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

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?

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 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...

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.

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 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?

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?