I don’t know how to weigh the woman’s responsibility; she obviously paid 100% of the price.
??? Are you able to debate (in the Great Debates forum) any of those comments?
That phrase makes my skin crawl. We are a free people and we don’t have to obey cops automatically, they need a damn good reason to ask us to do something and are not in any position to give us orders. Gas main is about to blow, sure they can order us not to go down that street. Putting out a cigarette or exercising free speech, not so much.
Which doesn’t seem to be doctored after all but we might as well myth this up.
I LOLed.
He wasn’t planning an arrest, by the facts.
If he was it was by subterfuge: He knew he had one thing over her which was the signature on the warning, and he exploited it to ask her to put out the cigarette first, basically to bait her. If he had told her to it might’ve had a different cast. But he asked and then treated that as a public safety directive from a cop which it doesn’t seem to have been.
There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy about the tape. He did drag her out of the camera range to do his official business though.
Do the folks administering the jail normally set the bail, whether it’s high or low? I thought that was done by a judge, not the jail. I could be wrong, though.
Because OMG she was mouthy and sassy! She probably rolled her eyes and swiveled her neck and everything! Forget what the officer did! Being uppity like that is an affront to everything America is about!
You want to know what I find hilarious?
Everyone cries “free speech, man”. It’s a kneejerk for everyone, conservative and liberal alike.
But speech is only protected from the government. You can be fired for being mouthy and sassy. You can be kicked off the PTA for being mouthy and sassy. But you cannot be punished by the government for being mouthy and sassy.
If someone asks me put me to put out a cigarette, I have the right to say no. If I don’t have the right, then I’m not being asked. I’m being ordered. He had no cause to order her to do anything after he issued that warning.
I find it funny that if we were talking about private citizens doing what this police officer did, most of the folks here would be whining “free speech, man!” If we were talking about a DMV employee or a social worker, there woud be plenty of folks decrying the “overreach of government”. But because this is a police officer, the First Amendment gets casually tossed to the side.
I swear, I’m almost looking forward to the day Hitler 2.0 gets elected. Maybe then people will finally appreciate that fascism is implemented by the police officer . If he can trample on the constitution with impunity, then we don’t have a constitution.
In a landslide over Senator Godwin.
“Planning an arrest”? Counselor, what in the blue fuck does that even mean?
Is she under his custody when the thought crosses his brain pan? Or does he need to say something like, oh, I don’t know, “You’re under arrest for failure to exhibit appropriate respect for the guy with the gun and the badge!”?
No argument there.
Parental instinct … she’s not even old enough to be US Senator.
Expand your imagination, the dots are there … cause and effect …
Police officer decides to issue a warning citation
– Police officer asks if Bad driver is irritated
Bad driver begins mouthing off
– Police officer asks if Bad driver is done
– Bad driver says yes
– Police officer asks “Do you mind putting out your cigarette?”
– Bad driver says yes, she does mind
Police officer orders her out of the car
It’s the part where she ends her venting, I’m deeply troubled that the officer provokes her. He chose to escalate when he had a duty settle the encounter down. He wanted a reason to order her out of the car, without a reason he manufactured one.
Does Texas Law require a signature for “promise to appear” when no appearance will be required? The officer issued a warning, not a citation.
The answer to your irrelevant questions are: there is generally no offense created by smoking a tobacco cigarette, and thus no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that arises from the failure to extinguish it.
Now to return to the question I asked you:
To review: the putative arrest would be for the crime of an illegal lane change, and probable cause existed for that arrest. As explained previously, Texas law permits such an arrest even when the maximum punishment is a fine.
When an officer is planning to make an arrest, the command “Extinguish your cigarette,” is a lawful one for reasons of officer safety, since placing someone in handcuffs while they are carrying a burning ember is self-evidently unsafe.
Can you explain specifically why you believe the order was illegal?
No, under Texas law that’s not murder. Can you quote the specific provision under Texas Penal Code 19.02 or 19.03 into which you believe this fits?
Now, again to be clear, this officer’s actions were absolutely unjustified and a horrible, horrible example of police work. They almost certainly violated his department policy.
I am not defending his actions as justified or right.
I am suggesting that the order can be defended as lawful, and I am strongly arguing that the death is not murder on the part of the arresting officer, based on the facts adduced thus far.
She’s under his custody the moment she is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which occurs when a reasonable person in her position would not have felt free to leave.
He does not need to say the specific words, “You’re under arrest.”
Oh heavens no, there were “problems” uploading the video. I’ve never personally uploaded a video but I understand it sometimes takes 20 or 30 tries to get it right. The only truism is that the internet is totally flaky. They’re hard at work getting the problem fixed. Besides, these cambots police use put a timestamp on the data, right?
I think that’s the most salient point. You can see precisely where her shit is lost; I expect she was panicked and maybe a little keyed up because, well, because so much shit like this has been high-profile news. But he doesn’t really lose her shit so much as decide, I’m going to fuck with the person because she didn’t respect my authorit-AYE.
OK, let’s assume you’re correct.
Do you believe that transforms it into an illegal arrest?
What specific caselaw or statute are you relying upon to reach that conclusion?
Yes. There were problems uploading the video, as evidenced by the fact that a video has been uploaded which lacks the video glitches previously seen and in which there are no incongruities between the video and audio.
The assertion that the video was somehow “doctored” as part of some massive conspiracy has thus been refuted.
I’ve only watched the first video, the one fouled up in the upload process. No where on that video does the officer order “Extinguish your cigarette”.
I don’t see where the expectation of handcuffs comes in when issuing a warning. The girl said she was done, she broke no law answering the officer’s question truthfully.