Posted on 06/21/2011 7:47:59 PM PDT by kiryandil
"The woman was videotaping a traffic stop in front of her house at night. The video speaks for itself."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ZkFZkejv8
Sorry, I suspect her motives. Her tone on the video was
snarky especially her comment about needing fresh air.
The only way to know is to see the police video of what
happened BEFORE she started taping.
There is a hint (in the comments) about her being right
on top of them. The police asked her to move back. But
like a child who stubbornly does what he is told by backing
up exactly one inch, this woman (may have) obeyed in
rebellious increments until she was finally told to go into
her home.
Show me the police video before I hang the officer.
Use TEN cameras, get as many people as you can to record the action.
A few cops can intimidate one or two people but its much harder when there are multiple cameras and dozens of people all recoding the action and explaining to the cops they are overstepping their authority.
In our area if a cop had walked onto private property to arrest someone who was doing nothing but taping their arrest, that cop would not had much of a public life afterwords. Around hear everyone knows everybody and the poor cop would have to finally apologize AND probably remit some form of compensation.
A few years back a young cop tried to solicit sex from a young lady in lieu of getting a speeding ticket. Relatives found out and the poor fella got so much flack and threats he finally quit the force AFTER he apologized. His car was repeatedly vandalized, he got cold-cocked twice in the bars and every witness refuted the cop's story.
bttt for later
Much simpler than that. A picture is worth a thousand words, but a video conveys a thousand lies.
In either case, this is why the Pentagon has such a down on war photos and flag draped coffins, because there is no way they can be seen that reflects highly on the US military.
It was put to me this way. “Here you see a picture of a dead young boy, lying in the street and looking unarmed, pitiful and fly-blown. Tragic. Shame on the US for killing him when they could have arrested him, or something!”
But was is not seen in the picture is how this 22-year-old “young boy” threw Molotov cocktails into an orphanage and was machine-gunning burning children as they ran out before a policeman shot him. Sort of changes the context a bit.
In this case, the police had pulled over a car in front of her house. So she exits the house and stands on the sidewalk video recording. When the policeman asked her to back up, he could do so—up to when she was standing on her lawn. At that distance, and in that location, just video recording, she could not be legally construed as interfering with what the officers were doing.
When the officer decided to intervene, he began an entire chain of intentional efforts to violate the law *and* obstruct justice. And this latter charge is critical. As he addresses her, he is *not* talking to her, but is attempting to subvert the legal process and suborn perjury with false statements that may be seen later in court.
This is a serious criminal offense.
His first actual offense was to cross onto her property, after being told he could not. Then he lied and said that something that had happened before she had begun video recording somehow justified what he was doing.
He continued to give what amounted to illegal orders. The flashlight trick, while not illegal in and of itself, does indicate that he was intentionally trying to conceal his identity.
Adding it all up, had she *not* attempted to use her own “tricks”, though she wisely denied that anything had happened prior to video recording, he would have had so many legal advantages that he would have likely been able to shield both illegal and improper acts behind either police policy or other legal defenses.
As far as “descending to his level”, that is no more the case than insisting on fighting Queensbury rules when Queensbury rules are not in effect. Trial is not based on reason, but the opinion of prosecutor, judge and jury.
Stock legal phrases from both sides. However, the officer had an opportunity to question her about the potential for being armed and he did not. To me this indicates his “I feel unsafe” comment was specious. He instead opted for intimidation and the threat of arrest for an ‘unproven’ fear. Were I on a jury, the Rochester Police Department would be driving scooters and bicycles from the jury award forward.
If you ask me she’s a dope, a random car is pulled over for a traffic violation and she starts filming it? She’s probably one of those that thinks the police are evil, I’d bet the farm she’s a lib and hippie. I didn’t watch it all but I hope she got tazed !
I dunno, if THREE heavily armed police ossifers were playing the "we feel threatened" card with me, I'd probably feel like getting snarky, too.
Another boot leather-lover who feels that the peasants don't own their own lawns.
Maybe he & his pals should have put the beat-down on the mouthy peasant b*tch, hey?
I think what she did was un-american. She went looking for a fight and she found one. Nothing you can say will change my mind, I know people like her.
People on their own land still have to obey the law.
Next time the cops ask for another ton of paramilitary toys on your dime, vote No. Cases like this are nature’s way of telling us they have too much money as it is.
“I think what she did was un-american. She went looking for a fight and she found one. Nothing you can say will change my mind, I know people like her.”
They claim the right to surveil us whenever they want. When we return the favor, we’re not acting against the police; all we’re doing is increasing the amount of taped evidence on What Actually Happened That Night. The tape taken, by both sides, might be needed in court.
Disgusting. How can that be legal?
LOL! I get it, you're a joke!
You'd be great as a pro-government-fascism commentator in an Ayn Rand book...
The ossifer, who was moonlighting from his day job as a women's panty model, clearly was making up "the law" as he went along.
So what's going on with you, Moonman? Are these comments "threatening" to you? You and your posse going to arrest us, or knock some heads?
The Founders would have been the first ones to tar and feather those arrogant little blue boys...
Nope...I saw the entire video. She was not trying to provoke him...just the opposite...He was trying to provoke her and he did...
'Ow do you plead, peasant wench?
BTW - the reason that "she’s no stranger to police" is because she and a group of others tried to block a home in Rochester, NY from foreclosure.
It's well known that The Too Big To Prosecute Banks are illegally foreclosing on many homes, and that the legal system of the fifty states won't prosecute irrefutable felonies by said Big Banks.
Instead, the state attorneys-general are working on the size of the bribe to be paid to appease them. So, it's clear that "Law Is For The Little People", unless you get it on Youtube....
;-)
Out-of-control
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.