E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Rochester New York District Attorney has dismissed charges against Emily Good, who was arrested while videotaping police making a traffic stop in front of her home. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
After a protest by supporters today outside the Rochester, N.Y., Hall of Justice, authorities dropped all charges against Emily Good, 28, who was arrested last month for video recording the police from her front yard and refusing an officer’s order to go into her house, NBC station WHEC reported.
Good said she was recording a traffic stop in front of her home May 12 because she suspected that the driver, a young black man, was the target of racial profiling.
In a joint statement supporting the decision to drop the charges, Rochester's mayor, City Council president and police chief said today:
"Whatever the outcome of the internal review, we want to make clear that it is not the policy or practice of the Rochester Police Department to prevent citizens from observing its activities — including photographing or videotaping — as long as it does not interfere with the safe conduct of those activities."
Police across the country have come under scrutiny for arresting otherwise uninvolved bystanders who pull out video cameras and phone cameras to document their activities — a practice many civil liberties advocates say is protected because police officers are public officials performing public duties.
The American Civil Liberties Union contended in an Illinois lawsuit last year that "individuals ... may make audio (and video) recordings of police who are performing their public duties in a public place and speaking in a voice loud enough to be heard by the unassisted human ear."
Other advocates warn that police first have a duty to protect the public — which can include bystanders with cameras, as well as other bystanders who may be imperiled by the officer's distraction with the camera.
"An officer who takes his or her attention away from the task at hand to worry about a person running video is going to suffer from split-attention deficit," Sgt. Ed Flosi of the San Jose, Calif., Police Department told PoliceOne, a journal for law enforcement professionals. "When a person is forced to focus on more than one item, the amount of focus on either item suffers. In other words, they may miss something that the primary suspect(s) is doing that could get them hurt or killed."
Leave a Comment:
police need to get over it and get used to it! if they are performing public duties responsibly there is no reason to prevent it. they should not be dividing their attention from the problems at hand in the first place. that's what back-up is for. if cops are honest (maybe...) then other Police Supervisors such as this one should be doing the same thing: welcoming recording of public officials doing their job.
I hope that they take disciplinary action against the officers involved in this incident. They used their badges to tr and bully a citizen who was doing nothing wrong just because they did not like being recorded. They should be charged with false arrest and illegal conduct under the color of authority. These officers violated this woman's rights and deserve to lose their badges and benefits. Until there are severe consequences for officers who overstep their authority as these officers did, these incidents will continue.
Civilians better not sue the police when they end up getting pepper sprayed or otherwise injured because they wanted to get in the middle of an arrest. If you want the right to get involved in something that's not your business, just be ready for the consequences.
JS, even though they say it is not the policy, I am sure that it is in fact the de facto policy. There are several places in the nation where it is actually against the law to take pictures or videotape police while performing their duties.
That's a minor calamity than allowing your rights to observe your tax dollars at work going out the door!
Standing in their own yard, away from the incident, with a video camera is hardly "in the middle of an arrest". There should be no consequences ... unless of course, the officer WAS racial profiling.
No honest police officer should mind being videotaped while doing his or her duty. In fact, they should be proud of the professionalism they are displaying. The others, well, it's obvious why they wouldn't want an objective record of their actions; look at the Rodney King incident.
Why would they even think about that person unless the cops are doing something wrong? It is an excuse...and a pi$$ poor one at that.
Congress should make a law that superceeds any local law with regards to recording public servants...key word, servants.
I'm not a cop, but I can understand and sympathize with cops not wanting people standing behind their back. There have been enough police shootings to warrant such a concern. Whenever they pull some one over or go to a home for a domestic problem, they are taking their lives in their own hands. It's bad enough that they have to worry about the driver or passenger pulling out a gun, but do they need the extra worry/distraction of people standing out of their line of sight just so they can video tape them. If an officer feels unsafe, he/she should have every right to get a better control on a situation.
I remember once a county deputy came to my house because we were burglarized. We live in the middle of no where, down a long dirt road and away from other houses. When the deputy came to the door, I pointed out some of the destruction that had occurred during the burglary, which was right behind him. He would not turn around to look at it, even after I pointed. I understood later that he was just being careful, because he didn't want to take his eyes off me even for a split second until he realized I wasn't a danger to him.
I know there is corruption within law enforcement and there are unfortunately a lot of bad cops. But give the good cops a break. Think about what they have to face on a daily basis. How many of us can say that we have a chance of being shot at every day we go to work?
This incident shows the greater problem that society shows no respect for authority and especially cops. Having worked with police I have witnessed this many times and there's nothing worse than having a difficult and potentially volatile situation exasperated by bystanders who video tape, heckle or the like. While the issue of being allowed to tape public figures should remain intact, public decency or normal societal values should remain, which is show respect to individuals of authority and not undermine their efforts when trying to restore order in society.
Aww...they get a wee bit nervous, do they? Tough. They can always just quit and become TSA agents. Danger comes with the job description. If they can't handle it in a proper way, then they 1) weren't trained adequately or 2) shouldn't be police officers to begin with. It's a high-stress, very dangerous low-paying job...that they CHOSE to commit to. They should take psychology courses, study ALL the laws of the state and country, and especially know EXACTLY what the Constitution allows from them and from citizens.
jgra. I'm not so sure. the last i heard it was taxi driver-police officer-pizza boy in that order for professions most likely to get you murdered on the job. You might want to check what stat. check out UNC Chapel Hill's recent study. www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun00/morraco3060900.htm
If they aren't doing something wrong then they should have no problem beign filmed. I personally stop anytime i see police doing anything and film them. I have been harrassed several times even tho i was in no way interfering or involved but nothing else just yelled at and told i could not film them.
I do not trust them, they are NOT AUTHORITY, THEY ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS. I have seen to much police brutality and corruption to ever trust the police. All police are not bad but it seems an awful lot of them are.
The problem we have with our government right now is we do not watch them closely enough and they are passing invalid laws (any law that is in contradiction with the constitution is on its face invalid) and then the goon squad police enforce it even when they know as well as everyone else that is in not a valid law.
The constitution clearly states that no law may be passed that violates or infringes on our rights and yet they continue to pass laws that violate and infringe on our rights
JUST SAY NO! TSA YOU CANNOT MOLEST US!!
NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER!
KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR PERSONAL LIVES
Nazi Germany had a LOT of respect for authority and especially the Gestapo (cops). Look where it got them.
There was no sign this police office was being interfered with or heckled in ANY WAY. The person was on their own, private property.
I have respect for both police officers and authority in general -- when they deserve it. But when there is abuse of that authority, that changes things.
Something else to remember, that respect you demand for authority works both ways. The police officers need to show respect for those they SERVE. Yes, they SERVE. In fact, that's what it says on most police cars "to protect and SERVE".
Hey John-3362411
This woman that got fausly arrested was not in the middle of the police interaction with the suspect, she was simply recording what they were doing in front of her home which is her right. Your talking out of your A**. She was minding her own business on her yard and the A** hole who arrested her was the one interferring with what she was doing. Maybe before the police get involved in business that is not theirs should think twice or prepare for the consequences, which will happen because he had no right to tell her to go in her house like she is some child. Cops think they have the right to tell people what to do and what to say, well thats not so. If it's not a law they have no right. Are they just making up laws as they feel like it? This whole country is going down and I also think there is too much power given to law enforcers and lets remember they are law enforcers not law makers. I hope that A** hole cop gets fired and loses all his benefits, they need to make an example out of him.
I live in Rochester, what this article fails to mention is the woman was on the front steps of HER house and was well out of the way of interfering with police business.
It also fails to mention that at the Hall of Justice police there got out rulers to make sure the cars of the people supporting her were less then a foot away from the curb. RPD is acting out agasint citizens...
They can record all they want. JUST STAY OUT OF THE FREAKING WAY.
Secondly, ONLY A JUDGE can decide whether to use their recording or not. A judge decides the admissable evidence in any trial.
And DON'T FORGET the story BEFORE and AFTER you turned on the power.
Michael
Let's just say that Rochester is known to be a nice place and I'm certain your police force has a lot to do with it.
Don't forget it.
How do I know ? My family lives within a 2 hour drive and has friends in your town.
Ollie Only... Should we respect those who abuse authority? This police officer abused his authority (that was pretty much proven by the charges being dropped), should we respect him? For a very long time we did respect the police. They always told the truth and the courts believed them over the average citizen when there was no proof available. However, since technology has advanced with video cameras, cell phone cameras, and surveillance cameras, etc, society and the courts and the DA's can no longer trust the police of old. So, what do the police do, they retaliate and up the ante by simply arresting anyone they feel like. They handcuff them, search them, transport them to the jail, fingerprint them, and put them into a cell. Only to have the charges dropped by the DA. This is intimidation and humiliation. Should we respect this kind of authority? Well, should we???
Respect must be earned, and one must work extra hard to regain it once lost.
@Karen in LA.
I don't think your very up to date with the last 5 years of crime data when we out pace by as much as 3 times the violent crime per capita of all 5 burrows of NYC. Just 3 weeks ago I was on in an area thats considered safe (Monroe Ave) when someone popped 6 shots into someone with a Police unit no more then 15 feet away, police camera's all up and down the street and the shooter still got away.
If you are talking about the suburbs of Rochester, sure...they are very nice. BTW, the woman who did the recording, her house was just broken into today and the Iphone she used to record was stolen while nothing else was touched...
Police making a point?
the officer who is making the arrest should keep doing his job.....it shouldnt matter if he/she is being taped.....their actions should speak for itself....good or bad. You can tell if the suspect is starting something or the officer.
Odd how the cops touted their dash cams as "friendly" and use them daily in court to convict the public.
But when Mary Q. Citizen uses her hand held camera this action is now considered an obstruction of justice...
The police work for us. When we are examining the work they are doing under scrutiny they need to respect that. There are law abiding citizens but if you arrest someone for doing something you don't like and you later find out you made a wrongful arrest you should be demoted and servery penalized then also sent back to class to study the law.
Bad cop no doughnuts!
Buster...agreed
That's the problem. The police work for us, they are public servants. Yet they and the system act as though, that's not true.
They are not there to become the Gestapo! They have turned into the gang in Blue.
.....and this current Supreme Court supports their behavior. The police have been allowed to abuse their power and it transcends the color of ones skin.
It has become them against us...the people, and it's wrong.
The cameras protect everyone. The police should welcome them!
It seems that the Rodney King incident and advancing technology have brought many "traditional" law enforcement practices into sharp focus. The ability of citizens to elevate eyewitness observations, which courts in the past have dismissed as hearsay, into properly documented evidence is something law enforcement will have to deal with. Attempts to have this evidence legally suppressed is not the answer. If such laws or ordinances are allowed to persist, citizens have to ask "What's next?"
In Florida the police and government are real pigs . They define crime by the Chamber of Commerce . This was explained in another post , but to understand this , low crime neighborhoods , are actually neighborhoods many time with illegal renters , and a strong influence on the Chamber on the police . So, the police rename neighborhoods as troubled neighborhoods , and redefine crimes as civil actions .
If a Condo Association like happen to me steal my lock to gain enterence into my Condo , the police when this is report say this is Civil . Theft is theft and it doesn't make a difference if it is done by a Condo Association or by Jack the ripper . It is criminal . When , I had them out , they even gave them the right to return my lock whenever they wanted to return it per the Condo Manager . This was when I was the ower of the lock and the owner of the property .
The City of xyz has one of the lowest crime rates in the State of Fl. Wonder why , well everything is Cival law and not criminal law . I once had my credit card stolen and gave the info to them as to who stole it ,and this too became criminal . If an auto place refuses to give you back you car , it is not reported as criminal , it become civil. I reported a beer and sex party with minors in the Condo to the police . They interviewed the assigned guardian who was not at the party , and prior to this a board member . This allowed the bought for sex and minor party to be given warning to break up . This was done in the Recreational Area of the Condo and was a paid off event to the Condo.
Obviously with crooked cops and others being paid off or favors being done , you stand being assaulted by the cops who are the pigs and who are doing favors and or other participation's. Yeah usually there is money being exchange such as in the drug and illegal age drinking party . One party pays , the second party receives , and the cops are told a key word , so that the pay off is on a Commerce or direct payment at another time . This is nothing , especially when the police are tipped off supposedly that the one reporting the criminal activity is to be harassed or arrest on false charges . Get a voice recording ,and in the City I am talking about , you might wind up dead . To quote on cop , I don't fight your battles , to wit , crimes are ok , as long as favors flow and money flows .
What part of Florida do you live in?
Your post is an endless screed of bias and slander, from the very sentence: "In Florida, the police and government are real pigs". It's interesting that almost every post that supports recording the police and attacks the arrest (and I'm in agreement with those arguments) include gross generalizations about police. They're corrupt, they're abusive, they get away with this or that, and so on. I think a lot of the people here are less interested in the issue than they are using it to justify their own biases.
It seems to me that groups of people who don't like being stereotyped would be sensitive to stereotyping police as well. Most police are honest and hard working.
Remember that distraction defense. When stopped for erratic driving, it's because you were distracted by the camera on the dash of the cop car behind you.
I read this article and the prior article describing the actual event. I understand the arguments on both sides of videotaping police officers as they are working. What bothers me is that proponents of videotaping don't say that they would be fine with their employers videotaping them as they work. So, I'd love to see some people weigh in on this - since you are supposed to be executing job duties for your employer, are you just fine with them videotaping you throughout the day to ensure your compliance?
Most employers already videotape their employees. Every company I've ever worked for has had cameras everywhere except the bathrooms.
Bldr, many employers (including mine) videotape the workplace. I'm fine with that, and so is everyone else at work. The only place where we expect privacy at work is the bathroom. Once you leave your own home, your expectation of privacy should be greatly reduced.
Cops are not ordinary private employees, they are public employees and as such should be open to the scrutiny of ordinary people, as long as they are not being interfered with. Video taping is not "being interfered with" it is just something they don't like, because they do not like being accountable.
The difference here is that I dont have the right to shoot anybody at my job. I also can't send any body to prison or search them. The reason it's so damn important to keep an eye on the cops is because they have power, and power corrupts.
Its just really amusing to me that the same group of people (cops) who said for years that "if you aren't doing anything wrong, than you have nothing to hide" would try to find excuses not to be taped. Well... if you aren't doing anything wrong, Mr. Officer, why are you so affraid of us taping you?
I know in Washington state, that for someone to use surveillance cameras, they must post that the premises have cameras. Personally, having worked in places with heavy surveillance, I don't think it's wrong. But it's also not comparable to video taping a police officer...as the officer is USUALLY in public space.
My argument about videocameras in the workplace (which I have had in a few different jobs) is the same as for the closed-circuit cameras on the streets of London and scanners in airports: I'm a law-abiding citizen, so there is no reason they should bother me. In fact, I welcome them because they help protect me against people who do break the law. If a crime is committed against me (including poor working conditions), it's on tape and can help prosecute the perpetrator. They can help get a criminal off the streets before they do wrong to another person, which could be me. Conversely, it can help prove that I have done nothing wrong if there were ever an accusation. As far as I'm concerned - and the same goes for police officers being taped while they work - being taped should only bother you if you know you're doing something wrong.
bldr, even though it is still legal to do in an office, there is still a huge difference between recording in a building, and recording in public.
Employer's can also require drug testing of their employee's. Do police departments test their officers for drug and alcohol abuse. NO! Yet, if you go to: www.injusticeeverywhere.com you'll see that this is needed.
They need to be testing them for steroid abuse.
The officers should be happy that there is a visual and audio record of what truly happened. The records protect them as well.
They only want their own version of 'records'
Did you ever hear anything more phony than Sgt Ed Flosi of San Jose and his split attention explanation? This guy is a licensed, gun toting protector of the public? Hey Sarge, try doing your job and stop worrying about someone taking your picture. That split attention bullsheet is just that .... bullsheet and you know it. As does everyone else reading this article. Sometimes you cops are a lot dumber than you give yourselves credit for.
He is correct, in that splitting causes problems, but he is being disingenuous.
Sthe thing about San Jose is that the person behind the cop could easily be a meth head with a gun, so, split attention. That's San Jose, but as soon as it is ascertained it isn't a gun behid them then split attention is not professional. Anyway, isn't it policy to disengage and call for backup as soon as an officer feels endangered doing his job instead of "Splitting his attention" to engage another party?
I don't see anything wrong with her videotaping the police. I had my picture taken (camera visible) by a policeman while legally riding a bicycle down the street. No reason for taking my picture. I'm not a criminal. Then a couple years later, I ride my bicycle (doc said lose weight or get diabetes so I exercise a lot) one half block past a domestic disturbance and hear a plainclothes cop (I think) yell "There's a bicycle". Five blocks later another cop car catches up with me and parks cockeyed in the street so his license plate camera can get my picture again. Also in the last year, the pro-police cheerleader local town paper has an article titled "If you see bicycle riders in your neighborhood, call the cops." I kid you not. That really peeved me off. I blogged the paper saying, I'm a bike rider, a 13.5 gallon blood donor and if you want references here some are and named about 4 or 5 people that no cop in town could match if you asked him for references. I mean that really torqued me off. Like bicycle riders are criminals. Ridiculous.
I don't understand why riding a bicycle would even draw attention, let alone require taking pictures or calling police. Are there laws in your area against riding bikes?
Law officials need to recognize the police that have made those arrests in the past were trying to cover their illegal activity and abuse of power. Rather than cover the bad cops on the force with excuses like "they were trying to protect the people by arresting the videographer and then smashing their equipment" they should admit that people have a right to record a police officers actions, and if the police aren't doing anything wrong, they should have nothing to fear.
Why would a police officer allow him or herself to be distracted by a citizen videotaping their public activities? If that citizen is a safe distance away and in no way interfering in that activity, why would they object? Are they afraid that they might be out of uniform, that their hair may be uncombed? Would they be distracted by a bystander in the same place but without a recording device? Just standing there watching? Law enforcement, like the average citizen have no right to expect that their public activities, in a public place be conducted in secret. When you are in the public domain you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Oh god don't let this get to our corrupt Supreme Court! We already know exactly how the flunky majority would rule.
Yeah, that "distraction" argument only works if cops make it a practice to clear the area entirely during any arrest. They don't.
Racial profiling is a term brought by attorneys to clear wrong doers. If it was night how did good know that the black driver was being profiling. Most police officers do not know who is driving the vehicle until the stop is made. Most stops are a result of a minor traffic offense but escalates when the driver or passenger fail to comply. Racial profiling is very difficult to determine considering, tinted window, obstructions in the vehicle and time of day. There is no such thing of racial profiling, people bought it because is another way to yell discrimination without proof.
"There is no such thing of racial profiling..."
There is racial profiling, whether you want to believe it or not. Here in RI they've been trying to get rid of the practice for a long time. The statistics in RI show that black drivers are much more likely to be stopped and searched by the police, even though white drivers are much more likely to be found with illegal contraband.
The Department of Justice is currently conducting an in-depth investigation of the Seattle Police Department because of multiple incidents of racial profiling and several photographed incidents of officers not only violating the civil rights of minorities, but going so far as to kill someone in cold blood. We certainly need much more video surveillance of our sworn officers.
POPO1692537
You must be white. There is no such thing as racial profiling?????????????? What world do you live in. If a neighborhood is predominately Black then nine times our of ten the person the cop is stopping will most likely be a Black person. And you think cops can't see in the dark with all the street lights and car lights on????? That sounds so stupid, oh so I guess because it is dark the cops really can't see who is in the car becaus the black person is blending in????? If a car doesn't have dark tints then the cops will be able to see just fine into the car. Not every car stop is a high speed chase or some adrenaline pumping stop. Cops sit and wait for people they can stop. They are watching you while you are stopped at a red light and when they see something so called suspicious like two Black guys and one white girl in the back with smoke coming out their mouths, they willl stop you. I guess no one rides with their windows down either, so even with the window down a cop can't see into the car at night???? No racial profiling my ass, you sound ridiculous.
Thats right, you tell this fool, Providence and EDMF. Not only is there racial profiling on the streets as these cops are patroling but there is blatent racial profiling when they are profiling a murderer, serial killer or rapist. They profile the age, demographics and race of who they belive is the perpetratuer of said crime so they can narrow down there search.
Split attention deficit? Seriously? Maybe the solution is to treat people video recording you as the passive bystanders that they are. They're observing you, just like anyone else, and if cops are doing their job they have nothing to worry about.
Split attention deficit...that's kind of embarrassing.
or "SAD" ;)
Let's not spread the word about this split attention deficit business. Before you know you'll have parents claiming the kid has SAD (great acronym too) and will need special programs, relaxed rules, private cubicles, and who knows what other nonsense. And don't forget the drugs big pharma will have to come up with. There's money to be made here.
That damned american civil liberties Union (Union--it figures!) sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong again!!! All they ever do is cause problems. They are anti-american!!! Police should be able to do anything they want without having to worry about some citizen taping them and causing them trouble. They should outlaw that american civil liberties union becuase they are soooo anti-american and anti-constitution!!!!! and yes, this is very heavy sarcasm, directed at those who think in their perverted way that what I just wrote is true!
A minor correction, Mr. or Ms. or Miss or Mrs. Ragtopz. What you have written could never be described as sarcasm. If I were to write that your words reflect the thinking of a holder of several graduate degrees in sociology, political science and law, that would be sarcasm.
No, what you have written does not demonstrate sarcasm. It merely demonstrates that you are a victim of either anencephaly or coprocephaly, and I suspect that it is more the latter, since those victimized by anencephaly usually don't make it past their 3-month birthday. Conversely, people who are the victims of coprocephaly can live to a ripe old age, even as their coprocephalic condition worsens with age.
Never heard of a "3-month birthday".....I like, however, that you tried to use big words to insult someone. (now THAT'S sarcasm)
I have to look at it from a realistic view. If I'm a cop, my job is hard enough already. No matter what job I have or who the person might be, I'm not gonna be happy with a video camera in my face while I'm trying to eke out a living. Maybe she had a valid concern, but there's a time, place and simply rational approach to everything. Yea, there's bad cops and bad policing, but she had no clue whether these were good men or not, only suspicion.
Usually, when the cops pull you over, they have only suspicion and yet that video camera on their dash is rolling. She wasn't in his face. She was on her own property.
I'm aware of the difficult job police officers have, I'm a former LEO myself; but I'm also aware of the widespread mentality that too many policemen have these days that they have the power to do whatever they want, to whomever they want. This abuse of authority needs to be documented wherever possible, because - guess what - COPS LIE! They'll arrest you, make up a scenario in which YOU get charged for a violation you didn't committ, and it's your word against their's .... and we all know who wins THAT one, don't we?
I'll say the same thing to Law Enforcement Officers everywhere who are against being taped:
If you have nothing to hide, in the way you perform your duties, then what do you have to fear in being taped?
And please, spare us the "it diverts my attention and is a possible safety distraction" BS. That women was well within her legal rights to tape these officers, as was the guy in Miami recently.
True. But I've watched two videos of a cop making a simple stop and having his head blown off when he reached the window. I'da had very little patience with this lassy too! Her own front yard or not. You gotta have an attitude to be a cop. And don't give me that "we don't really need cops" crap either. Get back inside lady before I lose it, can't you see I'm freakin' busy you ditz?
That'd be a lovely attitude to carry around with you as a cop. Definitely the way to get people to cooperate, arrogance and impatience.
You would make it far as a policeman, Fred.....
Fred Guisse,
re: post 16.3
2 videos of cops getting their heads blown off while making a simple traffic stop eh? Apparently their dashboard video camera was splitting their attention.
Listen to yourself, "her own front yard or not". Obey their orders simply because they're the cops... That is the EXACT kind of attitude that allowed German "authorities" to round up millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals and other so-called "enemies of the state" without a person raising their hand against them or speaking out and proving the abuse.
This "attitude" you speak of should also include the maturity to know that a lady in her yard taping your actions is NOT a threat or any kind of danger. That is merely an excuse to hassle her because you don't like what she is doing and you don't like the fact that a regular citizen actually dares to make a record of your (a police officer by god!) actions.
Yes, we need cops, but not ones who would bully a citizen engaged in a legal activity in their own yard , not ones who fear having their own actions recorded when that much and more is done to average citizens everyday- and BY cops. Cops are public SERVANTS, NOT public masters. They don't get to issue orders to people just because they have a badge and a weapon.
Remember Fred, this is a Nation of CITIZENS, not a land of subjects beholden to the State. The State is beholden to, and answerable to US, not vice-versa. Cops should also keep in mind that they are civilians too. They're not entitled to think of themselves as seperate from the civilian body of our Nation or to think of us in terms of being "the enemy".
Good. Now he's up the civil creek for humiliation, malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, and whatever else the bully deserves.
What I find most disturbing is a public official, for no real reason (threat) walking onto private property and telling the proeprty owner she cannot do a legal/lawful activity on her front lawn.
I would personally name the officer in a civil suit.
I would like to see what the cop would have said if a man was videotaping from his front lawn....hmmm?
so the woman who was assaulted by the police is "off the hook," what about the police? they should pay her to compensate her for wrongful imprisonment and mental distress.
I see nothing wrong with bystanders videotaping the police. They are public servants and the public they serve has a right to know the police are conducting themselves properly.
Having said that, I think people need to come down off their high horses a little. If a person resists arrest, I think the officer involved should be able to deliver a beatdown. These officers put their lives on the line every time they step out of their cars and if we, the public, expect them to respect us then we need to respect them.
And third, racial profiling is a load of horse @!$%#. If you aren't breaking the law then it shouldn't matter what race you are when you get pulled over and if you are breaking the law then it wasn't your skin color that got you sent to jail.
Ok so now we are protected by the law so that we can all video tape police officers performing their duties. Now, at a traffic stop, a police officer yells at someone video taping the stop to "get the h#!! out of here". Of course, the person doing the filming knows their rights, and just stays put and continues filming. Meanwhile, the reason for the officer yelling at the person doing the taping becomes obvious - the person inside the car pull out a gun, shots and wounds the officer and shots and kills the film maker. Want to bet the film maker's next of kin sues the police force for failure to protect.
The outcry over this has been for the wrong reason all along. They are crying civil rights, but it was never about her recording. The cop alleged she made a threatening/anti-police statement before she ever turned the camera on, while they were dealing with the traffic stop. Now they can call first amendment, but they ignore the fact she could have been distracting the officers as in your example and something serious could have resulted. But hey, who needs to be rational?
And the 20 other people watching the the traffic stop but don't have cameras who don't get yelled at? They're bulletproof? Any officer who spends more time paying attention to someone with a camera and less to the possible suspect driver needs to go back to training school.
I think I could counter your imaginary scenario with one that is more compelling.
To ALL the "split attention deficit disorder" cops out there, IF YOU CANNOT DO YOUR JOB IN A SAFE AND PROFESSIONAL MANNER ...........GO FIND ANOTHER PROFESSION. If you are so afraid of someone taking your picture while screaming at someone then WE DO NOT NEED YOU "PROTECTING " US!!!!!!!!!!!
People have the right to videotape police as long as they do not interfere with what the police are doing.
Only if his allegation of her making a statement before she started recording is false. If not, he won't get touched. He would have been performing his job with in the scope he was allowed. Someone making hostile statements to a police officer, while the officer is trying to do a traffic stop, is impeding the officer.
1) Prove to me she made the hostile statements
2) She could have yelled "Allah Akbar" for all I care, unless she was a "Immediate Threat" what the hell was the cop doing on her property?
3)You cannot have that cops attitude, this is SUPPOSED to be a professional LEO, didn't see one iota of professionalism from him
1) Can't prove she made them, just as you can't prove she didn't. It was done before her camera was on.
2) With out knowing if she did or didn't make statements that were aggressive this is a moot point.
3) Your opinion of his attitude. I've watched the video a few times. His behavior appeared reasonable, and she even apologized for saying whatever it was she supposedly said.
this has gotten blown way out of context. She was on her property, there was no harm to her taping. The office got caught up in the moment. Its over let it go.