Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 73

Thread: Rochester, NY Woman arrested for videotaping police

  1. #1
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543

    Rochester, NY Woman arrested for videotaping police

    http://www.pixiq.com/rochester-polic...ping-them.html

    This woman was standing in her front yard -- on her own property -- videotaping the police during a traffic stop. One officer told her that "he didn't feel safe with her standing there" and ordered her to go into her house. When she did not comply, he arrested her.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    31

    At least camera safe

    I'm surprised they didn't confiscate the camera. Lots of witnesses.

    It will be interesting to hear the charges.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Idiots.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    If the cop came onto her property absent of RAS, no crime being committed, I'd file a civil suit charging him and the department with trespassing, harassment, false arrest and a host of other charges, maybe even kidnapping for unlawfully detaining her.

    See how they like them apples (even if the charges don't stick).
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  5. #5
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543

    Eyewitness report on the incident

    The woman was charged with "Obstructing Governmental Administration."

    http://rochester.indymedia.org/newsw...7018/index.php

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    This cop needs to be disciplined harshly. He, and all other cops, need to see that abusing their authority will not be tolerated. The man who was stopped needs to use the tape in whatever civil action he brings against the police. It looks to me like they were generating RAS in his case and did not like documentation of how they were dealing with him. Maybe not, but an investigation of both incidents is warranted.

    That being said, the tape would be more effective had the woman not lost it after being arrested, but had remained rational and resolved up until the end. If one is going to stand his ground in the face of unlawful police action, he needs to be prepared to be arrested, keeping his head about him throughout. This lady did not keep hers when an officer, already demonstrating his predisposition to place his demands above her rights, predictably took matters to the next level.

    I'm not saying that this woman was in any way wrong in anything she did. I'm just saying that this tape could've been even more potent.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    ^^ Though I agree in principle with Mr Eye, I think there's also some value in her actions turning to distress, which tells me she was not being cold and calculating but actually a normal citizen doing something harmless. It speaks to lack of 'intent', perhaps.

    I'm stunned they charged her. For a good lawyer, this actually makes her case stronger than if they just let her go, I think. IANAL. (civil case that is)

    It would have been better if she had gone back inside, and also said 'if you step foot on my property, I'm filing suit for trespassing absent RAS and kidnapping among other things. I'm warning you to back off'.

    I don't think it's 'illegal' to be anti-police, but he seems to be setting up a scenario to unlawfully act under a false charge. As the article says, they met for an hour elsewhere discussing how to charge her.

    Edit to add: If you're going to do this type of thing, it makes sense to contact a lawyer (before you do it) and get some ideas on the legality and recourse, and protection afforded if done on your own property. IOW, get some backing. Maybe even have your lawyer agree to be on speed dial. Most people are aware that filming the police can get you into difficulty even if it's not illegal. You can film them and not be obvious, istm.

    As far as the charge, if she had gone up to them, left her yard or the like it might have some validity. But the fact that it happened in front of her and she didn't approach makes me think it won't stand the test to validate this kind of charge. I wonder if this kind of thing can go to a jury. I bet the Sergeant took this into account, maybe selected a misdemeanor which would prevent a jury trial?
    Last edited by Badger Johnson; 06-22-2011 at 08:40 AM.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567

    Angry

    "Officer safety" trumps rights and the constitution etc etc etc.... and there are enough people that believe that.

  9. #9
    McX
    Guest
    officer safety; apparently no cameras, as they will absorb free electrons from the subject, there by diminishing their total volume as a human being. no poop, i heard this one was used once in England to attempt to ban photographing the fuzzy hat guys.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Whenever the police don't want to be photographed or videotaped, they're INEVITABLY up to no good.

  11. #11
    Regular Member exgee11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bowling Green OH
    Posts
    1
    I can appreciate the officer not feeling safe with the woman behind him during the stop, but once she asserted her right to stand in the yard of her PRIVATE PROPERTY he should have sucked it up and moved on.

    I understand that policing the masses is a dangerous job but my rights to private property trump your right to feel good.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    I am fairly certain that as this goes even more viral that they will drop the charges, apologize with some ridiculous reasoning about why it happened. Then they will be lucky to avoid a lawsuit seeing how one lawyer is already involved according to the article.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214
    It seemed like the other two officers weren't bothered by her presence just the arresting officer.

  14. #14
    Regular Member riverrat10k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    on a rock in the james river
    Posts
    1,453

    On another thread in this forum, a poster quoted Radley Balko...

    I will paraphrase----What? Yet ANOTHER isolated incident of police misconduct?

    And for fun: My favorite free speech video, delivered from a man's front porch.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3WWGCK4N0

  15. #15
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    This is CRAP which is to say a steaming pile of cow dung. I am tired of these officers who know they are doing wrong so they try to eliminate all recordings of them breaking the law. The worst part is the fellow officers who cover for them and or make it hard to prosecute them.

    Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  16. #16
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by exgee11 View Post
    I can appreciate the officer not feeling safe with the woman behind him during the stop...
    If the Stormtrooper in the vid can't perform his duty in public, where innocent civilians are always present, then maybe he isn't cut out for the SS.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 06-22-2011 at 08:08 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    466
    the modern retelling of Pastor Martin Niemöller famous text about the Holocaust:

    when they came for Randy Weaver, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a white separatist

    when they came for the Branch Davidians, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Branch Davidian
    .
    .
    when they came for the videographers, recording from the "security" of their "private property", I didn't say anything because I'm not a videographer



    ..... what's the next jack-booted step on this path?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    The woman was charged with "Obstructing Governmental Administration."

    http://rochester.indymedia.org/newsw...7018/index.php

    She should be charged with "Felonious Moping with Intent to Creep" too.

    And she should also be charged under the Patriot Act, because everyone knows that anyone who thinks they actually OWN their own property and can do whatever lawful activities they want on it is some sort of "Personal Sovereignty wing nut" and therefore by extension, is a Domestic Terrorist.

    She should also he charged under NY's wiretapping laws, not to mention, "Disobeying a Lawless Order", "Contempt of Cop", and "Failure to Facilitate Police Misconduct" because she wouldn't stop taping them, and made a video record of their actions.

    Not to mention, "Not Having Her Papers", "Failure to Grovel", "Refusing to Kiss an Official Jackboot", and "Daring to Hold the Government Accountable"...

    This woman is an obvious troublemaker, and probably some sort of wing-nut conspiracy theorist Truther with a closet full of tin foil hats. I'll bet she has even made the "pilgrimage" to the "Grassy Knoll"...

    Arresting her (and anyone else who tries this sort of subversive activity) is just the first step in "America's Final Solution" to the "Patriot Problem."

    And you folks thought all this talk about new "high speed rail projects" was about commuter trains...

    <sarcasm OFF>
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  19. #19
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Swanzey,NH, ,
    Posts
    218
    As I understand it the officers met with the Sgt. to discuss how to write the report so as to play down the screw up. UH, Can anyone say CONSPIRACY? They conspired on how to violate her civil rights, IMO that would remove all Implied Immunity, Thus subjecting all the police involved to being sued as individuals.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Rattrapper View Post
    As I understand it the officers met with the Sgt. to discuss how to write the report so as to play down the screw up. UH, Can anyone say CONSPIRACY? They conspired on how to violate her civil rights, IMO that would remove all Implied Immunity, Thus subjecting all the police involved to being sued as individuals.

    This post is obviously the ravings of a tin-foil-hat-wearing fruitcake, because everyone knows that there is no such thing as a "conspiracy" involving the government, or any of it's agencies...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by exgee11 View Post
    I can appreciate the officer not feeling safe with the woman behind him during the stop, but once she asserted her right to stand in the yard of her PRIVATE PROPERTY he should have sucked it up and moved on.

    I understand that policing the masses is a dangerous job but my rights to private property trump your right to feel good.
    It is reasonable for the police to set a perimeter around the scene. That perimeter would not include telling someone that they have to go indoors. A 25-foot (or even possibly a 50-foot) perimeter would not be unreasonable.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    When we look at the actions of the LEO, what comes to the fore?

    1. There is obviously no danger to the LEO(s) from this 110lb woman filming them, and it would be easy to just ignore her. But for some reason he did not.
    2. What is the real reason he pressed the issue?
    3. Could she not have continued filming from inside her house? Telling her to go inside is not a remedy for filming the event where a man may have been cuffed inappropriately.

    I really don't get it, and the thought that this video could have been used to help the case of the guy being detained and searched and cuffed doesn't make sense. However, consider they may have done something harsher and not let him go without charges, had there not been a video.

    To me, putting himself on the line and going onto her property and detaining her and arresting her improperly/illegally is not worth the outcome which may not be favorable to him.

    In addition he seems to have given the camera to a bystander who continued filming.

    It's puzzling behavior.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It is quite obvious that the arresting officer would have gone outside any "safety perimeter" to engage the woman.

    She deserves a great deal of money from a civil suit and it is a criminal offence to use color-of-law to violate her civil rights as seems to be the case here. The charges will be dropped to preclude a jury trial and any legal precedent.

    Since the investigators will be investigating themselves, and the public defender may wish to keep her job, a settlement is the likely outcome with no admission of wrong doing by RPD.

    Next case please....
    Likely the officer would have.

    I made the post because of the overwhelming idea being projected that the officer could not react to someone he thought was too close to an arrest going down. It is reasonable that they can. It is not reasonable to demand that the woman go in here house. Asking her to back off a bit is reasonable.

    Of course, the more we learn, the more it looks like the officers were rousting the detainee, didn't really have anything on him, and the officer was reacting unreasonably to the prospect that evidence of the roust was being recorded.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Indeed it is reasonable. She did back-off from the sidewalk to her property. He continued to engage after she complied. The video is quite clear on that point. The officer is clearly the aggressor in this regard and seems to have continued down the path of illegality. His fellow officers did not intervene as such they are also complicit in my view.

    The public defender is in a very good position to make a name for herself as a champion for those deprived of their civil rights by the state. Additionally, Miss Good seems to be some sort of activist and may not be unfamiliar with pushing an issue to a court room.
    I am not disputing any of that. I was refuting the notion that the officers have no authority to secure a perimeter around their action. They do. Reasonably. This officer did so unreasonably.

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I am not disputing any of that. I was refuting the notion that the officers have no authority to secure a perimeter around their action. They do. Reasonably. This officer did so unreasonably.
    cite?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •