Does the Sandra Bland story outrage you?

[Argus]

For the umpteenth time, there is no probably cause in this case to indicate a crime was committed. Not signaling a lane change is not a crime.

Did you not read his statement that 'probable cause' is not required?

In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the vehicle pending completion of the stop. Already, under a 1977 Supreme Court ruling (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106), you had the right to arbitrarily order a driver out of a vehicle, in the interest of officer safety. The same "weighty" concern for your safety is present regarding passengers, the Court declared. "Indeed, the danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car."

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1287043-Supreme-Court-say-officers-can-control-passengers-on-traffic-stops/

The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter. It does not matter that the weather is unpleasant or that the officer does not have a clear reason for asking you to get out. When the officer asks you to “please step out of your car,” you have to do it.

http://www.columbuscriminaldefenseattorney.com/2012/03/16/must-you-get-out-of-your-car-during-a-traffic-stop-police-interaction-part-ix/

Edited August 5, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

I've heard everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Pat Buchanan try to shield themselves with butchered versions of that Jesse Jackson quote, so my spidey senses raise whenever it pops up to claim blacks are just naturally savage and violent.

I didn't realize I was talking with a superhero. Do you wear tights on the internet?

The statistics don't tell us how blacks are denied opportunities for advancement

Perhaps not but we're not talking about employment or educational issues here, but about crime. And while I realize that employment and education issues lead to crime we're not discussing the reasons why Blacks commit more crime. For the purposes of this discussion all we need to know is that they do, which leads to a greatly disproportional interaction with police.

and police are deliberately tasked with harassing young blacks who venture out of their neighbourhoods

That's paranoid nonsense. Although I grant you that a group of hood rats sauntering through a nice neighbourhood would probably draw police curiosity about just what they're doing there.

You don't get out much if you think outlaw bikers are the only white gangs!

I'm not aware of any white street gangs. That doesn't mean white kids can't be punks at times.

What burns me is kids driving around looking to harass and assault random strangers for no reason or purpose.

You mean like the 'knockout' game, where for the most part, Black 'youths' target white people, including women, for unprovoked attacks, trying to knock them out with a single blindside punch? You can find videos of that all over the internet. And I guarantee you if it were white youths attacking random blacks it would be on the national news a lot more often.

After all is said and done, I am not going to accept the dangerous ideology that some races are better than others, regardless of how it is introduced or supported! This kind of attitude denies all people of colour their humanity and allows others to brutalize and exploit them.

Well, that's mighty white of you, except no one has introduced such an 'ideology' or concept here.

[cybercoma]

I didn't see any indication that the cop had any reason to suspect any crime had been committed.

'Investigative detention' was not justified. She was right to try to call her lawyer. He was wrong to threaten to tase her for doing so.

.

You don't know that the investigative detention wasn't justified. Sometimes when cops run your name and DOB, the database could return a partial match for someone else by mistake. In those cases, the cop needs to secure the scene and figure out what's going on. He could have ran her plates and something came up. There could have been a crime committed in the area and the only description he had was that car colour and a black female. There's a lot of reasons he may have needed to engage in an investigative detention. We don't know. What is true though is that you are absolutely required to follow an officer's instructions when the stop you. The courts have backed that up over and over again. The shame is when cops abuse that by still assaulting and murdering those who comply, like the guy who was shot for reaching for his license.

[cybercoma]

For the umpteenth time, there is no probably cause in this case to indicate a crime was committed. Not signaling a lane change is not a crime.

You don't need probable cause for an investigative detention. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain you. They need probably cause to arrest you. An arrest doesn't happen until the cop says, "you're coming with me" (to oversimplify things). Get out of your car and wait on the curb is not an arrest, nor are you free to go. Edited August 4, 2015 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

You don't need probable cause for an investigative detention. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain you. They need probably cause to arrest you. An arrest doesn't happen until the cop says, "you're coming with me" (to oversimplify things). Get out of your car and wait on the curb is not an arrest, nor are you free to go.

That's correct, you only need reasonable suspicion. He had none. Therefore, detaining her any longer than to conclude the illegal lane change, is beyond his authority.

[On Guard for Thee]

Did you not read his statement that 'probable cause' is not required?

In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the vehicle pending completion of the stop. Already, under a 1977 Supreme Court ruling (Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106), you had the right to arbitrarily order a driver out of a vehicle, in the interest of officer safety. The same "weighty" concern for your safety is present regarding passengers, the Court declared. "Indeed, the danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car."

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1287043-Supreme-Court-say-officers-can-control-passengers-on-traffic-stops/

The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter. It does not matter that the weather is unpleasant or that the officer does not have a clear reason for asking you to get out. When the officer asks you to “please step out of your car,” you have to do it.

http://www.columbuscriminaldefenseattorney.com/2012/03/16/must-you-get-out-of-your-car-during-a-traffic-stop-police-interaction-part-ix/

Your quoting a 1977 SC decision? Maybe catch up a little.

[cybercoma]

That's correct, you only need reasonable suspicion. He had none. Therefore, detaining her any longer than to conclude the illegal lane change, is beyond his authority.

How do you know he had none? I listed several different ways he could have had reasonable suspicion, not the least of which is her failure to comply with a lawful order to put out her cigarette and step out of the car.

[On Guard for Thee]

How do you know he had none? I listed several different ways he could have had reasonable suspicion, not the least of which is her failure to comply with a lawful order to put out her cigarette and step out of the car.

Ordering her to put out the smoke is a non starter. He has no right to demand that. Now had I have been in her place I likely would have complied just because, as a non smoker especially, I appreciate people not liking the sell of smoke. But again no legal requirement to comply. When a cop stops you he has to tell you why. In this case a traffic violation. He has the right to detain you long enough to conclude the normal procedure for such a stop, such as asking for the appropriate docs. asking you to wait while he checks various pertinent things with that paperwork, and then issuing you a ticket, warning or whatever. The he must let you get on your way, unless he has reasonable suspicion to believe some other crime has been committed, ad if so, he must again inform you of why he is extending the detainment. That clearly doesn't happen as evidenced by the video. When he gets pissed she wont put the smoke out and immediately orders her out of the car for no given reason, he exceeded his authority.

[cybercoma]

Ordering her to put out the smoke is a non starter. He has no right to demand that.

Sure he does. It can be used as a weapon or she could drop it as she gets out of the car and accidentally set her car on fire or any number of other things. Asking someone to put out their smoke when you're about to detain them is standard practice.

Now had I have been in her place I likely would have complied just because, as a non smoker especially, I appreciate people not liking the sell of smoke. But again no legal requirement to comply. When a cop stops you he has to tell you why.

Not for an investigative detention he doesn't. He only has to tell you why when you're under arrest.

In this case a traffic violation. He has the right to detain you long enough to conclude the normal procedure for such a stop, such as asking for the appropriate docs. asking you to wait while he checks various pertinent things with that paperwork, and then issuing you a ticket, warning or whatever.

Exactly. So why then are you arguing that he has to tell her why he's detaining her or that she has some right not to comply with him. He has the right to do these things without informing her of anything. It is only once she's under arrest, in other words forced to go somewhere with the cop against her will (generally jail), that he has to inform her of anything.

The he must let you get on your way, unless he has reasonable suspicion to believe some other crime has been committed

At that point she did commit a crime. She failed to obey a lawful order from a police officer, while he was conducting an investigative detention.

he must again inform you of why he is extending the detainment.

It's not longer an investigative detainment at that point. It's an arrest.

That clearly doesn't happen as evidenced by the video. When he gets pissed she wont put the smoke out and immediately orders her out of the car for no given reason, he exceeded his authority.

No. He can order her out of her car for whatever reason he wants. Say he didn't feel safe standing at her door with her holding a lit cigarette and getting agitated. Perhaps he was concerned she may have a weapon in the car and was clearly being confrontational with the officer, so he wanted to secure her for his safety and hers.

There are lots of different reasons an officer will detain you, order you out of your car, ask you to put out a cigarette during a routine traffic stop. If you refuse to comply with the order, he is allowed to use force and in fact is allowed to arrest you for failure to comply with a lawful order because he is well within his rights to secure you while he conducts his investigation. Bland broke the law first by failing to signal, then committed an arrestable offence in her state by failing to comply with what was a lawful order.

None of this excuses the cop from using excessive force nor the questionable circumstances around her death. However, I'm getting pretty tired of seeing the argument that the officer was wrong on the scene when he asked her to step out of the car and put out her cigarette. He wasn't.

[cybercoma]

The real question you should be asking is why so many black people in America are afraid of police and why they're not willing to comply with lawful orders. That will start to get you in the right direction this conversation should take.

[On Guard for Thee]

He has to give a reason why he is putting her under arrest, and he never does. He has to give her a reason to detain her longer than to give her a ticket for the original infraction, and he never does. He has no authority to ask her to put out the smoke, or ask her to leave the car without further suspicion. Where is the further suspicion?

[On Guard for Thee]

The real question you should be asking is why so many black people in America are afraid of police and why they're not willing to comply with lawful orders. That will start to get you in the right direction this conversation should take.

Once again, I disagree with your idea these were lawful orders, in this case.

[GostHacked]

I did watch the video. I saw her being uncooperative, antagonistic, refusing to exit the car and physically resisting his effort to pull her out of the car. In that context, her kicking him in the shin doesn't seem all that shocking either. You think Black women don't resist arrest or something?

Here's a lovely case of police brutality against a poor, helpless Black woman! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRno-A6daS8

Maybe we watched different videos, but the one I saw showed the cop getting out of hand very quickly.

[GostHacked]

You don't need probable cause for an investigative detention. They only need reasonable suspicion to detain you. They need probably cause to arrest you. An arrest doesn't happen until the cop says, "you're coming with me" (to oversimplify things). Get out of your car and wait on the curb is not an arrest, nor are you free to go.

This is a result of some law changes in the USA where cops can detain a person for up to 48 hrs without charging them. Why does America hate freedom?

[GostHacked]

But this is a nation where they do this to children... so expect even more upon adults.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_nNY8IVe8k#t=13

[On Guard for Thee]

But this is a nation where they do this to children... so expect even more upon adults.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_nNY8IVe8k#t=13

I'm surprised the sick a**hole didn't taser him to boot. Maybe he was too busy off camera filling his fat face with tim bits.

[Argus]

Your quoting a 1977 SC decision? Maybe catch up a little.

You have an SC decision which overturns that?

[Argus]

Maybe we watched different videos, but the one I saw showed the cop getting out of hand very quickly.

I have never said that the cop didn't overreact or shouldn't have tried to defuse things more. I've simply pointed out that he had every legal right to order her out of the car, and if he ordered her to put out her cigarette as a prelude to that, which he likely did, then he had every right to do that too. Point remains if she had cooperated and not bitched at him she'd have gotten a warning and been on her way.

[WIP]

If the Sandra Bland case was an isolated example, we wouldn't be discussing it. Add all the rest of the examples of police abuse and misconduct, and that's why there's a BlackLivesMatter movement.

[Argus]

If the Sandra Bland case was an isolated example, we wouldn't be discussing it. Add all the rest of the examples of police abuse and misconduct, and that's why there's a BlackLivesMatter movement.

Why don't white lives matter?

[On Guard for Thee]

You have an SC decision which overturns that?

Yep, Rodriguez v the united states. January of this year.

[Argus]

Yep, Rodriguez v the united states. January of this year.

Not applicable to these circumstances in any way, shape or form. So that's a no, then.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not applicable to these circumstances in any way, shape or form. So that's a no, then.

It is totally applicable.

[WIP]

Why don't white lives matter?

Red herring! White lives have always mattered more, as police are less likely to stop, arrest and shoot whites than blacks.

[Hal 9000]

I don't understand the outrage, she was put in jail and decided to kill herself. She looked pretty unstable at the arrest site and proved it by hanging herself. Maybe society could've helped her earlier, but the cop pegged her as unstable...and guess what? She was.