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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
ZipDot,

I agree that failing to sign the "promise to appear" section of the citation has legal effect (the Richards case makes this clear). But failing to sign it is not a crime (as the Tilton case makes clear).

If the police make a proper custodial arrest of a person who commits a civil speeding infraction, the arrest is due to the speeding infraction rather than due to the failure to sign. How can a person be arrested for failure to sign the "promise to appear in court" when there is no legal duty to sign it in the first place? Think about that for a moment.

None of the statutes I quoted show that a person can be taken to jail for not signing the promise to appear. If you think there is a statute that authorizes custodial arrest of a driver for failing to sign the promise to appear, then please post it.

Failing to sign the "promise to appear" allows the officer to prolong the detention at the scene. If other relevant factors exist, then the officer may take the person into custody. The failure to sign neither authorizes nor compels the officer to make a custodial arrest.

The failure to sign brings into play all the considerations that apply to the release or arrest decision, including the degree of force that can be applied in making an arrest for a particular violation. We disagree on whether it was appropriate to make a custodial arrest here and whether the degree of force used was appropriate.

I still hold that both the decision to arrest and the decision to apply force to effect an arrest were unbelievably poor choices on the part of the Seattle PD under the circumstances.

[re-edited on 5/12/2005 by dubiousone to correct a poorly stated message. Upon re-reading ZipDot's post, I realized I overstated the degree of my concurrence with him]


[edit on 5/12/2005 by dubiousone]




posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Obviously she was arrested for the traffic violation. Who said she wasn't? She wasn't arrested for refusing to sign a piece of paper. She was arrested for breaking the law and then refusing to accept a courtesy that was offered to her - that she may go to court later rather than sooner if she wished.



"The failure to sign neither authorizes nor compels the officer to make a custodial arrest."


No, I disagree here. I think that it can compel an officer to make an arrest, if the person is being disagreeable, rude, and completely uncivil. As YOU have said, it is an abundance of factors that lead to the final decision. In this respect, I disagree with what you say here:



"both the decision to arrest and the decision to apply force to effect an arrest were unbelievably poor choices on the part of the Seattle PD under the circumstances"


I don't think they were "unbelievably poor choices," I think they were reasonable and quite believable. As for the circumstances, well, I'd like to see the video, but at the moment I'm leaning towards describing the arrest as "appropriate" and "demanded" though perhaps not "unavoidable*" or "imperative."

* See mother's actions in the articles.

Zip



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Hi!

I found this thread by Google, because I seeked this picture:



This picture was posted in this thread, this
was the original path, but it doesn't work anymore. The picture has a resolution of 500 x 345 pixel.

It is really very important for me to get this picture, please try to help me. Simply post the picture here or send it to me by eMail, my adress is kawagpz [AT] gmx.de

Thanks a lot !



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Oops, now the server works again. It was obviously just temporarily not available. I thought the pic had gone forever


Anyway, I would like to have this pic in a higher resolution, so if you can help me, I would appreciate it very much!



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
What could happen if a police officer wanted me to sign a traffic ticket and I refused?

This whole situation could have been avoided if she had just signed the ticket.


CX

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I'd have used as much force as i needed to just take her keys off her, she would be very bored and going nowhere for a very long time that way. The cop was'nt in any rush, so why not play her at her own game if she wants to get stubborn.

As a last resort, there are other ways to remove someone from a car that does'nt involve frying them.

Cx.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I don't feel bad for this broad. The police gave her directives, which she ignored. She got what she asked for.

Pregnant women seem to feel they're special. NOT.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I'd like to state a couple of things here:

1. By not getting out of the vehicle when the officer requested her to she changed her offence from a traffic citation to resisting arrest.

2. In my opinion a good case could be made for charging her for reckless endangerment. The mother is considered the guardian of her unborn baby and she knowingly put the baby in jeopardy by both speeding and resisting arrest.

Lets put the blame where it belongs. Squarely on the shoulders of the woman. If the officer had gotten her hands off of the wheel she would be complaining that he might have hurt her baby while pulling her from the car. If they has towed the car she would have complained that putting the car on the wrecker hurt her baby. Last but not least if they had just waited her out she would have complained of the heat, dehydration or malnutrition.

I am not saying all cops are angels, but let's save the brutality hassle for the ones who really deserve it.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by JIMC5499]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The picture several posts above reminds me very much of a book called Snow Crash... in said book, the Enforcers (a quasi-LEO organization) organization are said to wear their coat of arms beneath their uniform:

A first holding a nightstick, protruding through a sheriff's badge with the words SUE ME emblazoned underneath.

That said, I agree with Jim. If anything had been done to the woman, she would have complained and sued. As is, she is complaining and suing. Doing nothing would have gotten the officer sued, and probably fired.

Would The Spray have been any better?

DE


CX

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Landis
I don't feel bad for this broad. The police gave her directives, which she ignored. She got what she asked for.

Pregnant women seem to feel they're special. NOT.


Can't say i agree with the last line of your posts there Landis. I'm taking it you're still single without a wife and kids. Yeah pregnant women can be a pain in the ass at times, and in this case she was, but they deserve a little flexibility when going hands on, especially when she was'nt exactly being physical towards the cop.

In fact i'd bet most people here who are ok with this have'nt got a partner who's had thier kids. I may be wrong on that comment, but i just know what i'd do if my partner got tazered when she was carrying my child!


Cx.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Everyone has their own opinion. I have no time for btchy baby factories. And pop your head out of your nether regions and stop making assumptions about other people and their lives. A family brat has nothing to do with my opinion.

"have'nt got a partner"

So you advocate having children without marrying.

"when she was carrying my child!"

Your child, huh. Naturally your partner had nothing to do with the process.

Sucks don't it? Other people making judgments about your opinions and your lifestyle, I mean.

Go sit by your dish.

[edit on 5/16/2006 by Landis]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CX
I'd have used as much force as i needed to just take her keys off her, she would be very bored and going nowhere for a very long time that way. The cop was'nt in any rush, so why not play her at her own game if she wants to get stubborn.


Yeah? What is the officer supposed to do, sit there all day and watch her? What if he had seen another car speeding? He wouldn't have been able to do anything because he’s babysitting. What if he had gotten a call to respond to a robbery in progress? Still wouldn’t be able to respond because he’s babysitting a woman with an attitude. Sorry, but she broke the law on several occasions and got what she deserved, the officer went out of his way to resolve this situation peacefully and she still refused. Police officers don't have time to play games or to baby-sit people with an attitude. There was no ‘police brutality’ here, just a good reminder of why it pays to follow the law, this is a non-story as far as I’m concerned.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   


She didn't break the law. She refuted the officer.



Guess what, refuting the officer is OBSTRUCTION, an arrestable offense.

So she did indeed break the law.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Just so everyone is aware, this story is from a year ago.
Debate if you wish, but realize it's an old story.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Just so everyone is aware, this story is from a year ago.
Debate if you wish, but realize it's an old story.

The fact that it is an old story doesn't make it any less relevent.

I thought of another thing to ask though. For those of you who state that the police should have brought someone who was familiar with the hormonal changes due to pregnancy, if the hormonal changes are enough that they can be used as an excuse for irrational behavior, what was this woman doing behind the wheel of a car? Anything that can impair her judgement that severely should prevent her from driving.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
JIMC, I'm not saying it is any less relevant. But, I thought members should be aware, esp since they were both May stories.

As far as your comment about using hormones as a defense, one should always be aware of the dangers of doing that.
Blaming pregnancy, hormones, menstrual cycles for bad behavior makes it appear that we women are not always in control of ourselves and our behavior.

Not a good thing.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
My perspective: my wife recently gave birth to a wonderful healthy child. The pregnancy was damn hard. She was pretty much sick and at times cranky. I know it was hard.

Still, if she did what this woman did, I would look at it as endangerment of our child's welfare on her part. Hormonal mood swings can be difficult, but common sense and intelligence should prevail. Otherwise PMS would be a common defense for second degree murder.

Seriously, resisting police in that case was criminal. I'm talking as a husband and a father.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
How many volts, 50k? does that even hurt? curious.

I realize you'd be immobiled, but would it really cause damage?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
As far as your comment about using hormones as a defense, one should always be aware of the dangers of doing that.
Blaming pregnancy, hormones, menstrual cycles for bad behavior makes it appear that we women are not always in control of ourselves and our behavior.

Not a good thing.



I never implied that hormones should be used as a defense. My statement was in response to previous posts that stated "the police should have had someone there who was familiar with the hormone imbalance during pregnancy".
My statement is that if the hormonal imbalance affects a woman that much, are they competent to be behind the wheel of a car? If the imbalance is severe enough to impair judgement, as was implied in previous posts, shouldn't that be considered the same as being impaired by alcohol or drugs?

I have seen where pregnancy and menstrul cycles have been used and accepted as the causes of lack of control and poor behavior. I have to ask are women in these conditions really in control of themselves?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

How many volts, 50k? does that even hurt? curious.


I realize you'd be immobiled, but would it really cause damage?

Well, here’s what Wiki has to say about it. Usually there is no long term damage of effects.


Stun gun technology uses a temporary high-voltage low current to override the body's superficial muscle-triggering mechanisms. The recipient is immobilized via two metal probes (darts) connected via metal wires from the stun gun usually penetrating the human skin, and superficial muscle. The recipient that is 'connected' to a stun gun feels great pain and can be momentarily paralyzed (only so long as there is an electrical current being applied) because his muscles are receiving electrical 'shock'. The (relatively) low electric current must be pushed by (relatively) high voltage to overcome the electrical resistance of the human body. The resultant 'shock' is caused by muscles twitching uncontrollably, appearing as muscle spasms. However, because the amount of current is relatively low, there is considered to be a 'margin' of safety by a number of medical experts upon usage on humans. To date, scientific experiments to determine the effects on human cardio-pulomonary and respiratory functions have shown no significant findings of lasting effect.

According to the many sources, a shock of half a second duration will cause intense pain and muscle contractions startling most people greatly. Two to three seconds will often cause the subject to become dazed and drop to the ground, and over three seconds will usually completely disorient and drop an attacker for at least several minutes and possibly for up to fifteen minutes.

Link



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join