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 ...
I suppose the cop doesn’t need the hassle of citizens with rights, locks on doors. or defense lawyers.
Just let the cop pick out who they want to and shoot them.
After all, this country is all about preventing hassle to cops, and not at all about individual rights.
(sarcasm off)
No, because not all arrests go as peaceful as that went down. And there are people, with the pretention of filming with their cell phone, who would, when the cops are distracted because the person under arrest got antsy, pull out a gun and shoot some cops dead.
And I’m saying that is an unnecessary risk that cops shouldn’t have to face.
In principle, I support the right to film cops to ensure they are making clean arrests and that any acts they do, while arresting somebody is by the book.
However, I also support the rights of police to being able to do their jobs without having to take into consideration that somebody is going to use pretention to harm them.
That’s the reason why some areas of large cities aren’t patrolled by police and are free-for-all zones for gangs. Some people, in the name of rights, hassled the police to the point that it was in their interest to abandon some areas and let the residents try to figure out how to deal with the gangs in their midst without the protection of the police.
You misspelled NAZI in you signature.
After watching the video created by this “activist” I’m of the opinion that the officer’s initial reaction to the proximity of where this woman was standing was appropriate. From the video this “activist” does appear to have gotten a bit too close to where the officer’s were performing the traffic stop. However, the officer, IMO, overstepped his authority when he demanded she enter her home. Had he simply requested she move up closer to the front of her home perhaps he would have avoided this entire episode - that is, if the woman complied with such a request. That’s my 2 cents.
“Freeper” isn’t the word I have in mind. I have 2. The second starts with an ‘I’ but the first has an ‘F’ in it ;)
She was also arrested for blocking a foreclosure in March.
In this latest case, she wasn't arrested for videotaping as some would have us believe. In fact, someone else kept operating the video camera after she was arrested. The charges were dismissed because the prosecutor agreed that her actions didn't rise to the level of interference according to the law, not because she was on her property. Private property isn't an island of anarchy.
Cop was being filmed for his own safety and the safety of the public.
This is lawyer speak for...what?
*****
TRANSLATION:
This was a completely dumba$$ move by the police officer.
I hope she wins her civil case --BIG TIME!
---Want to infringe on our rights...
---MAKE THEM PAY!!
(Its the only language they understand... this side of recall ballots)
Yes, absolutely. Remember those communist tea party people videoing the SEIU members beating that black guy. They also videotaped congressman yelling at constituents. Those reds. Just kidding. ;-)
Yes, absolutely. Remember those communist tea party people videoing the SEIU members beating that black guy. They also videotaped congressman yelling at constituents. Those reds. Just kidding. ;-)
I really don't know anything about the woman. Maybe she is a "lefty activist" as you suggest. (But really, do the police ever give Sharpton or Jackson cause to make videos from their respective front lawns?) But police abuse is the sort of thing that brings left and right together as I noted long ago in my review of Waco, The Rules of Engagement.
ML/NJ
Police officers don't pay the judgements against the police officers. We, the taxpayers, do.
That's one reason crappy cops should be fired - to lower the liability on the taxpayers for their bad decisions.
True. The information age has woken millions like you and me out of our uniform worshiping fog. It's not 1972 anymore, when (we thought) only liberals and Black Panthers criticized police.
But what's scary is that, I fear you are naive about human nature. People WANT a tyranny! I used to be like the Bushies and think everyone dreamed of living under our beautiful Constitution. Heck, AMERICANS despise freedom! Stalin is still wildly popular in Russia. After years of trying to explain that away, I understand why now. And I think I know what Germans think of Hitler when they're in private.
Instant info goes both ways. Just as we see government corruption up close, politicians can see that the authoritarian position always polls better. We're hosed!
As I already said, I don’t have a problem with filming of cops. I just think it’s best for one of the cops to keep his eye on the person doing the filming to ensure that is all it is.
There is another link that has an interview with her. She states clearly that she is an activist.
In the interview, she comes across as someone who is idealistic -- she doesn't seem to be hardcore, rabid leftist. She seems to be the type that, as she lives though more life experiences, may open her eyes the reality of leftist tyranny -- maybe :)
Basking in the viral glory bestowed upon one of its officers this week, the Rochester Police Department resorted to petty retaliatory and intimidation tactics against citizens attending a community meeting Thursday afternoon. The citizens were attending a meeting to discuss the arrest of Emily Good, the 28-year-old woman who was jailed for videotaping cops from her front yard, when they realized [...]
Watch the video again. She was arrested for “not obeying MY ORDERS.”
That’s the end of it all. We don’t live under Gestapo rule. It really is that cut and dried.
And the dimwits defending this are in the wrong country.
Here you are defending a community activist trying to videotape police in order to trap and embarrass the police with bogus claims of racial profiling. Same as Al Sharpton would. Wake up!! Which side are you on dude!
I see cops shooting pet dogs far too often but aside from that their actions are 98% justifiable. Your obsessive anti-cop postings not withstanding. You have a thang for cops. Maybe you once applied to join the force and could not get on.
“And there are people, with the pretention of filming with their cell phone, who would, when the cops are distracted because the person under arrest got antsy, pull out a gun and shoot some cops dead.”
You can’t arrest someone for crimes they MIGHT COMMIT.
You arrest people for crimes they DID COMMIT. See the difference? That’s an important concept to grasp. Let it sink in.
And this woman committed NO CRIME, so the cop falsely arrested an imprisoned (denied the liberty of) an innocent American citizen.
The woman is innocent. She did nothing wrong. The cop is the one who is at fault.
Is it sinking in yet?
Take all the time you need.
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.