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 ...
Excuse me? She was on her PRIVATE PROPERTY.
The cop had no business even being close to her property without a warrant.
Your homepage says your ancestors fought in the American Revolution? Who for? George III? Your supporting affronts to property and security on one’s property from unreasonable police presence that Fat George would have been been in favor of, you know.
Put your cash where your teeth live.
Actually, what I said was the DA didn't have the balls to pursue charges against the woman for interfering with a police officer. The charge that I called the DA a liar is a fabrication of Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears. Surprise surprise that he'd make such a fabrication.
OK, then how about a formal vanity thread where you apologize/admit being wrong if this turns out to be the case?
Others can come along and post cartoons of people wearing dunce caps, and have a good ol time at your expense. You know, all in fun, since you don't bet money and all.
>>Your homepage says your ancestors fought in the American Revolution? Who for? George III?<<
Interesting comment!
I said to Laz on another thread on this topic that the people blindly defending the cop in this case would have been Loyalists during the American Revolution.
It’s probably exactly correct.
I also made the statement of wanting to know what the woman said before she began videotaping the officers on an earlier thread. Apparently these anti-cop FReepers could care less about what the woman did.
LOL
Of course it's possible. But if that was his intention, he certainly didn't do a good job. From the video, he appears to be calm and polite, explaining his concerns and making a seemingly reasonable request several times. He does not come across as an unreasonable JBT pissed off about being videotaped. On the other hand, she comes across as looking to instigate an incident.
Look, I don't reflexively support the cops in these situations. In way too many cases, you have guys with badges and an insecurity complex trying to prove how important they are. That's not what I saw here.
Now, the city may settle just because it is cheaper financially. But if this went to trial, I think she would have a hard time winning. The cop just does not come across as trying to bully her or abuse his authority.
Deal, SoldierDad?
Public humiliation. Game to make the wager?
Increible the number of so-called conservatives on FR of late who are supportive of a left-wing moonbat who intentionally went out of her way to incite the officer, and got what she was looking for - a potential payday through public tax dollars. I’m glad this woman is filing this suit. She’ll look like the money grubbing SEIU type thug that she is when all is said and done.
More can be found out about Good and her partner, Ryan Acuff in this article. Can you imagine the bad luck of the cops making an arrest of a black man in front of their house?
You better get back in your house before Soldier Dad has you arrested. :)
After watching the video numerous times, she’ll lose the case. >>>>>>
I agree. Last week it was reported that a money grubbing law firm is out 7 million in expenses when they lost the class action sexual disinformation suit against WalMart...and hopefully they will be paying WalMart’s attorney fees in the millions
Where she was born, who she votes for or what she eats, have nothing to do with this arrest incident.
Is this “offer” going both ways? Or, are you too fearful of the outcome? One caveat. Since the DA didn’t have the balls to back up his LEO, if the city settles out of court - no deal. There must be a court or jury finding. And, if the officer does lose (very low chance of that), we’ll also await the appeal. Deal?
I want in on the ping list.
LOL!
Yes I did. I’m sorry we disagree, but I’m making my opinion based on 30 years as a cop. The copper over reacted to a nonevent. A perception of danger has to be reasonable and the cop has to be able to articulate what was so dangerous about this particular woman. He’s got a hell of a lot of articulating to do, and with what I’ve seen and read so far, I’m very sceptical about his chances.
Where she was standing, withing feet of the traffic stop, does have something to do with her arrest. The fact that she was hoping for one of the officers to react to her presence of being too close to the incident also has something to do with her arrest. Do me a favor. Next time you come across a police officer during a traffic stop or some other police action, walk up within a few feet of where they are conducting that police action. Then let me know what happens. I’ll be waiting.
Allow me to copy and paste our conversation, and refresh your memory.
Post #199 SoldierDad “Simply because THIS DA didn’t have any balls to stand behind this officer’s arrest of this woman doesn’t mean that the arrest was invalid or inappropriate. “
Post #201, (Me): “So when the DA said there was NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, and the Rochester Police Department offered none that we know of, in your mind, the DA is a liar and a coward. Got it.”
Post #207, SoldierDad: “About time. You sure take long enough to allow facts to sink in.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2740713/posts?page=199#199
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.