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 ...
Yes. One was holding a video camera as she was escorted away. Now explain why THAT person wasn’t a danger and didn’t need to “obey orders.”
Remember, that person also could have pulled a gun or a poison dart gun or thrown a fig newton at the officer.
Was this person not a “danger” in your paranoid world? Why was that person not dealt with?
Explain.
The odd thing: those who were offended were Democrats, or Libertarians (I lived in Ron Paul’s district). Those who were accepting were Republicans.
The hard core neo=confederates there were Libertarian party. Yes, that surprised me too.
And you might want to answer the fence question, too.
In the beginning, she wasn’t in her yard, you can tell that y her backing up when the cop called her on it. Watch the video again, I did and I caught that. Secondly, it doesn’t matter where she was, th officer gave her a lawful order and her failure to comply allowed the cop to arrest her.
You want answers as to why the cops didn’t deal with the others, can you show me that they were as close as she was? Can you show me that they had their Iphones out and filming it? Can you show me, in any way that any of them made themselves an element in the arrest as this young woman did?
If not, then there was no reason for the police to deal with them as they did with her.
The recent Marine in Pima county, Arizona murdered by cops was a victim of thuggish behavior. One of the cops entering was startled to see the Marine with a rifle in prone firing position, tripped and fell in the doorway, and had an accidental discharge. The rest of them started firing after that, murdering the Marine.
A major risk to cops is the incompetence and poor gun handling of other cops.
I didn’t see any other camera and I will watch the video again on that. It’s likely that person was further away from the scene than this woman, but that is a guess on my part.
That suggests that the cop wasn’t being anti-camera if he allowed the other person to film, but not her. I know that if I’d been the cop in that situation and a person was that close to the action, I’d want her to back up as well, for her safety.
>>Secondly, it doesn’t matter where she was, th officer gave her a lawful order and her failure to comply allowed the cop to arrest her.<<
No, you are demonstrably wrong on that.
First, you said she could be hauled in with no charges. Well, it turns out she WAS charged with a crime, a bogus charge:
“Second Degree Obstruction of Governmental Administration”
The DA said there was no evidence to support the arrest.
So your bullcrap about how the arrest was “justified” just flew out the window. You lost. You are wrong. You don’t have a leg to stand on.
And all your yammering about how the cop was in the right is worthless.
All you can do is project what “might have happened” if the stars had aligned just right, or what someone “might have been thinking” or something the woman “might have said.”
But guess what? That’s not how it works in America. We have laws, and we have rights. Deal with it.
Have a nice day.
Help me out, what is the fence question?
You have an inflated idea of the risks that police have. Very few police officers die in any given year. Certainly fewer per capita than firemen, or crab fishers.
Second, their desire does not give them unlimited rights to violate the rights. They are limited by law and by reasonableness.
Third a hand filled with a camera can not simultaneously operate a firearm. The camera is a reduced threat of violence, not an increased hazard.
The camera is a risk if you are a bad cop intent on violating people’s rights. The cops kind of self select for attention on that, as we have seen.
I didn’t say the cop didn’t charge her with anything, I know he did. I only said that you can be arrested and held up to 24 hours without being charged with a crime and you can be.
If the cop has given a lawful order, you can be charged for failing to follow. Yes, you can be arrested.
But in the case at hand this was not the case. Cop went after Good and interfered with her. Other two cops were also unaffected. In this case the video began with the suspect in cuffs. Arrest had been made.
I’m well aware that being a cop, in North America, isn’t the most dangerous occupation in the world. I’m a store clerk and more of me die yearly than they. However, neither is firefighting, but you wouldn’t suggest they they forego certain equipment because their actual danger has been mitigated by having the proper equipment and training, would you? Cops deal with us in ways that help protect us and them. I guess the few numbers that do die each year, probably reflects successful training and technique.
Yes they are limited and should be, but if you give the cops cause, they can and do arrest you.
How long would it take to drop a camera and pull out a gun, 2 seconds? And you expect the cops to be able to react with no concern with the camera and, on a dime, be able to stop her if she had pulled out a gun?
Until he’s booked and in a cell, the arrest is still in process.
He only went after her, when she failed to comply. Had she complied, she would not have been arrested.
Bottom line: Jonty and others say Good was interfering with the arrest.
The DA says she wasn’t.
Case closed.
and how long would it take to whip out a gun if you didn’t have a camera? Perhaps half the time as with a camera? See how the camera is a reduction in the threat?
Again, the camera is not a threat. Focus on the camera can not be justified as a threat to a police officer, unless he is a bad cop anticipating doing a bad thing.
Actually, we don’t know what the DA thinks about the situation. Saying that he doesn’t have enough evidence to support the charges doesn’t mean he disagrees with the cop.
It’s like being found not guilty of a crime. The state isn’t saying it doesn’t think you didn’t do it, it just doesn’t have enough evidence to say with certainty that you did do it.
As somebody pointed out, the cop probably wasn’t concerned about the camera itself as there was at least one other individual who also had a camera and was actively filming.
Yes we DO know what the DA thinks, because there was a decision rendered.
He or she saw the same video we did. There was no interference. And that was the ruling. Period.
The reason for the arrest was interference. There was none, and that is why the charges were dismissed.
Until you let that reality sink into your skull, you are wasting my time.
Please, spare me any more of your stupid posts.
The DA’s exact words were, “we couldn’t make out the elements of the crime charged. That is not lawyer speak for, the girl didn’t do it. That is lawyer speak for, “she may have done, but we can’t see it.”
The justice system rarely declares anybody innocent of anything and there’s no exception in this case either.
That means there was no interference on the tape, and not enough evidence from any other source.
You see interference on the tape. They did not and ruled so.
That’s the way it works in America, we have laws, and we have rights. Deal with it.
There is none. Period. You lose. Your argument is baseless. Case closed.
Goodbye.
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.