RPD

[chris]

Rochester woman gets arrested for videotaping on her lawn.....here is where a case of too much power has gone to this officers head. He is supposed to be upholding the law not think he is above it

www.pixiq.com/article/rochester-police-arrest-woman-for-videotaping-them

What next???

[JGRobinson]

Nice, looks a bit like KGB!

[corner]

stop and llisten to what she says on the tape she believed the officers were racial profileing it was dark you dont know who you pull over until you do it ...dont be fooled this woman had an agenda....the last time someon taped me on a raid 15 years ago they found their camera on a 2nd story roof top and they were lucky it didnt have to be surgically removed from their rectum....

[Clipper]

Right or wrong, and on her property or city property, she will have a hard time defending against a charge of failure to comply with an order from a police officer. Probably should have shut her mouth, and went inside and shot her video from the door.

If what Corner says is true, as to her having an "agenda," I have very little sympathy for her. Sometimes when you stir shit, it spatters a little and ya get some on ya.

[corner]

she indicated in a cnn interview that she is an activist against police profiling against blacks and that she is extremely ardent about the issue and she was looking to protect the suspect from any potential brutality,, i dare someone to tell me that she wasnt looking to start something

[firstamendment]

There was no reason for them to harass this woman on her own property. I don't care what her agenda was and I have a hard time believing the officer's claims that they didn't feel safe with her there. A lawful order requires will require there be a valid reason to issue that order. If she were standing too close and asked to move back, I can understand that. But to order her back into her house? There wasn't any justification for that.

Bully tactics is what it amounts to.

[corner]

her property or not she had no business out there harrasssing them taping police in the course of their lawful duties is nobodies right it is only done to harrass because of the anti police sentiment in the country...just what if they were chasing down a shooter her failure to comply with an order to move out of the area would have put her and them in danger. seeing police lights on the street in front of your house simply is none of anyones business unless they are the ones being looked for.

[Clipper]

Other points aside. If she was there to insure the protection of the person being stopped, by taking video, she probably was performing a duplicated service, as most police departments have video dash cams to protect the officers as well as those they stop.

I can't defend all cops, but in most cases they don't need some activist pain in the ass busting their balls when they are carrying out their duties. MOST cops don't profile, and MOST cops are able to carry out their duties using cuffs only when it is in the interest of their safety or the safety of the person being cuffed. In today's world where cops are fair game for every drug crazed or deranged dumbass in the world, a frisking and cuffs are not overly aggressive law enforcement tools. Color or race aside, the cop probably had a legitimate concern about the attitude displayed or the emotional level of the person detained.

I would think that the smartest thing to do if a cop gives you and order is to comply with it, and take it up with his superior later if you object to the way the situation played out. With my temper I would not make a good cop. If some anti police activist were waving a camera in my face and would not comply, I would probably have tossed her ass on the ground and cuffed her the second time I told her to disperse. If she is black, we will probably hear from Al Sharpton and the ACLU before we are through and I don't mean to sound like a racist, just a realist. I simply can see Sharpton jumping on the band wagon with his usual indignant and inflammatory rants to incite a media frenzy and put his face on TV. A blowup of enormous consequence caused by the simple harmless discretionary call of one innocent police officer acting in the interest of safety.

I would also say that the incident would not draw as much attention if not for the way the liberal reporter titled and wrote the piece with an evident judgmental bias against the officer involved. One has to remember that the provoking and attention grabbing titles and headlines are what sells media products, so one has to take media reports with a grain of salt.

[firstamendment]

Jun 27, 2011 11:26:03 GMT -5 corner said:

her property or not she had no business out there harrasssing them taping police in the course of their lawful duties is nobodies right it is only done to harrass because of the anti police sentiment in the country...just what if they were chasing down a shooter her failure to comply with an order to move out of the area would have put her and them in danger. seeing police lights on the street in front of your house simply is none of anyones business unless they are the ones being looked for.

She wasn't harassing anybody. She made no attempt whatsoever to intervene in the traffic stop, she made no attempt to harass anybody there at all. They actually harassed her. The police had the situation under control and there was no immenent danger to her or them therefore no valid reason why to issue a ''lawful order'' in the first place. The one officer simply took offense with the fact that someone was recording it.

[corner]

her prescense comera nad comments could very easily be construed as harassment clipper she was some minimally post teen white dipshit looking for her 15 minutes and thats about all cnn gave her ... i dont see her making the morning shows with reverend al

[Clipper]

I am having trouble getting to the link for some reason. Oh well. I guess the subject can get along without my uninformed input until I can access the article, hahaha. I will just sit back and read until I can make my way to the link and read it.

[dgriffin]

It's hard to tell what was going on in total. From what I watched of the tape, I think the cop was overstepping it. He surely has a right to secure the scene and issue lawful orders in doing so, but I think she was more of an annoyance than a danger or an impediment to his accomplishing his duties. And I wonder why he was so sensitive? Yes, someone can use a tape to prove any point they want to and the copy may have been worried abut that, but far worse is to turn into the bad guy on tape. Once the woman, standing on her own property and not close enough to interfere with what the cop was doing, refused to leave and she kept taping, anyone with their wits about them ... IMHO .... would have backed off.

Corner, other than the cop's right to do whatever he did, why do you think he handled it that way?

[corner]

cnn had her on very quickly yesterday and if u listen to her comments she claims to be an advocate against racial profiling and was making sure the supect (who was peacably cuffed and in custody) wasnt harmed...like i said some young dipshit who needs a job to get laid.. way too much time on her hands. actually it wasn t the cnn channel it was headline news the sister station had to get my casey freak on for the day

[firstamendment]

And again, what she was doing does not rise to the criminal charge of harassment., and she was never charged with harassment either.

The sidewalk is always a gray area since it is considered a public right of way. As soon as they mentioned she was on the sidewalk, she backed away. It seems she did comply with that lawful order, which was the only justified lawful order given.

I really want to see Swimmy jump on this to give a serious legal opinion on what justifies the issuance of a lawful order. This situation is looking like just because a cop gives an order it needs to be complied with no questions asked. I do not think that is legal at all just like probable cause needs to exist to search someone. Seems there needs to be a reason to give such order.

To be clear, I am not one who would typically butt heads with police, and fortunately, I've had very little interaction with them in my lifetime. And I certainly not one to advocate others to disobey police either. But from that video, I see where this girl presented no danger to anyone. She was told to move back and she did, to a neutral area that was not public property. The camera was the real issue and her invoking her rights on her property seems to have bruised someone's ego.

Some may not like the way I view it. Law and order does need to be maintained, but that also includes LEO's also.

[corner]

Jun 27, 2011 13:03:11 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

It's hard to tell what was going on in total. From what I watched of the tape, I think the cop was overstepping it. He surely has a right to secure the scene and issue lawful orders in doing so, but I think she was more of an annoyance than a danger or an impediment to his accomplishing his duties. And I wonder why he was so sensitive? Yes, someone can use a tape to prove any point they want to and the copy may have been worried abut that, but far worse is to turn into the bad guy on tape. Once the woman, standing on her own property and not close enough to interfere with what the cop was doing, refused to leave and she kept taping, anyone with their wits about them ... IMHO .... would have backed off.

Corner, other than the cop's right to do whatever he did, why do you think he handled it that way?

same reason i would have u always hope for plain cloths or undercover and having your face posted all over u tube in uniform is a career buster. i never allowed myself to be photographed or taped.