Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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."

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

Quick question...from a legal standpoint..do you have to sign those tickets that the cops give to you?

Does it matter? She apparently did not sign it before, meaning that from her point of view it wasn't required. Now she was pregnant probably pissed of, apparently late already. But using a taser on an clearly pregnant woman? Thats just stupid. Especially in a situation like this, the cops clearly overreacted here.

i think its just local jurisdiction bullshit.
they have no right to force you to sign anything,
and thus no right to arrest her. on MOST tickets is a part which you sign
and mail in with payment for your fine if you would just like to plea 'guilty' and not bother going to court.

LOL that funny

LOL no it's not.

What not funny bout a pregnat lady geting tasered

Originally posted by Fishy
Does it matter? She apparently did not sign it before, meaning that from her point of view it wasn't required. Now she was pregnant probably pissed of, apparently late already. But using a taser on an clearly pregnant woman? Thats just stupid. Especially in a situation like this, the cops clearly overreacted here.

in a situation where the cop was in far less danger than he/she realised, and paniced...that could be labled as 'stupid'.

in a situation where the cop was in no danger at all, and had full knowledge of this along with the knowledge that the woman was pregnant...that could easily be labled as 'evil'.

Gee, maybe the fact that she's pregnant? Have you ever heard of a woman having a miscarriage?

I cannot believe how insensitive and idiotic some people can be.....

She was black right?....and in the US.....well ....you*ve seen the family guy episode where Peter anfd his friends are in the new policemobile....explains everything

Originally posted by Lana
Gee, maybe the fact that she's pregnant? Have you ever heard of a woman having a miscarriage?

I cannot believe how insensitive and idiotic some people can be.....



Ohh come on the babie isnt going to die

Originally posted by Napalm
What not funny bout a pregnat lady geting tasered

shall we really go down this road again napalm?
it will just go

-napalm trolls (done)

-PVS flames back

-napalm cries and makes death threats

-napalm gets another banning


really...this routine bores me. why dont you just refrain from attempting to agitate others and get a more acceptable hobby, one which will not annoy the rest of us and also will not lead to yet another tantrum...just a suggestion....take it or leave it

Originally posted by Napalm
Ohh come on the babie isnt going to die

The baby didn't in this case, but it is very possible that it could happen.

Originally posted by PVS
shall we really go down this road again napalm?
it will just go

-napalm trolls (done)

-PVS flames back

-napalm cries and makes death threats

-napalm gets another banning


really...this routine bores me. why dont you just refrain from attempting to agitate others and get a more acceptable hobby, one which will not annoy the rest of us and also will not lead to yet another tantrum...just a suggestion....take it or leave it


Ohh go back to woodstock

Originally posted by PVS
in a situation where the cop was in far less danger than he/she realised, and paniced...that could be labled as 'stupid'.

in a situation where the cop was in no danger at all, and had full knowledge of this along with the knowledge that the woman was pregnant...that could easily be labled as 'evil'.

Thats another way to call it...

Inappropriate and unjust. No reason whatsoever to electrocute a eight-month pregnant woman.

I also sense racism.....

I agree it is unnecessiary use of force. But if the lady would just have done with the cops asked of her, there would have been no problem.

Originally posted by Fire
I agree it is unnecessiary use of force. But if the lady would just have done with the cops asked of her, there would have been no problem.

if the cop had just abided by the law in america there would have been no situation. she refused to allow the cop to force her to sign anything. that is her constitutional right.

and for anyone who thinks the taser is 'harmless' please check this article out:

"Colorado Man Has Permanent Nerve Damage from Taser"
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=36713


edit: also, exactly what crime did the baby commit to deserve electrocution?

Yeah and if she would just have put a gun to her head and shot herself there wouldn't have been a problem either...

She thought it was her right to not sign the thing. Maybe she was wrong maybe she was right. But she did believe she was allowed to do it. Doesn't mean it excuses her not signing it, it just means that she had every reason to not want to sign it. And the cops should have told her more about it then just telling her it doesn't mean she's guilty.

LOL Another great story well done pvs

Originally posted by Napalm
LOL Another great story well done pvs

reported for off-topic nonesense and trolling

I wish there was a pic that incident It has owned ritten all over it

Yo napalm look dude the woman was already 8 months pregnate the fact that she was 8th months pregnant and got 50,000 volts shot into her could easily send her into labor causing the baby to be born a month early. The baby wouldn't be born naturally it would be a stressed birth which can cause health problems for the baby esp. being born a mont early. I'm apathetic towards life but to say that was funny is ignorance, do I care not really I see people get sick and I see people die almost everyday but it was not certainly funny.

Exactly. Which is more important? : The welfare of an unborn child or the filing of parking ticket?

that baby could have easily been killed and could possibly have permanent neurological damage. the body is a conductor and it doesnt take a genius to realise that 50000 went through it as well as the mother.

Theres going to be a huge lawsuit over this one,and the woman is well with in her rights to do so.They put both her and her unborn child at a high healthrisk,personaly the cop that did it would meet the back of my truck and a nice 5-20 mile roadtrip all the while being dragged at 70 MPH.

Mmm..kay, there isn't many details about this incident so I'm going to go with what the article says:



Okay, here the woman is clearly at fault. Doing a 32mph in 20mph school zone is agaisn't the law. There is a huge posibility that she hit a child or any other pedestrian during school hours. So yes, the police had to pull her over.



Just sign the damn thing! Why would the woman refuse? Just doesn't make any sense.



Oh so she has been stopped by the police before...interesting.



Here Officer Jones did the right thing by reporting to his supervisor. What doesn't make sense here is why would Sgt. Daman would want the woman arrested?



Well is good to know her child was born with no complications.



Indeed this turn from a simple speeding ticket to a confrontation. From what it seems this case turn from bad to worse. There was no need for a tazer....just no reason at all. But every coin has two sides. The woman shoulda sign the ticket and follow instructions from Officer Jones. Why struggle and make things worse over a speeding ticket? The woman made the mistake in first place by speeding 30mph in a school zone.

On Top of that I've been zapped by a tazer before I would never consider using it on an woman unless she was trying to kill me or rape me, well actually I probably wouldn't even stop a woman if she was trying to rape me. Anyway They are non-lethal weapons but they burn like hell, And I believe that they are non-lethal depending on wieght and heart condition because if you need a pacemaker or have a heart condition they will stop your heart if you get zapped. a babies heart is small and weak that is not funny at all. I would only use a taser an adult male.

Originally posted by WindDancer
Just sign the damn thing! Why would the woman refuse? Just doesn't make any sense.

its her, your, and my right to not be forced into signing anything.



Originally posted by WindDancer
Oh so she has been stopped by the police before...interesting.

i've been pulled over many times over the 12+ years i have been driving. really, how is this cause for suspicion?



Originally posted by WindDancer
Here Officer Jones did the right thing by reporting to his supervisor. What doesn't make sense here is why would Sgt. Daman would want the woman arrested?

what doesnt make sense is that it is her right as a U.S. citizen to not sign the damn thing.


Originally posted by WindDancer
Well is good to know her child was born with no complications.
and while we are on the topic of the baby, ill ask again, "what crime did the baby commit to deserve to be shocked with 50000 volts". i can see from what you wrote that you in no way support this, but at the same time you avoid that very issue and just say it was 'wrong' as if it was just taken a bit to far. the line was well crossed and almost led to police-ordered infanticide. thats the issue here. the arrest in itself is trivial, really.

i hope that ***hole of a cop was fired...or better yet, tazered with the same tazer for at least 1 min.

The police using the tazer does not make sense...period. The woman speeding in a school zone broke the law period! Speeding in a school zone is stupid and there is a chance a kid going to school could get run over. So no matter how many rights you throw at the case the woman is responsible for speeding. The Sgt. who order the woman to be tazer should be investigated and possibly discharged for abuse of authority.

Originally posted by WickedTexasMomA
Theres going to be a huge lawsuit over this one,and the woman is well with in her rights to do so.They put both her and her unborn child at a high healthrisk,personaly the cop that did it would meet the back of my truck and a nice 5-20 mile roadtrip all the while being dragged at 70 MPH.
make it a wrangler goin' 100mph

Originally posted by WindDancer
The police using the tazer does not make sense...period. The woman speeding in a school zone broke the law period! Speeding in a school zone is stupid and there is a chance a kid going to school could get run over. So no matter how many rights you throw at the case the woman is responsible for speeding. The Sgt. who order the woman to be tazer should be investigated and possibly discharged for abuse of authority.
it was a bad choice, yes...for the woman and the cop.

Originally posted by Lana
Gee, maybe the fact that she's pregnant? Have you ever heard of a woman having a miscarriage?

I cannot believe how insensitive and idiotic some people can be.....

Hmm...I don't think that I can be counted as miscarriage of the woman is eight months pregnant. It is not fetus either on that state, really.

Originally posted by Fishy
Does it matter? She apparently did not sign it before, meaning that from her point of view it wasn't required. Now she was pregnant probably pissed of, apparently late already. But using a taser on an clearly pregnant woman? Thats just stupid. Especially in a situation like this, the cops clearly overreacted here.

Totallly agree with you I just wanted to know. I've always been told that I have to sign by the Police Officer when I've received a ticket...

What an absolute moron of a man. Sheesh, he deserves to be suspended for a week of 12!

Idiot. She's pregnat - theres no excuse for his behaviour, and if people know about pregnat women then they would know how the hormones work in them, that they are quick to temper - all pregnant women are.

If she didn't want to sign, then he should have took her lisence plate and let her go, then send her a bill later, as opposed to acting like a complite shite.

He should have just used pepper spray.

The stupid driver should have just signed the ticket and be on her way then plead her case in court instead of being an idiot and wasteing more time and getting tazered.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What an absolute moron of a man. Sheesh, he deserves to be suspended for a week of 12!

Idiot. She's pregnat - theres no excuse for his behaviour, and if people know about pregnat women then they would know how the hormones work in them, that they are quick to temper - all pregnant women are.

If she didn't want to sign, then he should have took her lisence plate and let her go, then send her a bill later, as opposed to acting like a complite shite.

Well that's not police precedure.

Originally posted by KidRock
The stupid driver should have just signed the ticket and be on her way then plead her case in court instead of being an idiot and wasteing more time and getting tazered.

yes how dare she get tasered!

im sick of this dimwit sheep logic of "had she just obeyed, nothing would have happened".

that cop put the life of her baby at great risk. where is the line drawn? if the cop just pulled his gun and blew her brains out the side of her head, what then? "well, she should have just signed the ticket", right?

Keep in mind, she wasn't tasered for NOT signing the ticket, but for refusing to go with police when she was placed under arrest.

It's her fault this happened.

Originally posted by BackFire
Keep in mind, she wasn't tasered for NOT signing the ticket, but for refusing to go with police when she was placed under arrest.

It's her fault this happened.

again: what did the baby do to deserve 50,000 volts. what danger was the officer in to warrant such an assault (yes, i said assault) on a pregnant woman and unborn child? it scares me what people are willing to allow.

Sheesh..the woman did not pose any major threat to the police or society. I mean come on..to use that level of force on someone who received a speeding ticket once or twice is friggin ridiculous...

Originally posted by PVS
yes how dare she get tasered!

im sick of this dimwit sheep logic of "had she just obeyed, nothing would have happened".

that cop put the life of her baby at great risk. where is the line drawn? if the cop just pulled his gun and blew her brains out the side of her head, what then? "well, she should have just signed the ticket", right?

Your sick of the dimwit sheep logic of "had she obeyed nothing would have happened"? Sorry to tell you, but its true. If she would have just done what the cop said she wouldn't have been tazered. Its her own fault for endangering her babys life, not the cops.


Originally posted by PVS
again: what did the baby do to deserve 50,000 volts. what danger was the officer in to warrant such an assault (yes, i said assault) on a pregnant woman and unborn child? it scares me what people are willing to allow.

the women did deserve it. And she got it. It was just her own fault she decided to be an idiot and endanger her baby.

Regardless of the other rights or wrongs of this situation, I do not see how PVS is saying that she was legally in the right not signing the ticket- when that was exactly what she was convicted for.

Clearly she WAS legally obliged to sign, or was liable to arrest if she did not, and was told so. Not doing so was thereofre going to get her arrested, and after that she was resisting arrest- she has a responsibility for her own child too, and resisting arrest when pregnant is hardly smart.

The assualt wasn't on the baby, it was on the woman. The lady should have let go of the steering wheel as soon as the cops told her she was under arrest. She caused to volts to go through her baby. Again, her fault.

You know what scares me? This whole "She's pregnant thus she should get away with shit people wouldn't normally get away with" mentallity. If a cop asks you to do something, it's a wise choice to do it. She was placed under arrest for shits sake, if that happens you have to go with police, if you refuse they have every right to do what is necessary to make you go with them, whether you're pregnant or not.

Originally posted by BackFire
The assualt wasn't on the baby, it was on the woman. The lady should have let go of the steering wheel as soon as the cops told her she was under arrest. She caused to volts to go through her baby. Again, her fault.

You know what scares me? This whole "She's pregnant thus she should get away with shit people wouldn't normally get away with" mentallity. If a cop asks you to do something, it's a wise choice to do it. She was placed under arrest for shits sake, if that happens you have to go with police, if you refuse they have every right to do what is necessary to make you go with them, whether you're pregnant or not.

Agreed, She doesn't have any special rights, she is going to be treated just like everyone else is.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless of the other rights or wrongs of this situation, I do not see how PVS is saying that she was legally in the right not signing the ticket- when that was exactly what she was convicted for.

because its illegal for someone to be forced to sign anything.
thats the law. similar rights apply to DUI stops. people have the right
to refuse a breathilizer, but they loophole it so that you are then assumed guilty. they find ways to take away our rights, but that doesnt make it just the moment that right is taken away. but whatever, agree with that, disagree...its trivial anyway

the real issue is the tasering of a pregnant woman who was putting nobody in immediate danger. and yes, winddance, TECHNICALLY she was putting all the little children in danger by goinf 12 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit, but the cop pulled her over and the danger was then gone.

Originally posted by PVS
because its illegal for someone to be forced to sign anything.
thats the law. similar rights apply to DUI stops. people have the right
to refuse a breathilizer, but they loophole it so that you are then assumed guilty. they find ways to take away our rights, but that doesnt make it just the moment that right is taken away.

but whatever, agree with that, disagree..the real issue is the tasering of a pregnant woman who was putting nobody in immediate danger. and yes, winddance, TECHNICALLY she was putting all the little children in danger by goinf 12 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit, but the cop pulled her over and the danger was then gone.

Well, I am afraid the court clearly disagreed with her right to not sign seeing, as I say, she got convicted on that. She was in the wrong.

And has anyone even bothered to check if the cop knew she was pregnant? Easy to assume, but if she didn't get out the car, she could have been due to deliver the next day and it would be easy not to see.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless of the other rights or wrongs of this situation, I do not see how PVS is saying that she was legally in the right not signing the ticket- when that was exactly what she was convicted for.

Clearly she WAS legally obliged to sign, and was told so. Not doing so was illegal, and after that she was resisting arrest- she has a responsibility for her own child too, and resisting arrest when pregnant is hardly smart.

Regardless of whether or not she broke the law, the amount of force used against her was obviously excessive. I've seen people stopped for far worse offenses and not get manhandled as bad as this women did.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough not to recognize that a woman is eight months pregnant. It's kinda obvious. Although he was stupid enough to use a tazer...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Regardless of whether or not she broke the law, the amount of force used against her was obviously excessive. I've seen people stopped for far worse offenses and not get manhandled as bad as this women did.

Did you watch some video that we all didnt that showed what happened to this women? Tazering can be getting a 1 second jolt, that isnt "manhandled" in my opinion.

Originally posted by Draco69
I don't think anyone is stupid enough not to recognize that a woman is eight months pregnant. It's kinda obvious. Although he was stupid enough to use a tazer...

You SAY it is obvious, but people have given birth before and not realised they were pregnant. It can be very hard to tell, especially when the woman is still in the car.

Fact is, it would be a total lie to say that the woman would be definitely recognised as pregnant. The title of this thread conjures up a very different image to that the article describes.

I think people should be wary of presumption.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Regardless of whether or not she broke the law, the amount of force used against her was obviously excessive. I've seen people stopped for far worse offenses and not get manhandled as bad as this women did.

This is a common argument fallacy; despite me specifically saying I was not contesting that part, you then seem to want to reply trying to argue back on that exact point, trying to make out that just because I disagree over what was right or wrong from her I therefore believe everything else that could be construed as negative about the situation.

Very bad, that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You SAY it is obvious, but people have given birth before and not realised they were pregnant. It can be very hard to tell, especially when the woman is still in the car.

Fact is, it would be a total lie to say that the woman would be definitely recognised as pregnant. The title of this thread conjures up a very different image to that the article describes.

I think people should be wary of presumption.

yes...the title conjures up an image of a pregnant woman being tasered...when she was a threat to nobody...which is....exactly what happened.

Eight months pregnant though? Her stomach should be bulging. Especially with her African heritage. And if she's in a car that means she moves the seat back to accomadate her girth. Which means her preganancy is that much more obvious.

Originally posted by PVS
yes...the title conjures up an image of a pregnant woman being tasered...when she was a threat to nobody...which is....exactly what happened.

It conjures up a malicious policeman approaching a pregnant woman in full sight and tasering her with no provocation.

Whereas in fact we have an aggressive, law-breaking woman, not necessarily obviously pregant to the officer, resisting arrest and being subdued with a non-lethal method.

Continents apart.

Originally posted by PVS
yes...the title conjures up an image of a pregnant woman being tasered...when she was a threat to nobody...which is....exactly what happened.

By speeding in a school zone she was a threat to other children.

Originally posted by Draco69
Eight months pregnant though? Her stomach should be bulging. Especially with her African heritage. And if she's in a car that means she moves the seat back to accomadate her girth. Which means her preganancy is that much more obvious.

Presumption! Sorry, but no, it is NOT necessarily obvious at all. We are given no indication that the officer knew the woman was pregnant.

Originally posted by i rule
it was a bad choice, yes...for the woman and the cop.

Is like I said...every coin has two sides. And let's be honest here. If you resist arrest chances are you will get into more trouble. Breaking the law and resisting arrest is a bad combination.

and before you say 'he may not have known', i already got that. but here's the kicker ush, he didnt know either way. the woman was a threat to nobody, he was in no danger, and he pulled a weapon and assaulted her.

last i checked cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.

Originally posted by PVS
and before you say 'he may not have known', i already got that. but here's the kicker ush, he didnt know either way. the woman was a threat to nobody, he was in no danger, and he pulled a weapon and assaulted her.

last i checked cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.


Tasering someone for resisting arrest is normal procedure, nothing cruel and unusual about it.

Originally posted by BackFire
By speeding in a school zone she was a threat to other children.

she was pulled over. the 'threat' had ended.
the taser's purpose is to allow the cop to use non-lethal force in a threatening situation, to him or the person being apprehended. its not meant to be used to force people to obey.
why is that so arguable?

Originally posted by PVS
and before you say 'he may not have known', i already got that. but here's the kicker ush, he didnt know either way. the woman was a threat to nobody, he was in no danger, and he pulled a weapon and assaulted her.

last i checked cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.

Yes it is.

Tasering a resisting arrest suspect, however, isn't even close to cruel and unusual. It is a textbook method to non-lethally subdue people resisting arrest. If it wasn't a taser it would have been a truncheon.

Fact is, police are trained to subdue subjects resisting arrest ASAP, and without that training many cops have been killed by 'harmless' suspects before.

The policeman was acting within his training, even if you and I would consider his actions excessive.

Originally posted by BackFire
Tasering someone for resisting arrest is normal procedure, nothing cruel and unusual about it.

in a non-threatening manner? BS

i wont deny this happens, but whether or not it happens doesnt make it right and just.

Originally posted by PVS
in a non-threatening manner? BS

i wont deny this happens, but whether or not it happens doesnt make it right and just.

It's their training to use, as Ush said, this very basic non-lethal tool to subdue people when they disobey arrest. By resisting arrest she became a potential threat.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Fact is, police are trained to subdue subjects resisting arrest ASAP, and without that training many cops have been killed by 'harmless' suspects before.

'subue' and 'taser' are not synonymous

Originally posted by PVS
'subue' and 'taser' are not synonymous

They are, considering a taser isn't harmful or deadly, and is used to subdue people.

Originally posted by PVS
'subue' and 'taser' are not synonymous

How is it not? Someone is resisting arrest and you need to subdue them. Would you rather the cop have slammed the pregnent women stomach first onto the hood of the car? or a 1 second shock?

A lightning bolt is a one second shock or less, doesn't make it any less deadly.

You can subdue someone by holding them down. If the cop was under threat from a pregnant lady to the point that he felt using a taser was necessary, he's a goddamn pussy.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A lightning bolt is a one second shock or less, doesn't make it any less deadly.

You can subdue someone by holding them down. If the cop was under threat from a pregnant lady to the point that he felt using a taser was necessary, he's a goddamn pussy.

-AC

Find me a source where it says giving someone a shock from a tazer for 1 second has killed them. So you would rather the cop have slammed the lady to the ground by force and held her there? Thats real smart and much less dangerous then shocking her right?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is a common argument fallacy; despite me specifically saying I was not contesting that part, you then seem to want to reply trying to argue back on that exact point, trying to make out that just because I disagree over what was right or wrong from her I therefore believe everything else that could be construed as negative about the situation.

Very bad, that.


Actually very good that.. your initial response made it seem as if the woman was breaking the law for not signing the ticket, something that really hasn't been clearly established as of yet in this forumn..Very bad that... to make an assumption..when not having any facts that substantiate it..very bad that indeed..

Originally posted by BackFire
They are, considering a taser isn't harmful or deadly, and is used to subdue people.


not harmful...
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=36713

Originally posted by KidRock
Find me a source where it says giving someone a shock from a tazer for 1 second has killed them. So you would rather the cop have slammed the lady to the ground by force and held her there? Thats real smart and much less dangerous then shocking her right?

they did bring her to the ground after the tasing.
as far as 'slamming' good luck in trying to win your arguement with exageration.

Originally posted by PVS
if the cop had just abided by the law in america there would have been no situation. she refused to allow the cop to force her to sign anything. that is her constitutional right.

and for anyone who thinks the taser is 'harmless' please check this article out:

"Colorado Man Has Permanent Nerve Damage from Taser"
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=36713


edit: also, exactly what crime did the baby commit to deserve electrocution?

Don't know american law on that, I assumed What he asked was ok by the law

Originally posted by PVS
not harmful...
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=36713

From the article..

" Preston was tased several times over a six-minute span "

I highly doubt the officer tazered the women several times over a six minute span. Officers are also trained to only use the tazer once for a few second to get the person on the ground. Just stupid on that one officers part.


Originally posted by PVS
they did bring her to the ground after the tasing.
as far as 'slamming' good luck in trying to win your arguement with exageration.

Why do you think she went to the ground? because she got tazered and decided not to be an idiot and listen to the officer. Also if the officer tried to get her down, do you think she would have followed his command? Doubt it, since she was resisting arrest already. How else would he get her to the ground without tripping her or slamming her down?

Of course, in the second paragraph of that article, it says he was tasered several times in 6 minutes, that's obviously excessive force, that just proves a taser shouldn't be used multiple times over a short time span, doesn't mean using it properly is dangerous.

The lady in this thread got tasered once. What's the worst that could happen? The baby will have a tan.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course, in the second paragraph of that article, it says he was tasered several times in 6 minutes, that's obviously excessive force, that just proves a taser shouldn't be used multiple times over a short time span, doesn't mean using it properly is dangerous.

The lady in this thread got tasered once. What's the worst that could happen? The baby will have a tan.

Actually, in the article....

Originally posted by KidRock
From the article..

" Preston was tased several times over a six-minute span "

I highly doubt the officer tazered the women several times over a six minute span. Officers are also trained to only use the tazer once for a few second to get the person on the ground. Just stupid on that one officers part.

from that article: The first, for "3 seconds," the second for "2 or 3 seconds," the third time for "2 or 3 seconds" and the fourth time, for the "full five seconds." (4 times)

from this article: 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. (3 times)

Originally posted by Lana
Actually, in the article....

I am still trying to find out where in the article it said she was tasered several times over a 6 minute period. She was shocked twice.

Originally posted by PVS
from that article: The first, for "3 seconds," the second for "2 or 3 seconds," the third time for "2 or 3 seconds" and the fourth time, for the "full five seconds." (4 times)

from this article: 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. (3 times)

He did it twice in the article, and it didnt say how long he did it for. Do you really think the officer held his tazer to her neck for 4 second? or 3 seconds?

Originally posted by KidRock
I am still trying to find out where in the article it said she was tasered several times over a 6 minute period. She was shocked twice.

3 times, actually; once on her leg and twice on her neck.

I dunno...she broke the law by resisting arrest, but tasering her 3 times is a bit excessive, I think.

ok, my bad.

3 times then.

Still, that's different form doing it several times.

And even so, she caused herself to be tasered by resisting arrest.

He tazered her.

Holding a pregnant woman isn't as bad as sending electrical volts intended to hurt, through her body while she's carrying a child.

Have you studied Science?

-AC

They shouldn't have tazered her. If they had to arrest her (which I don't think they did) then they could've done it without a tazer. If they couldn't, then they really shouldn't be cops.
Originally posted by BackFire
What's the worst that could happen? The baby will have a tan.

Originally posted by Lana
3 times, actually; once on her leg and twice on her neck.

I dunno...she broke the law by resisting arrest, but tasering her 3 times is a bit excessive, I think.

Whatever it takes to get her to release her steering wheele after being put under arrest. Now, if they kept tasering her after she had released the wheel, that would be excessive. Doing it untill she complies with their, very simple, orders, is not.

Does anyone in here know what the law states regarding signing the ticket?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He tazered her.

Holding a pregnant woman isn't as bad as sending electrical volts intended to hurt, through her body while she's carrying a child.

Have you studied Science?

-AC


How would holding her make her release her steering wheel?

Originally posted by BackFire
ok, my bad.

3 times then.

Still, that's different form doing it several times.

And even so, she caused herself to be tasered by resisting arrest.

Definition of several:

Being of a number more than two or three but not many

I think "several" is a pretty accurate term to define the number of times she was tasered..

I'm speaking in general to KidRock.

Case in point though: There are many ways to get a woman to release the steering wheel before it comes to using a tazer. Given that she's pregnant also.

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Definition of several:

Being of a number more than two or three but not many

I think "several" is a pretty accurate term to define the number of times she was tasered..


The number wasn't more then three, it WAS three.

So it would be "a few" for her. Several generally means 5 or so.

Originally posted by BackFire
How would holding her make her release her steering wheel?

how was that woman holding the steering wheel an immediate threat to the officer...or herself. thats the whole point and reason for nonlethal weapons, to alleviate any danger to the arresting officer and/or the person being apprehended.

and please, no talk about how some officers have been killed in such a situation, because that has little to do with it (aimed at ush). police have been shot and killed just walking up to a person they pulled over, with no talk of arrest. there is no justifying what took place based on possibility. if that was the case, then it would be justifiable for a cop to taser you as standard procedure in a routine traffic stop...because "hey, you never know"

Anyway..she was obviously tasered a "few" times..how the hell can you not think that is not "excessive" to do to a pregnant woman?

Was the speeding ticket that important?

"how was he holding the steering wheel an immediate threat to the officer...or herself. thats the whole point and reason for nonlethal weapons, to alleviate any danger to the arresting officer and/or the person being apprehended."

When people start to resist arrest, a threat is born, more or less. More often then not, someone resisting arrest will begin to resort to violence and physicality, or possibly even taking out a weapon of some sort to use against the officers to continue to resist arrest. It's crucial, from a cops point of view, to end a resistance as quickly as possible, before it escalates to something more dangerous for both parties.

"Possibility" and "Probability" have to come into play for a cop, especially when it comes to someone resisting arrest.

Originally posted by BackFire
When people start to resist arrest, a threat is born, more or less.

Your right man. I was wrong. What could I be thinking? A pregnant woman inside of a car...who is eight months pregnant..irritable....who has just dropped her bratty child off from school...doesn't want to sign a ticket for a minor traffic violation..should definately be considered a threat in anyone's book....what was I thinking? My bad..man...my bad...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your right man. I was wrong. What could I be thinking? A pregnant woman inside of a car...who is eight months pregnant..irritable....who has just dropped her bratty child off from school...doesn't want to sign a ticket for a minor traffic violation..should definately be considered a threat in anyone's book....what was I thinking? My bad..man...my bad...

shes pregnant and under stress, just dropped off her kid who was probley causing her stress, she could have done anything and snapped.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your right man. I was wrong. What could I be thinking? A pregnant woman inside of a car...who is eight months pregnant..irritable....who has just dropped her bratty child off from school...doesn't want to sign a ticket for a minor traffic violation..should definately be considered a threat in anyone's book....what was I thinking? My bad..man...my bad...

You know, people keep bring up the whole "she's pregnant" thing all the time, as if her being pregnant totally negates any possibility of her posing a threat to police.

A pregnant woman has just as much a chance to be carrying a gun or a weapon as anyone else, and her being pregnant doesn't mean she can't make a violent decision or move. The fact that she did resist her arrest elevates everything in a cops eyes.

Again, it wasn't her not wanting to sign the ticket, it was her refusing to go with the cops when she was placed under arrest that caused the problem. The signing ticket thing is a moot point.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your right man. I was wrong. What could I be thinking? A pregnant woman inside of a car...who is eight months pregnant..irritable....who has just dropped her bratty child off from school...doesn't want to sign a ticket for a minor traffic violation..should definately be considered a threat in anyone's book....what was I thinking? My bad..man...my bad...

Anyone could be carrying a concealed weapon....

Originally posted by Lana
Anyone could be carrying a concealed weapon....

the exact point i bring up over and over.
not to mention everyone's failure to answer my question:
what did the baby do to deserve being shocked with 50000 volts?
"its the mother's fault" they say...but when did she point the taser at herself and pull the trigger? never.

When she resisted arrest.

zappppp!

Originally posted by PVS
the exact point i bring up over and over.
not to mention everyone's failure to answer my question:
what did the baby do to deserve being shocked with 50000 volts?
"its the mother's fault" they say...but when did she point the taser at herself and pull the trigger? never.

the mother chose to shock her baby when she resisted arrest.

Originally posted by Lana
Anyone could be carrying a concealed weapon....


True..but I seriously doubt the cop thought she was carrying a concealed weapon..or else he would have pulled out his..and well..that would have been the end of the story. The whole scenario just reeks of "Macho Cop" BS...meaning the police think they can essentially do whatever they want because..well..they're the police...

No, it does not.

The police officers gave her numersous warnings and were very patient with her. She resisted arrest, she assumed the consequences, nothing more.

Okay with all that being said..what does the law state about signing the ticket? Anyone know?

You must sign the ticket, by signing it, you are not admiting guilt. You could sign it and rip it up right in front of the cops face...they can do nothing once you sign it

Originally posted by Napalm
What not funny bout a pregnat lady geting tasered


are you bu1shitting me??? are you seriously like f(_)cking retarded or something???

you need to grow the f(_)ck up. seriously.


oh yeah and by the way, there is absolutely NOTHING funny about a pregnant woman being tazered. EVER.


I wonder if YOUR mother was tazered while she was pregnant with YOU. at least brain damage would be a valid explanation for your posts.

Originally posted by Curl_Up&Dye
are you bu1shitting me??? are you seriously like f(_)cking retarded or something???

you need to grow the f(_)ck up. seriously.


oh yeah and by the way, there is absolutely NOTHING funny about a pregnant woman being tazered. EVER.


I wonder if YOUR mother was tazered while she was pregnant with YOU. at least brain damage would be a valid explanation for your posts.
That's exactly the reaction that he wanted. Good job for positively reinforcing him.

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's exactly the reaction that he wanted. Good job for positively reinforcing him.


well excuse me for being pissed off at the fact that he thinks the whole thing is funny.
I guess i'll keep my rage to myself the next time someone crosses the line with me.
but i'll keep my opinions to myself next time if you promise to do the same.
smartass

Keep your PMS in check.

Feceman was simply pointed out that Napalm said what he said in order to get attention of some kind, by you getting pissy at him over his post, you gave him what he wanted, as such, he'll continue to say shit like that merely for shock value in hopes of continuing to get humerous reactions from people who are upset over what he said.

Originally posted by Fire
I agree it is unnecessiary use of force. But if the lady would just have done with the cops asked of her, there would have been no problem.

I agree.

Originally posted by BackFire
Keep your PMS in check.

Feceman was simply pointed out that Napalm said what he said in order to get attention of some kind, by you getting pissy at him over his post, you gave him what he wanted, as such, he'll continue to say shit like that merely for shock value in hopes of continuing to get humerous reactions from people who are upset over what he said.

which begs 2 questions

1-wouldnt that classify him as a 'troll'?

2-if so, why is this allowed?

Because his responses are not offensive or insulting, and they're pertaining t the topic.

Originally posted by BackFire
Because his responses are not offensive or insulting, and they're pertaining to the topic.
Fixed.

woops, my bad

Originally posted by BackFire
Because his responses are not offensive or insulting, and they're pertaining t the topic.


I found it offensive that he thinks a pregnant lady getting tasered is funny

Why? It's his opinion, what do you care?

Originally posted by BackFire
Why? It's his opinion, what do you care?


i thought we established before that he was just saying it to get a reaction.


and what i said to him in my original post is MY opinion. So if youre going to go that route, then no one should complain that my opinion in reply to his is encouraging him.

Difference is, in your post you were insulting towards him, calling him retarded and what not for posting his opinion on something that had no direct corrilation to you, he never insulted anyone, you did.

He was saying it to get a reaction, and he has a right to do so as long as his post isn't breaking any rules, you, on the other hand, don't have the right to put someone down for posting an opinion that you don't like.

Originally posted by BackFire
Difference is, in your post you were insulting towards him, calling him retarded and what not for posting his opinion on something that had no direct corrilation to you, he never insulted anyone, you did.

He was saying it to get a reaction, and he has a right to do so as long as his post isn't breaking any rules, you, on the other hand, don't have the right to put someone down for posting an opinion that you don't like.


First of all....you dont know whether or not it has a direct correlation to me. for all you know, I could be pregnant, or know someone who was affected by violence towards a pregnant woman. So dont assume that what he said has nothing to do with me.
Second of all, obviously if he is posting complete crap to get a reaction, then he is doing it purposely to offend people, which is against the forum rules to begin with.
I have a right to express my opinion as well. Which in my opinion he is a complete ass for posting what he did. And if he's going around posting that he thinks its funny when pregnant women get tazered, then I doubt that 'retarded' is the worst thing he's been called.

Irrelevant, he didn't make his comment with you in mind, and he didn't intentionally aim his comment at you in particular, nor did he insult you personally. Just because you MAY be pregnant doesn't mean he had you in mind when making a comment about a newstory.



You are wrong, posting something that may be taken as offensive by some people is NOT against the rules, unless it's sole purpose is to be offensive to everyone by using foul language or insults. Now, if he had posted something with an insult to another member (like you did) that IS against the rules. He didn't, he made a statement pertaining to the topic, which may or may not have had teh intention of offending, just because he wanted to get a reaction doens't mean he doesn't believe what he said, nor does it mean he wanted to offend people. Doing something for a reaction and purposely offending people is not the same thing.



Not if your opinion involves name calling and insults because he made a vague comment that you didn't like. THAT is against the rules, my dear. Find a way to express yourself without insulting someone.

Vague, smartass comments aimed at poking fun at a topic is not against the rules.

If anyone still cares, the answer to "do you have to sign a traffic ticket?" is NO. At least not in the little box they tell you to.

Here's why:

There is a statement above the signature line - where they always tell you that you have to sign "just to show you recieved the ticket"- that declares that you recieved the ticket AND you promise to respond as directed on the back of the ticket. Forcing you to repond in this predetermined and limited manner eliminates several other reponse options that are in reality available to you under due process. The Washington Court of Appeals decided this in Port Orchard V. Tilton and the cops all know it:

"No crime if traffic violator won't promise to respond per citation form; extra step necessary in order to make refusal to sign a crime. Port Orchard v. Tilton, 77 Wn. App. 178 (Div. II, 1995) June '95:07 "

Yes, she lost in court. All that proves is that her attorney did his job. Look that up, too. An attorney's number one duty is to the COURT. NOT the peasants. Attorneys are officers of the COURT. Most attorneys are dumber than a box of rocks, and if they're not, regularly commit legal malpractice.

In addition, if you look at the ticket, it is broken up into 3 boxes, each with a heading that spreads all the way across the box. The ticket is designed so your brain blocks these headings out. Most people never "see" them. Put together, the 3 headings form the following statement:

THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIES AND SAYS THAT IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON _____ DID OPERATE THE FOLLOWING VEHICLE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND DID THEN AND THERE COMMIT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES

Look up THE UNDERSIGNED in Black's Law:

"The person(s) whose names are signed at the end of a document."

That means you, peasant. The cops are lying to you. You have just admitted you are guilty by volunteering to become one of "the undersigned". Don't believe me. Look it up for yourself. If your signature wasn't worth a fortune to them they wouldn't be completely disregarding their constitutional limits (THAT'S the purpose of the constitution - limiting the government, NOT "giving" you rights. Your rights are GOD given) and tasering pregnant women. Ask yourself why they can issue parking tickets without a signature.

I am currently challenging the court with a process that is NOT described on the back of the ticket, which proves that the entire process is a fraud and that forcing you to select from one of the "approved" responses on the back of the ticket is a scam, a denial of due process, and in fact, a process of military law - you are guilty until proven innocent. Check out the word "infraction" in Black's. Look it up yourself. I'm not going to do ALL your thinking for you.

So now all you obedient, brainless cowards who think she should have just "gone along" with Mr. Policeman's unlawful demand can rest easy, have another beer, go back to the tube or your video games or whatever, and grovel on into court with your pants down and your wallet open, licking the hand that feeds you. I hope your house is one of the first ones they steal under the new and improved, illegal eminent domain laws.

Everybody else, wake the **** up and fight back.

THANK YOU!!!!!!
and good luck challenging this kangaroo court bullshit.

and welcome to kmc
i like you already

btw, is it possible to provide a scan of a summons ticket?
not that i doubt you, but many will, and it would certainly shut them up...and god willing, wake them up

I'm as low tech as I can get, but if I can find a scanner I will do it.

Of course, anyone can make a Public Disclosure Request of the WA Dept of Transportation for a copy of a Washington citation form since it is a public document - you and I paid for the stupid things. That ought to REALLY wad them up - someone actually ASKING for a ticket. I can just see them mincing around in little cirlces, throwing their hands up in the air and banging into the walls as their circuits misfire. What a hoot.

Here is how it works in California:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/traffic/info.htm#3kinds

And please read the Misdemeanor Traffic Tickets part.

"Signing doesn't mean that you admit you're guilty. It just means that you promise to appear in court."

the victims, Malaika Brooks and her daughter

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/450taser_malaikabrooks.jpg

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/photos/photo.asp?PhotoID=65042

yeah, i'd like to see the actual summons.

im not good at blindly taking assurances from authorities on some .gov website

I can't post links on here yet but found a site for you to see the actual WA citation form. Any ideas? Here was my post:


Here is an acurate PDF of the WA citation.

nhtsa-tsis.net/citations/state/wa/WA_citation_03_2003.pdf

Regardless, everyone who cares at all about regainging/retaining their position as BOSS of the government MUST become familiar with the Public Disclosure laws of their state. Do a search - PDR law your state. If you made a PDR and they sent you a bogus doc or dragged their butts, you can collect BIG fines against them according to the law. If we don't use these laws we will lose them. I always send a copy of the law with my request and man, you should see them jump. The only records not open under PDR are basically adoptions.

Not only are they required to fork over whatever you ask for, every office MUST, by law, since the mid 70's, feature and publicly display an index of all their procedures and Public docs. Failure to do so is a punishable crime, and most of them don't have it. You all would be amazed at the depth of ignorance and disregard for the law that the organizations that hold YOU to the law commit ALL THE TIME.

And ignorance of the law is no excuse for them, either.

Why does any of this matter?

Well, for example, when WA state wants to hike taxes they point to the BUDGET and sob about not having any money.

Well I happen to know that the states finances are actually accounted for in a doc called the Certified Annual Financial Report, or CAFR. All states keep double books and unless you know about the CAFRs you'll never see one.

You can get a program that analyzes the CAFRs, or you can go here

cafrman.com/index.html

and get the info you need.

So when I look at the 2003 WA CAFR, what do I find? Washington state posted a PROFIT of over 20 BILLION dollars that year. Golly.
That's not what they told us in the ads for the tax hikes.

"If you don't give us more money for education, your kids will all be disadvantaged little retards." (The hostage tactic)

Maybe if everyone knew they were being LIED TO AND ROBBED, they'd quit buying the sob stories and demand a real accounting of their money. Ya think?

This story is true of EVERY government agency in the country, no matter how convincing their impoverishment act.

If all you can do is spread this info around, do it. It's better than nothing, and maybe it will reach someone with some cajones.

that is pretty dodgy isnt it? it says "the undersigned......" admits to the crime.

http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/2517/wacitation0320035vg.jpg

Hopefully she will listen to the police next time and not get what happened. Lets hope she learned a lesson.

those stupid police should have never done that.

regardless of the disclaimer over the signature line, we
most of us know that being pulled over is a very nerve racking experience.
even if the cop is polite and easygoing, it still sucks and makes people very nervous. nervous enough to not calmly sit and read the ticket in front of the cop to make sure that they werent signing away their right to challenge the ticket.

just look at the scan.
it clearly says "the UNDERSIGNED certifies and says that in the state of washington---did operate the following vehicle/motor vehicle on a public highway and---DID THEN AND THERE COMMIT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING OFFENCES."

i've signed so many forms in my lifetime. in EACH and EVERY form there is a seperate signature page, where the header reads something like "i, the undersigned...." undersigned means just that. UNDERsigned. when that word is placed on a contract, it must be on the same page as the signature line.
unless anyone in here has ever signed a form or contract where they saw an 'undersigned' agreement on a seperate page than the signature line? dont think so :/

and whats more screwed up is the guilty plea signature line is on the BACK.
it seems purposely misleading and i find that very disturbing.
the solution would have been as simple as placing the agreement signature on the BACK of the frikin ticket. so why wont they do it? why is it that upon viewing the ticket for like 2 minutes anyone can see the problem and come up with the solution with zero tax payer salary, and these assh0les cant figure that out?

i would have questioned it as well. goddamn right.

Originally posted by PVS
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."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223578_taser10.html
So what happened to the baby?

scroll up and see.

the baby is fine. no thanks to the cops who attacked her

Originally posted by PVS
scroll up and see.

the baby is fine. no thanks to the cops who attacked her
You mean 'no thanks to the quick-thinking officer who stopped her from committing a serious felony and protecting himself from what was clearly a dangerous situation'. He's a real hero, I tell you.

She should have just signed the damn ticket. And this thread is rather old.

yeah a real hero

"And this thread is rather old."

you are quite the wet diaper today aren't you?

as for your complaints of the thread,
its still going, people are interested, so why dont you just
sit back and have a nice big glass of stfu

Cheers!

*Pours PVS some GTFO.*

Who is complaining about this thread? PVS, you misread my statements--I was merely stating a fact, as I was surprised that someone bumped it.

OK forgive me if this has been answered but was she visibly pregnant? And yes if an officer is giving you a ticket you have to sign it its required but it is not a confession of guilt, just read the ticket it says so right on it, but if you dont sign the officers are required to take you in to the station, which is waht they were trying to do when she resisted arrest.
Also what would you have the officers do let the woman go on her merry way without giving her ticket jsut because she didnt want it?

First, I want to commend anyone who it still engaged in this thread. This material is important. The law is not fashionable, like shoes, or "fun", like Saturday morning cartoons. If you're bored, sorry we can't be more entertaining. Go watch TV.

Go back up and read the case law. The issue is not pregnant women or signing the ticket. The issue is that the signature section forces you to make a commitment that they cannot legally force you to make. You are only required to sign for RECEIPT, so why do you think they slipped a PROMISE TO RESPOND AS DIRECTED in there instead of just I HAVE RECIEVED THIS TICKET? That statement converts it from a receipt to a CONTRACT. Come on. Think about it. The court of appeals already has in Port Orchard V. Tilton, and they decided you DON'T have to sign the promise, and that if you decline to make that promise, ie. if you are not a big enough freaking idiot to throw out your constitutionally protected rights against, oh, say being forced to contract or to testify against yourself, maybe your right to due process (did anyone check the word "infraction" in Blacks?), that there is a SECOND STEP the cop must perform on the ticket to convert it to a receipt or he's asking for trouble, especially if he arrests or threatens to arrest. That is the advice directly from their own Law Enforcement Digest, June, 1995, page 7.

Anyone can, and most people do, voluntarily toss out all their constitutional protections several times a day. We are CONDITIONED to think this is normal - everybody does it. Who is conditioning us? I was in court 2 days ago on this very issue. I weigh 120 pounds, I wore a suit, I speak well, I have a Master's degree, I can behave civilly in the face of great insult, they've never seen me before this court before. I don't have any tickets or accidents. There were FIVE armed cops in that court room and mine was the only issue on the docket. Who do you THINK is behind the brainwashing? Who profits from it? Who is threatened when one of the peasants figures out that the whole thing is a big fraud? Clue - FIVE ARMED, PUMPED-UP COPS. Here's another clue - 115,000 speeding tickets in America every day, 42,000,000 a year, X an average of $150 = $6,296,250,000 a year. Oh, by the way, the population of my town is about 5,000 people - that was probably the entire on-duty police force tied up for an hour in there.


If you are going to refute the conclusions of the court of appeals and the Law Enforcement Digest, you'd better come up with something better than brainwashed, dangerously naive, knee jerk, police state drivel. The judge I sat in front of Friday couldn't, so she decided to just try to scare the crap out of me with a squad of jack-booted thugs. Whatever. I'm still in there swinging. Sometimes I go watch the mass rape they call traffic court to remind myself I'm not one of the ignorant peasants anymore. Makes me really ill.

good luck in court.

and i agree, it should be...wait a minute...IT IS illegal for the authorities to force you to sign any contract. I-L-L-E-G-A-L. i tried explaining it, but many seem to be more than willing to be stripped of their rights. "she shoulda just signed the f***ing" is the best they can come up with. indeed, and by that logic, leaders of the american revolution should have just shut up and payed their f***ing taxes

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Originally posted by PVS
regardless of the disclaimer over the signature line, we
most of us know that being pulled over is a very nerve racking experience.
even if the cop is polite and easygoing, it still sucks and makes people very nervous. nervous enough to not calmly sit and read the ticket in front of the cop to make sure that they werent signing away their right to challenge the ticket.

just look at the scan.
it clearly says "the UNDERSIGNED certifies and says that in the state of washington---did operate the following vehicle/motor vehicle on a public highway and---DID THEN AND THERE COMMIT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING OFFENCES."

i've signed so many forms in my lifetime. in EACH and EVERY form there is a seperate signature page, where the header reads something like "i, the undersigned...." undersigned means just that. UNDERsigned. when that word is placed on a contract, it must be on the same page as the signature line.
unless anyone in here has ever signed a form or contract where they saw an 'undersigned' agreement on a seperate page than the signature line? dont think so :/

and whats more screwed up is the guilty plea signature line is on the BACK.
it seems purposely misleading and i find that very disturbing.
the solution would have been as simple as placing the agreement signature on the BACK of the frikin ticket. so why wont they do it? why is it that upon viewing the ticket for like 2 minutes anyone can see the problem and come up with the solution with zero tax payer salary, and these assh0les cant figure that out?

i would have questioned it as well. goddamn right.


I always thought that that part of the ticket at the top that says Undersigned refered to the police officer stating that the person commited such and such offense.

correct. HOWEVER, when you sign the same page, you become part of the "undersigned". its understood that they cant turn around and say that the signature was a guilty plea, but i can clearly see cause for confusion.

but thats superficial. people are being forced, under penalty of arrest, to sign a contract. this is not bothersome? it certainly is to me.

Originally posted by PVS
correct. HOWEVER, when you sign the same page, you become part of the "undersigned". its understood that they cant turn around and say that the signature was a guilty plea, but i can clearly see cause for confusion.

but thats superficial. people are being forced, under penalty of arrest, to sign a contract. this is not bothersome? it certainly is to me.

whether or not its "right" it is currently the law isn't it? So she was required to sign it.
Yeah it is pretty confusing now that Im looking at the ticket they need to fix that.

Originally posted by Hegemon875
whether or not its "right" it is currently the law isn't it? So she was required to sign it.

since when has the concept of right become so trivial that it can be secondary to law.

Originally posted by PVS
since when has the concept of right become so trivial that it can be secondary to law.

Since the law has a tazer.

If she wanted to argue whether or not it was right she should have done it afterwards through a due process, not by arguing with the police officers.

i'll agree there. a true civil disobedient argues with the court and not the officer. if i was in her place and i felt the need to refuse to sign (difficult to say if i would...since i was never in that situation) i would have gotten out of the car and let them arrest me. but that does not justify the use of a taser on an obviously pregnant woman. and yes, they frikin knew she was pregnant. i once submitted to the possibility that she could have been some 400 pound behemoth, but upon seeing her photo, and the healthy size of her baby, i think its safe to say she was gigantic in the midsection, clearly disproportionate to the rest of her body.

and last, do you honestly believe this would happen to a white woman?
funny that i have never seen a single article about a white woman being tasered in a routine traffic stop nevermind a pregnant one. when does the technicality of the law stop and the good judgement of a police officer start?

Originally posted by PVS
i'll agree there. a true civil disobedient argues with the court and not the officer. if i was in her place and i felt the need to refuse to sign (difficult to say if i would...since i was never in that situation) i would have gotten out of the car and let them arrest me. but that does not justify the use of a taser on an obviously pregnant woman. and yes, they frikin knew she was pregnant. i once submitted to the possibility that she could have been some 400 pound behemoth, but upon seeing her photo, and the healthy size of her baby, i think its safe to say she was gigantic in the midsection, clearly disproportionate to the rest of her body.

and last, do you honestly believe this would happen to a white woman?
funny that i have never seen a single article about a white woman being tasered in a routine traffic stop nevermind a pregnant one. when does the technicality of the law stop and the good judgement of a police officer start?

In that case I definately agree that the officers should not have tazered her, being pregnant and all, but didn't they warn her several times that they were going to tazer her? Not saying what they did was ok but you'd think a woman would do anything to protect her child, even sign a traffic ticket!