police are not above reproachAnonymous wrote:
So, now it's fine for pregnant women to resist arrest? I don't think so. She brought this on herself. Maybe she should have tried breastfeeding the other kid and then she could have screamed about this. Resist arrest and you get what you deserve, pregnant or not.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:cop overuse the taser. really unappropriate even if she wasn't pregnant. the cop should be fired and sued!
... and tasered
Anonymous wrote:Do you think that the use of a taser was appropriate in this case?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/police-taser-use-on-pregnant-woman-goes-before-supreme-court.html
I find it ironic that at a time when we are enacting all kinds of laws and regulations to protect the unborn, our society would tolerate officials doing this to a pregnant person.
I don't think I would have behaved the way she did. But at the end of the day, they tased her over a signature. She did not pose a threat to them.
Thoughts?
Anonymous wrote:Yes, I read the article. It is true that she refused to get out of the car, but again, the power struggle was over her signature. Again, not sure I would make the same choices she did. But also don't think a pregnant lady and an 11 YO in a car equals a threat requiring use of a taser.
If the officers had simply noted that she refused to sign, she still doesn't get out of the ticket - just like you can get red light tickets in the mail.
PP do you really feel this was an appropriate use of a taser?
Anonymous wrote:No, they tased her because she refused to follow the law, refused to comply with authorities when she had violated a law and also used her pregnancy as a shield assuming that it would prevent from being treated as the law-breaking individual that she was. I agree that while this is an extreme case, if you allow this woman's appeal to be upheld, then you will break the rule of law and set a legal precedent that will allow other lawbreakers immunity from police action. This woman was clearly in the wrong, is unrepentant and we should not go down this slippery slope. I think that this woman is lucky that she was not charged with child endangerment by using her unborn child as a means to avoid complying with police. She was given ample warning that they were serious. They showed her the taser, asked her if she knew what it was and what it did and that she had to comply or they would use it. This woman recklessly endangered her child by not following the state law.
Anonymous wrote:No, they tased her because she refused to follow the law, refused to comply with authorities when she had violated a law and also used her pregnancy as a shield assuming that it would prevent from being treated as the law-breaking individual that she was. I agree that while this is an extreme case, if you allow this woman's appeal to be upheld, then you will break the rule of law and set a legal precedent that will allow other lawbreakers immunity from police action. This woman was clearly in the wrong, is unrepentant and we should not go down this slippery slope. I think that this woman is lucky that she was charged with child endangerment by using her unborn child as a means to avoid complying with police. She was given ample warning that they were serious. They showed her the taser, asked her if she knew what it was and what it did and that she had to comply or they would use it. This woman recklessly endangered her child by not following the state law.
Anonymous wrote:cop overuse the taser. really unappropriate even if she wasn't pregnant. the cop should be fired and sued!
Anonymous wrote:Do you think that the use of a taser was appropriate in this case?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/police-taser-use-on-pregnant-woman-goes-before-supreme-court.html
I find it ironic that at a time when we are enacting all kinds of laws and regulations to protect the unborn, our society would tolerate officials doing this to a pregnant person.
I don't think I would have behaved the way she did. But at the end of the day, they tased her over a signature. She did not pose a threat to them.
Thoughts?