http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJpL2ZdWVI&feature=feedu

This video allegedly shows how on May 12th, a Rochester woman was arrested for taping a traffic stop in front of her home. She was standing in front of her house with a hand held recording device when the arrest happened. Officer Mario Masic of the Rochester Police Department executed the arrest.

Video released by Rochester Independent Media Center.

Our country is screwed up....

This woman was on her own lawn people!

I hope this cop loses his job or they face a lawsuit

This cannot happen in America....we are inching more and more toward a police state....

Quoting thegreatRDU (Thread starter): Our country is screwed up.... This woman was on her own lawn people! I hope this cop loses his job or they face a lawsuit This cannot happen in America....we are inching more and more toward a police state....

Quite a bit of drama but I doubt we are inching toward anything. Sounds like an bad apple officer but also like this woman wasn't just on her lawn. Seems like she got a bit closer and had a verbal exchange before hand. The officer will probably lose his job though I can't for the life of me find a reason why she would be taping this stop. Doesn't sound like any excessive force or anything else was in play here.

This officer was in the wrong but it's apparent that no credible major news orgs picked up the story that there is probably a little more to the story than an out of control Gestapo that just arrests anyone they feel like it.

Quoting thegreatRDU (Thread starter): This woman was on her own lawn people!

There are a lot of illegal activities you can do on your own lawn. Not that what she was doing was illegal.

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 1): This officer was in the wrong but it's apparent that no credible major news orgs picked up the story that there is probably a little more to the story than an out of control Gestapo that just arrests anyone they feel like it.

Probably. But, I do get pissed when a cop tries to make a completely reasonable arrest and there's 50 d-bags standing around with their smartphones videotaping him/her.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 2): But, I do get pissed when a cop tries to make a completely reasonable arrest and there's 50 d-bags standing around with their smartphones videotaping him/her.

Anything that encourages them to behave appropriately is a good thing, no?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3): Anything that encourages them to behave appropriately is a good thing, no?

I was a little more concerned about the incident in Miami where police opened up on a guy and then threatened a civilian nearby and tried to or did grab their cell.

This one sounds a little different. I don't mind someone taking vid of police in action. Just don't interfere or engage them in convo. Let them do their job and if they cross the line you got it on video.

In the video the officer alleges that she was saying something to them before she started taping. We have no reason to doubt that statement. Depending on what it was she said, or did, she may well have been obstructing the investigation. For instance, if she was verbally interrupting/questioning the officers' actions while they were conducting the initial arrest, this would constitute obstruction of a police officer under the Canadian code. (I am more familiar with the Canadian Criminal code than the US equivalents). All I'm saying is that it's possible that she was breaking the law prior to the taping, and that her refusal to stop standing behind the officers (yes, on her lawn) while pointing an object at them in the dark would constitute probable cause for continuation of that offence.

The arrest is not justified based on what we see on the video, but I am fairly confident there's more to the story .There usually is. As usual, in the media we only get the side of those who are against the police. We also don't have the whole story on the nature, or danger, of the situation the police were dealing with before Good started taping. The fact that she acknowledges she was taping because of her concerns regarding 'police misconduct' suggest that she was not the neutral observer she claims to be.

In any case, the officer has as much right to presumption of innoncence (in the internal investigation, as well as in any possible criminal investigation), as does Ms. Good.

JL

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 2): There are a lot of illegal activities you can do on your own lawn. Not that what she was doing was illegal.

She wasn't....she was on her on property doing a constitutionally protected activity...this cop needs to lose his job or someones gotta cough up a lot of dough....

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 2): Probably. But, I do get pissed when a cop tries to make a completely reasonable arrest and there's 50 d-bags standing around with their smartphones videotaping him/her.

Keeps everybody honest...

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 6): She wasn't....she was on her on property doing a constitutionally protected activity...this cop needs to lose his job or someones gotta cough up a lot of dough....

Again, you don't know that. It may be true, in which case the cop should be disciplined for sure. It may also be that she broke the law in question. Again, we don't know what she did before she started taping, or what the other people she was with were doing. People are too focused on the fact that it's not illegal to film the police. That's correct, it's not illegal, but it's not certain that that's all she and her associates were doing.

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 6): Keeps everybody honest...

Interesting. Would you defend it if the police were filming you while you went about your business?

JL

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3): Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 2): But, I do get pissed when a cop tries to make a completely reasonable arrest and there's 50 d-bags standing around with their smartphones videotaping him/her. Anything that encourages them to behave appropriately is a good thing, no?

No, not necessarily. Firstly, it is unwanted and unnecessary pressure, applied in an already stressful situation when the officer needs to be focused and safe dealing with an arrest or struggle. It is a distraction, potentially a dangerous one. Secondly, when resistance is encountered or the officer has to defend himself, such casual filiming provides opportunities galore to take small amounts of footage totally out of context and show reasonable force or other actions to be anything but reasonable. So no, it is just not always that simple.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 7): Would you defend it if the police were filming you while you went about your business?

And that's the other thing. Yes they are public servants, but nobody would like a camera in the face at work. They have a job to get on with without that kind of hassle.

Quoting thegreatRDU (Thread starter): Our country is screwed up.... This woman was on her own lawn people!

I dont see the greater connection. The US has a plethora of reality TV shows with cameramen following police officers. If this was actually a situation in which the Police officer was wrong, it would be hard to argue that it's systemic. Some police forces in the US have employed miniature video cameras that officers wear to record chases/arrests, for use in court.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3): Anything that encourages them to behave appropriately is a good thing, no?

Video taping police is not always someone just trying to encourage the police to behave well. Many police officers in the states already carry cameras on their body armor that tapes everything they do in addition to dash cams in their vehicles.

The vast majority of the time the citizenry filming police is fine. In some cases, it could add to the officers description of events and in others potentially save the officers job if there is a different description of events. But these things are all situational. My point is if you are going to videotape the police, do it in a manner that does not interfere with the situation. Sometimes people point cameras at the police to intimidate them. When it's done for that reason, it is interference with a law enforcement officer and can be grounds for arrest.

Again, I'm not saying this woman was doing anything wrong, only that if the police are in a tense situation and a bunch of people start sticking cameras in their face don't be surprised if they get arrested for obstruction or interference. One can videotape, that's fine, if that's all that's going on.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 7): Would you defend it if the police were filming you while you went about your business?

Been to NYC lately? NYPD has surveillance cameras in lots of places, filming the public while they go about their business...it happens in many places, all in the name of "security".

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3): Anything that encourages them to behave appropriately is a good thing, no?

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 6): Keeps everybody honest...

Where do you guys work? I'll schedule a flight out to tape you from 9-5 (or whatever your work hours are) and any time you mess up, I will stop by your manager's office and show them.

Thanks for volunteering!

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 7): Interesting. Would you defend it if the police were filming you while you went about your business?

They already do.....in alot of places like the UK, New York City, etc...

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 12): Where do you guys work? I'll schedule a flight out to tape you from 9-5 (or whatever your work hours are) and any time you mess up, I will stop by your manager's office and show them.

No need the surveillance cameras work fine....

Lots of states (and not coincidentally they're often ones with the biggest, most sclerotic state governments) have laws that make it illegal to videotape a police officer without his consent. It's absolutely wrong that those laws exist, but they do in many states.

Wow, I hope some of yall make a lapse in judgement and "lose your job or cough up a lot of dough." It's really sickening to hear how anti-cop some of yall are, sure he might've made a mistake, but to be fired or be out millions? Give me a break, most cops are very good people and are willing to take a bullet for you. Who cares if one cop pissed you off one time for YOU speeding or something...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15): Give me a break, most cops are very good people and are willing to take a bullet for you. Who cares if one cop pissed you off one time for YOU speeding or something...

And 99.9% of the video with cops in it shows someone else other than the cop committing a crime.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15): most cops are very good people and are willing to take a bullet for you. Who cares if one cop pissed you off one time for YOU speeding or something...

Yup, it's ridiculous. Nowhere is this felt worse than in the UK, where large parts of the media love to stir up anti-police sentiment and encourage morons to moan about what a waste of space they are, or how they couldn't catch a cold let alone a criminal. They pay NO attention to the fact that these guys are out risking their necks to look after us all. People are selfish beyond belief sometimes. So many evil bastards taken off the street by the Police every day, and yet many in our society are more interested in the one time they saw an officer eating food on his break (yeah, shocking eh? Police needing to eat to stay functional on a long duty.....) or the relatively small number of times when things don't go to plan (taking no account of the fact that Policing can be a highly unpredictable business, and that criminals tend not to tell the Police in advance what their plans are). People really do need to give Police officers a break. At least try and see it from their point of view.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 7): Interesting. Would you defend it if the police were filming you while you went about your business?

Are you also against cockpit voice recorders?

If your job gives you massive responsibility, then you'll have to deal with the scrutiny that comes with it. If the possibility of being recorded is so troublesome there are many other jobs available that may make them happier.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 15): Wow, I hope some of yall make a lapse in judgement and "lose your job or cough up a lot of dough." It's really sickening to hear how anti-cop some of yall are, sure he might've made a mistake, but to be fired or be out millions?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 17): Wow, I hope some of yall make a lapse in judgement and "lose your job or cough up a lot of dough." It's really sickening to hear how anti-cop some of yall are, sure he might've made a mistake, but to be fired or be out millions?

It's the police.....somebody can end up dead or arrested and locked up for a long time.....
These guys have immense power out there...
Think police beatings, false imprisonments, Oakland transit shootings, etc
So yea it bothers me but it's just a "mistake" right?

Quoting N867DA (Reply 18): Are you also against cockpit voice recorders?

Three things that make your analogy silly:

1) If I recall correctly, the consensus on here has always been that voice recorders make sense because they don't record indefinitely, but re-write themselves and are therefore only examined in the case of a serious incident, in which they've obviously saved the relevant data because the plane is no longer flying. In other words, pilots are subject to examination of relevant data from serious investigations. Do you seriously think this is the equivalent of some 'activist' who is "concerned about pilot's misconduct" coming into the cockpit and recording them doing their job in a tense situation, say, heavy turbulence? Because that's basically what happened here.

2) When cockpit data are examined, they're examined in a)full detail, and not misleading individual tidbits, and b)the examination is done carefully done by professionals, not by idiots on youtube.

3) Data on the pilot's behaviour is analyzed within the context of all the recorded flight data, i.e., all the situational factors are taken into account, which help to understand the pilot's actions and reactions. The same is absolutely not the case when people post short clips of police activity on youtube. Who was recording the beginning of this situation as it developed? Who was filming the woman and her friends while they were out doing whatever it is they were doing? We dont' know, do we? You don't see cops posting videos of the stupid things shitheads do to them all the time, do you? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for most officers to find some good footage, but luckily for all of us, most officers have more integrity than the average person seems to have.

There's absolutely no comparison between this and cockpit recordings.

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 13): They already do.....in alot of places like the UK, New York City, etc...

Big difference between cameras filming everything that's going on in a public area, where everyone in the scene is shown and the totality of a situation can be observed and analyzed, and a situation where only the cop is being filmed, by someone who may well be trying to interfere with them. Cameras that are filming everyone may indeed be too much, but at least they're equal in who they film and are not intrinsically biased by the goals of their editors.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 14): Lots of states (and not coincidentally they're often ones with the biggest, most sclerotic state governments) have laws that make it illegal to videotape a police officer without his consent. It's absolutely wrong that those laws exist, but they do in many states.

I agree that that's wrong, and we don't have laws like that here. Like I said, to me the issue in this story is that, in context, the filming of the comments that we may not have heard may constitute obstruction, depending on the circumstances. That's a far cry from saying there should be blanket laws prohibiting filming an officer.

JL

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 19): So yea it bothers me but it's just a "mistake" right?

Please don't misquote me. I did not write what was quoted. But in any case, nobody has suggested mistakes shouldn't be dealt with, and nobody has suggested that incidents of actual Police brutality or other misconduct should be treated as mistakes, or left uninvestigated or unpunished. People should appreciate though that Policing is a damn hard job worthy of respect, and people should also learn to let the Police get on with that job unhindered. Indeed, they should help the Police any way they can rather than arguing with them and attempting to 'assert their rights' to being an ass while the officer tries to do his work. If that means going back into your house so that the officer has less to keep an eye on for a few minutes then so be it. The woman in the video was after trouble from the start, it's as plain as day.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 20): Big difference between cameras filming everything that's going on in a public area, where everyone in the scene is shown and the totality of a situation can be observed and analyzed, and a situation where only the cop is being filmed, by someone who may well be trying to interfere with them. Cameras that are filming everyone may indeed be too much, but at least they're equal in who they film and are not intrinsically biased by the goals of their editors.

What's wrong with asking for more transparency with the police force? The cop was never "in danger" as his partners didn't seem to worry about "their safety"....

And besides what crime did she violate?

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 19): Think police beatings

Do you want to chat about beatings of police, too? Probably doesn't suit your agenda. I know an officer who was beaten within an inch of his life by three drunk low-life's who lured him and his partner into their house in a false 911 call. His partner will never work again due to serious eye damage inflicted when her head was repeatedly kicked by these three guys. They'll be out of jail in two years, and I'm sure they'll be looking for this officer again. I bet you'd be the first one to call for my friend's firing if he's a little too quick to arrest one of them if they get in his face while he's dealing with someone else... as long as it's put on YouTube where you're obviously capable of making a full and fair judgment of the situation.

Some people make me sick, and I'm glad we have better people out there who are willing to work hard to protect us.

I'm done with this discussion.

JL

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):

So let me ask you this....what crime did she commit?

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 23): They'll be out of jail in two years

That's your country's problem

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 23): I'm done with this discussion.

Ok peace!

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 20): Do you seriously think this is the equivalent of some 'activist' who is "concerned about pilot's misconduct" coming into the cockpit and recording them doing their job in a tense situation, say, heavy turbulence? Because that's basically what happened here.

Every encounter with the police has a possibility to result in an arrest or citation, which means the suspect will have to go to court. Thanks that pesky activist, the court cannot just take the word of the police officer but they can see what actually happened. If that pesky activist recorded the whole incident--or even a part of it--trained experts, juries, and judges have a lot more information than, "well, I saw the sedan roll through that stop sign. He slowed down, but I didn't see him stop...". That cop's word is worth much more than some poor guy, who really did stop.

Idiots on youtube can make all the comments they want, but that's okay because their words are irrelevant. The tape however can find its way to professionals whose opinions do matter.

A police officer's word carries so much respect in places where it matters that Joe Citizen has no other choice than to record every word and action of the officer. Frankly, officers should demand every encounter is recorded so there is a clear and obvious record of what really happened. The only reason an officer would want an encounter undocumented is because he or she knows her word will be given more weight than any other person. People don't record police officers for shits and giggles--they do it to protect themselves and others.

Edit: I am advocating a quiet, non-intrusive way of recording officers.

[Edited 2011-06-22 15:22:10]

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 24): So let me ask you this....what crime did she commit?

Why would you ask me this? I obviously am no expert in the laws of that state, or of the US as a whole. I have eyes though, and ears, and she wanted trouble and wanted to argue with what sounded like a pretty reasonable instruction in the circumstances, delivered in a calm manner. I would imagine, though, that if the officer considers the request reasonable for his own safety and control of the situation, that she would probably be obliged to comply. Like I say though, I can't assert that as you are probably well aware. Anyone can see that she was out to act like an ass from the start and goad the officer. She deserved the end result. Unless there are Police constantly arresting people outside her house, a request to return indoors for a little while until the business is concluded is blatantly no serious infringement of liberty. Any such instruction that might in any way help the Police deal with their work is one I am glad to comply with. If not, I will not complain if they don't help me when I call.

Cops actions are perfectly justified. He asked her to go back in the house. She refused. He did not ask her to stop recording.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 26): People don't record police officers for shits and giggles--they do it to protect themselves and others.

Seriously?? They don't?? Come on, be realistic. I can accept absolutely that there are people out there who rightly or wrongly believe they have good intentions to protect their rights and protect themselves and others when filming the Police, but you surely know that there are enough clowns out there who love to film anything that will either give them a laugh or something to show their mates, including filming the Police, precisely for 'shits and giggles' as you so delicately put it.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 26): hanks that pesky activist, the court cannot just take the word of the police officer but they can see what actually happened. If that pesky activist recorded the whole incident--or even a part of it--trained experts, juries, and judges have a lot more information than, "well, I saw the sedan roll through that stop sign. He slowed down, but I didn't see him stop...". That cop's word is worth much more than some poor guy, who really did stop.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 26): Frankly, officers should demand every encounter is recorded so there is a clear and obvious record of what really happened. The only reason an officer would want an encounter undocumented is because he or she knows her word will be given more weight than any other person. People don't record police officers for shits and giggles--they do it to protect themselves and others.

  

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 28): Cops actions are perfectly justified. He asked her to go back in the house. She refused. He did not ask her to stop recording.

Yea   ......that would probably be a crime in Iran or Saudi Arabia but this is the United States of America.....and it's not here....

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 29): Seriously?? They don't?? Come on, be realistic. I can accept absolutely that there are people out there who rightly or wrongly believe they have good intentions to protect their rights and protect themselves and others when filming the Police, but you surely know that there are enough clowns out there who love to film anything that will either give them a laugh or something to show their mates, including filming the Police, precisely for 'shits and giggles' as you so delicately put it.

I agree wholeheartedly. Some (okay, many) people do record police officers with the intent of putting it up on youtube or facebook. But the rights of those people who really do care for their rights should not have to suffer because those other people. I advocate recording sensibly and quietly. It is officer's responsibility to recognize that people have a right to record him or her. It is the citizen's responsibility to not incite a response.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 31): It is the citizen's responsibility to not incite a response.

Like the woman in the video here was clearly trying to do. She could have continued from the house. She was clearly after the response.

OK maybe I shoulda explained this better. And I wasn't talking about everyone on here, only the ones making anti-cop-in-general comments or the ones being overly harsh. I never said this cop was in the right! Maybe the cop was wrong, and should be punished, not sacked or sued for millions.

Take this great analogy, we are an aviation site, right?? :

Bad cop : the entire police force
Bad airline pilot : entire airline pilot pool

Yeah, stunning investigative work lol

About the argument that someone taking the video can chose what to show, I agree somewhat : if the video doesn't show the whole story, that has to be considered. The video still shows a part of the story, it's better than just he said/she said in my opinion.

I am not a keen defender of the US police or justice system but in this case that woman was - to put it politely - stupid.

She was interfering with police action, the cop gave her several warnings to step back and go into her house, she did not listen.

She would have been in trouble here as well. A German cop would have given her a verbal notice to leave the site (Platzverweis) and if she had continued to refuse that order she would have been loaded into a police van , driven to the station and her ID checked. The only difference here would be - no hand cuffs, immediate release after a short lecture and no charges pressed.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 8): Firstly, it is unwanted and unnecessary pressure, applied in an already stressful situation when the officer needs to be focused and safe dealing with an arrest or struggle.

If they're focused on the job in hand, they should probably be unaware of anyone filming them.

If the Rodney King incident hadn't been filmed, I'm sure he would have been simply "resisting arrest" and nothing would have come of it. Another example is the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protest in London in 2009. If that incident hadn't been filmed, the officer involved certainly wouldn't be facing manslaughter charges now.

There are too many other examples where police have been, shall we say, overenthusiastic in the execution of their duties. These days they need to be cognisant of the significant probability they're on camera.

In a dynamic situation like that you need to be aware of what EVERY person near you is about. Someone who is going to disrupt a situation or attack an officer is not necessarily likely to tell you about it first. You have to be aware and keep control.

She was on the sidewalk before backing into her lawn. He points it out, she backs up two steps into the yard, then says "This is my yard."

She's arrogant, she's rudely interrupting police business, the officer has every right to ask her to go inside if he feels his safety may or may not be in jeopardy, especially because it's dark and he can't see exactly what she's doing. She deserved what she got. No respect for anyone but herself. The officers were not being power hungry as you claim, RDU. You apparently have a hatred of law enforcement. Why?

The opening scene looked like something from "Cop's" - you know - the "arrest porn" TV show.

I do wish the lady who was standing up for her rights had a stiffer backbone after they put the cuffs on her. If you're going to insist on your civil rights, be prepared to go the distance, even if that means a night in jail, and a court appearance the next day. These incidents need to be publicised and discussed.

I'd like to think this case will go to court, but it's likely that the charge will be dropped, leaving the woman embittered, the neighbours thinking "do what you are told by the police", and the civil rights of our society deteriorated.

I'm a firm law-and-order person but we have to keep an eye on the police too.

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 7): Interesting. Would you defend it if the police were filming you while you went about your business?

Absolutely not. The police have no right to come into my home or office (absent consent, a warrant or a variety of other exceptions) and film me doing anything. The 4th Amendment says so. Citizens have a right to be free from state intrusion into their private affairs. However, for government to function its activities must be subject to scrutiny and openess. Bad cops, though a minority, are a reality. The problem is that absent some sort of conclusive proof like video evidence, the credibilty created by good cops allows bad cops to get aways will all sorts of crap.

Two weeks ago, an attorney friend of mine represented a criminal defendant (a drug dealer), who was stopped for purportedly running through a stop sign. The police while issuing the citation determined that their was reason to arrest the driver and then search the car incident to arrest - and the drugs were discovered. The police officer who made the stop testified under oath that the car ran through the stop sign. So did his partner.

My friend cross examined the police officers to make sure that the stop was proper and as they described it. They both swore that they both were absolutely sure that they saw the car roll through the stop sign without stopping. A convenience store camera caught the incident on tape and showed that the drug dealer's car had been stopped for over 4 whole seconds before it proceeded through the stop sign. The police car was immediately behind him. The defense attorney showed the judge the video footage. Therefore, the stop was improper and the entire arrest and search equally improper - and the evidence obtained thereunder not admissible. Case dismissed.

Now, I'm not defending the drug dealer. In fact, I don't know how my friend does criminal defense. However, the cops can't just create the law like they want.

I asked my friend how often this happens and he told me all the time. He then told me that if you're a law abiding citizen and arrested by the police, a judge will always take their word over yours at the initial evidentiary hearing. That's why cops don't want video.

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 40): That's why cops don't want video.

That's why bad cops don't want video. As for normal cops, it does piss them off when they do their jobs to the best to their ability then some asshole lawyer watches a video frame for frame and finds something tiny wrong, something anyone would have done. I'm not saying ban the right for people to film, but your sweeping generalization is not cool.

I'm not saying cops are always right, and there aren't corrupt cops. In fact, there are corrupt agencies. They need to be dealt with accordingly, but some posters here are making all cops sound like the anti-christ. Have a little empathy people

I miss the Constitution...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41): I'm not saying cops are always right, and there aren't corrupt cops. In fact, there are corrupt agencies. They need to be dealt with accordingly, but some posters here are making all cops sound like the anti-christ. Have a little empathy people

I do have empathy, but as a private citizen who is pretty powerless in court, how much should I trust a random stranger with the authority to potentially ruin the rest of my life and break my bank account in arrests and fines? I feel bad for honest cops that are just doing their job, and I am sure that they are 90+ percent of all officers out there. The minority of cops who abuse their position ruin it for everyone.

This is why I stress that no one should be a jerk to cops. "Officer, I am recording this incident. Here is my driver's license and registration." is not rude or inflammatory. And to the best of my knowledge, in many places the officer cannot tell you to turn off the camera just because he or she feels like it.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 43):

And I agree with what you are saying. I was talking about some other posters. You basically sum up how I feel. I felt a need to defend cops before it turned into another cop-hating thread. Happens in real life all the time too, sadly

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 32): Quoting N867DA (Reply 31): It is the citizen's responsibility to not incite a response. Like the woman in the video here was clearly trying to do. She could have continued from the house. She was clearly after the response.

She also had been arrested earlier this year for protesting in front of a foreclosed home. She knew what she was doing and played the victim.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 31): I agree wholeheartedly. Some (okay, many) people do record police officers with the intent of putting it up on youtube or facebook. But the rights of those people who really do care for their rights should not have to suffer because those other people. I advocate recording sensibly and quietly. It is officer's responsibility to recognize that people have a right to record him or her. It is the citizen's responsibility to not incite a response.

You're out of your mind. Nobody is gonna record a traffic stop which has nothing, NOTHING to do with them, unless they're just nosy and want to cause trouble. The cop told her to get lost, she refused. It could have been a dangerous situation

Quoting windy95 (Reply 45): She also had been arrested earlier this year for protesting in front of a foreclosed home. She knew what she was doing and played the victim.

Exactly, some people live their lives just to perpetrate trouble. They wait until situations like this present themselves to play the roll of the victim. Now this guy who probably has a family he is trying to take care of, faces possible termination.

Quoting gatorfan (Reply 40): Now, I'm not defending the drug dealer. In fact, I don't know how my friend does criminal defense. However, the cops can't just create the law like they want.

Congrats to your friend the lawyer, maybe when the drug dealer murder's someone in cold blood, he'll have a much tougher time defending him in court  

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 13): No need the surveillance cameras work fine....

So does the cameras in a police cruiser   ...Yea try again!

[Edited 2011-06-23 17:45:51]

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41): That's why bad cops don't want video.

Have you ever noticed that police unions protect good cops and bad cops equally? The most amazing thing about that who incident was that the police department didn't even open an internal affairs investigation into the perjury of two sworn police officers. The DA didn't file perjury charges. The judge didn't even say anything to these two liars.

So yeah this drug dealer was a really bad guy. But if police officers can lie to get them off the street, what safeguards do law abiding citizens have?

Quoting futurepilot16 (Reply 46): Congrats to your friend the lawyer, maybe when the drug dealer murder's someone in cold blood, he'll have a much tougher time defending him in court

So what's the alternative? Allow perjury by police officers? Throw away the Constitution? Allow due process and equal protection only for those people who we like? I guess we should just do away with defense lawyers and allow the state to be judge jury and executioner for all criminals put in front of them by the police.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 45): She also had been arrested earlier this year for protesting in front of a foreclosed home. She knew what she was doing and played the victim.

Comes as no surprise. She clearly knew exactly what she was up to, and did a very poor job of playing a convincing victim. Trouble makers like her deserve the book thrown at them.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 14): It's absolutely wrong that those laws exist, but they do in many states.

Ever wonder why the law exist in the first place, I note recently even in the US when special response squads or SWAT show up they wear covers over their face, why exactly, nothing to do with the performance of their jobs, they could probably shoot better without the mask.