Where's our Sarah Bland thread?

[Bronzeage]

I am not a black woman either, but I was once a 20 year old man with hair to my shoulders, a full beard and a 1960 Ford Galaxy with glass pack mufflers. I was stopped a few times for letting my tire touch the center line. It was usually a bored sheriff's deputy who wanted to check out the hippy. Since I never smelled of beer, whisky, or marijuana, and my registration was always current, it was just a tense little encounter and about 20 minutes out of my life while he ran my driver's license number for prior violations.

I stayed quiet and leaned against my car with my hands in plain sight. It always ended the same way. I got my papers back with a "Thank you and drive safely." Any one of those stops could have ended differently, had I decided to tell the deputy what a poor job he was doing.

Again, you seem to think any of this relevant to the police officer over-reacting and the fact she is black.

Pretend you are sitting in a diner and two people in the booth behind you are having a conversation. They may discuss the same thing being discussed at your table, but there is no reason for their remarks to fit into your conversation.

Just so we are clear, the policeman is a bad person.

 

[Derec]

So what you're saying is that being a reasonably attractive female somehow entitles one to more prosecutorial discretion than someone else? You, of all people, advocating that a female should have used her female attractiveness to get out of a traffic stop.

It was a descriptive, not prescriptive statement. It's about what happens, not about what should happen.

And it was about police discretion, not prosecutors.

 

[Derec]

Mainly because "please put out your cigarette" is not a lawful order.

Do you have any laws or case law to back that up?

 

[Derec]

So, he should have just stood there and died of lung cancer from secondhand smoke?

Clearly this was self-defence.

You say that sarcastically but the cop should not have to endure her toxins and carcinogens just to talk to her and give her a warning. I think it was reasonable for him to tell her to put it out. Had she done it, she could have been on her merry way.

 

[Derec]

several things here:
1. aren't you the one with the constitutional hard on?

No.

where is the amendment that says "cops can arbitrarily demand that you stop doing lawful activities that are in no way interfering with them doing their job, and then physically assault you mere seconds later if you refuse their demands"?

Do you think that what government agents can do has to be spelled out in the constitution in minute detail? The constitution would be 1000s of pages long.

2. if you consider refusing an unlawful order from a cop is being combative or resisting, then you have a very serious issue with your authoritarian cop worship getting in the way of basic logic skills.

Your argument is predicated on the premise that it was an unlawful order. Can you back it up with anything other that there isn't an constitutional amendment explicitly stating it's an lawful order (now who is lacking logic skills?)
I do not have case law on things like cigarettes, but for exiting the car there has been a SCOTUS decision saying that yes, cop telling you to get out of the car is a lawful order.

the order to stop smoking was unlawful

Citation needed.

and the order to get out of the car was unlawful -

Patently false.

yes, it is tragic this cop's ego got a woman killed.

Even if the arrest was unlawful and due to "this cop's ego" how did that cause Bland to kill herself?

 

[Derec]

Is it a lawful order when you order someone to stop doing something that is not against the law?

Yes. Playing music on the radio is not against the law, yet a cop can lawfully tell you to turn it down (down means off).

Or, is any order a cop gives to someone a lawful order?

No. If he had asked her, for example, to give him a blowjob, that would have been an unlawful order.

 

[RavenSky]

Didn't she escalate by refusing his lawful orders and by being combative/resisting thereafter? Particularly, once he ordered her out of the car and she refused he had no choice but to respond to her escalation by escalating himself.

No. HE escalated by demanding to know what she was upset about, then getting pissy when she told him. But when he didn't wind her up enough to beat her down with that, he ordered her to put out her cigarette in her own car, which he had no lawfully right to do. HE escalated, not her; and he is already being disciplined by his police department for it.

Obviously, though, you have chosen to continue to speak ill about every woman in every thread no matter what the facts of the case are. This is why you come across as hating all women regardless of your protests that it is only some really bad women.

The most tragic thing thing is that he initially wanted to just give her a warning. Had she not acted like a dumbass she could have been on her way literally 2 minutes after he came back with the warning.

The tragic part is that IF he had really only wanted to give her a warning, he would have said that to her (he didn't and that is one of the things he is being disciplined for) and he could have. He did not need to purposely escalate, including demanding her out of her car because she was smoking her cigarette IN her car.

The lesson to take away from this: smoking kills.

If I'd said something this insensitive I'd have been attacked.

No. You would not have been called out for making that joke. You get called out for making *jokes* that malign women and black men.

Btw, apparently she lit up while she was waiting for him to run her (rather lengthy) driving and criminal record. Was it a deliberate attempt to provoke? After all, she was an anti-police activist.

smoking in her own car is not illegal, and therefore should not be provoking to any cop any where. If it provoked this cop, that's on him, not her.

 

[RavenSky]

Does anyone here honestly believe that even a person suffering depression would go from "combative and belligerent" to "suicidal" after just three days in lockup? I personally don't. Not unless something happened during those three days that pushed her over the edge. That, of course, is assuming the police' version of the story is reliable, and if the dashcam is any indication, it ISN'T.

I don't believe it for a second. I'm not even questioning ""combative and belligerent" to "suicidal"". I don't believe it because she was on her way to start her new job that she was very happy about. Moreover, "depressed" is not "suicidal"

I suspect she spent those three days telling anyone and everyone who would listen how much she was going to sue the police department for, and someone made she she couldn't.

- - - Updated - - -

I really doubt she killed herself. Unless that blow to her head was worse that first thought. I wonder if she died and they are trying to cover.

That's a possibility too. At the scene, she did say that he'd slammed her head so hard she couldn't hear anything

 

[Derec]

The plot thickens:
Sandra Bland told jailers she'd once tried suicide, jail documents say
Also:
Trooper's Actions During Arrest of Sandra Bland Called Legal, But Perhaps Unwise, Experts Say

 

[jladam]

So what you're saying is that being a reasonably attractive female somehow entitles one to more prosecutorial discretion than someone else? You, of all people, advocating that a female should have used her female attractiveness to get out of a traffic stop.

It was a descriptive, not prescriptive statement. It's about what happens, not about what should happen.

And it was about police discretion, not prosecutors.

Prosecutorial discretion is a term that also encompasses what is called Selective Enforcement.

 

[jladam]

The plot thickens:
Sandra Bland told jailers she'd once tried suicide, jail documents say

Which certainly does not explain why she wasn't placed on suicide watch.

 

[Derec]

Which certainly does not explain why she wasn't placed on suicide watch.

It doesn't. I don't know what criteria are used to place somebody on that watch but if the jail violated them they should be held accountable. It's not the first time somebody killed themselves in that jail, btw, but the previous suicide was a white male so that generated no publicity.

It does, however, explain why she would have killed herself and is yet another nail in the ridiculous 'murder' hypothesis.

 

[jladam]

... but the previous suicide was a white male so that generated no publicity.

Did the white male in the previous suicide actually admit on his booking form that he previously attempted suicide like Sandra Bland did? If he didn't, maybe that's why it didn't get the attention that you wished it would've.

 

[Arctish]

<link to transcript>

TROOPER: "Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please?"

BLAND: "I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?"

TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now."

BLAND: "I don't have to step on out."

TROOPER: "Step out of the car."

TROOPER: "Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please?" This is not an order. It's a question. The answer was yes, she minded. That is not a crime.

BLAND: "I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?" This is a perfectly reasonable question. She was in her car doing something that is not against the law. She asked him to explain why she should put it out. She was under no obligation to do so, at least not at that point.

TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now." This isn't an order either. His verbal cues heavily imply it's an order but his words don't match his tone. If he was placing her under arrest he should have said "You're under arrest, step out of the car". But even that is problematic since she hadn't done anything to justify an arrest.

BLAND: "I don't have to step on out." Correct. She didn't have to step out of the car unless and until he ordered it. If she had stepped out of the car without him ordering it, that could have been perceived as threatening behavior, and he probably would have arrested her.

TROOPER: "Step out of the car." This is an order, and at this point he had the authority to arrest her for refusing to comply. However, the onus is on him to communicate that clearly. None of this "would you mind..." or "you can step out now..." indirection. If she was under arrest he should have said so. If she wasn't, he should have let her remain in her car and not escalated the incident into violence.

BLAND: "No, you don't have the right."

TROOPER: "Step out of the car!"

BLAND: "You don't have the right to do that."

TROOPER: "I do have the right. Now step out or I'll remove you."

BLAND: "I am getting removed for failure to signal?"

TROOPER: "Step out or I'll remove you. I'm giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now or I'm going to remove you."
BLAND: "I'm calling my lawyer."

TROOPER: "I'm going to yank you out of here."

BLAND: "OK, you're going to yank me out of the car?"

TROOPER: "Get out!" (reaching into the car)

BLAND: "Don't touch me!"

TROOPER: "Get out of the car!"

BLAND: "Don't touch me. I am not under arrest. You don't have the right to touch me."

TROOPER: "You are under arrest."

Finally! He tells her she's under arrest after the confrontation is well underway.

I have a relative who used to drive around without license plates on his car, refuse to provide ID when the cops stopped him, and demanded to know if he was under arrest. The way he saw it, if he wasn't under arrest he was free to go, right? If he was under arrest, the cops had to say so, tell him why, and read him his rights. He would often point out that he had the right to remain silent, at which point he would remain completely silent. He made a point of being uncooperative. It was something of a troll, but it was also perfectly legal behavior. The cops around here had the wits to keep their cool and not overreact while giving him a ticket. Of course, he isn't a black woman and this place isn't Texas.

 

[jladam]

<link to transcript>




TROOPER: "Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please?" This is not an order. It's a question. The answer was yes, she minded. That is not a crime.

BLAND: "I'm in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?" This is a perfectly reasonable question. She was in her car doing something that is not against the law. She asked him to explain why she should put it out. She was under no obligation to do so, at least not at that point.

TROOPER: "Well, you can step out now." This isn't an order either. His verbal cues heavily imply it's an order but his words don't match his tone. If he was placing her under arrest he should have said "You're under arrest, step out of the car". But even that is problematic since she hadn't done anything to justify an arrest.

BLAND: "I don't have to step on out." Correct. She didn't have to step out of the car unless and until he ordered it. If she had stepped out of the car without him ordering it, that could have been perceived as threatening behavior, and he would have arrested her.

TROOPER: "Step out of the car." This is an order, and at this point he had the authority to arrest her for refusing to comply. However, the onus is on him to communicate that clearly. None of this "would you mind..." or "you can step out now..." indirection. If she was under arrest he should have said so. If she wasn't, he should have let her remain in her car and not escalated the incident into violence.

BLAND: "No, you don't have the right."

TROOPER: "Step out of the car!"

BLAND: "You don't have the right to do that."

TROOPER: "I do have the right. Now step out or I'll remove you."

BLAND: "I am getting removed for failure to signal?"

TROOPER: "Step out or I'll remove you. I'm giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now or I'm going to remove you."
BLAND: "I'm calling my lawyer."

TROOPER: "I'm going to yank you out of here."

BLAND: "OK, you're going to yank me out of the car?"

TROOPER: "Get out!" (reaching into the car)

BLAND: "Don't touch me!"

TROOPER: "Get out of the car!"

BLAND: "Don't touch me. I am not under arrest. You don't have the right to touch me."

TROOPER: "You are under arrest."

Finally! He tells her she's under arrest after the confrontation is well underway.

I have a relative who used to drive around without license plates on his car, refuse to provide ID when the cops stopped him, and demanded to know if he was under arrest. The way he saw it, if he wasn't under arrest he was free to go, right? If he was under arrest, the cops had to say so, tell him why, and read him his rights. He would often point out that he had the right to remain silent, at which point he would remain completely silent. He made a point of being uncooperative. It was something of a troll, but it was also perfectly legal behavior. The cops around here had the wits to keep their cool and not overreact while giving him a ticket. Of course, he isn't a black woman and this place isn't Texas.

Thank you. I wanted to post a detailed analysis of the transcript but just didn't have the time. One thing I would like to point out though is that she eventually does comply with the order of getting out of the car. So, for people to say that she was arrested for "failing to comply with a lawful order" is total bullshit.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The plot thickens:
Sandra Bland told jailers she'd once tried suicide, jail documents say
Also:
Trooper's Actions During Arrest of Sandra Bland Called Legal, But Perhaps Unwise, Experts Say

If she told her jailers that she had been suicidal in the past and they left the plastic bag in her cell AND failed to physically check on her every hour, then the jailers could very well be guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

 

[laughing dog]

Again, you seem to think any of this relevant to the police officer over-reacting and the fact she is black.

Pretend you are sitting in a diner and two people in the booth behind you are having a conversation. They may discuss the same thing being discussed at your table, but there is no reason for their remarks to fit into your conversation.

Let's further that at least one of those people is a rational person. That person would pretend the other person's remarks were relevant out of politeness even though they were irrelevant and moronic.

Just so we are clear, the policeman is a bad person.

I see. Someone who over-reacts is necessarily a bad person.

 

[Bronzeage]

Pretend you are sitting in a diner and two people in the booth behind you are having a conversation. They may discuss the same thing being discussed at your table, but there is no reason for their remarks to fit into your conversation.

Let's further that at least one of those people is a rational person. That person would pretend the other person's remarks were relevant out of politeness even though they were irrelevant and moronic.

Just so we are clear, the policeman is a bad person.

I see. Someone who over-reacts is necessarily a bad person.

At the risk of making more comments you consider moronic, I don't think you see at all.

 

[laughing dog]

Let's further that at least one of those people is a rational person. That person would pretend the other person's remarks were relevant out of politeness even though they were irrelevant and moronic.

Just so we are clear, the policeman is a bad person.

I see. Someone who over-reacts is necessarily a bad person.

At the risk of making more comments you consider moronic, I don't think you see at all.

Why is that?

 

[zorq]

I just want everyone in the thread to be perfectly clear that in the US according to the USSC the most recent decision being Brendlin v California a police officer may lawfully insist that anyone exit a vehicle at any time.

The reason given for this is the police officer's safety. People in a vehicle may at any moment acquire a hidden weapon (under a seat or something). The police officer may also insist that the driver return to his vehicle at any time for safety reasons, but she may not insist that a passenger return to a vehicle during a routine stop unless there is reasonable suspicion involving the passenger. (Passengers may leave the scene of a traffic stop at any moment unless the officer has reason to suspect them of any crime. Note that if the traffic stop is on a highway where pedestrians are not allowed, the pedestrian will be committing a crime if they leave the stopped vehicle.)

If a police officer asks you to leave your vehicle at any time or place you must comply.

I recommend rolling up your windows and locking the door as you step outside of the vehicle. If you can, try to take five steps away from the vehicle so that you are well outside of arm's reach of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. The reason for this is that officers may not search your vehicle unless they have probable cause to believe that contraband is in the car OR if you are arrested within arm's reach of the passenger cabin for ANY crime. It doesn't matter if the crime you are arrested for is negligent child support payments, if you are within arms reach of a passenger cabin the police may lawfully search that car from bumper to bumper.

That said, It's pretty clear that the officer in this situation didn't really have any interest in adjusting his safety concerns when he asked Ms. Bland to exit her vehicle. This is proven when moments later he dives into the car and tries to wrestle her out. That's not the behavior of someone who is worried there is a weapon in the vehicle. He was escalating the situation because she wasn't being supplicant enough for his tastes and he wanted to put her in her place.

Also, an order to extinguish a cigarette would also be unlawful unless the officer suspected she may use it as a weapon. Did this officer really think Ms. Bland was going to use the cigarette as a weapon? Clearly not.