there, and all of the officers at the scene are possible suspects. At least that is how an honest cop would look at the situation.

As some other posters mentioned, how about taking a look and releasing the call from a 'concerned citizen' complaining about cars being parked 12 and a half inches from the curb! All those calls are logged. Some people feel as if that is a BS story, that someone called to complain about parking too far away from the curb.

We already know how you feel about it though. Get it? Honest-cop-you?

A bit of an update on this - apparently some of the officers involved in this has gotten out and they are getting threats..

Emily Good incident has led to threats against police, union leader says

Rochester police officers involved in a May 12 arrest of activist Emily Good have had threats made against them and have even, in some cases, requested on-duty police officers pay special attention to their homes in fear of retaliation, the officer’s union president said today.

Mazzeo was flanked by about 100 officers during the news conference. Department morale is still high, he said, though there is anger among officers who he said feel like they are targeted for criticism.

Heh - It appears there is some anger among the citizens too there pal. Rightly or wrongly maybe they feel they are targeted too sometimes?

I dunno - it seems to me like both sides just hunkering down and saying "We are angry and the other side is all wrong" isn't going to lead to anything good.

Sometimes, you have to meet in the middle. I'm sure it would be really hard on them but maybe if they would even admit they went overboard on sending the ticket patrol after her supporters it would help.

Sometimes both sides have to give just a little and admit that some of what occurred is their fault. People as a whole generally don't like to do that, and sometimes it seems that some LEOs would rather do anything than admit there is the most remote chance they did something wrong.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the officer was arguing with her! if the officer left her alone like he should have--since she was breaking no laws--do you really think there would have been an argument? he created the situation that he used to justify her arrest.

Right, but this is where I am trying to point out to you guys who are not familiar with the law on how it works in this case. In a situation like the scenario, the officer is not required to explain his actions until he feels its safe to do so. He order the lady to move away and she refused. Its not her place, at that time, to argue the decision. She is free to do it after the fact. By failing to comply, by arguing for a minute, she was indeed violating the law in that case.

Whether or not you guys agree with it, and the bulk of you guys dont and thats fine, your argument is based off of what you think instead of how it actually works, and thats where your confusion is coming in. Its irrelevent if you agree or dont agree with the law. Its applied to the situation at hand, and not what people think it should be.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
looks to me like defending your rights verbally is "obstruction of justice" these days.

A valid observation and in this case, you would technically be correct. If you want to see this on a day to day basis, attend court and watch what happens when people in front of a judge decide to speak out of turn and continue to do so. This includes witnesses, suspects, defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutiung attorneys as well as police officers.

Care to explain the difference?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm going to bring back my earlier analogy because you're very fond of basing right and wrong off of how someone "feels"

Because thats the standard used. What did the officer percieve when he was giving the command? I am fond of bringing it up because it goes directly to the lawfulness of the command at the moment it was given. I bring it up because, again, you guys try to dismiss things you dont understand, and in thise case, its irrelevant on what you think the officers intentions were. Its based on what he perceived when he gave the command itself, and the video is clear on what his thoughts were.

If you think he had ulterior motives thats fine, but unless you can prove those ulterior motives, they are speculation based on your personal observation and have no bearing on his actions.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if a cop comes on my property, and i feel threatened, can i shoot them? uniform or not doesn't change how i feel about the situation.

edit on 1-7-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

It depends on why he is on your property and whats going on. However, what you and others fail to understand is private property does not allow you to just shoot anyone who comes onto your property, nor does it allow a person immunity from criminal prosecution based soley on the argument its private property.

If the officer is performing his duties, IE looking for someone, chasing a suspect etc, you have no legal right to interfer in those duties, and by doing so, you can be charged for it. The argument its private property will not excuse your actions either. What people fail to understand is while performing our duties, we are not required to offer any explanation if doing so can result in a danger to the officer or any others present, including yourself.

And you are correct, uniform or not, to you, doesnt matter how you feel and that is your right. However, how you feel about peple in uniform doesnt allow you to shoot / kill them because they are in uniform, nor does any ignorance about how the law works allow you to kill them either.

The simple fact that is part of our argument speaks volumes... You wonder why those of us who wear uniforms are cautions when we deal with people.

You are just one example of why that is.

Originally posted by butcherguy
The crew of cops ticketing the cars outside the meeting (harassment) may be evidence of a conspiracy. Whoever sent them there, and all of the officers at the scene are possible suspects. At least that is how an honest cop would look at the situation.

The ticketing of the cars may show a conspiracy for the act of ticketing the cars, not the officer telling the lady to back away. You cant have a conspiracy after the fact when the intial actions are clear. You would have to argue that the officers got together prior to the incident with the lady recording and decided they would create an incident in that location knowing the female would come out to visit and record, knew she would fail to follow the lawful command, and then go back and ticket any vehicles that showed up.

The conspiracy in this case would be the ticketing of the cars only, not the initial action.

However, the ticketing of the cars is valid and legal since the vehicles themselves were not incompliance with the law. Can you mak an argument that they were targeted? Absolutely base don the info provided. If you watch the video dealing with the ticketing, which by the way that person was not arrested because of the difference in duties, and also notice the officer answered the questions when asked because again, the situation allowed it.

The officer stated the reason they were there was because they received comaplints about parking. A quick check of 911 calls can easily confirm or deny that answer.

If we are going to look at conspiracies though, how do we know Ms. Good herself did not call the cops to complain about parking so she could again record the cops supposedly targeting her and her supporters? As much as you guys want to use a conspiracy, keep in mind that it can be used both ways, including civilians creating conspiracy to go after the police.

Being she has since filed a lawsuit speaks volumes to that. That lawsuit didnt come until after the vehicles were targeted.

Originally posted by butcherguy
As some other posters mentioned, how about taking a look and releasing the call from a 'concerned citizen' complaining about cars being parked 12 and a half inches from the curb! All those calls are logged. Some people feel as if that is a BS story, that someone called to complain about parking too far away from the curb.

911 calls are a matter of public record and can be requested using a standard FOIA request to the 911 governing agency. If a person calls 911 and wishes to remain anonymous, the onlything logged will be the incoming phone number.

Originally posted by butcherguy
We already know how you feel about it though. Get it? Honest-cop-you?

edit on 1-7-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Honest Cop - Yes I am. Knowledgable about the law - Again yes I am. Why is it when I provide you with reasons why something occured, that you and the other are so damn blind that you ignore that, and just assume I am defacto rooting for the police? You guys need to get off your high horses and actually read the pots before accusing me of being crooked - which by the way is a BS copout on your guys parts.

Cant argue the law, so you personally attack me to make up for your ignorance.

Ive never met you, but based on your argument to date you seem to support anyone who breaks the law, and you are siding with a known criminal in this case, namely the lady who forced the encounter for no other reason but to file a lawsuit agains the police, who she hates and has gone on record stating as much. I guess that makes you naieve and stupid for not knowing the law and instead, using your personal feelings to jusitfy your position.

Now, see how stupid it looks when I make an assisnine argument and blame you for something without having all the facts and information present?

If your gonna make an argument, make it using the facts present, and not using your personal opinion on what you think the law should say.

By the way, quit accusing me of not being an honest cop. You look like an ass who is not getting his way when you do that.

reply to post by Xcathdra

high horses

There you go again, now you're insinuating my horse is high. Question is, do you shoot him? Or take him away from me? Or can we just send him to rehab?

Just kidding! I don't even have a horse.

No, you might be a good cop, I need to go to a couple of picnics with you. See if you leave the scene driving in an inebriated condition. Listen to see if you and your buddies talk about "getting" someone(harassing someone you don't like for whatever reason on a trumped up charge). See if you use your position to get sexual favors. It does happen, maybe more than some people like to think.

reply to post by Xcathdra

By the way, quit accusing me of not being an honest cop. You look like an ass who is not getting his way when you do that.

Maybe if you would admit that the ticketing episode is very obvious retribution, I might think you are honest... at least with yourself.

It is painfully obvious that it was just that, retribution for the videotape and people that supported the woman.

reply to post by butcherguy


Of course it happens, and at no point have I ever said it didnt. I have stated in this thread, as well as others that police break the law and should be held accountible for those crimes.

You guys take me as defending corrupt officers at all times instead of actually reading my posts and understanding them. Just as cops dont determine guilt or innosence, the public doesnt get to judge if an officer was within the law or not, a court does.

I offer the laws up for you guys to review. Whether or not you agree with them again has nothing to do with the police. If you guys dont like a law, then get it changed. Making an argument that your voice doesnt count, while continuing to yell at the cops is not changing anything, and is in fact being lazy as well as undermining your own civic duty, which is to be active and take part in government.

As far as my personal habits go. The last time I drove in a drunk state was college, which was about 15 years ago. I drink on occasion, and when I do I dont drive. That happens when you work accidents with many body parts of kids and parents, while the drunk who hit them walks away uninjured.

Yes, the saying goes the badge can get you some... kittycat... The remainder of that line is the kittycat can get your badge. I dont get involved with any women that are in any way shape or form related to anything I am officaly working on. Generally speaking if they are invovled with the police once, there is usually second time or a third etc etc down the road. Plus it saves from having to be placed on the stand to explain to the court that your relationship has nothing to do with work or currying favors.

I have never conspired to violate anyones rights, nor would I ever.

But hey, once again thanks for the accusations. It once again proves my point that instead of arguing the facts, people will opt to just make random stuff up and apply those comments to anyone.

How can you NOT see that?

n a situation like the scenario, the officer is not required to explain his actions until he feels its safe to do so. He order the lady to move away and she refused. Its not her place, at that time, to argue the decision. She is free to do it after the fact. By failing to comply, by arguing for a minute, she was indeed violating the law in that case.

show me the law that states that. just because an officer tells me to do something, doesn't mean i have to comply, especially when i'm not the suspect. i'd really like to see the law on that one.

A valid observation and in this case, you would technically be correct. If you want to see this on a day to day basis, attend court and watch what happens when people in front of a judge decide to speak out of turn and continue to do so. This includes witnesses, suspects, defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutiung attorneys as well as police officers.

so telling an officer he's wrong is grounds for arrest, even if he is? do you agree with that? i'd like to see the law on that one too.

the difference in court is everyone gets their say. its structured in the same way a debate is. in the middle of a debate when your opponent is giving his opening statements, you can't just say "well now this is where you're completely wrong, and blah blah blah is why". no such structure exists in personal interactions in the real world.

I am fond of bringing it up because it goes directly to the lawfulness of the command at the moment it was given.

so the lawfulness of a command is based on the relative feelings of an officer? one that is obviously vengeful after the curb ticket debacle. basically, an officer can do no wrong because everything he does is based off of how he feels at the moment?

If you think he had ulterior motives thats fine, but unless you can prove those ulterior motives, they are speculation based on your personal observation and have no bearing on his actions.

can anyone prove what the officer intended? no. it was based on "feelings". not a good way to operate.

It depends on why he is on your property and whats going on.

so with police, however they feel (or however they said they felt) about the civilian is how they act, and its legal because of the officer's interpretation. but citizens must base their judgements on solid tangible facts? do you agree with that?

The simple fact that is part of our argument speaks volumes... You wonder why those of us who wear uniforms are cautions when we deal with people. You are just one example of why that is.

if you remember back to the original analogy i referenced, i said that shooting an officer because i felt threatened isn't right or fair. i only wish the same courtesy is given to civilians, but it never will be.

i want to see you quote the laws you say let an officer do these things. not department policy, but solid law.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

By the way, quit accusing me of not being an honest cop. You look like an ass who is not getting his way when you do that.

Maybe if you would admit that the ticketing episode is very obvious retribution, I might think you are honest... at least with yourself.

It is painfully obvious that it was just that, retribution for the videotape and people that supported the woman.

Maybe you should go back and read my posts before accsing me of something. I already said the actions of those cops look suspect. I then engaged with a few posters who wanted to claim its a conspuiracy among others. The ticketing is legal - thats NOT in dispute. The manner in which they were ticketed uis in dispute. You and the others really ned to get off this stupid kick of taking my response to one poster and twisting it out of context in order to support your claims.

Why dont you explain to all of us here how the ticketing is retirbution? You seem to be on a kick where you dont like it when the cops make a decision based on their interpretation., however its seems perfecttly ok for you to do what you despise.

Well Mr. Matlock, show us its a conspiracy. Show us the actions fo the offiers who issued the tickets is illegal? Show us the ticketing of the vehicles is illegal.

Also, again, quit accusing me of beingsomething I am not based soely on your ignornace. You really do look like an uneducated ass with a double standard when you do that.

reply to post by Sparky63

This interpretation of the law is being challenged in all these states. This "wire tapping" rule is surely to be overruled sooner or later.

What a crock...

We as citizens are having wire tapping and other invasions of privacy done by Homeland Security under the Patriot Act but WE can not video cops when they are in PUBLIC or in our homes?????

WE the citizens have the RIGHTS and WE DELEGATE those rights TO the government. Not only that but we have a DUTY to act as a watchdog on our government.

It is about time we understand what that means.

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...... www.usconstitution.net...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the officer was arguing with her! if the officer left her alone like he should have--since she was breaking no laws--do you really think there would have been an argument? he created the situation that he used to justify her arrest.

Right, but this is where I am trying to point out to you guys who are not familiar with the law on how it works in this case. In a situation like the scenario, the officer is not required to explain his actions until he feels its safe to do so. He order the lady to move away and she refused. Its not her place, at that time, to argue the decision. She is free to do it after the fact. By failing to comply, by arguing for a minute, she was indeed violating the law in that case.

Whether or not you guys agree with it, and the bulk of you guys dont and thats fine, your argument is based off of what you think instead of how it actually works, and thats where your confusion is coming in. Its irrelevent if you agree or dont agree with the law. Its applied to the situation at hand, and not what people think it should be.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
looks to me like defending your rights verbally is "obstruction of justice" these days.

A valid observation and in this case, you would technically be correct. If you want to see this on a day to day basis, attend court and watch what happens when people in front of a judge decide to speak out of turn and continue to do so. This includes witnesses, suspects, defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutiung attorneys as well as police officers.

Care to explain the difference?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm going to bring back my earlier analogy because you're very fond of basing right and wrong off of how someone "feels"

Because thats the standard used. What did the officer percieve when he was giving the command? I am fond of bringing it up because it goes directly to the lawfulness of the command at the moment it was given. I bring it up because, again, you guys try to dismiss things you dont understand, and in thise case, its irrelevant on what you think the officers intentions were. Its based on what he perceived when he gave the command itself, and the video is clear on what his thoughts were.

If you think he had ulterior motives thats fine, but unless you can prove those ulterior motives, they are speculation based on your personal observation and have no bearing on his actions.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if a cop comes on my property, and i feel threatened, can i shoot them? uniform or not doesn't change how i feel about the situation.

edit on 1-7-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

It depends on why he is on your property and whats going on. However, what you and others fail to understand is private property does not allow you to just shoot anyone who comes onto your property, nor does it allow a person immunity from criminal prosecution based soley on the argument its private property.

If the officer is performing his duties, IE looking for someone, chasing a suspect etc, you have no legal right to interfer in those duties, and by doing so, you can be charged for it. The argument its private property will not excuse your actions either. What people fail to understand is while performing our duties, we are not required to offer any explanation if doing so can result in a danger to the officer or any others present, including yourself.

And you are correct, uniform or not, to you, doesnt matter how you feel and that is your right. However, how you feel about peple in uniform doesnt allow you to shoot / kill them because they are in uniform, nor does any ignorance about how the law works allow you to kill them either.

The simple fact that is part of our argument speaks volumes... You wonder why those of us who wear uniforms are cautions when we deal with people.

You are just one example of why that is.

Please take the following not as disrespect but as an observation. Firstly Xcath thanks for being civil and giving us your honesty.

Allow me to explain my postings. I'm not posting as a lawyer, I post as a guy who has some legal knowledge. The reason being is because if I wrote posts like it was my job I WOULD end up sounding EXACTLY like you, because I DO understand EVERY argument you make to defend the police actions in the video. I really do, but because I can see the injustice in many of the "laws" governments have passed over the years I no longer wish to stay silent about legal vs lawful.

Now for the part that might sound disrespectful. You are not taught as a police officer to study law and all of its intricacies, you are trained to enforce the law based on how it is written as you understand it. I'm sure we can both agree that the justice system has seen its fair share of abuse in its time and I'm sure you can also agree that some of these "laws" we have simply don't make sense.

The thing I'm sick and tired of hearing is your (as in police in general) age old excuse of "I'm just doing my job." or "I'm just following the law." I was always taught that policemen were our friends and that they defend our safety. What I see now is police officers that LOVE the POWER of their job and constantly wish for more rules to enforce.

Your livelihood has been highjacked by the rich, powerful, corporate masters at the top of the pile. Yet we never see police officers stand up and scream "That statue is unlawful we will not enforce it!" they always bow their heads and obey. Well guess what? People were raised the same as me, believing you were there to protect us, but now we really are seeing the ugly truth, police are addicted to their power, always want more and are working against us rather than for us.

You need to give your head a good long shake, are citizens supposed to cower before the paranoid policemen?

Here is exactly what *I* think went through that arresting officers head:

"Oh yeah look at this car, parked to far from the curb, time for justice!
I wonder if he has a gun, probably, this is the united states everyone has a gun, better unsnap my holster.
Look at this little punk, I bet he has something in the car I can arrest him for...
That's right you little punk just disobey once and you'll get my boot so fast...
OH CRAP! is that a CAMERA!? CRAP CRAP CRAP IT IS! Now what? I can't just beat this little punk for no reason now...
Aww shucks and I had my batoning arm all ready to go... How can I get rid of this camera? Oh I know!

LADY GO BACK INTO YOUR HOUSE! "There problem solved, she better follow my order too or else I'm gonna baton her as well."
"Damn! She isn't leaving and now I look like a pussie that can't even order a little girl around."

We all know what happened next. It was sad.

-Lightrule

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
show me the law that states that. just because an officer tells me to do something, doesn't mean i have to comply, especially when i'm not the suspect. i'd really like to see the law on that one.

The law has been posted time and again. Look up New York Penal Law, obstructing government operation, and then check the definitons present. Just because you and tohers are not understanding how this works does not mean its not present. The officer told the lady to back off in the offical course of his duties. Again, its irrelevant what the ldy thinks is right or not right at that time, its not up to her. She can file a complaint after the fact.

Failure to comply can result in your arrest, even if it means to get you out of the scene that you are not part of.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
so telling an officer he's wrong is grounds for arrest, even if he is? do you agree with that? i'd like to see the law on that one too.

See answer above - When an officer directs you to do something, its not your place to determine if its a lawful command or not, and thats based on case law that says you as a civilian do not have all the iformation present. The officer does, and because of that is the final say on the scene. You are free after the fact to file any complaints you want, but during the incident, you are not free to continue to challenege the officer, as this lady did.

Again, because you dont agree witht her law, doesnt make it invalid or not present. Just because you dont understand legal terminology or the concept of case law, doesnt make your argument correct. In a situation where an officer is telling a 3rd party to do soemthing, and all the stupid ass hypotheticals some managed to come up with aside, it boils down to information and whats going on.

The officer is in charge of the scene, not the civilian. To bring this point home, what did the lady know at the time she was being told to back away? She had no idea what was going on with thre traffic stop until AFTER the fact a few days later.

So yes, she needed to comply with the officers commands. Her refusla to comply, and her contiued argument with that officer, is what got her in trouble. It had nothing to dow with her recording.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the difference in court is everyone gets their say. its structured in the same way a debate is. in the middle of a debate when your opponent is giving his opening statements, you can't just say "well now this is where you're completely wrong, and blah blah blah is why". no such structure exists in personal interactions in the real world.

Correct - key point being in a structured setting that is controlled and safe for all present. That is not the same as walking up on a traffic stop where the driver is being detained, there are other people in the car and a search of the vehicle is under way, all while be known to the police as gang members, which again contrary to what you guys wish the law said, is something law enforcement can take into account when dealing with them.

If a person we stop has a prior history with the officr of being armed or fighting with law enforcement, we dont have to go through all the niceties of waiting for that indiviudal to act before we place the individual into handcuffs for officer safety. We can start out directly with that step and go from there.

Going back to your court setting though, When the judge tells you to do something, try arguing with him for a minute, if it lasts that long, and see what can occur. Contempt of court comes to mind. Why is that? Because just like the officers on scene, the judge is in control of the courtroom, not the people who are present and watching.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
so the lawfulness of a command is based on the relative feelings of an officer? one that is obviously vengeful after the curb ticket debacle. basically, an officer can do no wrong because everything he does is based off of how he feels at the moment?

Your ability to obfuscate knows no bounds I see. Since the officer is in charge of the scene, absolutely, what he feels is how it goes. Just as your attempt to use the structure of a courtroom in the above, argue with a judge and see where it gets you. The officer is in charge of that scene, and because of that if you are close and they dont like it, they are within the law to tell you that, and to tell you to move elsewhere.

It doesnt matter if you think thats wrong, thats the way it is and its like that for a reason. You seem to try everychance you get to work in vengeful of the officer writing the tickets with absolutely no proof. So I guess it really is ok to make a decision based on how one feels. You seem to be doing it all the time in this debate so long as it supports your aargument, and you bitch about it when it doesnt.

Pick a side and stick with it would you please?

And finally, yes its absed on what the officer feels. Check Supreme Court decisions that deal with an officers use of force and see what standard is established when reviewing an officers use of force by people who were not present. Its what the officer was feeling at the moment force was used.

Hindsight 20/20 is not allowed. Personal opinons you guys are giving is fine, but they are just that and are not taking into account what the law says.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
can anyone prove what the officer intended? no. it was based on "feelings". not a good way to operate.

Actually yes, the officer himself can explain his intentions and why he did what he did. Since its an ongoing issue though, the cop cant just come out and give a press conference. Your explanation of it being based on feelings is a double edge sword. The lady "felt" she didnt have to obey the order because she "felt" it was her right to record the police in the manner she did.

What she "felt" is irrelevant in this case because it had nothing to dow ith her recording.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
so with police, however they feel (or however they said they felt) about the civilian is how they act, and its legal because of the officer's interpretation. but citizens must base their judgements on solid tangible facts? do you agree with that?

No, but once again bravo on trying to change and twist the meaning of words. You are confusing the civilian itself with the civilians actions. Had the lady backed off it would have been overwith. It was her actions that caused the issues.

In a fluid scenario, anything can occur, and having civilians close is a bad idea because of that. Contrary to popular belief, every single civilian who was close to the traffic stop is the responbsibility of the officers present, whether they realize that or not. If the lady was allowed to remain that close, and something happened and she was injured or killed, the offier can be held responsible for her injury or death y failing to take action that could have prevented it.

We use the what if game, much to the anooynace of you guys who dont undestand it. You guys see the situation at face value with the benefiet of hindsight. You watched the video, and had it all layed out by the media, from start to finish.

What you guys ignore is that during the incident, no such hindsight was present. It is what it is, and at that time, based on what the officer knew, the traffic stop, the gang affiliation , a vehicle search -

Which by the way info came out that placed a gun in the vehicle, something else you gusy are now ignoring -

All of which is taken into account. Along with the thought process of who are these people watching? Are any of them affiliated with whats going on? Are any of them acting differently? Who is the person in the car driving down the road?

You guys ignore it because you think iuts paranoid and useless - and all I can say is that mindset, paranoid and useless, is how we get killed. We use the term complacent, just like the media when they use the term routine traffic stop.

You guys dont understand something, and because of that you autmoatically attack itand try to place it into your argument as a negative. I find i amazing since, if you dont understand it, how you can attempt to use it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if you remember back to the original analogy i referenced, i said that shooting an officer because i felt threatened isn't right or fair. i only wish the same courtesy is given to civilians, but it never will be.

When civilians are empowered to do the exact same job law enforcement is, get back to me. You are trying to say a civlian and a law enforcement officer do the same job, and we dont. We have specialized training where as a civlian does not. We are empowered to enforce all laws, where as a civilian is not. We can violate a person civil rights, where as a civilian cannot.

As much as this annoys people, its that way for a reason. Again, failing to understand what it is we do, everything we do, is a problem that ranks up their with you guys saying the cops dont communicate with the citizens. Its a 2 way street.

You feeling threatened by an officer in uniform is NOt on the same level as an officer feeling threatened by a civilian. I hate to put it that way, but its true.

There are expectations involved - and one of those expectations is a person in a police uniform is a police officer, and his authority is established by virtue of wearing the uniform itself. I know you and others dont agree or like it, but its been that way since modern policing was established in London England and brought to the US.

If you look at our use of force levels you will notice something intresting. An officer in Uniform is a use of force level. An officer in a marked patrol unit is a use of force as well. Both establish the authority of the officer.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i want to see you quote the laws you say let an officer do these things. not department policy, but solid law.

edit on 1-7-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

I have quoted the laws time and again. The next step would be for you guys to read those laws and actually undestand them. Instead of ignoring them and then coming back time and again demanding I show you the law.
New York Penal Code - Obstruction of a Government Function.

Read it, read and undestand the defintions and terms used when it comes to law enforcement, and then check available case law for the State of New York, and the Federal Case law for their appeals circuit and then US Supreme Court.

A lot of you guys have quuoted federal constitution while ignoring the fact it took place in the State of New York. You guys go straight to quoting an amednment or law, without researching to see if case law has ffected the law your trying to quote.

That is a problem as well, and goes back to what I was saying about you guys judging the police based on what you think, and not what you know.