Video Released of Arizona State University Professor's Arrest: Excessive Force?

I went to ASU (which might explain a lot), and yes, the campus cops--not to mention the Tempe Police Department--are a bunch of retarded meatheads, straight out of Idiocracy. Case in point:

Video Released in Arrest of ASU Professor

“Put your hands behind your back. I’m going to slam you on this car. Put your hands behind your back,” Ferrin said.

“You really want to do that? Do you see what I’m wearing? Do you see?” Ore said.

She was wearing a black dress and after being "slammed" onto the car, she was wrestled to the ground. Her dress hiked up and her body was exposed.

While both Ore and Ferrin suffered some minor injuries, Ore was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer in addition to criminal damage and obstructing a thoroughfare. She intends to fight the charges.

Ore's attorney, Alane Roby, says Ore is claiming self-defense.

"She was exposed, told officer she was exposed," Roby said of her client while she was on the ground. "Her dress was up; the officer was reaching toward her anatomy. She felt uncomfortable with hands going there."

All this started because she was caught jaywalking (for understandable reasons if you've ever been to the perpetual-construction Hell that is downtown Tempe) and refused to identify herself. Even if she was technically breaking the law by doing that, why does a grown man (in presumably formidable physical condition with specialized training) need to resort to such violent tactics to restrain a woman who had implied no threat?

Because he's an overgrown infant with a gun and a badge, without morals or honor. That's why. Like the people who hired him and all his friends.

“ASU authorities have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the arrest and have found no evidence of inappropriate actions by the ASUPD officers involved."

Right.

a reply to: NthOther

Another day in the world of a brainwashed police force! Does not matter who you are, you will be forced to follow the "law" The funny thing about our legal system is that it is a complete farce, made in such a way as to confuse all who dare look into it. Hire those who love authority, train them to abuse the population, give them weapons designed for the military, and you have the current police of the good old U.S., some would call them nazi's similar to the old SS, I am not one to argue against this!

a reply to: NthOther

Wannabes are the worst. If they don't qualify for regular police work they often turn to security jobs… there they play out their fantasy of being a real cop.

Not in general, just in some cases. The other brand of cretin to watch for are temporary police. Often they are also not deemed fit for regular duty and get called up in times of heavy workload like holidays and emergencies. Thats where they get to shine, too.

I've met a few and they are most fun to dance for.

originally posted by: NthOther

Because he's an overgrown infant with a gun and a badge, without morals or honor. That's why. Like the people who hired him and all his friends.

I am by no means saying that the ends justified the means here, but what can we say about the civilian in this video?
She, by her own admission, 'has no problem abiding by the law.' However she did not. And her reasoning was she was being spoken to disrespectfully, which she stated very disrespectfully.

Once she was told that she was going to be handcuffed, did she place her hands on the hood or behind her back peacfully? or did she refuse to and physically resist. I believe the dashcam shows that she resisted. So at this stage, she not only disobeyed the law, disobeyed the request of the officder, she proceeded to resist physically being handcuffed. I suppose she thought that the officer would just allow her to walk away?

"I know that I am attempting to place you under arrest ma'am for admittedly breaking the law, but since you don't want me to, I'll just stand here and you can do whatever you want ma'am. Here, I'll hand you the cuffs and you can put them on yourself at your leisure, or how about you just turn yourself in to the station at your eraliest convenience, Have a blessed day!"

I think thats the response that she expected and probably alot of members here as well. But that simply isnt going to happen. And then to top it off, when she was subdued she decided to kick the officer out of frustration.

"She was exposed, told officer she was exposed," Roby said of her client while she was on the ground. "Her dress was up; the officer was reaching toward her anatomy. She felt uncomfortable with hands going there."

He was reaching toward her anatomy? Am I to believe that this educated ASU professor thought she was going to be sexually abused as well right on the street in the middle of public by the police officer? Ok maybe she did think that. But just one kick? She very clearly delivered one kick to his shin out of frustration and turned away. No fear. Violence out of frustration.

Like I stated at the beginning of my reply, I am not saying that the the ends justifies the means ere, and that the officer perhaps could have handled the situation better, but lets be fair and look at both sides here.

Flame away.

Papers please ....Is it really a law in the states that you have to carry papers and show them when asked ? She did identify herself to the officer . Self identification is the highest form actually ....friend or foe ...Another thing is that this seems to be taking place in the middle of the street .I would have thought that they should have taken it to the side .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yes it is a law...many states have some form of stop and identify statute or some form of Terry stop statutes.

In Arizona, it is Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412


which states:

13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification

A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

& Tit. 28, §1595

which states:

... A person other than the driver of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to provide evidence of the person's identity to a peace officer or a duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency on request, when such officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a violation of this title, is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

D. A peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency may give the signal or instruction required by subsection A of this section by hand, emergency light, voice, whistle or siren.

E. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subsection B of this section if the person provided evidence of identity required by subsection B, paragraphs 1 through 5 of this section and produces to the court a legible driver license or an authorized duplicate of the license that is issued to the person and that was valid at the time the violation of subsection B of this section occurred.

So yes, it is a law in Arizona, as well as many other places to provide identification when asked by a police officer.

I can understand a drivers licence for anyone operating a auto but ,say I was just hiking a ride and didn't have my wallet or any id on me .Usually a person would have to be charged with a crime before being compelled to give a name .Most kids don't have id so a verbal identification should not infringe on the laws you posted . a reply to: youdidntseeme

a reply to: youdidntseeme

A statute isn't a 'law'. That's why it's a 'statute' and not a 'law'. This 'statute' conflicts with the fifth amendment making it 'void'. Please understand the difference between law and colors of law. One is not responsible for proving a negative. Please, gain knowledge.

originally posted by: qwerty12345
a reply to: youdidntseeme

A statute isn't a 'law'. That's why it's a 'statute' and not a 'law'. This 'statute' conflicts with the fifth amendment making it 'void'. Please understand the difference between law and colors of law. One is not responsible for proving a negative. Please, gain knowledge.

First off, unless her name would incriminate herself, this is not a 5th Amendment issue in the least. In fact lets check the exact text just to be sure...

No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
Ok, like I said, not a Fifth Amendment issue.

Secondly,
Definitions of statute:

a written law that is formally created by a government
: a written rule or regulation

Merriam Webster

An act of the legislature; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government, expressed with the requisite for- malities. In foreign and civil law. Any particular municipal law or usage, though resting for its authority on judicial decisions, or the practice of nations. 2 Kent, Comm. 450. The whole municipal law of a particular state, from whatever source arising.
Law Dictionary: What is STATUTE, n? definition of STATUTE, n (Black's Law Dictionary)

Lawdictionary.org

A federal statute is a law enacted by Congress. It is the written will of Congress as expressed formally by an Act of Congress. Thus, when a bill is passed by Congress and signed by the president, it becomes a federal statute.

uslegal

And how many of these listed at Cornell Law School's website are not laws?

You will also find the followinf definition almost everywhere you look:

Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies. Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or "black letter law."

Translation: A statute is the law as it is written, case law is what you referred to as the colors of law, or interpretation by the judicial branch. A statute is 'black letter law.'

Final example:
Here is the full text of Black's Law Dictionary
Do a search for the word statute and see how many times it does not mean black letter law...

I appreciate your suggestion for me to gain knowledge, I hope you read these sources and are able to do the same.

a reply to: NthOther


Fascists and their apologists are the enemies. Natural law will have it's day.

a reply to: NthOther

The question is do you HAVE to carry ID when walking?

I know that it used to be you do not need ID or too answer a police officers questions. However, if ARRESTED you must give your name and date of birth - nothing more if you do not wish too. I am confused on this issue to be honest. And I really SHOULD know.

However, if it IS the law in that state then she got what she deserved. She was told to do something pertaining to the law and she refuses and has the nerve to question the tone or manners of the officer.

However, being that she is a woman and of color and a "educated person" I am interested to see how this turns out.

As far as I am concerned she is in the WRONG!! arrogant and entitled. What she is wearing is of no consequence. She chose that to wear so deal with it when you break the law.

She could of been exceptionally polite and spoken in a manner of submission to authority. I know that seems silly to most but if she had sucked up her pride she would not be on TV looking like an idiot and potentially jeopardizing her career.

a reply to: youdidntseeme


...just stop it....really... IF this was a woman you loved, you wouldn't be saying any of that garbage, you'd be looking to take away that officer's job at the very least.

Cops have virtually NO right treat people like this. This kind of manhandling should be reserved for violent suspects, not old ladies, if that cop was AFRAID for his life (like all of those cowards seem to be) then he should go back to the station, hang up his badge, and get a job he's brave enough and mentally strong enough to handle.

I really wish all of the 'afraid for their lives' cops would simply quit there jobs and find something they're not afraid of doing. Because we DONT need them patrolling our streets physically threatening our mothers, wives, and grandmothers.

originally posted by: projectbane
a reply to: NthOther

The question is do you HAVE to carry ID when walking?

I know that it used to be you do not need ID or too answer a police officers questions. However, if ARRESTED you must give your name and date of birth - nothing more if you do not wish too. I am confused on this issue to be honest. And I really SHOULD know.

However, if it IS the law in that state then she got what she deserved. She was told to do something pertaining to the law and she refuses and has the nerve to question the tone or manners of the officer.

However, being that she is a woman and of color and a "educated person" I am interested to see how this turns out.

As far as I am concerned she is in the WRONG!! arrogant and entitled. What she is wearing is of no consequence. She chose that to wear so deal with it when you break the law.

She could of been exceptionally polite and spoken in a manner of submission to authority. I know that seems silly to most but if she had sucked up her pride she would not be on TV looking like an idiot and potentially jeopardizing her career.

No . . . but, in Arizona, once she violated a traffic statute she was required to show I.D. if asked. udidntseeme did a great job of providing the "refusal to provide name and I.D." statutes above. If she was just walking down the street and committed no crime (simply stopped and asked for I.D.), then NO she would not be required to have or show it. However, she still would be required to give her real name if requested by the officer. These statutes are not old (2005?) and are a result of the Hiibel decision.

As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement,[20] and 24 states have done so.[21] The opinion in Hiibel implied that persons detained by police in jurisdictions with constitutional[22] "stop and identify" laws listed are obligated to identify themselves,[23] and that persons detained in other jurisdictions are not.[24] The issue may not be that simple, however, for several reasons:

The wording of "stop and identify" laws varies considerably from state to state.
Noncompliance with a "stop and identify" law that does not explicitly impose a penalty may constitute violation of another law, such as one to the effect of "resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer".
State courts have made varying interpretations of both "stop and identify" and "obstructing" laws.

en.wikipedia.org...

Most people don't understand that the "law" changes constanly and just because there "used to be" no law requiring someone to identify themselves or provide I.D. . . . doesn't mean that's the case today.

a reply to: NthOther

As an ASU alum and someone that is constantly in that area to attend various functions, I can agree with your point about Tempe and campus police.

However, anyone that hangs out in that area knows TPD, is constantly citing people for jaywalking (construction or not). I'm sure this is nothing more than a money making scheme, so I'm not excusing their behavior. The only time they don't run around citing everyone they see (in that specific area) is during football season, on game day. Just too many people jaywalking to worry about, I guess.

But, this was at night and there were very few people around (by the video). The officer is heard saying "you were walking in the middle of the street". We cannot know what/where she actually was, but knowing the area, I can tell you she was south of 5th (by the video) which means she was past the construction area and sidewalks are unobstructed.

So, the question is . . . was she just walking in the street? Aimlessly crossing (i.e. loitering)? Simply crossing against a signal? That's something we cannot tell or are given info on. It's clear from the video that the car and interaction are smack dab in the middle of College Ave.

That said . . . jaywalking stops shouldn't require "force". And, she did herself no favors by trying to "argue" or resist.

She jaywalked....check

She refused to identify herself to be ticketed...check

She was instructed that she was under arrest...check

She resisted arrest....check

...and then the officers used too much force. I mean really, how hard is
it for two guys to force a woman's arms behind her back?

Still, she is wrong...and she won't win in court.

originally posted by: projectbane
a reply to: NthOther

The question is do you HAVE to carry ID when walking?

I know that it used to be you do not need ID or too answer a police officers questions. However, if ARRESTED you must give your name and date of birth - nothing more if you do not wish too. I am confused on this issue to be honest. And I really SHOULD know.

However, if it IS the law in that state then she got what she deserved. She was told to do something pertaining to the law and she refuses and has the nerve to question the tone or manners of the officer.

However, being that she is a woman and of color and a "educated person" I am interested to see how this turns out.

As far as I am concerned she is in the WRONG!! arrogant and entitled. What she is wearing is of no consequence. She chose that to wear so deal with it when you break the law.

She could of been exceptionally polite and spoken in a manner of submission to authority. I know that seems silly to most but if she had sucked up her pride she would not be on TV looking like an idiot and potentially jeopardizing her career.

Why are these police always so anxious to make an arrest? and then add charges like assault? It's quite clear that the policeman did a technical assault himself, and before that he said he was going to 'slam' her onto the car.

Apart from that, it seems she was being arrested, but what for, Jaywalking?

I see more and more of this type of story - this is a milder one, at least they didn't beat to death or shoot someone or a family pet - and I just find it incredibly mind boggling. It seems that any slight infraction or failure to immediately submit to a police officers orders are met with extreme violence, and it seems that, for the most part, the violence is protected as "standard procedure". Incredible!

Since when did non-violent infraction become an excuse for a smackdown or shooting? When did the presence of the family dog become a reason to euthanize it in a hail of gunfire? Seriously, the US has been screwed up totally for a long time but it is reaching new levels of banana republic status with these displays of state sanctioned brutality to keep the serfs in line!

I marvel at the defence by some of these police actions. Sure, the person didn't submit to police authority so deserved a beating. What?
When did simple dialogue and a friendly non-threatening attitude get replaced with the now seemingly compulsory "comply maggot" threat of violence? Half the cops (maybe more) that I see in the videos and on TV seem to be pumped up on steroids, which goes to explain a lot, and see themselves as some sort of Judge Dredd character, rather than a public servant and community protector.
Everyone is viewed as being lesser than themselves and an easy target of their own pent up insecurities and bullying ways. It's why I only travel there on business these days instead of a couple of times a year on holiday. I'd rather spend my money elsewhere, where the police will maybe look out for me if I have a problem, rather than beat, taser or shoot me for showing an attitude.

a reply to: smurfy

No, she is not being arrested for "jaywalking". . . If you watch the raw video at the link (not the video supplied in the article which just shows the end of the incident), it starts with the officer asking for I.D. and she refuses and asks why he needs I.D. and if that is the reason why he is making contact with her. He states: "No, I made contact with you for obstruction of a public thoroughfare. You are just walking in the middle of the street. If you do not show me I.D., you will be arrested." His comments make it seem like she was just wandering down the middle of the street and the video shows the car and the incident happening in the middle of the street.

During that time, she started talking to someone else in the police car and the officer states not to talk to him "he is not a police officer". She starts saying she thinks "there has been an injustice here" and continues to address whoever is in the police car and tells her again "you are talking to me, not him" So, it doesn't appear there were two cops. The other was probably a "ride-a-long" . . . usually students who want to go into law enforcement.

So she was going to be simply cited, until she refused to show I.D. and continued arguing. From there she was clearly resisting his efforts.

I'm no fan of the police or their tactics, but this could have been avoided had she simply shown I.D. . . . took the citation . . . and fought this "injustice" in court. As much as I'd like to blame the cops for this one, it appears this isn't the case. Even when she resists, he simply tries to continue cuffing her and they both fall when she tries to move away to her left. No tazers, batons, punches, etc. The article even states that both parties only received superficial wounds . . . whatever those were (bruises, scrapes, ?).

a reply to: Britguy

Hyperbole much . . .

No beatings or violence of any kind . . . did you watch the video? She refused to show I.D. He told here "I will arrest you if you refuse to show I.D.". Not only did she continue to refuse, but was struggling while he was trying to cuff her. Then she tried to "get away" to her left and both fell to the ground. That's the end of it.

Where was the "extreme violence" that you talk about?

a reply to: solomons path

I was making a generalized observation, not necessarily about this particular incident. Even so, why not a quiet word and everyone goes happily on their way? Why the confrontation and citations for everything under the sun these days?

I remember better times when the police were locals, knew the people in the community and were well known and respected. If one of them found someone in this situation, they'd have a quiet word and see them on their way, and be thanked for it later. These days, unfortunately, everything is an offence and every transgression must be punished. That is not policing as it used to be, or how it should be. It's simply brutish enforcement carried out, from what I can see, by people who have no business being in the job and who lack any empathy, social skills or a sense of fair play and community spirit.
Maybe if they tried the old approach, a smile and a bit of dialogue, and offering advice and help instead of the now commonplace confrontation, things would be better for them AND the people who pay their wages. Simply ticketing people for every little infraction is about revenue generation, NOT traditional policing. Maybe I'm just a bit old fashioned!