Does the Sandra Bland story outrage you?

[blueblood]

Smoking in your own vehicle is not a crime. The cop has no reason to even request she put the cigarette out. Hand her the ticket and be done with it. The cop acted like a total asshat. I do not believe for one second this woman hung herself in jail. The story just does not add up.

Your right its not a crime. However as bc2004 says its a cue for hiding something. Maybe the officer thought she was drunk driving and lit the smoke to "freshen the breath." Hmm...

[GostHacked]

He doesn't have to show probable cause, but he has to give a reason.

The cop could have just been insistent and stand there and calmly say 'please step out of the car' (repeat if needed). But reaching in, grabbing her and forcing her out of the car was his first mistake which escalated the incident. My car I can smoke if I want to. Why do people hate freedom?

[GostHacked]

Your right its not a crime. However as bc2004 says its a cue for hiding something. Maybe the officer thought she was drunk driving and lit the smoke to "freshen the breath." Hmm...

Hiding something? Use your melon for once. Most smokers I know need a smoke for certain stress related situations. Their job, their finances, ect, getting pulled over by an overzealous cop. Equating lighting up a smoke to hiding something is a real stretch, and a really idiotic one at that. Think about it.

Let's use your logic and stretch it out to anyone who lights a smoke for any reason is hiding something. Is that a fair assumption?

Edited July 26, 2015 by GostHacked

[blueblood]

Yeah, that's super. You know damned well the cop is going to violate you, but you comply with him anyway to avoid getting abused, and ask for money to compensate you for the humiliation later on. That's awesome.

-k

sounds like she didnt password lock her phone... Responsibility cuts both ways. Two people acted lrresponsible and are paying the price. Its a harsh world we live in.

[blueblood]

Hiding something? Use your melon for once. Most smokers I know need a smoke for certain stress related situation. Their job, their finances, ect, getting pulled over. Equating lighting up a smoke to hiding something is a real stretch, and a really idiotic one at that. Think about it.

I wouldnt say its a stretch.

Put your antiestablishment bias aside. Drunk driving is a problem right? Put yourself in his shoes

Say somebody makes an erratic driving move. Maybe drunk, maybe on cell phone, maybe made a mistake. They light up a smoke which as you know smells like well smoke plus theyre angrier than the average joe. Say they indeed had something to drink and as you would do things let them go on their way and got in a wreck. Maybe asking to put the smoke out sounds pretty reasonable to me...

Edited July 26, 2015 by blueblood

[Rue]

In response to you Kimmy:

1-no you don't have to be a veteran police officer to have an opinion-I never stated that-that is illogical-what I do criticize is taking a video and assuming it tells an entire story;

2-in regards to your second comment, if you believe that in your world acting like a self-entitled jack ass is acceptable, knock yourself out and see how far it gets you;

3-I criticized the use of this video to bad mouth all police officers-at no time did I say or criticize someone for criticizing a police officer's actions-you can read back the posts that used this video to piss on all cops not just criticize this one officer;

4-if you read this board the same people now stereotyping all officers as bad are the same ones who yes indeed scream and whine that we should put a disclaimer on stating not all Muslims are terrorists when pointing out those who are. That was the point-we have some selective individuls who stereotype but lambast others they think stereotype.

Go read for yourself the double standard certain readers use when stereotyping. As long as its against a target they don't like its suddenly politically correct. That is what I was getting at. What I am also getting at is your speculation this cop is anything bad is no different then I speculating the woman was mentally ill. I did not say my speculation was better then anyone else's. If you object to my speculation, then be consistent and start with your own assumptions about this cop. I was making the point the assumptions can go both ways and neither one is necessarily a fact just speculation.

[Rue]

Les Active I have no problem with your opinion. If the questioning is not threatening. That is what the law says too in theory.

Here is a reality to the theory though. If a cop chases a car then they come to a stop. He will exit his car, adrenalin rushing, expecting danger.

Also even on a routine stop, police officers because of the sheer no. who have been killed or shot at on routine stops are in hyper-vigilance mode, their muscles are tense, their heart beating.

They will not necessarily be calm and could take any sign of defiance as danger. Thus while I agree with you and the law does too, in practical reality it may not be possible for that officer to be as calm and logical as you want him to be when he approaches and the law understands that too.

What you said was well stated as the other side of the coin on this debate than mine.

[GostHacked]

2-in regards to your second comment, if you believe that in your world acting like a self-entitled jack ass is acceptable, knock yourself out and see how far it gets you;

How is that tactic working for you anyways?

[On Guard for Thee]

The cop could have just been insistent and stand there and calmly say 'please step out of the car' (repeat if needed). But reaching in, grabbing her and forcing her out of the car was his first mistake which escalated the incident. My car I can smoke if I want to. Why do people hate freedom?

He did a number of things wrong and as you point out, reaching in and grabbing her, and sticking the taser in her face are a couple. Only way he can justify those are by claiming he was physically threatened and as we can see, the dashcam obviates that. He could have said to her something such as I think I smell alcohol or mj and I need to search your car so I'll have to ask you to step out. Now that could of course be trumped up, but at least he has fulfilled the requirement of providing a reason. But even then, had she not complied, his proper course would have been to call for backup before proceeding. Hopefully this cop will be on his administrative leave thing and off the streets for good.

[Wilber]

And yet I've seen several legal comentaries on this so far which all say otherwise. He can indeed order her out of the car.

Not according to these guys.

Texas Department of Public Safety officials informed reporters this week that Encinia violated several traffic stop and courtesy protocols. A DPS spokesman didn’t state what exactly the officer did wrong, but legal experts claim his alleged abrasive behavior could be a factor.

DPS Director Steve McCraw and Texas State Senator Royce West have released brief statements about the case. McCraw told the Washington Post today that Encinia did not display proper conduct.

“Regardless of the situation, the DPS state trooper has an obligation to exhibit professionalism and be courteous,” said DPS Director Steve McCraw. “That did not happen in this situation.”

When asked by reporters if Sandra Bland caused her own death, West said “no.” He also added that she didn’t deserve to be arrested in the first place.

BTW, this was not an experienced officer, he had been on the force for just over a year. He was a fire fighter and in agriculture before that.

[kimmy]

It's unfortunate when adults act like total imbeciles, but you aren't going to be able to do much other than get them fired after the fact - which is what has happened in the majority of these cases, and sue their department. As has previously been discussed, Border Services can seize your phone when you enter the country too, and demand your password. If you don't give it they'll keep the phone and their tech guys will crack it. Maybe the smart thing to do is not keep naked pictures of yourself on a phone?

I don't keep naked pictures on my phone, but if people are supposed to plan their activities around the eventuality that some scumbag cop or airline security agent is going to rifle through their phone for personal information they can abuse, we've got a serious problem.

I posted that item to reinforce what Bryan pointed out earlier: not everything a cop tells you to do is a "lawful order", even if the cop would have you believe otherwise.

sounds like she didnt password lock her phone... Responsibility cuts both ways. Two people acted lrresponsible and are paying the price. Its a harsh world we live in.

Yeah, it's the thieves fault for stealing your car, but it's also your fault for parking it someplace where thieves could steal it. Let's just call it 50-50.

-k

[Shady]

Yeah, that's super. You know damned well the cop is going to violate you, but you comply with him anyway to avoid getting abused, and ask for money to compensate you for the humiliation later on. That's awesome.

-k

That's why cameras on cops are a very good idea. But one could always not have their phone out when stopped by police. Regardless the level of "violated" is subjective. I'd be "humiliated" in that way for a million dollar payoff.

[Shady]

I don't keep naked pictures on my phone, but if people are supposed to plan their activities around the eventuality that some scumbag cop or airline security agent is going to rifle through their phone for personal information they can abuse, we've got a serious problem.

I posted that item to reinforce what Bryan pointed out earlier: not everything a cop tells you to do is a "lawful order", even if the cop would have you believe otherwise.

Yeah, it's the thieves fault for stealing your car, but it's also your fault for parking it someplace where thieves could steal it. Let's just call it 50-50.

-k

No, but if you want certain things to remain private, best not take them out in public. Because there's always a chance that something could happen. It's no different than keeping physical pictures of that sort of thing in ones wallet. Or if you have them on your phone, keep them in a hidden place. If you don't know how to do that, Google it.

[kimmy]

In response to you Kimmy:

1-no you don't have to be a veteran police officer to have an opinion-I never stated that-that is illogical-what I do criticize is taking a video and assuming it tells an entire story;

We can only guess what happened in the parts of the video redacted by the police, and what was going on after Officer Encinia moved the suspect out of the view of the dash camera. But I doubt it was very flattering to Officer Encinia.

2-in regards to your second comment, if you believe that in your world acting like a self-entitled jack ass is acceptable, knock yourself out and see how far it gets you;

Just wondering why you guys don't seem to thing that applies to the cops as well. I saw two ignorant jackasses in the video.

3-I criticized the use of this video to bad mouth all police officers-at no time did I say or criticize someone for criticizing a police officer's actions-you can read back the posts that used this video to piss on all cops not just criticize this one officer;

And who's badmouthing "all" police officers? I know that you "Support The Heroes In Blue!" types want to spin this as anti-police hatred, but I see demands for police accountability as extremely reasonable.

4-if you read this board the same people now stereotyping all officers as bad are the same ones who yes indeed scream and whine that we should put a disclaimer on stating not all Muslims are terrorists when pointing out those who are. That was the point-we have some selective individuls who stereotype but lambast others they think stereotype.

So basically, you think other people are hypocrites so you decided to be a hypocrite too?

Go read for yourself the double standard certain readers use when stereotyping. As long as its against a target they don't like its suddenly politically correct. That is what I was getting at. What I am also getting at is your speculation this cop is anything bad is no different then I speculating the woman was mentally ill. I did not say my speculation was better then anyone else's. If you object to my speculation, then be consistent and start with your own assumptions about this cop. I was making the point the assumptions can go both ways and neither one is necessarily a fact just speculation.

It's not my speculation that he's bad; we've got video evidence and the opinion of numerous experts who feel he acted unprofessionally. I found your suggestion that she has a "borderline personality disorder" quite hilarious after your earlier complaints about "armchair experts".

-k

[kimmy]

That's why cameras on cops are a very good idea. But one could always not have their phone out when stopped by police. Regardless the level of "violated" is subjective. I'd be "humiliated" in that way for a million dollar payoff.

We don't know that they did have their phones "out" when they were stopped. We do know that there have been quite a few of these incidents, and that one of the cops described this as "a game" that police play, and that for each incident that's been caught and brought to justice there's probably been a lot more that weren't caught. That some of the victims may at some point get compensation (paid for by taxpayers, of course...) is completely beside the point, which is that just because words come out of a policeman's pie-hole doesn't make them a "lawful order", and that in some cases police are willing to abuse peoples' obedience.

No, but if you want certain things to remain private, best not take them out in public. Because there's always a chance that something could happen. It's no different than keeping physical pictures of that sort of thing in ones wallet. Or if you have them on your phone, keep them in a hidden place. If you don't know how to do that, Google it.

Yeah, I'm all for taking reasonable steps to protect yourself, but again people shouldn't have to plan their activities around the idea that their phone is going to be cased by a corrupt cop.

Take this logic to its conclusion, and people shouldn't drive around with money, jewelry, or valuables or anything else that police might seize using civil forfeiture, either.

-k

[Bob Macadoo]

That some of the victims may at some point get compensation (paid for by taxpayers, of course...) is completely beside the point, which is that just because words come out of a policeman's pie-hole doesn't make them a "lawful order", and that in some cases police are willing to abuse peoples' obedience.

I think a telling view in all this is the folks on here think the payday is just grand in lieu of emotional/physical abuse......yet are the same folks who bemoan that these payouts occur and should somehow come from thin air.

[LesActive]

Les Active I have no problem with your opinion. If the questioning is not threatening. That is what the law says too in theory.

Here is a reality to the theory though. If a cop chases a car then they come to a stop. He will exit his car, adrenalin rushing, expecting danger.

Also even on a routine stop, police officers because of the sheer no. who have been killed or shot at on routine stops are in hyper-vigilance mode, their muscles are tense, their heart beating.

They will not necessarily be calm and could take any sign of defiance as danger. Thus while I agree with you and the law does too, in practical reality it may not be possible for that officer to be as calm and logical as you want him to be when he approaches and the law understands that too.

What you said was well stated as the other side of the coin on this debate than mine.

Because of my ignorance, I must question the rationale behind the position you take in paragraph three. What is the ratio when comparing the number of officers killed during routine traffic stops versus the number of officers not killed in the same situation? Are there even stats to compare? If there are stats available then I think we must determine the threat level required for an officer to feel justified to go into "hyper-vigilance mode", risking the death of the alleged perp, and not go by "sheer no." because, of course, that number never goes down.

I'll wager that the number of people being pulled over and being killed is growing faster than the number of officers being killed when pulling them over.

I assume you know the quote by Blackstone, "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." Seems to me that present policy is veering sharply from that philosophy at an alarming rate.

[LesActive]

I could be wrong but this all seems to be boiling down to a debate between officer safety and peoples rights. At the least: officer safety vs. due process.

Are there people here willing to admit that officer safety is a superior concern to peoples rights and due process?

[Argus]

I could be wrong but this all seems to be boiling down to a debate between officer safety and peoples rights. At the least: officer safety vs. due process.

Are there people here willing to admit that officer safety is a superior concern to peoples rights and due process?

That's something you have to decide on a case by case basis. There is no blanket yes or no possible. It depends, is the best you can do.

I'm on record as saying, despite my general support of police and 'law and order' that our police, and even moreso in the US, are not being trained properly as servants of the people. They're being trained in a militarized fashion which stresses how they must have 'command' and 'control the situation', and they're being trained to fear anyone they approach, and to treat that person as a potential killer with a gun in their pocket. Given that training, and human nature, cases where citizens react in a confrontational manner are going to be interpreted as threatening by some of these cops, and their response to anything threatening is force.

So don't provoke them.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

I could be wrong but this all seems to be boiling down to a debate between officer safety and peoples rights. At the least: officer safety vs. due process.

Are there people here willing to admit that officer safety is a superior concern to peoples rights and due process?

Officer safety is of course, in a general sense, always a concern. That's why they are equipped with such things as guns and tasers, and kevlar vests etc. In this specific case it would be quite a stretch to find any real threat to the officers safety, at least fro what we see in the video, in which case the only reasonable conclusion is that her rights were likely violated.

[bush_cheney2004]

Far from undermining the cop's authoritah, as BC2004 claims, being able to state the reason you're being detained establishes that you're dealing with a professional with the law behind him, as opposed to a jackass who is abusing his power.

Great strategy...insist on that the next time one is playing 'murican with 'murican cops. Hell, tell them you are "from Canada" and be sure to point out how things are done "up there". That will surely win them over and make them accept one's lack of compliance with a lawful order to exit the vehicle.

[LesActive]

That's something you have to decide on a case by case basis. There is no blanket yes or no possible. It depends, is the best you can do.

I'm on record as saying, despite my general support of police and 'law and order' that our police, and even moreso in the US, are not being trained properly as servants of the people. They're being trained in a militarized fashion which stresses how they must have 'command' and 'control the situation', and they're being trained to fear anyone they approach, and to treat that person as a potential killer with a gun in their pocket. Given that training, and human nature, cases where citizens react in a confrontational manner are going to be interpreted as threatening by some of these cops, and their response to anything threatening is force.

So don't provoke them.

Yes, context is key and I generally agree with your assessment of training procedures. This is not a war zone and I'm not in the habit of poking the bear but when the bear pokes you and your only options are to play dead or be dead.....well, it doesn't bode well for the local heralds of freedom. I have to wonder what the confrontational barometer looks like to certain officers.

Officer safety is of course, in a general sense, always a concern. That's why they are equipped with such things as guns and tasers, and kevlar vests etc. In this specific case it would be quite a stretch to find any real threat to the officers safety, at least fro what we see in the video, in which case the only reasonable conclusion is that her rights were likely violated.

I believe that her rights were violated as well. imo, all public officers at all levels of gov't should enjoy all the rights that we do but be held to a much higher standard of accountability as a deterrence to this kind of crap. Perhaps I've seen too many videos of cops being lax about their own negligence of statutes while attempting to enforce imaginary ones.

[Shady]

We don't know that they did have their phones "out" when they were stopped. We do know that there have been quite a few of these incidents, and that one of the cops described this as "a game" that police play, and that for each incident that's been caught and brought to justice there's probably been a lot more that weren't caught. That some of the victims may at some point get compensation (paid for by taxpayers, of course...) is completely beside the point, which is that just because words come out of a policeman's pie-hole doesn't make them a "lawful order", and that in some cases police are willing to abuse peoples' obedience.

Yeah, I'm all for taking reasonable steps to protect yourself, but again people shouldn't have to plan their activities around the idea that their phone is going to be cased by a corrupt cop.

Take this logic to its conclusion, and people shouldn't drive around with money, jewelry, or valuables or anything else that police might seize using civil forfeiture, either.

-k

And what's your point? Yep, some people will abuse their power. And???

[On Guard for Thee]

And what's your point? Yep, some people will abuse their power. And???

Take another look at what this thread is about and get back to us.

[Shady]

Take another look at what this thread is about and get back to us.

Somebody killing themselves.