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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

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

LoL I think that would of been something to behold



Originally posted by 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!

I apologise for generalising but it was a feeble attempt on my part to move away from the whole "she deserved it" component. I wanted people to focus on how the unborn child DIDNT derserve it but was subjected to the tazering nontheless.

How people can justify endangering the unborn child over this baffles me. There are laws surrounding child endangerment that supercede traffic infractions and the cop seriously screwed up in his obligation to protect that unborn child. He did the tazering, not the woman.




posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
How people can justify endangering the unborn child over this baffles me. There are laws surrounding child endangerment that supercede traffic infractions and the cop seriously screwed up in his obligation to protect that unborn child. He did the tazering, not the woman.

Pages back you were 'through' with this. Yet you (as the woman in the article) don't want to get it.

Tazer's act upon

An electrical signal transmits throughout the region where the probes make contact with the body or clothing. The result is an instant loss of the attacker’s neuromuscular control and any ability to perform coordinated action

In the days before Tazers a choke hold or a little Judo/pressure to her neck would have done the same thing.

This focus on the fetus is wrongheaded and inflammatory on your part. This woman was speeding in a school zone. Look at the picture I posted pages and pages back. She EASILY could have hit a child and killed or maimed them. She was a danger.

Her own actions in refusing to cooperate with the traffic cop prove beyond doubt that the woman needed some prodding. Sign the ticket! It is the law.

Beating this dead horse that the police were wrong is baloney. 'negotiator' Bull. She needed to be hauled into jail and removed from the streets. How many police cars should have been sent to the scene to secure her so she couldn't drive off? Ten?

Laying this on the policeman (ad infinitum) does nothing for the woman. She has a higher duty to protect the unborn. She deliberately forced a confrontation.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
so yall blamin the woman?...she was late & speedin endangerin the child yeah, but shut ur piewhole u speed in a hurry too & taser use is bs whenever it happens, police shouldnt use it nearly as much as they do,
dont defend the damn dirty feds, yall might as well be the feds dont make me cut some bacon off your back
j/p for real though F the police



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
This focus on the fetus is wrongheaded and inflammatory on your part.

Yeah ignoring the fact that she was 8 months pregnant comes quite easily to some doesnt it. Who gives a rats if the kid dies by some freak accident she should of signed the friggen papers. Yeah I get it, and I am "through" with this argument, its cyclical but im just a glutton for punishment when I see belligerent ignorance.


Originally posted by AKAELI
so yall blamin the woman?...she was late & speedin endangerin the child yeah, but shut ur piewhole u speed in a hurry too & taser use is bs whenever it happens, police shouldnt use it nearly as much as they do,
dont defend the damn dirty feds, yall might as well be the feds dont make me cut some bacon off your back j/p for real though F the police

I think I lost some brain cells reading that



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
if u gotta problem u should U2 me, so i can cut some bacon off ur back u damn dirty fed
j/p its my opinion so whatever F the police



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The cop probably didn't think she was pregnant, after all, obesity is rampant now in the US. He probably thought she just was heavy set.

The fact is though, is that she was speeding ,which is a crime, and not cooperating with the cop. A little taser jab, albiet, maybe alittle overkill, is certainly an effective way to apply pressure for the suspect to cooperate.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
ZipDot says:


Suck Case Law!


Bad choice of attitude my friend. If it weren't for the courts the USA would have been a fascist nazi dictatorship police state long ago!

The Richards case does not support your position. The Richards case involves an arrest for the traffic CRIME of DUI. Richards was arrested for DUI, not for failing or refusing to sign a citation for a civil traffic infraction. In Richards the defendant was prosecuted for forgery because he signed another person’s name on the “I promise to appear” section of the DUI citation. Notice that the language you quote from the Richards case cites CrRLJ 2.5 which is Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (i.e. District Courts and Municipal Courts) rule no. 2.5. That rule does not apply to the assaulted pregnant woman’s situation. She was charged with a civil infraction, not a crime!

ZipDot says:


What did you read?


Answer: A lot more than you did.

Nonetheless, Zip, I commend you for doing some research. That's a good start.

Following is the text of CrRLJ 2.5 (criminal rule) and IRLJ 2.5 (infraction rule). The latter applies to the tazed pregnant lady. Read these court rules carefully and notice the differences between the two. The differences speak volumes in reference to this thread.

CrRLJ Rule 2.5. Procedure on failure to obey citation and notice.

The court may order the issuance of a bench warrant for the arrest of any defendant who has failed to appear before the court, either in person or by a lawyer, in answer to a citation and notice, or an order of the court, upon which the defendant has promised in writing to appear, or of which the defendant has otherwise received notice to appear, if the sentence for the offense charged may include confinement in jail.

IRLJ Rule 2.5. Failure to respond.

If the defendant fails to respond to a notice of traffic infraction, the court shall enter an order finding that the defendant has committed the infraction, shall assess any monetary penalties provided for by law, and, in the case of a traffic infraction, shall notify the Department of the defendant's failure to respond in accordance with RCW 46.20.270.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
She was driving as to endanger her baby? Sure:

"In a two-day trial that ended Friday, the officer involved, Officer Juan Ornelas, testified he clocked Brooks' Dodge Intrepid doing 32 mph in a 20-mph school zone."

seattlepi.nwsource.com...






posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Hey WolfoWar, speeding is not a crime in Washington, it's a civil infraction punishable only by a fine.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
dg, thanks for posting the link to the article. It says she was found guilty of failing to obey a police officer. Well, that's puzzling. The statutes which address failure to obey a police officer do not include failure to sign the "I promise to appear in court" section of the traffic citation as an offense! Bottom line, failing to do so is neither a crime nor a punishable offense.

Here they are:

RCW 46.61.020. Refusal to give information to or cooperate with officer -
(1) It is unlawful for any person while operating or in charge of any vehicle to refuse when requested by a police officer to give his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or for such person to give a false name and address, and it is likewise unlawful for any such person to refuse or neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any police officer or to refuse upon demand of such police officer to produce his or her certificate of license registration of such vehicle, his or her insurance identification card, or his or her vehicle driver's license or to refuse to permit such officer to take any such license, card, or certificate for the purpose of examination thereof or to refuse to permit the examination of any equipment of such vehicle or the weighing of such vehicle or to refuse or neglect to produce the certificate of license registration of such vehicle, insurance card, or his or her vehicle driver's license when requested by any court. Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her authorization as such.
(2) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

RCW 46.61.021. Duty to obey law enforcement officer - Authority of officer.
(1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.
(2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.
(3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of infraction.

The Washington Court of Appeals held in City of Port Orchard v. Tilton, 77 Wn. App. 178, 889 P.2d 953 (1995) that promising to appear in court is different from acknowledging receipt of a copy of a document. Defendant who refused to sign promise to appear in court is not guilty of refusal to acknowledge receipt of a copy of the notice of infraction, and could not be convicted under subsection (3) of RCW 46.61.021.

46.61.022. Failure to obey officer - Penalty.
Any person who willfully fails to stop when requested or signaled to do so by a person reasonably identifiable as a law enforcement officer or to comply with RCW 46.61.021(3), is guilty of a misdemeanor.


[edit on 5/11/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I meant, "suck case law!" as in "eat this!"

Read my case again. You may have misread it. Everything you posted is irrelevent or after-the-fact. My case has to do directly with the findings of a judge surrounding issues of signing a citation.

EDIT: Let me know if you want me to go line-by-line through your post and explain to you what each item means or refers to.

Zip

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Let's add the 'rest of the story' in Tilton


Nothing said herein means that an officer cannot ask a motorist to "copy receive" a traffic citation, or that the motorist who refuses such a request cannot be convicted under RCW46.61.021(3). We hold only that a motorist who declines to make a promise to appear in court does not, by that act alone, refuse to acknowledge receipt of a copy of a traffic citation.


Split hairs- the officer that shocked the woman was upholding the public trust in enforcing traffic laws. These laws protect everyone- not just some 'attitude enriched' woman.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The court is merely making the distinction between 2 things.

Acknowledging the receipt of a copy of the citation. If you don't acknowledge that you received it, this in itself is not a crime. Nobody cares if you don't acknowledge that you received the citation.

This is different from not making a promise to appear in court.

If you don't promise to appear in court, the officer will kindly escort you to court in handcuffs. You will sit in jail until called upon by the judge.

Zip



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
In my opinion this is what's happening. And the popularity of this thread is evidence of it:

Orders have come from higher-ups influenced by factions within the federal government to begin a desensitization campaign aimed at preparing the U.S. population for a police state and martial law.

The fact that this desensitization program exists is evident by the fact we are discussing this thread down to the bone. We are noticing and we need to pay closer attention.

#1 - Children being Tazed

WTF??? You Tazed my child? How many of you Buff White American Fathers who support the Law and those who Enforce it will let an officer of the law Tazerize your 8 year old son, regardless of the circumstance? As much as you love your law, culture and history - don't you love your children a little more?

#2 - Fetus Tazed.

This is beyond tazing a woman, this is shocking an unborn life yet still alive. This is borderline satanic. Going into the realms of Nazi Expirments. What will happen to the Child if we taze it? I don't think this was in their clinical trials before the FDA released their tazers to the public (thats my attempt at humour). In reality, it's a PsyOp aimed at gauging public reaction to what happens when they taze an innocent.

We can continue to debate the legality of the officer's action but one thing for sure which is illegal is the...

Illegal PsyOp of Nazi Era-like Expirments Happening Here in the USA



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:56 PM
link   
ZipDot, your preceding post has it exactly backwards.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Mommy!!!!

I guess there are, uh, many ways to look at this story.


EDIT:


We hold only that a motorist who declines to make a promise to appear in court does not, by that act alone, refuse to acknowledge receipt of a copy of a traffic citation.


Can it get any more clear than this? The ruling merely untwisted two things that were tied together.

Zip

EDIT 2: Please review my post at the bottom of page 6. If you can provide anything that refutes that, then by all means please post it. Otherwise, I think it is clear that your contentions are incorrect and mine are correct.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Zipdot, I affirm your contention that the officer had a public duty to place the woman under arrest under her failure to comply with the Revidsed Code of Washington state. That being said we can all say ok you are right.

We can then continue on in the debate about the necessary use of force against an unborn child as well as the mother carrying it.

We can all agree the mother is responsible to take care of that child and the decisions she makes will then in turn effect the child.

We can not agree if it was necessary for the officer to use a taser.

We could argue the many different ways that could have been used but that would be a waste of time.

Instead we should try to understand the foundation of the new policies in place that would even prompt an officer of the law to turn to such an alternative.

I would invite you to review my previous post as I believe this is part of a nation-wide psychological operation to desensitive the U.S. public in preparation for a police state and martial law.

What do you think about that statement Zipdot. All comments welcome.

00ps out!



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Basically, I think it would be neat if the officers would have used an Indian Sunburn to get her out of the car. That, or the old "Does this bug you? I'm not touching you!" until she swatted them away, thus taking her hands off the steering wheel.

I do not seriously think that this is a "desensitization op." You've got to admit to yourself that "these things happen." A cop in my town shot an unarmed 15 year old boy in the face at almost point blank range a couple of years ago and was just found guilty of first degree murder. I don't think that was a psy-op either, I think that was a case of a freakin' murderer with a badge.

I think this is a case of "Don't make me do it, lady," rather than "YES! Finally, a chance to use my shiny new taser on somebody!!!" and I think that this is clear in the news articles.

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
To Zipdot and JoeDoaks:

Reread Tilton. The appellate court in Tilton very clearly states that there is no legal duty to sign the "promise to appear in court" portion of a traffic citation:



"As the City conceded at oral argument, a motorist stopped for a traffic infraction has no legal duty to promise to appear in court; if he or she refuses to make such a promise, he or she can be taken to jail, but he or she does not commit a crime merely by virtue of the refusal."
Tilton at 77 Wn. App. 180

This is why sensible police officers don't insist upon that section being signed when the driver is unwilling to do so. It was the police who chose to waste manpower and resources pointlessly in this situation, as well as the prosecutor who chose to waste further resources by charging her with an offense that years ago the court of appeals declared does not exist! She was convicted of "refusing to obey a police officer" for failing to sign a portion of the traffic citation that she has no legal duty to sign. That conviction will surely be overturned if she appeals.

The officer could have asked her to sign an acknowledgment that she received the citation. If she had refused to sign that, it would have been a crime (misdemeanor). Either the officers on the street and their supervisor did not know the law or they were flexing their authoritative muscle. It's really just that simple.

RCW 46.61.021(3) provides:


Any person requested to identify himself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself, give his current address, and sign an acknowledgment of receipt of the notice of infraction.


RCW 46.61.022 provides in part:


Any person who wilfully fails to . . . comply with RCW 46.61.021(3) , is guilty of a misdemeanor.


There is no statute making it an offense to refuse or fail to sign the "promise to appear in court" section of a traffic citation.

Refusing to comprehend what you read is a choice that you have right to make. I accept your choice not to comprehend. Perhaps we'll revisit this when the news story about her financial award against the City of Seattle hits the streets.

The real issue here is whether the officers and their supervisor used excessive force and if so why. Since the three tazer shots did not pry her hands loose from the steering wheel, what higher level of force would you condone? - tear gas? a stun grenade? rubber bullet? a hollow point?

The absurdity of what these officers did is patent on the face of it. Some folks just like our public servants to use force whether appropriate or not, to punish the "offender", to scare others into compliance, and just to make sure people follow "the rules". Or maybe it's just an expression of their sadistic side. When our public servants start doing this to you or your loved ones, will you sing a different tune? What if it had been YOUR wife, YOUR girlfriend, or YOUR daughter? Would you still say she got what she deserved, when in fact all she deserved was a citation that carries a fine and that requires her to appear in court, especially when she had already gotten all that BEFORE they decided to assault her?


[edit on 5/12/2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 5/12/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Dubious, you are accusing me of not comprehending what I am reading, but in fact all that you are showing me is that Washington state does not consider it an admission of guilt of the infraction by not signing the ticket. This does not preclude somebody from being taken to jail for not promising to appear in court. The two ideas are somewhat unrelated, as some of the quotes you have provided show.

You keep quoting statutes that show that a person can be taken to jail if they don't sign the promise to appear. There is nothing more to be said about it.

You can continue to post unrelated quotes and statutes and try and inspire us to infer that you are correct from these posts, but in reality all of your quotes are reaching and weak. Nothing defies my previous post -



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.


The failure to give that signature has legal effect, as does the failure to
appear as promised after a signature is provided.



Why don't you respond to the case law that I have posted rather than posting a bunch of quotes that sidestep the issue?

Zip

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Zipdot]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join