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."
RLOL! Now thats a good one...
If a driver has trouble physically exiting a vehicle when asked to do so by a police officer, they could simply relay that information to the police officer. There are many drivers who are handicapped in some way.
would the police be justified in tazing him/her - disabling the pacemaker, causing a heart attack.....all because he/she refused to sign an incriminating instrument of the court by driving 32 miles an hour
A traffic ticket isn't an "incriminating instrument of the court". By signing a traffic ticket, you are simply agreeing to show up in court at the time and date specified. Many traffic tickets are dismissed by the court after the judge hears the motorist's side of the story.
Yikes...they figure it out eventually. A buddy of mine had a gal on a stop who was lambasting him for "Stopping me because (insert favorite ethnic background here) and driving this (insert favorite pimped out car here.)" His reply was, "No. I'm stopping you because you're fat." Didn't see him around for a few days.
"Yikes...they figure it out eventually. A buddy of mine had a gal on a stop who was lambasting him for "Stopping me because (insert favorite ethnic background here) and driving this (insert favorite pimped out car here.)" His reply was, "No. I'm stopping you because you're fat." Didn't see him around for a few days."
"Ma'am, you're violating California Vehicle Code Section 12.34.56, excessive use of gravity."
As a well known "cop-hater" around here you are plain wrong. She just had to sign the ticket. She then resisted a lawful arrest because she refused to sign the ticket. She got shocked into submission during the course of the lawful arrest.
There are a lot of police abuses that I scream bloody murder over. This is not one.
And how many children getting killed by motorists in that 35MPH school zone will it take before there is public pressure to lower it to 25MPH, 20MPH, or 15MPH?
This one's about as dumb as a post but thinks he's smart.
Fear and intimidation are effective management techniques for his type, cause he sure ain't trainable.
The only thing I have found that works with him is instilling a deep fear of the consequences of doing it wrong.
I prefer to train through problems, but you can't train through attitude problems
I used this one in the Military once (Even though we could get away with more verbal creativity, it was only once)
I was reading someone the riot act, before sending him back to the barracks, listing the charges I was going arrest him on if I saw him off base again when he was restricted
"And finally, Article 134 of the UCMJ, Unlicensed operation of a Human body in an ignorant manner"
Sounds like my teenaged son and the appraoch I had to take. He's coming out of it fortunately. I was getting worried there for a while.
You've come up with some good one's 8>)
There really is such an article as that?
Yea, the kids usually outgrow it. I am amazed at how smart my old man got when I turned 21
This guys in his early 30's and pretty set in his path.
Fear of unemployment keeps him in line. He knows how fast I can paint him into a corner he can't get out of.
It sounds like you've got an "anti-cop" attitude. Is this attitude a result of a bad experience (or experiences) with the police in your past?
Article 134 is known as the General Article or Catch all.
It has specifications or elements that must be proven, but it is used for criiminal activity that is not otherwise codified. It's primary use is to keep the UCMJ Current between revisions as new activity becomes illegal, such as "designer" drugs and Computer Crime.
The charge I quoted to him wasn't real, it was to try and get through his thick skull that he was being a dumba$$
Good for article 134. That's cool.
In other words he's the kind of LEO that you know when he screws up, the news crew is right there around the corner and does the kind of stuff that keeps the FR threads lively.
Funny thing is he goes both ways, sometimes he doesn't act on what I or most others would see as reasonable suspicion to do an investigative detention.
Like 3 people outside and outpatient drug treatment facility at 11pm, in the middle of section 8 housing, saying they were waiting to check in to Detox at a facility that doesn't do detox.
No ID, No check for wants/warrants, let them walk around freely while he got them directions to a real Detox.
As I was "discussing" it in an after action review format, I had to re-explain Reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
I won't say there aren't a##hole cops out there.
Some of what you see is driven by the Municipality they work for (Not a good reason, but they need to keep their jobs too.)
You appear to be reasonable in your assessment and I can see how you came to it. I cannot speak for the officers that gave you that impression. I can only speak for myself and the people I work with.
My beef with some is they have the "Cops are Nazi's" mentality as a default.
I hope some reasonable discussion between us can help you see another side to the story
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.