Blame the motor companies for that one.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ASU Professor slammed to ground after jaywalking; charged with assaulting officer
- Thread starter benjipwns
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Blame the motor companies for that one.
MHWilliams
Member
Apparently, there is such a law in Arizona. One more reason to avoid the place.
There is not.
I asked the question because I already know the answer.
Again:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
You know what that doesn't say? ID. Like this one about traffic stops.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/01595.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS
28-1595. Failure to stop or provide driver license or evidence of identity; violation; classification
A. The operator of a motor vehicle who knowingly fails or refuses to bring the operator's motor vehicle to a stop after being given a visual or audible signal or instruction by a peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
B. After stopping as required by subsection A of this section, the operator of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to exhibit the operator's driver license as required by section 28-3169 or a driver who is not licensed and who fails or refuses to provide evidence of the driver's identity on request is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. The evidence of identity that is presented shall contain all of the following information:
1. The driver's full name.
2. The driver's date of birth.
3. The driver's residence address.
4. A brief physical description of the driver, including the driver's sex, weight, height and eye and hair color.
5. The driver's signature.
C. A person other than the driver of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to provide evidence of the person's identity to a peace officer or a duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency on request, when such officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a violation of this title, is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
D. A peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency may give the signal or instruction required by subsection A of this section by hand, emergency light, voice, whistle or siren.
E. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subsection B of this section if the person provided evidence of identity required by subsection B, paragraphs 1 through 5 of this section and produces to the court a legible driver license or an authorized duplicate of the license that is issued to the person and that was valid at the time the violation of subsection B of this section occurred.
Oh no, mobileGAF seems to have not quoted your (bssbrolly) post that I was originally responding to (or rather, I failed to properly quote it)! Still, my original response was the post after the post I intended to reply to, so my point still stands.
Recognize the salience and complexity of morality and that not everything is black and white and based off of the letter of the law. While it was legal for the cop to respond with such force, he acted rashly as neither he or anyone else was in danger and failed to deescalate the situation, which is his responsibility as a professional law enforcement officer in civilian conflicts to avoid unneeded problems. This cop did not act with the protection of civilians at heart and abused his role as protector, overstepping rational responses but staying within written boundary of the law. Despite being in legal bounds, his actions may still be criticized from a moral standpoint and reflects that this cop is not suited for his line of work and could not handle a real high stakes situation.
Recognize the salience and complexity of morality and that not everything is black and white and based off of the letter of the law. While it was legal for the cop to respond with such force, he acted rashly as neither he or anyone else was in danger and failed to deescalate the situation, which is his responsibility as a professional law enforcement officer in civilian conflicts to avoid unneeded problems. This cop did not act with the protection of civilians at heart and abused his role as protector, overstepping rational responses but staying within written boundary of the law. Despite being in legal bounds, his actions may still be criticized from a moral standpoint and reflects that this cop is not suited for his line of work and could not handle a real high stakes situation.
kame-sennin
Member
Treated as a criminal because she wasn't complying...
If there is an armed organization patrolling your community and you have to comply with anything they order you to do, regardless of merit, are you still free?
jaywalking is a pretty daft law tbh, i can understand on a highway but on normal streets? hhhmm
It's actually really common on college campuses. Usually to defend the students as it is extremely common and ends up in dangerous situations for the jay walker
There is not.
I asked the question because I already know the answer.
Again:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
You know what that doesn't say? ID. Like this one about traffic stops.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/01595.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS
Ah, it would appear that this cop did not follow the letter of the law either, meaning that this should be unacceptable to those with a preconventional sense of morality as well. So not only was his response disproportionate to the actually situation and the lack of any real danger, but the basis of the confrontation's escalation didn't follow the letter of the law either.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Ah, it would appear that this cop did not follow the letter of the law either, meaning that this should be unacceptable to those with a preconventional sense of morality as well. So not only was his response disproportionate to the actually situation and the lack of any real danger, but the basis of the confrontation's escalation didn't follow the letter of the law either.
Doesn't matter. We'll still get the did not comply excuse. Apparently you've got to do everything a cop tells you otherwise it's all your fault.
There is not.
I asked the question because I already know the answer.
Again:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
You know what that doesn't say? ID. Like this one about traffic stops.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/01595.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS
If she was not required to provide ID by law then this changes everything IMO.
MHWilliams
Member
The only way to tell a cop your true full name is to present him with an official document like an ID.
I can tell a cop my name is Captain Ahab, my ID can't repeat that lie.
Also, Your morality != the law.
And if you tell a cop that your name is Captain Ted Ahab, they have to believe you until they actually arrests you. Now if after arrest, ID proves you lied, there are further laws for that.
But, no ID is not required.
Again, the problematic assumption is always "comply with the police in every single thing they ask." The police are there to serve the public safety. Many forget that.
You know what that doesn't say? ID. Like this one about traffic stops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/02/yes-police-can-arrest-you-refusing-identify-yourself/8485/
Where at? Because I've never even seen nor heard of it even in a places like DC or NYC.
My guess would be that this is not common in urban areas as everyone is jaywalking and the streets are busy as fuck. For example though my brother got one from cops that used to camp outside Cal Poly Pomona and watch an area where jaywalking was prevelant. I had a coworker get one near Ontario Mills in the same kind of situation.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Seems like the kind of power that should be used when police have reason to suspect someone of something serious. Not crossing a goddamned road. What was the purpose of seeing her id in this case? Just seems completely pointless.
In this case, the woman was not required under letter of the law to procure her ID.The only way to tell a cop your true full name is to present him with an official document like an ID.
I can tell a cop my name is Captain Ahab, my ID can't repeat that lie.
Also, Your morality != the law.
The cop's disproportionate physical response was within the boundaries of the letter of the law, but considering the fact that the cop and no one else was in danger, that was an unnesecary use of force that did not have the best interest of the people the police are sworn to protect. It is his role as professional law enforcement officer to deescalate civilian conflict, something that was failed at.
To consider the morality of an event only with the letter of the law as opposed to the intention of the law leads to improper judgement and a potential for abuse of power.
And if you tell a cop that your name is Captain Ted Ahab, they have to believe you until they actually arrests you. Now if after arrest, ID proves you lied, there are further laws for that.
But, no ID is not required.
Again, the problematic assumption is always "comply with the police in every single thing they ask." The police are there to serve the public safety. Many forget that.
Your own link states that you must give your True Full Name,
a cop does Not have to believe you when you lie to him.
True full name is spelled out on purpose,
don't even try to argue that it doesn't state anything about an ID cause you're twisting the law more than i am.
Lying to a cop is a crime too.
MHWilliams
Member
Your own link states that you must give your True Full Name,
a cop does Not have to believe you when you lie to him.
True full name is spelled out on purpose,
don't even try to argue that it doesn't state anything about an ID cause you're twisting the law more than i am.
Lying to a cop is a crime too.
Yes. But once again. ID is not required. If upon arrest, the name you've given is found to be false, that is a separate law.
A cop does not have to verify then and there that your name is correct. The assumption is that people on the street do not always have their ID on them.
Yes. But once again. ID is not required. If upon arrest, the name you've given is found to be false, that is a separate law.
.Five states laws (Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, and Ohio) explicitly impose an obligation to provide identifying information.
MHWilliams
Member
That's from Wikipedia.
I gave you the actual laws. Try again.
(Which oddly enough are linked to on that Wikipedia page! Oh damn!)
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
That says information, not documentation.
That says information, not documentation.
That's from Wikipedia.
I gave you the actual laws. Try again.
(Which oddly enough are linked to on that Wikipedia page! Oh damn!)
Go to Arizona and try it out yourselves then ffs.
Seems like the kind of power that should be used when police have reason to suspect someone of something serious. Not crossing a goddamned road. What was the purpose of seeing her id in this case? Just seems completely pointless.
When you do something against the law, a police officer could want to know who you are. Makes sense to me. The law may be stupid, but then change the law instead of trying to argue with a police officer for 2 minutes, which is entirely pointless. Also as soon as a police officer decided to arrest you, he will arrest you in some way or another.
btw. I just found similar cases. This time with men instead of women.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...police-officer-police-sergeant-police-conduct
Earlier this month, a 25-year-old Casselberry man rode his bike across traffic through a State Road 436 intersection despite a flashing “do not walk” sign. Cops were waiting on the other side.
Zikomo Peurifoy and 27-year-old Noelle Price, who walked alongside the bike, were heading to a Seminole County Amscot check-cashing store. When they emerged, police approached demanding to see Peurifoy’s ID — he was being stopped for a civil jaywalking infraction.
After several requests — and refusals — to hand over his ID, Peurifoy was shocked by Officer Adam Phillips twice with a stun gun, and another officer shocked him a third time. Peurifoy and Price, who also refused to show identification, were booked on charges of resisting an officer.
I don't have more details about these cases, but at least the 2nd case looks much worse unless there also was resisting arrest going on.
MHWilliams
Member
Go to Arizona and try it out yourselves then ffs.
Why would I? I have ample experience with harassment in my own state (DC Metro area) and our laws are much better. This why I A) know all my Terry stop rights by heart and B) am calling this out as plain harassment.
I barely trust the police in my own state, why would I waste my time with Arizona? To show you that the police there would treat a black man poorly despite what the law says? I'm good.
My last try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
Arizona’s law, apparently written specifically to codify the holding in Hiibel, requires a person’s "true full name".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
The Court also held that the identification requirement did not violate Hiibel's Fifth Amendment rights because he had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment privilege might apply in a situation where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating.
The deputy continued to ask for the man’s identification, stating that the man would face arrest if he did not cooperate and provide identification. In response, the man declared he would not cooperate because he had not committed any crime. He then turned around and was arrested by the deputy.
MHWilliams
Member
True full name. Again... it does not require documentation. You seem to be ignorant of this aspect. I'm not sure how to make this clearer. You can in fact just give you full legal name verbally and that satisfies the requirement. In some states, you also have to verbally give your full address.
If you are later arrested and found to be lying in that request, then you face further charges. None of this has anything to do with the stop itself.
The deputy continued to ask for the mans identification, stating that the man would face arrest if he did not cooperate and provide identification. In response, the man declared he would not cooperate because he had not committed any crime. He then turned around and was arrested by the deputy.
#freedom
True full name. Again... it does not require documentation. You seem to be ignorant of this aspect. I'm not sure how to make this clearer. You can in fact just give you full legal name verbally and that satisfies the requirement.
If you are later arrested and found to be lying in that request, then you face further charges. None of this has anything to do with the stop itself.
The cop specifically asked for his ID as i added.
He was judged to be correct.
True full name was based on this case.
Do the math.
It's crystal clear in this thread that police are looked at with two different sets of eyes in America.
because laws are enforced differently for different set of people in 'merica.
As soon as I read that this happened in the infamous Maricopa County, I had a feeling that this involved a minority suspect/victim. Maricopa County peace officers are known (word of mouth stories I've heard), of racially profiling. The funny thing is that they call it "criminal profiling" (meaning that they have data to "support" that most crimes are committed by certain minority groups).
Is jaywalking against the law? Yes (most states). However, it's a chickenshit excuse to hold a suspect/victim for further investigation and other reasons. This is my biggest issue with this detention/arrest. I'd like to know more of what happened pre-detention. Why did the police officer felt compelled make this stop? Jawywalking is a BS excuse, IMO.
That being said, the professor should have provided her ID when asked by the police officer. This would be the smartest thing to do. Full-cooperation is the best defense against unlawful or lawful detentions/arrest.
Is jaywalking against the law? Yes (most states). However, it's a chickenshit excuse to hold a suspect/victim for further investigation and other reasons. This is my biggest issue with this detention/arrest. I'd like to know more of what happened pre-detention. Why did the police officer felt compelled make this stop? Jawywalking is a BS excuse, IMO.
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
That being said, the professor should have provided her ID when asked by the police officer. This would be the smartest thing to do. Full-cooperation is the best defense against unlawful or lawful detentions/arrest.
MHWilliams
Member
The cop specifically asked for his ID as i added.
He was judged to be correct.
True full name was based on this case.
Do the math.
Wow.
In your own link:
In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that “identify himself” to mean to merely state his name. As of April 2008, 23 other states[2] have similar laws.
The Nevada Supreme Court had held that the Nevada statute required only that the suspect divulge his name; presumably, he could do so without handing over any documents whatsoever. As long as the suspect tells the officer his name, he has satisfied the dictates of the Nevada stop-and-identify law.
And Hibil lost because he didn't even give his name:
Furthermore, the officer’s request that Hiibel identify himself did not implicate Hiibel’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. There was no “articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel’s] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ him.” Because Hiibel’s name was not an incriminating piece of evidence, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to disclose it.
Like, you're searching for ways to make the requirement of ID right... it's not. The law on the books in Arizona does not require legal identification documents. The case in Nevada you're citing would've gone a different way if he had just stated his full name. That's it. Anything else was outside of his rights.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
When you do something against the law, a police officer could want to know who you are. Makes sense to me. The law may be stupid, but then change the law instead of trying to argue with a police officer for 2 minutes, which is entirely pointless. Also as soon as a police officer decided to arrest you, he will arrest you in some way or another.
Arguing is pointless but I think the cop should have used his discretion better. I can't imagine why you'd need to know the identity of someone because they did something so minor. Maybe he thought she was a dangerous wanted serial jaywalker?
I've been in situations where police could have enforced the letter of the law but didn't. Thats smart policing in my opinion. That kind of treatment wasn't justified by the crime even if the law says it was.
Wow.
In your own link:
And Hibil lost because he didn't even give his name:
And still the cop asked specifically for ID and still he was proven right.
In this case he would have to give his full name,
to include that this name had to be correct and thus that you would need an official document they made it true full name.
Note TRUE.
(ID is intentionally not stated, the law is "vague" on purpose)
EDIT. and when it come down to it jimi_dini below me is right.
True full name. Again... it does not require documentation. You seem to be ignorant of this aspect. I'm not sure how to make this clearer. You can in fact just give you full legal name verbally and that satisfies the requirement. In some states, you also have to verbally give your full address.
Did she do that? Nope. She mumbled all sorts of stuff "this is an incredible injustice". "Speaking to me in such a disrespectful manner" (while this is not the case at all). "This is not a street" (while cars are driving right by her, just watch the video, it's almost comedy gold).
He explictly says: "Or you will be arrested for failing to provide id(entification)". She could have said: "I'm sorry officer, I don't have my ID with me, but I am XX XXX". She did none of that. Instead first she complains. Then she says that she didn't know about the law regulation and that "everyone is doing that. This street is fully obstructed. Is this a street? And this is not a sidewalk?" (while calling it a street around 10 times in a row before that and like I already said - cars are driving RIGHT BY HER).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGc3GcnozOE
Listening to that almost sounds as if she is slightly drunk, because it doesn't make sense.
Good, I'm glad that's your last try at this approach. Because you're missing the point.
Whether the letter of the law means the cop was entitled to be shown ID or his disproportionate response is legal under the letter of the law is not the point. The point is that he failed to uphold the intention of his role and duty by failing to deescalate the situation (which was his responsibility as a trained professional in conflict deescalation).
Yes, the cop was legally allowed to slam down the professor. However, considering there was no danger to the cop or any civilians and no reasonable suspicion that she was committing a serious crime, his actions are not in accordance with the intention of the law to protect civilians and a conflict was needlessly and impulsively escalated.
I've been in situations where police could have enforced the letter of the law but didn't. Thats smart policing in my opinion. That kind of treatment wasn't justified by the crime even if the law says it was.
This.
Letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. Based on the recording, I doubt that the police officer felt that his safety was at risk, thus feeling justified to increase his use of force. There's something else at play here, and I'd say it's racially-motivated. That's my initial assessment, based on the facts given thus far.
outunderthestars
Banned
If was a stupid reason for the officer to detain someone, however when she resisted arrest, and kicked that officer..she brought the charges of assaulting a officer on herself....and she will be convicted of it.
Arizona has the second highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country. The law exists for a reason
Good, I'm glad that's your last try at this approach. Because you're missing the point.
Whether the letter of the law means the cop was entitled to be shown ID or his disproportionate response is legal under the letter of the law is not the point. The point is that he failed to uphold the intention of his role and duty by failing to deescalate the situation (which was his responsibility as a trained professional in conflict deescalation).
Yes, the cop was legally allowed to slam down the professor. However, considering there was no danger to the cop or any civilians and no reasonable suspicion that she was committing a serious crime, his actions are not in accordance with the intention of the law to protect civilians and a conflict was needlessly and impulsively escalated.
Police deescalation is a fancy word for making someone cool their lid in the slammer.
(stop acting like this is a hostage situation or something.)
Did she do that? Nope. She mumbled all sorts of stuff "this is an incredible injustice". "Speaking to me in such a disrespectful manner" (while this is not the case at all). "This is not a street" (while cars are driving right by her, just watch the video, it's almost comedy gold).
He explictly says: "Or you will be arrested for failing to provide id(entification)". She could have said: "I'm sorry officer, I don't have my ID with me, but I am XX XXX". She did none of that. Instead first she complains. Then she says that she didn't know about the law regulation and that "everyone is doing that. This street is fully obstructed. Is this a street? And this is not a sidewalk?" (while calling it a street around 10 times in a row before that).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGc3GcnozOE
Listening to that almost sounds as if she is slightly drunk, because it doesn't make sense.
LOL she sounds drunk? are you serious? If anything she sounds distressed. Also every citizen is required to now state their full name whenever approached by police? not once did he ask her name per the video you posted yourself.
MHWilliams
Member
And still the cop asked specifically for ID and still he was proven right.
In this case he would have to give his full name,
to include that this name had to be correct and thus that you would need an official document they made it true full name.
Note TRUE.
I'm done. Bro, you're wrong. Full name is merely a verbal statement. Documentation is not required. The word "true" does not make documentation a requirement. My links have said that. Your link said that.
Arizona has the second highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country. The law exists for a reason
Judging by the recording, this detention/arrest occurred at nighttime (8pm). If the stats are going to be used.
Another distinguishing feature of pedestrian deaths is their common occurrence
during evening and late-night hours. In 2012, 44% happened between 9 p.m. and 6
a.m., and 25% took place between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. (Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, 2013).
http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/spotlights/spotlight_ped2013.pdf
Still does not explain why the police officer allowed the situation to escalate within seconds. He could easily have made it a consensual encounter and let her off with a warning. Based on the recording, the professor's verbal attitude was non-threatening.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Did she do that? Nope. She mumbled all sorts of stuff "this is an incredible injustice". "Speaking to me in such a disrespectful manner" (while this is not the case at all). "This is not a street" (while cars are driving right by her, just watch the video, it's almost comedy gold).
He explictly says: "Or you will be arrested for failing to provide id(entification)". She could have said: "I'm sorry officer, I don't have my ID with me, but I am XX XXX". She did none of that. Instead first she complains. Then she says that she didn't know about the law regulation and that "everyone is doing that. This street is fully obstructed. Is this a street? And this is not a sidewalk?" (while calling it a street around 10 times in a row before that and like I already said - cars are driving RIGHT BY HER).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGc3GcnozOE
Listening to that almost sounds as if she is slightly drunk, because it doesn't make sense.
We don't have the full video so we have no idea if she gave her full name earlier or not.
EDIT
Or was even asked her name to begin with.
LOL she sounds drunk? are you serious? If anything she sounds distressed. Also every citizen is required to now state their full name whenever approached by police? not once did he ask her name per the video you posted yourself.
When lawfully detained (suspected of breaking a law, ie jaywalking)? Yes.
Casually speaking to a police officer? No.
Arizona has the second highest pedestrian fatality rate in the country. The law exists for a reason
I guess verbal warning don't apply in Arizona? Again, the officer could had just gave her a verbal warning, instead he instantly went for detainment. Having said that, the woman shouldn't had kicked the officer. She will be charged with assaulting and officer for her lapse in judgement.
Police deescalation is a fancy word for making someone cool their lid in the slammer.
(stop acting like this is a hostage situation or something.)
Ah, I'm sure you'd enjoy being thrown "in the slammer" in order to "cool your lid". Surely a better alternative to deescalating things verbally and avoiding the need for such drastic measures in the first place.
There was no need for the police officer to escalate such a minor situation where he and no civilians were under threat. He might be legally allowed to, but it only leads to pointless conflicts like these and fights over nothing. Discretion is the better part of valor (I do realize that apprehending someone for jaywalking is hardly an act of valor).
This isn't a hostage situation, but I expect trained professionals with such power to exhibit a bit of professionalism. Especially considering these are the people we are supposed to trust in true high-stakes situations.
On a note I do think it was very foolish of the professor to kick the cop, that was uncalled for as well, but it is a police officer's job to be the level-headed one acting out of selfless care and protection for civilians. (Not that this is often the case, as my retired cop friends lament the status of the Florida police department these days... but I digress)
LOL she sounds drunk? are you serious? If anything she sounds distressed. Also every citizen is required to now state their full name whenever approached by police? not once did he ask her name per the video you posted yourself.
She is asking him if "this is a street? And not a sidewalk?", while calling it a street 10 times before that and CARS are fucking driving by her.
He asks her many many many times to provide ID. She doesn't even REACT to that. Not once. Not at all. Not even with a "no, I won't provide ID". Instead she goes on and on and on about injustice, disrespectful manner (while he is calling her M'am the whole time) and streets.
To me it would make sense if the police officer assumed that something is not right with her and tried to arrest her for her personal protection. He says in the beginning "walking in the middle of the street", which I would consider to be dangerous when cars are driving by on at least one lane. And there are. It's right in the video.
We don't have the full video so we have no idea if she gave her full name earlier or not.
EDIT
Or was even asked her name to begin with.
I linked to the "full version". I mean it begins with him explaining why he stopped her. Only around 30 or 60 seconds in or so is he asking her to provide ID. She doesn't react to him at all and he asks several times. It goes on and on.
So you're required to surrender information without being asked to do so?When lawfully detained (suspected of breaking a law, ie jaywalking)? Yes.
Casually speaking to a police officer? No.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
So this was interesting:
http://www.statepress.com/2010/08/2...-to-see-increased-enforcement-for-violations/
So I guess at some point the campus police went all Gestapo on jaywalkers. But the Tempe cops decided that they didn't have any time for that nonsense. And I'm hearing word that they're cops in training that don't carry guns, and they give out tickets like candy. So more revenue for the University?
ASU Police will begin increasing enforcement of pedestrian and cyclist traffic laws in Tempe by cracking down on violators next week.
Their efforts will help educate new students unfamiliar with Arizona law, ASU Police spokesman Cmdr. Jim Hardina said in an e-mail. It will also set the tone for the school year that everyone must obey even minor traffic laws to avoid accidents and traffic congestion.
Authorities will focus on violations that include jaywalking, walking against a Dont Walk sign and riding a bicycle against the flow of traffic on the sidewalk, Hardina said.
These violations are hazardous for pedestrians and disrupt the normal traffic flow, he said, adding that police will be delivering warnings, as well as tickets, the second full week of classes. We step up education [and] enforcement of pedestrian violations the first few weeks of each fall semester every year.
Tempe Police Sgt. Steve Carbajal said Tempe Police will not be participating in ASUs enforcement efforts.
...
Hardina said a warrant for arrest would be issued against a person who chooses not to pay the fine.
http://www.statepress.com/2010/08/2...-to-see-increased-enforcement-for-violations/
So I guess at some point the campus police went all Gestapo on jaywalkers. But the Tempe cops decided that they didn't have any time for that nonsense. And I'm hearing word that they're cops in training that don't carry guns, and they give out tickets like candy. So more revenue for the University?
Once again two different eyes. Everything the cop says is gospel while the clearly offended and distraught person is wrong.She is asking him if "this is a street? And not a sidewalk?", while calling it a street 10 times before that and CARS are fucking driving by her.
He asks her many many many times to provide ID. She doesn't even REACT to that. Not once. Not at all. Not even with a "no, I won't provide ID". Instead she goes on and on and on about injustice, disrespectful manner (while he is calling her M'am the whole time) and streets.
To me it would make sense if the police officer assumed that something is not right with her and tried to arrest her for her personal protection. He says in the beginning "walking in the middle of the street", which I would consider to be dangerous when cars are driving by on at least one lane. And there are. It's right in the video.
EDIT Particle Physicist is right I shouldn't even entertain the thought.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
She does not sound drunk and I guarantee you that if she were drunk we would have heard about it. Can we put that nonsense away?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.