Woman tazered for Speeding USA= Stop tazers for Uk police

Disgusting

01.06.2005 22:41

I have seen some video's in my time, but this is the most disgusting abuse of power in a civilsed country that I have ever seen, the poor woman appears to be on the phone to her husband and worried about the police, what possible excuse could the police have for using such life threatening force without even attempting to use converntional methods, as disturbed as I was by the video I am glad you posted a link to it as if we ever needed a better example of why the UK police should not have these weapons then this is it, just look how they spray cs gas in to crowds during a disturbance.

We need to be proteced from those who seek to abuse us
.

wesley

some sense

02.06.2005 09:51

He warned her, clearly, several times, to get out of the car.

He told her very clearly what to do.

She ignored the instructions, after SEVERAL warnings, it was probably chosen as the force option because he didn't want to manhandle her and risk elevating the risk and facing possible complaints about sexual harassment.

Had she done what she was lawfully told to do, there would be no problem.

This is NOT abuse. It's not pretty, but it's NOT abuse.

independent

Oh my God

02.06.2005 10:27

Couldn't agree more, this cop should be sent to Abu Ghraib...The animal noises of pure pain and fear she's making are frankly vomit-inducing. How long before this shows on Al-Jazeera in Iraq? And how many minutes before a troll posts: "You can clearly hear the righteous police officer warning the criminal that unless she puts her phone down, he will taze her..."

If so, said troll will be unthinking, knee-jerk, fascist scum, but then we knew that already, didn't we?

anarchoteapot

Does that woman have learning difficulties?

02.06.2005 12:24

Anyone who hasn't seen worse behaviour than that, hasn't been looking too hard.

Incidently I only saw him fire that tazer once, not twice.

I'm not clever or even political, but I would have got out of the car. I heard that cop tell her 4 times to get out or he would use the tazer! (Amazing how some people are addicted to their phones.) That woman needs her IQ testing. I mean, how dumn is that!

Sure she's in pain, it's supposed to be painful. Ask the copper, he will have had it done to him.

I know I should be more sympathetic

proportionate force?

02.06.2005 13:26

Yeah there is only one use of tazar not two.

But good god! how can anyone say 'ooh well the cop did warn her' - yeah so the sensible thing would have been to get out the car - BUT WHAT THE FUCK? The issue is not that he warned her, but that they use the weapon so lighlty.

I mean is this PROPORTIONATE? What a nightmare...

wtf

lost humanity

02.06.2005 19:58

it is clear by this and many other incidents that the general population of americans have lost their perspective and basic sense of humanity. how else can this be justified?why treat an individual like this? because she doesn't comply with orders? what reasoning enforces pain until one does comply,one that is doing no harm to others? how can someone justify this action unless they have succumbed to the police state mentality that puts the police's will above all other considerations. these men are brutal and sadistic and they rationalize their actions in strictly cold,legal terms. no christian nation this. this is purely anti-christian behavior - animalistic, barbaric and unjustifiable.

ad

lost humanity

02.06.2005 20:01

it is clear by this and many other incidents that the general population of americans have lost their perspective and basic sense of humanity. how else can this be justified?why treat an individual like this? because she doesn't comply with orders? what reasoning enforces pain until one does comply,one that is doing no harm to others? how can someone justify this action unless they have succumbed to the police state mentality that puts the police's will above all other considerations. these men are brutal and sadistic and they rationalize their actions in strictly cold,legal terms. no christian nation this. this is purely anti-christian behavior - animalistic, barbaric and unjustifiable.

ad

From Across The Pond

03.06.2005 00:12

I am ashamed to say that I'm a citizen of the United States. This is clearly a case of police brutality. That thug in uniform couldn't have removed the woman by some other less life-threatening means? What if she had a heart condition? Granted, she should have exited the vehicle, but really? How much force would it have taken that mouth-breathing jerk to have physically extracted her? We are truly the beast of the Apocalypse.

Roland

technology is...

03.06.2005 02:32

Well I can't even view the thing in Firefox or Internet Explorer. Is there a direct link to the file so I can download it?

Krop

apparently

03.06.2005 09:13

Apppartently you can not call for the execution of the cop in question (officer McNevin) without having your post removed, so I will not call for the summery execution of this monster in uniform.

I know that the issue of personel rights in the us of a, is one that is a picture of erosion - but, this woman was within her rights to finish her phone call (or even continue it for legal advice during the confrontation with the TWO heavily armed cops).

She was even within her rights to stay in the car - if she felt threatened by the TWO heavily armed cops. The police do not have extra rights, or more rights than us - they are merly civil servants.

To claim - as some arshole has - that the TWO heavily armed cops were within their rights to attack this woman with 50 000 volts of electricity because she was not complying with the barking of these facists dogs quick enough, is very sad and wrong (legally).

What sort of man would contemplate the use of such revolting instruments to subdue an upperty - perhaps - woman? Does he get henpecked at home? Did he suddenly snap your honour, after many years of loyal service/marrage? Was he really that provoked, threatened, useless?

In short, officer Mcnevin has a lot to answer for - he should meet his maker soon for an explanation. He should be helped there. It could be your mum/pregnant girlfriend/6 year old child with learning difficulties next (these sort of victims already exist in the hyper hysterical testosterone filled world of usa no.1 police warrior cults).

Warning: if they make it across the pond - there will be trouble. My knees are for keeping the bottem of my legs on, not for bending at the first demand of civil servants.

Drip drip drip, will go the rationalisation, the technology, the law - until we have a full on tazar gestapo here, and then it will be too late to do anything but meekly agree or totally resist (mustn't suggest here that we can fight for our rights - it upsets the pc correct middle class wankers).

avenger

...

03.06.2005 16:38

Someone made a comment about 'perhaps she has learning difficulties'. Well, then, maybe she does? Doesn't that make the use of the tazer on this woman all the more misplaced and wrong. It wasn't like she was reaching for a gun or something. There have been reports of the tazer used on children, and on old men, as a first resort...not a last resort. You can imagine the police using it on the mentally retarded, on the senile, on children, because they can't be bothered with all the hassle of trying to communicate.

I can't believe the posters who thought it was in order to shoot an unarmed woman and cause her excruciating pain, simply because she was stupid, or difficult. Perhaps all stupid people should in fact be culled, and senile people killed so they're not a burden on their relatives. You fascists.

Fucking disrespectful. And how long before they start using it on demonstrations? How easy it would be to clear a few hundred protestors by simply shooting them all with tazers.

Hermes

Choose your issues

03.06.2005 16:58

Check your prejudices at the door. Which one best describes your outlook?

1. We don't need police (and by extension, government and law).
2. Tasers are dangerous and the police shouldn't have them.
3. The use of the Taser in this situation wasn't proportionate.

Being a fully paid-up middle-class PC wanker, my positions are:

1. We do need government and law, and therefore police. It's a complicated question but my general conclusion is that the alternatives are worse even though it's probably more fashionable around here to be an "anarchist" rather than a democrat.

2. I don't know whether Tasers are "dangerous", it's clearly a question of degree. They are obviously less dangerous, in most situations, than firearms. Given that I believe we need police to enforce the law and in some situations they will have to deal with violent people, the police will need to have some weapons and sometimes they will have to use them. If the effects of the Taser aren't sufficiently predictable then they're not suitable for general use, but sometimes the police will need to use force that both causes pain and injury, up to and including death.

3. The use of the Taser (though not lesser force more generally) was clearly not required in this situation. The woman was not being aggressive and the situation was generally stable. The officer was within his rights to ask the woman to step out of the car.

Contrary to avenger's comment that the police are citizens and have no more "rights" than we have; well, they do have additional powers, defined in law, to enable them to do their jobs. However, this does not mean that the police can give citizens arbitrary orders and back it up with any kind of force at their whim. If the police had asked the woman to undress or to give them all her valuables, no amount of force would have been lawful. Likewise if they had no reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed.

The police's aggressive and confrontational manner didn't help the situation, nor more generally does the fact that police on both sides of the Atlantic these days look more like the SAS than Dixon of Dock Green. This may have contributed to the woman's unwillingness to comply: the police were being threatening rather than assertive and the woman's presumed fear that they would use unreasonable or unlawful force, in my opinion, was proven to be well-founded. However, this is simply unprofessionalism rather than criminal behaviour and doesn't in itself justify the woman's non-compliance with the lawful request to leave the vehicle, though it does explain it. No, the woman doesn't have a "right" to finish her phone call, take legal advice at that point, or indeed stay in the vehicle.

Given that the woman refused to comply, after several attempts, with a lawful request, the police were justified to use force. Given also that the woman was unarmed, outnumbered and not violent, I can't see any way in which using a Taser could be considered proportionate (ie. minimum necessary force) when simply physically removing her was clearly viable and less likely to cause injury. In my opinion, the degree of disproportionality in this situation is enough to consitute an illegal assault by the officer on the woman.

I don't see anything here that is in itself an argument for not having police, or even for the police to not have Tasers under any circumstances. The officers here are obviously a disgrace. They should both be disciplined and in my opinion the one that fired the Taser both dismissed and prosecuted with the abuse of office considered to be an aggravating factor. The law and the police exist to protect citizens from this kind of behaviour, including from bad cops. (Yes, assuming we accept democratic government this does mean that some police will be "good" but it doesn't mean that none of them will ever themselves act criminally and therefore that the police as a whole are above suspicion or beyond regulation.)

The issue here then is really one of accountability. I'd be worried if this behaviour was in principle considered to be lawful or in this particular case no action was taken against the officers.

Interestingly, we can only comment on this because of the police's own video camera. This provides evidence for the police to use against criminals (and I see nothing wrong with that in itself) and also sometimes protects citizens against abuse of police powers as we see here. I'm not generally in favour of CCTV monitoring law-abiding citizens everywhere but in situations where police are deployed there seem to be more benefits than problems.

Should the police have Tasers in the UK? They are currently on trial with various forces where they are used by firearms officers and only in situations where their only other means of force would be lethal weapons. This is quite hard to argue against, unless of course you don't want police at all or for some bizarre reason think we should have them, but they should never use guns in any situation even where they or others are being killed and seriously injured.

Whether police should routinely carry Tasers is a very different question. Depending on your point of view of how dangerous (not painful) Tasers are, it may or may not be a similar question to whether police should routinely carry firearms. Whether you think the Taser trial in the UK is a slippery slope that will lead to wider public acceptance and deployment of Tasers will depend on whether you believe in the wider applicability of the slippery slope idea.

As for the macho posturing of "avenger" with his "summery (sic) executions" and people being "helped" to "meet their maker", this sounds very similar to the attitude of the police in the video. This is real life and you are not Clint Eastwood. An admittedly disgraceful assault by a police officer does not justify a death sentence, if indeed anything does. The very reason we have law and police is to protect us from bad cops and vigilantes who think that any form of retribution is acceptable against the "bad guys" (defined however you like) regardless of justice, proportionality and its wider effect on society. Being anti-authoritarian doesn't mean being anti-authority but then to some people self-righteous violence is a whole load of fun and subtlety and judgment are very distant cousins.

Zorro

Jay Jay

03.06.2005 21:07

BTW he did tazer her twice!
Listen when he say "stop or I'll taze you again" the you hear click click click followed by more screams!

I don't understand Why two guys coulden't get a 8 stone woman out of the car without having to use that weapon.

I was always taught never to hit a woman, Now if I was a policeman The last thing I'm going to do is use a deadly weapon on a woman.
I don't care what the job tells me to do this is about morals and respect!

Jay

sweet

05.06.2005 04:34

that was awesome. the fat bitch should have put down her friggin cell phone and done what she was asked to do about 12 times. anyone got anymore links to some tazer vids?

bob
mail e-mail: bobslydel@yahoo.com
Homepage: http://skimpythongs.com

Justified

05.06.2005 05:22

This is not the full length of the video and your website should not allow those to hide the truth to make a point. First, the woman was going 51 MPH in a 35 MPH zone so it is not a mere "4 MPH over the speed limit." Second, the officer gave the woman ample warnings prior to Tazering her. He first requested that she put down the phone and exit the vehicle a few times and then pulled out his Tazer to show that he means business and again gave multiple warnings. The woman chose to resist, and the Police Officer took the last resort. From the ending dialog, it seems the woman attempted to hit the other officer.

It isn't pretty, but the action taken by the officer is fully justified.

The Truth

Shane

05.06.2005 05:37

I just watched the video of the woman who refused to obey a police officer.
The first thing I want to say is that a tazer is a non lethal weapon, designed not necessarily for that purpose but nonetheless not deadly.
The second thibng I want to say is that if you don't want to be taken into custody obey the police officers that we entrust to protect us.
My third and final comment is that the woamn was acting ridiculous, definitely irrational and had she listened would have driven home with a fine for breaking the law for numerous offences.
Quit whining and pay the price, don't be stupid, don't be a wiseass.

Shane

OH MY GOD

05.06.2005 16:32

OH MY GOD, have u seen the whole video of this? U guys are only watching a 1 min and 30 sec video. U guys just saw her getting warned, and the tazered. If I would have seen that first, I would be asking more questions then adding my comments. Its not like he’s pulling people over and shooting them at random. I seen a 6 min and 34 sec video of this, and it clearly shows who’s at fault. If you want to see it click on the link, it might be to strong for some people.

I don’t anybody vomiting or passing out, so I’ll break it down for u.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/policetazer.html

first she was not going 4 mph (6.4 km) over the speed limit, as you guys were informed on this activist web site. she was going 16 mph over the speed limit. I don’t know about u, I wouldn’t want my kids to playing in my front yard and some asshole comes plowing through my front yard because they lost control of there car. And hits me or my kids (which I don’t have), or anyone else, especially kids. The speed limit was 35 mph she is going 51 mph. If I’m right she is going 25.7 km over the speed limit.

Second she has crack windshield, which is against the law in the U.S.. She has a non functioning tail light (right side, her passenger side), again against the law. She also was not wearing hear safety belt (against the law), but wait there’s more. She also had a suspended license, which in some states it’s a felony.

Then to top it all off she is giving him attitude from the moment he pulls her over. She does not listen to him, she’s acting like a fool. I know if I get pulled over, I’m the nicest person and helpful as I can be. That’s how I get off with warnings, and not a tickets. Plus I try not to go over 8mph above the speed limit. Anything over 10 is driving reckless (by my state law) and can get u some mighty hefty finds, and jail time especially in a residential area.

And why do u ask she gets tazered, because she takes a swing at the second officer. Which means assault on an officer. Plus they have yet to check to see if she is armed with any weapons. Yes she does get tazared twice, she should have been able to move by the time the first warning to throw her cigarette was given. Or all of this could of been avoided by just cooperating with the officer.

so what does this all mean, don’t believe everything u read until u seen all the facts. This supposed to be an activist website, u would think they would try to do some research and get all the facts straight . And not post some random shit, and a link to a 1:30 video just showing her getting tazered off a pro death website. Oh well I guess u cant believe everything u see or hear from any type of the media.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/national/main563855.shtml scroll down halfway “SHOCKED WOMEN”

Oh and for Roland (“I am ashamed to say that I’m a citizen of the United States”), well I’m ashamed u even said that. Be glad your not in a 3rd world country starving your ass off because your to poor to have any food. Or you in a country where u would be shot for going against the government or there regulations. We are all in titled to our own opinions, be glad your in a country that even lets you express them. You should be ashamed for the officers actions not for being a citizen of America. You should be proud of your country through thick or thin, And that goes for everybody. yeah we make mistakes but we are all human

Eddie
a proud Mexican-American citizen

Eddie

That's Great

06.06.2005 00:35

People walk around the world today doing whatever the hell they want because CONSEQUENCES don't apply to them. If a cop pulls you over- put down your damn mobile. If a cop asks you to do something- politely do it. The Police force as a Profession demands respect and we need to give it to them.

Benny

Most of you need a lesson in use of force

06.06.2005 02:20

Most of you that disagree with the officer's decision to use the taser in situation need a lesson in use of force. Most law enforcement agencies have similiar use of force policies, and most of them start with somehing to the effect of "...only the minimum force necessary to gain compliance, without creating undue risk to the officer..."

Take a look at the video, and then ask yourself when this woman was going to comply. You clearly see the officer first ask the woman to put out her cig, get off the cell phone, and step out of the vehicle, and does she not only not comply, but refuses, so the officer steps up a level of force, and tries to reach in the car to grab her, she pulls away, and tells him not to touch her. Yet again, a classic case of noncompliance, so the officer has to make a choice, does he and his partner physically yank her out of the car and throw her to the ground, where you might risk injuring her (you would not belive the amount of broken bones that happen this way) and injuring the police officer. He could have used OC (pepper spray) and risked hitting his partner, and having her eyes, nose, mouth, and mucus membranes in pain for up to and hour). Or do you simply use a tool that is designed to give a short burst of pain, and almost ensures compliance? The taser only has a short burst of pain, with very little, if any, residual pain, also any long term risk is nearly nill, and the risk to others is also nill. It seems to me that not only did this officer act according to his use of force policy, but this was an ideal action, and perfectly executed.

Agree

How scared are 'they'?

06.06.2005 02:33

More fekkin pig lovers than (A)narchists on this thread

Oi!

pathetic.

06.06.2005 09:02

Sure are a lot of fuzz lovers here!

'she was not complying', 'she had plenty of oppotunity...', 'she was resisting', 'she broke the law'

FFS!!!

If it had been your mum, I'm sure these would be the first thing you thought - not.

Some of you defenders of the right to allow the filth to use 'non-deadly' 50 000 volts seem to be living in a fantasy world where the uniformed scum are only there to protect us and that any one they brutalise is guilty - because they have been brutalised!

I fear for the world in which such excessive force is justified -even in the minds of those that use these pages.

Some of you are confused about rights also. The police DO NOT HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN US!!! And yes, they are civil servants. This is just one of many cases coming from the land of the free (apart from the 2million black men in jail that is). Cops tazaring 6 year old girls, heavily pregnant women, pensioners demonstrating against bush n co ... show that the pattern of abuse for us ordinary criminals (black, political, pooor) is the same as ever.

Just imagine the scene: rich white woman in suv runs a red light, speeds at - gosh, a whole 16 mph over - gives officer jip - yeah sure they tazar HER?!?

Aplogists for tyranny and state brutalisation are pathetic.

I repeat, the first case of the like over here, and there will be revenge.

Stop justifying your own repression and fight back.

avenger

It's fun to be a knee-jerk cop hater

06.06.2005 14:05

but come on. Is the cop really just supposed to rely on this woman's good nature. She's clearly breaking several laws and resisting arrest. I suppose the nice thing to do would be to wait around for a few hours until she felt like being arrested.

munchausen

wrong

06.06.2005 15:34

cops shouldnt be allowed to treat people like cattle though. so she didnt want to get out of her car, big deal. that doesnt give a cop or anyone the right to tazer someone, especially just some idiot who was speeding.

and you have to admit, the cop was being a dick. when she asked him what he was gonna fine her for, he added on a broken tail light and a broken windsheild. what kind of a cop fines someone for a broken windsheild? he was giving her a hard time.

bottom line is the cops lives were never in danger, she was just refusing to get out of her car. and she didnt really have to since she was NOT under arrest. the cops were way out of line, putting her life in danger over such a silly offense. i think it has to do with their ego's more than anything.

paper

Ever tried common sense?

06.06.2005 15:50

Are there really "More fekkin pig lovers than (A)narchists on this thread" or are most people here just mature enough to realise that democracy, law and policing are necessary for a civilised society?

Opinions here differ on whether the police used excessive force to arrest this woman. But the people here that seem to think the police have no right to stop speeding motorists (for example) and use some kind of force to arrest them if necessary are very much in a minority.

Avenger: you still don't seem to grasp the general concept of the rule of law and the reality, HOWEVER MUCH YOU TRY TO DENY IT BY USING CAPITAL LETTERS, that the police are granted powers not available to the rest of us to use force appropriately to uphold the law. I can see that this is going to cause you a great deal of trouble in the future.

Try this: what would you do if your home was burgled, your sister raped, your parents murdered or a speeding driver knocked down your children outside your house? I suspect that regardless of what you might say, you would call the police and you wouldn't be thinking of them as "uniformed scum" as they tried to bring the perpetrators before a court.

If the police used force because the criminals didn't fancy being arrested just then, would you think it justified? Oh sorry, I forgot. You believe in "summary executions", so I suppose arrests, trials and all that legal mumbo jumbo is just a decadent waste of time in your perfect (A)narchist utopia. If every citizen is armed and resorts to lethal violence as a means of settling even the most trivial dispute, you can get rid of the whole bourgeois legal profession and satisfy your macho bloodlust in one go. That sounds so much better than being "repressed" by the kind of police that would pull you over just for breaking the speed limit.

As for your threats of "revenge" should any UK police use a Taser similarly, what are you waiting for? Police in this country have a long record of injuring and killing citizens with their various weapons, both in the line of broadly-defensible duty and just for the sheer pleasure of it. Why wait for Tasers when you can get your revenge in now? Please be sure to take a friend with a video camera along when you go to happy slap your nearest copper and post the video here for our amusement.

What really worries me most, Avenger, is that your attitude is only marginally different from that of the worst police in this country and if you applied to join the force you'd probably get in.

Zorro

re: "Wrong"

06.06.2005 16:40

She was driving with a suspended license, which is an arrestable offense. So it wasn't up to her whether or not she wanted to get out of the car.

And the cops can give you tickets for all of that stuff. They are nice if they don't. If you treat them like an asshole, then you will get the tickets you are supposed to be getting. Frankly I think the guy did a good job of keeping his cool and he gave her plenty of chances to comply. She got shocked. Whoopty fucking do. She could have been seriously injured if he had to drag her out of the car.

munchausen

But she was pregnant

06.06.2005 18:18

I think there's a huge detail missing in all of these comments. The woman was 8 months pregnant. That means that the tazer use cannot be considered reasonable. Even the company that makes this dispicable device says it should not be used on pregnant women. And if the first use was unreasonable it certainly makes the second use of the device even more unwarranted. A 8 months pregnant woman cannot lie on her stomach so the officer tazering her for not doing so was just plain wrong. This asshole should lose his job because he clearly doensn't have enough common sense to know that a pregnant woman should not be forced to lie on her stomach. It's bad for the baby and opens him up to a huge lawsuit. I hope this woman sues the crap out of the police department. They deserve to lose this case. What the officers did was reprehensible. What was thirt problem was their favorite doughnut shop about to put out the fresh doughnuts and they wanted to be first in line? It wasn't like the woman was trying to run away. How far would she have gotten carrying round the extra thirty pounds pregnant woman carry? Was the cell phone some James Bondian device that doubled as a gun? No so it would have taken them a little longer to get her to the station? So what they get paid by the hour and knowing how the police are, they would have milked the arrest for overtime anyway.

Rainey

She had it coming!

06.06.2005 18:56

Leave it to a Euro to post false info in the first post. She was going 51 in a 35 zone, I don't know what that is in Km, but thats 16 miles over the speed limit, not 4! She also had broken tail-light, windshield, and not wearing a seatbelt. You get tickets for those when you are a dumb bitch like this woman was. Here is the full video for those that actually want an unbiased view:

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/policetazer.html

Suspended license is an arrest because she could be a felon, and she probably is. Get your facts straight people.

seasick

re: but she was pregnant

06.06.2005 19:07

If she was so concerned about the health of her unborn child then why was she smoking?

hustov

I think you are thinking of another story

06.06.2005 19:46

I read a story about the pregnant woman, but this woman doesn't look pregnant to me.

munchausen

Fair and Balanced

06.06.2005 19:49

This is an unbelievable display of biased reporting. Wow. First of all watch the full (unedited version) here:

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/policetazer.html (although I believe any post with this url will be deleted).

The woman was going 51 in a 35, which is 51 - 35 = 16 miles an hour over the speed limit not 4 as is reported on this site. Second she as is stated above she is driving on a suspended license and takes a swing at the cop.

Lastly, she was clearly not 8 months pregnant. I absolutely don't believe that statement and believe that it was pulled completely out of thin air. She was smoking a cigarette and in the full video looks anything but pregnant. I'm honestly appalled at that false claim to boister this already slanted argument.

hatsov

nothing worse

06.06.2005 21:39

Nothing worse - or more scary - than a animal mind with ideas of their own rectitude.

These types will go to any lengths to avoid backing down.

You bunch of fucking tyrants and oppressors - you really think these monsters in uniform have a right and a duty to do this to anyone that breaks the law?

What about if they were smoking a joint?

Protesting against mass murder in foreign lands?

Jay walking?

Housing code violations (like having too many guests etc)?

Know what a slippery slope is?

Besides, the point is that the police in general are not there to protect our rights, but to ensure we do not exercise them.

Thats why govenments can drop bombs on children and be protected, and we can't have a free party without hassle and detention.

Arsholes the lot of you that think this event is justfied.

Repeat of manifesto vis a vis use on these shores (after all, such use of force is indicitive of the attempt to totally control a population.

If they are so concerned for our welfare why do they not arrest the directors of car companies that make high performance cars that break speed limits? Nuclear weapon designers?

I fear for a world where such arbitary use of excessive force is saluted by the very people whos hearts it is aimed at.

Yes you can resist and use force if you must, remember it's their law - fuck them and their law.

avenger

The honest truth

06.06.2005 22:11

Blacks generally make noises like that wether they are being tazered or not.
TNB -=- The sound of the Jungle.

Realist

she got what she deserved

06.06.2005 22:18

she disobeyed the police officer, he warned her multiple times, she clearly wasn't 8 months pregnant, how anyone could think is "so horrible" is beyond me, she got what she deserved and was definitly over-dramatic.

bunny
mail e-mail: bunny@bunny.com

bla bla bla

07.06.2005 04:25

She got the tazer because she was resisting arrest. It's less dangerous to do this than it is to wrestle her to the ground. If a cop can't use force to make an arrest then he can't realistically make an arrest and therefore the law means nothing.

If you think that we don't need laws you should go visit a lawless paradise. It's a real shame they brought evil law and order to Rwanda and ruined the great anarchist society they were building there.

Police brutality exists but this isn't it.

munchausen

just a quick note

07.06.2005 08:29

To addresss the more reasonable posters here:

I totally withdraw, recind, recant and abandon my earlier stance - calling for violence to be done unto officer McNevin.

After much thought (abd g-d knows us fools need to stop and think very carefully!) I have understood my reaction. Violence is abhorant and I respond with vigour to it. However, it is not an excuse to respond in kind.

The officer was very wrong in his violence and should be punished accordingly. Mocking and riducule will suffice.

I have friends who are police - or have been - and I know that none of them would ever resort to such cowardly behaviour. In facist totalitarian america, it is different. Stormtroopers abandon their conscience all to easily.

And on that subject - I thought I recognised the whiff of racism about some of the posts. Obviously these racist scum left it late to reveal themselves, hoping that they might get the last word - tough.

Whilst I abhour violence, I am not a pacifist. Should the authorities wish to engender the same level of facism within our police ranks, should it become the case that civilians (sorry - subjects of the queen!!!) become victims of the same cowardly & reactionary zeal, then it will be an indication that resitance has to raise itself a notch.

The same goes for the racist scum - just try revealing yourselves in any physical numbers and you will face the reaction you expect and dread.

This thread is played out - polluted by the perverse hatred that accompanies irrational notions of racial superiority - to those who took part in it: ta and sorry. Avenger is a prize fool. My partial devils advocate approach allowed the racist scum to crawl out from the 'orrible places they dwell and infest this place. A sobering thought.

I still claim the actions of two fully grown and armed men against a defenceless woman show what lack of personel, spiritual and emotional development they have experienced - no wonder they are supported by the racist scum, who lie even lower than they.

avenger

Justified

07.06.2005 12:20

She was well over the limit, broken windsheild, brake light out. All of these individually are dangerous enough to cause an accident and hence she is putting everyone else's life at risk to begin with.

She has a suspended liscense - she has offended before, and apparently offends again. Repeat offender = menace on the roads.. Why are you all sticking up for this asshole?

In the full length video, you can see that she is not going to comply from the start. The officer HAS to use force if he wants to get her out of the car

In the full length video, the officer takes all precautions to ensure he will not himself be injured by the woman in the vehicle. (ie. close the door, hands where he can see them)

When he opens the door, he tries to grab her... he fails as she pulls away:
Now the woman is out of control of the officer, she might have a gun under the passenger seat? Maybe a knife on her belt? The officer has no idea what she might do now she has some form of control.

So he draws his taser and does threaten her with it. She says "Your going to tase me?" so she does understand what will unfold. She is warned repeatadly and she still does not comply, the officer can either:
- Risk his or his parnters health by going into the car to pull her out
- Use the taser which will momintaliry incapacitate her.

After being tased the first time, she is on the ground still not complying. Being tased is over in seconds and you are able to control yourself once again. Her cries "I Cant" are plain defiance. This defiance causes a second tasing as her hands are free to move wherever she wishes, and again she has not been searched for weapons. She is still a great threat.

(You can tase people a second time as the electrode 'spikes' are still implanted in the skin, and the electricity from the handheld unit down the wires into the spikes and so round the body)

It was fully justified and you can see the woman is under arrest being taken to the police car afterwards. Mission success!

Arrows

For "Eddie, A Proud Mexican-American"

07.06.2005 12:27

First, Eddie, why aren't you simply a "proud" American? Do you think G.W. Bush thinks of himself as a "proud British-American?" The hyphenation betrays your self-image as a 2nd class U.S. citizen. And, in feeling like a 2nd class citizen (perhaps "loyal subject" would be more apt in your case) you project your insecurities on to everyone else. "You should be proud of your country through thick or thin. And, that goes for everybody."

You say that "We are all in titled (sic) to our opinions," but, I suspect, that only applies to people who share your opinion. You say, "Be glad your (sic) in a country that even lets you express them." Freedom of speech is not a gift, Eddie. It's a right, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, which, I doubt, you've ever bothered to read.

You say, "Or you (sic) in a country where U (sic) would be shot for going against the government, or there (sic) regulations." Two words, Eddie; Kent State.

You imply that I should be fortunate that I'm not in a, "3rd world country starving (my) ass off..." You should take some time to investigate hunger in the U.S. There are many people here who would disagree with you on that score.

And, as far as being ashamed of being an American, should I be proud like you about the rise of fascism here, the use of deadly force both on U.S. citizens (yes, tazers can and do kill - look it up) and on defenseless people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Get a grip, Eddie. I suggest you stop trying to be such a good and loyal subject, and take a more responsible view of citizenship. Protest is as American as apple pie.

Roland

THANK YOU EDDIE!

07.06.2005 19:03

Wow, great job Eddie on posting the link to the ENTIRE VIDEO! I was shocked myself when I saw the 1 min. 30 second clip that was being used to protray these officers as monsters attacking an innocent woman, but my God - she's lucky they held off tazing her as long as they did! Before anyone else throws out their opinion PLEASE see the WHOLE VIDEO at

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/policetazer.html prior to spouting off about what a helpless victim this woman is. And why all the lies about her being pregnant and only going 4 m.p.h. over the speed limit? Deal with FACTS! You can hate facist police states all you want, but this is a horrible example on which to stake your claim. There are too many dead cops out there because they just assumed someone was not a threat and were wrong - when they politely ask you to do something that is within their power to ask (as everything on this video was), just do it unless it's unreasonable or illegal. Who keeps claiming that cops don't have special powers beyond that of the normal citizen?? OF COURSE THEY DO! Can YOU just pull over a speeding car? No. Do YOU have the right to enter someone's residence if you believe a crime is being committed? No. Can YOU blow through red lights if you're on your way to an emergency? No. STOP WITH THE LIES! Police are endowed with special privileges by the state so that they can do their damn jobs you idiot, how in the world can you claim they don't have the right to do anything any citizen can't do? Yes, police are people too and there are some bad ones out there and they should be exposed and weeded out, but that woman was a walking train wreck of illegal activity and made it perfectly clear from the moment the cop approached her that she would NOT cooperate with anything he requested, ever. He warned her numerous times, told her she would be tazed if she did not comply, and in the end the only one responsible for her treatment was - you guessed it - HER!
I am happy and proud to be an American and am overjoyed at the deployment of Tazer guns to the police... whether you want to believe it or not, tazers have saved many lives by giving cops an non-lethal option that simply didn't exist prior. You can throw out numbers that might impress the small-minded (50,000 volts is not what I call non-lethal!), but 99.9% of the people who get tazed do not die, and those who have invariably have drugs/alcohol in their system that, had they not been present, would not have led to death). Alot of people would have been shot dead in the past that today can be tazed and left unscaythed. I have no fear of being tazed because if a cop pulls me over and asks me for my license and registration, I'll f*ing just give it to him. If I think the charges are total BS then I'll contest them IN COURT where that kind of thing belongs! Any moron acting like that woman deserves to be tazed... twice, for good measure. Maybe next time she'll understand that the cops don't know if she's a gun-weilding nutjob or a sweet granny, and therefore ask her simple cooperation in a situation they try to make safe for everyone involved.
Morons.
Sudz

Sudz

I would have done it sooner!

07.06.2005 19:45

You hippies need to get a hobby, or spend your time thinking up a creative way to kill yourself. I stumbled upon this site while taking a shit, and couldn't resist leaving a post.

This lady (I use the term loosely) had this coming. If not the taser, then maybe a good pepper sprayin'! I agree that some cops see themselves as all-powerful, or use their jobs as a way to get back at the people that beat them up in high school, but they're not the majority. This guy was more than patient with this broad, despite her constant ranting about how he couldn't pull her over for this and that. She is part of the 5% of the Black population that gives Black people a bad name. I mean really, what is she going to do with his name and unit number. Maybe if you get his name and badge number, he'll just forget the whole thing because you sound educated on the judicial system (not really). You sound completely ignorant when you be like "Shit foo, what yo muthafuckin badge numba be, cracka?" His name will be on the ticket, schmuck, and if you really want to despute a radar gun reading, you can ask to see it and the cop has to show it to you (at least in California). I've done it before, and the cop never tased me. I recent got a ticket for exactly 16MPH over the speed limit and walked away completely unharmed. So maybe it's because I'm white, or like Eddie I don't call the cops pigs when they pull me over. Whomever asked about why Eddie mentioned the fact that he's a Mexican American is obviously 12 years old, or high. He's not a loyal subject, he just knows how to work the system. I believe the point that he's trying to make is that a minority can get pulled over and not get the dreaded telescoping baton every time. Then there's the fact that she's driving on a suspended license. Thus she has to get out of the car. So what does she do? She decides to make a phone call instead. Wow! Surely she must have seen this coming.
Taser guns are for the most part non-lethal weapons. Sometimes they kill people, but not usually. There have been quite a few (6) deaths just in the past six months in the Sacramento, CA area because of them. Either it's a fluke, or the tasers will likely be recalled.
They're still less dangerous than their 40Cal bretheren.

Feel free to reply to my post as I will probably not ever return to this site. I'm going to wipe my ass and return to my life of whining about the injustices in the world, but not actually doing anything about them (sarcasm).

Rob

Rob

well at least ..

07.06.2005 19:59

.. you openly announce that you, too, are facists.

Simple as that.

You are happy at the collusion between state and industry to design your future and limit the possibilities of free expression.

You also show you have no understanding - in depth or in trivia - of the nature of your own oppression (hint: it's in your minds).

Tazar the unwealdy and the unwilling - resistance is futile.

Ants, mere ants ...

thoughtful bob

Avenger

07.06.2005 20:55

avenger had been waiting all day to call someone a racist. one person made a racist comment and anyone who wasn't on top of this perons agenda to have the cop executed (which i know you kindly retracted...making me think maybe you would make a great cop). only one post was racist. go back to your dorm room.

hatsov

For Eddie - and other fans of not thinking intelligently

07.06.2005 21:19

This post has been very interesting, and not only to witness heavy-handedness from police officers, but also to see a series of frustratingly incoherent and abusive arguments being put forward from people who should be able to understand modern media. I am pleased that we have differences of opinion - that can only be a good thing - but unfortunately much of it is useless.

For example, the contributer called 'independent' suggested that the taser was chosen "probably" on the basis that the officer wished to avoid a sexual harassment charge. This may be true, but he or she should have left this out, since it is guesswork, and not fact. Is it at all helpful that 'seasick' implies that a European is likely to "post false info in the first post"? Of course not - it is just abusive. And if we hear an opinion (same poster) that the "dumb bitch" was "probably" a felon, should we think this is the reasonable opinion of someone who has really thought about the issue at hand?

It has been suggested that the video clip had some information missing - namely whether, and by how much, the suspect was speeding in their vehicle. In fact, there is *always* some information missing, and we as "news consumers" have to process what we have, we must come to conclusions based on facts, and we should never sound off based on supposition.

What we do have here is a police officer choosing to use a taser weapon on the basis of subject non-compliance. Information as to the background of the subject is sparse, but given that the officer would have known that he was being videotaped, it is reasonable to assume there were grounds to stop the vehicle. Most of the pro-taser opinion here implies that the lack of co-operation from the woman implies that she was being deliberately obstructive. It is not outside the bounds of probability that she was scared, for example; for what it's worth, I'd be scared of an apparently aggressive armed patrolman too.

However, much of the noise in this thread ignores the wider issues:

1. Were there methods of force available to the officer that did not include electrocution? He was remarkably quick to offer the taser as the solution, and did so aggressively, which arguably made the situation worse. That there were two male officers available to deal with a medium-build female suggests that a baton would have been much more reasonable. Indeed, could the officer not have opened the vehicle door first, and encouraged her to leave the car? (the suspect would have had to open the door anyway herself, so the idea that he was concerned about a possible weapon does not stand up to scrutiny).

2. Do we generally think it is reasonable that a citizen can receive a summary non-fatal electrocution, for a minor speeding or vehicle infraction, from the state? The answer here should be an immediate "no" from everyone, since we are led to believe (we live in a civilised society, after all) that the officer did not wish to use the taser, and that it was 'regrettably necessary'. Is it not possible that the use of the taser was a retribution for questioning the policeman, rather than as a method of control? Whilst people may not agree with this, shouldn't we as intelligent "news consumers" consider it? I know I should: I've had to deal with police over-zealousness, and there will be occasions where I will critisise an officer in the course of his duty. Should I therefore be "tasered" for daring to question his authority? I should hope not.

It is frustrating that so little thought has gone into some of the above opinions. However, much of the posters who approve of the police officer's use of the taser are trapped by a subservient mindset, not laziness (though I suspect that helps too). I am not suggesting that we should have anarchy rather than police - far from it - simply that the police and state should remember that it is the public who have granted them their powers. A system that does not clamp down on abuse of power, condones it - and some posters here have become so accustomed to that mode of thinking that they not only accept it as reasonable, but that they believe that "she got what she deserved" (said poster 'bunny').

On the topic of lazy thinking, a special mention must go to Eddie, who has suggested that no-one in the US is "too poor to have any food". Perhaps you didn't mean to make that assertion, Eddie, but it sure sounded like it. Furthermore, there are worse countries than the US for human rights abuses, but in the US you don't have to go "against the government" to get yourself killed by police officers. You can get shot for walking on the street: most of you know about the street trader who was killed in New York in 1999:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/273666.stm.

These were careless errors, to be sure, but Eddie's worst mistake is to sing the praises of the US in the same breath as mentioning people in "3rd world" countries. Might the US be partly *responsible* for people "starving their ass off", Eddie? I don't think you were intending to suggest that you believe the WTO and IMF trade rules for the developing world are fair, or that their crippling levels of debt are irrelevant, but it sure sounds like it.

Jon

Wear their shoes

07.06.2005 22:08

Before you judge these officers, you must realize, (or realise for you Brits) that in the country where this incident occured (USA) officers are shot dead on a daily (no exageration) basis. The problem with firearms in the country exacerbates an already uneasy relationship between police and the citizens they serve / protect / police / arrest. The first post states that she was going four miles over the speed limit. The offense was going 51 in a 35 mph zone. She had an unsafe vehicle, (broken tail light and windshield) and was not wearing her safety belt.
I do not consider myself unthinking, knee-jerk, fascist scum as posted by anarchoteapot.
"You can clearly hear the righteous police officer warning the criminal that unless she puts her phone down, he will taze her..."

If so, said troll will be unthinking, knee-jerk, fascist scum, but then we knew that already, didn't we? "

It's unfortunate to know that if somebody holds a different opinion of a situation then they must be called names. This is a crutch on which a person without a valid point must fall back upon.

This situation was entirely avoidable. Had the woman not been uncooperative, she probably would have just gotten a speeding ticket. Unfortunately, people are so willing and eager to dismiss any sort of personal responsibility this woman should take for her own actions. I have been in crowds that have been pepper sprayed (U Michigan vs Ohio State) and it is a retched experience, but nobody died that day and if no action had been taken, I believe lives would have been lost.

Until you walk a mile in the shoes of the police, climb down off of your high horses and think for a moment of the tremendous responsibility we saddle these men with. And it is important to remember that they are MEN (by men I mean men and women). Do I believe that the police abuse their powers? Certainly. Do I believe we would be better off without them? Certainly not. Do I enjoy any given interaction with police? Almost to an absolute rule no, my day seems to get worse if there is a cop involved in it. But the good far outweighs the bad.

Whether or not the woman should have been tazered is a moot point. She was trying to exert her will upon the human extension of the justice system. We demand that justice is served and the front line soldiers are the police. We equip them with the tools necessary to do their jobs. Better a tazer than pulling a firearm. Resisting arrest is a serious crime. Driving with a suspended license carries a more severe penalty than drunk driving in terms of points on your license. So why this outpouring of support for what boils down to an uncooperative petty criminal? Laws are made to be enforced. Intefering with the enforcement of the law will result in nothing but trouble.

Re: ad
I still have my sense of humanity. According to posts like yours, the woman should be able to do what she wants, when she wants, where she wants, without fear of reprocussion. She broke a civil law and followed that up by breaking a criminal law. Should the officers had waited until she decided she was ready to get out of her car and do what she was told????? They would still be there today. And as far as your comment, 'no Christian nation, this,' that is exactly what you have here. A little thing called the separation of church and state means that this country is no Christian nation, no Budhist nation, no Hindu nation, no Muslim nation, nor any other religious nation. It is one of the beautiful things about the USA.

Roland: Feel free to expatriate to another country. I am sure you can find one more to your liking.

Avenger: You are incorrect. She does NOT have the right to finish her phone call, stay in her car or disobey a direct police command. The police are an extension of the justice department. Who then, if not the police, will enforce the law. The society you envision is anarchaic. And to quote Hobbes, a wiser man than you or I, life without government would be brutish, nasty and short. How's that sound?

Zorro: I like most of what you say. However, and even if it is a one in a million chance, say the woman is concealing a weapon, or is infected with a transmittable disease and claws an officer while he / she attempts to remove the suspect from her vehicle. There are so many liberties we can take with the actions that we don't have to personally perform.

All in all, this has been a gross mismanagement of my personal time. I have spent entirely too long (10 minutes) on an issue that should be largely ignored. A law was broken, a criminal was resistant, an officer made an arrest. If they hand't used the tazer, this post wouldn't have even been started, but because a non-lethal means of subduing an uncooperative criminal was used people feel like they should judge. Leave the policing to the police, and the judging to God and the judges.

Dankcmo

ps. some specifics about the woman

07.06.2005 22:17

seen at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/17/national/main563855.shtml
Woman Shocked
Florida police officers released video footage of an arrest where they used a taser gun twice on an uncooperative female driver.

In Boynton Beach, Florida, Officer Rich McNevin pulled Victoria Goodwin over for speeding, and soon discovered that she was also driving without a valid license, a broken windshield and a nonfunctioning brake light.

When Officer McNevin asked Goodwin to step out of the vehicle, she refused. When he opened her car door and attempted to pull her out, Goodwin started yelling.

Officer McNevin tased Goodwin after warning her at least three times. When Goodwin fell to the ground screaming, Officer McNevin ordered her to lie on her stomach, but within minutes tased her a second time.

Sgt. Sedrick Aiken says Officer McNevin was forced to use his taser gun the first time because she pulled away from him, and the second time because the suspect hadn't been searched for weapons. He added that she could've injured herself or someone else.

dankcmo

She deserved it

08.06.2005 01:13

If you watch the entire video from

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/policetazer.html
you will get a full understanding of why he did this. The lady was a bitch to the police officer the second he pulled her over.
Heres the conversation once she goes on her phone.
Officer: Put your phone down.
Victoria: No I'm calling somebody.
Officer: I'm going to tell you one more time. Put your phone down.
Victoria:(On the phone) Mark, the police pulled me over and he told me he's going to arrest me. He's arresting me (as Mcnevin is opening her door to try to take the phone away). Dont touch me.(Mcnevin pulls out tazer) Your gonna shoot me, he's got a gun and hes gonna shoot me.
Officer: Get out of the car now or I am going to taze you. Get out of the car now or I am going to taze you. I'm gonna tell you one more time get out of the car or I am going to taze you.
(Victoria takes a swing at other policeman on otherside of car not visible on tape and he tazes her)

Wow how can someone be that stupid and ignorant. He told her 3 times but she still stayed on her cell phone. What would you expect him to do, wait around while she finished her phone call while she could be potentially dangerous considering her license is suspended and she was speeding. She deserved what she got and Office McNevin did nothing but protect himself from a potentially dangerous threat after requesting multiple times to get off her cell phone. How can anyone take the side of the lady? Honestly.

tyler

dear jon

08.06.2005 01:46

Alright jon
why is it that in your introductory paragraphs you caution the reader against '...guesswork, and not fact,' yet in subsequent paragraphs you see fit to conjecture wildly about the officers motivation for using the taser. is it more likely that he was harboring some malicious intent toward a fresh-mouthed, obstinate criminal and cavalierly risked an investigation into his file / case in order to prove who is in control, or is it more likely that he had offered several (3 or 4) verbal warnings to exit the vehicle, prior to producing the taser, then after proceding to offer several (3 or 4) more warnings that he was going to discharge the taser if the woman did not exit her vehicle, before finally concluding that there was no way the person in question was going to voluntarily exit her vehicle.

I believe, based on what you wrote, that what you meant to say was it is wrong to rely on guesswork that does not support jon's particular point of view. What is more frustrating to me than persons not putting enough thought into posts, is persons who put a great deal of thought into a post yet completely miss the point.

There were two persons capable of preventing the woman from being tasered; the officer AND THE WOMAN! How many times does she need to be told to exit her vehicle before it is considered non-compliance? Technically, ONE!
Officer: get out of the car
Suspect: no
That alone is grounds for escalating the situation.
However she was told what, eight, times that she needed to get out of her car, or that she was going to get tasered. I don't know about you, but I am pretty sure that if an officer is waving the taser gun at me, I am going to do what he says if he is offering a legal directive. The only thing the woman needed to do to avoid being tasered was to get out of the vehicle and listen to what the officer was saying, and then to do that. Simple. If it is a case of wrongful arrest, then there are avenues to pursue. As it was the woman was a repeat-offending criminal driving on a suspended license, a jailable offense.

A driver's license is not a right, it is a privelege. Ask anybody who has had their's revoked. Part of the contract you enter into when you obtain a driver's license is the knowledge of and adherence to the laws. Another part of the contract is a strict obedience to those men and women who are charged with enforcing the laws of the road. If you think it is a right, you are mistaken. Do a little research and you will see for yourself that this is the case. Fear of an officer is a natural reaction, especially if you have done something wrong. People hate to get in trouble. However, if a man commits vehicular homicide, could be a complete accident, or even gets stopped for drinking and driving, and then decides he is too scared to get out of the car at the officer's request and you had better believe there will be force used.

You made a mention of a civlised society. Do you know what the civil in civilised refers to? It is the system / code of laws and mores that guide the society we live in. Without laws and enforcement of said laws, nobody would have to obey any sort of authority. (See Hobbes)

So please feel free to rebut / respond but please do consider what you have written before you click 'contribute comment'

dankcmo

Justiced Served

08.06.2005 10:51

She was warned, she was told what to do, the police officer had to do something, instead of using force, he used a tazer.

POlice issue tazers don't cause that much pain, she was just messed up.

Nashy

Got what she deserved

08.06.2005 12:41

People toughen up....First of all the woman was speeding.

She was doing 51 in a 35 mile per hour zone.
She also had a broken windshield, no seatbelt, and a tail light out.
People of the UK of all people should no you shouldn't be driving with a car in that state. My wife is from Scotland and she always talks about how cars are not very well kept in the states.

She also was asked repeatedly to put the phone down. All she had to do was listen and she would have then been on her merry little way...Unfortunately she was also driving with a suspended license.

Lastly, she was tazered 2 times. The first was in the vehicle. The second time occurred on the ground. You can clearly hear the snapping noise of the electrical pulses. Tazers allow the officer to taz multiple times if needed.

Toughen up people. If you think that is abuse of power...Move to IRAQ....Life is very simple in this country...follow the law and the police won't bother you.

John

Where is the rest of the video???

08.06.2005 13:09

Just out of curiosity where is the rest of the video? Where the women was told she was under arrest? Where we hear that the women is being arrested for driving on a suspended drivers license?
What happened to the end of the video where the officer explains why he pulled the tazer in the first place? When he reached in the car to remove her "after" she has been told she is under arrest she takes a swing at him?
The editing job seems just a bit biased....

Derek Wall

Reply to Jon

08.06.2005 15:13

Jon -
Since your post at least started out seemingly intelligent and coherent, I figured I would repond to it point by point. You stated:

"1. Were there methods of force available to the officer that did not include electrocution? He was remarkably quick to offer the taser as the solution, and did so aggressively, which arguably made the situation worse. That there were two male officers available to deal with a medium-build female suggests that a baton would have been much more reasonable. Indeed, could the officer not have opened the vehicle door first, and encouraged her to leave the car? (the suspect would have had to open the door anyway herself, so the idea that he was concerned about a possible weapon does not stand up to scrutiny)."
Yes, there were methods of force available to the officer; however, I wouldn't say that any of them were any better choices than the tazer was. I suspect everyone would be damning this mans action if he used pepper spray instead, or his baton, or certainly his service firearm. The second officer was not there at the begining (if you watch the whole tape), but rather called in as a backup almost immediately by the first officer when the woman made it clear from the onset that she was not going to comply. The office actually *DID* attempt to open the door and pull her out, and she physically resisted. Whether you understand it or not, the woman DID have a weapon in her posession - a lit cigarette. Don't believe a lit ciggie can be used as a weapon? Just ask any cop or correctional guard, and they'll set you straight. So your first point doesn't stand up.

"2. Do we generally think it is reasonable that a citizen can receive a summary non-fatal electrocution, for a minor speeding or vehicle infraction, from the state? The answer here should be an immediate "no" from everyone, since we are led to believe (we live in a civilised society, after all) that the officer did not wish to use the taser, and that it was 'regrettably necessary'. Is it not possible that the use of the taser was a retribution for questioning the policeman, rather than as a method of control? Whilst people may not agree with this, shouldn't we as intelligent "news consumers" consider it? I know I should: I've had to deal with police over-zealousness, and there will be occasions where I will critisise an officer in the course of his duty. Should I therefore be "tasered" for daring to question his authority? I should hope not."
No, I don't believe anyone believes that it's acceptable for a citizen to get a non-fatal electrocution for a minor speeding or vehicle infraction; however, that is not what she was tazed for. The office didn't walk straight up to her car, tell her she was speeding, and then taz her! She was tazed because she continually refused to cooperate with the very simple and legal actions he was asking of her - and he warned her MANY TIMES before he did so. I, and I think most people who aren't knee-jerk anarchists, understand that when someone violates the law they need to comply with the investigation and proceedure OR some escalation has to take place. A cop simply can't walk away from someone who broke the law because they won't do what he says. Again, he DID NOT TAZ HER because she asked him questions, he tazed her because she would not comply with his legal requests and made it absolutely clear over the space of 5 minutes that she had no intention of ever doing so - she also physically resisted and attempted to strike the second officer. I have been pulled over by cops for various moving offences about a half-dozen times in my life, and I've never been tazed, shot, or pepper sprayed. I HAVE asked if I could see the radar or other questions, but as I did so in a non-threatening and non-confrontational way, I've never had any problems. You can question all you wish, but if you get aggressive and refuse to comply with legal orders, that's a different situation. If you go looking for a confrontation then guess what - you'll get one!

"It is frustrating that so little thought has gone into some of the above opinions. However, much of the posters who approve of the police officer's use of the taser are trapped by a subservient mindset, not laziness (though I suspect that helps too). I am not suggesting that we should have anarchy rather than police - far from it - simply that the police and state should remember that it is the public who have granted them their powers. A system that does not clamp down on abuse of power, condones it - and some posters here have become so accustomed to that mode of thinking that they not only accept it as reasonable, but that they believe that "she got what she deserved" (said poster 'bunny')."
Actually Jon, plenty of thought has gone into the above options, people just disagree with your conclusions and assumptions. I'm glad you at least agree that police are necessary to maintain law and order (which is also necessary), and I think most people do understand that it is the public that gives the police their powers. Abuses should absolutely be clamped down upon - again, it's just that some people differ in what they consider abuses. If this officer had walked up and tazed her within 1 minute without her doing anything more than asking a few questions, I would say that was totally unacceptable and abuse of his power. As the situation actually unfolded though, I do find his course of action completely reasonable. And no, it's not because I'm not thinking, or a sheep, or in bed with facists, it's because I *AM* thinking, taking an objective and COMPLETE view of the situation, and coming to that conclusion. You don't have to agree with me (or other posters), but don't act as if that were only because we aren't up to your level of intelligence. I have three children, and the last thing I want is for a cop to look the other way at a woman SPEEDING through MY neighborhood in a 5-ton behemoth of a vehicle paying scant attention to what she's doing (as evidenced by the fact that she's both smoking AND carrying on a phone conversation - did she have any hands left to actually hold on to the steering wheel?). Therefore I grant the police the power to stop and cite her. If she's driving on a suspended license, which she was, that's even worse and she can not be allowed to continue driving. Nothing he asked of her was even remotely out of line, she was simply trying to back him down so that he wouldn't discover her suspended license and God-knows-what-else. As a citizen I am thankful that my police force has more backbone than to be bullied by a law-breaking fellow citizen who's putting my life and the lives of my children at risk.
Sudz

Sudz

Full Video

08.06.2005 16:25

OK for the full video go to www.big-boys.com or look above at other peoples post at with the full big boys link. I that the officer did the right thing ( I have been to a police training and have been tazed it dosn't hurt that much).

Frank

re" "the rest of the video"

08.06.2005 18:33

The editing is incredibly biased. Between that and the false and incomplete information in the write up here, and you have yourself a textbook example of dishonest propaganda.

munchausen

uhh...

09.06.2005 02:01

"this women had comitted the offence of driving 4 miles per hour over a speed limit"

She was going 51mph in a 35mph zone. How would you feel if she had ran down some child? She was warned and chose not to comply.

Dale
mail e-mail: crzy_one@cox.net

what a bunch of dickheads

09.06.2005 08:47

All falling over themselves to justify and re-enforce their hardness.

Perhaps they are all the same person.

Fact is - if you think that tazaring people who break the 'law' is justified, then you are sick.

If you think that society is justified in expecting people who break the 'law' to be punished with pain and humiliation, then your society is sick.

Have a look around your world - are the problems in it caused by a surplus of compassion, understanding (and therefor forgiveness), or is it the reverse?

Do you think the kind of society that allows the notion of inflicting such punishment, will ensure its own survival - let alone yours?

What about those who enforce the law, write the law, frame the law? If and when they - say - invade a land and slaughter 100 000 people for oil and $$$ should they be allowed to enforce, write and frame the law by which we are inflicted with 50 000 volts for minor traffic offences (yes minor - she did NOT 'knock a child over' etc, however much you speculate on the possiblity that she might have)?

Your arse about tit, clint eastwood enforcer attitude says more about your flagging manhood[sic] than it does about justice. Like a previous poster wrote, you are undoubtedly facistic minded if you defend such absurdity - in fact the racist undertone came out eventually and, despite the complaints of some posters that it was an isolated remark, it shows what company you are keeping! happy with that?

Perhaps you need to think about your humanity a bit more!

reasonable force

Reply to "Reasonable Force"

09.06.2005 12:09

Reasonable Force, you seem to imply that forcing citizens of a country to obey it's laws is not acceptable. Is it your opinion then that a society that allows anyone to do whatever they want, whenever they want it, regardless of consequences to others is going to outlast a society that enforces rules and regulations designed to ensure safety and the rights of those around you? You once again repeat the ridiculous claim that this woman was tazed because she had broken a couple of minor traffic offenses. I ONCE AGAIN submit that I have been cited for multiple traffic offenses many times in my life and never once got tazed, gassed, beaten, or shot for it. She was tazed because she refused to comply and cooperate with legal requests, and did so in an aggressive and threatening manner. Had SHE not escalated the situation, the situation would not have escalated - get it? This was not Ghandi holding a peaceful protest of non-compliance, it was a self-centered thug who was driving illegally to begin with and showing no respect for the laws or the safety and rights of her fellow citizens. You are correct that she had not knocked over anyone's child, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't have and THAT'S why there are laws in place for operating a motor vehicle. What kind of a moron are you that you think action should only be taken AFTER someone has been killed? I would much rather a cop pull over a speeding jerkoff racing through my neighborhood than to watch them fly past and tell me "Well, once they run your son over, THEN we'll stop them." For all you imbeciles who simply can't wrap your head around the fact that law and order exists so that you can sit in your house and type on your computer without having to worry about someone walking in, hitting you on the head, and walking off with all your stuff, what is your solution? Given the situation presented in the FULL video, what do you believe the cops should have done? Here are some possible options:
1) Apologized to the woman for interrupting her phone call and travel plans, wished her a good day, and let her continue on her way with her suspended license, cracked windsheild, and broken taillight.
2) Continued to stand there arguing with her as if she were a misbehaving 4-year-old for hours and hours until she either FINALLY decided to comply or die from dehydration.
3) Used some other form of force (pepper spray, baton, physically dragging her out of her car by her arms) which by the way had just as much potential for serious harm and even more so for lawsuits.
If any of you dillweeds would take just 60 seconds to actually THINK, you'll realize that the cops had a duty to stop her for the traffic infraction. Once the discovered she was driving on a suspended license, they had a duty to prevent her from driving any further. Once she became aggressive and physically confrontational, they had to subdue her. This is just how it goes people, you may like the idea that you can't run up and punch a cop without retaliation but get used to the idea now or be prepared to get tazed yourself.
Seriously, what course of action would have the officers take in this situation?
Sudz

Sudz

I'm a whiny brat

09.06.2005 12:39

Its just not fair, she didnt do anything wrong. I hate americans so much!

Mr. Pansy

racial overtones

09.06.2005 15:00

right on 'reasonable force'. tazers are whack. but the woman was a negro so there was probably a good reason for pulling her over.

how's that for the company YOU keep?

still want to judge a group of people (pro tazer) based on the opinion of a single member of a group?

devils advocate

yes

09.06.2005 22:02

I do judge you, and I judge you to be fucked up.

What freud called the passive agressive response, dominates your thinking and attitudes. Your ability to foist race and nation and state above compassion and dignity show that you have problems arising from your reaction to [authority figures].

Stop tranfering your personal angst into the political arena.

By the way, which sort of spook are you?

reasonable force

Another facist note from the throne.

10.06.2005 15:47

I'm a facist and a racist and any other 'ist you can think of. At least that's what I've learned about myself by reading the posts of some of the highly educated individuals on this site. I still can't understand why we're even talking about this. What's even better is the bullshit that comes out of some people's brains. There is no oppression taking place here. A woman was pulled over for breaking several traffic laws and was a total bitch from the moment the cop walked up to her window. She resisted everything he said and then gave him a good enough reason to use a non-lethal (for the most part) weapon on her. Case closed. Now we can talk about all of the injustices in the world for hpurs, or how I've been programmed by the government to do exactly what they say. Actually, that's pretty far off. I don't follow many of their rules except for the ones that are most likely to put them in contact with me. Apparently if I were to go speeding around town and get pulled over and tell the man that he's a worthless, racist piece of shit then that would make me cool like you guys (the anarchist wannabes). Yeah that's it. Obviously I'm just dealing with people who's thinking is far beyond my comprehension. You would say that it's on a higher level, but I think you're actually the idiots. If you can't make a distinction between a good debate topic and a retarded one then you're in for a long painful life.

Take a look at this site. It will default to the short video, but the long one's on there with and without another cops commentary. He'll tell you why you can't use a baton or pepper spray (if you can't figure that out for yourself).

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/video/taser_video2b.html

Have a good day, and find something better to do with your energy than argue about this stupid issue. This woman is a worthless piece of shit not because she's black, but because she just is.

Rob

Rob

best option

14.06.2005 05:24

I think the police officer used his best option. He could have shot her (a bit messy), or clubbed her (not much romm to get a good swing at her), pepper-spray (smelly after effect) or taze her. What other choices did he have - talk her to death? put up with her shit? walk away? You screaming liberals would have him go back and wait in his car until she was ready to do business with him. How fucking stupid is that? Tell us, wise ones, what should have he done?

All of you whiners need to experience life abit to recognize there is a need for a level of authority. Laws aren't meant to be broken. Criminals face consequences. What is the old saying - a liberal is only one mugging away from becoming a conservative?

Look at it this way - that taze probably gave her a nice kink to her hair for the rest of the day. She should be thankful.

Mike

UK = United Knucklehead

17.06.2005 07:07

Wow. After reading through several of the posts on this topic of the video of the tazering of the woman Victoria Goodwin, I have come to a conclusion that you all are idiots. I felt that Officer McNevin was in clear and appropriate means to deliver TWO blasts of 50,000 volts to an obviously ignorant and dumb driver. First of all, she was doing 51 mph in a 35 mph zone! Second, she was verbally accusing the officers of being racist. Now in America, that's a scape goat for most non-caucasian Americans to scream bloody murder! I'm tired of the ignorance of those type of people AND the ignorance and idiocry of the people who sympathize with them. She was given a direct command to exit the vehicle due to the fact that her LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED! Which in the state of Florida is a crime to drive with a suspended license. Therefor she was in violation of the state law and was a criminal and deserved to be treated like so. Not only was she speeding and driving with a suspended license, she was driving with a busted tail light and a busted front windshield...both worthy of tickets. Then to top it off, she is told FOUR times to exit the vehicle and to comply. While it is 100% for her to be on the phone, it is not lawful for her to swing at the officers as they attempt to peacefully remove her from the vehicle. Thereby endagering the officers, as pathetic an attempt it may have been. Correct, officers are just civil servants, but they do have families and lives to go home to after their job is done. There safety is just as high a priority as the people they protect/arrest. The woman swung at the officer, she is violating the OFFICER's rights. All of the above is totally deserving for a tazering. Which is a 5 second jolt of 50,000 volts. The amperage is low so it is not a critical weapon. It's just really painful very briefly and the effects disipate quickly after the tazering. Her moaning and groaing are just the woman's ignorance shining through. Trying to play the "woe is me" card. And not take responsibility for her actions which caused the tazering to happen. The two police officers handled the situation flawlessly. So all of you democratic, hippy, liberal, piece of dog crap need to take a back seat to reality. Put yourselves in the shoes of the officers and then come back to me when your head is thinking clearly.

j

avenger says

18.06.2005 09:24

that you can take your provokative - largely ignorant and hysterical moralising - and shove up your us of a sphincter.

The fact that you willing endorse your own oppression seems to be the american way. That you imply that all non usains are wimps, whiners and whatevers shows how far your macho attitudes have been formed in self defence against a system that hates you and that you in turn fear.

America has only rarely engaged in a fair fight - and then only with the usual amount of hand wringing and cries of 'its not fair'.

But all this is irrelivant. The fact that you use these UK boards to attempt to justify the horrendously facistic behaviour of your stormtroopers irritates me. On the other hand, it amuses me that a nation that prides itself on freedom, individualism and jaw jutting arrogant dominance can produce such sorry apologists for tyranny and state sanctioned torture.

Being an anarchist, I don't give up my rights to anyone.

Tasar wealding police had better prepare their defences well, because in this country we have a long and fine tradition of resisting arbitary uses of power (not always successful).

Long and fine traditions are probably something you have trouble understanding - coming as you do from a country that has none, and instead relies upon fantasy and fake history to hide from you the fact that your contry is as imperillistically inclined as any in history.

Tasaring people is wrong. Peroid. Twist and turn to justify it you must, thats your affair. Do not expect the world to lay down before you and your totalitarian methods of policing - we are made of stronger stuff.

Now go 'wooo', engage in high fives and have a watered down beer.l

avenger

sigh...

20.06.2005 11:59

More stuff for people to whine over. Did you watch the beginning or just skip straight to the "juicy" part? She was rude and seemed to have a problem following simple directions. How many times did he say 'close the door' and 'step out of the car'? She resisted arrest. Plain and simple. Would you have rather they dragged her out of the car? Or even better, shot her?? Would that have given you people more to complain about? Trust me, they could have done a LOT worse than tase her. Remember Rodney King?

She had no seat belt on, a broken light, and was doing 51 in a 35mph area AND a suspended lisence! She shouldn't have been driving in the first place. If you listen, the woman made a bunch of acusations of racism and saying they were pulling her over illegally, also she mentions how the police had once arrested her brother for something. The fit she is throwing is ovrdramatic, I myself have seen others hit with a taser before and they did NOT scream like that.

If you don't like it, then be glad you live where you do. And if you do live in the US, then move if you don't like it. I myself think they handled the situation rather well considering the options.

anonymous

If you cannot tazar

20.06.2005 15:19

If you cannot tazar rude people, then I don't know what the world is coming to.

Tazarings too good for 'em, innit son?

Resistance is futile.

avenger

give me a break...

26.06.2005 09:09

let us not forget.. this woman is a criminal. She was speeding, driving on a suspended license and resisting arrest. Why did she deserve "special" treatment? She did not comply with the officers instructs and after she was warned numerous times that she was going to be tazed she... wait for it... GOT TAZED! wow.. like she didnt see that coming. I have zero simpathy for the woman or any other criminal that breaks the law. Cops don't have time to waste on people who think they are above the law.
oh and Avenger... you know dick about the law in USA. She was speeding, driving on a suspended license, resisting arrest among other things.. the cop was within his right to arrest her immediately.. he didnt have to wait for her to get out or get off the phone.. thank God I dont live in the UK where criminals have guns and the cops don't.. how twisted is that?

brandon
mail e-mail: blah1979@msbx.net

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!

06.07.2005 06:37

FIGHT THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a341/a341.gif

ZaZU

Cop was justified WINS!

08.07.2005 18:25

First, let me offer my heartfelt condolances to the people of London and the U.K. as a whole with regard to the recent bombings of the transit system. I'm sure most of you blame the U.S. in one way or another and will only flame me for bringing it up, but I truly hate to see the loss of innocent life and my heart goes out to our big brothers across the pond.
Now, based on the fact that NO ONE who came out on the side of the police having no justification for their actions and going way overboard has taken up my challenge to come up with a 'better' solution given the circumstances, I am declaring those of us who found their actions justified (if regrettable) to be the winners! It's very easy to sit back and criticize, but the fact that no one offers a decent ALTERNATIVE to their actions prove you're all just bitching for the sake of bitching.
Now, to lighten the mood and help people avoid a similar fate in the future, I offer up a video you all need to see in order to help you deal with the police if you break the law at some point:

http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/files/a-beating.wmv
I laughed my ass off....
Enjoy!
Clutching the air in victory,
Sudz

Sudz

this video and the caption at the top is taken out of context

10.07.2005 09:39

this is such bs... i have seen the entire video and she was not going 4 mph over.. whe was going 51 on a 35... i believe thats 16 over...

and this version of the video also cuts out the parts of her bieng rude. she tells the cop he pulled her over illegally.. she claims he cant radar her because he was driving... so she is bieng a major jerk... and says she is gonna see him in court because he "clocked her while driving"... which is "illegal".

she deserved the taze... if you want the whole video go watch it at big-boys.com

sirpilf

Woman Tased for failing to follow instructions

14.08.2005 13:28

I think its funny, that your site fails to show the entire video. The woman had multiple violations to include a suspended drivers license. The officers safety was in jepordy, due to the fact the person the woman called could potentially arrive at that location, and pose a threat to the officer's. Furthermore, if the woman was allowed to stay in the vehicle, she could ellude arrest by leaving the scene, causing a pursuit that would be dangerous to the public and the officers. The officer ellected to use less than lethal force, and gave multiple warnings. Show the entire video or none at all. This video ollistrates the lack of respect of some of the public, for peace officers attempting to do their job.

Greg
mail e-mail: sniperdiver@hotmail.com

Let's not forget that she tried to slap the officer on the passenger side

16.08.2005 20:52

Please.. I suppose most of you prefer to be hit with some type of metal rod, beaten with fists, or shot with a bullet (if she had driven away). Complete idiots always seem to comment on a job they know nothing about. She was given numerous warnings and let's not forget she was arrested for a crime. Not only did she try to slap the assisting officer, but she was not to drive under a suspended license. I am sure most of you would have been quite upset if she had struck your vehicle, damaged your property, run-over your child, fled the scene, and not paid for your damages. Then you would want to harm her (unjustified). Oh, and let me guess, then you would blame the officer for not apprehending her.

david

Know your facts

21.08.2005 22:28

It appears those of you who live across the pond, as you say, have little to no understanding of America. We as a nation are not a carbon copy of UK society. The dangers a police officer faces on a daily basis is real and comes from all sides. For the record the law does state that you must comply with the orders of a peace officer ( of course reasonable, regarding the comment about undressing females). Also the use of the tazer is a non-lethal pain control device intended to cause pain...thus the term pain compliance device.

It is also the law in this country that when you consider the facts of an arrest situation you must consider from the perspective of the officers at the time.

Such as:

Is it dangerous for the officers to remain to long in that area ( officers are killed by bystanders)

Is the person she is calling enroute and is he/she armed (we are a very well armed society)

What is the quickest way to gain compliance from the arrestee without injury to the officer ( as a citizen the officer also has the right not to injure himself while doing his duty)

Before you judge maybe you should walk a mile in the shoes of these officers ( they are armed for a reason! its not a game...Many officers die every year in just such a situation)

In a nut shell, being over dramtic does not mean any real injury occurred. It seems to me the only damage done was to the ear drums from the over dramtic squealing of this person. The arrest was completed and everyone lived anothe day to talk about it.

I have been tazed and it hurts but it passes quickly. And most of all it does what it is suppose to do...it gets you to comply with no further injury.

Get of your high horses and learn a little about the real dangers faced everyday on the streets of Amercia...you can even do that from the saftey of your chair on the internet. At no risk to you.

Bob

The tasing coward

23.08.2005 04:01

As a former NYPD officer, I must say that officer went OVER the line. If the officer was in danger, or the woman was being aggressive then tasing should be an option but it's clear from the video the officer was too 'trigger happy.'It's a DAMN shame so many young officers are too zealous in their duties. In one incident, I had to clamp on a nerve hold on my younger partner's shoulder because I could tell he was itching for an excuse to shoot a suspect we had pulled over. Turns out the driver had to go to the bathroom, BADLY.

It's up to the instructors at these police academies to teach morals and ethics to the new generation of gung-ho officers.

Steve
mail e-mail: SteveCronin2003@yahoo.com

Are you kidding me

26.08.2005 07:05

To whomever posted

"I know that the issue of personel rights in the us of a, is one that is a picture of erosion - but, this woman was within her rights to finish her phone call (or even continue it for legal advice during the confrontation with the TWO heavily armed cops).

She was even within her rights to stay in the car - if she felt threatened by the TWO heavily armed cops. The police do not have extra rights, or more rights than us - they are merly civil servants. "

Guess what, you have no idea what you are talking about. She is not within her rights. She committed a crime, the officer asked her to step out of her car, she refused, he used a tazer issued to subdue criminals and get complience....also for CRIMINALS. When you are asked to get out of the car, you have to. It is not an option. Lawyers can be called once you are in custody, not while the incident is going down. She had no reason to felt threatoned. Compliance would have ment that everything would have gone down smoothly. She was not tazed for speeding, because she would not have been arrested for speeding. As well as numerous other offenses as stated in the video, she had a suspended license. She knew it was suspended, how could she not. SHe broke a law, and didn't want to face the concequences. Should he have let her stay in her car all day? Should he have pulled her out and had people critizising him for getting physical? The car was running and he should not have to risk his life going in their to pull her out. She wasn't compliant, he made her. She got what she deserved. Drama queen.

Derek

The whole story..

29.08.2005 02:32

Perhaps if you had seen the entire video you'd not be so apt to side with the woman who kept talking back to the officers the entire time. She refused to obey orders to stop, she kept talking back, she refused to answer his questions and she refused to put down her phone when asked.

the whole story:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/video/taser_video3a.html

Andrew

Cool! Shocking! Just try to not to notice that she did not harm!

26.09.2005 14:10

Click Your Heals Twice - Salute - Politely say, "Yes Master. Sir!"

Try to remember that ALL of the 'offences' that this citizen (woman) was 'accused of' are not 'criminal offences' - ALL of the offences are 'Victimless Traffic Infractions' -
.
Try not to remember that she seemed desperate from the very first moment to grasp onto anything that would give her a mere shadow of the civil respect she deserves as a citizen - She tried in vain to stand up for herself - the officer refused to listen and even provoked her by his dismissive retorts of her desperate pleas . . .
.
Try NOT to remember she was 'accused' of 'traffic infractions' these are NOT Crimes against others - - -
.
Go and watch the DVD 'Crash" for a clue how easily you are fooled into taking a side against or for an issue/situation.
.
Try NOT to remember a recent movie called 'Minority Report' where people were arrested 'before a crime was committed' - ALL of her 'infractions' fall into 'arrest before a crime is committed' categories - A broken tail light, a cracked windshield, an invalid driver's license, simple speeding, are ALL preventative before the fact 'infractions' not CRIMES . . . stealing is a CRIME, Violence against others is a CRIME, shouting FIRE in a dark crowded theater is a crime "IF" others are HURT by your ACT - otherwise it is an 'infraction' against the peace.
.
The idea is protect others against harm - advise and encourage to prevent harm - but to TAZER for traffic infractions when the woman clearly was no threat to others is a CRIME against humanity since it only serves to desensitize ALL of us to such depraved conduct on the part of the AmeriKan Gestapo conducting what can only be termed 'Urban Pacification' of yet another woman who happens to be of the wrong class of person. All of this discussion of 'She didn't comply!' is mere nonsense since I am under no obligation to submit to the whims of a public servant when no CRIMES are being committed.
.
The officer didn't inform her, for example, that she was under arrest - by order of the court - for say ARMED Bank Robbery - or You are driving a stolen car - in which case his 'Commanding BEHAVIOR' would have been well within expected conduct. But to use his 'Command' conduct training when there is NO imminent fatal danger is unwarranted and an inappropriate use of the role of a 'public servant' such as all police officers are.
.
SO TRY not to remember that the real victim in all of this is "ALL of US" no matter what country we live in especially IF you had ANY impulse to 'take a side' in this assault against freedom of movement and liberty and not see that 'mere infractions' are not CRIMES. The VAST majority of ALL Infractions are to generate REVENUE for Local and State Governments. Period! The propaganda in support of these Revenue Generating Infractions tries to say otherwise but the actual facts say a different story when looked at closely.
.
Try NOT to notice that Often the Neo-Cons will express their propaganda programming by trying to polarize the situation into simple dichotomies where you have to take a side - Liberal vs Conservative Values - Moral Values vs Immoral Values - etc. Then dismiss all other consideration or thought by tossing in their dismissives in support of a Total Police State Takeover AmeriKan Style - We are being conditioned to accept such CRIMINAL behavior by the Gestapo (Police) as NORMAL! Accept it.
.
The Lady Deserved what she got! Right? What about my Rights? Fool! ‘Just Shut Up’ (to quote a noisy neo-con) and go back to work. Get a job! - - - See how easily any effort to fight for Rights is dismissed?
.
Try not to notice your complete subservience to money and power in a world where Corporations, as immortal Citizens with 'special rights', have completely reshaped our laws to protect their rights over and above all others without extraordinary means.
.
Try not to notice that you have woken into a world where you have few if any of the rights found in 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights' or that your nation has transformed into just another Privatized Corporation forced to supplicate and kiss the Boots of your local Gestapo Thugs acting as 'Cops on the Beat!' in support of your favorite multi-national corporations.
.
Remember . . . Tazers don't hurt that much anyway - Only that scores of people have died and scores more have been left permanently disabled by their 'lawful' use. It's kinda hard to fake death! But suppose they faked their death at the hands of the Tazer just to make a point! Really? Why not! Get Real!

Xemu X. Xenu Jr. www.xenu.net
mail e-mail: Xemu2u2@gmail.com
Homepage: http://rochester.indymedia.org

Wait till she's done?

04.11.2005 01:27

So the cop shouls wait until the woman felt like being arrested?

Some asked what if it was my mother. Well, what if your mother is being raped, and the caps stand by and wait for the rapist to finish up before arresting him?

This woman was clearing hostile to the police, did not comply with their repeated, lawful orders, and they were completely right to subdue her with a non-lethal weapon. She was breaking several laws, and not complying.

Get over it you cry-baby's, not everone in a position of authority is evil.

hugh

The TASER did what it was meant to do!

08.11.2005 02:18

Did you see the same video I saw???? From the very beginning the woman was beligerent, argumentative and totally uncooperative! The officer put up with her bad attitude for longer than many would have... He asked her to put the phone down and step outside of the car, she did not. If she had done so she most likely would have left with a warning or at worst a ticket. On the right side of the car another officer opened the door and it sounds like she made some motion against that officer... ZAP!! A few thousand volts and she suddenly became VERY cooperative! The TASER is far from perfect but it does end all resistance rather quickly! I tend to side with the officer. In most places around the planet this woman would have faired far worse than a bit of discomfort by electric shock....
RAS

Rasdebol

firm but fair

21.12.2005 04:41

that'll teach her - now she's tasted the tazer ask her if she will be speeding again!!!! i doubt it - job well done.

law man

Global IMC Network