Police used Taser on pregnant driver


PDA






erik the bold
May 10, 2005, 01:27 PM
Saw this today........


Police used Taser on pregnant driver
Woman convicted of refusing to obey Seattle officers

By HECTOR CASTRO
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

She was rushing her son to school. She was eight months pregnant. And she was about to get a speeding ticket she didn't think she deserved.

So when a Seattle police officer presented the ticket to Malaika Brooks, she refused to sign it. In the ensuing confrontation, she suffered burns from a police Taser, an electric stun device that delivers 50,000 volts.

"Probably the worst thing that ever happened to me," Brooks said, in describing that morning during her criminal trial last week on charges of refusing to obey an officer and resisting arrest.

She was found guilty of the first charge because she never signed the ticket, but the Seattle Municipal Court jury could not decide whether she resisted arrest, the reason the Taser was applied.

To her attorneys and critics of police use of Tasers, Brooks' case is an example of police overreaction.

"It's pretty extraordinary that they should have used a Taser in this case," said Lisa Daugaard, a public defender familiar with the case.

Law enforcement officers have said they see Tasers as a tool that can benefit the public by reducing injuries to police and the citizens they arrest.

Seattle police officials declined to comment on this case, citing concerns that Brooks might file a civil lawsuit.

But King County sheriff's Sgt. Donald Davis, who works on the county's Taser policy, said the use of force is a balancing act for law enforcement.

"It just doesn't look good to the public," he said.

Brooks' run-in with police Nov. 23 came six months before Seattle adopted a new policy on Taser use that guides officers on how to deal with pregnant women, the very young, the very old and the infirm. When used on such subjects, the policy states, "the need to stop the behavior should clearly justify the potential for additional risks."

"Obviously, (law enforcement agencies) don't want to use a Taser on young children, pregnant woman or elderly people," Davis said. "But if in your policy you deliberately exclude a segment of the population, then you have potentially closed off a tool that could have ended a confrontation."

Brooks was stopped in the 8300 block of Beacon Avenue South, just outside the African American Academy, while dropping her son off for school.

In a two-day trial that ended Friday, the officer involved, Officer Juan Ornelas, testified he clocked Brooks' Dodge Intrepid doing 32 mph in a 20-mph school zone.

He motioned her over and tried to write her a ticket, but she wouldn't sign it, even when he explained that signing it didn't mean she was admitting guilt.

Brooks, in her testimony, said she believed she could accept a ticket without signing for it, which she had done once before.

"I said, 'Well, I'll take the ticket, but I won't sign it,' " Brooks testified.

Officer Donald Jones joined Ornelas in trying to persuade Brooks to sign the ticket. They then called on their supervisor, Sgt. Steve Daman.

He authorized them to arrest her when she continued to refuse.

The officers testified they struggled to get Brooks out of her car but could not because she kept a grip on her steering wheel.

And that's when Jones brought out the Taser.

Brooks testified she didn't even know what it was when Jones showed it to her and pulled the trigger, allowing her to hear the crackle of 50,000 volts of electricity.

The officers testified that was meant as a final warning, as a way to demonstrate the device was painful and that Brooks should comply with their orders.

When she still did not exit her car, Jones applied the Taser.

In his testimony, the Taser officer said he pressed the prongs of the muzzle against Brooks' thigh to no effect. So he applied it twice to her exposed neck.

Afterward, he and the others testified, Ornelas pushed Brooks out of the car while Jones pulled.

She was taken to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, the officers testified.

She told jurors the officer also used the device on her arm, and showed them a dark, brown burn to her thigh, a large, red welt on her arm and a lump on her neck, all marks she said came from the Taser application.

At the South Precinct, Seattle fire medics examined Brooks, confirmed she was pregnant and recommended she be evaluated at Harborview Medical Center.

Brooks said she was worried about the effect the trauma and the Taser might have on her baby, but she delivered a healthy girl Jan. 31.

Still, she said, she remains shocked that a simple traffic stop could result in her arrest.

"As police officers, they could have hurt me seriously. They could have hurt my unborn fetus," she said.

"All because of a traffic ticket. Is this what it's come down to?"

Davis said Tasers remain a valuable tool, and that situations like Brooks' are avoidable.

"I know the Taser is controversial in all these situations where it seems so egregious," he said. "Why use a Taser in a simple traffic stop? Well, the citizen has made it more of a problem. It's no longer a traffic stop. This is now a confrontation."
P-I reporter Hector Castro can be reached at 206-903-5396 or hectorcastro@seattlepi.com


Refusal to "obey" :banghead: What did my mom tell me about jumping off bridges??...

If you enjoyed reading about "Police used Taser on pregnant driver" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
May 10, 2005, 01:31 PM
But we are not living in a society well on its way to becoming a "Police State" Nope, not at all.

JohnBT
May 10, 2005, 01:43 PM
"Police use Taser on woman resisting arrest" would be a better headline.

John

MikeIsaj
May 10, 2005, 01:47 PM
But we are not living in a society well on its way to becoming a "Police State" Nope, not at all.

You're kidding, right?

You sign the ticket to acknowledge receipt and as your personal bond that you will appear in court. If you don't sign it you go to jail pending your hearing. If you disagree with the ticket, argue in court, not on the curb.

We've been doing this for more years than I can remember. This is actually a more relaxed policy. My father remembers when you posted bail in the amount of the fine, in cash, with the officer, or went to jail. I remember in South Carolina having to do that due to a Pa. license and Ca. Registration.

She didn't get tazed for speeding, she got tazed for resisting a lawful and reasonable arrest. She got arrested because she is an idiot, not because of any police state.

No_Brakes23
May 10, 2005, 01:47 PM
But we are not living in a society well on its way to becoming a "Police State" Nope, not at all. How is that police state? All she had to do was sign the ticket. I wasn't there so I can't say whether the tazing was justified or not, but obviously some use of force was required when she resisted arrest. It's not like some blond haired, blue-eyed, hood wearing JBT just cruised up and tazed her while laughing maniacally.

She was in the wrong, then she got busted. Then she compounded things by refusing to sign the ticket. Being pregnant or on the way to pick up the kidlets doesn't justify her actions.

Look, I speed all the time. When I get nicked, I shut my mouth and take my ticket, and then I do my best to beat it in court.

I am more than willing to admit that there are plenty of JBTs out there, but I don't see it here.

WT
May 10, 2005, 01:49 PM
I learned a long time ago, never ever argue with a pregnant woman.

All this garbage over a lousy traffic ticket?

Zrex
May 10, 2005, 02:04 PM
How much force is reasonably necessary to make someone sign a piece of paper? If the cop didn't have a taser, would he have worked her over with a night stick? Would he have shot her?

Thank god he had a taser! If it weren't for that, she could be dead.

Henry Bowman
May 10, 2005, 02:12 PM
She didn't get tazed for speeding, she got tazed for resisting a lawful and reasonable arrest. She got arrested because she is an idiot, not because of any police state. Amen!

lunaslide
May 10, 2005, 02:18 PM
When viewed in the context of Seattle PD's general disposition of beligerence with the public, ineptitude and incompetence and drastic overreaction to situations, this is about par for the course. She might have been a pain in the neck, but a tazer?

It's almost to the point that any time a new story about a Seattle PD officer having his gun stolen (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/214631_copcars05.html), I expect them to start playing the Benny Hill theme song. Of course, if they just followed their own advice (http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/police/prevention/Tips/gun.htm), maybe even the chief could manage to hold on to his own gun (http://www.kirotv.com/news/4043966/detail.html).

TheFederalistWeasel
May 10, 2005, 02:28 PM
In Georgia if you refuse to sign a ticket you are required to post a cash bond, hence go to jail. The courts have called this recently a good faith bond only as it relates to tickets only because you can “bond out” with a signature roadside.

A signature is only a promise to come to court and an acknowledgement that you have received a copy of the citation.

But even with that, I wonder why more and more officers just don’t say well ma am, and just politely explain to the person why they need to sign and if they are just verbally refusing to sign just stroke a big ole REFUSED TO SIGN on the line then politely explain to the doofus that this entire traffic stop has been recorded both on video and audio and there is a record of her refusal as well as a record on the officers attempts to get her to sign then explain that if she fails to pay or appear in court a warrant for failure to appear will be issued and you will play the video to the judge and then ask he consider an obstruction or hindering charge.

If she still refuses to sign bid her a good day and move on.

No Tazer needed

Landing myself in front of the Captain because of someone else’s stupidity is not in my game plan; I deal with idiots all day while on patrol.

I just smile inside because I know that while you may have the last word, I’ll have the last act.

Don’t show for court and you will see me again, but this time there will be nothing for you to sign except the jail receipt for your belongings after you are booking into the local LEC on the warrant issued by the judge for FTA.

VARifleman
May 10, 2005, 02:33 PM
Brooks said she was worried about the effect the trauma and the Taser might have on her baby, but she delivered a healthy girl Jan. 31.


Good...I was worried about that. If it had killed the baby...that Cop would HAVE TO BE charged with 3rd degree murder. I can't believe that bastard didn't think about the possible consquences of his actions.

MechAg94
May 10, 2005, 02:34 PM
So what is the point of the signature in the first place?

spacemanspiff
May 10, 2005, 02:42 PM
As police officers, they could have hurt me seriously. They could have hurt my unborn fetus," she said
yeah, and getting stopped for a speeding ticket could have saved a childs life from her speeding car.

what is it that goes through the minds of mental midgets that resist arrest?

"gee, maybe they'll give up after a few minutes of this...hey whats that weird looking thing hes pointing at me?"

Augustwest
May 10, 2005, 02:45 PM
She didn't get tazed for speeding, she got tazed for resisting a lawful and reasonable arrest.

Lawful yes.

Reasonable no. Taking someone to prison because she refuses to sign a ticket for a minor malum prohibitum violation is not reasonable.

It's indicative of the ever increasing power of the state and the diminishment of individual liberty in this country. And the LEO's referred to in the story are complicit in said diminishment.

MechAg94
May 10, 2005, 02:45 PM
Yeah, that is a good point. She was speeding in a school zone. Big no no where I live.

But I am still curious why the signature is needed in the first place and why not getting it means you are arrested.

Kilrain
May 10, 2005, 02:46 PM
So what is the point of the signature in the first place?

Your signature is your written acknowledgment of receipt of the citation and, more importantly, your written acknowledgment of your promise to appear in court. It is not an admission of guilt or confession of wrongdoing.

In California, the signature is not optional. You either sign the citation or you get arrested and taken before a magistrate.

Blackburn
May 10, 2005, 02:49 PM
TASERS. ARE. NOT. COMPLIANCE. TOOLS.

TASERS. ARE. LESS. THAN. LETHAL. WEAPONS.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=77744&sid=8f6d2436f374f1d3ba7f530f5563d1ee

Third_Rail
May 10, 2005, 02:50 PM
If you disagree with the ticket, argue in court, not on the curb.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. She resisted arrest and was rather disagreeable.


Would you rather she had been shot? :scrutiny:

kbheiner7
May 10, 2005, 02:57 PM
Gotta disagree with much of what has been said here.

The lady didn't sign a ticket, so she get's tazered? This is a prime example of why many people have a misguided, low opinion of LEOs. It was poor judgement.

Clearly, we don't know all the facts. It may have been justified, but based on the article, the officers were way over the top. I hope they feel sufficiently tough for subduing this female, very pregnant, obviously hardened criminal. :rolleyes:

It sounds to me like this boiled down to a pissing contest. "You won't sign the ticket, well I'll show you!"

August West nailed this one on the head. What the officers did may have been legal, but it was stupid. Why escalate this to that level? Shouldn't tazers be reserved for those situations in which a life or safety is threatened?

If tazers are not used wisely, people are going to start shooting out of fear of them. The last thing we need to to expose LEOs to more danger.

auschip
May 10, 2005, 03:03 PM
I can't believe that woman didn't think about the possible consquences of her actions when she resisted arrest.

Fixed,

Sindawe
May 10, 2005, 03:09 PM
"You won't sign the ticket, well I'll show you!" Yep, thats the way it looks to these eyes as well, based on the information provided. It strikes me that the womans offense was not refusal to sign the ticket, but was "Contempt of Cop"

http://www.astro.hr/personal_pages/Overview/People/Cartman_sp.jpg
You will respect my AUTHORITY!

Ol' Badger
May 10, 2005, 03:16 PM
Beats a stick to the belly! :evil:

Ever test a Watermellon?

TC66
May 10, 2005, 03:21 PM
Sorry but if you are pulled over here in Ohio you sign the ticket or go to jail. There is no option. I am sure it is the same where she lived or it would not have been an issue. The officer was doing his job and she broke the law first by speeding second by refusing to sign and third by resisting arrest. How many chances is a person supposed to get? She had many opportunities to end the confrontation which she initiated by speeding and she failed to end it. Three officers were involved including a supervisor and they did not tase her until she refused to get out of the car. She got what she deserved at that point. Just what anyone else in the same situation would have received. Maybe people should get their heads out of their asses and do what is right instead of making their own rules and laws and thinking they don't have to follow the real ones.

charlesb_la
May 10, 2005, 03:35 PM
Maybe she couldn't sign because she was on her cell phone with her mom who is on duty in Iraq. :evil:

kbheiner7
May 10, 2005, 03:42 PM
I think you're nuts.

Two grown men couldn't get this woman out of the car. She wasn't threatening anyone, she was mad about getting a ticket. She wasn't threatening the officers.

If she doesn't show up for court, issue a warrant.

How would this have been handled before tazers were issued? Do you think she'd have been shot? Of course not. So why use a device, especially on a pregnant woman, that has a history of actually killing people for such a minor offense?

Another issue this stirs in the back of my mind is the clamouring from many of you fellows about the law. There is a lot of rhetoric about "my cold dead hand" around these parts that do not match up many of the other posts I read.

What will you really do when the day of decision comes?

Luku
May 10, 2005, 03:44 PM
If what that story says is true about how it all got started, I beleive the officer who tased her should be fired and have whatever criminal charges are applicable be brought against him/her.

AK-74me
May 10, 2005, 03:52 PM
She is resisting arrest........ any pregnant woman who would put herself in a posistion to harm the baby by getting into a physical altercation is the crazy one. The officer in this case was completely justified to do what he did, I am sure she was advised she was gonna get zapped. At that point she should given up arguing, whether she felt she was in the right or not. Being pregnant is not a free pass to break laws.

I bet if it turned out different and that pregnant woman speeding in a school zone ran over and killed your kid walking in the cross walk you wouldn't be supporting this woman.

Old Dog
May 10, 2005, 03:54 PM
For those who don't read the Seattle P-I regularly, I'd caution you to take its stories with a grain of salt; the P-I's writers manage to put a unique spin on most incidents (witness the recent story of the Bellevue gentleman who wants to sell firearms out of his house). On the surface, use of a Taser seems extreme, but since none of you were on the scene, passing judgement on the officer's actions is a bit useless. Having personally seen some things happen around here, and having heard eyewitness accounts of other incidents in the Puget Sound area, then seen how the Seattle Times and P-I report these incidents, I'd never draw conclusions from the stories filed by some of these "reporters."

GEM
May 10, 2005, 04:00 PM
I think this is a force continuum issue.

Do we have any research on the effect of being taser on a fetus, inducing premature labor, etc? I think there has been research on inducing heart problems and that had to be clarified before tasers could be used as a general less than lethal weapon.

If there is no data on such, then I would stronlgy err on the side of not using it. it is a potential use of deadly force, if we don't know how it affects women in that stage of pregnancy.

Given the issue was having her sign the ticket - that is not a deadly force issue.

Now some might bellow and have that she was resisting a lawful order. However, police do break off chases when it seems to dangerous. They had her ID and could have gotten her later with much less risk.

Unless, there is substantive research that the taser was most likely harmless in this situation, I think they were incorrect in its use because of the risk to mother and fetus.

Common sense must intervene over the perceived slight to the role of the officer in this case.

Mark in California
May 10, 2005, 04:02 PM
Your signature is a promise to appear. If you will not sign, you are taken to jail. On a good day, a Judge will then order you to appear on a set day, if not you wait in jail until (1) your court date or (2) you bail yourself out of jail.

We do not reward the stupid. This woman was stupid.

I read about an officer who was even more stupid. He chased a person across state lines, then cited him (in another state), when the person refused to sign he hauled him back to the home state and then to jail. The first call was to FBI for kidnapping. ("...taken against his will and transported by force or violence across a state line...) The officer was convicted in Federal Court and went to prison.

Again we do not reward the stupid.

GEM
May 10, 2005, 04:07 PM
The woman might have been stupid but as I said above - were the officers stupid also?

The risk involved should not be visited on health or the fetus' health because of her stupidity. Officers use discretion in arrests and chases for various reasons. They could have gotten her in a couple of months if the offense was so great. That they could not see this is very problematic in my eyes.

I think they were too concerned with the disrespect to their role to make a more sophisticated analysis of the situation.

Her stupidity doesn't rationalize their actions.

jsalcedo
May 10, 2005, 04:15 PM
The woman and the cop were both ridiculous.

Take down the information on the woman, take the keys and apply
a boot device to the suspects car.

She can always be arrested later. There is no excuse for using a potentially harmful or lethal device against somone who poses no harm to themselves or others.

As long as she is not allowed to drive off and potentially hurt someone the problem is solved.

I'm thinking the reason the woman was tasered was because the police cannot have an incident where their authority is compromised.

If one pregnant woman can sucessfully ignore a lawful police order
it opens the door for widespread lack of fear, respect and compliance when dealing with officers.

That is why these situations always escalate to absurd conclusions.

Vernal45
May 10, 2005, 04:22 PM
I cant believe some of you all are ok with the pregnant lady being tazed. :what:

Yes, she was in the wrong, but the cop who used the taser was way in the wrong. If that cop cant control a pregnant woman, that cop needs to find another job. And you all agreeing with the use of the taser, wow, just wow. I guess when they come for your guns, as long as its someone else, it will be ok. :banghead:

for widespread lack of fear, respect and compliance when dealing with officers.

It already exists, and the police are losing ground daily do to actions like this.

I dont not recall a law that states i must respect an LEO. Sorry, dont have to. The comment on Lack of Fear, is right on. If you are a cop, and you want to be feared, I hope, pray you leave the job or get killed before you hurt or kill some innocent person, maybe a pregnant lady, because they did not respect of fear you.

outfieldjack
May 10, 2005, 04:25 PM
So she was prego... does that give her the right to break the law?

How much force is reasonably necessary to make someone sign a piece of paper? If the cop didn't have a taser, would he have worked her over with a night stick? Would he have shot her?

WHATEVER..... it was her choice..... sign the paper or be arrested. He did not taze her to make her sign the paper. She decided not to sign the paper, therefore she was to be arrested. She was resisting arrest, so the tazer was used.

To bad for her.

gulogulo1970
May 10, 2005, 04:31 PM
jsalcedo: "The woman and the cop were both ridiculous."

Exactly!

Going 32 in a school zone is stupid!
Not signing a ticket is stupid!
Tazering a pregnant women is stupid!

Both of them showed a serious lack of judgement.

George Hill
May 10, 2005, 04:32 PM
If she wasn't acting like an indignant moron, she wouln't have got tazered.
If your preggers - it's up to you not to act like an indignant moron.

Sindawe
May 10, 2005, 04:33 PM
If one pregnant woman can sucessfully ignore a lawful police order it opens the door for widespread lack of fear, respect and compliance when dealing with officers. Where government (or its agents) fear the peaple, there is liberty. Where the people fear the government (or its agents), there is tyranny.

Those who would support the people fearing the police, remember this facet of human/primate nature. That which we fear, we grow to hate. That which we hate, we destroy.

Of all the responses by LEOs and their supporters in this thread, that from FedWeasel strikes me as the most reasonable and rational one.

GEM
May 10, 2005, 04:36 PM
I am willing to bet that those who say it is fine would be the first to complain if it was their daughter or wife who for some reason did this and got tazed.

I'll also bet that those who are fine with this are of the antiabortion, save the fetus crowd. No contradiction seen?

For a ticket we do something potentially very dangerous. What a mentality!

I might remind you of professional courtesy where DUI officers are let go or treated quite gently. Not to cop bash but there is so much discretion that not using it here is mind boggling.

JohnBT
May 10, 2005, 04:36 PM
Fear? Heck, a little cooperation would have gone a long way.

John

centac
May 10, 2005, 04:40 PM
If my wife or daughter broke the law I would expect them to accept the responsibility for the outcomes of their actions.

jsalcedo
May 10, 2005, 04:40 PM
If your preggers - it's up to you not to act like an indignant moron.

True. However having been around quite a few "preggers" I've noticed that absurd emotional behaviour possibly due to unbalanced hormones is not unheard of.

It doesn't happen all the time but I've seen some outlandish outbursts
from otherwise perfectly normal and sane pregnant women.

pwolfman
May 10, 2005, 04:41 PM
IMHO, there is no reasons the police used a weapon on this woman. Think of the outrage if they would have just pulled their guns on her, or used the billy club to subdue her. We should not attack the tool, like the liberals do, instead attack the person or the procedures.

Guy was stupid to escalate the situation to this level. I suspect the cops ego kinda got hurt and he had to show her who is boss...

pwolfman

centac
May 10, 2005, 04:43 PM
Incidently, where I am at, cops who are DUI are hammered mercilessly. I've seen officers disciplined for applying discretion and NOT making an arrest. Drunk cops get no breaks here, the brass wouldnt tolerate it. Furthermore, a conviction usually frequently results in a suspension for conduct unbecoming, as well.

TechBrute
May 10, 2005, 04:49 PM
My father remembers when you posted bail in the amount of the fine, in cash, with the officer, or went to jail. That was back when you could trust the cops to turn in the cash.

If I were that cop, I'd be embarrassed to show my face back at the station. After all, I had to use a taser to get a pregnant woman out of the car.

Cops are just too quick to use tasers. Period.

After all, why does she really need to sign the ticket, anyway. If she doesn't show up, are they not going to issue a warrant if she didn't sign it? Good grief.

Azrael256
May 10, 2005, 05:01 PM
The lady didn't sign a ticket, so she get's tazered? This is a prime example of why many people have a misguided, low opinion of LEOs. It was poor judgement. Poor judgement indeed. I was with the officer until he showed her the tazer. IMO, at that point, it became a pissing contest, and the officer lost.

I do not, however, support this idea that the officer should be tarred and feathered or whatever else people might suggest. I'm thinking that a little more training on his weapon might be in order.

LiquidTension
May 10, 2005, 05:18 PM
If that cop cant control a pregnant woman, that cop needs to find another job.

Uh, what sort of success have you had trying to control a pregnant woman? Hormones be raging at that stage...


The problem with Tazers is that since they are dubbed less lethal, cops will use them much quicker. If the cops DIDN'T have the Tazer, would they have shot her or smacked her around with their ASPs? Of course not. Well, hopefully not. Since it doesn't usually kill people, the Tazer is being used in situations where force may NOT have been used "back in the day."

Stupid woman + overreacting cops = headlines :rolleyes:

svtruth
May 10, 2005, 05:23 PM
Did she eventually sign the ticket? If not the Taser did not do its job.

Jeff White
May 10, 2005, 05:25 PM
I don't know what the law is in Washington State. But here in Illinois, a traffic offense is an arrest and being able to make bond at the scene of the arrest is a courtesy not a right.

I can accept $75.00 cash bond, an Illinois Drivers License, an insurance company bond card (if it's on the approved list) or I can mark the ticket Notice to Appear. If I do that, the driver must appear in court and loses the ability to plead guilty and pay the fine by mail or in person at the courthouse. It also adds court costs to the fine.

Out of state drivers, if they are from a compact state (i.e. a state that Illinois has a reciprocal agreement for fines, suspensions etc. with) may sign the ticket as a promise to comply. The circuit court where I work doesn't say anything if we let an Illinois driver sign a promise to comply and many officers, myself included, usually do that.

It seems to me that we have a similar situation here, in that the supervisor authorized the officers to make a custodial arrest if she didn't sign the ticket.

So what method would you have had the officers use to remove the non-compliant woman from her car? Pressure point control techniques? OC? Brute force?

Or should we just have a new standard and not bother to arrest anyone for minor infractions? I wasn't there and neither was anyone else who posted in this thread. So no one here is in any position to judge if the force used was consistant with her level of resistance.

What the heck, 32 in a 20 mph school zone isn't all that serious..it's only 12 mph over the limit and chances are some kid wouldn't run out in the street in front of her anyway.....what's a fatal car/pedestrian accidnet in the greater scheme of things, after all those brutish officers should have known she was running late, the parents of the child she might have killed are probably young enough to conceive another one....can't have all those JBTs in their short haircuts, boots and body armor delaying this woman who was obviously running late by trying to enforce the school zone speed limit which is probably unconstitutional anyway. :uhoh:

Jeff

AK-74me
May 10, 2005, 05:30 PM
The fact that she is pregnant is a non-issue.

Anyone could be pregnant, how is a cop always to know. So if a pregnant woman comes out her door and starts firing a gun at the officer in his patrol car is he suppose to treat her different than anyone else? Hell no.

I'll say it again. It is her responsibilty to act as though she is pregnant and take special precautions. Not expect exceptions because she is carrying a baby.

Look I just had a baby boy on the 4th and I understand , becasue of how protective I was when my Fiancee was pregnant but if she did something stupid like this, I can honestly say I would be pissed at her for acting like the complete moron, not the cop. It never would of got to that point if she would of used any kind of judgement.

GEM
May 10, 2005, 05:32 PM
The issue is her pregnancy and if the taser user constituted more force than reasonable given the risks to her.

Was it not said that she would take the ticket but not sign it. That is not resisting arrest in the sense of not coming along with the officer. That would have been a different situation. If she had signed the ticket she would have went on her way - at the same risk if she was let go having taken the ticket and not signed it. So I see no differential risk.

So with respect, Jeff - I think you overemphasize the importance of compliance here versus the potential risk. I don't see the predicted harm if she:

1. Takes the ticket without signing it
2. Takes the ticket with signing it.

If there is a risk for tasing a pregnant woman and her subsequent actions without signed compliance don't lessen your ability to go get her later or put the public at risk - then why risk the harm to her and fetus?

If it just a law and order must be obeyed - then all police discretion is suspect.

lunaslide
May 10, 2005, 05:32 PM
You will respect my AUTHORITY!

That's exactly what this is about. The attitude of the police here is "How DARE you say no to me!"

For a refresher course on how Seattle cops deal with problems, search on the WTO protests from a couple years ago that the police escalated into a riot. For all I care, those hippies can go suck a lemon. But one thing they were not wrong about was that the police deliberately attacked protesters to provoke a response.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of police no longer consider themselves part of the community, but rather think themselves above it. Instead of really talking to people and being involved in ways other than enforcement of laws, they view people not in uniform simply as potential criminals. This type of disconnect invariably leads to the type of actions we're talking about. Instead of seeing an irrational, uncooperative pregnant woman who broke a traffic law, this cop saw her as a threat to his authority and used a level of force that was uncalled for in bringing that threat into submission.

The primary reason that a military force should not be used as a police force, especially for it's own country's citizens, is that a disconnect and a seperate culture must be maintained for it to be effective in it's job of killing or supressing an enemy. Such a disconnect for a police force is unhealthy, because the wider that gap becomes, the more likely that police force will treat the people as mere chattel. In turn, the people will come to fear and loathe the police force, and rather than help it function in keeping law breakers out of the community, it will actively subvert their efforts, viewing them as a bigger enemy than the criminals around them.

outfieldjack
May 10, 2005, 05:36 PM
I am willing to bet that those who say it is fine would be the first to complain if it was their daughter or wife who for some reason did this and got tazed.

My wife would have ENOUGH SENSE to sign the ticket, instead of being a dumba$$.

Mongo the Mutterer
May 10, 2005, 05:47 PM
Almost all the posts assume that the officer knew this woman was pregnant. I got news guys, if she was a "big" woman, she could have been pregnant and not shown it. Remember Dave Barry's rule, unless you actually see a baby coming out of a woman, don't assume she is pregnant. :evil:

Seems to me both sides are at fault. There is more than the paper reports. I would be willing to be that this lady got very mouthy with the officer, and the officer overreacted. No excuse, he should have had better control of the situation.

kbheiner7
May 10, 2005, 05:56 PM
Are you guys reading what you are typing? It doesn't matter that she was pregnant? Boy, I'd hate to live in your world. Do you enjoy kicking puppies and spitting on children too?

Yeah, the lady, for whatever reason, didn't do the ideal thing. To me, that's not the issue.

She committed a very minor offense that was responded to with excessive force. I kinda think the taser was used because the officers weren't very well trained. How can two grown men not extract a pregnant woman from a car? "She wouldn't let go of the steering wheel!" What kind of candy-*** excuse is that?

This was not a drug dealer or gang-banger mouthing off or trying to cover up evidence from a suspicious officer.

A very important aspect of an LEOs job is to analyze risk. As someone mentioned earlier, there wasn't a lot of risk here except to the little officer's ego. If the lady failed to show for court, a warrant could have been issued. No big deal, no violence.

I really wish some cops would adhere to the old "protect and serve" creed that used to be painted on so many department cruisers. LEOs play an important role in law enforcement, but should remember that they themselves are not the law.

To all you good LEOs out there, please take my words with a grain of salt. They are written by a sincere, concerned citizen. I know a lot of great cops and the world is better because they serve.

Anytime we move more toward a police state, I think that's a bad thing.

I applaud the LEOs with the moral fortitude to stand up and tell the story when other cops screw up.

Jeff White
May 10, 2005, 06:03 PM
GEM,
You said;
I don't see the predicted harm if she:

1. Takes the ticket without signing it
2. Takes the ticket with signing it.

As I said earlier, I don't know what the law in Washington State is. It may be that the ticket would be invalid at the courthouse without her signature. Here I would mark the block for NOTICE TO APPEAR on the ticket and let her go on her way. If she chose to ignore it then, there would be a warrant for her arrest for Failure to Appear and her $75.00 fine would be $300 for the bond on the FTA, the original fine, plus court costs and a trip to the jail in handcuffs, which she probably would have resisted too. She would have been at least a month farther along in her pregnancy. So would you have the officer who encountered her after the FTA warrant had been issued to just backed off if she had resisted then? Perhaps we should just give offenders who are pregnant, old, have other medical problems immunity for the duration of their conditions? :rolleyes:

The fact is, the woman resisted arrest. The officers used the force necessary to effect the arrest. Was the force they used within accepted standards for the level of resistance she gave? I don't know, but the fact that no one was disciplined for it speaks volumes that the use of force was at least within the departments guidelines.

We can't have everyone deciding what laws they will obey and which ones they won't with no consequences. I've posted this in other threads before, but in most places you have no legal right to resist an arrest even if you know the arrest to be unlawful. You resist in court. If we let everyone just refuse to comply, we might as well not have any laws or peace officers.

There doesn't seem to be any dispute with the lawfulness of the arrest. The general consensus is that if you're pregnant then the law doesn't apply to you because it would look bad if your own actions caused the police to have to use some type of force.

Jeff

TRLaye
May 10, 2005, 06:07 PM
Based on the article that started this thread you have all, unless I missed it, been arguing for nothing.

By the articles description of what occurred she was not Tasered. A stun gun was used on her.

A Taser shoots needle like darts and then the trigger is pulled to administer the shock. The models I've seen do not have prongs that an arc can be drawn against. But stun guns do. At the beginning of the shift you hit the switch and if the stun prongs are not in contact with something other than air, an arc is generated between two contacts fairly close together. If the prongs are in contact with a less resistive substance than air then the charge goes through them.

This reporter was in rectal defilade and knew not what they wrote about and thus confused the current Taser controversy with technology we started using in the 80's.

As some one said. Pregnancy was not the issue. Non-compliance with a lawfully required order was the issue.

TechBrute
May 10, 2005, 06:09 PM
A Taser shoots needle like darts and then the trigger is pulled to administer the shock. The models I've seen do not have prongs that an arc can be drawn against. Tasers have backup contacts. Obviously, the more distance the better.

GEM
May 10, 2005, 06:25 PM
Pregnancy was not the issue. Non-compliance with a lawfully required order was the issue.

That's patently ridiculous. Why then do police break off chases if the danger seems to great?

Also, it flies in the face of the force continuum. And perhaps, we forget that one cannot use lethal force on a suspect who is fleeing unless you think they will be a grave danger if they get away.

Thus, there is clearly discretion exercised by officers based on situational risk. It is also silly to say that being pregnant or old means you can break the law. No - it means police should use their heads to miminize potential harm to the civilian in cases where there seems no danger.

I'm seeing the debate becoming one simply of police being offended. That the officers were not charged is not definitive. Police are reflexively defensive at first. We have a continuum of cover ups throughout history. Perhaps, seeing how this progresses will be more telling.

So if one takes off the 'law and order' hat, would getting her to sign the ticket be worth losing a child?

Now, somebody will say - YES, BECAUSE SHE WAS STUPID. I'm not comfortable with that as a decision principle. I would like a rationale up front why this risk may be acceptable.

If it is the case, that such instruments have no risk of bad consequences, then I'm wrong. If we don't know the risk, I'm unimpressed by simplistic law and order answers.

Vernal45
May 10, 2005, 06:34 PM
Anyone could be pregnant, how is a cop always to know.

SO, you are saying a trained police officer cant spot a lady that is 8 months pregnant? Wow, I bet an investigators job will be in his future.


So if a pregnant woman comes out her door and starts firing a gun at the officer in his patrol car is he suppose to treat her different than anyone else? Hell no.

So, now we are comparing apples to oranges. This woman did not use a gun, she just challenged the authority, did not respect the officer and hurt his tender little feelings. hmmm.

Vernal45
May 10, 2005, 06:36 PM
Not the first time this has happened.


http://www.nbc4.tv/news/3768716/detail.html
Police Accused Of Firing Taser At Pregnant Bride

NBC 4 | October 25, 2004

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.

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.

Blackburn
May 10, 2005, 06:37 PM
I am going to start a public webpage which lists the names and addresses of officers who do things like taze pregnant women and hold guns to their heads.

Vernal45
May 10, 2005, 06:39 PM
I guess Seattle PD ignores there own policy:

Seattle Police tighten Taser policy


SEATTLE -- Seattle police have tightened their policies on the use of stun guns called Tasers.

Under new directives that were announced over the weekend, officers must be especially careful before using the electric shock devices on those who are sick, pregnant, especially young or especially old.

In those cases, the new policy specifies that a need to stop criminal or risky behavior "should clearly justify" the additional risks of using a Taser.

In addition, the 220 officers who carry the devices must call a supervisor to the scene whenever a Taser is used three or more times on a person. Tasers have not officially been blamed for any deaths, but about 74 people have died after being jolted with the devices in the United States and Canada.

That includes deaths in Silverdale, Auburn and Olympia. Taser International insists the stun guns have been proven safe.

http://www.kptv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3164312

duckslayer
May 10, 2005, 06:49 PM
Phelps was charged with ... keeping a disorderly house

Does anyone else find this very disturbing?

AK-74me
May 10, 2005, 07:16 PM
You just don't get it!

Whether he knew she was pregnant or not is not the issue. So what if he knew this woman was pregnant. I don't know if he did or not. Maybe he couldn't see her belly, she was sitting in a car. I bet that 25% of the hogs we have in the country look almost identical pregnant or on their normal McDonalds and Starbucks diet. So there goes your argument on that front.


Not apples to oranges....

And why should anyone in whatever state they are be treated differently, it is you the individual responsibility to know if you should be more cautious for whatever reason.

That is like these idiots you see in these chases with police while there 2 yr old son is in the back seat. It is not the Cops responsibility to know that there is a child in the back. If the pursuing officer performs a PIT manuver and the child ends up dying in the ensuing accident I guess you would want to bring up the cop on manslaughter charges too huh?

It is the same thing.

kbheiner7
May 10, 2005, 07:17 PM
The last report I heard was that over 100 people have died within a week after being hit with a taser. That's way too many people to die after "non-lethal force" is used against them.

Regarding the second story, why on earth did the officer chase the young bride into the home? Because she ran? The office that ran into the home is darn lucky to be alive.

I'm starting to think cops shouldn't have tasers at all. It's like a new toy that some officers just have to try out. :cuss:

Once again, I feel the need to apologize to the good LEOs out there. I hope at least some of you understand that these situations from a private citizens' perspective. You guys are fighting a losing battle and it'd be nice if you had as many of us on your side as possible.

1 more quick LEO story, and I'll drop the issue.

My first real run in with an LEO came when I was 10 or 11. I was shooting my pellet gun in my back yard when a concerned neighbor must have called the police.

While the officers did not come to the house with sirens blazing, they did whip into the drive way hard enough to screech the tires.

Two city officers walked around to the back yard where my friend and I were shooting cans and dirt clods.

The officers asked us to put the gun down and walk over and talk to them. We promptly did so.

The senior officer proceeded to tell me that it was illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits. I said "No problem, this isn't a firearm, it's an airgun." He then changed his story and said that it was illegal to launch a projectile of any kind within the city limits. I knew this wasn't the case because my father had checked the regulations and they stipulated "firearm." I proceeded to ask if it was OK to play baseball, football and other dangerous projectile launching games within city limits. That set him off, but my friend and I were laughing by then. He tried telling me that my pellet gun was as dangerous as his sidearm at close range and shouldn't be used by kids. He left saying that if I was caught shooting my pellet gun again, my dad and I would get a ticket.

I retold the whole story to my dad that night and he was ticked. He reverified the ordinance about firearms and gave me free run of the back yard with my gun.

I think that experience really soured my original thoughts about LEOs. Thankfully, only a few years later I came to know a few guys that were great men and good cops that had more important things to do than make up ficticious laws about kids and BB guns.

kbheiner7
May 10, 2005, 07:25 PM
AK-74me:

If the officer in your scenario could see the kid in the suspects back seat, don't you think he/she would have a responsibility to act differently?

I suspect that if the pursuit car had a dash camera showing the kid and LEOs still chased the suspect causing a wreck and killing the kid that the case would go to trial the the cops would lose BIG.

There was a case several years ago where an LEO chased a stolen vehicle through a residential area. The suspect hit a kid in that neighborhood during the chase. Know who got sued and lost? It wasn't the guy in the stolen car. The officer, department and taxpayer lost - bigtime.

AK-74me
May 10, 2005, 07:38 PM
Just because in that case the police department lost, doesn't mean it is just. I am aware that cops will stop chases when they feel too many people are in danger. I however don't agree with the police dept. getting blamed in cases such as the one you describe. We all know how messed up the Justice system in the country is so no those kind of cases don't change my mind.

Like I said, in the inital story we were talking about here. Had that woman been my wife or mother or anyone in my family I would expect them to have the sense, pregnant or not, agreeing with the officer or not, to do what the cop said and tried to fight it in court. I have no sympathy for people in these kind of situations no matter who they are.

Hoe about we start treating, O I don't know, something arbitrary, like people who have a termnially ill child at home different too.

romulus
May 10, 2005, 07:59 PM
What the heck, 32 in a 20 mph school zone isn't all that serious..it's only 12 mph over the limit and chances are some kid wouldn't run out in the street in front of her anyway.....what's a fatal car/pedestrian accidnet in the greater scheme of things,
Am I wrong to assume the car was traveling at zero miles per hour when the taser was applied? No one said it was unreasonable to stop the vehicle, which would have been free to continue on its merry way post sig.

The State's got everything it needs to bring the lady in if she failed to appear. This is ab-surd...

shoot870p
May 10, 2005, 08:16 PM
so now we have a speeder (in a school zone) not willing to accept the ticket that she appears to have won for safe driving and we may want to spend a little time sending LEO to her home to inform her that she did not attend court. seems a waste of resources to me. she takes the ticket and we all move on. also better than 50% overage in speed allowed (70 mph on interstate allows "overage" of 35 so we allow a 105 speed?)

kujo929
May 10, 2005, 08:34 PM
first off a taser operates as a stun gun if you remove the air cartridge. This is obviously what the officer used. As a contact device (ie. without the cartridge) the taser is much less effective and comes down to being a pain compliance device only.

Personally I do not plan to ever use a taser on a woman. This does not mean I feel they shouldn't be used but simply because of the way it sounds when the story is twisted to the public.

This is obviously not about an officers ego and anyone who believes that has never worked in law enforcement. The officer tried to explain the situation to her, when that didn't work another officer tried to explain it. The officers then took the time to call their supervisor and their supervisor made the decision for the female to be arrested. This obviously took all discretion away from the 2 officers involved. Disobeying a direct order from a supervisor is grounds for termination from every department I know of. The Officers then told the subject she was being arrested and she resisted arrest. It sounds like the officers did everything to talk the woman out and then tried to physically remove her gently. (Obviously they were concerned for her safety by the simple fact they didn't just rip her out of the car). The Officer shows her the taser and demonstrates it for her. Now if you believe her when she says she didn't know what it was then there is no point even trying to reason with You.

My department had a situation where a pregnant woman was tased. Officers attempted to arrest a family member and when he resisted multiple family members attacked the police to keep them from arresting the subject. One subject tried to take an officers gun and the pregnant female attempted to take the other officers taser. Do you anti-police people think that would deserve getting tased? By most department policies this would qualify for lethal force not just tasing.

The female in my situation was not visibly pregnant. I also know you can not always tell if someone is pregnant as everyone is built different and I routinely can not tell until they say they are.

What do you believe could really harm the fetus more, the mother being tased and taken into custody without further struggle. Or the mother engaging in an argument and physical fight with police officers?

Like I said earlier I consider my taser as a last resort before my firearm but that is just me and that is not the use police departments intend for the taser. Keep in mind there has not been a single death that was accounted soley from a taser regardless of what the media tries to claim.

Patience and people skills are probably the most important attributes for an Officer but when all is said and done you still have to do your job. When dealing with people who hate the police verbal requests usually don't go very far. Fortunately this incident was probably audio and video recorded so I don't expect there will be any lawsuits when the tape is shown of what actually occurred in a court.

It drives me crazy that our country allows people to act like a maniac and break whatever laws they choose and then turn around and blame the outcome on the police and sue.

kujo929
May 10, 2005, 08:39 PM
OH by the way I call BS on the story of the Officer going to prison for kidnapping in the incident mentioned about pursing and arresting a subject across state lines. If that officer was charged there are obviously alot of details you left out.

crossing state lines does not make you immune from arrest. However if you run from police across state lines you will be turned over to that jurisiction your are in until you are extradited back to the state of the offense. The police are not required to stop at the state line.

Combat-wombat
May 10, 2005, 08:43 PM
This woman was obviously having a bad day. She acted quite stupidly in her confrontation with the officer, but we all make mistakes once in a while. I'm not supporting what she did at all though. However,
TASERS ARE NOT A COMPLIANCE TOOL.

When we see so many incidents of this where the police use them as such, that IS an indication of a police state. It's equivalent to torture.

Tasers should only be used as a gun substitute- and that's the argument for them ("it'll save lives because officers won't have to use their guns"). Would the officer have shot the woman? Of course not. The argument for less-lethal weapons becomes less valid when there's incident after incident of tasers being used to gain compliance.

TechBrute
May 10, 2005, 08:47 PM
so now we have a speeder (in a school zone) not willing to accept the ticket that she appears to have won for safe driving and we may want to spend a little time sending LEO to her home to inform her that she did not attend court. seems a waste of resources to me. she takes the ticket and we all move on.

Brooks, in her testimony, said she believed she could accept a ticket without signing for it, which she had done once before.

"I said, 'Well, I'll take the ticket, but I won't sign it,' " Brooks testified.

also better than 50% overage in speed allowed (70 mph on interstate allows "overage" of 35 so we allow a 105 speed?) Are you for real? :banghead: Who thinks that percentages is how we get overages? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

35 is likely the normal speed limit in that zone outside of school hours.

coylh
May 10, 2005, 08:59 PM
I didn't read the whole thread... but I'm curious to find out if they finally got the lady to give a urine sample? ;)

Old Dog
May 10, 2005, 09:59 PM
I dunno ... I just caught an interview with the suspect on one of Seattle's network newscasts and she didn't come across as too credible; additionally, SPD (a department currently run by a well-known ex-FBI politician and notorious for hanging its officers out to dry) issued another statement standing by the use of the Taser, so I'm thinking SPD is being political by not issuing countercharges (i.e., the suspect acted violently) while the woman is setting up her lawsuit ...
Tasers not compliance tools? Negative, Ghostrider ... As long as they're out there, that's how they're going to be used.
When we see so many incidents of this where the police use them as such, that IS an indication of a police state. It's equivalent to torture. Ah, every good cop-bash ... er, critiqueing thread must contain contain the phrase "police state." I feel quite qualified to state (living in close proximity to Seattle and spending beaucoup spare time there) that it just doesn't come close to producing the anxiety in me I felt while traveling around in real police states.

kujo929
May 10, 2005, 10:22 PM
TASERS ARE A COMPLIANCE TOOL!!!

That is exactly what they are. They are a tool to gain compliance in completing an arrest or for defense against a combative subject. Where is the confusion on this? If you have any questions about it simply go to your nearest police department that uses tasers and ask for information on the use of force policy and information on the effect of the taser.

I can only speak for my department but we are authorized to use the taser even in situations where pepper spay is not authorized. At least here, if you resist arrest that is grounds for being tased.

As I stated earlier I can gain compliance for an arrest 99% of the time through verbal commands and explanation alone and if not I choose to go hands on before relying on the taser. However that is my personal choice and I do not have to. Some Officers may choose to use the taser before going hands on. That is their choice and they have the right to protect themselves as they seem necessary as long as it is within legal and department guidlines.

Blackburn
May 10, 2005, 10:25 PM
TASERS ARE A COMPLIANCE TOOL!!!

No, they aren't, and I said that they aren't back around page two.

Arc-Lite
May 10, 2005, 10:40 PM
so ....she says she is worried about the police hurting her baby.....ahhhh guess SHE forgot she was pregnant....no responsibility there.

pezo
May 10, 2005, 10:46 PM
The biggest tragedy is that poor unborn child is going to be raised into adulthood by that idiot.

kujo929
May 10, 2005, 11:05 PM
Blackburn & Combat-Wombat,

Call a taser a "non-lethal" weapon if you want but they are a compliance tool. I explained the reasoning for this in my post. If you have any confusion on this feel free to pm or email me and we can discuss it without changing the discussion of this thread.

David W. Gay
May 10, 2005, 11:06 PM
There are two tragedies here:

1) The Officers actions.

2) That ANYONE thinks that the officers actions are the least bit reasonable or acceptable.

So she refused to sign - BFD. Many communities across this nation issues 10's of thousands of tickets each year with nothing more than a couple of photo's as proof. No tickets are signed until possibly received in the mail. In this instance, the cop should have simply dropped the ticket in her car and left.

As for those yelling "yea but it was a school zone." - maybe we should just ban those evil cars all together in school zones, you know, "for the children".

Carry on.

Akusp
May 10, 2005, 11:11 PM
About a year ago I was involved in a road rage incident. I accidentally (honestly) cut off a car while changing lanes. (A witness later reported that her car was speeding and weaving in and out of traffic) I checked my mirror and nobody was there, as I was halfway into the lane I heard a horn.. and seeing a vehicle I returned to my lane. The vehicle pulled up next to me and I expected a gesture or salute or whatever. The windows on the vehicle were tinted so I couldn't see the driver. I shrugged and mouthed the word "sorry" trying to make amends. After a few seconds, the car swerved into me and ran me off the road into a convenience store parking lot. Smashed up the drivers side pretty good. After catching my breath I called 911 to report the incident. I ended up driving a couple of blocks to the police station so an officer could look at my vehicle and take a statement. Guess who was already there! A huge angry woman complaining of being attacked by a "white guy." The lobby was in chaos as this woman tried to incite a riot. Every time an officer tried to calm her she went crazy. I was talking to a dispatcher on my phone as I walked in and she went off on me as "the white guy with the cell phone!" (I don't talk on the phone and drive in case you are wondering if my cell phone contributed to my inattention) From that point on she raved about the "white guy with the cell phone".... he started it and he gets nothing...you are coming after me because I'm black... An officer finally told her that her skin color didn't make a difference. Her word meant as much as his (mine) in his book. But...a witness had called in reporting the incident and verifying my version of events. Well then she really got bent...yelling and hollering about how unfair it was after all..."He started it!!" He tried to tell her that part(my actions) appeared to be accidental while her actions appeared to be intentional.

The officer explained that she was going to be arrested but that they would immediately release her on her promise to appear at a hearing. That set off another tirade. She was eventually charged with felony assault, driving without insurance and a few lesser charges. She acknowledged that she had a temper and did in fact have a prior conviction for assault. BTW...turns out that she was 8 months pregnant but she was so large that you couldn't tell by looking at her. I was carrying that night and if that crazy woman had cornered me I would without a doubt have shot her. She was flat out scary. Incidentally, I had to leave my weapon in my my car as the police station is posted.

I am not making excuses for the police in this case... I wasn't there. I do know that I will never assume that a pregnant woman is NOT dangerous :)

MechAg94
May 10, 2005, 11:26 PM
I guess I have no problem with the initial actions of the police and the decision that she was to be arrested. Arrests happen quite a bit when you argue with officers and get combative with them. There is nothing new about this. If anything, officers are under more limits now than they ever have. Common sense says you should remain polite and do what they tell you. There is plenty of time to complain about rights later.

Maybe someone can correct me, but here are the choices I see that the officers have once arrest is resisted.

1. Shoot her..
2. Beat her with a nightstick.
3. Beat her with their hands.
4. Use a stun gun or a taser.
5. Surround the car and leave her until she calms down.

I seriously doubt #5 is an option short of a hostage situation in most cases. As for the first 4, only one of those is very unlikely to cause injury. What would you rather see in headline: Police Beat Pregnant Woman or Police Taser on Pregnant Woman? I think the officers would be more likely to get in trouble using the first 3.

Basically, if you have a problem with all this, nailing the officer to the wall is not the answer. Getting the Govt to change the procedures for using stun guns or writing tickets is the thing to do.

I guess I am picturing the alternative here as something like the Rodney King video. A little extreme maybe, but the taser to me is the officers only real alternative to physical violence that could cause serious injury.

Arc-Lite
May 10, 2005, 11:35 PM
Akusp.... that was a good story, and you told it in a funny manner (hope that was your intention)...guess it just goes to show, the worse the experience...the better the story.

Akusp
May 11, 2005, 12:02 AM
Arc-lite,

Thanks, I always try to find a little humor. Life seems easier that way.

Randy

yy
May 11, 2005, 03:34 AM
[There doesn't seem to be any dispute with the lawfulness of the arrest. ]-Jeff White


I will go ahead and opin that the arrest was unlawful because the speeding ticket was wrong due to the fruit of the poisnous tree principle/doctrine (I infer a lack of direct endangerment/imminent danger from the article, "late dropping off a school kid", and the lack of a endangerment charge) .
Let me be the first to point out that issuing a speeding ticket (and the speed-limit law) is morally wrong: It is an arbitrary tax without representation and motivated by greed in my book if the citing officer cannot legally get the driver for reckless driving and/or endangering others.

Speed limit laws (as opposed to rules against reckless driving) on all levels of government has only resulted in a get-even/get-ahead mentality in this driver. The first ever ticket set me behind and I could never be made whole. So I consider every yard driven at some speed above the posted speed limit to be an attempt to try to restore myself.

I have a dim view of speed limits in light of its ineffectiveness at inducing me to *want* to slow down and its uselessness at preventing/punishing those reckless drivers weaving in and out of traffic. I'm trying to express a sense of getting picked on as in: "I don't see the reckless drivers pulled over but I do know that I'm pulled over for driving the speed of traffic in a group of fast cars."

Jeff White
May 11, 2005, 04:02 AM
Blackburn said about tasers being compliance tools;

No, they aren't, and I said that they aren't back around page two.

Excuse me, but I'd be curious to know who died and left you in charge of writing use of force policy for every police department in the country. Because we never did get the memo that you were in charge where I work. :banghead:

Let me tell you something right now my friend, just about every tool an officer has in his tool box is a compliance tool. You, our employer have given them to us so that we can do our job and enforce the laws you pass. You,our employer have given us the statutory authority to take people into custody for violating the laws you passed (through your elected representatives) and bringing them before the courts to answer for their actions.

Yes, those tools are for our personal defense, but most often they are used to make someone comply with our request that they accompany us to the jail. Believe it or not, many people don't want to go to jail :what: ! I know, shocking isn't it... :uhoh:

So when someone fails to comply with a request that they sign the ticket, then that person has escalated the situation their own free will, It looks to me that just in case the woman had a problem with the officer who originally made contact, they sent a second officer to explain it to her. Then they sent a supervisor. So now after 3 officers explained the procedure to her, she still was going to refuse to comply. At that point, the decision was made to arrest her. It's here that most of you think the officers should have just folded their tent and went home. Why? Because she was pregnant? Because it was just a speeding ticket. You know I looked and my copy of the vehicle code doesn't exempt pregnant women from the school zone speed limit laws. In fact, it's not even an affirmative defense.

So we are at the point where the woman who by her own decision decided that she was going to take a ride to jail instead of signing the ticket, is told that she now has to step out of the car and come with the officers. And she refuses. So the officer can go hands on, and bodily drag her from the car. So perhaps you'd prefer if they broke a couple of her fingers prying them away from the wheel. Or an officer could have used pressure point control techniques, perhaps he could have placed his knuckle under her nose and held her head with his other hand and cranked in the pressure on the infra orbital pressure point. He could have lifted up and her body most likely would have followed her head out of the car. Or they could have opened the door and used batons as come alongs to get her out of the car. Perhaps a shot or two of OC. But they used an evil taser. I would bet that we'd have never heard about this arrest if they had used any other method to effect the arrest. Tasers are evil, a torture tool of the devil, so says Amnesty International...so you can guarantee that any use of that will look bad will get plenty of press.

The same campaign was run against OC, by these very same people. After a few years OC became an accepted rung on the force continuum ladder. I have no doubt that once all the coddlers have had their say and all the handwringing is done, the taser will be just as accepted.

Jeff

Yooper
May 11, 2005, 04:04 AM
I wasn't there so I don't know for certain what happened, but her pregnancy is not the responsibility of the authorities. She had choices, whether or not to speed, resist arrest, etc. I'm not aware of any law giving pregnant women free license to do anything they please. Most have the common sense not to push their luck under the circumstances.

tomkatz
May 11, 2005, 04:12 AM
Very interesting for sure....I still say comply with what an officer requests of you, providing it is a reasonable request, and you'll drive away....it has always worked for me.....tom

Jeff White
May 11, 2005, 04:20 AM
yy said;
I will go ahead and opin that the arrest was unlawful because the speeding ticket was wrong due to the fruit of the poisnous tree principle/doctrine

How did they get the evidence she was speeding illegally? Last I checked, you didn't need a warrant or even probable cause to hit a vehicle with a radar beam or laser.

(I infer a lack of direct endangerment/imminent danger from the article, "late dropping off a school kid", and the lack of a endangerment charge)

What does this have to do with anything?

Speed limit laws (as opposed to rules against reckless driving) on all levels of government has only resulted in a get-even/get-ahead mentality in this driver. The first ever ticket set me behind and I could never be made whole. So I consider every yard driven at some speed above the posted speed limit to be an attempt to try to restore myself.

I think in some places you could make a case that driving 32 mph through a school zone, where young children may run out into the street was in fact reckless endangerment. Why don't you try to fight the next ticket you get on that basis? :neener:

Jeff

Blackburn
May 11, 2005, 04:34 AM
Dear Mr. White:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=133771&highlight=compliance

romulus
May 11, 2005, 04:38 AM
I've learned two good lessons lurking on this thread...first, that we should interpret violations of the law, including violations of the civil codex, in an absolutist fashion. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and jaywalking should be handled with the same force as battery. Second, if we question the actions of an officer of the law in the questionable handling of a minor civil offense, we are cop-bashers...

What a kafkaesque load of tripe

10 Ring Tao
May 11, 2005, 05:08 AM
I guess I won't go into how ridiculous a ticket for 32 mph is.

LiquidTension
May 11, 2005, 05:37 AM
Anybody with even the basic joint lock training that police get at the academy could have pried her hands off the wheel with relative ease, especially since there were two officers - one for each hand. The article didn't say she was violently resisting (throwing punches, etc.). Heck, I learned some painful, non-damaging finger locks that would have done the trick on my second trip to a dojo :rolleyes:

Obviously, since I wasn't there this is just speculation, but based on the information provided and the officer's quote I don't see the necessity of the Tazer. Now, if they had curled her fingers up a bit and she started biting or something, Taze away. Maybe they tried this and the article didn't mention it, I don't know. Just a thought, and at least I recognize that I'm not an expert :)

Jeff White
May 11, 2005, 05:53 AM
Blackburn, posting something in a thread in big multicolored letters doesn't make it so. Every less lethal tool they give us is to gain compliance with. The threat of use of the lethal tools are also used to gain compliance.

It would be nice if everyone was civil and always complied with things like signing tickets. This woman is not the victim here. She made a consious choice to take the actions she did. And she paid the price.

Like I said in my earlier post, if almost any other tool but the taser was used, no one would have heard about this incident. It wouldn't be news.

Why don't you guys all go petition your state legislators for a law granting women immunity from the consequences of their own stupidity for the terms of their pregnancy. Or better yet, make them immune from prosecution for high crimes and misdemeanors during the term of their pregnancy. We surely can't have them getting in confrontations with the law during this time of their lives and since some of them don't have the sense not to do it on their own, lets just keep the police from interacting with them, lest it upset the unborn child.

Jeff

Mongo the Mutterer
May 11, 2005, 07:25 AM
Old Dog,

Two questions. One, did she look pregnant? Or is she a big girl?

Two, was she screaming about her "rights"? :confused:

Arc-Lite
May 11, 2005, 11:14 AM
This being america, with everyone free to have their own opinions, and this being a forum which allows any idea to be posted free of charge.... here is an idea...for those speaking from theory, why not go out, and live these words you speak.... if you think speeding is acceptable.... go for it, and when your stopped, refuse to sign the ticket, taste the tazer, feel the handcuffs, get booked, eat the jail food, see the inside of the courts.... speak of your personal interpretation of "your" rights, to anyone ... go for it !! Theory stops, where experience begins.. Go experience ...it will be GOOD for you !!!!

TechBrute
May 11, 2005, 11:25 AM
This being america, with everyone free to have their own opinions, and this being a forum which allows any idea to be posted free of charge.... here is an idea...for those speaking from theory, why not go out, and live these words you speak.... if you think speeding is acceptable.... go for it, and when your stopped, refuse to sign the ticket, taste the tazer, feel the handcuffs, get booked, eat the jail food, see the inside of the courts.... speak of your personal interpretation of "your" rights, to anyone ... go for it !! Theory stops, where experience begins.. Go experience ...it will be GOOD for you !!!! Ahh, genius speaks... :rolleyes:

What does getting arrested have to do with "your" rights? If you ask me, this sounds like a commercial by a cop saying, "If you are thinking of acting out, you'll only do it once. Then you'll be too afraid to think you have rights, anymore."

Arc-Lite
May 11, 2005, 11:32 AM
Tech.... real simple THEORY vs EXPERIENCE, might want to read ALL the words in the post, take notes if needed.

J Miller
May 11, 2005, 11:40 AM
I've read this from the start and I have an idea that might have worked.

Placing someone under arrest entails restraining them, but maybe not by handcuffing them and putting them in the back seat of a patrol car.

A bit of inginuity could have settled this without violence of any kind. Since there was time to call in another officer and a supervisor, call in some older police vehicles, or city service trucks, then simply roll the vehicles up against the sides, front and back of her car and block her in. There, she's restrained. She can't move her car, she can't open the door, she can't leave. Sure she could try to ram her way out, but that just adds charges to the list.

Tell her the blocking vehicles will be moved when she surrenders and not untill.

With a child in the back seat who will soon be crying and screaming at the top of his lungs, a baby in her belly pressing on her bladder, it won't take long for her to realize just how much she's hurting.

As long as the officers are pushing her, she pushes back, so if they back off and give her time to think the situation can be settled.

I've noticed though that most LEOs cannot wait. They seem to have to use force as soon as possible. The idea of securing the are the person is in, the backing off and letting the perp think it through is disapearing from the tactics books.

Just a thought .........

Joe

Old Dog
May 11, 2005, 11:42 AM
Two questions. One, did she look pregnant? Or is she a big girl?
Well, to be charitable, she was sitting down ... didn't look petite at all, could have been a "plus" size gal. I suspect it would have been difficult for a cop to discern her pregnant status when she was sitting in her car. Anyway, from her demeanor and what she said, seemed like she'd been coached by a lawyer and was setting up her lawsuit "I just can't believe they would use a Taser on a pregnant woman." Her grandfather was even given a chance to inject his two cents about the SPD ...

TechBrute
May 11, 2005, 11:44 AM
Tech.... real simple THEORY vs EXPERIENCE, might want to read ALL the words in the post, take notes if needed. Well, I'm kind of slow, so why don't you explain how this "experience" is supposed to change my view of my rights? It really does look like you're saying that once you've experienced being tazed, arrested, booked, etc, that you'll think twice before you try to exercise a right. It truely sounds like the words of an opressor. Maybe YOU need to read ALL the word in the post...

Old Dog
May 11, 2005, 11:50 AM
I've noticed though that most LEOs cannot wait. They seem to have to use force as soon as possible.
Just out of curiosity, how did you arrive at this conclusion? Do you personally have a lot of encounters with law enforcement? Hang out in the bad parts of town in the wee hours? Or just watch COPS on your local Fox station a lot?
really does look like you're saying that once you've experienced being tazed, arrested, booked, etc, that you'll think twice before you try to exercise a right. It truely sounds like the words of an opressor.
Whoa, dude ... suffering the consequences of breaking the law is "exercising a right?" Words of an oppressor? Whoa ...

TechBrute
May 11, 2005, 11:56 AM
suffering the consequences of breaking the law is "exercising a right?" exercising a right and breaking the law are not mutually exclusive. You can be arrested for exercising a right, or you can be arrested for breaking the law, or, in the case of Rosa Parks, exercising a right was breaking the law. The two are not exclusive of another.

GEM
May 11, 2005, 12:10 PM
We are going around in circles.

The officers and folks stuck in Kohlberg's stage 4 of Law and Order as the highest level of morality speak only about authority and compliance. They won't get off it and have to fight the well known tendency of officers not criticize actions of others.

This is the central issue.

1. Could the taser be a significant threat to the fetus and to the mom?
2. If so, was the level of infraction - not signing a ticket - worth this threat?
3. It is clear that police have discretion in the level of force used based on risk to all involved. Did this officer not use proper judgement on use of force given the risk?

All the rest of the issues raised are hot air. If an officer doesn't speak to the specific points I raised, and only speak to 'authority' and 'respect' - they are missing the boat and need to break this mindset.

Police are given society's permission to use force in appropriate circumstances. They are not mandated by the law to demand 'respect'. That is their own personal business and really inappropriate. I want you to do your job. I don't give a crap about ego issues.

If you think not signing a ticket is 'disrespect' which justifies potential lethal harm - why not just shoot her? You can't say that this level of force is justified by not following a lawful order. You can't shoot someone in the back for fleeing unless in very specific circumstances. Thus, the legal order rhetoric is not relevant.

Arc-Lite
May 11, 2005, 12:18 PM
Tech....no missed it again, I will tell you what I am saying, no help needed, or your words to be added... with a theory it is based on your beliefs / theory... with experience you have tested that belief / theory. Your FREE to make your own choice, or theory.... and your FREE to experience the consequence (good or bad) of that choice or theory. I am for the rights of all... experience helps to clarify life.

romulus
May 11, 2005, 12:40 PM
Why don't you guys all go petition your state legislators for a law granting women immunity from the consequences of their own stupidity for the terms of their pregnancy. Or better yet, make them immune from prosecution for high crimes and misdemeanors during the term of their pregnancy. We surely can't have them getting in confrontations with the law during this time of their lives and since some of them don't have the sense not to do it on their own, lets just keep the police from interacting with them, lest it upset the unborn child.
??????You really don't get it...no one is saying that a pregnant woman should have some statutory protection from arrest. But arrest her, or anyone for that matter, for a real offense! Witholding a John Hancock is now an offense, such a high crime, deserving of arrest? You crazy????

It seems cops expect lauds and plauds whatever their actions...stunningly some seem confused and perplexed when law-abiding citizens are revulsed by the abusive and stupid actions of their colleagues, their confraternity. Time for an examination of conscience, folks...

centac
May 11, 2005, 12:47 PM
The infraction she was Tazed for was resisting arrest. By that time she had had all the opportunity to sign the ticket she would get. I know in my case that once the decision to arrest has been made, game over - we cannot "unarrest" people.

As often as her name gets trotted out here, we need a Rosa Parks smiley. She must be the patron saint of white middle class male gun owners, a group that I am certain would have stood by her in the 60's. :uhoh:

TechBrute
May 11, 2005, 12:51 PM
As often as her name gets trotted out here, we need a Rosa Parks smiley. She must be the patron saint of white middle class male gun owners, a group that I am certain would have stood by her in the 60's. I don't know who would or wouldn't have stood by her, but I certainly know who arrested her. :D

romulus
May 11, 2005, 12:54 PM
The infraction she was Tazed for was resisting arrest. yeah... :banghead:

it was the arrest itself, before the tazing, for failing to sign, that is stupid and revolting. The tazing is icing on the cake.

TheEgg
May 11, 2005, 12:57 PM
And all of this, because she would not sign a stupid piece of paper???????

So sad.


Oh, I forgot -- Western Civilisation would have collapsed if they had let her get away with that defiance of authority.

Atticus
May 11, 2005, 01:01 PM
Where's Johnny Cochran when you need him.....oh yeah he got tasered by the big guy.
Why is it that some people act outside the norm, and then are amazed when they receive treatment outside the norm?

TechBrute
May 11, 2005, 01:02 PM
Why is it that some people act outside the norm, and then are amazed when they receive treatment outside the norm? The problem is letting the cops decide what the norm is.

Arc-Lite
May 11, 2005, 01:20 PM
Tech...Ok, you have the floor, quit mixing mud...and tell us...about normal !!!!

jsalcedo
May 11, 2005, 01:21 PM
Where's Johnny Cochran when you need him.....oh yeah he got tasered by the big guy.
Ok. that got a snort out of me.

Now to add some heat....

Now picture a 5ft tall petite pregnant white woman in a minivan getting tazed for not signing and not letting go of her steering wheel.

Unfortunately I believe the JBT cheerleaders would be whistling
a different tune and the broadcast media would be all over it like a vulture
on a s*** truck.

TechBrute
May 11, 2005, 01:22 PM
Tech...Ok, you have the floor, quit mixing mud...and tell us...about normal !!!! Pregnant women being irrational is normal. :D

jsalcedo
May 11, 2005, 01:25 PM
Pregnant women being irrational is normal.

Ding Ding Ding

Give that man a cigar!

Arc-Lite
May 11, 2005, 01:47 PM
Tech...I think your going to get 100% support on that point, and I would guess that is her "right" with her husband, boy friend, or seed donor.

kbheiner7
May 11, 2005, 03:03 PM
:what: I really can't believe some of the comments in this thread.

Some of us whacky private citizens thing it's a cops' job to take scum off the streets, not shock a pregnant woman with 50,000 volts of electricity because she won't sign a speeding ticket. Is that really the same to some of you guys as a meth head resisting arrest? If there is no difference to any of you, the rest of us have more reason to fear the state of our country than I thought.

Sad. :(

Ol' Badger
May 11, 2005, 03:06 PM
What if she is a pregnat meth head not signing the ticket? I've seen a few of them around here pergos on Harley's!

bradvanhorn
May 11, 2005, 03:06 PM
This thread is an interesting read...

I think what bugs me the most about this whole story is the decision to arrest the woman. I'm a law-abiding kinda guy, and I see the need for upholding the law, but I really don't comprehend why the police decided to arrest a woman for not signing a speeding ticket. Perhaps the statute says you absolutely must arrest the offender in a situation like this, I don't know either way in this case. Regardless, in my opinion (which carries no weight of law of course) it is completely absurd to arrest someone for not signing their ticket. Let's give this some perspective for a second - in various locales they send people their photo ticket by U.S. mail for speeding, running red lights, etc! Those people didn't sign their tickets, and no one is at their door waiting to arrest them.

I understand the need for speed limits, writing tickets, appearing in court, and heck I even understand (and will generally agree with) giving someone an introduction to the Tazer for resisting arrest. What no one has been able to do here is offer any reasonable argument (except blind obedience to the law) for why they decided to arrest this woman for not signing her ticket. In my mind this does not pass the common sense test (although I recognize common sense and the law often don't coincide).

Someone else here already said about the same thing I'm going to say, "Ma'am I'm writing here you refused to sign this ticket. If you fail to appear in court on this matter we will issue a warrant for your arrest, and then the next time you are stopped you will go to jail. My car is equipped with a video camera, so all this is on tape and will be available for presentation to the judge. Please drive safely, and have a nice day." (Hand her the ticket and walk away.)

However, I will also add it appears this woman failed to use any form of common sense as well. Whether she was being difficult because of hormones or her just being a beotch is frankly irrelevant to me. Smile at the officer, sign the dang ticket, then go home and eat peanut butter and pickles or something. I disagree with the concept of arresting this woman for failing to sign a piece of paper, but she got the Tazer because once they made the decision to arrest, in my opinion her decision making was just as bad as the officers.

Arc-Lite
May 11, 2005, 03:31 PM
Once there was some room an officer could give to a citizen...and a citizen could give to the officer....now there is little, or no room.... sad yes, but also the present reality of our law suit society. make your choice, pay your dues.

kbheiner7
May 11, 2005, 04:09 PM
Perhaps a question to pose LEOs here is: What will you do when/if guns are outlawed? Will you arrest your fellow High Roaders because it's the law, or follow a higher moral compass?

JohnBT
May 11, 2005, 04:26 PM
"Witholding a John Hancock is now an offense, such a high crime, deserving of arrest? You crazy????"

Not new; been an offense since at least back when I was a pup over a half-century ago and probably longer. Write your politicians to change the law and please quit blaming the police for doing their job.

Thank you.

John

Arc-Lite
May 11, 2005, 04:50 PM
Keep in mind, these SAME officers,under different circumstances could have been delivering this mad womans baby... saviors when needed monsters when not.

TechBrute
May 11, 2005, 05:18 PM
Keep in mind, these SAME officers,under different circumstances could have been delivering this mad womans baby... saviors when needed monsters when not. That's ok. The same group stands up every chance they get and bashes the cops, while another group stands up and says the cops are right now matter how atrocious their behavior.

I've found that a good guage on reality is that second group. If they are circling the wagons, then there might be something to their arguement. When the cop is so obviously in the wrong that even they can see it, they are nowhere to be found.

TheEgg
May 11, 2005, 05:27 PM
Perhaps a question to pose LEOs here is: What will you do when/if guns are outlawed? Will you arrest your fellow High Roaders because it's the law, or follow a higher moral compass?

This is just my opinion:

The vast majority of law enforcement officers will enforce whatever orders they are given.

Old Dog
May 11, 2005, 06:12 PM
Some of y'all are startin' to crack me up ...
Perhaps a question to pose LEOs here is: What will you do when/if guns are outlawed? Will you arrest your fellow High Roaders because it's the law, or follow a higher moral compass?
How did we there from here? What the heck does that have to do with a pregnant woman getting zapped with a Taser? Looks to me me like this is just an indicator of a certain general opinion of law enforcement on the part of some of the forum members present ...

For the record, I never said the cop who Tasered the woman was correct in what he did; I did, however, mention that we do not know how the woman was really behaving or what sort of action she was displaying ... Awful lot of judgements being made by an awful lot of folks who were not participants or witnesses to the actual incident. Well, I can understand how so many of you all want to believe the incident happened just the way KOMO-4 news and the Seattle P-I reported it, after all, the mainstream media is so incredibly accurate and never displays any hint of bias ...

gulogulo1970
May 11, 2005, 06:19 PM
10 Ring Tao, "I guess I won't go into how ridiculous a ticket for 32 mph is."


School zones are normally 20MPH. 12MPH over the limit will get you a ticket on any highway, just about anywhere here in Texas. 12MPH over in a school zone will get you a ticket every time. Shoot, 1MPH over in a school zone will get you a ticket around here, anyway.

Not ridiculous, just the way it is.

pax
May 11, 2005, 06:27 PM
After six pages of this, I think it's safe to say the arguments have all been made ... and that the thread is headed downhill.

Closed.

pax

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