Deputy sued for using stun gun on woman

WTHR ^

[JTN]

NOBLESVILLE, Ind. (AP) - A Hamilton County sheriff's deputy faces a lawsuit for using a Taser on a woman who refused to put down her cell phone after she was stopped on suspicion of drunken driving.

Jennifer Marshall says she was trying to phone her lawyer when Deputy Greg Lockhart pressed the stun gun to her arm as another deputy held her.

Police contend Marshall refused to drop the cell phone after Lockhart warned her she would have to go to jail if she did not submit to a blood test.

Hamilton County Sheriff Doug Carter says Lockhart followed department policy and the lawsuit is without merit.

A video camera in the police car recorded the arrest outside a convenience store in Fishers.

[NJ_gent]

"She's really lucky that she got the cops that she did. Some cops would have blown her away when she leaned back into her car to grab for a metal object"

You're absolutely correct here. You reach into your car when the police pull you over, they don't know what you're reaching for. They don't know if you're going for a cigarette or a gun. Police get shot and killed on the job all the time. NYC police cars have a telephone number to call right on the bumper to report a police officer being shot (how messed up is that?). This woman's very lucky these officers treated her how she was (an angry and combative whiner), instead of how she might have been (an immediate threat to their safety).

What everyone so far seems to have missed is that as soon as they tried to start handcuffing her, she started screaming "BRUTALITY!" and calling for help. Funny how I've been pulled over by police many times (never ticketed or arrested), and have yet to experience this sort of thing. Perhaps it's because I behave in a respectful and thoughtful manner instead of being combative and acting in a threatening way.

There are plenty of instances of police going way over the line and being power-drugged maniacs; this ain't one of them. Nothing to see here, folks; move along.

[NJ_gent]

From the story you linked to: "Marshall, the owner of MG Photography in Noblesville, is serving probation for operating a vehicle while her blood-alcohol content was 0.08 or more, operating while intoxicated, public intoxication, resisting law enforcement, battery, disorderly conduct and intimidation."[Emph Mine]

She was a combative drunk who got tazered. *Yawn*

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

You scare me.

[JTN]

It sounds like you're too close to this story....are you a relative of the offended?

No, I'm not. I first heard of this story by reading about it on the internet. Found it here. Scroll down to "The War on Drunk Driving Continues"

[TC Rider]

Interesting that the video was provided by her lawyer, and only the last bit of the arrest. Wonder if there was any reason he didn't provide the entire tape?

Hmmmmm

[Veritas et equitas ad Votum]

"Perhaps it's because I behave in a respectful and thoughtful manner instead of being combative and acting in a threatening way."

Yes, tyrannical governments tend to treat loyal subjects quite well. It is only those of us who stand up to them who usually feel that wrath.

[JTN]

Sorry, I meant to explain more. The reason this angers me so much is that I am so viscerally anti-bully. This cop is nothing but a bully, who was excited about the chance to use his new toy. In the irony department, he is under investigation for the death of a friend who was drinking at his house.

[clee1]

Exactly.

If I had been the arresting officer, she'd have been drawn on the instant she tried to grab something from within. I wouldn't have pulled the trigger unless what she came out with was a weapon, but at the very least she would have been forcefully grounded, cuffed up, and transported to jail where a blood sample could be taken.

[yer gonna put yer eye out]

Sorry, I don't believe for a minute that the police wanted to draw this woman's blood.
The poster here, in my opinion, has an agenda related to this story....he/she just hasn't stated it.

[JTN]

You appear to consider her lawyer's version of the event to be more credible than the police's version. The jury disagreed and they would likely have had much more information to base their opinions on and would have been able to listen to the people involved explain their sides of the event.

The jury was considering the evidence that the woman committed a crime, not whether or not the police actions were appropriate. It's not that I consider the lawyer's version of events more trustworthy than that of the police. I consider the video more trustworthy.

[JTN]

You reach into your car when the police pull you over, they don't know what you're reaching for.

The police were not tasing her as she reached into her car. The did so only after she was under control and held down on the trunk of the car. This cop just decided that it was time to have some fun. Taser time!

[yer gonna put yer eye out]

"Yes, tyrannical governments tend to treat loyal subjects quite well. It is only those of us who stand up to them who usually feel that wrath."

Oh, goodneth, not another "TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT" thtory...
I am jutht going to die.
But your thuch a thavage!!!

[NJ_gent]

"There is no way in hell I would ever let a cop draw blood from me, let alone on a roadside. If a blood test is mandatory, and I don't feel like getting tased, I would agree to go to a clinic or something and have a professional do it."

That's understandable. The officer told the woman that she could either submit to a 'chemical' test or go to jail. Personally, if it reached that point (which is doubtful because I don't drive, ever, if I've been drinking), I'd choose jail. At that point, you're in a position to contest the detention and any potential charges. When you become argumentative and combative with police officers on tape, you're creating your own problems.

[JTN]

Sorry, I don't believe for a minute that the police wanted to draw this woman's blood. The poster here, in my opinion, has an agenda related to this story....he/she just hasn't stated it.

Didn't follow the link I posted?

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt for later read

[wolfcreek]

Obviously, at this point in history, it's not a good thing to mess with the law.

[NJ_gent]

"The police were not tasing her as she reached into her car."

My point was that she's lucky they didn't shoot her when she reached back into the car. Were I in their position, that may well have been my course of action, and I firmly believe it would have been justified. Hindsight is 20/20, but when you're the guy who just pulled over the drunk who's become combative and argumentative, and who's now reaching into her car for a dark metallic object, let's see what you think is coming your way.

"This cop just decided that it was time to have some fun. Taser time!"

Actually, he said "taser time" as she was being dragged back out of her car (a much more preferable course of action for her to endure than being shot multiple times). The office had reached the end of his rope. When she continued resisting arrest, fighting, and screaming at the back of the vehicle, he used the tazer to aid in their getting control of her.

You wouldn't happen to be her attorney, would you? You and he think exactly alike...

As I said, a drunk driver resisted arrest and got tazered. *yawn*

[yer gonna put yer eye out]

Read the link...found only that the police stopped a "princess" who apparently mistook the situation for a game.

[NJ_gent]

"Yes, tyrannical governments tend to treat loyal subjects quite well. It is only those of us who stand up to them who usually feel that wrath."

A drunk driver who reaches into her vehicle for a dark metallic object isn't standing up to tyranny; she's threatening the lives of the two human beings trying to get her off the road before she plows into a minivan and kills a family.

This is as much about government tyranny as the shooting of the guy who ran through the plane threatening everyone with a bomb. I'm as distrustful of government as the next guy, but you seem to prefer anarchy to any organized government whatsoever. The actions of Congress may at times be deplorable, but these two officers acted appropriately and with great restraint under the circumstances.

[yer gonna put yer eye out]

BTW after reading the whole article, I could by no means make the equation that because a friend of the officers who had too much alcohol, and died at his home equals any connection to "bully".

I think you're reading words that aren't there.