Does the Sandra Bland story outrage you?

[bush_cheney2004]

The order to exit the vehicle was lawful then, and it is still lawful today. All the cross border shoppers and snow birds from Canada would be wise to do so when directed by police officers, sheriff deputies, state troopers, ATF, and FBI agents.

[On Guard for Thee]

The order to exit the vehicle was lawful then, and it is still lawful today. All the cross border shoppers and snow birds from Canada would be wise to do so when directed by police officers, sheriff deputies, state troopers, ATF, and FBI agents.

Nope. Already explained why it wasn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

Preliminary toxicology reports are in on Ms. Bland:

An initial toxicology report for Sandra Bland, the woman who died in jail in Waller County, Tex., on July 13, showed that she had marijuana in her system after her death, but the document does not offer an accurate reading of just how much was circulating in her blood when she died. When a death is suspicious, sudden or unexpected, toxicology reports are not uncommon.

Ms. Bland had 18 micrograms per liter of T.H.C., the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in her blood, according to a post-mortem report issued Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/us/sandra-bland-toxicology-report.html?_r=0

[On Guard for Thee]

Did anybody check the cop for steroids?

[WIP]

It's a big deal because Cop take more and more public money and all they seem to want to do is harass people.

You've said it yourself, crime is at historic lows but police seem to need to justify themselves by doing crap like this.

This story goes far beyond police wanting to 'harass people.' Policing in the US south follows a seamless thread from the slave patrols of two centuries ago, after they were frightened by the likelihood of a successful slave revolt following the overthrow of the French colonial government in Haiti. Militias formed primarily as an act of vigilance against any signs of unrest among the growing slave population.

Not that things are a whole lot better in the northern states, but the south has been acting like slavery never ended after 1865. The Jim Crow laws restricting voting rights, anti-race mixing laws, segregation, ridiculously applied vagrancy laws, even restrictions on travel for employees owing debts....used to keep freed blacks working on the plantations as sharecroppers who can never grow enough to pay the rent to the landlord etc.. These laws didn't start to unravel until the Depression and after WWII.

The pro-segreationists have found other ways of maintaining a race-based class system after the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1965. The attack on public institutions...most notably public schools, created a cottage industry of so called "home-schooling" which has re-segregated education in many states to a higher level than it was prior to 65. The attack on government workers is usually code for race...since government agencies (except police and firefighting) remained the only system that followed affirmative action programs to any degree...so cutting back on government equals cutting back on the numbers of blacks who are in good paying unionized jobs with an equal opportunity for advancement. And then we get to so called "voter fraud" laws and actions of recent years, and it's plainly obvious that the police forces are just the tip of the spear....not the source of the problem! Police in most large US cities are tasked with containing and controlling black and latino populations, and that's why their abuses will be ignored and excused wherever and whenever possible. They're just doing the job that they are paid to do!

And that includes harassing black motorists. I would like to know if the cop in this incident, ran the plates and found out that Sandra Bland was an activist in the Black Lives Matter movement, as he seems to have actively tried to provoke a confrontation...which we were told on every episode of the fictional docudrama "Cops" is exactly what police are not supposed to do.

[Shady]

So she was driving while impared then.

[On Guard for Thee]

So she was driving while impared then.

Sorry Shady, you're jumping to a conclusion there.

[bush_cheney2004]

So she was driving while impared then.

It is unlawful to operate a motor vehicle in Texas under the influence of marijuana, to wit:

It is illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, alcohol, other drugs, or a combination of substances. When alcohol is involved, a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent of the driver's blood, by volume will conclusively establish that the driver is under the influence (if the level is less, the prosecutor can still point to the driver's actions to prove that he was under the influence).

When marijuana is involved, however, any amount of marijuana that was in the driver’s blood or urine while he was driving will establish that the driver was under the influence. (Texas Stat. and Code Ann. § 49.01.)

[On Guard for Thee]

The toxicology report was done after her death, 3 days after the arrest. There are also conflicting reports as to what happens to thc levels after death. So much for that evidence. Next!

[LesActive]

THC can last for weeks in the system after ingestion, passive or intentional. The toxicology report is not a reliable indicator that she was 'under the influence'. She may have smoked in the past couple of days which could trigger a high THC count but it is not evidence that she was debilitated at the time of the incident. The so-called debilitating effects do wear off relatively quickly.

I can eat a poppy seed bagel or an over the counter Tylenol 1 and test positive for opiates but it doesn't mean that I'm a user or that I was high at the time of the test.

Unless the thinking here is pothead=felon, or guilt by association, as a way to justify what occurred then I'm not sure what bearing this report will have on the outcome.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't matter....any THC in her system while driving is unlawful in Texas. This cop spotted a doper !

[On Guard for Thee]

THC can last for weeks in the system after ingestion, passive or intentional. The toxicology report is not a reliable indicator that she was 'under the influence'. She may have smoked in the past couple of days which could trigger a high THC count but it is not evidence that she was debilitated at the time of the incident. The so-called debilitating effects do wear off relatively quickly. I can eat a poppy seed bagel or an over the counter Tylenol 1 and test positive for opiates but it doesn't mean that I'm a user or that I was high at the time of the test. Unless the thinking here is pothead=felon, or guilt by association, as a way to justify what occurred then I'm not sure what bearing this report will have on the outcome.

It should have no effect. She could have got hold of some pot in the jail. She could have eaten a brownie on her way to the jail. Even a novice lawyer would be able to shred that in a heartbeat. It's just another feeble attempt to throw the blame onto the dead black girl and away from the over zealous white cop.

Edited July 30, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[On Guard for Thee]

Doesn't matter....any THC in her system while driving is unlawful in Texas. This cop spotted a doper !

Ha, ha, try proving that.

[LesActive]

<snip excellent post>

I would like to know if the cop in this incident, ran the plates and found out that Sandra Bland was an activist in the Black Lives Matter movement, as he seems to have actively tried to provoke a confrontation...which we were told on every episode of the fictional docudrama "Cops" is exactly what police are not supposed to do.

There is a lot of surveillance done on activists so if Sandra Bland had previously caught their attention through her activities she could have been on a list. A unique, somewhat alliterative name like hers might stick in the mind.

As to the preceding text of your post I would only add that given the provenance of police forces as means of holding back the rabble from looting those who profit from them, it's inevitable that the police would be less stringent in their duty of care in respecting the rights of others when going after the low hanging fruit: those without influence who can least afford decent representation after the fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Web007rzSOI - Strange Fruit, Billie Holiday

[LesActive]

It should have no effect. She could have got hold of some pot in the jail. She could have eaten a brownie on her way to the jail. Even a novice lawyer would be able to shred that in a heartbeat. It's just another feeble attempt to throw the blame onto the dead black girl and away from the over zealous white cop.

mmhmmm, a favourite tactic of those who'd rather not question their own assumptions despite evidence to the contrary. Ah forums, so fun and so aggravating.

[Shady]

It should have no effect. She could have got hold of some pot in the jail. She could have eaten a brownie on her way to the jail.

Right. Because nobody would've smelled that in a confined space or anything. She was driving impaired. Deal with it. Does that mean the cop didn't abuse his power? Nope. But it's still a fact. And the proper recourse which you even admitted to, is legal action after the arrest.

[GostHacked]

I just think it's amusing when they're both coming out of the same mouth, yours in this case.

You've been pushing this "respect mah authoritah" crap all thread (and in every other police thread ever), and yet you posted the link for WYSM and want to tell it like you're on board with efforts to end the "us vs them" mentality in law enforcement. It makes your sincerity a little suspect.

-k

It's called trolling, and is acceptable here at MLW. Try it yourself.

[GostHacked]

Right. Because nobody would've smelled that in a confined space or anything. She was driving impaired. Deal with it. Does that mean the cop didn't abuse his power? Nope. But it's still a fact. And the proper recourse which you even admitted to, is legal action after the arrest.

This lady was driving impaired?

[LesActive]

She was driving impaired. Deal with it. Does that mean the cop didn't abuse his power? Nope. But it's still a fact.

Prove it.

This lady was driving impaired?

He's assuming facts not in evidence. It's the easy way to frustrate a discussion board.

Edited July 30, 2015 by LesActive

[GostHacked]

Nice assumption. Prove it.

Facts not in evidence. It's the easy way to frustrate a discussion board.

I don't get frustrated with these trolling obtuse posters. I join them. I mean I can't get banned while others here partake in being obtuse trollers.

[LesActive]

I don't get frustrated with these trolling obtuse posters. I join them. I mean I can't get banned while others here partake in being obtuse trollers.

I've noticed and admired your patience. Just when it seems like no one could be more obtuse than one poster that another comes along and one-ups them. Even though I expect it here it's still surprising that it's an actual methodology of some.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right. Because nobody would've smelled that in a confined space or anything. She was driving impaired. Deal with it. Does that mean the cop didn't abuse his power? Nope. But it's still a fact. And the proper recourse which you even admitted to, is legal action after the arrest.

Agreed...it may turn out the the officer removed an impaired driver (doper) from Texas highways. Good job !

[On Guard for Thee]

Right. Because nobody would've smelled that in a confined space or anything. She was driving impaired. Deal with it. Does that mean the cop didn't abuse his power? Nope. But it's still a fact. And the proper recourse which you even admitted to, is legal action after the arrest.

It doesn't mean anything at all. There is no proof she was impaired at the time of the arrest.

[kimmy]

She was driving impaired. Deal with it.

THC can stay in your system for hours or days after you've smoked, so its presence isn't proof that she was impaired at the time of the arrest.

(My hunch is that she wasn't high at the time because she's too agitated and talks too much and too fast. That doesn't mesh with my .. uh, experience. But that's just a completely unscientific opinion.)

But, either way it really doesn't matter. I don't think anybody here is arguing about whether Officer Encinia had cause to conduct a traffic stop.

Does that mean the cop didn't abuse his power? Nope. But it's still a fact. And the proper recourse which you even admitted to, is legal action after the arrest.

To me, it seemed like he pushed the issue with the cigarette because he was mad that she told him she was unhappy about getting pulled over.

And to me it seemed like he decided to make her get out of the car because he was mad that she declined his "polite request" to put out the cigarette.

He might have had the authority to order her to get out of the vehicle, but if he decided to do that in retaliation for her not putting out the cigarette, he was deliberately being antagonistic.

-k

[blueblood]

Ha, ha, try proving that.

He tried!! Makes it harder to smell dope when a cigarette is lit hmmm!!