Oh, so you're a mind-reader now, too, huh?
(If you keep digging yourself any deeper into that hole you're gonna need to get an excavation contractor's license, SD.)
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 ...
You wrote your “specifics” completely out of context to what took place as evidenced in the video. You did so with the intent of creating the allusion that the officer’s behavior was completely over the top. Anyone who had not seen the video, but read your comments would come to the conclusion that your comments were designed to elicit. This is a tactic that is prominently used by the Lame Stream Media. You must be proud.
I have already addressed that, but I'll do it again and type slower this time...
Everything said against the police officer's actions is on the video. An allegation that Ms. Good said something to provoke the officer is NOT on the video. YOU said that Ms Good needed to be proven innocent concerning that allegation and I pointed out that the burden of proof is on the officer, which obviously didn't happen since the DA dropped the charges. Ms. Good has no duty or obligation to prove her innocence.
Have to disagree. Until this cop and his handlers are held accountable, and the only legal way is suing, there will be no change. Otherwise, why would they change?
So, if I read this aright, you are of the opinion that the training police receive to secure an area in which a police action is taking place should be thrown out. That a citizen who is within feet of a police action should be completely ignored? How many LEO's are you willing to see killed by this new expectation? Or, are you expecting LEO's to be mind readers and know who poses a threat and who does not? Would you feel comfortable as an LEO with someone standing within feet of you and/or your fellow officers while engaged in a police action? Can you even place yourself in those shoes? Are you even willing to try? It is not I who have allowed logic or judgment to lapse here.
For the umpteenth time.
She was on her PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Or are you just deliberately ignoring that fact?
Hmmm. I’m wondering where I made the statement that Emily Good needed to prove anything, let alone that she made a statement as per the officer’s videotaped statement. No, I was referring to the fact that you have judged and convicted the officer - thus, guilty until proven innocent. This woman, according to you was given her day in court (which didn’t happen), and was found innocent (not true). The officer, according to your position, does not deserve such treatment. He, unlike the “private citizen” must be guilty on the spot, and there is no need for any further investigation. Perhaps you’d also be fine with the evidence of the video disappearing?
Wow, you are writing that it is OK to do wrong if one is polite and calm?
That is you, not the others in the FR cop-hating libertarian brat pack
From this post, clearly you didn’t even bother to watch the video.
Your non sequitor arguments are a waster peoples time.
Califorinia is a lost cause.
Its her yard, her property, yet the cop, not her, gets to arbitrarily decide how far she must be from him?
He then is the boss of her property?
Its her yard, her property, yet the cop, not her, gets to arbitrarily decide how far she must be from him?
He then is the boss of her property?
For the sake of argument, let's say she was standing just on her property, inches from the sidewalk (not true, but let's go with this a moment). She was STILL within feet of the officer on the passenger side of the vehicle. I've watched many a vehicle stop and police action. At no time have I ever witness an LEO allowing someone to be in such close proximity of the police action, both for officer safety and the safety of the citizen. While in the AF, working as an SP, I would never have allowed someone to be in such close proximity to a similar action. My father, 34 years in LE, would never have allowed someone to be that close. My wife's two brothers, both retired LE (one having retired from the FBI) would never have allowed such a thing to happen. None of the officers I know in my home town would allow that either, regardless of who the person was. How many news reports are there across this country of officer's being seriously injured or killed because they did not properly secure an area in which a police action was occuring? How many officers have been killed by the wives of wife beaters after the officer(s) responded to a domestic disturbance? Why should any officer be expected to treat one person who is in close proximity differently than any other person? What makes Emily Good any different from anyone else? She was too close; she argued with the officer instead of moving up onto her yard from the sidewalk. That sparked concern from the officer. Had she moved upon her yard and gotten away from the action, I doubt this would have resulted in arrest.
The funny thing in all this is that there are probably only about three or four flailing idiots on FR who are DETERMINED the cop is right and the whole world be damned.
Everyone else sees the truth. But these geniuses never quit.
It’s really pretty hilarious.
You can imagine how flustered and pissed-off they must be, banging away at their keyboards, trying to convince everyone the earth is flat. lol
>> She was clearly standing on the sidewalk<<
No she wasn’t.
But keep saying it. It undermines your credibility more and more each time you say it (as if you have any credibility left). ha
Your post #109:
Oh, yes. Please accept the postion of those who support this liberal POS who went looking for trouble so she could file this suit. You have no evidence the woman DIDN’T make any comments or statements to the officer, but you’ll run with that lack of evidence anyway. Incredible.
Duh. The evidence that she did or did not make any comments or statements to the officer does not exist. No one has any obligation to prove that she DIDN'T. The officer has a duty to prove that she DID.
Shouldn't be hard with a yard full of witnesses and two other cops on scene...
This woman, according to you was given her day in court (which didn’t happen), and was found innocent (not true).
Where did I say that?
You're flailing.
What is your definition of conservatism? You read more like Klan than conservative.
I guess, then, had the officers been standing on the sidewalk going through the process of ensuring the suspect did not pose any danger to them, and this woman was standing on her property within inches of the police action, you’d be okay with that? Officers are trained to 1) secure the area for their own safety, and 2) secure the area for the safety of others in the area. In all my travels and all my interactions with members of LEO (no, not that kind of interaction) I’ve yet to meet even one who had the ability to read the minds of those who are within close proximity of a police action. I have, however, read about officers who have been injured or killed by bystanders because the officer(s) didn’t properly secure the area. Officers should be allowed to do their jobs without the possibility of threat through the securing of the area around the police action. That includes all persons, not just ones with a physical appearance that meets someone else’s arbitrary standard of a threat.
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.