Pregnant woman 'Tasered' by police is convicted

[Justforfun000]

Here in Canada, you don't sign anything. They just give you the ticket. I wonder why they have it different in the States? It's not like they can't get their plate number and personal info.

[Atlan]

Here in Canada, you don't sign anything. They just give you the ticket. I wonder why they have it different in the States? It's not like they can't get their plate number and personal info.

IIRC signing the ticket is a bit like signing your own personal bond: it signifies that you've understood that you're to appear in traffic court, and you're now out on bail.
If you don't sign the ticket the police are often (not in all states) required to arrest you on the spot, in order to make sure that you appear before a judge, which is in fact where you are going right after you've been booked.

Seriously people, I don't live in the US, but even I know that when the police officer orders you out of the car after you don't sign the ticket that:
A: You Do as the officer tells you, because
B: You're now under arrest.
C: If you don't do as the officer tells you, it's resisting arrest, and an asswhupping is coming your way.

[Enigma]

Here's another incident in which a pregnant woman placed her unborn child in danger.

TROTWOOD, Ohio -- The FBI is investigating after a Trotwood police officer used a Taser on a pregnant woman.

Trotwood Public Safety Director Michael Etter said the incident happened on Nov. 18. He said the woman arrived at the police department asking to give up custody of her 1-year-old son.

Etter said his officer spoke with the woman as she held on to the child outside the police department.

"(He) attempted to obtain information on both the mother and the child, at which time the mother refused to give any information and became very agitated," Etter said.

Surveillance video from the police department shows the woman try to leave with the child. The officer then grabs her coat in an effort to get her to stop. Etter said the officer was doing what he thought was in the best interest of the 1-year-old boy.

The video shows the woman struggle with the officer, who then takes the child from her and gives the boy to another officer. The first officer then forces the woman down on her stomach, and he then deploys a Taser on her neck.

Etter said the officer did not know the woman was pregnant.

"She did not disclose, even after she was arrested, that she was pregnant," Etter said. He said the woman was wearing a large winter coat and had her child on her lap when she was talking to the officer.

Etter said the department is cooperating with the FBI investigation, and there is also an ongoing internal investigation to see if the use of force was warranted for the situation.

Etter said the officer involved is still on duty.

Trotwood's use of force policy states officers should "greatly evaluate each situation with discretion when anticipating the deployment of the Taser on young children, elderly persons, and pregnant females."

News Center 7 spoke with the woman involved in the case, but she declined the opportunity to make a statement, saying only that she feels "unjustly served."

Officers said the 1-year-old boy was put into the custody of a family member after the incident.

Ohio

[Flagg]

When the cop shows you a TASER, you should comply or he'll fucking use it on you!

what country do you live in that has absolutely no laws regarding police violence?

Are you retarded, or did you just not read the fucking article?
What are the cops supposed to do when someone is uncooperative and resisting arrest? Just let them go on their way? Their actions were appropriate within the law and their own use of force guidelines.

[PeZook]

Anyone who physically resists arrest is asking for violence. They tried to physically drag her out of the car and she resisted; what did she expect them to do next? Concede the argument and let her go on her way? The only option left for them at this point was escalation of physical force. You can't simply let people refuse to be arrested; there is an important social perogative involved in making it a crime to resist arrest.

While I agree the woman was pretty dumb to physically resist arrest, I think this procedure is just plain excessive.

Over here, if you get a traffic ticket, you can accept it or not. If you accept it, then you get IIRC 14 days to pay up.

If you don't, then the cop will write you a nice information slip which requires you to show up in court and defend yourself.

No arrests required. If you don't show up, then the court will send a few officers to force you to show up, or just run the process anyway and find you guilty, and slam you with costs of the proceedings.

I find this solution far more elegant ; People don't get their day screwed up because of minor traffic violations, the cops don't have to leave their station to haul irate drivers to the station, and you mostly see hurt feelings, rather than bruises.

[Covenant]

If she'd just signed it, she wouldn't have to appear for a half a month or so, and might be able to negotiate for a day that's more convenient for her. Really, she's just a moron.

[brianeyci]

I was about to write a half-assed post about how a woman who wasn't thinking straight, in our legal happy culture where signature can doom you, had some instinctive understandable reaction to grip the wheel...

...but then I realized the bitch sped through a school zone and could have killed a kid, and came to my senses.

[Skgoa]

When the cop shows you a TASER, you should comply or he'll fucking use it on you!

what country do you live in that has absolutely no laws regarding police violence?

What makes you think that this situation implies "no laws"?

because using Tasers to torture someone for not doing what you say is forbidden in every country that has a functional judicial system? judges decide on punishment, not police officers.

[Skgoa]

When the cop shows you a TASER, you should comply or he'll fucking use it on you!

what country do you live in that has absolutely no laws regarding police violence?

Are you retarded, or did you just not read the fucking article?
What are the cops supposed to do when someone is uncooperative and resisting arrest? Just let them go on their way? Their actions were appropriate within the law and their own use of force guidelines.

so you are saying that before there were Tasers people had to be shot for traffic violations? oh gee, I shure wonder what the police does in countries where torturing someone with high amounts of electricity is not an option, due to lack of Tasers...

[Skgoa]

ghetto edit: and I wonder even more why there are number plates on cars in the US, when it isapparently easier for the police to taser someone than reading and writing down the alphanumerical code on them.

but enough with the sarcasm, torture for a traffic violation and disobedience IS overkill. does the police in the US hack of the hands of thieves? or the genitals of adulterers? don't you think there is a reason why there are laws against that in democracies?

[Siege]

*snip*

I find this solution far more elegant ; People don't get their day screwed up because of minor traffic violations, the cops don't have to leave their station to haul irate drivers to the station, and you mostly see hurt feelings, rather than bruises.

It's the same here, and I don't quite see why you wouldn't just hand out the ticket, write down the plates and send the person in question a note telling them to show up in court at date X.

Having said that, resisting arrest because you don't think you should be arrested is a remarkable show of stupidity and once again proves the age-old adagio that common sense isn't.

[Flagg]

If she'd just signed it, she wouldn't have to appear for a half a month or so, and might be able to negotiate for a day that's more convenient for her. Really, she's just a moron.

She wouldn't have to appear at all unless she contested the ticket, too.

[Flagg]

what country do you live in that has absolutely no laws regarding police violence?

Are you retarded, or did you just not read the fucking article?
What are the cops supposed to do when someone is uncooperative and resisting arrest? Just let them go on their way? Their actions were appropriate within the law and their own use of force guidelines.

so you are saying that before there were Tasers people had to be shot for traffic violations? oh gee, I shure wonder what the police does in countries where torturing someone with high amounts of electricity is not an option, due to lack of Tasers...

Yeah, they totally used to shoot and kill people for resisting arrest before the advent of TASERS.

You ever hear of something called pepper spray? Or simply hitting someone until they are subdued?

[Flagg]

*snip*

I find this solution far more elegant ; People don't get their day screwed up because of minor traffic violations, the cops don't have to leave their station to haul irate drivers to the station, and you mostly see hurt feelings, rather than bruises.

It's the same here, and I don't quite see why you wouldn't just hand out the ticket, write down the plates and send the person in question a note telling them to show up in court at date X.

Having said that, resisting arrest because you don't think you should be arrested is a remarkable show of stupidity and once again proves the age-old adagio that common sense isn't.

It's because the person who recieved the ticket could then lie and say they weren't driving the car and whoever was is the person who should be ticketed. It's much easier to just have the person sign the ticket rather than copying their drivers license or taking a photo. Since signing the ticket is nothing more than an acknowledgement of reciept and not an admittance of guilt, there is absolutely no valid reason not to sign.

[Enigma]

ghetto edit: and I wonder even more why there are number plates on cars in the US, when it isapparently easier for the police to taser someone than reading and writing down the alphanumerical code on them.

but enough with the sarcasm, torture for a traffic violation and disobedience IS overkill. does the police in the US hack of the hands of thieves? or the genitals of adulterers? don't you think there is a reason why there are laws against that in democracies?

You know what you wrote is tantamount of saying "ooga booga googally moo". The woman forced the officers hand. SHE RESISTED ARREST!!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE REASON IS, SHE WAS BEING ARRESTED AND RESISTED THEM! Do I nee...d to ty...pe a bi..t slo....werrrr so y....ou caaaaannnn under....sta...nd me? Do you know all she needed to do to avoid all of this is SIGN THE FUCKING TICKET.

[Skgoa]

Yeah, they totally used to shoot and kill people for resisting arrest before the advent of TASERS.

irony, look it up.

You ever hear of something called pepper spray? Or simply hitting someone until they are subdued?

that you actually think those are acceptable means is just... wow. even in my mother tongue I find words to answer that.

ghetto edit: and I wonder even more why there are number plates on cars in the US, when it isapparently easier for the police to taser someone than reading and writing down the alphanumerical code on them.

but enough with the sarcasm, torture for a traffic violation and disobedience IS overkill. does the police in the US hack of the hands of thieves? or the genitals of adulterers? don't you think there is a reason why there are laws against that in democracies?

You know what you wrote is tantamount of saying "ooga booga googally moo". The woman forced the officers hand. SHE RESISTED ARREST!!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE REASON IS, SHE WAS BEING ARRESTED AND RESISTED THEM! Do I nee...d to ty...pe a bi..t slo....werrrr so y....ou caaaaannnn under....sta...nd me? Do you know all she needed to do to avoid all of this is SIGN THE FUCKING TICKET.

that thing that flew right over your head? that was the point.
lets try another analogy that you might understand:
if a child takes a cookie from the cookie jar, allthough hte mother had forbidden that, and the mother spanks the child, would it be an acceptable excuse if the mother said "he/she could have avoided it if he/she simply had not taken the cookie"?
the answer is obvious, because the important part is that spanking children is bad. thus, I ask you a simple question:
is torture by electrocuting good or bad?

and no, excessive use of the dot and shift keys do not constitute a good argument.

[Darth Wong]

is torture by electrocuting good or bad?

Bad. But this was not torture, dumb-fuck. It was disablement. It is only done long enough to subdue the subject and take him or her into custody, not as a torture method.

[Flagg]

Yeah, they totally used to shoot and kill people for resisting arrest before the advent of TASERS.

irony, look it up.

Retardation, look that up.

You ever hear of something called pepper spray? Or simply hitting someone until they are subdued?

that you actually think those are acceptable means is just... wow. even in my mother tongue I find words to answer that.

As opposed to what? Asking nicely? Wagging your finger at her? Waiting until she falls asleep? You're a fucking idiot.

And I'm not of the grammar Nazi variety, but if I'm going to waste my time responding to you being a gods damned retard, I'd appreciate it if you used some proper capitalization.

[Ma Deuce]

that you actually think those are acceptable means is just... wow. even in my mother tongue I find words to answer that.

Fine, then how would you deal with people who are physically resisting arrest?

if a child takes a cookie from the cookie jar, allthough hte mother had forbidden that, and the mother spanks the child, would it be an acceptable excuse if the mother said "he/she could have avoided it if he/she simply had not taken the cookie"?

Apples and oranges, dumbass. Unlike spanking a child for stealing a cookie, beating or tasering a suspect who is physically resisting arrest is not a form of punishment, but rather a means of subduing them so they can be taken into custody. They didn't taser her because she didn't sign the ticket, they tasered her to facilitate her arrest because she was physically resisting: If she had either signed or surrendered willingly after refusing to do so, none of this would have happened.

There is a very good reason that people should not be allowed to choose whether or not they can be arrested, so if the suspect resists, the cops can and very well should use whatever force is necessary to bring them into custody. If you think you're being charged unfairly, that's what the courts are for: Nothing gives you the right to resist arrest.

[White Haven]

Clarification here...to my understanding, when being subjected to an electrical current, muscles contract, and after being struck by a taser, movement is generally rather difficult for a short period. So someone gripping the steering wheel of a car already is not going to get out of the car when asked after being tasered, not necessarily because she doesn't want to, but because, to my understanding, she may not be able to. If I'm interpreting something incorrectly, by all means, speak up, but while I don't object to the use of the taser, it seems to my understanding that subsequent uses were out of line simply because the victim can't comply yet, and so doing the same thing over and over again won't help.

[Skgoa]

that you actually think those are acceptable means is just... wow. even in my mother tongue I find words to answer that.

Fine, then how would you deal with people who are physically resisting arrest?

Allthough I could think of severall methods, I am no authority.(But for the sake of the argument: I don't think a pregnant women could hang on to that steering wheel for long, if two trained police officers are determined to get her out of the car. Nad lets not forget that they could have called for backup.) Maybe you should ask someone who was a policeman before there where tasers, pepper spray etc.? (Or who is in a country where such things are not allowed.)

Apples and oranges, dumbass.

No. In both cases the amount of violence used was unnecessarily high. (See above and below on why it was unnecessary.) In both cases this was defended by the claim that the child or the pregnant woman should have thought of the consequences of their behaviour .

Unlike spanking a child for stealing a cookie, beating or tasering a suspect who is physically resisting arrest is not a form of punishment, but rather a means of subduing them so they can be taken into custody. They didn't taser her because she didn't sign the ticket, they tasered her to facilitate her arrest because she was physically resisting: If she had either signed or surrendered willingly after refusing to do so, none of this would have happened.

Please explain how with the invention of the Taser it suddenly became impossible to subdue someone without using a Taser on them several times. If you want to, you can even use the other case, where the mother did not want to give up her child, and describe how it would have played out if she had not been tasered.

There is a very good reason that people should not be allowed to choose whether or not they can be arrested, so if the suspect resists, the cops can and very well should use whatever force is necessary to bring them into custody. If you think you're being charged unfairly, that's what the courts are for: Nothing gives you the right to resist arrest.

I totally agree with that. Note that I never said she should not have been arrested, but only that it were the wrong means to arrest her.

Yeah, they totally used to shoot and kill people for resisting arrest before the advent of TASERS.

irony, look it up.

Retardation, look that up.

- I say something that is (at least to me) clearly irony.
- You answer with irony in a way that shows thaat you did not understate my use of irony.
- I say as much.
- You choose to simply insult me.
- I choose to apeal to the audience, by dragging this out to the light.
- ???

Hit me with the best you got!

You ever hear of something called pepper spray? Or simply hitting someone until they are subdued?

that you actually think those are acceptable means is just... wow. even in my mother tongue I find words to answer that.

As opposed to what? Asking nicely? Wagging your finger at her? Waiting until she falls asleep? You're a fucking idiot.[/quote]
Oh look, a black/white fallacy! But just in case you actually believe what you post, there ARE methods inbetween.

And I'm not of the grammar Nazi variety, but if I'm going to waste my time responding to you being a gods damned retard, I'd appreciate it if you used some proper capitalization.

Sorry, I was a bit angered by your wall of ignorance.

Once again you don't even pretend to address the point, instead sidestepping it with a fallacy... concession accepted.

is torture by electrocuting good or bad?

Bad. But this was not torture, dumb-fuck. It was disablement. It is only done long enough to subdue the subject and take him or her into custody, not as a torture method.

OK, let me state it in a logical step-by-step way:

- Before the Taser was invented, it was not necessary to use it.
- The people have not changed, they have the same capabilities to resist.
- Therefor it is not necessary to use a Taser now. (Note: the argument for Tasers is that they are not lethal and will not kill the suspect in cases when firearms would have been used. We are not talking about such a case.)
- A Taser (amongst other things) inflicts pain, the user knows this.
- Thus it if a user chooses to use a Taser, it is a concious choice to inflict pain (amongst other things), since it can not achieve anything that could not be achieved without it.
- That is called torture.
- Every competent policeman can subdue a pragnant woman. (Or should be fired if he can not.)
- And so we arrive at:
The police officer(s) choosing to taser the pregnant woman, who they would have pulled out of the car and arrested on the spot or would have known the number plate(and thus the name, address etc.) of, was torture.

Also, note that the Pro-Taser guys argued that you have to follow orders that a policeman gives you in ANY case, because he could taser you. That means 'comply or pain', or more specificly 'do what you are told or the police officer can punish you on the spot' - THAT is what provoced my 'no laws' post. You are right, I should not have arrived at the conclussion that this means there are no laws (regarding this) at all, since I could concieve of laws that would allow it. It is however an important part of the justice system of every functional democracy that it is forbidden.

[General Zod]

>snip<
- Before the Taser was invented, it was not necessary to use it.
- The people have not changed, they have the same capabilities to resist.
- Therefor it is not necessary to use a Taser now. (Note: the argument for Tasers is that they are not lethal and will not kill the suspect in cases when firearms would have been used. We are not talking about such a case.)
- A Taser (amongst other things) inflicts pain, the user knows this.
- Thus it if a user chooses to use a Taser, it is a concious choice to inflict pain (amongst other things), since it can not achieve anything that could not be achieved without it.
- That is called torture.
- Every competent policeman can subdue a pragnant woman. (Or should be fired if he can not.)
- And so we arrive at:
The police officer(s) choosing to taser the pregnant woman, who they would have pulled out of the car and arrested on the spot or would have known the number plate(and thus the name, address etc.) of, was torture.

You're a fucking idiot. According to your retarded logic any attempts to physically subdue a suspect is a conscious choice to inflict pain and therefore torture.

Also, note that the Pro-Taser guys argued that you have to follow orders that a policeman gives you in ANY case, because he could taser you. That means 'comply or pain', or more specificly 'do what you are told or the police officer can punish you on the spot' - THAT is what provoced my 'no laws' post. You are right, I should not have arrived at the conclussion that this means there are no laws (regarding this) at all, since I could concieve of laws that would allow it. It is however an important part of the justice system of every functional democracy that it is forbidden.

You're clearly ignorant of police guidelines for acceptable force. Tasers are not used until a suspect physically resists arrest. When they physically resist, the officer has to subdue them in ways that are in place to ensure the safety of the officers. Between pepper spray and tasers, the taser was the safest option available. Attempting to wrestle her to the ground would have been even more fucking stupid as the chances of damaging her unborn child and injuring her even more would have increased.

[Enigma]

that thing that flew right over your head? that was the point.
lets try another analogy that you might understand:
if a child takes a cookie from the cookie jar, allthough hte mother had forbidden that, and the mother spanks the child, would it be an acceptable excuse if the mother said "he/she could have avoided it if he/she simply had not taken the cookie"?
the answer is obvious, because the important part is that spanking children is bad. thus, I ask you a simple question:
is torture by electrocuting good or bad?

and no, excessive use of the dot and shift keys do not constitute a good argument.

You know what flew over my head wasn't your point but your brain deciding that it was best to leave an abusive relationship. Your analogy is pathetic if you are implying that the pregnant woman had a mental capacity of a child and didn't fully comprehend the consequences.

and no, excessive use of the dot and shift keys do not constitute a good argument.

Of course not it was used in hopes that you'd be able to understand the point that the woman physically resisted the officers. You stated that the officers could subdue a woman who was gripping the steering wheel hard. How is he going to do that? The only thing he could have done is to force her out and that involves force and that my intellectually challenged friend causes pain and most likely cause more damage than her temporarilly voiding her bowels.

The police officer(s) choosing to taser the pregnant woman, who they would have pulled out of the car and arrested on the spot or would have known the number plate(and thus the name, address etc.) of, was torture.

How are they going to pull her out when she held on to the steering wheel of her car? Are they going to use feathers? By your admission they'd have to resort to violence and you find that better than taser?

[Flagg]

irony, look it up.

Retardation, look that up.

- I say something that is (at least to me) clearly irony.
- You answer with irony in a way that shows thaat you did not understate my use of irony.
- I say as much.
- You choose to simply insult me.
- I choose to apeal to the audience, by dragging this out to the light.
- ???

Hit me with the best you got!

Sorry, I couldn't make that out. Unfortunately I don't speak 'Dicksneeze'.

that you actually think those are acceptable means is just... wow. even in my mother tongue I find words to answer that.

As opposed to what? Asking nicely? Wagging your finger at her? Waiting until she falls asleep? You're a fucking idiot.

Oh look, a black/white fallacy!

It's not a black/white fallacy, you fucking retard. I mentioned 2 other methods they could have used other than a TASER and you balked at those, as well. That pretty much only leaves what I described.

But just in case you actually believe what you post, there ARE methods inbetween.

Really? Care to describe those methods?

And I'm not of the grammar Nazi variety, but if I'm going to waste my time responding to you being a gods damned retard, I'd appreciate it if you used some proper capitalization.

Sorry, I was a bit angered by your wall of ignorance.

Someone's projecting.

Once again you don't even pretend to address the point, instead sidestepping it with a fallacy... concession accepted.

Look everyone, the troll thinks it's people!

[Schuyler Colfax]

Skgoa
I suggest that you shut up. I can't say what I'd do to the woman if I were in the cop's shoes therefore I didn't give my opinion if I thought what the cops did was neccessary. But your useless ranting is starting to annoy me. Everyone is telling you why are you are wrong and yet you persist on fighting back. Yes I do realize that's the point of an arguement. But you sound like an idiot so please give up already.