:rolleyes: yourself.
“He (the police officer) made me do it” isn’t a defense under the law.
Anyway, the assault is why she was arrested, placed in lockup, and went before a judge, who set bail.
In order for the police to protect public safety, we cannot have people assaulting police officers.
Neither you nor I can possibly know the officer’s feelings, and whether or not they were “hurt”, or if his intent was to “avenge” them.
Your formulation would not make a workable rule, for that reason alone.
But it still is more than the two you offered.
That’s evidence that there may be other options out there as well.
The position some of the posters are making here is basically “Yes, this is a horrible incident by all accounts … but it was completely lawful”. I think this is untenable, either it’s horrible or it’s lawful. I just can’t imagine this level of police brutality not violating the law, even in Texas. Most of us watching the video would agree that the “ordinary” and “common-sense” conclusion is that this officer was acting outside the law, which of course may have absolutely nothing to do with what the law actually says.
We also have the courts, which are bound by precedent. To say the officer’s actions were completely lawful requires that the courts always dismiss these cases, under all circumstances and at all times, regardless of intent.
In summary, the “ordinary” evidence we have leads to the “ordinary” conclusion that the officer broke the law and thereafter committing the crime of assault. In order to reach the “extraordinary” conclusion that the officer was within the law requires “extraordinary” evidence.
Intent matters, and if the officer’s intent was to impose extra-judicial punishment on a bitchy girl … then he again violates the very meaning of “presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”.
Laws are known to be wrong, and courts have ruled as such and pursued criminal actions in spite the written laws.
Moreover, Sandra was in Texas. Her family is in Chicago, if money is tight the trip to Texas might have made it prohibitive for family to travel.
Where was it again that she was assaulting the police officer? I know that is the charge, I am just hard pressed to find in the video where she attacks the officer.
[QUOTE=watchwolf49]
The position some of the posters are making here is basically “Yes, this is a horrible incident by all accounts … but it was completely lawful”.
[/QUOTE]
As far as I know this is because it is both…it was completely lawful for the cop to require her to leave her vehicle for any reason or none, and it was a horrible incident. Unless I missed something upthread, you have failed to prove that what the cop did was ‘not legal’, even if it was against the departments policy on interaction with the public. I’m not sure if you ever even acknowledged that those two things are different.
You think it therefore it is so? On what basis are you making this claim that something that is horrible always has to be illegal? Gut feeling??
I can imagine what I saw as being completely legal, even outside of Texas. I can imagine this cop getting fired, even if this was completely legal as well, especially if it DID violate department policy. I can imagine that you still don’t understand the distinction between those two things as well.
The law doesn’t work that way, however. The other side of that is laws can and have been changed.
Maybe you’ve provided this already, if so just tell me the post number, but do you have cites for courts in Texas saying that it’s illegal for cops to require a motorist to leave their vehicle during a traffic stop? I haven’t seen any thus far, so I’m wondering what you are basing this on. That said, I haven’t really followed the thread all that well, so maybe this has all been resolved already and I’m just behind the legal issue at this point. Feel free to just tell me the post number where you resolved all of this and I’ll be happy to go back. Saying that folks in this thread who aren’t lawyers THINK or FEEL that the cops actions were ‘illegal’ is kind of meaningless, though.
It doesn’t need to be in the video. The police officer said she attacked him. That’s all the proof anyone could possibly need.
It would be sweet to see the Supreme Court weigh in on this one. Maybe it’s high time since there’s an epidemic of civil rights violations simply by Driving While Black
It’s a whole lotta bullshit. He lost all credibilty when he ordered her out of the car with a fucking Taser on her. The kick happened so he says when he slammed her head on the ground. He “says” he kicked her, on the tape he laughs it off, doesn’t require medical attention, but that is fucking good enough.
The only one who committed assault was the officer who 1) reached into her car and grabbed her 2) threatened to taser her even though she posed no physical threat to him, and 3) threw her to the ground after 4) twisting her cuffed wrists to cause her pain.
The officer himself told his superior that she never touched him despite falsely portraying her as combative from the start, and we saw nothing on the tape that indicates she assaulted him. So I gotta love how it is taken on faith that she did so.
Cite that judges can or have done that?
Yes, judges can overturn laws, but they cannot hold someone criminally liable for something that’s not in the written laws.
We can’t have police officers assaulting/harassing people either.
Who watches the Watchmen?
Unless I have missed it, the officer hasn’t been charged with assault, or with any other crime. He may be under investigation for violating a department policy, but even that review hasn’t been completed.
Except when it quacks like a duck… even Lawyers are looking at the Case and thinking, possible 1st amendment violation. Tough to prove? Maybe, but this case is viral and the court of public opinion is going matter a great deal. So thanks to post #19 in the Youre Supposed to Obey Police Lawful Orders thread https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/23/the-law-of-the-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/
I still don’t understand how he issued her a lawful order, when it’s unlawful for a cop to extend a detainment longer than necessary. He had issued her a warning and had no probable cause for any other violation, so what lawful reason did he have for doing anything else except sending her on her way? The answer is absolutely none.
Isn’t a possible First Amendment violation now moot?
The time to challenge the order to exit the car as unconstitutional would have been at her trial for assault.
oooo good one. 4th amendment violation. The cop is cooked.
Isn’t there a legal principle that your actions after going “illegal” as a cop are not legal? So he decided to arrest her for smoking. He had the option to go to his vehicle and make her wait. Instead he tore the door open, and assaulted her, and threatened with a weapon. Anyone would have a sense that this was wrong, and in the moment you need to act. He knew she didn’t think she was under arrest. So she assumes she is being attacked extralegally. (Hello, Cleveland)
What is the guaranty that cops will not just rape and loot under cover of the badge?
He didn’t tell her he was arresting her for smoking, at this point Bland thought she was being arrested for an illegal lane change. Regardless, we now know that the cop didn’t know what the hell he was arresting her for, because the assault charge that she allegedly kicked him happened after she was pulled out of the car not when he said “you’re under arrest” while she was still in the car.