Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 5th, 2012 #1
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default Whatever Happened to Justice? Supreme Court OKs Police Tasering Pregnant Women

Whatever Happened to Justice? Supreme Court OKs Police Tasering Pregnant Women


by John W. Whitehead

Recently by John W. Whitehead: The New American Order: Using Weapons of Compliance To Stamp Out Protest

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.

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.”

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.

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.

June 5, 2012

http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead46.1.html
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #2
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Uh, they tazed a pregnant sheboon, and one that really looks like a descendant of Jabba the Hutt.

What's the problem?



http://brotherpeacemaker.wordpress.c...oman-is-worse/

Kid will probably come out and set NBA records.
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #3
zoomcopter
Senior Member
 
zoomcopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The goyim reservation
Posts: 5,944
Blog Entries: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
Whatever Happened to Justice? Supreme Court OKs Police Tasering Pregnant Women


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.
Next stop, a gun held against your head. "Either your signature will be on that speeding ticket, or your brains will"
__________________
Vladimir Putin's Russia is being attacked by the very same forces that attacked Hitler's Germany, namely the Jews. The fate of the world hangs on Putin defeating the Jews.
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #4
Mike in Denver
Enkidu
 
Mike in Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Under the Panopticon.
Posts: 4,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
What's the problem?
Here's the problem. They didn't taze her because she was a nigger. They tazed her because they are gutless, nerveless, cowards. They tazed her because they are cops.

And, they would taze your mother or mine, your sister or mine,... daughter or wife just as quickly.

There are no white cops, just stupid blue trash.

Mike
__________________
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon"
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #5
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Anything they had done to her -- short of just giving up and letting her go because she's a pregnant sheboon -- would have been wrong.

Before tazers came along, cops used fists, batons and pepper spray to subdue people. Would any of that been seen as more humane to the sheboon? If they had wrestled her out of the car and thrown her down on the pavement, would that have been seen as the thing to do?

I am no fan of cops. They're power-tripping assholes almost to a one. But signing a ticket doesn't mean you agree with the charge. It means that you have been notified of your court date and have received a copy of the ticket. The bitch should have signed it and went on to bring the future felon nigglet into the world without incident.
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #6
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

While true that signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt, at the same time the state has no compelling reason that would require a person to sign a traffic ticket.
So yeah, they could have just let her go on her way.

This was just a pride issue on the part of the porkers. They can't abide losing face.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #7
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,633
Default There's no fix for stupid

The ticket signing thing is always a hoot, but most drivers tend to know the drill oneway or the other.

Here in 'ole Virginny the drill for the typical speeding ticket (misdemeanor) is that the cop may actually tell you that you are under arrest: you have been detained pending resolution of the matter of your observed violation of the vehicle code. Once the ticket is written, the officer will request that you sign, saying (in so many words), "your signature here is no admission of guilt; rather it is your promise to appear in court on the date and time shown on the ticket." Typically the court date will be three or four weeks away.

If you get balky about the ticket, you will be told that unless you give your written promise to appear, then you will have to be taken before a magistrate and post bail. Since you are already effectively under arrest, all "necessary force" needed to take you (in custody) to the magistrate will be found to be "reasonable."

It truly is the height of dumbass to make a big deal out of signing for the ticket, and you can be damned sure that if you won't then your ass will be taking a "ride downtown."

The main thing is that this whole drill is so universally understood that it almost never becomes an issue. Of course in this case it's necessary to "consider the source."
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #8
notmenomore
Senior Member
 
notmenomore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,633
Default

BTW, here in the "Peoples' Republic of Virginia", where everyone is a "subject" and no one is a "Citizen", the idea of playing games with the popo is usually taken as a true indication of tardation...
__________________
No way out but through the jews.
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #9
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notmenomore View Post
The ticket signing thing is always a hoot, but most drivers tend to know the drill oneway or the other.
What you have here, though, is the 'unstoppable force' sheboon attitude: I'm above the law and can do any damn thing I want, running headlong into the 'immovable object' cop attitude: I am the law and you'd best do what I tell you to do. As you see in so many negro arrests, nothing but bad things can come from that, from the negro's perspective at least.

The sheboon knew she wasn't confessing by signing the ticket. She was pissed off because she had gotten the ticket and was being obstructionistic about it in the only way she knew how.


Last edited by Marse Supial; June 6th, 2012 at 07:18 PM.
 
Old June 6th, 2012 #10
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike in Denver View Post
Here's the problem. They didn't taze her because she was a nigger. They tazed her because they are gutless, nerveless, cowards. They tazed her because they are cops.

And, they would taze your mother or mine, your sister or mine,... daughter or wife just as quickly.

There are no white cops, just stupid blue trash.

Mike
The profession of 'law enforcement' has always been this way through history. The archetype of man who signs on to such a position is expected to be a figure of intimidation in order to preserve order, and the men who sign up for that $35/hr job risk their lives to feel that power and protect the power of someone who would naturally be attacked and/or even possibly eliminated for usually just causes, and so most of them are degenerates in this regard, but we all already know that from experiences with the average cop. They sign up under the moral disguise of 'keeping justice and peace'.

The hired thug will never go away. But, it's easy to glorify the "I'm just doing my job" Die Hard Bruce Willis bonehead cop; that is 'mob art' par excellence in the regard. It makes the mob feel good by glorifying a dullard, and attaching words like "he has heart".

Twaddle and horse shit that in the end equates to nothing good, much like Christianity; but that's another topic.

And, all of that isn't much different than finance teams hiring quants and programmers for their high-frequency trading systems (in which much like the 'police' prevent the natural order of things, the HFT systems fuck a quality market). The job title may be whatever to sound pretty and legitimate, but at the end of the day, that employee steps in the office and the boss says "exploit this". That's their real job title.

The idea of 'law enforcement' only exists to prevent those with less power taking the position of those with more power. You can probably count the amount of 'leaders' who wanted to see an orderly civil world that grows and prospers on both hands in the last 2 centuries. Most just want to milk the shit out of a system so they can take more vacations and buy more houses.

And that's why we are where we are.

The world isn't a cozy place. Scumbags abound, private and public. Deal with it.

Last edited by P.E.; June 6th, 2012 at 09:15 PM.
 
Old June 7th, 2012 #11
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
and the men who sign up for that $35/hr job risk their lives to feel that power
Cops don't make half that around here. $35/hour comes to $70K per year. That's only for them federal boys.
 
Old June 7th, 2012 #12
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

In a White society cops are superfluous, unneeded and unwanted.

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

Roger Roots


Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.

PART I

INTRODUCTION................................................................686

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT..............................................688

PRIVATE PROSECUTORS....................................................689

LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL................................692

POLICE AS SOCIAL WORKERS.............................................695

THE WAR ON CRIME..........................................................696

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISTINCTIONS................................698

RESISTING ARREST............................................................701

THE SAFETY OF THE POLICE PROFESSION............................711

PROFESSIONALISM?..........................................................713

DNA EVIDENCE ILLUSTRATES FALLIBILITY OF POLICE........716

COPS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE DETERRENT.............................721

PART II

POLICE AS A STANDING ARMY...........................................722

THE SECOND AMENDMENT........725

THE THIRD AMENDMENT...................................................727

THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE...........................................728

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT................................................729

WARRANTS A FLOOR, NOT A CEILING.................................733

PRIVATE PERSONS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT..............734

ORIGINALISTS CALL FOR CIVIL DAMAGES...........................739

DEVELOPMENT OF IMMUNITIES..........................................743

THE LOSS OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND THE ONSET OF PROBABLE SUSPICION................................................744

POLICE AND THE "AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION"......................745

ONE EXCEPTION: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?......................747

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT....................................................751

DUE PROCESS...................................................................752

ENTRAPMENT...................................................................754

CONCLUSION...................................757


http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=113656
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old June 7th, 2012 #13
Conta
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: midwest
Posts: 92
Default

Quote:
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.
Probably quite of few of that 40 percent, where severely toxicated.

Those tazers will kill you, if they are left on for more than 5 seconds.

Originally they'd tase you and it would shut off after a couple seconds. then they'd have to tase you again, with a new shot. The new ones they can hold the trigger down and tase you as long as they hold the trigger down.

the difference between stunning you and killing you is a matter of holding the trigger down 2 extra seconds.

What the police have is nothing compared to what the military and DAARPA have created. I don't know what all they've come up with, but they definitely do research into them.

Black pimps use them on their white slaves all the time. They are the favorite tool of many black serial rapists.

Anyways, I imagine it can be hard work wrestling drunk people to the ground, they are probably just lazy sometimes, someone feels like fighting the cops, one time in their life, cops don't always feel like fighting, but that's their job. I'd say it's physical laziness in large part.
 
Old June 7th, 2012 #14
Fred
Commie Killer
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,615
Default

Firstly this is a sheboon we are talking about. You know how unnecessarily combative they can be. Basically a wild animal.
But for Whites?

I am worried about guy and gals with weak or bad hearts.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...iclekey=157675

That would suck to get killed just because I was a smart ass to a cop.

I think they should only be used in an extreme case. not as a daily tool.
 
Old June 7th, 2012 #15
Conta
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: midwest
Posts: 92
Default

a 3 volt DC power adapter, drops your household voltage down from 120 volts, if you reverse it, remove the rectifier, it will step up the input voltage 40 times. Enough so you can charge a high voltage capacitor. Tazers only send a few milliamps through you, a very small current.

Some of these tazers you by now are hundreds of thousands of volts.

If you take a 9 volt battery, and step it up 40 times, that's 360 volts. If you step up 360 volts, 40 times, that 14,400 volts. Two 3 volt DC power adapters connected together.

If you connect 3 together, that's half a million volts.
 
Old June 7th, 2012 #16
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

In the mind of the aracial kwap, jew-trained as he is to avoid seeing color, we are all niggers.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old June 7th, 2012 #17
Conta
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: midwest
Posts: 92
Default

These 30,000 pilotless drones they're planning on deploying, are loaded with tazers.


They got these little remote helicopters to work so well now, they can fly the things in through an open window, fly down the hall and taze you while you are sitting at your computer.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.
Page generated in 0.79649 seconds.