View Full Version : 68-Year-Old Woman Says Officer Shocked Her Twice In Chest
<font size=3>Officers Placed On Admin. Duty After Taser Gun Incident
68-Year-Old Woman Says Officer Shocked Her Twice In Chest</font>
POSTED: 5:32 pm CDT June 16, 2004
UPDATED: 9:08 pm CDT June 17, 2004
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A police officer used his Taser gun on a 68-year-old grandmother in her home Tuesday night, KMBC's Donna Pitman reported.
Louise Jones (pictured, left) said it happened after she pulled up to her house near 50th and Euclid and saw a police car. She honked, and an officer got out of the vehicle.
"He said he could give me a citation ticket for honking my horn. I said it was an accident. It's not like I laid on the horn; I honked, right in front of my house," Jones said.
Jones said the officer went to a call at another home, then returned to her house to give her a ticket for honking.
"He grabbed me and I jerked away from him, and he said, 'You assaulted me,'" Jones recalled.
Police said Jones wouldn't cooperate and hit the officer. That's when the officer pulled his Taser gun and shocked her, Pitman reported.
Jones said the officer shocked her twice in the chest with the weapon.
"I hollered and screamed because I thought it was a gun," she said.
Jones' husband, Fred, heard the commotion in his home of 40 years and confronted the officer. The husband and wife were both arrested and jailed. Jones was cited for misuse of a horn on a city street, and her husband was ticketed for interfering with an officer.
More on this Story (http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/3426924/detail.html#)
Incident_command
06-20-2004, 07:32 AM
She sounds so damn innocent. I'm sure her side of the story is true.
To me that officer was out of line, I have and my mom have on occasion hit the stupid car horn while getting out of the car.
What that cop did was over and beyond the norm.
and He initiated the fight, not her, he had no right or reason to grab her whatsoever.
I think that policeman was looking for a fight.
and he chose this woman to do so.
Harrassing her over her accidentally hitting the horn while she was parked on her driveway is just a little bit much.
I just dont see how the police can charge a person in such an incident and keep it, since she did not initiate it and it is obvious she apologized for hitting the horn.
Instead of fighting to give her the ticket, he should have asked for backup and/or just mailed the ticket to her instead.
to go to THAT length to bother over a little horn honk is kinda taking nitpicking abit too far.
I say that cop was in the wrong on all points and he should not have gone back and harrassed her in her own home like that.
Incident_command
06-20-2004, 12:53 PM
Now we believe the media huh?
The whole story isnt out but intentionally shocking a woman after a COP initiated the fight is a bit much in my opinion.
Not ALL storys are twisted and spiked to be a lie.
Incident_command
06-20-2004, 01:13 PM
I think the cop at least deserves to have his side told before we decide he's guilty.
You seem sure the cop is at fault and with the info given that seems premature.
why did he grab her?
why did he have to shock her when she is not a danger to herself or to him? as per the department's policy concerning the use of those devices?
Why did he hve to ticket her after she stated it was an accident for?
why did he feel the need to go back and bother her? why didnt he just mail the damn ticket to her instead?
To me the way it sounds he was looking for trouble and found it.
Vikingas
06-20-2004, 02:54 PM
Rink,
thanks for posting this.
I left a link to this forum, here:
http://www.freespeech.com/archives/002786.html
It is posted 'as is'
CatKozTX
06-20-2004, 02:56 PM
I certainly want to hear the policeman's side of the story.
But I just can not imagine why a police officer would have to use a taser on a 68 year old woman who honked her horn. Sounds like a skit for MadTV.
Wolfcounsel
06-20-2004, 03:02 PM
I think that piece of shit masquerading as a police officer is in dire need of getting his ass fired and serving some prison time. That is of course after he is found guilty of terminal stupidity and rambotitoism.
I am cruel but fair.http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/death2.gif
2Cent
06-20-2004, 03:09 PM
Sounds like a wannabe officer just a little too full of himself, if you ask me.
CatKozTV, I agree. Either MadTV or Police Acadamy III. What an ass.
BarryG
06-20-2004, 04:09 PM
sounds to me like she probably mouthed off to the officer. but the liberal media would never report that. anyone who talks back to a police officer deserves whatever they get, no matter how old they are. get off the cop's back till you've heard the other side of the story!
Politicalmom
06-20-2004, 04:13 PM
When was there a law passed against "Mouthing off"?
I do believe that isn't a jailable offense. Cops are not gods.
Wolfcounsel
06-20-2004, 04:23 PM
"sounds to me like she probably mouthed off to the officer. but the liberal media would never report that. anyone who talks back to a police officer deserves whatever they get, no matter how old they are." --BarryG
Even little pre-schoolers and 100 year-old senior citizens who mouth off to police, deserve what they get from them, according to BarryG.
Jeffrho
06-20-2004, 04:28 PM
This has been pretty big news here in K.C. as you would imagine. IMO, the policeman overreacted. There's was no need to put a tazer on this woman, she's literally a little old lady. She did admit to getting angry cursing out the officer and saying "I wouldnt be getting this ticket if I was a old white lady" or something to that effect. Hell, I would have been pissed too, getting a ticket for "illegal use of horn". What BS. The cop should have taken the high road and just walked away from the situation, or just give her a warning and walk away. Kansas City has enough problems with real criminals to have officers wasting their time with crap like this.
HomeschoolrsRUs
06-20-2004, 04:44 PM
At the risk of offering myself up for a little scorn . . .
Most all of us here believe the media twists events, misrepresents actual situations, and leans far to the emotional spectrum in most of its reporting. While on the face of what is written, it appears the actions were abusive, over-the-top, and uncalled for, it is still reasonable and logical to presume there may ALSO be more to the story that has NOT been revealed, parts to the story that may have been embelished or written to paint a different scenario than actually took place.
There USED to be a time when law enforcement at least enjoyed the esteemed position of benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. We EXPECT our officers to be of higher caliber, and yes I know that there have been (severe) instances to the contrary. But I would encourage everyone to wait before forming final opinions until all facts are in.
If indeed this was MISCONDUCT on the part of law enforcement, I say THROW THE BOOK AT THEM. But if on the other hand there were contributing factors, overlooked facts, or misrepresented events, we have the peace of mind in knowing we waited until all information was available before forming an informed opinion.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif
Wolfcounsel
06-20-2004, 05:31 PM
"If indeed this was MISCONDUCT on the part of law enforcement, I say THROW THE BOOK AT THEM. But if on the other hand there were contributing factors, overlooked facts, or misrepresented events, we have the peace of mind in knowing we waited until all information was available before forming an informed opinion." --HomeschoolrsRUs
Yes, I understand. That's why I say wait until the asshole is found guilty before he is punished.
ThomasIsUnderrated
06-20-2004, 05:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HomeschoolrsRUs said:
At the risk of offering myself up for a little scorn . . .
Most all of us here believe the media twists events, misrepresents actual situations, and leans far to the emotional spectrum in most of its reporting. While on the face of what is written, it appears the actions were abusive, over-the-top, and uncalled for, it is still reasonable and logical to presume there may ALSO be more to the story that has NOT been revealed, parts to the story that may have been embelished or written to paint a different scenario than actually took place.
There USED to be a time when law enforcement at least enjoyed the esteemed position of benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. We EXPECT our officers to be of higher caliber, and yes I know that there have been (severe) instances to the contrary. But I would encourage everyone to wait before forming final opinions until all facts are in.
If indeed this was MISCONDUCT on the part of law enforcement, I say THROW THE BOOK AT THEM. But if on the other hand there were contributing factors, overlooked facts, or misrepresented events, we have the peace of mind in knowing we waited until all information was available before forming an informed opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/claps.gif
Incident_command
06-20-2004, 05:58 PM
In the city I work for if you beep a car horn in certain areas the cops will stop and make an issue out of it. Why? Many of the area drug dealers use people in the area as lookouts for cops. We see it all, kids 8 -12 years old standing on corners with cell phones, flashlights, in cars beeping horns, ect to alert others when cops or FD are in the area.They don't trust us either. When we run a call in the projects a kid with a cell phone will follow us to make sure we aren't cops looking for someone/thing.
Old folks aren't excluded from these activities either.
Not saying this is what happened but it is a jungle filled with animals in many areas, and you can't compare it to the area you may live in.
And my sarcasm in my first post and bias for cops, which I admit, is from things I have seen and time I have spent working with them while I was a CERT team medic. I only saw a cop be totaly out of line one time in 14 years. And I told him he made an ass out of himself for what he did.
I respect the hell out of them for what they do and the conditions they do it in.
The point of it is the old woman was ON her Own property, not in town, or in the city or on a street corner, she was Parked in her driveway and she apologized for it and had said she hit it by accident.
Are people going to be guilty till proven innocent now because of drug dealers?
if thats the case then I think we all have literally lost our rights in effect because of it.
What next? sit on your porch at the wrong time of the night will merit getting harrassed, beaten up tazered and busted?
This cop was out of line, I'll stand by that till otherwise corrected.
Incident_command
06-20-2004, 06:15 PM
You know rink I never said that. It was just an appeal to have judgement held off untill the facts are in. You have total faith in what you read. According to you everthing she told reporters is the truth.
2Cent
06-20-2004, 07:10 PM
Okay, if the cop had a good reason for returning to this woman's home after he took care of affairs he was there for in the first place, you might have a point, Incident.
Heck, for all we know, the woman might have been standing inside her screen door beligerantly yelling at the cop.
I STILL don't see the neccessary use of using a tazer on a 68 year old woman, not once, but twice.
I used to have a great deal of respect for cops. I no longer do, so I am therefore biased towards the woman.
Incident_command
06-20-2004, 07:41 PM
I would guess he had a higher priority call and then came back to deal with her. Then she may have refused to sign the citation. The time to fight it is in court not on scene.Its in every driver hand book that you must sign for the ticket or be subject to arrest.
As for the taser issue it might be policy to use it when a subject is resisting arrest instead of using force.
One last time, I am not saying he was right or wrong just showing reasons for what might have happened.
This may be same thing that just happened down hear. A 72 yo black female got a ticket for an illegal turn and fought with the officer on scene, she refused to sign, resisted arrest, and fought with the officer. City hall was filled with angry black residents crying racism and brutality. Minister after minister called for the officers resignation or termination for being physical with an old lady. A confrontation that caused her injuries. FDLE found him innocent and now the blacks are all pissed off.
This is their police departmen's policy on the use of tazers:
[ QUOTE ]
Police Capt. Rich Lockhart said it is the policy of the Kansas City Police Department "to use the Taser (gun) when someone is being passively resistant, refusing to obey verbal commands."
According to the department's policy, a Taser gun is not to be used "for coersion or in an unjustified manner." It is only supposed to be used "to avert a dangerous situation," and officers are instructed to announce that they are using the Taser gun, and take into account "when a fall may cause substantial injury or death."
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you tell me if this policeman used that tazer appropriately according to the policy here stated.
Far as i am concerned he broke his Police department's policy on the use of the tazer, as it was completely unnecessary and unjustified.
ThomasIsUnderrated
06-20-2004, 08:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
Far as i am concerned he broke his Police department's policy on the use of the tazer, as it was completely unnecessary and unjustified.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you are basing that on the woman's side and the media reports of her side. I'm sure that hundreds of upset, angry, and clueless people will write to the police station and demand that this officer be fired. He'll get canned whether or not the lady's story is the truth.
The truth doesn't matter to an angry mob.
Incident_command
06-20-2004, 08:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
This is their police departmen's policy on the use of tazers:
[ QUOTE ]
Police Capt. Rich Lockhart said it is the policy of the Kansas City Police Department "to use the Taser (gun) when someone is being passively resistant, refusing to obey verbal commands."
According to the department's policy, a Taser gun is not to be used "for coersion or in an unjustified manner." It is only supposed to be used "to avert a dangerous situation," and officers are instructed to announce that they are using the Taser gun, and take into account "when a fall may cause substantial injury or death."
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you tell me if this policeman used that tazer appropriately according to the policy here stated.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't, neither should you with the information given.
Ok then maybe he should be given a promotion and cited for bravery against a very deadly 68 year old criminal who honked her horn in her own driveway on her own property, and after the fact that she had apologized for accidentally hitting the horn which is a common occurrance.
Rhino
06-20-2004, 11:38 PM
Methinks there is far more to this story than what we've seen. Unless taser guns have changed dramatically in the last couple of years, it is impossible to shock someone twice. They only carry a one time charge and are useless once it has been discharged.
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 12:12 AM
From the article: Police said Jones wouldn't cooperate and hit the officer. That's when the officer pulled his Taser gun and shocked her, Pitman reported.
The husband and wife were both arrested and jailed. Jones was cited for misuse of a horn on a city street, and her husband was ticketed for interfering with an officer.
The question I have is if the woman hit the officer, why wasn't she charged with assaulting an officer?
Rhino
06-21-2004, 12:51 AM
She felt his pain?
She did not have assault with that man?
It depends on what your definition of 'assault' is?
It's Bush's fault?
I dunno.
ThomasIsUnderrated
06-21-2004, 09:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
Ok then maybe he should be given a promotion and cited for bravery against a very deadly 68 year old criminal who honked her horn in her own driveway on her own property, and after the fact that she had apologized for accidentally hitting the horn which is a common occurrance.
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 10:15 AM
Rink's problem is that she thinks every cop is dirty and corrupt. She's the first to always blame the cop without ALL the facts!!!! I hope she won't ever need one in her life. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Funny the old lady was ON her OWN property, she was not in town, not in the city where drug dealing happened, she was ON her own property and accidentally hit her horn, it happens, I've done it getting out of the car myself and she apologized for doing so to the police.
I will stand by my words, that cop was out of line.
Now this doesa not mean I think EVERY Cop is bad, you dont know me so making snap judgements about me will make you look like a fool.
Thank you very much.
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 10:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
Funny the old lady was ON her OWN property, she was not in town, not in the city where drug dealing happened, she was ON her own property and accidentally hit her horn, it happens, I've done it getting out of the car myself and she apologized for doing so to the police.
I will stand by my words, that cop was out of line.
Now this doesa not mean I think EVERY Cop is bad, you dont know me so making snap judgements about me will make you look like a fool.
Thank you very much.
[/ QUOTE ]
The lady HIT the cop. Did you gloss over that part?
The point is, YOU DON'T have ALL the FACTS, and you've determined guilt. That makes YOU look like the fool.
Also, it is NOT a snap judgement on my part when I see YOU doing the same to every cop who is involved in an altercation.
I certainly hope YOU don't need a police officer some day! It is clear to see you don't have respect for them.
that paper may have had it wrong on that also, she may have broke free from the cop thus breaking free would be construed as hitting.
whatever, the cop is always right, no matter how much abuse they dish out on someone, they're always right.
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 11:03 AM
No, the cops are not always right but they sure aren't always wrong either.
Incident_command
06-21-2004, 11:03 AM
Good then its settled.
the way you guys keep at it Cops are automatically right everytime, no matter what.
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 11:20 AM
Why insist on something that was never said, Rink?
Incident_command
06-21-2004, 11:29 AM
RINK
Show me now where I said the cop was right. Show me where I said they are always right. Never have. I simply tried to show reasons why there could be doubt to his being guilty. I never said he was 100% right only that we should see all the info before you hang him. I don't know what the hell you have been reading on this thread.
What the old lady said Ir right there in the story, i guess I have to highlight it for you in quotes
[ QUOTE ]
Louise Jones (pictured, left) said it happened after she pulled up to her house near 50th and Euclid and saw a police car. She honked, and an officer got out of the vehicle.
"He said he could give me a citation ticket for honking my horn. I said it was an accident. It's not like I laid on the horn; I honked, right in front of my house," Jones said.
[/ QUOTE ]
He COULD give her a ticket, so why did he literally go OUT of his way to give her a ticket after she had explained herself to him for?
the Cop initiated the fight, not the woman, he grabbed her first.
No warning nothing about her being a danger to herself or him, he started it, and then after he started it and she resisted, (all this On her Own property without ever asking the cop to be there in the first place) he goes and ups the ante and tazers her not once but Twice In the Chest.
For a 68 year old being shocked by a device like that can be dangerous if not deadly, what if she had a pacemaker?
he could have killed her with the damn tazer, ever think about that?
he cop was out of line over this, all he had to do if he wanted to ticket her is mail the ticket to her, as many precincts do anymore for traffic stuff.
Why didnt he do that instead of initiating a confrontation on her own property?
he was not invited, there was no emergency to dictate him being there, so why did this comp go Out of his way to start a fight like this?
after what he told the woman?
Incident_command
06-21-2004, 11:42 AM
This is a circle jerk.
Jeffrho
06-21-2004, 12:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Incident_command said:
This is a circle jerk.
[/ QUOTE ]Oh no - now we're gonna have fans of The Circle Jerks bombarding the site next... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I agree with Rink. This whole thing could have been avoided if the officer simply mailed the ticket, or put the ticket on her car and left. There was no need to confront her, IMO. In fact, the 2 times I've been stopped for speeding in KC, the officers didn't give me a ticket at the scene - they took down my information and the ticket was mailed to me a couple of days later.
BTW, the 2 officers involved have been assigned to other precincts pending an investigation that is supposed to conclude in 2 weeks.
HomeschoolrsRUs
06-21-2004, 12:19 PM
Rink,
I think what we (please forgive me for speaking for others) are trying to say is, it's the MEDIA'S version of what happened that we DON'T TRUST. People can SAY and WRITE anything .... doesn't make it so. IF everything occured just as written, THEN the officer should lose his job, and in my opinion be made to pay damages.
BUT there IS the distinct possibility that there is MORE TO THE STORY than was written in this article. We all tend to skew a story toward a personal bias. My father was a law enforcment officer for most of his life ... because of this I tend to view law enforcement with a little more of a pass than those who have had bad run in's with the law.
We think in our minds that we don't understand under any circumstance how this could have happened and be acceptable. But WE weren't there. My father has told me stories of incrediblely strong individuals who appeared lighter than a feather. When we hear "68" we think of the little ole gramma in her rocking chair ... you should see my Mom! She's 65 and acts like a 35 year old, and I wouldn't fight her even for money!
The police aren't all bad ... they are there to serve and protect. Let's wait until ALL the facts are in before rendering a verdict. As I said before, IF the cop was the guilty party, punish him!!! It would be obvious he is no longer there to serve and protect the public.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif
Vikingas
06-21-2004, 01:28 PM
99% of the cops are decent hardworking folks like most of the rest of us.
The 1%, give or take, that act illegally, immorally, abuse our rights, commit perjury, file false reports, manufacture evidence etc, ruin it for all honest cops, if honest cops cover for the bad ones and/or the bad are not punished.
Some cops can rape, rob, steal, stand on a citizen’s back and fire his gun off to execute a suspect, and all is ok.
There is little or no investigation, and those that dare to speak out, get shut up.
I know what happens when a citizen gets a “Big Mouth,” as I suffered the consequences of having complained about drugs being sold off my front yard all hours by alcohol swilling teens, vandalism, prostitution, fraud, thefts, and other crimes that went uninvestigated in downtown Connecticut as some town cops and Connecticut State Police did as they pleased and collected revenue, refusing to protect and serve, unless they felt like it.
All that I have mentioned above has been in Connecticut newspaper articles.
The officer who was white that stood on an African American's back, he was upset for having had to chase down, that stood on the suspect's back firing a round through the suspect as to avoid shooting himself in the foot, got a year suspended sentence on appeal.
I kid you, not.
Connecticut State Police Internal Affairs can refuse to take or even deny a citizen’s complaint.
What does that say about what is wrong with the system?
Every business, organization, or government body needs quality control.
What happens when priests police themselves, when lawyers, judges, corporate executives (such as in Enron), prosecutors, politicians, police, all police themselves?
Answer: they cover for each other, innocents get nailed, cover-ups are common, the guilty get rich, and our Forefathers would be getting sick to their stomachs.
Corruption and graft is so common in Connecticut, the Governor had no problem taking bribes, almost daily, giving friends favors, and helping enforce the blue wall of silence.
Some person(s) were loud enough in complaining about the corruption that the Governor of Connecticut is resigning tonight and the top police officials are under investigation.
And I believe I know that someone ...
Incident_command
06-21-2004, 02:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
the way you guys keep at it Cops are automatically right everytime, no matter what.
[/ QUOTE ]
Still waiting for you to show us where we said it.......
Wolfcounsel
06-21-2004, 03:02 PM
Anybody who does quality control and quality assurance on himself is the biggest imbecile in the world who believes how good he is.
ThomasIsUnderrated
06-21-2004, 05:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
that paper may have had it wrong on that also, she may have broke free from the cop thus breaking free would be construed as hitting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you think the media's report may have been incorrect, because it portrayed the woman's breaking free as hitting? Oh. come on! When we mentioned that the paper only presented the woman's side, we were accused of saying that the police were always right. I guess it's perfectly OK with you to doubt a paper's report, as long as you believe it was too easy on the police, not the person who claims being abused. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
why then did the police not charge the woman with assault then?
I'll tell ya why, because the stupid cop started the fight and they knew he was in the wrong and had they done charged her so they would not have been able to make it stick.
thats why.
ThomasIsUnderrated
06-21-2004, 06:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
why then did the police not charge the woman with assault then?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there could be some pride issues there. Of course, I'll be the first (unlike those on the other side of this debate) to admit that I don't know all of the facts.
[ QUOTE ]
I'll tell ya why, because the stupid cop started the fight and they knew he was in the wrong and had they done charged her so they would not have been able to make it stick.
thats why.
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif And your proof?
no charge of assault against a police officer thats my proof dear.
Only resisting arrest.
Completely different charges.
Wyatt_Junker
06-21-2004, 06:14 PM
Its all in the way you package your product. What kind of an image are you projecting?
http://www.sdbuzz.com/entertain/film/150_reno.jpg
uhhhh Wyatt? Cops in shorts that short? Oy!
Wolfcounsel
06-21-2004, 06:33 PM
AY, joto!
http://www.sdbuzz.com/entertain/film/150_reno.jpg /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/limp.gif
ThomasIsUnderrated
06-21-2004, 06:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
no charge of assault against a police officer thats my proof dear.
Only resisting arrest.
Completely different charges.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, and that doesn't prove your theory. The officer could have decided against charging her with assault for any number of reasons.
Incident_command
06-21-2004, 07:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
no charge of assault against a police officer thats my proof dear.
Only resisting arrest.
Completely different charges.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only thing it proves is you refuse to wait untill all the facts are in before you judge. Guilty untill proven innocent for the cop but not the lady right rink. Did you think Rodney King was a victim also.
How in the hell can you believe that all there is to this story is what you saw in the paper.
common sense says he was out of line whether or not the woman was beligerent, the cop initiated the fight, he did not have to go to her residence, all he had to do is just mail the ticket to her.
Are all people guilty untill proven innocent and the cops innocent?
I guess ALL sources of news is twisted and biased?
of thats the case why are we even bothering to opinionate on what we read and hear in the news then since its all biased?
Incident_command
06-21-2004, 07:59 PM
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whatever.gif
ThomasIsUnderrated
06-21-2004, 09:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Incident_command said:
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whatever.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. What else is there to say?
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 10:09 PM
Wyatt, LOL! Whatta crazy show!
2Cent
06-21-2004, 11:10 PM
FWIW, the woman was NOT on her property; she was in FRONT of her property. She SAID she honked. She SAID it was an accident. For all we know, she could very well have layed on her horn just long enough to be an instigator, yet not quite long enough, in her mind, to deserve a ticket for it.
Who knows?
Maybe after the cop got done with his original business, she yelled nasty comments from her screen door at him; enough to the point where he finally got irritated enough to to confront her with 'that's enough!'.
As someone earlier pointed out, tazers only have ONE bang to them; not two. As I understand it, two is impossible - unless tazers have changed over the last couple of years.
Rink, I'm sorry, but as you most assuredly know, newspapers are extremely biased when they want to be, and generally bend toward the liberal view when they are.
I can't help it. I'm getting a feeling that this woman - and later her husband - very well COULD HAVE gone far more BALLISTIC than the paper is letting on. (COULD, being the opperative word.)
Bottom line is....WE DON'T KNOW.
And I'm generally one of those who is biased towards the individual. Believe me, I've seen enough lazy, and/or nasty cops in my lifetime not to trust them very much, either. But there simply has to be more to this story than we're being told. You've got to at least admit that that isn't the first time THAT'S happend. right?
Rhino
06-21-2004, 11:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
2Cent said:
But there simply has to be more to this story than we're being told.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was exactly my thought when I saw she claimed to have been shocked twice, when tasers only shock once.
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 11:31 PM
Not only is there MORE to the story, the woman in the story is a liar!
2Cent
06-21-2004, 11:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
Not only is there MORE to the story, the woman in the story is a liar!
[/ QUOTE ]
Ya think? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif
"That there dirty ol cop! He come affa me like thare weren't no sun arisin tommara, I tells ya! I's sittin' quiet like in my purfclty clean, unannoyance-like librim room, and he just huff and puffs his nasty self on over heah likes he owns the place. I tells him, I says, "Missah. You've know ideas who yous dealin' wiff", I says. And that nasty, nasty man slams me! What wiff me doin's nuffin' - I SWEARS - nuffin' a'toll!!!"
"Mercy, when will days leab us ulone!???"
HarvickFan29
06-21-2004, 11:53 PM
2Cent, LOL! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif
Rhino
06-21-2004, 11:56 PM
2Cent's 2 cents worth is worth far more that 2 cents. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif
I guess honking ones horn is a criminal offence now?
HarvickFan29
06-22-2004, 12:02 AM
Yes, Rhino, I agree! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif
Rhino
06-22-2004, 12:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
I guess honking ones horn is a criminal offence now?
[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a sexual question?
um no dont think so, is it?
Rhino
06-22-2004, 01:10 AM
That was a joke, a la Monica. Technically though, honking a horn can be a criminal offense depending on the circumstances.
well would it be a criminal offense if it was done on her own property? ala her driveway???
Rhino
06-22-2004, 01:42 AM
Possibly, depending on the circumstances. If your next door neighbor was honking their horn in their driveway at 3 AM, that could be a criminal offense. That's just one example. Although it's not common knowledge, horns are technically considered emergency equipment in most states, and some states give tickets for using them in other than emergency circumstances.
Rhino
06-22-2004, 04:26 AM
Actually breaking free by physical force would be assault. Evading his grasp in the first place would be eluding or evading.
I'm so glad I live in the country, we dont have an abundance of nut-headed neighbors here /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif
Jeffrho
06-22-2004, 07:49 AM
You knew it would happen - "community activists" are now calling for the resignation of the KCMO police chief over "police brutality".
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/3444072/detail.html
2Cent
06-22-2004, 08:30 AM
I wonder why the lovely Mrs. Jones is taking so long to give her statement. Probably under advisement of her attorney. Gotta get these things worded just right, don'tcha know.
However, it does seem that there is a concern of police brutality in general in that area. And again; how would we know? According to this article, the people are protesting in reaction to a case that this P.D. wasn't involved in.
I about died laughing at the paper's choice of wording about ]that previous incident.
"The couple who live in the home said they believe the stuffed monkey left on their porch was meant to intimidate them, considering it had a noose tied around its neck."
Incident_command
06-22-2004, 12:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Incident_command said:
This may be same thing that just happened down hear. A 72 yo black female got a ticket for an illegal turn and fought with the officer on scene, she refused to sign, resisted arrest, and fought with the officer. City hall was filled with angry black residents crying racism and brutality. Minister after minister called for the officers resignation or termination for being physical with an old lady. A confrontation that caused her injuries. FDLE found him innocent and now the blacks are all pissed off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Same shit different town.
CatKozTX
06-22-2004, 12:38 PM
How long before Jeffrey Figer is in Kansas City trying to take the case? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
2Cent
06-22-2004, 01:06 PM
Incident and Magnummom, I didn't start out agreeing with either of you. I had the immediate adverse reaction Rink did: Cops with shiney belts and shoes who are just a bit too full of themselves.
Thanks for making me think twice. It's stories like these that tempt me to become a journalist - a REAL one, getting BOTH sides of the story instead of going forth with an agenda already in mind.
(and before I forget, thanks Rhino and Havrick. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon126.gif)
HomeschoolrsRUs
06-22-2004, 02:51 PM
Forgive me for pointing out a similarity, but when good citizens begin thinking worst of law enforcement, particularly before all the facts are in (out?), it is very similar to those anti-war protesters proclaiming te WoT to be false and without merit.
Bad cops DESERVE to be punish, SHOULD be punished, and SHOULD NO LONGER be considered police officers. But we should support our law enforcement brothers / sisters. They make little enough as it is for a tough, thankless job. I for one am extremely proud of all our boys / girls in blue -- they do a job that I certainly would not like to do.
It is extremely sad that a few "bad apples" have helped to tarnish the reputation of those that stand on the front lines at home on our behalf. We empower the bad guys when we denegrate the good guys.
Just my humble opinion.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif
Timberwolf
06-22-2004, 03:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Rhino said:
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
I guess honking ones horn is a criminal offence now?
[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a sexual question?
[/ QUOTE ]
ROTFLMAO!! You, Harv and 2cent are killin' me over here!!!
Dear Lord, I'm laughing so hard, I'm crying!!!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif
Jeffrho
06-22-2004, 05:17 PM
Well the circus continues here in KC. Just saw on the local news that the NAACP and other local "activist groups" were meeting with the KCMO police today. They are demanding the two officers be fired. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
Without an investigation of the incident?
Jeffrho
06-22-2004, 06:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Without an investigation of the incident?
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. They want the officers fired immediately. Typical grandstanding for the cameras, it's not suprising really.
[ QUOTE ]
kitten said:
[ QUOTE ]
Rink said:
I guess honking ones horn is a criminal offence now?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I know in Oregon it is. It is illegal to honk unless it is an emergency situation. I do also believe the same is in Washington I have to check my book again, but the laws are pretty much the same in Oregon and Washington. I do not, however, remeber what the fine is suppose to be for that, I could check on that too. It does state that in the drivers manuel as well as lists what the fines are for honking.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I've had idiots honk behind me because i was too slow for them on the road (I was at or just abit above the speed-limit and they I guess had a fire to go to.) *honk, honk, honk*
2Cent
06-22-2004, 09:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HomeschoolrsRUs said:
Forgive me for pointing out a similarity, but when good citizens begin thinking worst of law enforcement, particularly before all the facts are in (out?), it is very similar to those anti-war protesters proclaiming te WoT to be false and without merit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, that's ridiculous. I normally agree with you, but that one sounded like one of your darlings poured glue in your Cheerios while you weren't looking. To compare our troops with local law enforcement is an insult to our troops; and to say that you can equate individuals' responses to one verses the other is patently absurd.
[ QUOTE ]
Bad cops DESERVE to be punish, SHOULD be punished, and SHOULD NO LONGER be considered police officers
[/ QUOTE ]
To be sure.
[ QUOTE ]
But we should support our law enforcement brothers / sisters. They make little enough as it is for a tough, thankless job. I for one am extremely proud of all our boys / girls in blue -- they do a job that I certainly would not like to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Apologies again. Some earn it, some don't.
[ QUOTE ]
It is extremely sad that a few "bad apples" have helped to tarnish the reputation of those that stand on the front lines at home on our behalf. We empower the bad guys when we denegrate the good guys.
Just my humble opinion.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon27.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I've lived in towns where the local law enforcement gets respect from the general public. I guess that's because they've had the brains and the guts to weed out the retards.
Then again, I've lived in towns where it's the retards who are running the show, and therefore, get what they deserve - very little respect, if any.
It's well known around here that if you want to run from law enforcement do it on foot. 99% of the overbloated idiots couldn't do the 50 yd dash in twenty minutes; IF they made it that far. And I do mean IDIOTS. They were chasing after this guy who went north, but because of some proud, yet extremely stupid s.o.b who couldn't be told he was wrong, they had to search south. Why? Because moss grows on the south side of a tree. Everyone knows that.
They're also corrupt.
So, as I've witnessed, there's good and there's bad, and they tend to come in groups. I guess there's too much libertarian in me to trust all and every law enforcement officer just because of a badge. And I don't buy into a 'few bad apples who spoil the whole bunch.' Generally speaking, at least in towns of, say, 80,000 or less, look to the chief. That'll give you a pretty good clue as to how many 'bad apples' are tolerated.
Rhino
06-22-2004, 09:53 PM
[ QUOTE ]
magnummom said:
I sit corrected. thank you Rhino.. But couldn't it still be considered trying to evade or elude as well as assault? Just curious.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if she broke free and attempted to evade recapture.
2Cent
06-22-2004, 10:13 PM
I can't help it. W-a-y back when I took Driver's Ed in h.s., there was a film where the orator described giving someone a "friendly toot of the horn". We all about busted a gut.
But come to think of it, he was describing what one should do when passing to alert the driver ahead of you.
Yeah, ancient.
Rhino
06-22-2004, 10:25 PM
In Ohio, the law says you're supposed to honk the horn when passing. Nobody does it though. I do occasionally when passing farm equipment, just to make sure they know I'm coming around.
HarvickFan29
06-22-2004, 10:41 PM
I can see honking the horn if passing on a rural road, two-lane country road but most people get mad when you honk the horn at them these days, especially in the city.
in some places honking ones horn at another driver can get deadly, some of the latin types from down south of the border take that in a very bad way and will shoot you.
Thats what I heard anywayz.
2Cent
06-22-2004, 10:51 PM
And I'd say good on you. I either do that or flash my lights. It's just plain consideration.
I was 21 years old before I ever heard of flashing your lights - or quickly flashing your highbeams at night - to let a passer know they were safely by you. I used to see this on interstates since then, but no longer do. Do y'all do that?
Another traffic thing that I heard they actually TEACH in IL., maybe some other states as well, but I find dangerous as all get out.
People behind somebody turning left will turn their signal on as well; whether they're turning or not. Will somebody please inform these people how dangerous that is?
In AR and MO it is LEGAL to pass some one on the right if a vehicle is stopped to make a left turn. If the guy behind them isn't making a left turn but has his left signal on.....
I think you get the picture. It's dangerous as hell and needs to be stopped.
I'm cringing as I type this, but I do wish there was a way to preserve state's rights and have national standards at the same time. We live in a tourist trap and I'm amazed that there aren't more accidents than there are what with people from all over with umpteen different driving rules.
HarvickFan29
06-22-2004, 11:54 PM
2Cent, I learned the flashing of the lights from truckers. When you are passing them and are cleared to get in front of them, they flash their brights to let ya know you have safely cleared them to move over. So, I return the favor to them when traveling.
As for the other, it is not safe to put on turn signal if you're not turning because most people will think you are and will pull out in front of you. I never take it for granted that someone is going to turn until I see them actually turn the wheel.
I'm the same way when it comes to people and turn signals, too many times have I had to slam on my brakes because some dork didnt turn when they had their turn signal on, i got to the point where I wait and see anymore what they do, kinda makes peeps behind me mad and cranky, but tough! Y'know what I mean?
HarvickFan29
06-23-2004, 12:06 AM
I never take it that someone is turning because for all I know, they've been riding for miles and miles with that signal on. Wait until they turn unless you don't want to have a wreck. I don't really give a damn about the people behind me. I don't let them drive my car. I do. If they hit me, it is automatically their fault. They shouldn't tailgate.
2Cent
06-23-2004, 12:20 AM
Neither do I. re: trust a person is actually going to turn. Shit, if we did that around here the mullets would have you believing for 18 miles, lol!
I learned the highbeam thing from buddies, but most noticed the courtesy from truckers also.
Oh. It's not so much that people will pull out in front of you. (although true and I never trust another's turn signal until I see them slow to make the turn.)
In this case you are the third guy in line. Car #1 is turning left. Car #2 turns on his left signal to indicate car #1 is turning left, though he himself has no intention of turning left.
In MO it is legal on a two-lane highway to go around (pass on the right of) the guy ahead of you if he is turning left. You start to go around car #2 thinking he is turning left also, and before you know it he's pulling forward!
These people turn on their signal lights to indicate to the people behind them what the guy in front of him is doing. NOT what he's doing.
Incredibly dangerous and stupid.
Wyatt_Junker
06-23-2004, 09:40 AM
He should have just busted out the Tae Bo and ball dropped her. Sometimes it just takes sheer gonads.
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~amg309/tomlennon.jpg
2Cent
06-23-2004, 11:14 AM
Ya figure this woman will get a free breast augmentation out of this? Afterall, the cop did hit her twice....and in the chest, no less.
HarvickFan29
06-24-2004, 11:11 AM
I was told that it is illegal because some people may be out there to cause an accident and flash their lights saying it is safe when it is not.
Oh my! If someone is gonna cause themselves to get rear-ended (no jokes Wyatt or Esty) by a trucker or another vehicle, they are dumbasses anyway.
Also, it is just a courtesy and not to be depended on as a way to drive. Always look in the rearview mirror to see if you have cleared a vehicle before getting over. At night it is much easier because of the headlights.
HarvickFan29
06-24-2004, 11:15 AM
Wyatt, LMBO! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I always thought the flashing lights on the opposite of the road meant the opposite, that there is problems up ahead.
Thats always what I had encountered, I really at the time didnt know why they were flashin their lights since it was daylight & all.
(usually people flash their high-beams at me at night thinking i didnt turn my headlights down, which they usually are, I drive rarely with the high beams on, reg is just fine, cept if its raining).
HarvickFan29
06-24-2004, 11:57 AM
Rink, in the South if someone is coming from the opposite direction and flashes their brights or lights at you, it can mean you need to turn on your headlights, there is a speedtrap ahead of you, or you need to turn off your brights. That covers it.
turn your lights on during the day? when there's no inclemented weather or getting close to dark? i.e. noontime?
HarvickFan29
06-24-2004, 12:28 PM
Rink, I mentioned THREE things it could be. But, again, I don't know if flashing lights or headlights means something different in your part of the country. That is just something that you will discover with experience, and many years of drivng. Happy Motoring!
Well I know of all the speedtraps around these parts in two states LOL, and mainly I drive with my headlights on normal not on high, and at a certain time of the day I'll turn my headlights on, and do get irritated when dorks turn only their parking lights on when its getting dark and hard to see.
the point where its hardest for me to see is just between daylight and nighttime, at dusk to dark, and it irritates me to no end people only turn their parking lights on only at that time.
sowwy a lil gripe o mine heh
O and Happy Motoring to you too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif
HarvickFan29
06-24-2004, 12:53 PM
I don't burn my headlights when driving during the day in my SAAB but it is a state law that motorcycles have to. Also, your weather there is totally different which might warrant burning headlights during the day. But, on a sunny day, I can't see doing it.
Timberwolf
06-24-2004, 06:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
Rink, in the South if someone is coming from the opposite direction and flashes their brights or lights at you, it can mean you need to turn on your headlights, there is a speedtrap ahead of you, or you need to turn off your brights. That covers it.
[/ QUOTE ]
That covers it here in the upper Midwest, too...
HarvickFan29
06-24-2004, 09:50 PM
Thanks, TDub! Glad to know it works that way up there incase I'm ever driving through.
Estragon
06-24-2004, 11:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
Thanks, TDub! Glad to know it works that way up there in case I'm ever driving through.
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean in case you ever get lost - VERY lost!
What TW calls "the upper midwest" would just be South Canada if Byron Dorgan had his druthers . . .
HarvickFan29
06-24-2004, 11:26 PM
I don't venture much out of the South but if I do, I will be driving. I've given up on commercial travel. If I can't drive, I ain't goin'!! Besides, it's not warm enough for me up there, not even in the summertime.
Estragon
06-25-2004, 12:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
I don't venture much out of the South but if I do, I will be driving. I've given up on commercial travel. If I can't drive, I ain't goin'!! Besides, it's not warm enough for me up there, not even in the summertime.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was running errands in town today. It was 94°, but the humidity was low and there was a decent breeze, so I just rolled down the windows. If it gets too hot, it's easy to cool off with AC or jumping in the water, but cold is to the bone.
If God intended man to live in the cold, he would have given us fur.
Timberwolf
06-25-2004, 09:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Estragon said:
If God intended man to live in the cold, he would have given us fur.
[/ QUOTE ]
You ain't ne'er been up this way, have ye?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jk.gif
btw - you're right on the money about "The Dork" (b. dorgan)...actually, he thinks this IS Southern Manitoba....well, that's the rumor, anyway.
CatKozTX
06-25-2004, 09:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
Rink, in the South if someone is coming from the opposite direction and flashes their brights or lights at you, it can mean you need to turn on your headlights, there is a speedtrap ahead of you, or you need to turn off your brights. That covers it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto in my corner of Texas and in New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas, where I regularly drive.
CatKozTX
06-25-2004, 09:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
I don't venture much out of the South but if I do, I will be driving. I've given up on commercial travel. If I can't drive, I ain't goin'!! Besides, it's not warm enough for me up there, not even in the summertime.
[/ QUOTE ]
Harve, if you get to feeling chilly, come on down my way! We've been hovering at about 100 all month, with only a few days with highs in the upper 80s. Ugh.
2Cent
06-26-2004, 06:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
kitten said:
lol, to me it gets to hot in the summertime. I love the rain. But yeah up here if they are going the opposite directions and flash their lights at you it means
1. Your high beams are on
2. Your lights should be on and they are not
3. There is a cop ahead
4. There is an accident or other problem ahead
So it is pretty much the same. I guess trucker language as we call it here is probably universal in the nation since they or some travel the nation when doing long hall. That is what my friend Matt had told me since he has been driving many years long hall and now that he has a family he just drives local.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much the same here, except a friend of mine found out the hard way that it is illegal to flash your lights to forewarn of cops ahead. He got a $75 fine about 15 yrs ago.
We live near Branson. I see people from all over the country driving with their headlights on all of the time. They believe they are more visible w/their lights on. I think it's silly, but it doesn't bother me.
You can't buy a street bike, (since '80-ish?) that the headlight doesn't automatically come on when you start the bike.
Rink, parking lights make the vehicle more visible to on coming traffic when full headlights aren't neccessary. I don't get your hang up. <shrug>
From what I heard, when it starts getting dark, it is illegal to drive with parking lights on.
when it starts getting dark or the sun goes down you put your Lights on, not the parking lights.
HarvickFan29
06-26-2004, 10:20 AM
There is no set time legally, Rink, at least not in my state. But, safe drivers will turn them on at a proper time as to make sure they're seen.
Wyatt_Junker
06-26-2004, 10:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
68-Year-Old Woman Says Officer Shocked Her Twice In Chest
[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I just prefer the cheesy office goose pre-Anita Hill-ese. Right on the rump.
HarvickFan29
06-26-2004, 10:47 AM
Probably the most action she's seen in a long time! LOL! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif
Not a matter of time via clock, but when the sun goes down behind the hills and night is approaching, thats when you are required to have your lights on.
when the sun is in your face and those on the opposite put their lights on its akin to that of having ones lights on in inclemented weather.
and its just a courtesy also.
PS: the time when its most difficult for me to see is in between day and night, at dusk when its still just so-so in light but not yet completely dark.
in these wooded areas its difficult for me to see things when driving, but its a very short-lived timeframe so its not a hazard for me.
Rhino
06-27-2004, 10:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
There is no set time legally, Rink, at least not in my state.
[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently true, but I find that strange since most, if not all, other states have stated times, usually based on sunrise and sunset. North Carolina law does require you to use headlights though whenever you use wipers during inclement weather and when there is fog present.
Rhino
06-27-2004, 10:47 PM
Rink, here's a quote from the Washington Driver's Handbook:
[ QUOTE ]
By law, your vehicle's headlights must be turned on from a half hour after sunset until a half hour before sunrise. Lights must be on any time conditions make it difficult to see people or other vehicles.
[/ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29
06-27-2004, 11:07 PM
Most of that is common sense. I see no reason why we would need laws on the books pertaining to when we should turn our lights on. It's just a waste of money, time, and another excuse for the law to stop us.
We don't have a law that says we have to burn headlights when we have to use wipers due to rain. I guess they figure most people would know such a thing.
Rhino
06-27-2004, 11:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
HarvickFan29 said:
Most of that is common sense. I see no reason why we would need laws on the books pertaining to when we should turn our lights on. It's just a waste of money, time, and another excuse for the law to stop us.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Harv, you know as well as we do that most folks don't have a lot of common sense, hence the laws. LOL!
[ QUOTE ]
We don't have a law that says we have to burn headlights when we have to use wipers due to rain. I guess they figure most people would know such a thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you live in North Carolina? Their law does say that.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.