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 ...
One cannot prove a negative.
The intellectual dishonesty of your arguments and sheer contempt you show for for the Bill of Rights and private property is absolutely astounding.
The only other possibility was that you were calling ME a statist. I didn't think even you were that ignorant. I'm the one standing for the rights of the citizen against the government thug.
Don't feel bad, you're not the first one Laz has PUNKED around here. LOL.
Freely exercising your rights as a citizen of this great country is "looking for trouble"? You're half-way there, mein Kamerad.
No, O Misguided One
We’re true conservatives who believe in extremely limited government where people are free to do any legal activity on their own PRIVATE property. Including the lawful recording of said officers and agents of said government performing their alleged duties.
NO true conservative would want, support, or desire the sort of authoritarian police state you obviously espouse and worship.
The hypothetical is the unproven allegation that something was said before the video started (that YOU accept as an absolute fact).
Another EPIC FAIL.
This is the freeper uber-libertarian contingent.How many are unhinged pot heads? Rebels without a clue. Spoiled brats throwing aronnd words like “Tyranny” and “Gestapo”. They have a very high opinion of themselves and their “rights” real or imagined, and a hatred for all authority figures. You have to wonder what their family dynamic was growing up.
And here they support Emily Good, a money grubbing commie pestilence and howl for some Joe Average policeman to lose his job.
That “timewaster” wasn’t “tossed” in. It was the in the original “offer”. It’s hardly my fault if you missed it. After reading this post, am I to assume that you might expect that that little rant of insults to me should be ignored, and that I should go on with you business as usual? Do you treat those who you work with, or live with, or do business with in person the same way? Insults, and then expectations that they forgive such insults just because you’re you? What you posted to me (#121) IS a violation of FR policy regarding personal attacks, is it not, Laz? Especially given that I have not engaged in similar personal attacks against you. We disagree on the merits of this particular incident. My view of the video this woman made clearly shows that she was too close to the police action, and that the officers had the right, and the resposibility, to address that fact. Would he have been better served to have simply asked her to move further away from the police action? Possibly. But, her reaction to him IMO clealy demonstrates she had ulterior motives for what she was doing. The fact she is a “activist” should also be given weight. Are there incidents where police overstep their authority - yes. Should we lump all such incidents together? No. But, it appears that there are some who are willing to dispense with their objectivity in a single case and paint LE with a broad brush. The officer was respectful in his speech; he was not verbally abusive. He did not use heavy-handed force in any way, either with the “suspect” or Emily Good. Emily did NOT retreat back into her yard when confronted by the officer. The video clearly indicates her movements were miniscule. She WAS standing on the sidewalk, within feet of the officers who were searching the suspects vehicle. Note the power pole to the right of where the woman was standing. Also note the conversation after Emily Good was taken away, where her friends commented about how she was just standing on the sidewalk. I make the same challenge to you I’ve made to others. Walk up within a few feet of a police action and note the officer’s reaction to your presence. Does it matter that this woman would not actually have engaged in any actions against the officers? Police are trained, and rightly so, to secure the area of the police action, regardless of who is there or what they’re intent is. When officers fail to do so, that is when officers are killed or injured, no? So, you and these others are suggesting that officers should ignore their police training in this instance simply because you don’t like what occurred? Seriously? Police everywhere, I guess, need to be retrained to ignore any possible threats so as to not “offend” someone. Wow!
No, you’re not conservatives. You’re, if anything, libertarians who believe that all authority should be removed from the necks of the oppressed.
Now Ad Hominem from you directed at conservatives, based upon yet another Strawman - that it is only liberals who take issue with cops doing this or things similiar to it.
As well, you try to use an “its us vs. them “(libs vs. conservatives) argument in issues like this - where both libs and conservatives would agree the cop acted badly.
Finally, you use a Slippery Slope argument in acting as if this lady standing up for her rights and suing is somehow aiding in taking LEA’s down.
Your statement was guilty until proven innocent with respect to Emily Good. Seems to me that you are engaging in guilty until proven innocent with respect to the officer. As I stated, you’re postion cuts both ways. Now do you understand?
“Officer Friendly” was very polite as he arrested the woman and then the D.A. says he was wrong in doing so.
Then the city reacted with retaliation to issue tickets to cars that were parked 1/2 inch to far from the curb.
Emily Good’s lawyers are going to drink the city’s milkshake.
“...libertarians who believe that all authority should be removed from the necks of the oppressed...”
-
Who, in your mind are “the oppressed”?
John Q. Citizen?
What authority do you think you have over me?
Yep, I have a very high opinion of my rights. I even have a very high opinion of the rights of someone whose politics I personally detest, like Ms good.
...and a hatred for all authority figures.
Only the ones that abuse their authority.
And here they support Emily Good, a money grubbing commie pestilence and howl for some Joe Average policeman to lose his job.
So, who gets to decide which citizen's opinions merit Constitutional protection from abuse by the State?
This case will settle faster than a speeding bullet...lol.
I gave specifics before that post, whereas you hide behind the nebulous “context” without giving specifics that show what “context” that you were referring to. Then you divert to the “totality” of the situation so as to avoid giving specifics. Secondly, I wasn’t givibg mere hypotheticals, as this is a case where the cop wanted her to just do as told.
I gave specifics before that post, whereas you hide behind the nebulous “context” without giving specifics that show what “context” that you were referring to. Then you divert to the “totality” of the situation so as to avoid giving specifics. Secondly, I wasn’t givibg mere hypotheticals, as this is a case where the cop wanted her to just do as told.
Videoing the officers from a reasonable distance from the police action would be an exersize of this and any other person's rights. Videoing the police action within feet of the officers during the action is not reasonable.
Good luck Good!
You have been wrong for days and have not shown any capacity for logic or good judgement. Now you are shocked!
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.