Mother shot twice with a Taser after she was arrested for leaving baby in car to go to tanning salon

reply to post by Marked One


it wasn't hot outside. it was cold outside. she left the car running with the heat on.
that doesn't matter though because we don't know if she left the doors unlocked (car could be stolen)
if she locked them, then there's the issue of whether or not the child could suffer from carbon monoxide poisoining
in an enclosed idling vehicle.
i always leave at least one window cracked while in a car, whether it's moving or stationary because i once had a car
with a leaky muffler and the car was smelling of car fumes until i could afford to get it fixed. picked up the preventative
measure and never dropped it. never hurts to have a source of fresh air.

reply to post by undo


No, that is the definition of reasonable cause and concern. And I didn't say that she "would," I said if she did, we would hang the police out to dry for their inaction. And it wasn't just one mistake, it was the mistake of abandoning the baby, and the mistake of violently reacting to the police, that is two mistakes and cause to question her mentality more thoroughly.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Here is another hypothetical, suppose this were my estranged ex-wife, and my baby, and the baby did wind up dead or missing, so I killed her. Obviously I would be under severe emotional distress, and she clearly deserved it, so what should my punishment be in that case? If we are going to softball the mother, do I get softball treatment as well? Should I just get counseling and probation for her murder?

In that case there were two clear crimes with two cold bodies. Your story lacks the pertinent details that create the various classes of manslaughter and murder, but it is obvious there should be more than probation and counseling unless of course the murder occurred in a failed attempt to stop the ex-wife or immediately after witnessing her snuffing out the baby.

In our case we have a baby that was left alone for a matter of 15+ minutes, which then cried until it puked. And a woman who was stun gunned repeatedly for trying to get back to that same said child to quickly re-mediate her ignorant mistake. I see a greater violation of rights in the "forced stun gunning and forced mother/child separation", than I do in the "accidental/neglectful cry-till-puking and potential risk of suffocation".

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

sounds like a pre-crime unit you're suggesting. hey, you might speed down the road at some point in your life, cause your car can go faster than 55. you need a traffic ticket, and have your car impounded, oh, and tasering if you freak out when the tow truck rips the bumper off your classic mustang 4 barrel, customized, mag wheel, love machine.

LMAO

like Minority Report you seen that film undo ?

reply to post by getreadyalready


i don't think the police are to blame in this. i think they need to pow wow with medical professionals on how to handle women in child bearing age. cause they clearly do not know how and treat women like they would men, in the same situation, when there's an entirely different dynamic involved. not saying both wouldn't be equally accountable should the law be broken, but that the reason a man may do such a thing is going to be different than the reason a woman may do such a thing. laws need to speak to the person, and the gender, not just the human species in general.

and before you go off and claim i'm saying there should be different laws, that's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is the police should be trained in how women differ and how the dynamic involved in crimes is different and how to deal with women of child bearing age, should be different. the crime is still the crime.

Originally posted by Marked One
Whether the use of a taser was inhumane or not. Leaving a child unattended in a vehicle while it's hot outside is inhumane.

And so two wrongs make a right?

Immediate humane justice would have been for the mother to take care of the situation and contemplate her own shame before concerned eyes.

At 7 months old without its mother, I can assure you the child will cry itself to sleep tonight.

Sri Oracle

Has anyone seen an episode of cops when they were trying to subdue a wirey small female? When the adrenaline is going they are like feral mongooses. I have seen 3 to 4 cops struggle to cuff an irate small women.

She was going nuts and striking out at the officers. If the tazer had not been used, and they had thrown her on the grown to cuff her while she still struggled her injuries would have been worse. The officers would then be labeled as "woman beaters". IMO they are sometimes in a no win situation. What then are they to do? Just let it go?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I was only stating that we often crucify police or state agencies for not doing enough to prevent these crimes when there was clear concern to act upon. This is one of those cases, we criticize they did too much, and we would have criticized if they didn't.

Right.
THERE WAS CLEAR CONCERN.
THERE WAS NEED FOR ACTION.

We all agree on this.

But was she ACTIVELY seeking to abuse the child? NO

My point is:

There was no immediate need for the forced separation of a mother returning to her crying child, and no call for the use of a taser to do so, both of which are physically forcible violations of human rights, when other civilized options existed in our free society.

DIPLOMACY NOT BOMBS

"ma'am do you understand what you've done?"
"For the child's safety, I would like it if you would remain here while I have a social services professional speak with you."

once social services are present and the baby is calm...

"for the child's safety, I would like you to submit to a field sobriety test"

"You seem competent, however I'm going to issue you a written citation for child neglect and ask that you appear before a judge for leaving your child unattended."

"I'm also going to ask social services to visit your residence and take your case."

No savage need for physical confrontation or force.


Sri Oracle

reply to post by Sri Oracle


I see that the two cases are different as well, but if we take it easy on this lady, and then something terrible happens, and someone overreacts, I want assurance that we are going to take it easy on them as well.

I worked for a Child Support Agency for a few years, and I had the unfortunate experience of seeing a man arrested for failing to pay back child support to the woman that murdered his baby girl! For years he fought to get custody, and warned of the violence that was present, and no one listened until the girl was found dead. The woman was convicted, but the man still owed the back child support from before the murder. He refused to pay, and he suffered the consequences of losing his licenses, job, and eventually being arrested himself. It was me that had to talk to him on the phone after his arrest, and there was no possibility of justice in his case.

I'll take it back to my "natural consequences" post from earlier. The tazer might have saved that woman's life, and the baby's. Worse case scenario, she really is a bad mother, the police let her go as suggested, the baby goes back to her in a few days, it winds up dead, the father retaliates in anger, she winds up dead, the father goes to prison, the police get sued, etc., etc., etc. It is not a far-fetched scenario, it is unfortunately a fairly common scenario. The natural consequences of her action were quick, and temporarily painful and memorable. Maybe the whole situation was turned favorably that day.

Edit to add:
You posted while I was typing, and I totally agree with your suggestion. I am only attempting to play devil's advocate. The situation was not ideal, and it could have turned drastically for the worse, and often times these situations do turn drastically for the worse, and police and authorities are well aware of this fact, so they act. If you were doing their job day in and day out, your reaction might be different as well.

reply to post by Doomzilla


yeah it's beyond minority report in this thread. we're talking about injuring, potentially kiling young mothers for leaving their babies in the car for 20 minutes, suggesting they are doing things the article claims they didn't do (it wasn't hot outside, so the crime involved in that regard, is a future crime she may commit if she doesn't realize that leaving your child in the car, can kill them in hot weather). that the windows were up, so the baby wouldn't be cold. we don't know if she locked the doors or cracked the window, but these don't really matter in the long run because it is against the law due to potential dangers involved.

the word potential is what's abused in the thread cause half the people already had her body slammed and punched in the face, repeatedly because of her photograph. lol

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If you were doing their job day in and day out, your reaction might be different as well.

If you cannot act as a public servant day in and day out without resorting to unjustified brute force, then you should not be a cop.

Sri Oracle

I think the real question here is Why does America breed such evil, Insidious breeds (and I am not referring to the woman in question here) such as pedophiles and kidnappers? Being I have read many things about how in other countries it is perfectly normal to leave a child out in a buggy, and go have your coffee, tan, workout, whatever because you do not have to worry about pedophiles and kidnappers. It seems that, well if I was x-tian, well I would be inclined to seriously consider that maybe the USA is New Sodom or New Gomorrah. But I am not. But, it is a valid question: WTH are we so messed up in this country? Does other countries put fluoride in their waters? Is it possible that fluoride might act the same as mercury? Or maybe we are consuming mercury in some unknown way, and if we are, is it on purpose or just accidental and being covered up? What other elements might be getting in our system to cause this? Or is it the political temperature that is pressure cooking our brains? WTH is the cause of so much rampant random acts of crimes here? I really would like to know.


On the topic now, I think she was stupid and irresponsible, however, I do not feel she should have been treated the way she was treated. Maybe she knew the area and people real well, trusted her kid WAS safe, I can certainly understand that, in my mom's time as a mother we were left in the car while she ran into the grocery store. The town was a community everybody knew everyone else. She would put me on the porch in my "Buggy" while she cleaned her home. I would leave MY child as an baby in the car to run into wawa. I could see out the wawa window. It was a different place then still very much small town-ish today there though I would not do this, because well the influx of immigrants most of which are illegal invaded my hometown about 10 yrs ago, and some other unsavory people were "RELOCATED" to our little town, I don't live there anymore. I got out before it got bad.

However I can tell you all, same as another poster here, my child got out of the house and walked to the seven eleven this was in Philadelphia, after I got out of that small town, and she was oh I think maybe 5, well I had been doing laundry in the basement and even had kids over playing with her her sister and her brother, and they knew I was in the basement doing laundry, but you know how mischievous kids can be , my little one asked where I was and the 11 yr old that was visiting said I was at 7-11, so of course she walked up there to find me (through an alleyway, not by roadside) DO you know when they (the kids visiting) told me what had happened and I went walking up to the 7-11 of course you guessed it the cops were already there, yep, and I am like WTF trying to tell them what had happened. Anyway the PIG pushed me, when I was trying to go get my kid...after he frikking KNEW that what had happened was a giant misunderstanding. So don't give me this BS it was warranted!!!! It was NOT in her case NOR MINE!!!!!! Okay.He's lucky he stopped before he touched me again because I know 2/3 of the district police and I would have had his badge!!!! He is very lucky he watched his p's and q's. I was royally pissed, I mean kids are going to be kids, in this case the child that did it was banned for hanging out there for a while. She learned her lesson. Hell I didn't even expect the damn cops to be there yet after all it took me all of two minutes to unload clothes from the washer and load into the dryer and all of like maybe 30 seconds to get to the store for God's sake!!!! Honestly. I was almost directly behind her, according to the children who were in the room when she left!
Also her being in the St Pete division of CPS...I really feel horrible that kid is in their protective services, chances are she won't have a fighting chance. They are still under investigations for their foster care system there from deaths that happened in the system in the past ten years!

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If you were doing their job day in and day out, your reaction might be different as well.

If you cannot act as a public servant day in and day out without resorting to unjustified brute force, then you should not be a cop.

Sri Oracle

I agree, but who knows better about the potential dangers and warning signs and situations than a cop that sees them regularly? Who are we to call it "unjustified" or "brute" when we weren't there and we don't have the expertise of that cop?

Their experience with these situations makes their opinion more important than yours and mine. They are the experts on the scene at the time, and they chose to react in a certain manner, that they felt best "served" the victim at the time, which was an innocent, abandoned baby, that had fought hard enough to almost wriggle out of a 5 point harness, and had puked all over itself, while its mother was tanning, and when confronted the mother was violent and confrontational to the police. I'd say the police were doing a "public service."

reply to post by undo


There are many violent people here , in most cases it solves nothing . You need to get to the root cause of behaviour and try to implement changes that can prevent it .
Not only are there several sides to a story , if we dont learn from them its wasteful .

Allow the cops to use violence like this and are you are imposing martial law on yourself .

Soon everyone will be criminals or terrorists in Authority's eyes
Innocent til proven guilty ,
Cops are not crown court Judges .

reply to post by getreadyalready



the issue goes back to the same place: the medical professions should request to work in tandem with the police, so that more effort is put into making good judgements where women of child bearing age are concerned.

it doesn't hurt to look at it from the police perspective, primarly because they are working with the manuals they have. those manuals treat all people the same, when it is clear that all people are not the same (emotionally, physically, mentally).

i was sitting in a family restaurant having a meal with my mom when the waitress came over and said the guy over in the corner, had sent me a glass of water. i looked over and he nodded. i laughed, trying to figure out what was going on. he came over to our table and asked if he could sit down. we agreed but were really confused about this entire thing. he was quite drunk, to boot.

turned out he was an off duty police officer, and he needed a ride back to his car. he had been at the bar, following a horrible car accident, where he witnessed the dead bodies of adults and small children, severly mangled in the accident. small children with their bodies in pieces. and that such scenes were frequent for his particular type of police duty. so he had drunk himself into a stupor to get it off his mind. he was having like post traumatic stress disorder. he had been given a ride from the bar to the restaurant, because he refused to drink and drive...particularly since the accident had been caused by a drunk driver. anyway, we gave him a ride back to his car.

the moral of the story is, people do crazy things when they are distraught or emotionally disturbed. if we have room in our hearts for the poor police officer in the story, it shouldn't be too far of a stretch to realize, police are not the only people who have stress disorders.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I see that the two cases are different as well, but if we take it easy on this lady, and then something terrible happens, and someone overreacts, I want assurance that we are going to take it easy on them as well.

If it makes you feel any better I think the cop deserves assault charges but we should take it easy on him because he over reacted and it would be fair to allow him to plea no contest, with probation, suspension, and counseling.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Who are we to call it "unjustified" or "brute" when we weren't there and we don't have the expertise of that cop?

Upon her return, the mother was not seeking to physically harm the child.

Physically standing in between them is unjustified and brute; an unlawful forceful attack upon her natural right to return to her crying child.

The "crime" of temporary neglect was in the past and is not a felony. The mother poses no clear and present danger to anyone requiring physical force.

Issue a citation or get a bench warrant, don't be a brute.

Sri Oracle

reply to post by Sri Oracle

It could have went differently, I agree... however, the article states that she "attacked" the officer after being confronted. Two male cops, with a woman attacking them(allegedly)... you really can't touch her. Anything, ANYTHING physical dealing with a woman when you're a male officer is risky business. Like I said though, not the greatest use of judgement on all of their parts but at least everybody's okay.

reply to post by Sri Oracle

Upon her return, the mother was not seeking to physically harm the child.

Physically standing in between them is unjustified and brute; an unlawful forceful attack upon her natural right to return to her crying child.

This I can entirely disagree with.

#1 they have to verify she is lawfully the mother.
#2 they have to judge her mental capacity and make sure she isn't impaired
----->making the judgement on #2 might have been difficult if her eyes were dilated from tanning and her skin was red.
#3 they have to determine her intentions for the baby, they can't assume they are good, especially in light of the abandonment.
#4 from what the article says she posted on her Facebook page, she sounds a little uneducated and ghetto, so she probably did not approach the cops or the situation in the most agreeable manner.

I could probably go on, but I am certain that letting her run straight to the baby would have been an extremely unwise decision. The cops had every reason in the world to stop, detain, and evaluate her before letting her reunite with the baby.

Originally posted by BrawleR

It could have went differently, I agree... however, the article states that she "attacked" the officer after being confronted.

It seems logical to me she attacked after being physically separated. Thereby the violation of rights and the ensuing violence began with her unlawful forced physical separation from her child.

not the greatest use of judgment on all of their parts but at least everybody's okay.

But does this incident become precedence for an officers (and states) right to separate a mother from her child following an acute instance of neglect?

or

Does it become a warning to use diplomacy rather than force when at all possible unless there is clear and present danger?

Sri Oracle