Skip to comments.Emily Good to sue Rochester Police Department (videotape at traffic stop)
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 ...
Sie beide sollten einander eine große Umarmung und sie bekommen ein zimmer.
Get a grip dude. Tighten up and smarten up. Stop being sucked in by the dramas put on by lefty agitators, community organizers like Emily Good
bis dein fella
But the real issue here is not about recording the incident - as you noted, he never asked her to stop recording. My point was that he could have defused the situation by acknowledging that he was okay with her recording and that he was just trying to look out for everyone's well being. The issue was the "how" and "how far" he asked her to move. To me his attitude was more in line with "don't record me, but I know you have a legal right to so I'm going to have you move back so far as to make your recording worthless." It then became a matter that the woman knew her rights and that she wouldn't bend to his will. So he played his more powerful hand and arrested her... The D.A. didn't agree with his decision...
Look... a police officer has a lot of legal tools for his use at his discretion. If he really wants to "run you in" he can always find a way... Objective points such as "driving faster than conditions safely allow" and "failure to observe a traffic device" (that was momentarily obstructed ferom view by a large vehicle.) There are tons of "legal reasons" out there - the difference between a good cop and a bad one is that one knows the proper place and time to apply them and to whom they should be applied. Another point in my previous post was that the entire attitude regarding "civil service" is being changed from a "service" mentality to a "battle" mentality - that doesn't mix well when the officer has an arsenal of laws that can applied at his whim. An unofficial "us" versus "them" attitude is the problem, and is a driving force behind the disrespect that many people have regarding police officers. The general public only knows what they are spoon fed by the media everyday, and they are fed the news about the bad cops. They form their opinion based upon that. Now, if law enforcement as a community wants to improve the public's perception of them, law enforcement is going to have to start ejecting those dregs that managed to get through the academy, instead of going along with the old "wink, wink - nudge, nudge - turn a blind eye" way of doing things when it comes to officers being abusive and overstepping the bounds of the law and common sense.
Am I waffling regarding this occurance? No - I stand by what I originally stated. But at the same time, I will not paint all officers with the same brush. Extremism to one side of the argument or the other reveals an unwillingness to acknowledge the fact that officers are people with different characteristics - some good, some bad. Do I believe there is a growing problem with abuse of power? Absolutely. I believe it comes from the inabilty of the officers to distinguish between a "big deal" and something that is not a "big deal." It seems to me that they feel everything is "a big deal" and that they are going "fix it." Do I believe that the officer in the video handled the situation poorly? Yep, sure do. Wearing a wire in a room full of drug dealers talking about murder is a "big deal" where you are making life and death decisions not only about someone else's life but your own as well. A skiny gal in her PJ's recording you is not a "big deal" if you are not doing anything wrong - you let it go. I have been in the former situation... I wouldn't have had to worry about anything in the latter. The officer in this case didn't know how to keep her from pushing his buttons, he felt he had lost control, and then felt he had to regain it... He crossed the line. He would never make it in the undercover world because he is too concerned about being recognized as being in control. That will get you killed in U.C. work.
The unintended consequences of continued abuse of police powers will be that police officers will start dying at the hands of otherwise peaceful people that see those police actions as a threat to freedoms that shall not be infringed. Law enforcement as an intitution is pushing further toward those consequences every day... They need to put the brakes on and change course. The sad thing is that self preservation of departmental jobs and departmental budgets has become more important than doing the job right. Sad indeed...
Great. Now I’ve got to find someone who speaks Nazi just to figure out what people are posting on FR.
He, in essence, called those of us who disagree with them homosexuals.
In rather poor grammar too, if I’m remembering my German, which I may not be — I’ll have to ask my kids.
Actually, I didn’t take it that way — the phrase “maybe you two should get a room” uses the analogy of a sexual encounter but simply implies an unreasonable agreement that can’t be explained by logic or reason.
You’d use the same phrase to belittle your opponents whether they were the same sex or opposite sex.
That may be. Considering that those of us who have failed to be reasonable with them are all male, I’m of mind to see it as being called a homo. Which logical fallacy does this fall under?
Cop doesn’t have to explain anything to me or to lefty community organizer pests. If he tells me to do something simple like step back, then I step back. She can’t do that much? Why should I have an ounce of sympathy for her?
She is a sniveling little COMMIE PEST married to (might be just shacking up) a psychology professor at Rochester University. Try to connect the dots
"...Were 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..."
Agree with you 100% with what you have shared above. Excellent post.
The occasional blind love for an authoritarian police state seen here at FreeRepublic is very disconcerting.
As you eloquently illustrated, I'm convinced that statists can be seen in all sorts of different stripes.
I really don't care what her political leanings are, commie or not, she still has a right to stand in her yard and video something happening in the public domain. That's the interesting thing about living in the U.S.A.. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution for all Americans, not just the ones I agree with politically.
My previous post explained that I don't paint all officers with the same brush... I judge a man by the content of his character and his actions. But I guess for you, you don't believe the rights guaranteed to be uninfringed under the Constitution apply to those that disagree with you politically.
I will not waste time trying to further explain myself to you... You have your opinion and I have mine... I hope no one ever decides for you that you have no rights - you know, like you did for Ms. Good.
My my...aren’t we a good little boot-licker?
You’ve already proven to the world you do not respect the Constitution or liberty.
I really don't care if she is a card carrying member of the Communist Party of the U.S.A., she still has rights. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with what she says or believes - it just means that I believe she has a right to say and believe it. Just you like have a right to say and believe what you will about her arrest and her recording that preceded it.
Just as I described in the previous post, one has to be able to recognize the difference between a "big deal" and something that is "not a big deal." Her political leanings as an individual are not a big deal to me - I recognize that can't do anything about how she thinks even if I disagree with her. So that, to me, is not a big deal. I'll not waste my time on her. But the fact that there is an abuse of police power that can cause problems for the citizen that is exercising their rights is a "big deal" to me... If it can happen to one person, it can happen to me or a member of my family. I'll not stand by and silently watch that happen...