She had already refused to put out her cigarette; I doubt she would be cooperative to any further questions.
But you are correct that it will be spun that way by his defense attorney. Keeping in mind that “spin” comes pretty close to “reasonable doubt” until the prosecution can prove their case isn’t spin in the opposite direction.
You’d be wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
Don’t think so. Arrest and getting her out of the car can be legal, if done for proper reason. I don’t think it’s legal to arrest someone because you think they’re being a bitch.
Sure. And the jury may well accept his explanation – but my point is that they may also find his explanation less than credible, and there is enough evidence on the record to support a conviction if they do.
It’s not.
But she’s not entitled to resist his arrest, even if, ultimately the original rfationale for the arrest is invalid.
@Shodan: Imagine, for instance, if he had written on his official report that “I then proceeded to order her out of the car and arrest her because I didn’t like her attitude”, you think that would be kosher?
@Bricker: Yes, I get and understand the rationale for that.
The ultimate arrest was for kicking Trooper Encinia. That’s a valid arrest, even if the order to exit the car was invalidly premised on her being uncooperative or rude.
ETA: Sorry, didn’t see your edit until I posted.
Good. Great even.
What specific evidence is on the record that you believe supports a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? If the officer’s actions can be interpreted in multiple ways, what would be proof that he didn’t intend to conduct a safer traffic investigatioin?
Regards,
Shodan
Whether the arrest was legal is immaterial to this latest case, right? It’s just whether or not the officer lied about his actions afterwards, right?
ISTM that he’s saying that some of those interpretations may not be credible. Personally when I watched the video I have a hard time believing he wasn’t just pissed with her. Evidence doesn’t have to be a smoking gun or DNA. Unreasonable doesn’t have to mean defying the laws of physics.
No. That falls outside police discretion. The point is that he didn’t write that, and the prosecution apparently believes they can prove that he didn’t order her out of the car in order to conduct a safer traffic investigation - IOW that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was lying when he said so on his report.
I don’t see clear evidence that this is the case. Bricker says a jury could reach that conclusion. I don’t doubt it - one can never be quite sure which way a jury will jump. But if I were on the jury, I would expect to see more evidence that shows that the officer’s statement was false - not just “could be spun against him”, and especially not “there is no proof that it is true”.
FWIW, I think the officer ordered her out of the car both because she refused to put out her cigarette and stop arguing, and in order to get her out of the car so he could see if she was [ul][li]Wasted []Crazy []Legitimately pissed off [*]A bitch[/ul]or a dynamic and exciting blend of one or more of the above. And so that she couldn’t reach for a gun/ blow smoke in his face/ drive off and hit somebody. I don’t doubt there was probably an element of “respect mah authoritah” in the order to get out of the car. So what? It makes for a safer traffic investigation if the problem between the steering wheel and the pedal is under control, and can be evaluated for drunkenness/drug usage/being a nutcase standing by the side of the road and not sitting in the car arguing. [/li]
The policeman is a legitimate authority figure, and is entitled to decent treatment. Screaming at him is not decent treatment. And he was acting AFAICT entirely within the scope of his legitimate authority. And there is a difference between “treating the police with respect when they are deciding whether or not to give you a ticket” and “POLICE STATE!!! TYRANNY!! RACISM!!”
Some people won’t believe that. So it goes.
Regards,
Shodan
The video in its entirety supports the reasonable inference that the officer acted out of ire instead of concern for safety.
The trooper’s testimony at trial might, if believed, raise reasonable doubt. But it doesn’t have to; the jury can disregard it. They can rely on the video and the subsequent sworn statement as legally sufficient of guilt.
Correct.
Yes, I understand what the jury might do. I am asking what you think they **should **do. Do **you **believe there is evidence in the record that would lead you to overcome your presumption of innocence?
Again, I know that the jury could conclude one way, or the other. I am asking you.
Regards,
Shodan
You can’t expect Bricker to answer that. To pretend he was a jury member, he would have to know what the police officer says at trial. Like it or not, your demeanor and words when you testify will influence how the jury votes. Just because you’ve already come to a decision doesn’t mean we should all have done so.
So painfully, I watched the extended dash-cam video. At about 30:00 the officer explains (on the phone with his union rep I assume) that he wanted her out of the car to safely explain the warning he was issuing because he felt unsafe talking to her while he they were alongside the road since she was making it take so long.
So while I think that would have been valid to some degree, his reasoning on his report conflicts quite clearly.What reasoning on the report does it conflict with? He says to his union rep that it isn’t safe; he says on his report that he wanted to perform a safer traffic investigation. Is it the difference between “investigation” and “explanation”? I thought perjury had to be of material importance.
Bricker said that the video in its entirety supported or could support a verdict of guilty. What specifically on the video does that?
Regards,
Shodan
Simply that he doesn’t act like he’s concerned for his safety. I understand that officers are regularly injured or killed by sideswipes while conducting traffic stops, but I also know that they generally prefer that people stay in their own cars, ironically, for the officer’s safety. The video shows that it was broad daylight, on a clear, 4 lane road with a healthy shoulder. Rather than get down to business so that he can get out of the road, he starts talking about Sandra Bland’s attitude. He wasn’t being prohibited from issuing the ticket in any way, she wasn’t being disruptive until he ordered her out. He never took an opportunity to say, “Let’s step over to the grass here so I’m not standing in the road.” He’s not watching oncoming traffic, or making any attempt to avoid cars. He doesn’t approach from the passenger side, which I’ve had cops do to me when they feel that the situation warrants it. There’s really nothing he says or does that suggests this traffic stop, in this location, in these conditions, is somehow particularly unsafe and needs to be moved to the sidewalk.
In short, the jury could decide that his actions simply didn’t match his words.
Uh yeah. There is a big fucking difference between a continued investigation and delivering your end of ticketing spiel.
But at least we know that he wasn’t ordering her out of the car to see how wasted or crazy she was. I mean, I guess you don’t think that’s a material difference but it definitely closes down an avenue to beat the rap.