Federal Appeals Court: Seattle Police OK To Taser Pregnant Woman

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(03-26) 13:24 PDT Seattle (AP) --

A federal appeals court says three Seattle police officers were justified when they used a stun gun on a pregnant mother who refused to sign a traffic ticket.

Malaika Brooks was driving her son to school in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. Rather than give her the ticket and let her go on her way, the officers arrested her. They used a Taser three times when she refused to get out of her car.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Friday that the officers were justified in using force because of the threat that Brooks could have picked up her car keys off the floor, started the car and driven away erratically.

The dissenting judge called the ruling "off-the-wall," and said the police officers had no authority to arrest Brooks — let alone the authority to use a Taser on a nonthreatening woman who was seven months pregnant.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/03/26/national/a132443D69.DTL

[Duer 157099]

1. OMFG. n/t

[SoCalNative]

2. "a nonthreatening woman who was seven months pregnant"

They haven;t been around many pregnant women have they?

[Robb]

33. This was my first thought, but I kept quiet about it

...a lesson I learned over a particular nine month period. :hide:

[Orrex]

3. Obviously, the fetus was asking for it.

Props to the dissenting judge.

[xchrom]

4. Outfuckingrageous. Nt

[BlooInBloo]

5. And state-sponsored domestic terrorists throughout the country rejoice...

Cops' ability to torture the public is officially boundless.

[Divine Discontent]

6. I despise most of these people we call "officers of the peace".

The dissenting judge called the ruling "off-the-wall," and said the police officers had no authority to arrest Brooks — let alone the authority to use a Taser on a nonthreatening woman who was seven months pregnant.

Thank you!

Instead of shocking her with tons of volts, how about they just notate that she refused to sign the ticket and enter it anyhow, and let the courts decide what to do with her? freaking bastards...

[backscatter712]

43. 99% of police officers give the remaining 1% a bad name... n/t

[crim son]

7. WTF?

This ruling is astonishing. I'm sick of cops not being subject to any real scrutiny. I appreciate the job the good ones are doing but that doesn't excuse assholes like these who should be relieved of their badges, period. No wonder cops have such a bad name. And courts!

[DeSwiss]

8. K&R

- Fucking idiot judges and cops....

[midnight]

45. Time to update your poster with a pregnant women.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. This is such an ass backward ruling for 7 mph that it's hard to know where to begin.

They tasered her an arrested her in front of her kid because she was going 7 mph over the speed limit.

[alp227]

10. If you're a cop, the public = your punching bag

Hey cops! Had a bad day? On patrol go shoot a Hispanic on sight! :sarcasm:

But c'mon, such a big deal over refusing to sign a speeding ticket? Do people normally get arrested for doing the same thing Brooks did? Brooks wasn't trying to beat up a cop or anything; she just refused to get out of the car! This claim that Brooks could've escaped is pure speculation to me.

[superconnected]

14. Not all cops are like that. Are you on the run from the law?

[bkozumplik]

15. "the law" doesnt always have anything to with it

Cops take absolute authority in every situation, and frequently exceed the mandate of the law, out of fear for themselves, or just power tripping.

I say take their tasers away, they obviously dont know how or when to use them.

[midnight]

22. I'm with you on this....

[Mithreal]

23. +1 Pressure your reps to change this, please. I have been for a while.

But I am getting crickets, need more people speaking up.

[Mithreal]

19. You're from Seattle for gawdsakes, think WTO. Cops do hurt people.

Often.

They also get hurt by people. Think of all those cops killed in Tacoma in two separate recent incidents.

What sane person doesn't realize cops are all different? There should be a Stanford prison experiment to study behavior of police. I have cops in my family and have some pretty strong feelings about what that profession does to the individual and their families. I am just reading on the wiki about the Stanford experiment and it says it demonstrates the importance of situational effects versus personality. My strong feelings are that cops have a somewhat predictable personality but that is just anecdotal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

When I read your comment, "Are you on the run from the law?" that just made me think you have some similarity in thinking to the cops I know.

[droidamus2]

36. Ridiculous

How many here remember that the original selling point for things like 'tasers' was that instead of using deadly force an 'officer of the law' could disable the criminal with a quick shock? Now it seems that the police (yes not all but way too many) have decided that any time they say jump and you don't ask how high they have a right to taser you. In many of these cases (yes I don't know that particulars so this is a generalization) it seems like a big ego trip on the cops part. A pregnant woman or loud mouthed little old granny back talks a cop and bam tasered again. I believe a good cop has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation and act accordingly, but too many bad cops take the 'you must be in charge' idea way too far and just use it as an excuse to bully people. The cops tend to do this stuff and then come up with the excuse of why they did it after the fact.

[Mithreal]

41. Agreed. And I am inclined to argue there are real bad cops but there

are also situational factors that increase chances of bullying by good cops.

[superconnected]

48. I'm for taking their tasers away, but I by no means think all or even most cops have a brutal

nature, or character flaw where they abuse power. I haven't been attacked by a cop yet. I do know a few people who have - when they were drunk and it was still inexcusable, but that by no means speaks for all cops. I do expect people who throw out blanket statements (and are automatically dead wrong when they do that) about things like the police all being brutal, to be someone who runs into the police a lot, loathes them, and has real worry about going to jail. At least, that's what that guy and you, sound like to me. I'm just a normal person, not a cop. My day job is Systems Engineer.

[Mithreal]

51. I have cops in my family, nice try saying I loathe them.

Check out the Stanford Prison Experiment. There are a lot of situational factors that lead to abuse by normal people. Cops are affected by their jobs, not always in positive ways. So, I need to see multiple families torn up by the troubles good and decent cops have dealing with their jobs and pointing out that cops, even the good ones, suffer and their jobs change them in significant ways, not always for the better, makes me a hater? Do you realize how silly you sound to me? I could care less what you think of me so you are probably no different itr.

Foolishness, but if it makes you feel better, can't be all bad, am I right?

[superconnected]

52. I've read about the Stanford Prison Experiment, it's COMMON knowlege, espeically

on this board. I'm putting you on ignore because of the blanket statements. I suspect it's in all areas of your thought, so I don't want to waste time reading your posts in the future. Plus the police attacker at all costs, bit, is disturbing. Bye bye.

[Mithreal]

53. Thanks

[TheWatcher]

54. There are more Mouth-Breathers in The Emerald City than you think, or would feel comfortable with.

When I first came here, this place was like an Oasis.

These days, I hardly recognize it anymore.

It has changed A LOT.

[truedelphi]

42. Increasingly the cops act like this. I blame it on the fact that

many returning from Iraq and the many, many tours there are first draft picks when the local Police does their hiring.

A person simply cannot spend four or five years busting in people's doors, ordering everyone to the floor, no complaints or we shoot, and then get re-integrated back into society by being police.

Our nation is in a heap of trouble.

[Mithreal]

44. +1 Absolutely.

What we do to others in war will follow us home.

[JonLP24]

46. There has been many cases of police brutality long before the Iraq war started

I don't really think it's that.

[Mithreal]

50. No doubt, but it will contribute to more violence imo.

[ladywnch]

11. so much for worrying about the unborn child, .....good lord what hypocrites! n/t

[dhill926]

17. exactly.......

wonder if there has been any lasting effect on that unborn child........

[Tx4obama]

12. We need to ALL email this to MSNBC and get Keith & Rachel to report on this n/t

[superconnected]

13. This is the appeals court so she just lost. That is flipping unbelivable.

[proReality]

16. Obviously they've never been 7 months pregnant...

or they would know that it is nearly impossible to bend down in a car to get keys off the floor. The entire world of law enforcement has gone completely insane!!!

[Lars39]

30. That was my first thought, too.

I'd have been happy to just see my feet.

[era veteran]

18. Pigs were not a credit to their gender

So much for civilization

[PSPS]

20. Seattle traffic cops are real thugs

They laugh among themselves when they brutalize the citizenry. The city judges routinely back them up, too. The whole setup has become quite corrupt in Seattle -- it used to be a respectable department a long time ago.

An odd thing about this story: signing the ticket. The last time I got a traffic ticket in Seattle, I wasn't asked to sign it. I wonder if he demanded that simply to provoke a confrontation so he could get his jollies.

[Tumbulu]

21. horrendous! I wonder what damage the baby suffered

let alone the mom and the poor child going to school.

[CBGLuthier]

24. No way in hell would they treat a white woman that way.

Anyone who denies that is blind or a liar.

[aquart]

28. I think you're right.

And it's really time they figured out it's hands off ANY woman.

[depakid]

25. The thin blue line

Here's the woman police and two members of the court were so afraid of:

[aquart]

27. That baby looks well and happy, thank God.

[Iowa]

26. There are too many cops with not enough to do...

Furthermore, far too many of them are sadist control freaks.

Slash their funding and reduce their numbers. When we stop hearing about outrages like this, we'll know we have cut enough.

[jotsy]

29. Is there ever going to be a limit on how much the judges will let the cops suck.

They are not upholding the law. They are not keeping the peace. I feel like the king at the end of The Two Towers. How in the hell has it come to this. Man it sucks to know the details of this.

[BadgerKid]

31. Outrageous and inhumane. n/t

[BlueIris]

32. Power abusing criminals.

It is so sad how many of them have badges (and gavels.)

[Robb]

34. The court actually says little about whether the officers were justified

...The case was entirely about whether the officers were entitled to immunity. Good reading, the opinion itself:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000010396

...On November 23, 2004, SPD Officer Juan Ornelas stopped
Brooks for speeding in a school zone.2 The situation deterio-
rated rather quickly. Brooks claimed she had not been speed-
ing, took her driver’s license out of Officer Ornelas’s ticket
book and only reluctantly gave it back, and then repeatedly
refused to sign a Notice of Infraction (“Notice”) regarding her
speeding violation.3 When SPD Officer Jones arrived at the
scene, Officer Ornelas told him that Brooks had refused to
sign the Notice and was being uncooperative. Officer Jones
tried to obtain her signature himself, but Brooks also refused
his entreaties, despite assurances that signing was not tanta-
mount to admitting the violation. She accused Officer Jones
of lying to her about the import of signing,4 suggested he was
being racist, and became upset, repeating “I’m not signing,
I’m not signing” over and over. Throughout, she remained in
the car with the ignition running.


Officer Ornelas then called his supervisor, SPD Sergeant
Daman. When Sergeant Daman arrived, Brooks continued to
refuse to sign the Notice. Sergeant Daman then asked her “if
was going to sign the ticket.” When she refused, he told
Officers Ornelas and Jones to “book her.” They attempted
to follow those orders.

Brooks refused to leave her car, remaining in it with the
ignition running and her door shut. Officer Jones then showed
Brooks his Taser, explaining that it would hurt “extremely
bad” if applied. Brooks told them she was pregnant and that
she needed to use the restroom. The officers discussed where
to tase her, deciding on her thigh. Officer Jones demonstrated
the Taser for her. Brooks still remained in the car, so Officer
Ornelas opened the door and reached over to take the key out
of the ignition, dropping the keys on the floorboard.5
Officer Ornelas then employed a pain compliance tech-
nique, bringing Brooks’s left arm up behind her back,
whereon Brooks stiffened her body and clutched the steering
wheel in order to frustrate her removal from the car. Officer
Jones discharged the Taser against Brooks’s thigh, through
her sweat pants, which caused Brooks “tremendous pain.” She
began to yell and honk the car’s horn.

Within the next minute, Officer Jones tased her two more
times, against her shoulder and neck, the latter being the only
area of exposed skin. Brooks was unable to get out of the car
herself during this time because her arm was still behind her
back.6 The third tasing moved Brooks to the right, at which
point Officers Ornelas and Jones were able to extract her from
the car through a combination of pushing and pulling. She
was immediately seen by medical professionals, and two
months later delivered a healthy baby.

Brooks was charged with (1) violation of Seattle Municipal
Code 11.59.090 for refusing to sign the Notice, and (2) resist-
ing arrest. She was convicted of the first charge, but the jury
hung on the second, which was later dismissed.

Brooks then filed this action against the Officers, asserting
a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and assault and battery claims
under state tort law for the alleged excessive force. The dis-
trict court denied the Officers’ motion for summary judgment
on those claims, finding a clearly established constitutional
violation that deprived the Officers of qualified immunity on
both the federal and state claims.....

[tom_paine]

35. Get those fetuses fearing Almighy Authority in the womb.

RW Authoritarians can never start early enough in training the Subject Populace.

I'd say it was madness, but living in our Corporate Neofeudalist State means we Subjects of Empire are going to have to learn to bow and scrape the way other Third World Subjects do.

America is a Third World Nation, albeit a very rich one that is (for now) "kinder and gentler" than most others, but the principles and psychologies are similar and getting more so.

[Robb]

37. "Corporate Neofeudalist State?"

:eyes:

[tom_paine]

38. Also known as Inverted Totalitarianism, just two different ways of looking at the same swift descent

of our nation into whatever we will ultimately become when Bushification is complete.

Read the link, maybe it will help you understand:

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/20080515_chalmers_johnson_on_our_managed_democracy/

[Robb]

39. You realize this is why the real world no longer takes American leftist thought seriously, right?

Dilution of extremity. It's absurd what people have done to a completely rational construct.

[tom_paine]

40. You realize that this is why the RW controls our National Dialog, because of fear of stating the

obvious, no matter "how large the image gets in the rearview mirror," or how obvious a thing is.

You didn't even read the article I linked to, did you?

Yes, things are very far gone along, so yes, the descriptors of our situation have gotten more extreme.

How come it is that "Leftist Extremism" has driven people away from Leftist Thought but Rightist Extremism is immediately given 100% absolute credence and respect, not to mention wall-to-wall corporate M$M coverage?

Has the Rise of the Teabaggers (and their 600-person one-reporter to one delegate 24/7 convention coverage) taught you nothing?

Apparently so.

You need to read the link, and see if you can figure out why Rightists Extremism is always and immediately integrated into The Mainstream Conventional Wisdom that drives our National Discussion.

But remember, don't think outside the box of the ever-narrowing, ever-more RW Conventional Wisdom, because then no one will listen to you. Accept the ever-tightening straightjacket of the RW-controlled and driven National Dialog. As Orwell prophesied, as you keep on accepting said straightjacket we will one day lose the ability to even complain because the vocabulary required to complain will be too extreme.

Read some Frank Luntz. Read some Ed Bernays. Read the link I provided you. Ponder why RW Extremism is conferred instant legitimization in our National Dialog, no matter how extreme. The Teabaggers being the latest in a long line of examples.

Or don't. You'll probably be happier.

[NashVegas]

49. No, We Are Most Definitely Viewing the New Feudalism

At its most easily visible, look in the literary sense at what's happened/happening to agriculture. Many of the nation's farmers - the ones doing the work and/or supervising of work on the land - have been reduced to a sort of luxurious serfdom, thanks to Monsanto and factory farm owners.

[prayin4rain]

47. That is scary!! n/t

[ti66er8pooh]

55. WTF!!??

OK,

I know this is my first post, so more than likely I will get flamed. However, I have been an avid post reader here for a very long time. That being said;
I don’t understand the general dismay and widespread hatred of police and law enforcement on most of the posts. I can say that my experiences with the police in my adult life have been pretty much what I have expected. I report a crime, the police show up, take notes, ask a lot of questions, offer some advice, leave. Sometimes I have been surprised that they actually found a suspect and even more surprisingly, recovered my stuff! I never felt harassed, talked down to, or remotely like I regretted contacted the police when I needed them. I can say that in my younger days I had a lot more contact with the police than what I cared for. However, that was mostly because I was an idiot doing idiotic / illegal things that drew their attention to me.
Now to the main point of the discussion:
Let’s take a look at this point by point.
A woman is stopped via a traffic stop for a violation of a traffic law. In this case the violation was speeding in a school zone. (More than likely this violation is a little more serious much like a work zone or other special restricted zone). Not a big deal, but a violation of the law none the less.
Woman is issued a citation for the above violation. The woman refuses to sign the citation. This now becomes a criminal violation. In most states it is a criminal (misdemeanor) violation not to sign a traffic citation. In fact, most citations have this printed on the citation right above or below the space provided for your signature. It also states, as I can guess the officer had also informed the woman that signing the citation is not admitting guilt. You are merely signing the citation showing that you have received the citation and now understand what your rights are involving the citation. In most states you can admit your guilt and simply pay the resulting fine. You also have the right to see a judge or magistrate if you DO NOT AGREE with the charge or violation. You have the right to argue your case, hire a lawyer, and state your case to a judge to prove your innocence. Yet, the woman in question still refused to sign the citation, thus committing and arrestable offense.
The officer now informs the woman that since SHE has made the decision not to sign the citation, she is under arrest. The woman now commits her third violation of the law by not following the officers demand to exit her vehicle. The woman is now actively resisting arrest by not following the officers LAWFUL commands, refusing to exit the vehicle. The officer, I am guessing, now needs to remove the woman in order to arrest the woman that has made the decision to commit THREE violations. Evidently the woman was not going to go without the officer having to use force to remove her.

Now comes the TASER. Should the officer have used physical force to remove a 7 month pregnant woman from her vehicle? Should he and his partner have knee spiked the woman, or used a pressure point to gain her compliance? Maybe pepper spray would have been more appropriate. The fact is that the taser was used to perform a “drive stun”, not a full “tase” . Thus, the woman would not, did not, and could not suffer the full effects of EMD (Electro Muscular Disruption). This happens only when the prongs of the taser are discharged, not during a “drive stun”. A “drive stun” is local pain compliance that DOES NOT result in muscle lock up or loss of consciousness.
The above remedied the situation. The woman was taken into custody for her violations unharmed. Her unborn baby was born healthy.
However, I see so many of DU’ers blaming the police for what was ultimately a rash of poor decisions made by the woman.
SHE decided to speed, endangering her life, her unborn baby’s life, and the life of other drivers and pedestrians.
SHE refused to sign a citation, placing her well-being and her baby’s well-being in jeopardy by placing herself into an unfit environment for an expectant mother (jail).
SHE decided not to cooperate with officers commands, fighting with them when told to exit her vehicle. SHE decided to grab the steering wheel, refusing to place her hands behind her back, ultimately resulting in the use of a taser to gain her compliance.
So please, tell me again why we are up in arms over this decision?
Flame away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!