We are aware that this is what happens. We are also aware that one problem with this approach is that it reduces accountability in a situation where the other party is often no longer alive to provide an opposing viewpoint. While I have no wish to hamstring the police in the execution [sic] of a dangerous job, neither do I wish to give them so much leeway that the South Park Defense pertains, where merely shouting “He’s coming right for us!” is considered sufficient grounds for opening fire.
Wrong South Park Defense.
Yes, that’s true. But I have already agreed that this officer handled his interaction with Ms. Bland very poorly.
I am explaining why his safety concern, even unexpressed, is legally sufficient.
But it’s the best defense ever.
That’s fine. I just hope the prosecution would destroy such a silly claim.
The vast majority of suppression arguments arise with living defendants. Mimms and Rodriguez are in play because of the need to litigate cases with living defendants. A deceased suspect isn’t charged with any crime.
So, no, the situation here is not one in which the other party is no longer alive. The situation here is much more often one in which the other party is alive and is contesting the legality of the traffic stop at its inception or at the instant inculpatory evidence was evident.
It is that framework which is under debate.
In what circumstances would the prosecution seek to destroy that claim?
If she didn’t know his concern about being burned or otherwise harmed by her cigarette, why would she feel compelled to put it out? Because he said so isn’t valid.
He never made any concern or any reason at all known to her. Her refusal was the impetus for commanding her to step out of the vehicle. That’s when the whole thing went to shit.
Yes, but that question isn’t legally relevant. What’s the legal relevance of whether she felt compelled to put it out?
So what?
There is no law requiring an officer to explain his reason for an arrest, much less his reasons for ordering someone out of the car.
Why are you asking about what she knew?
There is no law requiring her to extinguish her cigarette.
This whole line of reasoning is circular.
Why would the prosecution seek to undermine the State’s case?
To be honest, I’m not even sure what we’re really debating at this point. I was thinking of a hypothetical trial/suit between Encinia vs. Bland’s Family.
But since no actual laws were broken by the officer, this wouldn’t happen.
In a hypothetical civil suit of Bland Family v. Encinia, there wouldn’t be a prosecutor. You understand that, right?
Speaking as an epileptic who’s been on at least three different AEDs, (and currently taking a generic form of Keppra. Yea!) most mess with your mood and withdraw can suck. They are altering you brain’s chemistry, that’s how AEDs work. Funny things can happen.
The article says she listed she had epilepsy, but is kind of unclear about if she was taking medication for them. If she was and they put her into three days of withdraw Hell and that’s why she killed herself, they may as well be responsible for her death.
“According to the jail’s medication purchase documents, Bland requested Alleve twice. Duhon said she did not request any other medications.”
No. Although there is no law requiring her to extinguish her cigarette, there is a law requiring her to step out of the vehicle when ordered to do so and told that she’s under arrest.
Well, hold on.
A suit in which Bland’s family, as next of kin, sues Encinia could happen, because they could allege certain civil violations. When we talk about civil torts, we don’t typically use language like “laws broken.”
But in that scenario, there is no “prosecution.” A civil trial has a plaintiff, who has alleged some injury inflicted because of some civil wrong done by the defendant.
In that trial the Blands would be the plaintiff and Encinia the defendant.
You still haven’t addressed my point. His own actions contradict any claim that he was concerned about the cigarette. If a person says they are afraid that the cobra might bite, does it make any sense for them to plunge both hands into its cage and grab the snake by its neck? Hell no. This is essentially what the Officer did to Bland.
What does this new and creative “what if” scenario about presenting her hands have to do with anything? You are flailing here. And you still haven’t explained why you would take the side of this Officer even though he is dishonest and you admit that he demonstrated behavior unbefitting an officer. An impartial juror should discount his testimony due to his poor credibility issues and use the objective evidence to infer his motivation for ordering out her car. From that it’s clear his motivation has nothing to do with safety concerns for the reasons pointed out.
Yes, sorry. I was thinking plaintiff vs. defendant. My bad. (And I knew this! :smack: )