Whatever
Happened to Justice? Supreme Court OKs Police Tasering
Pregnant Women
June
2012
By John W. Whitehead
“Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”—Martin
Luther King Jr.
Once
again, the United States Supreme Court has proven
Clarence Darrow, a civil liberties attorney and
long-time advocate for the Constitution, correct in his
assertion that “there is no such thing as justice—in or
out of court.” In meting out this particular miscarriage
of justice, the Supreme Court recently refused to hear
the case of a pregnant woman who was repeatedly tasered
by Seattle police during a routine traffic stop simply
because she refused to sign a speeding ticket.
Malaika
Brooks, 33 years old and seven months pregnant, was
driving her 11-year-old son to school on a November
morning in 2004, when she was pulled over for driving 32
mph in a 20 mph school zone. Instructing her son to walk
the rest of the way to school, Malaika handed over her
driver’s license to Officer Juan Ornelas for processing.
However, when instructed to sign the speeding
ticket—which the state inexplicably requires, Malaika
declared that she wished to contest the charge,
insisting that she had not done anything wrong and
fearing that signing the ticket would signify an
admission of guilt.
What
happened next is a cautionary tale for anyone who still
thinks that they can defy a police officer, even if it’s
simply to disagree about a speeding ticket. Rather than
issuing a verbal warning to the clearly pregnant (and
understandably emotional) woman, Officer Ornelas called
for backup. Officer Donald Jones subsequently arrived
and told Brooks to sign the ticket. Again she refused.
The conversation became heated. The cops called in more
backup. The next to arrive was Sergeant Steven Daman,
who directed Brooks to sign the ticket, pointing out
that if she failed to do so, she would be arrested and
taken to jail. Again, Malaika refused.
On
orders from Sgt. Daman, Ornelas ordered a distraught
Brooks to get out of the car, telling her she was “going
to jail.” Malaika refused, and the second cop, Jones,
responded by pulling out his taser electro-shock weapon,
asking her if she knew what it was and warning her it
would be used on her if she continued to resist. Brooks
told him “No,” and then said, “I have to go to the
bathroom, I am pregnant, I’m less than 60 days from
having my baby.”
Jones
and Ornelas then proceeded to discuss how best to taser
the pregnant woman and forcibly remove her from the car.
One officer said, “Well, don’t do it in her stomach; do
it in her thigh.” Opening the car door, Ornelas twisted
Malaika’s arm behind her back. Desperate, Brooks held on
tightly to the steering wheel, while Jones cycled the
taser as a demonstration of its capacity to cause
pain.
With
the taser in a “drive-stun” mode, Officer Jones then
pressed the taser against Brooks’ thigh while Ornelas
held her hand behind her back. Brooks, in obvious pain,
began to cry and honk her car horn—hoping someone would
help. Thirty-six seconds later, Ornelas pressed it into
her left arm. Six seconds later, he again stunned her,
this time on the neck. After being tasered numerous
times, Brooks’ pregnant body eventually gave way. As
Malaika fell over and out of the car, the officers
dragged her onto the street, placing the pregnant woman
face down on the pavement, handcuffing her and
transporting her to jail.
While
Malaika Brooks’ ordeal with the police did not seem to
negatively impact her unborn child—she gave birth to a
healthy baby girl two months after the
altercation—Malaika bears permanent burn scars on her
body where she was tasered by police. Thus, looking to
the courts to hopefully right the wrong against her,
Malaika sued the arresting officers, charging them with
use of excessive force and violating her constitutional
rights.
Unfortunately,
this is where what happened to Malaika Brooks at the
hands of the police—behavior that should be roundly
condemned and prohibited—becomes yet another example of
the cowardice of our justice system and the corrupt
nature of life in a police state. Even though the Ninth
Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals recognized
that Malaika posed no threat to anyone, nor did she pose
a physical threat to the officers, that none of her
offenses were serious, and that officers clearly used
“excessive force” against her, the justices granted
qualified immunity to the officers—a ruling that the
U.S. Supreme Court ostensibly upheld when it refused to
hear the case. In doing so, the courts have essentially
given police carte blanche authority when it
comes to using tasers against American citizens.
Indeed,
this case highlights a growing trend in which police
officers use tasers to force individuals into compliance
in relatively non-threatening situations. Originally
designed to restrain violent criminals, tasers are now
used with impunity against individuals who pose no
bodily harm to the police. Rowdy schoolchildren, the
elderly, and mentally ill individuals are increasingly
finding themselves on the receiving end of these
sometimes lethal electroshock devices. Cops who have
been shocked in the course of their training have
described being tased as “the most profound pain,” and
“like getting punched 100 times in a row.”
Police
looking for absolute deference to their authority are
quick to utilize tasers. For example, there have been a
number of incidents where suspects of minor crimes and
even completely innocent people were electroshocked into
compliance by cops. In Florida, a 15-year-old girl was
tased and pepper sprayed after being taken off of a bus
following a disturbance. In Arizona, a run-away
9-year-old girl was tased as she sat in the back seat of
a police car with her hands cuffed behind her back. In
Oregon, police tased a blind and partially deaf
71-year-old multiple times in her own front yard. In
another instance, a Florida woman, 12-weeks pregnant,
was tased after refusing to submit to a strip search at
a jail. She spontaneously miscarried seven days later.
In Texas, a 72-year-old great-grandmother was tased
after refusing to sign a speeding ticket.
While
law enforcement advocates may suggest otherwise, these
incongruous and excessive uses of force by the police
are quickly becoming the rule, not the exception. A 2011
New York Civil Liberties Union report showed that of the
eight police departments surveyed across the state, over
85 percent of taser uses occurred in cases where
suspects were not armed. Incredibly, 40 percent of taser
uses were aimed at the elderly, children, the mentally
ill, or the severely intoxicated. And despite claims
that tasers de-escalate tense situations, a Michigan
State University study shows that suspects are more
likely to be injured in incidences where police use stun
guns (41% of the time), rather than when no stun gun is
used (29% of the time).
Moreover,
although tasers are touted as being non-lethal, there is
a growing body of evidence that suggests otherwise. A
study recently published by the American Heart
Association has determined that taser shocks applied to
the chest can lead to cardiac arrest. According to
cardiologist Byron Lee, “This is no longer arguable.
This is a scientific fact.”
Since
2001, over 500 people have died after being stunned with
tasers. In a 2008 report, Amnesty International reviewed
hundreds of deaths following taser use and found that 90
percent of those who died after being struck with a
taser were unarmed. In late 2007, the United Nations
Committee Against Torture declared that the use of
tasers constituted a form of torture. Yet despite all of
the evidence that tasers are dangerous, taser technology
continues to rapidly advance. One of the most recent
advances in taser technology is the X12 Taser shotgun,
which fires taser rounds at a distance of up to 100
feet, adding nearly 80 feet in range compared to a
regular handheld taser. It would not be a stretch to
envision police using the X12 against protesters simply
exercising their right to free speech and assembly under
the First Amendment.
While
it is tempting to paint all law enforcement officials as
brutish thugs, I truly do not believe that is the case.
I have known many honorable law enforcement officials
who sincerely struggle with how best to balance the
demands placed on them by higher ups in government with
the need to treat those around them with respect and
dignity.
As
John Lennon once remarked, “The trouble with government
as it is, is that it doesn’t represent the people. It
controls them.” Indeed, the varied expressions of the
government’s growing power—the excessive use of tasers
by police on non-threatening individuals, allowing
drones to take to the skies domestically for purposes of
surveillance, the government’s monitoring of our emails
and phone calls, and on and on—which get more troubling
by the day, are merely the outward manifestations of an
inner, philosophical shift underway in how the
government views not only the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights, but “we the people,” as well.
What
this reflects is a move away from a government bound by
the rule of law to one that seeks total control over the
populace through the imposition of its own self-serving
laws on the populace—laws carried out by a police force
hired to do the government’s bidding.
WC:
1539
|
No comments:
Post a Comment