I’ve read all of them.
But that linked Q&A was what I was responding to, and it’s at odds with what you (and a few others) have been saying. :shrug:
ETA: your post confronting that Q&A was posted as I was composing mine. I didn’t see it when I hit reply.
This is exactly the theme running through all of these videos I’ve seen - the black kid in the park where the police drove right up and basically demanded a reaction, the black man who ran away and this case - really pathetically poor application of discretionary powers through poor training. Like total amateur hour. In some cases you have to wonder at the initial job selection process.
What is fascinating is these cops didn’t become bad at their job overnight, they just happened to be caught because someone died. How many years have they been doing this, how many others are doing it without a member of the public dying …
As a professional - wearing a gun forcrisakes - you don’t escalate. Jesus, you don’t even want to arrest someone. Rank amateurs - boys doing an adults job.
Oh yeh. Totally bush league. I have a good friend who used to be a cop, and he said you wouldn’t believe how many meatheads that end up with a gun and a badge.
Back to the Q&A with Harrington, the preamble declares that the below aren’t answers about policies or courtesy, but rights. And he violated her rights on several things.
Bricker, do you think he’s just speaking out of ignorance, then?
He may well be using the term “right,” to refer to the perfectly valid concept that you have a right to expect that police officers will follow their departmental rules and regulations when interacting with the public.
But if we indeed assume that he was claiming that he was describing rights of constitutional or statutory dimension, then he was factually wrong. And neither he, nor you, nor anyone else, has identified a single applicable statute or court decision that supports the claims he made that have been refuted here in this thread.
The interview with Mr. Harrington was first posted in post #534. The incorrect claims therein were highlighted in post #579.
Your post #658 doesn’t seem to be aware of the prior discussion.
Post 579 by me cites items that contradict the interview statements.
Ninja’d
And as I observed in post 605:
That does not support your claim or contradict mine. What I said was that “it does not seem like there was ever a final consensus that Settles was killed. Different coroners reached different conclusions, and there it remains to this day”. You’ve cited one particular opinion. Here’s an article from the NYT subsequent to the LA coroner’s inquest that you cite:
But the lawful order was unnecessary and only came AFTER the cop got his feelings hurt.
He ordered her out of the car to show her who was boss.
It’s quite possible that the cop intended to arrest her at the point when he asked her to step out.
idk
He obviously had some plan which could not be enacted while she was seated in her vehicle.
Not necessarily. I think it’s just a dominance thing, in many cases. He’s going to give you an order and you’re going to meekly follow it.
It’s not necessarily possible? Or it’s not necessarily so?
I agree with you that seems to have been entirely about the cop’s feelings.
He felt disrespected and wanted to show her who was boss.
So he used his authority in a vindictive way.
The public would’ve been just as safe if Bland had been permitted to sign and travel on as we were when she was in jail.
I guessed you missed the part about the coroner’s jury ruling the death was *not *a suicide.
That verdict opened the door for a claim against the city/police which the the victims family successfully pursued. When the cops were called to testify at a criminal investigation, the honorable, brave, public servants took the 5th amendment and wouldn’t talk about it. Just doesn’t appear that he hanged himself in his cell as the cops originally said.
As you can see from that article, the corner (Dr. Noguchi) changed his mind in view of the evidence presented, and listed the death as at the hands of another.
Must’ve missed it. I don’t necessarily click on a every link.
You said “He obviously had some plan …”, and my response what that he didn’t necessarily have any sort of plan, but may have been simply trying to put her in her place and show her who is boss - in that case getting her out of the car wasn’t a means to some other end but was the end in and of itself.
Sorry if that was unclear.
I didn’t miss it. It was in your cites, and you quoted it too. A 5-4 vote of lay people on a coroner’s inquest jury does not settle the issue, especially when expert pathologists disagree about it.
(post shortened)
You could ask yourself why Sandra Bland’s family allowed her to sit in a holding cell for three days. One of them might have realized that recently losing an unborn child could cause depression. One of them might have noticed that Bland had stopped posting to Facebook in March and stating that she was suffering from depression.
While none of them were willing to post her bond while she was still alive, they are now more than willing to push to keep her name in the media. It couldn’t possibly be related to the prospect of a multi-million dollar, wrongful death lawsuit, could it? (What? Too soon?)
As you can see from my article, Dr. Noguchi seems to have changed his mind back when a second autopsy was done.
A rather fickle fellow, it would seem.
Of course I’m not going to ask myself anything of the sort.
The woman changed lanes without indicating and ended up in a cell all weekend.
That is fucked. How many people messed up for that to have happened - how great a waste of departmental resources is that, how pathetically amateurishly has procedure been applied, how badly training was the officer for him to let a simple stop escalate, etc, etc.
People have good day and bad days, depression and excitement. It’s your professional job to manage situations and to serve the public.
This was clown town policing.
The woman changed lanes without indicating, then argued with the cop, refused a lawful order, resisted arrest and assaulted the cop - and ended up in a cell all weekend.
Hm. Doesn’t sound all that unreasonable.
Having her in jail did fuck-all for public safety but made the cop feel better.
It sounds exactly and precisely “all that unreasonable” to put a citizen in jail to make a cop feel better.
You assault a cop, you go to jail. Even if you’re Mother Teresa. Do you disagree?