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

a reply to: Britguy
I agree with you in general principle about modern police tactics and the all too common excessive violence.

However, in this specific incident . . . she could have walked away after a conversation. Unfortunately, she chose to keep questioning why the officer made contact with her and refused to show I.D.

Had she just shown I.D., for all we know the officer could have let her walk off and simply told her to "stay out of the street" (as has happened to me in the same bar district by this campus). At worst, she would have been cited for "obstruction of a public thoroughfare" and sent on her way.

At no time did the officer speak to her in a disrespectful manner or act in an overly aggressive manner. He even warned her that he would have to slam her on the car, if she continued to resist the cuffs . . . after he gave her several chances to avoid arrest by showing I.D.

This was a non-issue until the news channel put out this report a MONTH after it happened. And, if you read the comments at the bottom of the article on a local (not network affiliated) news channel, 80% of the commentators are from different states and trying to make this a "black vs. white" issue or "typical NAZI Arizona" issue.

I really think the local news station (which gets very little to no traffic and is barely afloat) is simply going for "ratings and page hits" or they were contacted specifically by the individual in question. But, that is opinion.

I love the fact that a bystander felt the need to call 911 on the cops. Everyone should be at least as proactive as him in documenting/exposing these incidents. I don't think we're far from the citizenry directly intervening in these situations.

Which is a good thing.

...

Yes, Arizona has a stop-and-identify law (which is BS). Yes, the professor broke that law. Yes, the professor resisted restraint. Why was she being restrained in the first place? Why do they need to handcuff her to identify her? It's not like she's going to outrun the cops (sorry, but she doesn't look very swift on her feet). Did they want to frisk her (probably)? Because, you know, those Tempe jaywalkers are usually armed to the teeth. And she's black, so she must have drugs too.

I mean come on. There's no defending this. The whole thing, top to bottom, is excessive and unwarranted. We do not let the police beat people up over things that are barely misdemeanors. If the LEO apologists insist on defending their actions... well, it won't be long until you are the one with your face on the asphalt and a boot on your neck. For speeding.

It is time to wake up and stop making excuses for these deplorable actions. The actions this cop took are wholly disproportionate to the threat (what threat?) he faced...

...which is what they are trained to do. See the problem?

originally posted by: solomons path

However, in this specific incident . . . she could have walked away after a conversation. Unfortunately, she chose to keep questioning why the officer made contact with her and refused to show I.D.

Had she just shown I.D., for all we know the officer could have let her walk off and simply told her to "stay out of the street" (as has happened to me in the same bar district by this campus). At worst, she would have been cited for "obstruction of a public thoroughfare" and sent on her way.

Just shut up and take it, eh?

At no time did the officer speak to her in a disrespectful manner or act in an overly aggressive manner. He even warned her that he would have to slam her on the car, if she continued to resist the cuffs . . . after he gave her several chances to avoid arrest by showing I.D.

"Slam you" on the car. Very professional language and conduct by the fine young man in blue.

This was a non-issue until the news channel put out this report a MONTH after it happened. And, if you read the comments at the bottom of the article on a local (not network affiliated) news channel, 80% of the commentators are from different states and trying to make this a "black vs. white" issue or "typical NAZI Arizona" issue.

The video was just released.

a reply to: NthOther

Overgrown infant? You've got it all wrong.
They're not being trained to reason,to be all human like "oh shes jaywalking i'm gonna let her go with a warning,she's not a criminal and there's not any malice behind her actions".

They are trained like robots, to give orders to get on the floor with the hands behind the head. If the human perpetrator does not comply at once, maximun force will be administrated.

And people think they don't need assault rifles and weapons to defend themselves against governments.Psh.
I just hope they DO take away your guns,and you people ARE forced to fight back Arab Spring style.
Good luck with throwing rocks and "peaceful demonstrations" inside a cage.

a reply to: NthOther

I love the fact that a bystander felt the need to call 911 on the cops. Everyone should be at least as proactive as him in documenting/exposing these incidents. I don't think we're far from the citizenry directly intervening in these situations.

Which is a good thing.

Yes . . . more citizens should do that and it is a "good thing". However, most bystanders don't see or hear everything going on and don't understand the whole situation. That is why "eyewitness testimony" is the weakest and least reliable form of evidence in court.

Yes, Arizona has a stop-and-identify law (which is BS). Yes, the professor broke that law. Yes, the professor resisted restraint. Why was she being restrained in the first place? Why do they need to handcuff her to identify her?

Whether it's BS or not . . . it's the law. And you only are required to show I.D. if you are being cited for already breaking a law. You are right . . . not only did she break one law, she proceeded to break another by refusing to show I.D. . . . then another by resisting . . . then another by kicking the officer.

They weren't handcuffing her to identify her. That time had passed as she refused and resisted numerous attempts at compliance. She was being handcuffed because she was then placed under arrest . . . for refusing to show I.D. (which is a law) and continuing to argue.

Did you actually understand what was going on in the video or did you just see and hear what you wanted to see and hear?

Just shut up and take it, eh?

Tell me when being uncooperative and argumentative ever works out for the "citizen" when dealing with LEO's. How did it work out for this individual? Go to any website on "knowing your rights" or even the ACLU's site and show me where any organization recommends "becoming argumentative and resisting" as a prudent course of action.

I can tell you've never been in such a situation. I've was "roughed up" by PHXPD four times between the ages of 17-26 . . . yet, I've never been "arrested" in my life. So, my recommendation stands . . . fight it in court and file a complaint against the officer.

"Slam you" on the car. Very professional language and conduct by the fine young man in blue.

Again . . . did you even understand what was happening in the video?

He clearly tried to handcuff her while standing up and away from the car. She was squirming and pulling her hands away. He informed her that he would have to "slam her down on the car" to cuff her, IF she did not comply. I don't see how you can say he wasn't being professional. Should he have not given her the warning? Should he have just backed away and tazered her? Should he have been demeaning or used racial or sexual slurs? Body slammed her and placed his knee on her neck?

Considering the alternatives and her actions and attitude . . . Yes, he was very professional. He kept calm, spoke in an even, low voice, didn't call her insulting names, didn't use any force that was not in an attempt to simply place cuffs on her.

The video was just released.

Yes . . . Because KTVK contacted the dept. and told them they were running a story and wanted their "side". The video was offered because the dept. didn't feel anything was done wrong. Many depts. will do this, as it shows exactly what happened as opposed to it being a one sided smear from the person making the complaint. Do you actually think they would have released the video if some officer just rolled up on the individual and beat them down. It would take a court order for that video to see the light of day. But, . . . when the officer is not at fault . . . let the world see.



Unlike you and despite my severe dislike for LEO's and their tactics or my disagreement with specific laws . . . I let the evidence make up my mind on an individual situation. And the evidence is clear . . . She wasn't in the street to "avoid an obstructed sidewalk" as she claimed. She was stopped south of 5th, closer to University Dr. where there are no construction blockades. She was arguing about being cited for walking down the middle of the street (or crossing as she claims). She refused to show I.D. (which again, is a law, whether you think it is BS or not). Even after being told that she would be placed under arrest if she did not show I.D., she still argued. The officer told her he was placing her under arrest, at which point she resisted. He pinned her up against the car to cuff and pat her down, at which point she wrestled away and tried to "get away" to her left. The officer tried to keep a hold of her arms, at which point she kicked him.

Everything that transpired was the result of her poor choices on how to react and deal with the situation. The officer did not just assault her for "jaywalking" . . . In fact, he didn't assault her at all. She was actually the only one who escalated the violence level of the situation by trying to escape the attempt to handcuff her and then kicking the officer.

There are plenty of real examples of "abuse" by LEO's . . . this is not one of them.

Personally . . . I don't even think he should have bothered with citing her . . . Of course, I don't know what happened to draw his attention. Was this the usual . . . "let's make some money by handing out citations" or was she just sauntering down the middle of College Ave.?

originally posted by: solomons path
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.

I did watch the raw video, the other video asks you to do so. So it was going to be ID centred anyway. Why do you need ID out walking local, I only carry ID in the car under those conditions. Apart from that we don't see anything leading up to the disagreement. Why'd he not just warn her at the outset, or maybe he did? we don't see that. The video is very limited, and is certainly not in full, and since he was going to, 'slam her onto the car' I think he has something to answer for, that is both intimidating and threatening, and no justification in the first place.
What about the street, like it was a hive of activity..not. A bit of commonsense would have been in order.

a reply to: solomons path

I'm not saying she's blameless. I'm saying the cop used excessive force.

There were at least two cops there, by the way. The other one could have helped restrain her, but no--body-checking her into the pavement seemed like the better way to go.

As for not resisting, taking your lumps and fighting it in court later...

...I have absolutely no faith that the judicial system will protect my rights to the slightest degree. And this is indeed due to my own experiences with it, the daily nationwide bombardment of supporting evidence aside.

originally posted by: NthOther Ferrin suffered some minor injuries

good. shame they weren't serious.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: solomons path

I'm not saying she's blameless. I'm saying the cop used excessive force.

There were at least two cops there, by the way. The other one could have helped restrain her, but no--body-checking her into the pavement seemed like the better way to go.

As for not resisting, taking your lumps and fighting it in court later...

...I have absolutely no faith that the judicial system will protect my rights to the slightest degree. And this is indeed due to my own experiences with it, the daily nationwide bombardment of supporting evidence aside.

The audio was pretty clear when she kept addressing the other person in the car, the officer said "you're talking to me, they're not an officer". She asked "who is he" . . . and he says "it doesn't matter, you're talking to me". To me, that implies that the other person was on a ride-a-long. This is very common, especially in Tempe where criminal justice students do this all the time. Any citizen . . . even you, if you wish, can call and request to do this.

The only reason they ended up on the pavement is because she kept trying to pull her arms away and then tried to take off to her left. The officer followed and they went down. You'll notice that Prof. Ore is NOT claiming she was assaulted or abused while on the ground, which tells me the officer cuffed her and that was that.

I hear you on not trusting the judicial system. That's a problem in this country too, no argument here. However, there is also a reason why organizations like the ACLU tell you to "know your rights, remain calm and respectful, comply with the officer's requests, AND THEN if you feel like your rights were violated or you did nothing wrong fight it in court and file a complaint". She did none of that . . . The moment you become combative your credibility (in court) goes out the window.

Let's look a a similar scenario that ends the same?

Imagine (same time of year and day, so no traffic or students around) that I'm driving East on University and run the red light at College. Street is virtually empty, so I didn't cause any panic or possible accident, just a minor traffic violation which requires a citation. As I reach McAllister, I notice TPD in my rear view and pull over. When the officer approaches, I immediately begin to question why is in contact with me and what's going on. He informs me of running the red light, to which I claim I see people do it all the time and not get stopped. He says but, that's the law and I'm getting a citation. He asks for my license, reg, and insurance. I refuse and ask why he needs it and continue to argue about why I'm being stopped . . . even asking if the only reason he stopped me is to "see my I.D.". He says "no, it's the red light" and asks again. I refuse and tell him I think an "injustice is going on" and that I feel "singled out". He asks me to step out of the car and tells me unless I produce some I.D. he is placing me under arrest for refusing and arguing. I become incredulous and try to argue more. He asks me to turn around so he can cuff me and that I am under arrest. I say no and resist, telling him "take your hands off me" as I try to get away and head the opposite direction. He, still holding one of my arms, tackles me and places the cuffs on me.

Was that officer using excessive force? I mean . . . I didn't hurt any one and running a red light is just a citation. Where is the threat?

I thought it was only a aw to produce ID when you were being detained for criminal activity. One of the big concerns now with these "papers please" fascist laws in AZ is now police seem to feel empowered in detaining anyone, anywhere and demanding picture IDs.

Maybe that's why this fascists conflated a simple pedestrian walking on campus across a street into a crime - so he could go full tilt into a fascist power trip.

This execrable gestapo wanna-be needs to fired asap.

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.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
I thought it was only a aw to produce ID when you were being detained for criminal activity. One of the big concerns now with these "papers please" fascist laws in AZ is now police seem to feel empowered in detaining anyone, anywhere and demanding picture IDs.

Maybe that's why this fascists conflated a simple pedestrian walking on campus across a street into a crime - so he could go full tilt into a fascist power trip.

This execrable gestapo wanna-be needs to fired asap.

See was stopped for "criminal activity" . . . well, at least a civil charge . . . "Obstructing a Public Thoroughfare". She wasn't just stopped to be checked for I.D. She was being issued a citation and the officer asked for her I.D., to which she refused.

So . . . nice hyperbole with "gestapo tactics".

Did you even watch the link in the OP?

a reply to: projectbane

She could of been exceptionally polite and spoken in a manner of submission to authority.

you know that its right there.....submission......when i read that i think of how a 4 year old might deal with a situation...

the way police seem to deal with stuff is pathetic sometimes....

a reply to: NthOther

From the vid it looks like the professor was trying to use her meaningless status to avoid a simple jaywalking ticket and when she got a taste of Ms. Average Jane America she threw a little temper tantrum and decided afterward to try to make the officer out to look like some kind of sex offender.

a reply to: smurfy
Oh . . . and I forgot to add before . . .

You are right about common sense. Especially with the construction going on, that street has little to no traffic at night. In the past (and you would think always), the officer would simply "let it slide" or just yell at her to get out of the street. Issue solved . . . everyone goes home. However, TPD is notorious for doing anything they can to "make money". They'll camp out by cars parked at meters if the meter is within 15mins of running out, so they can place a citation as soon as the clock hits "zero". A couple miles over the speed limit and you're nabbed. They'll set up shop in the median of Mill Ave. (strip of bars and restaurants) with a laptop and run license plates and record them, in order to nab people for "cruising" on the weekends. They routinely cite kids for "jaywalking", unless there is a large event that they can't possibly control everything. However, there have also been several instances of kids being hit and killed "jaywalking" in that same area . . . so, they could make the case that they are preventing further instances.

a reply to: NthOther
One of my favorite movies . . . And I'll agree we are heading that way. However, it's not just Tempe or AZ. It's the entire nation!!

Mike Judge is a very astute individual.

a reply to: NthOther
Excessive force? Yes.
Just another macho gestapo steroid-infused LEO beating up on a weaker individual. They get their kicks this way evidently---that's the only common sense explanation to behavior of this type. Probably just showing off for the "ride-along" in the car.

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: NthOther
One of my favorite movies . . . And I'll agree we are heading that way. However, it's not just Tempe or AZ. It's the entire nation!!

And it appears that we're on the same side. I just don't understand why people rush to give the police the benefit of the doubt.

That should be reserved for the people first. Granted, this is not a black-and-white case of police brutality, in terms of legality; however, common sense and common decency tells me this cop was WAY over the line of prudent forcefulness.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: NthOther
Excessive force? Yes.
Just another macho gestapo steroid-infused LEO beating up on a weaker individual. They get their kicks this way evidently---that's the only common sense explanation to behavior of this type. Probably just showing off for the "ride-along" in the car.

Indeed. But look at the guy at frame left shortly after the video starts. He comes briefly into frame, with equipment on his belt, and appears to quickly pick something up (collecting evidence). That is obviously not the ride-along, unless ASUPD is now in the habit of allowing civilians to conduct investigations for them.

So that's most likely a second cop who could have assisted with the restraint. Then, at the end of the video (in an impressive display of courage, I might add) a third officer leaps into action after the professor has been needlessly slammed to the ground.

Point being, there were more peaceful alternatives the officer chose not to pursue as a result of his brainwashing (training) and latent sociopathy.