Exactly.
And of course she did. His wording wasn’t vague.
When she said “no,” he got all high and mighty, and issued orders/arrest.
Sounds to me, based on the transcript that he then asked her to exit the car, which she refused to do. She tried to rules lawyer a cop and at a certain point she was basically wrong about his not having the ‘right’ to order her to exit the vehicle…and at that point things spun off the deep end.
Bricker said:
Do you believe that in order for an arrest to be valid, the office must inform the suspect of the grounds for the arrest?
Good question. That’s what I want to know.
I think the officer, by asking her to put out the cig, and immediately on her declining ordering her out of the car, connects the two events by common sense implication. It was apparent this “arrest” was for her freedom to speak, smoke and be pissed off.
He knew that and you can hear all the rationalizing and dissembling on the tape. He knew he was wrong and going to be shamed for this.
Anyone here think they could kill themselves with an institutional plastic trash bag? It’s a big decision to make, lots of thoughts, regrets, and the technical challenge of doing it. Let everything go cause it’s unbearable to wait a few hours or days?
(bolding mine)
Bloody hell, what the fuck is wrong with you, watchwolf? First it was “little girl” now it’s “girl”… this was a full-grown adult woman; please stop using diminutive and derogatory terms to refer to her (or any other person) unless you are trying to be deliberately insulting.
Are you trying to be deliberately insulting? :dubious:
If he stopped her for a traffic violation, intended to let her go with a warning, and then changed his mind and arrested her, do you believe that is an illegal arrest?
The initial stop was predicated on the illegal lane change. Under Texas law, he has the power to arrest her for that offense. When he tells her she’s under arrest, and she refuses to get out of the car, the trooper had probable cause to arrest her for resisting arrest as well.
First of all, not that easily. Second of all : and ?
She was arrested for the charge of assaulting a public servant.
And yet she hadn’t assaulted him when he was yanking her out of the car, threatening to light her up.
She asked why she was being “apprehended”, which is her right to do. He’s supposed to provide her with that information. But he didn’t. Because he didn’t know. He just knew the uppity negro needed to be taken care of somehow.
The more I learn about this story, the more I can believe that Sandra killed herself. She wasn’t a doe-eyed kid. She was cynical and intelligent enough to know that bad cops rarely ever the book thrown at them, dash cam video or not. Not in rural Texas. Not when you’re black. She’d get released from jail and only end up with a riveting story to tell her family and friends at cocktail parties. Her friends and family would feel bad about it, but after a week or so that would be the end of it. They’d go back to their happy-go-lucky-lives and expect her to do the same. She knew that her day in court wouldn’t be victorious. There wouldn’t be a big pay-out. The cop wouldn’t lose his job. Her day in court would just be one more day of humiliation. And wasted money.
Maybe she felt like killing herself would be the only way anyone would see what happened to her on that fateful afternoon. I dunno if I would have made that same choice, but it is undeniable that there’s a lot of attention on her story. If she was still alive, we wouldn’t know her name.
I hate Donald Trump with a passion, but I have to give him props for managing to criticize the police officer without disparaging the victim. This shouldn’t be that hard to do, and yet for some reason conservatives can’t stop saying that both sides were wrong. No, one individual was correctly asserting her civil rights–the ones our Forefather supposedly worked so hard to garner for us. The other shat all over them. There is only one wrong person here, and it is not the one who is dead.
What an odd place for a stop sign, just as the car passes through a pedestrian crossing! The front of the car lined up with the stop sign would leave the rear of the blocking the crosswalk! (You’re sure that’s a stop sign?)
There is no requirement to inform of the reason for the arrest. Department policy may mandate it, however.
You’re under arrest!
For what?
Fuck you lawbreaker!
-not an illegal arrest. Just a dick move.
The answer is: no. An arrest must rest upon grounds of probable cause, but there is no requirement that the grounds for the arrest be communicated to the arrestee.
Unfortunately, even if that’s true, it does not allow the person being arrested to resist. At one time, there was a common-law right to resist an illegal arrest. But that law has been abrogated in most states over the last sixty years.
The remedy to an illegal arrest is not generally resisting that arrest, in other words. And in Texas, specifically, it is no defense to the charge of resisting arrest that the arrest was unlawful. See Texas Penal Code § 38.03(b).
This cop just escalated stuff at moments where he could have done the opposite. He gave her the ticket and it should have been done. Sure she could have put out her cigarette but he could have also let it go. His ego was in the way and he had to have his way.
In some situations you have to follow instructions given by cops, like showing driver’s license and proof of insurance, what not.
But this was not that case.
So what?
What is the relevance of that observation to the legality of the arrest?
Depends on why he changed his mind. If he walked up and found her cleaning the blood off her machete and trying to kick the victims head under the seat, then sure, that’s probable cause up the wazoo. Course, he had already been to her car window, and apparently made his decision, but then changed his mind.
Are we to believe that any reason for him to change his mind is equally legitimate? Its not a crime to offend my dignity, is it a crime to offend his?
And if offending his dignity ought to be a crime in your eyes, well, that’s a change, and you have to prove the necessity for change, and convince the legislature. Hell, in Texas, you probably could!
Looks like I was right!
Yeah, that’s a stop sign. Looks perfectly placed to me.
My theory: Cop turns around and was probably going to site for the “rolling stop”, but decided to give her a break and was less than thrilled with the attitude.
But he didn’t hang her in her cell.
Is it possible that yanking her out of the car was, in essence, an illegal arrest, and therefore it’s reasonable to resist an illegal attempt at an arrest? I don’t know if that’s correct legally, but I think that’s what she’s saying.
If she was arrested for failure to signal, as you keep saying he was well within his right to do, why wasn’t she charged with that? Why was she charged with the one crime we have no evidence she actually committed–the one crime that she couldn’t have possibly committed at the time he went all crazy on her?
Can a police officer just make up any ole shit to justify throwing you in jail on $5000 bail?
Cop: “Get out of the car! I’m arresting you!”
Citizen: “Why?”
Cop: “I don’t know, dammit! I just know you’re going to jail! I’ll come up with something when I have time to think!”
Are you saying we should expect this kind of treatment from police officers and be happy about it?
… and if that happened, we will definitely know now that the case is being so closely scrutinized. Care to make a bet?
A suspect is informed of why they were arrested at their arraignment, normally within a few days … I thought it was 72 hours but that might not be right everyplace. Just because the officer didn’t have to say why he was arresting her, he still needs to have a reason at the time of the arrest.
If a cop gives me a warning ten seconds ago then starts yanking me out of my vehicle threatening me, I’d be wondering how to get away from Officer Sybill.
“Okay. Here’s just a warning. There you go-- GET OUT OF YOUR CAR!!! Muah-ha-ha-haaaaa.”
Its Texas, they’d best bury her quick before she’s indicted.