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.

 

Readers react to police use of Taser on pregnant driver - article

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
This is yet another example of police shocking the # out of people in confrontations.

These events are too common now, and despite deaths of some people, these things are still abused because they're "non-lethal." This one is also notable because it's another example of a pregnant woman feeling the burn.

In this article, people responded with emails, and the responses were either for or against the taser being used in this case. Oh, yeah, this article concerns the actual event itself.

Keep in mind, the woman WAS convicted for refusing to sign the ticket, but she wasn't convicted of resisting arrest. So, was she tased for not signing the ticket or for resisting arrest? If she was tased for the former, you better obey the police and do whatever they say from now on.

So, which side do you take here? I think that the cops were justified for tasing the lady. They should have tased her right in her pregnant belly. She's lucky she wasn't tased 5 times in one minute like the epileptic guy...





posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I think the police were wrong to taser the woman, the taser should be used for suspects that are resisting arrest that are violent and beyond control.

She was not being out of control, she only refused the ticket, the police officer just could not be bothered to use other peaceful and sensible means. He could have killed her baby.

The Police officer was being trigger happy.


You find it funny truthseeka? because I don't.

[edit on 21/5/05 by Stranger Dreamer]

[edit on 21/5/05 by Stranger Dreamer]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The article said the jury couldn't decide on the resisting charges.

Keep in mind that she could have avoided the entire situation if she would have just signed the ticket.

Where do you want the cops to draw the line at? Should they let drunks go? After all, isn't it mean to taze a drunk person who's resisting? How about someone who is stoned out of their mind?

The Law Enforcement community should be thanked for the job they do. I know that there are a few bad apples, but all in all, they are professionals. They have rules and set circumstances when they are allowed to use this type of force. Without any cameras, we are left with one of two choices.

1. They used the force the way they were trained to get the situation under control.
2. They thought it'd be fun to watch a pregnant woman wiggle under high voltage.

Should they take into account she was pregnant, probably, but if she was becoming uncontrolable, how else are they supposed to handle her?

I'm glad that the tazing didn't cause her or the child any harm, however, the events leading up to the tazing are entirely her fault.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

"As police officers, they could have hurt me seriously. They could have hurt my unborn fetus," she said.


That's a slippery slope there, but not the issue at hand. The fact that she's pregant shouldn't matter.

I suppose that a taser is better than some other alternatives. If you whip out a gun and show it to the lady, and she still refuses, well you won't shoot her and she knows it. But a taser, well, yeah, maybe you would. And that's why it's an effective tool.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

So, which side do you take here? I think that the cops were justified for tasing the lady. They should have tased her right in her pregnant belly. She's lucky she wasn't tased 5 times in one minute like the epileptic guy...



So you find this funny? Sadly (Gladly) forum policy disallows me to give you the right name you would deserve right now...ill leave it to your imagination.

Oh and sorry but a police officer who isnt able to get a pregnant woman under control isnt worth his badge. This is crazy...using a teaser on a pregnant woman..
I really feel sorry for this guy because he must have a veeery small uhm johnson.
Its always the same most people who were beaten and harrassed in school and in their younger years end up in the security or political business. Because then they can actually 'pay it back' and enjoy the power they have over other people. I knew 2 guys from my school time who were always the dumbasses for everyone back then. Guess what both became cops and now they feel really good and potent with their big guns oooh wow. Same goes for this teasing idiot.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
hate to say it but there is a thread on this already. and the results of hat are simmiler to the e-mails ect. some said it was ok while others were dirrectly against it. go figure.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Lets just get rid of the police. I mean everything that they do seems to be wrong to most people. I for one am glad to have them here to protect us. If the woman had done what many would have this would not have happened. She obviously was in the wrong to warrant a ticket so sign it and go. Why make more trouble? She deserved what she got. Did the officer know she was pregnant? Probably not! Another scumbag looking for a lawsuit or publicity.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
They should have tased her right in her pregnant belly.

Disgusting.


The woman just refused to sign the ticket. She disagreed with
the ticket and HAD A RIGHT not to sign it. Everyone has a right
NOT to sign things that they disagree with. At that point the officer
should have arrested her and brought her to the station. He
tazered her and she hadn't resisted arrest.

He's either a lazy b****** or he's a frigg'n sicko or power tripp'n.

I have heard plenty of people here say that they wouldn't sign
up for the draft that the Dems keep trying to create. You all
have a right NOT to sign the piece of paper because you disagree
with it. Then the government would have a right to arrest you
and take you to court. They wouldn't have a right to tazer you
because you just because didn't sign a piece of paper. See???



[edit on 5/22/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Here's is a simple solution to the problem. If police stop issuing bogus traffic tickets to civilians, then they could minimize on their arrest rate and thus...minimize or eliminate the use of 'non-lethal' weapons.

[edit on 5/22/2005 by Simulacra]



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
FlyersFan,
By law, at least in her state, you are required by law to sign a traffic ticket. The signature of the ticket does not admit guilt, only that you acknowledge the date / time that you are required to report to court.
Refusing to sign the ticket can lead to the person being arrested. It is left up to the officer at that point.
According to the origional news story on this episode, the officer repeatedly explained the above to the woman and she refused.
A second officer had been called to the scene and the second officer also explained that she was not admitting guilt and if she refused signing the ticket, she could / would be arrested.

She still refused.
The first officer then called into his OIC and the OIC told the officer to place the woman under arrest.
They tried to get the woman out of her vehicle to affect the arrest vebally at first. When that did not work, They tried to physically remove the woman but were not able to due to the grip the woman had on the steering wheel.
The woman was then shown the taser. The officer informed her that if she did not sooperate, it would be used on her.
She refused.
The officer then test fired the taser to show her what it is capable of and that the officer would use it on her.
She refused.
From what has been reported on this incident, I think that the officers did everything they could to avoid the problem. The woman was totally unreasonable.

As to the ilegality of the ticket, The woman was clocked going 35 miles per hoiur in a school zone. Speed limits in a school zone is 20. This speed presents a danger to the children going to and from the school. Speed limits in such areas need to be strictly enforced to protect the students.


Dae

posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I wondering, before the police could use tasers how would have the police officer delt with this woman. Im sure she isnt the first unreasonable pregnant woman the police had to deal with. So, how did they deal with this sort of predicament, before the use of tasers?



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Dae,
From police blotter reports, before the use of tasers, the officers would have gotten more assistance and would have eventually have gang tackled her.
This would have definately endangered the fetus much more than the taser the woman recieved.
If you qould like to see just how cops gang tackle, check out the old cops reruns or watch you local news (if in the US)



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Wrong wrong wrong. But look, these guys risk their lives for what they believe. Some are bad, believe it or not. Some are fearful and have no right holding a badge. And some just plain make mistakes. Wow, cops are human and make mistakes? Yes, even cops are human.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
FlyersFan,
By law, at least in her state, you are required by law to sign a traffic ticket. The signature of the ticket does not admit guilt, only that you acknowledge the date / time that you are required to report to court.
Refusing to sign the ticket can lead to the person being arrested. It is left up to the officer at that point.
According to the origional news story on this episode, the officer repeatedly explained the above to the woman and she refused.
A second officer had been called to the scene and the second officer also explained that she was not admitting guilt and if she refused signing the ticket, she could / would be arrested.

She still refused.
The first officer then called into his OIC and the OIC told the officer to place the woman under arrest.
They tried to get the woman out of her vehicle to affect the arrest vebally at first. When that did not work, They tried to physically remove the woman but were not able to due to the grip the woman had on the steering wheel.
The woman was then shown the taser. The officer informed her that if she did not sooperate, it would be used on her.
She refused.
The officer then test fired the taser to show her what it is capable of and that the officer would use it on her.
She refused.
From what has been reported on this incident, I think that the officers did everything they could to avoid the problem. The woman was totally unreasonable.

As to the ilegality of the ticket, The woman was clocked going 35 miles per hoiur in a school zone. Speed limits in a school zone is 20. This speed presents a danger to the children going to and from the school. Speed limits in such areas need to be strictly enforced to protect the students.


if the above is accurate, why wasn't the woman convicted of resisting arrest?



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Since I was neither there during the incident, nor sitting on the jury, All I can do is pass on what the news articles contain.
From the article posted on this thread, it was that she was not found guilty of resisting arrest It was that the jury could not agree on this. That could very well mean that there was one (or persons) on the jusry who like many here at ATS have said, there is no reason under any circumstances that the woman should have been tasered.
In other threads, many even felt that there should have been a negotiator called to the scene to calm the situation.
In many instances in the past as well as today, we constantly here of the misdeeds of the police. and I agree there are quite a number of police out there that I would not trust any further than I could throw them. This does not mean that every officer out there is bad. It only means that the bad ones get all the press.
After reading up on this case, I believe that it is more of a case where a person felt that they would get away from the ticket by not signing. A person who did not realize the conscequences of their actions, Who even after being given every chance possible, Still refused to perform a simple tack of acknowleging the court date with her signature.
Now she and her lawyer are setting up a sympathy trail so that they can sue the officers and everyone else not on the basis of if she was in the wrong or not, but just on the sympathy that she created.
Then add to this the monies that she will get once she starts the talk show circuit.
I am will to bet that this is the goal of her and her lawyer.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
By law, at least in her state, you are required by law to sign a traffic ticket.

I understand that. But no one can FORCE you to sign something that
you disagree with. If you disagree, then you don't sign. As i said
earlier, at that point, she should have been arrested.


Refusing to sign the ticket can lead to the person being arrested.

That's fine. Don't sign something that you disagree with. It's a
non-violent protest. Then expect to get arrested. That's fine.

They tried to physically remove the woman but were
not able to due to the grip the woman had on the steering wheel.

THAT is something that bugs me. Multiple grown men couldn't get
a pregnant woman to let go of the steering wheel? Did they really
try? I just can't picture that.

The officer informed her that if she did not sooperate,
it would be used on her.

Lazy and overkill. Multiple grown men should have been able to
get a pregnant woman to let go of her grip on a wheel.

I repeat - she had a right not to sign something she disagreed with.
They had a right then to arrest her. Multiple grown men with law
enforcement and physical fitness training couldn't get a pregnant
woman to let go of a steering wheel so they zapped her????
I don't buy it.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I cannot address as to the officers' physicality only what has been reported.
What was reported in the origional news piece was they had attempted to remove the woman from the vehicle but were unable to due to the grip that she had on the steering wheel.
I do not like the use of tasers and in most cases where the use has been reported, it has been under questionable circumstances.
In this case though, if everything that has been reported is true, then the officers had exhausted all their options (other than using lethal force).
The use of the taser although distasteful, seems to have been the officer's only option as they had been ordered to place the woman under arrest.

Many here have voiced the opinion that they should have just let the woman go just on the fact that she was pregnant. I beleive that this would set a dangerous precedent. I don't know if you remember a few years ago, Italy had a law in place where they could not arrest those who had AIDS. This lead to a string of bank robberies since the offenders knew that they could not be touched.
Italy's "AIDS gang"

I realize that the above is an extreme example but it is plausible if the officers are not allowed to take action if / when needed just because a woman is pregnant.



new topics




 
0

log in

join