Does the Sandra Bland story outrage you?

[jacee]

Like I said above ... he's a pig.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Here is the arrest warrant.....Felony Class 3.

http://www.click2houston.com/blob/view/-/34278084/data/1/-/12ecbc7/-/Bland-Affidavit.pdf

Edited July 31, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Here is the arrest warrant.....Felony Class 3.

http://www.click2houston.com/blob/view/-/34278084/data/1/-/12ecbc7/-/Bland-Affidavit.pdf

Ha ha ha. Oh yeah now that really convinces me. Hey btw, I got this bridge for sale give you a good price.

[jacee]

Here is the arrest warrant.....Felony Class 3.

http://www.click2houston.com/blob/view/-/34278084/data/1/-/12ecbc7/-/Bland-Affidavit.pdf

Arrested for assaulting an officer.

Who had no right to lay his hands on her.

It would be thrown out of court.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Arrested for assaulting an officer.

Who had no right to lay his hands on her.

It would be thrown out of court.

.

Nope....unlawful perp was detained and arrested legally. Book 'em Danno....assault on a cop.

[jacee]

Nope....unlawful perp was detained and arrested legally. Book 'em Danno....assault on a cop.

Nope. Perp cop put his hands on her illegally.

She had a right to defend herself from illegal search and seizure.

It would be thrown out of court. That's the standard now when assault cop is the only charge ... Because it means cops put hands on innocent person without justification.

Sorry. You're wrong.

You're from the old days when cops got away with everything including murder.

Not anymore.

People fight back against illegal cop action now.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope. Perp cop put his hands on her illegally.

She had a right to defend herself from illegal search and seizure.

I disagree...as does the USSC. Was not a 4th Amendment stop...not S&S. This was a garden variety traffic stop and detention.

It would be thrown out of court. That's the standard now when assault cop is the only charge ... Because it means cops put hands on innocent person without justification.

Sorry. You're wrong.

You're from the old days when cops got away with everything including murder.

Not anymore.

People fight back against illegal cop action now.

Sure they do....only to go to jail or worse. Good luck with that fantasy....from across the border.

[jacee]

You don't understand laws of evidence very well it seems. Look at the friggin dashcam. Does he ever discuss whether she is impaired? Does she seem to be impaired? Did the cop suggest a blood test as she was arrested? Answer to all is no. Therefore, what may have been found 3 days later after her death, doesn't mean a hill o' beans. But keep trying.

Don't let the (RCMP/CSIS?) propaganda trolls get to you.

Reasoning isn't on their agenda.

Derailing/deflecting/disrupting is their agenda, and unquestioning subservience to state and corporate power.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

The cops have more to worry about than another perp who assaults them getting tried and convicted. Encinia did his job and if Bland hadn't flaked out and killed herself, she'd be back on the street today.

[jacee]

I disagree...as does the USSC. Was not a 4th Amendment stop...not S&S. This was a garden variety traffic stop and detention.

His traffic stop was completed.

His subsequent orders, threats and assaults on her were illegal.

Sure they do....only to go to jail or worse. Good luck with that fantasy....from across the border.

Because 'all cops are ahole pigs'? Is that your reasoning?

I disagree. Most of them know how to do their job right.

.

Edited July 31, 2015 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

His traffic stop was completed.

His subsequent orders, threats and assaults on her were illegal.

Just your opinion....no basis in case law or USSC rulings. Cops will do exactly the same thing today...and tomorrow.

Nothing you can do about it from Canada.

Edited July 31, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

The cops have more to worry about than another perp who assaults them getting tried and convicted. Encinia did his job and if Bland hadn't flaked out and killed herself, she'd be back on the street today.

Did his job by breaking the law....kind of a contradiction for an officer of the law do't you think? Hopefully the FBI will get around to noticing that in their investigation.

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't let the (RCMP/CSIS?) propaganda trolls get to you.

Reasoning isn't on their agenda.

Derailing/deflecting/disrupting is their agenda, and unquestioning subservience to state and corporate power.

.

I think we used to refer to that as "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir"

[WIP]

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.

The initial report stated that the cop made a u-turn and started following her. The length of time he was following before turning on his siren and overhead lights isn't clear, but it would not take long for him to run the plates and profile the driver. On an episode of the Pacifica Network show - DemocracyNow I listened to last week, a guest who taught at the primarily black college where Sandra Bland was hired, stated that the college staff and students have regularly experienced undue harassment from police and city officials for years. So, it seems like this is a particularly dismal location for race relations....even for Texas. It's worth asking whether any aspects of Sandra Bland's profile and where she was going, played a part in an incident that may have started out of absolutely nothing.....too many police defenders here seem to take police statements as gospel truth! As if cops never lie. They have very good reasons to lie and fabricate police reports...as we can see even more recently from the Samuel Dubose killing in Cincinnati...where camera evidence gave the prosecutor no choice other than to charge the cop for murder, BUT the part that goes unmentioned is that the two backup officers fabricated their stories to support the shooter and will get away with it without charges! So more often than not, a police officer can pull his bacon out of the fire by lying, and the price for lying is zero...no cost!

So, in the Sandra Bland Incident, it begins with the arresting officer's testimony that she made an improper lane change without signaling....it's pointed out that this is a very minor offense...but even most taking her case are just assuming that the cop had a reason to pull her over....and that may have been a total lie to begin with, as she denies it while stating that she pulled over because he put his lights and siren on. Then we get to the video evidence that the cop deliberately pulls her out of the line of sight of the camera when audio evidence indicates that he is assaulting her

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.

Using policing to contain and restrict the movements of undesirables like the poor...especially those of colour, has become the primary role of police in many other cities where rich and wealthier residents worry about crime and personal security.

Many cities that have gone through the gentrification process...which means essentially a long process of facilitating the failure of minority communities and restricting services to drive down real estate values, so that big developers can bulldoze entire city blocks, to entice the rich back in with luxury highrise condos and office towers.

In the middle of the gentrification process in the boroughs of New York City, there is a hostile and uneasy mix of extremely wealthy, older crime-fearing whites, close to very poor, dejected blacks and other minorities struggling to keep up with the rent, while knowing that their buildings will eventually be demolished as well, and they may end up on the street. So, in the middle of all of this, is a huge police presence, that includes more undercover officers than those wearing uniform. You may recall from the video of the Eric Garner murder in NYC, that while the focus is on the officer sneaking in behind him and taking him down in a chokehold, at least two thirds of a large contingent of police on the scene are non-uniform. It became well established that more than 90% of mostly men undergoing the totally unconstitutional "Stop and Frisk" police operations were black. When all the dust settled from the lying and obfuscation, the lesson was plain and simple: we're not going to allow any blacks (who don't have employee ID cards) in lower Manhattan and other gentrifying boroughs where important people with money live and work!

[LesActive]

There is so much evidence of that kind of 'policing' to be found everywhere across the U.S. that it's incredibly difficult to believe there are still police apologists willing, no, anxious to excuse this behaviour as valid enforcement of law and order as the term is commonly understood. All it would take is a quick search for "walking while black" on youtube and the spirit of modern policing will be apparent.

There is a sickening smugness in the diatribes of those who hold the state up as a god to be feared and obeyed. Trite aphorisms such as "Economics trumps virtue" lay bare the focus of the society they would prefer. Wage slavery and economic/race segregation is alive and well, and they're ok with that. Other peoples' rights mean nothing so long as they can hold onto their 'wealth'. Wealth, btw, that has been inflated beyond value on assets that don't exist. Ugh, I need a coffee.

Edited August 2, 2015 by LesActive

[Argus]

There is so much evidence of that kind of 'policing' to be found everywhere across the U.S. that it's incredibly difficult to believe there are still police apologists willing, no, anxious to excuse this behaviour as valid enforcement of law and order as the term is commonly understood. All it would take is a quick search for "walking while black" on youtube and the spirit of modern policing will be apparent.

Don't run from the cops, don't struggle with the cops or resist arrest, and you should be fine, no matter what colour your skin is. Why is that such a difficult concept? Half the crime in the US is committed by Blacks. Hardly surprising they get a disproportionate amount of police interest.

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't run from the cops, don't struggle with the cops or resist arrest, and you should be fine, no matter what colour your skin is. Why is that such a difficult concept? Half the crime in the US is committed by Blacks. Hardly surprising they get a disproportionate amount of police interest.

Sandra Bland did none of those things and she's not fine. She's dead.

[LesActive]

Don't run from the cops, don't struggle with the cops or resist arrest, and you should be fine, no matter what colour your skin is. Why is that such a difficult concept?

If shoulds were woulds you'd be correct, however, police will lie and cover up for each other as well as sanction those other officers who don't play along. Not sure of the exact figure but over 5000 people in the U.S. were reportedly killed by police since 2000 while just over 500 officers were killed during the same period.

623 non-officers killed just last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

I'm not seeking proportionality here or justifying officer deaths but the officer death rate has gone down significantly, especially considering population growth, while the concern over officer safety is leaning toward paranoia and citizen deaths are rising. The paranoia is simply not borne out by the numbers.

See here for officer deaths since 1791: http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html and note that the hype over officer's rising safety concerns is just that. Hype.

You are 300 times more likely to be killed by police in the U.S. as compared to the UK. Over there, police have killed 55 people since the early 1900's. There's a culture of violence in the U.S. and the police are doing little to engender the support of the populace by not speaking out against their errant brothers, the ones who think violence and bullying is always the answer, often enough. Maybe if they'd police their own then all deaths would drop. But I suppose that's just wishful thinking. They support each other in their violence.

Half the crime in the US is committed by Blacks. Hardly surprising they get a disproportionate amount of police interest.

That's one interpretation of the 'facts' with which I'm sure that all racists would agree. The other, most obvious interpretation in light of the brief history of policing that has been presented to you by WIP, is that black people are still being disproportionately targeted and that that practice is skewing the numbers to reflect what you are implying. I guess it's just a matter of perspective, or privilege.

[jacee]

Don't run from the cops, don't struggle with the cops or resist arrest, and you should be fine, no matter what colour your skin is. Why is that such a difficult concept? Half the crime in the US is committed by Blacks. Hardly surprising they get a disproportionate amount of police interest.

Sometimes cops are just perps, like this aho.

We all make our own judgements about that.

You're a fool if you always trust the cops.

.

Edited August 2, 2015 by jacee

[WIP]

Don't run from the cops, don't struggle with the cops or resist arrest, and you should be fine, no matter what colour your skin is. Why is that such a difficult concept? Half the crime in the US is committed by Blacks. Hardly surprising they get a disproportionate amount of police interest.

Really! But if your a right wing crackpot, you can point loaded AR-15's at Federal law enforcement positions and not be shot...or even worry about being arrested.

[GostHacked]

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

Actually it does not cover the scent up at all.

[GostHacked]

So she really shouldn't have even been driving. No wonder she was distraught. She was gonna lose her licence.

Pure idiotic speculation. But par for the course. Now hit the back 9.

[On Guard for Thee]

Pure idiotic speculation. But par for the course. Now hit the back 9.

That is a bit rich isn't it...trying to tie a toxicology report after her death, after 3 days in jail, to the actual time of arrest, at which there was no indication nor discussion, as per the dashcam, that there was any suggestion of intoxication. I guess some folks just like to bow down and hand over their rights that easily. Thankfully, hopefully, their are folks with some cajones in the crowd.

[WIP]

That is a bit rich isn't it...trying to tie a toxicology report after her death, after 3 days in jail, to the actual time of arrest, at which there was no indication nor discussion, as per the dashcam, that there was any suggestion of intoxication. I guess some folks just like to bow down and hand over their rights that easily. Thankfully, hopefully, their are folks with some cajones in the crowd.

What's worse, is that it follows the pattern police departments have been using all across America whenever the heat is on them: smear the victim's integrity with leaked information, including lies and misinformation. Until an independent toxicology report is given, I won't believe a word of it!

[On Guard for Thee]

What's worse, is that it follows the pattern police departments have been using all across America whenever the heat is on them: smear the victim's integrity with leaked information, including lies and misinformation. Until an independent toxicology report is given, I won't believe a word of it!

I don't know if you have ever sat through the full 52 or so minute dashcam video. It starts with a previous stop were the same cop hands out a no charge warning for some traffic violation and then does a U turn to chase down Bland. If you have you hear, after she has been taken away, Encinia talking to his office giving his account of what happened. Not hard to see the spin he is putting on the ball. He certainly exceeds the USSC decision dealing with a similar sort of case in Rodrigues v The United States.