It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: 8 Month Pregnant Woman Assaulted by Police With Taser

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:24 PM
Officers unable to extract an 8 month pregnant women from her vehicle used a 50,000 volt taser on her 7 months after the policy had been put in place for the police to able to use tasers in such situations. After being shocked she was taken to the ground and handcuffed. The November 2004 incident is only gaining attention now as the vicitim in engulged in a legal battle.
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.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The point the women makes, makes the case for me. The police could have injured her unborn child. Her refusal to sign the ticket and exit the vehicle which was for speeding does not justify the treatment by the police. There may have been psychological issues involved.

Since when does a taser replace a negotiator?

[edit on 10-5-2005 by 00PS]

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:41 PM
One more incident-

Is this a typical woman driver? I doubt it, but one that needed some help seeing the error of her ways. I don't know what else the cops could do in a situation like this- I guess they could have whacked her 20-30 times with a baton?

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:43 PM
Well that just sounds Sexist to me. If a woman is gripping her steering weel and refusing to leave her vehicle for a speeding ticket that she won't sign it does not justify the officer using a taser on her, dragging her from her vehicle and handcuffing her...

Even If She Were Not Pregnant

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:55 PM
I need a little information on some laws.

People can be charged with the murder of an unborn child if mother and child or child is killed?

Will this be considered assault of the unborn child?

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 01:58 PM
In past document assault cases on Pregnant women, the assailants were charged on multiple accounts of assault and batter of the woman and the unborn child.

When it comes to murder the same rule applies!

edit: link to this new law Bush signed

[edit on 10-5-2005 by 00PS]

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:02 PM
Unfortunately Seattle as most states, you MUST sign the traffic ticket or be taken to jail.
This ia a very common misconception by many americans.
The signing of a ticket does not imply guilt. Signing a ticket is required so that proof can be provided to the court that you acknoledge the court summons (that accompanies the ticket).
The following link will take you to HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 1650 which outlines Oregons laws in regards to this as well as failure to pay fines for tickets.


The episode sounds horrendous on the outset, but once you read through the articlle, you will see that the woman was given plenty of explaination of her rights, the outcomes of refusing, and plenty of time to figure all this out.
When the officers attempted to take her in (as the law requires) she refused to exit the vehicle. Officers attempted to remove her but were not able to due to her grip on the steering wheel. The officers even showed her the taser, told her what would happen if she refused, placed it on her thigh etc, but nothing seesm to have made a difference.

This places the cops in a very difficult position.
The cops need to uphold the law but also use sound judgement in tempering thier actions. In this case, It looks like the woman was given every chance possible to comply but refused to the point wher she had to be arrested.

I understand that Sh has been found guilty on the traffic charge but not on the resisting arrest. I look forward to see how this story unfolds.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:04 PM
From 8 year olds to pregnant women, police are becoming more and more violent. Weather you think it's justified or not the answer is it is more and more violent.

Condoning this violence or not is the bigger question.

I for one think they could use more 'people' resources and less technology. If we don't now the future will be worse.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:05 PM
Another case of "We Don't Have Enough Information to Make Judgements Here."

I will anyways, though!

This woman obviously has attitude and now she knows what happens when you break the law and then test a cop and disrespect his authority. YOU GET TAZED. YOU LIKE THAT? HUH? EAT TAZER!

The woman put her unborn child in danger by speeding and then again by getting herself into a physical confrontation with an authority that had the right to smack her down. She should be ashamed of herself.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:07 PM
Unfortuantely she wasn't being physical with the officer, the officer was being physical with her.

Jury is out on this one, Police Brutality...

Now Seattle can EAT LAW SUIT

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:10 PM
This isn't a case of police brutality, this is a case of a woman not respecting the law. Breaking the law has consequences. She didn't have to be tazed, but she demanded it.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:12 PM
She didn't break the law. She refuted the officer. The officer passed judgement on her and broke the law and this is why she will win her case in court and be awarded a large sum of money.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:13 PM
According to the article, the officers became physical with her only after exhausting all other peacful methods and the officer's supervisor authorized the arrest.

I do not condone the use of a taser, but the woman stubbornly put her self and her unborn child in danger by speeding and then by refusing to obey the officer's directions.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:16 PM
I hate to break it to you, but you can only sue the government if the government allows you to sue them. This officer will have the entire incident on audio and video recordings and the world will see that the officer followed the procedural protocol and in the end did what he had to to get the woman to relinquish her grasp to the steering wheel.

What would you rather have had the cops do in this case? Nothing? It was between them walking away from the incident and forcing her into submission.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:17 PM
I still believe a negotiator or other female officer should have been brought to the scene to deal with the mother.

After 8 months of being pregnant the woman may be dealing with issues a man or just a normal 'cop' couldn't understand. For all you know they aggravated her and escalated the situation.

Negotiators are better than tasers.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:24 PM

Officer Juan Ornelas, testified he clocked Brooks' Dodge Intrepid doing 32 mph in a 20-mph school zone.

She was also putting the lives of children besides her son and her unborn child in danger, ripping through a school zone at excessive speeds.

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.

They DID negotiate with her. She was being unreasonable and this is what happened. Since she didn't want to sign the ticket, which basically just says "hey, I'll be there in court on this day, but you can let me go now with no problems," the only other way to guarantee that she would be in court was to TAKE HER THERE. They explained all of this to her and she still tested them.

Again, she put herself, her son, her unborn child, and all of the children in the school zone in danger. Screw her.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:28 PM
A second office was called to the scene and attempted to get the woman to sign the ticket. After the second office could not convince the woman to sign the ticket, the supervisor was called. The supervisor, then authorized the arrest / detention of the woman.
There was not need for a negotiator in this case. If this case required the services of a negotiator, then every single interaction that an officer has with any civilian.

As for the need of a female officer on the scene, a female officer is required when there is a need to frisk a detainee. The female officer can be in the detention center and does not need to be on-site of the arrest.

I believe that the woman was counting on the fact that her pregnency would protect her. She now understands that it will not. Again, the woman (according to the article) did not give the officers any choice in the matter.
I do not like what happen, but I do see where the officers needed to do something.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:32 PM

"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."

This quote explains it all... "Some People Here" act like she had no choice but to lash out and be irresponsible, but in reality, it was her own stupid and rash actions that caused the escalation and the ensuing resolution.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:34 PM
I'm not trying to be bull headed on this on purpose but all of us are men commenting on this.

A female officer is only called to the scene if the woman needs to be frisked is bull in my opinion....

The fact that you don't like what happened but still support the police means the US is in a sadder state then when I left.

A negotiator or someone from a civil office should have been brought down to talk to the women.

This only shames the already shamed Seattle police!

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:45 PM
The are you agreeing with me? That maybe we should have a negotiator basically in the hip pocket of an officer while on duty (heck off-duty as well since these things arise when they are not working also) so that when an officer has any interaction with a civilian, the negotiator can then step in to protect the criminal?

I do not like many members of the police force. I have seen way too many of them overstep their authority and have used excessive force. This case does not fit this area though. Look at what happened in California yesterday. 120 shots fired at an unarmed man who although acted foolishly, did not break the law (other than not stopping with all the police vehicles behind him). The cops fired over 120 rounds. shooting other cops, shooting up the homes of the houses around them where innocent children were sleeping) BTW, the man the cops were firing at, was only hit 4 times. These cops need to go back to the shooting range!

Another way to look at this...... a criminal, say, a thief, refuses to comply with an officers orders refuses the be detained, what is the officer to do? let the criminal go about their merry way to rob someone else?
This seems to be what you are proposing.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:47 PM
That's a great opinion to have, but I know a few dozen women who would call you sexist for saying that. They would then proceed to say that the woman should be ashamed of herself for putting the childrens' lives in danger and that she should receive jail time for evading arrest and refusing to obey an officer.


top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in