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

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.

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 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.

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

Might be just semantics but we hear often about an officer needing control.

Seems being in command of a situation is better as opposed to being in control of a situation.

To me in command suggests a more nuanced less emotion driven approach.

If you seek to control the situation you've already lost it.

She was even saying the whole time he was cuffing her "all this over a lane change"

unbelievable

again, to you that just don't see the issue....I agree with the law professor from the Univ of South Carolina. Your opinion means nothing to me.

Gern Blansten 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.

How did she dictate it? He arrested her....get off your horse man

You are thick, man. She dictated it by refusing to put her cigarette out... then refusing to get out of her car. Geezuz.

Gern Blansten said:

She was even saying the whole time he was cuffing her "all this over a lane change"

unbelievable

again, to you that just don't see the issue....I agree with the law professor from the Univ of South Carolina. Your opinion means nothing to me.

Then stop responding to me.

oftenreading said:

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.

Doesn't 'necessarily'.

What would you have the officer do once she rebuffs his demand? Admit defeat?