Sandra Bland video

[CarnalK]

@Smapti

She had THC in her system when she died.

Marijuanapolitics .com?

Anyway, thc stays in your system quite a while. If she had been high the cop would have charged her with impaired or at least asked about it in the video. I think it’s pretty safe to assume she wasn’t high.

[CarnalK]

@Shodan

No, ordering her out of the car is in response to how she reacts to his standard lecture.

Regards,
Shodan

Well I guess he can tell that to the judge.

[Wolf333]

@Shodan

Find out if she appeared drunk or high. (Apparently she was high, as it turns out.) Or see how she reacts to the standard lecture.

I think we have thrashed out the fact that the traffic stop isn’t over the instant the cop writes up the citation, and that the order to get out of the car was legal.

Regards,
Shodan

@Smapti

She had THC in her system when she died.

THC can remain in the system long after the effects have worn off. So, still no proof that she was high at the time of the stop.

[andros]

@Smapti

She had THC in her system when she died.

That does not answer the question. Do you have any evidence that she was intoxicated during the traffic stop?
.

[Smapti]

@andros

Do you have any evidence that she was intoxicated during the traffic stop?
.

I do not and I’m not asserting that she was. I’m just saying that there was THC in her system in response to the wondering where the claim of her “being high” came from.

[Shodan]

Actually it isn’t entirely clear if she was just a heavy user, or if she got hold of some while in jail.

[Robert Johnson, chief toxicologist at the Tarrant County medical examiner’s office in Fort Worth, Texas, told the AP that a THC level as high as Bland’s suggests she “either had access to the drug in jail or she was a consistent user of the drug and her body had accumulated THC to the point that it was slowly releasing it over time.”

But, Johnson added, “I have never seen a report in the literature or from any other source of residual THC that high three days after someone stops using the drug.”

Goldberger, who is also the president of the American Board of Forensic Toxicology, said Bland had a “remarkably high concentration” of THC for someone who had been in jail for three days.

He noted that while chronic users who stop using the drug will have higher concentrations than non- chronic users, “the concentrations do not persist at this level, at least in my opinion.” He defined chronic as someone who uses cannabis daily, sometimes repeatedly.](Experts: Sandra Bland's toxicology report raises possibility she used marijuana in jail | Fox News)

Regards,
Shodan

[andros]

@Shodan

Actually it isn’t entirely clear if she was just a heavy user, or if she got hold of some while in jail.

So do you have any evidence that she was intoxicated during the stop, per your claim?

[Bricker]

@Shodan

I can see firing him for using the Taser, but perjury seems like a bit of a stretch.

According to the Model Penal Code, the elements of perjury are
Would the prosecution need to show somehow that Encinia didn’t intend to conduct a safer traffic investigation? How would they show what he really intended?

Regards,
Shodan

The Texas perjury statute says that:

[ol]
[li]with intent to deceive [/li][li]and with knowledge of the statement’s meaning[/li][li]making a false statement under oath, or swearing to the truth of a false statement previously made [/li][li]where the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath[/ol][/li]
constitutes perjury.

So, the fact-finder at trial needs to find that he made a statement under oath that the reason for the removal was to conduct a safer traffic investigation. And they need to find that this was untrue.

Intent can be inferred from actions. The fact finder would be entitled to watch the video and conclude that the order for her to exit the car was occasioned by her failure to extinguish her cigarette and not the desire to conduct a safer stop. He can certainly claim that it was mere coincidence that his desire to conduct a safer stop manifested almost instantly after her refusal to put out her cigarette, and the jury or judge can judge his credibility as he explains his reasoning.

[Richard_Parker]

I haven’t followed this closely enough to say if I agree with this charge, but I did want to observe that I think pursuing perjury charges is one of the most beneficial thing the Black Lives Matter movement can encourage.

Issues with the use of force and implicit bias are tremendously fraught even on the theoretical level, much less on the level of actually getting anything done. But the problem of casual perjury by police to make their reports fit legal standards is not nearly so fraught. And it’s also much easier to win perjury cases. In force cases, all it takes for a jury to acquit (in real life, legal standards aside) is to believe the officer was acting more or less in good faith to lock up a bad guy, regardless of whether the officer is blatantly using excessive force. In perjury cases, the “good faith” lie is a much less successful defense.

[XT]

@andros

So do you have any evidence that she was intoxicated during the stop, per your claim?

This was all discussed up thread, but he’s probably getting it from the toxicology report. From here:

“The most likely explanation for this high concentration of T.H.C. in her blood is the use of cannabis within hours of her death,” Dr. Goldberger suggested. A “highly unlikely” possibility would be that Ms. Bland consumed a T.H.C.-infused edible before her arrest that persisted in her gastrointestinal tract for days, “providing a continual source of T.H.C.,” he said.

Though if you read the whole article, the exact amount and when she used it is very debatable and open to interpretation. Some were speculating earlier in this thread that she used it in jail, some that it was residue in her system from days earlier, some that she basically consumed whatever she had so there would be no evidence during the traffic stop. The quote above seems to indicate that last as unlikely, but in the article they say we will probably never know. There are tons of other sites you can check out discussing the autopsy for this case if you just Google it and want more info.

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

In perjury cases, the “good faith” lie is a much less successful defense.

Agreed. And a conviction virtually guarantees the officer won’t work n law enforcement ever again, which is a worthy outcome for officers willing to lie.

Juries will forgive an officer who says, in effect, I did the best I could during a stressful encounter; I thought he had a gun; I shot because I was in fear of my own safety.

As you say, though, there’s no well of forgiveness for “…and then I lied about it on the report and hoped you wouldn’t find out.”

[andros]

@XT

This was all discussed up thread, but he’s probably getting it from the toxicology report. From here:

Though if you read the whole article, the exact amount and when she used it is very debatable and open to interpretation. Some were speculating earlier in this thread that she used it in jail, some that it was residue in her system from days earlier, some that she basically consumed whatever she had so there would be no evidence during the traffic stop. The quote above seems to indicate that last as unlikely, but in the article they say we will probably never know. There are tons of other sites you can check out discussing the autopsy for this case if you just Google it and want more info.

I appreciate the summary. But I’m just wondering if Shodan has specific evidence for his specific claim.
.

[CarnalK]

This is an interesting direction and the explosion in camera usage, both mandated and public, is going to make “casual perjury” a lot harder to hide.

[Shodan]

@andros

So do you have any evidence that she was intoxicated during the stop, per your claim?

Yes, the high levels of THC that were found at autopsy. Read Smapti and XT’s posts.

@Bricker

The fact finder would be entitled to watch the video and conclude that the order for her to exit the car was occasioned by her failure to extinguish her cigarette and not the desire to conduct a safer stop. He can certainly claim that it was mere coincidence that his desire to conduct a safer stop manifested almost instantly after her refusal to put out her cigarette, and the jury or judge can judge his credibility as he explains his reasoning.

I would argue, if I were him, that his request that she put out her cigarette and get out of the car were evidence of his intent to conduct a safer traffic stop, not instead of it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

IF she was as intoxicated days later as the lab reports seem to indicated, the officer didn’t seem to notice, and the video gave no indication. Was it in his report?

[CarnalK]

@Shodan

I would argue, if I were him, that his request that she put out her cigarette and get out of the car were evidence of his intent to conduct a safer traffic stop, not instead of it.

That would be more likely to pass the smell test if he had put the two requests together. Instead they argued about the order to put out the cigarette then “ok, get out of the car”

[Shodan]

He doesn’t mention it in his report AFAICT.

Again, this could be spun as “I asked her to get out of her car so I could see if she was under the influence”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@CarnalK

That would be more likely to pass the smell test if he had put the two requests together. Instead they argued about the order to put out the cigarette then “ok, get out of the car”

Correct - she argued about putting out her cigarette, whereupon he decided to tell her to get out of the car “so that he could conduct a safer traffic investigation”. He didn’t give the requests together because he didn’t decide on the second until she refused the first. And again, the order to get out of the car was legal.

Regards,
Shodan

[CarnalK]

I’m sure it will be spun that way, but generally police give some indication of their suspicions in that regard, which the officer in this case did not. “Have you been drinking or taken any drugs today ma’am?” Something.

eta: And if he pulled her out of the car because she was lippy, rather than for valid procedural reasons, I don’t think it was quite legal.

[andros]

@Shodan

Yes, the high levels of THC that were found at autopsy. Read Smapti and XT’s posts.

Oh, gotcha. I thought you had something new, or at least something more definitive. Her THC levels at time of autopsy are indeed *evidence *that she was intoxicated at the time of her stop. Extremely *weak *evidence, with no other corroboration and a lot of confounds, but sure, evidence.

It frankly amazes me that you are prepared to make such a clear and unambiguous assertion that she was high during the traffic incident based on such unclear and ambiguous evidence.
.