# Sandra Bland video **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2015, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859 "2015-07-22T05:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/741 "2015-07-24T18:17:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > From the decision (bolding mine): > > _“Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are— **or reasonably should have been** — completed.”_ > > In short, this stop was effectively over. He had no further cause to detain her. The stop was not effectively over, if she didn’t sign the warning. After asking her to sign it, wasn’t the delay on her part, not the officer’s? ---
**Author:** ![Andiethewestie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Andiethewestie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andiethewestie)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/742 "2015-07-24T18:22:09Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Which part of the Texas Criminal Code do you believe the officer violated? Section 22.2 Aggravated Assault. If the 4th amendment violation holds up, which should, then let’s get the bastard with a gool ol can of Texas whoop ass. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/743 "2015-07-24T18:23:33Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > So, let’s imagine I get pulled over, I’m polite and deferential, and in the middle of the officer saying “I’m going to let you off with a warning…”, I interrupt with “You ought to be ashamed of yourself, asshole.” (or something of that nature, as long as I don’t call him a [God-damned racketeer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire)). > > Can he at that point arrest me legally? To any reasonable person, the reason he is arresting me has nothing to do with the original stop, which he has already used his discretion to not arrest me for. He is clearly arresting me because he doesn’t approve of my protected speech. The officer cannot arrest you for swearing at him/her. That said they can easily trump up a charge of assaulting and officer or resisting arrest. It’s probably your word against theirs. At the least they’ll make your life miserable as you try to fight the arrest. > [@](#): > > As you already know, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech. Because of the Amendment, police officers generally cannot arrest someone, nor can the government prosecute her, simply for what she said. (The Amendment doesn’t apply to private entities.) > > There are, of course, exceptions to the prohibition against punishing speech. Statutes that outlaw speech that’s likely to incite violence constitute an example. But officers can’t use laws of this ilk simply to punish people who mouth off to them, even those who use profanity. (Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987).) > > SOURCE: [Can I Face Arrest for Yelling Profanities at a Cop? | Nolo](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-arrested-yelling-swearing-cop.html) ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/744 "2015-07-24T18:24:26Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > Well and let’s be honest here. It’s all well and good for us to look at the situation and think “what a bitch, she should have shut the fuck up.” Except African Americans haven’t faired well for being “nice” and cooperative. They wind up just as dead . So that etiquette of politeness has a net negative effect if you’re black. It always has. From the days of slavery, to Jim Crow, to now. How about we stop indulging this expectation that blacks play by a different set of social rules than everyone else just to stay alive, and start challenging it? If Sandra Bland had been a white man who refused to put out her cigarette, she’d be applauded for having enough balls to stand up for herself. We celebrate such fiestyness when it’s ipackaged in white skin. Let it be a black woman who has the audacity not to tap dance and shuffle? Well of course that’s grounds for a take-down. It’s time to stop this madness. ---
**Author:** ![Andiethewestie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Andiethewestie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andiethewestie)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/745 "2015-07-24T18:26:52Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The stop was not effectively over, if she didn’t sign the warning. > > After asking her to sign it, wasn’t the delay on her part, not the officer’s? Nope. She was trying sign the thing when he put his paws on her. It’s in the transcript ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/746 "2015-07-24T18:26:54Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > The “least” a cop should expect? What is the “most”? Termination, fines, and prison. Any other ideas? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/747 "2015-07-24T18:29:29Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I’d like to see someone with legal knowledge ( **Bricker** , perhaps) comment on the legality of what we all seem to commonly accept about police discretion having to do with deference: if you’re polite and deferential to an officer, you may be more likely to get off without a ticket/arrest, whereas if you’re not, he is more likely to arrest you. > > Someone upthread referred to this sort of behavior as “asking to be arrested”. > > Is such an arrest legal? That is, can a police officer use his discretionary powers to arrest you because of protected speech? > > I know that if my town has an ordinance against signs of a certain size, but they only enforce it against those signs that contain a message they don’t agree with, that’s a clear 1st Amendment violation, and any penalties are likely to be thrown out. > > So, let’s imagine I get pulled over, I’m polite and deferential, and in the middle of the officer saying “I’m going to let you off with a warning…”, I interrupt with “You ought to be ashamed of yourself, asshole.” (or something of that nature, as long as I don’t call him a [God-damned racketeer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire)). > > Can he at that point arrest me legally? To any reasonable person, the reason he is arresting me has nothing to do with the original stop, which he has already used his discretion to not arrest me for. He is clearly arresting me because he doesn’t approve of my protected speech. > > Many people seem to suggest that the officer is simply violating policy when he arrests her because he apparently feels slighted by her tone. Why isn’t this actually a violation of the law? He was ready to let her go, then changed his mind based on protected speech. I don’t understand your problem with this scenario. say I’m pulled over for what would legally be “reckless driving” , an arrestable offense (for the sake of argument), for going too fast, but the officer says he is going to give me a warning, and then I say “Thanks, cocksucker”. At this point, he decides instead to arrest me for reckless driving. Are you saying this is illegal? or should be? He can’t change his mind based on my behavior, speech or otherwise? Once he’s ‘made up his mind’ he can’t change it no matter what? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/748 "2015-07-24T18:33:03Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The stop was not effectively over, if she didn’t sign the warning. > > After asking her to sign it, wasn’t the delay on her part, not the officer’s? Watch the video again. The officer is extending the stop. He asks her to put out her cigarette. She refuses. He tells her to step out of the car. He had no reason to make that request and Mimms is no help here. Again from the Rodriguez decision (bolding mine): _“The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. **The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms.** ”_ The officer here clearly was in no danger. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/749 "2015-07-24T18:36:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Watch the video again. The officer is extending the stop. > > He asks her to put out her cigarette. She refuses. He tells her to step out of the car. > > He had no reason to make that request and Mimms is no help here. Again from the Rodriguez decision (bolding mine): > > _“The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. **The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms.** ”_ What does this mean ‘The officer is extending the stop’? He hadn’t gotten her to sign the warning yet, so the stop was still ongoing, right? 😕 Since he hadn’t gotten her to sign the warning yet, he was perfectly within the law (even if it was being a dick) to ask her to leave her car to discuss the warning at that point, right?? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/750 "2015-07-24T18:37:57Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > Section 22.2 Aggravated Assault. Is there sufficient probable cause to bring a charge under that section against this officer? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/751 "2015-07-24T18:38:32Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Laws are known to be wrong, and courts have ruled as such and pursued criminal actions in spite the written laws. When, specifically? Your posts have oodles of your opinion and no citation to authority. So when, specifically, have our courts pursued criminal actions even when no written law was violated? When does that happen? ---
**Author:** ![Andiethewestie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Andiethewestie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andiethewestie)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/752 "2015-07-24T18:39:29Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t understand your problem with this scenario. say I’m pulled over for what would legally be “reckless driving” , an arrestable offense (for the sake of argument), for going too fast, but the officer says he is going to give me a warning, and then I say “Thanks, cocksucker”. At this point, he decides instead to arrest me for reckless driving. Are you saying this is illegal? or should be? He can’t change his mind based on my behavior, speech or otherwise? Once he’s ‘made up his mind’ he can’t change it no matter what? That’s a false argument. She only kept smoking and that act was legal, even if it was but horrible for her lungs. She didn’t call him a cocksucker she called him a pussy motherfucker \*\*after \*\*he slammed her head to the ground. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/753 "2015-07-24T18:39:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Termination, fines, and prison. > > Any other ideas? :smack: You said that the “least” the officer should expect was lip service, which was coming from the Sandra Bland. For that reason, I read “the least he can expect” to mean “the least the officer can expect from Sandra”. So my thought’s were along the lines of “what’s the “most” he can expect from Sandra?” Termination, fines, and prison sentences come after the traffic stop has long been over, and such consequences are awarded by courts and police department disciplinary hearings. IMO, Sandra doesn’t get to resist arrest because (in her judgment at the time) the cop was “in the wrong”. IMO, it should help get leniency in sentencing, up to and including dismissal of charges, at the discretion of the Judge or D.A.'s involved. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/754 "2015-07-24T18:39:58Z")
> [@XT](#): > > What does this mean ‘The officer is extending the stop’? He hadn’t gotten her to sign the warning yet, so the stop was still ongoing, right? 😕 Since he hadn’t gotten her to sign the warning yet, he was perfectly within the law (even if it was being a dick) to ask her to leave her car to discuss the warning at that point, right?? As has been noted Rodriguez says when the traffic stop should reasonably have been over. All he needed was a signature. When she refuses to put out her cigarette he does not hand her the clipboard to sign. He puts the clipboard on the hood and orders her out of the car. As also noted in Rodiguez and I cited upthread he actually had no right to order her out of the car. Mimms does not work here. While asking her to put out her cigarette is fine her refusal is lawful and also fine. She later asks to sign the warning but the officer was having none of it at that point. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/755 "2015-07-24T18:42:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Again from the Rodriguez decision (bolding mine): > > _“The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. **The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms.** ”_ > > The officer here clearly was in no danger. From the part you bolded. The officer wasn’t performing any sort of “on-scene investigation into other crimes”, he asked her to step out as part of the existing, and ongoing, lawful traffic stop. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/756 "2015-07-24T18:44:51Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > That’s a false argument. She only kept smoking and that act was legal, even if it was but horrible for her lungs. > > She didn’t call him a cocksucker she called him a pussy motherfucker \*\*after \*\*he slammed her head to the ground. ok fine. If he decided to give her a warning, but wouldn’t put out her cigarette, your view is he cannot ever change his mind and decide to arrest her instead, since he was legally entitled to do that at the very beginning of the stop? Once he ‘decides on a warning’ he can’t change his mind ever? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/757 "2015-07-24T18:45:26Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > From the part you bolded. The officer wasn’t performing any sort of “on-scene investigation into other crimes”, he asked her to step out as part of the existing, and ongoing, lawful traffic stop. In other words he had even less reason to continue the stop. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/758 "2015-07-24T18:47:42Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > The stop was not effectively over, if she didn’t sign the warning. > > After asking her to sign it, wasn’t the delay on her part, not the officer’s? Making her to get out of the car to hand her a warning–when he could have just handed her the warning–is extending the stop longer than necessary. So was asking her to put out of cigarette befor giving her the paper to sign. He did not have the right to let his power trips prolong the encounter. If his safety was of concern, he could’ve handed her the warning from the passenger’s side. \*Just as he did with the previous driver. \*The fact that he actually increased harm to himself by opening her door and diving inside negates any claim to acting only out of safety concern. He also created a scene that could’ve distracted oncoming drivers. What do you think he was going to do if she meekly got out of the car as soon as he told her to? Just stand there and quickly hand her the ticket? I’m pretty sure he would have continued the cat and mouse game he’d started from the outset. First it would have been get out the car, then it would have been “turn around and put your hands on the hood”. Then who knows what else. “Where are headed to?” “Where do you work?” A request to search her trunk, maybe. Anything to remind her who is boss. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/759 "2015-07-24T18:48:39Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t understand your problem with this scenario. say I’m pulled over for what would legally be “reckless driving” , an arrestable offense (for the sake of argument), for going too fast, but the officer says he is going to give me a warning, and then I say “Thanks, cocksucker”. At this point, he decides instead to arrest me for reckless driving. Are you saying this is illegal? or should be? I’m saying it might be illegal, and it _absolutely_ should be. > [@](#): > > He can’t change his mind based on my behavior, speech or otherwise? Once he’s ‘made up his mind’ he can’t change it no matter what? No, he just can’t change his mind based on protected speech. If you say “Whew, so glad you didn’t give me a ticket. I was driving so fast because I’m late to deliver a bunch of narcotics and handguns in the trunk”, then that’s evidence of another crime, and he would be justified in investigating it and/or arresting you. But calling him a cocksucker is not relevant to whether you were driving recklessly a moment before. But, if an officer can’t legally arrest me for insulting him, then he also shouldn’t be legally able to arrest me for something he was clearly not going to arrest me for _because_ I insulted him. The existence of an arrestable offense should not be used as a pretext for an arrest, when the _actual_ offense is failure to kowtow. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/760 "2015-07-24T18:49:09Z")
> [@](#): > > … he asked her to step out as part of the existing, and ongoing, lawful traffic stop. Well, then, why didn’t he ask her to step out of the car when he first approached? Why didn’t he ask her to step out of the car when he returned with the clipboard _after_ checking her record out? Why was it necessary at the point when she was refusing to put out her ciggy? Did she need to get out of the car to sign the warning ticket? Can anyone give me a reason other than the cop just pushing her buttons because he could? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=39)