Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98

Thread: Woman arrested for filming police in NY; on her property

  1. #1

    Woman arrested for filming police in NY; on her property

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJpL2ZdWVI&feature=player_embedded[/url]

    Still think that this is not a police state?

    [url]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&authuser=0&cp=21&gs_id=88&xhr=t&q=police+taking+cameras&qe=cG9saWNlIHRha2luZyBjYW1lcmFz&qesig=8X1clN4YULs0CK_D0OgnQA&pkc=AFgZ2tmI3I2sIV7yTe4aAYO4MK_qq_OQRRnH0MlQpPVmqK8pYSyX2V4lfvXu8NndD2M8QT98eDVDc2uoF9GwT5mCucw64gYfRw&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=police+taking+cameras&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e2cdbf82a93ada0c&biw=1280&bih=653[/url]

    Google link: Police Taking Cameras
    About 135,000,000 results (0.21 seconds)

  2. #2

    Turning the Camera on the Police

    [QUOTE]What's good for the police apparently isn't good for the people -- or so the law enforcement community would have us believe when it comes to surveillance.

    That's a concise summary of a new trend reported by National Public Radio last week -- the trend whereby law enforcement officials have been trying to prevent civilians from using cellphone cameras in public places as a means of deterring police brutality.

    Oddly, the effort -- which employs both forcible arrests of videographers and legal proceedings against them -- comes at a time when the American Civil Liberties Union reports that "an increasing number of American cities and towns are investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems."

    Then again, maybe it's not odd that the two trends are happening simultaneously. Maybe they go hand in hand. Perhaps as more police officers use cameras to monitor every move we make, they are discovering the true power of video to independently document events. And as they see that power, they don't want it turned against them.

    But wait -- why not?

    Though you'd expect that uncomfortable question to evoke dissembling, Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Jim Pasco was quite straightforward about it.

    Police officers, he told NPR, "need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be." He added that law enforcement authorities believe "that anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving -- an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad -- could cost him or some citizen their life."

    Don’t let the forces of regression dominate the media - support brave, independent reporting today by making a contribution to Truthout.

    Obviously, nobody wants to stop officers from doing their much-needed job (well, nobody other than budget-cutting politicians who are slashing police forces). In fact, organizations such as the NAACP have urged citizens to videotape police precisely to make sure police are doing ALL of their job -- including protecting individuals' civil liberties.

    This is not some academic or theoretical concern, and video recording is not a needless exercise in Bill of Rights zealotry. The assault on civil liberties in America is a very real problem and monitoring police is absolutely required in light of recent data.

    As USA Today reported under the headline "Police brutality cases on rise since 9/11," situations "in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims' civil rights increased 25 percent" between 2001 and 2007. Last year alone, more than 1,500 officers were involved in excessive force complaints, according to the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project.

    Considering this, Pasco has it exactly wrong. We should want more officers feeling "apprehension" about breaking civil liberties laws, we should hope more of them "give a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences" will be if they trample someone's rights and we should crave an immediate "chilling effect" on such violations.

    That's what the practice of cellphone recording is supposed to do -- not mimic the national security state's Big Brother culture, but prevent that security state from trampling our freedoms.

    [B]Law enforcement officials, of course, don't like the cellphone cameras because they don't want any check on police power. So they've resorted to fearmongering allegations about lost lives. But the only police officers who are threatened by cellphone cameras are those who want to break civil liberties laws with impunity. The rest have nothing to worry about and everything to gain from a practice that simply asks them to remember the all-too-forgotten part of their "protect and serve" motto -- the part about protecting the public's civil rights[/B].[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.truth-out.org/turning-camera-police/1305910721[/url]

  3. #3
    She has been arrested before for interfering with the police plus she was told to backup and she didn't she was interfering with the police.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,790
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4051844]She has been arrested before for interfering with the police plus she was told to backup and she didn't she was interfering with the police.[/QUOTE]

    Pffft, don't you get it? The cop was threatened by comments made before the camera came out, but hey, he's a cop so he has to handle that. He then repeatedly stated he felt threatened, in an exceedingly polite and respectful manner, while asking the woman numerous times to please not stand behind him while he was trying to do his job. She became increasingly belligerent and was subsequently placed under arrest after being told that was what would happen. Clearly, the cop is wrong in this instance.:rolleyes:

    Next up will be a story about some cops delivering a baby and being accused of sexual assault.

    This is the point some folks can't grasp; just because you can doesn't mean you should. Knowing the laws without any regard for civics makes for a jerkoff populace. In other words, it's a two-way street, citizenry has responsibilities too.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,229
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4051844]She has been arrested before for interfering with the police plus she was told to backup and she didn't she was interfering with the police.[/QUOTE]

    No idea what she had said before the video started but if 3 cops with guns are afraid of a woman standing on her property because she has a video camera then there is something wrong.

    Again, I think both cop and the woman were wrong in this instance. The cop was overly sensitive unless the woman threatened him before the video rolled and the woman should have backed up and given them some space.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,790
    [QUOTE=Trades;4051868]No idea what she had said before the video started but if 3 cops with guns are afraid of a woman standing on her property because she has a video camera then there is something wrong.

    Again, I think both cop and the woman were wrong in this instance. The cop was overly sensitive unless the woman threatened him before the video rolled and the woman should have backed up and given them some space.[/QUOTE]

    LMAO, you think cops shouldn't be afraid because they have guns? That's as immature an attitude towards firearms that I've ever heard. And how do they know she had no weapons, because she said so? Even if she's standing there nekkid(!), she could still run up behind one of them and attack them. Since they have guns though, I suppose they could just cap her ass if she did that, right?:rolleyes:

    The cop acted appropriately with a belligerent bystander. There is no "overly-sensitive" when you feel your safety may be at stake, with or without threatening comments.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,999
    They should have tasered that annoying *****.

  8. #8
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,569
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4051880]The cop acted appropriately with a belligerent bystander. There is no "overly-sensitive" when you feel your safety may be at stake, with or without threatening comments.[/QUOTE]I think you're mostly right, but it also comes down to a matter of faith and trust between the police and the community. I have zero trust in the police - if that was someone I know that they were pulling over, I'd do what I could to protect their safety and their rights. I have a few good friends that are police, and I know they would treat me more than fairly - but they, by their own admission, do not do so with people they don't know. And I would not be treated well by many police that don't know me (unless I mentioned a name/precinct or two). This is not a system set up by the people, it's set up by the police. I didn't always feel this way, but have witnessed and taken part in a few things that changed my way of thinking, probably forever. And I am not the guy they think of when they think of a citizen that doesn't trust them - I have been mistaken for a cop on more than one occasion. So there should be no surprise when people feel less than safe or feel like they will not get a fair deal from a couple of strangers in a uniform - often they aren't, and they won't.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4051894]They should have tasered that annoying *****.[/QUOTE]

    +1 what's she doin' outta the kitchen anyhow?

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,964
    Based soley on the tape and assuming no prior interaction between the cawps and this citizen, I would conclude the cop over-reacted.

    Is that what the OP wants to hear?

    There. You got it.

    However, there was clearly interaction prior to the camera coming out, as there often is, that raised the cawps level of suspicion of the citizens motives, it appears.

    This whole thing looks like an adult version of a 5 year old pointing his finger within inches of another childs face and saying "I'm not touching you".

    Provacative? Yes.

    ENough for an arrest?

    Not according to this tape from the point it rolls.

    It will be up to the on scene cops to articulate whatever they observed prior to the camera coming out. If they cant, then shame on them.

    NYC cops have been dealing with this stuff since the Thompkins Square Park riots in the 80's. Every obnoxious anarchist doosh with a camera running around praying for a bad interaction with the poleez.

    Unfortunately cawps are human, often stressed and sometimes make bad decisions. Is this a huge surprise to anyone?


    Hardly would call it a poleez state.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=isired;4051895]I have zero trust in the police - [/QUOTE]
    Anyone who feels that the world owes them something shares your sentiments.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,229
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4051880]LMAO, you think cops shouldn't be afraid because they have guns? That's as immature an attitude towards firearms that I've ever heard. And how do they know she had no weapons, because she said so? Even if she's standing there nekkid(!), she could still run up behind one of them and attack them. Since they have guns though, I suppose they could just cap her ass if she did that, right?:rolleyes:

    The cop acted appropriately with a belligerent bystander. There is no "overly-sensitive" when you feel your safety may be at stake, with or without threatening comments.[/QUOTE]

    Speaking of over-reacting and being over-sensitive. I never said "because they have guns" my point is 3 trained and armed officers couldn't do their job because a woman with a video camera was taping her seems like an over reaction. He looked like he was looking for an arguement. BUT like I said so did she.

    I made it a point to say they both look wrong and without knowing what happened before the recording then it is difficult to assess the situation.

    Look the woman was obviously an idiot and was not obeying orders though I question the need for the orders in the first place. So much of this depends of what was said/done before the tape.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,952
    Filming/Recording should not be illegal, as long as it's not interfering in their actions.

    But with that said, filming in and of itself should never be considered interfering.

    Police, nor any other public servant, are not and should not be above the law, or above "trust but verify" by the public who pays for, and depends on, them to act correctly.

  14. #14
    No doubt that the Police need to be held accountable for their behavior. They are paid public servants.

    The people have every right to film the police actions as long as they are not interfering. The distance seemed appropriate as she was on her property and clearly had no gun.

    She even mentioned that. Why would the LEO want her to go back into the house where she COULD get a gun anyway?

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,569
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4051936]Anyone who feels that the world owes them something shares your sentiments.[/QUOTE]Since you seem to be putting me in the "feel the world owes me something" category, what is it you suppose that I feel the world owes me that makes me distrust police (as opposed to personal experience)?

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=32green;4051934]
    Hardly would call it a poleez state.[/QUOTE]

    When the police have a built-in excuse to 'lawfully' order citizens to do anything they bid, surreptitiously abridging their rights in the process, then we [I]do[/I] have a police state. "The law is what I say the law is" is not law at all.

  17. #17
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,964
    [QUOTE=freestater;4052084]When the police have a built-in excuse to 'lawfully' order citizens to do anything they bid, surreptitiously abridging their rights in the process, then we [I]do[/I] have a police state. "The law is what I say the law is" is not law at all.[/QUOTE]

    Thats why they have [I]Courts[/I], both Criminal and Civil, that in my experience, afford citizens a more than sufficient means of refuting any bogus enforcement.

    Bottom line is; SOme cops lie, some citizens lie.. in virtually all civilized societies.

    I think our courts do a pretty good job of sorting these things out, they certainly dont side with the cops as a rule.

    When humans, a few brief million years removed from knuckledragging through the Africa Savanna are involved, you will never achieve a perfect balance, no?

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=isired;4052073]Since you seem to be putting me in the "feel the world owes me something" category, what is it you suppose that I feel the world owes me that makes me distrust police (as opposed to personal experience)?[/QUOTE]
    Well for starters, if you use a bad experience or two to make "zero trust" statements for such a broad institutional presence like a police force then you are being, at the very least, completely irrational.

    It suggests that you are inherently right while something else much larger than you is inherently wrong. And when operating from that vantage point the "world owes me" mentality is merely a semantic stone's throw away.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,229
    [QUOTE=32green;4052097]Thats why they have [I]Courts[/I], both Criminal and Civil, that in my experience, afford citizens a more than sufficient means of refuting any bogus enforcement.

    Bottom line is; SOme cops lie, some citizens lie.. in virtually all civilized societies.

    I think our courts do a pretty good job of sorting these things out, they certainly dont side with the cops as a rule.

    When humans, a few brief million years removed from knuckledragging through the Africa Savanna are involved, you will never achieve a perfect balance, no?[/QUOTE]

    I agree that is the point of the courts as long as it doesn't become epidemic. I think that the easy access to video on the internet makes this look like a much larger problem than it is. We basically hear of EVERY incident today where even 5 years ago this was not the case. This in essence give the false impression that it is happening more often when actually it is just being reported more often.

    I look down on anyone that abuses a position of responsibility. I feel that people that [B]choose that life[/B] whether as parents, teachers, policemen or judges need to hold themselves to a higher standard than the rest of the people in the country.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4052060]No doubt that the Police need to be held accountable for their behavior. They are paid public servants.

    The people have every right to film the police actions as long as they are not interfering. The distance seemed appropriate as she was on her property and clearly had no gun.

    She even mentioned that. Why would the LEO want her to go back into the house where she COULD get a gun anyway?[/QUOTE]

    You hate cops. It's cool and all. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    When your house gets robbed, call the marines. Don't dial 911.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us