Sandra Bland video

[Steophan]

He didn’t assault her at any point. Cops, despite the views of this board’s vocal anarchists, are allowed to lay hands on you to control you when you’re under arrest.

Also, it’s fucking hilarious to see so many people here defending the “right” to smoke. I guess none of you support smoking bans anywhere else people are doing their jobs?

[Steophan]

@Andiethewestie

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.

So there were several things she did that she could have been arrested for. At minimum, and proven by the video, running the stop sign, the illegal lane change, and resisting arrest. There’s also claims for assault if the cop is telling the truth. That she was ultimately only charged with resisting arrest doesn’t mean there wasn’t probable cause for other offences.

[D_Anconia]

@Andiethewestie

oooo good one. 4th amendment violation. The cop is cooked.

No, he’s not. He hasn’t even been charged with anything.

Had Bland’s case gone to trial, the court would have to follow Mimms, which allows an officer to order someone out of a car during a traffic stop.

But even if the Supreme Court were to overturn Mimms (they won’t), it still wouldn’t mean that “the cop is cooked”. It wouldn’t affect the officer in any way, legally.

[you_with_the_face]

@drad_dog

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?

And this is exactly why I don’t fault her for being “uncivil” with him. He forfeited respect and politeness the instant he abused his authority and showed a flagrant disregard for her civil liberties. Being cursed the fuck out is honestly the least a cop should expect if he acts the way this one did. Consider it the cost of living in a society where human dignity is valued more than meek deference to sadists calling themselves cops.

[Shodan]

@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”. 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.

I don’t understand this. Are you saying that anything horrible is therefore illegal?

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.

Also don’t understand this. What is the nature of your distinction between “ordinary” evidence and “extraordinary” evidence? Are you saying that he should be presumed guilty until proven innocent?

Regards,
Shodan

[Frylock]

@Steophan

So there were several things she did that she could have been arrested for. At minimum, and proven by the video, running the stop sign, the illegal lane change, and resisting arrest. There’s also claims for assault if the cop is telling the truth. That she was ultimately only charged with resisting arrest doesn’t mean there wasn’t probable cause for other offences.

I will stipulate that the cop had every right to arrest her, just as he did. I won’t argue that point, true or false. Because it’s not the important point. It is far beside the point. The issue is whether the cop acted properly, not whether he “had a right” to do whatever he did.

There were many things the cop should have done differently. I don’t need to know what he was within his rights to do in order to know this. If regulations required his behaviors, then regulations need to be changed. If regulations allowed them but did not require them, then possibly regulations need to be changed, and definitely this officer used his discretion in a way he should not have. And of course if regulations proscribe his actions, then he did wrong.

At the very least, other officers need to learn from incidents like this how to do better. I also think, as it happens, that hiring processes need to do a better job of filtering out people with superiority complexes or power-madness. But this is of course a really difficult task. At least recognizing the problem is a first step.

[Andiethewestie]

@D_Anconia

No, he’s not. He hasn’t even been charged with anything.

Had Bland’s case gone to trial, the court would have to follow Mimms, which allows an officer to order someone out of a car during a traffic stop.

But even if the Supreme Court were to overturn Mimms (they won’t), it still wouldn’t mean that “the cop is cooked”. It wouldn’t affect the officer in any way, legally.

This situation is very fluid, just because he isn’t charged now, doesn’t mean criminal charges aren’t in the works. And I don’t see how Mimms would even apply since the officer had already completed his warning summons and had no further business with Bland.

[drad_dog]

@Steophan

So there were several things she did that she could have been arrested for. At minimum, and proven by the video, running the stop sign, the illegal lane change, and resisting arrest. There’s also claims for assault if the cop is telling the truth. That she was ultimately only charged with resisting arrest doesn’t mean there wasn’t probable cause for other offences.

How can you be arrested for “resisting arrest”?

This is circular

Yes she assaulted his fist with her head.

[D_Anconia]

@Andiethewestie

This situation is very fluid, just because he isn’t charged now, doesn’t mean criminal charges aren’t in the works.

Which part of the Texas Criminal Code do you believe the officer violated?

[Andiethewestie]

@you_with_the_face

And this is exactly why I don’t fault her for being “uncivil” with him. He forfeited respect and politeness the instant he abused his authority and showed a flagrant disregard for her civil liberties. Being cursed the fuck out is honestly the least a cop should expect if he acts the way this one did. Consider it the cost of living in a society where human dignity is valued more than meek deference to sadists calling themselves cops.

Well and let’s be honest here. It’s all well and good for us to look at the situation and think “what a bitch, she should have shut the fuck up.” Except African Americans haven’t faired well for being “nice” and cooperative. They wind up just as dead . So that etiquette of politeness has a net negative effect if you’re black.

[mlees]

@you_with_the_face

And this is exactly why I don’t fault her for being “uncivil” with him. He forfeited respect and politeness the instant he abused his authority and showed a flagrant disregard for her civil liberties. Being cursed the fuck out is honestly the least a cop should expect if he acts the way this one did. Consider it the cost of living in a society where human dignity is valued more than meek deference to sadists calling themselves cops.

The “least” a cop should expect? What is the “most”?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@D_Anconia

Had Bland’s case gone to trial, the court would have to follow Mimms, which allows an officer to order someone out of a car during a traffic stop.

No the court wouldn’t.

It’d more likely follow Rodriguez v. United States (PDF):

A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged be- yond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407.

Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safe- ly and responsibly. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658–659. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission.

In concluding that the de minimis intrusion here could be offset by the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs, the Eighth Circuit relied on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106. The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms.

The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously should earn extra time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation is unpersuasive, for a traffic stop“prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to completehis traffic-based inquiries is “unlawful,” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop.

The officer in this case had already obtained all necessary information and only needed her to sign the warning which she asked to do.

In short, the stop was over and the officer violated her rights by ordering her out of the car at that point.

[camille]

@Steophan

So there were several things she did that she could have been arrested for. At minimum, and proven by the video, running the stop sign, the illegal lane change, and resisting arrest. There’s also claims for assault if the cop is telling the truth. That she was ultimately only charged with resisting arrest doesn’t mean there wasn’t probable cause for other offences.

She wasn’t charged with resisting arrest.

Whatever she “could have been” charged for is irrelevant. She was only warned for failure to signal, and was about to sign the citation when the incident got out of control because she refused a request to put out a cigarette. She was smoking in her vehicle - private property. Legal.

Why was this traffic citation stop extended? What cause did this officer have to continue to hold her?

[camille]

Bricker, I still don’t understand how or if Rodriguez affects Atwater in a situation like this.

Since she wasn’t charged with resisting arrest, what cause could the officer claim to extend the stop. It’s obvious he wasn’t intending to arrest her for the original citation.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
He forfeited respect and politeness the instant he abused his authority and showed a flagrant disregard for her civil liberties.
[/QUOTE]
Which of his actions showed a flagrant disregard for her civil liberties? Was it -
[ul][li]When he pulled her over for failing to signal a lane change[/li][li]When he issued her a warning ticket instead of citing her[/li][li]When he said “Are you done?”[/li][li]When he said “Would you mind putting out your cigarette, please?”[/li][li]When he ordered her to get out of her car[/li][li]When he tried to drag her out of her car[/li][li]When he threatened to Tazer her[/li][li]When he cuffed her[/li][li]When he took her to jail, or[/li][li]When she hung herself[/ul]Because only the Taser threat strikes me as something we haven’t already established was entirely legal.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[D_Anconia]

@Whack-a-Mole

The officer in this case had already obtained all necessary information and only needed her to sign the warning which she asked to do.

In short, the stop was over and the officer violated her rights by ordering her out of the car at that point.

Not sure that I agree with your argument. If the stop for the traffic violation was still in progress (she hadn’t sign the warning yet), asking her to step out of the car would be legitimate as part of that particular stop.

He was not delaying her for a different reason, such getting a canine to do a drug sniff.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@D_Anconia

Not sure that I agree with your argument. If the stop for the traffic violation was still in progress (she hadn’t sign the warning yet), asking her to step out of the car would be legitimate as part of that particular stop.

He was not delaying her for a different reason, such getting a canine to do a drug sniff.

From the decision (bolding mine):

“Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been— completed.”

In short, this stop was effectively over. He had no further cause to detain her.

[camille]

@D_Anconia

Not sure that I agree with your argument. If the stop for the traffic violation was still in progress (she hadn’t sign the warning yet), asking her to step out of the car would be legitimate as part of that particular stop.

He was not delaying her for a different reason, such getting a canine to do a drug sniff.

I imagine this would be the reason. It would probably be upheld, even if the cause for asking her to leave the vehicle was only vindictiveness. The Atwater arrest was predicated on vindictiveness and that wasn’t a consideration.

[iamthewalrus_3]

I’d like to see someone with legal knowledge (Bricker, perhaps) comment on the legality of what we all seem to commonly accept about police discretion having to do with deference: if you’re polite and deferential to an officer, you may be more likely to get off without a ticket/arrest, whereas if you’re not, he is more likely to arrest you.

Someone upthread referred to this sort of behavior as “asking to be arrested”.

Is such an arrest legal? That is, can a police officer use his discretionary powers to arrest you because of protected speech?

I know that if my town has an ordinance against signs of a certain size, but they only enforce it against those signs that contain a message they don’t agree with, that’s a clear 1st Amendment violation, and any penalties are likely to be thrown out.

So, let’s imagine I get pulled over, I’m polite and deferential, and in the middle of the officer saying “I’m going to let you off with a warning…”, I interrupt with “You ought to be ashamed of yourself, asshole.” (or something of that nature, as long as I don’t call him a God-damned racketeer).

Can he at that point arrest me legally? To any reasonable person, the reason he is arresting me has nothing to do with the original stop, which he has already used his discretion to not arrest me for. He is clearly arresting me because he doesn’t approve of my protected speech.

Many people seem to suggest that the officer is simply violating policy when he arrests her because he apparently feels slighted by her tone. Why isn’t this actually a violation of the law? He was ready to let her go, then changed his mind based on protected speech.

[Andiethewestie]

@D_Anconia

Not sure that I agree with your argument. If the stop for the traffic violation was still in progress (she hadn’t sign the warning yet), asking her to step out of the car would be legitimate as part of that particular stop.

He was not delaying her for a different reason, such getting a canine to do a drug sniff.

He was delaying because he didn’t like her attitude. Since his feelings are inconsequential to the law, and he had no further business beyond the warning sumons, he clearly violated the 4th amendment’s protection against search and seizure .