I wonder how long until this kind of police brutality is no longer shocking.

Refusing to sign a document is not violence, resistance, or threat. It is a legal matter that can be reviewed by a court at a later time. It places nobody in any danger and is not in itself an act (but an omission). Clearly, this is a case where the officers were simply offended that their authority was challenged, and challenging the authority of civil authorities is not a violent crime unless it involves some form of threat, aggressive behavior, or danger. One would think the electric torture would be reserved for situations where there is some impending clear and present danger or threat. That is what we were told to justify it. This was about the cops' pride and arrogance alone.

It also sets a precedent which really bothers me in general for other reasons. Again, not because of pregnancy, although that makes the police behavior beyond evil. What it tells us is that it is acceptable for authorities to use physical threat of torture to make people sign things. Since most of us are not lawyers, we frequently don't know the consequences of signing documents. We have to wait until we can get legal advice. My friends who have inherited money are told by their lawyers and financial advisers to sign absolutely nothing for anybody. Our right to opt not to sign a document is very basic human right to control what we agree to or consent to. It seems this precedent could allow the kinds of documents which people can be forced to sign under threat of electric torture to expand, until it becomes a commonplace method of obtaining consent, obligation, confession, and anything else. Then there is the prospect of the power moving into the hands of private corporations, which it will very quickly in our current political environment.  

Perhaps the three officers physically removing plaintiff from the vehicle would have been a better choice here.  But maybe not, given her physical resistance and the fact she was pregnant.

'driving while black' and [driving while obese]

1. You don't need a taser to arrest someone; using one against someone who isn't actively, violently resisting is simply insane, counterproductive and really should be illegal.

2. "Refusing to sign a speeding ticket was at the time a nonarrestable misdemeanor." Oops.

She argued that under Washington law, the officers had no authority to take Brooks into custody: Failure to sign a traffic infraction is not an arrestable offense, and it's not illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.

She accused Officer Jonesof lying to her about the import of signing, suggested he was being racist, and became upset, repeating "I'm not signing, I'm not signing" over and over. Throughout, she remained in the car with the ignition running Brooks refused to leave her car, remaining in it with the ignition running and her door shut. Officer Jones then showed Brooks his Taser, explaining that it would hurt "extremely
bad" if applied. Brooks told them she was pregnant and that she needed to use the restroom.

 The officers discussed where to tase her, deciding on her thigh. Officer Jones demonstrated
the Taser for her. Brooks still remained in the car, so Officer Ornelas opened the door and reached over to take the key out  of the ignition, dropping the keys on the floorboard.

Officer Ornelas then employed a pain compliance technique, bringing Brooks's left arm up behind her back, whereon Brooks stiffened her body and clutched the steering wheel in order to frustrate her removal from the car. Officer Jones discharged the Taser against Brooks's thigh, through her sweat pants, which caused Brooks "tremendous pain." She began to yell and honk the car's horn. Within the next minute, Officer Jones tased her two more times, against her shoulder and neck.

Or is that "just not what happened"? (because those guys I saw on Law and Order last week would never lie about anything..)