Never mind. I see from here that the noose was supposedly secured on a metal hook in the cell.
You’ve got the actual killer/s. You’ve got the one who discovered the body. You’ve got the first responders. You’ve got the IT department responsible for the camera. You’ve got the other inmates in the neighboring cells who didn’t report hearing anyone being violently murdered. You’ve got the medical examiner from a neighboring county (she was jailed in Waller County; the autopsy was conducted in Harris County). You’ve got the other jail employees who didn’t notice their coworkers mysteriously being absent between 7:30 and 9:00. You’ve got the Bland family doctors who are apparently also covering up the real cause of death.
This:
I see. (And yes, I miswrote stuff, first the stuff has to be presented to Grand Jury, not indictment). Seems like the district attorney, understandably, is in CYA mode. If he wasn’t, and the autopsy results (as they are, apparently) were clearly indicating suicide, it wouldn’t go to Grand Jury.
Well,
The officer shouldn’t have:
Extended the stop past the warning
tore the door open
Gone into the car after her
Threatened her with a weapon,
Forbidden her to record
Forbidden passers by from recording;
And this is a legal arrest?
And she was supposed to understand in the midst of this that you had to obey this person without hesitation or words. She was in fear and probably overloaded with adrenaline with Freddie Gray on her mind.
She was bodily afraid. Isn’t this Cliven Bundy country? He was afraid they would take him off the govt dole and got a bunch of guns together. The Govt backed down.
Did she hang herself on the trash can? All I have heard is that she used the liner.
[QUOTE=cmyk]
I was going to make this exact same point as well. The fallout from a wrongful arrest and incarceration can be an unholy nightmare; a strain on your life, your time, your job, your finances, etc. Many can’t afford that kind of shit.
[/QUOTE]
It might even make you kill yourself.
That might be something to think about before refusing to exit the vehicle when told to do so.
Of course, if the cop tells you to put out your cigarette, and there isn’t a Supreme Court ruling that says he can do that, you can
[ol]
[li]Put out your cigarette, get his badge number, and register your protest with the police department, your elected representatives, the local newspapers, and organize a protest march with like-minded citizens to end this egregious assault on our personal freedoms, or[/li][li]Hold your breath until you turn blue.[/li][/ol]
Regards,
Shodan
I did not watch the video you linked… but I thought several States made video-recording police [without their consent] a violation of law?
State laws still vary but on the whole the right to record police in public is being deemed legal (inasmuch as every time it has gone to court the right has been uphled near as I can tell).
Fortunately.
That said it may well be illegal in some states because the law has not been challenged yet but the trajectory of such laws heading to the bin seems clear.
Thankfully.
It should be illegal for an officer to order someone to stop recording; they can order people to back up if they are in the way and that’s it. Though I can see exceptions to protect privacy of victims.
Rodriguez v. United States held that police could not extend the length of a routine traffic stop, even for just a few minutes, absent a safety related concern or reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver may have committed an additional crime.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in the opinion of the Court, “[t]he tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ — to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, and attend to related safety concerns.” A police stop “may ‘last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose.’ Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”
Under* Rodriguez*, a stop may be extended if the officer uncovers new evidence that provides reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed some other crime, but cigarette smoking is legal so that could not have justified extending the length of the stop.
To be very clear, I am in no way defending the proposition that the officer was professional, courteous, or sensible. He was not, to all three.
I am defending the proposition that the arrest was lawful.
There are plenty of lawful things the police can do that would be unprofessional, discourteous, and flout common sense. This is one of them.
Yes, you have correctly summarized Rodriguez.
But that does not transform her resisting arrest into a legal action, and nothing in Rodriguez says otherwise.
Do you understand why this is so?
This is true. The man who was found hanging in 2012 in that same jail didn’t result in a Grand Jury investigation.
So Grand Jury meets some time in August, but I can’t find a date yet. This will probably drag out until then. I don’t think either autopsy will be fully released before that.
Meanwhile, there will be leaks, protests, smear campaign of Bland, and millions of internet arguments.
I wouldn’t bet against your theory, but I still don’t see how an autopsy alone can be conclusive one way or another, based on what I’ve read about the forensics.
Which of these factors do you believe transforms the arrest into an illegal one, specifically? Which of these do you believe is a legal defense against the charge of resisting arrest?
And therein lies the rub.
Police can do all sorts of awful things to you…things you really do not deserve…completely legally.
I’d be ok with this given the role police fill if there was anything remotely approaching accountability for the police.
Cops need the power to make reasonable requests in order to determine the likelihood of a crime being committed. Put out your cigarette could be a reasonable request under some circumstances. Asking questions such as where were you going, where are you coming from could be reasonable; such interaction allows the cop to determine whether or not the person may be intoxicated, fits the description of a wanted criminal, whatever.
However, there’s a glaring disconnect between the power of making reasonable requests and the power to force a citizen to determine their own future by playing a messed-up game of Simon Says. Jump through these hoops, go free. Bristle or complain, get arrested. That’s nothing else but a power trip.
Also, perhaps Encinia’s never had a wife or girlfriend, and his mother died at birth, and both grandmothers predeceased her, and he didn’t have any sisters, and he went mostly to all-boy parochial schools. Otherwise, he’d have to know that one good way to make a white-hot ball of rage rise up in a woman is to say the deceptively neutral phrase “You seem irritated.” That’s not a deescalation strategy. That’s straight-up ramping it up.
Excellent post. +1. Completely agree.
I don’t think it was out of line to ask her to put out the cigarette since he was leaning into the car to talk to her. Hardly justifies anything else, but can’t quite grasp the outrage that he asked her to put out the smoke. Seems in line with asking people to turn off the stereo, open the car window, etc.
Will it be on the test? 
I didn’t think the court fully answered the question about the cause for reasonable suspicion in order to extend the stop, but I’m not sure.
I’m thinking that this whole list of events is extralegal. So he should have taken a step back and gone back to his vehicle at one of them, when he got his head straight, and called for backup.