# 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:** 66
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1301 "2015-07-28T03:13:55Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Okay. Let’s take that as granted. > > But she asked again, and again, and again what she was being arrested for, and he came up with nothing. Absolutely nothing. > > In his report to his superiors he dances around the fact he could’ve arrested her for resistance or assault. But by that time he had let the situation escalate (instead of attempting, at least once, to try and explain things and talk her down), to the point where it seemed unclear to even himself what he was really arresting her for. > > Simply telling her what she was arrested (or not) for, at the very beginning, would’ve gone a long way to put her at ease. > > It just defies all common sense. It does, yes. And that’s a frustrating and crappy way of dealing with the public. But his failure to advise Ms. Bland why she was being arrested does absolutely nothing to make the arrest invalid. I keep beating this drum because there are posters here that seem unwilling to accept this distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1302 "2015-07-28T03:19:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > On its face, it makes no sense that completion of the stop determines whether Rodriguez is violated. Because if that’s the case, all a cop would need to do is hold off on getting a person to sign a ticket and they’d be able to go on a fishing expedition for several hours. > > The ruling emphasizes the actions needed to perform a routine traffic stop. Beyond the time it takes to carry out these basics actions (informing the person why they were stopped, collecting and checking the license and registration, filling out the citation, issuing it, etc), there is no lawful reason for detaining someone. Nothing in the ruling specifies how much time must elapse before the detainment becomes unlawful, and there is nothing that suggests unlawfulness only applies after the stop is completed. > > I believe Encincia’s own words get him in trouble, because he tells his boss that Bland kept demanding to sign the ticket and he prevented her from doing so. This indicates she wasn’t the one holding things up, he was. By introducing a wholly unnecessary series of actions into the proceedings (asking her to extinguish her cigarette and then ordering her to exit her car), he extended the stop beyond the time needed. Suppose Encinia identifies the reason for his cigarette request as a safety concern – he didn’t want to hand her the citation while she was simultaneously exhibiting an upset demeanor and holding a lit ember? Does his request then remain unreasonable? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1303 "2015-07-28T06:25:12Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > On its face, it makes no sense that completion of the stop determines whether Rodriguez is violated. Because if that’s the case, all a cop would need to do is hold off on getting a person to sign a ticket and they’d be able to go on a fishing expedition for several hours. > > The ruling emphasizes the actions needed to perform a routine traffic stop. Beyond the time it takes to carry out these basics actions (informing the person why they were stopped, collecting and checking the license and registration, filling out the citation, issuing it, etc), there is no lawful reason for detaining someone. Nothing in the ruling specifies how much time must elapse before the detainment becomes unlawful, and there is nothing that suggests unlawfulness only applies after the stop is completed. > > I believe Encincia’s own words get him in trouble, because he tells his boss that Bland kept demanding to sign the ticket and he prevented her from doing so. This indicates she wasn’t the one holding things up, he was. By introducing a wholly unnecessary series of actions into the proceedings (asking her to extinguish her cigarette and then ordering her to exit her car), he extended the stop beyond the time needed. I wanted it to be clarified by a lawyer because so many here seemed to think the significant factor was completing the stop before any extension time could kick in. But I still doubt _Rodriguez_ will apply in this case. As **Bricker** noted, a judge would find it reasonable for the cop to use the possible danger of a lit cigarette as a reason for asking her to leave the vehicle. He could probably also say the refusal to extinguish the cigarette made him suspicious she was trying to disguise the smell of something else in the car (as happened in _Rodriguez_ because of the strong air freshener smell in his car). And even though there is no set time limit, Rodriguez was held for 29 minutes total, with an extra 8 minutes extension included to wait for the dogs (and the dissenters still thought that reasonable); compare that to the time elapsed in this incident. BTW, Thomas mentioned _Atwater_ in his dissent: > [@](#): > > …it results in a constitutional frame-work that lacks predictability. \*\*Had Officer Struble arrested, handcuffed, and taken Rodriguez to the police station for his traffic violation, he would have complied with the Fourth Amendment. See _Atwater_, _supra_, at 354– 355. \*\*But because he made Rodriguez wait for seven or eight extra minutes until a dog arrived, he evidently committed a constitutional violation. Such a view of the Fourth Amendment makes little sense. ---
**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 28, 2015, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1304 "2015-07-28T08:03:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose Encinia identifies the reason for his cigarette request as a safety concern – he didn’t want to hand her the citation while she was simultaneously exhibiting an upset demeanor and holding a lit ember? > > Does his request then remain unreasonable? This is what I wrote in Post #[797](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18545733&postcount=797)essentially. It’s a pretty easy claim to make that he demured from handing her the ticket to sign while she was holding a lit cigarette. So he asked her to put it out, she refused so he had to remove her from the vehicle. It’s pure conjecture on my part but it could defeat the Rodriguez violation claim. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1305 "2015-07-28T09:37:34Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Y’know-murder(violent or otherwise), is not the only other possibility, since she was complaining of a head injury. What about the possibility of medical neglect, the discovery of a dead(or near-dead) body, and a quick rigging to make it look like suicide? There would be no sign of a struggle. I’ve seen one theory that she developed a subdural hematoma from having her head smacked to the pavement and subsequently died from that; such injuries can easily go unnoticed and take up to a few days to result in death (see Natasha Richardson’s death, for example). I have no idea if that’s true, but it’s more plausible than the murder theory. > [@elucidator](#): > > Do you guys ever feel like if you have to read the word “reasonable” ever again, you’ll paint your butt blue and move to the country? Does that seem like a reasonable reaction to you? ---
**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 28, 2015, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1306 "2015-07-28T10:16:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Suppose Encinia identifies the reason for his cigarette request as a safety concern – he didn’t want to hand her the citation while she was simultaneously exhibiting an upset demeanor and holding a lit ember? From what I’ve read, she wasn’t holding a lit cigarette. It was sitting in the holder. What reason did he have for thinking she’d burn him with it? In theory, any object within arm’s reach could be used as a weapon against him. Like her car keys. Since she had only been calm and cooperative with him up until the point that he asked would she mind putting it out, being concerned that she was going to him burn him out of the blue doesn’t seem reasonable at all. He was about to issue her a _warning_, right? So what would provoke that kind of bizarre fit of violence? Just because he might have an active imagination doesn’t mean he should have acted on it. > [@](#): > > Does his request then remain unreasonable? Yes it does. Noticeably absent in his report is the claim he was concerned she would burn him with her smoke. ---
**Author:** ![Andiethewestie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Andiethewestie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andiethewestie)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1307 "2015-07-28T10:30:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It does, yes. And that’s a frustrating and crappy way of dealing with the public. > > But his failure to advise Ms. Bland why she was being arrested does absolutely nothing to make the arrest invalid. I keep beating this drum because there are posters here that seem unwilling to accept this distinction. So what? A drum beat doesn’t negate the fact that it was against the departments protocol and just another way to escalate the tension. For the “law” to constantly rail against what most would consider at the very least having a modicum of respect for the driver does nothing to endear the public to the people who profess to be servants of the public. At the very least, Sandra didn’t die in vain, a change to the law needs to happen so that people regardless of circumstance are treated with dignity and respect. ---
**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 28, 2015, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1308 "2015-07-28T10:47:21Z")
And again, **Bricker** , by the officer’s own words, Bland was more concerned about signing the ticket than anything else. Even though his account is riddled with lies and exaggerations, he never says she threatened him with violence or made menancing moves with the cigarette. If she made him feel unsafe, it’s a mystery why he doesn’t say that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1309 "2015-07-28T11:38:35Z")
Bricker, I appreciate your clarification of the law in these posts. I’d like to ask a slightly different question. You’ve agreed with folks that the cop’s behavior here was egregious. When folks have suggested possible legal remedies, you’ve been careful to explain why all the suggested remedies are unworkable. **So what do you suggest**? What changes to the law or to legal precedent would you suggest in order to discourage such egregious police behavior going forward? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1310 "2015-07-28T12:55:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Y’know-murder(violent or otherwise), is not the only other possibility, since she was complaining of a head injury. Not sure what you mean by murder that isn’t violent. > [@](#): > > What about the possibility of medical neglect, the discovery of a dead(or near-dead) body, and a quick rigging to make it look like suicide? There would be no sign of a struggle. That would show up in one of the autopsies. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/24/us/autopsy-of-sandra-bland-texas.html) are the results of the first autopsy. Note that it says specifically that the scalp is not contused, the skull is not fractured, and that there are no epidural, subdural, or arachnoid hemmorhages. In other words, no, what you are JAQing about didn’t happen. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1311 "2015-07-28T13:09:05Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > From what I’ve read, she wasn’t holding a lit cigarette. It was sitting in the holder. > > What reason did he have for thinking she’d burn him with it? In theory, any object within arm’s reach could be used as a weapon against him. Like her car keys. Since she had only been calm and cooperative with him up until the point that he asked would she mind putting it out, being concerned that she was going to him burn him out of the blue doesn’t seem reasonable at all. He was about to issue her a _warning_, right? So what would provoke that kind of bizarre fit of violence? Just because he might have an active imagination doesn’t mean he should have acted on it. Yes, the officer wanted to make sure that when she signed the ticket she wasn’t holding anything that could be used as an improvised weapon. A pen, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1312 "2015-07-28T13:18:01Z")
No, a cigarette. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1313 "2015-07-28T13:52:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not sure what you mean by murder that isn’t violent. Poison. Just sayin’ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1314 "2015-07-28T14:03:32Z")
Was she one of those women with fashionable fingernail embellishments? About an inch or so of highly lacquered nail would make a perfectly serviceable spear, slam it through the eye socket into the brain, instant death! And there’s no telling what a weed deranged person might think to do! I, myself, once beat a man to death with a bowling ball in a weed induced psychosis…no, wait, I thought about it, giggled, and then went and bought some cookies. Never mind. And when questioned, she herself admitted that she was seething with rage and a murderous fury. Such a state of pot-induced derangement, she might at any moment paint her butt blue and move to the country! No, wait, that was me again. And the phone? Was it one of those cast-iron industrial strength phones that Nokia makes, she might well have been planning to savage the officer! Or worse, she might actually have been calling a lawyer! She already had the right to remain silent, what further treachery was afoot? Anyone who had ever seen an inflamed pot addict savage the contents of a refrigerator would feel threatened, as would any reasonable…reasonable?..slowly I turned…step by step… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1315 "2015-07-28T14:13:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Bricker, I appreciate your clarification of the law in these posts. I’d like to ask a slightly different question. > > You’ve agreed with folks that the cop’s behavior here was egregious. When folks have suggested possible legal remedies, you’ve been careful to explain why all the suggested remedies are unworkable. > > **So what do you suggest**? What changes to the law or to legal precedent would you suggest in order to discourage such egregious police behavior going forward? Fire the cop. DPS can do that based on his violation of their internal policy. No changes are needed, in other words, beyond a commitment to enforcing existing policy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1316 "2015-07-28T14:18:55Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > From what I’ve read, she wasn’t holding a lit cigarette. It was sitting in the holder. > > What reason did he have for thinking she’d burn him with it? Do you believe that an officer not only has to identify a weapon, but also identify a reason that a motorist must yes it, before the law entitles him to separate the motorist from the weapon? > [@](#): > > In theory, any object within arm’s reach could be used as a weapon against him. Like her car keys. Sure. > [@](#): > > Since she had only been calm and cooperative with him up until the point that he asked would she mind putting it out, being concerned that she was going to him burn him out of the blue doesn’t seem reasonable at all. I don’t agree that her demeanor could be described as calm. > [@](#): > > Yes it does. Noticeably absent in his report is the claim he was concerned she would burn him with her smoke. Do you believe that he is somehow limited to advancing only what is in his report? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1317 "2015-07-28T14:22:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fire the cop. DPS can do that based on his violation of their internal policy. > > No changes are needed, in other words, beyond a commitment to enforcing existing policy. This feels like a reasonable response to getting served a burger with a dead bee mashed in it. It doesn’t feel sufficiently proscriptive from the standpoint of increasing a reliable respect for civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1318 "2015-07-28T14:24:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > This feels like a reasonable response to getting served a burger with a dead bee mashed in it. It doesn’t feel sufficiently proscriptive from the standpoint of increasing a reliable respect for civil rights. Or indeed a reliable respect for the police. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1319 "2015-07-28T14:37:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > From what I’ve read, she wasn’t holding a lit cigarette. It was sitting in the holder. (post shortened) I read that also. It was written by **you with the face** in post 1306 of the _Sandra Bland video_ thread. It must be true? Does the year and model of car Bland was driving even have a “holder” for cigarettes? Or an ashtray? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1320 "2015-07-28T14:45:13Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > How 'bout we just wait and see how this all shakes out in a court of law, as intended. Does your statement imply that you are done posting about this subject until a case is filed with a court? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=65) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=67)