Police used Taser on pregnant driver

Status
Not open for further replies.

erik the bold

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
324
Location
Middle of the Mitten, Somewhere' Nort of Hell
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 [email protected]


Refusal to "obey" :banghead: What did my mom tell me about jumping off bridges??...
 
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.
 
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.
 
I learned a long time ago, never ever argue with a pregnant woman.

All this garbage over a lousy traffic ticket?
 
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.
 
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, I expect them to start playing the Benny Hill theme song. Of course, if they just followed their own advice, maybe even the chief could manage to hold on to his own gun.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
"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"

Cartman_sp.jpg

You will respect my AUTHORITY!
 
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.
 
Maybe she couldn't sign because she was on her cell phone with her mom who is on duty in Iraq. :evil:
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top