Police, tasers, pregnant woman, school zone....check out this link. Again don't comment on the woman's role in the case but rather why the US Supreme Court may have ruled the way they did in this case. So with the Supreme Court's decision, what happens to the woman/to the Seattle police officers???
Mr. Thompson
Basically what I'm getting from this article is that by the supreme court judges refusing to hear the case, it means that the woman can still press charges/ make claims on the state level but not at the federal level. Although, the supreme court justices decided not to hear the case, they did determine that the officers used excessive force. Now the use of stun guns under certain circumstances, like Brooks, is not permitted in the Seattle Police Department. Unfortunately, I find it all very confusing because I don't know why they decided not to hear it, I mean, the officers consulted and tazed a pregnant woman, possibly endangering the baby. Which I think would be kind of a pretty big deal, especially to people who are against abortion and such.
ReplyDeleteAshley Parker, Hour 1
The Supreme Court hears cases that have an effect on many people. This is why this case from Seattle was not heard. Because the Supreme Court did not hear the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that the officers can not be sued in federal courts, but did use excessive force stands.
ReplyDelete- Tanner Nimke, Hour 2
That really confused me... but from what i think i understood what happened to the women was although she wasnt heard by the supreme court she did pursue other options to attempt to "get back" at the officers and find what they did not right and against her rights because of her pregnancy. although she had attempted, the officers made a good arguement saying she didnt comply and instead of using the submissive techniques that couldve caused them to "toss" her around more they decided to use a taser on a low setting to get to women to further comply with their orders. Although it may not seem appropriate because of what couldve happened to the baby the officers only followed what they knew they had to do. They concidered the risks but had to comply because the women wasnt cooperating.
ReplyDeleteKinda Confused,
Austin Minea (hope your sandwhich was yummy)
I think the Supreme court did not hear this case simply because the issue is not important enough to be addressed. The severity of this case can vary depending on the baby's condition, but other than that it was the woman's fault for intentionally disagreeing to sign the citation and refuse orders. Also you have to put yourself in the officers shoes, they could have easily taken her down, but instead to potentially protect the baby, they used their tasers. Maybe next time to woman will learn to not waste's the Supreme court's judges time.
ReplyDeleteKadri Plott
Hour 4
This whole article was kind of confusing to me but what I think is going on is the supreme court decided not to hear the case because it doesn’t really have anything to do with the constitution. That is to say, no part of the constitution needs to be redefined or cleared up. The officers used excessive force, that's all the Supreme Court really can say on the matter. It’s not something like Obama care that affects everyone in the U.S. and requires a look at the constitution again to see if this law really should be passed. So now the officers have been pinned with using excessive force but the woman can’t appeal it to the federal courts anymore.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme courts decision to not hear the case because the correct decision had already been made by the State court. It would be unnecessary for supreme court to hear this case because nothing would change. The only difference would be if she sued at the Supreme court level which they also ruled against. The supreme court urged the woman to sue at the State level. It also seemed that the Seattle Police department had already taken action on ensuring that this sort of thing would not happen again.
ReplyDeletePayton Lee
Hr.1
Tasing a pregnant woman is obviously not good, but I would like to know more information. If the woman was not showing and she was physically entrydangering the police officers than that would give the police a standpoint. But, it is kind of taking away some of peoples rights. However, I can see how the supreme court wouldn't take it the case as of this point because its not something that would completely change or affect everyone.
ReplyDelete-Jared Bruggeman
I was confused by the article, but from what I understand is that the Supreme Court ruled to not hear the case for a few reasons: the case does not affect a large portion of the population, or the Supreme Court felt that the 9th Circuit Court of appeals got the ruling correct. From what I understand is that the woman can still press charges for excessive use of force against the officers, but she can not press the charges in a federal court. What that means for the officers, I am not completely sure, but I think it would still suck because they can be sued.
ReplyDeleteThat last one was Aaron Herman HR 4
ReplyDeleteThis is not surprising to me that they decided not to hear it because if you're a serial killer and you murder 100 people you don't get heard in supreme court . And I understand that it was an unborn child but the fetus is still alive even though it was endangered. Technically it's not even considered a murder since the child is still alive. So i guess what I'm trying to say is that it would be a murder if the baby did die. But not much different that any other murder case as far as the supreme court hearing it.
ReplyDelete--Tyler Stokes
The case may seem like a huge deal, but to be heard in the supreme court it must have something to do with the larger public, and not just pregnant ladies and police officers who were either too dumb to understand pregnancy or just really didn't like pregnant women. The supreme court's decision not to hear the case was a good choice.
ReplyDelete-Ali Mohamed 4