Cops arrest woman on her own property taping traffic stop (money, TV)

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by southking500

Cops should and do have the right to ask citizens to stand back at the scene of an arrest. It's a judgment call. If the cop is on a dark street in a high crime neighborhood where he has previously encountered hostility from the criminals and their relatives living there then yes, he should feel nervous about people hovering behind him while he is making an arrest.

It looks like it is going to be up to a jury of citizens to decide if she was back far enough and within her civil rights

[SD_Harley]

mmmm juicy fruit

[Sco]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

That is my point most aren't police brutality. Knocking somebody around to get the cuffs on em or hitting em with a tazer to stop em isn't brutality. Unless they're going to kill the cop or someone? Are police mind readers now? If a cop orders some guy they just pulled over in a high speed chase and the guy reaches into his pockets I'm not gonna wait and see what he pulls out. He either gets a taze or tackled to the ground.

Actually given the actions of large numbers of police officers across the country it is the driver that has been pulled over that should be in fear for their life. Your same logic would dictate that a driver that sees an armed police officer approaching their vehicle should just open fire. It is far too dangerous to assume that the jackboot thug that you are dealing with is one of the few "good apples".

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by reconmark

More and more officers are bringing shame to this profession, and I think it will only get worse.

Then that is your fault. You have total control over the police, and you exercise that control through your mayor and city council.

If police are behaving badly, then it's because you have not elected a mayor or city council that will force police to act properly.

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

She was absolutely doing nothing wrong, and she was completely within her rights to keep recording.

Originally Posted by jackmccullough

Let's try again:

Please point out any details in the story that demonstrate that the woman did anything wrong.

Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any recording of union activities by any means, whether that is video, audio or personal observation.

During weekly debriefings by federal and State prosecutors I was repeatedly cautioned and warned not to include activities by union members in my reports. If I overheard two union members conspiring to burn down a warehouse in retaliation for something the employer did, I am, by law, prohibited from reporting that.

If two union members were conspiring to transport or sell drugs, I would be able to report that if and only if the two union members were operating independent of the union, meaning the union did not sanction, condone, support or control the transportation or sale of drugs.

There are more than 100 lawsuits in federal court that address the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the recording of union activities. This is one of them:

The ALJ concluded that the afternoon activity was unprotected, and therefore that it was not an unfair labor practice for NASSCO to videotape it, based solely upon the contents of the afternoon videotape itself.

National Steel v NLRB in re: Shipwrights, Boatbuilders & Helpers, Carpenters Local No. 1300, et al., (1998).

So, whether or not you can legally video-tape police officers who are union members would depend on a number of factors.

As a resident of the city, she is in effect an employer, and specifically the employer of the police, and pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, she was wrong.

However, you'd have to argue that the police were engaging in union activities, which is something that is very liberally construed (naturally).

If she was not a resident, meaning she lived out-of-State, out-of-the county, out of the city limits, then there is no possible way to peg her as an employer, unless she lives in a city, county or State represented by the same police union. That's a bit of a stretch, but I'm sure that's something the police would argue.

If you can make the argument that there is no employer-union relationship between the police officer and the woman (or anyone else who video tapes) and the police were not engaging in "union activities" then the police could legally be recorded.

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

I saw this. The woman was being argumentive and was possibly putting herself in danger in hindering the investigation of whatever the guy was being questioned about.

Note to self: Never allow Icy Tea to sit on a jury.

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

the cop in question needs to be put on unpaid leave for a few weeks to take sensitivity training.

Do you have any idea how silly that sounds? Sensitivity training? He is who he is and he will never change, and no amount of "sensitivity training" will never change him unless someone thrashes down within inches of his life and sees god and apple pie and birds singing and stuff.

Originally Posted by trlhiker

I am torn on this, it is clear that the cop repeatedly asked her to go back into her house and she refused only backing up one or two steps.

Yeah? So what? He was not lawfully situated and had no authority there.

Originally Posted by trlhiker

So blame gets placed on both sides.

Note to self: Never allow trlhiker to sit on a jury.

Originally Posted by steven_h

In three states, it is now illegal to film on-duty officers.

I guess that's because that's what the citizens of those States wanted. In my opinion it is unwarranted and incredibly short-sighted, but then that is democracy in action.

Plato was right. People are dumber than a box of rocks.

Originally Posted by BiggJoe4181

How am I being absurd?

Do you agree with me that the video does not start at the begining of the traffic stop?

Who cares when it starts?

Originally Posted by BiggJoe4181

Answer the question.

Does the posted video begin at the start of the traffic stop?

Yes or No.

That is not relevant.

Originally Posted by bulldogdad

She's an activist looking for police brutality, plain and simple.

She found it, and hopefully the city and the police and that cop will have huge jury awards levied against them in the millions of dollars and then she can attach a lien to that cop's house and garnishee his wages and then he's screwed.

Originally Posted by bulldogdad

Look it up for yourself if you care as much as some of your are purporting to care about her civil liberties being trounced upon.

I don't care if she's Charles Manson or Mother Teresa. The cop was wrong.

Originally Posted by Megadell

If a cop can't handle people not liking them, they are in the wrong profession.

That is absolutely correct, and there are ways to weed gutter-garbage like that guy out long before he get's into the system.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

I agree with this. While it might have been within her "rights" to videotape, just why was she doing so?

It doesn't matter why she was. It doesn't require a reason.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

What business was it of hers anyway?

Um, she is that cop's boss. He works for her.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

Also, whatever happened to respecting the privacy of the person being arrested?

Nothing, since there never was any expectation of privacy.

Originally Posted by grimace8

i would've gone into the house too.

Well, that's because you're weak. When they come to haul your neighbors off to a concentration camp, I'm sure you'll go into your home and hide then too.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

She was looking for a fight and she got it. I could hear it in the tone of her voice. She wanted a confrontation.

Then shame on the cop for being stupid enough to give it to her.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

I happen to think cops are underpaid for the amount of risk they take on in their jobs.

Cops aren't drafted, they volunteer, and if the can't handle it, I'm sure there's day labor company looking for someone to work at a commercial laundry.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

Even on shows like Cops they at least blur out the face.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

I said the privacy of the SUSPECT.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

Haven't you ever seen that show COPS? They always blur the face and this includes adults.

Yeah, well that's TV. You do understand the difference, right?

Originally Posted by Megadell

A police officer on the street has no expectation of privacy. None. It's a public street.

That is correct, and that's how the courts have ruled.

Originally Posted by phonelady61

And to think we live in the USA or is that USSR ?

I lived and worked in "communist" countries when they were communist, and no, the police were much nicer and more professional than police in the US.

And for the record, it wasn't he police that drug people off into the night, it was the secret police (who are secret).

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

Yeah, that's the problem. She was intentionally looking for a confrontation and now she can turn around and do as you say above and the NY taxpayers can foot the bill. See how this goes? You're saying she has a "strong case."

Whether or not she was looking for a confrontation is irrelevant.

The police had no right or authority to even address the woman.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

Our states are going broke. Do you really think we can afford to have people going around intentionally causing problems with $ signs in their eyes?

Then I guess you'd better get off your duff and elect a mayor and city council that will stand up to the police unions, de-certify them, and start firing police for infractions, regardless of how minor the infraction is.

Originally Posted by mistygrl092

Anyway, if and when someone breaks into your house with a gun or knife, then all you cop haters in this thread will change your tune as you dial 911.

Oh, yes, of course, resort to name-calling. No one hates cops, they just want cops to perform their duties in accordance with the law. I don't see how that is asking too much for the police to read and respect the US Constitution, which, by the way, they have sworn to uphold.

Originally Posted by Megadell

And he's right to ask her to go inside. He can stand all day telling her to do something she doesn't have to, and she can stand there all day saying no, I don't have to.

That would be the long and short of it.

The cop has to be lawfully situated, and he wasn't.

Originally Posted by southking500

Cops should and do have the right to ask citizens to stand back at the scene of an arrest. It's a judgment call. If the cop is on a dark street in a high crime neighborhood where he has previously encountered hostility from the criminals and their relatives living there then yes, he should feel nervous about people hovering behind him while he is making an arrest.

Total fail.

The correct course of action would have been to call for backup prior to effecting the traffic stop, and also to effect the traffic stop in an area that was more conducive to the activity.

I was on the road 2 years before becoming a detective sergeant. If someone ran a red-light, I didn't pee my pants and go lights and siren and stop them right there. I would follow the vehicle until we were in an area where there wasn't so much pedestrian or vehicle traffic and where we could safely move the vehicles to the side of the road without without impeding traffic.

Same with warrants. If I'm trailing someone and start running plates through Triple I, RCIC/NCIC and get a hit for an outstanding warrant, I'm not going effect a traffic stop there. I'm going to call for back-up, and then we'll make the stop in a safe place.

And so what if he turns into a drive-way two blocks later? I'll just call in and have them get a judge to give verbal approval for a search warrant for the premises, and then we'll execute the arrest warrant and the search warrant at the same time when back-up arrives without violating anyone's rights.

This stuff ain't hard, you just have to know what you're doing.

Originally Posted by southking500

She wasn't witnessing any policy brutality, just a typical arrest.

So? Who cares?

Originally Posted by southking500

But in some peoples' minds any and all arrests in their neighborhood are police misconduct.

Yes, and one of the ways to dispel myths like that is to take video and show the people the police are really police and not brutish badge-wearers who just want to drive around for 8 hours, collect a fat pension, and then yell at people every once in a while.

Originally Posted by southking500

That is the tactic of police haters.

Demanding that police perform their duties in accordance with the US Constitution is not hating the police.

Originally Posted by southking500

A rational, intelligent person would not have a problem with the cop's request.

I am the most rational person, and a former police officer, and I have serious problems with a jack ass cop like that.

[Sco]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Don't forget the old standby, "I feared for my life".

Or my personal favorite, using the phrase "Stop Resisting" while kicking and beating a suspect. Sometimes this method is even used after the perp is unconcious.

[Sco]

Originally Posted by sailordave

Actually, what she should have done was remain in her home, open the window, and video them from there.

Why, do you think she wanted the cops to knock down her door and shoot her dog?

[southking500]

"I am the most rational person, and a former police officer, and I have serious problems with a jack ass cop like that."

Correction: I THINK I am the most rational person and I am an armchair police officer in my internet fantasy life"

[sterpetron]

Originally Posted by trlhiker

I am torn on this, it is clear that the cop repeatedly asked her to go back into her house and she refused only backing up one or two steps. She kept repeating it is her right to film from her yard. She could have easily backed up to her door and kept filming b ut she wanted to be as close as possible. the officer did stay calm and warned her several times that she would be arrested if she didn't move. she wanted to video tape the confrontation and she got it including her backup who all of a sudden got lots of witnessess on film. I say this was very suspicious on her part
The cop could have also ignored her, arrested the guy and left so he did overreact a bit,
So blame gets placed on both sides.

Total fail, and wrong. She has every right to stand on her property and watch, film whatever - as long as she is not taking action to interfere directly with what the cops were doing.

[ovcatto]

I've never read such utter nonsense and on City Data, that is saying a lot.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any recording of union activities by any means, whether that is video, audio or personal observation.

First of all outside of issues arising out of hiring and membership Civil Rights Act of 1964 has no application regarding union/employer relations or conduct, that comes under the purview of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935!

If I overheard two union members conspiring to burn down a warehouse in retaliation for something the employer did, I am, by law, prohibited from reporting that.

What a utter crock of ****, even an attorney is required by the canon of ethics to disclose information prior to the commission of any criminal act! So, you cannot seriously be trying to argue that anyone, including law enforcement are prohibited by any existing statute from disclosing such information!

If two union members were conspiring to transport or sell drugs, I would be able to report that if and only if the two union members were operating independent of the union, meaning the union did not sanction, condone, support or control the transportation or sale of drugs

This will come as surprising news to hundreds of law enforcement officers and prosecutors, both state and federal, who over the last 50 years have successfully prosecuted hundreds of cases of union corruption and racketeering.

There are more than 100 lawsuits in federal court that address the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the recording of union activities. This is one of them:

Well I applaud you for properly citing your reference, I just wish you had taken the same care to read the damned decision to wit:

National Steel v NLRB in re: Shipwrights, Boatbuilders & Helpers, Carpenters Local No. 1300, et al., (1998).

The Board has also held that a reasonable, objective justification for video surveillance mitigates its tendency to coerce. For example, an employer's legitimate security interests may justify its use of surveillance cameras, even if they happen to capture protected activities. See Lechmere, Inc., 295 N.L.R.B. 92, 94, 99-100 (1989), rev'd on other grounds, 502 U.S. 527 (1992). Similarly, if an employer has a "reasonable basis for anticipating picket line misconduct," then its employees have less reason to fear that the purpose of videotaping their protected activities is to aid in later taking reprisals against them. See Waco, 273 N.L.R.B. at 747. Gathering evidence for use in legal proceedings also constitutes a sufficient justification for videotaping protected activities. See Roadways Express, Inc., 271 N.L.R.B. 1238, 1240, 1244 (1984); see also NLRB v. Colonial Haven Nursing Home, 542 F.2d 691, 701 (7th Cir. 1976) (holding that "anticipatory photographing .... does not violate § 8(a)(1) of the Act where the photographs are taken to establish for purposes of an injunction suit that pickets engaged in violence").

If you can be so egregiously wrong with your "facts" on above simple points, I see no reason why I, or anyone else, should lend any credibility to anything else you might care to express an opinion on.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by ergohead

"The Patriot Act really empowered the otherwise powerless and stupid.

Stop by the NIH and talk to the security guards. They will demonstrate how much smarter they are than the scientists. The bureaucrats will affirm.

Many of the guards believe that it is OK to shoot a scientist running on campus, because if the scientist isn't doing something wrong, why would (s)he be running?

The security guards have "common sense" and a loaded gun.

The scientists aren't allowed to protect themselves, other than to climb ranks with reports. The reports are received by the bureaucrats who always back the security guards. They don't buy the, "I was just jogging for chrissakes!" argument.

Some of the security guards get suspicious when they see scientists smiling. I mean, you have to agree, why would they be smiling if they haven't done anything wrong?

Hey, if you ain't got security, what point is there in living?

I haven't been on campus in a few years, so I don't know if the security guards have won their groping rights yet. But I know they sure do want them!

The Project Manager for the contract security guards defended his "men" by telling the NIH Program Manager that the guards have a RIGHT to breath on cleavage because that's close to where the scientists are required to wear their pictured ID badges. Added to that, was the Project Manager's argument that a security guard's nose was capable of detecting explosives.

To keep the hot breath and drool off her chest, one scientist went downtown and had her pictured ID badge blown up to a one foot square image, and then had it printed front and back on her T-shirt. She was promptly told to leave her T-shirt at home and to wear her plastic security badge on her chest.

Guards say there's nothing finer than touching succulent young postdocs.

Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH

A lot of fired TSA gropers are applying for work at the NIH now.

Boy, just wait till O'Bama's friends get the gropers unionized.

Then, we'll have some REAL security."

To be fair, though, NIH responded to SOME of my reports.

"The NIH seeks a contractor who is knowledgeable in surveillance techniques and has not less than five years experience in the field of Quality Assurance Inspections/Surveillance as related to the security field and performance based contracts. The contractor will be tasked with staffing and conducting around the clock (24/7) inspections/surveillance of the NIH contractor guard force delivery of services. These inspections will consist of random, scheduled and unscheduled inspections, conducted during all hours of the day and night, including holidays, weekends, and periods of inclement weather. Inspections/surveillance will be performed at all NIH facilities"

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0