Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
You she did nothing wrong guys and gals are missing the main point here.Police latitude in these situations is far reaching.A simple I thought I saw,I thought I smelled,I suspected she may have had a drink, give the officer not only the right but the authority to remove her from the vehicle.She can comply or not.Non compliance can get your stupid belligerent ass thrown in jail just because.Now we all know most won't hold up but it's a fact. If a cop wants to strip search your vehicle after a traffic stop he can do it wether you agree or not.The minute she broke the law with the very minor lane change infraction she was in the eyes of the law,breaking the law.The officer has most the cards here.Shutting your trap and complying is your best bet.
Why is it her responsibility to waive her constitutionally granted rights and not his responsibility to respect those rights? What is this, fucking North Korea?
This is what happens when you don't respect the profession.
Where I come from, you don't demand respect, you earn it.
Sure. And exactly what did this woman do to 'earn' respect? What had the cop 'initially' done to lose respect? I say 'initially' because from all I could see, the cop was very courteous and patient. He eventually lost 'some' control and began yelling while taking the situation to the next level. I say 'some' because the bulk of this calamity rests on her shoulders- she reaped what she had sown.
We can agree that the cop could have handled it differently, but he didn't. He's not abusive for handling it the way he did though. The only abusive one in that video was the woman who became belligerent and rude over a simple traffic violation.
Oh come on, did you even read the transcript? So rudeness is abuse now and physical assault isn't? He violated her bodily sovereignty and that doesn't seem to matter to you, RR, or Last, but it matters to some people. You don't put your hands on me without permission, period. That you are 3 so willing to give up your rights to anyone in a uniform is shocking. You abdicate all responsibility for a paid servant of justice because some woman dared to tell him how she really felt. Sad.
In my early 20's, I got pulled over a lot. Probably 15 times in three years. If I remember right, I was asked 5 or 6 times to step out of the vehicle. I didn't think anything of it. One time, at 4am, it was for a sobriety (I was on my way to work and not drinking). The others were to go into his car while he wrote the ticket or the warning.
During my time in the fire department, I have seen over 30 people get asked to step out of their car. One man refused. Turns out, he had about 9 pounds of weed in his trunk. I don't know why this woman would refuse other than simply to be a argumentative. It makes no sense to me.
You can't understand why a black woman doesn't want to get out of her car and put herself under the control of a male officer? Really?
No, I can't understand it. Are cops raping black woman on camera?
In my early 20's, I got pulled over a lot. Probably 15 times in three years. If I remember right, I was asked 5 or 6 times to step out of the vehicle. I didn't think anything of it. One time, at 4am, it was for a sobriety (I was on my way to work and not drinking). The others were to go into his car while he wrote the ticket or the warning.
During my time in the fire department, I have seen over 30 people get asked to step out of their car. One man refused. Turns out, he had about 9 pounds of weed in his trunk. I don't know why this woman would refuse other than simply to be a argumentative. It makes no sense to me.
You can't understand why a black woman doesn't want to get out of her car and put herself under the control of a male officer? Really?
No, I can't understand it. Are cops raping black woman on camera?
Hyperbole aside, yes sexual assault by police officers is a serious problem. But then you would never believe that about your brothers in blue would you?
I wonder why there are no responses to the latest posts in the Police Abuse thread? Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
I wonder why there are no responses to the latest posts in the Police Abuse thread? Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Firstly, this comment (quoted from the text): The allegations, which have not been independently verified...
I'm inclined to believe the guy to some degree, but no, RG, I'm not going to dive in on the out of control and widespread, rampant abuse that you endorse. The abuse is the exception.
Secondly, we are not discussing a cop shitting on someone's bed. Present that case and I'll chime in with my disgust. We are talking about a cop that dealt with a belligerent woman who became very challenging at a routine stop for no good reason.
I wonder why there are no responses to the latest posts in the Police Abuse thread? Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Firstly, this comment (quoted from the text): The allegations, which have not been independently verified...
I'm inclined to believe the guy to some degree, but no, RG, I'm not going to dive in on the out of control and widespread, rampant abuse that you endorse. The abuse is the exception.
Secondly, we are not discussing a cop shitting on someone's bed. Present that case and I'll chime in with my disgust. We are talking about a cop that dealt with a belligerent woman who became very challenging at a routine stop for no good reason.
Debating you can be rather irritating. You use hyperbole and sarcasm relentlessly, and you always frame a situation in a way that argues your point. Paraphrasing: She blew a cloud of smoke in his face. She tore a strip off him in lunatic fashion. She became very challenging for no good reason. These tactics are questionable and if you can't make a point without them it weakens the point.
*Edit I am not saying we don't all (myself included) use those tactics at times, but it seems to be a real habit for you. You post how you want to post though, that's groovy. It just annoys me sometimes lol
I wonder why there are no responses to the latest posts in the Police Abuse thread? Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Firstly, this comment (quoted from the text): The allegations, which have not been independently verified...
I'm inclined to believe the guy to some degree, but no, RG, I'm not going to dive in on the out of control and widespread, rampant abuse that you endorse. The abuse is the exception.
Secondly, we are not discussing a cop shitting on someone's bed. Present that case and I'll chime in with my disgust. We are talking about a cop that dealt with a belligerent woman who became very challenging at a routine stop for no good reason.
Debating you can be rather irritating. You use hyperbole and sarcasm relentlessly, and you always frame a situation in a way that argues your point. Paraphrasing: She blew a cloud of smoke in his face. She tore a strip off him in lunatic fashion. She became very challenging for no good reason. These tactics are questionable and if you can't make a point without them it weakens the point.
*Edit I am not saying we don't all (myself included) use those tactics at times, but it seems to be a real habit for you. You post how you want to post though, that's groovy. It just annoys me sometimes lol
Have a look at these examples of sarcasm blurted out beautifully:
Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Hyperbole aside, yes sexual assault by police officers is a serious problem. But then you would never believe that about your brothers in blue would you?
I didn't have to go very far to get them- just the last two posts you submitted before this one where you attack me of my style. You've got your groovy style too, RG.
And are you sure it's my style... or is it more what I say when it is in opposition to your way of thinking?
I think the Cop was WRONG(for instigating IMO> Put out your cigarette? Plus, why did he ask her how long have you been in Texas?). He should've just had her sign the warning and let her be on her way, and that would've been the end of it. I agreed with her: all of that for not signaling for a lane change? Really? I know i would've been pissed too. I guess the cops have nothing else better to do?
Just TRAGIC.
It is tragic for sure. Whether her life was taken by another or by her own hand, a person who was obviously loved is dead.
With this said, I'm pretty sure that using your signal to...wait for it...SIGNAL that you're changing lanes is the law. Not doing so has caused some pretty fucked up accidents. Don't wanna do it? Fine - fuck knows I've flouted my share of rules and regs - but then face the consequences. And be respectful when pulled over for it. How that is so difficult is beyond me.
And, asking someone to put out their cigarette at a stop isn't an over-the-top request...is it? Just to give full attention to what's going on, sign the shit and be on your way?
Yeah, i know that it's the law to use your SIGNAL when making a lane change.
I guess the cop just couldn't let her sign the warning, and let her be on her way, because it would've taken so LONG for her to sign it that he would've taken so much smoke into his lungs>LOL>He could've just taken a half step back for the few seconds, if it bothered him, for her to sign the warning , and then take it and go back to his car.
I wonder why there are no responses to the latest posts in the Police Abuse thread? Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Firstly, this comment (quoted from the text): The allegations, which have not been independently verified...
I'm inclined to believe the guy to some degree, but no, RG, I'm not going to dive in on the out of control and widespread, rampant abuse that you endorse. The abuse is the exception.
Secondly, we are not discussing a cop shitting on someone's bed. Present that case and I'll chime in with my disgust. We are talking about a cop that dealt with a belligerent woman who became very challenging at a routine stop for no good reason.
Debating you can be rather irritating. You use hyperbole and sarcasm relentlessly, and you always frame a situation in a way that argues your point. Paraphrasing: She blew a cloud of smoke in his face. She tore a strip off him in lunatic fashion. She became very challenging for no good reason. These tactics are questionable and if you can't make a point without them it weakens the point.
*Edit I am not saying we don't all (myself included) use those tactics at times, but it seems to be a real habit for you. You post how you want to post though, that's groovy. It just annoys me sometimes lol
Have a look at these examples of sarcasm blurted out beautifully:
Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Hyperbole aside, yes sexual assault by police officers is a serious problem. But then you would never believe that about your brothers in blue would you?
I didn't have to go very far to get them- just the last two posts you submitted before this one where you attack me of my style. You've got your groovy style too, RG.
And are you sure it's my style... or is it more what I say when it is in opposition to your way of thinking?
Hahaha those were all honest questions! The first two were leading a bit, but not sarcastic at all.
I wonder why there are no responses to the latest posts in the Police Abuse thread? Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Firstly, this comment (quoted from the text): The allegations, which have not been independently verified...
I'm inclined to believe the guy to some degree, but no, RG, I'm not going to dive in on the out of control and widespread, rampant abuse that you endorse. The abuse is the exception.
Secondly, we are not discussing a cop shitting on someone's bed. Present that case and I'll chime in with my disgust. We are talking about a cop that dealt with a belligerent woman who became very challenging at a routine stop for no good reason.
Debating you can be rather irritating. You use hyperbole and sarcasm relentlessly, and you always frame a situation in a way that argues your point. Paraphrasing: She blew a cloud of smoke in his face. She tore a strip off him in lunatic fashion. She became very challenging for no good reason. These tactics are questionable and if you can't make a point without them it weakens the point.
*Edit I am not saying we don't all (myself included) use those tactics at times, but it seems to be a real habit for you. You post how you want to post though, that's groovy. It just annoys me sometimes lol
Have a look at these examples of sarcasm blurted out beautifully:
Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Hyperbole aside, yes sexual assault by police officers is a serious problem. But then you would never believe that about your brothers in blue would you?
I didn't have to go very far to get them- just the last two posts you submitted before this one where you attack me of my style. You've got your groovy style too, RG.
And are you sure it's my style... or is it more what I say when it is in opposition to your way of thinking?
Hahaha those were all honest questions! The first two were leading a bit, but not sarcastic at all.
Yah right.
Possibly rhetorical. Dripping sarcasm if not.
Hey... it's okay. Seriously. I realize I paint my points colorfully, but it's who I am. Likewise... I get what you're saying when you do your thing. It's all cool.
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
No. His failings amounted to much more than a "lack of tolerance". His failing amounted to undue seizure, which is illegal, and which led to the woman being taken into custody, which culminated in her death in custody. We don't know what would have happened if she had never been taken into custody, but we do know what happened when she was taken into custody.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
No. His failings amounted to much more than a "lack of tolerance". His failing amounted to undue seizure, which is illegal, and which led to the woman being taken into custody, which culminated in her death in custody. We don't know what would have happened if she had never been taken into custody, but we do know what happened when she was taken into custody.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
Undue seizure? That might be your interpretation, but unless I missed something... that's not what officials have stated.
Can you provide a link to where this has been established?
I think the cop was definitely an instigator of aggression. He had no reason to be grilling that woman the way he was, asking her those questions, and making her get out of the car. He approached the whole thing poorly, and the woman had what I see as an understandable reaction, taking into account the tension between cops and black people in America right now. The cop really should know better. Should she have bitten her tongue? Yes. Should the cop have approached her like a normal cop would during a routine traffic stop? Yes. If anyone should shoulder responsibility for doing something wrong, it should be the COP. He's doing a paid service. He has some responsibilities to meet as a trained, paid employee of the city and a keeper of the peace. The woman is under no such responsibility.
But that actually has nothing to do with the real problem here. I'm much more concerned about her death in police custody.
That's unbelievable. Your first sentence anyway. Even though I don't think cops should have to babysit all prisoners all the time, people should be able to hang themselves in the cells.
But what if she didn't hang herself?? That is the entire point.
Ok. I doubt the arresting officer killed her.
No idea. You never know. Or someone other cop. Indon't think thst because I hate cops.or anything, or because I think cops killing prisoners is common. I'm just reserving it as a possibility because something seems fishy in this particular case. Crazier shit has happened. This isn't a prediction.... it probably does say something about my view of the whole cops/corruption/racism issue in the US, but really my mind is going towards the bizarre. The kinds of cases that end up being studied on an A&E crime documentary.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
No. His failings amounted to much more than a "lack of tolerance". His failing amounted to undue seizure, which is illegal, and which led to the woman being taken into custody, which culminated in her death in custody. We don't know what would have happened if she had never been taken into custody, but we do know what happened when she was taken into custody.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
Undue seizure? That might be your interpretation, but unless I missed something... that's not what officials have stated.
Can you provide a link to where this has been established?
Argued, not established; here it is. The relevant part is copied here, while the full article is linked.
But this is where Encinia’s actions veer from the lawful to the questionable—and then to the probably illegal. By leaning into Bland’s car and seemingly attempting to yank her out, Encinia initiated the use of force to “seize” her (in Fourth Amendment terms). Here, the case law is clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force during a seizure must be “objectively reasonable” and not “excessive.” To gauge reasonable force, courts weigh the severity of the alleged crime; whether the suspect poses an immediate safety risk; and whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.
The first two factors here weigh heavily against Encinia. As Bland repeatedly notes, her alleged crime (a failure to signal) is astonishingly minor. Moreover, Bland does not appear to pose any kind of real safety risk to Encinia or to others. Bland does verbally resist arrest, but at no point does she attempt to flee. In light of her behavior, Encinia’s actions seem objectively unreasonable. He violently grabs Bland, aims his stun gun at her, and threatens to “light [her] up,” then roughly pulls her out of her vehicle.
So there you have it, the Medical Examiner concluded she killed herself. End of story……the family will get a couple of Mill for negligence by lockup keepers for a procedure violation by leaving a plastic bag in her jail cell she used to off herself. Word to the wise, driving is not a right, its a privilege. This woman obviously had other issues than not knowing how to act like a civilized human being that any reasonable person would never have put themselves in.
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
No. His failings amounted to much more than a "lack of tolerance". His failing amounted to undue seizure, which is illegal, and which led to the woman being taken into custody, which culminated in her death in custody. We don't know what would have happened if she had never been taken into custody, but we do know what happened when she was taken into custody.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
Undue seizure? That might be your interpretation, but unless I missed something... that's not what officials have stated.
Can you provide a link to where this has been established?
Argued, not established; here it is. The relevant part is copied here, while the full article is linked.
But this is where Encinia’s actions veer from the lawful to the questionable—and then to the probably illegal. By leaning into Bland’s car and seemingly attempting to yank her out, Encinia initiated the use of force to “seize” her (in Fourth Amendment terms). Here, the case law is clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force during a seizure must be “objectively reasonable” and not “excessive.” To gauge reasonable force, courts weigh the severity of the alleged crime; whether the suspect poses an immediate safety risk; and whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.
The first two factors here weigh heavily against Encinia. As Bland repeatedly notes, her alleged crime (a failure to signal) is astonishingly minor. Moreover, Bland does not appear to pose any kind of real safety risk to Encinia or to others. Bland does verbally resist arrest, but at no point does she attempt to flee. In light of her behavior, Encinia’s actions seem objectively unreasonable. He violently grabs Bland, aims his stun gun at her, and threatens to “light [her] up,” then roughly pulls her out of her vehicle.
This section from the piece you submitted is interesting:
Did Encinia actually have the right to arrest Bland? Yes. The Supreme Court has found that officers may arrest people for committing the most minor of crimes, including commonplace traffic violations. And by verbally refusing to comply with Encinia’s detention, Bland resisted arrest under Texas law, thereby committing a misdemeanor. (Even if Encinia’s initial stop and detention were illegal, that wouldn’t matter: The Texas statute that bars resisting arrest declares that “it is no defense” that “the arrest or search was unlawful.”) Both of these offenses would justify Bland’s arrest. Finally, Encinia is right that he has given Bland a “lawful order”: Again, under Supreme Court precedent, he had the right to pull Bland over; to ask her to leave the car; and to formally arrest her.
So is this section:
Brian Encinia clearly had reasonable suspicion that Bland committed an offense: She changed lanes without a signal, in violation of Texas traffic law. Leaving aside the question of whether Encinia effectively forced Bland to change lanes (which she alleges in the video), the footage demonstrates that the trooper acted within the law when pulling her over.
After detaining Bland, Encinia asked her to put out her cigarette, and Bland refused. Some outlets are reporting that Encinia arrested Bland for this refusal. But there is another reasonable interpretation of the exchange: Encinia asked Bland to put out her cigarette; Bland refused, on the grounds that she was in her own car; so Encinia asked her to exit her car in order to remove her excuse for continuing to smoke.
This interpretation keeps Encinia on the right side of the law. The trooper had every right to ask Bland to step out of her car: The Supreme Court has held that during a routine traffic stop, officers may ask drivers to exit their cars for the sake of safety, the idea being that an officer can more easily monitor someone who's standing face to face than someone who's inside a car.
So in summary (according to this piece)... Encinia acted lawfully throughout the entire exchange prior to the physical portion of the conflict. If we were to accept this piece as credible, then these portions of the debate are finished.
What remains debatable is the force used to remove Bland from the car and handcuff her. He never threw her onto the pavement, he never struck her, and she arrived at the station unmarked. Not too shabby.
The only thing I think he could have done a better job of was controlling his emotions to the point where he was not yelling back at Bland; however, given her defiance and lack of respect... I can see how the guy lost it to some degree.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,935
I don't think negligence or even criminal involvement in this case has been ruled out. But regardless, the bottom line for me about all this is that no matter how Sandra Bland died, it's a tragic death. It seems pretty obvious that the cop lost his cool. Why? Because Bland was pissy toward him? So what? A responsible, professional cop keeps his (or her) cool. OK, so he's human and looses his cool. Fine. But you throw this woman in jail? I don't think so. That's where it all went downhill and now Sandra Bland is dead. And that's tragic.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't think negligence or even criminal involvement in this case has been ruled out. But regardless, the bottom line for me about all this is that no matter how Sandra Bland died, it's a tragic death. It seems pretty obvious that the cop lost his cool. Why? Because Bland was pissy toward him? So what? A responsible, professional cop keeps his (or her) cool. OK, so he's human and looses his cool. Fine. But you throw this woman in jail? I don't think so. That's where it all went downhill and now Sandra Bland is dead. And that's tragic.
I think we all agree here it's tragic.What the big debate is who is at fault.The more info that comes out the arrow keeps pointing to Blands actions both as cause of pull over and arrest,and again with her death. Dan is right. That family will sue and they have enough with the procedural fuck ups to warrant a nice pay out.But this was a sick and troubled young lady who was obviously unstable and it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.We don't need more cameras in the county lock up,we need better Mental Health screening on the intake of prisoners.
I think the cop was definitely an instigator of aggression. He had no reason to be grilling that woman the way he was, asking her those questions, and making her get out of the car. He approached the whole thing poorly, and the woman had what I see as an understandable reaction, taking into account the tension between cops and black people in America right now. The cop really should know better. Should she have bitten her tongue? Yes. Should the cop have approached her like a normal cop would during a routine traffic stop? Yes. If anyone should shoulder responsibility for doing something wrong, it should be the COP. He's doing a paid service. He has some responsibilities to meet as a trained, paid employee of the city and a keeper of the peace. The woman is under no such responsibility.
But that actually has nothing to do with the real problem here. I'm much more concerned about her death in police custody.
That's unbelievable. Your first sentence anyway. Even though I don't think cops should have to babysit all prisoners all the time, people should be able to hang themselves in the cells.
But what if she didn't hang herself?? That is the entire point.
Ok. I doubt the arresting officer killed her.
No idea. You never know. Or someone other cop. Indon't think thst because I hate cops.or anything, or because I think cops killing prisoners is common. I'm just reserving it as a possibility because something seems fishy in this particular case. Crazier shit has happened. This isn't a prediction.... it probably does say something about my view of the whole cops/corruption/racism issue in the US, but really my mind is going towards the bizarre. The kinds of cases that end up being studied on an A&E crime documentary.
Pj, I haven't seen where anyone said an investigation shouldn't happen. I think the main issue here is the woman and the cops behavior here. Conditions in county jails across this nation warrants a thread by itself, IMO.
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
No. His failings amounted to much more than a "lack of tolerance". His failing amounted to undue seizure, which is illegal, and which led to the woman being taken into custody, which culminated in her death in custody. We don't know what would have happened if she had never been taken into custody, but we do know what happened when she was taken into custody.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
Undue seizure? That might be your interpretation, but unless I missed something... that's not what officials have stated.
Can you provide a link to where this has been established?
Argued, not established; here it is. The relevant part is copied here, while the full article is linked.
But this is where Encinia’s actions veer from the lawful to the questionable—and then to the probably illegal. By leaning into Bland’s car and seemingly attempting to yank her out, Encinia initiated the use of force to “seize” her (in Fourth Amendment terms). Here, the case law is clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force during a seizure must be “objectively reasonable” and not “excessive.” To gauge reasonable force, courts weigh the severity of the alleged crime; whether the suspect poses an immediate safety risk; and whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.
The first two factors here weigh heavily against Encinia. As Bland repeatedly notes, her alleged crime (a failure to signal) is astonishingly minor. Moreover, Bland does not appear to pose any kind of real safety risk to Encinia or to others. Bland does verbally resist arrest, but at no point does she attempt to flee. In light of her behavior, Encinia’s actions seem objectively unreasonable. He violently grabs Bland, aims his stun gun at her, and threatens to “light [her] up,” then roughly pulls her out of her vehicle.
This section from the piece you submitted is interesting:
Did Encinia actually have the right to arrest Bland? Yes. The Supreme Court has found that officers may arrest people for committing the most minor of crimes, including commonplace traffic violations. And by verbally refusing to comply with Encinia’s detention, Bland resisted arrest under Texas law, thereby committing a misdemeanor. (Even if Encinia’s initial stop and detention were illegal, that wouldn’t matter: The Texas statute that bars resisting arrest declares that “it is no defense” that “the arrest or search was unlawful.”) Both of these offenses would justify Bland’s arrest. Finally, Encinia is right that he has given Bland a “lawful order”: Again, under Supreme Court precedent, he had the right to pull Bland over; to ask her to leave the car; and to formally arrest her.
So is this section:
Brian Encinia clearly had reasonable suspicion that Bland committed an offense: She changed lanes without a signal, in violation of Texas traffic law. Leaving aside the question of whether Encinia effectively forced Bland to change lanes (which she alleges in the video), the footage demonstrates that the trooper acted within the law when pulling her over.
After detaining Bland, Encinia asked her to put out her cigarette, and Bland refused. Some outlets are reporting that Encinia arrested Bland for this refusal. But there is another reasonable interpretation of the exchange: Encinia asked Bland to put out her cigarette; Bland refused, on the grounds that she was in her own car; so Encinia asked her to exit her car in order to remove her excuse for continuing to smoke.
This interpretation keeps Encinia on the right side of the law. The trooper had every right to ask Bland to step out of her car: The Supreme Court has held that during a routine traffic stop, officers may ask drivers to exit their cars for the sake of safety, the idea being that an officer can more easily monitor someone who's standing face to face than someone who's inside a car.
So in summary (according to this piece)... Encinia acted lawfully throughout the entire exchange prior to the physical portion of the conflict. If we were to accept this piece as credible, then these portions of the debate are finished.
What remains debatable is the force used to remove Bland from the car and handcuff her. He never threw her onto the pavement, he never struck her, and she arrived at the station unmarked. Not too shabby.
The only thing I think he could have done a better job of was controlling his emotions to the point where he was not yelling back at Bland; however, given her defiance and lack of respect... I can see how the guy lost it to some degree.
So much of this is just depressing. The lattitude that is given to police is just SAD. All of it makes sense in an emergency situation or if the suspect is reasonably suspected of being a threat, but for mouthing off? The fact that can legally violate your bodily sovereignty and physically detain you for failing to signal a lane change has a very North Korea/China feel about it.
I saw a humor piece that sums up my position pretty well. Guy: Mouthing off to a cop is not illegal. Other Guy: If you poke the best, what do you expect to happen? Guy: That's why we don't make bears cops.
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
No. His failings amounted to much more than a "lack of tolerance". His failing amounted to undue seizure, which is illegal, and which led to the woman being taken into custody, which culminated in her death in custody. We don't know what would have happened if she had never been taken into custody, but we do know what happened when she was taken into custody.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
Undue seizure? That might be your interpretation, but unless I missed something... that's not what officials have stated.
Can you provide a link to where this has been established?
Argued, not established; here it is. The relevant part is copied here, while the full article is linked.
But this is where Encinia’s actions veer from the lawful to the questionable—and then to the probably illegal. By leaning into Bland’s car and seemingly attempting to yank her out, Encinia initiated the use of force to “seize” her (in Fourth Amendment terms). Here, the case law is clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force during a seizure must be “objectively reasonable” and not “excessive.” To gauge reasonable force, courts weigh the severity of the alleged crime; whether the suspect poses an immediate safety risk; and whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.
The first two factors here weigh heavily against Encinia. As Bland repeatedly notes, her alleged crime (a failure to signal) is astonishingly minor. Moreover, Bland does not appear to pose any kind of real safety risk to Encinia or to others. Bland does verbally resist arrest, but at no point does she attempt to flee. In light of her behavior, Encinia’s actions seem objectively unreasonable. He violently grabs Bland, aims his stun gun at her, and threatens to “light [her] up,” then roughly pulls her out of her vehicle.
This section from the piece you submitted is interesting:
Did Encinia actually have the right to arrest Bland? Yes. The Supreme Court has found that officers may arrest people for committing the most minor of crimes, including commonplace traffic violations. And by verbally refusing to comply with Encinia’s detention, Bland resisted arrest under Texas law, thereby committing a misdemeanor. (Even if Encinia’s initial stop and detention were illegal, that wouldn’t matter: The Texas statute that bars resisting arrest declares that “it is no defense” that “the arrest or search was unlawful.”) Both of these offenses would justify Bland’s arrest. Finally, Encinia is right that he has given Bland a “lawful order”: Again, under Supreme Court precedent, he had the right to pull Bland over; to ask her to leave the car; and to formally arrest her.
So is this section:
Brian Encinia clearly had reasonable suspicion that Bland committed an offense: She changed lanes without a signal, in violation of Texas traffic law. Leaving aside the question of whether Encinia effectively forced Bland to change lanes (which she alleges in the video), the footage demonstrates that the trooper acted within the law when pulling her over.
After detaining Bland, Encinia asked her to put out her cigarette, and Bland refused. Some outlets are reporting that Encinia arrested Bland for this refusal. But there is another reasonable interpretation of the exchange: Encinia asked Bland to put out her cigarette; Bland refused, on the grounds that she was in her own car; so Encinia asked her to exit her car in order to remove her excuse for continuing to smoke.
This interpretation keeps Encinia on the right side of the law. The trooper had every right to ask Bland to step out of her car: The Supreme Court has held that during a routine traffic stop, officers may ask drivers to exit their cars for the sake of safety, the idea being that an officer can more easily monitor someone who's standing face to face than someone who's inside a car.
So in summary (according to this piece)... Encinia acted lawfully throughout the entire exchange prior to the physical portion of the conflict. If we were to accept this piece as credible, then these portions of the debate are finished.
What remains debatable is the force used to remove Bland from the car and handcuff her. He never threw her onto the pavement, he never struck her, and she arrived at the station unmarked. Not too shabby.
The only thing I think he could have done a better job of was controlling his emotions to the point where he was not yelling back at Bland; however, given her defiance and lack of respect... I can see how the guy lost it to some degree.
So much of this is just depressing. The lattitude that is given to police is just SAD. All of it makes sense in an emergency situation or if the suspect is reasonably suspected of being a threat, but for mouthing off? The fact that can legally violate your bodily sovereignty and physically detain you for failing to signal a lane change has a very North Korea/China feel about it.
exactly...and it's interesting that the anti-gov't types are generally the ones that stick up for the cop in this situation. I'm totally pro-cop...but this guy totally abused his authority.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Did anyone read the transcript that rgambs posted? It's pretty clear that when the officer asked Sandra if she was okay, he wasn't really asking out of concern; when she gave an honest answer of why she was upset, he replied with "are you done yet?", not exactly an answer that suggests he cared about her concerns. When he asked if she would "mind" putting out her cigarette, and she asked why she needed to - a legitimate question - he then demanded she get out of the car, something that there was no basis for. When she questioned why, thus asking a lawful question about procedure, he then proceeded to reach in and grab her and threaten to taser her.
The officer (1) needed to answer her lawful question about why she was being arrested, and (2) needed to have justification to proceed to physically remove her from the car. Even if an individual ignores, for instance, a police order to exit a vehicle the police do not have blanket authority to proceed to physical force, or "seizure". Force is only justified if it is not excessive and if there is a reason such as public safety, neither of which applied. Because he did neither of those, legal scholars and even his department have agreed that he exceeded his lawful authority.
Come on.
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
No. His failings amounted to much more than a "lack of tolerance". His failing amounted to undue seizure, which is illegal, and which led to the woman being taken into custody, which culminated in her death in custody. We don't know what would have happened if she had never been taken into custody, but we do know what happened when she was taken into custody.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
Undue seizure? That might be your interpretation, but unless I missed something... that's not what officials have stated.
Can you provide a link to where this has been established?
Argued, not established; here it is. The relevant part is copied here, while the full article is linked.
But this is where Encinia’s actions veer from the lawful to the questionable—and then to the probably illegal. By leaning into Bland’s car and seemingly attempting to yank her out, Encinia initiated the use of force to “seize” her (in Fourth Amendment terms). Here, the case law is clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force during a seizure must be “objectively reasonable” and not “excessive.” To gauge reasonable force, courts weigh the severity of the alleged crime; whether the suspect poses an immediate safety risk; and whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.
The first two factors here weigh heavily against Encinia. As Bland repeatedly notes, her alleged crime (a failure to signal) is astonishingly minor. Moreover, Bland does not appear to pose any kind of real safety risk to Encinia or to others. Bland does verbally resist arrest, but at no point does she attempt to flee. In light of her behavior, Encinia’s actions seem objectively unreasonable. He violently grabs Bland, aims his stun gun at her, and threatens to “light [her] up,” then roughly pulls her out of her vehicle.
This section from the piece you submitted is interesting:
Did Encinia actually have the right to arrest Bland? Yes. The Supreme Court has found that officers may arrest people for committing the most minor of crimes, including commonplace traffic violations. And by verbally refusing to comply with Encinia’s detention, Bland resisted arrest under Texas law, thereby committing a misdemeanor. (Even if Encinia’s initial stop and detention were illegal, that wouldn’t matter: The Texas statute that bars resisting arrest declares that “it is no defense” that “the arrest or search was unlawful.”) Both of these offenses would justify Bland’s arrest. Finally, Encinia is right that he has given Bland a “lawful order”: Again, under Supreme Court precedent, he had the right to pull Bland over; to ask her to leave the car; and to formally arrest her.
So is this section:
Brian Encinia clearly had reasonable suspicion that Bland committed an offense: She changed lanes without a signal, in violation of Texas traffic law. Leaving aside the question of whether Encinia effectively forced Bland to change lanes (which she alleges in the video), the footage demonstrates that the trooper acted within the law when pulling her over.
After detaining Bland, Encinia asked her to put out her cigarette, and Bland refused. Some outlets are reporting that Encinia arrested Bland for this refusal. But there is another reasonable interpretation of the exchange: Encinia asked Bland to put out her cigarette; Bland refused, on the grounds that she was in her own car; so Encinia asked her to exit her car in order to remove her excuse for continuing to smoke.
This interpretation keeps Encinia on the right side of the law. The trooper had every right to ask Bland to step out of her car: The Supreme Court has held that during a routine traffic stop, officers may ask drivers to exit their cars for the sake of safety, the idea being that an officer can more easily monitor someone who's standing face to face than someone who's inside a car.
So in summary (according to this piece)... Encinia acted lawfully throughout the entire exchange prior to the physical portion of the conflict. If we were to accept this piece as credible, then these portions of the debate are finished.
What remains debatable is the force used to remove Bland from the car and handcuff her. He never threw her onto the pavement, he never struck her, and she arrived at the station unmarked. Not too shabby.
The only thing I think he could have done a better job of was controlling his emotions to the point where he was not yelling back at Bland; however, given her defiance and lack of respect... I can see how the guy lost it to some degree.
So much of this is just depressing. The lattitude that is given to police is just SAD. All of it makes sense in an emergency situation or if the suspect is reasonably suspected of being a threat, but for mouthing off? The fact that can legally violate your bodily sovereignty and physically detain you for failing to signal a lane change has a very North Korea/China feel about it.
I disagree. We give the police that authority. It's always been that way.
And I am not a cop so my brothers in blue really doesnt apply to me.
No one is responsible for the death except the person who took the life, which was not the officer, or anyone besides the person who killed them selves.
Thousands of people a day are arrested. Not all of them kill themselves. It's not on anyone but the person who makes that decision.
It doesn't matter if the cop said "you're an angel" or if he said "you're a fucking turd" either way he did not kill anyone.
All of this talk, over this, because the mainstream media brainwashes you guys into thinking this shit is important. Like others have mentioned, why is the multiple black on black crimes ignored, but these crimes aren't?
Sometimes stereotypes are there for a reason, and in this case it's justified. Less than 13% of America is made up of blacks, but over 50% of murders are committed by blacks. I love how this is ignored 99% of the time.
Maybe so many blacks wouldn't be killed by police if they weren't crossing lines and breaking laws.
And to answer a few things mentioned here
The reason she was asked how long she was in Texas is because the law states you have 10-14 days to update your license after moving. If it's not it's a ticketable offense.
And the officer had every right to ask her to put out the smoke. It's her ignorance and self entitledment that led her to believe she didn't have to. You can be arrested for obstruction of justice for just about anything, including not complying with an officers order (the defenition of obstruction)
Again, at the end of the day, no one killed this woman but herself. Regardless of how she ended up where she did, she's at fault.
If I killed myself and blamed you guys would it make it right? It wouldnt. Same here with this situation.
It's time to wake up and realize this, and many other specific cases are thrust into the media purposefully, with the intention to fuel these debates on race and police, when it's truly all by design to keep your minds off of the real, bigger issues wrong with this country/government.
No need to reply directly to me, as I won't reply anymore. It's clear people don't care about my opinion here. But it's sad and pathetic to read all this crying over this case. How pc have we become?
Bottom line is this. We decide what actions we take. Our own actions (usually) decide what happens to us. I don't get murderer by the police because I follow the law and am not out in the street waving guns around or robbing stores. Again, maybe there's a reason all of these cases involve black people.
Lastly. Over the weekend a white man was arrested after a concert. He was thought to have been high on lsd. The police hog tied him And placed him facedown on a stretcher, and then secured his head to he stretcher, face down. He also died in police custody. Not by suicide but through true police negligence. How Many of you have heard that story? Not too many i assume. Again, it's all by design and specific cases are beat to death in the media on purpose.
Try and wake up and see the bigger picture here. The closed mindedness and flock mentality is staggering. I've lost a lot of respect for people here through this thread.
And now.. Let's pretend I didn't say a word and, please carry on
Comments
What is this, fucking North Korea?
He violated her bodily sovereignty and that doesn't seem to matter to you, RR, or Last, but it matters to some people.
You don't put your hands on me without permission, period.
That you are 3 so willing to give up your rights to anyone in a uniform is shocking. You abdicate all responsibility for a paid servant of justice because some woman dared to tell him how she really felt. Sad.
Hyperbole aside, yes sexual assault by police officers is a serious problem. But then you would never believe that about your brothers in blue would you?
Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
He asked her how she was doing and she proceeded to tear a strip off him in lunatic fashion. You are surprised that he responded with, "Are you done yet?"
As much as your first passage is fraught with bias... your second passage bears credibility and speaks to the failings of the officer in this situation. He needed to answer her questions- not that I think she would have accepted his answers or shrieked over top of him as he might have attempted to do so.
But his failings amounted to a lack of tolerance for someone berating him. They never contributed to any harm or the eventual death of this woman- she can own that (unless an investigation reveals that Texas law enforcement placed a plastic bag over her head and hung her in her jail cell).
Wow. Just wow.
I'm inclined to believe the guy to some degree, but no, RG, I'm not going to dive in on the out of control and widespread, rampant abuse that you endorse. The abuse is the exception.
Secondly, we are not discussing a cop shitting on someone's bed. Present that case and I'll chime in with my disgust. We are talking about a cop that dealt with a belligerent woman who became very challenging at a routine stop for no good reason.
She blew a cloud of smoke in his face.
She tore a strip off him in lunatic fashion.
She became very challenging for no good reason.
These tactics are questionable and if you can't make a point without them it weakens the point.
*Edit
I am not saying we don't all (myself included) use those tactics at times, but it seems to be a real habit for you.
You post how you want to post though, that's groovy.
It just annoys me sometimes lol
Because it doesn't fit the 99% of cops are good narrative? Because the system of cooperation with abuse is an indictment against the idea that it's only a few bad apples?
Hyperbole aside, yes sexual assault by police officers is a serious problem. But then you would never believe that about your brothers in blue would you?
I didn't have to go very far to get them- just the last two posts you submitted before this one where you attack me of my style. You've got your groovy style too, RG.
And are you sure it's my style... or is it more what I say when it is in opposition to your way of thinking?
Yeah, i know that it's the law to use your SIGNAL when making a lane change.
I guess the cop just couldn't let her sign the warning, and let her be on her way, because it would've taken so LONG for her to sign it that he would've taken so much smoke into his lungs>LOL>He could've just taken a half step back for the few seconds, if it bothered him, for her to sign the warning , and then take it and go back to his car.
Possibly rhetorical. Dripping sarcasm if not.
Hey... it's okay. Seriously. I realize I paint my points colorfully, but it's who I am. Likewise... I get what you're saying when you do your thing. It's all cool.
And I'm sure you can come up with better than "wow, just wow"; come on, you can do it!
Can you provide a link to where this has been established?
I find that interesting
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
But this is where Encinia’s actions veer from the lawful to the questionable—and then to the probably illegal. By leaning into Bland’s car and seemingly attempting to yank her out, Encinia initiated the use of force to “seize” her (in Fourth Amendment terms). Here, the case law is clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force during a seizure must be “objectively reasonable” and not “excessive.” To gauge reasonable force, courts weigh the severity of the alleged crime; whether the suspect poses an immediate safety risk; and whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.
The first two factors here weigh heavily against Encinia. As Bland repeatedly notes, her alleged crime (a failure to signal) is astonishingly minor. Moreover, Bland does not appear to pose any kind of real safety risk to Encinia or to others. Bland does verbally resist arrest, but at no point does she attempt to flee. In light of her behavior, Encinia’s actions seem objectively unreasonable. He violently grabs Bland, aims his stun gun at her, and threatens to “light [her] up,” then roughly pulls her out of her vehicle.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/22/sandra_bland_arrest_her_detention_was_legal_but_encinia_used_excessive_force.html
Word to the wise, driving is not a right, its a privilege. This woman obviously had other issues than not knowing how to act like a civilized human being that any reasonable person would never have put themselves in.
Did Encinia actually have the right to arrest Bland? Yes. The Supreme Court has found that officers may arrest people for committing the most minor of crimes, including commonplace traffic violations. And by verbally refusing to comply with Encinia’s detention, Bland resisted arrest under Texas law, thereby committing a misdemeanor. (Even if Encinia’s initial stop and detention were illegal, that wouldn’t matter: The Texas statute that bars resisting arrest declares that “it is no defense” that “the arrest or search was unlawful.”) Both of these offenses would justify Bland’s arrest. Finally, Encinia is right that he has given Bland a “lawful order”: Again, under Supreme Court precedent, he had the right to pull Bland over; to ask her to leave the car; and to formally arrest her.
So is this section:
Brian Encinia clearly had reasonable suspicion that Bland committed an offense: She changed lanes without a signal, in violation of Texas traffic law. Leaving aside the question of whether Encinia effectively forced Bland to change lanes (which she alleges in the video), the footage demonstrates that the trooper acted within the law when pulling her over.
After detaining Bland, Encinia asked her to put out her cigarette, and Bland refused. Some outlets are reporting that Encinia arrested Bland for this refusal. But there is another reasonable interpretation of the exchange: Encinia asked Bland to put out her cigarette; Bland refused, on the grounds that she was in her own car; so Encinia asked her to exit her car in order to remove her excuse for continuing to smoke.
This interpretation keeps Encinia on the right side of the law. The trooper had every right to ask Bland to step out of her car: The Supreme Court has held that during a routine traffic stop, officers may ask drivers to exit their cars for the sake of safety, the idea being that an officer can more easily monitor someone who's standing face to face than someone who's inside a car.
So in summary (according to this piece)... Encinia acted lawfully throughout the entire exchange prior to the physical portion of the conflict. If we were to accept this piece as credible, then these portions of the debate are finished.
What remains debatable is the force used to remove Bland from the car and handcuff her. He never threw her onto the pavement, he never struck her, and she arrived at the station unmarked. Not too shabby.
The only thing I think he could have done a better job of was controlling his emotions to the point where he was not yelling back at Bland; however, given her defiance and lack of respect... I can see how the guy lost it to some degree.
Dan is right. That family will sue and they have enough with the procedural fuck ups to warrant a nice pay out.But this was a sick and troubled young lady who was obviously unstable and it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.We don't need more cameras in the county lock up,we need better Mental Health screening on the intake of prisoners.
Guy: Mouthing off to a cop is not illegal.
Other Guy: If you poke the best, what do you expect to happen?
Guy: That's why we don't make bears cops.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
And I am not a cop so my brothers in blue really doesnt apply to me.
Here's some facts for this thread.
No one is responsible for the death except the person who took the life, which was not the officer, or anyone besides the person who killed them selves.
Thousands of people a day are arrested. Not all of them kill themselves. It's not on anyone but the person who makes that decision.
It doesn't matter if the cop said "you're an angel" or if he said "you're a fucking turd" either way he did not kill anyone.
All of this talk, over this, because the mainstream media brainwashes you guys into thinking this shit is important. Like others have mentioned, why is the multiple black on black crimes ignored, but these crimes aren't?
Sometimes stereotypes are there for a reason, and in this case it's justified. Less than 13% of America is made up of blacks, but over 50% of murders are committed by blacks. I love how this is ignored 99% of the time.
Maybe so many blacks wouldn't be killed by police if they weren't crossing lines and breaking laws.
And to answer a few things mentioned here
The reason she was asked how long she was in Texas is because the law states you have 10-14 days to update your license after moving. If it's not it's a ticketable offense.
And the officer had every right to ask her to put out the smoke. It's her ignorance and self entitledment that led her to believe she didn't have to. You can be arrested for obstruction of justice for just about anything, including not complying with an officers order (the defenition of obstruction)
Again, at the end of the day, no one killed this woman but herself. Regardless of how she ended up where she did, she's at fault.
If I killed myself and blamed you guys would it make it right? It wouldnt. Same here with this situation.
It's time to wake up and realize this, and many other specific cases are thrust into the media purposefully, with the intention to fuel these debates on race and police, when it's truly all by design to keep your minds off of the real, bigger issues wrong with this country/government.
No need to reply directly to me, as I won't reply anymore. It's clear people don't care about my opinion here. But it's sad and pathetic to read all this crying over this case. How pc have we become?
Bottom line is this. We decide what actions we take. Our own actions (usually) decide what happens to us. I don't get murderer by the police because I follow the law and am not out in the street waving guns around or robbing stores. Again, maybe there's a reason all of these cases involve black people.
Lastly. Over the weekend a white man was arrested after a concert. He was thought to have been high on lsd. The police hog tied him
And placed him facedown on a stretcher, and then secured his head to he stretcher, face down. He also died in police custody. Not by suicide but through true police negligence. How
Many of you have heard that story? Not too many i assume. Again, it's all by design and specific cases are beat to death in the media on purpose.
Try and wake up and see the bigger picture here. The closed mindedness and flock mentality is staggering. I've lost a lot of respect for people here through this thread.
And now.. Let's pretend I didn't say a word and, please carry on