If I were a jurist, I’d laugh at the thought of a cigarette being used as a weapon. Especially in this case.
This thread has gotten very bizarre.
The police officer was just 5 seconds away from being forever free from the clutches of the horrible chain-smoking she-beast Sandra Bland.
I like to play “what if” as much as the next person, but this is just insane. If a person is so intolerant of common everyday environmental allergens that he can’t endure five seconds without turning into a raging douchbag, he shouldn’t be a police officer. He probably shouldn’t leave his house either.
Okay. Look, putting lawyering spin aside (and all of us know, that’s what lawyer’s do… speak for the client in the best possible spin for any charge or claim), if any of these excuses were the case, he should’ve ended the stop ASAP. She has a right to smoke in her own car. If he couldn’t handle that, perhaps he shouldn’t be a cop.
I’m looking for a sincere comment to the above, and not what a lawyer might ask their client to state to avoid being looking like a buffoon or being charged for whatever.
Bingo.
Out of curiosity, suppose I said, “I have a right to smoke in the restaurant I own, and to invite my customers to do likewise, and if you don’t like it, perhaps you shouldn’t be a waiter or waitress?”
I have a right to carry a gun in my car, but it’s well established that an officer can, for his own safety, ask me to step out of the car and away from my gun.
So the formula is not simply “she has a right.” The formula is: can the officer adduce some reasonable concern about the cigarette’s dangers?
If it’s outlawed, as it is now in most states, that won’t hold. However, if it’s legal, then that’s the discretion of the owner. His/her loss or gain as a commercial business owner.
The police are neither commercial or a business in the capitalism sense.
It is my conviction that a firearm is several orders of magnitude a more harmful device than a lit cigarette. It takes a flick of the middle finger to disarm a barely harmful cigarette.
I asked you about this earlier.
A car is private property, but not a business establishment, public place, or govt bldg. The police officer is not her employee.
So what is the basis of your argument?
Thanks for answering. From this I adduce that a cop can indeed be a passive aggressive douchebag, use ‘discretion’ while pissing some citizen off to the point of committing an infraction more serious than the original cause of the stop, and remain safely within the letter of the law – if not necessarily obedient to department guidelines. Good to know.
Of course, we’ve already been told that requiring better training and enforcement of such guidelines is impossible, and any attempt to do so must result in instant anarchy. I’m not convinced. Are you?
I thought that one of the most basic “laws” (not sure if this is the correct apellation to give) was that “refusal of a search cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion for a search” - I can sorta see a similarity here…
the need to issue an order arose because she refused a request, the order then led to the need to arrest -
it feels the same sort of circular reasoning as “I had no reason to suspect him till he refused to be searched”
Here is all the cop had to say.
“She kept moving her hand to the console of her car to tap the ashes from her cigarette. I had no way of knowing if she had a weapon and would use the motion as a precursor to getting that weapon. We are trained not to allow people any suspicious moves and given the totality of the situation, I felt it was appropriate to ask her to put out the cigarette.”
Waller DA releases more jail footage, medication details in Sandra Bland case
They said they released this to counter the conspiracy theories that alleged she was dead on arrival and/or in the mug shots.
Some more info about medications as well:
According to the jail’s medication purchase documents, Bland requested Alleve twice. Duhon said she did not request any other medications.
The fact Bland was not receiving Keppra, or another epilepsy medication, while in jail could provide investigators and the public additional insight into her potential state of mind.
Keppra has some potentially serious side effects, including suicidal tendencies, behavioral abnormalities and psychotic symptoms, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Some of these effects also are listed as common withdrawal symptoms.
Yes, I believe I read that a side effect of immediately stopping Keppra was suicidal ideation in over 12% of study groups. It’s hard to cite right now since I’m posting from my phone, but the statistics are Googleable.
Here’s a chilling note about Keppra on the Crazy Meds site:
Of course, if she had such medicine prescribed for her, and she was denied access to it, that would truly be the trajectory of the shit intersecting the locus of the fan. But wouldn’t she have mentioned it in her phone call? Has it been actually verified that she was epileptic?
If his stated concern was that she would use the cig as weapon, then by what logic made him tear open the door, reach into the car, and place his hands on her? His actions pretty much ensured she would burn him if that had been her desire.
The officer proved himself to be a lying, hot-headed, policy-breaker. So I join others in asking why you would treat his claim like fact.
:eek:
Great point.
I would have no problem whatsoever with swearing at a cop being illegal. Obviously the cop can’t throw you out, but being able to arrest you would be fine.
And don’t give me “free speech” crap. You’re not allowed to swear at government agents when dealing with them at the DMV or whatever, they’re allowed to not serve you. Make swearing at them a crime as well, if you like.