WBZA Rochester on FacebookWBZA Rochester on Twitter
Get the WBZA Rochester AppText WBZA Rochester
Text 52545
 

Test ITM Blog

 Test ITM Blog


Woman Arrested for Video Taping Traffic Stop

This woman was arrested for video taping a traffic stop in front of her house. The cop asked her to inside her own house and she didn't.

Check out the picture and the video of her getting arrested.
www.13wham.com/news/local/story/woman-arrested-shoots-video-of-traffic-stop/r6Z4v_17V0uckYqBOMIsGg.cspx



Tags :  
Topics : Entertainment_CultureEnvironmentLaw_CrimeTechnology_Internet
Social :




 
06/22/2011 6:13AM
Woman Arrested for Video Taping Traffic Stop
Please Enter Your Comments Below
06/22/2011 6:39AM
Woman arrested
There is on the books a law that states: "failure to comply with a reasonable request of a police officer" It was put in effect to protect the public and police officers at protentially dangerous situations. There was nothing unreasonable about their request. I'll bet if she would have moved back just 10 feet they would have been OK with it.
06/22/2011 7:49AM
The Law
She is an idiot! The officer's had all the right to ask her to back off! They are the law, obey or pay!
06/22/2011 8:04AM
Let our officers do thier job!!!!!
This is not an case of being an "activist". She is clearly trying to intimidate the officers into leaving her friend alone. Obviously they felt there was a reason to pull her friend over and then arrest him. Just because she did not like it, does not give her the right to interfere with the officers doing thier job!
06/22/2011 8:15AM
Dont Make Me Tell You Again
She should have just shut up and done what she was told! She should have leaarned this at an early age. Obey the police!
06/22/2011 8:23AM
Woman Arrested for Video Taping Traffic Stop
What job does this woman have that pays her bills but still allows time to go to jail for Activism arrests. Most regular companies have a moral claus that can be used to remove you for being arrested and spending time in jail.
06/22/2011 10:00AM
This is not Moscow! get out of my f'in yard cop!
this will do wonders for police/civilian relations...
06/22/2011 10:00AM
This is not Moscow! get out of my f'in yard cop!
this will do wonders for police/civilian relations... PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!
06/22/2011 10:02AM
?
Since when can a police officer tell you what to do on your own property? Answer, THEY CAN'T!!
06/22/2011 10:08AM
this is why we have a first amendment- to watch the govt.
read Radley Balko's reports on police abuse at the agitator.com. He's been referenced by the supreme court, has testified in front of congress, and has great credentials. we should all be videotaping govt officials when they initiate force against us.
06/22/2011 10:37AM
Idiot
She looks like she needs a purpose in life. Single ... highly likely! She was completely in the wrong and if our system does not defend our officers in this case, then we are all screwed.
06/23/2011 7:04AM
Yep obey the police
at all times because they are always in the right. Yours sincerely , Rodney King
06/23/2011 7:18AM
At Night!
Kimberly and Beck...I didn't hear you ever mention that this happened at night! It makes it even more understandable that she was arrested and the police officer was completely right. I would make that point that this happened at night. When I was listening to the audio on the air, I just assumed it happened during the day.
06/23/2011 7:37AM
Guys!
The officer says "guys" several times when speaking to her. How many people were standing with her? Someone took the camera from her when he arrested her. She was singled out because she was the one who spoke up, but there were clearly more people standing there in the dark with her. The other thing was her snide remark about stepping back "a foot". I think that when she said that, she was asking to be arrested. Then, when he tried to detain her, she must have then tried to leave, because you hear him tell her to stay here now. Funny too, that her friend just happened to be pulled over right in front of her house and she was ready with a camera. I would like to know the details of the traffic stop, like where it began, why it happened and how far did they have to follow him before he stopped right in front of her house. Was the whole thing staged with her prior knowledge?
06/23/2011 8:10AM
Guys Part 2!
After she hands the camera off, it is behind someones shoulder for a minute, as it continues to film. This means that there were at least two other people there with her. The one with the shoulder in frame and the one holding the camera. By then, they have moved back away from the police cars, but are still running the camera. Please note that the police don't go after them for continuing to film the scene, so it was not about the camera, only the location. As the police leave, yet more people come out of the woodwork to speak on camera as witnesses. If not controlled by the officer, the whole place could have turned into a mob scene. Luckily, some of the people listened and/or knew enough to stay back and let the police do their job. None of them were bothered or arrested by the police. Good work RPD!
06/23/2011 10:57AM
WOW!
lots of cops on this site. BTW the rest of the world thinks he was wrong and he was.
06/23/2011 12:34PM
Inconsiderate but not illegal
She should not have been arrested for being on her property and filming. Her problem was being a smart alack. That ticked the officers off and made them decide to arrest her. Note that they did not bother the other people on her lawn and who were continuing to film. It is always better to be respectful and polite to the police even if you know what they are saying or doing could not be correct. She should have gone on her porch and clicked on the wide lens to get close up shots on the original arrest. That might have put the cops more at ease.
06/23/2011 12:40PM
Stupid!!!
She was not interfering with the officers job. She was standing in her own yard recording which is perfectly legal. Then he said he does not have to explain his self to her but in reality he does have to tell her why she is being arrested. He also came on to her property and bothered her so actually he is the one breaking the law.
06/23/2011 8:42PM
Seriously?
She was annoying. They were asking her to back off and she's just running her fucking mouth. I'm with the police on this one, it might not have been illegal for her to be there, but out of respect she could've stepped inside the house like they asked.
06/23/2011 9:29PM
umb asses
she was obeying the law.....a video tape cant interfere .....its called abuse of power...dumb a/s/s/e/s/... filming anything in public is not illegal....know your s/h/i/t/ before you speak
06/24/2011 12:09AM
how about the safety of the other 2 officers
The police officer told the woman to continue taping, just do it in her house... Did anyone see the other 2 officers holding flashlights in the car and not wavering? This is because they trusted the arresting officer to care for their safety as well. How crappy could that have turned out if she distracted the other officers and one of them was shot by a passenger from that car? we would never have this discussion, and that woman would have been responsible.
06/27/2011 9:17AM
Hey Stupid!!!
She admitted during a news interview that she was on the sidewalk when she started the video. She moved back onto her yard only when the officer walked right up to her, therefore she failed to comply with his order until he was totally distracted from his duties with the traffic stop, thus the charges. When he said that he was not going to explain himself to her, it was after she had already failed to understant him the first three or more times. How many times should he have to repeat what he said? How many times should he have put up with her "Do you want me to move back a foot?" and "I don't understand your orders" BS? He had a job to do and she prevented him from do it. When he followed her onto her property to arrest her, he was not breaking the law, he was doing his job. Remember also, he did not stop the other person who took the camera from recording the scene and he did not take the camera for evidence as he could have. This tells thinking people that it was not about the camera, it was about her close proximity to the stop initially and her smart mouth talking her way into trouble.
06/27/2011 9:30AM
Civil Suit?
Is her public defender able to represent her when she sues for her millions? They should go ahead with the charge and fine her or put her in jail. If they drop the charges, the people of Rochester will end up making her rich.
06/27/2011 3:45PM
How to miss the point - 101
How can so many people completely miss the point? Number one, Title the article "Woman arrested for video taping traffic stop". Of course she was NOT arrested for video taping, she was arrested for interfering with the duties of the officers and failing to comply with their lawful order. If this had been about the video, why did the officer let Emily's friend take over the camera and continue to record the scene? Number two, just ignore all of the facts and apply your own thoughts to the case. If you already believe that the police are just here to harass innocent people, than you can ignore the truth and claim what ever fits with your prior thoughts. If you want some truth, here goes... Emily likes attention and will do what it takes to get it. She admitted that she was on the sidewalk which says she was too close to the action for everyones safety. When asked to go inside, she was more concerned about educating the officer about HER rights than she was about anyones safety, even her own. When the officer tried to explain his thoughts to her, she acted like she has a very low IQ and could not understand what he was saying. Her friend understood and can faintly be heard in the video asking her to move, but she ignored him too. Now that the charge has been dropped, she will sue and the tax payers of Rochester will pay her a pile of money. Even people that don't directly pay taxes will pay through higher rents or more run down places to live when their landlords have to pay the higher taxes. Also, prices in stores will be higher when the shopkeepers have to pay higher taxes. It may appear to be free money to unthinking people, but nothing is free. Now you can just ignore these facts too. But you will pay the price for it later.
06/28/2011 6:37AM
We Won! We Won!
The activist finds a cause for a law suit, lets say for example, a "false" arrest. With all good intentions for her community, she finds a civil attorney that will take her case for 30% of the award. To fight the case, the city has to hire their own attorney(s)and provide the court time, all at taxpayers expense. A jury from the local community, dreaming of their turn someday and what they would want, find for the activist and award her $1 million to teach the police department a lesson. Lets recap so far. For the activist to get $700k, her attorney takes $300k fron the community and the city is out $1.5 million (the $1 million award plus their cost for lawyers, court costs and time lost by the police in court. Tax time comes and taxes have to be raised to pay the city's cost of the law suit. Lets say that taxes have to be raised about 2%, which does not seem like much. Every taxpayer has to pay a little more, so every landlord and storekeeper has to raise prices, lay someone off or perform a little less maintenance on their property. Rents and prices go up and there are fewer jobs. It gets worse yet! Now, having learned their lesson, the police have to do more to gaurd against law siuts. A lot of people in the community have seen that they could also get rich by suing the city, so more are pushing the limit to try to get the police to make a mistake. Because of this, the police now have to respond an extra officer to each call or traffic stop to watch the others cops to make sure that they don't mess up. This results in slower response times when the public needs the police. More on this in a minute. Back to the activist, her intention to help the community leads her to donate her new found funds to a charity, which keeps between 25% and 80% of their donations to cover their cost of fund raising. For this example we will use 50%. So from her $700k they take $350k out of town. So far, out of $1.5 million cost to the taxpayers, $1.15 milion is gone, police response time has fallen, prices are up and jobs are down. On the bright side, there is $350k to spread around through the charity and the activist has proven her point. But wait, it gets still worse! Some of the local utes(youths) know of the white women who has won her law suit and is flush with cash. In the middle of the night, after midnight, they break in and attempt to get paid. They did not know that she gave all of the money to charity to help their community. They just want to get theirs and when she can't give them what they want, they decide to take some another way. As she screams for help, the neighbors call the police, but the police can not respond until there are 3 officers and a commander available, so the kids have a lot of time to get theirs from the activist. After they are done, they can't leave a witness to their crimes. So long activist. When the police catch the youths, they are tried as adults and sent to prison. Everyone else is tripping over cracks in the sidewalks or provoking the police because they want to get rich the way the activist did. Crime is up, taxes are up, prices are up, jobs are down and anyone that can, flees the city. Of course, the lawyers and fund raisers laugh all of the way to their out to town banks. Well, at least the local people can say that they won! They beat the police, for a change! I hope that Emily hears of and/or reads and understands at least part of this message. We Won! We Won!
Title :
Comment :


advertise with us
Recent Posts
Categories
Archives