Woman who videotaped police--charges dropped!

[MorningGlow]

Charge against Emily Good in videotaping case dismissed

The District Attorney’s Office today agreed to dismissal of the criminal charge against Emily Good, who was arrested in May while videotaping police making a traffic stop.

The video of Good’s arrest has gone viral, attracting nationwide news coverage, including a live interview with Good on CNN. Though the criminal charge against Good was a lone misdemeanor count, her arrest became the centerpiece of a community debate over the police response.

Good supporters maintain that the Rochester officer was peeved at Good’s videotaping and arrested her without legal cause. Others claimed the police response was justified, the proper answer to a meddling woman who could have put the officers’ and others’ lives as risk.

For prosecutors, however, the question was much more narrow: Did Good illegally impede police as defined by the state’s criminal laws?

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110627/NEWS01/110627014/Charge-against-Emily-Good-videotaping-case-dismissed?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

[wtbymark]

1. sue n/t

[Webster Green]

3. Yep.

Lawyer up and sue the shit out of those fucking pigs.

[Emelina]

2. Quest for power.

Cops and politicians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MZCHjGkTPg

it seems that certain power-hungry people are attracted to politics, corporate leadership, and law enforcement. The video here says it all.

The sad part is, I am sure that the superiors to those cops just wish they had confiscated the video and destroyed it. I used to side with cops when victims said the cops used heavy-handed tactics, but no more.

[unblock]

4. the problem, of course, is that the police can still harass if all they do is lose the case

this is the age old weakness of the various legal remedies against police excesses. most of the time, the worst thing that happens is that the defense wins and the charges are dropped, thrown out, dismissed, verdict overturned, etc.

which means that the police may have paid a small price in terms of time and effort, but may also have achieved much of what they wanted through hassle and intimidation. who wants to be the next person to risk jail time and face much uncertainty in their lives over a period of possibly years just to stick up for some rights? i know many of us would quickly raise their hands, but, put to the test, many of us even here and certainly many less politically active people would simply do as told.

the police will continue to push the boundaries of what they can get away with until the standard becomes that they have to COMPENSATE otherwise pay a BIG PRICE for violating rights. if the worst that happens is they lose the case, then whoop-de-do, that just means they can do it again and again. remember that winning a case against the person whose rights they're violating isn't always their prime objective.

consider a big protest. they can just detain everyone on b.s. charges, and then drop all the charges. so they don't win a case, big deal. they didn't want to win a case, they just wanted to have control over the situation.


i should note that i'm a BIG law and order type, but, call me funny, i think law and order should apply to the police as well.

[littlewolf]

5. SUE em ... lets see how they like having a quarter of their original budget ...

[lob1]

6. You're right. The police dept. and the cop have to pay

in some way that will make them think twice about doing it again.

[markpkessinger]

8. When all else fails, they fall back on "disorderly conduct" . . .

. . . which can mean just about anything the police want it to mean.

[unblock]

9. in fact they can charge you with nearly ANYTHING if they don't plan on following through.

if all they want to do is bully and harass or remove you from the scene, they can make up a charge.
it doesn't matter that it won't stick because that's not their goal.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. The pigs I've known have a saying:

"You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride"

That's exactly what went on there. The offense they charged her with didn't remotely resemble her actions on the night in question.


First, for reference, watch this display of intimidation and weigh that against what the PIG union rep. says. This is outside a community meeting in support of the police misconduct victim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqPZxRWxxm4


Then watch this disgusting display of piggery by the union rep. and his gang of fucking thugs:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110701/NEWS01/107010351/Union-says-cops-threatened-after-Emily-Good-arrest?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CNews

[Agony]

7. The question now is... redress? how much? nt

[WatsonT]

10. It should never be illegal to videotape active duty police.

[Emelina]

11. No but power hungry cops are trying to make it illegal.

[bigwillq]

14. Hello

Welcome to DU :hi:

[ImNotTed]

12. The cops didn't "feel safe" with a lone woman taping them

:rofl:

[christx30]

13. I don't know if I feel safe

knowing that are three cops out there that are afraid of alone woman with a video camera. What would they do against an ACTUAL threat? Run?

[ImNotTed]

15. Kick

Already recced.

[christx30]

16. UPDATE:

Emily Good's home was broken into and the iPod that she used to film the police, as well as her laptop and money were stolen.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110628/NEWS01/106280327/Break-Emily-Good-s-home-an-oddity