Posted on 06/27/2011 2:32:01 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
Clearly you have not figured it out. Either the cop does something wrong or he does not. No one can videotape a cop doing something wrong if the cop does nothing wrong.
That's rich coming from someone who fellates the New Deal Commerce Clause.
Hey dennisw, it doesn't surprise me that you are so unacquainted with the facts that you are unaware that that is EXACTLY what the Rochester Police Department has in mind for their own citizens.
Of course, it doesn't surprise me that in your ignorant exuberance and "zeal without knowledge" you missed post #22:
This is from the Rochester Police Department's OWN WEBSITE.
"Reducing criminal activity is a top priority for the city’s Mayor and the Rochester Police Department.
These leaders have taken a stand against crime and prioritized a significant amount of time, money, manpower and technology to reduce crime, protect residents and increase business opportunities within the city limits.
Video surveillance is a proven tool in monitoring, analyzing and even shifting crime and terrorist activities. Because of this, the amount of cameras deployed in public surveillance applications continues to grow.
HERE'S THE KICKER! YOU'LL LOVE THIS!!!
Current forecasts anticipate more than a billion cameras will be installed in the United States alone over the next five years. The city of Rochester is no exception.
The city envisions video surveillance as a powerful tool that augments the abilities of its officers, increases situational awareness and enhances safety."
So you see, it's good for us, but not for them! The hypocrites!
Of course, I don't REALLY believe you are as stupid as you pretend. I think you're just having fun, pretending to be.
Because if anyone was REALLY as stupid as you want us to believe you are, you'd be sitting around in your own pee and poop all day, and your rear end would be blistered and swollen like a gigantic red cauliflower. The last thing you would want to do is sit at a computer. lol
The other involved a young man an officer was attempting to complete a pat down on while handcuffed. The video showed the officer slamming the young man on the trunk of the police car. What the video didn't show was that the young man had grabbed the officer's crotch and squeezed, and the officer reacted in self-defense. The video was used against the officer. No entrappment involved here, now was there?/s
You, it appears, will always side against the police, while siding for the "perp", regardless of evidence. It isn't I who hasn't figured it out. Video can be manipulated. Video doesn't always show the whole story. You place too much stock in the use of video.
You are a broken record.
You are hallucinating. Eastman Kodak is mostly defunct. Upstate towns like Rochester are pretty much broke. Don’t have the funds to put up all those video cameras and competently operate them
“You are hallucinating. Eastman Kodak is mostly defunct. Upstate towns like Rochester are pretty much broke. Don’t have the funds to put up all those video cameras and competently operate them”
It’s the thought that counts. It’s from their own website, read it and weep.
There’s no “getting around” this one.
And their thought is “GET READY, BECAUSE YOU ARE ON CAMERA 24/7!!!”
Hypocrites. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
By the way, you just got PWNED. fool!
What do you want to bet that a chunk of that will come from some federal grant? Fedgov can dole out lots of money anywhere it chooses, thanks to your New Deal Commerce Clause.
Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations Awards
One of Rep. Slaughter's highest priorities is directing federal funding back to the Western New York region and her district.
-snip-
During the last Fiscal Year, Rep. Slaughter secured over $49 million for local projects. This money to will go to a wide variety of projects, including the following:
The City of Buffalo Police Department will receive $360,000 for surveillance cameras. Currently the City has 109 operational video surveillance camera units. Securing the additional eight cameras will help reduce criminal activity, especially violent crime, and will support the Federal priority of enhancing public safety.
The City of Rochester will receive $2,500,000 for the Rochester Intermodal Transportation Center. The Center will combine rail, bus, taxi, car, and bicycle modes, and will be located at the existing Amtrak Station on Central Avenue in Downtown Rochester.
-snip-
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=69
Most people don’t realize how precise the police must be when they are conducting arrests, because failure to do so will make many arrests invalid.
Most people would probably accept that the temporary restriction upon a citizen’s right in regards to having to keep one’s distance was just.
Precision in arrest in one issue. Another is that the DA doesn’t always choose to pursue charges, especially during these fiscally challenging times.
That is a good point. I had forgotten about that.
That depends on who gave the order and why it was given.
Since I don’t know what information the SWAT team had. They could have had information that there were multiple suspects on the property. In which case, the priority is to clear the area of suspects, then tend to the wounded.
If, however, SWAT knew that he was the only guy, then I could hold them responsible, because I think they could have probably secured the area immediately without compromising their case.
For sure. Trials are expensive and not all guilty verdicts are worth the cost.
Show me a case of a police officer who was killed by an iPod and I will change my mind.
Of course, police can take reasonable precautions, but he took unreasonable precautions. Actually, his claim that he was taking “precautions” seems totally disingenuous. He clearly wasn't afraid of the woman, he just used that as an excuse to try to order her into her home, so she couldn't video tape him. His only “fear” was the fear of being held accountable for his actions.
There were at least 2 other officers dealing with the one suspect from the traffic stop, and the man they pulled over was presenting no resistance at all. He could have asked one of his fellow officers to keep an eye on her, if he was truly concerned.
If he truly was afraid of a woman with an iPod, standing on her own property, then this officer is so timid and cowardly, that he ought to take up a less stressful profession, like flower arranging or interior decorating.
Also, the incompetent bully turned his back on the real suspect to go after the innocent citizen, exercising her rights, on her own property.
I am very, pro law enforcement, but idiots like this guy have no place in law enforcement and good cops unfairly get bad reputations because of foolish bullies like him.
Are you defending the cop’s actions? On what basis? The reason the case was not prosecuted is simple, and the DA explained it: THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME. WHATSOEVER.
Why are you having so much trouble with that?
And, at the point in which the woman was placed under arrest, handcuffed, and removed to one of the patrol vehicles is the point in which the video taping ended, right?
Oh, wait. Someone who was with the woman, who had been either inside the house or standing closer to the house, took the video recording instrument, and continued videoing the incident. So, because the officer was only concerned about being videotaped, he then also arrested this individual, right?
Oh, wait. No. The videotaping continued even after the officer's left the scene. So, it's quite obvious that the only reason the officer arrested the woman was because she was videotaping the traffic stop./s
Oh, the rationalizing that has taken place to villianize the police in this incident.
Your screen name is apropoe. Did you NOT see the officer take the suspect to the patrol vehicle and hand the suspect off to another officer BEFORE he went to "confront" the "innocent" woman???
By the way, people can, and are, arrested for situations where after the fact charges are dismissed, and the officer not held to account for the arrest (in other words, the arrest was appropriate, but the DA decided not to pursue charges). Simply because THIS DA didn't have any balls to stand behind this officer's arrest of this woman doesn't mean that the arrest was invalid or inappropriate.
This is just too funny...
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.