Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Pop Quiz for President Bush | Main | It's serious, Klaus »

May 11, 2005

Watching the Watchers

Guest: cntodd

Yes, I think it is ridiculous and outrageous that a cop tasered a pregnant woman with a 50 thousand volt stun gun simply over a speeding ticket.

But apparently Michelle Malkin disagrees.

Note to Michelle: the reason we see more media coverage of a cop out of control then we do of a cop who gets killed is because we have a collective responsibility to make sure those in positions of power do not abuse that power.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d834494eff53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Watching the Watchers:

Comments

I am just now taking a gander at Malkin's slef-righteous bloviations.

And moreover, as a semi-retired journalist, I have covered and written more about cop funerals than I ever have about police abuse.

Malkin is once more showing herself to really be the class of a horrific group.

"Thus, we'll be subjected to wall-to-wall coverage of the Tasered pregnant lady and the shot-out SUV."

Michelle is a bitch. WTF is she talking about? This has barely been mentioned in the mainstream media at all. Or have I missed it? Ive only read about it on the internet.

No but seriously, that statement above, is a fucking lie. We won't even hear about this in the news at all. Why is she lying?

PS-Pardon my french :p but this woman is either deluded or a blantant liar.

I vote both... a deluded, blatant liar, with delusion of grandeur and illusions of intellect thrown in...

Wall-to-wall coverage? Why would the media pay attention to a little thing like police brutality when there are far more significant stories -- like the runaway bride -- to cover.

While I find it likely that the cop overreacted, it is possible he (she?) did not. If an 8-month pregnant woman is resisting arrest, what is the best course of action? I don't have a clue what problems tasering might cause, but almost all other forms of restraint would be disastrous. What does a cop do when restraining someone? He wrestles them to the ground, face down and cuffs their hands behind their back. He binds an arm and slams them against a wall or a car and maintains pressure so they can't turn. Would those have been preferable?

While I would gladly extend any number of courtesies to a woman 8-months pregnant, I would not want her to be above the law. I would hope that the cop would take stock of the situation and act accordingly. The infraction was not great. The "perp" was a pregnant woman with a kid in the car. It is not very likely that she was a violent criminal who might do him harm. He should have been patient, calm and tried every alternative possible to resolve the situation without violence. Maybe he did, though.

If the woman would not sign the ticket, he had to arrest her. If she would not allow herself to be arrested, what was he supposed to do?

Njord,

I think your point is well taken, but I also think an overall issue here is Malkin's instance that the "press" is somehow out to get cops, because they, you know, hate America...and stuff...

Especially her completely horseshit line about "where was the media for the cop who was slain." I have been to and written about *way* too many cop funerals for that fscking (pronounced fizz-checking) loser to run that kind of ignorant smack.

mojo sends

mojo sends

Some years ago the late (now, not then) Daily News columnist Lars-Erik Nelson was on a call-in show when someone asked why the media didn't cover x, y,and z. Nelson asked the caller how he had come to know about x,y,z, given the high degree of unlikelihood that he had his own independent sources. Much stammering ensued.
How does The Loathsome Michele Malkin know about the dead cops? The same way I learn about them in my town. "Dead cop" always leads the evening news. I'd never even heard of the tazered pregnant lady. TLMM is like the woman who complained to Samuel Johnson about the naughty words in his dictionary. She was looking for them and found them.

". . .we have a collective responsibility to make sure those in positions of power do not abuse that power."

Baaaaa! you can't (bleat) really be serious can you? Baaaaaa!

Well, yeah. I thought it was just assumed that Michelle Malkin is always wrong.

"While I find it likely that the cop overreacted, it is possible he (she?) did not. If an 8-month pregnant woman is resisting arrest, what is the best course of action?"

If she's eight months pregnant and "resisting arrest" (that was never proven btw) over a speeding ticket, you don't taser her. Infact, it doesnt matter who it was you don't taser someone over a freaking speeding ticket. Or is that the kind of police force you want? It sure as hell isn't the one I want.

Infact, there should be no tasers at all. They are a lethal use of force being passed off as non-lethal.

Whatever happened to calling backup to handle special situations? Here in Salem, OR, the procedure is to ALWAYS call backup for anything beyond a simple ticket (like towing someone's car--don't ask me how I know, but rest assured, I KNOW).

I find it hard to believe that this woman would have continued to refuse to sign the ticket if A) The officer patiently explained that doing so was not an admission of guilt and B) She was being assured by TWO policemen that she was about to go to jail if she didn't sign.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that tasering the woman might have been the best course of action. Some situations take more time and patience than others.

As for Malkin, it's clear that she just looks for outrageous examples of the state abusing its power so she can try to justify them. She WANTS to live in a police state, because she identifies herself with the class whose priveleges would be protected by such a state.

Njorl asks 'If she would not allow herself to be arrested, what was he supposed to do?' How about walk away? I know that sounds wierd and wishy-washy and will no doubt be the slippery slope to the triumph of anarchy, but
if you are an authority figure who has been defied then question number one has to be ' Is my response aimed at serving the public good or is it aimed at not losing face in a confrontation?' I don't know the ins & outs of this case, but an attitude of 'Authority must never lose face' might be justified in, say, Nelson's navy. In a modern (and messy) society it is counterproductive.

The comments to this entry are closed.