Fingon Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html I'm sure the officer will be swiftly disciplined with paid vaca.. i mean suspension. Video #2: http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/24/rochester-police-use.html Edited June 25, 2011 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html I'm sure the officer will be swiftly disciplined with paid vaca.. i mean suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 She has a long list of priors of smoking at the Ralph. 10 years in Jail ought to stop her for doing that shiit anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 She has a long list of priors of smoking at the Ralph. 10 years in Jail ought to stop her for doing that shiit anymore. It'd be different if it was YOUR wife who had to cut her hair off after being exposed to smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) http://www.huffingto...r_n_882122.html I'm sure the officer will be swiftly disciplined with paid vaca.. i mean suspension. It was not for video taping and at no time does the officer tell her to stop taping. That's a great hot button issue to garner sympathy for her. It was for not complying with a request to move. Should she have been arrested? No. Should she even have to move? Probably not. The officer should have had much better judgement and realized she wasn't a threat. Will probably be suspended. Of course, we don't know what she did before she started taping as the officer alluded to. Given that, I have a hard time seeing this girl as a victim. She went looking for trouble. The officer had a simple request and if she had any respect for police she would have just backed up onto her porch. It was dark, the officer was focused on the suspect and didn't want to worry about bystanders. She was a tough girl until the cuffs came out. She got what she went looking for, controversy. Edited June 23, 2011 by kegtapr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 It was not for video taping and at no time does the officer tell her to stop taping. That's a great hot button issue to garner sympathy for her. It was for not complying with a request to move. Should she have been arrested? No. Should she even have to move? Probably not. The officer should have had much better judgement and realized she wasn't a threat. Will probably be suspended. Of course, we don't know what she did before she started taping as the officer alluded to. Given that, I have a hard time seeing this girl as a victim. She went looking for trouble. The officer had a simple request and if she had any respect for police she would have just backed up onto her porch. It was dark, the officer was focused on the suspect and didn't want to worry about bystanders. She was a tough girl until the cuffs came out. She got what she went looking for, controversy. Except there are witnesses that say the tape is the first point of contact, and the police report is full of lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Except there are witnesses that say the tape is the first point of contact, and the police report is full of lies. You mean the witnesses who pick up the camera and are talking on camera after she's hauled off? They obviously know the woman since they're at her house. Of course they're going to take her side. If she didn't want a confrontation, she would have complied with the officer's request instead of arguing with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) You mean the witnesses who pick up the camera and are talking on camera after she's hauled off? They obviously know the woman since they're at her house. Of course they're going to take her side. If she didn't want a confrontation, she would have complied with the officer's request instead of arguing with him. Looks like the tape is running for a bit before they even know she was there. If she was talking **** then they would have turned to her much sooner. Just because a cop tells you to do something, doesn't mean you have to. Some cops don't know what they are doing, this is one of them. I'm betting tough guy gets some time off. Edited June 23, 2011 by thebug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Looks like the tape is running for a bit before they even know she was there. If she was talking **** then they would have turned to her much sooner. Just because a cop tells you to do something, doesn't mean you have to. Some cops don't know what they are doing, this is one of them. I'm betting tough guy gets some time off. No, you don't have to but it sure as hell is in your best interest to. That moment is not the time to argue the law with the cop, because if he doesn't know the law there is no way for you to win. If he is just hellbent on being a dick, still no way for you to win. If you feel your rights are being violated, you remove yourself from the situation and file a complaint later. This woman was looking for a confrontation and got exactly what she wanted, giving the RPD a black eye and that boneheaded cop was all too happy to comply. And frankly the cops request wasn't all that absured to begin with. Cops ask people to move away from a scene or go back inside all the time. They do it for their own protection and the publics. I still say he could have handled it in a MUCH better way, but she is still the one who instigated the exchange. Edited June 23, 2011 by kegtapr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Looks like the tape is running for a bit before they even know she was there. If she was talking **** then they would have turned to her much sooner. Just because a cop tells you to do something, doesn't mean you have to. Some cops don't know what they are doing, this is one of them. I'm betting tough guy gets some time off. I agree with your take on the police officer, but just because his actions were inappropriate does not make what the woman did smart or correct either. If she felt he was acting inappropriately she could have asked for his name and badge number, complied, and reported the incident. She still would have the video evidence of his conduct, and would not have gotten arrested. The only problem is of course, that this never would have made the news. While technically I agree that the woman was within her rights, her failure to act prudently in favor of becoming argumentative makes me suspect that she had ulterior motives, as does the fact that she was taping a traffic stop in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 The cops fear video tapes for good reason. There is no thin blue line with video, there is no way to commit crimes and have your partner lie for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I am torn on this.......I think you should pretty much follow the instructions that police give you but I also wonder why this policement felt so threatened. I am sure hears far worse from the public on a day to day basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I am torn on this.......I think you should pretty much follow the instructions that police give you but I also wonder why this policement felt so threatened. I am sure hears far worse from the public on a day to day basis. IMO, his body language and tone suggestes he never felt threatened. He simply kept repeating the statement as a way to then justify the arrest for 'disobeying an officer's orders.' He clearly knew what he was setting up...and I suspect so did Emily. Still, he took the bait, so he comes off looking like the bigger fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree with your take on the police officer, but just because his actions were inappropriate does not make what the woman did smart or correct either. If she felt he was acting inappropriately she could have asked for his name and badge number, complied, and reported the incident. She still would have the video evidence of his conduct, and would not have gotten arrested. The only problem is of course, that this never would have made the news. While technically I agree that the woman was within her rights, her failure to act prudently in favor of becoming argumentative makes me suspect that she had ulterior motives, as does the fact that she was taping a traffic stop in the first place. The law clearly states that the public can record the police and for good reason. If I was in her shoes, I would've done the exact same thing. Hell, before going to Washington DC for vacation, I made sure I very clearly knew all of the relevant photography laws (such as being able to legally photograph in the subway stations) because I had read plenty of stories of people being told that they can't photograph. Photography and videography rights are being stripped away slowly and it's a very dangerous path to be headed down. http://photocinenews.com/2010/06/03/videotaping-law-enforcement-illegal-in-3-states/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 The law clearly states that the public can record the police and for good reason. Varies by state. As I recall, it's illegal in MD (or at least was, there was a fairly widely reported case on it maybe two years back.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 Varies by state. As I recall, it's illegal in MD (or at least was, there was a fairly widely reported case on it maybe two years back.) It's completely legal in NYS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Varies by state. As I recall, it's illegal in MD (or at least was, there was a fairly widely reported case on it maybe two years back.) Yeah, the article I linked to says that three states - Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland - recently made it illegal to record police officers. I have a feeling that if challenged, those laws would not stand though. Regardless, it seems like police don't care about the law anyway - they'll harass/arrest you regardless of whether it's legal or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'm 50 / 50 on this one. Cop clearly could have done it different, and the other two cops clearly didn't care that she was taping them. Other hand, I wouldn't want her standing behind me either (although, I didn't really see that she was behind the cop who seemed to have a big problem with it). Traffic stops are inherently dangerous, so I give a bit to the cops, but for me the worst part is the other two cops that clearly didn't care that she was filming. It is tough being a cop, but this guy should have made better decisions. Actually, they both should have made better decisions. Legally, he may be totally within the law I don't know. I would have never done this when I was a uniformed cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 IMO, his body language and tone suggestes he never felt threatened. He simply kept repeating the statement as a way to then justify the arrest for 'disobeying an officer's orders.' He clearly knew what he was setting up...and I suspect so did Emily. Still, he took the bait, so he comes off looking like the bigger fool. He might face stiffer punishment but she looked pretty foolish too. I would say there's Clearly more to the story as I don't see her insisting on filming a random traffic stop otherwise. I watched the video but didn't read the whole article- what was her reason for coming out in the first place? I tend not to run outside for traffic stops. The law clearly states that the public can record the police and for good reason. If I was in her shoes, I would've done the exact same thing. Hell, before going to Washington DC for vacation, I made sure I very clearly knew all of the relevant photography laws (such as being able to legally photograph in the subway stations) because I had read plenty of stories of people being told that they can't photograph. Photography and videography rights are being stripped away slowly and it's a very dangerous path to be headed down. http://photocinenews.com/2010/06/03/videotaping-law-enforcement-illegal-in-3-states/ Awesome- you would've had a sweet photo in the subway station to commemorate your trip to the DC jail if the cop didn't know better and was in a bad mood. She could've walked back 20 feet, sat her butt on the front porch and filmed- clearly they were both looking to "win" the fight instead of showing common sense. Just cause it's her right doesn't mean she can't use better judgement. She got what she was looking for. My biggest question is what went on before to make her so insistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts