Another Bullsh$@ Manufactured story to provoke the race card.

rgambs

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.

Yeah, no doubt! You see folks with "rebel flags" who wholeheartedly support the troops and the police. What do you rebel against again?

There's also the folks like Muskydan, who vehemently criticizes the use of legal authority by popularly elected government representatives of the people, while comfortably giving almost total physical authority to the myriad appointed police who represent the government. How does that make sense?

rgambs

Quotes ducked up there, but yins get it!

muskydan

JUST A GIRL said:

I've never seen so many sheep in my life.

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

Holy crap man!!!!where have you been all my life??? Get ready to get hammered By the majority on here that see and hear only what their silly liberal brains want. Being a realist is taken as racist on here, you'll see.

Gern Blansten

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

Gern Blansten

From the article...

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

Reading comprehension problems or extreme bias leading to making fictitious claims. Perhaps you haven't bothered reading anything outside of RG's posts?

She was arrested for obstructing justice when she was detained.

I'm pretty sure you knew this already, but in the face of a losing argument, I think you wanted to drag it down to a juvenile level- you know... fling mud for a while. No thanks.

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

Reading comprehension problems or extreme bias leading to making fictitious claims. Perhaps you haven't bothered reading anything outside of RG's posts?

She was arrested for obstructing justice when she was detained.

I'm pretty sure you knew this already, but in the face of a losing argument, I think you wanted to drag it down to a juvenile level- you know... fling mud for a while. No thanks.

Obstructing Justice, the get you into jail free card.

Gern Blansten

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

Reading comprehension problems or extreme bias leading to making fictitious claims. Perhaps you haven't bothered reading anything outside of RG's posts?

She was arrested for obstructing justice when she was detained.

I'm pretty sure you knew this already, but in the face of a losing argument, I think you wanted to drag it down to a juvenile level- you know... fling mud for a while. No thanks.

What justice was she obstructing? I guess I don't recall.

I don't see a losing argument on my end. I never felt like the police killed her, I just felt like the cop overstepped his bounds. That's my opinion. Your opinion is that he didn't.

I got a chuckle out of your "obstructing justice" comment....that's just hilarious.

Edit: Yeah and that law professor's article that I included above? He agrees with me...and so does Donald Trump so there.

hedonist

Gern...

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

Doesn't that go both ways? If her reaction was lawful, it was not...smart.

And that conclusion after the bolded part is opinion.

I'd be cool with ego being left out of all equations - from the police, to those they pull over for reasonable cause.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

From the article...

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Play grandmother instead of play cop? Maybe.

He asked her how she was doing and she responded with a litany of vitriol. When he asked her was she done... it was fair given the rude retort.

I guess you think Bland did nothing at all and Encinia was simply a powermonger looking for an excuse to make national headlines detaining a black woman? If she hadn't decided to kill herself like she had been talking about doing for quite a while... this event would be nothing. Deflecting responsibility for this woman's death to the officer in an off hand way is brutal.

He could have handled it a different way, but he didn't. And how he handled it was within the law. Bland could have handled it differently as well. An ounce of common sense and politeness would have saved her the hassle of being detained- in fact, it likely would have yielded a warning.

Gern Blansten

hedonist said:

Gern...

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

Doesn't that go both ways? If her reaction was lawful, it was not...smart.

And that conclusion after the bolded part is opinion.

I'd be cool with ego being left out of all equations - from the police, to those they pull over for reasonable cause.

I don't believe it goes both ways....HE was the authority figure that should know better. She was the peon that he peed on.

Gern Blansten

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

From the article...

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Play grandmother instead of play cop? Maybe.

He asked her how she was doing and she responded with a litany of vitriol. When he asked her was she done... it was fair given the rude retort.

I guess you think Bland did nothing at all and Encinia was simply a powermonger looking for an excuse to make national headlines detaining a black woman? If she hadn't decided to kill herself like she had been talking about doing for quite a while... this event would be nothing. Deflecting responsibility for this woman's death to the officer in an off hand way is brutal.

He could have handled it a different way, but he didn't. And how he handled it was within the law. Bland could have handled it differently as well. An ounce of common sense and politeness would have saved her the hassle of being detained- in fact, it likely would have yielded a warning.

Explain "litany of vitriol".....what did she say?

rr165892

JUST A GIRL said:

I've never seen so many sheep in my life.

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

Just A Girl,Dan-o beat me to it But When you bring it strong like you did above don't hit run.Stay and keep bringing the good stuff.Its nice having another voice of common sense.From my side of things it's very welcome here.We are not all drinking the cool aid.
I welcome you to the dark side.lol

rr165892

Gern Blansten said:

hedonist said:

Gern...

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

Doesn't that go both ways? If her reaction was lawful, it was not...smart.

And that conclusion after the bolded part is opinion.

I'd be cool with ego being left out of all equations - from the police, to those they pull over for reasonable cause.

I don't believe it goes both ways....HE was the authority figure that should know better. She was the peon that he peed on.

Poor little innocent woman had no hand in the actions here? How can you not hold her responsible for her own actions Gern?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

From the article...

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Play grandmother instead of play cop? Maybe.

He asked her how she was doing and she responded with a litany of vitriol. When he asked her was she done... it was fair given the rude retort.

I guess you think Bland did nothing at all and Encinia was simply a powermonger looking for an excuse to make national headlines detaining a black woman? If she hadn't decided to kill herself like she had been talking about doing for quite a while... this event would be nothing. Deflecting responsibility for this woman's death to the officer in an off hand way is brutal.

He could have handled it a different way, but he didn't. And how he handled it was within the law. Bland could have handled it differently as well. An ounce of common sense and politeness would have saved her the hassle of being detained- in fact, it likely would have yielded a warning.

Explain "litany of vitriol".....what did she say?

You watched the video footage as did I. She spazzed out like an idiot. Are you going to argue this too?

rr165892

muskydan said:

JUST A GIRL said:

I've never seen so many sheep in my life.

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

Holy crap man!!!!where have you been all my life??? Get ready to get hammered By the majority on here that see and hear only what their silly liberal brains want. Being a realist is taken as racist on here, you'll see.

So true!!

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

In the process of what? Being arrested? Or while she was committing suicide? She turned into a criminal when she got arrested. So which civil right was violated? Her first amendment right to be an asshole?

rgambs

rr165892 said:

Gern Blansten said:

hedonist said:

Gern...

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

Doesn't that go both ways? If her reaction was lawful, it was not...smart.

And that conclusion after the bolded part is opinion.

I'd be cool with ego being left out of all equations - from the police, to those they pull over for reasonable cause.

I don't believe it goes both ways....HE was the authority figure that should know better. She was the peon that he peed on.

Poor little innocent woman had no hand in the actions here? How can you not hold her responsible for her own actions Gern?

Germ, and I acknowledged the idiocy and responsibility of her actions early in the discussion. It wasn't until page 7 or so that you or Thirty acknowledged the problems with his behavior. Until then you we're holding her personally responsible but not him, and you continue to do so by leading the ddiscussion away from his actions to place the blame solely on her.

Gern Blansten

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

From the article...

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Play grandmother instead of play cop? Maybe.

He asked her how she was doing and she responded with a litany of vitriol. When he asked her was she done... it was fair given the rude retort.

I guess you think Bland did nothing at all and Encinia was simply a powermonger looking for an excuse to make national headlines detaining a black woman? If she hadn't decided to kill herself like she had been talking about doing for quite a while... this event would be nothing. Deflecting responsibility for this woman's death to the officer in an off hand way is brutal.

He could have handled it a different way, but he didn't. And how he handled it was within the law. Bland could have handled it differently as well. An ounce of common sense and politeness would have saved her the hassle of being detained- in fact, it likely would have yielded a warning.

Explain "litany of vitriol".....what did she say?

You watched the video footage as did I. She spazzed out like an idiot. Are you going to argue this too?

"I'm in my car, why do I need to put out my cigarette?"....was that the litany?

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

In the process of what? Being arrested? Or while she was committing suicide? She turned into a criminal when she got arrested. So civil right was violated? Her first amendment right to be an asshole?

Yes...her first amendment right to say whatever the hell she wants. She said "Why do I need to put out my cigarette?" Hard core criminal right there.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

hedonist said:

Gern...

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

Doesn't that go both ways? If her reaction was lawful, it was not...smart.

And that conclusion after the bolded part is opinion.

I'd be cool with ego being left out of all equations - from the police, to those they pull over for reasonable cause.

I don't believe it goes both ways....HE was the authority figure that should know better. She was the peon that he peed on.

Classic. Absolved.

Sooo... she was just a really simple person that didn't have the common sense or courtesy to behave like a normal human being in a situation that demands good behaviour from normal human beings?

Funny that while sitting on your couch, or in your cubicle at work, you make these big judgements on how this cop 'should' have acted, yet feel Bland was a poor victim of police abuse and did nothing wrong. It has already been established that Bland was out of bounds in multiple ways. This was established with the legal piece Often submitted. Because Bland forced Encinia's hand to some degree, he was performing as a cop might in that situation. You consistently fail to acknowledge these items and it points to your extreme bias where discussing things ultimately amounts to poking pins in one's eyeball. If you cannot be even remotely neutral, what's the point?

If you wish to discuss things relevant to this case- as I've already stated- the big ticket item to discuss is the amount of force and tact he used to cuff and detain Bland after she pushed matters to that point. I can agree that there's a legitimate debate there- which I would still side with the cop... given Bland was arrested, but unmarked and unharmed with a degree of care whether you care to agree or not: she wasn't thrown up against the car, thrown on the pavement, struck, or forced to deal with a weapon of any kind.

And from everything I saw... she treated him like the peon- from the outset when she was chewing his ear off to the point where she blew smoke in his face when he asked her to put his cigarette out.

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

In the process of what? Being arrested? Or while she was committing suicide? She turned into a criminal when she got arrested. So civil right was violated? Her first amendment right to be an asshole?

Yes...her first amendment right to say whatever the hell she wants. She said "Why do I need to put out my cigarette?" Hard core criminal right there.

Cops can lawfully ask you to get out of your car on any traffic stop. It is not uncommon. Smoking can pose risk to cops. Police want to minimize the movements of your hands while the traffic stop is occurring. Is that not enough of a reason to ask someone to put a cigarette out?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

From the article...

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing

Play grandmother instead of play cop? Maybe.

He asked her how she was doing and she responded with a litany of vitriol. When he asked her was she done... it was fair given the rude retort.

I guess you think Bland did nothing at all and Encinia was simply a powermonger looking for an excuse to make national headlines detaining a black woman? If she hadn't decided to kill herself like she had been talking about doing for quite a while... this event would be nothing. Deflecting responsibility for this woman's death to the officer in an off hand way is brutal.

He could have handled it a different way, but he didn't. And how he handled it was within the law. Bland could have handled it differently as well. An ounce of common sense and politeness would have saved her the hassle of being detained- in fact, it likely would have yielded a warning.

Explain "litany of vitriol".....what did she say?

You watched the video footage as did I. She spazzed out like an idiot. Are you going to argue this too?

"I'm in my car, why do I need to put out my cigarette?"....was that the litany?

You should watch it again if you cannot remember. There was plenty before things got to that point of the discussion.

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

In the process of what? Being arrested? Or while she was committing suicide? She turned into a criminal when she got arrested. So civil right was violated? Her first amendment right to be an asshole?

Yes...her first amendment right to say whatever the hell she wants. She said "Why do I need to put out my cigarette?" Hard core criminal right there.

Cops can lawfully ask you to get out of your car on any traffic stop. It is not uncommon. Smoking can pose risk to cops. Police want to minimize the movements of your hands while the traffic stop is occurring. Is that not enough of a reason to ask someone to put a cigarette out?

Are you serious? The cop was on a power trip. Again....I side with the Univ of SC law professor that wrote the article I posted above. Maybe you can email him and argue about it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

In the process of what? Being arrested? Or while she was committing suicide? She turned into a criminal when she got arrested. So civil right was violated? Her first amendment right to be an asshole?

Yes...her first amendment right to say whatever the hell she wants. She said "Why do I need to put out my cigarette?" Hard core criminal right there.

She can say whatever she wants. She can't do whatever she wants and this is where your argument falls flat on its face.

She cannot dictate the terms of the detainment- the cop can and the law supports him to do so. Period.

rgambs

JUST A GIRL said:

I've never seen so many sheep in my life.

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

Hahahahahha get over yourself!
Do you seriously think you are the only person her who understands the role the media plays in the politics of division? Really? In case you haven't noticed, or can't recognize, we debate the cases that are pushed by the media because we love to debate this topic and the cases pushed by the media provide the most details to fuel the debate.
The rest of your randomly pieced together rant on race is just juvenile. You come close to making some valid points, but your bias is belied by the phrase "black on black crime". Did you get that from Hannity? lol

Please explain how civillians (of whatever race) killing civillians is relevant to the discussion of police killing civillians? Which, by the way, is the topic of the OP but not the discussion taking place. Did you read the thread? 90% of the discussion is about the arrest, not the events that took place in the jail.

Last-12-Exit

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

In the process of what? Being arrested? Or while she was committing suicide? She turned into a criminal when she got arrested. So civil right was violated? Her first amendment right to be an asshole?

Yes...her first amendment right to say whatever the hell she wants. She said "Why do I need to put out my cigarette?" Hard core criminal right there.

She can say whatever she wants. She can't do whatever she wants and this is where your argument falls flat on its face.

She cannot dictate the terms of the detainment- the cop can and the law supports him to do so. Period.

But once he asks her to get out, she has to.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Correct. She cannot refuse his order once directed. She can bitch about it (say whatever she wants), but she must comply.

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Who needs to wake up? I heard that story. The guy was on LSD....it was on the news.

The difference here is that he wasn't arrested for smoking a cigarette. Bland clearly took her own life but her civil rights were violated in the process.

In the process of what? Being arrested? Or while she was committing suicide? She turned into a criminal when she got arrested. So civil right was violated? Her first amendment right to be an asshole?

Yes...her first amendment right to say whatever the hell she wants. She said "Why do I need to put out my cigarette?" Hard core criminal right there.

She can say whatever she wants. She can't do whatever she wants and this is where your argument falls flat on its face.

She cannot dictate the terms of the detainment- the cop can and the law supports him to do so. Period.

But once he asks her to get out, she has to.

and she did

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Correct. She cannot refuse his order once directed. She can bitch about it (say whatever she wants), but she must comply.

And if she doesn't comply, he doesn't necessarily have the right to escalate to physical force, and in this case it likely wasn't justified. That was the point of the link I posted.