I agree with Prohibition. The way the story reads is that she wasked to calm down and then left the office. Seems like mission accomplished to me. Then the cop tased her. Maybe he changed his mind about what he was going to do? Regardless, if that is not what happened they need to fix the story.

Gee Kevin, are you sure that the cops are the ones who are "morons" with "pea brains"?

Under arrest for what ? Speaking to loud...yelling or being impolite...and tasered...my gad , I call that abusif...bad judgement...I'd sue him...he didn't seem to have sufficient reason. The cops, for the most part, should all follow special courses to become an officer of the law...period...like in most civil countries.What a disgrace.

wouldn't specify what the child had done or what punishment was meted out...didn't involve corporal punishment.

When she didn't stop, he used the Taser while they were on the walkway outside the building. When that didn't subdue her, he used it again.

Irony.

He had to tase her twice...........that must be one big woman.

Ah, Guntown, thats where that guy Mayes was living and where he was found. Sounds like a lovely place to hang out, where inbreeding isn't a hobby, its DA LAW. I think overkill with the taser will end up not with her filing a lawsuit, but the Good ol' boys saying "Oh she was drunk or on drugs and the officer was fearing for his life." or some other random crap like that. Though i'd like to know what she was all upset about, have a feeling it was just her kid being a bully and he got an in school suspension or he was selling meth and she didn't get her cut.

Profanity and disorderly conduct! So a mom gets mad, loud and swears and somehow that's a justifiable reason to tase and arrest her? She wasn't armed or a threat to anyone so I dont see why this happened. I had to laugh at the fluffy title for the cop "school resource officer". I guess not much goes on in Mississippi if a mother gets tased at her kids school because she was mad and swore. OMFG! Now I'm waiting for an electric shock to shoot out the screen for a potty acronym. :)

When the cop told her to calm down she responded by leaving. Seems like a good thing to do since she was obviously too upset to accomplish anything. And then in response to her decision to leave the cop decides to escalate the situation by chasing her down to arrest and taze her? Why not let her go and the whole incident be over with?

For those attempting to use "Free Speech" as an excuse, there really is no such thing as free speech. You cannot yell fire in a theater, threaten anyone (now constitutes verbal assault), use the "F" word in public, etc, etc, etc. Anyone who didn't/doesn't know these things should really read up on the "rights" they mistakenly think they have.

When the school resource officer — a Guntown police officer who is certified to use a Taser — asked her to calm down, she stormed out of the office, followed by the officer, who told her he was placing her under arrest, Weeks said.

Don in MO:

"So as many have noted - thanks MSNBC - once again you take a story from another source and then leave out critical information to skew it to your very liberal view.

ALL - so here's a paragraph from the original story that got left out by MSNBC.

He (Weeks) says the resource officer twice asked her to calm down, then pulled out his handcuffs to arrest her and take her into custody."

Where is your link to the original story?

We could get rid of all tazers and go back to hands on approach. This method usually ended up with the suspect and the officer getting hurt. Also before tazers if you had a knife you would be shot dead and it would be justified. Tazers have saved many lives and reduced injuries to officers and suspects greatly. It is an effective tool to use on someone who will not comply.

In the original story the women left after she was told that she was under arrest. She was attempting to flee from the officer.

@Chuck - here's another report from a TV Station in Tupelo.

W

Let's see if it'll allow a link now!

@Chuck - for some reason MSNBC won't allow me to paste a link in here.

It was on WTVA com. WTVA is a TV station in Tupelo MS.

Without further explanation of the situation, it's hard to come to any conclusion...I mean, let's be honest here has msnbc's track record been 100% clean with regards to providing all the facts of all stories?

Additionally, if some freak, starts shouting profanities around my child while they're at school, absolutely Tase them. Sorry, kid's safety is more important than some nutjob who doesn't know how to have a disagreement without using inappropriate language around children.

He says the SRO asked her twice to calm down, then pulled out his handcuffs to take her into custody.

Weeks says Eaton left the office and the school resource officer followed her asking her to stop because he was placing her under arrest.

Weeks says Eaton and the officer were on the walkway outside the building when he told her if she didn't stop he would use his taser.

don agreed , this woman asked for it. However this article by MSNBC has the direct link to the story you are talking about and the video.

So its hardly the "liberal media" leaving anything out as it is not reading the entire article that was linked here by MSNBC.

from the link above.

http://www.wtva.com/news/local/story/School-resource-officer-uses-taser-on-parent/zcqQ4pbfUE6G88ETqGW1GA.cspx

Now if you really want to catch some skewed editing from a news source, go to Fox news, they are always biased in their reporting and have been caught numerous times in outright lies.

This woman had it coming. Disorderly conduct is against the law. The police officer gave her warning to calm down but she decided not to. Once it reaches the point that the officer decides he has to arrest you, there is no going back or walking away. That is why you listen and follow the orders of police officers before it gets to that point.

Disorderly conduct may not be a serious offense, but it is his duty to enforce it. If you refuse to comply and he has to arrest you, it is his duty to go through with the arrest. If you do not want such extreme consequences to happen from such a minor infraction then the answer is simple; don't escalate the situation and comply with the orders of law enforcement.

Sorry, kid's safety is more important than some nutjob who doesn't know how to have a disagreement without using inappropriate language around children.

No matter what she was saying it is the same thing children say everyday to each other. do not believe they dont hear this everyday at school, on tv, and on the radio!

As far as the cop goes, he could not find a way to restrain a woman without tazering her twice? How come area's with high crime are the same area's that have had high crime for decades? This must be the cities biggest problems. It also sounds like one of those overweight fat ass cops that are actually good for nothing. Would be nice to hear someone pulgged him into a 220 volt and forgot about him

Police rely on the taser too much. I think whenever something happens the first thing that comes to their mind is the taser.

What a bunch of idiots post here. you have a parent out of control and running free inside a school. where does it say she was LEAVING THE SCHOOL? Maybe she was heading to the classroom.

Don't use the tazer to su8bdue her? Ever see some of these whales? Maybe pummeling her with as baton would be better. As it took two hits with it, this must be a sumo wrestler.

Yet another example of the sub human kids and their parents. Not wonder the kid was a problem. Look at mom.

where she had gone to dispute a disciplinary matter involving her child.

The apple didn't fall very far from that tree. Their gene pool is indeed shallow.

For those attempting to use "Free Speech" as an excuse, there really is no such thing as free speech. You cannot yell fire in a theater, threaten anyone (now constitutes verbal assault), use the "F" word in public, etc, etc, etc. Anyone who didn't/doesn't know these things should really read up on the "rights" they mistakenly think they have.

Spare me the cliches. I can walk down the street yelling the F word at 3 in the morning as much as I want in any civilized city. The most they could charge me with is disorderly conduct for being too loud; I can't think of anywhere but the South that you'd actually be charged for dropping F-bombs.

Sounds like this sista got a little out of hand. According to other sites she was making such a ruckus that she was heard out in the hallways and the SRO heard it and responded on his own. When she was given the choice to calm down or get arrested she got even louder. That's when the SRO told her she was under arrest and when he tried to cuff her she fled. After trying to arrest her again she was then tazed.

I can't think of anywhere but the South that you'd actually be charged for dropping F-bombs.

Try using the N-bomb and see where that gets you - south or north. Only certain groups are exempt.

"He says the SRO asked her twice to calm down, then pulled out his handcuffs to take her into custody. Weeks says Eaton left the office and the school resource officer followed her asking her to stop because he was placing her under arrest."

If true that would lend a little more reason to using a tazer, but first I'd want witnesses confirming the sequence of events as police officers can become "confused" as to what happened when they are arresting someone. And if the officers story is confirmed she would have had to been screaming and bantering like an escaped mental patient to justify arresting her for disorderly conduct. I've seen videos of more than a few police officers ranting like lunatics who are never punished in a meaningful way let alone arrested .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhX62V23rco

@Buff Daddy, so you think that yelling "fire", which endangers people, is the same as offending someone's sensibilities? I don't. Often these profanity laws are struck down also.

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12998

So it comes down to what she said. If she used "fighting words" toward someone, you would be right, but that was not reported.

R. Scalzo @ 1.31

"where does it say she was LEAVING THE SCHOOL? Maybe she was heading to the classroom."

Try here:

"When she didn't stop, he used the Taser while they were on the walkway outside the building."

Seventh paragraph of the story.

Bill from Oregon @ 1.11

"I personally don't think tasers should be used either, we have perfectly good guns. The woman appears to be a psycho and we don't need her in our schools or on our streets."

Arresting someone for a verbal argument seems excessive. Shooting someone for a verbal argument, as Bill seems to suggest should have been done, would be insane.

Guntown....it just sounds friendly, doesn't it? Who's up for a field trip to this paradise of the South?

<sarc>

@Kevin C-752389

She did nothing wrong to even be arrested. So she swore, so she was loud and obnoxious (First Amendment)...

The First Amendment does not give you the right to be "loud and obnoxious" on private property (yes a public school is considered private property). The school has every right to make rules regarding conduct.

Not that I agree that she should have been arrested or tazed after she had decided to leave and without, apparently, making any sort of threat.

Kudos to the Police Officer. I hope he was not hurt. She deserved a hard slap across the face.

Now tell me exactly the relevance of the Mayes case to an upset mother at the middle school. Was the kid involved in that case?. Was the mother involved in that case? If not msnbc it is ridicously shoddy journalism to include it as something to do with the story. What next msnbc are you going to say where Lincoln was shot with every news story about Washington DC.

Go ahead drop the F bomb here and see what that gets you. Sally gets excited!

Your child's school is a place where one should use one's indoor voices, use your manners, be courteous, and be rational. Problem is that in most cases the apple doesn't fall far from the tree when it comes to trouble making kids. No one is born a @sshole. Being a @sshole is learned. In my experience there is a good chance this woman was drunk or stoned. That idea comes from my two years as a school resource officer. My bet is she was under arrest before she walked out. What should the officer do? Wait until she retrieved her gun from her car?

This is hilarious. Talk about attachment parenting except it's the parent who's attached to the kid and believes everything she was told. Remember childhood? It's a make believe world and more often than not when you got in trouble it wasn't your fault - and a litany of scapegoats are easily found to assign the blame to. This parent needs to have her parenting license revoked if she's going on the warpath to defend every fib her daughter tells her. Somehow I don't think she's alone in this style of child rearing, given the support she's getting from the comments here.

My sister-in-law taught for over 30 years. My niece was a teacher. I have several friends who are teachers. I know that sometimes parents are a huge problem.

That said, my niece who was a teacher is now on the school board where she lives. She ran because in the school district where she lives a girl committed suicide because she was being bullied and the school did nothing about it. How would you respond if your child was being bullied and nothing was being done? Would you use your indoor voice?

We don't know what led to the altercation. We don't know who was at fault. But I do know that I'm not comfortable with the idea of police arresting people for raising their voices and swearing. And tasing someone over a verbal altercation is way over the line.

Devil's Son @ 1.44

"That idea comes from my two years as a school resource officer. My bet is she was under arrest before she walked out. What should the officer do? Wait until she retrieved her gun from her car?"

Since there is no mention in either story of the woman making any sort of threat of violence your statement leads me to conclude: a) you probably weren't a very good school resource officer and b) that guns are far to readily available.

i agree. Most importantly as it clearly states in the story and in peoples responses that added further clips of the story, the officer asked her to calm down twice or he was going to arrest her. OBVIOUSLY she calmed down, for she was able to leave the building....so much so her and the officer was outside the building on the sidewalk. either way you look at it, she stopped what she was doing and LEFT the building. The officer FOLLOWED her out of the building. police officers are quick when it comes to pulling out their handcuffs....SHE WAS THAT MUCH OF A THREAT THAT THE OFFICER DIDNT HANDCUFF HER IN THE BUILDING? really? wow, she must have been flying off the handle then since he didnt handcuff her in the office!! umm yeah...So the woman was able to stop, open the school door, walk out the building most likely down a couple steps and out onto the sidewalk. all the while the officer must have been walking not running. wow, must have been quite a ruckus!!....apparently Im the only one that actually READ the article. so here is a great example of people jumping to conclusions when none of you apparently READ the article. good job people.

First off she walked away. HE FOLLOWED HER. umm duh...shows right there that after his warning she complied and left. Why the need to follow her if she HADNT calmed down?

all the while the officer must have been walking not running.

Of course he was walking instead of running to chase her, he was most likely one of those fat @ss cops they allow to keep their jobs even though they cannot actually do them, most likely the reason he needed to tazer her becuse he could not keep up to actually arrest a woman walkinng away from the school.

@Bluthunder: Honestly, I don't care what you think all children hear everyday, if it were my children, I'd have a serious problem with some nutjob coming into middle school, using abusive/foul language etc all. There are plenty of moments where the police go overboard, however, in this particular instance, I don't care. She should know better.

Well, lets see, what does a reasonable person do when they have an issue with their child and the school they attend? Oh, maybe call the school and set up an appointment to meet with the parties involved?

Nahhhhh!!!! I'll just show up at the school, where there is never any chaos going on during class time, and jump and shout like a terrorist who's thong undies are about to explode. What? Terrorists are more subdued? Damn, that sucks to be more radical than radicals.

spider - are you okay? You don't even come back for rebuttals anymore.

The kids punishment didn't involve corporal punishment - what school still gets to flog kids?

When this kid's a Senior in High School, all of his Year Book entries are going to read; remember when your mom got tazed back in Middle School! I'm sure glad my mom never embarrassed me (cough cough).

Sure are a lot of collapsed comments here. I wonder if a bunch of people need to be tased.

@Chuck - for some reason MSNBC won't allow me to paste a link in here- because MSNBC like to control the news. Obviously in this case the report is meant to put a negative spin on the officers actions.

They never let the facts get in the way.

This lady got exactly what she deserved. You don't get to walk into an education facility and start raising hell and cursing in front of a bunch of children and get to walk away when you decide. If your disruption gets the attention and response of a police officer, then the police officer gets to use his discretion on how they proceed based on your reaction. No surprise that she would have a child with behavior problems...

Don't get me wrong, if I were her I'd be PISSED! But, I'd also deserve it.

The Supreme Court has determined that yelling obscenities in public is within the 1st Amendment rights. However, the cops like to use all sorts of sidesteps to get around that law like "disorderly conduct". Also, hundreds of people have been killed by the cops using teasers and again the Supreme Court is right now deciding just how legal these teasers are. And, in California last year a man was stopped by a Highway Patrolman and while the cop was righting the guy up the man would not shut up. The cop told him several times to keep quite, when the man didn't keep quite the cop electrocuted him with his teaser until he did. Well, the man made a fool out of the cop in open court and the court found in the man's favor that he had been pushed around and bullied by the cop. So there, and ah ah ah to all you cop lovers! Oh, and again don't forget to say "siege heile". And, I DON'T CALL THE COPS FOR HELP!

@tnayew: Let me know when the Supreme Court rules it's ok for people to freak out, shouting obscenities and otherwise abusive language in a middle school. This woman was asked multiple times to calm down, and after refusing she was told she was going to be placed under arrest. When you're told you're under arrest, usually the last thing you want to do is resist.

If the cop overstepped his bounds, that's perfectly fine, and can be addressed in the courts when you're arraigned. But you don't just walk away from a cop when you're under arrest. If for no other reason than it adds charges (resisting).

When Johnny comes marching home again Hurrah! Hurrah!

Taser effectiveness depends on the size of the woman. A traditionally sized Mississippi woman might require a couple of taser zaps, a shotgun beanbag, and a whiff of bear spray. Hot damn !!

I see more stories about Taser's being ineffective lately.

Sometimes it takes both barrels to bring Jumbo down.

There was nothing wrong with the south until all the yankees moved down here

"Yankees".. lol. Yes, the south will rise again! Right..

Sorry, it's not the 19th century anymore son.

Bman - your side lost. deal with it. The only thing the Yankees did by moving there was raise the average IQ

@WilliamOfRites

Seems like the only effective tasers are the ones they use to kill children and 80 year-old grandmothers. Also, I don't think it was mentioned in this article, but in several I have read lately, the officers have said that they were in fear for their safety, yet were the only people involved that were armed. Perhaps they should consider another line of work.

no kidding. Is it too much to ask that parents act like adults? Have some class and composure.

I completely agree! And wasn't the argument over some discipline problem with her child? Gee... what a good role model, eh?!

What she needs is parenting classes!

respectfully request to leave us drunken sailors out of this...

sincerely,

the loyal order of drunken sailors

What she needs is parenting classes!

I vote for anger management classes.

VH Navy

I was wondering how long it would take for one to show up. Damn it anyway.

She should have done like I do. In that situation, I use my calmest, kindest, inside voice to insult the h*ll out of them and their family members. You would be amazed how unglued people become when you insult them with your friendly voice or in a whisper. I don't know why, but it makes them crazy.

Lame.

I know =(

I am disgusted by the reliance on tasers... it seems like law enforcement uses them to punish people who annoy them. The police aren't allowed to slap someone across the face, but they are allowed to use a device that causes extreme pain and could kill a person?

Tazers rarely cause injury unless the subject is a health time bomb.

She was told she was being placed under arrest while she was still in the building and didn't stop so she was also guilty of not following directions of a police officer.

Per the above story, she was NOT told she was under arrest in the school.

asked her to calm down, she stormed out of the office, followed by the officer, who told her he was placing her under arrest, Weeks said.

It would be nice if people were able to comprehend what was written, not just what they think they saw, to try to justify their opinion. People may think they are right in feeling that their opinion is the only correct answer, but the story clearly states that she was not told she was under arrest until after she had already left the office. The cop was wrong in trying to escalate the situation after she has already left. Even though she may have been in the wrong in her reasoning, the cop was even more in the wrong for his actions.

She will have a pretty good suit against the cops if the story is true as written. The cops are supposed to serve and protect, not act as though they are judge and jury. The only thing that this story shows as it is written, is that the cop only served and protected his own overblown ego.

@roadhead - There was more to the story than what MSNBC reported. WTVA.com has the original story and you'll see that Mr. Weeks said that the Resource Officer had asked her twice in the office to calm down and when she didn't he told her she was under arrest and that's when she stormed out of the office.

And I see censorship exists on MSNBC - collapsing legitimate comments.

I heard that some police officers will try out the "pepper gun". Some already have. A pepper gun is a gun that shoots balls that have the same effect as pepper spray. I also believe the mother should never be allowed on the school property again. She never had a right to use profanity.

Per the above story...

Now you're catching on. msnbc doesn't print a complete story if they can skew it to meet their agenda. One has to learn to read between the lines and read other news sources for the complete story.

Here's an article for you to read. So yes in some places Public Profanity is a crime and can get you arrested, photographed, your name in the paper and all for just throwing around some words!

I would much rather that my kids didn't learn those words or hear them. Feel free to swear around others that are fine with that but the majority of the population doesn't approve of yelling profanity in a school or most other places besides a concert.

Don & Disgruntled - I know there are places where it might be less appropriate to do so, but it's still ridiculous to make it a crime (and an arrestable one at that!) I'm sure the police have more important things to do, like chase down rabid inbred people who kidnap young girls... Seriously. They can arrest people for cursing? Unbelievable.

Doesn't that fall under freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences.

@Disgruntled American Man. Kids know those words and use them frequently! From urban to suburban to small town.

No no, Sam Adams, this did not take place in Florida. Then she could have claimed she felt threatened and shot the resource officer dead and gotten away with it.

The really sad part is that the police officer was working as a resource officer in a middle school..that's bad enough to think that they need the police in the building in that way, but what kind of a message does it send when the school resource officer, uniformed policeman or not, tasers a parent? I think that sends a terrible message to other parents and to the kids. Yes, she swore at him, yes he told her to calm down, but should that get you tasered in your own kid's school by the RESOURCE OFFICER? What next, a tranquilizer dart from the school nurse?

Wow Debbie, i wonder what your kids are like? Another nightmare for the teachers? based on your attitude they must be a terror.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm scared to imagine that all of these people that are defending this out of control mom have children of their own.

@Debbie - I agree. I'm sure it's not something that they go out and enforce like they do speed traps. But from the sounds of the article she wasn't doing just a little swearing or let one slip. She was throwing a tantrum and continued to do so after the Resource Officer asked her twice to calm down.

Though I'd much prefer them to have swearing traps and let me go the speed I want to!

@Ben - Obviously you haven't been in a school in a LONG time. All my schools in my county growing up were A rated schools and every single one of them had a full-time resource officer on-site. They deal with truancy, drugs, drug abuse programs (DARE) and help keep students (and parents) in-line. You do have freedom of speach to a degree, but when a cop tells you you're under arrest for disorderly conduct, the freedom of speach does not entitle you to run away. My assumption is the profanity is not an arrestable offense (just ticketable), but I know for a fact that resisting arrest and failure to comply are. She is an adult and as well she should act like one. Going in to an office screaming has never ever accomplished anything. If you actually want to make an educated decision instead of just screaming over one article, I encourage EVERYONE to read multiple news reports and make your own decision. Obviously reading other news reports on this, there's things missing in this article or just straight up out of place. According to many other articles, she was told she was under arrest before she left the office. At that point, she has not right to leave on her own. And to the people who claim that she has a good law suit, she has no law suit. She made the choice to disobey a direct order from a law enforcement officer, that pretty much voids any law suit you can file. What is a police officer good for if he tells someone to stop and that they're under arrest but does nothing? It shows people that police officers have idle threats. That's how children end up getting shot. Absolutely something you should NEVER allow a child to think. If he had let her go after he told her she was under arrest and she actally did go out to her car and grab a gun then she would have been a lot more than tazed. The police officer has no idea what her plans are nor does this article state what she was saying while she was leaving. Parents need to take responsibility for their actions and their childrens. This is getting long so i'm going to stop here.

I think the officer informed the woman she was under arrest and then she left. Either way, if it was bad enough for the cop to arrest her, the woman probably needed a nice tasering.

Maybe they should taser the kids a few times to set them straight.

Its common in all the schools, even the private schools here in St Louis. Parents with anger issues, parents with God complex issues, parents who couldnt care less.

Don in MO - Hmmm, causation for St Louis being the murder capital of the U.S.?

Attention parents: Discipline your f*cking kid so I don't have to sleep with a gun under my bed!

Perhaps the parent had the right to be upset, but the administration involved had the same attitude of "teachers are always right". You mess with someone's child and they tend to get upset. You take it to an administrator and they automatically defend the teacher (brushing it off), then a parent gets VERY upset. It happens often. Yes, most people are respectful of teachers and school administrators, but how many times do we hear of them doing inappropriate things. They are not all perfect and some are questionable at best. There are always two sides to every story. A student and parent deserve to have a voice equally as a teacher does. If the school administrators allowed this to escalate to the point it did, then maybe they need to further their communication skills.

realitystinks101...I can agree with both sides of this story as it's written (with what fact we know). As a Parent who's been called to my Son's school twice I can back up what you're saying and feel the same way. These Pricipals, Administrators and Resource Officers can be imperfect and their actions very questionable. I've had to check myself when dealing with them but check myself I did. I can also appreciate the positions they're in when dealing with middle school to high school aged kids. There's such a lack of respect for authority these days that I don't envy them and maybe dealing with that day in and day out made it difficult for this particular Resource Officer to handle the situation differently than he did. I wasn't there so I don't know but there ARE two sides to every story and you're right...just because someone's in a position of authority doesn't mean they're right or above reproach themselves.

He may have already placed her under arrest while she was still inside the school. It doesn't really specify.

She was asked to calm down and she left, shouldn't that have been a "situation taken care of" and leave it at that? Sounds to me like the cop got a bit of "she didn't listen to me, so I will show her" attitude.

Read the article for facts, not euphemisms. She was placed under arrest before she was tased.

She was placed under arrest before she was tased.

She was leaving and it doesnt say whether she was calming down or whether she was still throwing a hissy fit.

I think its unfortunate she got tased, maybe an over reaction on the officers part , however she should have gone in and shown some respect. No one's really hurt..just a pride wound, move on.

The news report on WTVA.com does say that the security guard (police officer) asked her to calm down twice in the office and then told her she was under arrest and that's when she STORMED out of the office. What part of STORMED implies that she might have been calming down?

Based on MSNBC, I'd bet on poor reporting rather than poor actions of the cop. Cops don't like unnecessary paper work, which I'm sure this would have required plenty of.

I don't know. He may have been ok with the paperwork as long as he got to discharge his weapon. Small town cops don't have a lot of real work to do, so they have to get their thrill somewhere... even if it means firing it into a woman who is walking away.

I agree with you Matt-381715. My guess, and it's just a guess is that she broke something or pushed/punched someone/ something on the way out and that part was left out of the story. If so, she got what she deserved!

So... when she chose to leave, the police officer followed her and put her under arrest?

Isn't that a little backwards?

Yes, you have it backwards. She didn't try to take off until he was already attempting to arrest her. I agree that it is wrong to chase her in the same sense that it is wrong to chase me if I commit and hit and run, because, you know, I left. It's not like I'm still at the scene running them over with my car. Actions have consequences.

If some woman couldn't control herself INSIDE A MIDDLE SCHOOL and went belligerent at my child's school, I'd want her carted off, too. The tasing was just a bonus.

Suds - are those what's in your head? No where in the article does it specify the gender of the child that was being disciplined - once as a pupil and once as her child. The only mention of girls are the ones that were kidnapped from the area.

read the article. she was under arrest before being tased.

no Bman, she was not... the article says no such thing... we can't assume that...

"When the school resource officer — a Guntown police officer who is certified to use a Taser — asked her to calm down, she stormed out of the office, followed by the officer, who told her he was placing her under arrest, Weeks said."

@Chelle - you copied and pasted it into your response- as she stormed out he told her he was placing her under arrest. I'm sure she kept right on mouthing off as she went out the door and that's when he told her.

The purpose of tasers is to avoid KILLING SOMEONE when there is a threat of violence. Was this woman a threat as she walked out of the building? Failure to comply is not something people should be tasered over.

Apparently, this cop must have been way short of his arrest/ticket quota for the month, or else he would have recognized that just his telling her to calm down was enough to diffuse the situation. She was leaving the building!! Yes, words were said that may have been inappropriate in a school, and since it was obviously daytime, there was no noise ordinance broken. So, unless this town's law enforcement considers being a public nuisance a crime punishable by being tasered TWICE, he had no reason to arrest her. Cops have been trained to react with guns a'blazin', regardless of who the perceived perp is and the perceived danger to the cop or others in the area. As far as I can see, words flying around are not harmful to anyone.

No, this smacks of yet another instance of a rogue cop wanting to use his new weapon, and/or a cop who was going to be put on desk duty unless he arrests enough people or writes enough tickets to meet his department's quota.

Bman42 wrote:

read the article. she was under arrest before being tased.

I read the article just fine. With her back to the officer she was NOT a personal threat to him. He had no reason or justification for tasering her at all whatsoever. A Taser is supposed to be a non-lethal defense weapon - the officer was in NO WAY defending himself. He was absolutely out of line.

So, why don't YOU read the article and my comment and pay attention to it this time before you bring out your condescending comments about my ability to read.

The cop's parents apparently did do a poor job of raising him. Otherwise he wouldn't be a thug bullying women for a living. The cowardly bully even used a taser on an unarmed civilian with her back turned to him. That's despicable.

That's hilarious. I wonder what was going on in Pitt and Swain Counties back then. LOL

Klan rallies.

Does a school resource officer have arrest powers or was the officer reverting to his role as a town cop. Sounds like he was teed off and didn't want the woman to ignore him and walk away. Tasering is becoming all too frequent for reasons that have, at best, an indirect connection to public safety. One of these days, a taser happy cop is gonna kill someone and then the public will begin to question these practices.

School resource officers here are city cops that are on duty. That is their shift to be at the school all day.

st72 - That's already happened in a number of incidents. The tasers are supposed to be non-lethal, but people HAVE, in fact, died as a result of being tasered. Especially when some of these trigger-happy cops taser people multitudes of times.

@markwhatever You could not possibly be more wrong. The exact opposite of what you said is true.

"Profanity" is a form of protected free speech. The government is allowed to censor it over the airwaves by using the flimsy legal justification that it "owns" these airwaves and can therefore dictate their content. However, this was not a broadcast.

The First Amendment doesn't include a list of "evil words" that are exempt from its protections. For one thing, who gets define what consitutes "profanity" in the first place? If she was making threats or doing something else that causes practical harm, it would be a different matter. But simply using words that the government finds offensive? No, that's free speech.

That law is blatantly unconstitutional and I imagine even the Republican-dominated Supreme Court would strike it down if it was brought before them.

What if Congress decided to pass a law saying that any public criticism of elected officials constitutes a form of profanity? Would you still be saying that it's not free speech?

The very definition of profanity is speech that some people deem offensive. If "offensive" speech isn't covered by free speech, then why even have free speech in the first place? Think about it: Would the government try to ban speech that it doesn't find offensive? No.

Public profanity is not a crime. It is a form of protected free speech. That law is blatantly unconstitutional and would never survive a challenge in federal court.

I agree with Kris on this one .

Kris,

You have confused what should be (in yours and others opinions) with what is.

The law may be declared unconstitutional if challenged; but as of today, in the jurisdiction in the article, it is the law on the books. Declaring a law to not be a law does not change the fact that it is currently the law.

You remind me of some of my former union brothers who would complain that "management can't do that." When they not only can but have already done "that" and the only recourse now is to punish the offense. What my former union brother should have said is "management shouldn't do that."

If public profanity was a crime it then falls back to who decides what's profane? What's offensive to one person might not be offensive to another. I for one know that the 7 dirty words don't offend me in the least bit.

@Quack It doesn't matter. If the law is unconstitutional and overturned, this will typically happen retroactively when it's this brazen, essentially meaning that, as far as the courts are concerned, it was never "the law" to begin with. Granted, I'm anticipating such an outcome based on existing case law and court precedent, but a case as "out there" as this is generally easy to predict. If the case went before a federal court, it's virtually unimaginable that any judge would uphold it.

A legal theory does postulate that, in such a circumstance, a person is under no legal obligation to abide by such a law because the law itself is not valid. There are numerous cases of people charged with resisting arrest who ultimately had that charge dismissed-- not because the court found the person didn't resist arrest, but because the court found that there was no legal basis for an arrest and therefore the suspect was under no legal obligation to comply.

It's a risky mindset because you're essentially gambling that the courts will see it your way. If they don't, then you're screwed. That's why it's generally a good idea to comply with an arrest even if the arrest is not legally valid. However, a person technically does not have a legal obligation to comply with an unlawful arrest, which would include an arrest for violating a law that is unconstitutional.

So on a practical level, you do make a good point that people shouldn't take that chance. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, you are mistaken.

Kris,

My argument was much simpler than you made it out to be. If the law is on the books, it is the law until it is removed. The law is the law until it isn't. No more, no less.

Results of actions by law enforces and law breakers may vary.

Thanks for the well thought out and written arguments on your part. Rarely do you see anyone of your presentation caliber on the comment boards.

I do however take exception to your passive/aggressive shot at my screen name.

Try that defense in a courtroom. You can discuss why it didn't work with your new cell mate. Fighting for the right to be a loser.

@ Lauren... I think maybe we should know both sides of the story first. Maybe there was circumstances that led to her being just fed up and exploded... i'm sure you have never done that, right... ? Actually, if you read the article... she walked away and then was told she was under arrest... get the crap you spew from your mouth straight before you comment...

that's all...

@Chelle... why don't you not spew crap from your mouth on my comment. So actually I did read the article, thanks for "enlightening" me. That is all...

@Lauren There are a few problems with your argument:

1. Shouting and making a scene at your kid's middle school is never a good idea. I don't think anybody here is defending that. However, the government is expressly prohibited by the First Amendment from imposing laws dictating what words you can and cannot use in public. This law would never survive a challenge in federal court. And if that law was the sole grounds for the arrest, then there's a good chance the resisting arrest charge would be overturned as well.
2. Yes, she needs to act like an adult. Again, nobody is disputing that this lady acted like a total idiot.
3. Tasers are not supposed to be used in cases of passive resistance unless the officer reasonably believes that the person poses an immediate danger to him/herself or others. This is because tasers can, in fact, be lethal. There have been numerous cases where people have suffered fatal heart attacks caused by a taser. Would you support the officer taking out his gun and shooting her in the back of the head for walking away from him? I'm assuming you wouldn't. This is no different. A taser is intended as a less-lethal alternative to using a handgun. It is not meant to be used as a punishment device.
4. Most police veterans would tell you that this officer did not follow best practices in how he handled this situation. In fact, most departments train their officers not to act this way. If the suspect walks away, you simply come up from behind and tackle him/her to the ground. It may result in some bruises, but it's far less dangerous than using a taser.
5. The woman didn't have any weapons on her and, as far as we know at least, didn't make any threats. The officer thus had no reason to believe she was a threat to anyone. Instead, she insulted and disrespected him, so he decided to punish her by using the taser. That's unprofessional and the officer should be disciplined accordingly.

Wow, Kris keeps writting it so well, so instead re-writing what he/she wrote I will agree again.

The arrest warrant will probably state "verbal assault" which is a form of harrassment it isn't just that she cussed. So it isn't a 1st amendment issue.

@gtouch Umm do you even know what harrassment is?! For one thing, there's no such thing as a "verbal assault" in legal terms. It might be used in civil court on occasion, but it holds no water in criminal law. Second, harrassment is the repeated/prolonged communication with an individual against his/her consent, typically over a certain period of time. Losing your temper and yelling at someone is not in and of itself a form of harrassment.

So yes, this is a First Amendment issue.

@Arby Thanks!

(btw it's "he" lol ;p)

Verbal Assault:

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Sorry Kris but there is "verbal assault" if threats were made which is (probably) why the officer arrested her. I agree if no threat were made then no assault. Why are you so upset by my posting. 1st amendment doesn't mean you can anything to anyone that you want without interference.