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 ...
Ummm....it may have occurred to him that some of the other diabolical neighbors might have (gasp) had cameras as well.
We already know they are serial parking menaces...lol.
You don’t need to be accused of a crime to be arrested. If there is probable cause to arrest you, you can be arrested. It is only if you’ve been charged are you being accused by the state of having committed a crime.
Possibly, but the only way one could know for certain was if she had kept her distance and kept her mouth shut. If she had done that, but quietly filmed and was still arrested, than one could say that it was because the cop was anti-camera she was arrested.
However, because she chose to insert herself into the arrest by filming too close and being a distraction, she could have been arrested, even if she had no camera.
>>filming too close and being a distraction, she could have been arrested, even if she had no camera.
<<
That is complete bullcrap. By that definition, every cop in NYC could clear any city block because “I don’t feel safe”
That is absolute bullcrap.
This is police harassment, pure and simple.
Jonty, please explain the retaliation the cops did afterward. I want your rationalization. Please.
Yeah, I do agree with you that the cops were foolish by going after minor traffic infractions like that. Because of the job cops have to do, maintaining goodwill with the community should always be a priority.
Yes, he is “entitled” to his “opinion”. What he is NOT entitled to is fabricating a story out of whole cloth. Nor is he entitled to equate what occurred in a different case with the current one. His ignoring what the video demonstrates in order to vilify the officer is reprehensible.
And one other tidbit, at the time of the arrest, the cop KNEW the woman was not a danger. He just wanted to play Johnny Badass, and he couldn’t have a woman not “obeying” his “orders” in front of his buddies and the crowd.
This ***** was on a power trip.
Are you not allowing even for that possibility? Be fair.
>>What he is NOT entitled to is fabricating a story out of whole cloth<<
Like the assertion that the DA is a liar and a coward?
Are you still standing by that?
The woman was in her yard by the way.
Emily Good would have probably scared you too.
If you are so passionate about this maybe you can enjoin yourself with her civil case and get sued like your hero.
Again, with the brilliance.
Yes, I am the lone voice in the wilderness, villifying the innocent officer. No one else in the world is doing it. All the Freepers (the majority in fact) who condemnt the officer’s actions are all out to get him.
In fact, maybe EVERYONE who condemns the officer’s actions (the OVERWHELMING majority of comments on every story I’ve seen) are just out to get him.
It’s because we’re all “anti-cop.” Yeah, that’s the ticket. We want to see an innocent cop suffer.
We’re real “meanies” aren’t we?
I allow for that possibility. We all have bad days.
How about allowing for the possibility that the woman was being unnecessarily disruptive and a risk factor? She drew attention to herself and kept interacting with the officer, when all he wanted to do was finish making his arrest.
C’mon, be a sport.
I believe, just because of the cop’s demeanor, that had she stood at a distance and just quietly filmed, the cop would have let her be. That is how I read it.
I am not an interested party, so I would have no standing on the issue.
The officer was within his rights when he arrested her. She was within her rights to film, but not to interfere with the arrest. Not even a lawyer is supposed to interfere with an arrest.
“...the woman was being unnecessarily disruptive and a risk factor? She drew attention to herself and kept interacting with the officer, when all he wanted to do was finish making his arrest.”
I’m sorry, but that is not true. That is not what the video shows. I’ll provide a link once more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA-KA-pEKw
1) She did NOT draw attention to yourself. She was silently standing there videotaping, not saying a word.
2) The only time the officer noticed her was when he looked up and saw the crowd and said “You guys need something?” (Notice he said “You guys”...)
3) He did not indicate in any way that he felt unsafe or that the crowd was too close. Nor did the other cops. HE NEVER ORDERED THE OTHERS TO GO INTO THEIR HOUSES. This proves that his “feeling unsafe” is bullcrap.
4) One cop keeps his back turned. So obviously HE doesn’t feel unsafe. If the cops perceived a threat, this makes no sense. The “unsafe” comment is bullcrap, and a pretense to engage further.
6) If there was a perceived threat, why didn’t the other cops approach the woman or the crowd? They didn’t.
7) Only “Johnny Badass” approaches the woman. None of the other cops do, even though there is a crowd. Wouldn’t you think if they felt threatened, they would all work together to get the crowd away from the scene?
8) Your assertion that the woman got close to the cop (even within 5 feet, you said) is proven wrong by the video. The cop is actually on the other side of the car at all times. The woman is never in close proximity until the cop comes onto her property.
9) The woman was disruptive? No, she was not.
10) “kept interacting with the officer, when all he wanted to do was finish making his arrest.”” ? She never said a word except to answer of address things the cop said to her. Your assertion is false. And the arrest was already over when Johnny Badass decided to prove what a big man he was.
Sorry, this is bullcrap, it is police harassment, and most of us know it.
You have the right to defend it, but it is noteworthy that very few Freepers (or Americans for that matter) do.
She DID NOT interfere with the arrest. That is the most ridiculous assertion that you keep making over and over. It’s RIDICULOUS!
Please see post #253.
You are interfering with the arrest when you’re interacting with a cop who is making an arrest.
“You are interfering with the arrest when you’re interacting with a cop who is making an arrest.”
She never interacted with the cop except for speaking when spoken to. I swear, do you realize how stupid your comment sounds? The cop asks her a question, she answers, and that is “interfering with an arrest?
You CAN’T be serious.
Also, please tell me why you said that she got up close to the cop, within five feet, when you know that it is not true?
Why did you say that?
You have so many things that are provably false.
Unless you address those, and retract them, I’m done with this conversation. Take care!
There are those that will continue trying to blur this forever.
Most see clearly...so it's not worth the effort.
Agreed.
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.