Video shows California police wrestle pregnant black woman to ground

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Reuters) - Police body camera footage published online by a rights group on Thursday showed two California officers wrestling to the ground a black woman who was eight months pregnant, and arresting her following a dispute with another woman.

A national outcry over police violence against minorities, particularly black people, has been sparked off by several high-profile police killings of unarmed black men in cities like Ferguson, Missouri and New York over the past year.

The video dates from January and was published on YouTube by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

The woman's arrest was wrongful, ACLU attorney Jessica Price told television news channel CNN.

"It's pretty horrifying," she added. "A lot of people are going to look at this and going to say there is some level of racial profiling and bias going on here."

The clip shows police officers in the city of Barstow speaking to a white woman who accused the pregnant woman, Charlena Michelle Cooks, of having attacked her car after the two got into an argument over driving.

"I don't see a crime that has been committed," says one of the officers, before walking to Cooks, who said she was dropping off her daughter at school at the time of the incident.

In the video, Cooks denies the accusation, saying she and her daughter were the ones who felt threatened by the woman. The video then shows the officer ask for her name and she refuses.

Soon after, the video shows the two male officers wrestle the woman to the ground, as she screams that she is pregnant and pleading with them to let her go.

"Please, I'm pregnant!" she screamed several times and repeatedly asked the officers not to touch her.

Police in Barstow could not immediately be reached for comment, but a police official, Lieutenant Mike Hunter, told CNN the department had launched an internal probe into the incident.

"This incident was in no way racially motivated, as implied by the ACLU," the city told CNN in a statement, defending the police action. The officer's charge of resisting arrest against Cooks was dropped, it added.

(Reporting by Curtis Skinner in San Francisco; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

Watch Video Cop Says no crime was committed, so why arrest the pregnant woman?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REjKtVOZ_R0&feature=player_embedded

Edited May 29, 2015 by Janelle2002

[VOL 425]

I think I saw this last week.

I am not sure if not giving your name is legal reason to arrest a person.

Does anyone if you have to give your name to a police officer if they ask in California?

I know it varies from state to state from my research.....

Edited May 29, 2015 by VOL

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I remember I think you have to have ID, so probably it's an offence to not give your correct name.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

"Stop and identify" statutes are statute laws in the United States that authorize police^[1] to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect has committed a crime. If the person is not reasonably suspected of committing a crime, they are not required to provide identification, even in states with stop and identify statutes.

She was not suspected because the officer clearly stated no crime was committed before he approached her.

Facts[edit]

Edward Lawson was a law-abiding black man of unusual deportment (he wore his hair in long dreadlocks). Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment in San Diego County, California, where he lived when as a pedestrian he walked in so-called "white neighborhoods." He was detained or arrested approximately 15 times by the San Diego Police within 18 months, was prosecuted twice, and was convicted once (the second charge was dismissed).

Lawson challenged California Penal Code §647(e),^[1] which required persons who loiter or wander on the streets to identify themselves and account for their presence when requested by a peace officer to do so. A California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal. App.3d 429, had construed the law to require “credible and reliable” identification that carries a “reasonable assurance” of its authenticity.^[2]

William Kolender was a losing appellant who was acting in his capacity as Chief of Police of San Diego, as was John Duffy who was acting in his capacity as Sheriff of San Diego County.

Conclusion[edit]

Using the construction of the California appellate court in Solomon, the Court held that the law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause to arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone.^[3] The Court hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.^{[Note 1] [Note 2]}

[Darnell 8,478]

Maybe the Barstow PD is antiquated, no training this year or last on how to legally detain folksen without touching them?

[VOL 425]

If I remember I think you have to have ID, so probably it's an offence to not give your correct name.

Well look like she opened herself to the take down then.

I pretty sure a most cops are going give you a hassle regardless of your skin color if you start trying to dis obey them.

I for one trust a cop as far as I can throw one, But I also know when the proper time and place is to follow his directions, and I also know to file charges or make complaints on them once I am away from them if I felt like they did something wrong, and when you are face to face is not the time to try to make a point to a cop...

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Maybe the Barstow PD is antiquated, no training this year or last on how to legally detain folksen without touching them?

Arresting a pregnant woman is getting a little ridiculous. I am sure there were more serious criminals they could have been arresting for that day.

Well look like she opened herself to the take down then.

I pretty sure a most cops are going give you a hassle regardless of your skin color if you start trying to dis obey them.

I for one trust a cop as far as I can throw one, But I also know when the proper time and place is to follow his directions, and I also know to file charges or make complaints on them once I am away from them if I felt like they did something wrong, and when you are face to face is not the time to try to make a point to a cop...

Nope, they were not within their legal realms. The charges were dropped. They had already came to a conclusion no crime had been committed.

[VOL 425]

Arresting a pregnant woman is getting a little ridiculous. I am sure there were more serious criminals they could have been arresting for that day.

Nope, they were not within their legal realms. The charges were dropped. They had already came to a conclusion no crime had been committed.

Good I didn't see any resisting arrest. Are any charge being brought upon the police officers?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Good I didn't see any resisting arrest. Are any charge being brought upon the police officers?

http://news.yahoo.com/video-shows-california-police-wrestle-pregnant-black-woman-045331631.html

Sorry, I forgot the link.

Per the article it doesn't appear they are being charged with anything. I'm not sure how I am leaning on this one. If they could be charged with stupidity they should. Since she wasn't injured and the baby is okay, I don't know if they should or shouldn't be charged.

[Boiler 43,396]

I assumed if there is a car accident you are required to exchange details.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

I assumed if there is a car accident you are required to exchange details.

Was this a car accident?

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

i could see both drivers being asked to provide id as they were both operating a vehicle.

if just the black female was asked, then something is rotten here.

[Boiler 43,396]

How were the police to know she was pregnant?

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

How were the police to know she was pregnant?

usually at 8 months it's kinda obvious.

[Boiler 43,396]

She is a big gal and looking at the photos I would not make that assumption.