8 month pregnant women tazered

<br />
Sorry bro. I don't buy the use of a tazer in this situation. Cops still carry peeper spray right? Less dangerous, would have stunned the woman enough to pull from the vehicle, and it would have no affect on her unborn child. This to me is a case of excessive force. She posed no threat to the officer, therefore the use of the tazer was in excess. She has a case in a civil lawsuit against them, and I would try to milk them dry. If she was my pregnant wife, no one would be able to talk me out of suing their ass.

its very obvious that you have no understanding of the law.. yes they might have a civil case but thats besides the point.. there going to put people on the jury who dont understand the law... the officer did within the legal limits to do what he did. how do you know that he had mase.. some departments dont equip there officers with it.. also some people dont react to mase so then what see your moving up the scale of use of force here.. the police use what is called the plus one rule.. police can use something one more time the power of what the person is using.. she resisted so its either mase which we dont know the officer had or tazer.. its legal here people....

I didn't say it was illegal, I said imo that it's overboard for what she did, and not to mention she was pregnant.

8 month pregnant women tazered

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223578_taser10.html


uesday, May 10, 2005

Pregnant woman 'Tasered' by police is convicted

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."
__________________

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

No madam.. its all because of non-compliance with direct order... the officer already told her that by signing the ticket, its not an admission to guilt, but an understanding of what the ticket is for.

If a person refuses to sign a ticket... officers have the right to arrest the person on the spot.. With arrest.. comes the power to use reasonable force to effect an arrest... Thus the elevation of force:

1) Officers asked that she exit the car.. she did not comply
2) Officers attempted to force her from the car.. she did not comply
3) Sgt. showed her the tazer and crackled it near her as a warning.. she did not comply
4) Sgt. applied the tazer in which she did not respond
5) Continous force was applied until the officers managed to get her from the car.. she was STILL not complying
6) Officers had to put her on the ground just to get her in handcuffs...

Its rediculous... Yes.. ALL because of a traffic ticket which she has the right to go fight in court

How about a child endangerment charge on the woman.. because she placed her unborn fetus in harms way by resisting arrest and causing a struggle between she and officers..

nothing like putting the legal system to the test again and again.

To say that she didn't pose a threat to the police is just wrong... any time there is a struggle between an officer and someone else, there is always the potential for an injury.

There can be numerous reasons why pepper spray wasn't used.... for example.. there was a child in the passenger seat... spraying the driver could splash and spray the passenger and the officers... there could have been a high wind causing the spray to hit officers... you can't spray too close to someone or you could injure them... even if she was sprayed with pepper spray.. she would have still been able to keep her grip on the steering wheel thus leaving the officers in the same predicament..

There is no case law or scientific study that I am aware of to show that a taser can cause any injury to an unborn child.

the fact that she was preggers has nothing at all to do with it... this is all the media spin on things... they want to make it a big deal that she was.. how could the officer know that she was preggo? she could have looked obease...

To each is own. Overboard to me.

I find it very interesting also that they use pepper spray to break up prison fights. But use tazers against pregnant women refusing to sign a speeding ticket in the street.

you cant compare apples and oranges...

Tasers are geared to strike 1 or 2 people, depending on the type of taser... Pepper spray can affect a large group of people making it more effective in the event of say a large prison fight.

If I was to comment on a movie and say I don't like it, would you ask me where I learned to be a director?

serious what route would you have taken

Well we're just curious how you feel it should have been handled... everyones entitled to their opinions.. not disputing that.

I would have given the lady the ticket. Because one, she said that she would take it, even though she wasn't signing it. Come that court date, and if she didn't show up, then that's a warrant for her arrest. I don't know how the law works, so this is just babble...lol.


Now, I'm not saying she was right either guys. If she felt that strong about it, then she should have signed it, took her child to school (in which he was even more late due to all the arguing), and just fought the ticket in court. I've fought tickets a total of 3 times (not speeding tickets), and won all 3 cases. So, it would have saved a whole lot of hassle if she would have just complied in the first place.


One more thought, do we by law have to sign the tickets? If so, then she broke the law, 1) for speeding and 2) for not signing the ticket. But if we are not ordered to sign the ticket by law, then why does the law say that you can be taken to jail for not signing? Or is it one of those things "you don't have to, but here is what happens if you don't". Why give you the option to begin with? Sounds stupid if you ask me.

Police officers can arrest the person if they refuse to sign the ticket. It would be great if you could just write "REFUSED TO SIGN" on the ticket and hand it to them.

She is a very immature individual and made extremely poor decisions during this incident. It even says on the ticket "NOT AN ADMISSION TO GUILT" .. hehe..

Hm.. it says she was convicted.. I'm assuming that was the resisting arrest part, since the traffic ticket is an infraction.. Wacky people...

All she had to do was sign and go to court to argue her case...

I would've pulled my gun and demanded her to exit the vehicle.. but then again that's why i'm not a cop.

I would have to side with the officers on this one..

yea but she didnt her loss

she says the officer could have hurt her baby, maybe she should not have been such a stupid, ignorant woman and thought about her baby herself. With the shit we got going on these days, police dont have time to fuck around with people, pregnant or age 15, everyone with the physical capability to pick up a gun or weapon is the same threat so they have to treat them as such. She should have said to herself, &quot;hmm, well maybe i should just comply and sign this ticket because if not me and my baby are going to go to jail.&quot; My 2 cents, shes dumb, the officer should have tazered her a few more times maybe electro shock therapied (word?) some sense into her ass.

someone who is on the right page

I dislike cops most of the time.
But I have to admit this bitch was bieng stupid and got what was coming to her.
Yeah they could have pepper sprayed her. But they gave her a warning they where going to taze her so she should have just signed the thing. Its not the cops fault that she was to stupid to be driving.

agree

I dont mean to bring this back from the dead..but I came across this website.. it has video footage of a police officer tazering a woman during a traffic stop... its great video with audio..and includes narration from a Sgt at the department explaining the reasoning for the use of force.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localn...aser_video.html

Hmmm.. In CA I believe driving on a suspended license (if the driver has already been served) is a misdemeanor.. CVC 14601 .. I'd have to double check that though... so technically, the driver can be arrested... It looks to me that the more appropriate charge (which I'm sure was added) was resisting arrest/obstructing justice.

I'm not too friendly with the police force, but I can understand their situation - well, the "good" ones who don't abuse their power. I don't see any wrongdoing with either case. With my medical background, that comment about pepper spray being safer than a tazer is BS - You wouldn't believe how many people are allergic to pepper spray. The fetus was in more danger of the mother than the police or the tazer.

To the kids reading this and the jerkass adults who can't get the facts straight and hate because they can't get their own way: When a person of authority instructs you to do something DO IT! Just say "yes sir/ma'am" and perform to the best of your ability. Save your questions and arguements for the judge. Your life will be so much better keeping your mouth shut, paying a fine, and not being beaten down by the cops and locked up with your new husband Bubba.

Learn the laws; don't just think you know them.

umm...thanks for the advice, but I don't think anyone on this board disrespects the police enough to be zapped.