Bland complained that the cop knocked her head into the ground. I would like to hear the coroner state one way or the other whether there was any evidence of a concussion. Apparently he didn’t say, which probably means there wasn’t, but since she said her head was knocked onto the ground I think it would be worth stating explicitly.
I’d also think a hypothetical concussion could have been a contributing factor in a suicide.
Once the notice to appear has been signed, the offense is no longer arrestable, but the officer can arrest without even offering a notice to appear. Texas Transportation Code, Title 7 (Vehicles and Traffic), Chapter 543:
Such an arrest undoubtedly runs contrary to department policy, but is not illegal under the US Constitution.
Doesn’t matter. The legality of the arrest is not a defense to the charge of resisting arrest. Penal Code 38.03 (previously cited):
(emphasis added by me)
No. She might have had a defense to any resisting charge before he told her she was under arrest, claiming that she didn’t know. But the moment he tells her she’s under arrest and she refuses to cooperate, she violates the resisting arrest statute, even if the underlying arrest is illegal.
That expert fails to actually identify any court decisions or statutes that support his claim. And he’s an advocate for civil right, which means it’s in his best interest to make claims that fire up the readers’ indignation.
As Ken White observed over at PopeHat (talking about another legal issue):
Why is that relevant to the question of whether the arrest was lawful?
She was ultimately charged with resisting, for which there was probable cause.
If the officer arrested her for being a Marlins fan, and she resisted arrest, she has no legal defense against a charge of resisting arrest. Do you understand that fact to be true?
If the law says, for example, an officer’s baton can be no longer than four feet, then a department policy might well say that no batons longer than three feet are authorized. An officer using a 40-inch baton would be subject to department discipline, but not legal sanction.
I’m seeing some amateur analysis of her mug shot that claims its suspicious, that it was taken while the subject was lying on the floor, that she should’ve been wearing the clothes she had on when she was arrested… I dunno.
Not necessarily here, but I see plenty out on the internet at large. Perhaps it’s an indication of just how angry, frustrated, and mistrustful segments of the population are. And I can’t sit here and say it’s unjustified.
Not quite all. It’s been reported that Bland herself posted on Facebook that she was depressed and had PTSD. She also apologized for not providing weeks of Facebook videos because she was depressed.
That doesn’t sound like she was stoked and totally excited about life.
I hope the document above answers your question. Glad to have been of service. By the way, the cuts on his hands that he mentions were confirmed in the video by the EMTs that arrived.
This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation. Our discussion has been distinguishing between a departmental policy and a law. This is an appropriate distinction, even if the departmental policy is made because a law allows the department to make such policy.
As an example of the gulf in meaning, the violation of a policy may result in career consequences for the officer – loss of rank, damage to promotion opportunity, suspension, or even termination. But that has no particular effect on the legality of the arrest, which is governed by state and federal law regarding the presence of probable cause, the due process to be observed, and so forth.
Do those reports state that how long ago it was she was depressed, the fact that she was depressed about a miscarriage, or that she recently had two good job offers(a pretty good reason to be stoked and totally excited about life).
