This is exactly what I wanted to say: the initiation of the whole incident is open for debate (hell, I tend towards racial profiling/harrasment), but once the woman wouldn’t identify herself after being told to (in a state where that is mandatory), the cop even explains that she is required to by law and if she doesn’t, she will be arrested.
What happens after that is just an arrest. Which she probably could have avoided by showing ID and being reasonable instead of getting on her high horse and resisting it. Now, having seen the video, I do not think she has much of a case (except maybe on the ‘assaulting a policeofficer’ charge).
I fear you are right about the cops being within a legal limit. They sure aren’t within any kind of moral limit though. Thanks to technology we have the ability to record such events. It helps to take some of the “He said/She said” out of situations. It’s apparent to me that citizens are going to have to be willing to police the cops until cops understand what protect and serve means. I wonder if the only violence on ASU campus that night was being committed by police? Could the cops have used their time in a more socially and morally appropriate manner? My two youngest sons* are Latinos and feel as much concern about cop violence as they do about criminal violence. How is that right in America
I am sick of this victim-blaming whenever the police beat someone up.
Even when the police have the legal power to arrest people, and the legal system backing them up, that does not give them the right to beat people for asserting their humanity.
How many times did he tell her to put her hands behind her back? Did she? If he had the right to arrest her (even if it was a dick move), doesn’t he have the right to put her hand behind her back, in handcuffs? You think they would have had that struggle if she had complied? Or did she willfully and intentionally resist arrest and fight him when he was doing what he is legally allowed to do?
So you don’t think there’s any way she could have been peacefully arrested?
I am entirely sure you promised never to reply to me again, and Falcor thanked your for it a couple weeks back. I assume this comment was in error, and I have ignored it as such. Thank you for keeping to our arrangement moving forward.
Cop intervenes because (reason).
Citizen asks why?
Cop explains because (law).
Citizen is incredulous. Provides context. Asks why?
Cop explains because (law).
Enter spiral of escalation.
The cop has decided he will “win”. Whatever context that surrounds the situation is out the door once cop decides his role in enforcing law trumps his role in serving and protecting citizens. He gave the woman once choice: obey or else. Certainly this is prudent in deadly force scenarios, but here it is only a sad power trip.
You make a good argument about the protect and serve angle. However, the pedestrian doesn’t fully understand her rights and caused further escalation. Contrast this person’s actions against the videographer driving trollies the cops which was posted a few days ago, he knew his rights and therefore walked away from half a dozen power tripping cops.
So I don’t want to blame the victim here, but perhaps everyone ignorant of the law and how to interact with the law is to blame, myself included.
I don’t think the police have the right to beat people up. They have the legal and extra-legal power to beat people up for certain reasons and for any reasons they want. I don’t see what your comment has to do with my post.
Imagine you are a black person and you are pissed about racial profiling, which you have a right to be. You see people everyday jaywalking in a certain street, but you are the one who gets stopped. You are asked to show your driver’s license. We knew that “driving while black” causes problems, but this is “walking while black”, so it seems especially ridiculous. And you’re a professor. So you have an almost religious devotion to and belief in the power of logical analysis and civilized discussion.
I can see how this could happen. Also if she moved to Arizona recently, she might not know that she was required by law to show ID. Even when he said it was the law, why would she trust that? We have seen many videos of policemen harassing citizens in ways that are illegal.
I personally hope that if I am ever arrested like this (even though I am white), I will not resist and cause an escalation that could have been avoided. But I can see how it could happen if you’re angry about police injustice in general and you’re a passionate (or hot-headed) person. I don’t know what a “class 5” felony means, but it seems like they have gone way way overboard in charging her. .
I’ll agree with that in some circumstances (do I need to know that driving a car without a license is illegal --yeah.) But there are laws upon laws upon laws. Ignorance is a given. To know your rights is a more important piece.
I will argue every time that control of the situation (i.e. preventing escalation of a non-violent encounter into a violent encounter) is primarily the responsibility of the cop. He or she is a professional and as such is held to a higher degree of accountability in exactly this type of scenario.
In the video there was a crucial point when it became apparent that one party needed to compromise. The cop put that responsibility on the woman being questioned. To me that was a poor choice. I saw a missed opportunity to engage rather than confront. The professional needs more tools in the toolbox than: “I know I’m right, so comply --or else.”
We know that most people in highly stressful situations do not function well without training. Was this woman in any way used to being stopped and questioned by police --I’m guessing no. She was stressed, incredulous and demanding an explanation that made sense to her. The cop either did not recognize this, or ignored it.
The bit about charging her for damage to the police car puts much of the rest of this incident in a distinctly negative light. That is a blatantly abusive charge, given what occurred. It should not be possible to demand papers from an American for jaywalking. It should not be sanctioned, applauded or common practice.
The larger problem is that Arizona has legalized police state tactics – and they’ve been supported by the SCOTUS for doing so. And wildly supported by the rightwing media machine. Who will hoot and howl on behalf of the cops in this case, because they just “know” an uppity young black female professor has a bullshit job in the “Minority Studies” department. She is exactly the kind of person they most want to see subjected to “legal” harassment.
Our illegal immigration problem is real; it keeps down wages throughout the working class. However, the impact of illegal immigration was just as real 15 years ago. We did not accept Stroessner-era Paraguay law enforcement practices back then.
Think about what is “different” now. When I do, what I see is 13 years of incremental diminution of individual authority. No increase in threat, just a massive, well-honed decrease in respect for the average man. Dressed up with racist whining, and pansy-assed BS from people who have Guatemalan “nannies” and yard men.
I think, under the current state of American jurisprudence, that the cop would have been held in the right if he’d calmly drawn his sidearm, set the barrel to her head and pulled the trigger. Because the cops need every possible tool that they might conceivably use to protect us from bad scary terrorists.
And - I feel obliged to say that the state of the law is good. Because in the next decade they’ll be looking at my post history and coming after me if I said anything that wasn’t compliant with absolute authoritarianism. Because they need every conceivable tool to protect us from bad scary terrorists. And drugs. And child molesters. And outspoken professors.
The police have the power to arrest people. This includes arresting people who resist arrest. He didn’t “beat her up,” he used the amount of force necessary to arrest her. If no force had been required to do so, and she had simply put her hands behind her back, none would have been used.
Why do I “need” to be cited for a rolling stop at an empty intersection, for speeding on an empty highway, or for smoking marijuana? All that matters is that I can be cited and/or arrested: my arguing with an officer isn’t going to change the law or save me from citation/arrest.
I have the exact same arrangement with bwv812, a promise to never reply to another one of my comments after a few less then productive exchanges. bwv812 told me that they likely wouldn’t remember and if they didn’t remember to remind them.
