[quote=“cmyk, post:1245, topic:725859”]
cite?
The map around the university - does that look in any way urban to you?
You are aware that the second, independent, family-ordered autopsy has been completed, right? Do you think if the family had any results from it that contradicted the official autopsy, it wouldn’t be trumpeted far and wide?
That kinda does. (Wiki for Plainview, Texas)
My emphasis.
Sounds like the family has an excellent case for a civil suit.
Y’know-murder(violent or otherwise), is not the only other possibility, since she was complaining of a head injury. What about the possibility of medical neglect, the discovery of a dead(or near-dead) body, and a quick rigging to make it look like suicide? There would be no sign of a struggle.
It didn’t play into the narrative where people IMMEDIATELY began claiming that the sheriff murdered Bland. No facts required. It didn’t play into the narrative where people hung banners saying the sheriff murdered Bland. No facts required. It didn’t matter that the sheriff was no where near Bland’s cell on the day she died. It didn’t play into the narrative that the police MUST have murdered Bland. Guilty until proven innocent was SOP, again.
Or maybe aliens did it. There’s as much evidence for it - actually, aliens are more likely, since she was autopsied twice, and they would have been looking for head injuries but not advanced alien technology.
Then the family should release the findings of their autopsy to prove your speculations.
This is yesterday. It’s a scary world. We all have to push for better behavior from cops.
That’s an absolutely unwarranted – no pun intended – inference. The lack of a warrant does not in any way imply that she had set some payment system up with the state. Failure to pay fines is not generally a criminal offense in itself. It’s true that there are various mechanisms to collect fines that can possibly escalate to a warrant being issued, but that’s always, or even most often not an automatic step.
Right. That’s a huge part of the puzzle. Without the officer’s decision to act like a martinet and unleash the legal system on Bland, against department policy, it’s likely that she’d be alive right now.
I don’t think actual murder is plausible, totally willing to dismiss that out of hand. Still would like that video tape examined to be sure. Testimony from other inmates I discount out of hand, they will say whatever is required of them. Don’t really blame them, its one thing to speak truth to power, quite another when that power has you by the short and curlies.
Death by an injury covered up, however, is more plausible. Lot of evidence would be needed to be gathered honestly by people with a strong interest in the outcome. Nothing that couldn’t be dealt with by local authorities, but embarrassing. Sort of thing that might sully the reputation of greater Houston as it relates to law enforcement and forensics. Mmmm. Yes. Quite.
Of course, maybe not. Maybe she’d been to jail in Illinois, and thought she knew what being in jail was. And then she got to Texas, and found out. Illinois doesn’t like criminals, Texas hates 'em.
Except for violating Ramirez by extending the stop unrelated to the violation. He even lies about this in his explanation, saying it was to “investigate”.
The moment he gets pissed off because of her obvious attitude and her refusal to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he’s off the reservation.
It’s already been established upthread that, according to a SCOTUS ruling, a policeman isn’t allowed to change his mind on the outcome of a stop based on legally protected speech by the detainee. (That surprised me; frankly I figured that since it’s within the cop’s latitude to give a ticket or a warning, he could use any reasons he wants, and if I piss him off he should be entitled to change his mind. But as it turns out, I was wrong.)
Ramirez doesn’t allow the cop to extend a stop longer than it takes to handle the infraction in question, which was an improper lane change. That had been handled, except to the point of him explaining it and her signing the form. Only he doesn’t explain it or give her the opportunity to sign the form.
If you read the Ramirez decision, it’s pretty clear that SCOTUS is NOT giving the police the ability to extend a stop arbitrarily, but by preventing her from signing the form, he is doing exactly that.
Furthermore, he’s not allowed to change his mind about the status based on protected speech.
That’s two strikes against him.
Now, once Bland resists, she’s culpable for resisting arrest, and if she did in fact kick him (which isn’t clear; I don’t believe the officer and it’s not clear from the video, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true), then she’s culpable for assault.
But that doesn’t get the officer off the hook. He’s not cut out to be an officer, with a temper like that. Maybe it was just a bad day, and maybe he could be trained to behave properly, but now that it’s a big todo, it would be best to make an example of him so that other officers get the clue that they’re supposed to, you know, obey the law. Yeah, that thing they’re there to uphold.
Here is one of the posts where I learned that the officer is not allowed to change the decision based on protected speech:
I also agree that it’s not a slam dunk, and that we could get different results in different courts. The thing is, the impression in the video is that he gets pissed off, not that he’s calmly protecting himself from a potential threat. I’m in favor of effective law enforcement. I don’t want our police force handcuffed to the point of being ineffective. But even then, as a juror, Encino’s attorney would have a tough time convincing me that Encino didn’t violate the law here.
He’s not culpable for her death, though. There is no way he could have foreseen that as a likely consequence of his actions. He might feel guilty about it; I think I would, the old “if only!” record playing in my head. There’s a big gap between that and culpability.
Speaking of “off the reservation…”
You’re off base here.
A motorist is not permitted to decide, on her own, that the police officer changed his mind because of her legally protected speech, conclude that the stop (or the time the stop has been extended) is invalid, and choose to resist arrest with impunity.
The claims you have made as fact would undoubtedly be disputed by the officer. The place to settle those disputed claims would be the courtroom.
Therefore: even if the officer changed his mind, the moment she is told she’s under arrest and refuses to exit the car, the officer has probable cause to believe she’s guilty of the resist of his arrest.
The signing of the form is necessary to complete the stop. The extent to which he gave her a chance to sign the form, again, is not a question for roadside resolution.
Agreed. He should be fired for egregious violation of DPS policy.
But that doesn’t transform the arrest into an illegal one.
The family has a great attorney who will not divulge anything until he absolutely has to. He has some information many folks will not be happy to hear when all is laid out.
Bricker:
I think you’re conflating a little the question of whether she was privileged to resist an arrest she thought improper (she wasn’t), with whether the arrest was proper (less clear).
The determinative question as to the propriety of the arrest is whether the stop had continued past it’s constitutionally permissible duration before she was ordered out of her car. If it did, then everything else is fruit of the poisonous tree, I would think.
And the permissible duration question is not answered by observing that Texas law says the stop wasn’t over. It is answered by the objective question of whether she had been stopped long enough for a reasonable officer to have completed all tasks related and attendant to the stop.
I have seen precious little analysis of that question, but it really is key, isn’t it?
Would you like to make a small bet?
Thanks. Again, this is all new to me. And through you and others here, I’m really learning a lot.
And President Nixon has a secret plan to get us out of Vietnam.