Cops Throw Handcuffed 8mos Pregnant Black Woman, Charlena Cooks, To The Ground *video*

[Momzilla]

Shocking body cam footage shows moment cops throw handcuffed eight-months pregnant black woman to the ground


video link

• Charlena Cooks of Barstow, California was eight months pregnant when she and an employee at her daughter's school got in a 'petty' argument
• The employee called police after the two women fought in the school parking lot, who said no charges could be filed
• They then asked Cooks to give them her name, something they did not ask the employee, and grew agitated as she refused
• Two officers then pulled her arms around her back and shoved her to the ground to cuff her
• She can be heard screaming on the body cam the entire time that she is pregnant
• Charges against her were ultimately dropped, but the Barstow Police Department stands behind their actions

[...]
Charlena Cooks of Barstow, California was dropping her second grade daughter off at school in January when a traffic incident led to an argument between her and a school employee ...


Cooks told the officers that the entire incident had been blown out of proportion, and that the altercation was 'petty.'

Unlike with the employee, a white woman, the officer cuts off Cooks as she is telling her side of the story and demands identification, something he did not do with the other woman.

He also says that Cooks has two minutes to give him her name.

At this point, Cooks says she wants to see if she has to give the officer her name, and goes to call her boyfriend and ask.

Less than 30 seconds pass before the officer, and another cop, grabs Cooks arms and start putting them behind her back.


The woman, still in the school parking lot, begins loudly screaming that she is pregnant and to let her go.

That is when she is thrown to the ground and cuffed by the men, who then demand she stand up and stop resisting arrest.

It is not illegal in California to withhold identification if an individual has not been charged with a crime.
[...]

'I never saw that coming. I told him I was pregnant so he could proceed with caution. That didn't happen and the first thing I thought was I didn't want to fall to the ground. I felt the pressure on my stomach from falling and I was calling for help. But those guys are supposed to help me. But who is supposed to help me when they are attacking me?'

Cooks was then charged with resisting or obstructing a peace officer or other public safety official, a charge that was eventually dismissed.


Meanwhile, after the ACLU released video of the arrest, the Barstow Police Department defended their officers' actions.

'The Barstow Police Department continues to be proactive in training its officers to assess and handle interactions with emotionally charged individuals while conducting an investigation, for the protection of everyone involved,' they said in a statement.

Cooks, who was eight months pregnant, went on to have her baby in March.

The baby was born healthy but it still being monitored by doctors.
[...]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...espite-committing-no-crime.html#ixzz3bSEAm7vt

It's crazy to me that the police went to such an extreme with a pregnant woman- who hadn't even committed a crime! Just disgusting!!!

 

[Keepalowprofile]

It is not illegal in California to withhold identification if an individual has not been charged with a crime.

Sue them. No other way to get satisfaction.

the Barstow Police Department defended their officers' actions.

Of course they do.
fuckers.

 

[Angel On A Razor]

Meh, she should have just given her name. No big deal. She is the one that made it a big deal. Plus, she was resisting. They shouldn't have threw her down but she escalated it all with all the screaming..

 

[Macabre]

That woman will own that police department after she gets done.

This is a direct violation of the law. There should be punitive measures towards the officers involved.

You do not have to give a police officer your name if you are not being charged with a crime. The officer clearly states that no crime has been committed at the beginning of the video.

 

[Macabre]

Meh, she should have just given her name. No big deal. She is the one that made it a big deal. Plus, she was resisting. They shouldn't have threw her down but she escalated it all with all the screaming..

Resisting arrest for what?!
Why was she being arrested?
For nothing. She had committed no crime.
That is false arrest and imprisonment. That woman was assaulted and thrown to the ground by the very people that are supposed to enforce the laws that she is protected by.

 

[Angel On A Razor]

Ha, please don't go all crazy on me for my opinion. Why can you have yours and i can't have mine? Once cops are called that's it. One thing i have learned in life...NEVER give them any reason to get irritated with you. Fighting in public is a crime. Someone called police on them for a reason so it must have been more than just petty. Don't freak out on me ...all she had to do is give her name and it all could have been avoided is all i'm saying. Why was it a problem to give your name?
YES< they went a bit far but just comply and do what they say and you're all good.

 

[Macabre]

Ha, please don't go all crazy on me for my opinion. Why can you have yours and i can't have mine? Once cops are called that's it. One thing i have learned in life...NEVER give them any reason to get irritated with you. Fighting in public is a crime. Someone called police on them for a reason so it must have been more than just petty. Don't freak out on me ...all she had to do is give her name and it all could have been avoided is all i'm saying. Why was it a problem to give your name?
YES< they went a bit far but just comply and do what they say and you're all good.

Angel, you don't know what freak out means when it comes to me.
Do you understand your rights?
I would've said the same thing no matter what your skewed opinion was.
This wasn't a fight. This was a verbal altercation in which the crying blonde called the police for the pregnant woman screaming at her. They were both screaming at each other. From a logical standpoint, the blonde should have received the same treatment.

Now let me ask you this Ms.Meh. If you were out in town and someone ,some jack ass, parked too closely to you or shorted you twenty bucks at a cash register and there was a verbal altercation involving screaming and they called the police....do the police get the right to handcuff you and throw you to the ground for not giving your name?

The law exists for a reason. Whether or not saying her name would of changed the situation does not change the fact that she has the right BY LAW to not say it.

 

[Pete Bondurant]

That woman will own that police department after she gets done.

And she will be broke within a year (just like Rodney King).

 

[Macabre]

And she will be broke within a year (just like Rodney King).

Mr.Bondurant, when you crap on my posts it reassures me I'm doing something right.
I adore you and your fascist J.Law loving otterific self.

 

[Kittyskyfish]

Oh shoot. I'll get a lot of crap for this.

At the beginning of the video, the officer states that he witnessed no crime but he did acknowledge the damage to her vehicle allegedly made by Michelle. The officer can, at his discretion, initiate an investigation because the first woman in the video made a complaint to the officer about Michelle damaging her car. Michelle thinks she doesn't have to give the officer her name, but she does have to comply to his questions because the investigation started.

[Taking a step aside here: An officer never charges a person with a crime. That is the role of the prosecutor. An officer can only arrest a citizen for breaking the law. Now, back to the story...]

The officer gave her time to comply, but she continued to resist the officer's request for her name. At this point, he had grounds to arrest her, not because of the alleged damage to the 1st woman's vehicle, but because she violated California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1).

...willfully obstructing, resisting, or delaying an officer who is lawfully performing or attempting to perform his or her duties when the defendant knew or should have known that the person he was resisting was an officer attempting to perform his duties.

Also, she gave the officers further reason to arrest her because she physically resisted being handcuffed.

The prosecutor will probably not charge her for resisting arrest because there isn't enough evidence to prove she threw anything at that 1st woman's car, it's one person's word against another, unless there's something showing her doing it on the school's security cameras.

 

[Momzilla]

Michelle thinks she doesn't have to give the officer her name, but she does have to comply to his questions because the investigation started.

But the article did state this:

It is not illegal in California to withhold identification if an individual has not been charged with a crime.

I get that she was being a pain in the butt & got all screamy when the officer goes to cuff her BUT- she's already cuffed when they tackle her to the ground- then you have to consider this was a woman who was extremely pregnant- it was overkill!

ETA: Just to clarify because I wasn't sure either @Kittyskyfish I found another article that clarifies the law in CA concerning showing her ID:
"Even if an officer is conducting an investigation, in California, unlike some other states, he can't just require a person to provide ID for no reason," Adrienna Wong, a staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a press release
link

 

[Kittyskyfish]

@Momzilla , the article is worded incorrectly. First off, an officer cannot charge a person with a crime. All they can do is arrest a person. Charges are filed by the prosecutor.

An officer can ask for a person's name if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, a witness clearly pointed out Melissa as the person who threw an object at her car, denting it. This is a crime (small one but still a crime). Therefore, based on receiving witness testimony, the officer had the right to approach Melissa and ask her name.

Melissa could legally refuse to give her name if the officer saw her standing on the sidewalk and out of the blue, decided she was up to no good. There is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in this scenario because standing on a sidewalk is not a crime.

I'll put this "papers please" conundrum in a different context. Let's say you're in CA and your car is parked in the street. A guy walking by who has a grudge against Ford cars pops your tail light and you see him do it, but no one else did. He's still around - you see him standing at the bus stop, waiting. Before he gets on the bus, the police show up and you tell them what happened and point out who did it. They go up to him and ask him what happened, then ask his name. They have the right to ask his name because you witnessed him pop the tail light. Your observation gives them reasonable suspicion.

Take the above story but you didn't see who did it. He could refuse his name because the officer had no reason whatsoever to connect him to your busted tail light.

 

[Macabre]

@Momzilla , the article is worded incorrectly. First off, an officer cannot charge a person with a crime. All they can do is arrest a person. Charges are filed by the prosecutor.

An officer can ask for a person's name if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In this case, a witness clearly pointed out Melissa as the person who threw an object at her car, denting it. This is a crime (small one but still a crime). Therefore, based on receiving witness testimony, the officer had the right to approach Melissa and ask her name.

Melissa could legally refuse to give her name if the officer saw her standing on the sidewalk and out of the blue, decided she was up to no good. There is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in this scenario because standing on a sidewalk is not a crime.

I'll put this "papers please" conundrum in a different context. Let's say you're in CA and your car is parked in the street. A guy walking by who has a grudge against Ford cars pops your tail light and you see him do it, but no one else did. He's still around - you see him standing at the bus stop, waiting. Before he gets on the bus, the police show up and you tell them what happened and point out who did it. They go up to him and ask him what happened, then ask his name. They have the right to ask his name because you witnessed him pop the tail light. Your observation gives them reasonable suspicion.

Take the above story but you didn't see who did it. He could refuse his name because the officer had no reason whatsoever to connect him to your busted tail light.

In cases like that there are one of two things going on, a police officer does not have to Mirandize you if you are free to go at any given time during an interrogation/investigation. They often do that so that people will make statements that will incriminate themselves, then they can arrest and Mirandize them.

In this woman's case, the police were conducting a custodial interrogation by not allowing her to leave or not respond. According to the law, a person must be Mirandized in order to be detained in any way for formal questioning unless their actions pose imminent threat to public safety. They violated the law and her civil rights by failing to follow proper protocol.

California does not have a 'stop and identify' law. It was eradicated from that state in 1983. She had the right to not give her name. Even if she was being dramatic, she still has that right.
If they would have Mirandized her, she still had the right to not identify herself.
Now everyone repeat after me:
You have the right to remain silent.
That is literally the first part of the Miranda warning which is read after arrest.
Which means that woman could have not said one damn word, period, if she wanted to.

The police are in the wrong here.
Know your rights.


http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/miranda-the-meaning-custodial-interrogation.html

 

[Angel On A Razor]

Oh shoot. I'll get a lot of crap for this.

At the beginning of the video, the officer states that he witnessed no crime but he did acknowledge the damage to her vehicle allegedly made by Michelle. The officer can, at his discretion, initiate an investigation because the first woman in the video made a complaint to the officer about Michelle damaging her car. Michelle thinks she doesn't have to give the officer her name, but she does have to comply to his questions because the investigation started.

[Taking a step aside here: An officer never charges a person with a crime. That is the role of the prosecutor. An officer can only arrest a citizen for breaking the law. Now, back to the story...]

The officer gave her time to comply, but she continued to resist the officer's request for her name. At this point, he had grounds to arrest her, not because of the alleged damage to the 1st woman's vehicle, but because she violated California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1).



Also, she gave the officers further reason to arrest her because she physically resisted being handcuffed.

The prosecutor will probably not charge her for resisting arrest because there isn't enough evidence to prove she threw anything at that 1st woman's car, it's one person's word against another, unless there's something showing her doing it on the school's security cameras.

I wish i could give you 20 more likes for this post. Everything i wanted to point out but you did it so much better. Great post.

 

[Momzilla]

This same police dept. just paid a $30,000 settlement to 2 brothers in a very similar incident- The settlement also required Barstow PD to retrain it's officers on the 'stop & identify' law:

[...]The ACLU released the video before reporting a settlement agreement with the city of Barstow that awarded two Northern California brothers $30,000 stemming their 2014 arrest. The brothers were arrested on suspicion of resisting or obstructing a peace officer or other public safety official after not providing their identification to Barstow officers at a local restaurant.

The agreement forces the Barstow Police Department to retrain officers on stop-and-identify laws.

link
Those brothers were arrested on the same charge & for the same reason that this woman was- 'obstructing a peace officer' for refusing to provide their identification.

Considering the settlement & recent 'retraining' that the Barstow officers had just dealt with, I would think they would be extra careful when approaching such a similar situation? But they pretty much went the opposite direction!

PS: I'm the proud daughter of a police detective/lieutenant, so I don't often jump all over the cops in these stories. I watched this video & at first was thinking "Come on lady, just goddamn cooperate & let the cops do their jobs so you can all go on with your day. Why get rude & confrontational when they are just trying to speak with you to figure out this situation".

But as the video went on, I saw no attempt by these officers to calm down an escalating situation- instead, they completely escalate the situation, until we end up with a pregnant woman, belly-down on the pavement, being handcuffed for not showing her ID-- which is her legal right in CA!

IMO it should never have had to get to that point.

 

[lithiumgirl]

That is when she is thrown to the ground and cuffed by the men, who then demand she stand up and stop resisting arrest.

This story is fucked...I was in this situation when I was a kid, I wasn't pregnant, but it was me in a room with five cops...all of them screaming something different...put your hands on your head, get on the floor. I was so scared, I didn't know what to do and I didn't want to do the wrong thing so I started laughing at the ceiling and said something like " Ah for fuck sakes detectives...pick one of those and I'll do it. I ended up sitting on the couch, no handcuffs, no charges.

 

[Krystal]

I watched this video & at first was thinking "Come on lady, just goddamn cooperate & let the cops do their jobs so you can all go on with your day. Why get rude & confrontational when they are just trying to speak with you to figure out this situation".

This, absolutely this is what I was thinking.

It in NO way excuses the escalation of the events but that is exactly what I thought. I'm not blaming her for the cop's actions but rather saying that sometimes being "right" isn't what's important, sometimes being an adult and doing something you don't want to or even don't have to do is the easiest course of action.

Again, not blaming her, simply stating that she could have handled it different. And I am absolutely NOT saying that the cop was right because he should have de-escalated things just as much. It's not always about being right sometimes it's about 2 people acting like adults even when each think the other is wrong.

 

[JackBurton]

Shocked at the responses thus far. I've ranted and raved quite heavily about corrupt cops and abuses of power, but this one doesn't fit the bill at all. It just doesn't compare to the numerous other stories where cops are blatantly committing crimes, assaulting and even murdering those in their care.

"Even if an officer is conducting an investigation, in California, unlike some other states, he can't just require a person to provide ID for no reason,"

It wasn't for no reason though. She was a suspect in a vandalism crime and perhaps even an assault. This sounds like an iffy one to me. A cop in california is essentailly forced to start arresting people for potential crimes just so they can actually carry out an investigation in the first place. Backassward. Seems like a huge waste of resources and time to me. I despise giving the gov't too much power, but this is a fine line type of deal i think. Do we want to put cops in a position where they can't even do their jobs, can't even investigate a possible crime, or are we okay with giving some ID when we're involved in something like this? After this dumbasses lawsuit is thrown out, i'd imagine she'd deep down regret her position.

I mean this wasn't a case of some random, for no reason whatsoever traffic stop where a cop starts demanding ID and trying to search the car and whatnot. It's not a case of a cop approaching some random bloke on the street and hassling him simply cuz he's bored or doesn't like the look of him. Another person had witnessed an altercation, there was damage done to one persons vehicle, cops were trying to figure the shit out. They demanded ID, big fucking deal.

I will say that the officers decision to arrest the dipshit no doubt spoiled their efforts to actually resolve the situation and find out exactly what transpired. Cops seem mighty inept, even if there was no shocking abuse of power.

The verbiage annoys me a great deal as well. The footage in the clip doesn't illustrate anyone being "thrown" to the ground. Was force used, yes, but i didn't see anything that appeared remotely excessive or violent, even for a disgusting pregnant person. Do i find it pathetic that two oficers are unable to restrain a female without taking her to the ground and pinning her down, yes, big time, these fucks should be embarrassed and they both should hit the gym and be given more physical training. But there's a difference between placing someone on the gorund and "throwing" them, and this was more in line with the former, i don't see how this one is that big of a deal.

Also, this woman didn't look obviously pregnant to me. She could have just been a fat person, plenty of women have fat in some very unflattering areas, such as the abdomen. It's not unreasonable that an officer couldn't tell from the start or that an officer wouldn't believe the near incomprehensible shouts of this hysterical idiot(if he could decipher what she was saying at all). Seriously what fucking language was this dipshit speaking? I made out maybe 2 or 3 sentences, the rest was just loud, painfully annoying gutter gibberish.

Once cops are called that's it. One thing i have learned in life...NEVER give them any reason to get irritated with you. Fighting in public is a crime. Someone called police on them for a reason so it must have been more than just petty. Don't freak out on me ...all she had to do is give her name and it all could have been avoided is all i'm saying. Why was it a problem to give your name?

Plenty of idiots call the police over total nonsense and utter bullshit. And while i'm inclined to surprisingly side with the gov't in this case, this general standpoint that people should simply comply no matter what so as to not piss off those in power is sickening. While it's true that if you submit, the chance of a cop assaulting or killing you or in some manner violating your rights is lowered, it doesn't eradicate it completely. Citizens shouldn't be placed in a position where they have to submit, even to something seemingly insignificant like providing a name/ID, for no good reason or else face the severe, painful consequences.

It's clear this wasn't a case of some woman proudly attempting to stand up for her rights. This was a gutter idiot being defiant and belligerent because she was pissed off. The fact that she attempts to use her fetus to do this, to get preferential treatment and get away with her behavior says everything about the type of person she is. She doesn't give a shit about her baby, no matter how much she ranted at the time or how much she whines now. Fuck her. Her whining is an insult to the actual victims of police brutality and corrupt gov't action.

 

[JackBurton]

According to the law, a person must be Mirandized in order to be detained in any way for formal questioning unless their actions pose imminent threat to public safety. They violated the law and her civil rights by failing to follow proper protocol.
California does not have a 'stop and identify' law. It was eradicated from that state in 1983. She had the right to not give her name. Even if she was being dramatic, she still has that right.
If they would have Mirandized her, she still had the right to not identify herself.
Now everyone repeat after me:
You have the right to remain silent.
That is literally the first part of the Miranda warning which is read after arrest.
Which means that woman could have not said one damn word, period, if she wanted to.

So basically, the cops should have arrested her trash ass right from the start. I can agree with that. It's a shame other situations and other actually harmful abuses of power have created a system where such extreme measures have to be taken from the getgo in order to avoid potential wrongdoing.

Seems this story is rubbing people wrong for two reasons. #1, she shoulnd't have been cuffed/arrested in the first place, #2 she was "thrown" on the ground.

No matter what, that #2 was going to play out exactly how we see in the vid. Even if cops attempted to arrest her in a manner no bleeding heart pussy in the ACLU could disagree with, she would still have flipped her shit and fought with the cops and for the safety of all involved, been taken to the ground. If that's anyones big hangup, you best believe there is absolutely no possible way that could have been avoided.

 

[sheknows]

I cannot look at this vid my god she was preggers what the friggen hell man don't they know all pregos are bitchy at that stage damn I hope the baby doesn't have permanent damage due to this ugg

 

[reneelvsbrian]

she could of given them her name, she probably saw those cops coming and was looking for a payday, imo, im pregnant im not going to give them my name, seems there are a lot of these storys lately. but I could be wrong.

 

[Angel On A Razor]

Frankly, I think the REAL crime here is that it was at a SCHOOL in front of kids. This is very disturbing to me. As i said, what's the big deal of giving your name? She frightend the blonde and threw something at her car. I would have called them too.

 

[Momzilla]

After this dumbasses lawsuit is thrown out, i'd imagine she'd deep down regret her position.

She's not suing anyone.

Also, this woman didn't look obviously pregnant to me. She could have just been a fat person, plenty of women have fat in some very unflattering areas, such as the abdomen

Fair enough, but the article says that she TOLD the officers she was pregnant before they put their hands on her (to be completely honest, I couldn't decipher most of what she was yelling, so I didn't hear her say it myself- just going on what was reported)

Was force used, yes, but i didn't see anything that appeared remotely excessive or violent, even for a disgusting pregnant person

I believe you meant "glowing pregnant person"

As I stated above, this woman was being a pain in the ass & giving the officers a hard time BUT they still were excessive in their use of force against her. IMHO!

 

[disgusted4sho]

I could if sworn that I heard her say say her name was Michelle and "I already told you", did nobody else hear her give her name?

 

[McDanel]

Many posts are referring to damage/dent on Blondie's car.

Wrong. Right after she said something brown was thrown at her car the cop went to look, and clearly said there was no damage and no crime.

 

[JackBurton]

She's not suing anyone.

Yet.

but the article says that she TOLD the officers she was pregnant before they put their hands on her

They may not have understood her. Also, she very likely could have been lying. A cop shouldn't be expected to simply let any and all suspects do whatever the fuck they want or get special padded, silken gloves to touch them with just cuz they claim to be knocked up. There's a limit to the special treatment needed. It was a minor point i was making anyways, as the important truth is that she wasn't treated with anything remotely resembling excessive force. She wasn't "thrown" to the ground. Her being put there was likely a necessary move for these weak officers to ensure she not injure herself or them during her struggle. It was in her best interest, given her choice of behavior.

you meant "glowing pregnant person"

Sure, I suppose they glow the same way toxic, radioactive ooze does in a childs cartoon, as a warning/reminder that you do not want to touch or really interact with in any manner.