Only a petty douchebag with no conscience would taser a pregnant woman for a speeding ticket.

The problem with tasers is that they have gone beyond their original scope of use, wich was supposed to be an alternative to lethal force. Now, they are routinely used for almost every situation including pregnant women that wont sign a speeding ticket. The fact is that they are extremely dangerous, and police over use them.

Taser Abuse in the United States

Since June 2001, more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers. Most of those individuals were not carrying a weapon. Amnesty International is concerned that Tasers are being used as tools of routine force -- rather than as an alternative to firearms.

Medical studies so far on the effects of Tasers have either been limited in scope or unduly influenced by the weapons' primary manufacturer. No study has adequately examined the impact of Tasers on potentially at-risk individuals -- people who have medical conditions, take prescription medications, are mentally ill or are under the influence of narcotics. Rigorous, independent, impartial study of their use and effects is urgently needed to determine what role Tasers may have played in the 351 deaths and to determine appropriate guidelines for future Taser use.

Given the unresolved safety concerns, Amnesty International recommends that police departments either suspend the use of Tasers and stun guns pending further safety research or limit their use to situations where officers would otherwise be justified in resorting to firearms.

Tasers under scrutiny after claims of death and injury

On October 7, 2006, Steven Butler, by his own admission, was drunk and disorderly. He refused an order from a police officer in his hometown to get off a city bus. The officer used his Taser ECD (officially, an "Electronic Control Device") three times.

According to doctors, Butler suffered immediate cardiac arrest. He was revived by emergency medical technicians who happened to be close by, but his attorneys say his brain was deprived of oxygen for as long as 18 minutes. He is now permanently disabled.

Then there's the infamous study that Taser International funded themselves.

John Burton, a lawyer based in Pasadena, California, says he can prove that when the weapons are fired directly over the chest, they can cause and have caused cardiac arrest. In addition, Burton says he can prove Taser knew about that danger.

"Well, we can prove that by early 2006," said Burton, "but we suspect they had all the necessary data since 2005, since they were funding the study."

The study Burton mentions was published in early 2006 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Funded by Taser, it focused on pigs struck by Tasers, with the conclusions, according to the study, "generalized to humans."

The authors wrote that being hit by a Taser is unlikely to cause cardiac arrest, but nevertheless recommended Taser darts not be fired near the heart to "greatly reduce any concern for induction of ventricular arrhythmias."

Dr. Douglas Zipes, a cardiologist based outside Indianapolis, Indiana, plans to testify against Taser in any lawsuit regarding what happened to Butler. In plain English, he says, that recommendation is a clear warning.

"I think Taser has been disingenuous and certainly up to 2006 -- the case we are talking about -- Taser said in their educational materials that there was no cardiac risk whatsoever," Zipes said. "That Taser could not produce a heart problem, that there was no long lasting effect from Taser."

Medical experts say that if a person is hit by a Taser dart near the chest, one result is a dramatic increase in the subject's heartbeat -- from a resting 72 beats a minute to as many as 220 beats a minute for a short period of time. In its court filings, the company says the "peak-loaded" voltage from a Taser at impact ranges up to 40,000 volts but it's a 600-volt average for the duration of the firing.

Fairness of Taser study in question

An adviser to a federally funded study concerning the safety of stun guns made by Taser International also is a paid consultant to Taser, the Justice Department acknowledges. The situation is raising questions about potential conflicts of interest in the $500,000 study, which is being done amid reports that dozens of people have died after being shocked with stun guns.

Taser International also has lobbyists in many major cities who are close to the local police departments and unions.

Daley defends expanded use of tasers

Tasers have caused problems, but they do “less harm” than real bullets, Mayor Daley said today, defending the Chicago Police Department’s decision to dramatically expand the use of “stun guns.”

Daley said the decision to more than double the use of Tasers — and place one in every squad car — was designed to minimize injury and reduce liability caused by police shootings.

Taser International’s registered lobbyist is former Chicago Police Supt. Terry Hillard. The company’s $5 million contract runs through 2011.

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

She had already shown a willingness to drive at unsafe speeds that would kill innocent bystanders.

She was driving 32 MPH in a school zone, hardly reckless in my opinion.

Malaika Brooks was driving her son to Seattle's African American Academy in 2004 when she was stopped for doing 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car in front of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket because she thought she'd be admitting guilt. Link

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

ISTM that a taser is precisely a human shock collar. The alternative would be to risk tackling her in her car (her territory) and risk getting a knife or gunshot in the ribs. Or have her drive away and kill a passerby at unsafe speed.

The 'what if's' in your post are terribly overstated.

Also, from the judge that dissented in the case.

The majority's opinion outraged Judge Marsha Berzon, who called it "off the wall."

"I fail utterly to comprehend how my colleagues are able to conclude that it was objectively reasonable to use any force against Brooks, let alone three activations of a Taser, in response to such a trivial offense," she wrote.

She argued that under Washington law, the officers had no authority to take Brooks into custody: Failure to sign a traffic infraction is not an arrestable offense, and it's not illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

Berzon said the majority's notion that Brooks obstructed officers was so far-fetched that even the officers themselves didn't make that legal argument. To obstruct an officer, one must obstruct the officer's official duties, and the officers' only duties in this case were to detain Brooks long enough to identify her, check for warrants, write up the citation and give it to her. Brooks' failure to sign did not interfere with those duties, she said.

Furthermore, Brooks posed no apparent threat, and the officers could not have known how stunning her would affect the fetus, or whether it might prompt premature labor — another reason their actions were inexcusable, Berzon said.

Brooks' lawyer, Eric Zubel, said he would ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case.

"This is outrageous — that something like this could happen to a pregnant woman, in front of an elementary school, at 8:30 in the morning, to someone who posed no threat whatsoever," he said.