The news you're not supposed to know...

Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand the World
The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires
The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off
Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in EuropeThe New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century
Article posted May 17 2012, 3:10 AM Category: Tyranny/Police State Source: William Norman Grigg Print

If Cops Can't Taze a Pregnant Woman, The Terrorists Will Win

by William Norman Grigg

Thanks to a misbegotten ruling from a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, police in nine states have been left at an insurmountable disadvantage when dealing with criminal suspects. At least, that’s what we’re told in a legal brief submitted to the Supreme Court by a coalition of police unions.

“It won’t be long before the word spreads through society’s criminal underworld that the Ninth Circuit hasn’t simply given them a `get out of jail free’ card, but a `never have to go to jail in the first place’ card,” warns the amicus brief. Rather than subduing criminals, “police officers will now be forced to walk away from people they have arrested.”

The ruling that is fraught with such awful implications, Brooks v. City of Seattle, involved a patently unnecessary Taser attack upon a woman who was seven months pregnant. The unarmed woman, who was not suspected of a violent crime, posed no threat to the three – yes, three – valiant officers who assaulted her. She was uncooperative, but did not offer any violent resistance.

Her sole “offense” was to refuse a demand that she sign a traffic ticket that was eventually dismissed.

In March 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court found that Seattle Police Officers Steven Daman, Juan Ornelas, and Donald Jones used excessive force when they committed their attack on Brooks and her unborn child – but that they were entitled to “qualified immunity” because the legal precedents dealing with the use of electro-shock torture on a pregnant woman were ambiguous in 2004.

The assailants were thus left in the clear -- but unsatisfied with their victory. With the support of organizations representing tens of thousands of police officers (including some 30,000 SWAT operators), the officers are appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court, claiming that any limitation on the discretionary use of tasers against non-violent “suspects” constitutes an unacceptable restraint on police discretion and a dire threat to that holiest of social considerations, “officer safety.”

In its brief on behalf of the officers, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association (LACPCA) and the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA) insist that refusing to allow police to use electro-shock torture against a pregnant woman would fatally undermine the principle of “pain compliance” on which social order – as they pretend to understand it – depends.

On November 23, 2004, Malaika Brooks was taking her son to school when she was stopped by Officer Ornelas, who claimed – wrongly, as it turned out – that she had been speeding. When he presented Brooks with a traffic ticket, she refused to sign it out of the concern that doing so would constitute an admission of guilt. She had done the same during a 1996 traffic stop in which the officer, who possessed some residual decency, simply handed her the little extortion note and walked away.

Ornelas, unfortunately, chose to escalate the encounter by calling for “backup.” A few minutes later, Officer Jones and Sgt. Daman arrived on the scene and began to threaten and berate Brooks. None of this was necessary: The officers were engaging in a tribal display of primate dominance, rather than carrying out a function related in any way to protection of person and property. When they threatened to kidnap – or, as they called it, “arrest” – Brooks, the woman informed them that she was “less than 60 days from having my baby.”

After huddling briefly, the three officers attacked Brooks. Ornelas seized her right arm and -- in the course of less than a minute – inflicted three “drive stun” charges to Brooks’s neck, shoulder, and thigh, an assault that left her with permanent scars. The three officers then dragged Brooks – who had been desperately clinging to the steering wheel, honking the horn, and screaming for help – from the car, threw her face-down and pinned her to the ground. She was handcuffed and then booked on charges of “Refusing to sign” a traffic citation – a misdemeanor – and resisting arrest.

A jury eventually found Brooks guilty of the first “offense,” and acquitted her of the second. The speeding citation was thrown out before Brooks went to court. Brooks filed suit against the officers for assault and violating her civil rights. The officers responded by invoking the well-established – and utterly specious – doctrine of “qualified immunity,” seeking a summary dismissal. The District Court dismissed the assault charge but found that the officers had committed a civil rights violation that nullified their claim to qualified immunity.

The Ninth Circuit reversed that holding as it applied to the defendants, ruling that the officers were protected by qualified immunity and could not be sued by Brooks. However, the Court offered notice that in the future similar taser attacks on non-cooperative but non-violent subjects would constitute excessive force.

In his dissent, Judge Alex Kozinski maintained that Brooks “had shown herself deaf to reason, and moderate physical force had only led to further entrenchment…. Brooks was tying up two line officers, a sergeant and three police vehicles – resources diverted from other community functions – to deal with one lousy traffic ticket.”

Who was responsible for this “diversion” – Mrs. Brooks, who was merely being uncooperative, or Officer Ornelas and his comrades, who needlessly escalated a disagreement over “one lousy traffic ticket” to the point where potentially deadly force was used against someone accused of a trivial traffic offense, rather than an actual crime?

“The officers couldn’t just walk away,” complains Kozinski. “Brooks was under arrest.”

There was no substantive reason why the police couldn’t walk away – if they had been acting as peace officers, that is, rather than as armed enforcers of the revenue-consuming class.

If a police officer has the option of deploying a reliably deadly weapon in a situation of this kind, he also has the option of backing down and letting the court deal with the merits of the citation. But the position claimed by the officers – and accepted, in a qualified sense, by the Ninth Circuit Court – is that anything other than immediate and unqualified submission by a Mundane justifies the infliction of summary punishment by a police officer.

The amicus brief by the LACPCA and NTOA lament that the Ninth Circuit Court, while upholding the unqualified “authority” of police to arrest people at their discretion, “has deprived officers of any lawful way of enforcing that authority, at least when the suspect is not engaged in violence directed towards the officers” and has “unnecessarily limited the amount of force that can be used against a suspect who refrains from using violence against the police” (emphasis added).

What the police unions who filed that brief are demanding is an open-ended grant of unlimited “authority” to use “pain compliance” against people who passively resist abduction by police. The question of using violent means to subdue a violent criminal suspect is not implicated in any way by this case.

In their petition for certiorari, the officers – whose actions, remember, were upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court – complain that the ruling could “prohibit the use of any low-level physical force against an actually resisting suspect who does not present an imminent threat of harm to the officers, a result that could strip law enforcement of any reasonable and practical means of enforcing the law.”

To which a person whose mind is not hostage to totalitarian assumptions would reply: “And the problem with this is…?”

In a reasonably free society, police (actually, peace officers) would not presume to "enforce" the law; they would track down and arrest people plausibly suspected of committing crimes against person and property. They would not be permitted to violate the unconditional law of non-aggression by initiating force, or issue what they assume to be “lawful orders” to people who are not suspected of actual crimes. They certainly would not be permitted to employ “pain compliance” in any situation that didn’t involve legitimate defense against an actual aggressor.

Remarkably, in their amicus brief the officers who committed what should be prosecuted as a felonious assault on Brooks asserted that “it is well established that police officers need not use the least amount of force in effecting an arrest.”

Once again, we’re invited to believe that there would be apocalyptic consequences if police were inhibited in the use of disproportionate force to compel non-violent “suspects” to submit to their supposed authority.

Under the standard prescribed in the amicus briefs filed on behalf of the officers who assaulted Brooks, it’s difficult to find fault with the actions of Beaumont, California Police Officer Enoch Clark.

On February 21, Clark stopped a woman named Monique Hernandez on suspicion of DUI. When Clark tried to handcuff her, Hernandez resisted. Clark’s preferred method of “pain compliance” was a JPX device — a weapon that employs a gunpowder charge to fire a stream of pepper spray at roughly 400 miles an hour.

The JPX weapon is designed for use against armed assailants at a distance of 6 to 15 feet. Its payload of weaponized OC spray is propelled over that distance at less than three one-hundredths of a second, making it (in the words of the company’s promotional literature) “too fast to avoid…. The effect is immediate; there is no chance to resist.”

Clark – a veteran officer and chairman of the local police officers union -- fired his JPX gun into Hernandez’s right temple at a distance of roughly ten inches. The impact shattered the woman’s right eye and inflicted irreparable damage to her left eye as well.

The officer has been indicted on four felony charges. His attorney insists that the officer’s attack was justified in order “to gain compliance and in defense of his person.” If the claims made by and on behalf of the officers who assaulted Mailaka Brooks are sound – if police officers are not legally required to use minimal force when dealing with non-violent “suspects” – it’s difficult to see how Clark’s actions were improper, even though they resulted in Monique Rodriguez being permanently blinded.

“It was Brooks’s recalcitrance and resistance that prompted her treatment,” sniffs the officers’ petition for certiorari. “Under both state and federal law she did not have a right to resist her arrest,” which purportedly means that the officers were permitted – nay, required – to employ “pain compliance” techniques against her until she submitted.

Wouldn’t the same principle apply to the actions of Enoch Clark in dealing with the equally recalcitrant Monique Hernandez? His police union attorney certainly thinks so. And let us not forget that any effort to inhibit the police in their sacred mission to impose order would constitute an existential threat to our society.

Deny an intrepid hero in body armor the option of tasing a pregnant woman – or kicking her in the stomach hard enough to cause the near-term infant to defecate in the womb – a reign of terror will ensue, with the “criminal underworld” arising to devour us all.
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- New Photos Show Chicago Cops On Burger King CPU Where Laquan McDonald Shooting Footage 'Disappeared'
- After Video Surfaces, Innocent Man Is Exonerated For Assault On An Officer, Cop Pleads Guilty
- $500k Settlement Reached After Cops "Smash Man's Face Into Concrete"
- VIDEO: Off-Duty Cop Rams His SUV Into Man's Car For Trying To Hold Him Accountable For Reckless Driving
- Two Brave Cops Under Attack For Exposing Militarization and Corruption in Their Department
- Police Brutality Victim Mysteriously Killed a Day Before Receiving $450k Settlement
- LA to Scan All Cars, Publicly Shame Anyone Who Drives Through a 'Prostitution Area'
- Watch Cop Lie as He Acts Out What Happened When He Executed a Teen Contained On a Bus

Comments 1 - 13 of 13 Add Comment Page 1 of 1

Posted: May 17 2012, 5:07 AM

65110 The new boogeyman.

Quick, everyone under the Government's protective wings!

Posted: May 17 2012, 8:09 AM

81165 Most Americans have a big mouth, have even bigger guns,and a stupid attitude of how they're gonna use them, but are stayin a bunch of cowards:welcome to the concentration camps !
But don't come complaining later, when it's all too late for resisting

Posted: May 17 2012, 7:42 PM

67176 I'm appalled by the actions of the police in this case, but I'm not impressed with the lady in question either. Signing a ticket is not an admission of guilt in any of the fifty States. By signing the ticket you're acknowledging that you've received the citation and that you know when your court date is--it's your bail certificate, and by signing it you're "released on your own recognizance". Many jurisdictions print that fact right on the ticket itself, though I do not have any personal knowledge of whether or not Washington does. The woman did not deserve the attack, but at the same time I'm not sure she should have just been allowed to drive away, because if she's not going to sign for her bail, there's no option for the police but release or arrest.

I realize that anybody else who bothers checking the comments is probably going to be a hardcore libertarian or anarchist, given what site this is, and so going to rage at me for not just giving the police my best angry words, but I thought you all should at least know how, ah, lacking in intelligence the victim was and the reason she was arrested instead of being allowed to drive off, in addition to how brutal the police were in arresting her.
andy hell

Posted: May 17 2012, 11:53 PM

63160 fuck the police start the riots

Posted: May 18 2012, 1:14 AM

207254 wow i had no idea cops held this kinda unrestricted power in there hands you add this with Asset Forfeiture laws and you get modern day Gestapo thugs they can remove wealth and liberty and life.

Posted: May 18 2012, 4:55 AM

66186 All I can say is that the German Gestapo, Russian KGB would be proud of what we in America have become.

So thanks go out to all the jackbooted thugs who hide behind a tin badge for making the police state a possibility

Posted: May 18 2012, 4:57 AM

98121 not much of a cop if they feel the need to tase a woman.....much less a pregnant one, perhaps they should look for employment elsewhere>

Posted: May 18 2012, 6:42 AM

6783 Modern cops are cowards....their own actions have caused this "anti police movement" THEY did this themselves because of the almost unlimited power some of these a@@holes hold and misuse.

They are nothing without that badge and total morons with them!!!

Posted: May 18 2012, 6:59 AM

6923 As this article is only slightly lacking in journalistic integrity, in regards to bias, I would like to mention that the Opinion of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is a public document and worth reading.

Basically, I am agreeing with a previous Anonymous. Getting shocked three times with a Taser is rather brutal. However, Brooks had first been told, "the Notice of Infraction gives notice that a traffic law has been violated and requires a signature indicating, without admitting to the crime, that the recipient will respond as directed by the Notice." She was then informed that in refusing to sign, she could and would be arrested. She still refused to sign the citation. She then refused to leave her car when told she was being placed under arrest. Silly reason to be arrested, but by refusing to leave her car, she was, technically, resisting arrest. She was then informed that she would be tased if she didn't cooperate. Only then was she actually tased. Why she was tased more than once though is less clear and does show a rather draconian and brutal response.

On other piece not mentioned by the author, Ms. Brooks did have her baby with no complications two months following the incident.

Posted: May 18 2012, 10:52 AM

209143 our courage is replaced by fear

Posted: May 19 2012, 8:56 AM

6752 Signing a ticket gives your permission for them to process you. How can not signing a ticket give suddenly make you a criminal.

Sign the ticket with " I do not wish to contract." When you sign the ticket you then stand under their authority to process you as they wish. Signing a ticket is always voluntary.

This should prove to ANY SCEPTIC: your signature and permission is require for them to process you.

I prefer to sign the ticket with my signature and then "All Rights Reserved" or simply -ARR

Never give permission. Never sign anything without an ARR statement. Otherwise, you are at the mercy of the courts and they will clean your bank account out. In this economy policy enforcement officers (Yes, they are called this because that's what "POLICE" means...) are running out of tax money to jackboot the country.


Dear Policy Enforcement Jackboots,

Under common law I do not consent and I waive the benefits.

-John Q. Public, All Rights Reserved

Posted: May 19 2012, 4:46 PM

20854 any negro will tell you police have way too much unrestricted power. anyone with common sense can see that skin color is being phased out as the deciding factor of which side of the coin you're dealt as to whether authorities will be naughty or nice. hopefully it isn't to late for those who aren't targets now to resist when they become targets.

Posted: Oct 08 2012, 12:32 AM

203161 Until now, I didn't know that torture was a valid way for US cops to deal with minor and non violent issues.

It boggles the mind that this is even tolerated by a modern society. Clearly the US is not as modern as I thought.

Comments 1 - 13 of 13 Page 1 of 1

Add Comment


Verification *
Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

Advanced Search


Remember Me
Forgot Password?

VIDEO: Off-Duty Cop Rams His SUV Into Man's Car For Trying To Hold Him Accountable For Reckless Driving - 11/30Paul Craig Roberts Rages At The "Arrogance, Hubris, & Stupidity" Of The US Government - 11/30Police Brutality Victim Mysteriously Killed a Day Before Receiving $450k Settlement - 11/30The Mathematical Paradox That Destroys The Argument For NSA Surveillance - 11/30Two Brave Cops Under Attack For Exposing Militarization and Corruption in Their Department - 11/30Donald Sutherland Reveals The Real Meaning Of The Hunger Games - 11/27LA to Scan All Cars, Publicly Shame Anyone Who Drives Through a 'Prostitution Area' - 11/30Details of How The Paris Attacks Were Carried Out Show Little Effort by Attackers to Hide Themselves - 11/30

Man Follows Speeding Cop, Finds Out He Was Speeding To Buy PeanutsMission Creeps: Homeland Security Agents Confiscate Women's Panties For 'Copyright Infringement'Cop Shoots Couple's Dog, Threatens Jail For Trying To Save Dog's LifeSWAT Team Shoots Teen Girl & Her Dog During Pot Raid On Wrong HomeDurham, NC Cop Testifies Faking 911 Calls To Enter Homes Is "Official Policy"Indiana Sheriff Says US A "War Zone" To Justify New MRAP Military VehicleTampa Cops Surveil Pot Dealer, Catch Him Selling Pot, Raid His Home & Kill Him"You Just Shot An Unarmed Man!": Witness Says Police Shot His Friend With His Hands Up