Today's Poll: Should citizens be able to videotape police activity?

<object width="460" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a7ZkFZkejv8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><p… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a7ZkFZkejv8?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="460" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

To those people who voted "no" you may want to exit your bubble now. I hope you never suffer from police brutality or get in trouble because without somebody witnessing or taping...the legal system is in their favor not yours.

I voted: Yes, so long as the citizen doesn't interfere with police work. After reading several articles and watching several recordings I don't think this issue is about video taping police. I think it was about where she was standing and how many people you don't see around her. She had several chances to get inside and she challenged the instructions of a police officer. I noticed that when they took her away the video was still rolling but the person holding it was farther away than she was in the beginning of the video.

The only reason the police don't want to be videoed is because they don't want to be held accountable for their actions when they are in violation of the law themselves. The above video was taken by a citizen in her own front yard, there was no confrontation on the part of this lady, no threat to the officers and no resistance on the part of the individual who was stopped and handcuffed. The only person that was conforntational was the police officer who was clearly out of order and should be held accountable for violating this women's civil rights.

So I imagine those who voted 'yes' have no problem w/ body scanners at airports.

Transparency = Good. I voted yes. I have an enormous amount of respect for police officers, if it wasn't for cops keeping our streets safe none of us would be able to live in our own homes or go to work every day. There is great truth to the saying "pay police like your life depended on it". I think that videotaping, as long as it doesn't interfere with what they are doing, will vindicate many police officers and cut down on misconduct, which bolsters the reputation of the profession in general.

All police operations should be videotaped (recorded) in real time. ...Not that police conduct themselves inappropriately; the known presence of a neutral eye would likely benefit police work- and, quite likely, police safety. The citizen (Emily Good) may well have had an agenda behind her recording in this situation, however her reason for doing so is irrelevant. The question: do her rights as a property owner supersede the direct order of a law enforcement officer (regardless of such order's rationality)? I doubt that they do. However, as any practitioner of civil disobedience understands, accepting the penalty for disobedience is part of the process. Frankly, if the press can steam onto a crime scene with an ENG van (or worse, helicopter) and videotape police work, the courts will be challenged to quibble over same rights for the general public. The bottom line seems to be, did Emily Good break the law by defying a police order?

First, anyone who makes a living carrying around a camera or video camera would probably have a biased opinion to the question raised in the poll.
Now, there are people with state power behind them (police officers in this case) who are corrupt. Not a lot, but a few. Every job has them. So that makes it ok to video tape all officers doing their job in hopes to catch the few bad ones? And if I did happen to catch a cop wrongly injure or kill a person on my camera, and he saw me capture this, probably wouldn't work out so well for me as well. I wouldn't want to be in that posiiton. And by police activity does this include only state/city/county law enforcement, or also include federal government? There are people who board planes that are a threat to those on board and on the ground. Not every plane. Not every person. But some, as we all know. So if some stranger sitting behind a screen in another room who doesn't see me in person, only see's what I have between my legs to ensure that my flight will be safe, then so be it. Who knows, you may get a date out of it in the end. And it's not a strip search. That would most likely happen after contraband is detected on a person using the scanner. So if you boarded a plane, and some nutjob pulled a knife, boxcutter, or some sort of chemical out mid-flight, you wouldn't have wished they went thru a scanner before you got on that plane?
The blurred analogy I'm trying to make is if the need to monitor thru video how police do their job to keep the public safe is so necessary, then so is using a scanner to verify travelers before they get on a plane. If the privacy an officer needs to do his traffic stop/arrest or whatever it may be is needed, doesn't he deserve that? Earned that? Otherwsie we'll just use Wal Mart to hire our police force. You don't have to agree with my opinion. There are people who need to concentrate on there job, especially if you are attempting to restrain, apprehend a person who is resisting. The last thing that officer needs is a camera in their face. "As long as you don't interfere" choice mentioned above is only relative. The moron w/ the camera who got too close will say he felt he was not interferring. That won't work. The majority of police vehicles have a dash camera installed. This is to possibly help back up an officers decision for use of force or restraint in case an accusation comes about. It also can work against an officer who makes the wrong decision.
I never said in my first comment I agreed or disagreed with the use of video in police activity. There is no right or wrong answer here. Never will be.

The job of the police is to serve, protect, defend the public against criminal activity and maintain civil order. In the past few years we as a society have allowed excessive behavior by those who are charged with those responsibilities to go unanswered and have not demended full accountability from them. We have remained largely silent when our elected leaders passed laws that expanded, allowing the police powers of the state to grow with little thought to the contradiction to constitutional protections those laws posed, all in the name of national security.

The result increased instances of the members of the local constabulary straying from those basic functions to serve, protect,defend the public and maintain civil order, opting instead to act like agents of the state security services of the old Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany, or some bannana republic run by dictatorial fiat.

A bit hyperbolic perhaps, however if the small incidents go unchecked and the officers who engage in the illegal acts remain unpunished the practice will flourish and it will without doubt escalate.

When you ask "Should citizens be able to videotape police activity?" it doesn't say if it's on public property or not. So it seems to be a generalized question, and appears that no limit to videotaping of police activity is in question. So, I believe a person who likes to video or take pictures would have a biased opinion in this case to achieve more freedom to film where they want, public or not.
I read the article of this lady in Rochester and there seems to be a lot of missing info. Did she make a comment before filming to cause the officer to raise his guard? If so then whatever happened after is irrelevant.
There is much more to standing in your front yard filiming something just because you can. I am not arguing with the amendments. They're there and for a reason. So if she was doing the filming because the amendment says she can, then why did she film this particular situation? Not because she can, but because she thought she "had something." So if the officer felt her and this other guy to be a threat due to an alleged comment being made that of course was not on film, and asked her to stop filming and go inside, shouldn't she? I wasn't there that night. Nor was anyonme posting on here, so no one knows what truly happened. A lot of times people seem to only turn their cameras or voice recorders on once they have cornered someone or have them in a position to make them look less than honest because it will be catchy.
So if I am sitting in a public park, and I am taking pictures of people in their home that borders the park, this is ok? If I am in a public area taking pictures of an international border crossing, it's officers, and procedures, it is ok? I don't know these things. I am just curious. But it seems like you wouldn't be able to.

I agree if they go unpunished they will grow. But this isn't the publics fault or job to enforce. It is the ones who get this information, have the power to stop it but let it go.

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You have the right to remain silent and anything you say, post , or video tape can and will help or hurt you in a court of law.
If you cant afford a lawyer or you are not eligible to receive a court appointed lawyer you will be offered a plea deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence

First of all, she was never ordered to stop video taping. Second, she wasn't arrested for video taping. Based on the video, the debate should be whether citizens are obligated to follow police orders, she did not, she was arrested. The officer showed a great deal of composure, giving numerous chances and warnings to comply. What we don't see on the video is what she apparently said to the officers before she started taping, the officer makes reference to it in the video. It is clear we don't see the whole story.

Howard, you wrote of the Emily Good case(at least I think that is what you were referring to)"a police officer overstepped his authority in order to stop a citizen from video taping their work.". How so?

Comparing the video to the first LAPD interaction, the only difference is that the camera operator in the LAPD video did as the officer asked, hence no confrontation. In the Emily Good case, she said something to the officer(s) before the tape rolled. I am guessing by the officers inference, it wasn't "Hi officer, love your hair" so right from the get go we clearly don't know the whole story. Second, the officer in the Good case never asks nor demands she stop videotaping, he requests that she go into her house. A police officer has a responsibility to maintain a secure scene and this includes people who may be interpreted as possibly inciting, again we don't know what verbally transpired prior to the video, and we know that there is a second camera going and others(we don't know how many) are present. Based soley on the video, there is no basis for the assertion that the officer overstepped his authority other than personal opinion based on incomplete evidence.

This person was on their own, private property. They have every right to film from their own property.

In addition, while on duty and in uniform, the police officer has no privacy rights.

The officer was wrong.

You're dead on with that statement, John. I completely agree.

Unfortunately the dog chewed through my volume cord so I can only watch the video without the sound. I do not see where she was close at all to the officers. In fact it looked like she even moved further back at some point (was something said)? I also did not notice the other two show any concern whatsoever of her presence so they obviously were not concerned. If I were Ms Good and was told to stop I would because I know what the police are capable of(...a story that will come out eventually bacause I cannot in good faith let what happened to me a year ago happen to someone else). From what I read Ms Good was in some group and this was part of what they do, it was not a deliberate attempt to go after either this particular officer or alleged wrongdoer. From my experience if I were to do the same thing I would make sure any statement I said (or did not say) was filmed. I would come out from the house with tape rolling! This would have protected her rights. This is entirely about civil rights and I am glad Ms Good let this continue to presumed arrest (without the volume I can only guess). It is a way to enlighten the public of how some police officers (certainly not all) are overstepping their authority or worse. Because of what I have suffered, I am quick to compliment any police officers I come in contact with who are professional and do their job accordingly. I would like to point out that during my recent charges (See the great mailbox caper 6/21 Batavian) I was not mistreated by any police including the arresting officer. I did thank him and the others I came in contact with for their professionalism. Thats all I ask for. As the rest of us who work in the public have to account for our actions, so should the police. I am used to being complimented for being friendly, nice and going above and beyond in my job and would not mind a bit to have it on tape! Even when I have the unenviable task of coming down on a client for being noncompliant, I know how to do it in a professional manner.

Videos can also protect cops: http://weaselzippers.us/2011/06/21/australia-muslim-woman-escapes-jail-…

Corey,

I don't make a living with any type of camera. So that removes your implication of bias on that point.
I am a firm believer in the Constitution being the supreme law of our country. I would like to reiterate Howard's point about the expectation of privacy in public spaces. The same case law that protects a great number of Law enforcement agencies ability to film or record via dash cams is the same case law that protects this woman's ability to record anything to include Law enforcement in public. Your attempt to connect this situation to body scanners at the airport is weak. Furthermore, you do not have the constitutional right to travel via aircraft. So if you or anyone else are opposed to being subjected to body scanners prior to air travel then don't fly. That is an easy one. That woman had every right to be in her yard filming the traffic stop. Can you point out any law that she was in violation of? She did not interfere with the Officer carrying out his duties either so don't try that one. The stop was completed before the officer started to question her.
The officer had the right to ask her what she was doing and if he felt that she was truly a risk to her safety he could have searched her to ensure she was not carrying a weapon. His behavior was a little less than professional in my opinion because he lost control of the situation. It was in his ability to defuse it and he failed. The arrest does not constitute diffusion. If this had happened to me I would initiate a federal civil rights violation action against both the officer and the department.

Surprise, surprise... now in Democrat and Chronicle...police targeted Emily Good supporters Thursday night by ticketing cars of those who met for a support group.

Howard,

the LAPD officer in the second video is an embarrassment to all Law enforcement professionals. I will go further to say that he is an embarrassment to me personally using his service in the Corps as justification for his actions toward the photographer. It also reminds me of when I was a kid in Long Beach, CA and the cops would come around and run our skateboard ramps over with their cars as well as our skate boards.

Police or no police and please correct me if i am wrong but as far as pics or video is concerned I was always under the impression that as long as the pic taker or video taker is OUTSIDE and the subject of his pic/video is OUTSIDE, its pretty much a free for all ANYTHING GOES. Now as far as the police go, if you get real close, close enough to interfere in their job at all, you should be held accountable for that, but as far as the actual act of pic/video taking i was under the impression (and this may sound kind of creepy, but...)you could pretty much follow anyone around you wanted (OUTSIDE) and take all the pics/vids you wanted cause its "free" space. Now inside buildings, places of business, ect ect may be another story....

In my opinion, she complied when she stepped off the sidewalk and into her yard. The officer was way outta line and this video proves it. I saw the other officers didnt say much either was a telling sign.

The officer just wanted to be obeyed and didnt like it when she showed she wasnt going to kow tow and blindly follow orders. You dont have to follow orders that arent legal.

As a side note does anyone know if this is true or not, I heard there was a citizen's meeting bout this and police showed up en masse with tape measures to issue tickets for parking around the meeting. If that did happen isnt that considered harassment?

Howard,

The first part of your statement is exactly what i thought free for all.

The second part however with me in the cologne advertisment(which sounds good to me, i think i would make a darn find old spice guy) is a little confusing because how do you explain the paparazzi? Those people make a living SELLING pics of people without thier permission...right?

Could someone PLEASE point out the place in the Rochester video where the officer tells Emily she cannot film them? Or where she is arrested for filming? If the arrest was for filming, then why wasn't the second photograper arrested? AGAIN, there was an interaction before the filming started they we don't see or hear. Don't view it with blinders on, the video is not the whole story.
Emily Good is a well established activist and this a clear case of police baiting. Everyone keeps going on and on about your right to film the police on their own property and watching the video clearly shows that she was neither ordered to stop filming nor was she arrested for that action. She was arrested because she obstructed governmental administration.

And that car was clearly ticketed because it was 13 inches from the curb...

Jeff's right - she wasn't arrested for filming the police. And she wasn't told to go inside her house because she was filming. And she wasn't singled out from other people standing outside watching because she had a camera. No. She was arrested for obstructing government administration, like Jeff said...

...And Al Capone did not go to prison for being a cold-blooded murderous mobster; he went to prison for tax-evasion.

Jeff, why don't you take your blinders off? You are positive this is "police baiting" because she is a "well established activist." Your entire view rests upon your biased opinion that she must have said something threatening to the officer before the video began. So threatening, in fact, that she was arrested for saying it...except that she wasn't arrested after saying it, she was arrested after a period of time had elapsed in which she simply remained in her yard filming the scene before her while the police went about their business. What she said was so threatening that two police officers (who are closer to her than the arresting officer) remain calmly leaning against the patrol car, one with his back to her.

Apart from the prejudice against "well established activists" that feeds your conjecture that there were acts of "police baiting" that occurred off-camera, which part of that video evidenced Emily's threat to that police officer? What exactly was it that justified his order to remove herself from her own private property? It seems to me that the only obstruction that Emily was guilty of was that her lawful presence on her private property annoyed that one particular police officer.

The problem I see with these types of incidences involving the police centers on, what happens after charges are placed. The person charged will need an attorney, they are not free, unless of course you cannot afford an attorney. You then become eligible for court appointed representation, i.e. the public defender.
At this point, you become guilty until proven innocent.
It doesn't matter how ridiculous the charges are, the court takes them very serious, probably because there is money involved,fines,court fees,etc..
I have seen first hand how our justice system works in Gen. Co.. I know of a case where no crime was committed by an individual, yet, this individual was dragged through the courts, threatened with incarceration for not accepting a plea deal,and a public defender so inept, it was laughable. My advice, if you need a public defender, bring your own rope.
I guess what I'm saying is this, regardless of what rights people have,or believe they have, once a charge has been placed, get ready for a major hassle, the courts think very highly of the police.

There are plenty of videos out there that support many of the assertions here. There are videos of police overstepping their authority and giving unlawful orders on this very issue. We have see officers in profanity laced tirades grabbing cameras and taking tapes or film out of them; we have seen officers react to people disobeying orders with unwarranted force. The videos are out there, and the officers are out there. It is wrong, they are wrong, but this video and this officer do not fall into that category. Watching the video on it's content only and applying critical thinking doesn't lead to the conclusions in this thread. This has gone national in it's attention and the headlines lead the reader into presupposed conclusions:
"Citizen arrested for videotaping police from front yard"
"Rochester Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard"
"Emily Good Arrested Invoking Her Legal Right To Tape Police"
"NY Woman Arrested for Videotaping Police Traffic Stop"
"Police arrest woman for videotaping traffic stop"
"Woman Arrested For Videotaping Police In Front Of Her House"
"Woman booked for taking videos from her yard"
"Video: Rochester woman arrested for recording police from yard"
"Video: Woman Arrested for Videotaping Cops"
All of these are the actual headlines from publications across the country and upon reading the headline the the reader immediately thinks "WHAT? are you kidding?"
My use of "well established activist" is based on information gathered after the fact and applied back to motive. Emily Good has since come out and said she was taping because she wanted to record cases of racial profiling in the 19th ward so that gives us more information to piece together and make a better judgement of the scene and the actions. I am not asserting that the officer knew who Emily Good was or that she was an activist, but let's look at the scene.
It is dark, the officers have someone(a black man) in handcuffs, they are in a neighborhood where racial profiling has apparently been alleged in the past. We have now established that this has the potential to be an emotionally charged atmosphere. Officer asks citizen who has said something to him before the filming started that lead him to believe that she was "anti police". I never said he was threatened by the statement, only that she established possible motive by her remarks. Now, going back to the experiences of a law enforcement officer, he is in a dark area, emotionally charged atmosphere, and a citizen drawing attention to the scene by ignoring the requests of the officers. This is where simple traffic stops can escalate. There were others around the scene and it would be reasonable to conclude that they were probably not members of a neighborhood watch organization or the Rochester Police Locust Club. The officer in an even tone first asks Emily to move. Instead of complying, she resists. The officer gives her more warnings, in an even tone(I think he did drop an "F" bomb, shame on him!). She continues to ignore the direction of the officer. The officer approaches her, tells gives her one final warning then arrests her. There appears to be no unwarranted force or tirade on the officers part. His demeanor was even and non aggressive (except for the errant "F" bomb) and he secured the scene so as not to allow for further escalation. His feeling "unsafe" was not a direct result of her position it was a good judgement call based on assessment of the entire scene, history of the neighborhood, conditions at the time, transactions that had occurred before the video was turned on, and the perceived potential of escalation. I call this excellent police work and Officer Masic should be commended for handling the situation in a way that did not lead to and avoided possible escalation. There are videos out there where similar situations where mishandled and the police were wrong, this is not one of them.

The only infraction I saw was the cop trespassing on her property. Sometimes a pig is just a pig, other times it is an appropriate metaphor. Howard just presented the facts, fair and balanced, you decide.

I can see that. I have watched it numerous times to be sure and I just don't see this as case evidence for the assertions made in the thread. WHERE is she told not to videotape? WHERE is the officer unprofessional? Here is how it could have gone if all the participants were reasonable. Officer asks citizen to step into her house in the course of ensuring a secure scene, citizen wanting to video tape possible racial profiling complies with the officers request and continues video taping incident from her front door or window and captures all of what she intended to capture without being arrested. WIN WIN. If after the fact, citizen decides "hey, that guy can't tell me to go into my house", goes to police headquarters and files an official complaint against the officer. She is an civil rights activist, so I am sure she knows how to properly address grievances. But wait a minute, she can't do that because we know that by their very nature, the police "take care of their own" and that if she files a complaint, they will just cover each others a#$%*& and the complaint will go nowhere. In fact, they will get all their buddies together and write bogus tickets on all her friends in an attempt to send the message "don't mess with us". So then next step is to get involved at the political level and make change from within. But wait, we know that this will be futile because we are sliding headlong towards a police state, and that soon they will be coming to take our guns and our children away and after that we will all be lead to the gas chambers. Trust me I've had this debate MANY times and it always leads to the same end. The people we are quick to call when we need help are really just a bunch of overzealous, quick tempered, racist, neanderthals that want nothing more than to trod on our civil rights and private possessions. Just read the headlines.

The bottom line is the police officer in question had no cause probable or otherwise to put Emily Good in handcuffs and arrest her. This incident while a clear violation of her 1st Amemdment right of free speech is also a violation of her 4th Amendment rights prhohibiting unreasonable search, seizure and detention without justifiable cause. That officer while clearly acting under a false flag of authority violated Good's civil rights and in the process most likely violated one or more of the federal statutes regarding the reckless a willful violation of an individuals civil rights while engaged in protected behavior. While it's not a Rodney King violation of the kind that sparked riots, it is a serious breach of the law on the part of the arresting officer.

Jeff, anyone near the police could be considered a threat, that is at the discretion of the officer.
I would expect this type of rotten egg police work in China, but not here in the USA.
When, as a taxpayer, you are considered a threat to an officer because you refuse to stop standing in your own yard, and then get arrested for it, it looks like a threat to some basic freedoms guaranteed to all American Citizens. The actions of the police following this arrest speak for themselves Jeff.
I honestly don't believe the " curb cops" were acting on their own, but were sent to "serve and protect" all for the threat all those illegally parked cars posed to the residents.
Did anyone check to see if the police cruisers were parked legally?

It's all about the context that everyone is ignoring. You make this out as if Emily was standing in her front lawn filming flowers when a policeman walking by ordered her into her house. The officers must consider the context, scene, and atmosphere when making a judgement call. It was a good judgement call in a situation that was made worse by a citizen who wanted to try the case on the street in front of her neighborhood jury and a camera.

Jeff, perhaps you should take time to read the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Those ten amendments are called "The Bill of Rights" for a good reason. Most police departments require basic criminal justice courses be taken as an introduction to police work with an emphasis on the "Bill of Rights". The purpose is to acquaint aspiring law enforcement officers with the boundries of what they are allowed to do while enforcing the law while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the accused. The training is also to limit the exposure of both the individual officer and his or her department from the lawsuits that arise from actions that violate individual civil rights.

This video regardless of the history of Ms. Good, clearly shows an officer who ignored his responsibility to the community and violated his obligation to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. specifically the first and fourth amendments when he handcuffed and arrested Ms. Good for engaging in a protected activity.

Here's an excerpt from an informative article titled: "Videotaping the police: A brief legal analysis".

Whether or not a citizen can videotape a police officer in the active performance of a public duty is a question finding its way and potential resolution in the courts. The answer may well depend on the jurisdiction in which an officer is employed. Typically, arrests of citizens for videotaping police officers in public have been made under a particular state’s eavesdropping statute. However, the use of such a statute has often been misplaced. Police officers are public servants who perform very visible public functions. As one federal district court noted, “activities of the police... are subject to public scrutiny.1”

In Robinson v. Fetterman the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that there was a free speech right to film police officers in the performance of their duties.

Subsequently in 2010 the Third Circuit found in Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle there was a broad right to videotape the police2. But in Kelly the court did grant qualified immunity to the officers sued by the plaintiff based on a finding that the right to film the police was not a clearly established right of which the officers would have been aware. This is important to note because as more of these cases find their way to the courts and more court decisions similar to Robinson and Kelly are issued the right will become more clearly established and officers may find themselves at the wrong end of a lawsuit.

Most recently, the Supreme Court of Michigan dismissed a civil suit brought by several officers who claimed they were unlawfully videotaped and had their privacy invaded when video of their encounter with the defendants — all well-known rappers — was used in portions of a DVD of the concert tour. In Bowens v. Ary, Inc., the Michigan court ruled as a matter of law that the plaintiff officers had no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances during the performance of their duties.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/3801254-Videotaping-the-police-…

The website has several other articles and sidebars on the topic of videotaping police.

The author, Terrence P. Dwyer, is a retired NYS Trooper and is currently an attorney representing a law enforcement union, so the articles offer a law enforcement perspective on dealing with being videotaped.

Howard, I agree, both parties in this incident acted egotistically, rather than professional. The officer has the burden of discretion, but used poor judgement.
At the end of the day, I think the cop gets fired.

Howard you're right a reprimand, trainig and a notation in his personel file is appropriate for a one occurance, however if there is a history of this type of conduct the individual needs to find another line of work other than police work.

I was thinking he would be scapegoated if this turns into a PR problem for the RPD.
In my opinion, it is a problem, and the actions of the police in reference to the parking tickets will only escalate into more criticism.

Don't have time to read through all the comments at the moment, but the example of this Ms. Good is a bad one to use. Like some have said, the video or newspaper article do not capture the entire event as it truly transpired. So how can anyone say, according to this story, what is right or who is wrong? Was there soemthing said before she started filming? I'm not arguing the fact she was filming. I think this is beyond that. If she did say something before or off camera to cause the officer to be concerned, and he asked her to remove herself from the area, no matter what area she was in, because of her comments, he has that right to create a safe zone for police to conduct their job. And I am not saying this is what happened, but she is making her being arrested about the camera when there was actually more to it than a camera. Smoke screens. To me the camera doesn't matter here. With or without it. Bottom line is IF she did make a comment that the officer (who is entitled to use discretion to carry out his job) felt could become an issue if not dealt with immediatly, then the camera is irrelevant. It is just being used as a crutch. An officer has a job to do, and has to make split decisions as things happen. He or she doesn't have a lot of time to react to them. So if he felt any bystanders or other officers safety was in jeopardy with the traffic stop due to a person who happened to have a cameras comments, then he should be able to due what is necessary to make that scene safe. An officers discretion overrides a nosy person with a camera. Is there a chance he became irritated due to comments made that weren't on camera? But like I said, the whole story is not here for us to see or read. So how anyone can say he is right or she is right is BS.

Howard, at least you agree with the crux of my argument, that she should have complied with orders and none of this would have happened. If her intent was to capture racial profiling(which it was by her own statement) then using a less than adequate device to properly capture the event doesn't mean she can justify disobeying by saying "if I go into my house I can't record this because I'm using an iPhone. That's absurd.
I am not against the video taping of police actions since 9 times out of ten, they vindicate police. They are an excellent source of protection against false allegation. If you consider how many jurisdictions require in cruiser video cameras that record every traffic stop, there are literally tens of thousands of videos each day depicting traffic stops. How many do we see on the nightly news? A few here and there, showing that the overwhelming preponderance of these actions are done in a proper and professional manner. The fact that when bad ones are shown, and they are, we group most police actions with those situations.
Here is what I predict will happen in this case. The RPD lawyers will look at this situation in the light of the fact that the misleading headlines persist and stir public outrage based on presupposed conclusions and considering the fiscal problems they and all public agencies are facing will back down in face of the pressure, drop the charges against Emily in attempt to save money they don't have to defend the department. The secondary outcome is that activists like Emily and others will be empowered to FIRST question everything a police officer says, create unnecessary scenes and then cry victim, and choose to fight the system on the street in the court of public opinion instead of choosing to improve any gaps in the system of "policing the police" through an established grievance procedure.
Cameras on the streets are a great tool to protect everybody, but only when they tell the whole story and are not inflamed by hyped up headlines.

The behavior/lack of reaction of the other 2 officers is the flaw of your stance, Cory.

Jeff, I think the dash cams have probably led to alot of improved behavior on the part of police officers. People behave differently when they know they are on camera. I cannot disagree with you more about your opinion in this manner. The headlines are always out of line somewhat with the facts, more so in the police blotter! I voted yes as long as it doesn't interfere with police work. I would be on your side if I saw any indication that Ms Good was obstructing Govt admin. but this was clearly not the case. Sort of reminds me of Chris Charvella's situation. (where is he anyway) Did his message on Mr Grassos answering machine really leave him or his wife feeling threatened? I doubt it. Overstepping authority is what comes to mind, and excuse me but that upsets me. As Edward said, the police are there to "protect and serve" not be bullies.

This is from the link Howard post for the D&C interview:

"Police union President Michael Mazzeo said Friday that he thinks Good is biased against police, and she made police at the scene believe that she knew at least one of the men involved in the stop".

The other two officers were securing the vehicle and one would believe that there was someone still in the vehicle ?

Again Jeff, with the "disobeying an order", the officer had no justifiable or probable cause to order her to do anything, a badge and a gun do not convey that authority, Ms. Good was within her rights, on her own property, there was no threat to the police officers at the scene and there was no interferance on the part of Good to obstruct, she was just observing and recording what was happening on her street in front of her home, standing on her own lawn. As a result of this officer's actions his department and the taxpayers have been exposed to what can be a very expensive legal process if a civil rights group such as the ACLU or NYCLU choose to press the point.

We can only make our judgements based on the facts as we have been presented. Those making the judgement that Emily Goods actions posed no danger of escalation base it on the limited scope of a video camera. We do not see the whole scene. Michele, you have not had the best of fortunes in dealing with authorities this year and based on the facts as read on here concerning the mailbox issue, I hope you get justice because it looks like a complete waste of time and money on the part of local government. As far as the comparison to Chris Charvella's case, I again hope Chris gets not only justice, but every penny of his legal fees returned, it too is a colossal waste of our tax dollars. In fact, that one gets my dander up to the point that if anyone were interested in starting a Chris Charvella legal defense fund, I would not only contribute, but would assist with it(but that's another matter, just throwing it out there). The only waste of tax payer dollars in the Emily Good case will come as a result of her simply not being reasonable, complying with a lawful order, and avoiding all this crap in the first place. She was police baiting plain and simple.

The question is, who do you believe the video or the continued claim that Emily Good should have been reasonable because a badge conveys unlimited authority to order people about and arrest them with no reasonable cause other than they are camera shy. People are entitled to hold their own opinions, but they are not entitled to create their own set of facts to support their point of view.

I wish this particular incident could have been handle with just a ticket to appear in court.

Jeff says "We can only make our judgements based on the facts as we have been presented."
Exactly. Could the driver had a gun, drugs, knife? Maybe. So if someone needed to focus to determine this before it could have got ugly, and that meant turning off a camera or giving them some space, then do it. An officer who lets his guard down is vulnerable. They always need to be vigilant and consider every stop could be potentially dangerous. That doesn't mean cuff every one they pull over as they approach the car, but be aware of their surroundings.

Edmund, why do we have to believe either? If there was film from start to finish, that's another question. If I am trying to do my job, and it requires someone to do something as simple as stop filming as I consider it a distraction, what's the problem? If I came upon an officer conducting a stop or whatever, and for some reason I was filming it, and he simply asked me to stop, I would. What was the reason Emily Good was out filming a traffic stop? Yes, she can. I'm not saying she can't. I'm just curious as to why she felt the need to. Does she have film of her doing this to other traffic stops that went well?

Alright Jeff maybe you can explain to me how she was "police baiting" and how she was being unreasonable. The Officer obviously knew who she was. He has no right to order her to leave her property. She was posing no danger to THREE armed Police Officers. There was a lawful order given for her clear the area, however once she was on her property she was in compliance with the order. The Officer singled her out specifically and only had an issue with her. He did not arrest anyone else. There were obviously people standing around her while she was filming because you can hear other people talking. I am a reasonable person and I can tell that this was a situation that could have been handled differently. The Officer could have been more professional in the way he handled the situation.

Jeff, I have to believe there is a history between the officer and Good,as well as the RPD.
What if she was police baiting, cops bait people all the time. Looks to me like the cops took it, hook, line, and sinker.
The only threat was the camera, and that should not warrant the officer to make unreasonable requests to get rid of the camera by ordering Good into her house.
In fact, I don't know many who wouldn't question the officers authority in a case like this.

"If a police officer gives you an order while on scene of a law enforcement situation, whether you consider it reasonable or not, it is best, wise and appropriate to comply with the officer's demand, make note of any relevant information (such as his name and badge number) and follow up with a supervisor or internal affairs after the fact".

Case dismissed. NEXT !

I wonder if the RPD has dash cams? Then maybe we could see a different prospective.

And because most of us would comply with an officer's demand,"reasonable or not", none of us would be discussing this right now if Ms Good had because we never would have heard anything about it. I am sure the police deal with people who are not reasonable fairly often. I am sure they have times when they do have to arrest someone or even several people who actually do get in the way of their work. The very nature of what they do brings them into situations dealing with people who are fighting, or drunk or highly emotional. They need to be trained for these types of circumstances. That is why we appreciate the job they do. But when one is clearly overstepping their authority and being a bully with a badge, somebody needs to put them in check. I agree with what Howard said...something in his file and retraining. I am apalled at those officers going to their gathering and ticketing those cars. Clearly they were sent there by someone in a higher position and that does tell you something. Look at the guy with the tape measure...smug.

I agree that a retraining or what ever should be the outcome for the officer. He is guilty of showing feelings of a human being in a stressful situation. (I prefer Robo Cop and Judge Dread myself but you know how that damned economy is lately).
I think in the situation that I understand happened a ticket would have been appropriate. It is all caught on video. I really enjoyed it too.

Please respect my authority:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtwb34Pd1k

All arguing aside, perception is what mostly we rely on for judgment on things. When I cast a bobber into a current I am not repeating fluid dynamics equations or thinking what physics laws should apply, I go by what I see the bobber doing in the current.

After watching the video, Officers ticketing cars at a support rally for Emily, I mean come on 12.5 inches from the curb when its supposed to be 12. Its like watching a 9 yr old have a tantrum. Very petty and childish. Not to mention any lawyer is gonna muck up the system showing this video in court and putting a judge on the spot.

I agree somewhat that most police arent like this but there has to be some accountability. When an officer oversteps his authority and does something public like this and then the dept allows an obvious harassing action like what it did at the rally is a real telling sign that all isnt what it should be and while the letter of the law is what it is, in this case perception is reality at the moment. The perception of the RPD's profesionalism is falling fast.

Police departments are top down operations, the rank and file do as they are instructed, if the RPD turned out at a rally, for Emily Good, with rulers in hand to measure the disatnce from the curb its reasonable to conclude that the management at the department supports they high-handed tactics of the patrol officer who cuffed Good and charged her with iterference.

The message to the public is clear and unless the public steps in to make a correction and hold the RPD accountable, not just the one officer, for their actions the civil rights violations will continue and likely escalate. If those who we trust to enforce our laws, willfully ignore our laws, our laws become meaningless and the lawless will prevail.

There's nothing to muck up regarding the parking tickets, Kyle. The car is either 12" or less from the curb or it isn't. 12.5" = Guilty. I agree it's petty, vengeful, selective enforcement and a waste of taxpayer money, but the owner is still going to pay the ticket.

As for Ms. Good, argue all y'all want; John Roach has it right:
"This person was on their own, private property. They have every right to film from their own property.

In addition, while on duty and in uniform, the police officer has no privacy rights.

The officer was wrong."

That's it, If the judge tomorrow finds different, it'll go to appeal, more taxpayer dollars wasted.

Your logic is exactly why I should not worry, Dave. I did not steal anything or vandalize anything to have larceny and criminal mischief charges. No probable cause. And while do agree with your logic in the above statement, that one car clearly is parked at an angle to the curb and the other tire is obviously closer than 12 inches...

.

Judges have a different standard Dave. They are elected by people whom have to pay tickets so something like this allows them to excercise some authority as the police arent supposed to be petty or vengefulor selectively enforce the law, but they have. This is just gonna be messy either way.

A little research on Emily Good reveals that perhaps the police did know who she was prior to the encounter and that would give them all the more reason to suspect that the incident could quickly get out of hand if precautions to secure the scene were not taken. It seems Emily Good is a member of Take the Land, an activist organization that believes homes are not a commodity but a human right and as such should belong to the communities and not individuals or banks. She is a radical who has been arrested before on governmental obstruction charges. Police baiting is a known activist tactic that is well defined in online activist websites complete with instructions on how far you can "push" the authorities.
Dr. James F. Pastor, nationally recognized authority on law enforcement liabilities and security puts it this way "Radicals want the police to lose it. They want the police to become so emotional as to throw the punches that they know will be beyond the constraints of lawful use of force. They want to bait the police into an angry encounter, and then act as thought they are simply surrendering."
Emily demonstrated textbook activist police baiting and then retreated with screams of injustice. I commend the officer for his restraint, unfortunatley as I said before, he'll never have his day in court because the RPD will be forced by public and political pressure to drop all charges to save resources.

What would Judge Judy do?

Alot of speculation there Jeff...

Cop baiting, race baiting or fish baiting only works when they take the bait. I've taken the bait hundreds of times but I'm not a public figure, thank Mother Nature and Ms. Horgan, third grade teacher at St. Mary's, now defunct.

I had thought that the best part of this commentary had been Jeff's forward projection of the rationalization that the charges against Emily Good would be dropped because of political and public pressure to not waste precious resources on the prosecution - not because the charges were without merit. But Jeff outdid himself today by asserting that it was ok for the police to target community activists because it "gives them all the more reason to suspect that the incident could quickly get out of hand if precautions to secure the scene were not taken."

Absurd.

Exactly where in that video does Emily Good, "want the police to lose it...to become so emotional as to throw the punches that they know will be beyond the constraints of lawful use of force...to bait the police into an angry encounter"? Where? How? By standing there with a camera? Had the police officer simply went about his business and ignored her, there would have been no incident. There would have been no story and no need to talk about this. If a successful act of "police baiting" is to be a 'well known activist' who simply stands there watching police work on a public thoroughfare, then at least one police officer really needs to grow up.

Brandon, nowhere did I say it was ok for them to target her, all I said is that it gave them reasonable cause to believe that the scene could quickly become far more than a traffic stop. Please read my posts before your throwing out your absurdities, I'm really tired of people reacting to what they think they read instead of what was actually written. You all can just keep putting Emily up as an innocent bystander who just happened to be outside with her iPod doing good for all the world. She was baiting, and fortunately the officer didn't take the bait and did an outstanding job of not overreacting. You said the the officer should have just ignored her and gone about his business, police officers who ignore elements of the scene are ones who get hurt. I choose not to live in the world of everyone is out to get me paranoia and also recognize bullcrap when I see it. Don't worry though, St. Emily will come out smelling like a rose and once more those who choose to do some of the crappiest, most stressful, least rewarding jobs will come out as "bad guys" out to take away all our civil rights. There are cases of police abuse of power out there that really need to be investigated and disciplined and we are wasting our time pursuing this garbage that was initiated by Emily to begin with.

Boy Jeff you accuse others of absurdities... you like throwing that word "probable cause" do you know it's legal definition? lets look at it shall we?

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Probable" in this case may relate to actual statistical probability, or to a general standard of common behavior and customs. The context of the word "probable" here is not exclusive to community standards and does not predate statistics, as some have suggested.[1]

The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".[2] Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[3] Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.

As you yourself pointed out while she has participated in activist activities she hasnt ever been charged with a crime. The video doesnt show her behavior or actions leading to a reasonable belief that she is about to commit or has committed a crime.

I also like how you turn one officer's actions into the whole rpd he was not baited, he was reactionary to someone who defied his order because she is intelligent enough to be aware and practice her rights. As the camera shows alot more people than her were outside watching they were in proximity to her but were not told to go indoors. His focus was on her and making an example of her. Thats my read and he has to suffer the consequences of his actions.

You my friend are baiting yourself telling us how the public is gonna treat rpd with this incident, making standing up for ones rights and practicing caution equivalent to paranoia.

You have already made your determination that Emily started something when you werent there, and facts from bystanders present at the time indicate that nothing was started.

Go back to speaking for yourself and stop trying to convince us. I will always make my judgements based on what I see and read and if your tired of people doing so, you have a long hard uphill battle to change things, one you will lose because you sir dont have the right to tell us what to think either. We are airing our opinions and opinions are not facts are not right or wrong they just are what they are.

I did read your post before I commented, but you're right, Jeff, you did not say it was ok to target her; you implied it by setting up the malignant picture of a radical who we should realize, thanks to Mr. Pastor's analysis, was out to bait the police. And I shouldn't have used the word 'target'; I should have used 'single-out.' I should have said that you implied that it was ok for the police officer to single-her-out from the others because she was a well known activist.

If you want to go on believing that Emily Good initiated this by somehow baiting the police officer by her standing there watching him (and two other police officers who were unaffected by her presence)while they were in a public thoroughfare, I suppose there is no arguing it. I suppose our individual biases won't agree. Just don't start with the martyr bullshit regarding how police are treated or viewed in this country; other than military personnel, no other group of people in this country are given more public accolade than the police.

Jeff, the group that Emily Good allegedly belongs to is "Take Back The Land." Using activist and radical interchangeably can lead to exaggeration (and misrepresentation).

After listening to the audio track on the video in question, I would hardly characterize Good as a radical. She may have been assertive of her assumed right to videotape, but once it was clear her personal freedom was about to be truncated- well, she sounded like she might cry (and NOT "Hell No We Won't Go!')

Frankly, it appears that an active imagination has taken this situation into some realm other than reality.

Thanks, Kyle for the definitions of probable cause. I found some interesting reading about probable cause while doing research on Malicious prosecution and false arrest. Interesting to note is that once arrested (finger prints and all) even if dropped/dismissed at first appearance, malicious prosecution has already occured.

Wow, speculation is ok on everyones part but mine. I never said target, single out, or anything like that. I asserted that her past history could reasonably lead an officer to believe that this could be more than a traffic stop if things were not addressed ahead. Now let's look at some of the lapses in logic in the information that has come out after. The general assertion is that the cops reacted to her videotaping and asked her to go into her house and eventually arrested her to stop the videotaping of them using governmental obstruction as a cover. If that were the case, then the video would have ended with her arrest. It did not, the video camera was allowed to be handed off to another individual and the rest of the event was recorded. So if videotaping were the real issue, her Iphone would have followed her to central booking as one of her possessions at the time of arrest. I believe the officer, having made no reference to the camera during the incident, was actually using it to show his proper actions, and it did. No let's move on to the motive of Emily's filming. She states that she was simply recording to show evidence of racial profiling that she knows is going on in the 19th Ward. Unless she is unemployed and devotes 24 hours a day to videotaping every traffic stop and/or police encounter in the 19th Ward, then statistically all she has is a video of a black man at a traffic stop.
At some point the "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" logic has to be applied to Emily just as it has been applied to the officer.

First of all Jeff it was a traffic stop, how would the police know Emily's specific history without taking her id and running it first there are how many people in Rochester and they know her specific address? Yes the police know her and her history NOW but it's a big jump to them knowing it at the time of the incident.

Second the officer purposely was shining his light into the camera, as you watch the video we have no idea of his body lang or posturing towards this woman either. There is also a lapse and only a few moments of her arrest are recorded, but since you brought it up lets discuss that, there were several witnesses around at the time of this incident, 2 or 3 mentioned calling 911 and the police when this arrest occured indicating that those present with whole situation and probably more qualified to speak on what happened thought the same thing that we have been saying here.

Another interesting thing lets look at the charge....

Governmental obstruction??? definition follows...

OBSTRUCTING ADMINISTRATION OF LAW OR OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION
Is defined as obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function. That section of our statutes provides that
A person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs, or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act. In order to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.) that the defendant a.) committed an act of flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical interference or obstacle
OR
b.) committed an unlawful act [WHERE APPLICABLE: as charged in count of the indictment];
2.) that the act was committed for the purpose of
a.) obstructing, impairing, or perverting the administration of law or other
governmental function
OR
b.) preventing a public servant from lawfully performing an official function; and
3.) that in committing the act, the defendant did [OR attempted to]
a.) obstruct, impair, or pervert the administration of law or other governmental function
OR
b.) prevent a public servant from lawfully performing an official function.

Something tells be the BS you love to refer to actually lies with this officer and not with us or Emily.

By the way Jeff speculation wasn't ok for us, so why would it be allowable in this conversation for you?

It doesn't matter what Emily Good's motives were, or her background. She had not been arrested or charged with a violent offense in her past, so the cop could not have reasonably felt unsafe around her even if he knew her. If he felt he was in such danger from a videotaping girl who was clearly on her own property...then I have to question this man's abilities/judgment as an officer.
Forget that she is taping. For the benefit of the doubt, lets agree with Jeff that she wasn't being targeted because she was taping. Okay, what we are left with is an officer telling a citizen to vacate their current position on their own property and relocate to another. Does he have the legal standing to direct such an order? No. Does she have the legal right to refuse? Absolutely.
IMHO...sans warrant or continuity of pursuit, an officer is trespassing if he crosses onto your property barking orders at you, is assaulting you if he lays a hand on you, unlawfully restraining you if he puts you in handcuffs and is guilty of kidnapping if he removes you from your property. I would absolutely support charging the officer with all of those things...but...a public apology to both Miss Good and the Citizens of Rochester for overstepping his authority, along with retraining on proper law would be an acceptable alternative.

Well said Justin.

I'll bet y'all are voters. Prove me right.

Every election since 1969 George....I may have missed one or two for schoold boards and the like, but never a primary, special or general election.

Kyle, first of all you apparently jumped in late on the thread. I only recently leaned toward the officer knowing who she was based on her prior arrest for the same charge as well as trespassing earlier this year. Does it make her dangerous? No, it can however make a scene dangerous if an officer has reason to believe that the traffic stop could become something much larger by the presence of known agitators. Second, you say "as you watch the video we have no idea of his body lang or posturing towards this woman either" are you "speculating" that while talking in a calm voice he was actually making the throat slice gesture to her, or giving her the finger, or grabbing his crotch, or lunging at her? What are you implying happened while he was shining his light at the camera giving her directions in an even tone?
You mention the several witnesses around, BINGO, crowd forming, possibility of an unstable scene. Good police officers take those things into consideration and should since many seemingly innocent situations can turn ugly very quickly and usually the police are greatly outnumbered in hostile areas.
As far as the posted definition of obstruction, thank you, it fits perfectly.
Lastly, just as predicted, all charges dropped, victory for those who choose to waste the valuable time of police officers by creating work for them while they are already trying to do a tough job with thin resources.
She owes the RPD and the officer a debt of gratitude for the national attention drawn to her and her causes, well played Emily, well played.

Jeff Wrote: "You mention the several witnesses around, BINGO, crowd forming, possibility of an unstable scene."

The friend who took over the camera duties was standing next to her the entire time, on her lawn, and wasn't arrested. Besides, YOU ARE SPECULATING that witnesses automatically means a crowd was forming. A witness could be someone who saw the events unfold from their own porches or yards.

Jeff Wrote: "...victory for those who choose to waste the valuable time of police officers by creating work for them while they are already trying to do a tough job with thin resources."

The officer could have just ignored her, and went on his merry way, but HE chose to initiate a dialogue with her, HE was the one "causing" the scene. She was doing NOTHING UNLAWFUL, and his order to move from that spot on her lawn WAS UNLAWFUL.

When a cop says "jump", you do not need to ask "how high?"

You can thank that overstepping officer for all the unwanted media attention on the RPD. You can also thank him for all of the tax dollars it will cost to defend the civil suit in which Emily has already said she'll most likely file (and I sure as hell hope she does, and wins).

I absolutley, 100% stand behind the actions of the officer. I am quite surprised that as a journalist, you simply accept the words put out there by the DA. Of course it's political spin. You have questioned several things said by public officials on here and all of a sudden the Monroe County DA is above all the political fray and simply telling it like it is? You know the political pressure these administrators are under, just look at the travesty happening in the Buffalo public schools, political pressure wags the dog. This was a media driven, not facts driven case from the jump. The activist movement hijacked the conversation aided by a more than willing media, i.e. all the headlines I quoted earlier. I truly believe that if given the opportunity, Officer Masic would have been vindicated. Justin, you say that you hope Emily sues and wins, that would be great, the taxpayers will pay for that too and it will ensure that we will get more of this: Emily is the one in the plaid shirt, tan vest and black cap.

<object width="560" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t4ZGJNZm7P4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0">… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t4ZGJNZm7P4?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&q…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Like I said, well played Emily, well played.

Jeff, in the video you posted, I see a non-violent, non-resisting protest...It's not helping your argument, it actually makes mine stronger. It proves that she is not a physical threat.

As for the civil suit, the officer brought that on by not knowing, or not properly applying, the law. You didn't need to tell me that the taxpayers will pay for it, I already said that.

The cop was wrong, THE END

<object width="460" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ytk_FpvHquw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0">… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ytk_FpvHquw?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&q…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="460" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ilPyscdK0Pk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0">… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ilPyscdK0Pk?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0&q…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Justin, you are clearly another one who reads with presuppositions, I never said Emily herself was a threat, I said her actions could have led to an escalation. The video wasn't intended to show that, just wanted to show what we can expect more of now that activists have been empowered to pull more shenanigans and then shove it in the face of law enforcement.
Cop was right, THE END.

Post deleted.

No but the police have been shown that they are not immune to public scrutiny and that they had better be preofessional about their job, i'm sure that emily's case alone would prove that but the little retaliatory party the rpd held ticketing cars around a support meeting for emily just proves that there are some who think they are the end all and be all.

I really love the way your skewed viewpoint twists things around Jeff, if you read my post about obstruction, and look at the DA reasons for dropping the case, they are in fact the same.

The thing that upsets you that I can see is that you cant see the "Facts" as they stand and force them tthrough your own little filter where they will match what you want them to be.

It's useless to argue with you as you have proven. The facts are the officer was out of line, he overreacted and stepped on a citizen's rights. Now that citizen has been vindicated by the DA admitting there was no basis for the charges and dropped the case.

This Officer will probably face remprimand as will his supporters in uniform whom did a targeted enforcement meant to intimidate and harass citizens who supported emily (and probably those who werent at the meeting but just had the bad luck to be in the wrong place at wrong time) All I am going to do now is say...we told you so, and wait and see what happens next. I'm pretty sure it will be just the opposite of what you explain to us is going to happen.

What I'm saying is that the DA is a politician, he is an elected official and you have made known before your skepticism of elected officials statements. Now that the DA supports your position his word is bond. "That's what good DAs do. They represent the people and fight for the people" DA's do what they feel they must to keep their elected positions.
My posting of the video, as I said in my previous post, was not to show that Emily was a threat it was to show that her actions could have led to much more and that Emily is an opportunist and she played it very well. You have consistenly taken the position that you are the arbiter of all facts. I see the whole situation in a different light. We are all entitled to our own opinion, we are not however entitled to our own facts. We see the same situation with the same facts but different opinions of what was right or wrong. I thought this forum was for the exchange of differing ideas and opposing viewpoints, not your being the mediator of what is right and wrong.
And as far as the DA and Chief of police showing no confidence in the officer, if this is the first time you've seen an administrator leave an entry level employee swinging in order to pander to public pressure, then you've led a sheltered life.

The problem is Jeff, you are making alot of assumptions. Even a DA with an entire political machine behind them cant make a bogus charge stick. You assume the reasons of them dropping the case, whereas several here have shown you this would happen not because of public opinion, but facts.

You constantly point out that Emily is known to the police. I can tell you that unless what happened before the camera rolled, was that the officer ran her id and pulled up her record, then she was just Jane Q Public to him until he arrested her. Your presumption that they knew her is unreasonable unless they set up this traffic stop in front of her house to bait her out. Then I would find their pre-knowledge of her "record" credible.

I am looking at the facts.....not creating them like you have.

I spent much time in the military and know how things work, no shelter from life here. You havent been airing an opinion you have been creating pseudofacts.

Like take for instance the jump in logic you made to inflammate my observation? I said that the officer had the light in the cam's lens to keep himself from beeing seen this is a well known tactic, you inferred what I meant was extreme body language You said..."are you "speculating" that while talking in a calm voice he was actually making the throat slice gesture to her, or giving her the finger, or grabbing his crotch, or lunging at her? What are you implying happened while he was shining his light at the camera giving her directions in an even tone?"

No but you can maintain a level tone while assuming an agressive posture, pointing and hunching shoulders, it doesnt have to be overt but getting into someones personal space while giving them orders they know arent right can be intimidation as well. Body language can be as clear as words sometimes. Hence the light will make it so we wont know by anything but witnesses who werent blinded by the officer's light.

When someon twists facts as you have you need to expect to have people argue with you. Your accusing us of being mediators of right and wrong is way to generic an accusation because all we have been doing is airing our views of what we percieve to be facts, and when they disrupt your reality and creative assumptions of the facts you get upset and tell us we supressing you and telling you what is right and wrong. All we are doing is pointing out where YOU are wrong, and the contradictions in your own statements.

Maybe you should come out of the shelter and interact with real people and places maybe you'll learn to be more objective than subjective.

Monroe County District Attorney is Mike Green...he has no political motivations as he is no longer seeking another term as DA, he has been appointed a judgeship.

Zero contrtadictions in my statements and I am only wrong in your opinion, go back and read them, because you obviously haven't read them all. I at first asserted that there was no evidence that the police knew her, I then after finding out she was arrested for the same thing just months ago, entertained the idea that they may have known her and it would explain extra caution. I never definitivley said they knew her prior to filming. You should have gone back and read all my posts.
Are you saying that pointing, posture, and shoulder hunching are now acts of agression?
Lastly, don't comment on what I've been through or who I have interacted with that determines my viewpoints. You have no idea.

Zero contrtadictions in my statements and I am only wrong in your opinion, go back and read them, because you obviously haven't read them all. I at first asserted that there was no evidence that the police knew her, I then after finding out she was arrested for the same thing just months ago, entertained the idea that they may have known her and it would explain extra caution. I never definitivley said they knew her prior to filming.

You contradict yourself at least once just in that statement plus this from your past statements show you believe otherwise...A little research on Emily Good reveals that perhaps the police did know who she was prior to the encounter and that would give them all the more reason to suspect that the incident could quickly get out of hand if precautions to secure the scene were not taken. It seems Emily Good is a member of Take the Land, an activist organization that believes homes are not a commodity but a human right and as such should belong to the communities and not individuals or banks. She is a radical who has been arrested before on governmental obstruction charges. Police baiting is a known activist tactic that is well defined in online activist websites complete with instructions on how far you can "push" the authorities.

As for hunching and pointing....yes in context with the situation that body language can be considered threatening. If you rear end someone and he comes at you in an agressive posture pointing at you and calmly tells you to get back in your car what are you gonna do, comply?

And as for commenting on what you've been through, it's as fair as your accusation of me having lived a sheltered life, so again maybe you should learn to get out and see the world a bit more, you seem to have a very self centric view. Since you opened the door about what someone has been through or interactions that determine viewpoint I will continue to comment on that as well.

Kyle, the phrase "perhaps the police did know who she was" is the key part..."perhaps". I put it out as a possibility, you took it as a definitive. As for the sheltered life comment, that was a matter of me hitting send before I realized that you had commented between Howard and I therefore it looked as though I was directing that at you. You do point out a hypocrisy in my reaction though, I can't imply in one post(to Howard) that he led a sheltered life, then turn around and complain about your inference in another, guilty as charged, and I apologize that you took it as meaning you, and to Howard for the inference. I try not to use personal inferences, and leave the negative comments only to ideas that I disagree with, not people. On that part I failed in this thread. I feel so strongly about the job our law enforcement folks do, that I cannot stand by when I believe they are wrongfully derided. I continue to hold the actions of Officer Masic as 100% correct and still believe that given the opportunity, he would have been 100% vindicated. That is how I see it, you may disagree as many on here have, but that is my opinion. I believe time will show that my assessment of Emily Good will prove accurate, though we may never know. Police have a difficult enough job without people willfully making it more difficult through demonstrations or actions either aimed at getting arrested or playing gotcha. I believe that is exactly what Emily was doing that night, my opinion. You can say what you want about what is right and wrong about the law, but I believe there are better ways to address grievances and affect change outside of civil disobedience that takes up the resources of overburdened police departments.

I'm sorry Jeff I cannot agree on your assesment. There are good and bad law enforcement. If Officer Masic had not responded at all to her taping then nothing would have happened. He wasnt by himself and the other officers did not seem the least bit concerned. Just bad circumstances. Its all done now and it's my feeling that Emily isnt gonna do anything and just let this drop. The real action I think is gonna come from the city and rpd as they do look stupid after all this and when you look at the way things have gone with greece pd and east rochester pd it just looks like more of the same with the public. I am gonna leave off the other commentary.... water under the bridge.