Posted on 06/25/2011 8:54:25 AM PDT by Chunga85
June 21, 2011 by Carlos Miller - Pixiq
A woman was arrested for videotaping police from her front yard in Rochester, New York.
Emily Good, 28, was recording a traffic stop where police had a man handcuffed on May 12th. The video was uploaded to Blip TV today.
The cop who arrested her has been identified as Mario Masic, according to the Rochester Indy Media.
A man named Mario Masic who happens to be a police officer in western New York also runs a business called Harvest Moon Malamutes
You can friend him on Facebook here. Or you can email him through his business email address at harvestmoonmalamutes@live.com
The video, which has since gone viral, shows Masic hassling Good with absurd notions after he notices her recording.
“You seem very anti-police … due to what you said to me before you started taping me.”
It is not clear what Good said before she started recording, but if she said anything threatening, they would have arrested her at that moment.
She ended up getting handcuffed and taken away after she refused to walk into her house, even though she was clearly on her own property.
A friend or relative ended up taking the camera and we see her being led away.
Neighbors who witnessed the interaction confirmed she had done nothing wrong.
Meanwhile, the man they had originally handcuffed was released.
Mickey H. Osterreicher, attorney for the National Press Photographers Association, fired off a letter to Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard demanding that Good's charges be dropped.
Sheppard told Osterreicher and the Democrat and Chroniclenewspaper that he has ordered an investigation, which normally is police talk for sweeping it under the carpet until the media attention dies down.
(Excerpt) Read more at pixiq.com ...
There were two police cars. One of them must have been doing a video. I'm pretty sure they all have that capability.
By some definitions, so is every person who has ever attended a Tea Party.
Thank you Captain Obvious
Then I guess it’s just me......
I see a major lawsuit brewing. Unfortunately, taxpayers will likely be stuck with the bill. It seems that the individual officers and police administration should be liable, not taxpayers. I suspect the police union is also involved in supporting these type of incidents.
There should be a remedy for taxpayers when collectively or individually, public officials willingly violate the public trust. Otherwise, public officials can engage in this type of behavior with no repurcussions and the taxpayer must bear the consequences of behavior deliberately outside of established procedures.
See that's the difference between a liberal and a conservative.
Whether or not I agree with her political ideology, her rights were violated and I'd defend her to exercise her rights because of the principles involved
Liberals would not. They would throw away the keys
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. - H. L. Mencken
Do you have a diagram of where everybody was standing (their proximity to the police), and a transcript of what everybody said, or was it only Emily Good doing the talking? Is the charge against her for videotaping?
It's on display right here in this little thread.
"The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear."
Heinrich Himmler
Everybody deserves due process, and somebody has to counter the premature conclusions here on FR.
I guess this means this cop issues order, bedamned the law and the constitution, and you will follow this guys order or you will be arrested. What if she was outside filming moth activity for her biology project....It is really none of the cops buisnessd what she is doing standing on her own property. His paranoia is not justification to shred the constitution.
It's the old First Amendment statement: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
She may be a nutcase, but all Americans have a right to stand on their own property and operate a videocamera. Any American who loves freedom should recognize that.
The cop stated as much. He did not "feel safe".
No doubt the cops would feel much safer with folks peering out of windows pointing hand held objects in their direction. /s
This is nothing but a meeting of two morons. Problem is, one has a badge and that is a recipe for disaster. She's lucky he didn't 'think it was a gun'.
There were three cops there...and the other two were closer to her than he was.
>>Everybody deserves due process, and somebody has to counter the premature conclusions here on FR.
<<
And what would those premature conclusions be? Be specific please.
You support incarceration of political dissidents, aka totalitarianism. Duly noted.
But that is not America.
Mr.Police officer might have successful treatment of his delusional paranoia if everyone was locked up....just so he won't feel threatend. That would fix everything. He would not even have to revenue for the county and harass people going 31 in a 30 mph zone.
No it's "obstructing governmental administration." Which these days it appears you can commit without moving from what used to be "your property".
Not walking a mile in a cop shoes, he "may" have a legit concern depending on where he was and who he is dealing with...
But I really do think in this case, it's a complete BS excuse to get her to stop taping the traffic stop
JMHO
Police may order people into their homes if there is a clear and present danger to citizens. This case does not appear to meet that criteria. From what I can tell here, the officer didn’t like being videotaped. I’m betting the woman will file a suit.
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.