And so was she.
Exactly. He was on a trumping up mission as soon as he felt disrespected.
Most cops have a gift for manipulation, through subtly loaded questions to get the person they’ve pulled over to unwittingly condemn themselves. With bully cops, some people are like putty in their hands. Unfortunately Bland was one of them.
We do not know what his intent was at all. The lane change citation was just a bogus smokescreen for what he was really after.
FWIW I believe the retired prosecutor who said lots of times police would use it to get the stop, and then push to get something really substantial on the driver.
Yeh. She allegedly failed to signal. She was ready to sign for that. But then the officer decided to see how far this can go since he got himself a mouthy black woman here.
Maybe he was a racist, a bully, or just bored… or all three, but the whole thing would’ve just stopped and everybody would’ve happily been on their way (like the white person he’d just previously pulled over in the video) had he not asked, “Are you alright?” and so forth. That was the bait.
No “allegedly” about it - it is there on the video. As is her going right through the stop sign.
… and by the same token the whole thing would’ve just stopped and everybody would’ve happily been on their way if Sandra Bland stepped out of the car when ordered to do so.
We don’t know that. You are assuming without evidence.
We also don’t know what would have happened if she had put out the cigarette when he requested it.
The stop was still ongoing at either point.
What I’d like to know is what should have happened? The PSD has said that the officer violated protocol. At what point did he do that?
I would say at the point of raising his voice while telling her to get out of the car after she refused. Should have calmly told her to get out of the car, or be arrested for failing to obey a lawful order. But that still doesn’t absolve her of refusing a lawful order.
It didn’t need to go that far. That part was on the cop.
He says, “Okay ma’am… You okay?”
That’s a loaded question right there. He’s presuming something wrong in order to get something out of her.
He proceeds, “I dunno, you seem irritated.” Another presumption. Another loaded question. He hits jackpot by getting her to admit she is, and gives a rather blunt and unpleasant (to the cop) answer.
“Are you done?” Condescension. He asked. If he didn’t want an answer (which he did, and got exactly the rise he was going for), he shouldn’t have. So, now he tries to make her feel like she’s ranting irrationally. It’s a belittling question, which lead’s us to the volley…
“You mind putting out your cigarette, please?” Boom. Another loaded request. It’s a non-sequiter too. It’s so insidiously manipulative, because it stirs up the rising feeling that she’s being unfairly untreated. And now the spike…
“Well, you can step on out now.” WHAM, he’s got her. From there, it’s going to be his game. And they both lose.
It reminds me of the time I was pulled over for speeding. The officer did his thing, I was super polite and compliant. Gives me a ticket and my stuff back. Then leans into the car and says, “I’m smelling some weed in here.” I hadn’t had a joint in over a decade, and there was no weed on me or in the car. It was a loaded question to get me to say something like, “I didn’t smoke in my car.” or something to that effect. Then he’d say, “So, you have been smoking?” etc. Of course, I was non-plussed and only said, “I can’t imagine how?” And he dropped it. I knew what he was doing, and he knew I knew what he was doing at that point.
It’s just what they do, to whomever they want to do it, and however far they can take it. You make a bust, you feel like a fucking hot shot. It’s sad.
Dude, it was your cite. If you don’t believe your own cites, you shouldn’t cite them.
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
Emphasis added.
nm
lol.
Yes. I wasn’t aware of these tactics, nor of the speed up behind a motorist so that they’ll get out of your way quickly, probably without using the signal—and then you have a reason to ticket them trick.
Nasty.
I just saw the 7-minute video of the stop; I have yet to read this entire thread (which approaches a thousand posts) and apologize if this has been discussed, but:
What stands out IMMEDIATELY about that video is that the officer TAKES HER OUT OF CAMERA RANGE.
There is no reason for him to have taken her out of camera range. It’s just as safe within camera range as out of it–they could have stood on the curb (not right between the cars, which I admit is a possibly-dangerous area in case of some other vehicle hitting the officer’s car), and still have been within camera range.
The officer clearly knew exactly where the camera’s range ended. And he carefully took his victim out of range.
Why isn’t such an action cause for immediate suspension from duty? Why isn’t such an action an immediate trigger for investigation?
I don’t understand why this is considered to be acceptable practice.
Can it technically be considered a lane change if she’s moving out of the way of a speeding police cruiser to the shoulder assuming he needs to go past her?
It just doesn’t pass the smell test.
Conjecture. He also took her to the grassy area away from the asphalt, pretty reasonably, in case she resists arrest and he needs to take her down to the ground to handcuff her. You would probably be the first one to scream about him doing so on the asphalt.
I presume because there is no regulation or protocol that requires that all police business be conducted within view of the dashboard camera. It would be silly if there was such a regulation or protocol.
It doesn’t absolve her actions, but it certainly mitigates them.
You seem to be judging her actions in a vacuum (and of course the other side is as well, to a degree). I think it is fair to put more weight on his actions because he was the professional, and his violation of professional protocol is what set the events in motion.
Why isn’t that a consideration for you?
Please. He was extending the stop, therefore increasing the danger to himself and the taxpayer.
Okay. Mitigated. I am sure that would reduce her punishment at the trial, or get her acquitted. Wait…
It is, but it is not a consideration for me when discussing whether her arrest was lawful, and definitely not a consideration for me when seeing the “Sandra Bland was murdered!11!!!” hysteria.
In an ideal world she would have stepped out of the car when ordered to do so, listened to the police officer lecture, accepted the warning and drove away. In an ideal world, he would have not raised his voice, told her to step out of the car for his and her safety, gave her the lecture, the warning, and watched her drive away.
In an ideal world, I’d live forever, be Adonis-handsome and Croesus-rich.
But we don’t live in an ideal world. People are trying to justify or excuse her behavior. That is ridiculous and counterproductive. It definitely didn’t work out well for her, did it?
Or him.
Can someone who knows put a timeline to the events up to the stop? It seems she ran a stop sign and he did a u-turn right after to close in behind her? And her impression was that he was on a call because of his actions and acceleration behind her? So she moved to the right and then he pulled her over. He wasn’t lit up or sirening. But he chose to ignore the stop sign violation after all that? Why? it seems like that’s the reason he took the u-turn, no?
What do you mean by saying “conjecture”–is it your contention that a police officer is unlikely to know the range of view of the camera?
If you believe this, why do you believe it? What has led you to that belief?
The claim that he took her out of camera range so that he could slam her head down on “the grassy area” (as opposed to slamming her head on asphalt) is something else entirely. For now, let’s just stick with your claim that it’s only “conjecture” that he would have known he was out of camera range when he did the slamming.
My claim was that he took her out of camera range deliberately and knowingly; your counter-claim is that we can’t assume he knew he’d be out of range when getting physical with her. You seem to assert that he’d have had no knowledge of the range-of-view of the camera. What’s your source for that?
I find this claim to be particularly bizarre. Ignoring the “ALL police business” straw man: what could possibly be the point of having dashboard cameras, if it’s considered normal/acceptable for officers to make sure they’re not being filmed by them (by taking citizens out of range)?