Posted on 06/28/2011 1:39:35 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
I guess I don't blame you for running away.
Apparently we are hitting upon a brick wall with these people here. They have decided (Judge, jury, and executioner) that the office committed an egregious crime against a law abiding citizen, period, end of story. The evidence of the woman’s own video means nothing to them.
Oh, I’m not running. I’ll be here when you lose. Enjoy the crow.
Too bad you won’t put your money where your mouth is. I’d like this loss to hurt ya, meaningfully.
If he was “polite and asked her numerous times just to” take her clothes off,
would that be OK?
She was on her own property, videotaping, saying nothing, and not interfering in any way.
Their were other people on the lawn. The cops ignored them.
The guy said “I feel unsafe” or whatever. Really? The other cops didn’t. One kept his back turned.
This was a case of Contempt of Cop. No WAY was this little wisp of a woman gonna disobey “MY ORDERS” in front of his buddies and the bystanders, without somebody paying. No matter if the order was unreasonable.
It’s important to note that the DA dropped the charges against the woman, and said there was NO EVIDENCE the woman deserved arrest.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/27/new.york.police.video/
I think it is apparent that this woman was seeking exactly what she got - an incident that would make the cops look bad and would give her a big payday. Did you hear her at the end of the video? Crying about how she was sorry, and she didn’t know why she was being arrested...
If you watch the video, the cops were handling the original suspect properly - no abusive language or rough treatment - nothing to indicate racism or abuse of power.
I’d love to know what this woman said to the cops before she turned the camera on - that would be a big factor in whether the cop was justified in feeling unsafe having her too close behind him.
So that's the mentality you're dealing with.
Liberals, by themselves, don't worry me much. They are really only dangerous when they have the authority of government behind them.
Government thugs, however, worry me A LOT! Every law, or in this case "order", is enforced at the point of a government gun. Since there was no "law" against what the woman was doing, the government thug got to just make one up.
That any of us "own" or have a right to our property anymore is pure fallacy. Too bad the taxpayers will be on the hook for this. I'd rather see her take everything the cop has, so he and his family ends up living out of a shopping cart.
Most likely it's a bad community relations situation, bigger than just this one event.
Let's consider Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles
(Via http://www.newwestpolice.org/peel.html)
There were other individuals on the lawn, behind the cops. Why were they not intimidated and or arrested?
That's an asinine comparison, and if you don't know that, you are beyond help. In any situation where safety is an issue, the police have a right to take reasonable steps to secure the scene. It doesn't matter that she was on her property - she was close enough to the cops to make her a potential threat. If the cops come into your home to ask you some questions, they may ask you to not go into another room without an officer present - to prevent you from coming back with a gun. That is not unreasonable.
She was asked to move back or go inside to ameliorate that perceived threat. She refused. Should she have been arrested? Probably not, but she probably should have been taken aside by one of the officers and her movements restricted to insure the safety of the officers until they were done with their arrest of the suspect.
This "cretin" thing you describe seems to somewhat of an epedemic.
The American Police State is the 'New Normal'
Jared Spurbeck Jared Spurbeck – Sat Jun 25, 5:24 pm ET
$nip>
Tasering nonviolent people to death
A 72-year-old woman named Kathryn Winkfein got tasered not too long ago after she lost her temper at the cop who pulled her over. Her offense? Shouting at him.
Luckily, she "learned her lesson" about talking back to America's authority figures. She was also awarded $40,000 in damages, which her County Constable, Richard McCain, complained was a reward for "bad behavior." Apparently putting 50,000 volts through the heart of someone's great-grandma is not bad behavior, as long as you wear a police uniform.
Winkfein was lucky. In what Digby calls the "Taser Atrocity Of The Day," a man who took groceries without having paid for them was tasered continuously for 37 seconds, after he became "aggressive and was communicating loudly." He died in the hospital.
The police officer who killed him was suspended for five days.
Stealing your cellphone (and its data)
Recordings of government workers performing their duty are, by law, in the public domain. So if you think a police officer is going to do something untoward, try filming him so you have evidence. Right?
Not so fast. Prepare to have your cellphone taken from you and stomped on. The Miami Beach, Fla., police in particular have a history of doing this, and they aren't alone. But the people who have their phones stolen and vandalized by the police are lucky; a man named Michael Allison faces up to 75 years in prison for trying to record a judge, and was arrested without any warning.
Meanwhile, the Michigan State Police is taking people's cellphones when they pull them over for traffic violations, and using "extraction" devices on the phones. The ACLU is trying to find out why they're doing that, but the police department placed a price tag of over $500,000 on their Freedom of Information request. How much justice can you afford?
Arresting nonviolent activists
Want to feed homeless people free meals in the park? Prepare to be arrested. Or how about dancing in front of the Jefferson Memorial? Prepare to get tied up and beat up.
$nip>
Nothing much is liable to happen to the cop, they'll keep him around to provide publicity to empower leftist politicians, it's good to have a sore spot bothering the citizens.
Unless, of course, the cop pulls a similar boneheaded stunt with someone connected to the Mayor, then his job and pension will be gone faster than the Mayor can say "It's him or you, Chief".
There were other individuals on the lawn, behind the cops. Why were they not intimidated and or arrested?
In addition, did ya happen to notice another person standing on the lawn, behind the cops, took the camera as the homeowner was taken into custody and continued video taping the incident?
They clearly did not move into the house and were standing right next to the woman taken to jail. Why were they not arrested?
Things are quite different in Soldier Dad’s world than they are in the real one.
In his world, front yards are sidewalks, iPods are weapons of mass destruction, a woman videotaping with an iPod, in the her pajamms, in her own front yard, is a lethtal threat to 3 armed police officers, and the U.S. Constitution does not exist.
I hope I never visit that world.
“she was close enough to the cops to make her a potential threat.”
Then why didn’t the cop say this in the first place? “I’m gonna need everyone to step back, please.”
But no, his first words were “You guys (note: plural) need something?”
She said she was recording, and it was her right (which it is).
“Not from the sidewalk it isn’t,” She steps back. “This is my yard.”
The cop has nothing to say, and walks away. Then after giving it some thought, he decides he “feels threatened.” But the other cops don’t and one keeps his back to him.
It’s bogus. Are you not even allowing for the POSSIBILITY that this cop was being Billy Badass, and wanted to save face in front of his cop buddies?
Look at the freeper Ron Paul continent. Our anarchist contingent sticking up for this money grubbing commie pest named Emily Good. And howling for this cop, who just might have a family to support, to be fired
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.