• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Rochester, NY Woman arrested for videotaping police

babarock

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
31
Location
Atlanta
At least camera safe

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

It will be interesting to hear the charges.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
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).
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
^^ 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:

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
"Officer safety" trumps rights and the constitution etc etc etc.... and there are enough people that believe that.
 
M

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.
 

exgee11

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
1
Location
Bowling Green OH
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.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
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.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
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
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
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:

RockyMtnScotsman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
461
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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?
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
The woman was charged with "Obstructing Governmental Administration."

http://rochester.indymedia.org/newswire/display/27018/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>
 

Rattrapper

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
218
Location
Swanzey,NH, ,
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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... :rolleyes:
 
Top