Ripping Up A Parking Ticket In Front Of Police May Get You Tased, Even If You’re Pregnant

If you’re upset with the parking ticket you’ve just received, it’s rarely a good idea to rip it up. It’s certainly a bad idea to rip that ticket up in front of the police officer who just wrote it. Ask the pregnant Chicago woman who says police used a stun gun on her after she tore up her citation.

Police ticketed the woman, who is only a few weeks away from giving birth, for allegedly parking in a handicap spot outside a Walgreens.

The woman claims she had merely pulled into the spot to briefly console her young daughter and was upset when the police took the opportunity to issue the violation.

“The police came behind her, and she said they blocked her in,” the woman’s sister tells CBS Chicago. “She asked them, were they writing her a ticket, and they told her yes… She tried to explain to them what happened, as far as her little girl getting out of the car, and her trying to calm her down and console her, and the guy gave her a ticket for $200. She ripped the ticket up, tore it in half, and threw it on the ground.”

The police report claims the woman not only ripped up the ticket but threw it in the officer’s face before attempting to drive away.

She tells a different version to CBS Chicago: “I got scared, and closed the door. I didn’t hit him. I didn’t mean to harm him, or anything. He Tasered me through the window.”

The woman was taken to the hospital and claims that cops made fun of her while she was being treated.

“They were laughing. They said … I know she’s pregnant. Then one of the other officers said I deserve it. Another officer said, ‘Go get Jesse Jackson,'” she recalls. “They were all laughing, like it was so funny.”

Regarding the use of a stun gun on a pregnant woman, a police department rep says, “you can’t always tell if somebody’s pregnant. You want to use it where you’re overcoming an assault, or preventing escape.”

In addition to the parking ticket, the woman has been charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest and simple assault. Her boyfriend was also charged with resisting arrest and simple assault.

CBS reports that the soon-to-be-born baby appeared unharmed.

Meanwhile, the city’s Independent Police Review Authority is looking into the woman’s complaint of excessive force.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. ferozadh says:

    It’s stories like this that renews my faith in America, land of the free and zero common sense.

    • CommonSense(ಠ_ಠ) says:

      Those cops will all be fired for sure.
      It is not illegal to rip up a ticket.

      • cyberpenguin says:

        But it is illegal to assault a cop, even if it is just throwing the parking ticket you just ripped up in their face.

        Who knows how it would have played out if she just ripped up the ticket. If she threw it on the ground maybe they’d get her for littering. If she threw it in her car she might have walked away.

        But, the minute she physically contacted the cop by throwing it in his face, she changed the outcome, even if it was just a torn up ticket.

      • Jawaka says:

        You’re hearing one side of a story only.

      • Doubting thomas says:

        wow you really are bright
        /s

        1. cops almost never get fired, when they do get fired the union sues and gets them their job back.
        2. ripping up a ticket is not illegal, but throwing anything at someone is, especially a cop.
        3. Throwing the paper on the ground is littering and illegal
        4. and this is the big one, Getting in your car and attempting to drive off when the cop is placing you under arrest is certainly illegal.

        • CommonSense(ಠ_ಠ) says:

          Wow you are not that smart.
          Throwing paper out your window is not an arrestable offense even if it goes in the direction of a police officer. Even if the paper hit the cop in the face it is still not an arrestable offense as it is a piece of paper.
          The cop cannot arrest people just for being mean to them.

          All the cop could have done is written another ticket for littering.
          The person can drive off without the tickets. That is not illegal.
          Also a person does not have to comply with an arrest without cause. The cop only has an authority to arrest if they have probable cause for a crime or witnessed the crime. He cannot arrest just because he does not like how he is treated.

          • DrLumen says:

            Shakes head.

            There is an old saying… “You may beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride.” In short, the police may not have a case but they can take you to jail for any reason they want. The judge may throw out the case, the prosecutor may decide not to press charges or you are judged not guilty but you will still have gone to jail.

            Try your logic and legal theories or interpretations in a cops face and see what happens.

          • Doubting thomas says:

            Even hitting someone with a feather is assault. Littering is an arrestable offense, in fact any violation of the law is an arrestable offense. The fact that it does not make sense to arrest someone for a speeding or parking violation does not mean it is illegal.
            I am not arguing that the cop was in the right. I am saying that this chick was stupid in her actions and should have taken her complaint to a judge with a lawyer on her side.

            • Max Headroom says:

              No, that would be battery. Assault is the threatening of harm to a victim. Battery is making physical contact with the victim

          • My lawyer made me change my screen name says:

            Herp derp. More appropriate display name would be “I don’t really know what’s going on here but I’m going to pretend like I do.”

      • oldwiz65 says:

        Cops never get fired. They have “internal affairs” departments that “investigate” police misconduct, and unless the cop has, without provocation, shot an unarmed and unthreatening person 12 times and killed him, the “internal affairs” will simply use their boiler plate response “The officer acted appropriately in the situation.”

      • cabalist says:

        Come on folks, if you disobey an order from a police officer you get what is coming to you. Anything but blind submission will be met with overwhelming force.

        God help you if you mess with the TSA…

  2. Vox Republica says:

    Can we all agree that everybody in this scenario deserves to be shot out of a cannon? Specifically, shot out of one cannon into another cannon, which in turn is shot back into the first cannon?

  3. Gorbachev says:

    Getting pissed off is not a good reason for using the taser.

    • shufflemoomin says:

      Read between the lines, she was obviously told to stay where she was and she ignored them and got into her car. I’d have tasered her too. You don’t know WHAT she’s got in the car or what her intentions are. Disrespecting and ignoring the orders of a cop are both perfectly good reasons for a tasering.

      • Velvet Jones says:

        Yes, because “disrespecting” is now illegal. Fuck off and die you disgusting piece of trash. These cops should be dragged in to the street, drawn, and quarter. Maybe that would teach them to “respect” the people they’re suppose to be protecting.

        • Necoras says:

          You should be respectful to everyone, particularly people you do not know. You should be doubly respectful to people with weapons on their hips, regardless of whether or not they’re law enforcement personnel. You should even be respectful to random people on the internet. This isn’t a matter of legalities, but human decency.

          • Velvet Jones says:

            People advocating police brutality of a pregnant woman deserve no respect. The cops were the ones that escalated the situation. Sorry if I seem extremely pissed off, but this is nearly identical to an incident that happened in Washington state last year. Three pigs took turns tasing a pregnant woman because she refused to sign a speeding ticket. The police are there to protect and serve, not to be our masters. It is about time they be reminded of that, by a rope if necessary.

            • Necoras says:

              I disagree with your advocating for the hanging, torture, and dismemberment of public servants (or just about any human really), but I’m still being respectful in my replies.

              It’s when individuals stop respecting the fact that other people are just as human as they are and start seeing them as *something else* that situations like the one in the article happen. The woman likely saw the cop as an overbearing pig, and the cop likely saw the woman as a disrespectful waste of time. If the woman had viewed the policeman as someone trying to do his job, and the policeman saw the woman as a mother having a hard day this probably wouldn’t have escalated.

              The underlying issue here is not that a policeman tased a poor helpless woman. It’s that two people acted like jerks to one another, and the one with a weapon predictably one the resulting argument. They’re both at fault, and I’ve no sympathy for either side.

              • Velvet Jones says:

                Here’s the problem. While I agree this woman was a b*tch, she is not the one with the power. The police are the ones in control, they’re the ones that are armed and they’re the ones that basically have the law on their side. It is their job to control the situations. Cops should not expect people that they’re citing to be jubilant about it. That’s just part of the job. The problem I have is that these cops broke the rules well before the tasering. Unless these cops never went to the academy, I’m sure one of the first things they teach you is to control the situation, never let it get out of control, and don’t be the one to escalate it. The cops did the exact opposite, and this is not an isolated case. Just look at the case of the homeless guy beaten to death in Fullerton, CA. Those cops are now on trial for murder, but if it wasn’t for a video tape they would have never even been investigated.

                • Bill610 says:

                  Velvet, I’m about 99.9% with you. But I would point out that it’s probably worse than you think. It seems that modern police training overemphasizes “officer safety”, the implication being that overwhelming force is what keeps cops safe from all those killer civilians and their pets…despite the declining rates of officer fatalities in the actual line of duty (that is, excluding deaths due to reckless or distracted driving). There seems to be a failure on the part of those training police today to emphasize their role as public servants, to teach them to de-escalate conflicts, and to use an appropriate level of force. Also to make it clear that everyone really isn’t trying to kill them…though that may change if they continue to abuse the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

                  • Velvet Jones says:

                    You bring up a good point. Police have taken an extremely hostile attitude towards the general public, and it is beginning to backfire on them. I think most honest people would like to trust cops and expect them to do the right thing. Acting like prison guards and beating anyone that gets in your way is not the way to build that trust. The poster above chastised me for suggesting cops be lynched. I meant criminally abusive cops, not all cops. I don’t have a problem with police who are honest, do their job, and truly are out to protect the public. It’s the ones corrupt and see the public as the enemy that I have a problem with.

            • njack says:

              Because you were there….

      • Bill610 says:

        No, a Taser is a weapon, and it is to be used defensively, not to punish disrespect or ensure compliance. If the cop was in fact frightened because she was getting out of the car, then he is a coward and should not have a gun, a Taser, or a badge. People get out of cars around me all day and night, and I manage to resist the temptation to preemptively strike them.

        • Necoras says:

          I believe the issue was that she was getting *into* the car. If she really threw the paper in the policeman’s face, then legally that’s assaulting an officer. He had every legal right to arrest her at that point, and her getting into the car is resisting arrest. If she refused to get out of the car at that point, he may legally have had the right to use the taser to detain her.

          Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, just that the law was on his side.

        • Jawaka says:

          If the cop tasered the woman after she started to get into her car after being told not to then it was a defensive use IMO. Who’s to say that she didn’t have a gun in the car or wouldn’t have tried to take off running over the cop in the process.

          The correct reaction would have been to listen to the cop, accept your ticket and then fight it in court if you don’t feel that it’s deserved. But instead she disobeyed the cop (as did her boyfriend according to the story), ripped up the ticket and threw it in the cop’s face. Sorry, that’s unacceptable.

        • Doubting thomas says:

          are you that dense or just being obstinate?
          When a cop gives a lawful order and you disobey it, and go into a car where you could have a gun, knife, explosive, etc then the tasering you get is not disciplinary, it is defensive.

          • Bill610 says:

            Would shooting her also have been appropriate? After all, if she was going after an explosive, that would have been a reasonable use of force, stopping her from blowing up the store. Further, so far we have only the cop’s word that she was instructed not to move. We also have a police representative saying that using the Taser would be appropriate to “stop an escape”…but she was parked in, so that wasn’t happening. It used to be that everyone would simply take the word of the police, but with the advent of readily available video recording, we have learned that the police lie all too often. So the video may support the police account–though it’s debatable if she was even “parked” in a handicapped space if she was in the vehicle with the engine running when the police rolled up behind her. If the video ends up “lost” or “damaged”…then I’d say a tie goes to the pregnant woman.

            • InsertPithyNicknameHere says:

              One small point – in Illinois, even if the engine is running, you are still considered parked. So, I don’t think the fact that she was parked in a handicapped spot is very debatable.

              • Bill610 says:

                Saw your post further down, and I appreciate your taking the time to look into that and clarify it.

      • KeithIrwin says:

        If they haven’t placed you under arrest, in many states, you’re not required to follow their orders. They’re peace officers, not plantation overseers.

        Non-lethal weapons are meant to be used in situations similar to lethal weapons: when there is clear and present danger to the officer. Sitting in a car where they could possibly have a weapon is a possible danger, not an actual one. Even in your interpretation, it’s a stretch to say that she was tased because the officer feared for his safety. It’s far more likely the she was tased because she didn’t comply with his orders and because he was irritated. Him feeling irritated is not the same as him being in danger.

    • Geekybiker says:

      Well, she did get pissed off while black. That apparently is a crime.

  4. Jozef says:

    Such lazy cops. Everyone knows they should’ve dragged her out of the car and beaten her to a pulp while yelling at her to stop resisting…

    • LabGnome says:

      Police brutality just isn’t what it used to be. Where is the physical contact? Where is the hands on beatings? Now it is just about tazing.

      I know it is for fun and all but come on cops, stop being so lazy and not have a machine cause pain and distress for you.

      • Velkyr says:

        I, for one, miss the days of Rodney King style beatings.

        Police these days have no respect for this historic art form.

        • HalOfBorg says:

          Go watch the Rodney Kind video again. NOT the edited version shown on the news – the FULL version. Everly last blow was legal (except that last one).

          The news did that in Cincy as well. I think it was the fat guy disoriented. The video they showed made it look like a beating, while the full video shows him treating them like rag dolls. His sugar was off, he was strong anyway and that had him like Superman.

          NBC (think it was) did same thing to the Travon Martin audio, made it like he thought the guy was trouble because he looked black. “He looks black.” was a response to the 911 operator asking his race.

    • dave23 says:

      So i guess im not the only one who has noticed that before……the guy is face down on the ground, has his hands behind his back asking to be handcuffed and the cop punches him in the back of the head and says “STOP RESISTING”.

      I always think of South Park where you can shoot endangered species as long as you yell “He’s coming right for us!” first.

  5. Emtronics says:

    I’ll wait until the police release the video from the squad car. We had something very similar here where the woman was arrested and telling a completely different story than the police report also claiming the cops were laughing at her. The Chief of Police released the video dash cam footage and that told the truth, exactly as written in the police report, Too bad the cops can’t sue for these people lying and playing the race card.

    • frank64 says:

      It is also possible that they did say things like “call Jessie Jackson”.

      From what I have read, Chicago is huge on wringing as much parking fine and parking income from everyone, an example of a city gone amok. It is really affecting the quality of life. It upsets many people and brings out the worst in them. It means a confrontational attitude develops between the citizens and the cops. Not a good way to run a city.

    • Astranger says:

      Yeah, I’m sure they’ll include that on the police report. Cops ALWAYS tell the truth on police reports especially when it might make them look bad.

    • cosby says:

      Yea I agree on needing to see the dash cam footage if it was running. That or video from the stores security if they have it. The story just doesn’t add up. I’m not saying the cops were not wrong. If she threw the ticket in the officers face it is an assault. I’m guessing that happened and they tried to arrest her and she resisted. Really need more information on this.

    • Tunnen says:

      If she was in a parking spot in your typical parking lot and the police blocked in her car, the police car would likely be perpendicular to her’s. This would cause the camera to not be facing the scene, unless they are able to pivot the camera and the door frame doesn’t block the view. But it’s also possible that the handicap spot was located at a location, like the end of a T junction, that would allow them to actually align the police car behind her vehicle.

      The other question of course was that if she was “blocked” by the police car, how did she then try to attempt to drive away after ripping the ticket? Did she make it look like she was going to ram the police cruiser to get by? If so, I would think the tasering would be justified. Otherwise if she was blocked with no chance to flee and was not making any threatening motions towards ramming another vehicle or person, it would sound like the police did use excessive force.

      Either way, if you received a ticket and you think it’s unfair, you do not let your emotions get out of control. You accept the ticket, don’t mouth off the officer, then contest the ticket in court. Tearing up the ticket in front of the officer and/or provoking them in any other way will not help you at all. The officer will not think, “Geez, she tore up the ticket, I guess I was wrong to issue it to her.” After the ticket has been issued, the only way you are going to get it reversed is through a judge/magistrate.

      Pro tip: Don’t mouth off the judge, or tear up the judgement papers in front of him if he also ends up ruling against you.

    • Greggen says:

      Good one Emtronics. You found one example where the police dash cam disputed the ‘official police version’ so that must mean that all other accounts must be ignored, even the thousands of dash cam examples that proved that there are lots of police reports that are contradicted by the truth, when the police are forced to turn them over.

      Interesting that in 99% of the cases the police have no repercussions for their perjured police reports.

  6. Here to ruin your groove says:

    Is it bad that I don’t believe either version of the story is the truth?

  7. Torchwood says:
  8. SkokieGuy says:

    I am nauseated by this on many levels.

    1). She did not resist arrest. Issuing a parking ticket is not an arrest.
    2). To laugh at a tasered victim, if true is expressing a level of cruelty that should get him kicked off the force.
    3). To taser for having paper thrown in the face is not a valid use of force
    4). To taser through a car window, further demonstrates that the officer was not at risk and tasering was inappropriate
    5). To knowingly taser a pregnant women when no one’s safety was in jeopardize is beyond cruel
    6). The Jesse Jackson comment sure seems like this can be elevated to a hate crime.

    As a local, I have no doubt that an “investigation” will be launched to satisfy what will be deserved public outrage, but nothing will actually be done and the officers will not suffer any serious repercussions.

    • zandar says:

      it totally affirms the maxim “Give a cop a taser, and someone WILL be tased.” OK, I paraphrase.

    • oldwiz65 says:

      The Chicago police “investigations” have one and only one goal – to show that the cop was fully justified, even if the cop shot an unarmed un-threatening man 9 times and killed him.

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      She did not resist arrest. Issuing a parking ticket is not an arrest.

      Once again (how many times does this have to be pointed out?), it DEPENDS on your state and its laws. It very well could be a non-custodial arrest – that is, one in which the person is not physically restrained but is also not free to leave, and in which attempting to leave is considered fleeing or resisting.

      • huadpe says:

        Regardless, tearing up the ticket doesn’t constitute resisting arrest, even if she were being arrested.

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      To taser for having paper thrown in the face is not a valid use of force

      You are making a huge assumption here. The officer did not necessarily taze because the paper was thrown in his face. At that point, she had committed assault, and the officer was fully justified in making a custodial arrest.

      She was under arrest at that time, but she instead went back to her car and tried to leave. Tazing someone attempting to escape arrest is valid use of force, and is actually considered to be using less force than grabbing her and physically fighting her would be.

      • Bladerunner says:

        Throwing paper is not assault.

        • axhandler1 says:

          What are you, kidding?! That officer could have received some serious paper cuts to his face, and think of all the trauma, both physical and emotional, that would accompany that! He’s just lucky it was ticket paper, and not bond paper or something heavier. She might have taken his head off!

        • cyberpenguin says:

          Partially correct: “In law, assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.”

          Technically, since she threw it in his face, if she contacted him it was assault _and_ battery.

          Where battery is loosely defined as:
          1. an offensive touching or contact is made upon the victim, instigated by the actor; and
          2. the actor intends or knows that his action will cause the offensive touching.

          • Bladerunner says:

            Sec. 12-3. Battery. (a) A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means, (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

            It’s not just contact. I think trying to use #2 is a pretty dick move from someone whose JOB it is to insult or provoke…

            And it would have to be intentionally touching him (not his general direction), and also intentionally insulting or provoking him…considering her words were undoubtedly of the same tenor, I doubt it could have been MORE insulting or provoking.

      • Mr. Bill says:

        A Taser is a less lethal weapon not nonlethal. People die from being tazed. It should not be used unless the only other option is a gun.

      • taaurrus says:

        Seriously? Did you not read the part where the police had BLOCKED HER CAR IN?? How was she supposed to be “trying to leave”??? RTFA. Police like this one will continue to give all cops bad names until something is done about them – then MAYBE they will start to do their jobs in a way that earns them respect. Oh, and this cop should be fired. It doesn’t matter who is telling the truth – the facts are she was in her car, sitting down and she was blocked in. She wasn’t going anywhere, she was pregnant and she had a young child there. Was this cop REALLY so in fear of his life that he needed to taser a pregnant woman thru a car window? If so – then he shouldn’t even be a cop because he obviously is either a coward or a dickhead. Or both.

        • corridor7f says:

          If she was “trying to leave” and was tasered before she could.. then perhaps she planned to ram the police car blocking her (and anything else in her way).

          I’d have to see the dashcam footage myself.

    • Jawaka says:

      Again, one side of the story.

    • Costner says:

      I’m nauseated that people automatically assume every single statement she made is factual while ignoring the other side. If we look to previous such incidents as evidence, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two stories.

      That being said, she deserved the ticket. Pulling into a handicapped parking space… even for a minute – is still a violation. I see people do this as they are waiting for people to go in to the store or as they are waiting to pick someone up, but being in the car with the engine running does not make it ok.

      I’m not even going to take sides regarding the rest of the story since there is no way of knowing, but I’ll just go on record as saying someone who tries to justify their parking in a Handicapped space by claiming they pulled into the spot to console a child probably has no problem with trying to twist the facts and manipulate their version of events.

  9. Coffee says:

    This kind of thing is utter bullshit. I used to live in Berkeley, which, as anyone who has been there knows, CRAZY busy traffic-wise all the time. One day, my mother is picking me up from downtown, there is nowhere to park, as always, and there’s a ton of traffic. My mother pulls up in her truck in the fire lane and I throw my duffle in the back, leap into the passenger seat, and we’re off. Stopped probably less than five seconds and I’m yelling at her to get out of the fire lane (I didn’t know she would pull into it). Sure enough, a meter maid ninja happens to be at the corner, jumps into the middle of the street, and takes down the license plate number as we drive away. Mom gets a ticket in the mail later.

    The problem is that there is nowhere practical to pick someone up in a downtown area like that and, if you want to avoid the double-parking situations like there are in San Francisco, you just try to get out of the way for a second.

    “Gotcha” law enforcement is not something I’m crazy about.

    • SkokieGuy says:

      It seems to me a violating of handicapped parking requires you to park, (turn off your car and exit the vehicle).

      Now fire lanes will often say no parking, standing, stopping, but most handicapped spaces do not have this type of signage.

      If she remained in the vehicle, she was stopped, not parked.

      • Coffee says:

        Yeah…that would have been preferable, and the story is a little hard to understand if you haven’t been in downtown Berkeley. It’s madness during peak traffic hours, and there are no pullouts or empty parking spaces of note where someone who is not familiar with the area can pull over (mom didn’t live in the area).

      • Craige says:

        I don’t think it matters. She was in a spot she shouldn’t have been. So long as her car was there, it couldn’t be used by someone who needs it. We can be sure she wasn’t sitting there, looking out the window for someone to drive by with a handicapped parking permit.

        • Bill610 says:

          Well, it matters because the law is the law. If she wasn’t technically parked then she shouldn’t get a ticket, just as she should get one if she was. My understanding is that “parked” means the vehicle is unoccupied; stopped means that the vehicle is occupied by a driver, but turned off; and standing means that the driver is in the vehicle and the engine is running.

          • InsertPithyNicknameHere says:

            True, the law is the law. And in Illinois, the law doesn’t care if the car is running. Unless you are “temporarily and actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers,” then according to IL statute 625 ILCS 5/1-155.5 you are considered parked, regardless of the state of activity of your engine.

            Note: I’m not saying that it’s okay what happened to this woman. I don’t think we, the public actually *know* what happened, because we weren’t there. But I can say that she was in violation of the law, she was totally justified in getting a ticket, and I have no sympathy for *that part* of the story.

            • Bill610 says:

              Nicely researched! I agree with you–the handling of the situation by both of them was poor. Of course, I expect that some members of the public will be ill-mannered, and I have much less tolerance for those who are on the public payroll, armed and invested with the authority of the state when they mismanage a situation like this. (The jury is still out on just how badly the officer handled the situation.)

        • TuxedoCartman says:

          Yes, and a police car blocking her into that spot does SOOOOOO much to help the hordes of handicapped clambering to park there.

          • Craige says:

            I’d be willing to bet it helps when she doesn’t park in handicapped spots in the future.

      • RandomHookup says:

        Not a lot of sympathy for the “I left the car running” crowd. There are almost always better options.

      • InsertPithyNicknameHere says:

        Nope. 625 ILCS 5/1-155.5 defines parking to mean “the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than when temporarily and actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers.” So, basically, in Illinois, you may have a defense when you stop in the fire lane in front of a store to load your groceries (because you are “temporarily and actually engaged in loading… mechandise”), but not sitting in a Handicapped spot while waiting for someone in the store, regardless of whether the car is running.

        Note: IANAL, but that quote is directly from the statute.

      • BluePlastic says:

        How is that any different? If she is sitting in her car in a handicapped spot with the engine on waiting for boyfriend to come out or child to calm down or whatever she claims, then that handicapped spot cannot be used by someone for whom it was meant.

    • zandar says:

      Well, the only way to change that is for people to stop flocking to those areas. Take your business elsewhere.

      Where I live, parking was a huge problem because the county population was increasing at an extraordinary rate. Rather than turn this into an opportunity to ticket everyone everywhere, they improved the street parking system and added garages. Now more people patronize the downtown than ever.

      A realistic, sensitive government knows when it needs to make some changes. Sounds like the governments in the municipalities discussed here are run by a bunch of shitheads.

      • Coffee says:

        This is pretty much the only option available if you don’t want to risk getting ticketed for violating traffic laws all the time. You know how you turn left at a light in Berkeley? You wait until the light begins to cycle from yellow to red and the oncoming traffic stops, then two cars turning left run the red before the cross-traffic begins moving. Because there are no turn arrows. Because the civil engineers who work for the city have no souls. Gingers, every one.

    • Coffee says:

      Update per kiminminn on the second page:

      June 7, 2012 2:37 PMFlag for review
      DailyMail reporting on this story says she was parked in the handicap spot waiting for the boyfriend who had gone inside to purchase a battery. Cop issued her a ticket — which she threw on the ground. Cop then wrote a ticket for littering. When he asked her for ID she said “I ain’t giving you #$*&.” The cop also warned her that he would use the stun gun if she attempted to leave. She tried to leave == stun gun.

      She deserves what she got.

      If this is true, never mind…the ticket was completely warranted, and it sounds like she was resisting arrest. I would still, however, question the use of a stun gun on a pregnant women, but that’s a separate issue.

      • Bsamm09 says:

        She asked to be tazed if what you typed is true. Here’s a general rule I have: If someone says don’t move or I will shoot you, I tend to believe them. If I moved and they shot me,I wouldn’t be surprised.

  10. uber_mensch says:

    She obviously missed Chris Rock’s educational video.
    “How not to get your ass kicked by the police”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

  11. dwtomek says:

    Umm, what? This is insanity. It’s not like ripping up the ticket had any significance, except perhaps to the officer’s ego. The only result is she no longer has a reminder of how much to pay or when to show up to court. It’s not like she ripped up the original. Asshole cop needs some non paid leave and a reevaluation of why he chose the career he chose.

    • cyberpenguin says:

      Someone needs to read the article instead of the headline.

      The assault was for throwing said ripped up parking ticket in the face of the cop.

      From a legal perspective everything changed when she physically contacted the cop, even if it was just with a ripped up parking ticket.

  12. Craige says:

    While I don’t agree with the tasing, but the other issue here is….

    Don’t pull into handicapped spots if you don’t need them. If you’re in that spot, it means it can’t be used by someone who needs it.

    Sure, you were only there for a minute, but in that minute how do you know that someone who needed it didn’t drive by and find no handicapped spots available?

    Sorry you got tased lady; there was no reason for that. However I hope you got something out of this.

    • Sound Money Girl says:

      My friend was trying to get out of a tiny convenience store lot with two spaces, but a car trying to pull in blocked her path. She pulled into the handicapped space so the incoming car could park, then backed out and left the lot. She was cited for parking in a handicapped space. Seeing as a handicapped person couldn’t have entered the lot until she left, she wasn’t taking a space from them.

  13. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    If she really was in the car, WHY?

    Prevent escape? Why, she received the ticket, and was not being arrested.

  14. bnceo says:

    When you get a ticket, say nothing. Just take it and go about your way. Challenge it later and use the courts for your favor. If you give them anything that makes you look guilty, you have no shot of getting off free.

    I never understood why people think arguing with the police is a good idea. No good can come of it and nobody has ever gotten their ticket revoked because of a debate at a traffic stop.

    • Doubting thomas says:

      This +1000. While I do not condone tasering a pregnant lady I also recognize that arguing with a cop on the side of the road is futile, stupid, and means you usually deserve whatever happens to you. Especially if you argue in a violent and confrontational manner such as throwing things (even shredded paper) in the cops face.
      like others I would love to see the dash-cam video.

      • Tunnen says:

        Like I said in a post above. Tearing up the ticket isn’t going to get the officer to think “Geez, she tore up the ticket, I guess I was wrong to issue it to her.”

        I think if I was the officer and this happened to me, I think I’d let the throwing the ticket in my face part slide, maybe with a small warning that that was uncalled for and that it could been seen as assault on a peace officer, BUT I’d also tell that lady she needs to pick up the torn pieces of ticket or she’d be receiving a ticket for littering too.

    • homehome says:

      It’s just like the skippers arguing with umpires. Nothing gets change 99% of the time lol.

    • oldwiz65 says:

      Arguing with a cop who is giving you a ticket is a terrible idea and a good way to get beaten to the ground, kicked, and arrested. The whole reason cops hate people with video cameras is they might show that the cop was, in fact, beating an innocent person who was not resisting. Chicago cops don’t want another Rodney King incident, but they want to avoid it by making sure no one records it so there is no factual evidence.

  15. trimetrov says:

    Tasers were designed to be a non-lethal way of dealing with dangerous criminals. They have turned into a lazy, catch-all “compliance tool”, and one whose proper utilization seems to be falling quickly.

    Start training cops that pepper sprays and Tasers are violent reactions, similar to drawing their weapon, and you won’t see as much of this police-state oppressive nonsense over parking issues or people yelling things at town hall meetings and such.

    • bnceo says:

      Basically, the rule should be: If you don’t use a gun for the situation, you don’t use a taser.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Bingo. That should be the new mantra right there.

      • Doubting thomas says:

        Bad rule. The taser is designed to be an alternative to a gun. If you only use the Taser when use of deadly force is justified you might as well scrap the taser and just shoot the person.

        • Velvet Jones says:

          No, genius, that is not the reason. As the other poster said, tasers were put in to the field to prevent the use of deadly force, ie. keep officers from having to shoot people they otherwise normally would. They were never suppose to be used in instances of surly traffic stops and tantrum throwing toddlers, yet these stupid fucking cops who should be working at McDonalds can’t seem to get that in to their pee brains. Instead they use them on anyone who doesn’t snap to attention the moment they walk in to the room.

          • Zowzers says:

            You seem to be having a irrational and emotional knee jerk reaction to a perfectly reasonable and incidentally correct statement, and then you wander off on a tangent that’s got nothing to do with Doubting thomas post…

            • Velvet Jones says:

              So you’re saying it is perfectly reasonable that cops should be allowed to taser people basically anytime they feel like it, and no sort of guidelines should be followed? I’m glad you feel that way, hopefully they’re start with you as a practice dummy.

              • druidicawen says:

                No, it’s because you can’t seem to hold any sort or reasonable discussion without resorting to personal attacks against other people on the internet.

                But, I guess since you were there and have a video/audio record of exactly what happened we should all bow down and let you spew your vitriol without comment. It seems from your other comments that you are more informed on the matter than the rest of us.

              • Zowzers says:

                “So you’re saying it is perfectly reasonable that cops should be allowed to taser people basically anytime they feel like it,” and that’s the tangent you wandered off on that had nothing to do with anything Doubting thomas posted. Its called a red herring argument, and no it is not an effective rebuttal in a debate.

          • njack says:

            Velvet, you’re complete bias against the police is just as disgusting as someone who blindly defends them.

      • frugalmom says:

        Cops are trained not to draw their gun unless they’re willing to fire it, and to always shoot to kill. A Taser is a way to subdue someone without drawing a gun. And FWIW, cops have to be Tasered during their academy training. Same for pepper spray, so they know full well what it feels like.

        • Bill610 says:

          It should also be pointed out that when cops are tasered in training, there are usually medical professionals on hand, and either others on hand to catch them or a soft surface to break their fall. The shock is one danger; hitting the ground without being able to use your hands to break your fall is another.

  16. longfeltwant says:

    I’d have to check the law, but pulling into a handi spot isn’t “parking” it is “stopping”. If you turn off your car and remain in it, that isn’t parking, that is “standing”. If you turn off your car and leave the car, that is parking.

    Are handi spots also off limits for stopping and standing? Perhaps. I don’t know.

    In my opinion, there are too many handi spots. There are laws which set how many handi spots are required, and I think those laws should be tweaked down to about half the current level. That opinion does not apply to this case as presented.

    • Craige says:

      As I mentioned above, while I completely object to the tasing and actions of the police, I think the ticket was justified.

      It doesn’t matter if you’re stopped, “standing” or parked in a handicapped spot. So long as your vehicle is in that spot, you’re taking it away from someone who may need it. “parking” is a pointless distinction here.

      I can’t comment on whether there are too many handicapped parking places. Maybe there are, maybe there aren’t, but so long as they are there, they should be used for their intended purpose. If the law has to be adjusted regarding the number of required spaces, that is another issue all together.

      • blivet says:

        This is a tangent, but the article says the woman was pregnant and due in a couple of weeks. I think women in their third trimester should be given a handicap placard.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Legally, from an FMLA standpoint, a 3rd trimester woman IS handicapped. I hadn’t thought of it from that angle until you mentioned this.

          The ticket is likely invalid on those grounds, unless it is required that you have a placard visible. Regardless, a sensible officer would see she is pregnant and toss out the ticket.

          • Craige says:

            That’s an interesting point, but it is required by law to have the card visible (else police and traffic-cops can’t know not to give you a ticket)

            That said, I can’t really comment on whether pregnant women should be able to apply for handicapped cards. Part of me feels it would be acceptable, while another part of me makes the distinction that those spots are intentionally designed for handicapped vehicles. They are wider to allow wheelchairs and other devices in the space beside the car. If expectant mothers were allowed to park in these spots, it concerns me that it might force someone in a wheelchair to park in a normal parking space where there isn’t enough room to get in and out of the vehicle.

            That said, many places do have “expectant mothers” parking these days.

            • Torgonius wants an edit button says:

              My place of business has parking spots located just on the other side of the handicapped spots that have signage that they are intended for pregnant women and people with small children (we have an in-house daycare). There are a couple dozen of them spread around. The rest of the parking is either for visitors or employees.

              You register with security to get a placard to park in the prego / child spots, and security enforces compliance.

              Granted, that solution may not translate out to street parking, but it certainly works well here.

          • JJFIII says:

            The mere handicap does not allow the use of the parking space. That argument is irrelevant. It must be certified by a doctor. If she needed a sticker, she could have asked the doctor (if she even went to one). If you can not handle the kid you have already, you arent going to fare well when you have a second

        • K-Bo says:

          That would cause the number of spaces needed to skyrocket.

        • inputhike says:

          To get a placard to park in handicapped spots, you a) have to be unable to walk, unassisted, a certain distance, and b) have to have a doctor agree to that. Most pregnant women would be unlikely to meet those requirements, even temporarily.
          And no, in many situations there are actually not enough handicapped spots, particularly if you use a wheelchair, or are transporting someone in one. What I’d like to see is MORE handicapped spots, although I’d be content if they were farther away (so lazy fat/old people won’t use them, but those who need them to even be able to get in/out of the car don’t have to park illegally in the middle of the aisle to do so).
          Also – do not ever park in, block, or briefly pull into a handicapped parking spot if you don’t have a placard. They’re not there for you to wait for someone who’s just running into the store. You can and will be ticketed.

          • Craige says:

            Thank you. I can’t believe how many people are ignoring this issue, saying she wasn’t “parked” in the spot.

          • Sound Money Girl says:

            Not true. I worked for a woman who had one because she had a spinal fusion in her neck and couldn’t turn her head when she backed out. I’m not clear on how the handicapped placard solved that problem, but she had one for it nonetheless.

    • vyper says:

      This was my reaction too. I guess we’ll find out when the Supreme Court looks at whether or not tasers constitute unnecessary force later this year. Seems that this woman could have an even better case in a few months.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        I hope the ruling is more broad than that. If you just say “tasering is unnecessary force” I would disagree. But if you say “tasering is unneccesary force in X cicumstances” I’d probably agree.

        I like what another poster said: If the situation doesn’t warrant a gun, it doesn’t deserve a taser.

    • scoosdad says:

      Funny you mention reducing the number. I just took a short online course talking about providing hearing assist equipment in public assembly spaces, and the ADA has been modified recently to clarify and in most cases reduce the number of hearing assist receivers a space needs to own to comply with the law.

      As an example, formerly a 5,000 seat auditorium needed to own 200 receivers to be in compliance (4%). Now the number is a more reasonable 85. Now I wish someone would take a good look at the formulas used to determine the number of handicapped parking spaces as well. And better ways to be sure they’re only being used by people who need them, too.

      • silenthands says:

        In the case of the “hearing assist receivers” – I have yet to meet anyone who has actually used one of those and benefited from them except maybe old folk who haven’t gotten round to getting their own hearing aids. I wear hearing aids, but those things don’t do a blessed thing for me. It’s possible that number got reduced simply because there’s not as much usage of them as they expected. HOWEVER, parking spots are a little different. There are some places that probably need more. Depends on the local population, et al.

    • sea0tter12 says:

      In my opinion, there are too few. Can’t tell you how many times we have to drive around parking lots looking for a handicapped space at some busier places. If I’m with my grandma, I can drop her and her walker off at the front entrance and find a spot. If she’s by herself, she has to leave and come back later and hope there will be a spot then.

    • druidicawen says:

      From the Illinois Compiled Statutes

      (625 ILCS 5/1-156)

      (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-156)

      Sec. 1-156.

      Park or Parking.

      Means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than when temporarily and actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers.

      (Source: P.A. 76-1586.)

      http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/illinois/il-statutes/625_ilcs_5_1-156

    • jacknval says:

      I live in Chicago. According to the local news last night, they actually went into Walgreens to buy batteries. So they were parked.

    • Jawaka says:

      Regardless of what you want to call it, it still makes the space unavailable for a legitimately handicapped person.

    • bugpaste says:

      My best friend uses a wheelchair and requires assistance from another person to get into or out of a car. If we can’t find an accessible spot (which is often the case), I can’t just drop her off and circle back. We either don’t go wherever we wanted to go or we double-park or we take our chances on a non-accessible space with plenty of room on the passenger side. If a car pulls in so close that I have to pull out of the space to get her in the car, that means blocking someone in or possible standing in the middle of the street for a not-insignificant period of time.

      In the downtown areas of my city there aren’t enough accessible spaces that are open to the public. When we see someone using an accessible space without a placard or a plate, we call the police. Doesn’t ever work but at least it’s cathartic.

  17. oldwiz65 says:

    Chicago cops again..Their training manuals were written by the Gestapo. I’m only surprised they just used the taser instead of beating the crap out of her for resisting arrest. isn’t beating much more fun than a taser? But a beating leaves marks, so I guess the taser has to do. And what if she miscarried? What about anyone who happened to get the incident on video? Did he/she get arrested too?

    Chicago has one of the nastiest meanest police departments in the country. They may be fine for dealing with drug dealers, armed robbers, and the like, but they totally lack common decency for dealing with most people. I think it’s simply a result of their jobs; they start to assume everyone is a hardcore criminal and treat them like the scum of the earth.

    • mikedt says:

      Beatings take too much physical effort. It’s summer after all, who wants to sweat that much? Much easier to just touch the victim with your taser and then stand back and laugh as they convulse.

    • dg says:

      Dude – you’re a moron. The only people who get tuned up in Chi-town are those who deserve it. The fact is this dumb ass bitch got a ticket for parking in a handicapped spot, while her husband ran into Walgreens. When the cops asked her to move, she acted the fool. So they gave her a ticket.

      She tore it up and threw it on the ground. So they returned the favor and gave her a ticket for littering – which they needed her ID for. They asked for the ID.

      She refused to give it to them, and tried to escape by putting her hand on the shifter to pull out.

      She could have run over the cop in her altered foolish state, so the officer rightly tased her.

      She’s lucky she didn’t get the car in gear, or they could have shot her.

      She grought this on herself, and she knows it. She’s looking to win the ghetto lottery that’s all this is about… If she truly cared about her unborn baby, she wouldn’t have been acting the fool while pregnant…

  18. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    All other issues aside for a moment – in the video she really seems to be overplaying the injured victim card. It might be legit, or it might not. But to an observer it looks to be a sympathy grab.

    • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

      Thx, I didn’t want to be the first to say that.

    • shufflemoomin says:

      Of course it is. She ignored the orders of a cop who ticketed her for a perfectly valid reason. She didn’t think she had to obey the law and tried to get away from the situation. She was in the wrong, she got what she deserved and she’s hoping going to the media will net her a pay day. I’d taser her again, and keep doing so until she realises she has to obey the law and respect the police like everyone else or face the consequences.

      • Bill610 says:

        Yes, because torture and extra-judicial punishment is the American way! What’s this “due process” everyone keeps talking about?

  19. who? says:

    I believe her side of the story about getting the ticket. Chicago is one of the worst places on earth for tickets. It’s hardcore there. Everyone I know who has a car in Chicago has a stack of tickets. But I call bullsh*t on her getting tased *only* because she ripped up the ticket. That just doesn’t make sense. The cops there give so many tickets that if they weren’t pretty immune to people’s reactions, somebody would be getting tased every week.

    • cyberpenguin says:

      She also said she threw the ripped up ticket in the cops face, but that she didn’t intend to hurt him.

      The second she made physical contact with the cop it became battery.

      Tear up the ticket if you must, but you can’t then throw it in the cops face.

      Don’t throw it on the ground either, then you’re littering.

  20. sagodjur says:

    “You want to use it where you’re overcoming an assault, or preventing escape.”

    Even when preventing an escape from a traffic ticket that you gave because you’re being a dick?

    This might as well be, “You want to use it where you’re overcoming an assault, or preventing escape…or because the woman looked at you funny.”

  21. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    I’ll wait for the video before making my uncalled for decision. My first thoughts are that the police over-reacted and there is some over acting in the clip.

  22. costanza007 says:

    This seems to be just like real life, where controversial events happened exactly as one of the participating party describes.

  23. Hartwig says:

    They should really put cameras on the officers rather than just in the car. This whole story would be nullified by the camera, if she was lying the officer wouldn’t have to worry about suspension. If the officer was lying they could review the incident and fire the officer. I don’t know why they haven’t got to that point yet, it has to be a safer way of operating for the city and the officers involved.

  24. wade says:

    Why should being pregnant get you out of a tasering? That seems discriminatory to me.

    • atomix says:

      Yes, that is discrimination. A person should definitely discriminate between a pregnant and non-pregnant subject when tasing them. This is a good thing.

    • Jane_Gage says:

      Aim for the face to minimize fetal effects.

    • Velvet Jones says:

      I’m hoping that this was sarcasm on your part, but just in case it wasn’t or for the people who might actually take you seriously, here is why it is not OK. The pregnant woman is carrying a child, and that child is an innocent victim in the incident. The child did not tear up the parking ticket, the child did not resist arrest. To subject the child to potential harm or death would not only be morally reprehensible, but a violation of its constitutional rights. I do believe that Illinois is one of the states that has a “life begins at conception” rule in their state constitution. Could spell trouble for these cops.

      • Kitamura says:

        I do believe that they’re discussing a generalization, obviously in this case it seems inappropriate based on what we currently know, but suppose this was armed robbery. Should she be untouchable because police might harm the baby?

        • Velvet Jones says:

          Doesn’t make a difference. There have been cases where pregnant women have committed serious crimes, and yes, the police to try and be careful. I’m not saying let them walk free, but also recognize that they’re not as much of a threat to you as an ordinary person. If she had pulled a weapon I would be more sympathetic to the police, but this was not the case.

      • Coffee says:

        Read wade’s posting history. I think you’ll find all the answers to your question.

      • wade says:

        It was very much sarcasm, but I think that the /s tag is for lightweights. I wanted to get in ahead of everyone who complains about those with “crotchfruit” thinking they are more special than everyone else and more deserving of exceptions than the rest of us. Of course, it was also a subtle dig at the American public’s general acceptance of police tasing the shit out of everyone at the drop of a hat. . .or ripped up parking ticket, whatever.

  25. evilpete says:

    I can’t wait to see how the police bury this one

  26. Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

    Sheer overreaction on the cop’s part. Needs retraining.

    A family member was an NYPD cop: What happened when when a person tore up a ticket or summons? No sweat. That was the person’s problem.

    • cyberpenguin says:

      If she had left it at that, perhaps that would have been the outcome.

      But, when she threw it in the cop’s face it became assault and battery.

      • Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

        No – it would have been battery (violence – assault is the threat of violence). In any case the use of a Taser does not appear to have been appropriate. It also appears the cop could have defused the situation very easily.

        • cyberpenguin says:

          If someone walks up to you and hits you in the face with a baseball bat, it’s assault while they’re swinging and battery when they contact you.

          Battery without assault occurs if they come up from behind and hit you on the back of the head. You never saw it coming, never had fear of contact, so it is battery only.

          If they miss, it is assault without battery.

          The cop probably did have opportunity to diffuse the situation, as did she.

          But, you can’t intentionally hit a cop, even with a ripped up ticket.

  27. CrazyEyed says:

    I’m probably going to be torn for this but…

    While I disagree with the use of a taser, somehow I doubt the OP was truthful with her statement. To say I didn’t hit him (referring to the officer), and then follow up with, “I didn’t mean to harm him,” indicates she made contact with the officer. One way or another, she admitted to hurting the officer, whether it was with he door or her hands when she threw the ticket in his face. At that point an officer weighs his/her decision on what to do next based upon policies/procedures/protocol.

    I also found some BS in the officers statement. “You can’t always tell if somebody’s pregnant. You want to use it where you’re overcoming an assault, or preventing escape.” I doubt he had to “overcome” any assult even if assult was proven to take place on a woman who is clearly selling imobility from the attached video. As far as “preventing escape,” was the couple told they were being arrested? If not, they can leave whenever they want after the issuance of the ticket. All of this leads me to believe that they got caught, were issued a ticket, got out of the car which started a confrontation, contact was made, woman was told she was being arrested, resisted, and tried to get back in the car, and then was tased.

    Obviously a pregnant woman would be a limited threat physically, but how do we know she didn’t get out of the car, curse and act in a threatening manner. The same types of reactions can be seen from drivers who shoot cops after being pulled over so its reasonable to assume there is a similar threat when someone gets out of a car, regardless of any ticket that is about to be issued. There is at least proof by the statements that her door was open.

    Judging by her behavior, its possible she got what she deserved if she was being a confrontational b*tch. There’s so many individuals who feel like they are entitled to something. Perhaps she felt entitled to the space because she was pregnant. Some business offer parking for expectant mothers. While this is certaintly a nice thing, nobody is required to provide spaces out of convenience only. All too often I see people parking in those spaces becuase they don’t want their nice car scratched or they don’t think they’ll be caught. And if your situation required you to pull over immediately, was it that dire where you couldn’t spend a few more seconds finding a different spot.

    Although I find the comments the officers made appauling, is there a possibility the race card was thrown by the couple? Maybe. Still an unacceptable comment though. Next time officers, let your department handle the PR aspect because you are going to make yourself look like a total ass even if the couple was completely disrespectful.

    This could have been avoided completely if the cops had issued a warning or were reasonable. Then again, how do we know they didn’t give them a warning and then received a a prompt, “FU” in return.

    I’m harsh on the pregnant lady only because there’s a huge influx of media stories that are so sensationalized and/or fractured, to the point where they want us to believe there were victims of some horrible injutice given by the government, the man, or law enforcement.

  28. dush says:

    Just get rid of the police unions. These problems will be solved post haste.

  29. BennieHannah says:

    I agree. A taser is a weapon. It shouldn’t be used unless an officer is in fear for his or her safety or the safety of others. Being dissed and pelted with a paper ticket by a pregnant woman who retreated to her car doesn’t rise to that level of threat. I’m POSITIVE this isn’t the first time this officer has has to deal with an irate asshole. It’s part of the job and, indeed, part of officer training. (In my job, I deal with assholes all the time; on the whole, they’re pretty predictably juvenile and easy to wrangle if you keep your head clear.) A professional would take a deep breath, diffuse the situation by remaining calm and rewrite the ticket. If the confrontation escalated, he would have called for additional officers on the scene.

    Instead, the officer felt the need to discharge a potentially lethal weapon, opening himself and his department to a lawsuit and at the very least giving the large group of people who already distrust the police a reason to distrust them even more. I certainly do not excuse what this woman did or her hissy fit, but a police officer is a figure of authority and should always be expected to behave in an exemplary manner.

  30. brinks says:

    Everyone involved in this story is an asshole.

  31. Moniker Preferred says:

    I call BS on the complainant. Cops generally do not taser people randomly. I wager that the video will show that she struck an officer, perhaps with a car door, then tried to drive away…despite her own statement that she was blocked in. Ignoring police orders and trying to drive away is a felony in many states. No matter how right you think you are, you do NOT ignore a police officer.

    An appropriate way to handle this would be:

    1. Don’t park in handicapped spot unless you are handicapped AND have a placard.
    2. Don’t get all up in a police officer’s face. Ever.
    3. Take the ticket, and tell it to the judge.

    She copped an attitude, took a different road, and got tased.

    • cyberpenguin says:

      She said she threw the ticket in his face after she ripped it up.

      At that point it became assault and battery on an officer, even if it was just a ripped up ticket she contacted him with.

  32. iblamehistory says:

    I am sort of torn on this because I feel like there’s a lot missing. I’m pregnant, but due at the end of August, so not quite as far along as this woman is I don’t think. To be honest you can’t tell I’m pregnant unless I am standing up and wearing the proper clothes (empire waisted shirt, maternity pants) because I am a fatty. When I sit down, in the car, I just look fat. I wouldn’t expect someone to just KNOW I am 28 weeks pregnant. I would, however, fault someone for harming me/doing something that could harm me after I say “yo, I’m pretty pregnant, watch it.” I am also careful to avoid situations where I think there is a greater than average chance of danger.

    When I was growing up, my mom lost both legs (over the course of years) due to an autoimmune blood clotting disease. Handicap spots were impossible to find sometimes. I can’t even tell you the number of times we had to sit outside a store or mall while management called for whatever morons parked in the yellow crossed off area next to our van so they could move their damn cars and my mom could put the wheelchair lift down. I was 10 when she passed away so it wasn’t like I could have safely backed the van out of the spot for her at age 7. So, I take those spots pretty seriously. Pulling into them and sitting makes you an asshole. The use of flashers does not negate the fact that you’re in a handicap space, just like flashers won’t magically save you if you park in a fire lane during an emergency response. Those who think there are too many of the spaces probably haven’t been in a position to require them.

    I’ve bee pretty miserable some days during this pregnancy but I wouldn’t resort to illegally taking a spot. If anything, I’d have my husband drop me off at the curb. I also have an ankle that sprains itself if I so much as look at it the wrong way, and that has led to many weeks of barely being able to hobble around–if I sprain the ankle (left), I instantly fall and land on my right knee, damaging the already damaged kneecap. It’s not fun. And yet, no handicap spots for me. I can waddle and grunt miserably and still get from point A to point B a hell of a lot easier than someone in a wheelchair with no legs, especially if they are relegated to a normal parking spot where someone can go right beside them and prevent them from using a lift. This happened after my mom passed away, but I was absolutely thrilled to see the development of horizontal handicap spots, perpendicular to regular spots, making it impossible for anyone with a quarter of a brain to park next to an accessible van and block it in.

    I have no desire to defend Chicago cops when more often than not they’re in the wrong. If this woman was actually sitting in her car, making no threatening movements toward the cops, there’s no reason for the taser. I just don’t know how much I believe this is the case. It just reeks of “entitled pregnant woman who believes the entire world must revolve around her” because I have encountered MANY of them. It’s true that pregnancy can become a very debilitating condition, but when that happens, bedrest is usually issued. I know in some cases women have no choice but to continue with daily life but there’s a point where for the safety of mom and baby, it’s necessary to cease all activity, and even go on hospital bedrest rather than at home. I don’t think this woman was anywhere near that point.

    Pulling into a handicap spot to console a child is not an excuse for pulling into a candicap spot. There are other spots. If not, stop in the aisle and watch for other cars, and move accordingly. But the only excuse for using a handicap spot is having the proper tags to do so. No, tasering for illegal parking is not warranted, but tasering for threatening behavior IS sometimes warranted; I have seen some women start screaming and hollering and throwing absolute fits over almost nothing, turning a harmless situation into a threatening one, just because they were forced to face the fact that other people exist in the world. Did this lady do that? We don’t know yet.

    • CrazyEyed says:

      Love the post. Even better than my rant without having to explain hypotheticals. I find it hard to believe she was cooperative even after the tearing of the ticket. Even douchebags wouldn’t taser someone over getting a ticket tossed in their face. There’s got to be more to the story we haven’t heard.

    • Craige says:

      Very well put.

      +1 to you.

  33. hahatanka says:

    Used to be you tore up a ticket, the cop laughed as he knew you wouldn’t show up in court. So a simple $100 into a failure to appear and the ticket goes to $500. Didn’t need to risk losing his job or a huge lawsuit for tasering someone. Surprised some cop hasn’t tasered a school kid for not eating his Jello.

  34. Lyn Torden says:

    Preventing escape is NOT a justified cause for using a taser.

    • RandomLetters says:

      Do you mean ever? Cause if so I’d love to hear your reasoning. If a violent person has just commited an assult of some sort and is running away I would fully expect and want a taser applied as a means of preventing his escape. The other option is to either come into physical contact and have the possibilty of injury to the officer or to use deadly force and shoot him with a real gun. The “taser should only be used when a real gun could be used” is very faulty logic. I’ve seen a video of a man high on PCP attempting to beat down the door of a daycare center. The responding officers used tasers to take him into custody without anyone being hurt. By the logic expressed through that statement if they hadn’t had tasers they should have just shot him? The taser is a tool that should be used before the use of deadly force, inplace of an officer putting himself (or herself) in a situation of bodily harm.

    • Moniker Preferred says:

      Wrong. You’re welcome to your opinion, but the law says otherwise in most states.

  35. TuxedoCartman says:

    Yes, and a police car blocking her into that spot does SOOOOOO much to help the hordes of handicapped clambering to park there.

  36. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    More details here: boyfriend’s arm was dislocated, both were arrested, she was tasered when trying to leave when the officer was writing a ticket for littering and she was warned not to leave.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-pregnant-woman-tasered-by-police-during-parking-dispute-20120606,0,3906845.story

    • CrazyEyed says:

      Thank you! Story proves some of my assumptions from early on. She tried to leave the scene when she was told not to. Also, this article makes very little mention about the reasons why the woman was in the space in the first place. I found it funny that she was worried about her kids witnessing the event and the damage it may have caused but apparently swearing and being defiant to an officer is ok…

      Still haven’t found anything to support the officers comment about J. Jackson though. If it wasnt’ for that comment I’d be behind the officers 100%. Unless its later proven they tried to throw the race card.

  37. HogwartsProfessor says:

    I totally missed some drunk asshole getting tased at Walmart a while ago. Apparently he was acting up, police were called and then he pulled a knife on them. By the time I got there, he was in the ambulance already. Missed the whole thing. The Subway girls were on a smoke break and told me about it. We all agreed we didn’t feel a bit sorry for him.

  38. JiminyChristmas says:

    The woman and her boyfriend were both charged with resisting arrest and simple assault. In other words, the only things they are being charged with have to do with their interactions with the police themselves – there wasn’t some other offense they were being arrested for.

    When someone is charged with what amounts to messing with the police, and no other underlying offense, that’s usually a sign that that police aren’t entirely blameless in the encounter. Basically, everyone probably behaved badly but the police get to file charges in order to put the other party on defense and deflect scrutiny of their own behavior.

  39. kiminminn says:

    DailyMail reporting on this story says she was parked in the handicap spot waiting for the boyfriend who had gone inside to purchase a battery. Cop issued her a ticket — which she threw on the ground. Cop then wrote a ticket for littering. When he asked her for ID she said “I ain’t giving you #$*&.” The cop also warned her that he would use the stun gun if she attempted to leave. She tried to leave == stun gun.

    She deserves what she got.

    • CrazyEyed says:

      Don’t you just love the initial media spin on stories before the “real” story comes out later. Sounds to me like she got what she deserved, or asked for.

      • RayanneGraff says:

        Yup, it’s always something like this too. Some troublemaker with a convenient sympathy point does something illegal, and then plays the sympathy card to get the public on their side. Sorry, but just because you’re knocked up doesn’t mean you get to break the law & assualt an officer, bitch!

    • Coffee says:

      Ahahaha…if this is what happened in its entirety, then I can’t say I feel sorry for her…damn.

    • Velvet Jones says:

      Did her baby deserve it too?

      • brinks says:

        Her baby didn’t deserve it at all, but you’re supposed to be careful when you’re pregnant. Watch what type of physical activity you engage in, eat healthy, and don’t be a raging bitch when it could put your baby in jeopardy.

        • Velvet Jones says:

          OK, look at it from a different angle. What would happen if a bank robber grabbed a kid and used the child as a human shield? Would you consider OK for the cops to just shoot the kid, and then say “well, it is the bank robber that put the child in harms way. It’s not the police officers fault.”. I wouldn’t hope not. Well, this situations isn’t any different. The child is attached to the mother, there no way to separate the two. Even if it is her fault that the child is in a dangerous situation it still doesn’t give the police the right to potentially kill the child, especially when there was no danger to themselves.

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        If she cared about the baby, why was she acting like such an idiot?

        • Velvet Jones says:

          It doesn’t matter what she did, the child is still not responsible and has no way to defend itself or separate itself from the situation. Whatever this woman did does not justify possible fatal results to the child.

    • BennieHannah says:

      I never said I felt sorry for her. She was acting the fool. But a police officer is supposed to be above participating in said foolishness. If you can’t handle an ordinary idiot without using a potentially lethal weapon, you’ve got no business being a police officer.

  40. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pregnant-woman-tasered-20120607,0,2055875.story

    “The incident occurred late Tuesday when Rent parked in a handicapped spot at a Walgreens in the 10300 block of South Michigan Avenue while her fiance, Joseph Hobbs, went inside to buy a battery for his car’s key chain remote, police and Hobbs said.

    A police officer wrote a parking ticket, but Rent tore it up and threw it at him, according to a police report. The officer got out of his car to write her a ticket for littering and asked her for identification, the report said.

    “I ain’t giving you (expletive),” the report quoted Rent as saying.l

  41. Elizabeth B says:

    Everyone seems to agree that she shouldn’t have been in a handicapped spot. At the same time, a yelling child in the car while trying to drive is at least as distracting as playing with the radio, testing, eating, or a lot of things. If it seemed that I wouldn’t have another spot to pull over for miles, I would pull over there, too, because it would not be safe to continue driving.

  42. ktbeta says:

    I’m pretty sure you can ALWAYS tell when a woman is weeks away from birth. The woman in the video is clearly pregnant and who knows what a taser could do to her baby. Not a good move.

    • corridor7f says:

      How else would they subdue her? To physical restrain her would be even more dangerous, imo, especially if she struggle and was angry.

  43. Ayla says:

    Evil

  44. Moniker Preferred says:

    Now that the complete story is starting to firm up it shows pretty much what I thought from the start, the woman is an *sshole, and an ignorant *sshole to boot. She violated the law because of a sense of entitlement. (Other people can’t park here, but it’s OK for me to do so). I see it all the time.

    I have trouble walking myself because of knee problems. Every step hurts. I am entitled to get a handicapped placard, but I don’t because I believe those spaces should be reserved for people who REALLY need them. Then some self-important *sshole like this comes along.

    When busted, she doubled down. Whining about her children witnessing her tasing doesn’t mean squat, as she already blew that potential cover by her own aberrant behavior. Finally, after shredding one ticket and in the process of getting another one, and after being WARNED that she would be Tased, she jeopardizes her own baby by going ballistic and starting to put her car in gear.

    Got what was coming to her. I’m looking forward to seeing the video.

  45. RayanneGraff says:

    Can we please stop playing the Preggo Sympathy Card? Getting knocked up doesn’t exempt you from obeying the law, and you don’t get a pass to act like an asshole because you’re in the process of reproducing. And just because you’re having a “bad day” doesn’t mean you get to park in a handicapped spot & then pitch a fit when you get a ticket.

  46. daynight says:

    You know, anyone can be carrying a concealed weapon unless they are totally nude, and if they move it is possible that they are moving in the direction of a weapon.
    Grow up!
    That type of paranoia does NOT justify tasing everyone all the time! Police who abuse the power entrusted to them need to be fired or imprisoned for the safety of all citizens!

  47. human_shield says:

    He said she said. I can see the officer being a bully. I can just as easily see this woman acting psycho.

    • Moniker Preferred says:

      Of course there are officers who are bullies and jerks. When you run into one of them, you do NOT want to up the ante. You back off, say “yessir”, and live to play another day.

      I learned a long time ago that in an encounter with a police officer, the best possible outcome for me is achieved by being very polite, admitting my (minor) sin, and taking the ticket. Cops hate BS. Admitting that you were speeding (or illegally parked) and being apologetic has sometimes even resulted in a result in a reduction of what the ticket is written for. Again, cops hate BS.

  48. DrLumen says:

    Wow. Going by her moaning and whining reactions I’m surprised she wasn’t in a full body cast with a neck brace on…

  49. SwaggeringCuban says:

    Obviously he had to overcome the assault of torn up paper approaching his face.

    Maybe if people would QUIT RESISTING QUIT RESISTING they wouldn’t have to be, you know, resistive (in the electrical sense).

  50. dourdan says:

    here is what i think happened:
    she got a ticket
    she said some curse words, tore the ticket and threw it at the officer.
    the officer wanted revenge and called in an “attack on an officer” so he could have her arrested.
    she decided to leave anyway, so he shot her in the face with the stun gun(from what i can see in the video.)

    there was NO reason to use a stun gun. the officer has all the power- the ticket is already in the system, she will get it in the mail. she would suffer no matter what.

    i think the officer was just tired of getting cursed at all the time- i hope he gets a suspension

  51. Press1forDialTone says:

    A taser is an (allegedly) non-fatal, non-injuring, restraint/behavior control WEAPON.
    The officer involved (who, based on the Jesse Jackson remark, is very likely white)
    who made the decision and fired the weapon should be fired and banned from
    street-level police work for at least 6 months and receive intensive training in the
    correct use of a taser. After consulting both a gynecologist and and obstetrician,
    they -both- said there is absolutely no way to determine if the baby is unharmed.
    The ob said it is like that the baby’s brain was affected and the baby may have had
    a petit mal seizure during the incident the damage from which will only be determined
    after birth and testing. This lady needs to get a majorly good lawyer and go after these
    thugs.

    • Moniker Preferred says:

      “The officer involved (who, based on the Jesse Jackson remark, is very likely white)…”

      Racist comment.

  52. T. Bone says:

    She looks like she is having 3 section 8 kids. Just another ghetto lady that thinks the laws don’t apply to her. We see this all the time in Chicago…………. as for Jesse Jackson and his son they are both worthless jackasses.

  53. BustedFlush says:

    She rips a ticket; you pull a tazer! That’s the Chicago way!

  54. JonBoy470 says:

    I call Shenanigans. Idiot cop is an idiot… Tasering a pregnant lady is a recipe for FAIL. All this officer has bought himself and his department is having to defend the inevitable lawsuit when this lady (admittedly no prize herself) lawyers up with some ambulance chaser who starts papering Chicagoland with summonses.

    Parking in a handicap spot without a permit is a douchbag move, but hardly a major (or even minor) public safety threat. Ticket the driver. She rips up the ticket? FIne, whatever… Ticket her for littering. She ripped up the tickets, which means she won’t have paid the fine or showed up at the court date. Then a $200 ticket becomes a $600 ticket, a hold on her car registration renewal and a bench warrant for her arrest that would be executed when she got pulled over for dead tags because she didn’t let the fact that she couldn’t afford to pay the fine didn’t stop her from driving her car.

  55. Moniker Preferred says:

    Apparently, about 25% of Consumerist posters would likely subject themselves to a Tasing in a similar circumstance. Reality has apparently not yet schooled these people.

    Police officers have a legal rights to detain persons. Failing to obey is a violation of the law.

    You can have any opinion you want about the situation, but when a police officer says “STAY!”, you do NOT try to leave. Period.

    What part of that very simple doctrine is hard to understand.

  56. Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

    Contempt of Cop