A case that replicated this one near exactly was recently tried in Salisbury NC . Result was the citizen was found guilty of hindering and failure to comply . The officers name was Hunter .

Guy the cop stopped is in a stolen car, runs over and grabs the woman, yay its now a hostage situation.

some didnt listen to everything thats being said.

1) tho officer said she had made comment(s), PRIOR to taping. Pending on what HER comment(s) were, there could be viable reasons for tho officer to request her AND her freinds to disperse, or go back into the house.

2) being there was more than just HER, and that they didnt know of her or any other altercations, or perhaps did, could give the officers a reason to believe there was a possible threat. Even tho, this maynot have on video been present DURING the filming, it could have been made prior, and, it isnt just officer safety at play here either, because HAD she and or her friends done something, it could have escalated very quickly.

3) this woman imo is a pos...looking to provoke an altercation, rather prevent one. the officers had a right to arrest her, pending her comments, and refuseing to obey an order requested, by the officer to help prevent a further enhanced altercation. This camera has a zoom lenz on it, she could have just as easily recorded from an open window, on her porch, or her roof, as long as it wasnt going to incite the situation even more.

the person in the car was being placed under arrest. there was no provocation from the officer(s), just on her part. in other words nothing to see here, other than someone who broke the law, being arrested. that person also has rights as well. However, the main point being, she intentionaly created the confrontation, then started to tape. end of story, glad she was arrested. then boo hoo hoo, i did nothing... ya, right.

guess they need to arrest all the producers of COPS

I use a micro camera which looks like a car alarm control that fits on my key-chain (Google it). I have a problem with cops being able to film us through their dash cams, but they don't want us to video them?

The photographing of activities, people and things located in open public view does not violate privacy rights. There is no law prohibiting the witnessing of police enforcement where the witness is on her own private property and her activity creates no danger to the public. On the other hand, the right to record a public spectacle falls within one of the liberties covered under the concept of "penumbra and emanation" of the US Constitution, a legal concept stated by the late US Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas in the seminal case, "Griswald v Connecticut." Indeed, society benefits through citizen participation as witnesses and subsequently, as valuable testimony in court.

Through many seminal cases involving freedom of press and speech, The US Supreme Court has struck down government action that causes a "Chilling effect" on the exercise of 1st Amendment. Here, the policeman prohibiting the video recording of a public event served no benefit to public welfare as the witness was peacefully recording an open public activity from the vantage point of her front yard. Her subsequent arrest amounts to not only a "Chilling effect" on the exercise of 1st Amendment but strikes fear in the hearts of freedom loving citizens.

Under a garrison state where law enforcers are promoted to "uber alles," the policemen are embolden to ignore the liberties provided by the US Constitution and abuse the citizens who exercise those liberties. Citizens living under a garrison state live in fear of the police whose excessive force intimidates the free exercise of liberty. In Los Angeles, nearly one dozen LAPD policemen watched as several LAPD policemen brutally beat Rodney King sending him to the hospital. Under mysterious circumstances, a black woman, Lula Love, was gunned down in a hail of police bullets. A LAPD policeman gunned down a homeless-pushing-shopping-cart bag lady because the police alleged she refused to turn over her shopping cart and threaten the policeman with a screwdriver. In Oakland, a policeman shot a black teen in the back as he lied on the ground. In Washington, two policemen brutally clubbed an illegal Mexican immigrant as he sat handcuffed on the ground. During the Katrina storm, several New Orleans policemen joined the looting of a Wal-Mart while several more devious policemen murdered black people and burnt one of the corpus to destroy the evidence.

How has America's police become so lawless and evil?

In USA the powerful police labor unions have created a new class of constituents with the special power to abuse, to beat up, to tazer, and to kill the innocent with impunity. In every municipality and state government elections the police labor unions are heavy political contributors and monolithic voting blocks. Apparently, corrupt politicians and elected judges cater to these powerful political organizations at the cost of citizen's Constitutional liberties

The cops order was to go inside, not to stop filming, she could have continued filming from inside. Outside she posed a security risk to the officer, small as it might seem. So I have no problem with the officer ordering her to do that while he was dealing with the traffic stop.

Z1p2, the problem is that this isn't an isolated incident, other police officers, through out the country, have been arresting people for videoing them.

Boston Police Charge Those Who Videotape Arrests as "Wire Tappers" ~ issues of citizen's video and freedom ()

Google for more examples.

Police cannot refute a video therefore they don't like being video taped in case the video can be used against them. The Officer claiming he didn't feel safe with her activities is nonsense. The other two Officers didn't say a thing. This is a police CYA response. I would hope a Judge throws the case out and she files a lawsuit.

Megalodon-358694

1. It doesn’t matter what she said. Her speech is still protected under the first amendment.

2. People are still liable for arrest for what they have done, not what someone thinks they may decide to.

3. POS or not, she is still entitled to her rights. Including the right to refuse to obey an illegal order.

4. Neither officer or perp has a right to privacy in the public domain. Hopefully, someone like the ACLU will prove this in a court of law.

The argument that she should have gone inside is ridiculous considering they didn't order the other people who were out there watching it to go inside. Notice that the cops grab her and someone else finishes taping, including talking to a lady who was listening to the whole exchange. But the one lady with a camera happens to be 'scary' to 4 armed cops. Uh-huh.

The officer decided to arrest her for failure to obey, he seemed like he wanted to walk away but then had the notion that the failure of the citizen to obey without reprisal may corrupt the ability to further enforce the law by allowing the citizen to feel they can defy police orders. He was obligated to make the arrest when the citizen failed to comply. Citizens are required to obey police direction when a police action is being taken. If she has the ability to recieve and respond to the commands while the police action is being taken then she is obligated to comply with any direction that supports the most peaceful and safest possible resolution of the police action. This is for everyones saftey and well being. Her protest unessisarily took the action into a more heightented senario by failing to comply, thus she is likley to be found guilty. It's not a power trip, they have a job to do and you can either help or hinder. It's obvious that she was a hinderance with the intent to do so. She was crying because in her mind she has a right beyond the law that she could not enforce.

There are many people that claim rights in the guise of the law but are not actually law. Law enforcement have to make judgment calls based on the ability to engage the community and also keep order. Sometimes the balance between the two can call for tough choices but this is no abuse of power but the reality in which law enforment must choose between respect (to protect and serve) and keeping the peace (which means to circumvent disorderly conduct within upholding the law and the administration of justice).

The comments here regarding abuse of power do not fit. Everyone wants to do whatever they want, but then that would mean that everyone will get less that what they already have, that is unless everyone spontaneously wanted to work together and share everything and ensure that everyone had what they needed and make sacrafices to maintain peace and promote prosperity; oh wait, that's what we have already. So we fight to keep what we already have, try to change to make what already is, it's all silly, we just need to realize that we need to accept what is and help each other make it better where we can.

That's definatly not by making an ass of yourself and causing trouble for the police taking their attention away from other things more beneficial, just because you need a hard lesson on how this all works.

People just want to feel important, super ego's run amok.

Kronah...spoken as if you were a cop, yourself. People are NOT required to obey every 'order' from a cop. If it does not present a REAL and present danger, the police cannot order people around on a whimsey. Just because the cop orders it, does not make it a law...or a lawful order. This is not a police state and the police need to remember that the only actual 'authority' on which they act is given to them, and can be taken away by the voting citizens of this country.

Kronah Wood

The argument makes no sense. If the officer makes an unreasonable order, it doesn't have to be followed.

Extreme Example: Officer orders me to do a handstand, or he will arrest me for failure to comply. My 300 lb ass isn't going to do it. Do I deserve to be arrested?

I understand the desire for officers to be concerned for their safety. It is unreasonable to think you are always in danger when there are citizens near by. I would have a different opinion if there was a group of people making comments to the police about what they are doing. She was simply recording what was happening in front of her own house.

Ordering somebody into their own home when they really pose no threat is akin to Marshall Law. This was a definite abuse of power. It sounds like another of the officers there was also questioning why he was going to arrest her.

FatCatGets$700Bil

You had great points, and I was totally in agreement with you, until the last paragraph. I do not understand where the Police Union has anything to do with this officers decision to harass and arrest this citizen.

The Police Union would have nothing to do with the laws or policies that lead to this officer making a poor decision. If the contract between the police department and union has issues, it is up to the people negotiating it to fix it.

Brian

I would like to see the ACLU explore this issue as well, but my faith in that organization is not the best right now. It appears they are too intent on going after every religious person in a classroom, Graduation, Football Game, and Attack every nativity scene on a public ground...

Oh, did forget they also protect Nazis as well (remember Skokie? I do!!!)

Perhaps that is their legal right, but It is not very classy in my book. The cops run amok in my town. The Big Realtors red line minority customers with impunity and it seems the State's ACLU does nothing but attack churches. Perhaps they are afraid to sue someone who can sue back.

Sorry, but I don't think much of them at the moment.

I feel the police need to be able to uphold the law, but they need to do it without becoming the SS. I remember two incidences that make me wonder.

One was in Fremont, Nebraska. I was trying to get to a Hotel in an Ice storm. I got pulled over by a police officer who accused me of going too slow, who swore my registration was bad as he thought my light blue car was white (despite the fact the VINs checked out) and affirmed that the ice was not bad. After getting the warning, said police officer fell on the Ice on the way back to his car. I dared not laugh.

Two was at my place of work. I was working OT and forgot to lock the door. Two officers came in and rounded the hall, guns drawn. I raised my hands very quickly, and I thank God to this day that his trigger finger was not too itchy. The thought of getting blown away at my drafting table is not a good one. Nonetheless I lock the doors now.

I respect the police, and were I that woman, I would have went inside... but I know the officers, like all humans, are not perfect.

While in general terms, I think that people should have a legal obligation to follow the direction of a peace officer, if the direction is without legal justification it is a different story. If the cops only purpose was to prevent a citizen from observing and recording what he was doing in public and there was no legal/safety issue, then the officer was wrong and the woman should not be prosecuted. If the officer was trying to cover up illegal action on his part, then the officer should be charged with abusing his authority.

From the video, it definitely appears that the officer was way over the line. The woman was no threat to the officers and was perfectly within her rights to stand in her front yard and film a public incident. It is obvious that the officers did not want a record of what they were doing for some reason. The officers unfounded assertion that he did not feel safe with her standing there is absurd. From what both the woman and the officer said it was obvious that this woman was not armed with anything more than a camera. The officer ordering her back into her house was without cause and he had no legal authority to do so. It is an obvious abuse of power. Then to use her refusal to go inside as grounds to arrest her for failure to comply with his instructions only served to further demonstrate the abuse of power. Too may cops out there are on power trips and feel that they can order a civilian to do anything and they must comply. This is not true and civilians do not have to follow illegal/unwarranted orders from police. These type of gestapo tactics by the police should not be tolerated and the officer involved should be disciplined, if not charged, for the unlawful arrest.

This is what happen when My brothers think any command has to be followed, well there very wrong and I hope the lady sues the crap out of the pd and the rookie officer, police do not have the wright to tell anyone to go inside there house like a 2yr old, "unless gun fire is in the area" but this was a clear violation of the ladies Constitutional wrights. In this state false arrest could get you kill lawfully! You have a right to resist false arrest. I hope you don't hold all policeman at fault. Some members are just stupid.

First I am not a Cop.

Second I have been arrested.

The truth is the police have the right to stop you for no reason at all, remove you from your car, house, front yard, walking in public, anywhere. Then they can put their hands all over you and pat you down.

If you resist they can beat you down, tazer you, shoot you, then shackle both your feet and hands and put a hood over your head.

The police can hold you for two days without charging you, after two days they must charge you and take you in front a judge to further detain you.

Now once you understand this, you can save yourself a beat down, or being shot and a bunch of charges such as resisting an arrest, or not obeying a lawful order ETC…

After two days if they did not have probable cause when arresting you, then the judge will release you and you are free to file a law suite against the Officer, City, and various others you may choose for punitive damages (Money).

You may not like this, but that’s what the badge means.

So when an officer orders you to do something, do not go all emotional spasm out of your mind screaming “I know my rights”, and get lumps on your head, just do what they ask, keep your mouth shut except to say one thing: I want a lawyer.

The lawyers and the judges will then decide if the police officer was derelict in his duty, if so, they will punish him, and unless you take the money that will be offered you to settle out of court, a jury will decide if, and how much your little trip down to the station was worth.

I have always thought that if the police came to every elementary school in the USA and showed all the seventh graders how to be arrested, it would save not only the Police a future headache, but also those arrested in the future.

I note that police policy has changed since the Rodney King incident. Note that I said incident, I am NOT passing judgement, a jury already did. But it does seem now that police do not want ANY film of them not under their control, but they do want every bit of film (wrong-doers, the innocent, general non-productive film) that might help them do their job. Just as our courts are supposed to function only in the light of day, our police must also operate ubder a certain light. Our Constitution and laws are supposed to protect us against, illegal imprisonment, seizure of property, and unusual, inhumane punishment.

I also have faced a drawn gun, pointed in my face at close range. An ice storm thoughly coated the alarm switch in an inch of ice, but left the door lock to the factory, where I was a foreman, relatively untouched. The alarm mindlessy tied up the phone line with no way to shut it off. No interior key lock, and only one exterior switch. On the floor, another policeman retrieved my keys and my wallet from my pocket, along with a pocket knife. After verifying that I was who I said I was and that I was the shop foreman and authorised the plant and start the compressor and production equipment, I was SCOLDED by the police for the pocket knife and told they would have been justified in shooting right there. In a college town, in a building with NO CASH, about 200 tons of steel at less than $200/ton. Anybody ever try to move 200 tons of steel? I did it for 10 years, and with our equipment it would take all day. AND the cops knew all this. One of them had been a couple of months earlier, arresting an employee on an out of county warrant. And to think I could have murdered reaching for my only ID for the building, MY ASSIGNED KEYS. And after all this, IT WAS MY FAULT. Despite I did everything they told me to.

Citizens are required to obey police direction when a police action is being taken.

When said police action is illegal, does that still apply? See the problem, with that? It's well known that power, when permitted to be exercised out of view, is frequently abused. If ALL police knew they could prevent videotaping of their public actions, the bad apples would absolutely take advantage. I say record them. When security entities infringe on our privacy, they always throw out the old, "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, then bla-bla-bla." I say, same to you. "If you're not doing anything wrong, then what's the problem?"

If she were the only "civilian" in the vicinity, then the police would have not too much difficulty defending their judgment to send her inside in order to maintain the best control over a felony arrest, claiming that the camera was incidental and of no consequence to the order that was given. However, since there were others watching who were not filming, but she alone was ordered inside, it is going to be difficult to make the claim that she was ordered inside merely in the interest of situation control, rather than because she was filming the incident. Depending how far she decides to pursue this, that could spell real trouble for the cops if they cannot prove their order was based on preventing loitering rather than preventing filming. I respect the badge, which gives police wide latitude in preserving public order and safety, but nothing in that badge empowers them to issue a "gag order' essentially curbing anyone's freedom of the press. At the very least, I would expect the city attorney to drop the case, which hopefully she will accept as the end of it.

I should add to my previous post. This was in a large college town, in central Iowa in the early 1980's at about 7:00 am. For some reason I wasn't worth much that day, I suspect. A lot of memory went away after being told that I could just be shot, by the police, for no reason.

Yet another piece of evidence we are living in a police state. They are no longer being covert about it.

Bicker about minutia, but the police will do what ever they damn well please constitution be damned. Get used to it folks, we'll all be "criminals" soon...

Arrest the officer and let the woman sue to get as much money as she can.

Your property, your camera, filming a public incident (i.e. the camera wasn't aimed into someone else's house)....police are going to have to get used to that people expect them to do their job, and have more and more proof when they don't. They don't like that? Change jobs.

John Doe Jr, that might be a problem for those other cases, but they are not a problem for this case in which the woman was neither ordered to stop video-taping, nor arrested for it.

Awesome video putting abuse of power in context. A lawsuit is the only thing these rogues understand because the effect is to chill their liability insurance and deprive them of a job. So often these cameras are seized and erased - this is a gem.

Some people forget that traffic stops are the #1 scenario where cops are killed by someone who doesn't want the cop to either find out WHO they are or WHAT they are doing. EVERY time a cop pulls someone over for a traffic violation, he places his life on the line (that is a cop's job). It could be a man wanted on a string of shoot-outs, could be drug traffickers, car thieves, could be man with a loaded gun and a mental illness.... It is important for a cop to ensure that bystanders don't get hurt. They do this by ordering those that just have to 'watch' the action unfold to move them where they are less noticeable.... like back inside their house. It makes the cops job to minimize distractions harder when you have a person determine to draw attention to themselves by screaming at the cop. If the person who was pulled over was a wanted criminal with no qualms to kill a cop.. who's to say the guy won't kill a bystander? What if the person pulled over doesn't want to have his picture on youtube? I bet she'd be the first to yell that the cop didn't do his job if she happened to get hurt because the guy the cop pulled over started shooting anyone standing there. I lived in such neighborhoods. It DOES happen.

There are cops that do abuse their authority, there are people out there that disrespects authority (cops DO have authority)- There are people out there that are attention whores and will escalate the situation so they get noticed. I'm all for calling out cops that abuse their authority but at the same time I'm not all for someone causing a scene because they disrespect any authority or have to be an attention whore.

Charles Smith-438222

Megalodon-358694

1. It doesn’t matter what she said. Her speech is still protected under the first amendment.

not everything someone says is classified as free speech when it come to the point with an intention to provoke hostilities. even you should know that

2. People are still liable for arrest for what they have done, not what someone thinks they may decide to.

obviously you do not keep up with current events. nor do you realise a comment before the camera was tuned on could result in such an order not being followed, to an arrest. there is a difference when you video someone who is doing something bad, and provoking a sitution to turn bad, and then turning on the video.

3. POS or not, she is still entitled to her rights. Including the right to refuse to obey an illegal order.

referr to my reply to your comment 1.

4. Neither officer or perp has a right to privacy in the public domain. Hopefully, someone like the ACLU will prove this in a court of law.

public or private domain as you call it is an imaginary line people like to cross when it comes to rights. your rights to public domain are to include local and state regulations that go with that. therefore, one can not sell lemonaid in a park without a permit, because there is regulation to keep public safety in mind.

as an exsample, and not that i am a racist however seems to be what some seem to understand... let's just say, you have different groups of people, and each group minding their own buisness one person says to his freinds get ready to record what i am about to do. the one person walks over to the other group, and starts to call them racist names, and taunting them. At the right time the cam starts to roll. only what you see is, perhaps some guy innocent looking enough, all of a sudden getting jumped by the group he was taunting...meantime the group kicking the snot out of this guy say a racist name or 2 back. Just for good measure to rub in the feelings behind his comments made.

well imagine this footage being plasterd all over youtube. the people who kicked the snot out of the innocent looking guyys will be charged with hate crimes, and so the party begins. you dont know what the so called woman said before she started tapeing. She basically had ro reason to make any comment at all. however she made a comment to start a disturbance, and she did.

careful what you wish for, the outcome maynot be what you desire.....

You're not free to tape the police in america ???? And you all think that your have the most freedoms ?? You've got to be kidding, right ?

I would never get arrested in europe, for this.

Unfortunately I can't see the video at my location.

This can go either way though, depending on the woman. So I have some questions:

1)Was she with people? A group?

2)Was she cat-calling or otherwise provoking the police?

3)How close was she?

I think it is perfectly legitimate to tell someone to go inside the house while in the line of duty, depending on if that person is a distraction or not. If they are being overtly threatening or obnoxious - then they are definitely obstructing the officer. You'd be surprised how quickly a group of people and some cat-calling can turn into an ugly situation - I know this from first hand experience. It is especially dangerous when dealing with someone or a group that hate cops (which is ever so fashionable).

But, if someone is just standing back at a decent distance filming, not feeling the need to talk smack to the officer, then that's no problem. Film away.

But if the person doing the filming is so concerned with rights, they best not be planning to plaster it up all over Youtube as soon as they are finished. That person getting arrested has rights too, and he has the right not to have his face all over the internet for something he may or may not have done.

Who cares what the officers orders are? She is standing on her own property. As far as I'm concerned the cop tresspassed on her property and abducted her with no proof of illegal activy. He had no right to even walk on her property.

Not only did he do that, he did it under the color of authority, which makes it a felony. You only have to follow LEGAL orders of an officer. An order to leave your own front yard is not a legal order.

mkc, then the cop shouldn't have been paying attention to the camera, he should be watching out for the guy in the car since it's the #1 way they are killed. what you wrote actually screams the cop was wrong to even pay attention to her.

oops

oops again

Another thing, MKC, your comment is meaningless to this instance, because by the time the cops start talking to her in the video, the guy is in cuffs being hauled off by other cops. There is nothing going on to otherwise make it a dangerous situation, it's plain and simple POLICE HARRASSMENT!

And for more check this one out, found it on Aljazeera since it's a little too extreme for our media to show(although it does concern US cops): h t t p ://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201162114131825860.html (without the spaces)

??? Citizens Please...

If a police officer who is carrying a loaded firearm tells you to take you butt inside with you camera...

You do it... and keep on filming... If a Police Officer asks you to remove your hands from your pockets, You do it!! if that Officer has his Firearm pressed up against your temple and asking you to preform mouth to mouth with his partner for no apparent reason, you do it!

and then... you find a lawyer and sue the crap out of them for it. Cause and Effect people.

Just because they have a badge does not make them robots nor perfect they make mistakes, and that is why our Legal system is the way it is, Checks and Balances.

Yes bad things happen... and consequences are handed out... AFTER.

Law's don't stop bad things from happening they only create the environment for those of us unwilling to break those laws ground to stand on in a not so perfect world.

Deal with it.

Police will do whatever they have to to protect themselves first, and you later.

Just because the law says you can doesn't mean you should.

This line of thought is as ridiculous as some of the thinking I've been reading on some of the "restore your credit" threads... "the law Says i don't have to pay so I guess I won't"..

Retards.

the lady? yes she can video tape. But the second the officer asked her to move, she should have... granted maybe to a better vantige point, or something, give the camera to a cousin, just don't blatently cause a scene becuase you can... that's just dumb.

Ever since the Rodney King incident the police are camera shy. We wouldn't want their conduct scrutinized by the public, would we?

If she were not holding a camera like the others standing around, would she have been considered a threat? I doubt it.

To me it looks like the cop went onto private property and arrested a woman without a warrant. This reminds me of a guy I used to work with that was nearly arrested in South Africa for taking a picture of a cop setting up a speed trap. He was let go after the police chief arrived, but this woman went to jail. It is nice to know we live in a more progressive society!

Suprised the police didn't draw their weapons on her... a few weeks ago there was an article that showed a police officer telling a driver in his auto across the street at a distance to stop filming with his cell phone and hand it over to him..THE POLICE OFFICER EVEN HAD HIS WEAPON POINTED AT THE DRIVER....for the cell phone! The driver did give the police his cell phone (beats getting shot for it)..but he kept the data chip in his mouth and showed it to the media what he filmed.

Unreal these days..whats the new motto now by police.... years ago was to Protect and Serve!

We've overcome these totalitarian actions before. we can do it again. Citizens must stop fight with their neighbors and form cohesive communities; no one should have to stand alone in the face of excessive force.

Where are the attorneys who put justice and civil rights ahead of huge retainers?

@Kstategirl

Very nice, now if only the Supreme Court and Congress would take to heart those sentiment of Thomas Jefferson.

Oh, that's right they have to have a Heart first. The extraordinary aspect to all of this Police Abuse of Authority, is the Constitution had no Amendment or Edict for the Police.

It still does not to this very day. American Citizen are having their Constitution Rights Abrogated by Police who have no Constitutional Authority written for them, in the Constitution.

AMAZING isn't it!

Something tells me we need a new constitutional ammendment. Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear cameras shall not be infringed.

Then again, in years to come, we'll be arguing, "A well regulated media..."

The Indiana Supreme Court just pretty much approved NO-KNOCK entries on blind search warrants. If the police think someone is in your house, they have the right to break-in and shoot you, if they perceive a danger, like opening a door, grabbing a gun, or rolling over in bed (half asleep).

BTW, I support limited gun control and most of you would consider me LIBERAL. The Patriot Act and Homeland Security are neither. The Patriot Act is close to the Anti-Sedition Act (read about it) and the name Homeland Security conjures vision of early 1930's Germany (Where did that lead?). With US or against US within us.

@Megalodon-358694

I'd like to know where your reading all this "other info" about things said but not recorded? Oh, I see you're just making them up... You can tell by her demeanor on the tape she was not trying to escalate anything. You're the fool here and your the one that needs to have their ass tazed and sent to jail.

Ourdoc

@Megalodon-358694

I'd like to know where your reading all this "other info" about things said but not recorded? Oh, I see you're just making them up...

no, actually i watched, and listend to the whole thing....even turned the volume up loud enough to hear what everyone including the officer, and her freinds were saying in the background. so before you suggest i am making things up, maybe you might want to indulge yourself in doing the same, and or not just hearing what you want to hear?

however, this too could be that people fear the police, i dont. i also know what my rights are, and dont do what i can to incite the police to give me orders. Thus if they do give me an order, i usually obey, not disobey, and snivel like a child when they arrest me for acting like a child. so call it as you wish, no need to make things up, just to look at them for what they are, and how they are presented.

If the video lady got shot or hurt by the guy or the result of a confrontation with the police that were questioning him, you would possibly be complaining that the police did not do enough to get her back to a safer distance. That appeared to be what the officer was trying to do. His main concern was to get her a safer distance from the situation.

The lady did not seem to know the man pulled over. So she had no understanding on how harmless or dangerous the man could be.

Your right to privacy is not at issue. What is at issue is her First Amendment right to speech, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the government for redress of grievances (i.e., to protest). The police had no right to stop her from filming, particularly since she was on her own property. Cops forget that they are not the law; they merely enforce the law.

The police had no right to stop her from filming, particularly since she was on her own property. Cops forget that they are not the law; they merely enforce the law.

They have the right if it interferes with their ability to do their job safely or could possibly cause injury to others. Just because someone gets pulled over doesn't mean you should grab some popcorn and lawn chairs for petes sake.

Denny, while agreeing that you are absolutely right in your statements, Randall may have been talking about the right to privacy of either the police officer or the suspect being pulled over. Since the tape of Rodney King, and maybe before, police have not wanted their actions verified by video tape. As state elsewhere, the good cops don't need to worry, and the bad ones shouldn't be protected.

"Knight of Despair", nice screen name for a cop...

"Knight of Despair", nice screen name for a cop...

Not a cop but if someones stupid enough to stand there close enough to film they are pretty much asking to get shot or taken hostage - they have no idea who got pulled over or why, they have no idea if it is a simple traffic stop or one of the FBI's 10 most wanted in the car. Common sense just isn't common anymore.

Knight, I had to actually pull over one day to keep a cop, who was on his hands and knees getting pounded, and drop the bonehead beating him, by which time every squad car finally showed up. Taken hostage? I know female Marines that could drop both of us in less then a few seconds - keep judging civilians as the wusses you think they are. Cops need to pull their head out. Period.

Unfortunately it appears the prevailing attitude is that any command from the officer on the street is law, and whatever it is, whether telling someone to stop filming them from their private property or telling them to remove their cloting, must be obeyed. All under the blanket reasoning that it's obstructing their job. If they need to shoot someone over it, well, they were feeling unsafe and feared for their lives, which is a common catch-all rational.

If it's not essentially a lie that they feel unsafe, then with a mindset like that, it's pretty clear they're not suited for the job, and the best thing really would be to find alternate employment where they don't need to interact with live people. Do we really want nervous nellies fearful of their own shadow walking around with guns and carte blanche power with little accountability? Video has brought a lot of things to light which have apparently been comfortably swept under the rug from filing official made-up reports. And it's obvious some of the less competent officers dislike this new accountability for their actions.

Someone suggested this woman was razzing or heckling right before starting the film clip- that's some ostrich in the sand attitude, conjecturing excuses for the action even when it's pretty clear that didn't happen.

All law enforcement personnel during interactive events with the general public are afraid of audio/video devices used by any, other than themselves. They will sometimes charge and arrest the users, or confiscate and/or disable the device. The courts generally back them in this fascist exercise.

Knight (and the others supporting this cop's actions on the basis of 'might've been dangerous' - if they thought the suspect might be so dangerous as to pose a threat to her & other witnesses, then why focus on her & not the suspect? While he was harrassing her, he wasn't backing up his partners. I wonder if there's ANYthing a cop could do that you wouldn't approve of...after all he's the "authority", righht?

@knightofdespair, you have a very active imagination. Perhaps you'd like to join us back here in the real world.

Bouilloubaise, having grown up in Rochester in the '70s and visits over the years I don't think Knightofdespair is far from the mark. A shoot out or hostage incident would be par for the course. I believe the officer had every right to ask her to go inside her home, both for his protection and hers.

Penny - But why did he single her out? There was people around her, 2 to 3, and she even hands the camera to another person who tapes her being taken to the car. Why did one of the other cops ask him what he was doing? Wouldn't he have told the crowd to disperse for his safety, instead of an individual? Why didn't one of the other cops come and assist him, since he was concerned with his safety? His actions opens up a lot of questions.

Knight - go watch the video again. She very clearly states that she is filming because the person being arrested is her friend.

And that is illegal how? And she hands her camera to a friend or neighbor who videos her being arrested. Why weren't they arrested?

she was arrested because she made a comment prior to turning the video camera on to tape, then SHE was asked to move back, and into her house, and to take her freinds along with her. being she had taken claim to be the sole charge of the property, this was her responsibility, as well for not following a request. the officer was nice about the whole thing from what i saw, and it was s shame she didnt resist, might have given her a tazin', i feel she had coming for being a smartazz.

as i said before we all have rights, but its when we push those rights past the limit is when problems ensue. you have the right freedom of speech. what happens if at 3am you go up and down the public sidewalk screaming about your freedom of speech at the top of your lungs? the cops show up, ask you to keep it down after questioning your mental capacity. to you argue with the officers about your right to do this? no, you might get arrested, then or if you continue to keep up the deed. So, as i said, all depends what she had originally said to the officer prior to turning the cam on, that led to the altervation. had she not made any comments, just went outside, stayed a reasonable distance from the officers, they might not have said 1 word to her. other than good evening.

And when did it become illegal to be a smarta$$? Until someone shows evidence of what she said, your argument is speculative. My argument is based on what I heard and seen in the video, that's all.

Wrong megalodon-

Why wasnt she arrested when she made the comment? If thats really why she was arrested then it should have happend when the offense was committed. Not five minutes later after he obviously was upset about being video tapped. His orders mean jack sh*t when the woman is standing on her own property. Another example of abuse of power.

Yet we know from the tape that only one person was actually in the car at the time of the stop, and while he was in fact, cuffed and detained, he was not arrested. Emily Good was the only person arrested at this scene, and it was because she dared to stand up to authority, and legally exercise her rights on her own Private Property.

From her lawyer in the Washington Post

The other guy wasnt even being arrested! Yet the police officer still claims that he felt he was in danger because she was standing behind him. Citing that they were known protesters of property forclosures in the area. LOL

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin

Even if she'd been on public property, as long as she wasn't interfering/obstructing, she has every right to videotape our PUBLIC SERVANTS who are being paid with OUR TAX DOLLARS. As someone else noted, if you're doing your job properly there is no need to fear the camera. These are police state tactics.

if you think it's bad there... come to the virgin islands for a while, the police here are poster children for corruption.

They don't have that right. You can easily read any police record by going to the court and requesting it. It's under the Freedom of Information law that was passed in the 70s after the abuses of the Nixon administration.

When your in public you can't claim a right to privacy. The road is public and in a public space.

It's the same reason stars can't claim privacy rights when they are in their cars or out on the town. Personally I think they should be left alone but the courts say no right to privacy when in public places.

when your out in public,no right to privacy exsists

Do you not trust them or like them when you get into an accident, when you have a burglar in your home, when someone you know gets seriously injured. You can't cherry pick when you like or not like them. If you don't like them or trust them, then please, never, NEVER, call them for anything, ANYTHING.

When a burglar enters my home . All I request the police to do is drag the body out. We have, in fact, become a police state.

even worse - it's a stupid-police state.

Yes...as a matter of fact it is.

This officer should be reprimanded and suspended without pay. This is a lesson to be learned the hard way, so that it sinks in.

It's called a police state... and in fact we have much closer to a Fascist state than a Communist one.

Well republicans would prefer a fascist state and democrats would prefer a communist state. It's no wonder they don't like each other.

I've seen both communist and fascist states closely enough to know that in neither one would this have even made the news, and that we would be very unlikely to be allowed to comment on the event. We seesaw back and forth between the two all the time. I do support the police, having seen the alternative to them, as well, but I also expect them to remember that they are public servants, and answerable to us.

Actually , the fastest speeders are the license plates that have the get out of ticket free badges on them. Those little free to the family, badges and stars.

You're right, of course - but we lose our rights if we don't stand up for them

I hope this case goes to a high court, so the ruling could serve as a lesson to the cops.

But I doubt it will - and anyhow our police never seem to learn from precedent...

The L.E.O shouldn't have said or done squat anyway. The only reason to tell someone to get inside their house and stop video taping was if he or another officer, planned on doing something against the law.

Kelly, in case you didn't notice the last presidential election, this was not done under the Bush Administration. It was done under the administration of Obama. Last time I looked, Obama was a democrat, not a republican. As far as the subject of terrorism goes, it's interesting that Obama continued many of the previously criticized (by the left) anti-terrorism acts enacted during the Bush years.

Finally, where does this involve the "(Feds)"? The actions here are by a local government, not federal. Time will tell if the federal government gets involved.

A Russian friend laughed when he heard about our new 'Department of Homeland Security'. Apparently that's what KGB means. Oh yeah, that was done under Bush, but it's not like Obama has done anything to roll back the erosion of our rights either.

While this action wasn't specifically by the 'Feds', the Supreme Court rulings and new Federal statutes supporting the increasing encroachments against our freedoms certainly have been part of 'Feds' screwing the people over. It's a very profitable business to be in, if that wasn't apparent - wars & 'security' get staffing, budgets, contracts, and lots of kickbacks, and fear of whatever is used to keep the system in place. And you better not disagree because we all know that questioning authority is now un-American.

MrEee, that is exactly correct. "KGB", or "Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopastnosti," translates literally to "Committee of State Safety". Our "Department of Homeland Security" is a very good contextual translation.

I agree completely! Funny they can tape us without our permission during traffic stops and claim it's for their safety yet we try and get arrested.

Mayor Bloomberg is putting camera's up all over New York City and has said "well we can't exactly have people going where ever they want."....

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Benjamin Franklin

How on earth did we as US citizens give the local government the authority to put vidio cams on every stop lite in america? We as citizens of the so called free world have every right to film whatever actions the police or enforcment entity do , after all we pay their saleries, having said that, we also have the power to fire them , as they are required to protect our constitutional rights under federal law! That alone should be enough to fire the scumbag cop!