1. Jennifer Marshall was supposedly stopped for running a stoplight.
2. She was given a series of roadside sobriety tests which she passed.
3. She was then given a series of breath tests which were inconclusive (meaning she passed).
4. The police then tell her that she must submit to a blood draw (right then and there) or go to jail.
Here she says she is going to call her lawyer. Both officers tell her no. Again she says she wants to call her lawyer and tries to get her cell phone from her car. At this point, one of the cops, who had just gotten his taser and had not had an opportunity to use it, announces that it's "Taser time!" The hold her against the back of the car, and although she is under complete control, tase her several times.
The infuriating video is at the Indystar link.
Ping
sounds like an episode of "My Name is Earl"
I didn't find a video but I did find another article that said she was convicted on all 7 counts of DUI and resisting arrest in a jury trial.
I assume the jury saw the video.
I think would choose to obey the police officer and not get Tazed. But different strokes for different folks. Perhaps she prefers getting Tazed and then winning a lawsuit against the police.
That conclusion isn't supported by the Indystar story to which you linked. It says that she 'cooperated' in the field sobriety tests, not that she passed.
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 which they would only discover after the shooting was a phone, not a weapon. Doing that rather than reaching for the Taser to make her drop the object would certainly have avoided the lawsuit.
And yes, there are .22 cal. pistols disguized as cell phones http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cell_phone_guns.htm or there is always the trusty stun gun version. http://www.tbotech.com/cellphonestungun.htm
So the next time a cop tells you to drop your cell phone and back away slowly, you better do what you are told.
They played the tape on BBC in the UK with clear disgust. Personally I thought the cop was reasonable and patient. What's the fuss about?
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
Obviously, at this point in history, it's not a good thing to mess with the law.
That's not what the article says:
After cooperating with a series of physical sobriety tests and giving inconclusive breath tests, the trouble begins when Lockhart, who is more 6 feet tall and weighs more than 250 pounds, tells Marshall that she will be taken to jail if she does not submit to a blood draw.
It said she cooperated with the physical sobriety tests. It does not say that she passed them.
3. She was then given a series of breath tests which were inconclusive (meaning she passed).
What inconclusive usually means with a breath test is that the subject did not cooperate well enough to get a good reading. That doesn't mean she passes, that means that they are forced to take her to have blood drawn to test her blood alcohol level, or place her under arrest if she refuses.
4. The police then tell her that she must submit to a blood draw (right then and there) or go to jail.
Well, they don't take the blood right then and there, but the law does require you to submit to the tests. The tests have to be administered within a certain amount of time. The officers don't have the option of letting an uncooperative subject call their lawyer and stall.
The infuriating video is at the Indystar link.
I watched the video. She was resisting arrest. A TASER is a lot less damaging method of getting hadcuffs on someone resisting than overwhelming physical force. A second of pain with no lasting damage is better than ending up bruised and battered.
His announcing "taser time" sounds bad, but it could simply mena that he was giving her fair warning that she needed to quit resisting arrest or he would be required to use force.
When the eventually had her under arrest and her blood was tested, her blood alcohol was still up at .10 percent.
Your characterization of the situation doesn't match the story I'm reading in the article.
It seems much more likely that the physical sobriety tests led the officers to give her the breath test, but they were unable to get an accurate reading either because she didn't cooperate or because the equipment didn't function properly.
She was legally too drunk to drive. It sounds like she just didn't want to fact the consequences of her own actions.
She refused to comply with the lawful orders of the officers. She resisted arrest. She needs to take responsibility for her actions and accept the consequences.
In any civilized country two hulking men who were caught on video holding down and electrocuting a non violent, unarmed 115 lb twig of a woman would be sitting in prison for a long time right now.
That the victim had 2 or 3 beers that evening doesn't make a whit of difference in my book. Civilized people don't treat women like that, drunk or not.
That the thugs who did this were police officers only makes it worse. It is these peoples' job day in and day out to prevent situations from escalating. Excusing abuse of this woman simply because they are cops makes us not merely uncivilized but a police state.
Flame on.
I guess next time he should just shoot her?
Anyone mention that taser happy cop on Meet The Fockers yet?
Stop Resisting, Stop Resisting.
The flippant "Taser time!" comment by the cop says plenty about his mindset. The woman made him angry by not cooperating, and he paid her back by hurting her unnecessarily. I hope that the sadist who used the Taser is fired, at the least.
From the video, it is obvious that the cops knew that she had a phone, not a gun or other weapon. One of the cops repeatedly tells the woman to "put the phone down." It is also clear from the video that the cops had her under sufficient control to physically restrain her and handcuff her.
It is drummed into every American who watches crime dramas on television that arrested suspects have a right to speak to an attorney. It probably seemed to the woman that she was being denied what she regarded as a basic right. Her actions are completely understandable.
Still, she did not cooperate with the cops, and for that reason I suppose I hope that she loses her lawsuit.
"Unfortunately, I can't post the more detailed article from Indystar.com, but here are the important points.
1. Jennifer Marshall was supposedly stopped for running a stoplight.
2. She was given a series of roadside sobriety tests which she passed.
3. She was then given a series of breath tests which were inconclusive (meaning she passed).
4. The police then tell her that she must submit to a blood draw (right then and there) or go to jail.
Here she says she is going to call her lawyer. Both officers tell her no. Again she says she wants to call her lawyer and tries to get her cell phone from her car. At this point, one of the cops, who had just gotten his taser and had not had an opportunity to use it, announces that it's "Taser time!" The hold her against the back of the car, and although she is under complete control, tase her several times"
Almost everything you said above is a lie, no wonder so many of these idiots in here agree with you, they are too dumb or lazy to watch the video and would rather just take your word for it.