Arrested for filming from the front yard?

[strickj]

while I didn't find the court case I was looking for, there was a recent court ruling that echoed what I stated that I heard in my Mass Media Class.

I didn't see anything you quoted that says that everyone with a camera is the press.

Private individuals, like members of the press, should be given a wide berth to gather information on public officials, the judges wrote.

"Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw," they wrote. "The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone."

Now, I never said (at least I don't think I did... not going back to look) that people are not allowed to record or take pics. I'm just saying that they are not "the press".

The content that is gathered is protected by the 1st, regardless of job title.

This again!

Private property. Seeing how charges were dropped. She did nothing wrong. The DA thought so. The only folks who don't agree are cops/ex-cops/and people who generally have issues with asserting authority unjustly.

So, that baby killer in FL did nothing wrong?

Charges are dropped, reduced and changed everyday on guilty criminals. Doesn't mean that a guy caught red-handed driving drunk is not guilty if his charges are plead down to reckless driving

[Guest GunTroll]

This again!

Private property. Seeing how charges were dropped. She did nothing wrong. The DA thought so. The only folks who don't agree are cops/ex-cops/and people who generally have issues with asserting authority unjustly.

So, that baby killer in FL did nothing wrong?

Charges are dropped, reduced and changed everyday on guilty criminals. Doesn't mean that a guy caught red-handed driving drunk is not guilty if his charges are plead down to reckless driving

How you go from that ^ based off of my quote above went right over my head. Care to elaborate your statement?

I was thinking about this last night. While everyone whether they admit it or not appreciates what LE's do for us. The fact the volunteer to protect and serve, go through the training (and continue to train), swear to uphold the constitution, put their butts on the front line here at home is commendable. The problem is the bad apples on our side of the fence , and we have far more than they do. We have forced the LE's to be hyper sensitive about their security and then their bad apples come out at times because of this. The whole thing boils down to our rights as citizens grated to us by the constitution/B.O.R's trumps their safety/security (rightfully or not). While possibly not in the officers opinion right then and there on the scene, it will in a court of law (hopefully) if it even goes that far , as in the case that we are talking here, it did not. You pick and choose your battles and you can pick when and where, this lady picked one and won IMO.

She was in the right....he was in the wrong. Can't spin that! Maybe in your head.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I didn't see anything you quoted that says that everyone with a camera is the press.

Now, I never said (at least I don't think I did... not going back to look) that people are not allowed to record or take pics. I'm just saying that they are not "the press".

The content that is gathered is protected by the 1st, regardless of job title.

while he didn't say it directly, the ruling did comment that it's difficult to draw the line between a private citizen recording and the press because many of the videos and pictures of events that happen in our country and around the world are shot with handheld recording devices and then distributed to media sources, so what I took from his ruling is that, the public should be treated with the same respect to the law as members of the press, and that content gathered by a private citizen when in a public setting, is protected by free speech, and should be treated as though it were taken by a member of the press.

[strickj]

How you go from that ^ based off of my quote above went right over my head. Care to elaborate your statement?

I was thinking about this last night. While everyone whether they admit it or not appreciates what LE's do for us. The fact the volunteer to protect and serve, go through the training (and continue to train), swear to uphold the constitution, put their butts on the front line here at home is commendable. The problem is the bad apples on our side of the fence , and we have far more than they do. We have forced the LE's to be hyper sensitive about their security and then their bad apples come out at times because of this. The whole thing boils down to our rights as citizens grated to us by the constitution/B.O.R's trumps their safety/security (rightfully or not). While possibly not in the officers opinion right then and there on the scene, it will in a court of law (hopefully) if it even goes that far , as in the case that we are talking here, it did not. You pick and choose your battles and you can pick when and where, this lady picked one and won IMO.

She was in the right....he was in the wrong. Can't spin that! Maybe in your head.

Are charges not dropped on guilty criminals every singe day?

And you saying that your "rights" trump their safety is BS. Your rights to record end where their rights to safety begin.

Let's see you try that argument in the field. Next time you see an officer with his weapon drawn on a suspect, get in their face with your cell and see how long you stay there

while he didn't say it directly, the ruling did comment that it's difficult to draw the line between a private citizen recording and the press because many of the videos and pictures of events that happen in our country and around the world are shot with handheld recording devices and then distributed to media sources, so what I took from his ruling is that, the public should be treated with the same respect to the law as members of the press, and that content gathered by a private citizen when in a public setting, is protected by free speech, and should be treated as though it were taken by a member of the press.

Next time a natural disaster happens, show up and say "yes, officer, I know the area is cordoned off but I'm the press. See, I have a cell phone camera".

Again, I never said that a non-press person isn't protected by the 1st. In fact, everyone is. Everything you record, video, capture or write is protected. Everything.

But, you do not necessarily have the right to gather whatever you want, whenever you want, if that means you're breaking the law to get it.

You can not stand in the middle of the interstate to take pictures or video, press or not.

Read here First Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

[DaveTN]

while he didn't say it directly, the ruling did comment that it's difficult to draw the line between a private citizen recording and the press because many of the videos and pictures of events that happen in our country and around the world are shot with handheld recording devices and then distributed to media sources, so what I took from his ruling is that, the public should be treated with the same respect to the law as members of the press, and that content gathered by a private citizen when in a public setting, is protected by free speech, and should be treated as though it were taken by a member of the press.

There is no reason to draw a line between the press and the public. You have the rights the press has; what you don’t have is the privileges.

When we would have accidents, crime scenes, the transfer of a high profile prisoners, etc., our Command Officers might allow members of the press in to film for the news. Does that mean you can come in waving your 7D around and demand entry? No.

[Guest GunTroll]

Are charges not dropped on guilty criminals every singe day?

And you saying that your "rights" trump their safety is BS. Your rights to record end where their rights to safety begin.

Let's see you try that argument in the field. Next time you see an officer with his weapon drawn on a suspect, get in their face with your cell and see how long you stay there

Yes they are. I guess it will sound bad but....I'm glad it is that way. EVIDENCE that PROVES GUILT is REQUIRED to convict without a doubt! Public opinion on speculative evidence is worthless. Try harder DA's, LEO's, etc. I'm glad backbenchers like you who a thousand miles away don't get to sway a verdict one way or the other. Our system is perfectly flawed.

As long as my state doesn't have a law prohibiting filming of LEO's and I am on my property and I feel inclined to film, I will. Your scenario of my getting very near a LEO with his/her gun drawn and possibly interfering with their duties is retarded. Why would I do that? I feel this lady also did not interfere. If she did, they would have pressed charges and won...right?

How does it feel to be on the loosing side of this argument? The lady walked, the cop got reprimanded (supposedly), DA wouldn't bring it to trial, yet you being a thousand miles away still....are wrong.

[strickj]

Yes they are. I guess it will sound bad but....I'm glad it is that way. EVIDENCE that PROVES GUILT is REQUIRED to convict without a doubt! Public opinion on speculative evidence is worthless. Try harder DA's, LEO's, etc. I'm glad backbenchers like you who a thousand miles away don't get to sway a verdict one way or the other. Our system is perfectly flawed.

As long as my state doesn't have a law prohibiting filming of LEO's and I am on my property and I feel inclined to film, I will. Your scenario of my getting very near a LEO with his/her gun drawn and possibly interfering with their duties is retarded. Why would I do that? I feel this lady also did not interfere. If she did, they would have pressed charges and won...right?

How does it feel to be on the loosing side of this argument? The lady walked, the cop got reprimanded (supposedly), DA wouldn't bring it to trial, yet you being a thousand miles away still....are wrong.

So, you'll agree that charges are regularly dropped on people that are guilty but still stand by your argument?

Charges were dropped because they're minor charges and because of the attention this has received from cop haters.

Look, you can clearly see in the video that she interfered with the stop by being on the sidewalk so close to the cops. Her filming had no bearing on this. She was told, repeatedly, to move back and she refused.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that she was not a threat or did not interfere, but the evidence shows otherwise. The cops had to take their attention off of the person pulled over. That is interference.

From the update:

"An officer who takes his or her attention away from the task at hand to worry about a person running video is going to suffer from split-attention deficit," Sgt. Ed Flosi of the San Jose, Calif., Police Department told PoliceOne, a journal for law enforcement professionals. "When a person is forced to focus on more than one item, the amount of focus on either item suffers. In other words, they may miss something that the primary suspect(s) is doing that could get them hurt or killed."

As far as threats go, how many cops are shot, killed or attacked by bystanders, friends, etc each year?

If she did, they would have pressed charges and won...right?

That goes back to my baby killer comment earlier. Cops pressed charges on her but lost.

Weren't you one that was arguing in that thread about how guilty she was?

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

....................

Edited October 2, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter
Nonya dang business.....

[Guest WyattEarp]

she wasn't even that close to the cops to begin with. if the cops are "in fear" of a little fat lady standing on her own front lawn, (from the video appears to be 30-50 feet away) holding a cell phone camera, that when they asked what she was doing, she declared I'm standing on my own front lawn video recording you, then they need to stop being cops plain and simple.

she was no threat. she had no weapon, she was not trying to talk to them, she did not approach them and attempt to interfere. these cops were just angry she was videotaping them, and they need to get over it. they just tried to boss her around and tell her what she could by giving unlawful orders and blatantly abusing their authority. She has a right to be on her own property, she has a right to video record anything outside in the public view. hope she sues and wins.

[strickj]

she wasn't even that close to the cops to begin with. if the cops are "in fear" of a little fat lady standing on her own front lawn, (from the video appears to be 30-50 feet away) holding a cell phone camera, that when they asked what she was doing, she declared I'm standing on my own front lawn video recording you, then they need to stop being cops plain and simple.

she was no threat. she had no weapon, she was not trying to talk to them, she did not approach them and attempt to interfere. these cops were just angry she was videotaping them, and they need to get over it. they just tried to boss her around and tell her what she could by giving unlawful orders and blatantly abusing their authority. She has a right to be on her own property, she has a right to video record anything outside in the public view. hope she sues and wins.

Did you even watch the video or are you just making up stuff to advance your argument?

Ok, let's look at the facts then I'm ducking out of this mess.

It's dark. The cops have no idea what she may or may not have.

She's standing just a few feet behind the cops. See proof in the screen shot:

At 0:48 - she stated that she was in her yard. Officer responds by telling her she's on the sidewalk. Again, see picture for proof of where she is.

At 1:00 - the officer tells her that he doesn't feel safe with her standing behind them.

At 1:07 - he repeats himself and explains why he doesn't feel safe.

At 1:10 - the cop mentions he doesn't feel safe because of her anti-cop comments made before she started taping.

At 1:20 - he repeats himself about not feeling safe because of her comments.

At 1:37 - he tells her again that he does not feel safe with her standing behind them.

At 1:46 - she acknowledges that they do not feel safe because of her proximity

At 1:56 - he says he does not feel safe, yet again.

At no time does the officer ever indicate, in any way, shape or form, that she is being arrested for video taping them. She would have been arrested regardless. Period. Proof is in the video.

Edited September 30, 2011 by strickj

[strickj]

And just in case you wanna say she was using the zoom on the camera; I counted about 4 or 5 steps from the officer from the front of his car to standing directly in front of her....

[DaveTN]

Did you even watch the video or are you just making up stuff to advance your argument?

Ok, let's look at the facts then I'm ducking out of this mess.

I have a feeling facts aren't going matter here.

[Guest WyattEarp]

Did you even watch the video or are you just making up stuff to advance your argument?

Ok, let's look at the facts then I'm ducking out of this mess.

It's dark. The cops have no idea what she may or may not have.

She's standing just a few feet behind the cops. See proof in the screen shot:

At no time does the officer ever indicate, in any way, shape or form, that she is being arrested for video taping them. She would have been arrested regardless. Period. Proof is in the video.

I watched the video. that picture clearly does not prove that she is on the sidewalk, or in the yard, but if the sidewalk is directly in front of her house, that's considered her yard. it had been a while since I've seen the video, so 30-50 feet was a bit too much, but she was still a safe difference away. it's amazing that while they're arresting that guy, they don't say a word to her and they aren't concerned with her at all. all they did was start saying "we don't feel safe" when they heard her say she was recording, typical "copout".

but the charges were dropped, which proved the cops had no authority to do what they did.

[DaveTN]

but the charges were dropped, which proved the cops had no authority to do what they did.

You had 30 speeding tickets and a DUI. I assume you got some of them dropped or dismissed or you wouldn’t have a driver’s license. The cops still had the authority to arrest you.

The DA decided not to prosecute and the Chief went out and glad handed with some reporters. But I bet if she does that again…. She gets arrested again.

[USMCJG]

I was just in the hotel lobby performing my official duty of getting snacks out of the snack machine. There was a guy about ten feet behind me waiting to get his own snacks. He looked kind of suspicious. I made a citizen's arrest.

[wcsc12]

I was just in the hotel lobby performing my official duty of getting snacks out of the snack machine. There was a guy about ten feet behind me waiting to get his own snacks. He looked kind of suspicious. I made a citizen's arrest.

lolz

[Guest Gunbunnie]

I was not there but from what I saw on the videos, she seemed to be looking for a confrontion. I think that the cops were in the right.

Daryl

[Guest GunTroll]

How you go from that ^ based off of my quote above went right over my head. Care to elaborate your statement?

I was thinking about this last night. While everyone whether they admit it or not appreciates what LE's do for us. The fact the volunteer to protect and serve, go through the training (and continue to train), swear to uphold the constitution, put their butts on the front line here at home is commendable. The problem is the bad apples on our side of the fence , and we have far more than they do. We have forced the LE's to be hyper sensitive about their security and then their bad apples come out at times because of this. The whole thing boils down to our rights as citizens grated to us by the constitution/B.O.R's trumps their safety/security (rightfully or not). While possibly not in the officers opinion right then and there on the scene, it will in a court of law (hopefully) if it even goes that far , as in the case that we are talking here, it did not. You pick and choose your battles and you can pick when and where, this lady picked one and won IMO.

She was in the right....he was in the wrong. Can't spin that! Maybe in your head.

Are charges not dropped on guilty criminals every singe day?

And you saying that your "rights" trump their safety is BS. Your rights to record end where their rights to safety begin.

Let's see you try that argument in the field. Next time you see an officer with his weapon drawn on a suspect, get in their face with your cell and see how long you stay there

Just continuing this conversation based off of the two above highlighted quoted comments, one from me, one from you strickj, is that truly how you feel? I see you mentioned my "rights to film...", while I did not mention that in the above quoted comment. I'll concede that me not being a member of the press and not having any training on filming/documenting does not give me any supposed rights to interfere, that would be dumb on my part and I would never.

I'll ask plainly so not to have any confusion, do you not think our rights trump the cops rights to safety/security? Not talking filming here. I'd appreciate a short yes or no and then feel free to explain away if you like.

It is my opinion that this is solely a rights issue. Sure she is dumb. Confrontational (takes one to know one ) etc, but still in the right once she obeyed and retreated to her yard which is my take from the video.

I know you said you were done with this thread. I suspect you will answer however.

[strickj]

Just continuing this conversation based off of the two above highlighted quoted comments, one from me, one from you strickj, is that truly how you feel? I see you mentioned my "rights to film...", while I did not mention that in the above quoted comment. I'll concede that me not being a member of the press and not having any training on filming/documenting does not give me any supposed rights to interfere, that would be dumb on my part and I would never.

I'll ask plainly so not to have any confusion, do you not think our rights trump the cops rights to safety/security? Not talking filming here. I'd appreciate a short yes or no and then feel free to explain away if you like.

It is my opinion that this is solely a rights issue. Sure she is dumb. Confrontational (takes one to know one ) etc, but still in the right once she obeyed and retreated to her yard which is my take from the video.

I know you said you were done with this thread. I suspect you will answer however.

Before I answer, let me ask you this. Would you let someone stand a few feet behind you at night and shout stuff at you?

Absolutely not. You're going to turn to address them, ask them to move along, call the cops, put distance between you and them and may even grab your gun just in case. Right?

That person may have a "right" to shout at you but that doesn't mean you do not have a "right" to do what needs to be done to ensure your safety.

Or, let's take the video at face value (video started before her shouting\anti-cop stuff), would you let someone stand behind you at night? Let's say your car has a flat and you pull over to change the tire. Are you gong to let some stranger just stand there behind you?

[Guest GunTroll]

Thanks for your non answer to my question. ** I thought about it more, I guess you did answer the question, with your question(s)/scenario set up **

Please never address me, quote me or even acknowledge me for the remaining time I choose to participate here on TGO. I guess it would be fair to say, for the time you mods allow me to participate as well. I will do the same for you.

Good day.

**EDIT**

Edited October 5, 2011 by GunTroll

[Guest mcgyver210]

WOW I can't believe how personally people take it when others don't agree with their opinion?

I personally think most LEOs are good but the bad ones & the good ones that take up for the bad ones give all a bad rep. As for recording LEOs it should definitely be made very clear that citizens can record Video & Audio of LEOs in an effort to protect citizens against the bad LEOs same as they use their Cruiser Cams & Belt Audio Recorders to protect them.

Also these bogus charges made up many times to deter citizens from questioning their authority need to be controlled or squashed.

I will say it the same way they put it to us If they have nothing to hide why are they worried about it? Obviously recording by citizens have outed many bad LEO encounters that without them would have been the LEOs word against the citizens & we all know how courts treat this situation.

Now if a person is getting way to close I can see a reasonable (established & not to be determined by the LEOs judgement alone) setback limit so as not to cause a safety concern for all involved (not just the LEO). The reason for an established setback is their are many encounters were LEOs harass a person for videoing them from a considerable distance away such as across a street.

All LEOs have a hard job to do but they chose it & should never be given more rights or privileges than anyone else.

[strickj]

Thanks for your non answer to my question. ** I thought about it more, I guess you did answer the question, with your question(s)/scenario set up **

Please never address me, quote me or even acknowledge me for the remaining time I choose to participate here on TGO. I guess it would be fair to say, for the time you mods allow me to participate as well. I will do the same for you.

Good day.

**EDIT**

Instead of answering my question of what you would do, you're just going to tell me never to address you again? Wow. I guess you kinda answered my question without directly answering it, too, eh...

As far as never addressing you again goes, I have no problems with never addressing you again if this is the type of response I can expect from you in future debates.

Edited October 5, 2011 by strickj

[Guest GunTroll]

[DaveTN]

WOW I can't believe how personally people take it when others don't agree with their opinion?

I personally think most LEOs are good but the bad ones & the good ones that take up for the bad ones give all a bad rep. As for recording LEOs it should definitely be made very clear that citizens can record Video & Audio of LEOs in an effort to protect citizens against the bad LEOs same as they use their Cruiser Cams & Belt Audio Recorders to protect them.

Also these bogus charges made up many times to deter citizens from questioning their authority need to be controlled or squashed.

I will say it the same way they put it to us If they have nothing to hide why are they worried about it? Obviously recording by citizens have outed many bad LEO encounters that without them would have been the LEOs word against the citizens & we all know how courts treat this situation.

Now if a person is getting way to close I can see a reasonable (established & not to be determined by the LEOs judgement alone) setback limit so as not to cause a safety concern for all involved (not just the LEO). The reason for an established setback is their are many encounters were LEOs harass a person for videoing them from a considerable distance away such as across a street.

All LEOs have a hard job to do but they chose it & should never be given more rights or privileges than anyone else.

As I said before, I don’t think this was ever about recording; this was about obstructing (Obstructing government administration, or Obstructing Police). And it certainly isn’t about rights or the Constitution.

Cops are taught that if you lose control of a traffic stop, family fight, etc.; it could get you killed. These are judgment calls…. Period. And they always will be. If you don’t like what the Officer is telling you, most departments have a complaint process in place. But that argument won’t be made on the street.

Who was the guy they had in handcuffs? What were they arresting him for? What was his criminal history? Did he live close by? Did the woman causing the problem know him? How many other people were in the car?

You can hear the Police Officer say “I’m going to ask you one more time, we don’t feel safe with you stranding right behind us while we are doing a traffic stop, go back in the houseâ€. Having done many traffic stops I don’t think that was an unreasonable request; do you?

Situational awareness, it is preached about here all they time. That is what the Officers were doing.

When I went through the Police Academy we had training on doing traffic stops. The instructors used actors from the College acting classes to play the parts of the citizens being stopped. There were scenarios just like this, where a third party would interfere long enough to give the suspect a chance to kill you. You just can’t lose focus; it can kill you. This woman put everyone in danger.

The ticketing incident later I think was wrong. And I think it was one of the reasons for not pursuing charges, and I think it was what the chief was addressing. I doubt any Officer was reprimanded for arresting this woman, and I would be willing to bet money if she does it again she will be arrested again.

[Guest GunTroll]

WOW I can't believe how personally people take it when others don't agree with their opinion?

I'll assume that one is for me. Rightly so I suppose. But I am more butt hurt about asking a direct question and getting multiple questions back in return, rather than answering and then asking what you seem fit. It bothers me to no end. You can not have a debate if all you have is questions.

Your post is spot on FWIW.

And I have to agree with most of DaveTN's last comment. Although it has everything to do with rights and since they are granted by the constitution, it gets pulled into this thread whether her acual rights were trampled on or not. Just the way it is. Are LEO's not defenders of granted rights afforded to each of us by the Constitution? You do/did swear to uphold and defend it correct? You arrest people for violating others rights, correct? Every action a LEO takes comes from the constitution is some way or another I'd think. If it didn't you/they would not be needed. We would all be carrying out our own form of justice or vengeance.

Now if I need to come out and say that this whole thing is but of little importance in the grand scheme of things, let me do that now. This is minor. But to state it simply, its a tug of war game with our rights. Security vs. Freedom(s) . We forfeit freedom(s) all the time for security. I can't fly without taking my shoes off. Why? This lady's first recorded words set the tempo for what happened to her. I said it before, she is dumb, confrontational, etc. But had all the rights to stand on her land after she was informed the sidewalk is not private property. We all have battles to take up. This was hers. She is a winner. Local LE losers, on this one.

Done.