The autopsy shows no evidence of such an injury. Why is the family not releasing the findings of their autopsy that would prove a cover-up?
Relax, I’m with you. I seriously doubt there was foul play to the degree of murder. But it apparently warrants a thorough investigation for those involved and close to matter.
As for the rhetorical you keep bringing up, I don’t know, but it’s hardly rare for lawyers to play their cards close to their vest in litigations.
The real question was whether she belonged there in the first place. Is there something systemic within that county’s law enforcement? Did the jail personnel fuck up, somewhere, somehow, leading to her death/suicide. Can the sum of all the parts working against Bland be seen as wrongful death?
That’s the case. Any arguments and evidence they might hold will be shown during the trial.
Maybe they are filing the civil suit just to get some answers:
Why did you ask her to put out her cigarette?
What charge were you arresting her for?
How did the video get altered?
Latest evidence on the last thing is that the video was not “altered” as such. Which kinda makes sense when you think about what they had left in if they took anything out.
Don’t have any suspicions or conjectures along that line, the facts as we have them are bad enough.
Nothing in that link answers the questions I posed. Can you quote the text from the link that you believe is responsive?
The reporter mentioned the other allegations.
If the reporter wasn’t aware that there were other allegations, why did he mention that there were other allegations, other non-racism related allegations? I didn’t introduce the idea of other allegations. The reporter would be aware of the other allegations.
Your ability to think logically is failing you, here.
The reporter was trying to get information from the Hempstead City Council. Some of the possibilities:
***a member of that council, or someone present at the meeting, made the statement ‘there were other allegations’ and the reporter duly put that into his report, or
***some written record of the Council deliberations contained a statement to the effect that other allegations existed, and the reporter duly put that into his report.
But nothing in the reporting or in what we know of the background implies that the specific nature of the allegations was made known to the reporter. I’ve urged you to come forward with any evidence you possess that would imply that the specifics were made known to the reporter; you have not done so.
Say I tell you that Sheriff X was fired for a number of reasons–using exactly that phrase, ‘He was fired for a number of reasons’–and you then report to others ‘Sheriff X was fired for a number of reasons.’ Does the existence of that statement in your report imply that you, personally, know what those reasons were?
Of course it does not. You reported exactly what I told you, “a number of reasons.” My statement told you only that there were a number of reasons; it did not tell you the nature or content of the reasons.
I suspect that you are either unable to understand the distinction (between reporting the raw fact “there were other allegations” and knowing what the allegations actually were), or are pretending to be unable to understand the distinction. In either case, I’m satisfied that intelligent readers of good faith do understand the distinction.
(post shortened)
Possibilities abound. As you point out - nothing in the reporting or in what we know of the background implies that the specific nature of the allegations was made known to the reporter. If nothing in the reporting was made known to the reporter, how/why did the reporter chose to claim that the sheriff was fired for racism? You admit that the reason is unknown but you readily accept the claim of racism because??? Because it must be racism and no proof of that is required???
Maybe the reporter was channeling Obama’s “I don’t know the facts but”-style of speaking.
BTW - the “profiling” argument on the officer who arrested Bland falls apart.
So, he didn’t stop her because she was black? Does that address any questions as to what happened after he stopped her? Stopping her doesn’t present any real problems, if had simply issued his warning ticket and went on his way, we wouldn’t be referring to the *late *Ms Bland. Its what happened after he stopped her where we have issues.
Bland committed suicide. People refer to her as the late Ms Bland because Ms bland ended her own life. How do you know Bland wouldn’t have taken her own life regardless of the traffic stop?
We don’t.
Although I doubt that her mood was buoyed by her arrest. I don’t say that the responsibility for her death rests with either the sheriff’s department or the arresting trooper, but at the same time I don’t think a claim that her suicide was entirely unconnected to her arrest is supportable.
her arrest and … 72 hours in a cell.
Alone in a cell, and inadequately monitored, even though they were aware of previous suicidal history.
And the fact that Bland’s family did not bail her out of jail. That could be devastating to a depressed person, or to a person prone to depression.
Your gentle compassion and empathy is a beacon to us all.
I blame you.
Why not? You have the same culpability as her family.
The only people responsible for Sandra Bland’s safety while she was detained were her jailors.
You can keep nitpicking, and deflecting, and insinuating all you like, but you cannot obscure that fact.
I think people would understand this weird shit about family a little more if the detained person was a juvenile.
As it is talking about family is as relevant as talking about a stupid monetised bail system that no sane system would use.
Is there any part of the justice system in the US that isn’t fundamentally broken?
What countries use a sane system? Can you describe the characteristics of such a system?
No other first world country demands money. See if you can last 2:40
