Posted on 06/27/2011 2:32:01 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
(CNN) -- Prosecutors dismissed a charge Monday against a community activist who was arrested while filming a police encounter with her iPod camera because she was concerned it was initiated by racial profiling.
"I'm feeling vindicated, I'm feeling energetic" Emily Good, 28, of Rochester, New York, said of the decision to have the charge dropped. Good had been charged with obstruction of governmental administration when she began videotaping the interrogation of a black man by three white officers in front of her house on May 12, she said.
"Based upon the evidence, we could not make out the elements of the crime charged," Monroe County First Assistant District Attorney Sandra Doorley said.
Good said she intends to file a civil suit.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
“Is the concept of a cop having the right to go home at the end of his shift pass by above your head?
I do understand that some Freepers don’t like the police and think that dead police is just the price they should pay for being a cop, I get that.”
Why don’t you quit with the idiotic “straw man” arguments?
Just because a cop wants to go home safe means he gets to issue unlawful orders, and order people to do whatever strikes his fancy. Do you seriously not understand that?
The prosecutor determined that no crime was committed, and that the arrest was false. Why are you having such a hard time accepting that?
Are you arguing with that, and saying she should have been arrested because the cop “said so”?
You are making no logical point whatsoever.
Until you comprehend that this was a wrongful arrest, please don’t waste my time posting to me.
Typo.
Should be: “Just because a cop wants to go home safe DOES NOT MEAN he gets to issue unlawful orders, and order people to do whatever strikes his fancy. Do you seriously not understand that?”
I do general posting and I do understand unlawful arrest.
That wasn’t an idiotic straw man argument. There are people here who do believe the cops are always in the wrong and must take all the risks and have no right to mitigate the situation.
We’re just not going to agree, that’s all.
I did not say the officer did act appropriately. I also am not saying that he didn't. There IS missing facts in this situation, and also an apparent disconnect among those who missed the part in the video where the woman was too close to the police when she was initially confronted. YOU might wish to rewatch the video, and pay close attention to the officer's comment to this woman where he states she is on the sidewalk (not in her front yard), at which time the woman begins backing up (clearly observable if you pay attention to the video). Police, properly trained, will require bystanders to not be in close proximity to a police action, and rightly so. Simply because the DA did not wish to pursue charges is not evidence that the officer acted wrongly. Also missing is any video evidence of just what comments the woman made prior to the video starting (something the officer also alludes to). If she made comments which prompted the officer to address them, perhaps that could explain his reaction. There is a few missing elements IMO.
“Good said she intends to file a civil suit.”
And the scam continues:
Liberal politicians write thousands of laws and hire lefty union cops to enforce those laws, especially against plantation voters the Dems keep penned up downtown. Occasionally this gets out of hand and the plantation voters will then find themselves a bleeding heart lawyer-type who has no trouble finding a left-wing activist judge who awards a great deal of money to the plantation voter (and the bleeding heart lawyer too, of course).
At the end of this process the bill is sent to ...
None of the aforementioned peoples.
The bill for this scam is paid by taxpayers who are not liberal politicians, lefty union cops, plantation voters, bleeding heart lawyers, or left-wing activist judges.
The best paying scam going, and a prime reason for the downward arc of this country.
Well, unless you are a higher legal authority in Rochester NY than the DA is, you can rabble on aimlessly as long as you won't... it still won't change the fact the cops violated this woman's rights, the DA recognized this and asked a judge to dismiss the charges. And she will sue the city and has a greater chance of winning than the cops do...
Enjoy your pointless little rant.
There were several people standing around watching the event.
One person had a video camera.
The jack boot singled her out and said he did not feel comfortable.
He said she should go in her house.
He seemed to have no problem with the other observers.
Probably because everybody else stood in a way that didn’t cause the cop to be concerned, like standing at a distance and not two feet from the point of arrest like this woman did.
Once somebody has made themselves known, during an arrest, as being a possible problem, that person remains a factor during the arrest until it’s conclusion.
I don’t believe you and I think you are an idiot.
I think the cop was wrong to arrest her, but I don’t think the cop was wrong to order her to back up.
If she had refused to back up, I wouldn’t have had a problem with the cop arresting her.
they stooped, searched and interrogated him - but then let him go - they did NOT arrest him,.
One might wonder if there might have been a different ending from him had the lady not been taping? Maybe she was taping because such incidences are common place?
Your opinion of me ranks somewhere near the bottom of my priorities in life. Probably not at the bottom, because cleaning my toilet is somewhere below that, but they are pretty close in being tied.
Just what I'd have said 15-20 years ago. I hope you're right.
Every charged crime has some basic elements that must be proven in order to prove the charge and make a conviction. For example, mens rea (a "guilty mind", aka intent), actus reas (the guilty action), a (valid) law forbidding the act, establishing that the intent and the act were concurrent, etc.
In this case, the government would have a tough time with at least two of just those four elements, hence they dropped the pretense of the threats against the girl.
Citizens also have the right to go home at night. They also have the right to peaceable assemble (have not heard that one in a long time).
Cops do not have superior right of the citizens. They do however have the responsibility to protect those citizen rights.
You can’t put citizens under all kinds of surveillance and then exempt yourself from surveillance. It wouldn’t be illegal if it were a street camera, it wouldn’t be illegal for a cop to tape something he saw thru the window. Flows both ways.
It’s amazing how many of you there are who are so quick to judge cops in any situation as this, anywhere across the United States, despite the fact you weren’t there when the situation occurred, and don’t have a clue as to whether the facts as reported are accurate and true, while accepting the word of someone who stepped out of her home with the intent to try and capture video of white cops violating the rights of someone stopped in their neighborhood. Perhaps the woman will file suit. That, in and of itself, is not evidence the officer violated her rights. A jury will, if the suit is filed, make that determination, not you. Speaking of pointless statements, in the words of Ronald Reagan, there you go again.
Two feet?
Your posts might not be so stupid if you watched the video.
Two feet?
Your posts might not be so stupid if you watched the video.
Exactly, if the cops were video taped, then there would be evidence for the good ones that they were acting appropriately. And if they were bad, it could be found out quicker.
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.