It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Another person who could have avoided the entire situation with simple compliance.

Defend her all you want, claim the officer was over aggressive but at the point where force was used she deliberately resisted arrest and made a point to accuse the officer of 'disrespecting' her.

She is entirely in the wrong and I have no pity for the situation she found herself in.

I've been in these types of situations and accused/convicted of more serious crimes and when dealing with LEOs they appreciate simple compliance and an ability to follow orders. Under NO circumstances is resisting an officer or questioning his 'respect' of you going to get you anywhere.




posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: smurfy

You don't have to have I.D. to "walk down the street". However, if you break a law that requires a citation, then you are required to show I.D. How else can the officer write up the citation, if you don't have I.D.? If you don't have I.D. then you will be asked your name. The officer can then look up the name and ask you to verify your address, etc. If you give a false name, you have broken another law . . . you are under arrest. If you refuse, as she did, then you are breaking a law . . . you are under arrest.

Again . . . I've been asked for I.D. by Tempe Police and once they run the I.D. been given a warning. Phoenix PD too, for traffic stops. The run the I.D. to make sure nothing else comes up (warrants, etc.). If they are not going to let you off with a warning . . . they still need the I.D. to write the citation. If you don't have I.D. on you, but are cooperative . . . they, technically, could issue you another citation for not having one. They are not going to take your word that the info you are giving them is accurate . . . that's what the I.D. is for.

For what it's worth . . . the same applies to anyone out riding a bicycle. Break a traffic law and be prepared to be asked for I.D.

If you are just out walking and not breaking laws . . . Nobody cares if you are carrying I.D.



So what you are saying is that she broke a law that, 'requires a citation' so no warnings/advice given then? we don't know why, and again why not?
so like I said, we are missing the salient parts.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: smurfy

You don't have to have I.D. to "walk down the street". However, if you break a law that requires a citation, then you are required to show I.D. How else can the officer write up the citation, if you don't have I.D.? If you don't have I.D. then you will be asked your name. The officer can then look up the name and ask you to verify your address, etc. If you give a false name, you have broken another law . . . you are under arrest. If you refuse, as she did, then you are breaking a law . . . you are under arrest.

Again . . . I've been asked for I.D. by Tempe Police and once they run the I.D. been given a warning. Phoenix PD too, for traffic stops. The run the I.D. to make sure nothing else comes up (warrants, etc.). If they are not going to let you off with a warning . . . they still need the I.D. to write the citation. If you don't have I.D. on you, but are cooperative . . . they, technically, could issue you another citation for not having one. They are not going to take your word that the info you are giving them is accurate . . . that's what the I.D. is for.

For what it's worth . . . the same applies to anyone out riding a bicycle. Break a traffic law and be prepared to be asked for I.D.

If you are just out walking and not breaking laws . . . Nobody cares if you are carrying I.D.



So what you are saying is that she broke a law that, 'requires a citation' so no warnings/advice given then? we don't know why, and again why not?
so like I said, we are missing the salient parts.


She could have been given a warning . . . but, that is up the the officer. I have a friend that was "given a warning" instead of a DUI and I received a call at 3 a.m. asking if I would come pick her up on the side of the freeway.

Should this cop simply "given Ore a warning" . . . probably . . . and that is why I said they are just out to make money. A citation equals a fine to be paid. However, that is the complaint most people have with the LEO's in America these days . . . they are simply revenue collectors and thugs. I never disagreed with that part. However, it's her reaction and attitude that led to the eventual outcome.
edit on 6/29/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/29/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Apparently cops are not human and expecting to have a civil, normal conversation (even a disagreement) with a cop is an unreasonable expectation.

This is why I'd prefer robot cops, at-least you dont expect any humanity. Actually, we should do away with most cops but thats a whole other conversation.

"Show me your ID" = obey my commands or youre getting beat up.

Not to bring race into this, but when Blacks or Hispanics are abused by the police, they actually do something. Expect 20, 50, 100, 200 people to protest the police or the next town meeting.

When it happens to Whites, not-a-friggin-peep. Just complaining on a forum.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
a reply to: NthOther

Another person who could have avoided the entire situation with simple compliance.

Defend her all you want, claim the officer was over aggressive but at the point where force was used she deliberately resisted arrest and made a point to accuse the officer of 'disrespecting' her.

She is entirely in the wrong and I have no pity for the situation she found herself in.

I've been in these types of situations and accused/convicted of more serious crimes and when dealing with LEOs they appreciate simple compliance and an ability to follow orders. Under NO circumstances is resisting an officer or questioning his 'respect' of you going to get you anywhere.





posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: smurfy

You don't have to have I.D. to "walk down the street". However, if you break a law that requires a citation, then you are required to show I.D. How else can the officer write up the citation, if you don't have I.D.? If you don't have I.D. then you will be asked your name. The officer can then look up the name and ask you to verify your address, etc. If you give a false name, you have broken another law . . . you are under arrest. If you refuse, as she did, then you are breaking a law . . . you are under arrest.

Again . . . I've been asked for I.D. by Tempe Police and once they run the I.D. been given a warning. Phoenix PD too, for traffic stops. The run the I.D. to make sure nothing else comes up (warrants, etc.). If they are not going to let you off with a warning . . . they still need the I.D. to write the citation. If you don't have I.D. on you, but are cooperative . . . they, technically, could issue you another citation for not having one. They are not going to take your word that the info you are giving them is accurate . . . that's what the I.D. is for.

For what it's worth . . . the same applies to anyone out riding a bicycle. Break a traffic law and be prepared to be asked for I.D.

If you are just out walking and not breaking laws . . . Nobody cares if you are carrying I.D.



So what you are saying is that she broke a law that, 'requires a citation' so no warnings/advice given then? we don't know why, and again why not?
so like I said, we are missing the salient parts.


She could have been given a warning . . . but, that is up the the officer. I have a friend that was "given a warning" instead of a DUI and I received a call at 3 a.m. asking if I would come pick her up on the side of the freeway.

Should this cop simply "given Ore a warning" . . . probably . . . and that is why I said they are just out to make money. A citation equals a fine to be paid. However, that is the complaint most people have with the LEO's in America these days . . . they are simply revenue collectors and thugs. I never disagreed with that part. However, it's her reaction and attitude that led to the eventual outcome.





and what is wrong with this story....a drunk driver whom is potentially a murderer gets let off but a jaywalker gets the book thrown at her...yep makes sense



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Thumbs down me all you like I won't be the one to get cuffed when the situation doesn't call for it.

I've actually dealt with mostly nice and amiable LEOs and that was the case because I didn't flip out when I didn't have to.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Didn't say it makes sense . . . or that it was right. But, how an LEO proceeds rests in their discretion, with every "stop" they make.

In my friend's case, she was polite, explained that she didn't feel "drunk", and was compliant. The officer asked if there was anyone that lived close by she could call . . . so, he let her. When I got there, he explained that she was just having trouble staying in her lane and not belligerent. Said, he didn't feel like "ruining someone's life for a mistake" and that his only concern was that she didn't hurt anyone. I said thanks . . . so did she . . . and I drove her home. The officer even let me move her car to the next exit and then drove me back to my vehicle.

Contrast that with how the lady in the OP acted . . . So, if you want to talk about potential . . . what was the potential outcome if she didn't act entitled and claimed there was an "injustice"? Guess we'll never know and that also depends on the goals of the officer.


edit on 6/29/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: youdidntseeme

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.


You know you make a few good points, but it's very obvious you are NOT a woman. Yes, the threat of being assaulted in broad daylight is not only a fear, but a real possibility for women everywhere across the planet including in the US. Yes, cops can and do molest and even rape women in broad daylight because they know their status as a cop works heavily in their favor. Yes, a strange man putting his hands anywhere near my anatomy would cause me to react in self defense even if he had a badge and a gun. Especially if he had a badge and a gun. Women live with the threat of being assaulted every day. Unfortunately it puts us in positions where we have to risk breaking the law to protect ourselves. If men were more aware of that then maybe we wouldn't have problems like this one.

Go ask your girlfriend/wife/sister/mother how she would react if it was her. I bet she'd say, exactly what that woman did.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: youdidntseeme

The big picture is:
The police SERVE us...

We as a whole know there are WAY bigger problems going on in this society than "JAYWALKING"...

If a LEO took his job SO literally,... he would not be able to even leave the parking lot of his precinct without feeling the need to call someone out on a violation... (however minor)

The point is: LEO's are going to work for the NWO or the people...

That's it... they have to decide if they want to improve our society or do what they are told and be the robots of the NWO

PERIOD...



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=18087933]youdidntseeme[/post

Youdidntseeme is exactly who the OP was referencing.

Nazi wanna be or gonna be either way. I guess a lot of them did not realize how they were being used.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

To be fair, he did say that 'I'm going to slam you on this car', or something to that effect.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax
a reply to: smurfy

Thumbs down me all you like I won't be the one to get cuffed when the situation doesn't call for it.

I've actually dealt with mostly nice and amiable LEOs and that was the case because I didn't flip out when I didn't have to.

But as you say, you are much kosher and about some things more serious. In any case I already said the video is incomplete, there is no mention of traffic, or that she was obstructing anything, nor that she was actually in danger at the time. IMHO, obstruction is a silly law in any case, when used in a blanket way, she could be just crossing the street, and there again we don't know that, there is no video, all there is the policeman saying that she was walking up the middle of the road afterwards.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Disclaimer: I don't like most cops; How they act and how they treat people don't sit well with me and I've been a victim of it too and I'm a white male.


Based on what I watched, she was walking in the middle of the street. The cop thought she was displaying strange behavior, so he approached her and asked for her ID. She flips out on the cop, refuses to acknowledge his requests, then she resists arrest, so she is then subdued by force. After that, she then assaults the cop by kicking him. He should've put shackles on her at that time. She's obviously a violent person who has no respect for the law.

How is she the victim of anything but her own disrespectfulness and stupidity? It seems like she staged this along with the accomplice who called in. The cop was justified in how he handled this. Just my opinion



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: coastlinekid

Cops were never put in place to serve and protect the people. They were put in place to serve and protect the government and it's interests.


edit on 2-7-2014 by Fylgje because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fylgje

The cop was justified in how he handled this.

It's simply no way to treat a lady.

I probably shouldn't, but I would have far less of a problem with this if the "perp" was an ASU linebacker--someone for whom the level of force applied would be more "appropriate".

These cops are totally indiscriminate in how they respond to widely varying situations. Maximum force.

Female college professor? Maximum force. Protesting teenager? Maximum force. Aggressive dog? Maximum force to 11. They have been trained to ignore all contextual subtleties and are programmed to respond in one way only. Their capacity for moral objection has been all but destroyed; or, rather, their sense of morality has been warped to justify their actions.

In other words, they're evil robots. Or just completely stupid. I'm not sure yet.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join