[ebd10]

http://seattlepi.nws...78_taser10.html

does anyone else find this disturbing? Are we on the road to a police state?

[saxon]

ebd10, on May 11 2005, 02:17 PM, said:

http://seattlepi.nws...78_taser10.html

does anyone else find this disturbing? Are we on the road to a police state?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes

[tap22a]

honestly, i believe the woman is to blame for any action the police took. if she would have listened to the cops and signed the ticket instead of resisting, she would have been done with it and on her way. she put her unborn child in danger by fighting police.

[ebd10]

All I know is that the city of Seattle better hope that her kid is born in PERFECT health because you know that if it has so much as an ingrown hair, it will result in major bucks for mom. None the less, I think tasering her over something as stupid as refusing to sign a ticket is a little over the top.

[tap22a]

ebd10, on May 11 2005, 09:19 PM, said:

All I know is that the city of Seattle better hope that her kid is born in PERFECT health because you know that if it has so much as an ingrown hair, it will result in major bucks for mom. None the less, I think tasering her over something as stupid as refusing to sign a ticket is a little over the top.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

she wasnt tased for just refusing to sign a ticket. she was being arrested for not signing the ticket, and she was tased for resisting arrest.....good job on the cops part.

[Jon]

Unfortunately a lot of LE personnel are seeing the tasers as the be-all end-all of non-compliant subject control. I believe they are going through the escalation of force a little too quickly by going to a less-lethal weapon instead of other techniques that may be available and appropriate, even if they take a little longer. I think officers need to start thinking about the taser as a step or two down from their firearm instead of a step or two above verbal commands.

[ebd10]

Quote

she was tased for resisting arrest.....good job on the cops part.

Right, the police have the force continuum to replace thinking. Just go down the list from A to B to C, until you get to "TASER". Procedure has replaced common sense.

[Rolem]

I can't believe I'm hearing this here. WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMMING TO. DEFNDING A NON COOPERATIVE SUBJECT. She escalated the issue because she didn't care about her safety or ALL THE KIDS THE SCHOOL ZONE. If she was so worried about the kids or anyone else she would not have been speeding in the school zone. She escalated the issue because she didn't think she had to follow the law.

So we can all just be noncooperative with anyone in authority. I don't think so. If someone does a minor crime they don't have to cooperate with police also. NOT This is the exact way of thinking that has been giving the criminals all the power they have. The criminals have realy nobody to answer to anymore. We the LAW ABIDING citizens have everyone to answer to. Even more the people who have been entrusted to keep our schools and society safe as possible are being slammed by both sides. If they do something about a noncooperative person they are accused of being abusive. But on the other hand if they don't do anything then they are chastized for overlooking criminal activity.

All in all I believe they did the right thing. I would rather use a tazer on someone and have to use minimal physical force to control the subject than have to fight the person at risk of injury to the subject, myself or anyone else. That is why if we respond to a fight we use verbal commands then OC. Once they have stopped then we step in physicaly. Again to REDUCE injury.

What ever happened to PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. She had minimal injuries. The SUBJECT is the one that dictates the level of force. I would much rather have a tazer used on me than heavy physical force where I could have broken bones or worse.

Ok I'll quit now and wait for chastizing.

[ebd10]

Rolem said:

Quote

She escalated the issue because she didn't care about her safety or ALL THE KIDS THE SCHOOL ZONE. If she was so worried about the kids or anyone else she would not have been speeding in the school zone. She escalated the issue because she didn't think she had to follow the law.

I lifted this quote from another forum because I feel it masterfully defines the conflict:
Quote: "This is a good, honest response that we should perhaps study closer.

You cops and cop defenders probably passed right over this without looking at it, or perhaps with an eye roll, saying to yourselves, "The woman was wrong, and the cops are getting blamed!"

You're exactly right. That's precisely what's going on here.

But it's not doing you a lick of good to be right. As a matter of fact, it's damaging your position, and the louder and more indignant you are about being right, the more damage you do.

Because your perspective is too narrow. Yes, that's right, too narrow. It is leading you to ignore the painfully obvious fact that to the average person, there can be no justification for Tasering a pregnant woman who is no threat to anyone. If she had been shooting at the cop, if she had been beating on him--heck, even if she had been getting out of the car in a threatening manner--you would run into much less outrage. But she is female, she is pregnant, she is non-threatening, and she is Tasered. The mechanism that leads from there to outrage is far older, more primal, and more trustworthy than a whole book of black-and-white regulations, and it always will be.

So, when you insist that something we know in our great-ape hindbrain is appalling and inexcusable is perfectly justified and legitimate, according to Paragraph X of Section Y, and cops do it all the time, no big deal, you're going to wind up convincing us of only one thing:

A cop who doesn't understand that Tasering harmless pregnant women is just plain wrong must not be quite human. He's an outsider; an intruder; an impostor. He's dangerous. Avoid him. If he comes near you, walk away. If he grabs you, fight. If he comes near your children, kill him. How do you know whether a particular cop is one of these frightening semi-humans or not? You don't; but if you're wrong, you or your loved ones could be dead or worse. Better to be safe than sorry.

So be careful. We may not be smart enough to win arguments with you; but we know what we know, and most of us are at least smart enough to pull a trigger at need. It hasn't come to that yet, probably, in most cases; but that's the way it's heading, and it takes another big step each time one of you successfully justifies the unjustifiable

[Rolem]

Ok with that reasoning. When someone walks into your house and sits down not threatening anyone. Lets say female and pregnant then you and everyone else cannot remove her by any means no matter how long she stays. Nobody can use force? Am I right.

When will it stop. As I have said before. If a person is killed by a 5 year old girl or a 30 year old man they are just as dead. Where do we draw the line. Do pregnant females get to disobey they laws just because of their condition? Why do we have laws anyhow? Who has to follow them? I don't always take the side of law enforcement. If they are wrong they are wrong. There are always bad apples. But if they are in the right I will defend then all the way.

I don't think anyone here could honestly say they would take it from their kids and maybe a couple weeks down the line discipline them. I know I wouldn't.

[ebd10]

Quote

When someone walks into your house and sits down not threatening anyone.

Bad example. By walking in uninvited, she has already threatened me and mine. However, if she makes no overtly hostile action, I am less apt to use physical violence or electric shocks to remove her from my premises. I might just give her a cup of coffee and see if I can get to the bottom of the problem. Also, keep in mind that the woman in the article didn't get out of her car, her crime was that she wanted to stay IN her car.

Quote

Do pregnant females get to disobey they laws just because of their condition?

No, but they are more deserving of a warning because of their condition. I mean, this woman acted irrationally, sort of like someone in the throes of a mood swing or a hormonal imbalance, both of which are side effects of being pregnant!

[Lawhobbit]

tap22a, on May 11 2005, 09:46 PM, said:

she wasnt tased for just refusing to sign a ticket. she was being arrested for not signing the ticket, and she was tased for resisting arrest.....good job on the cops part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which nicely answers the question as to whether we're in a police state. Once you give the police special powers, abilities, and immunities that "ordinary citizens" don't have - that's a hallmark of a police state.

Tell me - what's the difference between "undercover cop" and "secret police?"

[tap22a]

if you break the law, then resist when cops attempt to arrest you, you deserve to get tased. statistics show that tasers have decreased officer injury and subject injury. they could have torn her out of the car and tackled her to the ground. the tactics police use are there to limit injury to themselves and the suspects. the taser resulted in no permanent damage to the woman and the unborn child. so what went wrong? i dont care who it is, if you resist arrest, after breaking the law, then you deserve to be dealt with in the manners approved for officers to use. why is the woman not being blamed for putting her child in danger by fighting police.

read the article again. she was not sitting there peacefully and then they tased her. she refused to exit the car and she fought the police. she is lucky they had the taser, or else physical injuries to her could have been much worse...

as for a police state, dont break the law, and police will have no reason to bother you. if they do, do what they say. if you dont like how they handled a situation, get their badge number and name, and take care of it afterward. fighting with a cop for any reason, will not the situation, and definetely wont look good to any judge.

[ebd10]

Maybe I can clarify the issue this way: Using Rolem's example of the pregnant woman coming, uninvited, into my house, if I chose to drag her out of the house, or punched her and kicked her to get her out of the house and, if those methods failed, I used a taser on her to get her out of the house, even though she wasn't threatening me or committing an act of violence, what do you suppose would happen to me? At the very least, I would suffer the scorn of my peers for having taken such drastic measures against a pregnant woman. At worst, I would find myself in jail, facing a prison sentence for some charge relating to the disparity of force.

However, run me through the academy, pin a badge on my chest, and suddenly it's OK to physically assault and taser a pregnant woman because she's "resisting arrest".

[Rolem]

Quote

But it's not doing you a lick of good to be right. As a matter of fact, it's damaging your position, and the louder and more indignant you are about being right, the more damage you do.

Ok using your logic. We should never try and say we are right or do anything to counter the wrongs the liberals are doing about OUR right to carry. We have a right to keep and bare arms right? The liberals say no. So us saying we are right is only hurting our cause. MMMMM

Quote

Bad example. By walking in uninvited, she has already threatened me and mine. However, if she makes no overtly hostile action, I am less apt to use physical violence or electric shocks to remove her from my premises. I might just give her a cup of coffee and see if I can get to the bottom of the problem. Also, keep in mind that the woman in the article didn't get out of her car, her crime was that she wanted to stay IN her car.

I find that hard to believe. Most anyone would physicaly remove the person from the house. Just because their proximity does not mean that she has threatened you.
As far as using physical force to facilitate an arrest. At what point does an officer have a right to use physical force? So passive drunk drivers never should have force used on them after they are pulled over. Even though they did break the law and are not being violent. Just sitting there refusing to get out of the car.

Quote

No, but they are more deserving of a warning because of their condition. I mean, this woman acted irrationally, sort of like someone in the throes of a mood swing or a hormonal imbalance, both of which are side effects of being pregnant!

Most people I know of would not use this as an excuse. Which is just that an excuse. Max effective range of 0.0000. I have alot of guys here that claim they committed crimes because of society and their upbringing. So should we just let them go and excuse their behavior because after all "It's not their fault. It was the way the were brought up."

Quote

My question to you is this: Why use lethal force (yes, tasers have killed people) when the crime is a minor traffic violation, or is refusing to sign a citation now a felony that deserves force?

A tazer is considered "LESS - LETHAL" force. I'm not saying it cannot cause death. Any force and anything can cause death. Pepper spray can and has caused deaths due to cmplications. So we should never use pepper spray unless it is against someone with a gun or knife. Personaly I would not bring a knife to a gunfight.

The tazer and spray has reduced the amount of injuries on all sides. How many people have gotten into fist fights and gotten a broken bone ao torn ligimens or other more serious injuries? With the tazer normaly the most you get is a minr burn on the point of applicatin.

[Rolem]

Another point I forgot to mention. I learned a long time ago in the military. If you think you bosses order is wrong, tachfully let them know. If they still insist then "If it is a legitimate order and will not cause death by following it" then do what they instruct. After that then do what is nessesary to ensure it doesn't happen again.

[Jon]

Ok. After re-reading the article, I'm gonna shift to a neutral position on this one. I think that the situation could probably have been resolved without the use of the taser, but I'm definitely not going to second-guess these officers. At the point where she began to physically resist arrest, then she is no longer only being charged with an infraction (speeding) but instead is now commiting a crime and the officers are probably justified in escalating the force to a certain degree. When she refused to let go of the steering wheel, she caused the escalation to physical levels.

Would I have used the Taser? Probably not. But I honestly can't fault the officers. Would I have used the Taser if she weren't pregnant? Probably so. I think that there is a mitigating factor with her pregnancy that would cause me to look for a method of getting her out of the car that did not involve the use of a less-lethal weapon.

[Q-ball]

She resisted arrest and got what she deserved....period.

[ebd10]

Quote

Ok using your logic. We should never try and say we are right or do anything to counter the wrongs the liberals are doing about OUR right to carry. We have a right to keep and bare arms right? The liberals say no. So us saying we are right is only hurting our cause. MMMMM

A complete misapplication of logic. The liberals are attempting to eliminate a Constitutional right. This woman simply did not want to comply with an officer. The officer escalated it to the point where he ended up tasering her, all stemming from a civil infraction. In this case, it's not whether she was right or wrong, she obviously made a stupid move, the problem is, even though the cop was in the right, he violated an unwritten rule about inflicting violence on pregnant women.

Quote

As far as using physical force to facilitate an arrest. At what point does an officer have a right to use physical force? So passive drunk drivers never should have force used on them after they are pulled over. Even though they did break the law and are not being violent. Just sitting there refusing to get out of the car.

Again, apples and oranges. The drunk in your example would continue to be a danger if the police let him go. This woman was speeding. The cops stopped that. They could have given her a warning. Instead they issued a citation and she refused to sign. From that point on, it became a contest of wills and the cop was going to win by damn.

Quote

I have alot of guys here that claim they committed crimes because of society and their upbringing. So should we just let them go and excuse their behavior because after all "It's not their fault. It was the way the were brought up."

and herein lies the problem. You see no difference between the people you deal with and the woman in the article. It sounds like discretion doesn't enter into it for you. I guess when all you have is a hammer...

[MisterEd]

Quote

She resisted arrest and got what she deserved....period.

No she did not because the "arrest" happened as a result of her decision not to sign the ticket WHICH SHE HAS A RIGHT TO NOT DO! We, as American Citizens have an inalienable right to NOT sign our name to anything, but we may have to suffer the consequences because of it but not by being tasered or arrested. You may choose to not sign your 1040 but you will face fines and a late filing status, you may not sign a check and you will face late payment fees. This LEO had no right to continue to insist she sign the ticket. Again an example of zero tact and diplomacy by an overzealous LEO. Regardless of whether she signed or not she still "got" the ticket and either has to pay the fine or appear in court - NOW, her failure to do that IS grounds for arrest to which I have no argument with but not until she fails to show or pay!

[Rolem]

The main point I am trying to make is we cannot pick and choose when and what laws we will follow. When someone is wrong they are wrong. If they are right they are right. It doesn't matter what the PC crowd thinks.

I looked up the Washington laws. According to them (if I read it correctly) when given a citation the recipient is required by law to sign showing understaning that they have 15 days to pay the fine or contest it. If they refuse to sign then they are subject to arrest. There again brings on more charges. Now I am now one for adding more to escalate the situation. But how long should the officers stand by and wait before doing anything. The decision was already made that she was to get a citation. Once the decision is made and the citation is written then they shouldn't have to change their mind and give her a warning just because she was uncooperative. If that is the case then we should try that and see where it gets us.

[ebd10]

Quote

The main point I am trying to make is we cannot pick and choose when and what laws we will follow.

And the main point I'm trying to make is that no one is arguing whether the woman was at fault. That much is a given. The thing I question is the direction law enforcemnent is taking. Do we want laws enforced by a bunch of mindless bureaucrats who will commit heinous acts of violence upon women and children in the name of "the law"?