Pregnant woman 'Tasered' by police is convicted

[aerius]

Clearly, we should return to the good old days before Tasers were invented, and where police officers were issued lead-lined gloves, blackjacks, and truncheons, as well as being allowed to choke suspects unconscious and beat the stuffing out of them like they did with Rodney King. Ah...for the good old days when the woman would've been whacked in the head with a sap and dragged semi-conscious from her before being handcuffed and roughly tossed head first into the back seat of the cruiser.

[Skgoa]

>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.

Oh wow, I guess me talking about Tasers was actually me talking about "any attempts to physically subdue a suspect". Thanks for pointing that out.
Though if you read my post again you might find that I actually said that the use of necessary force is OK and that Tasers are not OK because they are not necessary. Feel free to prove in what situation Tasers are necessary. (Note: "they make the police's jobs easier" is not what I consider necessary, at least not if it involves 50.000V.) I believe you will find that the cases where they are necessary is more or less equall to the cases where guns were necessary before there were Tasers. I actually said that and I accepted it as necessary violence. This discussion is about unnecessary violence, i.e. cases where a Taser was not the last option available.

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.

I did not comment on or against law enforcement policy, but argued against the notion which I quoted above. And even if it was policy that police officers could shoot everyone they wanted, I could still say its unnecessary violence to shot someone in a specific case.

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.

You should tell the man who got tasered while sleeping on his couch and once more after he proofed he owned the house, or the man who was subdued by 6 policemen and THEN tasered. I bet they will feel much better.
But I accept that a certain amount of force is necessary, I just don't get how a pregnant woman holding onto her steering wheel was a sufficient threat to the police officers to warrant the repeated use of Tasers.

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.

Why do you assume that "wrestle her to the ground" was the only option?
Don't tell me two police officers could not put handcuffs on her without that.
And do you have sources on the effect of Tasers used on pregnant women versus the effects of manhandling? I don't know the specific risks of either (other than it being bad) but an influx of facts would end this part of the discussion.


@Flagg: The methods you mention are a) excessivly violent or b) ridiculous.
Alternatives I can think of at the top of my head include pulling her out of the car, proving to her that she needs to sign it, (IIRC it all began because she thought she did not need to.) trying to convince her that its in her best interest and/or putting psychological pressure on her, (At least from the way it is written in the article the policemen did not really try to persuade her.) or generally said, just trying to deescalate. (The situation escalated pretty fast and those policemen were propably annoyed allready and did not have the necessary training to calm her - at least they said they tasered her because they did not manage to do so.) As I said before, I am no authority on police methods, but I have asked law enforcement friends and expect their answers later today or tommorrow.


@Enigma: Three questions:
Do you actually have the faintest idea how much 50.000V is?
Seriously now, for how long do you think could she have held onto that steering wheel?

Even if the difference in pain and damage is not obvious to you, do you think pulling her out would have left several burn marks on her?

[aerius]

Do you actually have the faintest idea how much 50.000V is?

Yeah, it's about what you can get from rubbing a balloon in your hair. You can zap yourself with 20-25kV just by scuffing your feet on a carpet and then touching a doorknob. People using Van de Graaf generators and Tesla coils get zapped with over 100,000V with no ill effects. But OMG 50kV is going to fuck people up real good.

[Enigma]

Skgoa, pay attention to what Isolder74 posted on the first page,

Physics for dummies...

The amounts of volts has nothing to do with how lethal electricity is. I can kill you with a 9 volt batter(or AA) if I wire it into the right circuit.

And yes I do know how to build said device.


It is the Current that does harm. Its just you say Volts and people instantly think High Tension Power Lines.

Answer that. Concession accpted.

[Flagg]

@Flagg: The methods you mention are a) excessivly violent or b) ridiculous.
Alternatives I can think of at the top of my head include pulling her out of the car, proving to her that she needs to sign it, (IIRC it all began because she thought she did not need to.) trying to convince her that its in her best interest and/or putting psychological pressure on her, (At least from the way it is written in the article the policemen did not really try to persuade her.) or generally said, just trying to deescalate. (The situation escalated pretty fast and those policemen were propably annoyed allready and did not have the necessary training to calm her - at least they said they tasered her because they did not manage to do so.) As I said before, I am no authority on police methods, but I have asked law enforcement friends and expect their answers later today or tommorrow.

Proving that you're a total fucktard and illiterate!

The cops had so much patience that not only did they try to convince her to sign the ticket for several minutes, but they actually called out a supervisor so that he could try to convince the dumb twat that she needed to sign the ticket. They could just just arrested the stupid bitch after one refusal and been perfectly fine within the law.

As for "pulling her out of the car", that's what they were trying to do, but she was resisting them by gripping the steering wheel, you dumb taint! That's when they used the TASER, as opposed to manhandling her out of the car, using pepper spray, or using batons to strike her arms and hands until she lets go.

So in summation:

[General Zod]

Oh wow, I guess me talking about Tasers was actually me talking about "any attempts to physically subdue a suspect". Thanks for pointing that out.
Though if you read my post again you might find that I actually said that the use of necessary force is OK and that Tasers are not OK because they are not necessary. Feel free to prove in what situation Tasers are necessary. (Note: "they make the police's jobs easier" is not what I consider necessary, at least not if it involves 50.000V.) I believe you will find that the cases where they are necessary is more or less equall to the cases where guns were necessary before there were Tasers. I actually said that and I accepted it as necessary violence. This discussion is about unnecessary violence, i.e. cases where a Taser was not the last option available.

How about you prove that tasers are more violent than physically subdueing someone? And no, crowing about "50,000 volts zomg!" is not proof.

You should tell the man who got tasered while sleeping on his couch and once more after he proofed he owned the house, or the man who was subdued by 6 policemen and THEN tasered. I bet they will feel much better.
But I accept that a certain amount of force is necessary, I just don't get how a pregnant woman holding onto her steering wheel was a sufficient threat to the police officers to warrant the repeated use of Tasers.

How the fuck is that even relevant dumbass? Completely separate circumstances, in this case the woman actually was breaking the law.

Why do you assume that "wrestle her to the ground" was the only option?
Don't tell me two police officers could not put handcuffs on her without that.
And do you have sources on the effect of Tasers used on pregnant women versus the effects of manhandling? I don't know the specific risks of either (other than it being bad) but an influx of facts would end this part of the discussion.

We're still waiting on you to show what these "other options" you keep crowing about were. Clearly you're ignorant as to the realitics of physically attempting to restrain another person or get them to move without their consent. It is not as easy as you seem to be deluding yourself to think it is.

Alternatives I can think of at the top of my head include pulling her out of the car, proving to her that she needs to sign it, (IIRC it all began because she thought she did not need to.) trying to convince her that its in her best interest and/or putting psychological pressure on her, (At least from the way it is written in the article the policemen did not really try to persuade her.) or generally said, just trying to deescalate.

Any rational person would have just signed the fucking ticket and went on their way instead of attempting to argue about it. And yet again you seem to be completely ignorant as to how much real force is required to get someone to physically move where they don't want to.

Three questions:
Do you actually have the faintest idea how much 50.000V is?
Seriously now, for how long do you think could she have held onto that steering wheel?

As vidoes posted here in the past have shown, someone might tense up from a taser hit for a second or two at most. But feel free to keep displaying your ignorance.

Even if the difference in pain and damage is not obvious to you, do you think pulling her out would have left several burn marks on her?

Yet again with the ignorance. Tasers do not leave burn marks unless it's a stun gun with the prongs attached, which was clearly not the case here.

[Flagg]

Yet again with the ignorance. Tasers do not leave burn marks unless it's a stun gun with the prongs attached, which was clearly not the case here.

Burn marks (or welts) were mentioned in the article.

[General Zod]

Yet again with the ignorance. Tasers do not leave burn marks unless it's a stun gun with the prongs attached, which was clearly not the case here.

Burn marks (or welts) were mentioned in the article.

Hrmm. Point. Although if they'd attempted to drag her out physically, she would have been bruised up instead. Especially if she'd attempted to actually fight back instead of merely passively resisting.

[Flagg]

Yet again with the ignorance. Tasers do not leave burn marks unless it's a stun gun with the prongs attached, which was clearly not the case here.

Burn marks (or welts) were mentioned in the article.

Hrmm. Point. Although if they'd attempted to drag her out physically, she would have been bruised up instead. Especially if she'd attempted to actually fight back instead of merely passively resisting.

Let's also not forget the fact that she could have started the vehicle, in which case deadly force can be used if an officer is in front of, or behind the car. So they needed to get her out of that car, especially since she had started resisting.

[Darth Wong]

@Enigma: Three questions:
Do you actually have the faintest idea how much 50.000V is?

Others have already answered this. Don't bluff knowledge you don't have.

Seriously now, for how long do you think could she have held onto that steering wheel?

Quite a long time. All she has to do is hook her arm through the spokes, and the only practical way to drag her out of there in any reasonable length of time will be to beat her into submission or dislocate her arms. A car is pretty cramped quarters, and you don't really want to get your whole body in there to wrestle with her: not when you have a holstered gun on your waist that will be easily within her reach the whole time.

Even if the difference in pain and damage is not obvious to you, do you think pulling her out would have left several burn marks on her?

See above.

[brianeyci]

Clearly, we should return to the good old days before Tasers were invented, and where police officers were issued lead-lined gloves, blackjacks, and truncheons, as well as being allowed to choke suspects unconscious and beat the stuffing out of them like they did with Rodney King. Ah...for the good old days when the woman would've been whacked in the head with a sap and dragged semi-conscious from her before being handcuffed and roughly tossed head first into the back seat of the cruiser.

Ah that worked on me, hopefully this guy sees the light and it works on him too. Getting your skull caved in is no fun.

Arresting someone who is resisting is not so easy Skgoa... if she held onto the wheel there is absolutely no hands-off method they could've used to release her other than peper spray or taser or gun. What are they going to do, talk to her for six hours into surrendering, when she's got her hands on the wheel and the foot to the pedal and could take off any time?

That is just ten levels of awesome.

[The_Saint]

Here in Aus the police can ask you for your license (usually the first thing they ask: Can I see your license and have you been drinking today?), check it to see if you've been naughty lately, anything outstanding etc... (nb failure to carry your license while driving is an automatic $50 fine).

If you're going to have a ticket written out they copy the driver's license number onto the ticket and hand a copy to you... you can then if you really feel like it, tear it up and throw it back at them but it doesn't change the fact that the ticket's now in the system and if you don't pay in 21 days you'll get a court summons.

If you refuse the ticket then the copper could arrest you (for being an uncooperative idiot) or as apparently happens most often (as it's just downright easier), they'll nicely send it to you in the mail.

Ticket's served, no escalation.

[Justforfun000]

Here in Aus the police can ask you for your license (usually the first thing they ask: Can I see your license and have you been drinking today?), check it to see if you've been naughty lately, anything outstanding etc... (nb failure to carry your license while driving is an automatic $50 fine).

If you're going to have a ticket written out they copy the driver's license number onto the ticket and hand a copy to you... you can then if you really feel like it, tear it up and throw it back at them but it doesn't change the fact that the ticket's now in the system and if you don't pay in 21 days you'll get a court summons.

If you refuse the ticket then the copper could arrest you (for being an uncooperative idiot) or as apparently happens most often (as it's just downright easier), they'll nicely send it to you in the mail.

Ticket's served, no escalation.

This is almost the same type of idea of what we have here in Canada. I think it's unnecessarily stupid to have them "sign" a receipt. A cop is an employed government official for fucks sake! Why do they need that extra step? They record the infraction, and it's in the system as a charge you will have to pay, challenge or (if you want to be a stonewalling moron), ignore until they cut off your permit and license.

In this specific type of instance, forcing someone to sign a receipt is just asking for escalation from jackasses who get stubborn and contentious. Why bother?

[Flagg]

Here in Aus the police can ask you for your license (usually the first thing they ask: Can I see your license and have you been drinking today?), check it to see if you've been naughty lately, anything outstanding etc... (nb failure to carry your license while driving is an automatic $50 fine).

If you're going to have a ticket written out they copy the driver's license number onto the ticket and hand a copy to you... you can then if you really feel like it, tear it up and throw it back at them but it doesn't change the fact that the ticket's now in the system and if you don't pay in 21 days you'll get a court summons.

If you refuse the ticket then the copper could arrest you (for being an uncooperative idiot) or as apparently happens most often (as it's just downright easier), they'll nicely send it to you in the mail.

Ticket's served, no escalation.

This is almost the same type of idea of what we have here in Canada. I think it's unnecessarily stupid to have them "sign" a receipt. A cop is an employed government official for fucks sake! Why do they need that extra step? They record the infraction, and it's in the system as a charge you will have to pay, challenge or (if you want to be a stonewalling moron), ignore until they cut off your permit and license.

In this specific type of instance, forcing someone to sign a receipt is just asking for escalation from jackasses who get stubborn and contentious. Why bother?

This was my earlier response to someone else regarding this.

Basically, it makes it virtually impossible for someone to claim that they weren't the one driving because the police have the signature.

[Justforfun000]

This was my earlier response to someone else regarding this.

Basically, it makes it virtually impossible for someone to claim that they weren't the one driving because the police have the signature.

But your picture is on your license. You have to prove that your license is you, ot yhey'll arrest you for driving without one. So the only reason I can see this being a problem is if some US states issue driving licenses with photos. Is this the case?

[Flagg]

This was my earlier response to someone else regarding this.

Basically, it makes it virtually impossible for someone to claim that they weren't the one driving because the police have the signature.

But your picture is on your license. You have to prove that your license is you, ot yhey'll arrest you for driving without one. So the only reason I can see this being a problem is if some US states issue driving licenses with photos. Is this the case?

No, as far as I know they all have picture ID. It still leaves a hole open for unscrupulous people to exploit.

Plus, acknowledging receipt of the ticket by a signature at the time it's issued also prevents people from claiming that they never got the court summons in the mail.

Really, the problem isn't requiring signatures, it's assholes refusing to cooperate when it's required by law that they do.

[CJvR]

Clearly, we should return to the good old days before Tasers were invented, and where police officers were issued lead-lined gloves, blackjacks, and truncheons...

I have my father's old Police sabre hanging on the wall, tasers are a big improvement - particulary for those stupid enough to pick a fight with the police.

[General Zod]

In this specific type of instance, forcing someone to sign a receipt is just asking for escalation from jackasses who get stubborn and contentious. Why bother?

How are they supposed to serve the ticket if it's not their car and the plates turn out to be registered to someone else? If someone's stupid enough to escalate over a ticket then frankly they deserve to be arrested.

[Darth Wong]

This was my earlier response to someone else regarding this.

Basically, it makes it virtually impossible for someone to claim that they weren't the one driving because the police have the signature.

But your picture is on your license. You have to prove that your license is you, ot yhey'll arrest you for driving without one. So the only reason I can see this being a problem is if some US states issue driving licenses with photos. Is this the case?

Part of the problem is (ironically) the American emphasis on individual rights. There are so many tricks people can use to get off on a charge that I can understand why police would want to cross more t's and dot more i's when handing out traffic tickets.

In Canada, we have human-rights legislation but we're a bit less maniacally predisposed to give criminal suspects so many weapons to get away.

[andrewgpaul]

Is it federal law in the US to always carry documentation while driving? In the UK, "may I see your license and registration?" is a useless question, since I don't need to have anything like that on my person while driving. I can be compelled to show my license at a later date at my local police station, though.

[General Zod]

Is it federal law in the US to always carry documentation while driving? In the UK, "may I see your license and registration?" is a useless question, since I don't need to have anything like that on my person while driving. I can be compelled to show my license at a later date at my local police station, though.

Not carrying documentation is enough of a reason for the police to detain you in custody until they can verify your identity, yes. If you happen to be driving and not even have a license (as opposed to just forgetting it) then that mean the charges will jump up significantly from a simple ticket.

[Uraniun235]

Is it federal law in the US to always carry documentation while driving? In the UK, "may I see your license and registration?" is a useless question, since I don't need to have anything like that on my person while driving. I can be compelled to show my license at a later date at my local police station, though.

I don't think that would be a federal law. Does sound like something every state would have a law for, though.

[Justforfun000]

Really, the problem isn't requiring signatures, it's assholes refusing to cooperate when it's required by law that they do.

and

How are they supposed to serve the ticket if it's not their car and the plates turn out to be registered to someone else? If someone's stupid enough to escalate over a ticket then frankly they deserve to be arrested.

Oh I don't disagree with either of you in that the person refusing to sign is being the idiot. Regardless of what the police require in whatever country, you're being a fool to resist. It's fighting City Hall ultimately.

Part of the problem is (ironically) the American emphasis on individual rights. There are so many tricks people can use to get off on a charge that I can understand why police would want to cross more t's and dot more i's when handing out traffic tickets.

In Canada, we have human-rights legislation but we're a bit less maniacally predisposed to give criminal suspects so many weapons to get away.

That's a good point. We tend to shade towards more of a police state at times in comparison to the US. They both have their advantages and disadvantages.
In general, the word of the police is assumed to be honest above the citizens. It's one hurdle you have to overcome right at the get go.

[PeZook]

No, as far as I know they all have picture ID. It still leaves a hole open for unscrupulous people to exploit.

Well, I can see your point: Obviously, not every legal solution is fit for every culture. Like DW said, American cops may just be extra-cautious in order to avoid assholes getting off on a technicality.

Getting out of the ticket using that claim doesn't happen here, at all - I don't know if it's just a cultural phenomenon, or that the system just plain works well.

Plus, acknowledging receipt of the ticket by a signature at the time it's issued also prevents people from claiming that they never got the court summons in the mail.

This happens sometimes - but court summons are usually sent as a registered letter with confirmation of delivery. You can probably avoid it by simply not taking any letters coming from the court, but then you can expect a police officer to visit you in person after some time. And man, will the judge be pissed when they finally drag you there kicking and screaming...

Really, the problem isn't requiring signatures, it's assholes refusing to cooperate when it's required by law that they do.

Obviously. Some solutions may minimize that, though.

[Ma Deuce]

Is it federal law in the US to always carry documentation while driving? In the UK, "may I see your license and registration?" is a useless question, since I don't need to have anything like that on my person while driving. I can be compelled to show my license at a later date at my local police station, though.

It wouldn't be a federal law, as in the US and Canada, motor vehicles and licences are mostly regulated by the states and provinces respectively, not the federal government. However, in most North American jurisdictions I'm aware of, you do need your licence on your person while driving.