HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Report: Cops stun Tampa w...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:19 AM

Report: Cops stun Tampa woman pregnant with sixteenth child



A pregnant Tampa woman with 15 children says cops endangered the life of her unborn child when they recently used a stun gun on her during a scuffle, according to the Tampa Tribune.

Angel Adams, 39, who is eight-months pregnant with her sixteenth child, was stunned during a controntation in her home that happened when police officers tried to talk to one her sons about allegedly throwing rocks at another home in their neighborood.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-08/news/os-cops-stun-pregnant-woman-tampa-20120508_1_stun-gun-tampa-woman-cops

213 replies, 19027 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 213 replies Author Time Post
Reply Report: Cops stun Tampa woman pregnant with sixteenth child (Original post)
Baitball Blogger May 2012 OP
monmouth May 2012 #1
1StrongBlackMan May 2012 #2
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #4
monmouth May 2012 #11
snooper2 May 2012 #43
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #53
Quantess May 2012 #152
HiPointDem May 2012 #180
Quantess May 2012 #190
HiPointDem May 2012 #191
Quantess May 2012 #192
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #3
trumad May 2012 #5
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #9
WingDinger May 2012 #10
4th law of robotics May 2012 #18
WingDinger May 2012 #22
4th law of robotics May 2012 #25
WingDinger May 2012 #27
4th law of robotics May 2012 #35
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #56
4th law of robotics May 2012 #70
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #80
4th law of robotics May 2012 #82
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #84
4th law of robotics May 2012 #86
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #99
4th law of robotics May 2012 #102
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #111
4th law of robotics May 2012 #113
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #115
4th law of robotics May 2012 #117
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #123
4th law of robotics May 2012 #127
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #132
4th law of robotics May 2012 #133
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #137
4th law of robotics May 2012 #138
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #142
4th law of robotics May 2012 #159
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #161
4th law of robotics May 2012 #169
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #173
4th law of robotics May 2012 #177
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #182
WingDinger May 2012 #146
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #148
WingDinger May 2012 #150
WingDinger May 2012 #144
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #149
think May 2012 #200
4th law of robotics May 2012 #203
think May 2012 #204
4th law of robotics May 2012 #205
think May 2012 #207
4th law of robotics May 2012 #208
think May 2012 #209
4th law of robotics May 2012 #210
think May 2012 #211
4th law of robotics May 2012 #212
4th law of robotics May 2012 #213
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #31
dionysus May 2012 #143
WingDinger May 2012 #145
4th law of robotics May 2012 #14
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #15
4th law of robotics May 2012 #16
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #19
4th law of robotics May 2012 #20
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #36
4th law of robotics May 2012 #39
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #57
4th law of robotics May 2012 #68
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #72
4th law of robotics May 2012 #87
LanternWaste May 2012 #61
4th law of robotics May 2012 #69
WingDinger May 2012 #153
4th law of robotics May 2012 #158
WingDinger May 2012 #163
4th law of robotics May 2012 #166
WingDinger May 2012 #168
4th law of robotics May 2012 #170
WingDinger May 2012 #171
4th law of robotics May 2012 #172
WingDinger May 2012 #174
4th law of robotics May 2012 #176
WingDinger May 2012 #178
HiPointDem May 2012 #181
WingDinger May 2012 #183
Capt. Obvious May 2012 #6
trumad May 2012 #7
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #8
EC May 2012 #12
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #13
juice feast May 2012 #23
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #28
juice feast May 2012 #29
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #38
juice feast May 2012 #42
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #58
EC May 2012 #54
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #59
tabbycat31 May 2012 #119
KamaAina May 2012 #135
Posteritatis May 2012 #156
HiPointDem May 2012 #179
hughee99 May 2012 #187
FarCenter May 2012 #17
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #24
FarCenter May 2012 #33
4th law of robotics May 2012 #40
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #44
4th law of robotics May 2012 #45
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #47
4th law of robotics May 2012 #49
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #62
4th law of robotics May 2012 #71
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #83
4th law of robotics May 2012 #85
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #89
4th law of robotics May 2012 #95
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #103
4th law of robotics May 2012 #107
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #109
4th law of robotics May 2012 #112
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #118
4th law of robotics May 2012 #120
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #124
4th law of robotics May 2012 #125
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #41
Quantess May 2012 #50
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #63
FarCenter May 2012 #60
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #67
4th law of robotics May 2012 #73
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #76
4th law of robotics May 2012 #78
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #88
4th law of robotics May 2012 #90
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #94
4th law of robotics May 2012 #96
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #98
4th law of robotics May 2012 #100
4th law of robotics May 2012 #92
4th law of robotics May 2012 #81
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #91
4th law of robotics May 2012 #93
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #97
4th law of robotics May 2012 #101
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #105
4th law of robotics May 2012 #106
4th law of robotics May 2012 #104
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #108
4th law of robotics May 2012 #110
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #114
4th law of robotics May 2012 #116
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #122
4th law of robotics May 2012 #129
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #131
4th law of robotics May 2012 #134
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #139
4th law of robotics May 2012 #157
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #162
4th law of robotics May 2012 #167
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #175
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #130
FarCenter May 2012 #75
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #77
HiPointDem May 2012 #186
guardian May 2012 #126
HiPointDem May 2012 #184
juice feast May 2012 #21
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #26
juice feast May 2012 #30
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #51
Fumesucker May 2012 #32
juice feast May 2012 #34
Fumesucker May 2012 #48
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #65
LACarMan May 2012 #46
Fumesucker May 2012 #52
LACarMan May 2012 #55
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #66
WingDinger May 2012 #37
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #64
Starry Messenger May 2012 #74
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #79
Starry Messenger May 2012 #154
KamaAina May 2012 #136
Quantess May 2012 #141
KamaAina May 2012 #147
Starry Messenger May 2012 #151
cherokeeprogressive May 2012 #121
BlueIris May 2012 #128
Baitball Blogger May 2012 #140
WingDinger May 2012 #155
jberryhill May 2012 #160
mythology May 2012 #164
flvegan May 2012 #165
bhikkhu May 2012 #185
Meiko May 2012 #188
HiPointDem May 2012 #189
Fumesucker May 2012 #197
HiPointDem May 2012 #199
ti66er8pooh May 2012 #193
Quantess May 2012 #194
ti66er8pooh May 2012 #195
Quantess May 2012 #196
ti66er8pooh May 2012 #198
4th law of robotics May 2012 #206
Iggo May 2012 #201
Odin2005 May 2012 #202

Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:21 AM

1. What does her being pregnant with her sixteenth child have to do with cops tasing her?

They tazed her during a confrontation while wanting to talk to her son. Is it important to know anything else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:27 AM

2. I know ...

and how did I know there would be a picture accompanying the story ... Just in case the "welfare queen" narrative wasn't firmly enough planted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:29 AM

4. This will be sure to reveal prejudices.

The only fact that those policemen should have considered, was that she was eight months pregnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #2)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:12 PM

11. And just to ruin their narrative, the children in the small photos below the article are all clean

and well cared for. That'll ruin it for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #11)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:05 PM

43. They weren't a while back, there's a little bit of a backstory

And if you had watched the video at the link you would know this..

You would also know that while one cop was restrainer her son who punched him in the face her and her daughter were attacking them. (according to the police)


I guess the truth will come out in court---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #43)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:14 PM

53. There is no way that I see given the present attitudes,

that this will turn out well for Angel Adams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #53)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:21 PM

152. I feel bad for her kids, but I have a difficult time scraping up any sympathy for her.

I've seen the video clips of her. She seems like an extremely immature and irresponsible person, and that's being kind.

I think there is resentment for the fact that she keeps having so many kids. I don't feel particularly sympathetic toward someone who has 16 children without any thought toward how she is going to raise all of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #152)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:05 AM

180. So if you're immature and have lots of kids, fair game to taze you? I'll keep that in mind.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #180)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:29 AM

190. No. I guess it's hard to keep track of what each DUer writes.

In every other post on this topic, I said that it was unnecessary to tase a visibly pregnant woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #190)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:57 AM

191. sorry. my error.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #191)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:59 AM

192. No problem. It's a huge thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:28 AM

3. She was eight months pregnant. Why did they tase her at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #3)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:31 AM

5. Several things wrong with this story...

As pointed out above--- the writer in his first written line sets the narrative that the woman is crazy.

Second---it looks for the quote of the supervisor that the officer entered the house without a warrant.

3rd of course is the tasering of a pregnant woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #5)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:43 AM

9. Someone is in full court press?

Trying to spin this in favor of the police because they know of the backlash that's coming?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #5)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:51 AM

10. They can enter, any way they feel like, all they have to claim is, someone is in danger.

 

Had four cops bash my door and blow up bell, at midnite. Four guns in my face. They claimed I was throwing a woman into walls. One cop said he heard her cry for fifteen minutes.

Only problem was, I am a heart patient, living alone, and had nodded off at 8. They claimed that they KNEW I was guilty, cuz I said I didnt want them in my home. Were I black, as well as then poor, I too would have been tazed or worse. They likely grabbed hold of the son, prompting mothers protection. Then, mom was getting hurt, so daughter jumped in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #10)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:37 PM

18. In this case they were talking to the kid about a crime he was believed to have committed

 

he ran away and hid in the house.

That's a bit different than picking this house at random and making up a story to justify kicking in the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #18)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:50 PM

22. First, it was not witnessed by cops, and a misdemeanor at worst.

 

Next, the kid said he didnt do it. So, unless they have proof, it is the right of the mother, no matter how ill conceived, to ignore the cops.

They never pick a house at random, even in my case. They were retaliating for my busting a corruption racket, including cops and judges. Dont you think they remember her? They keep notes on persons. Pretty sure the neighbors hate her and her kids. Want her gone. She is in a house that is far too large for most welfare mothers, so is in an INNAPROPRIATE area.

I also had a neighbor that hated me, and likely called with the bogus accusations. My next door neighbor told me that a neighbor talked to her about setting me up for eviction or worse, as I have heart failure, and coughed more than he liked. So too could her neighbors call with the setup for her being bounced. In fact, throwing rocks, could get her bounced from gov help. Possible? Sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #22)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:52 PM

25. Are you willing to admit that while in your situation the "cops were out to get you"

 

that is not the case in every situation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #25)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:54 PM

27. Sure, but given her media history, she is a ripe target, for punishment.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #27)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:00 PM

35. Given her history she's also a ripe target for raising kids

 

who will be quite familiar with various law enforcement agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #35)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:15 PM

56. So let's put more money in public education and sex ed classes!

Oh, wait a minute. This is Florida run by Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #56)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:41 PM

70. Absolutely we should

 

hell I think BC ought to be free (almost certainly this will save us money in the longrun).

But that is a societal problem. That doesn't address this specific case.

If you're poor because the schools suck that is something to be addressed. It doesn't excuse you when you rob a liquor store though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #70)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:55 PM

80. I like the way you keep edging away from the primary issue.

It's never okay to tase an eight month pregnant woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #80)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:57 PM

82. Sure it is

 

if it's the only way to settle a violent situation.

You seem to think being pregnant is a license to do anything consequence free.

She made her decisions, she can live with them.

/if you don't want the cops to taze you a good start is to not attack them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #82)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:59 PM

84. I'm not so sure the cops had the right to barge in.

This may be a civil rights issue since the rock throwing was "alleged."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #84)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:02 PM

86. Now you're changing your argument

 

first it was that the tazering was wrong, now it's the barging in.

Besides which they didn't kick down the door on a rumor. They asked the kid, outside, about it and he ran and hid inside. That's a bit different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #86)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:16 PM

99. On the contrary.

I think I made the point that tasing a woman at eight months pregnant was wrong. Now I'm wondering why the cops felt they had a right to go into a house without a warrant on an alleged rock throwing case, when that kind of thing would never have been acceptable in my community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #99)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:19 PM

102. Like I've said 3 times now: read the article

 

there are more details there than in just the title.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #102)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:34 PM

111. That doesn't sound like someone who is trying to support his position.

I gave you details that I felt were poignant. Why don't you include the details that will support your position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #111)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:34 PM

113. I have, several times

 

I get tired of repeating myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #113)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:40 PM

115. Then just quote the relevant post numbers.

I'll look at them to see if I missed something.

I do enjoy our little debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #115)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:43 PM

117. Ok,

 

15, 18, 19, and 57

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #117)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:57 PM

123. I looked up the post numbers.

Number 15 is my post.

Number 18, I already mentioned in my facts repeated in post 115.

Number 19 is my post.

Number 57 is also my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #123)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:18 PM

127. Whoops, must have looked at the "responding to" section

 

so then: 16, 20, 68

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #127)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:01 PM

132. Responses:

Post Number 16

Yeah, how difficult could it be

for a single female police officer to wrestle with two women at the same time and safely restraining one while not harming the other?


The female officer "was at the door, went in to talk to the kid, and at that point, he physically punched the officer, so at that point now we have a struggle," Tampa police spokeswoman Andrea Davis said. "While was struggling with that kid, the pregnant suspect and her daughter were fighting with officer."



Oh and that means there were 13 more kids hanging around somewhere. Never know if they're going to join in.

- - - -

The female officer walked into a house where she knew there were fifteen kids hanging around. She walked in without a warrant. And you are surprised by what happened? The correct procedure was to fall back and call fro backup.

-- - - - -

#20 Wait for what?
The SWAT team? Likely they'd be disciplined if they called in backup for every vandalism case they were sent to question a suspect about.

Remember that's what this all was about: a rock thrown through a window. Not an inherently violent crime (I don't think anyone was inside or it would have been treated differently). They had no reason to expect it would explode like that.

- - -

Yes, it was just a rock thrown through a window. So what was the rush? Why chase down a boy on an alleged complaint? And, here you're making excuses for the police: "Not an inherently violent crime. They had no reason to expect it would explode like that." And yet throughout this thread there are people who bring up past history on this woman that suggests otherwise. Given the history, (check out the Tampa Tribune) the cops were fools not to think it wouldn't explode this way.

- - - - -

#68 There was no need to retreat

the cops didn't come in guns ablazing. When a cop comes to your door and asks to speak with your son in relation to a crime you aren't defending him or yourself by attacking the cop.

And apparently this lady has been arrested for getting in to an altercation with her case-worker before. So I'm guessing that would have gone about the same way, but with more time and money wasted.

- - - -

Here you provide an example of what I just said. "this lady has been arrested for getting in to an altercation with her case-worker before. So I'm guessing that would have gone about the same way..."

Again, given the history this woman has had, her response would have been predictable with the cops. Anyone could have seen that she didn't expect the best from the police. She would have feared for her son.

Where I live, the cops would never barge into a house on an alleged rock throwing situation. They would have told the person that called it in that they couldn't pursue it without proof. Why are there two different sets of justice happening in the same state?

The right procedure was to find out who was providing all the assistance to this woman. That is who should have stepped in to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #132)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:13 PM

133. Response:

 

The female officer walked into a house where she knew there were fifteen kids hanging around. She walked in without a warrant. And you are surprised by what happened? The correct procedure was to fall back and call fro backup.


You know that she was aware of the number of kids in the house prior to entering?

Also it is not reasonable to assume children will set upon you, requiring a swat team to take them down.

I assume they know correct procedure better than you or I.


Yes, it was just a rock thrown through a window. So what was the rush? Why chase down a boy on an alleged complaint? And, here you're making excuses for the police: "Not an inherently violent crime. They had no reason to expect it would explode like that." And yet throughout this thread there are people who bring up past history on this woman that suggests otherwise. Given the history, (check out the Tampa Tribune) the cops were fools not to think it wouldn't explode this way.


So based on her history they should have treated her like a violent felon?

I suspect you'd have issues if they did.

Here you provide an example of what I just said. "this lady has been arrested for getting in to an altercation with her case-worker before. So I'm guessing that would have gone about the same way..."

Again, given the history this woman has had, her response would have been predictable with the cops. Anyone could have seen that she didn't expect the best from the police. She would have feared for her son.

Where I live, the cops would never barge into a house on an alleged rock throwing situation. They would have told the person that called it in that they couldn't pursue it without proof. Why are there two different sets of justice happening in the same state?

The right procedure was to find out who was providing all the assistance to this woman. That is who should have stepped in to help.


Again you're assuming these two cops were completely aware of her issues, that those issues excuse her behavior, and that a normal person would naturally assume this would explode in to violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #133)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:29 PM

137. I do believe that given this woman's two year public history,

that the cops in the neighborhood knew her situation--and the number of kids. I also think it was wrong for the cops to barge into the house without a warrant, or that they were fools not to suspect what would happen when they did. They are, afterall, cops and are taught to prepare for the worst. Which makes the tasing of an eight month pregnant woman all the more unacceptable.

And if the choices were between a swat team and the person known to them that has been helping them out, I would have picked the latter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #137)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:35 PM

138. You "believe" this to be true

 

fine. That doesn't make it true though.

Tampa is a big place, over 300,000 people. I don't think it's fair to expect the police to be able to recognize all citizens by a glance. Even the more . . . temperamental ones. Let alone be able to draw out their family trees.

And you think a normal person assumes that questioning a kid about vandalism will necessarily lead to assault? You need new friends, because that is not normal.



Which makes the tasing of an eight month pregnant woman all the more unacceptable.


The tazing that occurred after two woman jumped a lone female officer.

And if the choices were between a swat team and the person known to them that has been helping them out, I would have picked the latter.


The person known to them was verbally abused last time. You think bringing that person back would have calmed the situation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #138)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:50 PM

142. Cops generally have their own jurisdiction.

They don't patrol the entire City of Tampa.

And, yes, I am reasonably sure the police knew about this family. One might make the argument that it's because they knew them that they felt so justified in barging into the house. So that's not helpful to your side of viewing things.

I live in a State where a kid went for skittles and never came home and the cops did a piss poor job of investigating the matter. I live in a State where a twentish year old girl was tasered in the back when she was handcuffed and she hit her head on the pavement and is in a permanent coma. I think something is very wrong with someone who expects cops to be honest and never tell lies.

I mean, what kind of two-tiered country are we creating where we subject the poorest to the highest level of police scrutiny, and expectations for obedience, when the other tier tunes into inside information such as this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865 which explains why you shouldn't talk to the police?

Someone is supplying them with food and rent. That's the obvious answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #142)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:56 PM

159. You make a lot of arguments based on your assumptions

 

for instance: the mother knew her kid would be murdered if she didn't intervene. The cops knew this woman. They knew her kids. They knew the house.


Someone is supplying them with food and rent. That's the obvious answer.


So have the state of Florida pay her a visit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #159)

Tue May 8, 2012, 06:06 PM

161. I never said she feared he would be murdered.

But I do believe she had a reason to fear for her son. In my humble way of looking at things, fearing that your son is about to be put in jail for some crime he didn't commit is a valid fear.

Now you're being silly. There is a local person they could have talked to. Someone is supplying them with help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #161)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:23 PM

169. Yes you did

 

you claimed it was a "sophies choice" situation where she was forced to choose between the life of her son or that of her fetus. You said that. Don't back off now, it was so funny. You also claimed I was ok with forcing her to make the logical choice and sacrifice the son to save the fetus? Remember? Then you tried to claim it was a mother-only thing wherein no man could possibly understand the need to protect a child. Any of this ringing a bell?

And remember how she was arrested for verbally abusing that local person that was charged with providing her care?

Yeah, that would have cooled off the situation.

/also if you're afraid your son will go to jail how exactly is assaulting a police officer going to make things all better for him? They don't just forget about the crime because of your magical mama-grizzly powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #169)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:45 PM

173. I never mentioned murder.

You took the Sophie's Choice reference too literally. You're the one that made it sound like she had to chose the fetus in order to be a good mother, which meant that she was a poor mom for trying to defend the son. I'm the one that told you that such a decision is not possible for a mother to make and I explained why.

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, look for a direct quote that says otherwise. I never said she had to choose "the life of her son over the life of her fetus."

That scenario was sealed the moment that police officer stepped in the house.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #173)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:58 PM

177. You made the claim that she had to choose between the two

 

you called it sophies choice.

These are things you said.

And you have yet to explain any real reason she would "fear for her son".

And even if we're to believe your now amended version that she was fearing for him going to jail, how is assault going to fix that? Are people being taught that if you attack a police officer your friends/family get off scot-free?


And I never said she had to choose between the two. The point is that there was NO REASON TO HAVE TO CHOOSE. Neither were in danger. Until she created a situation. It's not like there were nazis kicking in the door saying you must choose which one lives and which one dies (hey that'd make a good book and possibly movie, and opera). We're talking misdemeanor charges, at worst.

You really aren't getting that this isn't a mother/not mother thing. It's a crazy/sane thing. A crazy person sees cops and assumes "I must fight them or my son will die". Not a mother. Or rather, not because she's a mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #177)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:25 AM

182. You're the one that made it appear she had to make a choice in order to be a good mother.

Own it. Because I can find the quote that states that. I disagreed with you and I explained why.

And in the days following the Trayvon debacle, where piss poor police work is a major concern for many of us, I would say she has lots of reasons to be concerned.

In fact, if you want to push the envelope, people are downright frightened of police brutality. Especially when cases like this one comes up: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=660595

As for choosing between the two, this is exactly what you said:
- - - -
You were careful with your fetus right?

It's precious to you and delicate.

Are these fair statements?

Ok so how eager were you to initiate a violent confrontation with 2 police officers while pregnant?

- - - -

The confrontation was in an effort to defend her son. As a mother, it was an impulsive thing she did which you cannot understand. You cannot understand it even a thimble full which is why you are arguing with me over a human behavior that anyone could have foreseen that understands motherhood. I can't help you with that. I told you, we are at a stalemate at a very critical point which is why neither one of us is going to concede.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #84)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:06 PM

146. The kid said he didnt do it. How much further can a cop go without ANY evidence?

 

In my instance, the pigs asked WHO I had in my crawlspace? I said NOONE. they asked again, in an insinuatory fashion. I said Jimmy Hoffa. He said, OK smart ass, now I get to tear thru everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #146)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:14 PM

148. This is where I'm confused.

Because anytime I've tried to make a report to an authority, nothing ever came of it. They wanted proof. To my knowledge, no cop ever went knocking on doors to start an investigation. They might have had a friend of a friend get involved to nicely find out what was going on, but no real police action. Especially not like what's described in the paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #148)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:18 PM

150. Yeah, normally, they ignore things. The next door hottie, and her friend,

 

offered candy to some little boys. Nothing nefarious, just a joke. The same pigs that busted in my place, interrogated her and friend, and threatened to put them on sexual predator lists. Imagine.

They got a real charge outta that. had some real fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #82)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:57 PM

144. I have been taunted by a punk ass cop nicknamed ROBOCOP.

 

He did this for kicks. I almost floored his ass. As told by the boxboy. He was 6/5 and built.

They do things like grab your kid, so that any normal parent would react.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #144)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:16 PM

149. It's not just the police that use this tactic.

Neighbors also tend to go over the edge, then try to create "casual run ins" in public places to see if you're angry enough to confront them.

They scare the hell out of me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #82)

Wed May 9, 2012, 08:21 AM

200. Tasers aren't people prods. They are deadly force. So thanks for condoning

the use of lethal force on a pregnant woman over a minor incident.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #200)

Wed May 9, 2012, 10:29 AM

203. She died?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #203)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:39 PM

204. 500 deaths from tasers in the last ten years.

I'm not a fan of playing the odds. Sorry I don't like tasers and their excessive use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #204)

Wed May 9, 2012, 04:17 PM

205. You realize what the police use as alternatives to tazering when they are being attacked

 

right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #205)

Wed May 9, 2012, 04:41 PM

207. What a gun and shoot her? A billy club and beat her?

How about some restraint and respect? The potential criminal is a 12 year old child who may have thrown rocks at a house.

Or do we now need to use brute force to resolve every little issue in life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #207)

Thu May 10, 2012, 01:08 PM

208. " What a gun and shoot her? A billy club and beat her?", yes, exactly

 

That's what the police would use in such a situation if you remove tazers.

"How about some restraint and respect?"


Towards two people who are attacking you?


"Or do we now need to use brute force to resolve every little issue in life?"


It was limited force in response to aggression. How do people not understand that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #208)

Thu May 10, 2012, 01:47 PM

209. Tasering and beating pregnant women seems thirld world to me

but apparently you are fine with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #209)

Thu May 10, 2012, 01:54 PM

210. There was no beating

 

and the tazering was in response to the pregnant woman and her adult daughter starting a fight with a lone female police officer.

You're trying really hard to spin this and I appreciate that you are in a bind here (what with the facts being so different from the narrative you feel compelled to create). But maybe consider that this woman wasn't a saint and the cop wasn't a demon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #210)

Thu May 10, 2012, 01:56 PM

211. From what I read two police officers entered the house after the women refused to let them in

is this wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #211)

Thu May 10, 2012, 01:59 PM

212. No, that's correct

 

but given the preceding events they had a right to enter the house according to the law. She did not have the right to prevent the police from coming in in this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #211)

Thu May 10, 2012, 02:01 PM

213. Look, I suspect you'll never agree that the cops were in the right here

 

for entering the house.

Let's instead look at the other factor involved: tazering a pregnant woman.

If this were a lone female cop on patrol and she was attacked in an alley by a pregnant woman and another woman would she be justified in using a tazer to defend herself?

If yes then the problem is solely about the right of the police to enter and the tazering of a pregnant woman *is* acceptable in some cases, just not this one (in your opinion).

If no then what should she do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #22)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:58 PM

31. And there is no question that the cops would have

been familiar with this family. More to the point, they probably knew someone they could call to come down to talk to her to get the son to come out to speak to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #22)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:52 PM

143. "They were retaliating for my busting a corruption racket, including cops and judges. "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #143)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:59 PM

145. Not a joke, in the least, and I stopped a racket that targetted soldiers.

 

there was a story in the news just today, where a tow co. was confiscating soldier vehicles, and then selling them. Same kind of corruption, but instigated by cops, and corroborated by judges. Attorney General had their asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #3)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:29 PM

14. She assaulted the cop

 

Don't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #14)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:33 PM

15. How difficult is it to grab a woman's hands and handcuff her if she's

eight months pregnant?

Why didn't the police wait in the car for backup and a warrant?

What was so urgent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #15)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:36 PM

16. Yeah, how difficult could it be

 

for a single female police officer to wrestle with two women at the same time and safely restraining one while not harming the other?


The female officer "was at the door, went in to talk to the kid, and at that point, he physically punched the officer, so at that point now we have a struggle," Tampa police spokeswoman Andrea Davis said. "While was struggling with that kid, the pregnant suspect and her daughter were fighting with officer."


Oh and that means there were 13 more kids hanging around somewhere. Never know if they're going to join in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #16)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:41 PM

19. Why didn't they wait?

If they knew there were 13 kids hanging around somewhere, weren't they endangering the lives of those 13 kids too by stepping into a situation they didn't know how it would turn out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #19)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:47 PM

20. Wait for what?

 

The SWAT team? Likely they'd be disciplined if they called in backup for every vandalism case they were sent to question a suspect about.

Remember that's what this all was about: a rock thrown through a window. Not an inherently violent crime (I don't think anyone was inside or it would have been treated differently). They had no reason to expect it would explode like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #20)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:00 PM

36. They had the option to call someone that knew the woman.

Her story was not unknown in the Tampa area. The police would have known who this woman worked with in the area that could have reached her. Instead, a simple alleged rock throwing turns into this big fiasco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #36)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:02 PM

39. It turned in to a fiasco because she and her eldest daughter behaved incorrectly

 

Who are they supposed to call?

Do you bring in Dr. Phil for every vandalism case? I think that would get expensive. Not to mention time consuming.

She chose to swing at a cop. That's really the end of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #39)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:17 PM

57. I repeat. This family had no were to go. No where to retreat.

They could have called anyone in the neighborhood, they could have contacted her DCA contact. Anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #57)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:39 PM

68. There was no need to retreat

 

the cops didn't come in guns ablazing. When a cop comes to your door and asks to speak with your son in relation to a crime you aren't defending him or yourself by attacking the cop.

And apparently this lady has been arrested for getting in to an altercation with her case-worker before. So I'm guessing that would have gone about the same way, but with more time and money wasted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #68)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:42 PM

72. Instead, an alleged rock throwing has put this family over the line, completely.

Just out of curiosity, if a cop comes to your door without a warrant asking to speak to your son or daughter, are you obligated to allow him in?

I think not. So, your double standard thinking is duly noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #72)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:03 PM

87. You are misrepresenting the facts of the case

 

you really should read the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #39)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:22 PM

61. And that either-or thinking is all that is left for may people...

"Do you bring in Dr. Phil for every vandalism case? I think that would get expensive. Not to mention time consuming...."

And that either-or thinking is all that is left for may people...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #61)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:40 PM

69. The police aren't there for a shoulder to cry on

 

I'm not really sure what you are expecting they do in this case. Get hit by two deranged women and . . . give her a lollypop, tell her everything will be ok?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #69)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:21 PM

153. Put them on a list, and on notice. Next time a rock is thrown, react. Oh, and require the reporter

 

to swear in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #153)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:50 PM

158. Put them on a list, as she's being bludgeoned?

 

You know the female cop was under attack by two women right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #158)

Tue May 8, 2012, 06:37 PM

163. Cops hyperbolize all physical contact.

 

The slightest touch, is ample justification to stove in your skull.

I had a cop pull me over, I said, as I gestured towards him. He said, I could drop you right now. and he meant it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #163)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:16 PM

166. It's true, all cops are liars whereas all civilians tell nothing but the truth

 

so the cops completely made up the assault but when the woman said they slammed her against the door, that was undeniably true.

She probably didn't even had a son. They made that up too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #166)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:22 PM

168. Sounds WAY too much like a barroom brawl for rational consumption.

 

Before you start throwing around that assault charge like it is physical contact:


"In law, assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence." thus saith Wiki.

So, just making cops FEAR about something happening, is justification to start throwing weight around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #168)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:29 PM

170. From the article:

 

The female officer "was at the door, went in to talk to the kid, and at that point, he physically punched the officer, so at that point now we have a struggle," Tampa police spokeswoman Andrea Davis said. "While was struggling with that kid, the pregnant suspect and her daughter were fighting with officer."


This is a lady who has been in regular contact with the law. And yet people are more than willing to make her a saint if it means they can make the cops devils.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #170)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:36 PM

171. THe lady is CRAZY. Even more requirement to social support up. Bring social workers. Something.

 

There have GOT to be better ways of dealing with anything cops dont like but tazing. Tazing will KILL me. Protest=death. Tazing harms MANY categories of humans. Mostly the most vulnerable. And it has become like washing a kids mouth out with soap. FAR too cavalier about safety, and like the beating they wish they could give. So, it is a COMPLIANCE TOOL. TORTURE, and terrorist threat.


"On Tuesday, police wanted to speak to one of her sons about throwing rocks at another home in the neighborhood. He said he didn't do it and ran from the police."



Why yes, that usually earns you a bullet in the back.


"Angel Adams says two officers a man and a woman forced their way into her home."


Once cops enter your home without warrant, and are throwing weight around, any slight movement of resistance, is charged as battery. Believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #171)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:38 PM

172. So if you're attacked by a deranged woman

 

two deranged women actually the proper response is . . . ?

She (the policewoman) could have shot them. Or taken the abuse. Or beat them with a stick. Or . . .

Which of these options is appropriate when attacked by a crazy person and fearing for your life?

Perhaps we could train our police to be ninjas. Or force feed them steroids (that may have problems with it though).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #172)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:47 PM

174. The appropriate response is, get help.

 

And by that, mental and social help. Have those ready, that can negotiate with the distressed, and mentally marginal, to reduce violence. They have her record. They could almost GUARANDAMNTEE, that there would be some kind of trouble. AND IF there are mega amounts of kids there, and the mother IS arrested, they have many young souls to watch over. So, they could anticipate needing social workers, to calm the scene, and officiate. IF NEEDED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #174)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:53 PM

176. Ah, so every police patrol to investigate vandalism should contain

 

2 cops, 1 psychologist, 1 case worker, a trained police negotiator, and of course some social workers to deal with the kids if that doesn't work.

Getting crowded in that cop car. Would need an SUV. Of course that isn't setting a good example, environment-wise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #176)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:00 AM

178. Ah, but the kid said he didnt do it, and ran. THEREFORE,

 

resistance can be almost assured. So, at THAT point, you gather resources. YOU BACK OFF, and wait for them to arrive. Where are they going? All those children, and stuff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #172)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:10 AM

181. cops are always tazering and shooting deranged people who attack them for no reason. funny.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #181)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:32 AM

183. Cops ARE tazing PLENTY of deranged people, and punks who's attitudes they dont like.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:31 AM

6. To solicit comments like:

bigjohn652 at 10:21 AM May 8, 2012
This piece of trash has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars with 15 illegitimate kids and is pregnant with a 16th? And some of you Liberal idiots think we shouldn't reform the entitlement system? She probably has a $100,000 a year welfare income and spends it all on drugs, liquor and cigarettes from the look of her. I mean look how hot she is, NOT! What we need to do is spay this baby producing beatch and send her on her way. By the way I'd say the same if she were white.


Feed up2 at 10:05 AM May 8, 2012
What 39 years old 16 kids What???? Where is the Daddy or Daddies???? On welfare WHAT???????
She needs an appointment withg a Veteranarian to be spayed... Come on now WE the TAX PAYERS are paying this person to be a baby MACHINE.........
sTOP THE MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP THE CHECKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET A JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm surprised they left the woman's race out of the headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #6)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:32 AM

7. The story was written to elicit this kind of response.

The first comment---LOL---tries to soften the comment by saying---oh---I'd say the same if she was white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #6)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:38 AM

8. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #6)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:24 PM

12. The people in the comments

sound like the prolife people too, so isn't she just what they want to make ALL women by taking away the pill and abortion rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #12)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:27 PM

13. I always read the reader forums in the Orlando Sentinel.

It reminds me of why I remain sequestered around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #12)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:51 PM

23. I keep hearing this sort of comment

 

This woman is NOT taking birth control and it's LEGAL! She is also not having abortions and they too are legal.

The people who end up doing things like this are not conscientious enough to take birth control because they simply ACT without thinking...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #23)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:55 PM

28. We'll never really know if birth control was an option.

This is Florida. Are our social services even allowed to suggest it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #28)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:56 PM

29. Rubbers are in the gas stations!

 

People who have ridiculous numbers of kids and no partner or money are not right in the head. They are impulsive and cannot think beyond the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #29)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:01 PM

38. Or they haven't been given the proper education.

For all you know they were practicing the old pull out method.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #38)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:05 PM

42. As I said before, anyone who would have these many kids

 

is out of her mind. She either does not have the cognitive ability to understand how she is complicating her life or is crazy and not thinking clearly or both. There are lots of people walking around out here who are in this position. Trying to reason with them is futile. Some need to be on meds or even under watch, but at the very least they need to be stopped. These kids are suffering from her madness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #42)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:18 PM

58. Well, the authorities now have her where they can do anything they want to her.

This is how we solve problems in Florida. yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #23)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:14 PM

54. But,

this is exactly what the GOP evangelical wing are calling for women to be like...baby machines, with no choice.

I realize SHE does have the choice now...I'm not disputing that and I also am aghast that she doesn't use birth control...but all I'm pointing out is that SHE IS EXACTLY THE MODEL OF WHAT THE GOP WANTS... if you look at the laws they are trying to pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #54)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:19 PM

59. I know, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #6)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:44 PM

119. I wonder if that commenter would have acted differently if the woman were Michelle Duggar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:24 PM

135. The Orlando Sentinel is an RW cat box liner

Despite its RW bent, Florida has a number of quality newspapers (Miami Herald, Palm Beach Post, Tampa Bay (formerly St. Pete) Times). But the Sentinel isn't one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:34 PM

156. Naming the number stacks the conversational deck against her from the beginning. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:03 AM

179. I think it's important she was pregnant, but not how many kids she has. I'd think they'd

 

exercise more restraint with pregnant women. Perhaps it's old-fashioned to expect it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth (Reply #1)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:24 AM

187. Tasing a pregnant woman is worth mentioning...

How many children she already has is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:37 PM

17. I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #17)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:51 PM

24. Thanks for the video.

I don't question that this is a terrible case. There are a lot of things that crossed my mind about the kind of help and support this woman needed. It appears she got on the radar when her first common law husband was arrested. She has no means of support, and if she did, who would baby sit the children?

But let me ask you, to whom does it serve making her situation worse? If there is anyone who needs to be sat down for proper counseling, it is this woman. Tasing her is only going to make her situation worse and less agreeable to this kind of social service option.

So let's get back to the main issue. When is it ever proper to tase an eight month pregnant woman?

I believe the answer to that is never. Especially when officers could have waited to contact someone who could handle this situation in a more civil manner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #24)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:59 PM

33. I doubt that tasing her is going to cause permanent physical harm to her or her fetus

In this case she was assaulting an officer.

As to her mental state, she's already demonstrated an inability to cooperated constructively with authority figures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #33)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:04 PM

40. People seem to miss this obvious fact:

 

She put her child in risk by initiating a physical fight with a police officer. Either by tazing or physical damage (fighting isn't great for fetuses) or even by a bullet if things got really out of hand. She created a situation that put her kids in danger.

All she had to do was cooperate. Or scream at them if it makes her feel better. But assaulting a cop is not a wise decision for someone who values their physical safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #40)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:06 PM

44. Yet any other woman would have been applauded for protecting her children.

It's a natural instinct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #44)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:08 PM

45. Protecting them from what?

 

In a proper household the cops would have been the more charitable ones if a kid was out breaking windows.

She didn't protect them from anything. In fact she got her one kid arrested. Who is safer now?

And no, no one would have applauded another woman for "protecting" her kids from being questioned by the police by assaulting them and getting tazed. That's a strawman argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #45)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:10 PM

47. We will agree to disagree.

I think there is a perspective here that you're failing to see. The police were not charitable by forcing there way in to talk to a boy who only allegedly threw rocks. That's my position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #47)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:12 PM

49. They forced their way in because the kid hid and the mother refused to talk to them

 

If she'd gone in and grabbed the kid none of this would have happened. (and that's what would have happened to me if I were out doing this as a teenager, that is until I was really being punished).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #49)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:22 PM

62. The law isn't applied evenly.

I can tell you for a fact that police around this area will not get involved in cases like this one unless:

(1) You have video or a photo confirming who did the trespass or property damage;

(2) The person filing the complaint has political clout.

The cops would never, never barge into a suburban house chasing a teenage boy without a warrant on an alleged matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #62)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:42 PM

71. How many suburban moms in nice neighborhoods would have responded the way this one did?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #71)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:58 PM

83. They would never have had to worry about it,

because the police would never have broken in.

Are you kidding? You know why they wouldn't have broken in? Because the police chief answers to the "key people" who pull the political strings in the city. If they go barging into a house without fully knowing who that person knows politically, those cops could be out of a job with just one phone call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #83)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:01 PM

85. Yes, this one clearly goes all the way to the top

 

the commissioner was in on it from the get-go. A conspiracy to get this fine upstdanding woman, who has clearly made nothing but good decisions and raised wonderful kids, in to trouble with the law.

And really if you think about it her only crime is being a proud single mother, raising her kids against adversity, protecting them from harm and . . . . assaulting a police officer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #85)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:04 PM

89. This was never about her to begin with.

The police created this situation when they barged into her house without a warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #89)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:09 PM

95. You're missing some steps

 

please read to article so you can understand what happened before that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #95)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:22 PM

103. Cops confronted a kid for an alleged rock throwing incident.

The boy was frightened by the police and ran home.

The cops came to the door and walked in without permission or warrant.

The pregnant mother and her daughter defended their homestead and family member.

What am I missing?

So now an alleged rock throwing has turned into an assault in a person's own homestead. And, the woman was tased when she was eight months pregnant.


What facts am I missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #103)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:27 PM

107. Probable cause

 

look it up some time.

It doesn't state: your house is home-base. Once there no one can touch you there under any circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #107)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:33 PM

109. There was a better way to do this,

without accelerating the legal consequences to this family.

That's my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #109)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:34 PM

112. Such as?

 

Details please.

And saying the way it happened was wrong and men are not capable of understanding are not the details I was looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #112)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:44 PM

118. I've explained this thoroughly.

They needed to find someone that could speak to the family. The boy was not a flight risk. There was no need to rush into this thing. This is how it would have been handled in this community. Or at least, around my neighborhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #118)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:45 PM

120. Who?

 

Bearing in mind this lady has previously been brought up on charges for verbally abusing people sent by the state to talk to her (not cops).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #120)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:59 PM

124. Her children look well fed and cared for.

Someone is helping them. That's the person they should have asked to help out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #124)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:16 PM

125. You're assuming of course that the mom is not taking care of her kids

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #33)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:05 PM

41. I'm sorry FarCenter. I have to disagree that tasing cannot harm people.

Not far from this location, across the bay in Pinellas, a young 20ish girl fell into a permanent coma when she fell backwards and hit her head.

What the cops risked was that Angel Adams could have fallen on her pregnant belly.

This was not originally about Angel Adams. It was about her son who had allegedly thrown rocks. Someone in social services could have spoken to this family with better results for the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #41)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:12 PM

50. I just watched a local news video where Angel Adams was hauled into court

for verbally abusing social workers. So it seems dubious that "someone in social services could have spoken to this family and gotten better results".

However, I do agree that tasing a pregnant woman is unnecessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #50)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:25 PM

63. And you know what, that conclusion is the only one that I think is fair to make.

Tasing an eight month pregnant woman was not necessary.

The way we're headed as a country, five years from now that might result in charges to the police for endangering an innocent life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #41)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:20 PM

60. Due to all sorts of hazards women have encountered over the last million years

evolution has seen to it that the fetus is pretty well protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #60)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:38 PM

67. Oh my God.

You can't be serious? When I was pregnant I was told I shouldn't even push the vacuum cleaner.

Your retort is so wrong on so many merits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #67)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:43 PM

73. You were careful with your fetus right?

 

It's precious to you and delicate.

Are these fair statements?

Ok so how eager were you to initiate a violent confrontation with 2 police officers while pregnant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #73)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:51 PM

76. What about her son?

You're expecting her to make a Sophie's Choice. Only a man cannot plainly see that.

The police should not have confronted a pregnant woman the way they did. Hormones are everywhere at this stage. At eight months pregnant with my first child I discovered I had a short fuse with customer service issues. At six months with my second child I couldn't even get through two back to back cases of the flu without emotionally feeling overwhelmed.

She behaved in the way that most women would understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #76)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:54 PM

78. Sophies choice:

 

so literally she had to choose which of her kids would die?

Either fight with the cops and the son lives or don't and he dies.

Wow. You must think the cops are like in Judge Dred: they came there to execute her son for the crime of vandalism and that was it. And only by heroically smacking the female cop with her other daughter was she able to save her sons life.

he police should not have confronted a pregnant woman the way they did. Hormones are everywhere at this stage. At eight months pregnant with my first child I discovered I had a short fuse with customer service issues.


Ah so she was hormonal. Somehow I suspect if a male had made the argument that due to hormones she couldn't be expected to act like an adult you would take umbrage to that. Being cranky with customer service agents =/= hitting a cop.

/and by 16 I would think she should be well aware of the effects of pregnancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #78)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:03 PM

88. She was defending her child.

Don't know why that's so hard to understand, except, maybe because you're male.

And, I believe that people in different social classes see a different side of the police. Yes.

You are extremely condescending to woman, I see. I would have never put it in those terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #88)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:05 PM

90. No, she wasn't defending her child

 

no one was in physical danger until she created a violent situation.

Ignoring your blatant sexism for the moment: the cop involved was a female.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #90)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:08 PM

94. I repeat, the cop was a cop.

Poor judgment on the police's side to go in given the woman's history. If they really did believe she was capable of fighting back, then they created that self-fulfilling prophecy, didn't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #94)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:10 PM

96. "given the woman's history."

 

Ah so cops should treat people differently based on what they personally know about them?

Of course you're assuming these cops were intimately familiar with this womans life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #96)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:14 PM

98. OH my gosh!

Go to the Tampa Tribune newspaper and type in Angel Adams.

Yes, the cops would have intimately been familiar with this woman's life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #98)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:16 PM

100. Provide evidence

 

she was famous. Sure. That means every cop in Florida knows her face?

And even assuming they do: how do you justify your requirement that cops treat people differently based on what they know about that person? If the police were to say they will start applying personal justice rather than uniform justice you'd be outraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #88)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:06 PM

92. And you are the one that made the argument

 

that hormones make her not responsible for her actions.

So who is being condescending to women? The one who treats them as equals or the one who assumes they are fragile emotional critters as responsible for their actions as a child?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #76)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:56 PM

81. BTW: the cop was a woman

 

so your argument that only a man would make this decision is off by at least n = 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #81)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:06 PM

91. The cop was a cop.

Don't tell a woman what other women are capable of given the right training or indoctrination. Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #91)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:07 PM

93. You're all over the place

 

first I'm wrong because I'm a man and a woman wouldn't make this decision.

Then she isn't really a woman because she's a cop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #93)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:13 PM

97. The way you put Angel Adams down, that can only come

from a male perspective. But I could be wrong, so tell me, are you male or female?

Then, there's the police fraternity that everyone knows about. A person can't go through that kind of training and indoctrination without being affected by it. For all I know they sent a woman cop because they thought it would be less confrontational. And once it went over the line, easier to defend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #97)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:17 PM

101. You are amazingly sexist you know that?

 

Really I'm surprised this kind of sexism is tolerated here.

I'm "putting her down" for her actions. Not her gender.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #101)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:24 PM

105. Nice projectionist attempt.

You are the one that insists she should have thought of one child over the other. You can't understand the maternal instinct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #105)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:26 PM

106. You are the one arguing that men cannot understand this

 

really not complicated.

And she wasn't choosing one child over another. That is a bizarre strawman you came up with (Sophies choice. Do you know what that story was about?).

It's not maternal instinct. It's just simple stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #97)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:23 PM

104. Consider:

 

if this were a male single parent who did the exact same thing and you were told that you didn't know what you're talking about because you're a woman so kindly refrain from commenting.

Sexism?

Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #104)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:30 PM

108. OH my God, how your argument is contorting.

You were the one who claimed she should pick one child over the other. I was trying to tell you why that's not possible for a woman to do.

In addition, I'll even throw into the pot that men have the same instinct to protect their young. This comes from an unexpected source: I watch these shows, the ones where people are building underground shelters, preparing for the final showdown. And in every case you have a white male who is armed to the teeth who claims he's doing it because he'll do anything to defend his children. Because you know, defending your young, that's a primal instinct.

Men have the same instincts to protect their young. I'm just saying that picking one over the other to attempt to belittle Angel Adams' choice, is not acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #108)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:33 PM

110. "You were the one who claimed she should pick one child over the other."

 

FULL STOP!

This is a lie. I said no such thing. That was an insane analogy you made comparing this lady to a woman who had to choose which of her kids would die in a nazi death camp.


Please apologize and address this lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #110)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:38 PM

114. I don't owe you an apology. Here is your statement:

No. 73 You said the following:

You were careful with your fetus right?

It's precious to you and delicate.

Are these fair statements?

Ok so how eager were you to initiate a violent confrontation with 2 police officers while pregnant?

- - - - -

I don't have to explain your implication. It's apparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #114)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:40 PM

116. Ok . . .

 

so I said you wouldn't endanger your fetus.

Now, show where I said that means the other kid had to die.

What threat was he in? Worst case scenario he goes to juvie for a bit. Where in gods name are you getting this notion that he was in mortal danger?

Please address that and stop lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #116)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:52 PM

122. I think you should stop accusing me of lying. It's not very nice.

And it's not true.

You asked "what threat was he in?" I think when two cops come into your house without a warrant, there might be some fear that your child is under immediate threat. This is where it would have been helpful to give the family a chance to discuss the situation among themselves. This woman, who was eight months pregnant, had very little time to assess the situation.

I think that there are many minority communities who are fearful of the police. It would be dishonest not to mention that. The cops don't always do the right thing, and even when they get caught doing the wrong thing, they aren't reprimanded for it.

So that's a valid threat and concern.

Now, stop calling me a liar. Just because we don't agree on this matter gives you no right to disparage me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #122)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:32 PM

129. "I think you should stop accusing me of lying. It's not very nice."

 

So stop lying.

I said she should not have endangered her fetus.

You made up the absurd comparison to Sophies Choice. You then used your own analogy to argue that I was in favor of forcing her to choose which kid died even though no one was at risk prior to starting this altercation and even then no one was going to die.

" Just because we don't agree on this matter gives you no right to disparage me. "


Again, that is a false statement. You have been disagreeing with me for some time. I only called you a liar when you began misrepresenting what I had said.

So to make what you claimed accurate you must A) prove that multiple children were at risk of death and B) show that I said she must choose which of them would die.

Instead what I said is that she put her fetus at risk. That doesn't imply that she did so to save another child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #129)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:45 PM

131. That was actually a nicely developing thread

until you started throwing accusations.

Your point was that the protection of the fetus was all important because YOU, YOU, didn't see an immediate threat to her son.

I vehemently disagreed with that assessment. In light of what has gone on in Florida of late, nobody knows what to expect from law enforcement. Since we disagree on this main, critical point, our arguments will be unacceptable to either party. You will go on your merry way thinking that this was no Sophie's Choice scenario, the police are never Judge Dreddish, and I will see it from the other side of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #131)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:17 PM

134. You're arguing that she was right to put her fetus at risk

 

over a made up threat to her son. That is not a "Sophies choice". That is being crazy.

You are the ones who compared the police to Nazi prison guards and Florida to a concentration camp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #134)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:40 PM

139. See, circular argument. We're back to where we started.

Most mothers would not be able to make the kind of decision that seems to come easy to you. You have to be a mother to understand. For all the love she has for her unborn child, she has a history of diaper changes, and nose wipings, and huggings with her other children. A good mother won't make the kind of choice you're suggesting. She will step up to fight for the child she perceives is in danger. And, in Florida, she has the right to fear police action, because it's not consistent.

We're in an era where people are fighting back because they feel so helpless. Why do you think the Occupy movement is still picking up steam?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #139)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:49 PM

157. Again, you are relying on this absurd notion that she thought her son would literally *die*

 

if the police talked to him.

That's not being an overprotective mother, that is insane.

And notice that all this happened *after* the son attacked the male police officer. She got in to a fight with the *female* police officer after the son and policemen had moved outside.

That's not snapping and defending your son. That's just plain crazy.

You're falling back on "you'd have to be a mother" because you know the real story is indefensible. So instead you're attacking my right to even comment on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #157)

Tue May 8, 2012, 06:10 PM

162. I think you're the one who is not realistic.

This is a point which neither one of us is going to give up.

If you can't see it as a woman/mother would see it, then this argument has reached its natural conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #162)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:20 PM

167. If you can't see that falling back on that old canard is an admission of defeat then I suppose

 

so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #167)

Tue May 8, 2012, 11:48 PM

175. It's not defeat. It's a reality of debate.

There are critical points that neither one of us will yield. Once we reach this point, it becomes a stalemate. Which is no surprise since we're coming from two different sides of the American experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #122)


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #67)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:48 PM

75. You must have had some medical problem? Exercise is recommended during pregnancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #75)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:54 PM

77. Complications are not unexpected when women work up to the point of delivery.

Especially with older women. She may have had fifteen children, but the woman is 39 years old. Come on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #33)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:09 AM

186. Four people die every month from being tazed.

 

A 2008 report (PDF) from Amnesty International found 351 Taser-related deaths in the US between June, 2001 and August, 2008, a rate of just slightly above four deaths per month.

Truth Not Tasers, which maintains an extensive list of deaths linked to conducted energy weapons going back to the 1980s, says Colliers is the 507th person in the US to die in incidents linked to the weapons.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/05/taser-related-deaths-accelerating/

I don't understand how you can brush off the risk to a fetus from being shocked at energy levels so high they bring a grown person to the floor.

I've seen someone tazed in real life. It was horrible. Much worse than seeing it on video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #17)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:18 PM

126. I guess the woman in the video never read the

 

Population Bomb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarCenter (Reply #17)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:53 AM

184. I think the intent of what she said is misrepresented in this video. It cuts off very quickly

 

before & after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)


Response to juice feast (Reply #21)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:53 PM

26. Whatever the answers are to your question,

I'm pretty sure that tasing her at eight months pregnancy isn't one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #26)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:57 PM

30. So if cops get hit by a person

 

they should just sit there and take it? Did you see her mug shot? She looked a hot mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #30)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:13 PM

51. The cops were in complete control.

That family isn't going anywhere. Sadly. The cops should have waited.

And jumping to the mug shot to support your position, that's sad too.

We will agree to disagree. The cops had resources and time to handle this better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #21)

Tue May 8, 2012, 12:58 PM

32. The cops saw the kid throwing rocks?

I didn't see that part in the article..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #32)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:00 PM

34. Did I say the cops saw it?

 

I'm sorry--do cops have to see crimes for them to exist? It is one of those Zen koan thingies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #34)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:10 PM

48. Generally one adds "allegedly" to crimes until the trial has been concluded...

As in "the boy was allegedly throwing rocks"...

I've seen enough examples of cops just making shit up out of whole cloth to have a skeptical view of what they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #34)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:30 PM

65. Where I live, they won't pursue these kind of allegations

unless they have something more definitive.

There might be some "class discrimination" going on in the way the police take these things on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #32)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:09 PM

46. I didn't see it either

 

I did see where the son admitted to running from the police. I am sure that police will pursue someone who runs from them and make an assumption based on that act.

What I don't understand, is how does a stay at home mom, with 12 children, afford a 6 bedroom house, food and healthcare. I, along with my spouse, work full time, have 1 child and still have to hustle to make ends meet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LACarMan (Reply #46)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:14 PM

52. Welcome to DU!

I hope you enjoy your stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #52)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:15 PM

55. Thanks!

 

Been lurking for years. Enjoy your fume sucking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LACarMan (Reply #46)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:34 PM

66. It defies an answer.

Living in Florida, the very things that could have helped this woman, like pregnancy counseling, are not exactly top on everybody's political list.

More to the point, from what I read in a 2010 article, it sounds like they tried to make the family a community charity case. Now we can see the limitations of that approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to juice feast (Reply #21)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:01 PM

37. One of her kids was ALLEGEDLY throwing rock. She was likely the talk of the neighborhood, and could

 

have been set up. Cost, one broken window.

Neighbors can and DO set up neighbors. I have experienced it from health reasons, and seen many others. One, was an evil ex cop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WingDinger (Reply #37)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:27 PM

64. You don't have to convince me about what dark intentions lie in the soul

of neighbors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:47 PM

74. Breitbart ran articles hounding this woman when she was last in the news.

I'm so glad that fucker is dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #74)

Tue May 8, 2012, 01:54 PM

79. Looks like he has plenty here to pick up the baton for him.

Thanks for the info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #74)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:26 PM

136. Did he run articles hounding the Duggars?

They have 19 children!

Oh, right, they're also white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #136)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:44 PM

141. To be fair, the Duggars can also afford all those children somehow.

Having 16 kids when you probably can barely take care of yourself is not insignificant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #141)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:10 PM

147. So TLC needs to give Ms. Adams a reality show?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #147)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:19 PM

151. Zing! (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:49 PM

121. I'd be stunned too if they gave me a 16th kid. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:18 PM

128. TASERS MUST BE BANNED.

And why the f do the headline and article mention the number of kids the victim had? Is that supposed to make what the police did okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Reply #128)

Tue May 8, 2012, 04:41 PM

140. It certainly seems to be giving some people the ammunition they need

to cloud the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIris (Reply #128)

Tue May 8, 2012, 05:28 PM

155. I cant protest, as if I get tazed, I am dead. So, my civil rights dont exist, if I want to survive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 06:01 PM

160. Wait, they stunned her with a child instead of a taser?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 07:32 PM

164. Stupidity has consequences

She hit a cop.

Personally if I had done something this stupid as a kid, my mom would have smacked me upside the head for being an idiot. And I do know that my mom would be able to stay calm when watching me injure as she maintained enough self-control to deescalate a dog attack on me as a kid. Instead of panicking she remained calm until she could safely get the dog away without putting herself in danger.

Unfortunately, this woman seems to have a history of making poor decisions. 16 kids, an arrest for assault against a social worker and now assaulting a cop.

The question of the use of tazers should be a separate issue. Clouding it with the emotional issue of tazering an individual doesn't tell us anything relevant. I don't know the numbers for here in the U.S., but the numbers in other countries indicate that cops use tazers in situations that they would not have used violence in previously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2012, 08:30 PM

165. If the story is true as relayed by the police...man, what a bunch of class in that bloodline.

And no, I don't believe everything reported by the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:04 AM

185. Tazing an unarmed person is cowardly.

A police officer, allegedly trained in how to handle domestic situations and people in general, not to mention self defense, has no excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:33 AM

188. The cops

 

should not have tasered her but that is just the tip of this iceberg....Good Grief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 01:44 AM

189. I looked at the backstory on this, & I don't understand why this woman's story was all over

 

the media before this incident.

She had a lot of kids and she was oppositional. So what? Why is that big news?

The only motive I can see is that she's black, had a lot of kids, and didn't show proper gratitude for social services. So what????? What was her crime? What is the public interest??

The intent in plastering it all over the news in multiple stories is racist, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #189)

Wed May 9, 2012, 05:28 AM

197. Because her story serves a political agenda..

An agenda that the media is tasked to serve by those who own that media..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #197)

Wed May 9, 2012, 06:35 AM

199. yeah, i was kind of being rhetorical. when you start noticing the propagandistic intent of

 

these things, you start to realize that we're drowning in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 04:46 AM

193. No warrant is needed

A warrant is not needed in this instance. Nor is the permission of the homeowner or resident. It's called fresh pursuit. The officer was trying to affect an arrest - the suspect resisted by running into his home. The officer, in "fresh pursuit" entered the dwelling in order to affect the arrest.

The mother should not have battered the officer. The officer was within means of necessary force by using a taser to stop the threat.

Maybe if people were more aware of the laws they would be less likely to blatantly break them, then cry fowl when they are met with the ramifications. Ignorance of the law does not excuse lawlessness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ti66er8pooh (Reply #193)

Wed May 9, 2012, 04:51 AM

194. You're new around here, aren't you?

There are about 100 different angles you can take to debate this unusual case, and you pick that one?
See ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #194)

Wed May 9, 2012, 05:15 AM

195. See ya?

No, I'm not new. I just choose not to post on every subject or item on a daily basis.

And yes, I did choose the "personal responsibility" angle on this one. It's unfortunate that many others don't choose this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ti66er8pooh (Reply #195)

Wed May 9, 2012, 05:22 AM

196. Just wait for the pile-on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #196)

Wed May 9, 2012, 05:48 AM

198. RE: Pile on

I'm sorry that my opinion differs from yours, thus causing you to want my opinion to go away or draw flame bait.

I thought du was a place for discussion and learning.

I was merely posting factual information on what seemed to have become one of the main points of the discussion, prior to my chiming in. Many people were exclaiming that the woman's rights, mainly her 4'th Amendment right, had been unjustly violated by the peace officer for not having a warrant to enter the home. The fact is, given the information from the article, that no warrant was needed in this circumstance. That is not my opinion, That is fact.

Also, many were saying that the woman was unjustly tasered. While I may not agree with how the situation was handled, I was again presenting facts. The fact that when you batter a peace officer, there are ramifications. The woman CHOSE to do so in her current condition, which in turn caused a LAWFUL reaction. That is fact.

However, It is my opinion that many people do not know the laws in which they claim to. This, to me, is a problem. I think everyone should know the laws and what their rights are. IMO, Everyone should take the time to understand what their civil rights are the many loopholes that surround those civil rights. Again, Ignorance of the law does not excuse lawlessness.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ti66er8pooh (Reply #193)

Wed May 9, 2012, 04:22 PM

206. +1

 

people are really working hard to ignore the facts on this one.

It's morphed in to a story of the cops busting in this womans door for no reason then tazering her in front of the kids even though she was being cordial and cooperative.

I guess the need to make the cops in to the enemies in every single scenario forces people to argue strange things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 08:35 AM

201. Yay, Cops!

They're the best!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 08:57 AM

202. The bigotry just oozes, here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread