The stop was not effectively over, if she didn’t sign the warning.
After asking her to sign it, wasn’t the delay on her part, not the officer’s?
Section 22.2 Aggravated Assault. If the 4th amendment violation holds up, which should, then let’s get the bastard with a gool ol can of Texas whoop ass.
The officer cannot arrest you for swearing at him/her.
That said they can easily trump up a charge of assaulting and officer or resisting arrest. It’s probably your word against theirs. At the least they’ll make your life miserable as you try to fight the arrest.
It always has. From the days of slavery, to Jim Crow, to now. How about we stop indulging this expectation that blacks play by a different set of social rules than everyone else just to stay alive, and start challenging it?
If Sandra Bland had been a white man who refused to put out her cigarette, she’d be applauded for having enough balls to stand up for herself. We celebrate such fiestyness when it’s ipackaged in white skin. Let it be a black woman who has the audacity not to tap dance and shuffle? Well of course that’s grounds for a take-down.
It’s time to stop this madness.
Nope. She was trying sign the thing when he put his paws on her. It’s in the transcript
Termination, fines, and prison.
Any other ideas?
I don’t understand your problem with this scenario. say I’m pulled over for what would legally be “reckless driving” , an arrestable offense (for the sake of argument), for going too fast, but the officer says he is going to give me a warning, and then I say “Thanks, cocksucker”. At this point, he decides instead to arrest me for reckless driving. Are you saying this is illegal? or should be? He can’t change his mind based on my behavior, speech or otherwise? Once he’s ‘made up his mind’ he can’t change it no matter what?
Watch the video again. The officer is extending the stop.
He asks her to put out her cigarette. She refuses. He tells her to step out of the car.
He had no reason to make that request and Mimms is no help here. Again from the Rodriguez decision (bolding mine):
“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 officer here clearly was in no danger.
What does this mean ‘The officer is extending the stop’? He hadn’t gotten her to sign the warning yet, so the stop was still ongoing, right? 
Since he hadn’t gotten her to sign the warning yet, he was perfectly within the law (even if it was being a dick) to ask her to leave her car to discuss the warning at that point, right??
Is there sufficient probable cause to bring a charge under that section against this officer?
When, specifically?
Your posts have oodles of your opinion and no citation to authority.
So when, specifically, have our courts pursued criminal actions even when no written law was violated? When does that happen?
That’s a false argument. She only kept smoking and that act was legal, even if it was but horrible for her lungs.
She didn’t call him a cocksucker she called him a pussy motherfucker **after **he slammed her head to the ground.
:smack:
You said that the “least” the officer should expect was lip service, which was coming from the Sandra Bland. For that reason, I read “the least he can expect” to mean “the least the officer can expect from Sandra”. So my thought’s were along the lines of “what’s the “most” he can expect from Sandra?”
Termination, fines, and prison sentences come after the traffic stop has long been over, and such consequences are awarded by courts and police department disciplinary hearings.
IMO, Sandra doesn’t get to resist arrest because (in her judgment at the time) the cop
was “in the wrong”. IMO, it should help get leniency in sentencing, up to and including dismissal of charges, at the discretion of the Judge or D.A.'s involved.
As has been noted Rodriguez says when the traffic stop should reasonably have been over. All he needed was a signature. When she refuses to put out her cigarette he does not hand her the clipboard to sign. He puts the clipboard on the hood and orders her out of the car.
As also noted in Rodiguez and I cited upthread he actually had no right to order her out of the car. Mimms does not work here. While asking her to put out her cigarette is fine her refusal is lawful and also fine. She later asks to sign the warning but the officer was having none of it at that point.
From the part you bolded. The officer wasn’t performing any sort of “on-scene investigation into other crimes”, he asked her to step out as part of the existing, and ongoing, lawful traffic stop.
ok fine. If he decided to give her a warning, but wouldn’t put out her cigarette, your view is he cannot ever change his mind and decide to arrest her instead, since he was legally entitled to do that at the very beginning of the stop? Once he ‘decides on a warning’ he can’t change his mind ever?
In other words he had even less reason to continue the stop.
Making her to get out of the car to hand her a warning–when he could have just handed her the warning–is extending the stop longer than necessary. So was asking her to put out of cigarette befor giving her the paper to sign. He did not have the right to let his power trips prolong the encounter.
If his safety was of concern, he could’ve handed her the warning from the passenger’s side. *Just as he did with the previous driver. *The fact that he actually increased harm to himself by opening her door and diving inside negates any claim to acting only out of safety concern. He also created a scene that could’ve distracted oncoming drivers.
What do you think he was going to do if she meekly got out of the car as soon as he told her to? Just stand there and quickly hand her the ticket? I’m pretty sure he would have continued the cat and mouse game he’d started from the outset. First it would have been get out the car, then it would have been “turn around and put your hands on the hood”. Then who knows what else. “Where are headed to?” “Where do you work?” A request to search her trunk, maybe. Anything to remind her who is boss.
I’m saying it might be illegal, and it absolutely should be.
No, he just can’t change his mind based on protected speech. If you say “Whew, so glad you didn’t give me a ticket. I was driving so fast because I’m late to deliver a bunch of narcotics and handguns in the trunk”, then that’s evidence of another crime, and he would be justified in investigating it and/or arresting you. But calling him a cocksucker is not relevant to whether you were driving recklessly a moment before.
But, if an officer can’t legally arrest me for insulting him, then he also shouldn’t be legally able to arrest me for something he was clearly not going to arrest me for because I insulted him. The existence of an arrestable offense should not be used as a pretext for an arrest, when the actual offense is failure to kowtow.
Well, then, why didn’t he ask her to step out of the car when he first approached? Why didn’t he ask her to step out of the car when he returned with the clipboard after checking her record out? Why was it necessary at the point when she was refusing to put out her ciggy? Did she need to get out of the car to sign the warning ticket? Can anyone give me a reason other than the cop just pushing her buttons because he could?