Sandra Bland video

[cmyk]

@Terr

No, she wasn’t. I linked, twice, to the relevant document that shows what she was arrested for.

Then the document’s bogus or trumped up.

It’s clear from the video he declared she was under arrest just as she began resisting, but there’s zero evidence of assault at that point.

It’s also clear, despite the fact by law he didn’t have to state why she was under arrest, he couldn’t come up with an actual reason, until it escalated to a point where he could fabricate one.

So yes. By sheer common sense, she was arrested for resisting arrest. It’s a circular law and bogus and should inspire laws against such a ridiculous loophole.

[elucidator]

The video is entirely reliable when it comes to certain facts, but not others.

As for the stop sign, i looked it up, and the octagonal shape is only used for stop signs in Texas, so despite the utterly asinine fact of its placement so a stopped car would likely block a cross walk, a stop sign is what it is.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

My, but you love you some specificity! You may not even be aware how often you issue challenges centered around “specific”. An unkind or ungenerous observer might gather the impression that you are looking for a nitpick, a small point that you can stand upon and demand respect for.

Can Constitutionality sanctify injustice, can a citation of case law transform a pig’s ear to a silk purse? Are we expected to breathe a sigh of relief, saying “Yes, this is an appalling abuse of power by a sworn public servant, but thank Heavens… Its legal!”

Yes, to be sure, Ms Bland’s behavior falls short, but here’s the thing: she never swore to be better than us, she did not take an oath to protect and serve, she was not entrusted with lethal force upon her assertion that she was worthy of such trust. She is not sworn to protect me from injustice at the hand of power any more than I am sworn to protect her, we are precisely equal in our common and collective commitment to justice.

There are no such things as human rights, we made it all up, it is a gift we fashion from nothing and give to each other. They are not the gift of God, a force that may exist in the abstract, but the Ear does not listen and the Hand does not manifest. They are ours, and ours alone, we are the source and the shelter. God will not protect our rights if we don’t resist their debasement.

Perhaps if you had been in the car with her as her trusted confidant and adviser, all of this wretchedness might have been avoided. Almost certainly so, I have little doubt you would have rushed to her aid. But as your experience as a public defender must have taught you, the people who most need a lawyer are those who cannot afford one.

Remember how she told the officer that she was calling her lawyer? I’ve got a nickel to bet says she didn’t have one, she was bluffing, like a finger in a coat pocket claimed to be a gun. Having a lawyer means you have money, you have power. Had it been you she called, I haven’t the least doubt you would have been down to that police station in a heartbeat, and all of this would be nothing more than a trivial happenstance quickly set right, or as close to right as we were likely to get. She would be alive, because she would have been proven to be a significant person, someone not to be ignored. Alas.

Forgive, if you can, our lack of legalistic sophistication, we are but the common clay. She is dead, he may lose his job, the law is satisfied, but we are not. Prove me wrong on some minor procedural point, and I gain a smidgeon of information. What you get out of it, I don’t hazard to guess.

I’m just discussing the legal issues, I leave the higher issues to you, a higher thinker.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

The video is entirely reliable when it comes to certain facts, but not others.

As for the stop sign, i looked it up, and the octagonal shape is only used for stop signs in Texas, so despite the utterly asinine fact of its placement so a stopped car would likely block a cross walk, a stop sign is what it is.

How many other people could make a concession of error sound like the fault of someone else?

[Bricker]

@cmyk

Then the document’s bogus or trumped up.

It’s clear from the video he declared she was under arrest just as she began resisting, but there’s zero evidence of assault at that point.

It’s also clear, despite the fact by law he didn’t have to state why she was under arrest, he couldn’t come up with an actual reason, until it escalated to a point where he could fabricate one.

So yes. By sheer common sense, she was arrested for resisting arrest. It’s a circular law and bogus and should inspire laws against such a ridiculous loophole.

Did you read and understand my example scenario of Brock and Officer Jenny?

Probable cause existed to arrest her the
moment he saw her traffic violation. But if subsequent, more serious violations happened, the charging decision can be made to charge only those.

[Andiethewestie]

Daily Kos has a diary from a new poster who describes himself as a retired attorney and has a compelling kernel of information that no one has mentioned:

**I’m a retired attorney. I practiced law for 35 years. I was a full time county prosecutor right after I got out of law school, then after that, for about 20 years, I was a part-time municipal prosecutor, handling mostly routine traffic violations, in court, on a weekly basis. During my career I also taught policing techniques, procedures, and laws. I have dealt with cops a lot. And I know how to read a traffic code.

On the video, after being told that she was being stopped for failure to signal a lane change, Ms. Bland tells the arresting officer, in essence, that she was getting out of his way; that she saw his squad car coming up behind her in a hurry, and she moved over to let him by. That’s exactly what she should have done in the circumstances, and doing so did not violate Texas law. It also did not justify the stop.

The portion of the Texas statutes known as The Rules of the Road can be found at:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/…

It reads much like the traffic code in my state and in most other states that I have read and studied. The section of it that covers the signalling of lane changes provides:

Sec. 545.104. SIGNALING TURNS; USE OF TURN SIGNALS. (a) An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 [the vehicle’s lighted turn signal or a hand signal] to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.

Nothing ambiguous about that requirement. However, there is another provision that mandates what a driver is to do when being approached by a police vehicle:

Sec. 545.156. VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE. (a) On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702 [lights and sirens], or of a police vehicle lawfully using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1) yield the right-of-way;
(2) immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; and
(3) stop and remain standing until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

First, under subsection (2), “immediately” means just that. Not after the driver scratches her head, or turns down the radio, or signals a lane change, or does anything else, but get over to the far right now, first thing. That’s what it says. What lane the driver may be moving from is irrelevant.

**

So looking at this at face value, the so called illegal lane change was not illegal at all. She was in compliance with the rules of road as described in the section.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

How many other people could make a concession of error sound like the fault of someone else?

You and me, couple others. Like making justice seem somehow less important than the law. Its a gift.

[John_Mace]

@Andiethewestie

Daily Kos has a diary from a new poster who describes himself as a retired attorney and has a compelling kernel of information that no one has mentioned:

So looking at this at face value, the so called illegal lane change was not illegal at all. She was in compliance with the rules of road as described in the section.

Did the cop have his siren on?

[cmyk]

Here’s a transcription of the relavent part of her Arrest Affidavit:

@AFFIDAVIT and COMPLAINT FOR WARRANT OF ARREST AND DETENTION

[…snip…]I had Bland exit the vehicle to further conduct a safe traffic investigation. Bland became combative and uncooperative. Numerous commands were given to Bland ordering her to exit the vehicle. Bland was removed from the car but became more combative. Bland was then placed in handcuffs for officer safety. Bland began swinging her elbows at me and then kicked my right leg in the shin. I had a pain in my right leg and suffered small cuts on my right hand. Force was used to subdue Bland to the ground to which Bland continued to fight back. Bland was placed under arrest for Assault on Public Servant(TXPC 22.01 (B) (1)). The was inventoried and released to Crown Towing. Bland was transported and booked into the Waller County Jail for Assault on Public Servant(TXPC 22.01 (B) (1)).

This offense was committed against the peace and dignity of the state of Texas.

[RIGHT][Signed] Affiant Trooper BRIAN T ENCINIA #14271 – 10 July, 2015[/RIGHT]

:dubious:

After witnessing the video, would anyone like to make their own addendum to these claims by trooper Encinia?

[Andiethewestie]

@John_Mace

Did the cop have his siren on?

The retired lawyer says:

The waters are somewhat muddied in these circumstances, however, because there is no evidence on the video that the officer was running with lights or sirens as he came up behind Ms. bland’s car, and Section 545.156 mandates immediately pulling over when the emergency vehicle is using at least an audible signal. That said, what Ms. Bland, looking in her rear view mirror (which, according to her statement to the officer in the video, is what she was doing) did see the police car do is this:

-It made an illegal u-turn, starting from from the far right lane, beyond even the solid white line (a bike lane?), almost to the right curb, and then across the right lane, the designated turning lane, and the oncoming lane, and then well into both lanes of the perpendicular street, before completing it. See Section 545.101. There is no indication if this turn was first signalled by the officer or not, another potential violation here.

-It was speeding. The video reveals that this is a 20 MPH zone. Whatever speed the squad car was actually going, given how fast the trees fly by and he catches up to her, he was doing more than 20.

But other sections of the Texas code say that the police can ignore these and most other traffic laws when they need to. They’re supposed to use lights, or at least a siren, when they do, per Section 546.003, but even then they are given broad discretion to not use them. Section 546.004 essentially gives them discretionary carte blanche to do so.

[D_Anconia]

@Andiethewestie

Daily Kos has a diary from a new poster who describes himself as a retired attorney

Nothing can go wrong with a cite like that!

[John_Mace]

@Andiethewestie

The retired lawyer says:

Weasel wording. The statute clearly states that the siren needs to be on. If you’re going to make a statement that “no illegal lane change was made”, you need definitive evidence. What you’ve given isn’t even close.

[elucidator]

So, if I read that right, if he didn’t have his flashers and sirens on when he made those maneuvers, he should have. But does his violation of law and procedures have any direct relevance to hers? There was no traffic, no threat to safety. Course, same could be said of her saluting the stop sign.

[Andiethewestie]

@John_Mace

Weasel wording. The statute clearly states that the siren needs to be on. If you’re going to make a statement that “no illegal lane change was made”, you need definitive evidence. What you’ve given isn’t even close.

Bullshit. It was obviously not a lane change under Section 545.104. She didn’t need to change lanes. It was a move-over under Section 545.156. No signal required, or even permitted.

[Terr]

@cmyk

Then the document’s bogus or trumped up.

It’s clear from the video he declared she was under arrest just as she began resisting, but there’s zero evidence of assault at that point.

He was going to arrest her for failing to follow a lawful order (I cited the relevant law in this thread already). In the end, she was arraigned on the assault charge, because it is a more severe one.

It’s also clear, despite the fact by law he didn’t have to state why she was under arrest, he couldn’t come up with an actual reason, until it escalated to a point where he could fabricate one.

Yes, he definitely could come up with an actual reason. That is why he repeated to her, several times, that he is giving her a lawful order.

[Andiethewestie]

@elucidator

So, if I read that right, if he didn’t have his flashers and sirens on when he made those maneuvers, he should have. But does his violation of law and procedures have any direct relevance to hers? There was no traffic, no threat to safety. Course, same could be said of her saluting the stop sign.

Nothing that this guy did was normal procedure. He had discretion NOT to use his flashers and sirens and he may have used his discretion. Or he may have used them. She was in the car with windows up air con on and radio on, she may not of heard him, but she certainly saw in her rear view window and made the legal maneuver of getting out of the way.

[elucidator]

So, Terr, any word yet on my question about your post #799? If I am not worthy of a response, will you answer if someone else asks?

[elucidator]

@Andiethewestie

Nothing that this guy did was normal procedure. He had discretion NOT to use his flashers and sirens and he may have used his discretion. Or he may have used them. She was in the car with windows up air con on and radio on, she may not of heard him, but she certainly saw in her rear view window and made the legal maneuver of getting out of the way.

Whoa, Andie. Air con on, radio on, where is this stated? If we are going to play strict rules of golf, we gotta play fair. We’re the good guys, that’s why we wear the white hat, otherwise, its a disguise.

Also, where can I get a radio that could drown out a siren? My son might be interested. Hell, I might!

[cmyk]

@Terr

He was going to arrest her for failing to follow a lawful order (I cited the relevant law in this thread already). In the end, she was arraigned on the assault charge, because it is a more severe one.

Yes, he definitely could come up with an actual reason. That is why he repeated to her, several times, that he is giving her a lawful order.

That is what we called “trumped up.” He created a situation to railroad her into a more severe one. Had commanded her to exit the vehicle. She didn’t know that was illegal to resist, he most likely knew she didn’t know that. Then he got all in her face about it, and didn’t declare she was even under arrest until he opened the door and put her hands on her, immediately putting a taser in her face and said he’ll “Light her up!”.

Then she got out.

Arrests should be in proportion to the violation. Totally trumped up.

[Andiethewestie]

@elucidator

Whoa, Andie. Air con on, radio on, where is this stated? If we are going to play strict rules of golf, we gotta play fair. We’re the good guys, that’s why we wear the white hat, otherwise, its a disguise.

It was a hot day, windows were up. Air Con would have to be on. Radio could have been. Fact is he had discretion under the law not to use his sirens or lights. 546.004 gave him that discretion.