ASU Professor Arrest & Federal Investigation

[Mitch Rapp]

This reminds me of the Professor Gates incident. Many college professors grew up in a time where disrespect for authority was widespread. Those that did not grow up in that era were taught and indoctrinated by professors who did. There are exceptions, or course, but when I think of people who have respect for law enforcement officers, the image that pops into my head is not one of a college professor.

[Jumper_Dad]

Wonder what she is a professor of?

 

 

Nevermind...Googled her, English Professor

[Jumper_Dad]

This happened over a month ago, what made it just blow up in the news? The video release?

[Bluegrasscard]

At the very beginning he says 'you were walking in the middle of the street.".

 

I think of 'jay-walking' as crossing outside the cross-walk or crossing against the light. Strolling in the street seems like that will get you a little more attention.

[JokersWild24]

Look, police don't work in an office. Things don't always go perfect. I absolutely do not have a problem with what he told her. He warned her that her actions were going to get her slammed on the car, and she kept doing what she was doing. I think that HELPS his case.

 

It's not the officers job to get a conviction nor is he worried about that at the time. He's worried about his safety, his fellow officers safety, the safety of the person he's in contact with, etc. He told her what to do several times. The fact that she was LEGALLY stopped for jaywalking and given orders means she's WRONG.

 

A good defense attorney can grill an officer on a perfect case. Facts don't change...and based on the videos the facts are that she was wrong. Looked like to me she felt she shouldn't have been stopped. That's fine, but if you feel that way fighting with the police is not the answer. She escalated these situation and I feel like the officers showed great restraint. Imagine how hard it would be if someone wanted to fight you and keep you from doing your job on a consistent basis...especially around college students...I'd say it would be difficult to show restraint.

 

As for the heated argument comment? It looked like him sternly telling her what to do, and she argued with him. People argue with the police all the time. It's when she resisted that she was completely and 100% wrong. Police also have to stop, cite, arrest, etc people of the opposite race from time to time. Just because they're of the opposite race doesn't mean the police have to give them a free pass. Doesn't mean they should profile them either, but you have absolutely NOTHING supporting that argument so I don't even know why it's brought up.

 

Also, how were they supposed to know she's a professor? Why should they care? She isn't above the law because she's a professor. That's irrelevant, as is her education level. If anything it makes it worse that an educated person thinks that is how you should react to that type of situation.

 

No offense, but I think you are grasping at straws here. Police don't have to be nice to everyone. They don't have to treat them like kids. An officer being mean doesn't give you free reign to resist and assault that officer.

 

 

I think you are misinterpreting my post. I never said she was right and repeatedly said I thought she escalated the situation.

 

 

I do think you are mistaken about the goal of getting convictions. Prosecutors are, by virtue of their job, not supposed to bring charges that they don't feel can get a conviction; have enough arrests that don't result in convictions and you'll start having serious problems.

 

 

I also think that letting the lady have a trial (i.e., on the felony assault charge) is just as much of a part of the legal system as an officer enforcing the laws. The trial is just as important as the laws the officer enforces (not more important, not less important, but just as equally important). There's a reason we have trials where defendants are innocent until proven guilty and that it's not just the word of an officer who handles the situation that determines the defendant's guilt or innocence, punishment, etc.

 

 

Also, I'm not saying anyone of the opposite race should get a free pass, I was only saying that if she was targeted because of her race (i.e., profiling), then that's not right. We're talking about Maricopa County, Arizona, who just paid out a $22 million settlement for racial profiling earlier this year. Yes, there is a history of racial profiling there (usually when the US Department of Justice has to step up and reign in your county, there's some shenanigans going on.

 

 

I didn't say that she should be above the law because of her occupation, I was mentioning it as a reason why she'd be upset (and to illustrate the point that it could play into the whole profiling aspects).

 

 

No, being rude isn't a crime, but I'm sure the officer wouldn't like it if he pulled her over and he said, "do you know why I pulled you over?" and she gave a Sarah Silverman, "because you got all C's in high school?". If it's fair for officers to be rude, then it's a two way street in their dealings with others as well. The only point I was trying to make with the "rude" comments was that there probably was an easier/better way to handle it, but still yet, I feel I have been consistent in saying that the woman was wrong in how she handled the situation in general.

 

 

It's obvious that her failing to show her ID and acting as she did was wrong and that it led to her being arrested. My whole purpose in posting it was to discuss whether or not she deserved a felony assault of an officer and whether or not it there were issues with profiling.

[Jumper_Dad]

IMO if she shows her ID and he sees that she is a Prof (without her telling him) he probably gives her a verbal warning and it is over. When she refused and escalated it, she took it out of his hands and made all of the decisions for him. As far as a felony, is their a misdemeanor law on the books for assault on an officer?

[halfback20]

I think you are misinterpreting my post. I never said she was right and repeatedly said I thought she escalated the situation.

 

 

I do think you are mistaken about the goal of getting convictions. Prosecutors are, by virtue of their job, not supposed to bring charges that they don't feel can get a conviction; have enough arrests that don't result in convictions and you'll start having serious problems.

 

 

I also think that letting the lady have a trial (i.e., on the felony assault charge) is just as much of a part of the legal system as an officer enforcing the laws. The trial is just as important as the laws the officer enforces (not more important, not less important, but just as equally important). There's a reason we have trials where defendants are innocent until proven guilty and that it's not just the word of an officer who handles the situation that determines the defendant's guilt or innocence, punishment, etc.

 

 

Also, I'm not saying anyone of the opposite race should get a free pass, I was only saying that if she was targeted because of her race (i.e., profiling), then that's not right. We're talking about Maricopa County, Arizona, who just paid out a $22 million settlement for racial profiling earlier this year. Yes, there is a history of racial profiling there (usually when the US Department of Justice has to step up and reign in your county, there's some shenanigans going on.

 

 

I didn't say that she should be above the law because of her occupation, I was mentioning it as a reason why she'd be upset (and to illustrate the point that it could play into the whole profiling aspects).

 

 

No, being rude isn't a crime, but I'm sure the officer wouldn't like it if he pulled her over and he said, "do you know why I pulled you over?" and she gave a Sarah Silverman, "because you got all C's in high school?". If it's fair for officers to be rude, then it's a two way street in their dealings with others as well. The only point I was trying to make with the "rude" comments was that there probably was an easier/better way to handle it, but still yet, I feel I have been consistent in saying that the woman was wrong in how she handled the situation in general.

 

 

It's obvious that her failing to show her ID and acting as she did was wrong and that it led to her being arrested. My whole purpose in posting it was to discuss whether or not she deserved a felony assault of an officer and whether or not it there were issues with profiling.

 

You didn't say she was right. However you make excuses for her when her behavior, IMO, is inexcusable. Knee jerk reaction? That's absolutely NOT an excuse for assaulting a police officer. Maybe where you come from...but that's not how I see it. Yes, she's a professor...which means she should know better. She should be held to a higher standard, just like the officer should be. If the officer assaulted her for no reason I'm sure you would be calling for him to be fired.

 

As for convictions, no I'm not mistaken. I said it's not the officers job to get a conviction. It is the prosecutor's job. The officer isn't thinking about the conviction in a situation like this. He's thinking about the idiot who's resisting and assaulting him.

 

Why are you lecturing me about trials? I never even made a hint of a statement that insinuated they aren't important. She can have a trial. She has that right. Any prosecutor worth a darn should be able to show that she clearly acted like an entitled moron. It doesn't always fall on just what the officer says though, you are right. Good thing we have video showing what happened...and audio...

 

Did the Department of Justice step in regarding this particular department? And that doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions and assume that he is a racist who profiled her because some police officers have done things that some people view as wrong in that county. Isn't that profiling?

 

She's unhappy because she broke the law and he stopped her...because she's a professor? I don't get it. Is she that entitled that she thinks she should not be stopped because she's a professor?

 

The officer likely hears people say stupid things each and every day. So what's your point? He was still professional and acted with restraint IMO...she did not. She resisted, ignored his commands and then assaulted him. I think he handled it just fine. She clearly escalated the situation...

 

She assaulted a police officer. Assaulting a police officer is a felony. She chose to do that. She deserves the felony charge. I hope the prosecutor sticks with the charge, unless she apologizes for her behavior. Based on the reactions I've seen from her attorney I doubt that will happen. She wants to blame the officer...

 

There's no evidence of profiling. She's black and he's white...so he profiled? Because that's all you have right now.

[jericho]

Why does race have to be brought up every time it's a white / black issue. Never until Obama became president did race become brought up so often in my lifetime.

[JokersWild24]

As for convictions, no I'm not mistaken. I said it's not the officers job to get a conviction. It is the prosecutor's job. The officer isn't thinking about the conviction in a situation like this. He's thinking about the idiot who's resisting and assaulting him.

 

Why are you lecturing me about trials? I never even made a hint of a statement that insinuated they aren't important. She can have a trial. She has that right. Any prosecutor worth a darn should be able to show that she clearly acted like an entitled moron. It doesn't always fall on just what the officer says though, you are right. Good thing we have video showing what happened...and audio...

 

Did the Department of Justice step in regarding this particular department? And that doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions and assume that he is a racist who profiled her because some police officers have done things that some people view as wrong in that county. Isn't that profiling?

 

The officer likely hears people say stupid things each and every day. So what's your point? He was still professional and acted with restraint IMO...she did not. She resisted, ignored his commands and then assaulted him. I think he handled it just fine. She clearly escalated the situation...

 

She assaulted a police officer. Assaulting a police officer is a felony. She chose to do that. She deserves the felony charge. I hope the prosecutor sticks with the charge, unless she apologizes for her behavior. Based on the reactions I've seen from her attorney I doubt that will happen. She wants to blame the officer...

 

There's no evidence of profiling. She's black and he's white...so he profiled? Because that's all you have right now.

 

 

Wow, thanks for explaining the role of a prosecutor to me, I appreciate that, but it wasn't really what I was going for with that one. Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "maybe where I come from" part, so maybe you can explain that one (I'm originally from Eastern Kentucky too you know).

 

Yes, if you see a department and/or specific officer who has a pattern of filing charges that are ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence or that result in acquittals, then you start to have a serious problem over time.

 

I think an Officer is just as important as a Judge or Prosecutor when it comes to properly gathering and documenting evidence. It's their job to lawfully arrest those who break the law and follow procedure to the point that when it's passed down the chain, the conviction is secured. The prosecutor can't enforce the laws like an officer can, and they have to rely on what is given to them by the officers. The reason prosecutors have conviction rates of around 95% in many cases is because you aren't supposed to even bring charges if there isn't enough evidence to support them. That's the principle I was getting at.

 

We're actually in agreements on most points, aside from my thinking it's kind of weak that he would try and make a felony charge like that stick, I think you are just misinterpreting some of what I'm saying.

 

Further, no, if the officer kicked at someone in the heat of the moment in the same way (i.e., force, etc.) that the woman in the video did, I would not support him being fired and losing his livelihood. Everyone isn't out to see officers crash and burn.

 

Police have a thankless job and they aren't done any favors in the media and or in the average citizen's conscious for a number of complex reasons, and all I said was that IF there was profiling, then it was wrong.

 

If there wasn't and he would have stopped someone else for the same thing, then good for him, and he handled everything well. I did express my opinion that, if it were me, and I was in his situation and had discretion as to whether or not I was going to stick her with a felony charge for assaulting an officer, that I wouldn't have pursued it.

 

I know what you are saying with the "laws are laws", etc., but there are times when, maybe because of my personality (and not saying I'm right or that others are wrong), I'm more likely to let something minor go without making a big deal out of it. As someone who works in a legal field, if I went around all day and made a "that's illegal, you can't do that to me" argument anytime I could just because I knew I could, then most anyone who had to be around me for very long probably couldn't stand me.

 

 

You make a good point about me "profiling" the ASU Police Department's specific officer. However you might also find this description about their powers and incorporation into the city/county/municipality to be interesting.

 

Again, I do think it's fair to say that we don't know enough about the individual officer's background to know whether or not he was profiling based only the past conduct of an organization as a whole. However, though not directly involved in the settlement and Justice Department investigation, his Department is under the umbrella of the one that is, and when you pay out $22 million settlements, have people from Washington coming out to Arizona to tell you how to do things because of organizational problems that start at the top, etc., then yes, you'll lose the benefit of the doubt from me on some levels. Fair or not, "guilty by association" may apply.

 

That's why things like this are happening and there is now an independent investigation into whether or not the officer was profiling (and I'm not saying an independent investigation is even warranted, just that once you've been found to have done something in the past, it's going to open floodgates anytime something related to it happens in the future).

 

 

IIRC, in previous threads where we've discussed an officer doing a search (NM man that was ordered to have a cavity search), I seem to recall you saying that you'd liked to have known the suspect's record/history. I don't see why past conduct would apply to criminals but not organizations who are still under the same leadership.

 

 

All of the above is part of my analysis that, if I'm the officer who has discretion to do so, I don't try to stick the lady with felony assault of an officer. If I were him, even if I'd done everything right, I'd be worried less about getting her with the felony and more worried about getting put through the ringer when I was called onto the stand and defense has a 911 call of someone saying "there's an officer getting way too aggressive with a lady on the street" that they might put on the stand, I know the history of "profiling" in my area is still fresh, and there's a possibility that an independent review is being conducted. That's just me though.

[JokersWild24]

Why does race have to be brought up every time it's a white / black issue. Never until Obama became president did race become brought up so often in my lifetime.

 

 

Eras/Places mountain ref did not live in:

 

Any of the 1960's or 1970's

Miami in 1988

Los Angeles in 1992 or

NKY/Cincinnati in 2001

 

 

 

In all seriousness, I think race gets brought up because it's still an issue, though it's one that is getting better. Still has a ways to go in some areas, but still has made crazy progress considering where it was say 50 years ago in others.

[halfback20]

Wow, thanks for explaining the role of a prosecutor to me, I appreciate that, but it wasn't really what I was going for with that one. Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "maybe where I come from" part, so maybe you can explain that one (I'm originally from Eastern Kentucky too you know).

 

Yes, if you see a department and/or specific officer who has a pattern of filing charges that are ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence or that result in acquittals, then you start to have a serious problem over time.

 

I think an Officer is just as important as a Judge or Prosecutor when it comes to properly gathering and documenting evidence. It's their job to lawfully arrest those who break the law and follow procedure to the point that when it's passed down the chain, the conviction is secured. The prosecutor can't enforce the laws like an officer can, and they have to rely on what is given to them by the officers. The reason prosecutors have conviction rates of around 95% in many cases is because you aren't supposed to even bring charges if there isn't enough evidence to support them. That's the principle I was getting at.

 

We're actually in agreements on most points, aside from my thinking it's kind of weak that he would try and make a felony charge like that stick, I think you are just misinterpreting some of what I'm saying.

 

Further, no, if the officer kicked at someone in the heat of the moment in the same way (i.e., force, etc.) that the woman in the video did, I would not support him being fired and losing his livelihood. Everyone isn't out to see officers crash and burn.

 

Police have a thankless job and they aren't done any favors in the media and or in the average citizen's conscious for a number of complex reasons, and all I said was that IF there was profiling, then it was wrong.

 

If there wasn't and he would have stopped someone else for the same thing, then good for him, and he handled everything well. I did express my opinion that, if it were me, and I was in his situation and had discretion as to whether or not I was going to stick her with a felony charge for assaulting an officer, that I wouldn't have pursued it.

 

I know what you are saying with the "laws are laws", etc., but there are times when, maybe because of my personality (and not saying I'm right or that others are wrong), I'm more likely to let something minor go without making a big deal out of it. As someone who works in a legal field, if I went around all day and made a "that's illegal, you can't do that to me" argument anytime I could just because I knew I could, then most anyone who had to be around me for very long probably couldn't stand me.

 

 

You make a good point about me "profiling" the ASU Police Department's specific officer. However you might also find this description about their powers and incorporation into the city/county/municipality to be interesting.

 

Again, I do think it's fair to say that we don't know enough about the individual officer's background to know whether or not he was profiling based only the past conduct of an organization as a whole. However, though not directly involved in the settlement and Justice Department investigation, his Department is under the umbrella of the one that is, and when you pay out $22 million settlements, have people from Washington coming out to Arizona to tell you how to do things because of organizational problems that start at the top, etc., then yes, you'll lose the benefit of the doubt from me on some levels. Fair or not, "guilty by association" may apply.

 

That's why things like this are happening and there is now an independent investigation into whether or not the officer was profiling (and I'm not saying an independent investigation is even warranted, just that once you've been found to have done something in the past, it's going to open floodgates anytime something related to it happens in the future).

 

 

IIRC, in previous threads where we've discussed an officer doing a search (NM man that was ordered to have a cavity search), I seem to recall you saying that you'd liked to have known the suspect's record/history. I don't see why past conduct would apply to criminals but not organizations who are still under the same leadership.

 

 

All of the above is part of my analysis that, if I'm the officer who has discretion to do so, I don't try to stick the lady with felony assault of an officer. If I were him, even if I'd done everything right, I'd be worried less about getting her with the felony and more worried about getting put through the ringer when I was called onto the stand and defense has a 911 call of someone saying "there's an officer getting way too aggressive with a lady on the street" that they might put on the stand, I know the history of "profiling" in my area is still fresh, and there's a possibility that an independent review is being conducted. That's just me though.

 

You told me I was mistaken about the goal of getting convictions. You were wrong. No need to get upset. My only statement was that the officer on scene is not thinking of a conviction. That's not their responsibility at that time. You have done an awful lot of explaining about the roles and jobs of police, judges, prosecutors...why does it seem like you got so offended over my comment?

 

Why wouldn't the officer and/or prosecutor try to make a felony like this stick? She clearly assaulted him. Why should she be treated any differently than any other idiot who kicks a police officer?

 

Thankless job or not, why is profiling brought into this in the first place? Is there evidence that profiling took place? Is it simply because she is black and he's white?

 

I think you would think a little differently if you were actually a police officer. I never said "laws are laws". Some laws are easy to forgive and discretion comes in to play. I don't take assaulting a police officer as lightly as you, I guess. Whether it's a kick, a punch, or worse...she chose to kick him. She made that decision...she has to live with it. The decision to kick him isn't even as bad as the fact that she and her lawyer are trying to lay the blame on the officer...IMO. If she showed some remorse it might be a little easier to forgive her for the stupid decision.

 

I don't find the link you provided interesting. Am I missing something? You keep saying his department has paid out settlements and has people coming from Washington to take over etc.....are you sure it's the ASU PD? I know there some issues in Albuquerque...are you confusing the two?

 

The day an officer worries about what some random person thinks about their actions during a struggle is the day they should quit. The 911 caller has no clue whats going on. Recently, a random couple standing around filming a police officer fighting an off duty fire fighter in Kansas City also thought the officer was taking an "aggressive stance" because he was standing over the firefighter on the ground after a struggle. The officer then lost control of the situation and the firefighter got on top of him and started punching his face in. That officer, luckily, fired his gun and killed the idiot before later going into a coma. My point is...that persons 911 call means nothing at the time and it will mean nothing if a judge/jury have any common sense. Watching the video clearly shows who was actually in the wrong.

 

Read this in one of your links and thought it was interesting.

 

According to the police report, ASU Police initially spoke to Assistant Professor Ore because officers patrolling the area nearly hit her with their police vehicle as they turned the vehicle onto College Avenue to investigate a disabled vehicle. Officer Stewart Ferrin had no intention of citing or arresting Ore, but for her safety told her to walk on the sidewalk. When Ore refused to comply and refused to provide identification after she was asked for it multiple times, she was subsequently arrested.

 

So now we know why they stopped her...

[halfback20]

BTW I just noticed that it's in fact Maricopa County that paid the settlement because of a lawsuit against the Sheriff and/or Sheriff's department. Is he affiliated with ASU PD in any way? Seems again like you are grasping at straws with the racial profiling accusations.

[JokersWild24]

BTW I just noticed that it's in fact Maricopa County that paid the settlement because of a lawsuit against the Sheriff and/or Sheriff's department. Is he affiliated with ASU PD in any way? Seems again like you are grasping at straws with the racial profiling accusations.

 

 

First of all, not mad or upset at all and sorry if it came off that way. I'll type another reply to #26 soon that hopefully clears up what I was trying to say. In general, I think we're both on the same page on most stuff that either of us realized/realizes.

 

 

Secondly, the way I read the ASU website, I thought that they were at least loosely affiliated, but still had more police powers than what you usually think of when it comes to campus PD. I go to a private now, so maybe it's different, but our officers basically only write tickets and anything else needs to be passed on to the SAPD. I'll link the full report from ASU's website at the bottom of this, but it specifically mentions working closely with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

 

On the ASU site, I read the things like "ASU police officers are state certified and have the same powers as any police officer in the State of Arizona" and "mutual aid agreements with the city of Tempe allow officers to give appropriate secondary attention to traffic control and enforcement on the streets that run through or are contiguous with ASU properties" to mean that they were under the same umbrella. I could be completely wrong on that one too, but it was just how I read it (mutual aid could be meant to imply separation as well though). Here's another link on their jurisdiction, that adds, "the authority of officers of the ASU Police Department may extend to any place within the state under State law".

 

I know the ASU police department was probably created by their Board of Regents and has separate agency characteristics as well too though, so maybe I'm just reading too much into the ASU site's statements in terms of how closely they actually are affiliated.

 

ASU Police: http://www.asu.edu/police/PDFs/Campus_Security_Policy_edited.pdf

[JokersWild24]

As for the reason that the officer stated for stopping her, if true, then yes, it was deserved and is seemingly very different from the type of jaywalking that seems to be commonplace in the video. It even would explain why the officer said, “do you know this is a street?” to her, and I would honestly rather that be the reason the woman was stopped than if she were stopped for other reasons. However, looking at the pictures of the street, you see that it is closed at one end and at the other, there is a sign saying that the street is closed but open to local businesses (8 are listed on the sign). I’ve attached pictures below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looking at the pictures, I think that the officer’s statement which you listed about her nearly being hit while “walking in the middle of the road” could be taken a few different ways. It is probably going to lose some credibility. How fast could someone really be driving down a closed street like the one in the pictures below?

 

 

Do you think that the fact that she was originally charged with damaging a police car, a charge that has already been dropped, is going to help the officer's image or make him look like someone bent on charging her with any and everything he could?

 

Do you think it's going to help or hurt the case when ASU's police report has mention of her saying that she was just trying to cross "in the same fashion as others", and that she's consistently maintained that others were doing the same thing but weren't cited, yet the Department itself isn't offering any statements that say she was the only one and/or that others were cited?

 

 

After seeing the pictures, I think maybe more people might understand why some might find the egregious “jaywalking” charge to be an instance of profiling or am I just grasping at straws (and it's fine if you think I am)???

 

I don't think that the Marciopa County’s DA would particularly want this kind of case right now either.

 

 

Like I’ve said, if I were the officer and it were up to my discretion, and even though I felt I was completely justified, I wouldn’t take a chance on dropping a lit match on a powder keg by pursuing a felony charge because some professor I'd stopped her for jaywalking and later arrested for not showing me ID immediately had been mouthy and kicked me in the shin while she was handcuffed, her dress was up, and my hands were in that area. I'm more likely to think, eh, maybe this one could end up getting really ugly, but, hey, that’s just me.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court because it's now gotten to the point that there's no "un-ringing the bell" now.

[JokersWild24]

You told me I was mistaken about the goal of getting convictions. You were wrong. No need to get upset. My only statement was that the officer on scene is not thinking of a conviction. That's not their responsibility at that time. You have done an awful lot of explaining about the roles and jobs of police, judges, prosecutors...why does it seem like you got so offended over my comment?

 

Why wouldn't the officer and/or prosecutor try to make a felony like this stick? She clearly assaulted him. Why should she be treated any differently than any other idiot who kicks a police officer?

 

Thankless job or not, why is profiling brought into this in the first place? Is there evidence that profiling took place? Is it simply because she is black and he's white?

 

I think you would think a little differently if you were actually a police officer. I never said "laws are laws". Some laws are easy to forgive and discretion comes in to play. I don't take assaulting a police officer as lightly as you, I guess. Whether it's a kick, a punch, or worse...she chose to kick him. She made that decision...she has to live with it. The decision to kick him isn't even as bad as the fact that she and her lawyer are trying to lay the blame on the officer...IMO. If she showed some remorse it might be a little easier to forgive her for the stupid decision.

 

I don't find the link you provided interesting. Am I missing something? You keep saying his department has paid out settlements and has people coming from Washington to take over etc.....are you sure it's the ASU PD? I know there some issues in Albuquerque...are you confusing the two?

 

The day an officer worries about what some random person thinks about their actions during a struggle is the day they should quit. The 911 caller has no clue whats going on. Recently, a random couple standing around filming a police officer fighting an off duty fire fighter in Kansas City also thought the officer was taking an "aggressive stance" because he was standing over the firefighter on the ground after a struggle. The officer then lost control of the situation and the firefighter got on top of him and started punching his face in. That officer, luckily, fired his gun and killed the idiot before later going into a coma. My point is...that persons 911 call means nothing at the time and it will mean nothing if a judge/jury have any common sense. Watching the video clearly shows who was actually in the wrong.

 

Read this in one of your links and thought it was interesting.

 

 

 

So now we know why they stopped her...

 

So, to try and clarify what I was meaning by the convictions: I was only saying that it is the job of officers to legally collect the evidence needed and to do so in a way that it secures a conviction. If the end goal isn’t a conviction, then what is the purpose of an arrest? If an officer has enough instances where a case is dismissed for lack of evidence/isn’t charged, then they’re leaving themselves open to being sued.

 

No officer worth their salt would ever get on the stand and say, “well, I knew we didn’t have evidence to get a conviction at the time I made this arrest, but I did anyway because that’s not my job”. That’s all I was getting at. If the charge is going to stick, the officer’s probably could to be needed to prove it up.

 

After re-reading your statements, I think I better understand what you were going for with the officer “not thinking of that at the time” but I’m hoping you still mean that they’re doing things that will ultimately lead to a conviction (or, better yet, just a brief interaction between the parties and both going on their way).

 

Look, I’m sure I would think of it differently if I were an officer. I know I can’t fully appreciate what it’s like to be in that situation like others can because I’ve never had that experience. By the same token, having seen the other side of it, I’ll also say that, similar to me, others might have a different opinion if we’d flipped roles.

 

I don’t take felony assault of an officer lightly either, but I’m not sure we share quite the same idea of what felony assault and the range of punishments for it would actually entail. From my perspective, I was just saying that, if I were the officer and I were given discretion, I personally wouldn’t have charged the felony assault (which is basically why this case is news anyway), even if I felt I was completely right in my actions.

 

For one, there’s the whole 911 call, two there’s going to be a ton of media involvement, three, there is a chance that (as we’re seen come to fruition) the defense will play up the kick as a response to my reaching for the dress and that overtones (or even outright accusations) of sexual harassment will be implied, and finally, there’s the whole profiling thing while it’s a hot button topic in the area as is.

 

Not saying it’s right, not saying the woman didn’t deserve to go to jail, not saying she can’t be proven guilty, just that if I’m the officer and it’s left up to me, I don’t want to take a chance whatever might come out from the charge when it comes to trial.

 

 

I can’t speak to the 911 situation in Kansas City because I have no details, but I will say that it seems as though the case with the ASU professor is not very a similar “struggle” to the one in KC that ended in a shooting.

 

I will say that, if you are an officer and you get put on the stand in a situation like this where there’s already a powder keg and then say something like, “the 911 caller has no clue what’s going on”, or even “the day an officer worries about what some random person thinks about their actions during a struggle is the day they should quit” (in implying that you, who as a cop are likely going to be perceived as a fit, muscular person “struggling” with a woman), and you’ve qualified it with by telling the jury that “that person’s 911 call means nothing at the time and it will mean nothing if they have any common sense”, you’ve probably just lost your case. You might even find yourself in a second one. The jury is made up of those “random people”, many of whom, for various reasons, do not trust officers (and whether those reasons are justified or not is beside the point). Right or wrong, if you tell a Judge that they have no common sense if they decide to give any “meaning” (or weight) to the citizen’s 911 call, then you’re probably on your own with that one.