Woman tasered for refusing to step out of vehicle

[nine30]

By Dani Davies

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, May 29, 2005

BOYNTON BEACH — Victoria Goodwin's spirits were high as she sped through Boynton Beach in her SUV that Friday morning.

She had just dropped her daughter off at day care and was heading to her mother's house to get her hair and nails done. On Monday, she would fly to Jamaica to be a contestant in a modeling competition.

In a 35-mph zone, she breezed past a yellow Mustang. Officer Rich McNevin, in the Mustang, clocked her at 52 mph.

He pulled her over.

Five minutes later, the young mother was squirming on the ground, her body electrified twice by 50,000 volts from McNevin's Taser.

Though Goodwin, 22, wants to sue the department, police officials say the officer's choice to use the stun gun was a good one that had a good outcome: No one got seriously hurt.

The incident was recorded by a camera mounted on the Mustang's dashboard.


.......................................

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/29/a16a_taser_vig1_0529.html

[MrModerate]

1. If you look at the video . . .

The woman was such an incredible asshole and uncooperative beyond the bounds of reasonableness, that the officer had good reason to think she was deranged and dangerous. I'm not a cop, but the other solution might have been to surround the car with officers and drag her out by main force. Would that have been better? I dunno.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

23. So in 5 minutes all of this was displayed. Right. Aren't cops able to

communicate and negotiate any longer?

[liberalnurse]

258. This was throughly debated yesaterday.....

Here is the DU link.....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3788527

There was terrific, healthy discussion with about 400 posts!

[cestpaspossible]

43. You must have seen a different video than I did.

She was tasered for the simple reason that she did not IMMEDIATELY OBEY ORDERS. The cop escalated the situation to threatening violence against her in a matter of seconds. This was totally unnecessary. If this is 'following procedure' than the procedure needs to be changed.

[merh]

56. Wrong.

The excessive forced was not justified in the situation and the cop was just as big an asshole. He violated department policy when he refused to give her his badge number.

Her family has a history of being harassed by the department because a relative sued them, so she was afraid of the cops.

She is innocent until proven guilty and I never heard the Miranda warnings read to her.

The cop alleged she was fighting first him, then when he realized the video was on, he said she took a swing at the other officer.

40 seconds of the video cannot be found.

Under the circumstances, the use of force was extreme or excessive, especially since she was tased twice.

Officer Koon, one of the officers involved in the Rodney King beating and tasing, was found guilty of violating King's civil rights under the color of his office, a federal crime. The court recognized that King was an agressor and that he failed to comply, but the court also recognized that the force used to make King comply was excessive.

In this case, you had two male officers and a female suspect. The arrest stop only took 10 minutes. The officer only had to wait for her to put down the phone, then order her out of the car, at that time he could charge her with the failure to comply or interferring with his lawful duties.

Force was not necessary, respect and patience were. As a law enforcement officer, he has a sworn duty to protect the rights of all citizens, even the accused. The police cannot violate the civil or constitutional rights of the accused or the convicted.

The woman posed no threat to the officers, she was not armed and she was in fear of the officers, she called a family member to let them know that they had stopped her, she feared their retaliation and their racist motives. After all, it was two white cops that stopped a black woman. The department recognized that precarious position and had their black training officer narrate the video they released of the stop. I find that very odd. :shrug:

All in all, nope, can't agree with you that the cop was justified in his violent actions.

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

63. Very well put

[merh]

82. thanks

:hi:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

121. Thankyou for a well reasoned post on why this was excessive

[merh]

129. thanks

:blush: Your post means a lot to me.

[liberalnurse]

260. No it was not......

I disagree. She failed to comply to the Officers instructions escalating the situation into a threatening level. She knew exactly that her license were suspended and she was going to jail. She was stalling......in an obnoxious fashion as well, though that is not why she received the Taser.

Please view the excellent debate thread on this issue from yesterday.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3788527

[Floogeldy]

193. He started to grab her and pull her out.

She yelled "Stop. Don't touch me," and probably physically resisted. He was definitely going to have a fight on his hands. I hate seeing her getting tasered, but I'm afraid she brought it on herself.

[okieinpain]

316. I have to agree. you can't challenge their authority in the street.

you have to wait until court.

[ConfuZed]

2. THIS IS NOT BREAKING NEWS!

Read the rules! Thank You!

[nine30]

4. ok..

my mistake. When it was reported on Drudge I thought it happened today, but apparently not. Mods can move it if they like.

[ConfuZed]

5. No Problem sorry if I was a little harsh

:puke: Drudge

[merh]

81. In GD you can discuss whatever you want.

Don't get so excited. I could post a thread that the Hindenburg crashed and that is okay in GD. Don't let them rattle you, this is the phase of distraction and disruption. Haven't you noticed the "flavor" of the threads being posted.




They want us to focus on the silly constitutional disputes and challenges and hot issues such as state's rights, the confederate flag, yada yada and ignore the other important issues (eg DSM, Bolton, the war).

Some folks just can't multi-task and their attention span is low, they think we share those problems.!

Relax, everything is fine. And a belated welcome to DU, too! :hi:

[Algorem]

6. Ya let a oinker loose with a zoinker wajja eggspekt?

[okieinpain]

7. interesting, I believe the cops get off on this kind of stuff. but

when you're dealing with these kind (cops)of people you have to tread very carefully. I tell my kids never argue with an officer.

[dmr]

8. You can watch the whole thing from here

http://video.contemporaryinsanity.org/

[Desertrose]

9. I am amazed at how many people think she deserved to be tasered

C'mon people...not immediately complying with orders gets you 50,000 volts twice??

What the hell kind of world are we living in that so many people think she "deserved" this??

I agree her attitude was not the wisest choice but to be tasered and pulled from the car and then tasered again?? Am I the only one who feels it was a bit excessive with 2 burly cops there and 1 woman- unarmed except for a cellphone & a cigarette??


This world is out of control.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Bingo. It is totally amazing to me.

[texanwitch]

11. No, your not.

I think the taser is being used as a terror weapon against the people of the United States to make sure we don't question authority.

I have been reading several news articles about people who have been tasered and the cops seem to have a big authority trip going on.

People from the age of 6 to 82 have been tasered, under different situations.

I have a friend who is a retired police officer, who retired because he saw a big change in the police department personal. He didn't want to be a part of it, just to much military thinking going on.

His last two partners saw the citizens as the enemy, and did not have repect for them. They were MP's during active duty and were in the National Guard.

Many of the older police officers have left or will be leaving soon,
they took pride in being police officers, they didn't need tasers.

My friend never had trouble when he had to pull people over, he treated them with respect, and he got it back. He told me if a driver was yelling or didn't want to get out, he didn't take it personally. He would just wait until they got it out of their systems and then talk them out of the car.

My friend has great worries for this country with police being able to use tasers, he thinks this is just going to get a lot worse. I think he is right.

People are being killed with the tasers, the US count is now around 100, this is not good. Many people have medical conditions which you can't tell by looking at them, my cousin is one of them. He could not take taser, it would kill him.

I don't know how all this is going to end, but be careful out there.

[CrispyQ]

251. I think that there are some occupations that by their nature

attract exactly the wrong types of people to them -- law enforcement, politicians & managers come to mind. That's not to say there aren't any good people in those occupations, but there is something about having power over others that attracts bullying types & often corrupts good types.

Overall, I think tasers are a bad idea except in extreme circumstances. The problem is, many of these bully types do not have the common sense to determing a truely extreme situation or simply want to resort to force. I agree with your statement that tasers are being used to encourage a compliant society.

I am very afraid that the America I grew up in is long gone, never to return.

[LiberallyInclined]

13. how are the cops supposed to know that she's unarmed...?

i suppose it would surprise you to know that there are some people who carry concealed weapons in their auto.

the woman should have complied- although i would agree that the second tasing was probably unwarranted.

the thing that really amazes me is that anyone would ever want to live in fascist states like florida and/or texas.

[ElectroPrincess]

16. Exactly, you (including the cops) don't know if someone is packing

Besides, I'm one of the most anti- unbridled authority person you'll ever meet. Any jerk tries to muss with me, I'll play head games with them in a heartbeat ... with ONE very important exception: Police Officers.

Sure there's plenty of corruption but the average beat cop is no worse than you or I ... and admit it folks, they are NOT getting rich and, overall, it's a thankless job. Who likes to see a cop in public save for other cops? I rest my case. :P

No, I always question authority but my momma taught me right, when I'm approached or pulled over by a cop, it's "Yes Sir" or No Sir." If I'm mistreated, I'll take my case to the court.

You NEVER can win challenging a Police Officer in public. IMO one must be either mentally warped or have altered their conscious (high high high) to believe that they will "get by" with such behavior.

Not to be too sappy, but I would not want their job. There's just no productive reason to stereotype all cops as bad, when many really do care about "serving and protecting" an ungrateful public.

SALUTE to the honest and caring Police Officers. :-)

[Desertrose]

33. gee..what did cops do BEFORE tasers?

you act like this is all ok becuase she lives in Fl?

Thank you for making my point that so many Americans now feel it is OK for our police to shoot folks with 50K volts because they do not immediately comply.

And in case you haven't noticed, people may like where they are living and still dislike the way it has changed...or may not be able to just move out of those fascist states. :eyes:

If you are liberally inclined, I'd hate to meet those less liberally inclined

[King Coal]

55. Bingo. We saw how Barney handled it, what would Andy have done?

[Floogeldy]

199. You keep repeating "50,000 volts"

It is not bolstering your argument. 50,000 volts is nothing to the human body. What matters is the amount of amps.

[Guaranteed]

245. Alright, Doc. But the paper is saying it, too.

Write an LTTE.

[sir_captain]

264. Oh, cause some newspaper says it, it must be true

:rofl:

[athena]

342. That's an outrageous statement.

Saying "50,000 Volts is nothing to the body; what matters is the current" is like saying "the height of a building is nothing, since it's the ground that kills you."

A sustained voltage creates a current according to Ohm's Law, Voltage=Current*Resistance. The resistance of the human body is notoriously variable, and especially low when the skin is pierced. This means that very small voltages can kill, given the right circumstances.

From http://www.tpub.com/neets/book2/5j.htm :
It is important for you to recognize that the resistance of the human body cannot be relied upon to prevent a fatal shock from a voltage as low as 115 volts or even less. Fatalities caused by human contact with 30 volts have been recorded. Tests have shown that body resistance under unfavorable conditions may be as low as 300 ohms, and possibly as low as 100 ohms (from temple to temple) if the skin is broken.

The reason the taser doesn't kill is not that 50,000 Volts is "nothing to the human body", as you claim, but that the power applied is low (18 Watts for five seconds) -- which suggests that the voltage immediately goes down after impact. In the modern taser, the initial high voltage is used to establish a current, and then a low-voltage, high-current pulse is applied, for five seconds, to induce muscle spasms.

The lethality of high voltages and currents is very complicated and not always predictable. It depends on physiological effects, and whether the current happens to go through the heart. The blanket statement "50,000 volts is nothing to the human body" is not only misleading but very dangerous.

[wakeme2008]

19. I am amazed that you would even try to defend her

With a taser pointed at her, the offficer told her FOUR times if she did not get out of the car he was going to taser her.....


Gee......

[Roland99]

29. They want to play with their new toys.

[KurtNYC]

30. I don't think she deserved to be tasered but it is a bad idea

when a cop orders you out of your car, to say "I'm making a phone call!"

Also when a cop points a weapon at you (she apparently believed it was a gun), don't stay on the phone and say "he is going to shoot me now."

Again, I am not saying that there isn't an over-use of tasers but not only not complying, but actually telling the officer you are not going to comply usually leads to bad situations.

[AX10]

227. Cops are becoming facists. She was being uncooperative...

but this was a traffic stop and she did NOT threaten the cop! McNevin needs to be fired!

[liberalnurse]

272. Her non-compliance was a threat....

There is the unknown factor for the Officer to consider for his safety....Such as...She was on the phone and refused to end her conversation and refused to comply with repeated orders. She could of very easily summoned someone to shoot the Officer...she could of been a mule carrying drugs...lots of potential danger issues here. The Officers is required to keep control of the scene....not the suspect. Most Officers die from traffic stops run amuck.....The Office preformed admirably.

She knew her license were suspended, she knew the drill.....and she was headed to jail.

[liberalnurse]

263. She didn't deserve to be Tased....

She chose not to comply with the Officers instructions.......She was Tasered because her resistence created a threat to the Officers safety.

[lostnfound]

12. Watch the videos -- Not much warning for the woman

I'm sure it's aggravating to the policeman, listening to the 'traffic stop' video, but the sequence is this:
*traffic stop video ends while policeman is still talking on radio, after telling woman to stay in car
*40 seconds later the arrest video begins -- what was he told on the radio call? -- he returns immediately saying GET OUT OF THE CAR!
*Very quickly he is threatening with the taser ..why no option of waiting 2 minutes until she hangs up.


How do we prepare our children for this? Train them from an early age: COMPLY!COMPLY!COMPLY!

She probably didn't get to have her vote counted either.

[LiberallyInclined]

15. what was he told on the radio call...?

that the woman's liscense was suspended, which means immediate arrest. when you are stopped by the cops, and then placed under arrest- you are not allowed to use your cell-phone- the cop gave her plenty of warning.
If people are going to choose to reside in states like florida or texas- they have to know that they'd better learn to comply with what the cops say.

[BiggJawn]

22. Oh, by all means, let us COMPLY.

Yessir, Ofizier, I'll get in the cattle car. I won't make a fuss, I don't need my RIGHTS if it keeps me SAFE from TERRA...

Hope I meet one of you "Hey, Tasers are OK!" "Liberals" on our way to The Camps...You can tell me how wonderful it was then...

Baaaaaaaaa!

[LiberallyInclined]

38. the woman was breaking the law by driving on a suspended license.

and btw- driving is a privilege, NOT a "right".

I have no pity for lawbreakers on the public roadways- if you'd prefer to live in anarchy, good for you. why don't you buy yourself a country, move there with your family, and give it your best shot...? :hi:

[Pithlet]

40. Why don't we

Just let cops walk around with cattle prods, so they can freely just zap anyone they think is breaking the law. After all, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Living in a society where you fear for life and limb for stepping out of line is your idea of ideal, but it isn't for most people. If you want to live in a police state, fine. Just don't be shocked when other people don't share your views.

[LiberallyInclined]

59. you obviously don't understand the point-

the woman was operating a motor vehicle on the public roads even though it was illegal for her to do so- in essence she was putting other law-abiding citizens at risk- that's why we have a society based on a system of laws.
the cop wasn't out just "freely zapping anyone he thought was breaking the law"- the woman was known to be breaking the law, and then refused to comply with a lawful order from a police officer...

what do YOU think that the cop should have done?

btw- if you think that wanting to feel safe on the roads equates to "Living in a society where you fear for life and limb for stepping out of line...", then you've got a whole lot of maturing left to do.

[Pithlet]

65. I understand

I know what driving means. I know what a license is. I know that it is illegal to drive with a suspeneded lisence. I also understand that merely breaking the law doesn't mean you should be physically tortured. Do you? I mean, failing to get out of your vehicle the INSTANT the cop tells you to is grounds to be electrified? I don't understand how you or anyone else with an ounce of brains can justify what those cops did. It is clearly an abuse of power, at the very least. I would go beyond that and say these cops should be charged with felony assault.

[LiberallyInclined]

70. just answer the question-

how should the cops have handled it in your world?

btw- it wasn't "the INSTANT" the cop told her to get out of the car that she was zapped- he made repeated requests, then told her twice that she would be tased if she didn't comply.
the second tasing she recieved i definitely don't agree with- but if people choose to live/drive in Florida, they should know what to expect, and how to react to a police officer, especially when they are in violation of the law.

[Pithlet]

75. In my world?

They would handle it the way they alwasy did before tasers came along.

The whole thing lasted less than 5 minutes. I don't care how many times they asked her. They shouldn't have tasered her.

[LiberallyInclined]

84. "the way they always did before tasers came along"....

so you'd prefer to see the woman get a smack from the business end of a nightstick?

while i can appreciate your affinity for actual violence on the part of the cops, i'd prefer they use a taser than a nightstick on a combative arrestee.

btw- in another post on this thread you wrote: "...Unless she physically threatened the officer, there was no excuse..."
well- she DID threaten/strike the officer on the passenger side of the vehicle, so it looks like you agree with her being tased after all...:shrug:

[Pithlet]

86. No

I wouldn't advoate a nightstick, either. Is that what they always did before? If that is the case, then no, I wouldn't support that, either. But, surely, millions of people have initially refused an officer, and weren't hit or tasered?

I didn't hear her threaten to strike anyone. If she did, then force may have been warrented. I still don't think it should have involved a taser, because I'm against their use in general.

[LiberallyInclined]

97. you still haven't answered the initial question-

what WOULD you have them do?

just saying "whatever they did before tasers" doesn't answer the question, because there are multiple ways to respond, including nightsticks and firearms-

so...what WOULD you have the cops do to take the woman into custody?(since she was driving on a suspended liscense, she HAD to be arrested.)

[Pithlet]

276. I did answer that question somewhere else.

I am not a cop trained to deal with that situation. But I do know that cops are perfectly capable of pulling a person out of the car and cuffing them with no incident. It happens all the time. In fact, weren't there TWO officers there? They couldn't both overpower her without tasering her? They couldn't have at least ATTEMPTEd that first, before resulting in a taser?

[AX10]

234. I agree. As long as she did not threaten the officer (which she didn't)..

there was no need for such force.

It's nice to see that there are people who understand and believe in the balance of power!

:)

:kick:

[cestpaspossible]

88. The cops should have exercised some patience.

Why did she have to obey immediately? How could her completing her phone call have constituted a violent threat against the officer?

[LiberallyInclined]

101. she was being arrested for breaking the law.

the cops aren't there to be her personal valets. they allow you a phone call once you've been processed- other than that, the rules are the same for ALL arrestees- you don't have a "right" to make a personal phone call while you are in the process of being arrested.

also- the cop made repeated requests to the woman, and then warned her twice that she would be tased if she didn't comply...which she didn't.

[cestpaspossible]

104. LOL

spoken like someone who has never been arrested or beaten by the police without cause.

And I hope you never have to learn to see things from my perspective.

[LiberallyInclined]

113. i've been arrested, but never without cause...just like the woman driver

she was being arrested WITH cause- she was illegally driving on a suspended liscense.

what is it about anarchy that seems to appeal to you so much?

[TX-RAT]

115. How did your suit against the city come out?

Assuming you did file charges.

[cestpaspossible]

123. You know, before that incident, I was naive enough to believe

that you couldn't be arrested in America without being informed of the charges against you, that if you were arrested you would have your day in court.

Turns out that in California you can be 'detained' by the police and as long as they let you go within three hours, you have no legal recourse.

The beating was a separate incident in a different state, I didn't investigate the possibility of suing or filing charges because there was no real evidence to present in court.

[LiberallyInclined]

131. regarding being "detained" by the police-

is that three hour detention thing in california that you mentioned something that the police decreed, or is it a law that was put in place by the elected state legislature?

your answer should tell you the difference between a police-state and a democracy.

[cestpaspossible]

It's a California statue.

Yes, democratically elected legislatures and executives are capable of enacting laws that are wrong.

[LiberallyInclined]

171. wrong in YOUR opinion.

now you know why dictatorships always have an appeal to at least ONE person.

[cestpaspossible]

185. yeah, everything I say is my opinion

Surely you aren't disagreeing with my assertion that it is possible for a democratically elected legislature and executive to enact a law that is wrong? Are you?

[TX-RAT]

138. 'detained' by the police and as long as they let you go within three hours

Yep, and in other states also,( Custodial Arrest.)

(I didn't investigate the possibility of suing or filing charges because there was no real evidence to present in court.)
You were beaten, and theres no real evidence? One of these days i hope you'll explain that one to me.

[cestpaspossible]

146. I'll explain it right now

I was beaten, not badly, there was evidence I was beaten, but no evidence as to the circumstances other than my word, and the cops word.

[TX-RAT]

164. my word, and the cops word.

Thats the way it always is, unless you have a credible witness. You should have went to court.

[cestpaspossible]

169. I'm guessing you are not a lawyer.

Because no lawyer would advise a client to sue a police department in such an impossible situation. Total waste of money and court time. I was unemployed and homeless at the time so suing wasn't really an option anyway.

[TX-RAT]

192. You guessed right.

Just retired from the Sheriff's Department.

(Because no lawyer would advise a client to sue a police department in such an impossible situation.)
You'll never know will ya.

[cestpaspossible]

204. LOL

I just don't believe that you really think I had a chance of winning a lawsuit in that case...


But go ahead, keep insinuating... whatever it is that you think you are insinuating... lol

[TX-RAT]

214. Never said you had a chance of winning.

You didn't make and immediate complaint, with the PD.
You didn't file a complaint with the city.
You didn't talk to an attorney.

Lets just say, this whole story of yours has a strange smell to it.

[cestpaspossible]

217. Why would someone file a lawsuit if they had no chance of winning?

Yeah, homeless people who get beat up by cops don't file complaints with the police department, the city, or talk to lawyers about suing. They just are thankful they weren't hurt more badly or charged with some bogus infraction, and they move on.

Lets just say, this whole story of yours has a strange smell to it.

Is that a cute way of accusing me of lying?

[liberalnurse]

267. Sounds like you are familiar with how one

resists arrest.......

[cestpaspossible]

296. No, not at all, not only did I not resist arrest, I was not arrested.

I was only 'detained'.

If I had resisted my detention even slightly, I would have been arrested and charged with resisting arrest, as is amply illustrated by the incident that is the subject of this thread.

You don't actually have to commit an underlying crime to be charged and convicted for resisting arrest, btw. Interesting, eh?

[noiretextatique]

331. she was driving without PAYING for a license

please don't try to make a big federal case of that offense. she had some other issues with her car, but none of them required the use of a taser. she was charged with resisting without violence, which tells me there was no need for vioence to arrest her.

[AntiCoup2K4]

114. If she's driving on a suspended license, pull the license, tow her car...

...don't electrocute her for fucks sake. Tazers should be used (if at all) in only the most extreme circumstances, like if you have a crazed psychopath tweaked out on meth or angel dust, constituting a physical threat to the officer's life, or bystanders.

Even in my so called "liberal" community, people have died in police custody. Some from tazers, others from chokeholds. Oddly enough these things started happening after the cops recieved "training" from some folks who used to be with the LAPD.

And we all know what fine upstanding public servants they are.

I don't excuse lawbreakers either. Including the ones who hide behind badges.

[TX-RAT]

117. Gotta get her out of the car and in custody first.

(pull the license, tow her car...")

[AX10]

233. Wheel/Tire locks. She won't be able to drive her car with one of...

those on her wheels.

[TX-RAT]

341. LMAO

[Floogeldy]

203. She wasn't "electrocuted."

e·lec·tro·cute ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lktr-kyt)
tr.v. e·lec·tro·cut·ed, e·lec·tro·cut·ing, e·lec·tro·cutes

To kill with electricity: a worker who was electrocuted by a high-tension wire.
To execute (a condemned prisoner) by means of electricity.

www.dictionary.com

[Guaranteed]

247. But the people who've been killed by Tasers were. Right? nt

[liberalnurse]

265. Only in rare, freak situations.....

There were other lethal variables in the majority of the situations...such as cocaine intoxication which facilitated their deaths.

[merh]

72. Was the cpp told that she was the sister/aunt/cousin of the guy

that has the suit against us for abuse? I find the missing 40 seconds very interesting.

"Goodwin said the department has treated her family unfairly ever since a relative filed a lawsuit against the city in the early '90s. She had been calling her brother to come to the scene because, she told officers, "I don't trust y'all."

(last paragraph of the article)

:shrug:

Oh, and she was tased twice.

[Hobarticus]

228. Not much warning? I heard at least six warnings...

Where he told her exactly what to do, and what he would do if she didn't comply.

Did you see the entire video, and not just this clip?

[pinniped]

14. Wow, how did the fuzz ever get along without this device?

.

[LiberallyInclined]

17. well- a lot more of them were probably injured by combative arrestees...

If people are going to choose to live in fascist states like florida or texas, they need to learn the meaning of the word comply.

[AX10]

322. I am glad to see that you understand that...

Florida and Texas are Facist States (a.k.a, NOT AMERICA)!

[TX-RAT]

119. Black Jacks, Batons and leather Saps

Which would you prefer?

[liberalnurse]

277. Oh, how soon they forget......

I was talking today with some of my Deputy co-workers about that very option....There was a much better DU thread on this video yesterday......I posted the link earlier.

[Scurrilous]

18. Don't fear the taser...

[crowcalling]

20. Taser - possible capital punishment

For a suspended license, or not getting out of ones car after being asked several times?

What if the woman had been pregnant? What if the woman had a medical condition?

I thought the video was pretty horrific. Quite convenient for the cops because they no longer have to negotiate with the public, but can treat them as non human entities, or prisoners before they are proven guilty and can zap them as much as they would like - without fear even if the person is killed?

[alarimer]

21. Cops are authority junkies.

I swear we are coming more and more to resemble a police state. You're supposed to anything and everything they tell you. Very Nazi-like. I hate cops. They get off on this sort of thing.

[TX-RAT]

122. What if the woman had been pregnant?

What if the woman had a medical condition?
Then she definitely should have done what was asked of her.

[liberalnurse]

273. Absolutely!

She needs to take responsibility for her actions and behavior.

[Hobarticus]

291. So, if she was pregnant, why did she resist arrest

knowing she could put her baby in jeopardy?

[cestpaspossible]

306. Did she resist arrest?

Or merely expect reasonable, respectful behavior from the law enforcement employees her government hired to protect her?

[Hobarticus]

335. "Please get out of the car" seemed reasonable enough.

He seemed respectful. If I want unreasonable and disrespectful, I'd have to look to her behavior.

Her: "Put your phone down."

She: "No, I'm on the phone."

Tell you what...you try that with your local police, and see how that works for ya.

[Floogeldy]

207. What if the cop had pulled her out of the car . . .

. . . and she cracked her skull on the street?

[Deja Q]

24. Okay, she's speeding in a residential area. (35MPH) When a cop pulls on U,

you react calmly.

I have. For every ticket I've gotten (usually the annual July 4th ticket at the Waste Taste of Minnesota.)

Don't scare the cops and they won't feel they need to defend themselves.

In this selfish world the repukes and corporate america have devised, things are only going to get worse.

And the economy is not getting better; not when I see more "for rent" and "for sale" signs. (even the news last night had an article about the new gated communities in my area. Miss one payment and they can evict you. :rofl: More repuke fodder. I'm not :rofl: at the people, who are hapless chumpes, but the system - designed to take advantage of you. Karma will not be kind.)

[BiggJawn]

25. Every time the Taser Stings....

Bernie Kerik's Cash Register rings....


"Say I was to shoot Rudi here in the shoulder, or maybe aim at his crotch, no diference. He's laying on the ground pissin' himself anyway, Right Rudi?"

"That god-dam thing HURT, Kerik!"

"Yeah, shut up or you'll get it again, capisch?"

[truthisfreedom]

26. people, remember this. aluminum foil foils tazers.

it shorts them out.

[MrModerate]

27. So if you're going to run through a speed trap . . .

And then mouth off at a cop, you should wear aluminum underwear? I see some practical limitations here.

I think it'd be easier to go the speed limit.

[Patiod]

28. Ooo! Does that mean I can get a tinfoil suit to go with my hat?

Yay! A whole outfit!!

:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat:

/sorry, the image just popped into my head

[sweetheart]

67. A nice vest with wire mesh woven in, might be a good idea

Then when the police go about attacking civilians, it won't work...
and then they'll use their guns to kill the civilians who don't
listen to their bullshit cop talkin'.

[dchill]

31. Soon headline will be...

Child Tasered For Refusing To Say Under God In Pledge

[Walt Starr]

32. She could have easily avoided the tasing with five simple words

I AM CALLING MY ATTORNEY.

If the cop tased her then, he would've had some major problems. He would've probably lost his job and possibly been prosecuted.

Unless, of course, she wasn't calling her attorney.

[TX-RAT]

85. Since when are attorneys invited into the field?

[Walt Starr]

255. Cops generally won't do a thing if they know you are on the phone

with your attorney. They also know attorneys are officers of the court and any attorney worth a damn would tell this woman to comply with the orders of the cop and go along quietly, which would serve to defuse the situation.

[WillowTree]

34. Oh please!

She's doing 52 mph in a residential area, meaning a likelihood of children present. She's driving on a suspended license. When the cop approaches her car, she refuses to cooperate because "I'm making a call" and refuses to end the call and get off when he tells her to. When he comes back to her car the second time and tells her to get out, she refuses.....repeatedly. He warns her, not once, but three times that if she doesn't start cooperating, he's going to taze her and she gives no indication that this particularly concerns her.

What, exactly, is the cop supposed to do? Get down on his knees and beg her? Just let her go because she doesn't want to play?

So let's see..........She broke the law, obviously not the first time since her license was suspended, and proceeds to mouth-off at the cop who I think everyone would have to admit at the very least up to that point was doing exactly what he's paid to do. She was clearly told, three times, what the consequences would be if she decided not to get with the program, and she continued to be uncooperative.

Nope. She gets no sympathy from me. Not a bit. And something tells me she'll forgo the petulant child routine next time she has occasion to talk to a police officer.

[Walt Starr]

35. People just don't realize, cops are not judges or juries

cops simply make the arrest. Decisions are made in courts. Comply with what the cop says and everything will be cool. Cops have a dangerous enough job, don't make them any jumpier than they already have to be in order to insure their own survival.

Just do what they say and get your case before the judge. If the cop is an asshole it doesn't matter, take it to the court.

[WillowTree]

36. EXACTLY!!

Very well put, as always.

[cestpaspossible]

48. A judge and jury would never have administered a potentially lethal shock

for the offense of failing to hang up the phone quick enough.

It takes an out-of-control cop, corrupted with the absolute power he holds because of the lack of citizen oversight, to do that.

[Walt Starr]

106. This cop was 100% in control

He deserves accolades for being a hero.

People who would scorn a cop for risking his life is such a situation are the people who deserve scorn.

[cestpaspossible]

109. Yeah, MIGHT make RIGHT. Because he was 100% in control

that makes him justified in not exercising patience and common sense.

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

110. you'd rather cops die?

Because failure to follow these procedures in traffic stops results in one thing.

Dead cops.

[cestpaspossible]

143. Yeah, that must be what I'm saying

Procedure can never be wrong?

The strawman you have attributed to me, if I understand it correctly, is that, either one believes the cops are always justified in using whatever force 'procedure' says they can use, or one wants cops to die.

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

147. No, either the procedure is right or it's wrong.

The procedure saves lives, both the lives of cops and of perps. Resist arrest and the cops are authorized to use force. In this case, the taser is the method of force preferred.

50% of all intentional killings occur during traffic stops. Those who resist arrest are multiple times more likely to have a concealed weapon than those who do not.

Sorry, cops get killed when these procedures are not followed. I'd rather have a live cop AND perp than either dead because the perp was STUPID!

[cestpaspossible]

152. If this is the procedure, then it's wrong. Since the woman posed no threat

and merely failed to immediately obey a command, if the procedure identifies her in this situation as 'violent' then the procedure is wrong, because she was not in fact violent.

[Walt Starr]

154. Failing to comply when being arrested IS A THREAT.

Sorry, but that is the fact of the matter. The cop acted appropriately.

[cestpaspossible]

158. No, no matter how many times you make that assertion, it's still wrong.

Let's go to the video... was the cop really in danger? You say yes, ok, I can accept that as your opinion. I disagree.

[Walt Starr]

160. Yes, the cop was really in danger

and the woman was, too. The taser probably saved her life.

[TX-RAT]

175. Worst injury while on duty, was a 4 inch paring knife in the left lung

Courtesy of a lady who's husband had just beat the hell out of her. She sat at the table sobbing while i was attempting to put her husband in custody. He starts fighting, we go to the floor, she sticks knife in ribcage. He spent the night in jail, she did several years.

Just because you see no weapon, doesn't mean there's not one there. Everybody is considered dangerous.

[cestpaspossible]

190. Think of how much worse that would have been if done by a cellphone.

You'd probably be dead now if you'd been stabbed by Victoria Goodwin's cellphone.

[liberalnurse]

281. That was indeed well said......

:yourock:

[Walt Starr]

253. The cop mis still on duty, no charges against him

He was 100% in compliance with the law.

[cestpaspossible]

297. Bush is still on duty, no charges against him.

Does that mean his is 100% in compliance with the law?

Also, is it possible to be 100% in compliance with the law while committing an immoral act? Does being 100% in compliance with the law equal being 100% right?

[TX-RAT]

89. Excellent answer.

If you think you've been wronged them take it to court.

[AX10]

225. Still, he had no right to assault her. McNevin needs to be fired.

[Walt Starr]

252. Better check the law again, he was 100% in compliance with the law. n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

128. The issue is whether the use of force was excessive

Mouthing off does not represent a threat to the cop and she had a right to know WHY she was being arrested .

[sir_captain]

134. Is the officer not within his rights to ask her to get out of the car

first? Logically, this makes sense, though I'm obviously not a lawyer--what's the law?

[merh]

184. Go back and watch that video (or rather videos)

There is the stop and then there is the arrest. The woman tries to get out of her car a couple of times during the stop phase. The cop continually yells at her to stay in the car. He is never worried about her driving off or that she may be armed because he never instructs her to keep her hands outside of the car where he could see them. He never instructs her to remove the keys from the ignition and drop them outside the window or place them on top of the roof of the car.

He refuses to respect her by refusing to provide his badge/unit number, which is a standard requirement of all law enforcment agencies. He yells at her to stay in the car, he mocks her and he laughs at her fears, she tells them several times that they are racists. You can hear fear in her voice and she is calling a family member to let them know that the police have stopped her. According to the article on the arrest and tasing, her family has a history with the force, a relative sued the department and other family members have felt that they were being harassed and intimidated by the police because of the suit. She was a slender woman and they were 2 burly white police officers.

40 seconds of the video is missing, I wonder what was on that part of the video. There was no fight or assault as alleged by arresting cop, she was charged with non-violent resisting arrest and driving with a suspended license. I don't know what happened to the speeding charges, the initial reason why she was stopped.

No, the cops were not justified in using any force to effect this arrest, including the use of the taser.

[sir_captain]

You didn't address my question at all

Do you have some sort of agenda or something? I just wanted to know the specific answer to a citizen's rights as it pertains to being asked to step out of the car.

[merh]

202. It depends on the individual circumstances.

It can't be answered as asked, imho.

If you don't comply, you can be charged with resisting arrest or failure to comply, but that does not mean you are subject to the violent actions of the police or excessive force.

[theboss]

37. I've never understood people who defy cops

Maybe it's because I grew up with two uncles who were police officers, but everytime I've had a brush with the law, I've always been respectful and courteous and I've never had anything bad happen. I don't understand the mentality of arguing with a man armed with a gun and club and the authority to use both.

[TX-RAT]

95. There are those that will.

Usually with bad results.

[Pithlet]

39. I just saw this video for the first time

I could never see it before because I can't get plug ins to work. I'm sickened.

Anyone who has watched this tape and continues to defend those "cops" has some serious issue. I'm disgusted that anyone can defend this. I seriously worry for humanity that there are people, even here on DU, who can watch that and think those cops were right. No sane or decent person would defend this.

[WillowTree]

41. What would you, then...

....recommend that they do when they stop someone who's as completely uncooperative as this woman was? I'd really like to know.

[Pithlet]

46. I wouldn't send thousands of volts of electricity through her body

simply because she didn't follow my order right away. Being uncooperative should not be punishable by torture. Unless she physically threatened the officer, there was no excuse. None.

[sir_captain]

61. Voltage is not dangerous

*amperage* is.

You get thousands of volts going through you from a static shock.

Study up.

[Pithlet]

69. Study up yourself.

Just because something isn't dangerous doesn't mean it isn't excruciatingly painful.

Don't treat me like I'm stupid.

[sir_captain]

77. Again

it isn't the voltage that is even painful. You can have a million volts going through you when you touch one of those globes that makes your hair stand on end.

I'm sure you're not stupid, but you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to EM, clearly.

[AntiCoup2K4]

231. But what IS the current on these things?

Exactly how many amps are these tazers shooting out? I can't find documentation on that anywhwere.

This ain't a VanDerGraff generator we're talking about. More like a bolt of lightning, if you want to compare static electricity sources.

[sir_captain]

238. According to this story

the 50,000 volt taser that a texas police force uses (has to be pretty similar, anyway) puts out .004 amperes, or 4 milli-amps. That's not very much at all--almost zero, actually.

http://www.journal-spectator.com/story29.shtml

[tx_dem41]

242. Not even close to a lightning bolt.

The voltage of a lightning bolt can reach up to 200 million volts combined with an amperage ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands of amps.

[Guaranteed]

248. It doesn't even matter. They've killed people.

This voltage/amperage thing is ridiculous. In THIS case, 50,000V is obviously pretty dangerous, whatever the amperage may be.

[Pithlet]

279. Well, you obviously don't know what you're talking about!

She was obviously faking it when she was making that unearthlyy sound and writhing around. :sarcasm:

[LiberallyInclined]

74. the question wasn't "what WOULDN'T you do?"...

the question was what WOULD you have the cops do?

btw- she did physically threaten/strike the officer on the passenger side of the vehicle, so it looks like you agree with her being tased after all...

[merh]

94. That is bullshit

And those cops better worry, because her lawyers will be able to have that video analyzed to further prove their lies. There is no proof that she swung at the officer. The first officer said he was figthing him, then when he realizes the video was capturing all, he changed his accusation to claim she was swinging at the other officer.

Additionally, there are 40 seconds of video missing and she was tased twice.

Nothing about this is justified.

[LiberallyInclined]

103. we'll have to agree to disagree.

while i don't agree with the second tasing, the first one was completely justified, as the officer made repeated requests to the woman to comply, and then warned her twice that she would be tased if she didn't.

[merh]

112. Read all of the articles on this, watch all of the videos, then

watch the clock and realize how short the time span was between his "orders" and the "tasing". Like I said, officers have been convicted of violating federal laws for similar actions.

Nothing justifies this use of force for a petty crime, nothing. Failing to comply is not a violent or threatening action.

See post 56 above
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3795253&mesg_id=3797608

[LiberallyInclined]

120. driving on a suspended liscens is not a petty crime.

she was given a lawful order multiple times.
the cop was COMPLETELY justified in tasing her the first time- the second one i do have a problem with, since she responded "i can't" to the officer's request.

[merh]

126. Yet it is.

Shame you don't know what you are talking about. Any crime that is less than a year's sentence in jail is a petty crime or a misdemeanor. A year or more is a felony.

The cop was not justified in tasing her - not at all. It was excessive force under the circumstances. Her civil rights were violated.

Liberally inclined? :shrug:

[LiberallyInclined]

133. ok then, assaulting a police officer is not a petty crime.

which she did, when the officer on the passenger side tried to take her cellphone.

tasing- justified.

and yes, LIBERALLY inclined, NOT anarchy-inclined.

[merh]

144. She did not assault the officers, at least not that can be seen

on the video. Damn she had a phone in one hand, the cig in another and yet she fought the officer who was in the passenger door way when she was in the drivers seat.

Damn woman must have 3 or 4 arms, 2 of which are really long.

Stop buying the spin or spinning the spin and accept the facts as known. SHE WAS NOT CHARGED with assault, you are just making that up (because the 2nd officer would not coorabate the lies of the first).

Goodwin was charged with driving on a suspended license and resisting arrest without violence. She was treated at Bethesda Memorial Hospital after complaining that her arm was numb, according to the report, and then transferred to jail.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/29/a16a_taser_vig1_0529.html

[LiberallyInclined]

153. from what i saw- the officer was COMPLETELY justified in tasing her.

driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right- and when you are pulled over by a police officer, you do what they ask.

how would you like to have a traffic cop's job? just about every time they walk up to a car they've pulled over, they have to assume the worst- that the person behind the wheel could be a fugitive felon with a gun, ready to put a bullet in their head- do you have those kind of stresses every day in your job?

traffic cops have a VERY difficult, and ultimately thankless job- and the officer in this video did a very good job of keeping his cool, especially considering how much in the wrong the woman was.

[merh]

162. The officer had an attitude, the officer was not professional and

violated his department's policy when he refused to provide her with his badge number. He was unprofessional and disrespectful of her. She let him know that she was fearful, she told them she thought they were racists and she was trying to let her family know that she had been stopped.

I have worked in law enforcement, studied law enforcement and even conducted courses for law enforcement. I have family members on the force. I know how important it is that law enforcement be held to higher standards, that they be REQUIRED to follow the laws, follow their departmental regulations and respect and uphold the constitution.

If they violate the laws, don't you see the hypocrisy in their arresting others for violating the laws?

THIS IS NOT yet a police state and I will do my damnedest to make sure that it never becomes one.

:hi:

[LiberallyInclined]

173. from what i saw- the WOMAN had an attitude-

and the officer was very professional.

we'll just have to agree to disagree.

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

198. Of course, as American citizens, we are allowed to have an attitude.

There's not even a law on the books that says we have to be polite and respectful to police officers, although I do think that everyone should be treated that way - at first.

On the other hand, his job requires that he not have an attitude, or at least not act on it.

[AX10]

249. I live in suburbia. But there is a city near by. I have spoken with..

many officers (on the street or shopping) or filing a report about vandalism to my property and very rarely have I found an officer with "an attitude problem". Officer McNevin, however has an attitude problem as we can see on this tape. He should be fired.

[merh]

201. So when she wins her lawsuit

or settles out of court, you gonna admit you were wrong?

BTW - after this incident, the chiefs of police in Florida have decided that they need to get a handle on the use of tasers and address the issue regarding "What we need to decide is at what level of resistance is an officer allowed to use the Taser,"

Guess they have a question whether this officer was in his rights to tase the victim TWICE for a petty little ole traffic offense!
:hi:

Police explore Taser policy
Chiefs want countywide unified guidelines on the weapons' use.
By Bill Douthat
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 03, 2005

Police chiefs are moving with urgency to develop countywide standards on the use of Taser stun guns.

A police planning group voted Thursday to establish guidelines on the electric shock Taser, including its use on minors, the elderly and pregnant women.

The model policy also would address training standards for officers armed with Tasers and under what circumstances the weapon would be fired.

"What we need to decide is at what level of resistance is an officer allowed to use the Taser," Palm Beach Gardens Police Chief Stephen Stepp said. "There have been a few instances where the use of the Taser has been controversial."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/06/03/s1a_tasers_0603.html

And whatever happened on that 40 seconds of missing video??????
:shrug:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

237. aaaaah she got uppity!!

that's why she got tazed!!!! YEAAAHH!!

[TX-RAT]

182. Hate to bust your bubble Merh

You don't have to give your badge number before making an arrest.

I have worked in law enforcement, studied law enforcement and even conducted courses for law enforcement. Really? and ya didn't know that? Go figure.

[merh]

188. No darling at the time she asked for his badge number, he was

in the "stop" phase of the incident, he had yet to learn that she had the suspended license (alleged suspended license). When a citizen asks you your badge number, you are to give it to them. You don't know if some crazy fake cop was running around stopping females and raping them after the stop. He was in a mustang, maybe it didn't look like a police car.

You don't know what you are talking about, TX! Have a lovely day!

[TX-RAT]

206. Once again your wrong.

But what the hey, just as long as you think your right. The law states i must give my badge number, it just doesn't put a time frame on it. Usually it's on the citation, ( which she would have got for the traffic violation) or on the arrest report.

[cestpaspossible]

218. The cop hiding behind the letter of the law, ignoring its spirit.

You've provided a perfect example.

There's no need to show respect to citizens, because the law doesn't require it. There's no need to handle the traffic stop without resorting to violence, because 'procedure' allows you to use violence.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

241. exactly

hey, ignore when she asks then just put the badge number on the citation! brilliant!

[merh]

220. Wrong honey, If I ask you for your badge number when you stop

me, you are to give it to me, it is to help alleviate any concerns that I have about you being a real policeman! Shame you don't know that.

[cestpaspossible]

223. The police are required to identify themselves? What a concept!

Apparently the other poster managed to retire from a career in the sheriff's department while believing that there is nothing wrong with arresting people without identifying himself as a cop, or informing them of the charges against them, as long as he filled out the proper paperwork later....

Remember that next time you are interacting with the police. Victoria Goodwin didn't and look what happened to her...

[merh]

224. I just want to know what jurisdiction these guys work in

so that I am NEVER in their area.

Damn, it is like we are supposed to FEAR the police, they are the brown shirts and what they say is what it is and all it is.

:scared:

[cestpaspossible]

236. They are in every jurisdiction. Part of the problem is the belief that

this is limited to 'a few bad apples'. NO. The problem is not a few bad apples here or there, and you can just hope you avoid them.

The problem is human nature. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thinking about them as BAD COPS, instead of GOOD PEOPLE CORRUPTED BY POWER, keeps us from enacting the structural changes necessary to put a check on the the inevitable abuses that come with such power.

[merh]

239. Nay, I don't see it that way.

Having worked in the system, I know that cops are basically good, that there are bad apples that hurt the entire profession and that with training and manpower, they do a good job of protecting and serving.

The problem that we are experiencing right now is due to the administrations funding/grant cuts, those on the force that are in the reserves serving in Iraq, the cuts to over time, the lack of man power and adequate training.

Hell, just from posting with jokers in these threads, I have come to realize how badly their training must be. To have to explain to someone on the force that using more force than necessary under the circumstances to effect an arrest is a violation of someone's civil rights, well that is friggin scarey.

[Walt Starr]

42. The cop was 100% correct in his actions

The cop discovered that her license was suspended. That's an automatic arrest, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

When he ordered her out of the vehicle, it was a 100% lawful order. When she refused, he ordered again warning he would taze her if she failed to comply. He repeated teh order and the warning another two times.

She failed to comply and he tazed her.

There was nothing illegal or unjustified about the cop's actions. In fact, the fact that he had a taser probably saved her from the chemical burns of pepper spray.

[chaska]

44. Bullshit!

[Walt Starr]

49. I hate to be the one to inform you about the reality of police work

but when somebody who is being arrested resists or refuses to comply with orders, they MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE A VIOLENT THREAT!

That is Cop Survival 101 and results in saving the lives of both cops and detainees.

[cestpaspossible]

50. Zero tolerance for faillure to immediately obey orders.

Warning: those who do not obey without question or hesitation the orders of the police may be shocked with 50000 volts.




Why wasn't I taught that in school?

[Walt Starr]

52. Not just failure to obey orders

failure to obey orders when being arrested. Two different things entirely.

She was the person driving 52 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone on a suspended license who tehn RESISTED ARREST (failure to comply with orders while being arrested is resisting arrest).

She is responsible for what happened. The cop handled it in a professional and succinct manner.

He deserves accolades, not scorn.

[cestpaspossible]

54. Your argument would work if I hadn't seen the video.

No, she didn't resist arrest, she wasn't even informed she was being arrested, she was told to get out of the vehicle.


on edit: correct me if I'm wrong, I don't have time to watch it again, but I don't remember her being told she was under arrest, nor was she informed of the charge against her.

[Pithlet]

60. All she did

was stay in her car when told to get out of it. Not one minute later she was tasered. You are correct.

I'm having a hard time staying in the bounds of DU rules in this thread, because I seriously believe that anyone who would defend this has some serious issues.

[Walt Starr]

71. Watch it again

Cop: Put your cigarette out and step out of the vehicle for me. Put your phone down.

Perp: No, I'm calling somebody.

Cop: I'm going to tell you one more time, put your phone down.

Perp: Mark, the police pulled me over and he's telling me that he's going to arrest me. He's arresting me! Stop, don't touch me. You gonna shoot me? He's got a gun and he's going to shoot me.

Cop: Get out of the car now or I'm going to taze you, yes. Get out of the car now or I'm going to taze you.

Perp: You're going to taze me?

Cop: I'm going to tell you one more time, get out of the car.

Perp: (inaudible)

Cop: Get out of the car or I'm going to taze you.

Cop tazes perp.

[cestpaspossible]

76. Yeah, when was she informed of the charge against her?

She was told to get out of the car, she was threatened with violence, but I didn't hear the officer tell her she was being arrested or why. All he did was give her an order to get out of the car.

Again, it a simple difference of opinion. I don't believe that police should use violence against non-violent suspects simply because they do not IMMEDIATELY comply with orders. You can redefine 'violent' as 'disobedient' if you like, but don't expect everyone else to go along with your redefinition.

[Walt Starr]

90. Please, pay attention when you view these things

I suggest you watch the version with the commentary. This cop followed procedure to the letter. He klept his cool in an explosive situation.

[cestpaspossible]

98. Since the video shows you to be wrong, just pretend I didn't pay attention

What you posted, and the video I saw, do not support what you are saying AT ALL. She wasn't informed she was being arrested and she wasn't informed of the charge against her.


Whether or not the cop 'followed procedure' is irrelevant to the question of whether the procedure is proper.

'An explosive situation'? :rofl:

[Walt Starr]

99. Did you even read the VERBATIM transcript I provided.?

She knew she was being arrested. She specifically stated to the person on the phone she was being arrested and yelled she was being arrested.

:eyes:

But don't let facts get in teh way of slamming a cop for doing his job or emoitional bullshit reactions to an idiot being tazed for resisting arrest.

[cestpaspossible]

107. Yes, no where in it does the officer inform her she is being arrested

nor does he inform her of the charges against her.

But go ahead - keep pretending otherwise.

[Walt Starr]

108. I won't bang my head against the wall with you any longer

The cop was in the right and the perp deserved what she got.

[cestpaspossible]

116. Since what you are claiming is untrue, probably a good idea.

The video does not in fact show her being informed she is being placed under arrest, nor does it show her being informed of the charges against her, nor does it show a threat of violence against the officer.

[Walt Starr]

124. Look at the facts

40 seconds of the tape are missing from what's online. Read the perps own words:

"Mark, the police pulled me over and he's telling me that he's going to arrest me."

[cestpaspossible]

149. The fact is the video does not show what you claim it shows.

You can speculate all you want about what happened on the portion of the video that the cops erased - (perhaps they did that because it shows them to be in the right :eyes: ) - but in fact the video does not show her being informed she is being placed under arrest, nor does it show her being informed of the charges against her, nor does it show a threat of violence against the officer.

[Walt Starr]

151. The fact is, you have not see ALL of the video

40 seconds are missing and in the part that you DO see, she ADMITS HE TOLD HER SHE IS BEING ARRESTED!

:eyes:

[cestpaspossible]

155. You mean the part the police erased? I'm sure that clears them.

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

159. No, the part that was not put online

Please, be honest now. You've seen pieces of the full tape that have been posted in places with an agenda.

[cestpaspossible]

166. Did the cops erase the evidence, or just withhold it, and why?

Let me guess, they followed 'procedure', therefore whatever they did was OK :eyes:

[Walt Starr]

No, online sites did not put the entire video online

It's too "boring" for the news sites and doesn't fit the agenda of those who prefer anarchy to law and order.

The incident happened in August of 2004. The cop is on duty and was never taken off duty. He did the right thing.

[cestpaspossible]

178. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Officer McNevin is typical of our police officers, thrust into an impossible job, with no training or oversight to counteract the corrupting influence of the total and absolute realtime power they hold over the citizens they encounter. I feel for them. It is a soul-destroying job that must be done.

[Walt Starr]

181. She was charged with resisting arrest

The charge was not dismissed.

[cestpaspossible]

195. Untrue thru omission, the charge was resisting arrest without violence.

Which seems to indicate -- at least to those who use the commonly accepted definition of words -- that she was not violent.

[JugDack]

139. Perp got what she deserved??

I thought punishment was supposed to be given out by judges and juries. That's what sinks it for me - the cop saying "maybe next time you won't take a swing at us". He was punishing her himself. A 22-year-old woman on the ground screaming in pain and he tasers her AGAIN?? Sorry. That's brutality.

[Walt Starr]

141. It's better than a crack on the head with a nightstick

which was the old 100% legal form of forcing complkiance when a perp resists arrest.

Also, 100% legal.

[JugDack]

148. Legal, maybe...

...but right? No way. Somebody (especially somebody smaller and weaker than you) is lying on the ground screaming in pain, and you shock them again?? Sorry, he's appointed himself judge and jury and is administering punishment. Saying it's "better than a crack on the head with a nightstick" is no argument, sorry. It's also better than being shot or stabbed or baked in an oven, but that doesn't make it right.

[Walt Starr]

150. I would rather they subdue a perp who is resisting arrest with a taser

than for either to end up dead. And that's what happens all too often when a perp is STUPID as was the case with this woman.

[TX-RAT]

130. when was she informed of the charge against her?"

After she's in custody, just like everybody else.

[cestpaspossible]

200. I don't think most American citizens are aware

that they can be arrested without being informed of the charges against them.

It is a useful tool for repression - you just detain them and figure out what to charge them with later, or just let them go if you can't come up with anything credible.

[merh]

208. No, she was never told the charges against her.

She was never advised of her rights or told she was under arrest.

First she was told to stay in the car, then she was told to put the phone down and get out of the car? :shrug:

Sad that so many folks are supportive of this unprofessional cop and his tactics and lies.

He accuses her of fighting, first him, then the other officer, but I guess since the other officer did back him up on that claim, she was charged with NON-VIOLENT RESISTING ARREST.

[Pithlet]

45. I don't have a problem with the orders

I have the problem with 500,000 volts coursing through her body as she's screaming in agony. Because she did't immediately follow a cops orders.

She was not a violent threat. I don't care how reasonable the order is. If a person isn't a violent thread, then there is no excuse for torture.

I can't believe you would support this.

[Walt Starr]

47. She WAS a violent threat

A cop NEVER KNOWS if there is a concealed weapon or not. When somebody who is being arrested REFUSES to comply, the only SAFE ASSUMPTION IS THEY ARE A VIOLENT THREAT!

BTW, it's 50,000 volts with no amps.

[Pithlet]

51. I don't care

What the volts were, or whether there were no amps.

She was not a violent threat simply because she didn't follow orders. No. I'm not defending her actions. I'm saying that her actions didn't warrant torture. Not stepping out of the car the second the cop tells you to does not make you a thread. And it WAS torture, amps or no.

I won't necessarily follow the orders of someone unless I'm sure they're a cop. Plenty of crooks impersonate cops to target victims. If I'm not sure, and I don't immediately comply, you're telling me that a cop should be able to taser me? That's ridiculous.

[Walt Starr]

53. If you are being arrested and fail to follow orders, YOU ARE A VIOLENT

THREAT.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

She is 100% responsible for her actions. She was speeding on a suspended license. Driving on a suspended license is automatic arrest.

SHE is the one responsible. The cop was bravely doing his job 100% above board.

[Pithlet]

57. SHOUTING IN CAP LOCKS DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT

And failure to comply with a cops wishes does not make you a violent threat. You are wrong, Walt. Wrong.

She is responsible for her actions, no doubt. She is NOT responsible for the actions of the cop, however, who were 100% NOT justified in tasering her.

[Walt Starr]

73. Nope, failure to follow orders while being arrested makes you a violent

threat. No ifs, ands, or buts.

If you are being arrested, follow the cops orders and sort it out in court. The cop is taking a risk just talking to you and must take potential threats into account. If you fail to follow orders while being arrested, you are immediately a threat to the life and well being of the cop.

[cestpaspossible]

79. If you want to have your own special definitions of words

it's not going to be very easy to have an intelligent conversation with people who use the commonly accepted meanings of those words.


No, 'disobedient' is not a synonym for 'violent' no matter how many times you assert that it is.

[Walt Starr]

91. When being arrested, disobedient and violent threat are synonymous

Sorry, but that's Cop Survival 101.

[Kingshakabobo]

118. How much of a threat was she when she was...

lying on the ground screaming when the cop gave her the second jolt?

Do you think it's OK to keep shocking someone until they place their hands behind their back? Maybe they could have given her a few more jolts till she placed the cuffs on her self.

I remember the old days when the police would bend over, grab a wrist and place it behind the back.

Also, what did you think of the cop saying "she has an attitude"? Do you think he was, maybe, just a little agitated by her "street lawyer talk" by the time he made the second trip to the car? It didn't seem like he was in fear of his own safety when he left her unattended for a few minutes while he ran her license. If he was worried about his safety I would imagine he would have her hands on the hood from the get-go.

The woman got an "attitude adjustment" pure and simple from a clearly agitated cop. Defend it if you like but that's what it was.

[Walt Starr]

127. Yes, I do. It was 100% legitimate

She continued to resist. They used non-lethal force to get her to comply.

[Kingshakabobo]

221. Nice to see you are OK with torture.........

when the officer is no longer in danger and only needs someone to comply. Although, don't you think a cattle prod would be a little easier to handle?

[cestpaspossible]

226. It's ok as long as 'procedure' allows it

apparently

[Walt Starr]

254. I oppose torture. This cop was not torturing anybody. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

299. According to the Bush adminstration, they aren't either.

They say they are opposed to torture. All they had to do was redefine torture.

[Walt Starr]

302. Difference is, I'm not redefining torture

although I cannot say the same about you.

[cestpaspossible]

311. Where have I heard that before?

Main Entry: 1tor·ture
Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=torture

I suppose one could say that he did not inflict intense pain on her. One could also say that he did not coerce her.


But, those statements would be untrue.

[Walt Starr]

312. Probably the people who want justice for the abominations committed

at Abu Ghraib.

[JugDack]

156. In America, maybe.

So, regardless of what you've done or haven't done, if you don't comply 100% instantly, the police should be free to inflict whatever pain suits them, up to and including death to obtain your 100% compliance?

Oh, and you might want to knock off the "sorry" bit. As far as I can tell, you're not the least bit sorry. Actually, you seem to enjoy the concept of the police inflicting pain.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JugDack]

180. LOL!!!!!! 9 - post wonder!

It's not the number of posts, it's the quality. Pretty full of yourself, aren't you?

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AX10]

309. Bingo! Why would any officer start screaming at someone who...

is non violent for a traffic violation in which no one was hurt. This is not Iraq, these are the streets of America.

[AX10]

307. By your definition, 'Ghandi was violent. When we protest...

and have sit ins, we are being violent.' I don't buy it. Passive resistence is NOT VIOLENCE and Law does NOT always equal justice.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

243. aha! it was a pre-emptive strike!!!! Shock and Awe YEAAAAH!!!!

sorry Will, I know you're a rock god, but the analogy was too much to pass up.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

287. hey that's not will that's walt

d'oh! i got my rock gods mixed up.

[sir_captain]

64. I've often disagreed with you, Walt

but here, I agree completely.

He also tried to physically drag her out and she physically resisted.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

137. Here, here! n/t

Edit. Or is that hear, hear? I'm never sure.

[Walt Starr]

140. OH GOOD GRIEF!

The woman resisted arrest during a traffic stop. Fully 50% of all intentional killings of cops occur during traffic stops, it's the most dangerous time in their daily routine.

SHEESH!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

142. And when it was apparent she had no weapon there was no justification

If he is such a chicken that he is quick on the trigger, he should get a job as a telemarketer.

[Walt Starr]

145. I applaud his actions

and am grateful for his service.

Of course, I believe many DUers are really Anarchists rather than Democrats. :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

157. I think he should be tasered in his nuts for using excessive force

I applaud good cops who know they are not judge, jury and executioner. This guy tasered her when she was already down a second time. He is a brutal baboon...although I do have some appreciation for cops that abuse their authority..they've made me LOADS of money on the lawsuits.

[Walt Starr]

161. The cop followed teh procedures 100%

He's a hero.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

163. The cop used a taser on a woman that was no threat. He's a chicken.

[Walt Starr]

165. No, he's a hero. He used a taser when he could have legally beat her

with a nightstick.

I suggest you go to the link provided in the OP and watch the video with the commentary. The cop used good judgement in an explosive situation.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

172. I saw the video. Mouthing off is not an offense worthy of corporal

punishment. The cop tasered her twice...once after she was already down. He is a brutal motherfucker who ought to get tasered in the nuts after he loses his job.

BUt keep posting all your one liners, Walt..he'll be a real big hero to his community after they pay out on this lawsuit.

[Walt Starr]

174. Resisting arrest is.

and that's precisely what the moron in the SUV did.

[cestpaspossible]

304. She was CHARGED with resisting arrest without violence.

I understand that a lot of cops act as if the standard is 'guilty until proven innocent', but the rest of us operate under a different standard - 'innocent until proven guilty'.

[AX10]

300. I agree. The only way to stop this crap is to clean out his accounts.

I would say also, that using force that causes pain is not needed during a routine traffic stop.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

168. Yeah, cause a fascist will spend more than four years as a DUer

and have tens of thousands of posts supporting liberal causes.

:eyesL

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

179. She refused to put her arms behind her back. She INVITED the second taze

She is responsible for her own actions, not the cops. She chose to resist. She chose to continue to resist after the first taze.

The cop kept an explosive situation from escalating.

If a cop is arresting you and you disagree, take it to court. Resisting arrest invites the use of force. continuing to resist after an intial application of force is inviting additional use of force.

[Pithlet]

197. She said she couldn't.

She was screaming sobbing in pain, and when they told her to, she said "I can't!" Because she'd just been tasered!

[AX10]

268. Being shocked hurts. She may have paniced and NOT reacted...

fast enough. Also, when we are in pain, we tend to put our selves into a defensive position. Ric McNevin is another Lyndie England.

[Pithlet]

189. It is clear to me

that number of posts or lenght of time at DU has NOTHING to do with whether someone is a progressive, let alone a fascist. There is ample proof of that in this thread alone.

[JugDack]

194. Amen!

[Walt Starr]

209. Yeah. Okay

:eyes:

'Nuff said.

[Pithlet]

211. Cute n/t

[Walt Starr]

212. Accurate n/t

[Pithlet]

213. n/t

[Walt Starr]

215. Back atcha n/t

[AX10]

298. Amen!

[Walt Starr]

176. BTW, read my profile n/t

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

196. It doesn't.

Obviously. Welcome to DU. We aren't all like this, I promise :)

[name not needed]

235. Right.

Because we all know TRUE Democrats support police brutality! :eyes:

Get a fucking clue.

[DebinTx]

62. I think the cops were correct

if you listen, she's on her phone saying that the policeman is going to arrest her and all he's done is asked her to step out of her car. Then things go downhill from there.
She was combative and deserved what she got.

Never, never argue with a policeman!

[Pithlet]

66. Never argue with a policeman

or they should be able to torture you? Honestly you believe this?!

I think I must be dreaming. Surely I'm not arguing against torture of civilians for being noncomplient. Not on DU.

[theboss]

83. Again, I've been pulled over for speeding three times...

I've been questioned twice....
I've been told to "move along" a bunch of times....

And I've never challenged an officer...hence, I've never had even the smallest problem with one.

"Yes, sir" and "No, sir" and then call my attorney.

It works like a charm.

[Pithlet]

92. Same here.

I've never failed to comply with an officers orders. Still doesn't make what those officeres did right. I'm not defending the woman's actions. I'm condemning the officers' actions.

[cestpaspossible]

93. I, too, have been intimidated into obedience.

That in no way justifies what was done to this woman, however.

[theboss]

96. So, how much leeway should someone have with an officer?

I mean, when should an officer be allowed to use some force.

He probably jumped the gun here; I will grant that much.

But none of this happens if she behaves intelligently.

[cestpaspossible]

102. Leeway? I don't know what you mean by that.

Cops shouldn't use force against non-violent suspects. Cops should be able to use force appropriate to the situation. The only way someone can view the video and say that the force was appropriate is by equating failure to immediately obey orders with violence, which is a false equivalency, imho.

[AX10]

229. She was treated like a rabid dog. She was unruly, so was the cop.

At no time, did the woman attempt to hurt the officer. Ric McNevin belongs in GITMO!

I smashed my fist into the desk when I saw this video.

[LiberalPersona]

205. Sorry to say

But these cops did just what they should have.

Why should she expect to be treated with respect and be allowed to talk on the phone?

She was going 17 MPH over the limit, in a fucking SUV which is a serious hazard to everyone on the road as well as pedestrians. Being on the phone makes it even worse, she could easily have killed people with that deadly combo.

The officer gave her multiple warnings and still she refused to comply.
I have no sympathy for maniac drivers.

[Pockets]

58. I'm sure there were many alternative ways to handle it

Maybe, or quite obviously, the woman has some kind of mental problems, or inability to relate to the officer. Before using the taser the cop should have had received backup. It would have given her time to calm down and have given someone else an opportunity to talk her out of the vehicle.

IMO, unless there is a clear threat, the taser should not be an alternative to communication.

[LifeDuringWartime]

68. democracy now played an excerpt from the video this morning

it was disturbing to say the least

[killbotfactory]

78. I saw the video, and tazing her seemed over the top

twice, even. i didn't see her take a swing at anybody, all I saw was that she being an ass.

[redqueen]

80. While I agree a taser is extreme... he did warn her numerous times.

:shrug:

[theboss]

87. She's lucky she didn't get shot if she reached for a phone

Police on traffic stops don't like a lot of movements towards the seat or under the seat.

I've been trained well. Put both hands on the wheel. Wait patiently for the officer. When he asks for license and registration, explain where both are, then get them. Only answer with "yes, sir," "no, sir, or "I don't know, sir." Call the attorney as soon as it is over.

[LiberallyInclined]

125. what i don't understand-

is how many people can't seem to understand this?

cops have an almost impossible job, where they have to fear for their own safety- just be polite, and comply. especially if you're in the wrong.

[Pithlet]

219. What I don't understand

is how some people don't realize that cops can and do abuse their authority? That cops do NOT have absolute authority over us. They do have limits to what they can and cannot do. Those limits are there for our protection. Limits should be placed on any physical means they use. Allowing them to taser the hell out of whomever they feel like doesn't make them any safer, and endangers the rest of us.

Yes, people should be polite and comply. No one is arguing that. The argument is that failure to be polite should NOT result in being tortured. And that is what happened to that woman in that video. She was mercilessly tortured. And they continued to do it as she was writhing on the ground in pain. What I don't understand is, how can ANYONE who values freedom and equality defend this? How?

[LiberalPersona]

250. "Mercilessly tortured?"

Was she stunned and then kicked, dragged, and thrown and beaten?
You're vastly overexaggerating the situation.

[Pithlet]

257. No, I'm not.

She was tortured. As someone who was accidently shocked, I know how painful that is. And it wasn't nearly to the level that she was. The shocks were repeatedly administered while she was screaming in agony. That may not follow your definition of torture. But it sure as hell does mine. At any rate, it wasn't justified in the least, so whether or not it can be called torture is just an arument over semantics.

[LiberallyInclined]

325. mercilessly tortured...?

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you were kidding, right...?

[Algorem]

100. Despite safety debate, area deaths, Cleveland police buy 60 stun guns

http://www.cleveland.com/crime/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/111805037518660.xml&coll=2


Monday, June 06, 2005
Gabriel Baird
Plain Dealer Reporter


Cleveland police plan to arm more cops with science-fiction-inspired stun guns that have sparked a nationwide debate because some people have died after being shocked by them.

Police around the world use Tasers to immobilize combative suspects long enough to handcuff them. In some cases, Tasers are used when an officer's only other choice would be deadly force.

But Cleveland's purchase of the weapon -- and its decision this summer on who will be trained to use them -- comes as the human rights group Amnesty International questions the gun's safety.

Recently, Tasers have been used locally and nationally to end standoffs or stop violent suspects. Sometimes, results are fatal:...

[Pockets]

105. That's fine

I think stun guns are great alternatives to firearms, but they are not alternatives to peaceful human interaction.

[BigBearJohn]

111. Cops handcuff 5 year old little girls who resist arrest too.

Remember the recent story of cops handcuffing a little girl?

Just wait until someone YOU love gets tased by some policeman.

Personally, I think the taser gives a cop an excuse not to
use other means of being persuasive. Oh, it's not a cop's
job to be persuasive, you say? Is it a matter of, "do what
I command or we will torture you."

I think all cops should have a new required warning:

"COMPLY. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE."

[Sandpiper]

135. That's not true

It was a 5 year old, not a 9 year old.

Cops are authority junkies and quick to brutalize those who do not immediately and slavishly obey their every word.

Having worked in a Public Defender's office, I've seen plenty of their handiwork up close.

[BigBearJohn]

136. Thanks for the correction.

[Seneca]

187. Tasers and police brutality

It seems that because taser abuse is on the rise, either due to increased reporting, or because some police officers feel emboldened by their possession of the device, as more tasers come into use by more police departments. Why? Perhaps because they are not supposed to be lethal, and hey, more fun than a baton. There is a serious failure of patience, resolve, and character on the part of ANY police officer who resorts to a hasty use of these devices on non-threatening suspects.

This was clearly an abuse of power by the police officers in question. The woman, no matter how we perceive her nature or character, is a citizen entitled to her civil rights, which the police are sworn to uphold. The Constitution does not make exceptions for "obnoxious" or "uncooperative" people.

It seems that officers like this consider the Bill of Rights an impediment to their job, and that reflects poorly on the many who do upstanding jobs as enforcers of the law, and keeping the civil rights of suspects intact when charging them with whatever offense arises.

[AX10]

232. I agree 100%. This new breed of cops is frightning.

I am inclined to support a ban on taser weapons seeing that they are being used to hurt non violent people as a way to make them comply is absurd. Police are taking the easy way out with these tasers. It is unjustified to use force at a traffic stop.

[qanda]

210. DU seems to be turning into Police State Central these days

The question people use to shut up dissent, "What would you have done?" I bet you none of those acting as shills for the cops are black women who fear police intimidation. BTW, my nephew was stopped by police last year and was cited for driving on a suspended license-- he had never received any notice that his license was suspended. Luckily, he came in contact with police that were professional enough to explain the seriousness of it to my nephew without making it a crime worthy of capital punishment.

Keep guessin' why minorities are leaving the Democratic Party....

[Pithlet]

216. Never question authority

Sadly, there are many people who will completely acquiesce to authority, and demand nothing less from anyone else, or they're called "anarchists". Apparently, if I were to question whether or not the cop was real, and didn't get out of the car right away, that I should be tasered to within an inch of my life. It scares the hell out of me that there are people at DU of all places who think like this. Imagine what the consensus of the general public is. I really can't believe that anyone could watch that video and think the cops were right to do that. They tortured that woman mercilessly. They continued to taser her even when she was on the ground screaming and writhing in agony. They see nothing wrong with living in a community where someone is given absolute authority over you.

Cops are there to protect us. They are not there to assert whatever will they want to impose on us. They can't just enter our houses without probably cause. Why should they be able to inflict torture and excruciating pain because we didn't follow orders quickly enough for them, or in a manor they deemed appropriate? It was clear that this woman was not a physical threat. I'm disgusted at some of my fellow DUers today. Thoroughly disgusted. Some in this thread are objecting to being called fascist. But, I don't know what else you call supporting giving the right to cops to shoot us with electricity whenever they damn well feel like it.

[qanda]

222. I'll share a little story with you

A couple of weeks ago my husband and I went to Annapolis to celebrate our 10th anniversary. We stayed in a nice hotel and my husband, wanting everything to be nice, opted for the valet service-- we don't usually waste money like that. Anyway, on our second day we called down for them to get our car and when we came downstairs it was not there. Long story short, the valet people had given our car to someone else who took advantage of having a nice car and not only took the car and drove it over 60 miles, but also brought it back with a 2 ft. scratch across the trunk and multiple scratches and other damage all around the body of the car.

Needless to say that we were livid and the hotel called the police. Well, imagine our surprise when the cop came and took my husband's license and ran it and overall treated my husband and I like we were suspects. When the police officer finally talked to the people who had taken the car, he said that their excuse of having a car with a different color and make but the same manufacturer was good enough for him to not question them any further. Not only did he not take down their driver information, he didn't run their license!!!!!! What exactly were we supposed to think-- We are black, the people who took our car and the officer were white. We, the victims, were treated worse than the perpetrators.

I don't think it's possible for white people to understand the mistrust black people have for police. There are many more stories that I could tell, but this was just the most recent.

[AX10]

230. I am very sorry to hear this.

:cry:

[sir_captain]

240. I don't disagree with you entirely

in fact, I agree with a lot of what you have to say.

On the other hand, you lose a lot of credibility with your inability to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. How can you judge others when you won't question yourself?

[Pithlet]

256. What in tarnation are you talking about? n/t

[sir_captain]

259. Your misunderstanding

over the importance of the taser's voltage levels. The fact that it uses 50,000 volts has been parroted endlessly in this thread despite the fact that it is essentially meaningless. I pointed this out to you, and you ought to acknowledge it since you were using it as a large part of your argument.

[Pithlet]

262. The voltage was in no way part of my argument

You're being pedantic. Are you arguing that tasering is painless? I hope not. I don't care about the number. If it is painful enough to immobilize someone, then that is enough voltage, or amp, or whatever, to me. If it is enough to cause a human being to scream the way that woman was, then that is enough for me. The fact that I'm not an electrical engineer in no way nullifies my argument. The fact is, electric current is a device that is often used in torture. I don't have to know what the voltage was to know that is so. If I misstated the exact number of voltage, or used incorrect terminology, then I am sincerely sorry. But, it doesn't make me wrong on this issue. It detracts from my argument in no way. This isn't a technical discussion on the merits of tasers and their effectiveness.

[sir_captain]

266. You're wrong

You, and many others have said things like "I wouldn't send thousands of volts of electricity through her body." That's a horrible argument, since sending thousands of volts across someone's body is very unlikely to do anything to them. It just isn't right to call it electrocution, or to compare a taser to an electric chair (i'm not saying you said those specific things, but others have.) If we're going to talk about these things, we ought to do it in a way that is a) accurate, and b) without throwing around hysterical nonsense that is essentially meaningless (the 50,000 Volts!!!!!!!1!!!!11111 OMG!!!111!!! stuff.) It makes all of us look dumb.

Does the thing hurt? Undoubtedly. Does it hurt less or more than getting sprayed in the face with pepper spray or whacked in the leg with a nightstick? I dunno. As I've said before, I have my doubts as to whether its use was warranted here.

[Pithlet]

271. I'm not wrong.

I don't care if it does permanent damage or not. I don't care. How many times do I have to say that? I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. I NEVER compared it to the electric chair, or to electrocution. Now who's being nonfactual?

It hurt enough to cause me to hear a sound I never want to hear again. The sound of the screams of that woman will haunt me forever. Your insistence that my argument is nullified because I didn't use proper terminology is, again I'll say it, pedantry. Nothing more.

[sir_captain]

278. Wow, apparently you can't read either

Did you actually look at what I posted? Let me point you to the pertinent part in this case: "(i'm not saying you said those specific things, but others have.)"

I also never talked about permanent damage or not. I also don't care about that. My point was, and remains that we ought to speak clearly and accurately about what we are discussing. You, and many others in this thread, have not done that, and you're being too prideful to admit it. You argued that it is bad to send thousands of volts of electricity through people--that is not correct. If you want to change your argument to "it is bad to hurt people" that's fine, and I'll agree with you, but at least admit your error.

[Pithlet]

283. You are the one who told me that I discredited myself

If you had merely pointed out that I was wrong, I would have been fine with that. It was your insistence that it somehow nullifies everything I said that I take issue with. You are being extremely and annoyingly pedantic with me. Whether or not certain voltages are or are not harmless is irrelevant to this discussion! She was tasered. Tasers are inarguable very painful. Otherwise, why would police bother? If it only feels like those nifty globes that make your hair stand on end at the children's science museum, then what the hell would be the point? Honestly.

[sir_captain]

284. I *did* point out that you were wrong and that was it

earlier in the thread and you ignored me and continued on. You may think I'm being annoying and pedantic, and I think you're being incredibly annoying in your inability to admit that you were wrong. It's not irrelevant to the discussion when so many posters are using this incorrect information as part of their argument.

[Pithlet]

286. I ignored it because it wasn't part of the argument.

You stated that I discredited myself. THAT is where I took issue. Parden me if I didn't want to go off on a Mr. Wizard tangent in this thread.

Sorry I'm geting so heated. I just don't understand why you're attempting to suck me into a discussion about voltage and amps, in a perfectly good flame war.

[sir_captain]

292. It's alright

And so you know, it's nothing personal...I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings.

It bothered me that you were questioning lots of posters while being unable to admit your own error--it struck me as ego, but I realize now you just thought it was irrelevant.

[Pithlet]

293. And I'm sorry

That I jumped on your case. I'm just a little bit unsettled at how willing a few here are to defend what happened.

[kcr]

274. Neither does being hit by a club cause permamnet damage

So whats your fucking point?

There have been 11 autopsies that implicated Tasers in the death of people. That taser obvious caused a great deal of harm to the women, even if it wasn't temporary. The cop used it to get immediate and unquestioning obedience form a women who in no way posed a hreat to him. HE escalated the situation, and acted in a way designed to do nothing but teach her that a cop's authority must never be questioned and never be challenged, no matter how minutely.

And your response is that it didn't do any permanent damage. Wonderful. Let me know just how much damage is required before you get upset, and then we won't have to bother you again.

[sir_captain]

280. Huh?

Are you daft? Did you see in the post where I said I didn't think the use of the taser was warranted? And where did I say anything about permanent damage? Did you even mean to reply to me?

[texanwitch]

269. I so agree with you.

I was going to post but you said everything I was going say.

I have watched that video only two times, I can't watch it again.

The woman on ground being tasered again, I doubt she could even hear anything the cop was telling her. She was in real pain, and I doubt she will ever be the same again.

The cops showed no feelings at all, they were like robots.

If this is the future of law enforcement, lets call it what it really is, Nazi America.

[AX10]

270. Officer Ric McNevin is another Lyddie England.

He should be the one in jail.

[Walt Starr]

275. BULLSHIT!

'nuff said.

[AX10]

282. .....

Law does not always equal justice.

Fire McNevin.

[Walt Starr]

285. Firing him would be the greatest injustice of all

Jail McGoodwin.

[AX10]

288. Fire McNevin.

Period!

[Walt Starr]

289. It's not going to happen

Fortunately.

[AX10]

290. Sadly, it won't happen.

[AX10]

294. look at this. Ms. Goodwin was "non violent".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3799613&mesg_id=3800267&page=

Put a tire boot on Goodwin's car and Fire McNevin!

[Walt Starr]

295. I'e watched it which is why I support the officer. n/t

[AX10]

303. I watched it too which is why I support Goodwin.

[Walt Starr]

305. Looks like the law supports me and not you on this. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

308. And we all know that the law is never wrong, never needs to be changed.

We should just obey without question all orders given to us by police, and if their actions are lawful, we should not question that law.

Because after all - it's the law!

[Walt Starr]

310. Then change the law

and see cop killings at traffic stops increase dramatically because you've tied their hands and forced them to be cannon fodder for cop killers. Then when nobody wants to be a cop and somebody comes after youy, maybe you'll understand why a cop has to be given this sort of latitude and power.

[cestpaspossible]

313. There's that strawman again.

Anyone who disagrees with you is in favor of cop killing. OK.

[Walt Starr]

315. Change the law and we'll see who's right. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

317. Since it's entirely a strawman, and not in any way my position,

your comment makes no sense. Either you are right, or the ridiculous position that you are pretending I hold is right, or perhaps whether or not this cop acted appropriately does not hinge on the question of whether one is willing to see more cops killed at traffic stops.

Nevertheless, what my position is, (when I state it, that is, lol), that excessive force was used in this instance, and if the officer used proper procedures and followed the law, then the law or the procedures need to be changed. And that still would not excuse his immoral actions.

[Walt Starr]

318. Change the law if you disagree

of course, to do that you;d have to live in Florida since that's hwere this occurred.

[cestpaspossible]

319. You're simply repeating yourself without responding to my comments.

why? is it lastword-itis? I'm afflicted too, so I can understand...

[Walt Starr]

320. Because there's little use in responding to your comments. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

323. I on the other hand like to participate in respectful discussions

where I listen to the other person and respond to what they said, and vice versa, and if I don't have anything of value to say in response, I don't respond.

To each his own.

[Walt Starr]

324. Okay, you get the last word.

:evilgrin:

[AX10]

314. The Law is not always just.

[Walt Starr]

321. It is in this case n/t

[MrSlayer]

244. I'm on the officer's side in this.

This woman was cocky and beligerant from the second the encounter began and she refused to follow the officer's instructions. He told her 5 fucking times to get out or be tased and she refused. Take this as yet another lesson on how not to act when a policeman pulls you over. If she had been courteous and truthful she might have been let off with a warning but instead she had to act like an ignorant jackass and get tased twice on top of all the extra tickets. What she did was just plain stupid.

[cestpaspossible]

246. Does her stupidity justify his brutality?

I don't see anyone in this thread defending what she did; rather, the officer is being taken to task for what he did.

[MrSlayer]

261. I don't consider it brutality but yes.

Had she listened that would have never happened to her. He clearly warned her several times, she left him no choice.

[KC_25]

326. Ok did anyone else notice...

that she was giving directions to someone on the phone?
Who was she calling? why was she summoning there?


Let us say that the cop didnt taser her...

he instead yanks her out of the vehicle, she begins to further resist and gets slammed to the ground with the weight of both cops on top of her....bet that would have hurt alot more and alot longer than that taser blast did.

Lets say that she really put up a fight and the cop cracked her upside the head with his nightstick...drain bamage anyone?

Lets say that she was reaching for something in the glove box instead of taking a swing at the other cop? What is it? A hairbrush to pretty herself for the mugshot with? A can of pepper spray? Worse a gun? and the cop just lets her reach... yeah that would have ended better. wouldnt it.

Not tasered, but shot to death...

But she swung at the other cop...and she told whoever was on the phone with her that she was being arrested, and she was giving directions to where she was at?
What if her hubby/BF/Dad big cousin whomever has shown up while the cop was being polite and respectful? She had already stated where she was at..should the cop just kept talking politely to her until they arrived to really complicate matters?

No, the cop did what needed to be done. I do not fault him at all, and she needs to take responsibilty for her actions and arrogance.

[Pithlet]

329. Honestly. What happened to handcuffs?

I imagine that a good percentage of the time, cops manage to handle and handcuff a resistant person without managing to injure them or inflict excruciating pain. There was nothing in that video that suggests to me that these two cops couldn't have gotten her out of that vehicle and handcuffed without repeatedly tasering her. I don't see a cop whip out a baton every single time a person resists an arrest. So, why should they use tasers that way? I think there is a false impression that because tasers don't leave a mark, that it is okay to use them whenever anyone shows the slightest inclination to be non-compliant. Sporting an attitude is simply NOT reason enough to inflict excruciating and possibly damaging pain, no matter how "harmless" tasers may appear to be. This was a traffic stop, for God's sake. Not an armed robbery suspect. This whole discussion is ridiculous.

She did not swing at that other cop. I didn't see that, and neither did many of the other people who watched that video. She refused to get out of that car. And while I won't defend that, I certainly won't defend the brutality - yes, brutality - that those cops engaged in. There IS such a thing as excessive force. And it is clear that is what those cops did.

[KC_25]

333. To get handcuffs on her

They would have had to get her out of the car.

The officers chose the best available of the options that she left them with:

1. Talk to her, and attempt to reason with her, while whoever it is that she is giving her location to arrives on scene and really complicates matters.

2. Forcibly wrestle her out of the car. Putting both the cops and her in danger. She displayed no intention whatsoever to get out of that truck on her own free will. What kind of injuries would she or the cops have suffered had they had to drag her kicking, screaming and fighting out of the car. Then after she was out of the car, they would have had to take her down, 1 woman being taken down to the ground by the weight of 2 cops that are trying subdue her however they can...can say "that will leave a mark"

3. pulled out the billy club and proceeded to subdue her that way? While effective, and probably within the legal bounds...drain bamage?

4. pepper spray/mace...well that pain would have lasted until they got her somplace that they could wash it off, chemical burns anyone?

5. Continued to talk to her, allow her to speak on the phone..up to the point that she reached for something..anything...and got herself shot full of holes...

6. Or do what they ended up doing, decisively ending the standoff, with minimal risks to the police and suspect alike.

I think that the cop took the appropriate action.

[KC_25]

336. kick n/t

[donheld]

301. It seems to me

Cops seem to love using their tazers a little too much.

[Renew Deal]

327. If she swung at the cop

she deserves to get tasered. Otherwise, it's excessive. They could have taken her down without a taser. Why does this shit always happen in Florida.

[AX10]

337. I agree. But she was passive. Not once did she attempt to...

put the officers (2) in danger. If you notice, most cases of taser abuse by cops occur in the "Facist Lands of Florida-Reich".

[TeeYiYi]

328. They shouldn't have tased her, however . . .

. . . her behavior was embarrassin'! Good grief. I think her very loud and obnoxious behavior was a performance for the person on the other end of the phone. She wanted them to hear her yelling so she kept getting louder and louder. IMO she was trying to set up her lawsuit from the jump. She told her friend on the phone that the cop was pointing a gun at her. Then, after the double tase incident was over and after refusing to stand up and pipe down, the other cop said he was going to go get a glove so that they could pick her up and physically carry her to the car. Suddenly the wailing stopped, she was miraculously able to find her legs and the first thing out of her mouth after 'don't touch me' was that she was going to sue the shit out of the cops. She wasn't afraid of those cops, she was PISSED OFF that she hadn't gotten her way and that her tantrum had been largely ignored. I don't think she was used to that. Yikes. What a diva. :eyes:

BOYNTON BEACH — Victoria Goodwin's spirits were high as she sped through Boynton Beach in her SUV that Friday morning with a sense of entitlement and a self-knowledge that she was above the law.

She had just dropped her daughter off at day care and was heading to her mother's house to get her hair and nails done. On Monday, she would fly to Jamaica to be a contestant in a modeling competition and she simply didn't have time to be bothered by some pesky jarhead beat cop pulling her over for speeding. Models in SUVs have more important things to do than be polite to pain-in-the-ass traffic cops passing out tickets . . .

TYY

[cestpaspossible]

330. lol, you're post is a good example of why journalists are taught

not to inject their bias and opinions into the stories they write... thanks for the laugh. I love a good satire.

[AX10]

338. The writer is shameful in his editorializing.

No credibility what so ever.

:argh:

[noiretextatique]

332. tasers for all who suppost taser usage for routine traffic stops!

this is not the first, nor the last of these incidents. i sincerely hope all who support this practice have the opportunity to experience it first hand.

[noiretextatique]

334. two cops pulled me over once

for driving with my lights off, which is not even illegal in ca. once they found my lights worked...that should have been the end of it, since i wasn't speeding and my registration was current. they decide to run me...anyway, and during the profiling routine, i did not comply with one of the cops' request and he wrote me a ticket for it :shrug:
the cops didn't show up at court and the case was thrown out, with disgust by the judge who wasn't amused by racial profiling.
some people have reason...and not just the obvious ones in this case...to be afraid of the police.
i will certainly think twice before i tell some racially-profiling cop why i think he pulled me over.

[AX10]

339. First of all, never question "DAS SS". Second of all....

I think it is obvious that you were pulled over for your skin color. I wonder why those who support McNevin don't come to support the officer who pulled you over?!?

[noiretextatique]

340. i'm 46 years old and i'm not taking any shit anymore

:7 i've been black all my life, and i grew up in LA. my attitude with those cops stopped them in their tracks...it could have been worse if i was meekly going along with the program. and why should i? they knew why they pulled me over, and so did i. i don't normally have an attitude with cops, but...i just wasn't up for the game that night.
when i told this story here after it first happened...about three years ago, some authoritarian types did support the officers. some were going on about the dangers of driving without lights and so on, so i told them i had driven one block on a brightly lit downtown street, an "offense" police routinely use their loudspeaker for...i know because i've seen it, and it's happened to me before.
some people will always support authority, no matter what.