ASU Professor Charged After She Refused To Give Identification And Was Thrown To The Ground By Arresting Officer

ersula-oreThere is a growing controversy in Arizona over the arrest of Arizona State University Professor Ersula Ore who refused to show her identification to a police officer and ended up being thrown to the ground and arrested — a scene captured on the videotape below.

It remains unclear why the ASU police officer demands to see the identification of Ore. Libertarians have long opposed these laws required citizens to show their identification to police without any reasonable suspicion of a crime. In this case, Ore had allegedly jaywalked to avoid construction and then objected to what she considered a disrespectful tone of the officer. The officer, identified as Steward Ferrin, says “Let me see your ID or you will be arrested for failing to provide ID.” After he states that he has legal authority for the demand, Ore says that she has “no problem abiding by the law . . . But all I’m asking, do you have to speak to me in such a disrespectful manner?” Ore then resists efforts to handcuff her and eventually hits an officer in the leg.

asu30n-4-webAs we have seen in other controversial arrests, the prosecutors and police piled on charges. She has been charged with assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, refusing to provide identification when requested to do so by an officer and obstructing a highway or public thoroughfare. The kick was so slight, it is hard to see the purpose of the assault charge beyond the desire to increase the possible sentence and force a plea. Likewise, obstructing a highway seems a bit over the top. It is the second charge is easy to establish, albeit controversial with many libertarians. There is no question that she was resisting the officer who did try to get her to yield with verbal commands. However, the proliferation of charges continue to concern many of us in these cases as a way of forcing citizens to enter pleas even when they would prefer to contest the original charge.

Ore is claiming self-defense and says that the officer was reaching toward her anatomy when she kicked him.

Ore is a professor of cultural studies in the English department and lists her interests as “Contemproary Rhetorical Theory, Race Critical Theory, Rhetorics of Race & Culture, Composition, Visual and Material Culture Studies.”

The university issued the following statement.

Arizona State University authorities have reviewed the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the arrest of assistant professor Ersula Ore and have found that the officer involved did not violate protocol and no evidence was found of racial motivation by the ASU Police Department officers involved.

However, the ASU Police Department is enlisting an outside law-enforcement agency to conduct an independent review on whether excessive force was used and if there was any racial motivation by the officers involved. In addition, although no university police protocols were violated, university police are conducting a review of whether the officer involved could have avoided the confrontation that ensued.

According to the police report, ASU Police initially spoke to 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.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has independently reviewed all available evidence, including the police report, witness statements, and audio and video recordings of the incident, and decided to press criminal charges of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, refusing to provide identification when requested to do so by an officer, and obstructing a highway or public thoroughfare. The charge of assaulting an officer is based on the fact that Ore kicked the officer as is shown on the video and as she admitted in her recorded statements to the police.

Sharon Keeler,
(480) 965-4012
Media Relations

The academic status of Professor Ore could be raised if she is convicted or pleads guilty to some of these charges, particularly given the involvement of ASU police. Not only are criminal convictions generally grounds for such review but a crime technically against or involving the university can present a very serious issue for removal.

89 thoughts on “ASU Professor Charged After She Refused To Give Identification And Was Thrown To The Ground By Arresting Officer

  1. One cannot just say no to the police these days, especially if black, brown, and/or female. My sympathy is with the victim. The police as always in our time overreact, over penalize, over everything until it becomes absolutely absurd. And no one possesses any common sense–or human empathy–in this matter judging by the comments and reactions of others in authority who should have then judged the action of the police to have been unnecessary. I suspect the woman simply thought no, not again, not any more. And the police, as always, were clueless.

  2. Jaywalking is such a deadly threat to society these days. Remember the statement “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”? Observe what is happening around us. These enforcers are not accomplishing anything by initiating contempt for the citizen. Respect is a two way street.

  3. All I got was the audio on the tape. Firstly, the insatiable appetite government has for money has caused them to take money from citizens by any means necessary. In just the past few years, some cities have become Gestapo about jaywalking, levying fines for any violation. San Diego, where I live in the winter, is one of those cities. They actually assign foot cops to pop people like we saw here. The exclusive nearby city of Coronado, has taken San Diego’s lead, and their fine is $400!!

    Paul Schulte will be able to tell us if Tempe has the same “safety program.” That’s what cities call it. It’s all done for safety, don’t you know. So, I understand her being pissed. All that said, she did have “a ‘tude” and this could have been avoided. The cop is going to issue a ticket. NOTHING she said was going to change that. You battle it in court, not on the street.

  4. I am inclined to take the position that the Arizona law requiring a person to identify themselves lacking grounds of probable cause or probable suspicion is unconstitutional and that argument should be perused.

    Additionally, people are stupid for even talking to police as she in fact admitted that she did kick the police officer. Nothing like an admission of guilt for something.

  5. Seems once she was told she was obstructing the road, the officer was allowed to ask for ID. That is seen in the video. Allegedly she was told earlier and ignored the officer. I hate the not so fine line that assaulting an officer has become. As in the Florida case…staring was considered an assault.

  6. Tom G

    Jaywalking is such a deadly threat to society these days. Remember the statement “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”? Observe what is happening around us. These enforcers are not accomplishing anything by initiating contempt for the citizen. Respect is a two way street.


    I beg to differ Tom, the American people are being trained to become subservient to all government authority.

  7. Neo, Bingo! People ridicule us libertarians for railing against a monster govt. eating it’s own citizens. They don’t seem to understand the macro level, but they see this and completely understand the micro level of an out of control government.

  8. Irrespective of all the examples of police abuse and there are limitless examples, some in which the officer should be at the very least dismissed and perhaps charged, this does not seem like an instance instigated by the officer.

    The woman was jaywalking. The police car turned the corner and she was in the way. This much has been ascertained. The officer has the right to approach the individual to verify if the person is: drunk, disorientated, or otherwise more than simply jaywalking. When the officer asked for ID, and he seems to ask politely from the audio, the woman should have simply shown her ID and complied. She probably would have gotten off with a warning or have been reminded that it is not a good idea to jaywalk. This is not police brutality.

    Everything that lead up to her being handcuffed and flipping out was instigated by her. She is an example of individuals refusing the authority of the police and sometimes even baiting the police. The knife cuts both ways. To represent this as police brutality only works against those innocent citizens who are indeed brutalized by the police.

    There is need for respect for the police just as much as there is need for respect for citizens. From the video and early audio, the officer was polite and respectful. It was the woman who disrespected the officer.

    He could have given her a verbal reprimand without asking to see her ID, however, it is within his right to ask for ID and after viewing the arrogance of the woman perhaps a necessity.

  9. After watching the video for a third time it is obvious that the woman asked for it. She held herself above the law. You don’t tell a police officer how to do his job or how to respond to a situation, especially as benign a situation as being asked for ID. She has a chip on her shoulder and has now successfully made things worse all around. Unfortunately because she is black and a woman, the results, once they make the rounds will only make things worse. If she has any backbone at all she will publicly apologize to the officer and make a statement in support of the police.

  10. Tom,

    It is actually a huge pain in the ass. I almost hit a guy yesterday walking right in the middle of the street. Ended up yelling at ME when I gave the WTF shrug that the light was red anyway… as if that has any bearing on needing to slam on the breaks to react to a light that is over half a block away. Wouldn’t of lost sleep if I accidentally hit him.

    No love for belligerent cops or whiny liberal arts professors either so hope they both are equally shamed for poor behavior.

  11. Issac,

    Yeah, she was smug, pompous, combative, and antagonistic. Looking for a fight.
    Others I see causing problems are bicyclists running red lights. 2 wheels against a 4000 Lb SUV.
    In NYC, watch a mother with a baby stroller jaywalk. What’s the first thing that mother does? Push the baby stroller into oncoming traffic.

  12. I once was stopped by a state trooper for speeding, really speeding. This was in California, but I was a resident of another state on vacation. I was young and stupid. The trooper asked me to step outside the car. He was really angry and probably filled with adrenaline from the chase. It was obvious even to this young-un that he was looking for an excuse to arrest me. I immediately reverted to “Yes, sir” mode, being obsequious. You could almost see the air being released from his body. After he berated me, he gave me a nasty ticket, which I deserved, and allowed me to go on my way. I paid the ticket by mail as soon as it arrived.

    If I had displayed an attitude of any kind, I would have landed in jail. That’s what this case is all about. Perhaps she had experienced racism in the past, but she cannot assume, like all liberals, that she has the right to carry a chip on her shoulder for the rest of her life. Everyone needs to understand that police officers never know if the person they are stopping is Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, or Charles Schulz, and they are often ready for battle. Lose the attitude with police officers.

  13. as I understand it,when lawfully stopped by a police officer,one is required to give their name-even here in red ass ky,you only need to show id when there is probable cause to place a subject under arrest-this is still the united states of America,you don’t need to produce papers in order to cross the the video,the young man makes this incident about his authority-he conflates his directions WITH THE LAW,WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE MADE UNDER COLOR OF LAW-very different-this young man’s anger management issues make him problematic for a position dealing with the general public,let alone one as a police officer-the latter are trained in how to deal with folks who can’t comply with commands immediately because of impairment,disability,language barrier,intoxication,even dissociative disorder,they are also trained in how to prioritize-how much of this guy’s day is devoted to this sort of drama? compare to how cops in the south or the Caribbean handle rowdy,kicking screaming college kids-I once heard one of this cops mutter -“some days it takes all kinds,some kinds take all day.”

  14. Nick – so true that municipalities are hungry for ticketing revenue.

    The park where my nephew plays soccer has no parking. Literally no parking lot. So people park all along the street when there are sports at the park. Hidden by a tree is a single no parking sign. You cannot see it for most of the stretch of the street, due to a curve in the road. So if you’ve passed that sign before you look for parking, you’ll have no idea. About 50 cars get tickets every Saturday. It’s obviously a revenue generator.

  15. Saucy – you’re right. The best advice is to meekly comply with any police officer. Arguing at the scene never gets anyone anywhere. If necessary, you can always take it up with Internal Affairs at a later time.

    She was jaywalking, which means she was likely going to get a ticket. It doesn’t matter what his tone was – she would have to take that up later with his watch commander or IA. She has to show her ID even if the ticket she’s getting is stupid.

    It does sound like they piled on charges to make her plead out, because the only reasonable charge is jaywalking and refusing to show ID. They really need to stop doing that. And they need better training on how to defuse tense situations.

    Just like it doesn’t matter what the officer’s tone was, she still had to show ID, it shouldn’t matter what her tone was. The officer needs to remain calm and unmoved. He should be able to handle her without throwing her to the ground.

  16. I watched the video. It was audio only for about the first half.

    This professor kept maintaining that the entire problems is that the officer spoke to her in a disrespectful manner. He apparently told her it was a street, not a sidewalk, and to walk on the sidewalk. She took exception to that tone. So she argued and argued and argued with him. She refused to comply with anything he said, because of that initial “disrespectful” statement. And then when he tried to arrest her, she pleaded with onlookers to “not let this happen.” Was she hoping civilians would fight with a police officer to get her out of this? What did she want them to do? And then she seemed to imply that the officer was sexually assaulting her, saying he was “straddling her”, and objecting to the placement of his leg.

    What I also see is the officer getting extremely frustrated. I think officers need to be trained in techniques for dealing with frustration, non-compliance, and unreasonable people (which she was.) And I would hope that he could get a non-cooperative woman handcuffed without throwing her to the ground. What about control moves? She was completely and entirely in the wrong for failure to comply, and seemed to want to make it a racial social injustice or sexual assault. African American people are not allowed to break the law, or get out of stupid revenue-generating tickets, because they are African-American. She made a lot of trouble for herself, including possibly jeopardizing her job, all because of a minor snippy comment. And she deliberately implied that the officer’s attempts to arrest her were sexual. What was her complaint going to be to his superiors? That he sarcastically explained that she was walking on a street and not a sidewalk?

    I also think that they piled on extra charges to get a plea deal. She did resist arrest but the assaulting a police officer charge is lame.

    And now her employers and students at the university got to see her behavior on video.

  17. The officer escalated wayyy to quickly, which just exacerbated the situation. She was overly insulted at his tone and didn’t provide what he was demanding. If the cop would’ve taken his tone down a notch she probably wouldn’t have felt as disrespected and provided the ID. To see her thrown to the ground was disturbing to say the least. It was excessive and unnecessary all around.

  18. While I don’t endorse this process overall, for those who feel a need to talk to police, I offer the following link.

    The RIGHT Way to Handle a Police Stop

  19. >> Ore is a professor of cultural studies in the English department and lists her interests as “Contemproary Rhetorical Theory, Race Critical Theory, Rhetorics of Race & Culture, Composition, Visual and Material Culture Studies.” <<

    Why is this relevant?

    It does not matter what her profession is or her interests. I personally think that professors of "cultural studies" are not much more than highly paid left wing political activists. I also suspect I disagree with her politics on most issues. Neither of which is relevant to her situation.

    Her situation is that authorities first abused her and then piled on charges. That's repugnant, oppressive, and anti-liberty. I hope she beats the charges and sues them civilly.

  20. Couple of things here. 1) Jaywalking is a real problem at ASU 2) you are required to identify yourself to police when asked and she refused 3) the officer handled the situation badly, but she handled it worse 4) she did resist arrest 5) she did kick him

    As for her claims there was in incident of another black professor being stopped by the campus police (who are real police, not rent-a-cops) and the sidewalk was block by construction, her reason for being in the street.

  21. I think people are jumping to conclusions here. The defendant was not simply thrown to the ground because she objected to being required to show ID and refused, nor was it a matter of her being disrespected being relevant. This is clearly defiant and resistive.

    The pertinent factor in Arizona Revised Statutes reads:

    13-2906. Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare; classification

    A. A person commits obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare if, having no legal privilege to do so, such person, alone or with other persons, recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway or public thoroughfare by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard.

    B. Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare is a class 3 misdemeanor.

    It was stated above she had caused a hazardous situation by her jaywalking. ARS defines this as a misdemeanor crime. The officer in investigating this crime has the lawful authority to demand identification which the defendant clearly refused to do. The officer made multiple demands for her to produce ID and she refused to do it. The subject matter of what she said is irrelevant, she continually refused to obey the law and she would have went on longer and longer. This type of thing happens frequently with difficult individuals. Talking endlessly while still refusing to do something. This would have gone on indefinitely and the officer made numerous warnings to her to produce ID.

    After the officer told her to put her hands behind her back and arrest her for this criminal violation she made a constant and demonstrated resistance to arrest. She repeatedly refused to put her hands behind her back and actively resisted.

    Later, she actively fought with the officer not just passive resistance as before but pulling away and thrashing her hand about as the officer was trying to arrest her. The officer had already tried to use the trunk / hood of the car to maintain her but that wasn’t working. When suspects begin this level of resistance it is usually necessary to take them to the ground to cuff them because it is difficult to get them cuffed, as shown in the video.

    I personally don’t see the PC for the Assaulting a Law Enforcement Officer but it is clearly a resisting arrest and a failure to identify issue.

    This type of arrest situation occurs occasionally where the suspect behaves just as this woman has.

    Furthermore, even if the defendant was being investigated for the most minor of criminal or traffic violations she is required to identify herself per statute. If she had done so the most that would have happened would have been the issuance of a citation for the traffic violation. I don’t see convincing evidence this was an abuse of office by the police involved.

  22. Jay walking, in the sense of crossing a street in the middle of a block, was not the reason she was stopped. She was walking in the middle of a street obstructing traffic. She then refused to provide ID and became belligerent when asked. Perhaps the police over reacted, but that’s not really determinable as all the clips I’ve found out there start at the point were she is wrestling with the officer and don’t show the prior conversation. Why is that? What is in the lead up to the physical confrontation that all the bloggers who are posting this do not want us to see?

  23. Your clip does give more of the conversation -audio not video- than others. Her argument and refusal to cooperate and provide ID is definitely a violation of law. She could have shown respect herself and avoided this situation.

  24. Regardless of the verbal manner of which the officer is displaying it does not provide under the law a legitimate reason for her or anyone else to violate the law. If the officer was being rude that is an internal affairs matter, not one to excuse unlawful conduct in others which is a matter for the courts to decide.

  25. Ersula Ore was accosted by Arizona State University (ASU) Police because she decided to cross a street without walking within the arbitrarily proscribed pedestrian crossing area or as officer not so friendly states in his ASU PD officialese “obstruction of a public thoroughfare” even though the street is clear of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

    Arbitrarily enforced pretext encounters such as this allow the officers an excuse to harass and intimidate otherwise law abiding citizens such as Erula Ore.

    For the folks claiming that Ersula Ore should have reported the officers to internal affairs for their disrespectful actions and pretext encounter are most assuredly not living in reality.

    Also resisting the tyrannical actions of a costumed cretin is the hallmark of a free person. Only pliably supine serfs genuflect to their oppressor in the face of tyranny.

  26. Arizona State University authorities have reviewed the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the arrest of assistant professor Ersula Ore and have found that the officer involved did not violate protocol and no evidence was found of racial motivation by the ASU Police Department officers involved.

    Is there ever an instance where these folks violate protocol?

  27. If Professor Ersula should try walking in the middle of the road in NYC Times Square, she might get shot.

  28. Superb analysis. Seems almost everyone sees the chip on her shoulder as being the biggest contributing factor. As I’ve said previously, I taught my students and children about their Constitutional rights. I also told them to put their anger or chip on their shoulder in their back pocket. Be nice as pie and give “yes, sir and no, sir” answers. This professor would have not been arrested if she watched the hilarious and instructive video by Chris Rock, HOW NOT TO GET YOUR ASS KICKED BY THE POLICE. She was fortunate to have a university cop. If she were in the police brutality cities of NYC, Milwaukee, Chicago or LA, she would have been hospitalized.

  29. Given my understanding of various court decisions to the effect that a police officer can arrest anyone for the crime of obstruction for any reason that the officer can imagine, the better to serve and protect the public, and that it is especially a serious form of obstruction to not provide a police officer with identification of self, I have undertaken an effort to avoid not being reasonably accurately identified by police officers upon their request.

    Luckily for me, I have never accepted the notion that I have any civil or other rights of any sort when I am in the presence of police officers. I do make as good an effort as I can figure out how to make to survive any encounters police officers have with me.

    So, I carry my driver’s license certificate in a small transparent plastic bag, with me when I am outside my home. Also, in that bag is a list of relevant medical conditions which, if ignored by police officers, could lead to their murdering me through mere ignorance of my medical conditions and my conditional medical needs. That list contains the names and dosages of the medications I take to correct biochemical imbalances resulting from my colon having been removed in 1986 to reduce the risk of my dying from cancer resulting from a form of familial adenomatous polyposis, in the manner that my dad and brother died.

    In addition to the aforementioned medical information, to do my part to accurately identify myself to police officers upon their request, I carry another card with what i deem to be information essential to my identity, and without which I would not be accurately identifiable by police officers.

    One side of that card has printed on it the following words:

    Notice: Law Enforcement Officers —
    My name: Rev. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
    Driver’s License & Insurance are herein.
    I reserve my right to remain silent.
    I do not consent to any searches.
    I do not consent to any interrogations.
    I do not consent to questioning.
    I do not consent to intimidation.
    I do not consent to coercion.
    I do not consent to deception.
    I do not consent to harm.
    I do not consent to violence.
    I do not consent to any abuse.
    I am Autistic.

    When I have handed my identification information to a police officer, I place that side of that card on top of the stack of identification cards, the bottom of which is my driver’s license certificate, which I hand to the police officer.

    The back side of the card that I put on top of the stack has on it printed the following words:

    Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 18: The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed, nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry, without consent, nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries.
    As a Professional Engineer having a Ph.D. in Bioengineering, I find that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence is an unconstitutional establishment of religion of apparently pre-historic origin. I also find that no mistake ever made either should or could have been avoided, regardless of the mistake or its consequences. In accord with my conscience and in accord with the Wisconsin Constitution, I find that any contrary belief is deceptive and dishonest.
    Rev. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
    Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer No. 34106-6

    I carry with me, and provide to police officers who ask me for identification, such information as may allow my being accurately identified as a licensed driver, a licensed Professional Engineer, the holder of a Ph.D. in Bioengineering, the fact of my being Autistic, and a collection of facts that properly identify me as a human person who, on grounds of conscience, rejects any and every aspect of alleged or purported law which is adverse to truth and to truthfulness.

    My doctoral dissertation is on the Internet, on the INDIGO web site of the University of Illinois at Chicago, with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. On checking the statistics regarding my dissertation, I noted earlier to day that it has been downloaded, worldwide, more than 500 times.

    No one has demonstrated that the core scientific finding of my thesis and dissertation, the finding that actually-avoidable accidents, mistakes, or events of any other kind whatsoever, are absolute existential impossibilities.

    As a licensed Wisconsin Professional Engineer, I cannot be anonymous. Surely, if avoidable events actually happened, someone would have demonstrated one to me or told me how such demonstration could be accomplished.

    The belief that people make avoidable mistakes or act in any other ways that are actually avoidable is, to me, a purely religious belief, and any social establishment which harbors this religious belief is necessarily a religious establishment.

    Until someone actually demonstrates an actually avoidable event actually happening, I can find no recourse in conscience or in science to my finding that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Law and Jurisprudence is actually an actually-unconstitutional religious establishment which is significantly supported by money drawn from the treasury.

    Until someone actually demonstrates an actually avoidable event actually happening, I cannot, in conscience and in science, find that the American Bar Association, as also the diverse state Bar Associations are other than religious cartels, and that their standing in government (national and state) is other than a very destructive violation of the notion of separation of church and state.

    Yes, I admit, as fact, that I am autistic, and admit as fact that my primary care physician’s medical records state, “Autism. High functioning.” For me to not identify myself to a police officer as autistic would be, in my view, a clear instance of my committing criminal obstruction of an officer.

    I have no control over how a police officer interprets my correctly identifying myself in ways relevant to police work, and, therefore, correctly identifying myself to a police officer may be impossible, no matter what I do, because the interpretations the police officer makes, regarding the identifying information I give to the police officer are totally within the police officer’s locus of control and are, therefore, also, totally outside my locus of control.

    Alas, I find that I am completely incapable of choosing to correctly identify myself to a police officer, regardless of what I do, or what i do not do.

  30. I carry several laminated business cards printed front and back with the following:
    This Card Holder Fully Asserts
    Their Constitutional Rights
    And States The Following:

    “I Remain Silent.”
    “No Searches.”
    “I want My Lawyer.”

    With the US flag faded and upside down in the background.

    The other side quotes the Flag Code Title 36, USC, Chapter 10 section 176(a)
    referencing the upside down flag.

    When approached by a cop this is what I hand them. If they need more they will “demand” such and if it’s a lawful demand I shall comply while remaining silent at all times. I also carry a camera pen most of the time to record any encounters.

  31. Bruce

    Is that your way of saying you refuse to enforce your Constitutional rights?

    If so, then you have no rights.

    FYI Don’t Talk to Police

  32. I was a liberal prior to maturing. Back in the 60’s and 70’s we liberals did not trust the police. Now liberals want us to trust them to protect us and are aligned w/ police not wanting private citizens to be able to protect themselves. Liberals used to be proponents of free speech, now they are purveyors of speech codes and PC. I obviously got the hell out of that cesspool just in time!

  33. Nick

    I feel the same and had similar circumstances until I came to the realization that whether liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, etc. it’s all the same. I don’t play their divide and conquer games anymore.

  34. Neo, We libertarians are like Marlene Dieterich, we “Just want to be [left] alone.” We leave you alone, just leave us alone. That’s the way this country was established. Our founding fathers would not even believe they were in the US if they were brought back to life. It’s great having you here, dude. How did you find this place. That always interests me.

  35. Bruce,

    While my name is not “J. Briant,” errors happen. Perhaps, in an existential, cosmological sense, human life itself is the greatest of all possible errors. Yet, I may be mistaken about that.

    As an autistic person, I have been as though a victim of nearly every “neurotypical” person with whom I have ever suffered an encounter.

    I have a simple method for coming to terms with neurotypicals; I recognize that neurotypicals cannot ever do better than they actually do, and I forgive them and forgive the harm they inflict on me and on my life.

    So, when I am a victim (I am always a victim in this sense) and have sufficient reason, however unreasonable my reason may be, I will provide them with information that accurately identifies me, and, for my safety, will especially do everything practicable to accurately inform them that I autistic in the classical (Kanner/Bleuler) sense of the autism spectrum. For me to do less surely would be some form of obstruction of an officer.

  36. Just started reading Jonathan Turley’s blog from a writing on one of his subjects linked in from another website about a year ago but never read the comments until recently.

  37. Mistakes happen. Proof positive- an editing blunder on my part:

    “and have sufficient reason, however unreasonable my reason may be”

    was intended to be:

    “and have sufficient reason to call upon the police, however unreasonable my reason may be”

    I much prefer mercy to sacrifice.

  38. Well Brian, if I read your post correctly, that was a sad commentary. I would hope you are more positive in the real world. Although the concept of what is “real” is quite diverse from one to another.

  39. For anyone interested, the YouTube video put here by Neo is by James J. Duane, a Regent University School of Law professor.

    In my view, Duane has a useful grasp of how adversarial law may (sometimes?) function in the manner of entrapment.

  40. Saucy: “but she cannot assume, like all liberals, that she has the right to carry a chip on her shoulder for the rest of her life.”

    I’m a liberal and I don’t have a chip on my shoulder. That gratuitous remark caused your IQ to drop 40 points in my estimation. Rather than pander to your friends here, maybe you should keep up the pretense of sounding reasonable.

    I myself have gotten out of all kinds of scrapes, from walking the dog without a leash to assault and battery. The cops have a job to do and I try not to make it any more difficult or unpleasant than it needs to be.

  41. Two questions. Does the Professor indeed have rhetorical skills? Or, does she have them but failed to use them?

  42. I think it’s pretty clear this woman made this into something it didn’t need to be. The officer sounded perfectly respectful, particularly in the beginning. My guess is her response to the officer was not a sensible one, and it just snowballed from there.

    I hope they put those cuffs on nice and tight

  43. We should all chip in some money for her defense, enough to not just get her acquitted, but to make an example of police brutality and change the tide once and for all.

  44. RTC, I’m waiting for us who say this woman had a chip on her shoulder to be called “RAAAACISTS.” I am actually shocked that card has not yet been dealt.

  45. Part of the problem with people copping an attitude when asked for ID is multifold. First, the officer may know something you don’t. Here are a couple of examples:

    Looking for a missing person or someone with an outstanding warrant that looks a lot like you.

    Saw you commit a minor offense, and is about to write you a ticket.

    Also, the reason some officers are quick to react–or even overreact–is because of the increased risk from the so-called sovereign citizen movement. One of their tactics is to refuse to carry a government issued ID, including a driver’s license. Those folks have proven to be dangerous in the past. Several officers have ended up dead after what should have been a routine traffic stop.

    If you refuse to produce an ID after a polite request, you have suddenly painted yourself as a possible “Sovereign Citizen,” and a potential deadly threat. Those folks, in their arrogance, have created increased danger for the rest of us. Because you technically don’t have to produce an ID, doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to be obstinate about it.

    Jaywalking is a minor offense that can get you a ticket in many jurisdictions. There is no point in escalating a jaywalking ticket into a night in jail and having to post bond the next day.

    I have some skin in this. Osborne Bell and Lloyd Jones were friends of mine. Sheriff Bell was the first black man to be elected Sheriff in Mississippi since reconstruction. I evaluated both their killers. So pardon me if I don’t jump on the bandwagon of refusing to show an ID if asked politely.

  46. maybe im hearing something different but i heard the lady say i have no problem with abiding by the law but do you have to speak to me in such a disrespectful manner..

    AND HE WAS he didnt want to hear anything she was trying to say but demanded that she listen to him. gimme a break with the bs. the only thing the corporation is doing is gearing the civilians up for a war and i hope all the bullying cops out here are prepared for their karma. they seem to forget that today they’re a cop tomorrow a civilian and the corporation gives less then a flicker about them.

    trying to train humanity to be subservient to nasty, thieving, murdering pieces of chits isnt working to well for them. and it darn sure isnt working for the steroid filled punk cops

  47. RTC wrote “I’m a liberal and I don’t have a chip on my shoulder. That gratuitous remark caused your IQ to drop 40 points in my estimation”

    Actually, yes you do, but you think you have a monopoly on the truth so you do not see it. Sorry, my IQ did not come down to your level.

    There are lots of people — all liberals — who refuse to require voters to show proper ID before voting. Their usual, whining argument is that it is too tough for the precious darlings to obtain an ID. Okay, so have liberals pay the trivial amount of money it would take to transport these people to a voter registration center. Put up or shut up, and all that. But no, voter fraud is a part of your plan.

  48. Nick wrote “We libertarians are like Marlene Dieterich, we ‘Just want to be [left] alone’.”

    I could make a crack about how it was actually Greta Garbo who made that remark (it comes from the movie Grand Hotel), comparing it to the many libertarians who are unfamiliar with history. But I won’t.

    P.S. The DVD is very entertaining, especially the extra short features.

  49. Chuck Stanley at 8:57 pm

    Divide and demonize, reminiscent of Nazi German. I don’t use that playbook. Maybe the DHS (America’s Gestapo) should militarize our police force?

  50. Hey shakyhead: That’s how it works when an officer asks for your ID; there’s no debate, there’s no discussion, you give it to them, if you have it. You want to talk about it? Do it after you’ve given them what they’ve requested.

    This officer was exceptionally respectful, and patient! This wasn’t a case of police abuse of power, they were not overbearing in the least, even when trying to cuff the woman. They gave her every opportunity to leave with her dignity and she insisted upon having a confrontation. Rather foolishly.

  51. Saucy: George Bush’s justice dept could not show voter fraud occurring in any significant numbers, LESS than 3% nationwide.

    Requiring ID’s for voting is unAmerican. True libertarians, the ones who want to be left alone, don’t believe they should be forced to get a govt ID, period, let alone carry it around or present one to vote. Many people, libertarian and otherwise, never bother to obtain ID.

    True libertarians recognize that the right to vote is more fundamental than the right to bear arms. ID’s cost money, money that some people don’t have. The right to vote shouldn’t depend on a person’s ability to pay for an ID anymore than it should depend on paying a poll tax.

    Voter ID laws are inherently unfair and racist, because many minorities, poor, and elderly don’t have ID, some don’t have birth certificates. And the legislators of various states, like Pennsylvania were explicit about their intentions when they drew up these laws.

    How do you like you’re Kool-aid, sweetie?

  52. RTC, Saucy hates libertarians. He busts my balls all the time. However, he has shown to have a caricature view of libertarians.

  53. I strongly agree with Chuck Stanley that refusing to provide documents on request by a police officer to the officer is a form of provocation that I happen to abhor. So, instead of providing what a police officer asks me for, I not only provide that, but a bunch more than I was asked for.

    If I do not inform a police officer at the outset of an encounter, being autistic, I am likely to mess up using words sufficiently to greatly increase my accidentally put into serious to worse, to much worse, actual danger.

    A couple good friends of mine were both amateur radio operators and police officers. One of them, the late Clarence Madison, held amateur radio call sign WB9PME, he was a Chicago patrolman.

    We visited each other many times, sometimes on the south side of Chicago, sometimes in Oak Park.

    Madison, as he was known by his friends, shared with me the difficulties of being a police officer, the difficulties of being consistently able to grasp which laws were applicable to a particular situation, the concern of misunderstanding an incident in ways that ended up unintentionally harming people.

    One friend of mine, in Wisconsin, is a retired police officer, and he has shared concerns about public safety and police work that I find very similar to the concerns the late Clarence Madison shared with me.

    I am not opposed to law, nor to law enforcement, and my license as a professional engineer mandates that I work in accord with the Code of Ethics of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), the first principle of which is holding paramount public safety.

    Alas, a system of laws which has become as though sometimes its greatest adversary is not a system which holds paramount the public safety.

    Alas, a system of laws which those who are, by law, bound to obey, yet which neither lawyers nor judges nor juries nor the public at large can accurately understand is not a system which holds paramount the pubic safety.

    Alas, a system which used deception to facilitate entrapment of innocent people is not a system which holds paramount the pubic safety.

    Alas, a system which, against my will, and under protest, left me bereft of any way to live according to my conscience and according to the NSPE Code of Ethics, simply cannot be a system which holds paramount the public safety.

    I am considering re-licensing my motorcycle-grade scooter (a Yamaha 250 cc Morphous) to further study, safely if at all possible, scofflaw conduct of drivers in northeastern Wisconsin. The Morphous has a larger-than-factory windshield (for enhanced safety) and a digital speedometer that reads out in 1 mile per hour increments. With a GPS-logging dashcam, I can record scofflaw behavior for subsequent at-home research study.

    I have no intention of “turning anyone in.” I am intrigued by the kind of situations in which a scofflaw driver will pass a motorcycle going up a hill on which the road curves and has a double yellow centerline.

    When people discover that they cannot possibly choose to be law-abiding, because one law requires what another prohibits, and are, therefore, in violation of the law by legislative/lawyerly/judicial entrapment, becoming a scofflaw may be the only sane way to live that some neurotypical folks are able to find.

    For myself, as a bioengineer, I find the enigma of law, law enforcement, and law violation to be the most profoundly, and terribly, intriguing problem I have ever found in the realm of theoretical biology.

    So, instead of holding back information from a police officer, I offer the officer more, and more accurate, information than the officer may want.

    Unless someone can demonstrate that my doctoral research is defective by actually doing a demonstration of an actually-avoidable accident or mistake (I find that such a demonstration is actually impossible), I shall have to continue to believe that the social notion of guilt is a tragically addictive, absolutely psychotic, delusion, which relentlessly generates dastardly consequences when used as a way to enhance law and law enforcement.

    I find that I am readily able to actually demonstrate the impossibility of actually demonstrating that anyone can ever actually be guilty of anything.

    I truly would welcome a demonstration that my thesis and dissertation finding that actually-avoidable events are always actually avoided is somehow neurologically untrue.

    I cannot take a police officer, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge, and a jury, along with an errorless understanding of every past, present, and future law and judicial decision, so that, when I set out to do something, I can understand the law, as it will be applied to what I do, only after the fact of my doing it, perfectly.

    So, I continue to find that it is not people who violate adversarial law, it is adversarial law which violates people.

    No hypothetical argument is ever an actual (tangibly real) demonstration.

    In my view, it is profoundly foolish to challenge police officers over what are, in the contemporary social malaise, what are rightfully deemed inconsequential trivialities.

    If Clarence Madison was one of your good friends, perhaps what I learned from him, you would also understand.

  54. I want to be law-abiding. However, I find that the structure and process of law and law-enforcement have made my being law-abiding, in terms of statutes being law, impossible.

    In contrast with those who respond to this predicament with violence, I have long understood that retaliation is a harmful process, that reciprocal retaliation is a defeating process, and that escalating reciprocal retaliation is an annihilating process.

    So, the weapons, the only weapons, I have to use to defend myself against being harmed, being defeated, or being annihilated are words, written and spoken and heard.

    Meanwhile, I wait, and will wait for the rest of my life if that is what it takes, to learn of an actual demonstration of an actually-avoidable event that actually happened because it was actually unavoidable; with said event not being a violation of the law of identity, or a violation of the law of non-contradiction (aka, the law of contradiction {pardon the contradictory names for the same law} ), or a violation of the law of the excluded middle for dichotomies or the law of the included middle for continua, or the law of rational inference.

    When I find that the law requires what it prohibits, how can i not violate the law, or, how can the law not violate me?

    In contrast with raging maniacal “sovereign citizens” who have no sovereign association with even a phantasm of actual truthfulness, and who act out their inner self-despication by acting out against others who, like themselves, are addicted to one or another form of misguided authoritarianism, I happen to be far too autistic to entertain being anywhere close to that neurotypically traumatized.

    From time to time, Clarence Madison talked about officers he knew, some of them good friends, who were met with death by the actions of people who acted out being sovereign citizens of one or another insane sort.

    What is psychosis? What is insanity? What causes psychosis? What causes insanity? What will prevent psychosis without destroying life? What will prevent insanity without destroying life?

    Questions like those tend to frame and guide my bioengineering research.

  55. While it was stupid for this lady to not show her ID, don’t these officers have more important duties than to worry about an alleged jaywalking incident? This was abusive and unnecessary. She could have been talked down from her concerns without being handcuffed and assaulted. I am amazed he didn’t taze her.

  56. If I were the prosecutor, I would offer her the following deal: Drop the charges if she rides shotgun in a police cruiser for 2 days to get a better understanding of what cops face on a daily basis. This case should not be prosecuted. Period. Even if she technically committed a crime.

    When you are dealing with the folks who carry guns and badges, you need to be smart. The cop handled the situation poorly, but you don’t respond to that type of treatment by the cop by engaging in what is arguably a petty crime.

    Be smart when dealing with the folks who carry guns and badges. The majority of them are good people, but they are trained to assert their authority if someone is giving them a hard time. Don’t give them a reason to engage in what, in the absence of your own conduct, would otherwise clearly be misconduct on their part.

    Long ago in a galaxy far away, I got pulled over in DC because I drove the wrong way in one of DC’s screwy traffic circles. After I stopped, the cop had to walk about 25 feet after getting out of his cruiser. The entire time he was walking towards me, my (previous) wife was screaming at me at the top of her lungs for going the wrong way in the traffic circle. By the time the cop got to my car, he must have figured that I got more than my share of punishment handed to me for going the wrong way. He let me go without a ticket.

  57. Nick: I thought Saucy was a woman, the writing style and ideas seem feminine. Nevertheless, her point was that only liberals are worried about the imposition on voting rights caused by voter ID laws.

    Her belief that voter fraud is in any way a significant problem in this country marks her out as either gullible or eager to believe that “those” people are scamming the system. It’s but one more swig of Kool-Aid.

  58. I didn’t think you had to show ID, just ID yourself. Has the law changed? I’d be getting students out to film this intersection and see how many cops, pedestrians do the walk. This could be more about race than jay walking.

  59. rafflaw: I’ll bet when the officer first approached, he was intending to merely give her a verbal warning and it was the woman’s retort which precipitated the whole encounter. Instead of explaining why she was in the street (because of construction), she probably became indignant and demanded that he modify his tone (which sounded pretty respectful to me, particularly in the beginning).

    Max-1: I remember that video when Turley posted it a while back. That chick collapsed and sat down in resistance. The only reason she was cuffed is because she ignored the officer and continued jogging. She considered herself entitled and above the law in regards to crossing the street. Another person who could have avoided an unpleasant situation.

  60. These ID laws are a farce. There is no legitimate gov’t interest. It’s quite logical. The State does need a name to prosecute a crime. Joe Doe will suffice or Six Unknown Agents. Ultimately in court, an animated corpus is what is identified not a name tag.

    This is about power , control , and frankly tyranny.

    Even Hiibel v Nevada is not an affirmation of ID laws. The holding said “None of your business” is not a legitimate (based on reasonable belief) 5th amendment claim.
    Hiibel v Nevada
    “In this case petitioner’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it “would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute” him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951). As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer’s business. Even today, petitioner does not explain how the disclosure of his name could have been used against him in a criminal case. While we recognize petitioner’s strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth 191*191 Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature’s judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.”

    There are 2 more reasons ID laws are BS.
    1. No remedy for mis-identification
    Man jailed based on mistaken identity can’t sue, court rules
    March 12, 2014
    LA Times

    SAN FRANCISCO — A man jailed in Los Angeles County for a month because he was mistaken for someone with the same name and birth date lost a legal effort Wednesday to hold law enforcement agencies responsible for the mix-up.

    2. A name can be used against you

    ID errors put hundreds in County Jail
    Wrongful incarcerations totaled 1,480 in the last five years, a Times inquiry finds.

    December 25, 2011|Robert Faturechi and Jack Leonard

    Hundreds of people have been wrongly imprisoned inside the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department jails in recent years, with some spending weeks behind bars before authorities realized those arrested were mistaken for wanted criminals, a Times investigation has found.

    The wrongful incarcerations occurred more than 1,480 times in the last five years. They were the result of a variety of factors, including officials’ overlooking fingerprint evidence and working off incomplete records.

  61. Paul, Thanks for the update. I know a lot of FBI agents. I can tell you EXACTLY what FBI agents think about this assignment.

  62. what a dumb ass. He asked for her ID… this could have all been avoided if she’d simply showed him what he asked for. She got what she deserved. Can’t fix stupid, man.

  63. Per Arizona law, one is not required to show law enforcement one’s identification, only to identify oneself, and that is upon being suspected of misbehavior.

Comments are closed.