# 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:** 73
**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 29, 2015, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1441 "2015-07-29T13:32:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But a cop who sees a gun is credible if he threatens to blow someone’s head off if they don’t show him empty hands RIGHT NOW? > > The point is this: the analytical process for police stops is well-litigated. The permissible process is not mysterious. I understand there are times it can produce results that can seem odd. But the fact of the matter is this: in my experience, an officer who testified that he had safety concerns under these circumstances would virtually always prevail. Anyone who has practiced criminal law will, I believe, agree that this is true. > > You may not agree with the validity of this outcome. But it’s what happens in the actual process of hearings. We are aware that this is what happens. We are also aware that one problem with this approach is that it reduces accountability in a situation where the other party is often no longer alive to provide an opposing viewpoint. While I have no wish to hamstring the police in the execution [sic] of a dangerous job, neither do I wish to give them so much leeway that the South Park Defense pertains, where merely shouting “He’s coming right for us!” is considered sufficient grounds for opening fire. ---
**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, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1442 "2015-07-29T13:41:36Z")
Chewbacca does not [make](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14) [sense!](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE) ---
**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 29, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1443 "2015-07-29T13:43:18Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > Chewbacca does not [make](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14) [sense!](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE) Wrong South Park Defense. ---
**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, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1444 "2015-07-29T13:43:49Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > But he never expressed a safety concern during the stop. A normal person, that is one who isn’t an idiot, would instead say, “Ma’am, would you mind putting out your cigarette before signing? I want to avoid any accidental burns.” Yes, that’s true. But I have already agreed that this officer handled his interaction with Ms. Bland very poorly. I am explaining why his safety concern, even unexpressed, is legally sufficient. ---
**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, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1445 "2015-07-29T13:45:34Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Wrong South Park Defense. But it’s the best defense ever. ---
**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, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1446 "2015-07-29T13:47:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s true. But I have already agreed that this officer handled his interaction with Ms. Bland very poorly. > > I am explaining why his safety concern, even unexpressed, is legally sufficient. That’s fine. I just hope the prosecution would destroy such a silly claim. ---
**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, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1447 "2015-07-29T13:49:03Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > We are aware that this is what happens. We are also aware that one problem with this approach is that it reduces accountability in a situation where the other party is often no longer alive to provide an opposing viewpoint. While I have no wish to hamstring the police in the execution [sic] of a dangerous job, neither do I wish to give them so much leeway that the South Park Defense pertains, where merely shouting “He’s coming right for us!” is considered sufficient grounds for opening fire. The vast majority of suppression arguments arise with living defendants. Mimms and Rodriguez are in play because of the need to litigate cases with living defendants. A deceased suspect isn’t charged with any crime. So, no, the situation here is not one in which the other party is no longer alive. The situation here is much more often one in which the other party is alive and is contesting the legality of the traffic stop at its inception or at the instant inculpatory evidence was evident. It is that framework which is under debate. ---
**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, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1448 "2015-07-29T13:50:04Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > That’s fine. I just hope the prosecution would destroy such a silly claim. In what circumstances would the prosecution seek to destroy that claim? ---
**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, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1449 "2015-07-29T14:01:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In what circumstances would the prosecution seek to destroy that claim? If she didn’t know his concern about being burned or otherwise harmed by her cigarette, why would she feel compelled to put it out? Because he said so isn’t valid. He never made any concern or any reason at all known to her. Her refusal was the impetus for commanding her to step out of the vehicle. That’s when the whole thing went to shit. ---
**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, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1450 "2015-07-29T14:14:23Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > If she didn’t know his concern about being burned or otherwise harmed by her cigarette, why would she feel compelled to put it out? Because he said so isn’t valid. Yes, but that question isn’t legally relevant. What’s the legal relevance of whether she felt compelled to put it out? > [@](#): > > He never made any concern or any reason at all known to her. Her refusal was the impetus for commanding her to step out of the vehicle. That’s when the whole thing went to shit. So what? There is no law requiring an officer to explain his reason for an arrest, much less his reasons for ordering someone out of the car. Why are you asking about what she knew? ---
**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, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1451 "2015-07-29T14:17:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but that question isn’t legally relevant. What’s the legal relevance of whether she felt compelled to put it out? > > So what? > > There is no law requiring an officer to explain his reason for an arrest, much less his reasons for ordering someone out of the car. > > Why are you asking about what she knew? There is no law requiring her to extinguish her cigarette. This whole line of reasoning is circular. ---
**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 29, 2015, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1452 "2015-07-29T15:20:42Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > That’s fine. I just hope the prosecution would destroy such a silly claim. Why would the _prosecution_ seek to undermine the State’s case? ---
**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, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1453 "2015-07-29T15:32:40Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Why would the _prosecution_ seek to undermine the State’s case? To be honest, I’m not even sure what we’re really debating at this point. I was thinking of a hypothetical trial/suit between Encinia vs. Bland’s Family. But since no actual laws were broken by the officer, this wouldn’t happen. ---
**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 29, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1454 "2015-07-29T16:01:53Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > I was thinking of a hypothetical trial/suit between Encinia vs. Bland’s Family. In a hypothetical civil suit of Bland Family v. Encinia, there wouldn’t be a prosecutor. You understand that, right? ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1455 "2015-07-29T16:35:27Z")
> [@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. Speaking as an epileptic who’s been on at least three different AEDs, (and currently taking a generic form of Keppra. Yea!) most mess with your mood and withdraw can suck. They are altering you brain’s chemistry, that’s how AEDs work. Funny things can happen. The article says she listed she had epilepsy, but is kind of unclear about if she was taking medication for them. If she was and they put her into three days of withdraw Hell and that’s why she killed herself, they may as well be responsible for her death. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1456 "2015-07-29T16:40:11Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > The article says she listed she had epilepsy, but is kind of unclear about if she was taking medication for them. If she was and they put her into three days of withdraw Hell and that’s why she killed herself, they may as well be responsible for her death. “According to the jail’s medication purchase documents, Bland requested Alleve twice. Duhon said she did not request any other medications.” ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1457 "2015-07-29T17:01:00Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > There is no law requiring her to extinguish her cigarette. > > This whole line of reasoning is circular. No. Although there is no law requiring her to extinguish her cigarette, there is a law requiring her to step out of the vehicle when ordered to do so and told that she’s under arrest. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1458 "2015-07-29T17:04:15Z")
> [@cmyk](#): > > To be honest, I’m not even sure what we’re really debating at this point. I was thinking of a hypothetical trial/suit between Encinia vs. Bland’s Family. > > But since no actual laws were broken by the officer, this wouldn’t happen. Well, hold on. A suit in which Bland’s family, as next of kin, sues Encinia could happen, because they could allege certain civil violations. When we talk about civil torts, we don’t typically use language like “laws broken.” But in that scenario, there is no “prosecution.” A civil trial has a plaintiff, who has alleged some injury inflicted because of some civil wrong done by the defendant. In that trial the Blands would be the plaintiff and Encinia the defendant. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1459 "2015-07-29T17:43:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, a moment’s thought will demonstrate that it’s not a great point. > > Suppose, instead of a lit cigarette, she was holding her right hand out of sight, even after the officer asked her to place her hands in view. "It’s my car, and I can put my hands where I want. You still haven’t addressed my point. His own actions contradict any claim that he was concerned about the cigarette. If a person says they are afraid that the cobra might bite, does it make any sense for them to plunge both hands into its cage and grab the snake by its neck? Hell no. This is essentially what the Officer did to Bland. What does this new and creative “what if” scenario about presenting her hands have to do with anything? You are flailing here. And you still haven’t explained why you would take the side of this Officer even though he is dishonest and you admit that he demonstrated behavior unbefitting an officer. An impartial juror should discount his testimony due to his poor credibility issues and use the objective evidence to infer his motivation for ordering out her car. From that it’s clear his motivation has nothing to do with safety concerns for the reasons pointed out. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859/1460 "2015-07-29T17:57:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, hold on. > > A suit in which Bland’s family, as next of kin, sues Encinia could happen, because they could allege certain civil violations. When we talk about civil torts, we don’t typically use language like “laws broken.” > > But in that scenario, there is no “prosecution.” A civil trial has a plaintiff, who has alleged some injury inflicted because of some civil wrong done by the defendant. > > In that trial the Blands would be the plaintiff and Encinia the defendant. Yes, sorry. I was thinking plaintiff vs. defendant. My bad. (And I knew this! :smack: ) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=72) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sandra-bland-video/725859.md?page=74)