Police Arrest Woman For Videotaping Them From Her Property

[Aknot]

So if you are being threatened and call the police they are not protecting you when they arrive?

So if your house is being broken into and you call the police when they arrive they are not protecting you?

When a police officer blocks off an intersection due to an accident and unsafe conditions he is not protecting you?

What universe are you from? No really. I respect opinions of everyone however when you spout stuff like "Sorry, police are not protectors." It makes me think we are not in the same universe.

As for Texas.... What year and where do you get your information? Would be really great when you state fact to back it up.

Matter of fact based on crime rankings Texas in 2010 did not even make the top 15 SAFEST states to live.

http://www.walletpop.com/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/

They didnt make the worse list either so that puts them in the middle.

Sorry, police are not protectors. They assumed that role in debates. They respond to incidents already in motion, not before. Traditionally, the people have been the protectors, only using police to transfer a perp from the streets to the judicial system. Luckily, certain states, cities, and counties, still allow the people to police the streets, such as in Texas, consequently having low rates of crime. In these cases, the people do the policing, while the police are there simply to transfer the process to the system. This system keeps the police weak and prevents them from assembling into a corrupt militia, whether organized, or due to abuse of power.

--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

 

[Aknot]

What was my assumption? They CAN arrest you. Anytime they please. Now if it was right to do it is another thing. You blur that line.

A crime scene (with tape) was used as an example. A crime scene is a scene of a crime correct? If that individual was pulled over with probable cause that a crime was commited that area in and around the car becomes a crime scene.

ESPECIALLY if (and I say if based on the news cast) bystanders admit to knowing the suspect being pulled over. Your crime scene just expanded a little.

Often times.... again provide the proof that OFTEN TIMES "even for legitimate arrests, officers arrest first, then search through the computers or their notes to find the law that fits the situation. "

Could you give some exapmles where say a suspected murderer was arrested for murder then the charges where looked up..... maybe a dui... or something else? I need a lot btw to cover OFTEN TIMES. What 1 in 5, 3 of 5, 4 of 5?

Most times it is to get the code etc of the law. Not the law itself. However you will believe what you believe.

Incorrect, and that is the assumption from many, that officers have more power or authority than they do. They don't, especially when they don't know the laws. Often times, even for legitimate arrests, officers arrest first, then search through the computers or their notes to find the law that fits the situation. In checks and balances, it is either accepted or thrown out by the judges and DAs. When it's accepted, still more checks and balances follow.

You cite crime scene. This was not a crime scene. Crime scene tape is to avoid contamination of evidence during an investigation. She was not within a crime scene, nor was she tampering with evidence. A cop simply used the power they think they have to escalate a situation that never existed.

Dave,

However in order to make that call that others wont you need to make it on the spot for the safety and wellfare of all.

He made a call it wasnt abided by. His thought is look she was not helping and possibly hurting. In his capacity he has the authority (IMO) to do what he did.

YET if it is found AFTER the fact he was breaking a law or over extended his authority then deal with it.

However what we see is only a portion of the whole. It is not like she was filming on her front yard and he pulled over telling her to stop.

The officer made it clear that she was more of a problem than anything. We see and hear that. So now is it to be believed that the officer was not feeling any sort of threat that would ahve esculated the situation between him and the suspect? (not the recorder) Why do you think ther is yellow tape across a crime scene? Not only does it protect the crime scene it also affords the ability for law enforcement and emergrncy personal to do their jobs.

An officer does not have the time to throw up yellow tape to give him the room and control of a scene.

Why dont people just walk across the tape?

As for the tape itself.... I can yell at you and berate you to the point you are upset THEN turn my camera phone on. Again we see what only is given to us. We do not hear all sides to the story.

That is all I am saying. Hear everything before passing judgement.
--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

 

[linuxworks]

I also hope she gets rich and the cops are left eating ramen noodles due to having all raises frozen for the next 10 years. even better to have those connected just plain fired.

zero tolerance.

its the only way to deal with cops and thugs (hard to tell the diff in today's world).

cops have too much power to ruin your life. its time for a zero tolerance approach. make ONE mistake and you're fired. period.

that would fix the problem RIGHT QUICK.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )

 

[linuxworks]

So if you are being threatened and call the police they are not protecting you when they arrive?

So if your house is being broken into and you call the police when they arrive they are not protecting you?

these are all after-the-fact. no protection is happening here.

that's IF they arrive and IF its in a timely manner.

police are there to clean up AFTER the fact. stop being stupid and insulting our intelligence.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )

 

[snake_b]

or raise penalties for clear violations. Right now, the law seeks to protect cops, even ones convicted of being completely filthy pigs, like that one in NYC that assaulted a bicyclist, then proceeded to fabricate the chain of events in order to ruin the person's life, which was saved by people who filmed the incident and loaded it to Youtube.

The cop deserved a tarnished reputation, but of course, the course let him off with a light slap and no jail time.

cops need to start going to prison, no matter what the reason is, just like anyone else off the street. In fact, since they are there for the law, the standard should be higher and they get closer to max sentences, with their only luxury being solitary if they don't want to go into general. This is the only way other cops will understand and be deterred. Faced with jailtime, it will be all but guaranteed a cop will go straight and narrow because for them, that is the only deterrent.

I also hope she gets rich and the cops are left eating ramen noodles due to having all raises frozen for the next 10 years. even better to have those connected just plain fired.

zero tolerance.

its the only way to deal with cops and thugs (hard to tell the diff in today's world).

cops have too much power to ruin your life. its time for a zero tolerance approach. make ONE mistake and you're fired. period.

that would fix the problem RIGHT QUICK.

--
Bryan
(pic stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )

 

[snake_b]

Of course they can. That doesn't make the arrest legal, which is why there's a process after the fact to see if the arrest was lawful, as well as an offense that can be convicted. This power to arrest for no reason is where the abuse and fear lies. Look at that cyclist in NYC. Random person, arrested. The cop got a slap on the wrist.

However, what ends up happening is the cops use psychology, knowing that an innocent person will often, understandably, be confused and become agitated. This causes the cops to escalate, pretending they were justified, which causes a victim to escalate, then they feel justified to taze, and so on. They use normal human behavior to escalate situations into further charges, which is highly unethical and needs to be reformed. The cops become completely unreasonable and irrational, and refuse to hear any other side by their own.

Cops, when they are present, are there to diffuse situations, not view every single person as the enemy beneath them.

What was my assumption? They CAN arrest you . Anytime they please. Now if it was right to do it is another thing. You blur that line.

A crime scene (with tape) was used as an example. A crime scene is a scene of a crime correct? If that individual was pulled over with probable cause that a crime was commited that area in and around the car becomes a crime scene.

ESPECIALLY if (and I say if based on the news cast) bystanders admit to knowing the suspect being pulled over. Your crime scene just expanded a little.

Often times.... again provide the proof that OFTEN TIMES "even for legitimate arrests, officers arrest first, then search through the computers or their notes to find the law that fits the situation. "

Could you give some exapmles where say a suspected murderer was arrested for murder then the charges where looked up..... maybe a dui... or something else? I need a lot btw to cover OFTEN TIMES. What 1 in 5, 3 of 5, 4 of 5?

Most times it is to get the code etc of the law. Not the law itself. However you will believe what you believe.

Incorrect, and that is the assumption from many, that officers have more power or authority than they do. They don't, especially when they don't know the laws. Often times, even for legitimate arrests, officers arrest first, then search through the computers or their notes to find the law that fits the situation. In checks and balances, it is either accepted or thrown out by the judges and DAs. When it's accepted, still more checks and balances follow.

You cite crime scene. This was not a crime scene. Crime scene tape is to avoid contamination of evidence during an investigation. She was not within a crime scene, nor was she tampering with evidence. A cop simply used the power they think they have to escalate a situation that never existed.

Dave,

However in order to make that call that others wont you need to make it on the spot for the safety and wellfare of all.

He made a call it wasnt abided by. His thought is look she was not helping and possibly hurting. In his capacity he has the authority (IMO) to do what he did.

YET if it is found AFTER the fact he was breaking a law or over extended his authority then deal with it.

However what we see is only a portion of the whole. It is not like she was filming on her front yard and he pulled over telling her to stop.

The officer made it clear that she was more of a problem than anything. We see and hear that. So now is it to be believed that the officer was not feeling any sort of threat that would ahve esculated the situation between him and the suspect? (not the recorder) Why do you think ther is yellow tape across a crime scene? Not only does it protect the crime scene it also affords the ability for law enforcement and emergrncy personal to do their jobs.

An officer does not have the time to throw up yellow tape to give him the room and control of a scene.

Why dont people just walk across the tape?

As for the tape itself.... I can yell at you and berate you to the point you are upset THEN turn my camera phone on. Again we see what only is given to us. We do not hear all sides to the story.

That is all I am saying. Hear everything before passing judgement.
--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

 

[dsjtecserv]

Dave,

However in order to make that call that others wont you need to make it on the spot for the safety and wellfare of all.

Yes, you would. And he apparently used poor judgment, and took actions that were no only not justified, but increased the risk of harm to the safety and welfare of all involved. It isn't a matter of retrospect: his job is to make appropriate calls given the situation on the spot in real time, and if he isn't up to that job he should be retrained or reassigned. The evidence at this point is that he blew it, and even while acknowledging the difficulty of the job, we can't excuse doing it poorly.

He made a call it wasnt abided by. His thought is look she was not helping and possibly hurting. In his capacity he has the authority (IMO) to do what he did.

But the point is, his call was wrong and unjustified. Failure to abide an illegal order isn't a crime. The bystander was within her rights to stand her ground, on her own property. She has no obligation to "help" and his contention that she was interfering isn't supported by any of the available evidence. I'm really sorry, but it just isn't going to work to transfer responsibility for the officers inappropriate action to the one who was the target of that action.

YET if it is found AFTER the fact he was breaking a law or over extended his authority then deal with it.

However what we see is only a portion of the whole. It is not like she was filming on her front yard and he pulled over telling her to stop.

Actually, it is quite like that. There is not evidence that she was doing anything from her front yard to interfere with the legitimate police action, and the officer quite apparently went out of his way to cause a confrontation.

The officer made it clear that she was more of a problem than anything. We see and hear that. So now is it to be believed that the officer was not feeling any sort of threat that would ahve esculated the situation between him and the suspect? (not the recorder) Why do you think ther is yellow tape across a crime scene? Not only does it protect the crime scene it also affords the ability for law enforcement and emergrncy personal to do their jobs.

No, I have to disagree. She wasn't a problem until the officer made her a problem, based on what we can see or hear. The responsibility rests with him, based on all currently-available evidence. Even had something happened prior to filming, it is evident that it wasn't happening when the video begins, and the officer decides to take issue with her. In other words, even if she was misbehaving previously, it is clear in the tape that she had stopped, which is all that could be expected. And even if the officer was miffed at what she may have said before, it was he who reached out and turned it into an unnecessary confrontation. She didn't cross any yellow tape, literal or figurative. But he did.

An officer does not have the time to throw up yellow tape to give him the room and control of a scene.

Why dont people just walk across the tape?

As for the tape itself.... I can yell at you and berate you to the point you are upset THEN turn my camera phone on. Again we see what only is given to us. We do not hear all sides to the story.

As above, more information could change a conclusion based on what we see on the tape, although you would think by now if there were any mitigating facts, the police would have put them forth. Regardless, as noted above, even if she said nasty things before, she had evidently stopped, was not actually interfering with the police action, and it was only the officer's decision to escalate the situation that created a confrontation.

That is all I am saying. Hear everything before passing judgement.

Sure. But those who believe that a different interpretation is order, including the police themselves, have a responsibility to put forth evidence to support it. Until that is done, the interpretation based on the evidence that IS available is quite reasonable. The ball is in the other court to present a compelling case for a different view.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

 

[tko]

It is the duty of the citizens to police the police, because no one else will do it. Power invites abuse, power with no curbs invites it even further. That's true of kings, presidents, judges, and police. Who's watching them while they watching you?

It would be easier for them if we all bent over and became little sheep. Then they could keep their nice little jobs with less effort and stress. That's what will happen unless people stay vigilant.

By not adhering to this philosophy, you are supporting the same forces that give rise to all the great wars, communism, dictatorships, and racism.

So lets get to the bottom line. The US will tax you so that they can send out troops to free another country while you tell us we have no basic freedoms here? The best way to send out a message to the the rest of the world is to act as a role model. The best way you can support our troops is to stay vigilant at home, so they have a real country to come home to.

Either you get this or you don't.

 

[brent collins]

This thread is a joke. Same old cop hating garbage. For once I would like to hear people speak out against crime instead of these isolated moments that are at best one-sided half stories. If you all had your way the cops would have no power and soon after you would be crying that your house was robbed or your daughter raped with no police help. Keep trying to tie their hands and you'll see anarchy. You think your freedom is going away? Watch as the real criminals destroy all you love. Time to wake up.

 

[brent collins]

Ok then you drive 56 in a 55 zone and you lose your license ? Zero tolerance right? Oh wait we can't be held to the same standard ?

 

[dsjtecserv]

This thread is a joke. Same old cop hating garbage. For once I would like to hear people speak out against crime instead of these isolated moments that are at best one-sided half stories. If you all had your way the cops would have no power and soon after you would be crying that your house was robbed or your daughter raped with no police help. Keep trying to tie their hands and you'll see anarchy. You think your freedom is going away? Watch as the real criminals destroy all you love. Time to wake up.

You're attacking a straw man, Brent, and to some extent the straw man is winning. Those of us who support the legitimate role of the police have all the more reason to be upset about cases where the police behave inappropriately. Such cases undermine respect for, and trust in, the police themselves. That makes the job of other officers who are performing the jobs properly all the more difficult and dangerous. Rather than defending the indefensible, if would be far better for the police if you were to express regret at the apparent improper activity and support efforts to train officers to avoid such unnecessary confrontation. That will make the police force more effective at what it is supposed to be doing, and increase the likelihood that citizens will trust and cooperate when legitimate actions are taken.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

 

[snake_b]

There is something called "common speed", which is even taught.

You're also now trying to apply everything to everything else. There are secured laws regarding traffic violations and the zero tolerance for 56 in a 55 is the fine they give you and points. However, a 56 in a 55 is usually dumb because it brings little money for the municipality and is typically a huge waste of time.

Additionally, states that have the official 55 are doing so, while allowing 65 as the common speed, in order to obtain federal funding for the roadways.

However, you're also equating abuse of power, failure to diffuse situations, ruining people's lives with false testimonies, charges, and arrest entrapments, with traffic violations.

Really?

Ok then you drive 56 in a 55 zone and you lose your license ? Zero tolerance right? Oh wait we can't be held to the same standard ?

 

[brent collins]

You think maybe the police might act differently if the citizens would actually be behind them? I'm not defending bad cops. I'm just sick of the double standard BS posted here and all the selfish posturing .

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

You think maybe the police might act differently if the citizens would actually be behind them? I'm not defending bad cops. I'm just sick of the double standard BS posted here and all the selfish posturing .

Then stop reading the thread, no one is forcing you to subject yourself to all the "BS" you complain about. Find something else to read if you don't like an opinion different from yours.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com

 

[snake_b]

People are behind them. People are against pigs. Even cops hate pigs because pigs make their jobs harder. This comes from several personal friends who are cops.

The reason I get PBA cards and mini-shields is because these guys know that when there is a problem, even if the cop is dirty (which I won't know at the time), I will assess the situation at hand and stand with that cop to help them. This is a situation I've actually had to live, and luckily, never used my PBA and DBA cards. Look at the NYPD cop who arrested the naked guy in the subways, using the help of onlookers. You're going to tell me the cops have no backers?

Even cops hate pigs and my attitude extends only to pigs who abuse power, not the good cops. It's simply too bad that people and cops blame people for reactively recording cops, rather than crossing the line and fixing the problem that comes from within.

 

[dsjtecserv]

You think maybe the police might act differently if the citizens would actually be behind them? I'm not defending bad cops. I'm just sick of the double standard BS posted here and all the selfish posturing .

The police have a responsibility to act responsibly and perform their jobs well and lawfully even where citizens are recalcitrant. That's understandably frustrating, but that's part of the job. And for the few how turn out not be be up to the task, other opportunities should be explored.

That isn't a double standard: policing is a government activity, and quite properly is subject to higher standards and expectations, and subject to safeguards that aren't applied to most other jobs. When that government power is exercised inappropriately it is quite proper for citizens to express their outrage.

Dave

--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

 

[Aknot]

Yet you cant or wont have any of this unless a judgment call is made (right or wrong).

The officer made a call. Wrong or right it was made. We dont know if it was wrong or right. Yet people assume it was a wrong call based on the evidence we are only getting (video tape).

All I am saying is he made a call let it be judged properly. If he was wrong in his call hopefully a punishment will fit. If he was right he was right.

If a judge/jury feels that both were wrong in their judgement then so be it. However to approach it as some here are turns around and violates the rights of that officer in the lines of due process (i tihnk thats right).

People say he is wrong saying she is wrong...... are they not doing the same thing they assume he did? Until of course it is found that he did or she did (or did not).

Hindsight is 20/20.

Remember we are not talking about her taping. We are talking about her leaving the area even if the area was her front yard. Possibly for her safety, the officers safety and others. What is so unlawful about that?

Him giving her an order to bash the suspect in the head with her camera is unlawful. Asking her to move away is not unlawful.

We do not know if his call was wrong. Do we have the whole incident or only what happened after the camera started rolling?

We do not have all the evidence. To assume so is ludicrous. You even say so much when you say its all based on what we can see and hear. So there could be other stuff that we did not see or hear. Yet you would like to pass judgement only on that?

I need to close this out and address snake .... Again if he is found wrong hey make sure it is addressed, but not until then.

Dave,

However in order to make that call that others wont you need to make it on the spot for the safety and wellfare of all.

Yes, you would. And he apparently used poor judgment, and took actions that were no only not justified, but increased the risk of harm to the safety and welfare of all involved. It isn't a matter of retrospect: his job is to make appropriate calls given the situation on the spot in real time, and if he isn't up to that job he should be retrained or reassigned. The evidence at this point is that he blew it, and even while acknowledging the difficulty of the job, we can't excuse doing it poorly.

He made a call it wasnt abided by. His thought is look she was not helping and possibly hurting. In his capacity he has the authority (IMO) to do what he did.

But the point is, his call was wrong and unjustified. Failure to abide an illegal order isn't a crime. The bystander was within her rights to stand her ground, on her own property. She has no obligation to "help" and his contention that she was interfering isn't supported by any of the available evidence. I'm really sorry, but it just isn't going to work to transfer responsibility for the officers inappropriate action to the one who was the target of that action.

YET if it is found AFTER the fact he was breaking a law or over extended his authority then deal with it.

However what we see is only a portion of the whole. It is not like she was filming on her front yard and he pulled over telling her to stop.

Actually, it is quite like that. There is not evidence that she was doing anything from her front yard to interfere with the legitimate police action, and the officer quite apparently went out of his way to cause a confrontation.

No, I have to disagree. She wasn't a problem until the officer made her a problem, based on what we can see or hear. The responsibility rests with him, based on all currently-available evidence. Even had something happened prior to filming, it is evident that it wasn't happening when the video begins, and the officer decides to take issue with her. In other words, even if she was misbehaving previously, it is clear in the tape that she had stopped, which is all that could be expected. And even if the officer was miffed at what she may have said before, it was he who reached out and turned it into an unnecessary confrontation. She didn't cross any yellow tape, literal or figurative. But he did.

An officer does not have the time to throw up yellow tape to give him the room and control of a scene.

Why dont people just walk across the tape?

As for the tape itself.... I can yell at you and berate you to the point you are upset THEN turn my camera phone on. Again we see what only is given to us. We do not hear all sides to the story.

As above, more information could change a conclusion based on what we see on the tape, although you would think by now if there were any mitigating facts, the police would have put them forth. Regardless, as noted above, even if she said nasty things before, she had evidently stopped, was not actually interfering with the police action, and it was only the officer's decision to escalate the situation that created a confrontation.

That is all I am saying. Hear everything before passing judgement.

Sure. But those who believe that a different interpretation is order, including the police themselves, have a responsibility to put forth evidence to support it. Until that is done, the interpretation based on the evidence that IS available is quite reasonable. The ball is in the other court to present a compelling case for a different view.

Dave
--
http://www.pbase.com/dsjtecserv

--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

 

[snake_b]

Of course we can do that, BUT the problem is when the judges of his guilt are his own brothers, and there are no longer community groups within these processes, then we also see the dissatisfaction and repeat offenses because tehre's essentially no penalty for anything, until the cop ends up killing someone.

The problem is there are too many dirty cops and the good cops make themselves dirty cops by not crossing their line.

The next part of the problem are people like you who still don't understand that the police are not there to escalate situations and create problems out of thin air. If anything, they are there to deescalate.

If they have nothing to worry about, then being videotaped won't be a problem.

 

[Aknot]

Which proves my point and suggestion of doing what is asked/told of you THAN complain.

Makes sense does it not? If an innocent person acts innocent and complies with LAWFUL requests the situation does not esculate and can still be addressed at a later date in the favor(?) of the suspect/person.

Much like Mr. Tareme(?) in Baltimore. He complied with the lawful orders of the officers. Inconvienced? Sure he was. However the situation never esculated because he remained calm and complied within reason.

I dont feel safe with you this close go into your home.

sure officer.

Next day file a complaint. Simple as that. To escualte it and attempt to prove yourself right in a situation such as that is pure stupidity.

Slap on the wrist? Lets see lost his job and will probalby never work in law enforcement again. To some that is a lot. However why didnt the cyclist then sue Pogan for the issue? You know punish the person that did what he did? I mean the NYCP did not body slam the cyclist did they? Only Pogan. So Pogan should be brought to justice..... why not go after him?

Not enough money to prove his point so he goes after the NYC police.

I mean right? Pogan commited the deed. Go after him....

Of course they can. That doesn't make the arrest legal, which is why there's a process after the fact to see if the arrest was lawful, as well as an offense that can be convicted. This power to arrest for no reason is where the abuse and fear lies. Look at that cyclist in NYC. Random person, arrested. The cop got a slap on the wrist.

However, what ends up happening is the cops use psychology, knowing that an innocent person will often, understandably, be confused and become agitated. This causes the cops to escalate, pretending they were justified, which causes a victim to escalate, then they feel justified to taze, and so on. They use normal human behavior to escalate situations into further charges, which is highly unethical and needs to be reformed. The cops become completely unreasonable and irrational, and refuse to hear any other side by their own.

Cops, when they are present, are there to diffuse situations, not view every single person as the enemy beneath them.

--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

This is a bad analogy. We are not children and the police are not our parents. They serve us, or so they should. Like it is with our government, it now seems that we serve them.

Sometimes authorities need to be challenged when they are wrong.

They are also there to protect. Again what harm is there for the lady to move from the area regardless of who owns the property, for her safety, the safety of the officer and those around?

I think it's a question whether or not his safety was ever in danger or was he simply making up something. IMO, it's a serious thing for an officer to order someone who is on their own roperty to move inside their house when there is no real reason to do so other than he objects to being videotaped.

Again challenge them. However in the middle of an arrest or the performance of his duties is not the time.

I have no idea what you do for a living however what if everytime you attempted to do something within your duties you were interupted or people were pointing out your errors, methods etc... more or less challenging you?

What I do for a living is irrelevant. I think you're obfuscating the issue - how was this woman interfering with the officer?

Or would you rather them let you do your job then take it to a side bar?

Again there was no harm to her or anyone else if she just moved. Still video taping from a distance. Then contacting the station of the officer filing a complaint, if she did not recieve an adequate response to her concerns then esculate it.

I just dont see the need for then and now. There is a right time and a wrong time for everything.
--
http://www.pentaxpics.com

--
My humble photo gallery: http://www.pete-the-greek.com