Sandra Bland video

[Whack-a-Mole]

@XT

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.

Police have hid behind this for years.

“I did nothing illegal.”

That may well be true but then that highlights serious flaws in the system.

There should be accountability and the police these days have very little.

[drad_dog]

@XT

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.

Ha. i saw a lot of things on that video but curtsying was not on either agenda. (;0)

[Czarcasm]

@XT

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.

I don’t have a theory-I’m just saying the story just doesn’t make any sense. BTW, what is this judge doing releasing information on a Facebook page?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

I don’t have a theory-I’m just saying the story just doesn’t make any sense. BTW, what is this judge doing releasing information on a Facebook page?

He didn’t “release” anything. He was referencing the earlier statement by the DA which had already been made public, which you’d know if you’d looked at the several prior news links referring to it.

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

I don’t have a theory-I’m just saying the story just doesn’t make any sense. BTW, what is this judge doing releasing information on a Facebook page?

Are we sure it’s legit?

[elucidator]

… and smoked some there probably, also.

No way. No way, no day, no how. She didn’t bring it in with her, she was searched. Thoroughly. No body gave her any, she couldn’t buy any, she didn’t have any. And there are any number of places you don’t want any, and in jail is at the tip-top of just about everybody’s list.

[Morgenstern]

@Smapti

He didn’t “release” anything. He was referencing the earlier statement by the DA which had already been made public, which you’d know if you’d looked at the several prior news links referring to it.

Better question, WTF is a judge doing even mentioning an ongoing case on his facebook page?

[John_Mace]

How many “marijuana induced” suicides have been documented?

[camille]

@Smapti

He didn’t “release” anything. He was referencing the earlier statement by the DA which had already been made public, which you’d know if you’d looked at the several prior news links referring to it.

The thread is moving too fast. People are missing posts if they’re in dialogue with another poster. You post an answer, and on the next page someone asks the question again. I guess this will turn into an omnibus thread, because this case is going to drag out for weeks if not longer.

[climbuponahilltop]

@Czarcasm

They are claiming that she ate a large amount while in jail, and smoked some there probably, also.

Unless the autopsy found marijuana still in her digestive tract at the time of death, and there are some interesting jailhouse witnesses, I don’t know how anyone can determine this. I might be wrong, but as far as I know, the usual tests cannot pinpoint the actual day of consumption.

[Morgenstern]

@elucidator

No way. No way, no day, no how. She didn’t bring it in with her, she was searched. Thoroughly. No body gave her any, she couldn’t buy any, she didn’t have any. And there are any number of places you don’t want any, and in jail is at the tip-top of just about everybody’s list.

And inmates at the Clinton Correctional Facility didn’t have hacksaw blades and other escape tools either. Stuff like that just isn’t allowed in prisons/jails.

[elucidator]

…because this case is going to drag out for weeks if not longer.

We have resolved the all important issue of the legality of the arrest, so the trivial questions are all that remain.

[John_Mace]

@Morgenstern

Better question, WTF is a judge doing even mentioning an ongoing case on his facebook page?

Totally for the lolz, dude!

[XT]

@drad_dog

Ha. i saw a lot of things on that video but curtsying was not on either agenda. (;0)

:smack: Damn iPhone ‘helping’ me with my spelling again.

[elucidator]

Cool story, bra.

[XT]

@Morgenstern

And inmates at the Clinton Correctional Facility didn’t have hacksaw blades and other escape tools either. Stuff like that just isn’t allowed in prisons/jails.

Yeah, but they were kind of there for a while, so you could see how they COULD get them. This lady was there for a couple of days (it was also a detention center, not a correction facility) so it’s hard to see how she could not only get weed but also smoke it in such a situation. Not impossible, I suppose, but my own BS detector is definitely doing more than twitching.

[you_with_the_face]

@Learjeff

No, her attitude pissed him off, and he unprofessionally let it get to him and he fouled up.

Her attitude was pretty run-of-the-mill for traffic stops. I can find 100x times worse on you tube, with no one getting roughed up or arrested. So rather than attributing his actions to her attitude, as if this causal relationship is a natural given, we should really be looking deeper.

Why would he expect any driver to not be irritated when pulled over? Or nervous? Or afraid? The fact that he saw fit to ask her to explain the obvious is a major clue he was trying to create a confrontation. It’s like stomping on someone’s foot and then playing dumb when they start complaining about it. Provocative behavior. Following that up with “are you done” is also telling. He wasn’t pissed off by her attitude. Rather, he was trying to make her pissed off.

Why would a cop try to make a citizen pissed off? So he could have an excuse to arrest and subdue someone. It only takes one brush with a cop like this to know makes them tick.

She was not being idiotic. She was reacting to an armed stranger who, straight out of the gate, revealed themselves to be disingenuous and potentially abusive.

[XT]

@Czarcasm

I don’t have a theory-I’m just saying the story just doesn’t make any sense. BTW, what is this judge doing releasing information on a Facebook page?

Yeah…that also makes my BS detector twitch. Why WOULD a judge, who presumably should know better, be posting this sort of thing on a Facebook account?? :dubious:

[Bone]

@Learjeff

Here’s are opinions from an interview Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. Clearly just one side of legal opinion, and the side that’s most likely to defend civil rights, but it’s from a TX lawer, about TX law, and presumably within his domain of expertise. The main points, as I see it:
[ul]
[li] Bland did not have to comply with the request to extinguish her cigarette.[/li][li] The cop is required to give the reason when asking her to get out of the car. (Not probable cause, just a reason.)[/li][li] Bland can refuse to talk other than to identify herself. (Sadly for her, she doesn’t stick to her promise.)[/li][li] The cop can’t legally yank her out of the car, unless she’s presenting a danger.[/li][li] The cop is obliged to state why she’s under arrest.[/li][li] Bland has the right to record it[/li][li] The cop uses excessive force when he threatens her with the taser[/li][/ul]
I’m going to take these as givens, until someone provides a counterargument or cites an authoritative legal opinion to the contrary.

(my bold)

All of the bolded items are false.

In Texas, as discussed multiple times upthread, Mimms is controlling. Mimms says that for a lawful vehicle stop, an officer can order the driver out of the vehicle for many reasons, or no reason.

If the officer is arresting the person in the vehicle and they refuse to exit, the appropriate action would be to forcibly remove them. Presenting danger is not a requirement.

The officer is not required to state the reason for the arrest. In DEVENPECK V. ALFORD, SCOTUS said:

While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required.3 Hence, the predictable consequence of a rule limiting the probable-cause inquiry to offenses closely related to (and supported by the same facts as) those identified by the arresting officer is not, as respondent contends, that officers will cease making sham arrests on the hope that such arrests will later be validated, but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest. And even if this option were to be foreclosed by adoption of a statutory or constitutional requirement, officers would simply give every reason for which probable cause could conceivably exist.

Certain state laws may override of course. I believe NY is one state that does so. I do not believe TX has additional protections.

However, the opinion above does NOT answer the question about whether Bland was legally entitled to ignore the officer’s demand that she exit the vehicle.

Post # 528 answers this question. The answer is no.

[Bone]

@watchwolf49

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.

You don’t even know which specific department policy the cop violated, much less that they are tailored to meet some legal requirement. Your conclusions have no basis in reality.