# 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:** 42
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/821 "2015-07-24T21:48:21Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > But give such power to a police officer–someone who walks around with a gun and can kill with impunity 99% of the time–and suddenly folks don’t seem all that bothered. Folks who are normally full of conspiracies about the government don’t seem to have a problem with surrendering all their rights to any random guy in a blue uniform. These same types also do a lot of big talk about unfettered access to guns. To protect themselves from what? The government, that’s who. Makes you wonder, though, what they would do if a cop kicked down the door and demanded them to turn over all their firearms. Would they submit meekly, as they admonish the Sandra Blands of the world to do? Or will they give them a piece of their mind? You know, like Sandra Bland did. And suffered for. ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/822 "2015-07-24T21:50:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If it did, it would be unconstitutional. > > The Fourth Amendment allows an officer to issue the ticket if there is PC regardless of his subjective views. But the First Amendment forbids him from issuing it as a subjective result of your cursing at him. > > Obviously, in the real world of America in 2015, such disrespect might well get you killed. It will almost certainly get you arrested. It’s a terrible idea. But on the narrow question of the law, it is definitely constitutionally protected conduct. Sure, it’s wrong, but good luck proving it in traffic court (or at least being a schlub like me and proving it). But if an officer tells me that I’m getting a warning, does that constitute some sort of contract where he has to give me a warning and can’t change his mind and give me a ticket later in the exchange? If so, that might be good to know for the future. 😉 ---
**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, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/823 "2015-07-24T21:55:02Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] These same types also do a lot of big talk about unfettered access to guns. To protect themselves from what? The government, that’s who. [/QUOTE] Um…you know, most of the folks who want ‘unfettered access to guns’ don’t really like or trust the government, including the police…right? I don’t know who you think your target audience for this rant is, but I know some of these types of people and they don’t like the police any more than you seemingly do…and don’t trust them or the government. That’s kind of why they WANT ‘unfettered access to guns’ in the first place. > [@](#): > > Makes you wonder, though, what they would do if a cop kicked down the door and demanded them to turn over all their firearms. Would they submit meekly, as they admonish the Sandra Blands of the world to do? Or will they give them a piece of their mind? You know, like Sandra Bland did. And suffered for. Are you under the impression that a cop having his door kicked in by other cops is going to be all shoot out the OK Corral™ and that this would be perfectly fine?? They would submit meekly or they would be dead, cop or no cop. Why do you always have to go into these ridiculous rants in these discussions?? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/824 "2015-07-24T21:55:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > When I look at the [Texas code itself,](http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/E/9.51) this is what I find: > If the officer reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person, then there is no requirement to announce the reason for arrest. I think it’s a wobbler whether or not the person you cited was correct. He certainly didn’t present his statement with the nuance it deserves. Does it have to be both purpose _and_ identity? It’s obvious she knew his identity, but is it reasonable to think she should have known the purpose for him ordering her out of the car after the exchange they had? She obviously didn’t know she was under arrest right away, because she said, “Why do I have to get out of my car? I’m not under arrest.” When he said, “You _are_ under arrest.”, she asked why, so how is it reasonable to believe she knew? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/825 "2015-07-24T22:01:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > And you would be correct. Vulgar language directed at an officer, especially in a way that is criticizing his official conduct toward you, is not on its own a valid basis for arrest. Yet if there is a valid basis for arrest (as there was in Bland’s case, since in Texas a traffic violation is a valid basis for arrest) and the police officer is exercising his discretion not to arrest, vulgar language directed at the officer may change his mind. Quite legally. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/826 "2015-07-24T22:01:44Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Does it have to be both purpose _and_ identity? It’s obvious she knew his identity, but is it reasonable to think she should have known the purpose for him ordering her out of the car after the exchange they had? She obviously didn’t know she was under arrest right away, because she said, “Why do I have to get out of my car? I’m not under arrest.” When he said, “You _are_ under arrest.”, she asked why, so how is it reasonable to believe she knew? Actually, I think I’m interpreting this incorrectly. That statute says: > [@](#): > > before using force, the actor manifests \*\*his purpose to arrest \*\*or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer’s direction, unless he reasonably believes **his purpose and identity** are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested. The purpose and identity above refers to the intent to arrest and that the person is a police officer, respectivley. No where does it describe the reason for the arrest, just that an arrest is happening. This is to prevent police officers from apprehending people silently without informing them they are under arrest. Still not seeing anything regarding police being required to state a reason for arrest. In a later section the code describes this necessity if the person arresting is not a police officer. That part specifically states “reason”, delineating from purpose. Purpose in this case is ‘to affect an arrest’. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/827 "2015-07-24T22:07:23Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Sure, it’s wrong, but good luck proving it in traffic court (or at least being a schlub like me and proving it). But if an officer tells me that I’m getting a warning, does that constitute some sort of contract where he has to give me a warning and can’t change his mind and give me a ticket later in the exchange? If so, that might be good to know for the future. 😉 No, I do not think the provisional decision to let you off with a warning is binding. Certainly not as a matter of contract law (since you neither relied on the decision nor offered consideration for it), and not as a matter of constitutional law. State law, maybe, but I’d be surprised if that were true. > [@Terr](#): > > Yet if there is a valid basis for arrest (as there was in Bland’s case, since in Texas a traffic violation is a valid basis for arrest) and the police officer is exercising his discretion not to arrest, vulgar language directed at the officer may change his mind. Quite legally. No, that’s not correct. If he would not have arrested in the absence of the constitutionally protected conduct, then it is unconstitutional to arrest as a result of that conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/828 "2015-07-24T22:10:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No, that’s not correct. If he would not have arrested in the absence of the constitutionally protected conduct, then it is unconstitutional to arrest as a result of that conduct. The arrest is not as a result of that contact. The arrest is as a result of the prior conduct. With the “constitutionally protected conduct” being a contributing factor to the decision to arrest. As for the above scenario being unconstitutional - cite? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/829 "2015-07-24T22:12:22Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Sure, it’s wrong, but good luck proving it in traffic court (or at least being a schlub like me and proving it). I’m a schlub too. That’s why I have a problem with people saying that citizens who feel they are being dicked over by a cop should just suck it up and deal with it later, once they are standing in front of the judge. How would you go about proving you were dicked over? The cop has control over all the evidence (including the dashcam). His word is always going to carry more weight than yours. if you are an average person of average means, it is practically a fantasy to believe you will be made whole after a cop tramples all over your constitutional rights. The only reason we even know about Bland’s situation is because she killed herself. I don’t think citizens should go out of their way to give police officers a hard time. But I also don’t think citizens should have to put up with mistreatment at the hands of any public servant…in hopes that another public servant will smooth things over later. That requires having way too much faith in the system. I want the system to work right from the very beginning. ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/830 "2015-07-24T22:15:08Z")
> [@XT](#): > > They would submit meekly or they would be dead, cop or no cop. I’m amazed that you think there is no middle ground between meek submission and death. Actually, no I’m not amazed. This binary thinking accounts for many of your comments in this thread. Anything other than meek submission _must_ justify force, right? Like, it’s the most we should expect, huh? I should hope that if a cop barges into anyone’s home without a warrant, they feel empowered enough to tell the cop to step outside until they can furnish one. I should also hope if a cop demands that anyone’s property (guns or otherwise) be turned over, they feel empowered enough to refuse until the cops can furnish a warrant. If we as citizens don’t have the balls to even say “no” (for fucks sake you don’t even have to raise your voice when you do it either) when a cop blatantly does something unconsitutional, then God, can you put us out of our misery now? Send us that doomsday asteroid, please. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/831 "2015-07-24T22:16:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The arrest is not as a result of that contact. The arrest is as a result of the prior conduct. With the “constitutionally protected conduct” being a contributing factor to the decision to arrest. As for the above scenario being unconstitutional - cite? Sure, here’s a cite: “[It is] clearly established that a police action motivated by retaliatory animus was unlawful, even if probable cause existed for that action.” _Ford v. City of Yakima_, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013). ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/832 "2015-07-24T22:18:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Actually, I think I’m interpreting this incorrectly. That statute says: > > The purpose and identity above refers to the intent to arrest and that the person is a police officer, respectivley. No where does it describe the reason for the arrest, just that an arrest is happening. This is to prevent police officers from apprehending people silently without informing them they are under arrest. Still not seeing anything regarding police being required to state a reason for arrest. In a later section the code describes this necessity if the person arresting is not a police officer. That part specifically states “reason”, delineating from purpose. Purpose in this case is ‘to affect an arrest’. Okay, but it still stands that she didn’t know his purpose was “to affect an arrest” until the situation was out of control. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/833 "2015-07-24T22:26:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Sure, here’s a cite: “[It is] clearly established that a police action motivated by retaliatory animus was unlawful, even if probable cause existed for that action.” _Ford v. City of Yakima_, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013). Interesting - but not relevant to Texas, is it? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/834 "2015-07-24T22:27:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The arrest is not as a result of that contact. The arrest is as a result of the prior conduct. With the “constitutionally protected conduct” being a contributing factor to the decision to arrest. > > As for the above scenario being unconstitutional - cite? Retaliatory arreset even in the pressence of probable cause to arrest is uncontitutional in the [9th](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Skoog+v.+County+of+Clackamas&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14&case=6383277560530935497&scilh=0&sout=1&surl=1&safe=active)and [10th](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3505691730086673391&q=Howards+v.+McLaughlin&hl=en&as_sdt=806&as_vis=1)circuits. I can’t find anything in the 5th circuit (Texas) From the 9th circuit: > [@](#): > > We have decided only today that a right exists to be free of police action for which retaliation is a but-for cause even if probable cause exists for that action. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/835 "2015-07-24T22:30:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Interesting - but not relevant to Texas, is it? 1. We weren’t talking about Texas. We were talking about the hypothetical scenario in which we know the officer would not have issued a ticket but-for some vulgar insult. Neither of those facts are present in the Bland case. 2. It is absolutely relevant to Texas. Just because the first court of appeals opinion I pulled up from Google isn’t binding on Texas courts doesn’t make it irrelevant. When a matter is “clearly established” that generally means there isn’t a significant circuit split. For the purposes of a quick message board cite, it’s fine. The Supreme Court has not yet decided this issue directly, though it has held in lots of other contexts that retaliatory conduct is impermissible if it was the but-for cause, regardless of any other legitimate basis. AFAIK, most circuits to have considered the issue agree, including at a minimum the second, ninth, and tenth. I’m not that interested in researching what the fifth has had to say unless you start paying me, though. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/836 "2015-07-24T22:40:29Z")
If retaliatory arrest (even with probable cause) is unconstitutional, why didn’t it apply in _Atwater_? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/837 "2015-07-24T22:46:50Z")
Why would it have applied there? Did the plaintiff even bring a First Amendment claim? ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/838 "2015-07-24T22:56:24Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Ah, brevity _and_ certainty! Always a reliable indicator of comprehensive information. So, then, outside of her signature, which she could not have provided without the officer’s cooperation, what remained to be done? Was he going to offer her an incomplete form, maybe fill in the blanks later? I would be reluctant to sign such a thing, how about you? > > Anyway, since you have all the fact right at your fingertips, what remained to be done? Any progress to report on that, **Terr**? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/839 "2015-07-24T22:58:22Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Why would it have applied there? Did the plaintiff even bring a First Amendment claim? No, it was 4th amendment. But why wouldn’t the lawyer who represented them add that claim if it was possible? Wouldn’t it have been applicable? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/840 "2015-07-24T22:59:58Z")
> [@camille](#): > > No, it was 4th amendment. But why wouldn’t the lawyer who represented them add that claim if it was possible? Wouldn’t it have been applicable? Maybe I don’t know the facts of _Atwater_ well enough. I remember that as the case saying that the police could arrest for a misdemeanor as long as they have PC, regardless of whether the misdemeanor constituted a breach of the peace. What was the retaliation issue? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=43)