• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rochester Police Arrest Woman in Her Front Lawn For Filming Traffic Stop

RStringfield said:
Some people think it's more important not to sit idly by and watch one of their neighbors being violated. Apparently, they don't sleep well with that knowledge. But if you can sleep through it, go ahead.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah - her friends really stood up for her and jumped in to argue. HAH!

Would it have been that horrid for her to step back a few feet - up into the group of people? I don't think so - and I don't think his initial request was out of line - she was closest to him and I can very easily see how that could become dangerous. She was armed with a camera - someone else in a different situation might have been armd with a handgun or knife. Just how was the officer suppose to differentiate?

"Watch your back" is a respectable thing - he wasn't being horribly out of line when he first requested that - it escalated when she began to argue. He was being polite - very repetative - and only after a few minutes of back and forth engaging with multiple warnings from him did it go further than that.

When he first requested that she step back into the house - would it have been terrible if she had done what he was politely asking?

And you know - this 'she was on her property, she can do what she wanted' isn't some mode of fact 100% of the time. . . depending on the situation it might not be true at all.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh yeah - her friends really stood up for her and jumped in to argue. HAH!

Would it have been that horrid for her to step back a few feet - up into the group of people? I don't think so - and I don't think his initial request was out of line - she was closest to him and I can very easily see how that could become dangerous. She was armed with a camera - someone else in a different situation might have been armd with a handgun or knife. Just how was the officer suppose to differentiate?

"Watch your back" is a respectable thing - he wasn't being horribly out of line when he first requested that - it escalated when she began to argue. He was being polite - very repetative - and only after a few minutes of back and forth engaging with multiple warnings from him did it go further than that.

When he first requested that she step back into the house - would it have been terrible if she had done what he was politely asking?

And you know - this 'she was on her property, she can do what she wanted' isn't some mode of fact 100% of the time. . . depending on the situation it might not be true at all.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about her friends? I am talking about her concerns.

He wanted her to move where her recording would be ineffective. He said go inside, not move back a couple feet. "Move back a couple feet" did not come up until he had created a confrontational situation and just before he arrested her.

Why should she obey his order? Cops are not our parents but our servants as agents of the state. This woman was only trying to ensure that they were doing their job and that pisssed him off.

Concerns over crowd control are why they use multiple cops which he had. If he had been alone his claim might have some merit. But this is not about safety, it is about the arrogant police officers who believe they should be beyond question and that the people have no right to monitor them.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh yeah - her friends really stood up for her and jumped in to argue. HAH!

Would it have been that horrid for her to step back a few feet - up into the group of people? I don't think so - and I don't think his initial request was out of line - she was closest to him and I can very easily see how that could become dangerous. She was armed with a camera - someone else in a different situation might have been armd with a handgun or knife. Just how was the officer suppose to differentiate?

"Watch your back" is a respectable thing - he wasn't being horribly out of line when he first requested that - it escalated when she began to argue. He was being polite - very repetative - and only after a few minutes of back and forth engaging with multiple warnings from him did it go further than that.

When he first requested that she step back into the house - would it have been terrible if she had done what he was politely asking?

And you know - this 'she was on her property, she can do what she wanted' isn't some mode of fact 100% of the time. . . depending on the situation it might not be true at all.
Click to expand...

I for one will grant you the aruement that there was no harm in her standing back. She could have continued filming from farther away. This may not always be possible like in the instances where someone was in their own car filming.

The big picture it seems is that law enforcement has a problem with people filming, period. If you want to argue that one should comply with any reasonable request such as being asked to stand back, I'd agree. If standing back wasn't good enough, too bad.
 
He was not concerned for safety. That is nonsense. He was clearly miffed that she was questioning his integrity in the performance of his job. Too fing bad! You are a public servant and the people have a right to know what you are doing and to criticize.
 
DiAnna said:
Completely unacceptable behavior by the police officers who arrested the woman, and by the police officers engaged in the retaliation ticketing outside the woman's house when a meeting was being held about the incident.
Click to expand...
link, please
 
1Perry said:
I for one will grant you the aruement that there was no harm in her standing back. She could have continued filming from farther away. This may not always be possible like in the instances where someone was in their own car filming.
Click to expand...

He told her to go inside her house. He amended that to move back a few feet long after he had already started a confrontation with her and just immediately before he arrested her. And this is why the video tape is useful.
 
1Perry said:
I for one will grant you the aruement that there was no harm in her standing back. She could have continued filming from farther away.
Click to expand...
she did step back.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - she wouldn't have been arrested.

Look: I favor not being arrested more than I favor being stubborn or right . . . and I can be one hell of a stubborn bitch and I love being right. But argue with a cop? Even when he's out of line and I'm not? NOPE - I have no desire to throw away a single moment being carted off to jail for any reason - EVER.

I guess it's all a matter of priorities.
Click to expand...

Oh believe me...when it comes to being arrested vs not being arrested...I'll take 'not' every day of the week. I dont think thats the issue though. Do we live in a country and society where police officers dictate rule and law based on what they like or dont like? Do we want our police force to have that kind of authority? (and I am VERY pro-police)
 
I live in Rochester, and here's my viewpoint.

The inner city of Rochester is VERY dangerous even during the day. 5 cops have been shot over the last few years, and 4 of them were killed as a result. The cop warned her, whether the cop was legally justified in asking her is not the issue. Citizens are legally bound to obey police instructions or face arrest. If she felt she was justified in recording (which she was) then she could have lodged a complaint with the city. Lesson for all. Obey instructions from the police, plain and simple.


Tim-
 
RStringfield said:
He told her to go inside her house. He amended that to move back a few feet long after he had already started a confrontation with her and just immediately before he arrested her. And this is why the video tape is useful.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was just speaking in a general sense. If a police officer asks you to step back, step back. That's a reasonable request just as filming his actions are a reasonable action. No, the officer here wasn't being reasonable.
 
Hicup said:
I live in Rochester, and here's my viewpoint.

The inner city of Rochester is VERY dangerous even during the day. 5 cops have been shot over the last few years, and 4 of them were killed as a result. The cop warned her, whether the cop was legally justified in asking her is not the issue. Citizens are legally bound to obey police instructions or face arrest. If she felt she was justified in recording (which she was) then she could have lodged a complaint with the city. Lesson for all. Obey instructions from the police, plain and simple.


Tim-
Click to expand...

No way. I believe in respecting the authority of police officers, but I expect police officers to respect my rights and priveleges as a citizen. There are limits to what police orders I will follow.

She was clearly acting as a citizen journalist here. I'm not sure how the courts will deal with these cases, but I believe freedom of the press should extend to an honest citizen with a camera and a youtube account. Is she really better served by filling out paperwork than by releasing this video?

Anyway, the cop was wrong.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
No way. I believe in respecting the authority of police officers, but I expect police officers to respect my rights and priveleges as a citizen. There are limits to what police orders I will follow.

She was clearly acting as a citizen journalist here. I'm not sure how the courts will deal with these cases, but I believe freedom of the press should extend to an honest citizen with a camera and a youtube account. Is she really better served by filling out paperwork than by releasing this video?

Anyway, the cop was wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree! The cop was wrong here. I was just offering some practical advice when dealing with itchy cops. One the cops that was shot last year is severally brain damaged, adn he was shot by a 14 year old black kid who was an "innocent by-stander"..

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
I live in Rochester, and here's my viewpoint.

The inner city of Rochester is VERY dangerous even during the day. 5 cops have been shot over the last few years, and 4 of them were killed as a result. The cop warned her, whether the cop was legally justified in asking her is not the issue. Citizens are legally bound to obey police instructions or face arrest. If she felt she was justified in recording (which she was) then she could have lodged a complaint with the city. Lesson for all. Obey instructions from the police, plain and simple.

Tim-
Click to expand...

...except for the fact that a citizen is under no obligation to follow an unlawful order given by an officer. In this case, the officer's attempt to censor the woman easily constituted an unlawful order. I think it would be more accurate to edit your statement to say "Obey lawful instructions from the police."
 
Hicup said:
I agree! The cop was wrong here. I was just offering some practical advice when dealing with itchy cops. One the cops that was shot last year is severally brain damaged, adn he was shot by a 14 year old black kid who was an "innocent by-stander"..

Tim-
Click to expand...

Fair enough. In this case, the arrest is the price for her act of civil disobedience. When you stand up, you assume the risks.
 
Hicup said:
I live in Rochester, and here's my viewpoint.

The inner city of Rochester is VERY dangerous even during the day. 5 cops have been shot over the last few years, and 4 of them were killed as a result. The cop warned her, whether the cop was legally justified in asking her is not the issue. Citizens are legally bound to obey police instructions or face arrest. If she felt she was justified in recording (which she was) then she could have lodged a complaint with the city. Lesson for all. Obey instructions from the police, plain and simple.


Tim-
Click to expand...

F--- that! You are under no obligation to follow the unlawful orders of a police officer. He has no business telling you where you may or may not peacefully go about your business. I do believe you should respect their exposure to risk and do what is reasonable to make it clear that you pose no risk. She was clearly no risk. She was apparently lightly dressed and holding just a cell phone.
 
RStringfield said:
F--- that! You are under no obligation to follow the unlawful orders of a police officer. He has no business telling you where you may or may not peacefully go about your business. I do believe you should respect their exposure to risk and do what is reasonable to make it clear that you pose no risk. She was clearly no risk. She was apparently lightly dressed and holding just a cell phone.
Click to expand...

Trust me.. The inner city of Rochester is no joy ride. It's one of the most dangerous inner cities in the US.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Trust me.. The inner city of Rochester is no joy ride. It's one of the most dangerous inner cities in the US.


Tim-
Click to expand...


Kodak just ain't what it use to be:(
 
Hicup said:
Trust me.. The inner city of Rochester is no joy ride. It's one of the most dangerous inner cities in the US.


Tim-
Click to expand...

So? It's part of the US and subject to the law of the land. It's not a war zone or under marshal law.
 
Hicup said:
I live in Rochester, and here's my viewpoint.

The inner city of Rochester is VERY dangerous even during the day. 5 cops have been shot over the last few years, and 4 of them were killed as a result. The cop warned her, whether the cop was legally justified in asking her is not the issue. Citizens are legally bound to obey police instructions or face arrest. If she felt she was justified in recording (which she was) then she could have lodged a complaint with the city. Lesson for all. Obey instructions from the police, plain and simple.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Fellow Rochesterian here. Rochester police are notorious for excessive force and abuses of power. It happens all the time. It happened to me. It happened to my friends. Seven or eight years ago, I watched three cops beat a black teenager to a bloody pulp over on Clinton Ave, in broad daylight. Rochester police routinely put motorists in danger (like by blinding them with their high beams) to goad them into speeding. I wonder how many people those 5 cops killed...

I have a lot of love for my hometown, and still enjoy many things about it, but the corrupt police there sure ain't one of them.

Oh, and before it even comes up, none of the situations I discussed were ones were police had any legal authority to harm me, my friends, or any acquaintances who were the victims of abuse of police power. We weren't "asking for it", or doing anything illegal.

As to the meat your post, we are by no means "legally bound to obey police instructions or face arrest." That's not true at all. The only instructions you have to obey are when they tell you to do something that would be a crime not to do, like in public disturbance situations. Or thwarting investigation, like not stopping when you're pulled over. There are specific laws for each thing a police officer can tell you to do. There is no blanket rule. And police are absolutely not allowed to order you around beyond those rules. Ever.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Yeah - it went too far. . . I agree with the ladies at the end of the video - the cops were pissed that she filmed them ****ing up.

But damn people - when a cop tells you to 'go inside' or 'leave the scene' you need to do what they say. Holy **** - how dense ARE people? Haven't we learned this lesson? How many countless cases have we seen where a minor - no big deal - issue happens and then it escalates and gets way out of hand BECAUSE people refuse to listen ot the advise or suggestion of an officer?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. When the government goons tell you to jump, you best well remember your conditioning and say "how high!"
 
My feelings on all this are a little mixed.

On the one hand, I don't see where those officers could legitimately say they felt unsafe. There was, what, four of them there? One woman with a camera and maybe a buddy watching from across a yard is a threat to them? I really don't think so. If they genuinely felt threatened they would've taken a much different tone. They just didn't like that camera.

On the other hand, my dad's a Deputy in a rural county. He works the night shift, and unless it's the weekend it's him and two other Deputies on patrol for the whole county, plus the odd Trooper or 4. Deputies ride one to a car, even at night, which means even a single solitary backup Deputy might be 20 minutes away at high speed if you get into a jam.

If my dad said he felt threatened because someone was up to some funny business just out of his line of sight and wouldn't go away, I could see him getting uncomfortable and starting to bark orders. I'd be on his side, too, because I've heard stories of the things he's lived through out there in the dark.

Then there's my natural distrust of authority ... :lol:

Anyhow, the local authorities did the right thing, setting this woman free and starting an internal probe. Those cops screwed up bad.

ETA: Oh, and the ticketing jazz, at that meeting to support her? Bull****, pure unadulterated bull****. That was just ****ed up.
 
Last edited:
This is the beginning of a tyranny, better wake up people. The people of Rochester best put their cops back on the leash, apparently they can not be trusted in protecting and serving the people. BTW I smell lawsuit and this could have been completely avoided. What ever happen to talking with the citizens if they have questions or issues, nope lets cuff them, arrest them and criminalize them.
 
Hicup said:
I live in Rochester, and here's my viewpoint.

The inner city of Rochester is VERY dangerous even during the day. 5 cops have been shot over the last few years, and 4 of them were killed as a result. The cop warned her, whether the cop was legally justified in asking her is not the issue. Citizens are legally bound to obey police instructions or face arrest. If she felt she was justified in recording (which she was) then she could have lodged a complaint with the city. Lesson for all. Obey instructions from the police, plain and simple.


Tim-
Click to expand...
nope. see the part of your post highlited above
citizens are obligated to obey the law
because a policeman orders a particular conduct does not then cause that conduct to be lawful, or the refusal to obey that order unlawful
when the policeman orders the citizen to obey a law, and the citizens then refuses to obey the LAWFUL order, then the citizen is subject to arrest for unlawful conduct
there is a huge difference between the two. it is not merely a matter of nuance but of law enforcement vis-à-vis arbitrary law making on the part of the policeman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom