Cops tase pregnant woman

[Anonymous]

Did she even really need to be arrested in the first place? Seems like that was the beginning of the problem. Not signing may be an arrest-able offense, but you don't have to arrest someone.Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The ticket doesn't become void.

I wonder why the cops felt the need to draw the line in the sand there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did she even really need to be arrested in the first place? Seems like that was the beginning of the problem. Not signing may be an arrest-able offense, but you don't have to arrest someone.Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The ticket doesn't become void.

I wonder why the cops felt the need to draw the line in the sand there?

Exactly. I think it was a power thing. You WILL comply. Doesn't matter if it's really important or not. I AM THE BOSS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did she even really need to be arrested in the first place? Seems like that was the beginning of the problem. Not signing may be an arrest-able offense, but you don't have to arrest someone.Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The ticket doesn't become void.

I wonder why the cops felt the need to draw the line in the sand there?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she even really need to be arrested in the first place? Seems like that was the beginning of the problem. Not signing may be an arrest-able offense, but you don't have to arrest someone.Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The ticket doesn't become void.

I wonder why the cops felt the need to draw the line in the sand there?

Exactly. I think it was a power thing. You WILL comply. Doesn't matter if it's really important or not. I AM THE BOSS.

I see, so now law-breakers can decide when it's right to comply with a law or not. Police shouldn't enforce the laws if the offender doesn't believe it's necessary. And yet, you all will be the first to criticize and blame the police for being incompetent when they cannot arrest someone who will later go out and offend again because of loopholes in the law.

It's not a power thing. And they didn't arbitrarily draw a line in the sand. The line is the law, which many of you seem to feel should one should only comply with when it meets your own ideas of merit. If you don't think the law should be applied, it shouldn't. Sorry, police don't get to make those decisions. If legislators passed the law, the police have to enforce it. They were about as nice about is possible. They explained that she was required to sign the ticket. They informed her that she needed to get out of the car and that she was in violation of the law by not doing so. They showed her the taser and asked if she understood what it was. They explained that if she didn't comply, they would have to use it. She willfully resisted complying with their requests and she got what she deserved. Like I said before, I think she's lucky that they don't charge her with endangerment of a child because she knew that she was pregnant. Knew that if she did not comply, the officers would be forced to use the tasers and she still did not comply. How hard is it to get out of the vehicle? But no, she would subject her unborn child to the taser just to be pigheaded and resist signing the document.

The law cannot go down this slippery slope of sometimes they law has to be applied and sometimes not. And the pregnant woman should be chastised by the court for her failure to comply with authorities when she was 100% at fault and to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she even really need to be arrested in the first place? Seems like that was the beginning of the problem. Not signing may be an arrest-able offense, but you don't have to arrest someone.Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The ticket doesn't become void.

I wonder why the cops felt the need to draw the line in the sand there?

Exactly. I think it was a power thing. You WILL comply. Doesn't matter if it's really important or not. I AM THE BOSS.

I see, so now law-breakers can decide when it's right to comply with a law or not. Police shouldn't enforce the laws if the offender doesn't believe it's necessary. And yet, you all will be the first to criticize and blame the police for being incompetent when they cannot arrest someone who will later go out and offend again because of loopholes in the law.

It's not a power thing. And they didn't arbitrarily draw a line in the sand. The line is the law, which many of you seem to feel should one should only comply with when it meets your own ideas of merit. If you don't think the law should be applied, it shouldn't. Sorry, police don't get to make those decisions. If legislators passed the law, the police have to enforce it. They were about as nice about is possible. They explained that she was required to sign the ticket. They informed her that she needed to get out of the car and that she was in violation of the law by not doing so. They showed her the taser and asked if she understood what it was. They explained that if she didn't comply, they would have to use it. She willfully resisted complying with their requests and she got what she deserved. Like I said before, I think she's lucky that they don't charge her with endangerment of a child because she knew that she was pregnant. Knew that if she did not comply, the officers would be forced to use the tasers and she still did not comply. How hard is it to get out of the vehicle? But no, she would subject her unborn child to the taser just to be pigheaded and resist signing the document.

The law cannot go down this slippery slope of sometimes they law has to be applied and sometimes not. And the pregnant woman should be chastised by the court for her failure to comply with authorities when she was 100% at fault and to blame.

Of course the police make these decisions all the time. Have you ever gotten a warning instead of a ticket? The police DO have latitude to use good sense when it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

I read this as "cops taste a pregnant woman. So. Nothing could be worse than that.

[Anonymous]

Quoting the International Assoc. of Police Chiefs Taser use guidelines study
Policies should (1) state explicitly when officers may use the weapons; (2) specify inappropriate uses (e.g. as punishment or near potentially flammable, volatile, or explosive material); and (3) outline the laws on use-of-force. They may also limit use of the weapons, even in circumstances where it is otherwise legal.

The team should determine if officers may use the weapons on:

1. fleeing suspects and, if so, under what circumstances;

2. persons with known or visible impairments indicating compromised health;

3. mentally challenged persons or vulnerable populations (such as children, the elderly, and pregnant women)

How this esteemed group of a Supervisor and two officers felt justified to deploy their Taser on an apparently temporarily deranaged pregnant woman escapes me. Did society benefit by their overly agressive insensitivty and assertive posture all due to exceeding the speed limit by 12MPH. Whatever happened to common sense.
I'm sure the legal community, the only one's benefiting by their dumb respose is gratefully thanking them for the fees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quoting the International Assoc. of Police Chiefs Taser use guidelines study
Policies should (1) state explicitly when officers may use the weapons; (2) specify inappropriate uses (e.g. as punishment or near potentially flammable, volatile, or explosive material); and (3) outline the laws on use-of-force. They may also limit use of the weapons, even in circumstances where it is otherwise legal.

The team should determine if officers may use the weapons on:

1. fleeing suspects and, if so, under what circumstances;

2. persons with known or visible impairments indicating compromised health;

3. mentally challenged persons or vulnerable populations (such as children, the elderly, and pregnant women)

How this esteemed group of a Supervisor and two officers felt justified to deploy their Taser on an apparently temporarily deranaged pregnant woman escapes me. Did society benefit by their overly agressive insensitivty and assertive posture all due to exceeding the speed limit by 12MPH. Whatever happened to common sense.
I'm sure the legal community, the only one's benefiting by their dumb respose is gratefully thanking them for the fees

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Why would they make the signature required for the speeding ticket? Many people would not sign something they do not agree with or do not understand.
I think that's a stupid law, and the woman misunderstood the significance of her signature.

[Anonymous]

If this had been a white woman, and not an AA woman, the pro-life, every-fetus-is-a-person-with-rights community would be up in arms about assault on an innocent child.

Instead, the right views this pregnant mother as a "law-breaker" who is "100 percent at fault and to blame" who "got what she deserved" (three permanent scars).

And yes, I am assuming 12:15 is some hard-core Republican, is there any chance s/he isn't?

Such glee at a woman's humiliating and painful experience. It's sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she even really need to be arrested in the first place? Seems like that was the beginning of the problem. Not signing may be an arrest-able offense, but you don't have to arrest someone.Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The ticket doesn't become void.

I wonder why the cops felt the need to draw the line in the sand there?

Exactly. I think it was a power thing. You WILL comply. Doesn't matter if it's really important or not. I AM THE BOSS.

Exactly why I can't stand cops with a god complex. F'in pigs.

[Anonymous]

They tasered the baby as well. The electric current is transmitted to the uterus and the baby gets a shock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this had been a white woman, and not an AA woman, the pro-life, every-fetus-is-a-person-with-rights community would be up in arms about assault on an innocent child.

Instead, the right views this pregnant mother as a "law-breaker" who is "100 percent at fault and to blame" who "got what she deserved" (three permanent scars).

And yes, I am assuming 12:15 is some hard-core Republican, is there any chance s/he isn't?

Such glee at a woman's humiliating and painful experience. It's sickening.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this had been a white woman, and not an AA woman, the pro-life, every-fetus-is-a-person-with-rights community would be up in arms about assault on an innocent child.

Instead, the right views this pregnant mother as a "law-breaker" who is "100 percent at fault and to blame" who "got what she deserved" (three permanent scars).

And yes, I am assuming 12:15 is some hard-core Republican, is there any chance s/he isn't?

Such glee at a woman's humiliating and painful experience. It's sickening.

Of course. If she's been white, she wouldn't have even gotten tased in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yes, I am assuming 12:15 is some hard-core Republican, is there any chance s/he isn't?

Actually you are incorrect. I am a moderate who is socially liberal. I am far from hard-core Republican, but I do believe in the rule of law. You need to follow the law and if you disagree, then you need to work with the system to change the law (work with lobbyists, activists and petition your elected officials). You don't get to pick and choose which laws to follow. Or you can, but then face the consequences. The law as written says that she needed to sign the ticket or be arrested. She refused and resisted arrest. They tried to reason with her, but she was, as another poster put it, "temporarily deranged" and refused. Would you prefer that they had treated her the way they treat others who resist arrest by taking her by the arm and pushing her face down onto the road and handcuffed? That would likely have been more damaging to the child that she carried. If you deliberately choose to violate a law, refuse to comply with police and then resist arrest, you get whatever happens and you deserve it. She could have prevented being tasered at several points in the process and chose not to. Her choice. I still think she should have been charged with reckless endangerment of a child.