Posted on 05/10/2005 1:51:41 AM PDT by Stoat
I wonder if this were an 80 year old woman. Would they tazer her?
It doesn't really verify an identity as much as give someone the means to contest that they did not receive the ticket because it's not their signature.
She did. Read the story again.
Obviously, you have never looked deep into the eyes of a crazed, 8 month pregnant woman who has been denied Ben and Jerry's Cherry Garcia because she was 50 cents short...
(Hey, I am only kidding here!!!!!)
I actually have no idea-I don't have to deal with it, and haven't researched it. In TX the Code of Criminal Procedure says the violation (Minor) must occur in the officers presence or view (Felonies and other Misdemeanors are different, so I really don't klnow what provisions other states have made for the cameras
Nobody is arguing that she didn't technically deserve the ticket. We all agree on that!
My point is degree of violation. The cops pushed this way to far....proof is when she gets a huge (idiotic) settlement from the taxpaters.
If Napoloen Cop had been cooler (not saying I could've been) but had he handled it in scope, by finding a way not to arrest her, then SHE would be paying the fine and not the taxpayer.
Meanwhile, school zones are more for driver awareness and revenue enhancement, NOT for absolute child safety.
The law in Texas, for example, is that a school zone may be posted NO MORE than 15 MPH LESS than the existing speed limit.
Near my house there is a divided hwy with an elementary school facing it. 50 MPH. School zone, yup, 35MPH. (She was doing 32.)
Why do you think these 8 yr olds are less important than 20MPH 8 yr olds?
Oh, and that's on the lanes NEAREST the school. The lanes THREE FEET over the median in the other direction? 50 MPH.
School zones help grap driver's attention. Good for that. As for 32 MPH being a LETHAL EVIL SPEED, get over yourself.
Re #126.
How do you guys think pbrown would respond to 'perps' doing 32MPH in a 35MPH school zone like the one near my house?
You are speaking from what is an obvious anti-police bias. I do not consider myself or the officers I work with as a road tax collector.
If you knew anything about criminal or traffic law, you would know that taking offenders before the judge is so that the Judge can read the charge and further explain the violators rights. One of the those silly little Constitutional protections you seem so hot on.
Thank you for your input. I have given it the consideration it deserves
Tazering her was wrong. She should have gotten out of the car when asked. Everything from the time they asked her, to the time they took her in could have been avoided. The safty of her baby, and the safety of the children at school, should have been her utmost priority. It wasn't. Sorry, she called it her unborn fetus.
What would you have the officers do?
Why do you feel the need to interject yourself into the story? It isn't about you.
Your signature on the ticket is in lieu of going to jail and posting bond.
You're trying to switch the focus of the story. It isn't about 'perps', it's about a woman endangering children.
A traffic "infraction" is a misdemeanor. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Striking your neighbor in the face with your fist is a misdemeanor.
For all you know, it is a crime for a police officer in that jurisdiction to release someone without their signature or an appearance bond.
Speeding through a school zone is a dangerous offense. Possibly in the reckless driving class.
Your question was not for me but, if I may offer up...maybe tickle her. When I'm holding onto something, a sure fire way to get me to let it go would be to tickle me. Less hazardous than a tazer. :-)
It would cut down on unnecessary tasering.
I wpuld have them NOT taser the pregnant lady.
>>You are speaking from what is an obvious anti-police bias. I do not consider myself or the officers I work with as a road tax collector.
When they start enforcing actual public safety laws instead of profitable but unjustified speed limits (while sitting at the roadside with a radar unit), then I may switch to your side. Speed tax collectors may even have an adverse effect on public safety. And there would be far less anti-cop bias in the world if cops refused to enforce ridiculous speed laws.
>>If you knew anything about criminal or traffic law, you would know that taking offenders before the judge is so that the Judge can read the charge and further explain the violators rights. One of the those silly little Constitutional protections you seem so hot on.
"Taser 'em to be sure that they get their rights"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.