Police use Taser on pregnant woman


PDA






Tall Man
October 26, 2004, 09:15 AM
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/3768716/detail.html

Unit 5: Police Accused Of Firing Taser At Pregnant Bride
Fetus' Vital Signs 'Weak' After Incident, According To Lawyers

EVERGREEN PARK, Ill. -- A man and his daughter have filed a lawsuit alleging a couple of Evergreen Park police officers assaulted them with a Taser gun at the woman's backyard wedding reception.

Clarence Phelps, 54, and Romona Madison, 32, filed the federal civil rights lawsuit Tuesday against two officers and the Village of Evergreen Park.

Images: Cops Accused Of Using Taser On Pregnant Bride
Video: Police Accused Of Shocking Bride

According to the lawsuit, a black female officer on Sept. 18 told Phelps outside his home at 9124 S. Francisco Ave. that the police department had received a noise complaint after 11 p.m. and that he should turn down the music at his daughter's wedding reception, NBC5's Renee Ferguson reported.

Phelps, who is also black, said he turned off the music, but the officer did not leave, according to the lawsuit. When Phelps approached the officer to ask why she was still on his premises, she demanded his identification and called for backup, the lawsuit states.

But, according to a statement from the Evergreen Park Police Department, the officer called for backup after Phelps called the officer an expletive.

Another officer arrived and tried to arrest Phelps, who police claim pushed the officer. That's when Phelps was shot with a Taser gun. According to Phelps' attorney, the officer used the stun gun without provocation.

Phelps, who is a part-time state police officer and truck driver, was then taken into custody, Ferguson reported.

In court documents, Madison states she saw what happened to her father, screamed, and asked the officer to stop. The officer allegedly turned the Taser gun toward her and threatened the bride with it, according to the lawsuit.

Madison ran into the home, and one of the officers followed. That officer then allegedly shot Madison with the Taser gun twice in the abdomen, despite being told by witnesses that she was pregnant.

A prong from the stun gun reportedly became lodged in Madison's stomach and had to be removed by paramedics, Ferguson said.

A third officer allegedly held a gun to Madison's head as she was being arrested.

After being released from custody, Madison sought medical care and doctors told her the unborn child's vital signs were weak and that tests would show whether she would lose the baby, according to a news release from the law firm of Richardson, Stasko, Boyd & Mack.

"It is unclear, the condition of the baby, but we hope for the best," said Elliott Richardson, the woman's attorney.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of excessive force, assault and battery, negligence and failure to provide timely medical attention.

No court date was set for the lawsuit, which seeks unstated damages.

Police admit using the Taser gun on Madison's abdomen. According to their statement, an officer found Madison hiding in a closet inside the home. When she refused to come out, police said two officers used the stun gun on the woman.

Phelps was charged with resisting arrest, battery to a police officer and keeping a disorderly house, while Madison was charged with battery to a police officer and resisting arrest, according to police and attorneys.

Phelps was scheduled for a preliminary hearing at 1:30 p.m. Oct. 19 in Bridgeview Court, according to court records.

Court information was not immediately available for Madison.

===

Regardless of liability, I hope that this woman does not lose her child as a result of this incident.

TM

P.S. - I ran a search, but did not locate a prior posting of this article. If one exists, I apologize.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police use Taser on pregnant woman" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
October 26, 2004, 09:33 AM
Shakedown by cops in Baltimore, aggresive use of 'less than lethal' weapons that result in death, chasing residents into their homes and tasering them for what looks to be contempt of cop....


As a California LEO used to put in his sig on another board....

"Cops, America's largest street gang."

:scrutiny:

Bacchus
October 26, 2004, 10:22 AM
Very sad news.

walking arsenal
October 26, 2004, 10:25 AM
jeez, some of this stuff is giving me second thoughts about becoming a leo, though im sure it's a minority giving the rest a bad name just like everything else.

CatsDieNow
October 26, 2004, 10:32 AM
Phelps was charged with ... keeping a disorderly house You can have criminal charges filed against you for this? Ut Oh. :uhoh:

Zrex
October 26, 2004, 10:40 AM
Nice shootin! That's what ya get for trying to hide in the closet to avoid a beating.

Two thumbs up to Evergreen Park's finest!














[/sarcasm]

Carlos Cabeza
October 26, 2004, 10:54 AM
Here we go again.........................................................:scrutiny:

Skunkabilly
October 26, 2004, 10:59 AM
What the hell does the skin color of the bride or the officer have to do with anything?

Sindawe
October 26, 2004, 11:01 AM
Background data? To preclude cries of racism?

Coronach
October 26, 2004, 11:44 AM
Note:

ALL of this is what the plaintiffs are alleging happened in the lawsuit. Anyone have links to the original news article?

For background, I was an unnamed 'John Doe' officer in a lawsuit where the police beat a man brutally in a bar, drug him outside, then donned white lab coats. After the white labcoats were on, the poor defendant was uncuffed and made to box one of the officers while the rest of us stood in a ring around the pair. Then he was tasered. Then he was placed in the back of a paddywagon and thrown around.

It was truly a horrible day for law enforcement. :fire:

Except...it happened more like this: Suspect was arrested in the restaurant, resisited arrest, was struck one time, cuffed, and placed in a cruiser. At the time, we didn't even have tasers.

End of story. :rolleyes:

See where I'm going with this? I'm not willing to swallow the spin placed upon this by the plaintiffs whole. You can state anything you want in a lawsuit, and the more outrageous it is, the better your chances of settling out of court for $$$$$$$$$. I'm curious how much of this will be knocked down at trial.

Was the bride tasered? Quite possibly. Was she resisting the arrest of another, then resisting her own arrest? Looks like. Did the officers know she was pregnant? Quite possibly no.

You are basing all of your outrage on the statements of one side. Lets hear what the other side has to say.

Mike

Coronach
October 26, 2004, 12:03 PM
Two sue police in Taser tiff

Father, pregnant daughter hit with stun gun at party in Evergreen Park

Thursday, September 30, 2004

By Chris Hack
Staff writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for a pregnant woman shot in the abdomen with a Taser stun gun by Evergreen Park police during a wedding-reception fracas claimed Wednesday her unborn child might have been injured.

In a federal lawsuit filed this week, Romona Madison, 32, and her father, Clarence Phelps, claimed they both were unjustly shot with the Tasers Sept. 18 at Phelps' home in the 9100 block of South Francisco Avenue.

Police Chief Michael Saunders said in a statement Wednesday that the father-daughter duo, who both face multiple criminal charges stemming from the incident, brawled with the officers and stubbornly resisted arrest. Saunders insisted the officers acted appropriately by using the Taser.

"The officers involved all followed police department policies and procedures," Saunders said. "By policy, officers of the Evergreen Park Police Department are authorized to carry and use less-than-lethal weapons to successfully defend themselves."

An officer responded to complaints of loud music and people dancing in the driveway of the house just before midnight. About 70 people attended the reception celebrating Madison's marriage the day before.

According to Saunders' version of events, Phelps — who is black — immediately screamed when the female black officer arrived on the scene, "Why did those crackers send the black (woman) over here?"

After Phelps, 54, allegedly became increasingly uncooperative and refused to produce identification, several officers who arrived as backup attempted to take him into custody.

Saunders claimed that after Phelps pushed two female officers he was stunned once with the Taser without effect and then hit again and finally subdued. Madison then allegedly struck several officers — shoving one into a wall — before running into the home.

She was discovered hiding among clothes in a coat closet, and reportedly after being warned, she was shot in the abdomen with the Taser after she refused to come out. Saunders said the Taser's probe was removed from the woman's stomach by paramedics and that she refused further medical treatment.

Attorneys Elliot Richardson and Emily Sherrer said their clients remember a very different version of the events.

"It's our contention that our clients did not batter the police officers," Richardson said during a news conference Wednesday. Citing the pending criminal charges, neither Phelps nor Madison spoke to reporters.

Richardson said the music at the party was immediately turned off at the officer's request, and Phelps became irate only when the police didn't leave his property at that point.

"I would say he was probably not happy," Richardson conceded.

Phelps was hit with the Taser unreasonably while "discussing" the situation with an officer, Richardson said. And Madison was followed into the house by overzealous officers who — even after being told by several guests the woman was two months pregnant — again used the Taser unreasonably.

Phelps' attorneys said he is a member of the Illinois Auxiliary Police, an Oak Forest-based volunteer organization that mainly provides traffic-control services to municipalities during carnivals and other events. He has a badge, gun and uniform to perform those duties when he's not busy with his full-time job as a truck driver, Sherrer said. Madison, who lives in Chicago, works in a beauty salon.

Taser International has long insisted its products can be safely used on pregnant women, although some police departments around the nation have enacted policies advising their officers to avoid doing so.

Richardson said Madison saw a doctor on her own after being released from custody and was told her baby's vital signs at that point were weak. He said it may take "quite some time" before further tests determine if any permanent damage was done to the fetus.

"Medical personnel are concerned," Richardson said. "And I can tell you the family has cause for concern for the baby."

Chris Hack may be reached at chack@dailysouthtown.com or (708) 633-5984.

Zrex
October 26, 2004, 12:32 PM
To sum up everything I have learned so far here at THR:


1. The victim/criminal is wrong
2. The cops are right
3. If it looks like abuse, you have not spun it enough
4. If it looks like criminal behavior, its for your safety
5. Tasers are less lethal weapons, and thus are safe
6. Less lethal weapons can actually cause death so you shouldnt be mislead by the name "less lethal"
7. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you are a target and get what you deserve
8. If you have never been a cop, "you wouldn't understand"

BryanP
October 26, 2004, 12:40 PM
As storage gets denser and cameras get ever smaller and cheaper I suspect that tiny tamper-resistant video cameras are going to become a standard part of an officer's uniform.

sendec
October 26, 2004, 12:43 PM
And the hits just keep on comin'..........

:rolleyes:

Coronach
October 26, 2004, 12:46 PM
To sum up everything I have learned so far here at THR:


1. The victim/criminal is wrong
2. The cops are right
3. If it looks like abuse, you have not spun it enough
4. If it looks like criminal behavior, its for your safety
5. Tasers are less lethal weapons, and thus are safe
6. Less lethal weapons can actually cause death so you shouldnt be mislead by the name "less lethal"
7. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you are a target and get what you deserve
8. If you have never been a cop, "you wouldn't understand"Alternatively:

1. If the cops do something that looks odd, they're JBTs.
2. If the defendant claims something, it must be true.
3. Don't wait for the facts, just form your opinion from a newsblurb.
4. The cops are wrong.
5. The defendants are oppressed.

I could go on.

The point is that newpaper articles immediately after an event mostly carry incomplete and inaccurate information, and if they have any in-depth interviews, it is nearly always from the defendant's/plaintiff's side, as the police do not try cases in the court of public opinion (nor should they!)...but lawyers know the power of the media in creating a groundswell of discontent in the populace. THR, which normally denounces the leftists as being overly swayed by emotion, sure is willing to forgo facts in lieu of spleen when one of the participants in a fracas is wearing a uniform.

Since most of your post is directed at me, I challenge you to find a thread in which I claim that the police were absolutely right and everything they did was proper, based upon preliminary news reports (NOT from reports detailing the results of administrative investigations and/or trials). Running with the optimitic assumption that you can find even one, I'll outpace you by easily with cites from threads where the knee-jerkers claim that the cops were absolutely wrong.

Go on. This should be fun.

Mike

Coronach
October 26, 2004, 12:49 PM
As storage gets denser and cameras get ever smaller and cheaper I suspect that tiny tamper-resistant video cameras are going to become a standard part of an officer's uniform.I already carry a voice recorder for exactly this reason. It has already saved me quite a bit of grief in administrative investigations.

Mike

jefnvk
October 26, 2004, 12:52 PM
Zrex:

Maybe some of us just don't believe the people filing the lawsuit for damages, before we hear the other side of the story. Is it possible that she was agressive? Possibly. Is it possible that the cops tazered her for the wrong reason? Probably. I wasn't there, I don't know. Both sides are going to spin the story to their advantage.

Zrex
October 26, 2004, 01:24 PM
Since most of your post is directed at me, I challenge you to find a thread in which I claim that the police were absolutely right and everything they did was proper, based upon preliminary news reports (NOT from reports detailing the results of administrative investigations and/or trials).

This was in no way directed at you specificly. This was directed at the LEO apologists in general. I have no idea who made which statements when. But, look at the latest LEO threads and you will see that in every case, the police have been declared to have acted correctly.

Adding to my list of things I have learned:

9. If a criminal is arrested and a cop is a hero, he should be applauded immediately
10. If a cop does something bad, we should wait until we hear the whole story before making judgement
11. When someone invades a former employer and shoots people its ok to talk them into leaving
12. When a 75 year old woman is visiting a friend in a nursing home, the taser is an apropriate way to get them to leave

There are three things that can be going on:

The police are always correct
The victims/criminals are always correct
The police are sometimes correct and the victims are sometimes correct

I tend to believe the third option, and you probably do as well.

Some people are tired of all the stupid oppressive laws in this country. Guess who enforces those laws.

BryanP
October 26, 2004, 01:32 PM
quote:As storage gets denser and cameras get ever smaller and cheaper I suspect that tiny tamper-resistant video cameras are going to become a standard part of an officer's uniform.

I already carry a voice recorder for exactly this reason. It has already saved me quite a bit of grief in administrative investigations.

Mike


I wonder how prevalent that is? With 1GB flashdrives being under $100 space (physical or data) really isn't an issue anymore. Sticking one of those in a decent voice recorder or even a crappy webcam-quality video camera if it could be made small enough could go a long way towards stopping things like this.

Zrex
October 26, 2004, 01:33 PM
*double tap for some reason*

Zrex
October 26, 2004, 01:37 PM
BTW: did anyone notice this part:

"Phelps, who is a part-time state police officer"

Does that mean the defendant was a cop too? Oh my, this complicates things.

I guess, one way or the other, the cop is telling the truth in this case! You win.

Hawkmoon
October 26, 2004, 05:24 PM
Lawsuits often read like poor fiction. News articles are bad enough, but lawsuits are even worse. The scary part is that (a) attorneys have all graduated from acredited institutions of higher learning, (b) attorneys are ALL licensed by their respective states to practice law, and (c) attorneys are ALL officers of the court and (supposedly) are ALL legally required to always tell the truth (at least, in writing on court documents).

Not police or firearms related, but an example of how idiotic this can get. Many years ago I was employed by an engineering firm that specialized in designing repairs to existing buildings ... including roof replacements. At one point, we were retained by the owners of a large suburban shopping mall to draw up plans and specifications to replace a section of roofing that had been damaged in a fire.

Some time later, we were named in a lawsuit. Filed by a volunteer fireman who showed up at the fire drunk (remember, my company hadn't been hired yet), fell off a ladder, and injured his back. His attorney found our name on the plans for the post-fire repairs and graciously included us in the lawsuit.

Outrageous? It gets worse. The attorney assigned to defend us by our professional liability company decided it would be cheaper to settle than to defend us on the basis that we weren't doing any work on the premises at the time of the alleged injury! My boss actually had to sue his own insurance company to force them to contest a meritless claim rather than just pay it, and then raise our premiums for the next five years to compensate.

Wildalaska
October 26, 2004, 05:50 PM
News articles are bad enough, but lawsuits are even worse.

Yeah but to a certain, shall we say...group, both are automatically true if they allege police misconduct

WildsameoldstuffAlaska

Jeff White
October 26, 2004, 05:51 PM
Zrex said;
BTW: did anyone notice this part:

"Phelps, who is a part-time state police officer"

Does that mean the defendant was a cop too? Oh my, this complicates things.

I guess, one way or the other, the cop is telling the truth in this case! You win.

Well the first article says that:
Phelps, who is a part-time state police officer and truck driver,

This can't be true. The Illinois State Police have no part time officers. At one time 30 or more year years ago they had an unpaid auxillary.

The second article states that:
Phelps' attorneys said he is a member of the Illinois Auxiliary Police, an Oak Forest-based volunteer organization that mainly provides traffic-control services to municipalities during carnivals and other events. He has a badge, gun and uniform to perform those duties when he's not busy with his full-time job as a truck driver,

Illinois law provides for Auxillary Police Officers, however they only have peace officer status when they are in uniform and working under the direction of the chief of police. Some departments provide their auxilleries with the same training the regular officers get and utilize them in the same way they would any other officer and some only provide the 40 hour mandatory firearms training and use them to direct traffic and such. It sounds like that was what Phelps was involved with. Unless he was in uniform and on duty at the wedding, he wasn't a police officer at that time.

I was once named in a lawsuit because the plaintiff just spouted off the names of all the police officers he knew. A quick check of the records proved I wasn't working when the incident happened.

There are only two types of cops working these days...those who have been sued and those who will be sued...

Zrex, if you are tired of the stupid and oppressive laws in this country (many police officers are too) I suggest you become active in local politics and elect people who will change them.

Contrary to what you might believe we don't enjoy using force. I'm sure that the officers would have rather had Phelps turn the music down so they could leave.

Jeff

Standing Wolf
October 26, 2004, 05:53 PM
...the officer called for backup after Phelps called the officer an expletive.

Oh, no! Please don't call me an expletive!

feedthehogs
October 26, 2004, 05:59 PM
Mike is right.
There are always two sides to a story and a paper is going to report something in a sensational way to sell papers.

My problem is, unless I was there to see it or a video was made, finding the truth from either side will be difficult.

It will boil down to the cops word against the suspects word and guess who wins the majority of the time?

Coronach
October 27, 2004, 01:08 AM
This was in no way directed at you specificly. This was directed at the LEO apologists in general. I have no idea who made which statements when. But, look at the latest LEO threads and you will see that in every case, the police have been declared to have acted correctly.Really? Which threads were these? The RedSox thread? I'm not going to go back and read that, but IIRC, I think that every 'pro cop' poster on that thread said, at one time or another, that the jury was still out on whether the weapon was used in accordance with policy and training. If this is what you call 'declaring the police to have acted correctly', I think we can safely end this conversation immediately. I can't get my mind around 2+2=3.

The same goes for the Tasered Grandma. I can't think of a single poster who said that the police action was proper, without question. They merely said that there was a distinct possibility that it could be, and stated a few compelling reasons why.

I really think you should go back and see 'who said what when'. It might be educational. Compare and contrast the reasonableness of the 'pro-LE' posters with the one-line blanket denunciations.Adding to my list of things I have learned:

9. If a criminal is arrested and a cop is a hero, he should be applauded immediatelylets face it- in the situations where anyone is applauded as a hero in the media, they almost always deserve the attention- usually because they did something obviously heroic, in front of lots of witnesses. This goes for people in and out of uniform10. If a cop does something bad, we should wait until we hear the whole story before making judgementSee? You are learning something! BTW, this also goes for non-cops, too. How many times have we screeched at the media for portraying a guy defending his home or property as a crazed, wild-eyed vigilante?11. When someone invades a former employer and shoots people its ok to talk them into leavingDepends on the situation. Active shooter? No, you go get them. Hostage scenario? Talk.12. When a 75 year old woman is visiting a friend in a nursing home, the taser is an apropriate way to get them to leaveNo, but it is possibly a safe method to effect an arrest of the same woman.There are three things that can be going on:

The police are always correct
The victims/criminals are always correct
The police are sometimes correct and the victims are sometimes correct

I tend to believe the third option, and you probably do as well/Thats funny. I do as well. But whenever someone wants to discuss the situation in any manner other than "Wow, those cops are JBTs!" they're a LE apologist and are insisting that the cops are correct. Do you heed you own advice?Some people are tired of all the stupid oppressive laws in this country. Guess who enforces those laws.Guess who makes them.Does that mean the defendant was a cop too? Oh my, this complicates things.

I guess, one way or the other, the cop is telling the truth in this case! You win.Nice. Would I like the police to be correct in every instance? Of course I would. Not only does it make me feel good about my profession, but it also means that people are doing the right thing and things are working the way they should. However, are the police right in every instance? Of course not. All I'm ever trying to say is that you usually cannot sift out the right from the wrong in a preliminary news report.

If you were to go back and do follow-ups on most of the 'terrible' LE stories that get posted here, I'm confident that in most of them the cops could be found to have acted correctly. Certainly not all, but most. However, you almost never hear about the outcomes of investigations and lawsuits where the cops did the right thing. Why? The media does not want to hear it. Its not news. Now, a 14 million dollar verdict against a city because some boneheaded cop decided to break the rules? Thats news.

In summary, its not about 'winning.' I want the truth to be known. If an officer steps on his peepee, I want him punished. If an officer does the right thing, I want him honored. And until the facts come out, I want the discussion to be reasonable and not resemble an echo chamber of "THAT JACK BOOTED THUG!"

While I''m on the topic, lets revisit some of the earlier things you 'learned.'6. Less lethal weapons can actually cause death so you shouldnt be mislead by the name "less lethal"Well, the reason they are named less lethal is because if you were to name them non-lethal, people would think they are non-lethal. So, they're named less lethal in order to show that they still have some inherent lethality. Non lethal means non lethal. Lethal means lethal. Less lethal means less lethal. I know its hard. You can copy this down and refer to it later if you get confused. ;)7. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you are a target and get what you deservePlease show me where ANYONE stated that Snelgrove deserved to be shot in the face and killed. If you cannot, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to dismiss this one as base rhetorical pandering to emotion. I myself stated multiple times that she certainly did not deserve to die.8. If you have never been a cop, "you wouldn't understand"Again, I'd like to see the source for this.

I think what might be most beneficial is re-reading the posts made by the pro-LE posters. Take a moment to read what they actually say, and don't immediately dismiss them as blind "the cops are right" arguments. Even if you find a few that are, stack them up against the overwhelming number of "the cops are wrong" posts and see if you can reach a conclusion about which "side" is more reasonable in light of our shared belief that 'sometimes the cops are right and somethimes they are wrong.'

Mike

Wildalaska
October 27, 2004, 01:50 AM
:D

WildnicepostAlaska

Laurent du Var
October 27, 2004, 04:16 AM
What is this ?

Anybody a familyman ? Police officers coming onto your lawn, into your house for loud music ? Nobody wrote about the husband or father of the
unborn child. I honestly don't know what I would do coming home
seeing my father in law beaten and handcuffed and a policeofficer
aiming a taser at my pregnant wife's belly.
Nothing could ever justify that.

Bad things come to mind.


:barf:

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 07:39 AM
Really? Which threads were these? The RedSox thread? I'm not going to go back and read that, but IIRC, I think that every 'pro cop' poster on that thread said, at one time or another, that the jury was still out on whether the weapon was used in accordance with policy and training. If this is what you call 'declaring the police to have acted correctly', I think we can safely end this conversation immediately. Please show me where ANYONE stated that Snelgrove deserved to be shot in the face and killed. If you cannot, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to dismiss this one as base rhetorical pandering to emotion. I myself stated multiple times that she certainly did not deserve to die.

When I say, "declaring that the police acted correctly", I am talking about the general attitude that: 1) Snelgrove should have left the area 2) If she did not, then she was part of the crowd 3) If you are part of the crowd, then you are a target 4) If you are targeted, you could die and its your own fault.

Also, if you are in a large, rowdy group of people commiting acts of property destruction, it is best to leave the area immediately. You are breaking the law. You're responsible for your fate. Don't hang out, don't cheer, don't watch. That makes you a rioter. The officers appear to have responded reasonably in the situation. Dealing with unruly and violent crowds is dangerous for both the officers and the menbers of the crowd. I hate to say it, but by voluntarily remaining in a dangerous environment there is an implicit assumption of risk. if you are a willing participant (i.e. didn't get the heck out/away at the first sign of communal wrongdoing) in a group of people, some of whom are committing a crime, you are as liable as any other member of that group for the consequences. this was a crowd control ordnance used against a crowd. If it was used improperly, there is an argument here. If it was not, it was a round that was fired into a crowd that struck someone in the crowd. Not to be utterly cold-hearted, but...whats the issue?

Can you see how I might have drawn a conclusion from those statements?

On to the subject of less lethal weapons. The reason I posted those two items I learned is because: 1) I truly believe there are no less than lethal weapons as some people say 2) An apologist tried making the case that Tasers are not lethal, its just an NAACP myth.


You wanted a source for, "If you have never been a cop, you wouldn't understand":

sendec:People fear what they dont understand. Someone who has'nt been there will have the same grasp of policing that I as a male have of childbirth.
It's a cop thing, you wouldnt understand.

I think what might be most beneficial is re-reading the posts made by the non-pro-LE posters. Take a moment to read not just what they say, but the motivation behind them, and don't immediately dismiss them as blind "the cops are wrong" arguments. One reason people get so upset by these situations is that they themselves have been in a similar place, and these recent posts drive home just how close they came to death or imprisonment.

Take some examples. My grandmother was 90 and had alzheimers. Sometimes she would do ok, other than the fact she thought I was my father, but other times she would get disoriented. I have been with her in situations, where someone could have called the cops to remove her from a store. How would I feel if it were her getting the taser? How would you feel?

My brother in law was having a graduation party in his backyard, and it got a little noisy. The local cops showed up, stayed outside and asked to turn the noise down. We complied. Could this have turned bad if the cop came in the yard and would not leave? What if my wife or child got tasered because she tried to stop a cop from hitting my brother in law?

Ever come out of a large sporting event? Like world series game or stanley cup final? You walk outside, and wait for your wife to meet you so you can walk back to the car. There are crowds of people and mounted officers. Then some a-hole starts messing with the horses and and verbally abusing the officers. Do I abandon my wife and flee? What I read someone say was that if I stick around, I am part of the riot and thus, a target. Or my wife would be if she went out and waited for me if I wasn't there.

Can you not see yourself in any of those situations, and I don't mean as the LEO, but as the civilian? This is where my frustration comes from. Rational? Probably not, but I have been in situations that with the right set of circumstances would have put me as the bad guy or the dead guy, and lets face it. I know you dont know me, but I bust my ass not to do anything illegal. I have never been arrested. I have my CHL which in texas requires the background stuff. I keep my nose clean. I haven't had a moving violation since 1991. But, I have been in similar situations to the defendents in these stories and that is scary.

BTW: If you go back and look at my posts, I dont use the terms JBT or Jack Booted Thug.

feedthehogs
October 27, 2004, 08:07 AM
People fear what they dont understand. Someone who has'nt been there will have the same grasp of policing that I as a male have of childbirth. It's a cop thing, you wouldnt understand

That statement is a justification in someone's mind of bad police work.

The real problem is:
We do understand it which makes being a good police officer that much harder.

But if the stress can't be handled, there are other lines of work.

Art Eatman
October 27, 2004, 08:21 AM
Zrex, I guess I've seen both sides of this crowd-problem stuff. I rode "Buddy Patrol" with the cops in Austin, Texas, back in 1973. I'd been around all during the Vietnam protest stuff. For two years I owned a night club in Austin's 6th St. entertainment district, which after about 10PM is like living in "Drunk City".

After watching mob behavior, I pretty much tend to be on the side of LEOs when they try to maintain some semblance of reasonable behavior. Just being near an "event" can be pretty darned scary, and I felt this way even at some distance from the serious action.

I've had occasion to try to reason with drunks who seemed intent on escalating their "fun". Waste of time. You first get a blank look, and are then either ignored or you can sometimes become a target.

What I've learned is simple: When you see a crowd of drinkers/drunks gathering, leave. Right then. It ain't gonna be interesting enough to justify staying. Without a police presence, they can get violent. With a police presence, they can get violent. I call that a lose/lose situation, and I practice not being there.

All in all, I'd much rather learn from others' experiences than from my own. Fewer bandages and scars.

Art

sendec
October 27, 2004, 09:21 AM
I stand by every and all statements I have made. Interpret them as you see fit, right, wrong or indifferent.

Policing is far more involved than those of you on the outside will ever know. It takes years to learn the craft. The idea that owning a computer makes one qualified to speak to the art of policing is inane. Opinion and anuses...........

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 09:39 AM
sendec -

sorry I dragged you back into this.

hammer4nc
October 27, 2004, 09:43 AM
...Besides, if policing is so impossibly esoteric work, it's much easier to totally dismiss any other opinion as troll behavior, rather than form a coherent argument. Isn't that the premise over at glocktalk/coptalk? ;)


Deal with it! :D

longrifleman
October 27, 2004, 09:45 AM
All in all, I'd much rather learn from others' experiences than from my own. Fewer bandages and scars.

Everyone learns from their own mistakes. Well, most everyone.
The true test of wisdom is eloquently expressed by Art. As usual.

Art, had even you figured this out at 24 yrs old? I sure hadn't. I have trouble keeping this in mind even today, and I am way past 24.

sendec
October 27, 2004, 09:49 AM
Me too-

People here slay me - you have a couple guys with far more patience than I who go out of their way to explain the intricacies of law enforcement, but rather than take an opportunity to learn others would rather just prattle on with their own stereotypes and prejudices.

I am probably not the only person here who watches those DIY shows like "New Yankee Workshop", but just because I saw Norm do it, that doesnt make me a craftsman. I have all the right in the world to tell a cabinet maker how to cut dovetails, and he or she has the equal right and a responsibility to the profession to tell me I'm full of poop. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'll go now, I have a riot to attend this weekend.

CannibalCrowley
October 27, 2004, 10:17 AM
sebdec Policing is far more involved than those of you on the outside will ever know. It takes years to learn the craft. The idea that owning a computer makes one qualified to speak to the art of policing is inane. Opinion and anuses........... So you'll be ceasing your criticisms of those in professions that you haven't yet held? Either that or you'll be a blatant hypocrite.

Art Eatman What I've learned is simple: When you see a crowd of drinkers/drunks gathering, leave. That's not as simple as it sounds. Many times it's impossible for one to leave the area at the time.

longrifleman
October 27, 2004, 10:54 AM
I'll go now, I have a riot to attend this weekend.


Startin' or stopin'?





:neener:




People here slay me - you have a couple guys with far more patience than I who go out of their way to explain the intricacies of law enforcement, but rather than take an opportunity to learn others would rather just prattle on with their own stereotypes and prejudices.

Some of us do want to learn. Sometimes when we learn we are troubled by the direction we see our country taking. (by us I mean me) I have tremendous sympathy for our LEO's who are continually put in no-win situations. But, being human there will be a few bad cops and even the best will make a mistake ocasionally. Also, due to the very nature of the job these problems can get people dead. That justifies the extra scrutiny that LEO's have to deal with. If you cut a dovetail wrong you just waste a board. (I know, I've cut enough wrong myself.)

The scrutiny should be fair and objective but if the very fact that it happens is unacceptable to LEO's then we have some serious problems.

LiquidTension
October 27, 2004, 10:55 AM
Forgive me for interrupting the cop-bashing and finger pointing, but I have a few questions:

Is OC (or any other type of irritant spray) less harmful to unborn children than a Taser? If so, why wasn't it used? Or does the presence of a Taser preclude the carrying of spray? I ask because I've only seen one LEO in my state carrying a Taser - most of them have spray - and don't remember if he also had OC.

sendec
October 27, 2004, 12:38 PM
Devil's night in a college town, lucky us. Lots of victimless crimes like public intox, public urination, projectile vomiting, nudity from those who shouldnt, and the occasional overturned car, firebomb, rape and stabbing. It is one of the few things I crawl out of my cave for cause the locals are chronically outnumbered, on the order of 10,000 to 50.

Scrutiny implies fairness, impartiality and transparency, none of which occur in this setting. That is fine, cause this is'nt reality anyway, it is an anonymous forum....

sendec
October 27, 2004, 12:45 PM
LT,

There has'nt been sufficient research to indicate one way or the other the effects of either OC or a Taser on other than adults. Note that the active ingredient in OC is capsicum or capsacian which are natural derivatives of peppers. While incredible irritating to the mother there is nothing to indicate it would cause any trouble to an unborn infant because it wouldnt likely cross the placental barrier. I would bet that the effects would be less than the accidental ingestion of say jalapeos or habaneros because OC works on the respiratory tract. not the digestive system.

The Taser is also an unknown. I would like a medic who is AED certified to tell us what would happen if they had to lay the paddles to a pregnant person.

CannibalCrowley
October 27, 2004, 01:56 PM
sendec The Taser is also an unknown. I would like a medic who is AED certified to tell us what would happen if they had to lay the paddles to a pregnant person. An AED is a world apart from a taser. An external defibrillator directs the current through the heart while a taser disributes it through the body. The only way the two could be compared is if the paddles were placed on the woman's stomach. Of course an AED shouldn't allow a shock to take place if this is done, and any one doing so with a standard external defibrillator should have his license revoked and be thrown in prison.

Laurent du Var
October 27, 2004, 02:07 PM
were just lucky that the big, bad wolf wasn't around while they were inside the house tasing an unborn child in her mother's womb.

:evil:

sendec
October 27, 2004, 02:31 PM
CC

Am I to assume that you are a medic, nurse, physician, or electrical engineer?

As I said, research is neede.......never mind:rolleyes:

spacemanspiff
October 27, 2004, 03:03 PM
we wouldnt be having this argument if the police had done their job by mozambiquing everyone at the wedding party and sprinkling crack all over the perps and dropped a few ak-47's at the scene

no_morelipfrom_you
October 27, 2004, 03:09 PM
I'm not a lawyer and I dont play one on TV but from what I understand, they had NO business asking for I.D. in the first place. Nor did they have any business entering her home.


It was a response to a complaint about loud music, should have been pretty routine, if the music was turned off then the officers should have left. It's when they get overly zealous and want to hammer their authority down that situations like this get escalated into what it is now.

Yooper
October 27, 2004, 03:11 PM
Nixon favored the term "expletive" didn't he?

It's a sad incident, but I wasn't there so I can draw no valid conclusions.

CannibalCrowley
October 27, 2004, 03:12 PM
Am I to assume that you are a medic, nurse, physician, or electrical engineer? And AED certified too.

sendec
October 27, 2004, 03:20 PM
So whats the research say? Show us the money.......

Wildalaska
October 27, 2004, 03:38 PM
from what I understand, they had NO business asking for I.D. in the first place. Nor did they have any business entering her home.


Since you are not a lawyer and werent there regardless tell me how you justify that statement?

WildwatingeagerlyforthisoneAlaska

CannibalCrowley
October 27, 2004, 03:50 PM
So whats the research say? Show us the money....... Research on what? As I've already stated, nobody has used an external defibrillator on a woman's womb. The paddles direct the current through the heart. A woman could be wearing a belly chain and be defibbed without the chain being affected; however, a necklace hanging down would cause skin damage due to the charge being directed through that area. A taser obviously distributes its shock throughout the entire body. If it did not, then the spasms would be localized to the area with the probes.

They also deliver different shocks. An AED generally has lower voltage, but higher wattage, joules, and amperage.

Basically, you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

sendec
October 27, 2004, 06:10 PM
No, I'm trying to compare the passage of electrical current thru human tissue.

Clearly you know nothing about the effects of a taser on an unborn infant, if any. I doubt anyone does. If you want to pee and moan over this perceived injustice have at it. I am just found of these things called "facts" which are in short supply involving this instance.

BTW, I dont recall any info about just how preggers this lady is...........

Strings
October 28, 2004, 01:32 AM
sendec, two things directed your way:

1)CC wasn't "peeing and moaning", he was just stating that defib and taser are two different animals. Which makes sense to me (but I'm just a layman, what do I know)...

2)This statement begs a question: "nudity from those who shouldnt"

Does that mean there are people who can get away with being nude in public? ;)

cracked butt
October 28, 2004, 02:50 AM
What Laurent said....

If I were to come upon someone tazing or assaulting my wife while she is pregnant, someone is going to be in a world of hurt, I don't care if they are dressed as a biker, an Indian, or even a cop.:fire:

As for Phelps:

Cop: your papers please.
Phelps: screw you
Cop: bzzzzzzzzt!

What ever happened to de-escalation? Is it a lost art when you have a big club to lean on?

I've seen police ask people to tone things down a little, in fact I've had it done to me once, on the other hand, I haven't seen the cops act like thugs nor have any reason to do so in such cases. I think the first cop on the scene might have had a big chip on her shoulder, but that is my completely uninformed opinion on the matter.


BTW: I side with the cops about 99.9% of the time, but just can't on this one.

no_morelipfrom_you
October 28, 2004, 02:32 PM
"Since you are not a lawyer and werent there regardless tell me how you justify that statement?"


I answered it in my original post. Did you read the rest of it?

It was a response to a complaint about noise, and as long as they turned the noise down then the police should have promptly left. You DONT need to ask for I.D. to tell someone to turn the noise down, and excessively loud music is NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime and does NOT necessitate further investigation.

If your neighbor pushed you and then ran into her house would you be justified in chasing after her, etering her home, demanding that she come out of her closet, and finally shoot her with a taser for refusing to comply??? :fire:


You'd be in Jail.

no_morelipfrom_you
October 28, 2004, 02:40 PM
As for my justification or right to speak strongly on this issue, are laws only made by lawyers and politicians? Or is that not the reason we have an electoral system - because laws are made to represent the rights and needs of regular people. Such as myself.

Wildalaska
October 28, 2004, 03:01 PM
I answered it in my original post. Did you read the rest of it?

Yep.

You werent there.

Your not a lawyer and dont know the nuances of law in that jurisdiction as to what can and cant be done.

You therefore have no justification for your statement.

WildmerelyrepeatingwhatsinthepaperisntenoughAlaska

Jeff White
October 28, 2004, 03:25 PM
no_morelipfrom_you said;

It was a response to a complaint about noise, and as long as they turned the noise down then the police should have promptly left. You DONT need to ask for I.D. to tell someone to turn the noise down, and excessively loud music is NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime and does NOT necessitate further investigation.

Are you a peace officer in Illinois? I am...It's quite reasonable to ask for ID from the person you contacted at the party. How else will you know who to ask for when you come back after the second complaint? Yes, Virgina there are often second and third complaints about noise at a party like that. It's important that you contact the host of the party or some other responsible person so you know who you're dealing with. If you don't when you go back the second time, you may get to deal with a totally different partygoer and maybe you still won't get a satisfactory result.

Maybe it would be acceptable to you to just walk up and tell the first person you saw to turn the music down...Me, I'd just as soon know who I was talking to.

If your neighbor pushed you and then ran into her house would you be justified in chasing after her, etering her home, demanding that she come out of her closet, and finally shoot her with a taser for refusing to comply???

Now tell me, as a private citizen, what reason would you have to enter your neighbors house? You wouldn't. But, if you were a peace officer and called to that residence to investigate a loud noise complaint, you have a duty and obligation to check it out.

I suppose that if the police had been called, told the woman to turn the music down and she ran in the house, and they had just left, and there was a young girl being gang raped in the front room, it would have been ok, because there was no reason to think anything was odd about a woman slamming the door in their face and running when asked for ID?

Jeff

no_morelipfrom_you
October 28, 2004, 03:46 PM
Jeff, respectfully, I understand and can agree with what you're saying up until this point:


"I suppose that if the police had been called, told the woman to turn the music down and she ran in the house, and they had just left, and there was a young girl being gang raped in the front room"


The next line of thought after that would be that we should justify unreasonable search and seizure on the grounds that a crime "might be commited" or "might be currently in progress" any time the police are within proximity.

Theres simply not enough reason (IMO) to suspect a rape is in progress based on the fact that a woman ran inside her house at the request of an I.D.

Screaming yes. Suspicious activity you can actually see through the window, yes.

Loud music at a wedding party (and this is key, it was probably obvious this was a wedding party) and a woman running into her home because she does not want to show I.D. - no

Perhaps you're right that it was necessary to I.D. the owner of the house so as to speak to the same person later, but to escalate it to the point of having to taser an unarmed woman is just unprofessional conduct and poor judgement in my opinion.

Jeff White
October 28, 2004, 04:06 PM
no_morelipfrom_you,

I think you misunderstand my example. I wasn't trying to say that the woman running into the house could have been construed into meaning there was probable cause for a search. I was trying to make the point that if that had been happening in the house, the same people who are buring the police ofr going too far (all based on a couple news reports which don't contain enough information to make any kind of judgment) would be ranting that the police were lazy and if they had just forced the issue of ID the girl could have been rescued. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Would you agree that it is pretty unusual that someone would react that way when asked for ID? Let's see, what can that be a sign of, that she was wanted on a warrant maybe? That something else was going on in the house?

You know people lie to us all the time. Even when they don't have any reason to, they often lie. The bride slamming the door and running for the closet when asked for ID is reason to investigate further.

When a complaint is called into to the police department, they have to investigate it. The police had every right to be there, and every right to know who they were talking to. I think the woman initially escalated the situation by running away when asked for ID? Neither of us was there, so I'm going to withold judgment as to what happened after that until the facts come out.

Jeff

no_morelipfrom_you
October 28, 2004, 04:29 PM
You make a strong case and I completely sympathize with the damned if you do, damned if you dont plight. My reaction was a bit emotional and I guess while I can see you are right, I just wish the peace officers could or would have tried harder to de-escalate the situation. Perhaps they did try.

In answer to your question, "Would you agree that it is pretty unusual that someone would react that way when asked for ID?"

I have a strong aversion to a police officer asking for my I.D. unless I'm driving a car. Here is the reason:

I have, while minding my own business, standing in a friend's yard, or on the sidewalk in front of my girlfriend's house, not doing anything in particular but standing and talking, been approached no less than 4 times by officers and asked for I.D.

I was asked intrusive questions such as "where was I going" (I wasnt going anywhere, I was obviously standing there talking to someone else), "what was I doing there in the area", etc.

I was patted down for weapons and treated suspiciously and detained until the officers in question were satisfied. I was not given any reason for them to approach me. This, is in my opinion harassment, and reason why officers should not be allowed to ask for I.D. unless you are the suspect of a crime or for a driver's license while driving a vehicle.

I have never been arrested, nor to my knowledge has a warrant ever been made for my arrest.

Yet I can see clearly why someone would not want to provide I.D. , and might look to their home as a safety zone to hide from having to comply with such a request.

I think it is easy when you're dealing with "bad guys" 8 hours a day to lose sight of the fact that as a person in authority, someone carrying a gun no less, you can easily rattle someone and leave them shaken up - especially when most of the actions of the day (seen in newspapers, on television, and in the bravado persona of macho cops) does not inspire trust.

To help illustrate, I'd like to share that my 13 year old sister shared with me recently that she actually fears the police and feels more uncomfortable around them than she does driving through a neighborhood with gangsters. I assure you she did not come to her conclusions with ANY help on my part as I have not shared my negative emotions toward them with her. I don't know where she got her fear from, and I didnt ask her. But:

How does that inspire confidence to be open and truthful with the police?

carpettbaggerr
October 29, 2004, 01:46 PM
I was patted down for weapons and treated suspiciously and detained until the officers in question were satisfied. I was not given any reason for them to approach me. Well, did you ask them why they approached you? Was it 3am? Were you standingin the same place for several hours? Were they called by a neighbor? Did you resemble a fugitive?

Generally, police don't approach and search someone just for talking to a neighbor. If it happened to me, I'd want to know why, and I'd follow up with the shift Sargeant or higher brass if I didn't get a good answer.

spacemanspiff
October 29, 2004, 03:45 PM
To help illustrate, I'd like to share that my 13 year old sister shared with me recently that she actually fears the police and feels more uncomfortable around them than she does driving through a neighborhood with gangsters. I assure you she did not come to her conclusions with ANY help on my part as I have not shared my negative emotions toward them with her.

no offense, but i typicially dont give the opinions of a teenager much credit. how much personal experience does a 13 yr old typically have?

especially when a child thinks there is more safety with gang members than around police.

unless your police are some active descendants of the gestapo, its not even worth discussing.

we've gone over it in the past, and it degraded more or less into people saying they would kill any cop that looked at them sideways, or at the very least, expressing how much it tickled them when they heard about bad things happening to police officers.

:rolleyes:

O.F.Fascist
October 29, 2004, 04:46 PM
If something happens to the unborn child arent there laws now that could be used to try the officer who injured it.

spacemanspiff
October 29, 2004, 06:04 PM
i hope not.

if the 'alleged victim' behaved in such a way that warranted the officers use of force, than the responsibility for the safety of the child is with the pregnant mother, who should have known better.

put it in terms everyone can understand........

if an 8 month pregnant woman charges towards you with a butcher knife, are you going to use deadly force to stop her or not?

O.F.Fascist
October 30, 2004, 01:34 AM
spacemanspiff, in your example absolutely. But using that example is like comparing apples and oranges with this case.

I do not feel that taser use was warrented and if anything happened to that unborn child because of unecessary taser use then the officer should be held accountable.

An unborn child is human life and anyone who injures or kills one (outside of abortion or in a self defense situation) then a crime was committed and that person should be punished.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police use Taser on pregnant woman" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!