Posted on 05/10/2005 1:51:41 AM PDT by Stoat
|
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 Police used Taser on pregnant driver She was rushing her son to school. She was eight months pregnant. And she was about to get a speeding ticket she didn't think she deserved. So when a Seattle police officer presented the ticket to Malaika Brooks, she refused to sign it. In the ensuing confrontation, she suffered burns from a police Taser, an electric stun device that delivers 50,000 volts. "Probably the worst thing that ever happened to me," Brooks said, in describing that morning during her criminal trial last week on charges of refusing to obey an officer and resisting arrest. She was found guilty of the first charge because she never signed the ticket, but the Seattle Municipal Court jury could not decide whether she resisted arrest, the reason the Taser was applied. To her attorneys and critics of police use of Tasers, Brooks' case is an example of police overreaction. "It's pretty extraordinary that they should have used a Taser in this case," said Lisa Daugaard, a public defender familiar with the case. Law enforcement officers have said they see Tasers as a tool that can benefit the public by reducing injuries to police and the citizens they arrest. Seattle police officials declined to comment on this case, citing concerns that Brooks might file a civil lawsuit. But King County sheriff's Sgt. Donald Davis, who works on the county's Taser policy, said the use of force is a balancing act for law enforcement.
|
Brooks' run-in with police Nov. 23 came six months before Seattle adopted a new policy on Taser use that guides officers on how to deal with pregnant women, the very young, the very old and the infirm. When used on such subjects, the policy states, "the need to stop the behavior should clearly justify the potential for additional risks."
"Obviously, (law enforcement agencies) don't want to use a Taser on young children, pregnant woman or elderly people," Davis said. "But if in your policy you deliberately exclude a segment of the population, then you have potentially closed off a tool that could have ended a confrontation."
Brooks was stopped in the 8300 block of Beacon Avenue South, just outside the African American Academy, while dropping her son off for school.
In a two-day trial that ended Friday, the officer involved, Officer Juan Ornelas, testified he clocked Brooks' Dodge Intrepid doing 32 mph in a 20-mph school zone.
He motioned her over and tried to write her a ticket, but she wouldn't sign it, even when he explained that signing it didn't mean she was admitting guilt.
Brooks, in her testimony, said she believed she could accept a ticket without signing for it, which she had done once before.
"I said, 'Well, I'll take the ticket, but I won't sign it,' " Brooks testified.
Officer Donald Jones joined Ornelas in trying to persuade Brooks to sign the ticket. They then called on their supervisor, Sgt. Steve Daman.
He authorized them to arrest her when she continued to refuse.
The officers testified they struggled to get Brooks out of her car but could not because she kept a grip on her steering wheel.
And that's when Jones brought out the Taser.
Brooks testified she didn't even know what it was when Jones showed it to her and pulled the trigger, allowing her to hear the crackle of 50,000 volts of electricity.
The officers testified that was meant as a final warning, as a way to demonstrate the device was painful and that Brooks should comply with their orders.
When she still did not exit her car, Jones applied the Taser.
In his testimony, the Taser officer said he pressed the prongs of the muzzle against Brooks' thigh to no effect. So he applied it twice to her exposed neck.
Afterward, he and the others testified, Ornelas pushed Brooks out of the car while Jones pulled.
She was taken to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a patrol car, the officers testified.
She told jurors the officer also used the device on her arm, and showed them a dark, brown burn to her thigh, a large, red welt on her arm and a lump on her neck, all marks she said came from the Taser application.
At the South Precinct, Seattle fire medics examined Brooks, confirmed she was pregnant and recommended she be evaluated at Harborview Medical Center.
Brooks said she was worried about the effect the trauma and the Taser might have on her baby, but she delivered a healthy girl Jan. 31.
Still, she said, she remains shocked that a simple traffic stop could result in her arrest.
"As police officers, they could have hurt me seriously. They could have hurt my unborn fetus," she said.
"All because of a traffic ticket. Is this what it's come down to?"
Davis said Tasers remain a valuable tool, and that situations like Brooks' are avoidable.
"I know the Taser is controversial in all these situations where it seems so egregious," he said. "Why use a Taser in a simple traffic stop? Well, the citizen has made it more of a problem. It's no longer a traffic stop. This is now a confrontation."
I am certainly glad that you do not think enforcing speed limits through school zones is important.
Hell, you even came up with your own solution: A triangle nightstick hold.
You have the gift of gab, you must be a lawyer. I've never seen the safety of children put to such cold double-talk.
True, but it is risky. If you can grab a wrist, okay. If you have to go for the neck, you have to be real careful.
I'd much rather you do that, then taser the foetus.
There is NO excuse for tasering the pregnant.
There's more of a rationale for killing the pregnant (because they attempt to kill you) than tasering them, because if you are only escalating the thing to nonviolent force, there are other options.
Damn, that's some funny stuff! And true.
Great start to my day.
One should never, ever, be arrested for a crime or charge in which jail is not an option. It should be treated like service of process where the officer fills out an affidavit that he gave or tried to give the ticket to the party and they wouldn't take it or wouldn't sign it. If they don't appear, perhaps failure to appear may be a crime punishable by jail time, at which point they can be arrested. However, they are found guilty, fined, and not allowed to renew their DL or any other government issued license without payment plus either a late fee or interest. Keep in mind that traffic tickets are rackets for income production; they are not for enforcing the public safety.
Whether one is prudent in refusing to sign a traffic ticket or not, police officers have much more important things to do than arrest people for refusing to sign. This arrest took several man hours of police time that could have been much better spent. If we are talking about violent crimes, then I don't care how much time an officer spends, but this was an exercise in stubborness.
What is nonviolent force?
I feel sorry for anyone who breaks the school zone speed limit and runs over and kills my child.
The mph must depend on the size of the school, it's location and population. I don't know how they arrive at what is and isn't safe. But, when the signs show, slow school zone, and there's a posted 20 mph limit, I expect all drivers to respect the limit and drive accordingly. The life of my child may depend on it.
"anti police bias"? - NO - its a level of concern that arises when innocents are tazed for refusing to sign incriminating declarations. This was further compunded when they dry fired the prod to intimidate her into submission. Sorry Kojak - thats not bias - thats LIBERTY
I do not consider myself or the officers I work with as a road tax collector.
well - without putting too fine a point on it - when youre enforcing arbitrarily established speed zones, you are generating revenue for the Town or State.
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.
so now theyre "violators" even before trial?
One of the those silly little Constitutional protections you seem so hot on.
so minimizing his concern is cause for sarcasm ?
Thank you for your input. I have given it the consideration it deserves
merely reinforcing the notion that a majority of law enforcement types have the attitude that they (as a arm of the government) know better than the average civi
I would HOPE that you meant:
I feel sorry for anyone who runs over and kills my child.
See which part is important? I know your child would know the important part.
Additionally, that force should not be applied to the unborn AT ALL. Your nightstick would not be contacting the foetus.... the electricity would.
I feel sorry for the officer that tazes my pregnant wife and causes my wife to spontaneously abort because he insisted on having an incriminating instrument signed, despite the fact traffic camera tickets are not signed
Hopefully, your wife follows the laws and gets out of her car when a policeman asks her to. If she does, no problem and no tazer, only a speeding ticket. End of story.
Something you have to understand that every police officer already understands: There is no force without violence. Whenever you have to force any individual into custody, somebody is going to get hurt. Could be the perpetrator or it could be the police officer or it will probably be both.
"First rule is:...argue with a policeman...expect adverse consequences...."
'sig heil' comrad well said...they shoulda sicked their dogs on her too!
I feel sorry for anyone who runs over and kills my child.
The subject is: speeding in a school zone.
Hopefully, your wife would be literate enough to read the document and determine that it is NOT incriminating, merely an agreement to appear in court. See, Court is where you argue these things, not the side of the road. If you and your wife don't understand that then you might well have something bad happen to either you or your wife.
incriminating instrument signed, despite the fact traffic camera tickets are not signed
Then work to get the law changed. Until then, we go by laws on the books.
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.