What ever way you look at it it’s amateur policing.
At the points that matter, some lawyerly nit picking doesn’t help shit.
In human, real world terms if it escalates then fine, deal with that. But to be instrumental in the escalation … utterley counter to the notion of public service.
And I think this is what annoys the most when reading Bricker’s posts - he always seems to be saying “what should / could the cop say to get out of this”
With the cigarette I don’t believe he had a safety concern - but after talking to a lawyer, that’s sure to be what he says.
I don’t believe there was any “cause” for the arrest other than he was pissed and wanted to punish her.
To paraphrase the old maxim about the police:
Everybody hates lawyers… until they need one.
Damn, give** Bricker** a break. He’s already condemned the cop’s behavior; he’s only explaining the law. Figure out how many billable hours you save by reading his posts (and the other lawyers here).
But the point is, this situation did not need interpretations of the law. It should not matter what lawyers think because it should never have got close to needing that.
I wish I could admire him as much as you do.
So the police officer could see into the future and knew she was going to attack him?
That’s what confuses me about this whole thing. She got out of the car when he made it clear that she was being arrested. She resisted when she thought she had that latitude, since she was only seconds away from signing the warning–forever free to go. But once he said she was under arrest, she did get out of the car. Still very confused (“Why are you apprehending me?”) but she did follow the order when she fully realized the situation.
This is the situation, played out in an alternative universe where Bland was less angry and the cop showed more of his hand.
“You can step out of the car now.”
“I will oblige your request if you can explain its purpose.”
“Get out of the damn car before I light you up, lady!”
“Oh my. This is going too fast and I’m so confused. I’m not being arrested, right? What’s going on?”
“You are now under arrest for resisting arrest! Get out of the car RIGHT NOW!!”
“OK. If that’s how it has to be.”
Does this make sense to you, Bricker?
I had a kid bite my hand once. It left an impression that hurt for a time. Nothíng in any way severe, I grant you, but also not an experience I’d seek out for fun.
If I were a cop in Amerika thinking of arresting a sassy black ho – just for being a sassy black ho – would I be justified in asking her her to remove her teeth first?
It’s not about admiration; I just don’t understand the “kill the messenger” mentality.
Should we blame a doctor for diagnosing cancer and explaining the prognosis? How is this different?
I don’t agree with a lot of Bricker’s personal opinions or politics, but I don’t see his legal analysis as his personal opinion. He didn’t create these laws. And he’s not one of the posters bringing up her family, or her character, or all that other crap.
I think it’s important to know your rights. It’s also important to know what rights you don’t have. You can’t change a bad law if you don’t know what it is.
I don’t believe for a minute that the cop was concerned for his safety. I don’t think any of the lawyers posting here do, either. But they have a better idea than we do of how it would likely go down in court. Are you reading it as more than that? Am I missing something?
The thing you’re missing is it shouldn’t go to court, and it’s a failing of the officer’s training and professionalism that it would have.
I don’t think that’s being missed by anyone. The discussion is not just about “should-have dones” or professional behaviors. It’s also about the moral, organizational and legal consequences of the arrest, detention and death of Bland while in custody. Meaning that the potential legalities and defense arguments revolving around the initial traffic stop and the actions of the cop and the deceased during and immediately subsequent to the stop are a legitimate concern.
So, at the point where he says she is under arrest, what charge is she being arrested for? Specifically.
For not stepping out of the vehicle, I presume.
Under that, any reasonable person would wonder why he asked her to step out, but because of Texas’ awesome traffic laws, he doesn’t need a reason.
Failure to signal a lane change in violation of Texas § 545.10.
No. She’s not required to step out at a mere request. But he had the authority to arrest her for the land change, per Texas law, even when the maximum punishment for that offense is only a fine. Atwater v. Lago Vista.
And do you believe that the officer won’t have access to a lawyer – a prosecutor, in fact – who is adroit at letting him know what is valid in Texas with respect to justifications, without openly telling him what to say?
Yes. And why is this something you’re mad at me for?
I thought asking her to step out of the car was the lawful order that she was violating? Then, after opening her door and a bit of a struggle and yelling, he finally answered her question if she was under arrest or not. Then he threatened her with the taser, she came out, and he cuffed her.
Being stopped for a traffic violation is detainment, not an automatic arrest. Unless Texas is different?
Texas law allows for an arrest for a traffic violation. It does not require an arrest, but it permits one. This was cited previously in this thread.
Bricker knows the law better than I do, but traffic violations are not an automatic arrest. It may be that the cop was going to detain her (by making her get out of the car), and that changed from detainment to arrest when she resisted.
I suspect without knowing that “resisting arrest” includes resisting detainment.
IOW the cop pulls her over for the failure to signal, decides to let her off with a written citation and a stern lecture. As part of the stern lecture, the cop semi-requests her to put out her cigarette. She refuses, and the cop then decides to detain her while he delivers the lecture. As part of the detainment, he orders her out of the car, she declines, and things go south from there.
If it is legal to require someone to put out a cigarette as part of detainment, I don’t know. No doubt Bricker knows the exact Supreme Court case that applies.
Regards,
Shodan
There was no lecture being delivered, stern or otherwise. He had the warning ticket filled and ready for her to sign, but held off on ending their interaction while he inquired about her emotional well being. He then became aware of her possession of a 100mm weapon, possibly a Virginia Slim.
We have his word that he intended to release her with a warning, which is backed up by his filling out the ticket, and only changed his mind after his droll little game of “bait the perp” went badly. But even that is not necessarily so, he might have thought that filling out the forms would cover his tracks, or merely been a bit more salt in the wounds he planned to inflict.
He says he fully intended to let her go with the warning, but did not offer her the clipboard, but withheld it until he determined if she would affect the proper attitude of submission, which test she failed. This took things to a new and more serious level, rather than merely a poor lane change, we now have improper lane change and conspiracy to diss.
Of course, his actions were completely out of bounds, procedure wise. But we have comfort and satisfaction of knowing that it was all legal and Constitutional. Whether that is any comfort to her is now a question for theologians and psychics.
This, this, and also this.
If he was interested in delivering a “stern lecture,” he would have fucking well done so. His aim was to humiliate and degrade, and he succeeded beyond his wildest ambitions.
I LOLed.