Media Decides Tasered Grandmother Was Asking for It

Kathryn Winkfein, a 72-year-old great-grandmother, is better known as the woman who became the target of an officer's taser after she was pulled over for a traffic offense. The video footage below shows Winkfein arguing with the cop before he tasers her (twice,) while she screams and writhes on the ground.

Winkfein has returned to the news again, this time because she has been compensated $40,000 by local authorities, an outrageous sum, according to Travis County Constable, Richard McCain, who told the Today Show he was unhappy about the payment. "When the County wrote a check for $40,000 it rewarded this defendant for bad behavior, which is wrong" said McCain.

Fascist apologists like McCain aside, Winkfein has also hinted that she somehow deserved to be tasered. "I just lost my temper," Winkfein told the Today Show. "I do that maybe twice a year, but that day I lost it." She added that she had learned her lesson and would stay in the car if she was pulled over again.

This is all a little bit like when Harry Whittington apologized to Dick Cheney after Cheney shot Whittington in the face. The media is portraying Winkfein as an irrational hag, who somehow deserved to be shocked with 50,000 volts of electricity after getting mouthy with a police officer.

Winkfein's civil liberties were violated after she was pulled over for a traffic offense. There was nothing warranted or excusable about the officer's behavior, and yet the media and average Americans have become active apologists for this kind of fascist, violent behavior.

Citizens, who have never been tasered and who know nothing about the degree of damage taser guns inflict on human beings, frequently laugh at video footage of taser victims. We all remember Andrew Meyer, the "Don't taze me, bro" victim, who became a late night punch line after he was assaulted by police officers during an address by Senator John Kerry at the University of Florida.

Americans have become apologists for the inexcusable behavior of their oppressors rather than showing solidarity with a 72-year-old woman, who clearly had her rights violated. One Youtube commenter says Winkfein was "asking to be tasered." Another says Winkfein clearly has to take some "responsibility" for being tasered. Another adds, "That reporter is hoTT."

Okay, so maybe Youtube commenters aren't the cream of the crop, but the problem of people acting as apologists rather than outraged citizens extends to the media, the supposed "responsible players" in our society. A local Texas television channel, KVUE, ran the story with the headline, "Tasered Texas woman says next time 'say nothing'" as though Winkfein was the guilty party for having the nerve to resist police orders. The Philadelphia Inquirer repeated the same headline. Local Australian news channels ran the story with the Winkfein line as a lead as though to say, "The old hag finally apologized!"

Tasers are not safe. They kill people all the time, and yet we've become so desensitized to their presence, and so brainwashed into believing tasers are a "safe alternative" to guns, that people not only laugh at taser victims (because "no real harm" is being done) but also then claim that taser victims deserve their fates.

After all, citizens have no right to question the authority of police officers, and if they do, they should be put down immediately. All dissenters must be crushed. If a 72-year-old woman has a bad day, and has the nerve to yell at a cop, she should be assaulted by the side of the highway with a weapon that sends 50,000 volts of electricity coursing through her body, daring her heart to stop beating.

This brainwashing is so systemic that now taser victims like Winkfein are offering Whittington-style apologies to their attackers. Why should Winkfein be afraid to get out of her automobile if she's pulled over for a ticket? It's not as though a law was written anywhere that reads citizens don't have the right to verbally challenge the police.

Verbal altercations have existed since towns first handed out uniforms to a tier of average folk and invested that bedecked tribe with the right to oppress their neighbors. Naturally, the oppressed get mouthy sometimes. We never voted to then allow officers to kill the mouthy people. In fact, cops undergo extensive training to learn how to handle such altercations so no gun is ever fired. Unfortunately, tasers create the illusion of a second "safe" option, and some cops are getting trigger-happy.

Additionally, Americans have been conditioned by television programs like Cops and DEA to believe they are weak and defenseless, and should always unquestioningly obey police officers even if officers jam the prongs of deadly electrical weapons into their spines. If they resist, they should expect to be crushed, and anyone who resists is a troublemaker, or stupid.

The reality is that tasers are not safe, and yet the companies that make the electrical guns continue to claim the guns are a safe alternative to deadly force -- to be used only as a last resort. Yet many recent stories show that tasers have become authoritarian tools for the police that are used excessively, while an unthinking pack of blood hungry Americans cheers on the violence.

It never crosses the mob's mind that they should, perhaps, show solidarity with their oppressed neighbors, or imagine if it was their own grandmother being electrocuted by a cop, or contemplate that they one day may be on the receiving end of a 50,000 jolt of police-issued electricity.

I agree with what Digby wrote during the Henry Louis Gates scandal: the police aren't a street gang. Citizens should not fear interacting with them. After all, Americans pay the salaries of police officers, servants who exist to defend and serve, not electrocute and bully. Winkfein deserved compensation, but she did nothing to warrant being tasered by a power hungry police officer. Victims, stop the apologies.

Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny

Comments

[worldlyhick]

Thank you for writing this article Allison Kilkenny.

I was shocked when I heard some of the talkers on TV making fun of this situation at the expense of the elderly lady. Some of the comments on this thread seem to ignore that law enforcement officers have a responsibility to excercise some restraint and not use inappropriate force.

There was no need to use the taser on the lady. She couldn't have harmed him or anyone else once she was out of the car.

[LMPE]

Rush Limbaugh would have spun this into "Big government attacks patriotic citizen".

[anitaj]

This is a prime example of why one should not "mouth off" to a police officer in Texas. Constable Bieze was more intent on proving that he was in charge than in actually enforcing the law. In this case, Constable Bieze clearly over-reacted and abused his authority.

The constable had issued the ticket and decided to arrest Mrs. Winkfein for refusing to sign it. Under Texas law, she does not have to sign the ticket. This would have been a good point for the officer to just walk away.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this story is that the reporter in the piece indicates that Sgt. Maj. Griffin, apparently Officer Bieze's superior officer, believes that Officer Bieze followed procedure. It may be time to revise the Travis County Constables' manual.

If Constable Bieze feels so easily threatened by a 72-year old woman who is at least a foot shorter than himself, perhaps law enforcement is not the best career choice for him.

[Guitarsandmore]

Actually, tasers are very dangerous and could result in cardiac arrest. It might actually be safer to be beat up by the police than be tasered. Here is the story…..

The study, which authors say tested more Tasers than any previous independent review, examined 44 stun guns being used today by U.S. law-enforcement agencies. It found that four would not fire at all or fired improperly and that four others produced from 47 to 58 percent more power than the manufacturer specified……………

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/05/20081205taser1205.html

…………..The inquiry was spurred by the 2007 death of a Polish citizen at Vancouver International Airport who stopped breathing within moments of being shocked twice by police.

[royevatom]

I feel bad about this. We have been given and worked out for ourselves the ability to travel from one place to another with comfort and little time lost. The result is people, many, many of them drive like they have every right in the world to do as they please and the few laws that we do have apply to others.
On top of that they want no one to say one thing to them about it. If you do they are ready to rip your head off, which I am sure that this woman was willing to do at the time were she able.
The police are by no means perfect but do not forget they are faced with the worst humanity has to offer over and over again.
I am courteous to Officers of the law because I am smart. They have the taser and the gun and the club, I don't.

[CindyV]

If the officer didn't have the taser, what would he do with a 72 year-old woman who questioned his actions. Would he shoot her with his gun? Would he wrestle her to the ground? Would he call for a female back up? Too many times the cops are too fast to pull the taser. They pull it when they don't want to answer questions by the people they stopped. Once the woman agreed to sign the ticket, why didn't he have her sign the ticket and be on her way?

[kelleyajones]

GrandMa was all wrong but calling for backup would have been a better solution than a taser.

[winningticket]

Why does America support sadistic practices like taser guns. Wouldn't tranquilizer darts be more humane?

[Ben Dixon]

Would you be any happier if the cop has shot the woman, or what if he had accidently broken her arm while restraining her? Compared to that being tasered isn't so bad.

[RainbowPhoenix]

Or maybe he could have restrained her without hurting her. Officers do get that kind of training. Or at least they're supposed to. She's 72, how strong could she have been compared to him?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Would you be any happier if the cop has shot the woman, or what if he had accidently broken her arm "

The video clearly shows that she was laying face down on the ground when the officer shot her in the back with his taser.

There was not and would not have been an reason for him to either shoot her with his pistol or break one of her arms.

[Gidster]

Maybe the officer could have cowboy-ed up and taken the diatribe from an old woman like a man.

Or is it asking too much of our police to be able to handle frustrated and angry people without violence?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Maybe the officer could have cowboy-ed up "

The video shows that she was shot in the back with the taser while she was lying on the ground. True, she was somewhat argumentative at first. But he didn't use his laser until she was on the ground. And even then, her back was turned.

From all the movies that we saw as kids, this doesn't seem to be the cowboy way. Even the bad guys wouldn't do this.

His actions seem to indicate that he is an incompetent, officious coward. He is almost twice as big as her. And he couldn't handle the stress in a way other than shooting her in the back with a laser after she was already on the ground?

[pterack5]

take names. . .some of my family is in law enforcement, these guys (not all) are scared to death, they hide behind each other, they also have grandmothers and kids and such, it takes very little to persuade them to find another line of work. . .

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"it takes very little to persuade them to find another line of work."

If that is true in your community, that doesn't seem to be true in this particular one.

Although this elderly woman was initially noncompliant, the video shows that the officer shot her in the back with his taser after she complied with his order to get on the ground.

The local authorities that settled this woman's claim by paying $40,000 to her already know the officer's name. Their knowledge of his name and what he did is not persuading the officer to find another line of work. He has support for his fellow officers, including one that went on TV to say that.

The officer who used the taser, and used it to shoot this woman in the back after she was lying on the ground, remains convinced that he did nothing wrong. He is remorseless. He is a danger to the public. He is going to on the police force and irrationally use his taser again.

[Adartist777]

This woman didn't have to be tasered. The cop could have called in a back up female police officer to take care of the situation or he could have wrestled her to the ground if necessary. I mean, we're talking about a 72 year old woman here folks. Before tasers, police would wrestle the perp to the ground. But sadistic police are enjoying this technology and look for any excuse to use it. Personally, I'd rather be shot.

But the point of Allison's article is this. Police have to much power and now we are seeing abuses of this power as steroid injected, shaved head officers intimidate the public, frequently abusing the Fourth Amendment. In this case, we saw an abuse of the First Amendment. This woman had a right to contest the stop without the endangerment of being tasered. After all, was she carrying a weapon? No. She was no threat to the officer other than shouting at him, which was her right of free speech.

Did this officer really feel threatened by a 72 year old woman? If he did, he shouldn't be a police officer.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Thank you speaking up. You've obviously had a good upbringing.

The irrational, irresponsible, in inhumane reaction of some to this incident is somewhat similar to the reaction that some had toward another victim, a 79-year old woman who was awarded $640,000 by a judge in 1994.

If you think back you will remember when the late-night TV comedians and others made fun of her case. She, however, she suffered third-degree burns on 6% of her body, had to be hospitalized for eight days, lost 20% of her body weight, and had to receive additional treatment for two years.

The woman was sold scalding-hot coffee by a drive-through franchisee whose franchisor required it to sell coffee with a temperature of at least 180°F. This policy of selling extremely hot coffee was adopted either (1) to benefit the buying public so that they could have hot coffee or (2) to benefit the company so that it could use a lower-quality coffee grinds. The policy was followed although the company had settled some claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000 and received more than 700 reports of people burned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

In the Winkfein case, there are those who are willing to mock her without knowing that an electrocution, even by a taser, is not necessarily just a passing event. A non-fatal electrocution can leave permanent scar tissue on the heart which can shorten a person's life.

[cybexg]

You forgot that the SAME company, the SAME specific restaurant was fined SEVERAL times before the incident for violation of food safety laws (coffee was too hot). The reason it was so hot (discovered in discovery) was that having it so hot enabled a lower quality of coffee to be used (can't taste something that hot).

[AnotherMcIntosh]

No, I didn't forget. I simply ran out of space.

You rightfully mentioned that the resturant's use of excessive heat for the coffee allowed the resturant to sell lower quality coffee without it being detected or tasted. There was also information that the coffee grounds weren't merely of a lower quality, but that the resturant chain used reprocessed coffee grounds that were initially used elsewhere in other resturants to make fresh coffee. Normally, coffee grounds are used once and then thrown away. Some genius, probably a high-level MBA, decided that more profit could be made by cutting few corners.

I did not know that this same specific resturant was fined several times before for violating the food safety laws and selling scalding-hot coffee. Allowing companys to pay fines instead of having some of their executives have a little jail time is outrageous. When it comes to food safety, the authorities should only allow one incident to be resolved by a fine and then they should start jailing people.

There are still Republicans who mock this woman's injuries while demanding so-called "tort reform". They couldn't do this if the MSM would do its job and report the facts.

[TAFL]

Your little heart can bleed all it can and it doesn't change the fact that woman was out of line. Would you rather the officer would have pulled a nightstick and beaten her into compliance? Or perhaps he should have wrestled her to the ground and slapped the cuffs on her?

Or perhaps you'd simply like the cops to let the bad guys go if the bad guys really don't want to cooperate? Is that it? Let her speed to her heart's content until she causes an accident and kills somebody, then you can bleed for her all over again as she faces vehicular homicide charges or something similar?

[Adartist777]

Yes, the cop that arrested her was a real man. Taser that elderly woman!

[Chad53916]

Real man? pu-lease! I guess I'm with the the group who thinks she asked for it. Actually, if you listen to the tape, she asks for it several times. Wrestling her to the ground and kneeling on her to subdue her would have probably broken bones. This seemed to get her under control rather effectively.

[Querent]

The cop was issuing a traffic ticket. The woman was not even being charged with a felony. The traffic ticket would have taken effect whether or not the woman signed it or accepted it. If she refused to appear in court over it or to pay it, a bench warrant would have been issued to have her arrested. Nothing was accomplished by tasering her. In what way do you think that being tasered is "complying"? Someone who was speeding, furthermore, is not necessarily a "bad guy". Grow up.

[voice-none]

We don't get to judge ourselves based on the severity of our crimes. The law is the law. Traffic violators usually have to kill before their crime is looked down on. She was going 15 over the limit in a construction zone. If one of your family members was killed by this idiot woman, your story would be different. Cops have to enforce traffic laws just like they have to work to deter murder and other violent crime. None of us get to pick and choose. It sounds like all of you that are fine with free speach leaning into the territory of just plain childishness need to grow up.

[dakotawoman]

Out of line be damned! Using force on a little old lady because she wants to walk around?

I saw the video and yes, the cop at first was keeping the woman from stepping out into dangerous traffic . Ok, good.

HOWEVER, why did he think gentle physical restraint would be less appropriate than volts of electricity? Could she have hurt him too bad if he'd hugged her close and physically moved her to the other side of the car? But to get angry and taser her to "save" her, shows he was more worried about getting hurt himself than about doing what was best for her.

The taser issue's important. So is the issue of our being conditioned to abjectly and meekly obey a law officer's every command. Sometimes it's the cop who's out of line, overstepping authority. Advising we civilians to "shut up and don't move" to be safe just abets and enables abuse.

Yeah, its a difficult call. In emergencies like hostage taking or gunplay, civilians should obey the directions of cops for their own and other's safety. But, although crime dramas make us feel that hostage taking and terrorist murderings are daily occurences everywhere, most of us Americans, cops and cititzens alike, have never been nor will ever be in such a perilous situation.

It's up to the cop to de-escalate; they are trained for it and paid for it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Would you rather the officer would have pulled a nightstick and beaten her into compliance?"

Since the video clearly shows that she had already complied and was lying face down on the ground when the officer shot her in the back with his taser, it was not and would not have been necessary for the officer to have otherwise pulled his nightsitck and "beaten her into compliance."

[Gidster]

So TAFL, when your grandmother gets angry, should we just nightstick her to the ground? Since she stepped out of line and all......

She was shouting. Not threatening, not violent, just an angry frustrated old woman, and the officer was not man enough to let her hurt his pride, so he tasered her......

If she was speeding, ticket her. If she was driving recklessly, call for back up and arrest her.

There are procedures in place. I am a 240lb ex military man, I have had very angry words with a town Marshall that clocked me at 47 in a 45.....I called him ridiculous names, I questioned his parentage, all while he calmly wrote me a ticket.
Yet I was not clubbed, tazed or arrested........Yet I am probably far more threatening than a 72 year old woman. I guess the Marshall was just a better officer......

[JohnFromCensornati]

You write as if no one shows solidarity with the victims of oppressive police behavior and that's just not true. It's just that right-wing apologists are loud mouths and they use the very willing media to their advantage. Just as in the Henry Louis Gates, Jr arrest, they turn police misconduct into victim misconduct. Police in this country are out of control. They do believe that we have to shut up in their presence. They're wrong about that.

[jhamm1]

This was clearly more than a simple case of verbal "contempt of cop", so to speak, but one being physically non-compliant with the officer's instructions and thus resorting to behavior on repeated occasions that technical qualifies as "resisting arrest".

Let's face it. If you refuse to sign a ticket, you're liable to get arrested. And if you resist arrest, you'll probably get tazed as well, regardless of whether you're a 72 year old great grandmother who considers being held accountable for your actions "unchivalrous behavior" or not.

[JohnFromCensornati]

No, let's face this. You're talking about accepting an unacceptable situation.

There is no justification for this guy to taser that woman. One does NOT have to sign a citation and one does NOT have to keep one's mouth shut. The $40K settlement proves that very clearly.

[dwatkins9]

We do have to shut up in their presence. If you think you've been done wrong, keep your cool, get your lawyer, and tell it to the judge. Don't mouth off to a cop. Anyone who can't or won't do that - who thinks they're somehow above it or too good for it - is hard to sympathize with. Just look at all those morons on _Cops_.

[Gidster]

You do not "Have" to shut up in their presence, it is just a good idea, or you might get tuned up for "Resisting".....

Just because the police are involved does not mean your civil right are on hold, or void.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Anyone who can't or won't do that - who thinks they're somehow above it or too good for it - is hard to sympathize with"

Anyone?

If that is truly your view, then you should have no sympathy for a person who, as shown by the video and the municipality's payment of $40,000, thinks that he is somehow above the law or too good for it.

The law should be followed by police officers. The payment of the $40,000 was made, after he shot her in the back while she was lying on the ground, shows that this particular officer was not doing that.