It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
DeusEx, dont dramatise the topic.

If there was such a credible threat to ALL OF US OUTSIDE THE WOMB because of speeding then every one caught speeding WOULD BE ARRESTED! Not just issued a monetary fine!

DubiousOne, if I hadnt just voted my last WATS vote I'd of voted for that post, spot on! Thank you.

Zipdot, you answered that your guilt would consume you in that situation I asked you about. Now why, if thats how you'd feel, do you think it was ok for this police officer to risk that very situation over such a trivial fine?

[edit on 11/5/05 by subz]




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
The person who was served in that manner has a duty to respond to the citation. If the person does not respnd to the citation or appear in court, she will be found guilty, the verdict and nonappearance will be report to DOL, and DOL will take adverse action against the person's driving privileges. The court will enforce the fine.


This is a quote from somewhere. I lost the source.
If a citation is forthcoming, recognize that arguing is not the best option. The traffic ticket is only a notification to appear in court. It does not mean you are guilty of the violation presented on the citation. However, this is a critical stage of the traffic contact. The officer will ask you to sign the ticket, thereby acknowledging that you will appear in court. Your signature does not do anything but say you will appear. If you refuse to sign the citation, the officer must take you into custody, take you to jail, and then transfer you to court. This process can result in your vehicle being impounded, and the loss of many hours of your time. Do not risk such an action! Always sign the ticket and take the matter up with the court.



Those of you think the officer acted appropriately because he could be off on another call or home watching a mariners game if she responded more quickly to his commands, remember, the US is not a police state yet, but your approval of this kind of police conduct will help it get there much more quickly.


He asked his supervisor for advice and his supervisor gave him the go-ahead to arrest. She refused arrest.

Zip



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
More, from www.lawa.org...



What happens if I refuse to sign a ticket? What can I do if I disagree with the traffic or parking ticket?

The law mandates that law enforcement personnel issuing the citation take you before a magistrate (judge) without necessary delay if you fail to sign the ticket. By signing the ticket you can appear before a magistrate at a later date, avoiding a jail visit. Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt, just a promise to appear before the magistrate.

If you disagree with the ticket, you should appear before the commissioner or judge in traffic court. Here you will be able to explain your side of the incident and introduce items of evidence in your defense. The court will also listen to the officer’s account of the incident and admit his/her relevant evidence. The court will then render an impartial decision concerning the ticket.


It is at the officer's discretion to pull the woman over in the first place. Not requiring the person cited to sign the citation is in my opinion a negligent act on the officer's part. The person cited should be required to know their rights before they break contact with the citing offer.

Zip



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Those of you think the officer acted appropriately because he could be off on another call or home watching a mariners game if she responded more quickly to his commands, remember, the US is not a police state yet, but your approval of this kind of police conduct will help it get there much more quickly.


People don't see it. They refuse to see the facts.

The more you resist police, the more force will be deployed in order to maintain rule of law.

This applies on a societal level, too. The more people decide to make officers' lives hard, the more inclined said officers will be to use force. The police want to go home alive, that's their main priority. After that, protect and serve, in that order.

Anyone complaining that this is a step towards a police state is right. Way to encourage resistance to the police, which will ensure clampdowns on this kind of nonsense.

If a person can't take responsibility for their conduct, then I guess they're SOL. I don't care if you're drunk, stoned, pregnant or an alien. The police have a job, and they're going to do it.

DE



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

a taeser should be treated EXACTLY like a gun, last resort option ONLY.

That doesn't make anysense. If its going to be used that way, then just get ride of it and use a gun. The tazer and what not are specifcally for using before the 'last resort'.

Originally posted by loam
www.cfpc.ca...

from that site

QUESTION A 24-year-old patient of mine, who was 23 weeks pregnant at the time, suffered a minor electric shock while using her hair dryer. She said she felt the current in her right hand and she was wearing shoes. She was observed in an emergency room for several hours and then discharged home. Is her pregnancy or fetus at risk now or later in the pregnancy?
ANSWER There are conflicting reports on how harmful electric shock is to a fetus. The clinical spectrum of electrical injury ranges from a transient unpleasant sensation felt by a mother and no effect on her fetus to fetal death either immediately or few days later. Several factors, such as the magnitude of the current and the duration of contact, are thought to affect outcome. In this case, it appears the current did not travel through her abdomen. Recommendations for fetal monitoring after electrocution have been published.

And notice that that page doesn't address the device used here, which is different than touching a faulty home appliance.


I'm quite sure that you have never had children, based on how prepared you are to minimize the risk.

Irrelevant. The studies involve pregnant women receiving shocks, doesn't matter if the person reading the study is pregnant or a parent or not.

Of 31 pregnant women who called us, 28 were exposed to electric shock while using home appliances. Twenty-eight of these women delivered healthy newborns. One baby had a ventricular septal defect that closed spontaneously during early childhood, and two women had spontaneous abortions, one temporally related to the accidental injury, the other probably not associated with it. We found no differences in mean birth weight, gestational age at delivery, rates of cesarean section, or neonatal distress between electric-shock and control groups.

31 women who receive varius shocks from home appliances and house current. 3 of them had problems, only one demonstrably related to the shock.

enronoutrunhomerun
She was clearly in the wrong.....But there are other ways to go....Bring out a tow truck and move while she's in the car - See if that won't get her out....If not, she'll just get a free ride to the junk yard.....

Agreed, there are other ways to go about it. But, if this mild setting on the tazer is just a zap to get her to let go to the wheel and let her know its not worth struggling *shrug* doesn't seem like its much of anything. I mean, the full setting, thats a different story.

Guess the only way to find out is for one of use to go ask a cop to give us the zap. Any volunteers? Come on Come on, Deny Ignorance and all.


Need I offer a slew of examples where a taser actually killed someone


How about offering studies that show that this alternate setting unacceptably dangerous to use?

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
He asked his supervisor for advice and his supervisor gave him the go-ahead to arrest. She refused arrest.

Zip

Im going to attempt to help the discussion here.

I dont think there is anyone posting here that agrees with the womans actions, not one of us. So please, the speeding and the ticket is not up for discussion here, we all agree SHE deserved everything she got.

The only bones of contention we have is that tazing her didnt just affect the woman (who clearly deserved it) but it also carried on to the completely 100% innocent unborn child.

We all agree that the woman escalated the situation and should of complied but she didnt.

Where we differ in opinions is that the police did not 100% necessarily have to get her to sign the citation on the spot. They could of just served her a summons through the mail.

Then there is the issue of the actual tazing.

The woman deserved to be tazered (she probably deserved a higher dose IMO) but the mitagating circumstances of her pregnancy turn the scenario on its head.

Does the results of tazing the woman trump the well-being of the unborn child, however negligible the risk to it was? And the answer is a resounding: NO

[edit on 11/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Okay, now we're talkin'. The alternate setting of the tazer produces LOCAL shocks. This is why it was used a couple times on her thigh and whatever and she didn't give up until they shocked her on the neck. No electrical charge is passed on to the baby.

Maybe this helps.

Zip



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Again, she kept her grip on the wheel, so use a chainsaw to cut her arms off. Not shocking her, so not somehow with a .00003% chance of hurting the baby. If you don't want criminals to be punished, open all the jails. A law is a law, so is resisting arresst, you see those on tv all the time, they usually end up in the car crashing with people dead. So, tazer, or high speed chase killing people.....



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Zipdot, you can never be 100% certain that there is no underlying medical problems with the mother or baby. There is a risk there that the woman or even the baby have a weak heart.

The stress of the situation and localised tazing could increase the womans heart rate and blood pressure resulting in endangering the baby.

The police officers could not know for 100% certain that nothing bad would of happend. Thank god nothing did happen to the baby but the fact remains there was a chance that it could of all gone really really badly. That whats unforgivable in this situation and the reason the police officers need to explain their actions to a judge.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
James the Lesser, dont be a complete half wit.

If she dropped a bit of trash on the floor and the police officer asked her to sign her citation. Would risking the life of the unborn baby by tazing her be acceptable to you?

After all, it is the law too.

Some of you think society would come crashing down if the police showed discretion here.

NEWS FLASH: Police use discretion all the bloody time. High speed car chases are called off ALL THE TIME because the risk of injuring innocent people are too high. The exact same principle applies here and not having her sign a citation would not be tantamount to "opening the doors to the jails"



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
It is a normal response to be outraged, regardless of any law that is applied. This is a matter of discretionary enforcement. Apparently even this kind of civil rights catastophe is basically a baloon for the sheeple to "get over it to get with the program and get used to it." Well I was taught differently where we learned the history of the United States and its heritage. Sorry but this matter of discretionary enforcement shows poor judgement at minimum, and neglect of basic principles. You see it is not a draconian law that trumps things, nor is it the police, it is our basic founding principles. If we are to excuse criminal conduct from the police, and to amplify every tiny breech of interpretation on regular people, then we are becoming worse than a slave state. Don't put up with this ever. It is rank hypocrisy to let these things slip under the radar, while touting "freedom and democracy," around the world. Just what do you mean by that anyway?



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Hey subz, hate to break it to you, but she could have stood around some smokers in a restaurant, and it could have harmed her baby. Everything harms the damn baby. She could've slipped in the shower and damaged the baby. Why not just tie her to a table and feed her intravenously her entire term?

fact of the matter is that her choices are the ones that could have led to danger for her baby. Just like choosing have have a been while she's pregnant or smoking while she's pregnant, the woman's actions are responsible for harming her baby.

Now, like I said, if the officers had broken her hands with a baton, you still would have whined. Instead of crusading against the people keeping you safe at night, why not give the idea of personal responsibility a try?

DE



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
That brings to mind a bizarre story my sister told me this weekend while we ate all-you-can-eat mud bugs at a local pub.

Her old best friend, whom I knew, had been circling downwards in a spiral pattern for the past decade or so in a drug and alcohol induced haze. She smoked, she drank, and she did drugs every day. She was kinda on the fat side, though I remember her being skinny. Times had changed for her.

True story.

One day, she gets these stomach pains. She goes to a doctor, who tells her she's going into labour. She gives birth to a 4 pound girl that is addicted to drugs, nicotine, and alcohol upon birth.

THAT damaged a fetus, although she survived.

I was reading about taser guns on WikiPedia, and I get the impression that a 1/4 second jolt from one of these 9V-battery-powered devices on the thigh or neck causes no more damage than a hard pinch.

That got me to thinking.

Maybe the cops could have gotten the woman to relinquish her grasp by giving her a nipple-twister. What do you think, subz?

Zip



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
They should have left her in the car and had it towed with her in it !



she will respect a-tha-rity !


I was pulled over recently, I didn't think i deserved it, but the facts are I was speeding. When the trooper asked me a question, I answered and ended with "sir". I didn't get a ticket, because I respected his a-tha-rity.


common sense ! don't run from or mess with the po-lice !



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Subz says:

DubiousOne, if I hadn’t just voted my last WATS vote I'd of voted for that post, spot on! Thank you.

Thanks Subz, though your subsequent posts seem to disagree with me.

ZIPDOT says:


The officer will ask you to sign the ticket, thereby acknowledging that you will appear in court. Your signature does not do anything but say you will appear.

True. You nonetheless have a duty to appear if you're served with a citation that you don't sign.



He asked his supervisor for advice and his supervisor gave him the go-ahead to arrest. She refused arrest.

Did his supervisor tell him to use a taser or other inappropriate levels of force against her?

Zipdot


Not requiring the person cited to sign the citation is in my opinion a negligent act on the officer's part. The person cited should be required to know their rights before they break contact with the citing offer.

The officer DID ask her to sign the citation. He was not negligent in that regard. When she refused to sign he should have explained to her what the effect of signing is, i.e. that is not an admission of guilt but that it just acknowledges and promises that she will appear in court. Did he explain that to her? He should also have handed her the unsigned citation, told her that her failure to sign does not excuse her from responding or from appearing in court. He then should have wished her a good day and gone about his business. As I said in a previous post, traffic citation are often issued without the signature of the driver. Ask any police officer who does traffic duty!


DeusEx


If a person can't take responsibility for their conduct, then I guess they're SOL. I don't care if you're drunk, stoned, pregnant or an alien. The police have a job, and they're going to do it.


She disagreed with the police officer. That's not a crime. She was speeding. She was issued a citation. She declined to sign it. That starts the process rolling, even though she did not sign it. She was on the path to taking responsibility for her actions through the judicial process provided that she actually was speeding and the state proves it by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing. Wake up, people! Go back to Junior High civics class and learn why it isn't proper to do what that police officer did in this case.

Yes. Police have a job to do. That officer completed his job when he issued and handed her the citation. She was served. The next step in the process is for her to respond and appear in court. Then a judge decides. According to the article the only reason the officer detained her longer was because she did not sign the citation. There are no other factors at play here. She did nothing that deserved the violent assault she received from that officer.

Subz says:

* * * we all agree SHE deserved everything she got. * * *
The woman deserved to be tazered.

Subz, you can exclude me from your broad generalization. She did not deserve what she got and she certainly did not deserve to be tazed. This incident is an example of the cops violently flexing their muscle to intimidate!

DeusEx


fact of the matter is that her choices are the ones that could have led to danger for her baby.

Yes, speeding can pose dangers. How does that justify what the officer did? How fast was she driving? How much over the limit?



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Dubious, you pose a lot of questions that have already been answered in the thread. The officer explained the situation and possible consequences to her more than adequately. He even test-fired the taser to show her what she had to look forward to if she kept resisting arrest.

As for your insistance that she didn't "have" to sign the ticket, please see my posts at the top of page 6 if you would like to become more familiar with the actual LAW.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the use of the taser gun was authorized. Cops wouldn't have taser guns if their use wasn't authorized. These officers were empowered to make their own judgements as to necessary conduct. They followed previously outlined regulations and guidelines.

EDIT 2: I just can't let this slide...

from dubiousone
Subz, you can exclude me from your broad generalization. She did not deserve what she got and she certainly did not deserve to be tazed. This incident is an example of the cops violently flexing their muscle to intimidate!


NO it is NOT, sir. The cops did everything in their effing power to allow this woman to drive away peacefully and she REFUSED them TIME and TIME AGAIN. I can refer you to some cases of police abuse and AGAIN, this is NOT one of those cases. You are doing these officers a true disservice by impersonalizing and judging them so. The officers aren't in this forum to defend themselves against your brutal allegations.

Zip


[edit on 11-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

You have voted Zipdot for the Way Above Top Secret award


Zipdot, my less...militant companion is right. They tried everything. They sat and negotiated with her. They showed her the device, test fired it, told her it would be used on her if she didn't get out of the car. That's about where most people give up.

Many people on this thread are doing officers in general a great disservice. These people protect you, take criminals, guns, and drugs off the street, yet everyone always insists on making armchair calls on what they should have done. Theirs is probably one of the hardest jobs on the planet, yet there is a massive anti-LEO, anti-authority movement on this site.

Fact of the matter is that as much as you want to believe that people are good and kind, they aren't. Without police and the threat of incarceration, society would break down. All those people who spent twenty or thirty years keeping your communities safe applaud the respect you give their follows.

DE



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Zipdot says:


As for your insistance that she didn't "have" to sign the ticket, please see my posts at the top of page 6 if you would like to become more familiar with the actual LAW.

I read the court rules pertaining to traffic infractions, the statutes regarding a driver's signature on the traffic citation, and the Washington Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions on the subject. If you haven't read all those sources, you'd do well to go back and do your homework.

The police have a number of options when the driver will not sign. Arrest is one of those options. That they have the option to arrest does not give them authority to use whatever degree of force is necessary to make an arrest. She didn;t commit a felony, or a misdemenaor, or even a crime. She committed a civil traffic offense.

Go ahead and shoot her! That'll show her whose boss! (for those who wonder why I say that, it's sarcasm).

This case boils down, at best, to poor judgment on the part of the police officer and his supervisor. You can justify it all you want. The bottom line is that the police grossly overplayed their authority in this case and very likely caused a significant financial loss for their employer and its insurance company.

[edit on 5/11/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Suck Case Law!


(Washington State Statutes)
Such a citation "shall include. . . a place where the person arrested may
sign." RCW 46.64.015. The statute adds that in order to secure release,
the arrested person "must give his or her written promise to appear in
court as required by the citation and notice by signing in the
appropriate place the written citation and notice served by the arresting
officer. . . ."
RCW 46.64.015



Case Law - Washington v Richards
It thus appears that the "promise to appear" portion of a citation is
an essential feature of a traffic citation. If the arrestee refuses to
sign the citation, he or she may be held in jail.
Furthermore, if the
arrestee signs and then fails to appear as promised, a bench warrant may
result, as it did in the present case. See CrRLJ 2.5.

Therefore, attempting to obtain an arrestee's signature on a citation is
necessary to the discharge of a state trooper's public duties. The
failure to give that signature has legal effect, as does the failure to
appear as promised after a signature is provided.



What did you read?

Zip

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The only thing that comes to my mind is this



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join