I couildn’t get the link above to work.
But I found a USA today story about Bland’s family suing
This article doesn’t mention anything about murder.
Can you link to the article where Bland’s family says Sandra Bland was murdered?
So your argument is that we should have laws requiring you to use your turn signal, but it should only be enforced some of the time.
Moving violations are crimes.
As are littering, jaywalking, and lurking with intent to loom. As are murder, arson, running amok. Are you suggesting that these are all the same, all being “crimes”?
I am suggesting that if you only want a certain behavior to be addressed as a criminal matter under certain circumstances, then the legislation should be rewritten to add the “but you can turn without signaling if there’s nobody else around” clause.
That’s legally and factually incorrect, Shayna, and the Rodriguez decision has been discussed at some length in this thread, with the reasons that Rodriguez does not apply being spelled out quite clearly.
There is no requirement for a grand jury. This is a civil case.
And I don’t even know if jury unanimity is required in Texas for civil judgments. It might be, but it’s possible to allow civil judgments on majority jury votes.
The previous post ends with the words “…preferably in jail”. Now, I’m just a dumb ol’ peckerwood from Waco, but I’m pretty sure incarceration requires a criminal conviction. Hence, my comment on the improbability of such a conviction.
Your first statement does not need arguing. It is the case.
Do you agree?
It’s a crime but not one worthy of the death penalty or even arrest.
Great! No states are even contemplating the death penalty for a traffic violation.
As in several previous posts, you assert that the other allegations were known to the reporter.
You then assert that the reporter, knowing the content and/or nature of the other allegations, made a choice to refrain from reporting them.
What is your basis for asserting these claims? What actual facts serve as supportive evidence for your assumptions that the reporter knew the nature of the other allegations?
de jure - no. de facto - apparently in Texas.
Could be worse, New York has the death penalty for only being suspected for selling untaxed cigarettes. At least in Texas you actually have to break the law by not signalling.
Your post is b.s.
Well I’m sure that’s a relief for Sandra Bland and Eric Garner.
That doesn’t necessarily mean “murdered.” Could be they believe it was neglect of her condition or some accident that they tried to coverup making it look like suicide.
Just sayin’.
Well, I agree that the post to which you replied is not a model of clarity.
Still:
There are some mixed concepts in Andiethewestie’s post. The post begins with an update concerning a civil suit, and ends with a hope about imprisonment following a “review” of the law. This could mean, inter alia, confusion between the civil and criminal process, or it could mean a hope that the legislature reviews and modifies the law to create a criminal offense that applies to Encinia’s conduct.
But your response doesn’t help clear up the confusion. Are you suggesting that even if the law criminalized Encinia’s conduct, a conviction would not be likely? Or are you suggesting that the law already criminalizes his conduct?
The Bland Family Lawyer can answer this
Family of Sandra Bland sues arresting officer
You mean, specifically?
The lawyer’s comments don’t answer any of the questions posed.