If she didn’t that makes the story even stranger. According to http://wgntv.com/2015/07/23/texas-d-a-wants-more-testing-on-body-of-sandra-bland/ the autopsy supposedly shows that she may have swallowed a large quantity of MJ and smoked some also while she was in jail. Anyone care to explain how that could have happened?
Hard to believe she could have smoked anything, let alone MJ while in the detention center, unless Texas runs their DCs differently than we do. 
I think most of us agree she should’ve complied and gotten out of the car. The beef is mostly, as Left Hand of Dorkness said, the order was totally unessessary.
Scratch that—mind-blowingly, galactically unessesary.
Who says Texas jails are not fun?
Unfortunately, the arrest was not lawful … as evidenced by his removal from patrol. The Police Department instituted a protocol to prevent officers from committing assault during a traffic stop. The officer violated that protocol by not de-escalating the situation. We need to watch that part of the video remembering that his physical removing the girl from her car was strictly prohibited under police policies and procedures. Thus he doesn’t get a pass because he’s a police officer … these actions need to be weighed against what we as society allow the common citizen.
Well, that was never my experience with them…
…
…er, not that I have any personal experience with Texan prisons or detention centers, you understand…
What would he have said when she got out? “Just wanted to make sure you’re not a crazy negro. You’re not are you?..Are YOU!” Asserting your dignity is real cute when you’re white. Otherwise forget it.
You keep claiming this, but your evidence is that he’s been put on administrative leave. The only evidence is that he might have violated the departments POLICY, not that it was ‘not lawful’. You seriously need to show a cite for this claim or try and grasp that those two things aren’t the same.
Have you never been pulled over for a traffic violation? He wanted her out of the car so he could loom over her (and probably because the cigarette smoke was bugging him when he had to lean in). He would have told her why she was being stopped, and then probably made her stand there while he wrote out a formal ticket, then annoyingly spent 10 minutes or so slowly explaining that she had to sign and mail in the fine or go to traffic court on such and such a day or be billed double for the violation. Then warned her not to do any of this again. Then told her to have a nice day and strutted back to his car.
Thank you, let me qualify my statement to apply only until the officer says “Get out of the car”.
But didn’t he determine on site that a warning was issued? He would have to explain what he was going on further about.
Department policies are specifically written to ensure officer stay within the law … when you violate the policy, you violate the law the policy was intended to maintain.
The defense “It was only protocol, not law” doesn’t work in court, maybe on the streets, but not in court.
He could have simply said that he decided not to give her a warning and decided to give her a full ticket if he wanted too. I think giving a warning is a curtsy when you feel that a warning is enough, but he could have cited her intransigence to the warning to justify giving her a ticket and then basically shrugged and figured the judge would sort it out.
No, that is not proof that the arrest was unlawful. It’s SOP for cops to be on administrative leave during an investigation. The investigation will be the determining factor, and that is not complete.
Cite? I’ve already seen cites that show that it IS lawful for a police officer to demand a person leave their vehicle in a traffic stop situation, so cite that it’s ‘not lawful’ if it’s a department policy. That seems a contradiction. Basically, a department can set forth policy that, if you violate it you can be disciplined or even fired for violating it, but it’s not unlawful and you can’t be prosecuted…while if you break the law (not policy) you COULD be prosecuted. That’s my understanding, but feel free to cite the law here and demonstrate that it was against the law and that being against department policy is also against the law.
Marijuana takes forever to leave your system. A regular user could still have large amounts of marijuana in their body a week or so after the last time they’d smoked. Someone like Snoop Dog or Willie would still have large amounts of marijuana in his body a month after he last smoked.
Someone is seriously alleging that she, a stranger in town kept in her own cell, was scoring and consuming large amounts of marijuana in jail? Well, now I know what the big garbage can was for. Must have been a courtesy ashtray.
So, no thoughts about where the large amounts of pot came from, why she might have eaten a large amount of it, and why no one noticed the smell of pot smoke at any time during her incarceration?
They are claiming that she ate a large amount while in jail, and smoked some there probably, also.
There is no way she smoked pot in the detention center. They can’t even smoke cigarettes in ours, anyway. So, I’d say either she smoked it before the arrest, maybe was smoking it in her car and using the cigarette to cover it up, or it’s total bullshit and an unsubstantiated claim at this point. I’ll believe this report when I see it fully substantiated.
What’s your theory? The cops who faked her suicide forced her to smoke weed beforehand to complete their nefarious plot? I seriously don’t know what you are getting at here.
Well, she could have eaten it in the form of cookies or candies. And if she ate too much and got too high, she might have freaked out to the point where suicide entered her mind.
Of course, this leaves the question of why is weed so plentiful in this small time jail that even an out-of-towner with no local associates and no visitors except a bail bondsman is able to score mass quantities.