“She wasn’t having any of that”? What do you base that assertion on? The fact that she was about to sign the warning? The fact that she answered the officer’s question? The fact that she pulled over in the first place?
I’m truly curious as to what evidence you’ve seen or heard that drew you to the conclusion that Miss Bland “wasn’t having any of that”.
No, but what is legal/illegal is how we decide when someone should be subject to the legal system. It is also more generally enforceable than moral standards.
If you want to debate morality, then it is morally wrong to mouth off to the police. It is also stupid, especially in a situation where the police can arrest you, at his discretion.
Regards,
Shodan
I notice that you left something out.
Right before your timeline says “Bad driver starts mouthing off” you should have written “Bad cop inititiates confrontational conversation”.
Oh, and using a derogatory adjective to only describe one person in this exchange but not the other puts your bias on display wonderfully; thanks for doing it that way.
So, anything but a polite yes/no sir/ma’am means all bets are off and you’re fair game? Get mouthy with the police then dragging you out of your car and handcuffing you and hitting your head on the ground is fine. The person has it coming because they were stupid enough to argue with a police officer. Is that it?
By your reckoning the trooper in this (semi-famous) video would have been not only been legally justified but morally in the right if he dragged that driver out of the car kicking and screaming, handcuffed him, threw him to the ground and then tossed him in jail for three days.
I submit the right way to go about it is the way the trooper in the video I just linked does. I do not understand your (and others) efforts to absolve the police officer. I would bet part of their training includes dealing with belligerent people and I am also willing to bet the training stresses defusing situations and not letting them escalate if at all possible.
The alternative is your world where you had better smile at the police regardless of the situation or expect a beat down and jail time. That world is the scary one.
You has been whooshed.
Yes, that’s true. Those exact words are not used.
I agree that he phrased it as a request. And I agree that, without more, it’s not clear at all that it was a lawful order.
But that’s really not relevant.
At the point at which the trooper says, “Well, you can step on out now,” she replies, “I don’t have to step out of the car,” and he responds in a harder tone, “Step out of the car,” she’s clearly and unambiguously being given an order. Moments later, after he’s opened the car door, he says, “Step out or I will remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order.”
Do you contend that order is lawful? Or not?
If you believe it is unlawful, can you articulate the specific facts supporting your belief?
A moment later, she says, “Don’t touch me, I’m not under arrest,” and he replies, “You are under arrest.”
Do you agree at that point, she was unambiguously under arrest?
I don’t know where I’d begin. Yep, murder it was. Murder by the whitie.
Actually, I’ll bet it was a lynching party. And with complicit, lazy medical examiners and all, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mayor himself was there. Poor girl.
One of the complaints she made when she was arrested was that the police officer was banging her head into the ground such that she could not even hear or see. When she was put into the Jain cell, she was given a PIN to make one phone call which she did not make. There exists the possibility that the reason she could not make that call was that she had head trauma which would be covered up if she was to say hang herself in jail.
The bail was set and she was in jail NOT for the traffic violation, but for assault on an officer.
The lawful order was to get out of the car.
She called her friend once to tell her she was in jail and that “she was going to pursue that officer who abused her,” and she needed help finding a witness. Then she called the friend the next day, telling him that her bond had been set.
This new video is quite weird. Almost like a bad acting class. They both seem calm, even when Sandra explains why she’s irritated. Then all of a sudden it sounds like a different cop talking about the cigarette. “Would you puh-leeease puuut out your cig-o-rette!”
Here’s where Sandra may not have known something. I was once pulled over while smoking in traffic in Hollywood. The first officer said, “Put out that cigarette right now” before even getting near my car. Her partner walked behind her on the left and was covering his gun. I get a ticket for not having my insurance card with me. After all that I ask about the cigarette. The officer told me it is considered a “dangerous weapon” and must be extinguished. WTF??? Even if I flipped it at someone, they may get burned, but certainly not set on fire.
I think this is another pittable bullshit cop excuse to overreact. Feel like you’re losing control? If you’re a smoker, make sure you don’t light up. It’s like firecrackers to a dog. Cops think you’re asking for trouble by holding a matchbook in a swimming pool. They seem to think you’re asking them to be mistreated.
Still, wasn’t this just about over when he came back to her car? Write the ticket and leave. Why not? It’s over. BUT… not if you’re another shit-head cop who just loves to make trouble. All of a sudden, someone smoking on their way to a job interview is a dangerous threat? A big enough one to drag someone out of their vehicle over?
Then the cop acts like a shithead. She says she’s not under arrest, he says yes you are. He’s making it up as he goes along. He never answers her as to WHY she’s being arrested, probably because he needs to read his handbook on that one.
It really pisses me off that now we’ve gotten to the point where we can’t even ask the cop questions, but we have to guess how to behave and quickly figure out the cop’s attitude to end the situation quickly.
Kinda like being mugged.
I worded that poorly, and have should have included the judge. That’s my fault.
Ok, thanks.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
At the point at which the trooper says, “Well, you can step on out now,” she replies, “I don’t have to step out of the car,” and he responds in a harder tone, “Step out of the car,” she’s clearly and unambiguously being given an order. Moments later, after he’s opened the car door, he says, “Step out or I will remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order.”
Do you contend that order is lawful? Or not?
[/quote]
According to Jim Harrington, Texas attorney and director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, the officer was not allowed to ask her to step out of the car without providing a reason why he wanted her to do so. From an interview on the Texas Standard web site from 7/22:
It’s pretty clear that the cop’s intention from the very beginning of the exchange was to escalate the situation. That’s unforgivably bad behavior for a peace officer. Her attitude is irrelevant. Your civil rights are not contingent on your demeanor. This is about bad policing leading to worse outcomes.
For what reason? Did he say, I’m putting you under arrest, I need you to get out of the car? No. It was basically a “Me Tarzan, You Jane” moment where she was supposed to do his bidding without being told why.
I stand by my point that the phrase “lawful order” is repugnant.
This cop linked her failure to put out the cigarette with his telling her to get out of the car. And she felt correctly that he had no right to arrest her for that. Further he had ended the stop with a warning. He didn’t give any other cause for this confrontation. He knew since she’s human (Apparently unlike many posters here) that this would result in him being able to swing his overcompensating texas thing around. It’s what we saw with the other case where the guy was too lazy to run after the dude and just shot him in the back. He couldn’t be bothered to act civil to a taxpayer, because …Texas, or something.
This thing of “Are you finished” is what people say just before they screw with you. Basically they pretend you are irrational. He was saying she had no right to be angry with him or express herself about it.
Also if you’re so sure about when she was under arrest then why is he discussing on the tape whether she was under as soon as the car stopped, and reading from his manual about where he stood legally, discussing with other officers what the charge was, resisting or assault and battery? (Resisting arrest for what exactly?) Nothing to do with anything before this false arrest. No Ciggy butt charges? Cmon Texas wheres the law and order?
He requested her to put out her cigarette.
She said something like, “It’s my car, I don’t have to put out my cigarette.”
At this, he immediately ordered her to step out of her vehicle.
WTF?
Now, it may be the case that an officer can arrest anyone for any minor traffic violation in Texas, but it’s clear that 1) She had no idea this was the case, and 2) The cop was clearly goading her so he could take action. I get that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but no one is clear on every damn law that’s out there, especially if new to a different State. And the officer egregiously took advantage of that.
He let it get personal and had nothing to do with not signaling. Why would he even request her to put out the cigarette in the first place? That’s all-out entrapment.
The officer acted like a dick. That being said, the attorney you quote is wrong. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the officer making the stop and ordering the driver out of the vehicle stipulated "had no reason to suspect foul play from the particular driver at the time of the stop, there having been nothing unusual or suspicious about his behavior. It was apparently his practice to order all drivers out of their vehicles as a matter of course whenever they had been stopped for a traffic violation. The State argues that this practice was adopted as a precautionary measure to afford a degree of protection to the officer and that it may be justified on that ground. " This practice was upheld.
It was later applied to passengers in vehicles as well in Maryland v. Wilson.
During a lawful traffic stop, police can order the driver and all occupants out of the vehicle for any reason, or no reason - as long as the specific reason doesn’t run afoul of other protections or limitations, or the state law doesn’t control further.