Posted on 06/28/2011 1:39:35 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
The Rochester woman whose run in with the law with her iPhone and made national headlines, plans to file a lawsuit claiming Rochester police violated her civil rights.
Donald Thompson, attorney for Emily Good, told News 10NBC's Ray Levato Tuesday they may sue the individual police officer involved in her arrest, the Rochester Police Department, "any or all of the above and that's something to be discussed and considered."
Good was arrested in her bare feet and pajamas while standing in her own yard one night in May while taping a traffic stop that happened in front of her 19th Ward home. Good kept recording even after an officer asked her to stop and go inside. She was charged with obstructing government administration.
Monday, the District Attorney's office asked City Court Judge Jack Elliott to dismiss the charges because a review of the evidence showed there was no legal basis to prosecute.
Thompson says, "Her stated reason for video taping in the first place was that three white officers were stopping a young black male. And she's obviously attuned to social issues and concerns. There's nothing wrong with monitoring the course of those proceedings to make sure the correct procedures are being followed."
Thompson says says the lawsuit will claim a violation of Good's civil rights under the guarantees of the First Amendment. He said they will either file it in state or federal court.
"There was no crime that she committed here," says Thompson. "There was no basis to arrest her. There was no reason to forcibly take her from her property. It's a violation of her civil rights."
"It was pretty far over the line," says Thompson. "That's why it went national. "
(Excerpt) Read more at whec.com ...
Well, I don’t. An enemy is an enemy.
He won’t provide proof beyond what exists in his cloud-cuckoo land.
As much fun as this has been I really need to get back to brushing up on the fugue of Beethoven’s “Hammerklavier”. Its been years since I played it in recital and I really need to continue my polishing of it, (along with three Chopin polonaises), before the end of July gets here.
Speaking of “short sighted”, I’d say your response epitomizes that. Go coddle your enemies if you will. Just don’t whine when they gut you at the first opportunity.
My all time favorite is Copland’s Fanfare for the Common Man.
Under appropriate circumstances, yes, police have the right to demand a private citizen go into their home. This happens all the time all across the U.S. In this case, had Ms. Good not argued with the officer, and had backed up upon his first comments to her, I believe this incident would not have escalated to her arrest. And, again, the video provides the evidence she was on the sidewalk, and within a too close proximity to the police action. Since you are using hypotheticals in asking how far is reasonable, I'll respond, hypothetically, that such a decision is appropriately relegated to the discretion of the on-scene officer of the police action, and depending upon the particular elements of the situation the officer faces.
Sometimes officers need to remember there is letter of the law and there is spirit of the law, and an arrest is not always necessary to gain compliance. Sometimes just talking it through will achieve the desired result. Acknowledging the rights of the citizens while expressing the needs and concerns of the government and coming to mutual understanding and agreement is beneficial to officer and citizen alike.
He might be able to articulate enough in his report that because of E. Good’s (et al) proximity, he felt there was a safety issue and in his determination, E. Goods unreasonable response (again, his determination)to his request to step away from the traffic stop, and despite repeated requests for her to go inside her home, these actions constituted grounds for arrest.
That might cover him enough for a good faith arrest. The prosecutors declined to charge for the whatever passes for failure to obey the orders or directions of a police officer, or interfering with the duties of a police officer in Rochester or the statutes of New York State. They disagreed that there were the elements necessary to support prosecution, they will not venture into whether there was legitimate concerns by the officer that precipitated the arrest. A review by the police board will determine if the officers actions were in line with what a reasonable and prudent officer with similiar levels of training and experience would do in a similiar circumstance.
For the record, I have been a police officer for over 15 years, and I would have handled this differently, (if the tactical situation allowed, as this one apparently did) politely explaining to her that I did not mind the filming, but suggesting that she do it from a place that would provide a degree of safety in case the situation devolved. I would also remind her that she had filmed the occupant of the vehicle and there is the possibility that he or others may not be appreciative of this and this had been done directly in front of her home. Just food for thought. I would also offer to have my supervisor contact her for further explanation and if she should so desire, she could get a complaint form from the same supervisor. I fear neither complaint nor camera.
Actions like what I would have done run counter to her expectations and indeed, would have befuddled her because she would not have gotten the desired response from me, an angry shouting fest that would have furthered her own personal agenda.
Officers need to be cognizant of the first amendment rights of citizens to film, as citizens should be cognizant that officers have a legitimate reason to be confrontational (there are polite, professional confrontations) when areas they must diligently control (for myriad reasons) are encroached upon. What is lacking many times is the officer’s desire to explain to an adult WHY they are asking for what they are asking. Officers train and work in environs where what may be self evident to them, may not be so for citizens.
Twice he tried to flee his original statement of hate against all things LE by leaving out his own words of hatred, focussing instead on his comments of how unuseful LEO’s are. These people are unfricken-believable.
I’m retired. I’m a dinosaur. I learned from my day’s oldtimers. Be polite, friendly, know the law, apply it fairly and equally, be helpful, avoid an arrest if a talking to will do and kick the $hit out of someone if they have it coming. That was the true test. Knowing who needed their head thumped and who just needed a talking to. We also had very thick skins. If I had a buck for every ignored insult or threat thrown my way I could buy a very nice ride.
“...Twice he tried to flee his original statement...”
-
What?
Where?
When?
You are an idiot.
Bravo - a very cogent explanation. I concur the officer could have handled the situation differently, and thus, possibly avoided the confrontation that ensued. Ms. Good, had the officer used your discretion, may have still attempted to argue with him, and ultimately wound up in cuffs anyway. But your approach would have been much better IMO. You are wearing you flame retardant clothing, right?
You are beginning to waffle.
You didn’t explain why the other people who stayed on the lawn were not arrested. Just curious.
And I would love to get your take on the retaliation (the swarm of squad cars to issue parking violations)?
Dunno, maybe it’s just the nail that sticks up gets hammered?
Here’s my take. That had better not have been a written directive by command staff or council person. That could get Helen Thomas epic level ugly.
>>Dunno, maybe it’s just the nail that sticks up gets hammered?<<
A nice, violent metaphor.
You got it. Which proves he was NOT doing it because he felt endangered, but he didn’t like the woman speaking back to him. It’s a crock.
The others disobeyed his “orders” too, but were not arrested.
It was a case of Contempt of Cop, and NO WAY was Johnny Badass gonna let this barefoot woman in her pajamas defy his “orders.”
I hope you can appreciate why cops like this are held in contempt of the American people.
183 posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:59:33 PM by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
You jump to conclusions (which is typical for a cop). I simply said that in my 3 decades of walking around on this planet, I have never had any need for a cop, other than their rather poor clerical skills.
196 posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 5:19:08 PM by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Just got no use for ‘em. Never have had any use for ‘em. (other than their rather poor clerical skills).
220 posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 5:49:40 PM by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
“...Twice he tried to flee his original statement...”
- What? Where? When? You are an idiot. 229 posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:07:14 PM by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Senile dementia or Alzheimer's? In post 183 you stated you hate cops and they are less than worthless. Then in two subsequent posts you ran away from your statement that you hate cops. Whose the idiot?
>>Here’s my take. That had better not have been a written directive by command staff or council person. That could get Helen Thomas epic level ugly.
<<
Good. We agree it was retaliation. The only question is who ordered it, or which officers conspired to do it. Obviously the ones on the video.
That reflects extremely poorly on the department.
I’m sure you are a good, honest cop. But I hope you also know that police are RAPIDLY earning the distrust of the people who pay their salaries.
If all this gets swept under the rug, should people feel better or worse about police in general? You tell me.
Let's assume it wasn't. Wouldn't that make it an act of retaliation by rogue officers?
Yep, but he was politest Johnny Badass I have seen in awhile.
If wisdom was something police departments could issue like mags and maglites, then we would have far less young, (and this guys was young) cops flexing when there was not a real need to flex.
I can appreciate the concerns and can appreciate the need for more training.
I hope you can appreciate that cops are human and make errors in judgement, as much as we try to mitigate the opportunities for those occurrences.
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.