If they're making them feel unsafe, cops can order people watching them from their yards go to back into their homes or else face arrest.

a7ZkFZkejv8&feature=player_embedded#at=237

Nothing new. Just bully cops being bully cops. They know charges will never be filed or prosecuted but they can 'punish' you simply by arresting you.

Very scary though.

I would file a complaint and get a lawyer.

I would file a complaint and get a lawyer.

Exactly.

I would file a complaint and get a lawyer.

Until juries start hitting police departments and individual officers with big judgments, this will continue to happen.

One reason I NEVER engage in anything with a cop without my camera rolling and my phone on audio record in my pocket. OCPD though seems much more tolerable to it than other cities. I rarely have a problem.

Until juries start hitting police departments and individual officers with big judgments, this will continue to happen.

I don't know about big judgments but the officer needs reprimanded, a course on Civil Rights and an unpaid two week vacation. That may get the message out to others who might do the same.

I don't know about big judgments but the officer needs reprimanded, a course on Civil Rights and an unpaid two week vacation. That may get the message out to others who might do the same.

I'm all for a big judgement due to the fact he didn't just make her stop recording, he arrested and detained her unlawfully (yet to be determined). If you or I detained someone against their will for 4-8 hours (time it takes to be processed and released) we'd be facing kidnapping charges and 20-life in Oklahoma.

Nothing sends a message like giving officers the choice between acting appropriately when dealing with the public versus being forced into bankruptcy and being fired from their jobs.

The follow-up story (probably the first of a few)

...

The woman behind the camera is 28-year-old Emily Good who now faces a misdemeanor charge of obstructing governmental administration.

“The video's going to speak for itself. People can watch it and draw their own conclusions." Stephanie Stare is Good's attorney. She tells I-Team 10 she has already filed a motion to have the charge thrown out. “Basically the grounds for the motion to dismiss are that her actions did not rise to the level of a crime. It doesn't fit the statutory elements of obstructing governmental administration."

Since I-Team 10 first reported this story 24 hours ago, we have heard from many viewers -- some praising Good's rights, others backing the police.

Rochester Police Union President Mike Mazzeo has seen the video and points out that the officer in question repeatedly told Good he felt threatened by her presence. "I see an officer using great restraint, maintaining composure, acting professional, clearly giving very clear and concise orders to an individual who just simply didn't comply.

Mazzeo says what can't be ignored is the danger police find themselves in on a daily basis and says the fact that she's on her property is insignificant. "I think she was certainly trying to engage the officers, in my opinion, and that's what's so dangerous because it's a distraction to what these officers are doing."

The police chief has ordered an internal investigation of the incident and today Mayor Tom Richards weighed in, expressing confidence the probe will be done fairly and fully.

Stare says what it all boils down to is this. “Lawful orders should be obeyed. I think the question is whether or not it was a lawful order."

What is not seen is any verbal exchanges between the woman and the police officer before she begins recording.

Mazzeo says the officer told him Good claimed to know the man that was being frisked in the video. He says because she claimed to have an association with the man, the officer had further reason to be concerned about her demeanor.

The police chief and the mayor have pointed out that no formal complaint has been made by Good to the city. Her attorney says it’s because Good has been researching a possible civil claim – something she expects will be filed in the near future.

source:
http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s2168201.shtml?cat=566

Typical Union rep response.

Cops seem to think as long as they claim it was for their safety, etc. that common sense has to take a back seat. As long as police were aware of her presence, she was a respectable distance from them and not interjecting herself into the situation then no jury will deny her the right to record the police actions.

What I'm wondering if she was a risk and police didn't want people "behind" them then why didn't they arrest all the people standing out there?

While I agree it went too far, I just can't stand people like that who just bait cops for no reason.

BBates - you actually have a reason to have your camera out. It seems like this girl just wanted to create a confrontation for no reason. Unless she knew the guy getting arrested there's no reason for the camera.

While I agree it went too far, I just can't stand people like that who just bait cops for no reason.

BBates - you actually have a reason to have your camera out. It seems like this girl just wanted to create a confrontation for no reason. Unless she knew the guy getting arrested there's no reason for the camera.

I agree its an annoyance. And I actually turn my camera off alot because I know its distracting to police. However, police have to realize that regardless how annoying it is, it is legal in most all situations. I don't really see how standing in your own yard (or anywhere really) pointing a video camera at a public servant is 'baiting.' If the officer does his/her job correctly, then all the video would do is serve as great evidence should the defendant get out of line or make a false accusation. But, most often it just highlights the bad attitude of some cops.

I'm not understanding how simply recording an arrest is baiting the police.

... Unless she knew the guy getting arrested there's no reason for the camera.

According to the local police union rep, she did know him.


Mazzeo says the officer told him Good claimed to know the man that was being frisked in the video. He says because she claimed to have an association with the man, the officer had further reason to be concerned about her demeanor.

I'm not defending or slapping at the officer. Merely highlighting a factoid you indicated might influence your opinion, assuming the factoid is accurate.

According to the local police union rep, she did know him.



I'm not defending or slapping at the officer. Merely highlighting a factoid you indicated might influence your opinion, assuming the factoid is accurate.

Cool - missed that part.

Yet, virtually every move we make is watched and recorded by authorities for our safety.