Posted on 08/28/2010 5:41:46 AM PDT by marktwain
Hunter yelled at Gibson to go inside multiple times.“Did she do that?” Biernacki asked.
“No, she did not,” Hunter said.
What authority does a police officer have to order someone back into their house? Public safety? Sure. General order? That's reasonable. But given the tale of the tape does not show any serious effort to disperse the crowd suggests this was just a cop who saw the camera.
The law was never intended to be a blank check.
Posted video.
Explain how it was a lawful order.
Journalists were threatened with arrest if they covered BP’s oil spill on the Gulf, so that title is no longer a guarentee of first amendment rights in the US. The law is whatever officials say it is now. The constitution is dead and gone.
people are getting arrested for “resisting arrest” when they film police actions.
Food for thought. I have security cameras covering my property and portions of the street and my neighbors property as well. Now, I fear for the possible consequences...
If the police tell you to go inside while an armed fugitive is at large and his accomplices are being taken into custody after a pursuit, you should comply. Or you could stand there screeching about imaginary clauses in the Constitution.
Why was she *filming* the traffic stop?
Sounds to me like she was hoping to film some “police brutality”. She had no other reason to film the incident, and in so doing, she was harassing the police officer.
She was not merely watching from her porch, she was trying to create an “incident”.
I don’t think she is an innocent victim at all.
She was convicted.
How did you get 100 yards of it? And did you have your speakers turned down?
She wasn't charged with being "armed."
The officer did make multiple statements. His first was "Get in the house" at time 1:34. There was cross talk between Gibson, her father, and her neighbor, but given the officer was using a bullhorn, because he was so far away, you can hear the officer continuing to speak.
The number of times legally should not be relevant, without considering if the subject is allowed to reasonably comply. Gibson, her father, and her neighbor are visually and verbally complying by 12 seconds later. This is not a a no-knock warrant. What is the reasonable time to comply? Given the significant distance between the cop and the subjects, and the fact it was dark, how could he tell they were resisting the 11 seconds before their backs were turned tot he cop?
This prosecutor and judge need to be voted out.
And in an area where police had previously been struck by rocks and bottles thrown at them by bystanders during arrests.
Why do people *own* guns?
Why do people *publish* newspapers?
It's highly relevant.
She was convicted.
That is not an explanation and even you know that.
Didn’t say she was.
So living in a bad neighborhood means you have to live with fewer civil rights than those who live in good neighborhoods?
Isn't that the argument Daly uses to ban guns in Chicago? We have it bad here so we should not have second amendment rights?
Re: It’s as simple as starting you own news blog. That’s exactly what I did over a year ago. You have no idea how much influence you will have in local government.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2575541/posts?page=7
Sure it is. She was arrested and convicted for violating the law in question.
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.