Eight month pregnant woman Tasered by police
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
hmm refusing to sign a ticket IS grounds for being arrested, just to clear that up 2-0-sixx. I've been stopped a few times and you MUST sign the ticket or you WILL be detained and arrested. It took three of them cops to try and persuade her to just sign the ticket and be about her business but she wouldn't. At this point, yea the traffic nazis are bitches, but she WAS breaking the law. With that in consideration of course she's going to be found guilty for that and the po pos had every right to arrest her.
Now, the whole resisting arrest and police use of force is what is sketchy. The article only says that they tried to remove her from the car but her "hands were firmly on the steering wheel". At this point, I'm thinking this is one stupid bitch if her kid is still in the car and she's willing to go to jail and fight the pos over a fuckin ticket. However, I have to think if this is a white lady how many times will the pos ask her to exit the vehicle before they even try to REMOVE her from the vehicle. So they DEFINITELY should have tried to get her out of the vehicle using physical force. An 8 month pregnant lady can't be that hard to get out of a car, especially with three "trained" policemen. Did this lady resist arrest? It seems like it to me. Is she a stupid bitch? Seems like it to me. Should the po po have tasered an obviously visible pregnant lady? Of course not. There should definitely be some suspendings without pay and some serious consideration in demoting the supervisor or even relieving him of duty because that was uncalled for. Still, it's hard to feel sorry for someone who would willingly put themselves and their children in harm's way.
Now, the whole resisting arrest and police use of force is what is sketchy. The article only says that they tried to remove her from the car but her "hands were firmly on the steering wheel". At this point, I'm thinking this is one stupid bitch if her kid is still in the car and she's willing to go to jail and fight the pos over a fuckin ticket. However, I have to think if this is a white lady how many times will the pos ask her to exit the vehicle before they even try to REMOVE her from the vehicle. So they DEFINITELY should have tried to get her out of the vehicle using physical force. An 8 month pregnant lady can't be that hard to get out of a car, especially with three "trained" policemen. Did this lady resist arrest? It seems like it to me. Is she a stupid bitch? Seems like it to me. Should the po po have tasered an obviously visible pregnant lady? Of course not. There should definitely be some suspendings without pay and some serious consideration in demoting the supervisor or even relieving him of duty because that was uncalled for. Still, it's hard to feel sorry for someone who would willingly put themselves and their children in harm's way.
From what I've read refusing to sign a ticket is NOT a CRIME BUT officers have the OPTION to detain/arrest when people don't sign. Her "crime" was not refusal to sign the ticket but resisting arrest.
The question is did officers use excessive force? Was she a threat to the officers, herself or others at the time? The question isn't about her speeding, her refusing to sign or her resisting arrest. Once again did the officers use excessive force? Could the officers have used any other methods LOGIC/REASON or pepper spray to subdue her? Could they have impounded/towed the car with her in it?
At any time did the officers notify her of her "arrest"? She DID say she WOULD take the ticket. Could they have used better judgement, gave her the ticket and do a follow up?
:HGK:
PS@J-BOEG it's because I disagree with you.
The question is did officers use excessive force? Was she a threat to the officers, herself or others at the time? The question isn't about her speeding, her refusing to sign or her resisting arrest. Once again did the officers use excessive force? Could the officers have used any other methods LOGIC/REASON or pepper spray to subdue her? Could they have impounded/towed the car with her in it?
At any time did the officers notify her of her "arrest"? She DID say she WOULD take the ticket. Could they have used better judgement, gave her the ticket and do a follow up?
:HGK:
PS@J-BOEG it's because I disagree with you.
^^^^^Really? You're serious? WOW. I dont even know how to respond to the idea that its okay to taser a pregnant woman cuz she wouldn't sign a ticket.
Guess nobody should be too shocked at this incident though...this seems like a SPD thing to do. They had to cut down on shooting black guys so now theyre making up for it by using tasers on pregnant black women.
Guess nobody should be too shocked at this incident though...this seems like a SPD thing to do. They had to cut down on shooting black guys so now theyre making up for it by using tasers on pregnant black women.
Bro, you HAVE to sign a ticket to acknowledge that you understand you are the one receiving the ticket but you're not admitting guilt. Refusing to sign the ticket was the crime that led to her arrest which she resisted which led to her crime of resisting arrest.
Of course the officers used excessive force. Like I said, they should have tried to overpower her and remover her from the vehicle. She was obviously not threatening anyone, and there were 3 "trained" policemen so I'm sure they could have easily overpowered her and forced her from the vehicle without the taser. However, it would be hard to prove the officers guilty of excessive force because they did try to remove her from the vehicle using physical force. Then they showed her the taser and let it spark to show her what was going to happen to her. They then applied the taser once to no effect. Another time, and then TWO more times before they could finally get her to comply. Like I said before, I feel that the officers used excessive force; however, I feel they were also EXTREMELY kind to this lady.
One officer issued the citation that she refused to sign. He tried to tell her she had to sign it and the ticket even says signing is not an admission of guilt. ANOTHER officer then joined the first officer and attempted to get her to sign the ticket. Finally, the supervisor had to come and then he authorized her arrest. She KNEW what she was doing was illegal and would result in her arrest. They tried to give her the ticket but she wouldn't sign, they had no choice but to arrest her and it spun out of control from that point on.
As far as I'm concerned she put her child and her unborn fetus at risk over nothing. It was a 35 mph speeding ticket? All she had to do was sign the thing, go about her business, then either pay the fine or show up to court. SIMPLE. She was given a lot of oppurtunities to take the ticket and avoid arrest and confrontation with the piggies. I can't stand the police, but if they gave me THAT many chances you can be damn sure I aint putting my children in harm's way over pride or whatever her problem was. There are good cops and bad cops, I used to just judge them all the same but that's ridiculous. I don't know these men's files; however, I know she brought it on herself.
PS@J-BOEG it's because I disagree with you.[/QUOTE]
Can you show me what penal code/law which states one MUST sign a ticket? I've come across no such LAW that states a person is REQUIRED to sign a ticket. I've come across something which states the police are to ask a person to sign a ticket. As long as the officer has asked you to sign it the ticket has been served. From what I've currently been reading the ONLY thing required on a ticket is the OFFENSE and the PRESENCE of your name. So no refusing to sign a ticket is NOT a crime (from what I've read). She commited TWO crimes. Speeding and resisting arrest.
If it were a "crime" to not sign the ticket why wasn't she convicted on that? If it were a "crime" why did they call HQ and ask a superior on what to do? Should you sign a ticket? YES. Are you required to sign a ticket? No but refusing to sign one will most likely land you in jail.
It doesn't matter if they were EXTREMELY kind to this lady and offering her parting gifts. They used excessive force. They could have used methods besides physical force.
It wasn't "illegal". Can you provide me with some sort of penal code/law number which states something to the effect of "if you don't sign you go to jail"? If she did NOT sign and were taken to jail what crime would she be charged with? When an officer issues you a ticket you're being charged with a violation of THAT law. Refusing to sign the ticket and acknowledge that you will appear will result in you being taken into custody for THAT crime. Do you understand the difference? Basically it's a "we don't know if you'll show up so we'll take you in now" type of deal. A person is free to not sign the ticket just like a police officer is free to take you into custody for refusal.
It's obvious that the officers were not trained well because they had to radio HQ and get instructions on what to do. They had no choice but to arrest her? How so? Once again what law REQUIRES an officer to take you into custody for refusing to sign a ticket? If the officers are in a position of authority why not demonstrate it in proper fashion? Was her NOT signing a ticket so important that they used that kind of force? No. Take the keys from her or impound the vehicle with her in it if she refuses to leave the vehicle. They had options lol@"no choice". They could have simply gave her a warning ("cut your speed down lady") OR let her take the ticket (which she said she would do), perform a follow up and issue a warrant for her arrest if she did NOT show to court.
As far as I'm concerned police officers are in a position of authority and should handle the position with respect and dignity. Failure to do so resulted in use of excessive force which also placed her child and unborn fetus at risk. Yes you're correct it was "over nothing" so if it was over nothing and you see the person is not cooperating why not handle it another way? Yes she should have used better judgement but what about the officers as peace keepers? Why should they not have taken her children into account?
All they had to do was take the keys and impound the vehicle or let her take the ticket and issue a warrant if she didn't show up to court. SIMPLE.
I agree but both parties had a hand in this.
Now since you quoted me and chose to reply I will once again ask questions that were unanswered.
1. Could the officers have used any other methods LOGIC/REASON or pepper spray to subdue her? Could they have impounded/towed the car with her in it?
2. At any time did the officers notify her of her "arrest"? She DID say she WOULD take the ticket. Could they have used better judgement, gave her the ticket and do a follow up?
@J-Boeg You said:
If that was in response to my PS (directed at you) I was answering your question and leaving no doubt as to why I said it. It was very sarcastic and thanks for not picking up on it. If the above reply was in response to my entire post I don't see the connection. You didn't say anything remotly close to what I did.
:hgk:
Ok, we'll go with what you're saying. The officers were citing the lady with violating the law, her signature acts as bail on OR. She refused to sign which is ground for being taken into custody at that time. She WAS convicted of disobeying a police officer by not signing the ticket. No, you're not required to sign a ticket, but you're also not required to show up in court. Either way, she was going to jail and she knew it.
I'm just saying that the excessive force didn't come until her continuing refusal to sign the ticket and her resisting arrest. I doubt they could have used other methods besides PHYSICAL force because she refused to exit the vehicle and she had her hands firmly gripped on the steering wheel. They can't arrest her unless she's OUT of the vehicle so they had to use some sort of physical force.
She was charged and CONVICTED of failure to obey a police officer's order. It's in the article. I know she was charged with violating the law: speeding. Signing the ticket acts as bail on OR which she refused to do. Therefore, she was placed under arrest and resisted arrest. She WAS convicted for not signing the ticket, she wasn't convicted for resisting arrest.
They had to call on their supervisor to get authorization to place her under arrest. They had no choice but to arrest her because she refused to sign the ticket bro. How can they take the keys from her when they're still in the ignition? COULD they have towed and impounded the car while she occupied it? Im not familiar with traffic law, I'm pretty sure it varies from city to city, but I'm also pretty sure that you cannot tow an occupied vehicle. Sure, they could have issued a warning, but they weren't required to. The fact of the matter is she was RESISTING arrest and refused to exit the vehicle. At that point they had NO CHOICE. They had already authorized her arrest, so giving her a warning after she's placed under arrest doesn't make much sense. They couldn't let her take the ticket without signing because once she didn't sign they were authorized to place her under arrest. Which she RESISTED. The only point I can agree is that the force they used was EXCESSIVE; however, it took them FOUR times before they could get her to comply.
Her failure to simply cooperate with police he gave her an incredible amount of chances is what resulted in the excessive force which placed her child and unborn fetus at risk. I agree that the police officers should have taken her children into account and even stated that I feel they used excessive force. However, a lot of the blame lies on her because she could have handled the situation a LOT better. Namely, she should have simply signed the ticket and moved on with her life. She MADE herself the victim.
They tried to remove her from the vehicle, she resisted. As far as I know they weren't able to impound the vehicle while it was occupied. Once she refused to sign the ticket they had every right to arrest her. Her signature acts as "bail" and she refused. Therefore, she was placed under arrest. As soon as she was placed under arrest, all she had to do was get out and go to jail. They gave her many chances to take the ticket, and many chances to avoid the taser. She failed to cooperate. Once again, all she had to do was take the ticket, go about her business, pay the fine or fight in court. SIMPLE
That's what I'm saying. She isn't blameless in the situation.
1. I thought I answered when I said they should have used force aside from using the taser. As far as impounding the car while it's occupied, I think that's unlawful. Do you know that it's lawful to impound an occupied vehicle in the city of Seattle? If not, then as far as this argument is concerned: no.
2. The article states that the supervisor authorized her arrest and the men warned her if she didn't comply she would be tasered. In fact, she was tasered three times and continued to resist arrest. It wasn't until the fourth time that she was finally arrested. She couldn't TAKE the ticket without signing it. Ok fine, she is FREE to NOT sign it, but not signing it is grounds for her arrest. Do you understand? Her signature acts as bail on OR and by refusing to sign she's giving up her freedom. You can say that she's "FREE" to not sign all you want, but by exercising this "freeom" she gave up her freedom. So once again the answer is no.
I'm just saying that the excessive force didn't come until her continuing refusal to sign the ticket and her resisting arrest. I doubt they could have used other methods besides PHYSICAL force because she refused to exit the vehicle and she had her hands firmly gripped on the steering wheel. They can't arrest her unless she's OUT of the vehicle so they had to use some sort of physical force.
She was charged and CONVICTED of failure to obey a police officer's order. It's in the article. I know she was charged with violating the law: speeding. Signing the ticket acts as bail on OR which she refused to do. Therefore, she was placed under arrest and resisted arrest. She WAS convicted for not signing the ticket, she wasn't convicted for resisting arrest.
They had to call on their supervisor to get authorization to place her under arrest. They had no choice but to arrest her because she refused to sign the ticket bro. How can they take the keys from her when they're still in the ignition? COULD they have towed and impounded the car while she occupied it? Im not familiar with traffic law, I'm pretty sure it varies from city to city, but I'm also pretty sure that you cannot tow an occupied vehicle. Sure, they could have issued a warning, but they weren't required to. The fact of the matter is she was RESISTING arrest and refused to exit the vehicle. At that point they had NO CHOICE. They had already authorized her arrest, so giving her a warning after she's placed under arrest doesn't make much sense. They couldn't let her take the ticket without signing because once she didn't sign they were authorized to place her under arrest. Which she RESISTED. The only point I can agree is that the force they used was EXCESSIVE; however, it took them FOUR times before they could get her to comply.
Her failure to simply cooperate with police he gave her an incredible amount of chances is what resulted in the excessive force which placed her child and unborn fetus at risk. I agree that the police officers should have taken her children into account and even stated that I feel they used excessive force. However, a lot of the blame lies on her because she could have handled the situation a LOT better. Namely, she should have simply signed the ticket and moved on with her life. She MADE herself the victim.
They tried to remove her from the vehicle, she resisted. As far as I know they weren't able to impound the vehicle while it was occupied. Once she refused to sign the ticket they had every right to arrest her. Her signature acts as "bail" and she refused. Therefore, she was placed under arrest. As soon as she was placed under arrest, all she had to do was get out and go to jail. They gave her many chances to take the ticket, and many chances to avoid the taser. She failed to cooperate. Once again, all she had to do was take the ticket, go about her business, pay the fine or fight in court. SIMPLE
That's what I'm saying. She isn't blameless in the situation.
1. I thought I answered when I said they should have used force aside from using the taser. As far as impounding the car while it's occupied, I think that's unlawful. Do you know that it's lawful to impound an occupied vehicle in the city of Seattle? If not, then as far as this argument is concerned: no.
2. The article states that the supervisor authorized her arrest and the men warned her if she didn't comply she would be tasered. In fact, she was tasered three times and continued to resist arrest. It wasn't until the fourth time that she was finally arrested. She couldn't TAKE the ticket without signing it. Ok fine, she is FREE to NOT sign it, but not signing it is grounds for her arrest. Do you understand? Her signature acts as bail on OR and by refusing to sign she's giving up her freedom. You can say that she's "FREE" to not sign all you want, but by exercising this "freeom" she gave up her freedom. So once again the answer is no.
I'd like to point out that in the article the woman said that she didn't think she was required to sign the ticket and that she previously refused to sign a ticket w/o confrontation. In her mind, the police were overreacting and harrassing her.
50,000 volts is the only option to remove her from the vehicle?
They are NOT required to arrest her for failing to sign a ticket.
And the fact of that matter is that the police used excessive and unnessarry force on a pregnant woman. Lack of cooperation with the cops is not a valid excuse for brutality.
At that point they had NO CHOICE. [/quote]
Again, the only choice is to attack her with 50,000 volts? There is NO other choice?
50,000 volts is the only option to remove her from the vehicle?
They are NOT required to arrest her for failing to sign a ticket.
And the fact of that matter is that the police used excessive and unnessarry force on a pregnant woman. Lack of cooperation with the cops is not a valid excuse for brutality.
At that point they had NO CHOICE. [/quote]
Again, the only choice is to attack her with 50,000 volts? There is NO other choice?
Are you sure what you posted has to do with traffic violations?
From what I've read what you posted pertains to PUBLIC SIDEWALKS.
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/renton/renton06.html
The next link says a 7.80.160 is a failure to sign a NONtraffic infraction.
http://www.mrsc.org/mc/fedway/fedwy06.html
But I just ran across something which stated it was a gross misdemenor to not sign the ticket (cant find the link now). I know the following link isn't from washington state but peep it:
http://www.iff-ifoundfreedom.com/laws/textrafficlaws.html
If what tony posted is correct and may be applied to traffic violations, I STAND CORRECTED.
So they hit her with a refusing to obey a police officer charge for not signing the ticket but couldn't decide on resisting arrest?
Does that seem strange to you?
LMAO! Her hands were gripping the wheel? The car was not moving correct? Several officers were at the scene correct? SIMPLE.
I admit she did make herself the victim by speeding, not signing the ticket etc thats not an arguement. She was tasered for somethign she wasn't even convicted on....lmao! Only in america.
Just posted it to give some more info to this situation. From what I know a civil infraction includes all traffic tickets. I got that law from the Washington RCW home page http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm .