(post shortened)
The reporter even said, “not all of which involved racial issues”. The reporter appears to have then refrained from listing those recorded reason, even after admitting that such reasons existed.
What is he saying? That other reasons existed but he didn’t want those reasons to get in the way of the reporters claims of racism because the reporter was only interested in claims of racism?
Well, as is already pointed out, the people focusing on that either don’t understand the law in Texas, or are arguing something other than the legality of the issue. He makes it clear that it’s an order a moment later, and she continues to not comply. He then goes into raving loon mode, and threatens her with the taser before she finally exits the car.
Now, if there’s a moment where I think he goes fully afoul of DPS procedure and is on the way to Unemployment City, population him: it’s when he pulls the taser. He probably would have gotten reprimanded for losing his cool on a stop and getting in a shouting match with someone over such a small matter, but threatening them over it has to be fire-able.
Fair enough. I don’t want to watch it again. But does he actually say this or is it that she gets pissed that he changed the nature of the stop, and he says “I’m going to drag you out!” right then and opens the door? Thats a little much too. In the heat of the moment it must have felt like she was being assaulted and not arrested.
What specific law do you claim was violated by the arrest?
Just re-watched it again to be sure.
Before he puts his hands on her, but after he’s already yanked the door open (which is the first sign that this might not be a normal stop, I’ve never had it done), he repeats “get out of the car, or I will remove you” at least three times. That’s seems to be fairly clear as being an order, not a request. Then he says “I’m giving you a lawful order”. He then puts his hands on her shortly after that.
Yanking the door open was his first mistake. It can’t be any part of normal protocol. He kept doubling down from there.
Cite?
From the transcript:
Encinia: You mind putting out your cigarette, please? If you don’t mind?
Bland: I’m in my car, why do I have to put out my cigarette?
Encinia: Well you can step on out now.
Bland: I don’t have to step out of my car.
Encinia: Step out of the car.
Bland: Why am I …
Encinia: Step out of the car!
Bland: No, you don’t have the right. No, you don’t have the right.
Encinia: Step out of the car.
Bland: You do nothave the right. You do not have the right to do this.
Encinia: I do have the right, now step out or I will remove you.
Bland: I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself. [crosstalk] I am getting removed for a failure to signal?
Encinia: Step out or I will remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now or I’m going to remove you.
Bland: And I’m calling my lawyer.
Encinia: I’m going to yank you out of here. (Reaches inside the car.)
Bland: OK, you’re going to yank me out of my car? OK, alright.
Encinia (calling in backup): 2547.
Bland: Let’s do this.
Encinia: Yeah, we’re going to. (Grabs for Bland.)
Bland: Don’t touch me!
Encinia: Get out of the car!
Bland: Don’t touch me. Don’t touch me! I’m not under arrest – you don’t have the right to take me out of the car.
Encinia: You are under arrest!
Bland: I’m under arrest? For what? For what? For what?
Encinia (to dispatch): 2547 county fm 1098 (inaudible) send me another unit. (To Bland) Get out of the car! Get out of the car now!
Bland: Why am I being apprehended? You’re trying to give me a ticket for failure …
Encinia: I said get out of the car!
Bland: Why am I being apprehended? You just opened my –
Encinia: I‘m giving you a lawful order. I’m going to drag you out of here.
Bland: So you’re threatening to drag me out of my own car?
Encinia: Get out of the car!
Bland: And then you’re going to [crosstalk] me?
Encinia: I will light you up! Get out! Now! (Draws stun gun and points it at Bland.)
Bland: Wow. Wow. (Bland exits car.)
The reason it is legal is the amount of discretion a police officer has. And that discretion is a reflection of trust, the officer is presumed to take his oath to protect and serve seriously. And the only way that works is to have cops who respect that, live by it, and uphold it. The cop who does not is little more than a thug with a badge.
What good is law if the men entrusted to enforce it do not respect justice? Ms Bland did not take an oath to protect and serve, was not entrusted with lethal force and the power of arrest. He was.
In the end, he is protected by the very law he dishonored. And so it goes.
Well said, elucidator.
OK, why are we even bothering to dissect every nuance in their conversation when every word of it is completely irrelevant? Every. Fucking. Word.
Was anyone paying attention the day the Supremes upheld the ACA and same-sex marriage, to another landmark ruling they handed down?
Rodriguez v United States No. 13-9972
“A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.”
Everything that cop did or asked her to do after issuing her that ticket was an unconstitutional violation of her civil rights. Period.
No. What he was saying was that the information about specific other reasons was not available.
That may not fit in with your narrative of Liberal Shenanigans (or whatever it is that you are alleging). But it appears to be the truth.
The excerpt from the Slate piece that’s relevant:
Inside that paragraph is a link (on the words “area TV reporter.”) That link leads to this site: http://www.isiahfactor.com/2008/03/21/police-chief-fired-in-hempstead-texas/
A relevant quote from that site:
What you seem to be having difficulty in grasping is that the Hempstead City Council, like many city councils, does not always offer specific reasons for actions taken. If a reason is not on the record, then the Slate reporter will be unable to include it in his story.
We dissected that already. It’s a long thread.
It most likely will not apply to this case.
For one thing, she wasn’t issued the ticket, she was not offered the opportunity to sign it due to the urgency of checking her emotional state and a potentially weaponized Virginia Slim. Hence, the “matter” had not been “handled”, because she had not signed it.
Now, we can say that she would have signed it if she could have, but we can’t prove that, given her demonstrated attitude of disgruntled. (Has anyone ever been “gruntled?” But I digress…)
She might not have signed it, she might have thrust her cigarette into the cops eyeball while screaming quotes from Angela Davis. Maybe. Could have happened.
Another offence in Texas: Smoking while Black.
There was no “after issuing her that ticket”. The ticket was not issued.
The ruling doesn’t say anyone has to sign something. It says if a cop tries to detain you for longer than it takes to complete the reason for the stop, he or she has violated your civil rights. He kept Ms. Bland there in excess of the time it should have taken him to write the ticket and get her on her way. The whole bullshit about her cigarette was a stalling tactic and is illegal. He had no reason to believe she had committed any other crime and absent that, he was obligated to write the ticket and fuck the fuck off. End of story.
If you cannot, or will not, see the difference between a neutral source and a biased source, based on the sources’ “mission statements” so to speak:
and, in your words describing think progress,
“A statement of faith in the belief that progressive values are inherently superior.”
then I submit that you are the one who is confused.
Sorry to everyone for the hijack. I’m out.
Am I the only one who thought that he might be stretching things out so he could, ah, foster a closer relationship? Maybe better if I am the only one who thought that…
No, he just wanted to be a jackass to a black woman he saw smoking in her car and he didn’t like it.
Has anyone posted the video of him seeing her coming *toward * him, then making a U-turn to go after her?