Log in

View Full Version : Court: Seattle police OK to stun pregnant woman



Communist
27th March 2010, 23:13
.

http://brotherpeacemaker.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/malaika-brooks.jpg
Malaika Brooks with her daughter
_________________________

Court: Seattle police OK
to stun pregnant woman (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hY3TQyq2-oF_rmAAf_TuzN0PzQ7wD9EMJ3HG0)


By GENE JOHNSON (AP)

SEATTLE — Three Seattle police officers were justified when they used a stun gun on a pregnant mother who refused to sign a traffic ticket, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in a case that prompted an incredulous dissent.

Malaika Brooks was driving her son to Seattle's African American Academy in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car in front of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket because she thought she'd be admitting guilt.

Rather than give her the ticket and let her go on her way, the officers decided to arrest her.

One reached in, turned off her car and dropped the keys on the floor. Brooks stiffened her arms against the steering wheel and told the officers she was pregnant, but refused to get out, even after they threatened to stun her.

The officers — Sgt. Steven Daman, Officer Juan Ornelas and Officer Donald Jones — then stunned her three times, in the thigh, shoulder and neck, and hauled her out of the car, laying her face-down in the street.

Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby two months later, but has permanent scars from the Taser. She sued the officers for violating her constitutional rights, and U.S. District Judge Richard Jones allowed the case to continue. He declined to grant the officers immunity for performing their official duties and said Brooks' rights were clearly violated.

But in a 2-1 ruling Friday, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall and Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain held that the officers were justified in making an arrest because Brooks was obstructing them and resisting arrest.

The use of force was also justified because of the threat Brooks posed, Hall wrote: "It seems clear that Brooks was not going to be able to harm anyone with her car at a moment's notice. Nonetheless, some threat she might retrieve the keys and drive off erratically remained, particularly given her refusal to leave the car and her state of agitation."

They also noted that the force used wasn't that serious because the Taser was in "touch" mode rather than "dart" mode, which hurts more. They reversed the lower court's opinion and held that the officers were entitled to immunity from the lawsuit.

The officers' lawyers, Ted Buck and Karen Cobb, said the officers made the right decision under the circumstances they faced.

"Police officers have to have the ability to compel people to obey their lawful orders," Buck said. That's all the court recognized today. The 9th Circuit just applied the law instead of getting caught up in the otherwise unfortunate factual circumstances."
The majority's opinion outraged Judge Marsha Berzon, who called it "off the wall."

"I fail utterly to comprehend how my colleagues are able to conclude that it was objectively reasonable to use any force against Brooks, let alone three activations of a Taser, in response to such a trivial offense," she wrote.

She argued that under Washington law, the officers had no authority to take Brooks into custody: Failure to sign a traffic infraction is not an arrestable offense, and it's not illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

Berzon said the majority's notion that Brooks obstructed officers was so far-fetched that even the officers themselves didn't make that legal argument. To obstruct an officer, one must obstruct the officer's official duties, and the officers' only duties in this case were to detain Brooks long enough to identify her, check for warrants, write up the citation and give it to her. Brooks' failure to sign did not interfere with those duties, she said.

Furthermore, Brooks posed no apparent threat, and the officers could not have known how stunning her would affect the fetus, or whether it might prompt premature labor — another reason their actions were inexcusable, Berzon said.

Brooks' lawyer, Eric Zubel, said he would ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case.

"This is outrageous — that something like this could happen to a pregnant woman, in front of an elementary school, at 8:30 in the morning, to someone who posed no threat whatsoever," he said.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

__________________________________________________ ________

From 2005:

Pregnant woman 'Tasered' by police is convicted (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/223578_taser10.html)

By Hector Castro
Tuesday, May 10, 2005

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.

"It just doesn't look good to the public," he said.

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."

.

Antifa94
27th March 2010, 23:21
Despicable. Absolutely abhorrent.

The cops doing such are scum, and other than being kicked off the force, should be killed for doing this to a pregnant woman.
Patriarchal excess.

Communist
28th March 2010, 02:17
.
Certainly despicable.
This court decision is a travesty. We all certainly hope it will be overturned, but the fact the 9th Circuit delivered something like this at all is an affront to decent society.
For refusing to sign a speeding ticket. Try and wrap your head around that.

.

Outinleftfield
28th March 2010, 03:31
They can make you actually sign the speeding ticket?

Why is that even that important? You have your ticket, you know you have to either pay or take it to court. Why is it so important to them that you sign your name?

It makes me sick seeing how these cops are trying to justify it. Whether she was resisting or not she wasn't threatening anybody. Tasers can be lethal. What they're saying is its OK to use potentially lethal even if a person isn't a violent threat? This is insane.

gorillafuck
28th March 2010, 04:24
Despicable. Absolutely abhorrent.

The cops doing such are scum, and other than being kicked off the force, should be killed for doing this to a pregnant woman.
Patriarchal excess.
Agreed that it's ridiculous that they did that, but they definitely shouldn't be executed for stunning a pregnant woman. You're talking out of your ass.

Antifa94
28th March 2010, 04:32
are you kidding me? They used a lethal weapon on a nonviolent, innocent woman.

Scary Monster
28th March 2010, 04:58
Agreed that it's ridiculous that they did that, but they definitely shouldn't be executed for stunning a pregnant woman. You're talking out of your ass.

They should definitely be beaten to shit and have the teeth knocked out of em at least. This is the third time Ive heard of something happening like this in just the past few weeks. As Ive said in another thread where cops beat a woman's son on the street for no reason (who also happened to be black), these cops will never have justice brought against them because the courts always side with them, no matter how heinous and documented their crimes are, and their cop buddies will also never testify against their fellow cops. Because once theyre "on the beat" they want them to have their backs in a life threatening situation. So all cops are pigs, even if some dont do any of this shit themselves.. Our justice system is truly a joke.

Chambered Word
28th March 2010, 17:02
These pigs deserve Dr. Marten's dental plan.

And did anyone else notice that the woman who was stunned is black? :rolleyes:

gorillafuck
28th March 2010, 17:46
are you kidding me? They used a lethal weapon on a nonviolent, innocent woman.
You're a proponent of the death penalty for people who commit crimes that are less than murder?:confused:


And did anyone else notice that the woman who was stunned is black? :rolleyes:
Yeah, I did notice that.

Scary Monster
28th March 2010, 18:40
These pigs deserve Dr. Marten's dental plan.

And did anyone else notice that the woman who was stunned is black? :rolleyes:

They always are black. The victim in just about every single occurence of police brutality in the US is a minority, mostly black.

The Red Next Door
28th March 2010, 18:44
911 protect and to torment.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
28th March 2010, 20:20
The police acted inappropriately, certainly. However, people have a tendency to act poorly in situations involving police. In my view, there were plenty of better ways she could have conducted herself. I think she isn't to blame, but I suspect the media will have an easy time arguing otherwise.

Scary Monster
28th March 2010, 20:37
The police acted inappropriately, certainly. However, people have a tendency to act poorly in situations involving police. In my view, there were plenty of better ways she could have conducted herself. I think she isn't to blame, but I suspect the media will have an easy time arguing otherwise.

Dude, nothing she did warranted being tasered three times. She did not have a weapon, nor did she verbally threaten them.

Communist
30th March 2010, 05:17
.
Didn't deserve tasered at all. Dooga, were you reading another article??
.
.

Crusade
30th March 2010, 05:57
Would be nice to still have panthers on the corners monitoring police, eh? :(

entfaltend
30th March 2010, 19:26
Whatever the Portland police caught is spreading northwards... Ugh. Using 'less lethal' weapons on someone who is non-violently resisting is messed up, but unfortunately well accepted by the media and police supporters. I doubt Malaika will find any justice, sad to say.

Morgenstern
30th March 2010, 21:38
“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.”-Vladimir Lenin

Very fitting for this situation. If she was a rich, white celebrity the officer wouldn't even think about tasing her.

Psy
30th March 2010, 23:14
Would be nice to still have panthers on the corners monitoring police, eh? :(

It would be better for a revolutionary army, image after the police pulled her over a huge convoy of trucks with large red flags pulled up fulled with armed workers that encircle the police demanding the police unconditionally surrender as prisoners of class war. Now that would be sweet, yet for that happen revolution in the USA pretty much has to already be underway.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
31st March 2010, 17:27
Dude, nothing she did warranted being tasered three times. She did not have a weapon, nor did she verbally threaten them.

I didn't mean that. From what I read, she refused to sign the ticket. Unless the law there differs, signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt. The officers probably explained that as they'd encounter it all the time. Maybe they didn't, though.

Refusal to sign a traffic ticket allows for arrest (in some areas) at the discretion of the officer. She then refused to be removed from her car, allowing her to be classified as resisting arrest.

I think she should have signed the ticket then disputed it and/or allowed herself to be arrested and lawyer-ed up. Now she has provided justification the police can use for their actions.

**

I didn't mean to imply that the police had any justification for tasering here, though I do think the media will argue they did. I only mean that I think she might have handled herself better in the situation. When you're dealing with a rabid dog, I'm sure there are procedures you can follow to best protect yourself. I think the police can be considered similarly. All in all, though, she probably wasn't sufficiently educated about the law to know. That's not here fault, in my view.

Psy
31st March 2010, 22:26
I didn't mean that. From what I read, she refused to sign the ticket. Unless the law there differs, signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt. The officers probably explained that as they'd encounter it all the time. Maybe they didn't, though.

Refusal to sign a traffic ticket allows for arrest (in some areas) at the discretion of the officer. She then refused to be removed from her car, allowing her to be classified as resisting arrest.

I think she should have signed the ticket then disputed it and/or allowed herself to be arrested and lawyer-ed up. Now she has provided justification the police can use for their actions.

**

I didn't mean to imply that the police had any justification for tasering here, though I do think the media will argue they did. I only mean that I think she might have handled herself better in the situation. When you're dealing with a rabid dog, I'm sure there are procedures you can follow to best protect yourself. I think the police can be considered similarly. All in all, though, she probably wasn't sufficiently educated about the law to know. That's not here fault, in my view.

Yet the police officer had no reason to be so aggressive, this is the critical problem with police as a labor force as they are not really engaged with class struggling against their bosses so even as enforcers as the ruling class they are very exploited themselves because police are far too stupid to do the least amount of work without getting fired (goldbricking as the bourgeoisie calls it).

bloodbeard
2nd April 2010, 00:44
It was merely about exercising their dominance, indeed they are like rabid dogs. But in this case these officers' mentality could have be changed because they do have far more evolved brains then dogs and not afflicted with rabies, they are just a bit retarded. :lol:

bloodbeard
2nd April 2010, 00:54
I think she should have signed the ticket then disputed it and/or allowed herself to be arrested and lawyer-ed up. Now she has provided justification the police can use for their actions.


By stating that you are completely excusing what they did, doesn't matter what else you've said in your post.

aziraphale
12th April 2010, 23:34
Stunning a nondangerous pregnant woman three times over a traffic ticket?! This is just beyond words. Someone needs to get some vigilante justice on those bastards. Those evil, power hungry, sadistic pigs.

Il Medico
18th April 2010, 02:53
"Don't worry pregnant women, the boys in blue will zap you too."

Fucking pigs.

mikelepore
18th April 2010, 23:32
People need to realize that, when the police say "you're under arrest" or "lie or the ground" or whatever the instruction is, and you refuse to comply, say, you hold on tightly to the steering wheel as this driver did, the police usually will NOT drag or carry you to the police car for transportation to jail. That's only in the movies. In real life they continue to inflict pain and injuries by some method until you change your mind and do whatever they told you to do.

That's what the 1991 police assault on Rodney King in Los Angeles was all about. They told King to lie flat on the ground with his arms straight out, but he continued to have his arms bent as though he was going to do some push-ups. Therefore they hit him with their clubs 56 times and kicked him 6 times, each time informing him that the injuries would continue until his arms become straight.

Realizing that this is how standard police procedure is written in the U.S., look again at this case. When they tasered this victim, what they did was taser her *instead of* hitting her on the head multiple times with a club, or whatever number would have led to her letting go of the steering wheel.

I would be the last to defend these sadistic cops, but we need to condemn the system where it's broken. While the cops are strong enough to drag or carry you over to the back of the police car and toss you into it, in most cities in the U.S. they are operating out of a rule book that tells them that they are not supposed to drag or carry you. Their official police handbook says they are supposed to continue giving you painful injuries until you decide to follow their verbal instructions, such as lie down over here or walk over there.

Psy
19th April 2010, 00:26
People need to realize that, when the police say "you're under arrest" or "lie or the ground" or whatever the instruction is, and you refuse to comply, say, you hold on tightly to the steering wheel as this driver did, the police usually will NOT drag or carry you to the police car for transportation to jail. That's only in the movies. In real life they continue to inflict pain and injuries by some method until you change your mind and do whatever they told you to do.

Unless they realize they are getting over their head, police officers do tend to retreat when a angry mob is forming around them and there is insufficient police resources available to take on the mob.

For example the Paris police did eventually yield to the revolutionary force of 1968 once it was clear they would just get their asses handed to them if they did not retreat and even then the police was so spooked many ran like scared rabbits at the first sight of any forces advancing towards their new positions. (note: Paris 1968 was sparked by police brutality against protesters)

Thus revolution is the most effective solution to police brutality.