Sorry, thought it was obvious I was speaking generally about the position of Sheriff, Chief of Police, and similar positions. I don’t have any special knowledge of this fellow. Just pointing out that there are any number of reasons that would render him disposable even without any racist actions on his part. And that racism is, and ought to be, sufficient for disposal even if every other criteria were well and fully met. Him, Sheriff Andy of Mayberry, you name it…
Saying “don’t treat blacks differently from whites” is “speaking out against the treatment of black people”. Demanding that policemen are instructed “don’t ever throw a black woman on the ground” is race-baiting. Hope this made it clearer for you.
Go on…
Or was that all.
If there are public records and/or news accounts of reasons for that firing of the sheriff other than racism (for example, charges of criminal conduct or charges of being intoxicated on the job or charges of abuse of power, etc.), and the reporter refrained from listing such recorded reasons—then you might have a case.
Otherwise: no.
By the way: earlier in the thread, someone asked why links about this topic (possible racism on the part of the sheriff) were to articles from outlets other than the original source of the story, the Houston Chronicle. I don’t believe it’s been mentioned, but the likely reason is that the H.C. is behind a paywall:
Paywall or not, how do we know that Slate is giving us an accurate rendition of the original news report?
Also earlier in this thread, someone cited “think progress” as if it were a news organization. They are not.
I linked to an original news article yesterday:
Yes, I know you did, and it was appreciated.
I was only responding to Sherred’s comment about paywall being an issue.
After reviewing everything I think what is not captured on camera -eg the struggle and subsequent alleged kick leading to her arrest is just not credible. The cops are trying real hard to make it stick.
Also, I’d like to know why the Sheriff is so desperate to divert the truth about the drugs in Sandra Bland’s system? The department has a real problem if they insist she ingested drugs while in jail. What is it about this entire case that makes it so difficult for the Sheriff’s department to be truthful?
According to a Columbia University researcher, the amount of THC in Sandra’s body would be a baseline amount for a sober regular user of the drug.
Well, that certainly settles* that!*
I really don’t know what you mean here. So far, there’s no case to “stick”. And as has been explained already, the arrest was legal, no matter how stupid.
Yuh huh. But what goes down on her record is assault. Even Encinia himself is quoted vacillating whether to arrest her for assault or resisting arrest.
So then it’s his word against hers. But she’s dead now.
Even in this he is admitting that there was no reason for this before he escalated it.
You appear to be suggesting that someone at Slate was confident that they could falsify a Houston Chronicle story without anyone catching them.
Bear in mind that Slate is a widely-read, well-known site–a site that depends upon its reputation for accuracy for much of its success. What would you guess to be the odds that there is no overlap between people who do have access to the Houston Chronicle, and people who have had reason to look at the Slate story?
She failed to signal a lane change, which, in Texas, is reason for arrest.
So, yeah, no case to stick.
Well, it depends, doesn’t it?
Bland’s family’s lawer might be able to build a case on something or another and file a civil lawsuit.
But you’re missing the finer point.
He was just about to let her go with a warning… Not even a ticket! Then out of the blue he goes into berserker arrest mode, because… why now?
But that’s pretty obviously not what Andiethewestie might have been referring to.
Do you honestly think that they’re not biased in a certain direction?
They, themselves, admit it, to their credit.
That is advocacy, not journalism.
Huh! I thought quality journalism was pretty well defined as “accurate and thorough reporting”. Gee, guess you showed me!