Sorry for being unclear. I could be misunderstanding the law. From what I read, it seemed clear that the officer who arrested Atwater knew her and disliked her from a previous incident, and that was the motivation for the arrest rather than just issuing a fine. It was a seat belt violation, and he was pretty rough with her and her children, even though there was no resistance. Isn’t that retaliatory, to arrest someone because you were pissed off from a past encounter with them?
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Actually, no I’m not amazed. This binary thinking accounts for many of your comments in this thread. Anything other than meek submission must justify force, right? Like, it’s the most we should expect, huh?
[/QUOTE]
I’m NOT amazed that you didn’t understand anything I’ve said, since you are so one track minded on these things that there simply is no way to get through your own ridiculous preconceptions and prejudices. But, what the hell, I’ll try…again.
First off…‘justify force’? In what bizarre universe did I ever say or even imply that force was justified in either this event that we are discussing or your ridiculous rant? Answer…the one in your own head. I never said, implied nor meant it to be taken that way. That’s YOUR strawman of me and my position.
As to the over all theme, you were the one who brought up cops breaking into another cops home while armed. Then you decided that this would be some fantasy break in where the cops breaking in were unjustified. Again, all your fantasy, so it can play out however these things play out in your head. As to ‘meek’, well, yeah…if armed people break into ones house shouting ‘POLICE’ then I suppose it IS a binary solution set…one can either resist or one can not resist and do so in such a way as to not get fucking shot. Resisting at all in such a case is going to give you a higher probability of getting shot than not resisting, which is still likely to have a non-zero probability of getting shot but is a hell of a lot better odds.
This is foolish advice, but what the hell, it’s your fantasy situation, and as I said, it will play out as you like in your head. I would hope that if a bunch of guys broke into your house with arms drawn and shouting ‘POLICE!’ that you would not be so stupid as to tell them to wait outside while you inspected their warrant. The time to fight such a thing is in court when you have the protection of the judicial system and a good lawyer at your back, not with a bunch of probably touchy guys with guns out, but wth, it’s your life so you go there.
All I can do is shake my head at this sort of thing. You are a news headline just waiting for the wrong situation to happen. Like I said earlier, I’m simply glad you aren’t my kid, since if you are ever in a situation like your fantasy scenario it’s unlikely in the extreme to play out as you think it will.
And for fucks sake, it’s a really REALLY bad idea to raise your voice and shout at a bunch of dudes with guns in any situation…ever. It’s stupid and dangerous to lose your temper in this sort of situation…ever. Unless you want to be shot or have the crap beaten out of you. It’s better to go along and then fight it in the courts. Or, to put it another way, whether she was in the right or in the wrong, how well did blowing up work out for Sandra Bland? Whether the cop was right or wrong, she is DEAD, and at this late stage being right and justified is kind of cold comfort to her folks, no doubt. But, again, you do what you think you have too and good luck with that.
The key question isn’t whether it was retaliatory, but whether it was in retaliation for protected First Amendment conduct. So if there was evidence that the cop made the decision to arrest because she previously criticized his performance as a police officer or sang a nasty song about him, then this could have been a claim (though among the issues in such a case is proving causation, which is much easier when the conduct immediately follows the protected activity).
Beyond that, there are lots of reasons why they might not have included the claim. But we know for sure the reason the Supreme Court did not address it, which is that it wasn’t raised.
As a side note, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pearson–which allowed courts to find qualified immunity without making any ruling on the constitutional merits-- circuits controlled by conservative appointees pretty much no longer decide issues of the constitutional scope of police powers. So these days you might not bring this claim in some circuits because Pearson was decided before that circuit was forced to decide the merits issue on retaliatory arrest.
Okay. Thanks for the info.
I don’t know the details of the previous incident, so it might not have applied, regardless of Pearson.
Yes. If an we can determine that an officer:
- Knew at time T that there was reason sufficient for an arrest, and
- Decided not to arrest at time T, and
- While the reason remained effective through to time T+n
- The officer decided to make an arrest at time T+n where
- The decision arose out of no new information other than the arrestee having used disrespectful language against the officer
then we should consider the arrest improper. (By this I mean to propose a rule, not to explicate any rule that is in effect already.)
Cuts on his right hand. Cite.
This was also cited previously in this thread.
So what? I’m asking this rhetorically, by the way. Lots of actions can increase one’s probability of getting shot. I’m sure the few Germans who stuck their necks out for the Jews hidden in their basements were well aware of this basic fact. And yet, mysteriously enough, their respect for principles much greater than protecting their soft little asses made them brave enough to resist the Nazi jackboots anyway.
It’s not advice. I’m just telling you what a truly free, self-empowered citizenry looks like. Believe it or not, such people aren’t ruled by fear like so many of us are today. They respect their rights enough to recognize and exercise them even if means the threat of physical harm.
You know, higher principles and shit.
For starters:
(my emphasis in bold)
I’ll try to find a link.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
So what? I’m asking this rhetorically, by the way. Lots of actions can increase one’s probability of getting shot. I’m sure the few Germans who stuck their necks out for the Jews hidden in their basements were well aware of this basic fact. And yet, mysteriously enough, their respect for principles much greater than protecting their soft little asses made them brave enough to resist the Nazi jackboots anyway.
[/QUOTE]
There is a time to be all heroic, and shit, and a time not to be. At a traffic stop is not the time to be all heroic and shit. When the Nazi come into your house to drag you and your family away to the death camps? Yeah, that would be the time to fight the power. In the USA, today, if the police break into your house to arrest you, you go with them quietly, ask for a freaking lawyer and them fight the power IN THE COURTS…that’s why we have a rule of law. Seems simple enough to me, and I’ve lived into my 50’s through some rough shit by this motto. America isn’t always the fairest place, but we DO have courts and it’s the proper place to fight, not on the side of the road because of a traffic stop.
And I’m telling you that us who have to live in the real world as it actually exists today are better served taking the freaking ticket and fighting it in traffic court or if the police break into our houses with a bunch of armed buddies going with them without a fight and then getting a lawyer. This isn’t Nazi Germany and you aren’t a German Jew being sent off to a death camp along with your entire family to be tortured, starved and murdered in job lots.
Yeah, I have them. I also seem to have a firmer grasp of reality and the real world than you do. I also don’t think of myself as the star in some heroic drama, fighting the power.
I am not challenging the legality of an officer refusing to say why a person is being arrested when asked point-blank, as apparently that is legal in at least some jurisdictions, but I just wanted to say that I find it appalling that a police officer can arrest someone and not say why they are being arrested. When would a person HAVE to be told? At booking? What f they were just held for a while without being charged? How long could an individual under arrested be in police custody, hypothetically, without ever being told why?
You’re correct. But she didn’t stay put. She pushed at him, causing an injury, which would be sufficient “force.” And as the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals observed:
Quoting Sutton v. State, 548 SW 2d 697 at 699 (Tex Ct Crim App 1977)
How do you know she pushed him? He never said she did that, and the tape doesn’t show that.
I believe he told his boss he sustained cuts to his hands in the process of cuffing her while she tried to wiggle away (because of the whole pain thing probably).
I’m asking this in all honesty, not to be argumentative.
What does it mean to have constitutional rights?
At what point is it alright for a citizen to stand up for those rights?
I’m pragmatic too. If I had a child, I’d tell them to do whatever it is a police officer orders them to do, short of violating the law itself. But I’m VERY uncomfortable with the notion that citizens should never resist abusive policing. Perhaps you aren’t willing to die to protect your rights and the rights of everyone in your community. But a lot of people are. And they are admirable.
It wasn’t that long ago when the police en masse were oppressive towards black people in many parts of this country. This happened in living memory. I hope people don’t become so afraid of dying that they’ll let this country revert back to the bad ole days. The police work for us. We shouldn’t have to put up with their bullying just because they have guns pointed at us.
Bland caused cuts on his hand by kicking him in the shin? Must have been one hell of a kick.
According to the transcript, the cuts were caused by the handcuffs, and the kick (“she started yanking away and then she kicked me, so I took her straight to the ground”) came after the arrest was initiated. Also, the officer tried to de-escalate things (according to the officer, that is.)
The kick does seem to be resisting arrest.
If the government decided to be evil and oppressive, the first thing it would do is encourage the public to be deathy afraid of cops, so much so that they dare not even frown at them.
The second thing it would do is encourage blind deference and complete submission. A cop attempts to violate your civil rights? Let him violate you, and do it with a smile on your face. You call always take it up with the courts later on, problem solved, see?
And the third thing it would do is make the court system a complete joke, presided by judges whose tortuous reading of the law guarantees you will lose every time. “So the cops searched your home without a warrant, you say? Well, gosh darnit, since you didn’t ask them to leave, that means you consented to their search, bucko. Perhaps next time you won’t be too chickenshit to speak up. Oh wait, who am I fooling? You are too afraid. LOL. Case dismissed!”
If this happens, we will only have ourselves to blame.
We only have his word that this happened. Since he lied about pretty much everything she did when talking to his boss, we have no reason to believe she actually kicked him.
[QUOTE=monstro]
What does it mean to have constitutional rights?
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s a pretty complex question and an even more complex answer. I suppose at it’s heard the Constitution is a contract between the government and the citizens, and it sets forth the constraints of that government and what it can and can’t do wrt those citizens. It’s a living document, IMHO, that changes and shifts with the changes and shifts in our every growing and changing society. As our society grows and changes, it does as well to reflect those changes and new attitudes. It’s, IMHO, the genius of our deeply flawed system, that it CAN change and shift and grow as we do.
Well, we should always stand up for them and force the government to conform to it’s bargain with us. When the government encroaches on them we should fight that. I’m all for it. It’s where the battle ground is that seems to be in question, and how it should be fought. There is a time and a place to fight the government, the police, even society itself, and there are times when I think it’s right and proper to put ones life on the line to do so. Over a traffic ticket is not one of those times, IMHO. I suppose to contrast what I mean there is the difference between Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin. Both women were hands down and unequivocally in the right. It makes me sad that such things have happened, and I think that what they did was heroic and that this country needed this, as well as many other examples. But Rosa Parks did what she did in such a way as to set off an earth quake in this country because of HOW she did what she did, and how she fought the battle, while most people are probably Googling who Claudette Colvin is at this point. Which is sad, but it shows the difference between when and how to fight to make it meaningful, at least that’s the first example that came into my mind when you asked your questions.
I’m not willing to die stupidly for stupid reasons. It goes against my grain. There is a right way and a right time to fight for ones rights. On the side of a road over something as stupid as a traffic ticket is not, IMHO, the time or place to do so. I think that Sandra’s mother and father would rather have her daughter alive and well with a ticket than dead in a jail cell over a ticket. Maybe this will effect change, maybe it won’t…if it does then I guess her sacrifice won’t have been in vain. Though to me that would be cold comfort to lose a daughter over when it was not necessary.
And IMHO black people in the US are still given short shrift, and I DO think that changing that attitude is worth fighting for. But there is a time and a place to fight, IMHO, and a way to do so without provoking the cops to shoot any more black kids (or, in my own neck of the woods young hispanic kids). I think that Martin Luther King would agree with me and my way than with angry confrontations that do nothing more than get more folks killed in stupid confrontations. Maybe I’m wrong and this is what the country needs…if so, then I’m even more saddened that kids have to die. 
thank you.
No that’s not necessary, your quote is exactly what I was looking to know. Thanks!