Probably so but if they weren't being bullies I'd bet the officer told her if I can't verify who you are then I will have to detain you until I can which could involve the handcuffs. If she tried calling their bluff then what choice did he have. No way of knowing that's how it went down. But simply writing the citation would've been a lot less paper work for the officer.......

 

 

From the eyewitness accounts she was immediately cuffed.

From the eyewitness accounts she was immediately cuffed.

 

If she plaid the limp body card like was stated earlier that is a form of resistance so yea I could see that. Also the witnesses said the handcuffs went on immediately but can they say what the dialog between the two parties was leading up to that? If he simply walked up to her asked for an ID and then started to place cuffs on her immediately without any other words being spoken I'm sure there will be a lawsuit.

If she plaid the limp body card like was stated earlier that is a form of resistance so yea I could see that. Also the witnesses said the handcuffs went on immediately but can they say what the dialog between the two parties was leading up to that? If he simply walked up to her asked for an ID and then started to place cuffs on her immediately without any other words being spoken I'm sure there will be a lawsuit.

 

The accounts that I read said that there was no dialogue on her part. She had her headphones in and did not respond to the officer. He ran her down, grabbed her from behind and put the cuffs on her. If she had not heard him and was grabbed from behind I could definitely see her having a bad reaction.

Probably so but if they weren't being bullies I'd bet the officer told her if I can't verify who you are then I will have to detain you until I can which could involve the handcuffs. If she tried calling their bluff then what choice did he have. No way of knowing that's how it went down. But simply writing the citation would've been a lot less paper work for the officer.......

 

I'm not sure I know what you're saying. I basically see it one of two ways.

 

Either:

 

1. they asked her for her information to write her a jaywalking ticket, explaining that, and she refused, which is a crime, and they cuffed her

 

or

 

2. she was confused, asked what she was being detained for/what was going on, they got pissed and overstepped some bounds that they probably shouldn't have and cuffed her and now it's blown up and no one can unring the bell.

 

 

 

Something went right or something went wrong. I don't know if there's much grey area with a woman getting a jaywalking ticket when she's jogging with some headphones on and by all accounts just legitimately didn't hear them and got startled when they grabbed her, especially given the reaction.

 

If you can't write a jaywalking ticket (which I'd imagine that at least 95% of jaywalking tickets don't end in someone going to jail... especially in this area of Austin), imagine what a mess it would be for you when you have to use deadly force or, well, anything more drastic than writing a jaywalking ticket.

I live in Texas now and I've been to Austin on more than one occasion. Let's be real here, this is an area that's a registered Historic District and pricey. It'd definitely be a little more understandable if this was some high crime area where the officers feared someone had a weapon, but really? Someone's more likely to spill Starbucks and organic hummus on you than stick a shank in you. I'm guessing that 90% of the people you'll interact with in that area at 11 am are tourists or harmless UT (a really good school) kids minding their own business, not hardened criminals.

 

I'm in law school and I think one of the worst things you can do if you are actually guilty is to go to the media and start complaining. Look at the woman who got the "homophobic slur" written on her tip if you wonder what I mean by that.

 

Are all cases where someone goes to the media immediately indicative of some kind of brutality or civil rights invasions? Certainly not. But, in my experience, going to the media is one of the best things you can do if you are innocent and one of the worst things you can do if you aren't. That's just my personal opinion.

 

Anyway, I think that if you were asked to identify, i.e., you can't provide false information, but I'm not sure you have to produce an ID (unlike if you were driving, drinking, etc.). Maybe my interpretation of what I know about Texas Penal Code §38.02 on Failure to Identify is wrong (and it completely could be). But that's just how I read the Statue.

 

Don't claim "the law" and that she wasn't abiding by it if the charges under those laws that she was hit with don't fit the argument. She'll now fill out the arrest portion of every job application she does in the future and have a public record of that, so yes, I think it's a fairly serious matter.

 

If she didn't give a false name or just flatly refuse to give information when lawfully detained (which I don't really think can be ascertained from the facts as provided by the video alone), then I'd be willing to place a solid bet that her charge is dismissed. Not saying that the damage isn't done though, she's in Texas and people in Kentucky are commenting on her viral arrest video.

 

I'll put this way. I have a professor who in the past has been an advisor to police departments in major metro cities, and our class deals with Criminal Law/Procedure. He poses the question, "can an officer 'unarrest' someone?"- no one is really sure and answers loudly, then he goes, something to the effect of: "well, you might not get sued that way, but one way I guarantee you'll get sued-- to wrongfully arrest someone (and not let them go)".

Edited February 25, 201412 yr by JokersWild24

From the eyewitness accounts she was immediately cuffed.

 

That's what happens to anyone who pulls away and says "don't touch me" to the police.

If she plaid the limp body card like was stated earlier that is a form of resistance so yea I could see that. Also the witnesses said the handcuffs went on immediately but can they say what the dialog between the two parties was leading up to that? If he simply walked up to her asked for an ID and then started to place cuffs on her immediately without any other words being spoken I'm sure there will be a lawsuit.

 

I don't see the grounds for a lawsuit. I read somewhere the "jaywalking" law is arrestable in Texas by itself so he had every right to handcuff her immediately.

That's what happens to anyone who pulls away and says "don't touch me" to the police.

 

If you understood this neighborhood in Austin at 11 am, you'd probably understand why, right or wrong, that isn't going to fly to a jury though.

 

This is like being on the corner of the Ashland-Henry Clay Estates and somehow jogging into Transylvania's campus without crossing anything in between if we're talking Lexington. Definitely not a good look if you're trying to explain it.

 

Yes, it was a girl with a cut off tee, but doesn't mean she's some trash either if you get my drift.

I don't see the grounds for a lawsuit. I read somewhere the "jaywalking" law is arrestable in Texas by itself so he had every right to handcuff her immediately.

 

Jaywalking might be arrestable (according to circumstances, which we don't know), but the most pro-prosecution case in Texas is probably Lago Vista and you can read what the Judge had to say about the officer's "discretion" in that one.

 

Put whatever in a police report, but when a Judge writes in a published opinion that the officer used (something to the effect of): "extremely poor decision making", then that's not good.

 

Free legal advice: if you are a cop, there are people you can and can't [make angry]... Judge's fall into the category of people you can't [make angry].

 

Read that one for yourself and see where you think the officer and his "discretion" stood when it came time for "renewal" (which is wholly different from termination).

 

TL;DR: being the subject of a Judge's negative opinion is not good for a police officer's career. Don't doubt that.

Edited February 25, 201412 yr by JokersWild24

That's what happens to anyone who pulls away and says "don't touch me" to the police.

 

Even a girl in designated historical area wearing noise canceling headphones who a lot of people can see why she'd be startled by being grabbed while jogging? And then she gets taken downtown essentially for jaywalking while the end result is caught on camera???

 

Good luck with that in a jury trial, if it even gets that far.

 

No one comes out smelling like roses, but still...

That's what happens to anyone who pulls away and says "don't touch me" to the police.

 

And her reaction is normal for someone who is grabbed roughly from behind when she didn't see her assailant. That's beside the point however. If you read the post that I quoted and was responding to sportsfan41 thought that they might not have cuffed her until after they asked for an ID and she refused it.

If you understood this neighborhood in Austin at 11 am' date=' you'd probably understand why, right or wrong, that isn't going to fly to a jury though. This is like being on the corner of the Ashland-Henry Clay Estates and somehow jogging into Transylvania's campus without crossing anything in between if we're talking Lexington. Definitely not a good look if you're trying to explain it. Yes, it was a girl with a cut off tee, but doesn't mean she's some trash either if you get my drift.[/quote']

 

It doesn't really matter who she is IMO.

Jaywalking might be arrestable (according to circumstances' date=' which we don't know), but the most pro-prosecution case in Texas is probably Lago Vista and you can read what the Judge had to say about the officer's "discretion" in that one. Put whatever in a police report, but when a Judge writes in a published opinion that the officer used (something to the effect of): "extremely poor decision making", then that's not good. Free legal advice: if you are a cop, there are people you can and can't [make angry']... Judge's fall into the category of people you can't [make angry]. Read that one for yourself and see where you think the officer and his "discretion" stood when it came time for "renewal" (which is wholly different from termination). TL;DR: being the subject of a Judge's negative opinion is not good for a police officer's career. Don't doubt that.

 

You might have a point if she was only charged with jaywalking. She wasn't.

Even a girl in designated historical area wearing noise canceling headphones who a lot of people can see why she'd be startled by being grabbed while jogging? And then she gets taken downtown essentially for jaywalking while the end result is caught on camera??? Good luck with that in a jury trial' date=' if it even gets that far. No one comes out smelling like roses, but still...[/quote']

 

Again if she was wearing noise canceling headphones, she's an idiot. And FWIW the chief says she could see the officers who were yelling at her. How she reacted right after isn't all that big of a deal. It's how she reacted long after beig handcuffed. She goes limp, makes them drag her to the car all while screaming "I did nothing wrong"...allegedly of course.

And her reaction is normal for someone who is grabbed roughly from behind when she didn't see her assailant. That's beside the point however. If you read the post that I quoted and was responding to sportsfan41 thought that they might not have cuffed her until after they asked for an ID and she refused it.

 

How do you know she didn't see them? How do you know she was grabbed roughly?

"Am I being detained?" - A phrase to remember...

 

 

Or, instead of being a complete bung hole...you know, some people just want to be headaches. If I went out and started taking video of some police van/equipment, etc. I would fully expect, if/when the cops showed up, they would want to know who I am and what's going on, ESPECIALLY in this age of terrorism and violence that we live in. There's an old saying..."sometimes you have to go along to get along".