LAW ENFORCEMENT: WE’LL TASE YOU AND YOU’LL LIKE IT

[defrog]

ITEM [via nebris ]: A federal appeals court rules that three Seattle police officers were justified when they used a stun gun on a pregnant mother who refused to sign a traffic ticket.

Here’s why it’s okay to do that, according to the officers' lawyers, Ted Buck and Karen Cobb:

"Police officers have to have the ability to compel people to obey their lawful orders," Buck said. That's all the court recognized today. The 9th Circuit just applied the law instead of getting caught up in the otherwise unfortunate factual circumstances."

See what they did there?

I’d go on, but instead I’ll refer back to my previous post about the Peter Watts case, because the basic (and winning) reasoning of the prosecution in both cases is the same: the police have the legal right to beat you up, Tase you and arrest you regardless of the facts and whether the situation calls for it so long as you are technically in violation of a law – any law – and you do not comply with their orders immediately and without question.

In other words, even if you think the cop has overstepped his/her authority, you are expected to Obey and Go Quietly if you don’t want to get pounded or Tasered. And being pregnant, elderly, mentally ill or a minor is not going to make a difference in the eyes of the law. Because those are factual circumstances, and they don’t matter.

Under my thumb,

This is dF