Views: 4441|Replies: 12

Pregnant Woman With Child in the Car Tased Three Times..... [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-5-18 08:54:39 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sansukong at 2012-5-18 07:55

Pregnant Woman With Child in the Car Tased Three Times After Being

Pulled Over for Speeding


What is it with cops and tasers? Why do so many of them seem compelled to use them in highly inappropriate ways? "Highly inappropriate" is about the only way to describe what happened to Malaika Brooks, who was seven months pregnant and driving her kid to school one day in 2004 when a routine traffic stop went terribly wrong. The New York Times's Adam Liptak reports:



The police say she was going 32 miles per hour in a school zone; the speed limit was 20.


Ms. Brooks said she would accept a ticket but drew the line at signing it, which state law required at the time. Ms. Brooks thought, wrongly, that signing was an acknowledgment of guilt.


Refusing to sign was a crime, and the two officers on the scene summoned a sergeant, who instructed them to arrest Ms. Brooks. She would not get out of her car.


The situation plainly called for bold action, and Officer Juan M. Ornelas met the challenge by brandishing a Taser and asking Ms. Brooks if she knew what it was.


She did not, but she told Officer Ornelas what she did know. “I have to go to the bathroom,” she said. “I am pregnant. I’m less than 60 days from having my baby.”


The three men assessed the situation and conferred. “Well, don’t do it in her stomach,” one said. “Do it in her thigh."


The cop did "do it in her thigh" -- and then her arm, and then her neck. Then they dragged her out into the street and handcuffed her.


Brooks sued the cops, who won the case. It was found that "the officers had used excessive force but nonetheless could not be sued because the law on the question was not clear in 2004," according to the Times. However, they were warned that crossing such a line in the future would amount to excessive force.


Despite winning, the officers are now trying to take the case to the Supreme Court. Staci Zaretsky at the blog Above the Law discusses why:


So why are the police appealing to the Supreme Court? After all, they ultimately won the case. According to theABA Journal, they argue in their cert petition that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on the excessive force issue “effectively strips officers of the authority to use any pain compliance technique to control an actively resisting arrestee.”

That’s a really broad reading of the ruling. The “resisting arrestee” here was a pregnant woman — a woman who was “especially vulnerable,” according to Michael F. Williams, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, which represents Brooks. Are the police asking for permission to tase pregnant women for minor infractions? Because really, how often do pregnant women commit crimes that warrant the use of a Taser?

In all honesty, it sounds like the police are overly eager to create a situation where a pregnant woman is forced to scream, “Don’t tase my baby, bro!” And that’s just sad.

Sad indeed.



By Lauren Kelley | Sourced from AlterNet
Posted at May 17, 2012, 9:24 am



FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-5-20 18:26:37 |Display all floors
you make them China bashers unhappy by posting such things,
bring any nasty China story and they'll fall over each other to have their say
It takes about 40 muscles to smile, but only 4 to pull the trigger of a decent rifle

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2012-5-20 19:03:06 |Display all floors
Crazy!!!  The police are out of control!

This could of been avoided!

It's like they don't even try anymore.  Don't follow my orders?  Get tased.  No need to be civil anymore.  No need to explain yourself.
  
Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out.

                          -  James Bryant Conant

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-5-20 19:10:56 |Display all floors

RE: Pregnant Woman With Child in the Car Tased Three Times.....

shameless Post time: 2012-5-20 17:26
you make them China bashers unhappy by posting such things,
bring any nasty China story an ...
you make them China bashers unhappy by posting such things,

First and foremost, I am here, above anything else, is not to make any one of the China bashers on this forum floor happy with the truth, that I have chosen to post and share!
FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 5Rank: 5

Post time 2012-5-21 01:44:26 |Display all floors
This whole story just sicken me!!!!

Police Argue Tasers Are “Useful Pain Technique”

Arguing that a jolt from a taser is a “useful pain technique,” three Seattle police officers have made an appeal to the Supreme Court to preserve the use of tasers and to clear their names in a lawsuit brought against them by Malaika Brooks. In 2004, Brooks, who was then seven months pregnant, was driving her 11-year-old son to Seattle’s African American Academy when she was pulled over for driving 32 mph in a 20 mph school zone. She accepted a ticket but refused to sign it as required by state law at the time.

As the New York Times notes, Brooks “thought, wrongly, that signing was an acknowledgment of guilt.” Because she refused to sign, the two officers summoned a sergeant to the scene. He told them to arrest Brooks, who would not get out of her car. Officer Juan M. Ornelas showed her a taser and asked her if she knew what it was; she said she did not and told them that she was pregnant. The New York Times‘s account continues:

The three men assessed the situation and conferred. “Well, don’t do it in her stomach,” one said. “Do it in her thigh.”

Officer Ornelas twisted Ms. Brooks’s arm behind her back. A colleague, Officer Donald M. Jones, applied the Taser to Ms. Brooks’s left thigh, causing her to cry out and honk the car’s horn. A half-minute later, Officer Jones applied the Taser again, now to Ms. Brooks’s left arm. He waited six seconds before pressing it into her neck.

Ms. Brooks fell over, and the officers dragged her into the street, laying her face down and cuffing her hands behind her back.

Afterwards, Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby girl. She had permanent scars after the incident and was convicted of a misdemeanor for refusing to sign the ticket but not of resisting arrest. She sued the three officers for causing her intense pain three times.

Last October, the officers prevailed in a split decision from a 10-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco:

The majority said the officers had used excessive force but nonetheless could not be sued because the law on the question was not clear in 2004, when the incident took place. While the ruling left the three officers in the clear, it did put them and their colleagues on notice that some future uses of Tasers would cross a constitutional line and amount to excessive force.

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the officers are now seeking to preserve their right to use tasers as, again, a “useful pain technique.”

If hearing such doublespeak applied to a taser isn’t appalling enough, so is it to read the dissenting opinions. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski described Brooks as “defiant” and “deaf to reason” and said she had brought the police officers’ tasing and pulling her from her car upon herself; he said that the officers “deserve our praise, not the opprobrium of being declared constitutional violators.” Judge Barry G. Silverman said that tasing was “a humane way to force Brooks out of her car” instead of  “fists, batons, chokeholds, tear gas and chemical spray” which could all pose risks to both “suspects and officers alike.”

Lost in all these arguments is the simple fact that Brooks was seven months pregnant and that she had been stopped for a traffic violation, as her lawyer Michael F. Williams says to the New York Times. What the three officers are seeking to defend is, says Williams, simply “inexcusable conduct.”

The Supreme Court is to decide next week about whether or not to hear the three officers’ appeal about protecting their “right to tase.”
  
Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out.

                          -  James Bryant Conant

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-6-8 11:19:55 |Display all floors
Chicago cops Taser 8-month pregnant woman for parking violationPosted on June 7, 2012 by Admin

RT News  The superintendent of the Chicago Police Department says that the reason one of his officers used a Taser stun gun on a woman days away from giving birth because “you can’t always tell whether somebody is pregnant.”

At eight-months pregnant, TiffanyRent says she would think officers would have been aware of her condition before they assaulted and arrested her on Wednesday morning outside a South Side drug store.

“I was standing at the squad car close enough for him to see that I was pregnant,” Rent tells the Chicago Tribune.

The department says nothing was wrong with the ways officers acted, though. According to the police report, Rent“attempted to take off” after being ticketed for parking her car in a space reserved for handicap persons outside of a Chicago Walgreens when she was subjected to an electric pulse from a Taser gun. The maximum fine for using a handicap parking space without authorization in Chicago is $350.

Moments earlier, Rent tore up the citation and said, “I ain’t giving you (expletive),” according to the official report. That, apparently, was enough for cops to use force.

Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy says he believes that it isn’t always possible to determine if a suspect is or isn’t pregnant so in the end it’s matter of upholding the law.

“Well, first of all, you can’t always tell whether somebody is pregnant. So, you want to use it where you are overcoming assault or preventing escape. That’s what it boils down to,” Supt. McCarthy tells the Tribune.

To do as much, Rent was shocked by the Taser, then dragged out of her car, forced to the ground and handcuffed — in front of two of her young children and her boyfriend. Joseph Hobbs, the father of the child, suffered a dislocated elbow and was also arrested by police for trying to intervene. Sharita Rent, Tiffany’s sister, tells the Tribune that some officers on the scene reportedly made “nasty, cruel comments” and suggested to the expectant parents that they “call Jesse Jackson.”

“How could you be that cruel to a human being? A pregnant human being?” asks the sister.

Later Wednesday, a nursing supervisor at the Roseland Community Hospital ran tests on Rent and said her unborn child appeared to be in good health, but the expectant mother still has concerns — she has lost two children during pregnancy before.

“That policy has been in effect for quite some time,” McCarthy adds. “Whether or not the policy has been adhered to is going to be examined separately from theinvestigation into the use of force. So we’ll keep you posted on that, and we’ll see how it plays out.”

The latest incident follows an episode earlier this year in Dekalb County, Georgia where Officer Jerad Wheeler was accused of kicking a woman nine months pregnant, prompting her to receive emergency surgery.



FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-6-8 12:08:01 |Display all floors
shameless morons

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.