My position is that this was an unlawful order. The traffic violation at this point was settled, the officer using his professional judgement had already decided the written warning was enough to ensure the girl would start using her blinkers. It’s clear from the video she got lippy with the officer, which she is entitled to do under the 1[sup]st[/sup] Amendment. If her words had anything to do with the order to step out of the car …
… then the officer violated the most sacred of all our liberties … the very foundation of what it means to be an American … to use his power to repress what is completely lawful in the United States (except in the very restrictive case of eminence).
The US Constitution trumps Texas Law in all cases and at all times in matters explicitly stated … like Free Speech.
I wonder … if this was a pick-up truck with an (empty) gun rack and a couple confederate flags … and the driver played nose guard for the high school football team until all the centers in the league were hospitalized … would the officer done anything different?
This would seem to be an item against the suicide theory, wouldn’t it ? She’d said as much on the arrest video too, “I can’t WAIT until we go to court” or something along those lines. Somebody who’s planning on killing themselves doesn’t really make plans for the future. I also have a hard time squaring depression with virulent anger - when I’m in a depressive phase, I can’t be brought to feel anything. I just don’t give a shit, about anything. It all dissolves into a shitty grey blur of sure, fine, whatever, what does it matter anyway, what’s even the point ? etc…
And, I mean, it’s not like she had just been railroaded into 20 to life in San Quentin here. Quite the opposite : in her misfortune, she’d “lucked” into the new and improved American dream : a slam dunk lawsuit.
She really had no particular reason to kill herself at that time, in that place ; other than the notion that because six months ago she made one post on Facebook where she used the word depressed, that settles it, she musta had a death wish that coulda blown off at any time for no reason whatsoever. Which is pretty weaksauce.
Certainly not a crim law expert, but my seat of the pants impression is the cop’s orders were lawful. As someone upthread said, say nothing, and do what the cop says.
But I sure hope there is some way to hold the cop responsible for his unprofessional conduct. A lot of folk say he escalated when he asked her to put out the smoke. Or when he said “Are you finished.” Bullshit. He was trying to start something when he asked her if she was irritated. “Naw, massa, I’m THRILLED to be hassled for just driving down the street. Let me out of the car so I can do some cartwheels!”
And it wouldn’t be at all possible for him to preface his lawful orders: “Put out that cigarette” “Get out of the car” with words that might actually make sense to a human being. Maybe, “I need to discuss why I’m giving you a warning. … Department policy requires that cigarettes be extinguished. … Step out of the car and over to the curb so we can discuss this without me standing in the street.”
Afterwards, he said he wanted her to exit the car so he didn’t have to stand in the street (which sounded like BS. His cruiser was blocking the lane, and traffic was giving a wide berth.) But what do you think? If she had put out her smoke, would he have ordered her out of the car? Hell, if she tossed it in the street, he would have written her up for littering!
Asshole cop. Sort of thing that gives all cops a bad name, and makes lawful citizens fear any innocent interaction with them.
I understand that there is a video of the corridor outside her call, with no one shown on the video entering the cell from the last check during which she was alive to the time that she was discovered dead.
That would seem to be an item against the non-suicide theory, wouldn’t you say?
For what? She was booked for assaulting a peace officer, yes? Which crime had not yet been committed. Isn’t he supposed to say something to advise the client of the reason her account is being serviced? He did advise her of his intent to take direct physical action…
TROOPER: “Step out or I’ll remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now or I’m going to remove you.”
BLAND: “I’m calling my lawyer.”
TROOPER: “I’m going to yank you out of here.”…
(You left this part out, no doubt for purposes of brevity and clarity…)
So, when he walked back to her car, he had filled out the paperwork for a warning ticket, so may we assume that he clearly did not intend to arrest her at that point? Yes? Is it because as a reasonable person she must assume she is under arrest, even if she is not? Even if the officer has yet to decide to do so?
So, if the law conflicts with temporal causality, causality must concede? Far out.
All of his business should be done in front of the camera, or else why isn’t there a side camera? “I wanted to get out of the camera range so I asked her to exit her car”?
I wish she had told him it was her last one and could she save it. And then got out of the car and said nothing and sued.
You heard of “Miranda”? i think you’re going to hear about "Bland’ too someday.
Yeah, with all that traffic whizzing by at speeds approaching 20 mph! Your cited incidents took place on highways.
But hey, maybe you can tell me why he u-turned his squad car to follow her. You’re good at this stuff, why? Did he suspect she was just about to change lanes without signaling?
We’ve already gone over this. It’s not probative in and of itself. There is a very long period with zero footage in between those times ; which is not in itself evidence of nothing happening.
Actually, that’s not exactly accurate either…I’m sure it’s just because you also were striving for brevity, not because you were trying to mis-characterize anything…
Now, while I know very little of whatever transpired or the right or wrong of things, this is clearly yet another case of cops being dicks and people thinking they know the law and deciding to flaunt it, thus escalating an already tense situation to the boiling point. A quick Google search seems to indicate that an officer DOES have the right to ask you to leave your car and an expectation that you will do so. The legal types on the board, of course, can confirm or deny this, but to me this page seems to offer good advice to avoid this sort of thing happening in the first place.
Assuming this is true (and I don’t know that we should assume it is, especially given his sordid history), it sure seems to me that this all the more reason they should have had her under close watch, away from plastic bags.
And you cleverly cut off your copy and paste to spin it, so yeah, I think you were. Unless I’m supposed to think you didn’t read the whole thing and didn’t realize that what you did cut and paste was spin without the whole sequence…and, while I might think a lot of things about you, 'luci, you being stupid and/or forgetful is definitely not one of them.
Besides, I’m giving you the same benefit of the doubt you gave the other posters, right?
Actually, they’re more of a proof I’d say - because they’re not the *absence *of something. She was actively telling people what she’d do when out of jail, which implicitly suggests that she believed there would be such a thing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but evidence of evidence is, well, evidence.
ETA : oh, and I didn’t mention the phonecalls. You did.
The absence of footage is due to absence of activity, since the cameras were motion-activated. But I guess someone wearing Potter’s invisibility cloak might have fooled the cameras and strangled Bland.
