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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:48 PM
Not at all.

I'm just saying that Tasers are becoming more resourceful than dialogue. If these officers cannot deal with a woman then they shouldn't be on the force. And if this is the case for more officers, they need more trained officers who are trained in negotiation, mediation and arbitration to deal with different situations as they arise. Ambulances have a great response time to save people, the police should go back to

Proctect and Serve

not Taser and Shoot

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:50 PM
As for the whole negotiator idea, a field negotiator is unnecessary. The criminal has no choice in being arrested or not and no negotiating can stop him from going to jail. We are all entitled to negotiation, however, in the form of a L-A-W-Y-E-R, after the arrest.

The power of a police officer to be able to take you to jail for committing a crime is legitimized by the social contract and if you don't like it then you don't have to deal with it if you don't break the law.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:52 PM

from OOPS
Proctect and Serve

They were protecting the children in the school zone and serving the taxpayer who pays money to have his children in the school zones protected from dangerous drivers who speed.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:52 PM
I am not sure if this is the same case as the worlds wildest police videos, however if it is the same and by the description given here by many, she got just what she deserved.

The one shown on TV had identical events and one child in the car where the mother refused to sign the ticket over and over then the officer called for back up and again she refused then they called the supervisor and zap she then got it. As I said if it is the same one she deserved everything she got.

[edit on 5/10/2005 by shots]

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:19 PM
Firstly doing 32 in a 20 is hardly ripping it, but I do understand the speed regulations are there for a reason, to protect others.

Next, are physical measures really needed for not signing a speeding ticket?
In this country if you refuse to do such or refuse to take a breathaliser you admit your guilt and are therefore charged with no defence. Surely that is a better way of doing it, rather than risk killing/hurting a unborn and likely causing mental anguish on the other child seeing his mother being assaulted?

I just see physical attack rather extreme and brutal for a speeding ticket.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:33 PM
I agree that this situation was escalated beyond reason -- by the mother. Her son having to witness the whole thing? I blame her. She had every opportunity to cash in her chips, take the ticket, and be on her way.

A ticket isn't just some "ticket." It's a promise to appear in court. If she can't promise that she will appear in court, they cannot let her go. They must take her to court themselves.

If this upsets you, become upset with the reckless mother, not the state. Maybe 32 in a 20 doesn't seem like much to you, but I've seen a kid get hit by a car in a school zone and it wouldn't have happened if the driver wasn't speeding. The kid rolled like a tire, man.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:57 PM
I shouldn't have mentioned the speed point zipdot as it isn't really relevant. I am aware that 9 out 10 people hit at 30mph will die, a scary statistic.

What I meant to say is that here, if you do not sign etc, then it goes to court wether you are there or not. The sentance/fine is given and then you are sent the bill or arrested to be imprisoned. I just think that way of upholding the law may be less violent.

I do agree that all of this could have been avoided if the woman had co-operated, maybe the laws need adjusting? So that violence is not nessecary, as I have said, it was only a speeding ticket.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Kriz_4]

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 04:10 PM
Well, if you don't show up to court after having signed the ticket, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. If you do not sign the ticket stating that you'll be in court, it's pretty much tantamount to saying "I'm not going to show up to court," so a warrant would be issued for your arrest anyways.

It saves money and lives to just take the person to court at the time that they commit the offense. This doesn't happen often in cases that aren't extreme (i.e., within 20 mph of the speed limit) because most people have the common sense to just sign the damn ticket.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 04:18 PM

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.

I think I agree. Where we draw the line? Let's say the woman is found in posession of an illegal handgun. She must be arrested, obviously. Or, she is in altercation with the officers and refuses to remove the car from teh intersection, posing a danger to others. Do the cops need to let her go?

She should have known what was explained to her.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:02 PM
Who has wacky hormones? OMG, a pregnant woman! The proper thing to have done in this case was detain the woman while a "female" negotiator was called to the scene.

But what would a cop know about a woman, huge, not only uncomfortable but hormonally unbalanced? NOTHING.

There ought to be a law,

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:13 PM
They gave procedure more priority than the life of the unborn child. Why couldnt they just give her the ticket and serve her papers at home when the situation had calmed down?

They had her I.D and address so whats the big friggen deal? They should of held the unborn babies life as paramount and defered the signing until the woman had gone home.

Unjustifiable, risking an unborn childs life for the sake of a friggen signature - on both sides!

The mother should of been regarded akin to a hostage taker. She was putting the life of the unborn baby in jeapordy and the police should of acknowledge that and defused the situation. Not tazer the child any way. To defuse the situation would of been to just let her go and caught up with her at home.

[edit on 10/5/05 by subz]

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:16 PM
Yes, you guys have the point.

The cops could have also booted the car and just wait till the lady gives up and leaves the car.

Tazing does seem a little drastic in this case.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:23 PM
Whine, whine, whine. She had it coming. Tempe, read the article. Or, better yet, I'll break it down for you:

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.

Oh, she had tons of warning. She could have given up after the first hit -and, may I note, simply applying the prongs and discharging the electricity is fairly mild in comparison to firing the prongs into her and subduing her, odl style. Even after multiple taserings, she CONTINUED to resist.

Please observe the Dread Wheel . Intermediate weapons are fully within the limits of an officers capabilites with an active resistant suspect.

Man, she should know better.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:43 PM
Dude the womans actions are IRRELEVANT. The unborn child had no choice in the matter and the offensive actions of the police officers would equally harm the unborn child. If you look at it logically you can clearly see that escalating the situation was not worth the risk to the unborn child. The kids life should of been the most important component of the whole scenario and it wasnt, the damn speeding ticket was.

Let the woman go - unborn child is not harmed
Enforce a speeding ticket - unborn child gets tazered

Any one with an ounce of a brain can see that the woman could not be reasoned with and the appropriate action of a Western democratic nation's police force would of been to back off!

In essence the situation was a hostage situation. The police should of waited and waited and then waited some more. The use of force should of only been used to prevent any harm to the child. They just could not be bothered ensuring the saftey of the unborn - period.

Since when has the life of an unborn child been superceeded by a speeding ticket?

[edit on 10/5/05 by subz]

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:54 PM
Guys, the baby's life wasn't in danger, except when her mother was speeding and driving recklessly. The police have rules to go by when tazing the elderly, pregnant, or young, but it's still authorized. The police were right and the woman was wrong. With her actions, the woman asked to go to jail.

Did she think that if she was defiant enough and gripped the wheel hard enough, the cops would give up and let her go? No. She knew what she was doing, and she did it anyway.

What if she was an armed robbery suspect who wouldn't get out of her car? What if she was a murderer who wouldn't get out of her car? The law is the law and a person cannot defy it without consequences. She broke the social contract and sadly her family has to pay the consequences.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:57 PM
Since when is the mother not responsible for escalating the situation? She was the one who dragged the baby into it.

She refused to comply to police, and was told that she would be arrested. She was shown the tazer, and warned that it would be used on her if she continued resisting. She was zapped once in a very minimal fashion on an extremity. She continued to resist. She was zapped another two times before officers simply manhandled her out of the car.

Here are the facts of the matter:

1. This woman had every opportunity to comply.
2. Her actions put her child at risk.
3. She was in a car, which can be considered a weapon in the circumstance.
4. She was belligerent and resisting arrest.
5. The police used the minimum amount of force neccesary. The tazer was not used to maximum effect.

She knew the name of the game the instant the police became involved. I figure after having a weapon exhibited to you, one would start thinking of the child and simply give in.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:03 PM

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.

Really? I see it as just the opposite. Just because we may not like a tough decision is not a reason to stop supporting the police. They did everything by the book.

from dg
But what would a cop know about a woman, huge, not only uncomfortable but hormonally unbalanced? NOTHING.

How can you tell when a woman is hormonally unbalanced? j/k

In essence the situation was a hostage situation. The police should of waited and waited and then waited some more. The use of force should of only been used to prevent any harm to the child. They just could not be bothered ensuring the saftey of the unborn - period.

Every minute the police have to wait for this woman to snap out of her temper tantrum is another minute they are removed from responding to other calls.

The woman was totally at fault. If her unborn child had been harmed because of her recalcitrance, she should be made to pay the consequences.

This is nothing more than another story of alleged police brutality when they have to deal with overage children.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:09 PM
You have voted jsobecky for the Way Above Top Secret award.

Yeah, it's great, all those people screaming for the police to sit around and wait for everything just don't realize what the real world is like.

"Ten-thirty three. Officers down at James and Walker. All available units respond."

"Negative, dispatch. We have a pregnant woman who's resisting arrest for possesion of narcotics."

Such BS.


posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:24 PM
I guess it all boils down to what your priorities are.

Ensuring the saftey of an unborn child or enforcing a speeding ticket.

posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:29 PM
Well, IMO, the person that should be more concerned with the baby's health - more than any other person in the world - would be the mother.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in