# 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:** 71
**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 29, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1401 "2015-07-29T00:07:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I can take your point, he does have a compelling interest in correcting and educating. > > But still, the thought is incomplete. Is he regretful, in the sombre knowledge that the average jurist is easily misled? Or confident that said jurist will easily see the solid argument the policeman offers? > > For my two bits, that’s a hell of a lot of benefit for damn little doubt. If I were a jurist, I’d laugh at the thought of a cigarette being used as a weapon. Especially in this case. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1402 "2015-07-29T00:14:22Z")
This thread has gotten very bizarre. The police officer was just 5 seconds away from being forever free from the clutches of the horrible chain-smoking she-beast Sandra Bland. I like to play “what if” as much as the next person, but this is just insane. If a person is so intolerant of common everyday environmental allergens that he can’t endure five seconds without turning into a raging douchbag, he shouldn’t be a police officer. He probably shouldn’t leave his house either. ---
**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 29, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1403 "2015-07-29T00:19:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because presumably the trooper’s testimony would include an explanation, or examples of injuries inflicted with lit cigarettes, or specific training he had received concerning lit cigarettes, or even a personal example like an allergy. > > If his testimony were simply the conclusory statement that he had unspecified safety concerns, no, I would not credit it. But that’s a very unlikely turn. > [@Bricker](#): > > In fact, now that I think about it, I’m wondering what the reaction would be if the trooper said, “Well, after all the news stories about restaurants being forced to ban smoking because of second-hand smoke health concerns, and smoking being banned in all state and federal buildings because of health concerns, I have come to believe that second-hand smoke is dangerous enough that I don’t want it in my lungs.” > > Not that I am suggesting this was his concern, mind you. But is that a legitimate view for a police officer to hold? Okay. Look, putting lawyering spin aside (and all of us know, that’s what lawyer’s do… speak for the client in the best possible spin for any charge or claim), if any of these excuses were the case, he should’ve ended the stop ASAP. She has a right to smoke in her own car. If he couldn’t handle that, perhaps he shouldn’t be a cop. I’m looking for a sincere comment to the above, and not what a lawyer might ask their client to state to avoid being looking like a buffoon or being charged for whatever. ---
**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 29, 2015, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1404 "2015-07-29T00:20:38Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > This thread has gotten very bizarre. > > The police officer was just 5 seconds away from being forever free from the clutches of the horrible chain-smoking she-beast Sandra Bland. > > I like to play “what if” as much as the next person, but this is just insane. If a person is so intolerant of common everyday environmental allergens that he can’t endure five seconds without turning into a raging douchbag, he shouldn’t be a police officer. He probably shouldn’t leave his house either. Bingo. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1405 "2015-07-29T02:03:40Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Bingo. Out of curiosity, suppose I said, “I have a right to smoke in the restaurant I own, and to invite my customers to do likewise, and if you don’t like it, perhaps you shouldn’t be a waiter or waitress?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1406 "2015-07-29T02:06:55Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Okay. Look, putting lawyering spin aside (and all of us know, that’s what lawyer’s do… speak for the client in the best possible spin for any charge or claim), if any of these excuses were the case, he should’ve ended the stop ASAP. She has a right to smoke in her own car. If he couldn’t handle that, perhaps he shouldn’t be a cop. > > I’m looking for a sincere comment to the above, and not what a lawyer might ask their client to state to avoid being looking like a buffoon or being charged for whatever. I have a right to carry a gun in my car, but it’s well established that an officer can, for his own safety, ask me to step out of the car and away from my gun. So the formula is not simply “she has a right.” The formula is: can the officer adduce some reasonable concern about the cigarette’s dangers? ---
**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 29, 2015, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1407 "2015-07-29T02:12:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Out of curiosity, suppose I said, “I have a right to smoke in the restaurant I own, and to invite my customers to do likewise, and if you don’t like it, perhaps you shouldn’t be a waiter or waitress?” If it’s outlawed, as it is now in most states, that won’t hold. However, if it’s legal, then that’s the discretion of the owner. His/her loss or gain as a commercial business owner. The police are neither commercial or a business in the capitalism sense. > [@Bricker](#): > > I have a right to carry a gun in my car, but it’s well established that an officer can, for his own safety, ask me to step out of the car and away from my gun. > > So the formula is not simply “she has a right.” The formula is: can the officer adduce some reasonable concern about the cigarette’s dangers? It is my conviction that a firearm is _several orders of magnitude_ a more harmful device than a lit cigarette. It takes a flick of the middle finger to disarm a barely harmful cigarette. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1408 "2015-07-29T02:15:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Out of curiosity, suppose I said, “I have a right to smoke in the restaurant I own, and to invite my customers to do likewise, and if you don’t like it, perhaps you shouldn’t be a waiter or waitress?” I asked you about this earlier. A car is private property, but not a business establishment, public place, or govt bldg. The police officer is not her employee. So what is the basis of your argument? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1409 "2015-07-29T03:00:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s no doubt that any attempt to charge a motorist with failure to obey a lawful order would fail if the order were not clearly and unambiguously an order. > > But what happened here seems to be that when the motorist refused what she thought was a request to exit the car, the officer changed his mind about issuing her only a warning and decided to arrest her. And his request for her to exit the car, in turn, arose because (for whatever reason) he asked her to extinguish her cigarette and she refused. > > I don’t know of any particular principle of law that declares an officer cannot exercise his discretion in that way. Thanks for answering. From this I adduce that a cop can indeed be a passive aggressive douchebag, use ‘discretion’ while pissing some citizen off to the point of committing an infraction more serious than the original cause of the stop, and remain safely within the letter of the law – if not necessarily obedient to department guidelines. Good to know. Of course, we’ve already been told that requiring better training and enforcement of such guidelines is impossible, and any attempt to do so must result in instant anarchy. I’m not convinced. Are you? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1410 "2015-07-29T03:16:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s no doubt that any attempt to charge a motorist with failure to obey a lawful order would fail if the order were not clearly and unambiguously an order. > > But what happened here seems to be that when the motorist refused what she thought was a request to exit the car, the officer changed his mind about issuing her only a warning and decided to arrest her. And his request for her to exit the car, in turn, arose because (for whatever reason) he asked her to extinguish her cigarette and she refused. > > **I don’t know of any particular principle of law that declares an officer cannot exercise his discretion in that way**. I thought that one of the most basic “laws” (not sure if this is the correct apellation to give) was that “refusal of a search cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion for a search” - I can sorta see a similarity here… the need to issue an order arose because she refused a request, the order then led to the need to arrest - it feels the same sort of circular reasoning as “I had no reason to suspect him till he refused to be searched” ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1411 "2015-07-29T03:41:39Z")
Here is all the cop had to say. “She kept moving her hand to the console of her car to tap the ashes from her cigarette. I had no way of knowing if she had a weapon and would use the motion as a precursor to getting that weapon. We are trained not to allow people any suspicious moves and given the totality of the situation, I felt it was appropriate to ask her to put out the cigarette.” ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1412 "2015-07-29T04:38:42Z")
> **[Cop caught on camera](https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/observer-advocate/2015/07/28/cop-caught-on-camera/33794405007/)** > > A Medford Police detective became national news Monday when he was placed on leave after a video surfaced of him threatening to “blow a hole” through the head of a driver during a traffic stop late S… ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1413 "2015-07-29T04:40:46Z")
**[Waller DA releases more jail footage, medication details in Sandra Bland case](http://www.chron.com/news/article/Waller-DA-releases-more-jail-footage-medication-6410401.php)** They said they released this to counter the conspiracy theories that alleged she was dead on arrival and/or in the mug shots. Some more info about medications as well: According to the jail’s medication purchase documents, Bland requested Alleve twice. Duhon said she did not request any other medications. The fact Bland was not receiving Keppra, or another epilepsy medication, while in jail could provide investigators and the public additional insight into her potential state of mind. Keppra has some potentially serious side effects, including suicidal tendencies, behavioral abnormalities and psychotic symptoms, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Some of these effects also are listed as common withdrawal symptoms. ---
**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 29, 2015, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1414 "2015-07-29T05:05:35Z")
> [@camille](#): > > **[Waller DA releases more jail footage, medication details in Sandra Bland case](http://www.chron.com/news/article/Waller-DA-releases-more-jail-footage-medication-6410401.php)** > > They said they released this to counter the conspiracy theories that alleged she was dead on arrival and/or in the mug shots. > > Some more info about medications as well: > > According to the jail’s medication purchase documents, Bland requested Alleve twice. Duhon said she did not request any other medications. > > The fact Bland was not receiving Keppra, or another epilepsy medication, while in jail could provide investigators and the public additional insight into her potential state of mind. > > Keppra has some potentially serious side effects, including suicidal tendencies, behavioral abnormalities and psychotic symptoms, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Some of these effects also are listed as common withdrawal symptoms. Yes, I believe I read that a side effect of immediately stopping Keppra was suicidal ideation in over 12% of study groups. It’s hard to cite right now since I’m posting from my phone, but the statistics are Googleable. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1415 "2015-07-29T05:40:08Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Yes, I believe I read that a side effect of immediately stopping Keppra was suicidal ideation in over 12% of study groups. It’s hard to cite right now since I’m posting from my phone, but the statistics are Googleable. Here’s a chilling note about Keppra on the [Crazy Meds](http://www.crazymeds.us/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Meds/Keppra) site: > [@](#): > > **Best Known for** > > Being the AED that will either fix you when nothing else can, or kill you because it’ll make you suicidally depressed and/or so enraged at the world that you’ll die because half-a-dozen cops had to tase you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1416 "2015-07-29T06:32:43Z")
Of course, if she had such medicine prescribed for her, and she was denied access to it, that would truly be the trajectory of the shit intersecting the locus of the fan. But wouldn’t she have mentioned it in her phone call? Has it been actually verified that she was epileptic? ---
**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 29, 2015, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1417 "2015-07-29T08:13:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So the formula is not simply “she has a right.” The formula is: can the officer adduce some reasonable concern about the cigarette’s dangers? If his stated concern was that she would use the cig as weapon, then by what logic made him tear open the door, reach into the car, and place his hands on her? His actions pretty much ensured she would burn him if that had been her desire. The officer proved himself to be a lying, hot-headed, policy-breaker. So I join others in asking why you would treat his claim like fact. ---
**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 29, 2015, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1418 "2015-07-29T11:33:55Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Here’s a chilling note about Keppra on the [Crazy Meds](http://www.crazymeds.us/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Meds/Keppra) site: :eek: ---
**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 29, 2015, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1419 "2015-07-29T11:36:03Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > If his stated concern was that she would use the cig as weapon, then by what logic made him tear open the door, reach into the car, and place his hands on her? His actions pretty much ensured she would burn him if that had been her desire. > > The officer proved himself to be a lying, hot-headed, policy-breaker. So I join others in asking why you would treat his claim like fact. Great point. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1420 "2015-07-29T11:38:30Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Yes. A barman can kick a guy out of his bar for swearing at him. That probably means a cop should be allowed tazer a guy for swearing at him. Why are cops so handcuffed by rules?!? I would have no problem whatsoever with swearing at a cop being illegal. Obviously the cop can’t throw you out, but being able to arrest you would be fine. And don’t give me “free speech” crap. You’re not allowed to swear at government agents when dealing with them at the DMV or whatever, they’re allowed to not serve you. Make swearing at them a crime as well, if you like. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=70) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=72)