Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's the point? She refused to obey the requests of a police officer and the officers did what they had to do to take her into custody. If this pregnant woman was truly concerned about her unborn child she would have followed the instructions of the officer and avoided the need to be tasered.
What's the point? She refused to obey the requests of a police officer and the officers did what they had to do to take her into custody. If this pregnant woman was truly concerned about her unborn child she would have followed the instructions of the officer and avoided the need to be tasered.
Yes, she should have followed the instructions of the officer but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. The unborn child is innocent and if this could harm it in any way the officers should find another way to subdue the woman.
[LEFT]The woman was driving her 12-year-old to the African American Academy in Seattle when she was pulled over on suspicion of speeding in 2004. The child left the car for school and a verbal spat with the police resulted in the woman receiving three, 50,000-volt shocks, first to her thigh, then shoulder and neck while she was in her vehicle. An officer was holding Brooks’ arm behind Brooks’ back while she was being shocked.
Brooks gave the officer her driver’s license, but Brooks refused to sign the ticket — believing it was akin to signing a confession. She was ultimately arrested for refusing to sign and to comply with officers asking her to exit the vehicle.
“A suspect who repeatedly refuses to comply with instructions or leave her car escalates the risk involved for officers unable to predict what type of noncompliance might come next,†Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall wrote for the majority. She was joined by Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain.
“Therefore, while using the Taser three times makes this a closer case, we find that it does not show excessive force in light of the corresponding escalation of Brooks’ resistance and the fact that it was the third tasing that appeared to dislodge her such that the officers could finally extract her from her car and gain control over her,†Hall wrote.
What's the point? She refused to obey the requests of a police officer and the officers did what they had to do to take her into custody. If this pregnant woman was truly concerned about her unborn child she would have followed the instructions of the officer and avoided the need to be tasered.
That's ridiculous....to taze a pregnant woman no matter how much she is yelling....they do have handcuffs ya know?
1) to illicit compliance from non-compliant and beligerent suspects
2) to decrease officer injuries by decreasing the amount of "hands-on" compliance measures taken by LEOs .
Officers are d*mn lucky they did not cause this woman to go into premature labor. Since there was no harm, likely the reason the court did not call foul. We only know what is reported and that is usually quite short of the facts of what happened during the course of an arrest.
Hopefully taser use policy as it relates to non-threatening pregnant women will be reviewed by the state of Washington's AG.
1) to illicit compliance from non-compliant and beligerent suspects
2) to decrease officer injuries by decreasing the amount of "hands-on" compliance measures taken by LEOs .
Officers are d*mn lucky they did not cause this woman to go into premature labor. Since there was no harm, likely the reason the court did not call foul. We only know what is reported and that is usually quite short of the facts of what happened during the course of an arrest.
Hopefully taser use policy as it relates to non-threatening pregnant women will be reviewed by the state of Washington's AG.
Yes especially when the reason they are being tazed is refusing to sign a speeding ticket.
Officers are d*mn lucky they did not cause this woman to go into premature labor. Since there was no harm, likely the reason the court did not call foul.
Had the taser caused the ignorant woman to go into premature labor resulting in possible death, the broad would have been charged with murder or manslaughter. It would have been her fault, not the officer's..!
Lot's of cop haters in here...!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
