ASU Professor Arrest & Federal Investigation

[doomer]

I'd be willing to be she is at risk in her job and is looking for a payoff. Give me any other logical reason she would have ignored the officer, resisted the officer, assaulted the officer. :popcorn:

 

It's almost funny how many times I have seen in the workplace where a person is disciplined or know they will be and suddenly get proactive in their defense: claim harrassment; get injured; claim discrimination... if it weren't so sad.

[JokersWild24]

Didn't one report say he initially asked her to get out of the street as she was blocking the road and she either ignored him or refused and that led to the rest of this?

 

 

I think it's fair to say that the reports have led to speculation about how the whole exchange started. The whole "she was walking in the street and someone almost hit her" didn't seem to come out until ASU had released their second statement, but she doesn't really seem to deny being in the road in her statements either. Given the road closure, if he's responding to a non-emergency call and is going fast enough that he nearly hits her, then there's something wrong with the picture to me.

 

 

At the start of the raw video, she's going on about him saying something to the effect of, "do you know this is a street"?, and the conversation itself doesn't seem to indicate that Ms. Ore is really disputing that she was in the street.

 

In all likelihood, she was walking, had something said to her (seemingly something that included words to the effect of "do you know this is a street"?), and then reacted to that. What that was, how bad it actually was considering the situation, and how badly each played it from there is the question.

 

Maybe just me, but I'm going to guess it probably was not as simple as a nice "go on, get out of the road, and don't jaywalk anymore ma'am" or something that she heard and just kept going because it was said in passing anyway. At the same time, it was probably not as complex as him jumping out of the car and trying to throw her in cuffs for jaywalking right away. The latter is what it escalated into though.

 

 

In the tape, she asks why he stops and "pulls her over" (which sounds more like a detention and less like a command to do something she was going to do anyway).

 

I'm not sure I'm COMPLETELY buying the "had no intention of citing her" either given that he's doing that and asking for ID and telling her she'll go to jail if she doesn't show him one. I think it was more likely a deal where he stopped, told her to quit doing that knowing that his next reaction was going to be to write her up if she didn't respond in the way he wanted her to (or at worst, if she even looked at him wrong). I don't know whether that's something that was a conscious or subconscious design on his part, but personally, it seems like the kid might have been a bit standoffish.

 

She seemed set off by the initial encounter and the "do you know what this is? this is a street" bit and he seemed set off by her questioning anything at all, even the "are you serious?" type ones. Things just snowballed from there.

 

I know people don't always act reasonable, but if you're walking and you are in the road and someone tells you to get out of the road, what sense does it make to just stand there when they are telling you to do the same objective that you were trying to do anyway? You don't argue, you go. IMO, she seems to think she's being cited or at least questioned and doesn't really have that option.

 

 

As far as her not complying with a request to get out of the street or not block the road, I think it's fair to say she wasn't told anything that made her feel comfortable walking away (i.e., when a reasonable person would have felt free to leave) but just decided to stand or lay in the road to raise hell. Maybe the officer didn't mean to make her feel like she wasn't free to move out of the street when he started with the questions, but I think it's a safe bet to say she probably took his questioning to mean she was to answer him until she was told to go and that the more disobedient thing to do would be to walk away immediately (or moving on right after a quick "sorry").

 

As opposed to being told to leave the street and just doing that, I do think it's different and her reaction more understandable when you put yourself in her shoes and think you are being stopped/detained, the whole conversation got off with the "do you know what this is", and then you reply with an "I know this is a road, everyone does this, I don't mind abiding by the law, but you don't have to be disrespectful... I'm a professor here, and I'm not sure why I'm being stopped like this", then there's a demand to see your license or be arrested.

 

 

If this whole thing didn't happen on a closed road on a college campus, I'd feel a lot different about it, but it isn't.

 

 

Here's an account of someone who claims to be a witness who came onto the scene after some of the things have unfolded already:

 

Witness describes shock seeing arrest of ASU professor by campus police

 

 

Just found that link today and have heard more of the stuff that's being released like longer audio, but even still, I'll go with "it's safe to say that": 1.) both of Ore and Ferrin weren't perfect in how they handled everything, 2.) if I were Ferrin, I wouldn't have filed the felony assault charge if I were given any discretion to because of the potential (that it could open the whole can of worms that it has).

[JokersWild24]

I'd be willing to be she is at risk in her job and is looking for a payoff. Give me any other logical reason she would have ignored the officer, resisted the officer, assaulted the officer. :popcorn:

 

It's almost funny how many times I have seen in the workplace where a person is disciplined or know they will be and suddenly get proactive in their defense: claim harrassment; get injured; claim discrimination... if it weren't so sad.

 

 

Maybe she heard a question and saw him stop, took it as a detention, and didn't feel like she was free to leave.

 

Assume you're crossing the street, you're jaywalking, and you are "in the middle" of the street like the officer is claiming she was. Okay. Your objective in jaywalking is to probably get from one side to the other. You hear the officer say "hey jaywalker, get out of the street". Why don't you just go on across like the officer says? It's what you were going to do anyway.

 

Now, assume all of the same but the officer says "do you know this is a street?". Just freezing at that point in time, can you probably see why someone wouldn't be like "yes", then just keep going and take a chance that it's interpreted as them being evasive when it's your word against theirs? Your probably going to stop because it's probably safe to assume that there's a follow up question to that.

 

She can't stop "obstructing the public thoroughfare" if she's not able to end the conversation and go on to the other side. She can't stop "obstructing a public thoroughfare" if she has to stand in the public thoroughfare and get lectured on the illegality of obstructing it.

 

If she's like, "yes, I know this is a street" and keeps going, then she's essentially Lloyd Christmas in Dumb & Dumber telling the motorcycle cop whose driving by him "it's a cardigan, but thanks for noticing".

 

Sure, she can ask, "am I free to go", but even then, she might run the risk of him being like, "oohh, smart lady I see here... well, I know 'street law' and I'm gonna show her" (i.e., Faith Moxson).

 

No win situation if you are her when you look at it like that because she has to make the next move and isn't the one with the upper hand.

 

 

 

Given that she got a doctorate from Penn State, which is a really good school, I'm guessing she's probably not skipping too many meals out of necessity. Maybe she's embarrassed and her pride is hurt over the whole thing and that's what the lawsuit is more about, but something doesn't really strike me as her being the equivalent to an ambulance chaser. More likely though, she feels that given the whole thing, the felony charge was much and she doesn't want to face the maximum penalty that would come from that and filing the civil suit is basically something that comes with the territory of doing that.

 

If her job were in danger and they wanted rid of her, it'd seem like this would be a pretty opportune time to do that, but we haven't really seen that happen. Don't you think that if ASU had a way to slow the bleed of this whole thing and to stop the chain reaction it's set off by discrediting her character (even further) with something scandalous that they wouldn't have leaked it by now? It makes more sense for them to do that than to just sit on it.

[JokersWild24]

News from Ore's Court Appearance this morning:

 

 

Ore pleads guilty to one count of resisting arrest and all other charges are dropped.

 

According to a Tempe newspaper, Ore's attorney, Alane Roby, explained her client's plea by noting that an unlawful arrest does not justify resisting arrest.

 

 

Ore's attorneys have not commented on whether or not a civil suit will follow. Ore's attorney stated: "Professor Ore has taken responsibility for her actions, and we ask Officer Ferrin do the same," and also stated that, "while today was about Ore", she hoped that anyone else who have similar experiences with the ASU Police Department, "particularly Officer Ferrin".

 

 

 

This Phoenix Blog is reporting that ASU spokespersons are not (yet) responding to requests as to whether or not Stewart Ferrin will resume duties. Other sources have reported that ASU won't respond to other requests involving disclosures of Ferrin's disciplinary record while the investigation is ongoing.

 

 

ASU professor pleads guilty to resisting arrest in Tempe

[Jumper_Dad]

If this whole thing didn't happen on a closed road on a college campus, I'd feel a lot different about it, but it isn't.

The video shows cars driving past them during the altercation. Maybe they are coming from a parking lot or from an adjacent adjoining street but they are coming from some where. You can also see cars parked on the side of the street, so this wasn't a completely closed street. We have all seen streets that are closed to "Thru Traffic" that still have a lot of local traffic on them.

 

So if the "Closed Street" is a big issue for you, you may want to reconsider. There appear to be a lot of variables to this Closed Street. It's about as closed as the Texas Border

 

Was the street on Campus, looks like a business/retail district to me, but that's just what it looks like to me?

[JokersWild24]

The video shows cars driving past them during the altercation. Maybe they are coming from a parking lot or from an adjacent adjoining street but they are coming from some where. You can also see cars parked on the side of the street, so this wasn't a completely closed street. We have all seen streets that are closed to "Thru Traffic" that still have a lot of local traffic on them.

 

So if the "Closed Street" is a big issue for you, you may want to reconsider. There appear to be a lot of variables to this Closed Street. It's about as closed as the Texas Border

 

Was the street on Campus, looks like a business/retail district to me, but that's just what it looks like to me?

 

 

Road is "Closed to Thru Traffic" as you'd mentioned. Sign has it labeled as being open to access 8 businesses. Pretty sure it's in or near the heart of their campus. For an analogy, one way to think of it would be to think of the Two Keys/South Limestone area on campus at UK... during construction on South Limestone. Streets look like one side is ASU, the other business that cater to ASU. Can't imagine campus PD being there if it's not at least in a very close vicinity.

 

 

Challenge: look up all the videos where they do a report on the scene, give yourself one point for every car and take away one point for every pedestrian. You'll probably be in the red. Do the same and give yourself one point for every moving car and one point for every jaywalker. You might be in the red there too.

 

Let's give the lady a bit of credit, she has her doctorate. She's probably got enough sense to cross the street without walking out in front of a police car traveling as any other car in that area normally would. But maybe not too though. I guess she could have been distracted or something.

 

 

Given the way things were blocked off on the street, etc., I'd say it's a safe guess that there are more people who jaywalk across that street than there are legally crossing it if you look at some given time periods. Technically jaywalking, yes. There are plenty of other things that can be said if we're talking technicalities though, IMO. What would you say the speed limit is on a road like that, even for an officer responding to a non-emergency call? Do you think if it were reversed and Mrs. Ore were driving and the officer jaywalking when she almost hit him. Any chance she'd be cited for inattentive driving or at least told to be aware more aware of her surroundings?

[Jumper_Dad]

 

Road is "Closed to Thru Traffic" as you'd mentioned. Sign has it labeled as being open to access 8 businesses. Pretty sure it's in or near the heart of their campus. For an analogy, one way to think of it would be to think of the Two Keys/South Limestone area on campus at UK... during construction on South Limestone. Streets look like one side is ASU, the other business that cater to ASU. Can't imagine campus PD being there if it's not at least in a very close vicinity.

 

Challenge: look up all the videos where they do a report on the scene, give yourself one point for every car and take away one point for every pedestrian. You'll probably be in the red. Do the same and give yourself one point for every moving car and one point for every jaywalker. You might be in the red there too.

 

Let's give the lady a bit of credit, she has her doctorate. She's probably got enough sense to cross the street without walking out in front of a police car traveling as any other car in that area normally would. But maybe not too though. I guess she could have been distracted or something.

 

Given the way things were blocked off on the street, etc., I'd say it's a safe guess that there are more people who jaywalk across that street than there are legally crossing it if you look at some given time periods. Technically jaywalking, yes. There are plenty of other things that can be said if we're talking technicalities though, IMO.

 

What does the point game prove... all campuses have more peds than cars.

 

The fact that many jaywalk still doesn't excuse it...take that theory to court next time you get a speeding ticket and let us know if it works.

[JokersWild24]

What does the point game prove... all campuses have more peds than cars.

 

The fact that many jaywalk still doesn't excuse it...take that theory to court next time you get a speeding ticket and let us know if it works.

 

 

I know what you're saying, but I think that it's working pretty well as part of the overall strategy for Ms. Ore's defense team with how they're playing it here too. The comparison to going to jail for jaywalking on a road that's essentially functioning at a fraction of it's normal capacity versus getting a speeding ticket is a pretty fair category jump. Tons of people speed, but far more are cited for it and the punishment is far more consistent. When you see someone who ends up going to jail and facing felony charges when they were pulled over for doing 45 in a 35, you've got a witness making a 911 call saying the officer was too aggressive, you are making headlines internationally, and the Defendant is on daytime talk shows being interviewed, then it's fair to say, "everyone is doing it (speeding)... but everyone isn't getting this kind of drama when they do either".

 

 

The point with the whole "everyone's doing it" analogy is that, just because you can, doesn't always mean you should. In Texas, you can be arrested for any offense aside from having an open alcohol container in an automobile or speeding. They don't arrest tons of people for failure to yield to a funeral procession, failure to wear a seatbelt, or having a defective taillight, so when someone does go to jail for something like that, especially if they are someone a jury could be sympathetic to like (a woman with her doctorate who'd just finished teaching a class), then person claims they weren't treated fairly, an independent witness will back that up, and people are seeing clips of the worst parts of the ordeal, they really have some things going for their case.

 

Even in the majority opinion of the US Supreme Court case that upheld a Texas officer's arrest of a woman for failure to use a seat belt, the Justice wrote, among other things, that the officer "at best, used extremely poor judgment". That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

However misguided or on point what people think they know about this actually is, the mere fact that so many people don't get worked up like this often, so when they do and there's such a public debate about them, it should tell people something.

 

The investigation isn't even finished and all charges have been dropped except the one that she's likely plead guilty to, and that came on the lowest count (misdemeanor, non-physical resisting arrest). Resisting arrest sentencing/punishments are just primarily used as an enhancement for others. Even if they throw the book at her for misdemeanor resisting arrest (as someone who I'm assuming is a first time offender given what we haven’t heard about her past record), she's facing a maximum of up to 30 days in jail and fine of $500. Given the civil suit that’s probably coming, they'd be stupid to try and give her the max (or even any) jail time unless it's part of the plea agreement and they can show she was pretty certain that the prosecutor's recommendation would have been exactly such when she plead to it (which I'm really, really doubting... and that's even though the prosecutor's recommendation is only a non-binding suggestion).

 

She'll likely get diversion and maybe pay a fine. ASU is still the one who could be on the hook for a lot. She can still say she was only guilty of resisting an unlawful arrest. All she’s admitting to is that she resisted an arrest, an arrest which may not have even been legal (and she’s not really making any concessions that it was).

 

 

Look at how much the two side's bargaining power has shifted over the past 10 days. Two weeks ago, they were trying to hit her with a felony and multiple misdemeanors and were willing to take it to trial. Now that's all off the table, she keeps her civil claim alive, and there's still the ongoing FBI investigation. That and now that there's practically nothing they can threaten her with, she just gets to sit back and watch the fireworks with stories like Faith Moxson that will only help her case. Her lawyer is free to focus on getting everything in order for their next step, ASU is probably worried about cutting off an arm to save the body just to get to their next step.

 

 

What does she have to lose now? Her time doing community service or the fine she'll pay?

 

What does ASU have to lose? Pretty much everything they could have lost when the week began, if not more.

 

No conviction to speak of (and neither side is probably happy about the conviction that they did get), a new case with the Moxson girl that along with the Heckendorn case will keep the media in plenty of stories, Ore’s lawyers basically running an ad for any other potential clients at her press conference today, no resolution to the pending FBI investigation, and the media hounding the department about when the officer is going to come back to work and when they’ll be able to access his conduct record.

 

 

If you are Arizona State and/or the prosecution, what do you even call a win at this point?

 

They've already went 1/4 on convictions to the initial charges, and that's really only because they still had one card to play if you think Ms. Ore was worried about possible punishments that could have accompanied a jury verdict. You know ASU has to be praying there's nothing that turns up in an investigation being conducted by the FBI given their association with Maricopa County's and the whole issue of non-compliance with any and everything Federal just for sake of doing it. ASU's attorneys are probably having nightmares about getting raked over the coals even more in civil trials and daydreaming about rewarding themselves with a nice vacation if they can earn their pay by just settling some cases out of court with non-disclosure clauses. For the people in the Police Department and all the politics that go with that, you can probably bet there are a lot of people hoping that just firing a few people is enough bloodshed to satisfy the people calling for it and that you aren't excluded once musical chairs finishes up.

 

 

If that's a win given each party's initial range of outcomes, I don't even want to know what a loss looks like. This whole thing has been a major hit to the university's reputation, and that's where a lot of the damage will really hurt. Even if they felt they were right, if ASU hadn't played things like they did a few weeks ago, then this whole thing doesn't get as ugly and politicized as it has. Now, I'm not sure you could have written a worse script for ASU given the way things have gone for since this went viral.

[JokersWild24]

...

 

 

Heads are really starting to roll now.

 

Earlier today, both the ASU Chief and Assistant Chief of Police each announced that their intentions to resign from their positions, with one citing the need to take some vacation time before he embarks on his reassignment and role with the Department's video surveillance team.

 

I know you may be thinking, wait a minute... isn't this the ole' resign before you can fire me trick? Well, don't worry, as an ASU spokesperson assures you that you are foolish for even thinking that, as she's quoted by AZCentral.com proclaiming, "This announcement went out about a month ago," she said, referring to the June announcement of Pickens' taking on a new role. "He's using his vacation time."

 

 

 

Funny how a judicial ruling being levied against ASU police for an unlawful, and honestly, quite disturbing arrest of Faith Moxson and the subsequent release of police "video" of the incident conspicuously absent of any evidence that would be able to concretely substantiate the officer's claims that the abrasions on her face and arms were the result of her "banging her own head against the pavement", which is a claim which Ms. Moxson, who still bears scarring from those injuries, is denying (despite the fact that she shouldn't have been in the position to begin with and was merely asserting her Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, however, in Arizona, being more aware of your civil liberties than someone trying to enforce the law seems to be the going trend).

 

 

 

Finally, as we've basically been treated to each day of this whole mess, there's a new report detailing another possible indiscretion in Tempe. Now, it's only the small matter surrounding the ASUPD's failure to properly handle sexual abuse allegations. In 2012, a student filed a complaint with the US Department of Education over ASU's handling and investigation of her claims that she had been the subject of sexual harassment from a faculty member. As you might imagine, there was a Title IX investigation opened at the time, one which the Feds are claiming was still ongoing at the time of the latest incidents.

 

 

Aside from basically any news from the past three weeks, everything seems to be going ASU's way and they appear to have it all completely under control.

[Jumper_Dad]

Man are you sure your not on retainer for this case... :lol2:

[JokersWild24]

Man are you sure your not on retainer for this case... :lol2:

 

I wish. I wouldn't be sitting here eating a Papa John's pizza with the last of my Papa's points and a debit card that's nearly maxed out thinking about how much I have to study tomorrow if I were.

 

Seriously, I don't know what ASU is thinking. Their county just appealed a case all the way to the point it was one step below the Supreme Court and their officials have gone out of their way to be as non-compliant with things as they possibly could be... it wasn't a very smart decision to proceed with their stuff, and that's coming from someone who just finished law school, hasn't passed the Bar, and didn't make very good grades along the way through school. It's like the reaction of some people in Arizona is that the branch of government over them that they've tried to defy at every turn is using this as an opportunity to break one off in them.

 

Regardless, the arrest video of that poor girl was pretty disturbing and goes to show you that some house cleaning was probably needed there. I know a kid who went to ASU, and I got the impression most kids there aren't really wanting for tons of things. Lots of them didn't grow up in Arizona, and had parents who could be fine with sending them to pay out of state tuition so they could go somewhere in the sun, not really like they're the types to be out breaking into cars and spraying graffiti.

 

If the police there are out harassing professors over jaywalking and students for sitting in their car in a parking lot like they're dangerous, then it really makes me wonder what happens to real criminals there. When someone who voluntarily moved to Texas is questioning your strictness on crime and punishment... well...

[Jumper_Dad]

Not saying that it didn't happen but you would be shocked how many people when arrested will start trying to hurt themselves. I've caught shoplifters that tried banging their head against the wall while we were waiting on the police, had them try to cut themselves also. One girl gashed her forehead open in my office against the door frame, as soon as she did it she calmed down. I gave her a paper towel to hold on the cut and contiued filling out my report of incident. As soon as the officer showed up she said we had done that to her. We were smart enough to always have a CCTV camera in the office pointed at the chair where we sat shoplifters, showed him the video and that was that. But many people do bang their own heads and want to scream that they were abused later. I've personally seen it many many times.

[JokersWild24]

Not saying that it didn't happen but you would be shocked how many people when arrested will start trying to hurt themselves. I've caught shoplifters that tried banging their head against the wall while we were waiting on the police, had them try to cut themselves also. One girl gashed her forehead open in my office against the door frame, as soon as she did it she calmed down. I gave her a paper towel to hold on the cut and contiued filling out my report of incident. As soon as the officer showed up she said we had done that to her. We were smart enough to always have a CCTV camera in the office pointed at the chair where we sat shoplifters, showed him the video and that was that. But many people do bang their own heads and want to scream that they were abused later. I've personally seen it many many times.

 

 

I understand that completely, but why tape the part where she isn't abusing herself, then start filming? They obviously had a camera and there are plenty of them there. The girl was fighting the charges, you can see her in the video literally getting hysterical and praying, and there was no reason to arrest her.

 

If you can get arrested for not showing your ID for no probable cause, then it's basically the same as saying you should be able to be arrested when you exercise your right to refuse a search when an officer with no basis for one has asked.

 

From all of my conversations with you, you seem like someone who takes your job really seriously and when someone falsely accuses you, there are countermeasures (film) that you have to protect yourself and probably aren't the type whose nervous about the camera because you know what your supposed to be doing and are confident in your abilities.

 

 

I'm just saying it's not that girl's fault that she knew the law better than them and was right about it or that they knew she was right and just didn't care. If it is blameworthy that she knew her rights more than they did, then we have to give people who don't know their rights as well as an officer the benefit of the doubt when they make a misstep.

 

I don't really know which of those is worse (if he didn't know or just didn't care), but neither is good and probably indicates that if they're that butt hurt about something a college girl said to them when she had a right to do so, then they probably aren't the kind of person that I'm going to be very confident in carrying a gun or being trusted with authorities that they'll be given.

 

 

I'm not saying all police are bad or anything like that. There are scumbag attorneys I know. Scumbag doctors, scumbag preachers, teachers, any occupation. I'm not trying to take a shot at all police when I say that the guy who arrested her could have been much more professional. If you are a doctor or lawyer and malpractice, you get sued and pay the consequences for your mistake. You'll have to answer to some type of oversight committee or judicial board, etc., and as someone who will be subject to those standards himself, it doesn't really bother me when guys that get caught messing up that badly get burnt because the majority of the time, it probably isn't the first time something like that has happened, it's just been the first time someone would be a good person to take it to court or was lucky enough to have someone else witness it, bystanders recording, etc.

[Jumper_Dad]

First priority isn't video taping...could be once she started doing that they thought they better record her...I don't know. Guy with camera may not have responded yet...a lot of non nefarious reasons it wasn't 100% on video. I bet if you were hired to defend the officers you could come up with a lot of reasons yourself.

[JokersWild24]

First priority isn't video taping...could be once she started doing that they thought they better record her...I don't know. Guy with camera may not have responded yet...a lot of non nefarious reasons it wasn't 100% on video. I bet if you were hired to defend the officers you could come up with a lot of reasons yourself.

 

For sure. You do everything you can legally do because that's your job. I've represented clients that some people would see their rap sheets and see them as repulsive and non-redeemable, but it's not my job to be the moral police on how hard I try because of how I feel about them, you look past that and go. If it's really so bad that you are literally feeling like you just can't do it because of some of the things they've been accused of, you can request to withdraw, but someone has to do it.

 

Somewhere in one of my long rants in this thread I talk about an officer in Texas who was on the wrong end of some bad PR because of the age of a lady he used deadly force against, but he was doing it lawfully, he was responding to a call and she was waving a gun. I would represent him to hell and back based on what little I read about the case, even if I didn't have to.