• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taser Use

Is using a taser to arrest a noncoperative but nonviolent person "excessive force"


  • Total voters
    50

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,863
Reaction score
60,285
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Taser Pain May Be Considered by Supreme Court as Excessive Force - Yahoo! News

Brooks denied that she had been speeding and said she would not sign the citation because she believed that her signature would amount to an admission of guilt. Ornelas told her that she was mistaken, but that her failure to sign would subject her to arrest under state law. She continued to refuse to sign. Eventually two other officers came to the scene, Brooks was told she was under arrest, and she was ordered out of the car. Again, she refused to get out of the car.

"I have to go to the bathroom, I am pregnant, I'm less than 60 days from having my baby," she told the officers. The officers told her if she did not obey orders, she would be subject to the taser device. They then conferred about using the taser on a pregnant woman.

...


Eventually Officer Ornelas opened the driver's side door, and twisted Brooks' arm up behind her back . Officer Donald Jones applied the taser to Brooks' left thigh at which point she shouted and honked the horn, but continued to refuse to get out. Thirty-six seconds later he applied it to her left arm, and six seconds later he applied it to her neck. Finally, the officers managed to drag her out and handcuff her. She was seen by a doctor before she was taken to King County Jail. Brooks was eventually convicted for failing to sign a speeding ticket.

She sued the cops, and right now has won the suit, however the cops where granted immunity due to the law being considered too vague. Thursday SCOTUS meets to decide whether to hear the case.

So, now the question: the woman was no threat and was simply refusing to comply. In that type situation, is the inflicting of intense pain a violation of the constitution? A further question that does not translate well to a poll so just type out an answer...where does the line get drawn? When are police justified in using a taser, and when is it excessive?
 
Taser Pain May Be Considered by Supreme Court as Excessive Force - Yahoo! News



She sued the cops, and right now has won the suit, however the cops where granted immunity due to the law being considered too vague. Thursday SCOTUS meets to decide whether to hear the case.

So, now the question: the woman was no threat and was simply refusing to comply. In that type situation, is the inflicting of intense pain a violation of the constitution? A further question that does not translate well to a poll so just type out an answer...where does the line get drawn? When are police justified in using a taser, and when is it excessive?

Every cop who ever hands out a speeding ticket tells you that signing the ticket only acknowledges your receiving the ticket, it is NOT an admission of guilt. They also say if you want to contest it, you can do it in court.

This woman refused to listen to the police officer who told her signing is not an admission of guilt. I'm guessing she thought she was gonna outsmart the cops. Wouldn't surprise me if she thought being pregnant was gonna stop her ass from getting kicked. She seemed to have been giving warnings and she REFUSED to comply.

My sympathy is lacking for her...
 
Last edited:
Every cop who ever hands out a speeding ticket tells you that signing the ticket only acknowledges your receiving the ticket, it is NOT an admission of guilt. They also say if you want to contest it, you can do it in court.

This woman refused to listen to the police officer who told her signing is not an admission of guilt. I'm guessing she thought she was gonna outsmart the cops. Wouldn't surprise me if she thought being pregnant was gonna stop her ass from getting kicked.

My sympathy is lacking for her...

I am not sympathetic to her, but that is not really the question. The question is whether using a taser is excessive force to aid in arresting a nonviolent, noncooperative suspect.
 
If they are not being violent in ANY sort of way then it never warrants a 50,000 volt charge to your muscular system.
 
I am not sympathetic to her, but that is not really the question. The question is whether using a taser is excessive force to aid in arresting a nonviolent, noncooperative suspect.

Which is why I answered the poll "sometimes yes, sometimes no". What do you do with someone who, for whatever dumb reason, simply refuses to cooperate just to be a pain in the ass? Sounds like what she was doing. She was told she has to sign according to law to acknowledge getting the ticket; what are the cops supposed to do? "Oh, she doesn't want to sign the ticket. Welp, just let 'er go, I guess!" They have to follow the rules, and so do driver's. This woman sounds like she just wanted to stick it to cops. She messed with the bull, she got the horns.

4559716680_c8aa18f0ef.jpg

I take things on a case-by-case basis, Red. I don't generalize. Usually. Get it???
 
The tazering was overboard. Yes, she is just signing in receipt of getting a ticket NOT that she is guilty. She should have signed. She should have exited the car, too. But tazering her? HAYELL no. Grab the hand, unfold it from the steering wheel, carefully remove her from the car. Or....let her go home, then send officers to her home to arrest her where she cannot get hurt or her baby harmed if the removing her hands from the steering wheel cannot be done safely. Then slap her with another charge of resisting arrest and take it out on her wallet with fines. Using a tazer on her? Abuse of power. Bullies With Badges.
 
The tazering was overboard. Yes, she is just signing in receipt of getting a ticket NOT that she is guilty. She should have signed. She should have exited the car, too. But tazering her? HAYELL no. Grab the hand, unfold it from the steering wheel, carefully remove her from the car. Or....let her go home, then send officers to her home to arrest her where she cannot get hurt or her baby harmed if the removing her hands from the steering wheel cannot be done safely. Then slap her with another charge of resisting arrest and take it out on her wallet with fines. Using a tazer on her? Abuse of power. Bullies With Badges.

...and then she would sue the cops for aggressive handling. This is BS. My Asshole Meter is going crazy. This lady sounds like a troublemaker; I'd put dollars to donuts she'd sue the cops no matter WHAT they did. May 50,000 volts to her face and a few to her soon-to-be troublemaking child maybe would benefit everybody.
 
Yes....... tazers should only be used on violent people. Not people sitting on the ground pacifly.
 
I am not sympathetic to her, but that is not really the question. The question is whether using a taser is excessive force to aid in arresting a nonviolent, noncooperative suspect.

When I was active, trust me...the baton hurts more and the pain can last for days....Police cannot have citizens routinely defying them...I know that sounds like we think were gods...but that has nothing to do with...we are sworn to protect and serve citizens and protect the peace...you cannot accomplish that with people routinely refusing to obey you.
The police must have a means to Non lethally force compliance when necessary...back in my day more people were hurt including and especially police officers with batons as non lethal force and your fists and knees ...I believe hands down tasers are a much better solution, I also believe there were far more serious injuries and deaths prior to taser use...but in this new world of lawyers suing for ham sandwichs and cell phone cameras....it just gets more media attention....If you take tasers, trust police will still get the job done...and you could like the means to that end alot less
 
When I was active, trust me...the baton hurts more and the pain can last for days....Police cannot have citizens routinely defying them...I know that sounds like we think were gods...but that has nothing to do with...we are sworn to protect and serve citizens and protect the peace...you cannot accomplish that with people routinely refusing to obey you.
The police must have a means to Non lethally force compliance when necessary...back in my day more people were hurt including and especially police officers with batons as non lethal force and your fists and knees ...I believe hands down tasers are a much better solution, I also believe there were far more serious injuries and deaths prior to taser use...but in this new world of lawyers suing for ham sandwichs and cell phone cameras....it just gets more media attention....If you take tasers, trust police will still get the job done...and you could like the means to that end alot less

Exactly, thank you lpast. Police can't have people disobeying direct orders, they have to be in control in order to do their jobs. And yes, tasers are waaaay preferable to a truncheon or a hard fist.

And before anybody brings up "Waaah, what about the baby?', maybe she should have thought about her baby before she defied police orders.
 
When I was active, trust me...the baton hurts more and the pain can last for days....Police cannot have citizens routinely defying them...I know that sounds like we think were gods...but that has nothing to do with...we are sworn to protect and serve citizens and protect the peace...you cannot accomplish that with people routinely refusing to obey you.
The police must have a means to Non lethally force compliance when necessary...back in my day more people were hurt including and especially police officers with batons as non lethal force and your fists and knees ...I believe hands down tasers are a much better solution, I also believe there were far more serious injuries and deaths prior to taser use...but in this new world of lawyers suing for ham sandwichs and cell phone cameras....it just gets more media attention....If you take tasers, trust police will still get the job done...and you could like the means to that end alot less


I think it isn't the people that need to obey the police, but the police that need to obey the people. You are sworn to protect and serve, but you are not law enforcers. You are peace keepers, which people routinely forget. If a cop asks me a question that doesn't pertain to the situation I'm in then I should every right to tell him/her no. I have every right to not disclose information that isn't vitally important to whatever is going on.

If I am not being violent in any sort of way, then that cop should have NO right to use a baton, taser, gun, or any other weapon be it lethal or not against me.
 
I think it isn't the people that need to obey the police, but the police that need to obey the people. You are sworn to protect and serve, but you are not law enforcers. You are peace keepers, which people routinely forget. If a cop asks me a question that doesn't pertain to the situation I'm in then I should every right to tell him/her no. I have every right to not disclose information that isn't vitally important to whatever is going on.

If I am not being violent in any sort of way, then that cop should have NO right to use a baton, taser, gun, or any other weapon be it lethal or not against me.


With all due respect sir...you dont have a clue what the hell your talking about...and I wont even attempt to explain it to you...it would bounce off you
 
With all due respect sir...you dont have a clue what the hell your talking about...and I wont even attempt to explain it to you...it would bounce off you

Trust me...I'm more open then a lot of people around here.

Please, explain it to me...this is a debate forum and I would actually like to hear something from the other side.
 
the key is in knowing exactly what you are require to do in the event of a police confrontation.... do only that which you are required, by law, to do... and if the cop wants more, he can get bent.

.. but be prepared to answer, in court, as to why you defied the cop.. and prepare yourself to be on the wrong side of force while defying him/her.

do not fall for the " you must obey the police" horse****... you must follow the law.. and he must follow the law... that is all that is required.
 
I take things on a case-by-case basis, Red. I don't generalize. Usually. Get it???

Which leads to the second part of the question, where does the line get drawn? There has to be a clear line drawn somewhere, if just to protect the police from lawsuits. From the sound of it, the law as it currently is was somewhat vague.
 
The police should have forcibly removed her from the car, and if she began kicking at them or fighting them, then the taser was appropriately used in my opinion. Obviously the officers did not want to follow normal extrication procedures by yanking her out and flinging her on the ground because of her advanced pregnancy. The other option was spraying mace in her face, also extremely painful for a much longer period of time, or cracking her with a baton.

The woman clearly believed her pregnancy put her above the law, and refused lawful orders to sign the ticket and exit the car. :shrug: Sorry, lady, it doesn't work like that.

So no, I do not believe excessive force was used.
 
Last edited:
Tazing a pregnant woman that refuses to sign a ticket and is non violent, is overboard. Plain and simple.
 
I think it isn't the people that need to obey the police, but the police that need to obey the people. You are sworn to protect and serve, but you are not law enforcers. You are peace keepers, which people routinely forget. If a cop asks me a question that doesn't pertain to the situation I'm in then I should every right to tell him/her no. I have every right to not disclose information that isn't vitally important to whatever is going on.

If I am not being violent in any sort of way, then that cop should have NO right to use a baton, taser, gun, or any other weapon be it lethal or not against me.


First of all Police are law enforcement officers...enforce the laws as written is what we do...we do not obey the people...we work for the people and unfortunately its some of the people that we have to taser and arrest and sometimes shoot.
Lets round this up quickly...if people were allowed to disobey the police in the course of arrests or doing their duty...police eventually would be rendered useless and the wild west would be promptly back as the rule of society...he who shoots first wins.
If your stopped for a traffic violation that police officer is ENFORCING TRAFFIC LAWS....You do not get to decide what information is pertinent to the situation, the police have sole dibs on that...no cop is going to ask you frivolous questions for fun...they dont have time for that...If you are told you are under arrest and you non violently refuse to comply after reasonable non contact means to get your compliance...well you know what happened to the young lady that caused this thread to be written....
 
Are you a cop Ipast?
 
the key is in knowing exactly what you are require to do in the event of a police confrontation.... do only that which you are required, by law, to do... and if the cop wants more, he can get bent.

.. but be prepared to answer, in court, as to why you defied the cop.. and prepare yourself to be on the wrong side of force while defying him/her.


do not fall for the " you must obey the police" horse****... you must follow the law.. and he must follow the law... that is all that is required.


You missed a whole lot of points of the issue...basically what you said is right...and court is where you will be...if you refuse to comply to my orders...your going whether you like it or not...PERIOD....I know some alphas males think they are the top of the food chain...they learn they are not..even if its temporary...
 
First of all Police are law enforcement officers...enforce the laws as written is what we do...we do not obey the people...we work for the people and unfortunately its some of the people that we have to taser and arrest and sometimes shoot.
Lets round this up quickly...if people were allowed to disobey the police in the course of arrests or doing their duty...police eventually would be rendered useless and the wild west would be promptly back as the rule of society...he who shoots first wins.
If your stopped for a traffic violation that police officer is ENFORCING TRAFFIC LAWS....You do not get to decide what information is pertinent to the situation, the police have sole dibs on that...no cop is going to ask you frivolous questions for fun...they dont have time for that...If you are told you are under arrest and you non violently refuse to comply after reasonable non contact means to get your compliance...well you know what happened to the young lady that caused this thread to be written....

Note that so far the courts have disagreed with you.

So you believe that tasing a person who is simply sitting down is acceptable?
 
Which leads to the second part of the question, where does the line get drawn? There has to be a clear line drawn somewhere, if just to protect the police from lawsuits. From the sound of it, the law as it currently is was somewhat vague.

The line is drawn by compliance....comply and theres NO PROBLEM whatsoever...lol...gotta love these threads...everyone blames the cops and totally blows past the person REFUSED mulitiple requests for compliance...let me ask you this...were the police supposed to tell this woman..ok you wont comply you can go...Its simple...you disagree with the police, fine..comply theres no problem, you will have your day in court...
 
Which leads to the second part of the question, where does the line get drawn? There has to be a clear line drawn somewhere, if just to protect the police from lawsuits. From the sound of it, the law as it currently is was somewhat vague.

I sincerely doubt you can make a solid line in which everything on one side can't be tasered and everything on the other side can. That's why police are screened and trained; in order to have rational people that can be depended on to make a good decision when it boils down to using force. I'd say the police did what they had to in this case.
 
Back
Top Bottom