What you provide more information.... yet not all the information....
"Rochester Police Union President Mike Mazzeo has seen the video and points out that the officer in question repeatedly told Good he felt threatened by her presence. "I see an officer using great restraint, maintaining composure, acting professional, clearly giving very clear and concise orders to an individual who just simply didn't comply."
His composure isn't in question, simply the fact that his demands of the bystander were unreasonable and not supported by either law or the available evidence about the circumstances. There is no evidence that her behavior was threatening, and abundant evidence that the officer's feeling of being threatened was contrived.
"Mazzeo says what can't be ignored is the danger police find themselves in on a daily basis and says the fact that she's on her property is insignificant. "I think she was certainly trying to engage the officers, in my opinion, and that's what's so dangerous because it's a distraction to what these officers are doing."
There is no question that officers are faced with danger, and perform heroically on a daily basis. But from the available evidence, this is not one of those cases, and the fact that officers in general, and even this officer in particular, may perform heroically in other situations doesn't in any way excuse the unprofessional behavior, and possibly unlawful exercise of authority that is displayed in this case.
"I hope she gets rich. The Police need to learn that they are "servants" and not "masters" of the Public. "
They are also protectors. And in order to protect everyone they must make calls that others wont, cant or chose not to. In those situations people should use common sense however they dont either due to pure stupidity or just because of something they read about their rights on the internet. Or maybe they want to be the next youtube sensation.
Agreed that they must make tough calls. But there's no evidence that the actions in this case were the result of a tough call. The video tape recording shows no obstruction or interference of official duties on the part of the bystander. It shows only an officer overreacting to the presence of observers, in particular one with a camera. From the evidence of the video, it is clear that it is the officer who escalated the situation into a confrontation. In this incident, it is clear that he wasn't acting as a protector; he was in fact, a provocateur. If the situation had escalated to the point where officers or citizen's were injured, responsibility for that would have rested with the officer.
Now, it is true that things could have happened before the taping began which we aren't aware of. However, as Chato pointed out, she is charged only with interference stemming from the events that
are recorded. Had she done something legitimately actionable prior to taping, there was no response to that at the time. Further, it is clear in the video that the officer only becomes aware of or concerned about her presence after the video has already started so it is unlikely that she had done something to justify her arrest prior to the taping. I will agree to hold open that possibility should evidence of such become available, but the police themselves have not made any such claim.
There is a big difference however in the tone and use of your words and I can guess at the type of person you are and reason does not come into consideration with you.
Again there is a time and place for everything. What harm would have befallen had she cleared the scene and continued to video tape? Then brouight the issue up in a civil way when there is not a lot going on.....
Sorry, but the question isn't whether she "could have" gone inside; of course should could have. But she was not, or shouldn't have been,
requried to leave the scene. That would be true even if she were on public property, but she was, in fact, already "home".
The question is, did the officer overstep his authority and misrepresent the law in suggesting that her actions were illegal, did he violate her rights for arresting her on unsupported grounds, and did he unnecessarily endanger himself, his fellow officers and the public by escalating a non-threatening situation? Any conclusion is subject to reevaluation should additional information become available, but based on the information we have available it appears that his behavior was indefensible.
All of us (well, most of us, anyway) want to support an effective police force. But it is incidents like this that in fact undermine public trust and support, and lead to the lack of respect that you decry. Just as we should be quick to "disown" photographers who really do overstep their rights or engage in illegal activity, we should be able to distinguish and condemn government misconduct when it occurs.
Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv 
