Does the Sandra Bland story outrage you?

[On Guard for Thee]

If they were to win a wrongful death case, it'll be because she had implants in her cell that she used to whack herself - not because she was taken into custody. She was obviously mentally unstable.

"Implants"? The latest says she hung herself with a garbage bag. If they win it will because her rights were violated when she was illegally arrested, which led to her death.

[Hal 9000]

"Implants"? The latest says she hung herself with a garbage bag. If they win it will because her rights were violated when she was illegally arrested, which led to her death.

OOps, implements!

[On Guard for Thee]

Disorderly conduct, obstruction and harassment are arrestable offences - you choose. Then she followed up with resisting arrest. I think she even kicked and spit on him, but i'm not really sure. He could've thought (and why not) that she on drugs. No, she deserved to go to jail.

The only unlawful thing that is identifiable in the video, is the lane change without a signal. What you 'think" happened has no bearing whatsoever.

[Hal 9000]

Why didn't he arrest the first driver in the video? This woman was being combative and all she was getting was a warning. He even started to just give her the ticket twice and she was just a bitch. A cop can ask you to get out of the car and you must comply. BTW - She actually did start hitting him while she was in the car.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just another perp with a sob story...the cops didn't even kill her...she killed herself !

[On Guard for Thee]

Why didn't he arrest the first driver in the video? This woman was being combative and all she was getting was a warning. He even started to just give her the ticket twice and she was just a bitch. A cop can ask you to get out of the car and you must comply. BTW - She actually did start hitting him while she was in the car.

Pure horse puckey. Who knows, maybe the first driver was white. Yeah? show us where you see her hitting him at any time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh darn...suicidal perps in jail just got a smack down from the U.S. Supreme Court:

“No decision of this court establishes a right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols,” the court said in a short, unsigned opinion that was decided without briefing or oral arguments. “No decision of this court even discusses suicide screening or prevention protocols.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-939_cpdh.pdf

Qualified immunity will prevail against perp family lawsuits.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh darn...suicidal perps in jail just got a smack down from the U.S. Supreme Court:

“No decision of this court establishes a right to the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols,” the court said in a short, unsigned opinion that was decided without briefing or oral arguments. “No decision of this court even discusses suicide screening or prevention protocols.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-939_cpdh.pdf

Qualified immunity will prevail against perp family lawsuits.

Hopefully you are not trying to conflate this with the current thread?

[blueblood]

Pure horse puckey. Who knows, maybe the first driver was white. Yeah? show us where you see her hitting him at any time.

Yes, in your world the non white person can do no wrong and witg affirmative action policing , the population distribution in jail will be the same as outside, and the crime rate? Well lets not worry about that! Lmao!

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, in your world the non white person can do no wrong and witg affirmative action policing , the population distribution in jail will be the same as outside, and the crime rate? Well lets not worry about that! Lmao!

Maybe when you get done laughing your ass off you can come back with a serious post that relates in some way.

[Argus]

Well that's up to you. I don't know why the righties seem to think that because you hang a tin badge and a blue shirt on someone that you should surrender your lawful rights to them. But go ahead.

She had no lawful right to refuse to exit the vehicle. This is what you consistently refuse to accept.

[Argus]

Her activities were completely within her rights, including continuing to smoke.

Cite?

[On Guard for Thee]

She had no lawful right to refuse to exit the vehicle. This is what you consistently refuse to accept.

You have it back ass wards it seems. It was a simple traffic stop for an unlawful lane change. He has the right to check her paperwork and issue a ticket, nothing more. He had no right to order her to exit the car unless it can be independently supported by reasonable suspicion, which seems in no way evidenced by the video. Also, the cop made no elaboration as to why he was extending the initial traffic stop.

[cybercoma]

You have it back ass wards it seems. It was a simple traffic stop for an unlawful lane change. He has the right to check her paperwork and issue a ticket, nothing more.

Wrong. He has the right to detain her for as long as it takes him to complete his investigation. If she's uncooperative, that may even include being thrown in handcuffs on the curb or in the back of the cruiser. And reasonable suspicion is a very low benchmark. It's not at all the same thing as probable cause. Edited August 6, 2015 by cybercoma

[On Guard for Thee]

Wrong. He has the right to detain her for as long as it takes him to complete his investigation. If she's uncooperative, that may even include being thrown in handcuffs on the curb or in the back of the cruiser. And reasonable suspicion is a very low benchmark. It's not at all the same thing as probable cause.

His investigation must be to complete the process which caused the stop in the first place, i.e. the lane change. When you are stopped you are told why. He has to further tell you why he is continuing to detain you if he has some further suspicion that some other crime may have been, or is being committed. I don't see or hear any of that happening in the video.

[cybercoma]

His investigation must be to complete the process which caused the stop in the first place, i.e. the lane change.

This is also not true. The most obvious example would be if a cop sees a bag of weed sitting in the car. The investigation then changes.

[On Guard for Thee]

This is also not true. The most obvious example would be if a cop sees a bag of weed sitting in the car. The investigation then changes.

That is true. But where is the "bag of weed" in this case? There is't one, or anything else that would cause him to need to extend the duration of the stop. Without it something of that nature, (or it could also have been some problem with her docs etc.) he has to ticket her and let her go.

[cybercoma]

That is true. But where is the "bag of weed" in this case? There is't one, or anything else that would cause him to need to extend the duration of the stop. Without it something of that nature, (or it could also have been some problem with her docs etc.) he has to ticket her and let her go.

It doesn't have to be something of that nature at all. He can ask her to step out of the car for whatever reason he wants. If she refuses, he can use force. That's exactly what happened here, like it or not. Was the force excessive? Absolutely. And that's the real issue here. Arguing that the cop didn't have a right to detain her or demand that she exit her vehicle is wrong and takes away from the actual issue.

[cybercoma]

To give you more detail, here's a post from a cop in Virginia on the matter over at reddit. I highlighted the important parts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/VAGuns/comments/3dd5og/chp_do_you_have_to_allow_an_officer_to_disarm_you/ct4ssq7

A traffic stop is an investigative detention. That means you do not have the same full set of rights that you do under other/normal circumstances. It's the same as if you're walking down the street, someone points to you and says you just shoplifted from their store, and an officer stops you to question you; you're not free to leave, and the officer MAY at his discretion take steps for his safety (and yours) for the duration of the encounter. He is investigating a crime, and until he A) decides to arrest you gives you a citation and says you're free to leave or C) gives you a warning and says you're free to leave, you are legally detained and must comply with his directives.

Now, of course, a violation like speeding or dead tags USUALLY does not represent the same danger/stress level as a criminal (as opposed to traffic) offense, but the base principles are the same. The officer can secure your weapon, heck, he can even take you out of the car and place you in handcuffs on the curb for the length of the stop if he sees fit. Does that usually/always happen? Nope. But it's legal. Investigative detention.

Here's one scenario which may shed some light from "the other side" on WHY this is the case. Say you use your example of being pulled over for speeding and voluntarily informing the officer. He appreciates your candor and you seem like a cool dude, so he asks you to leave your hands on the steering wheel and not to make any sudden movements while he checks your information, etc. 9 times out of 10 this is my course of action under these circumstances. But now say he goes back to his car, runs your information, and is informed by his dispatcher that there is a "possible match" on your return for a wanted person, or for a watch list, or something like that. A false positive or partial match is pretty rare if the actual license number is used; it's more common if you forget your license and identify yourself by name and DOB; partial name matches, etc. can cause this sort of "possible match." But even with a license it can happen sometimes; out of state records don't always use the same fields the same way, etc. etc. So now put yourself in the officer's shoes. This person who told you he is legally carrying just TOLD you he has a weapon. NOW you're confronted with the fact that this armed person MAY BE wanted. How do you confirm whether or not he's wanted? Well obviously you gather some more information, physical descriptors, aliases, etc. but this involves TIME and DIVIDED ATTENTION (phone calls, computer screens, etc.). Do you in the officer's shoes want to divide your attention this way for 15 or 20 minutes from the ARMED person who MAY be wanted? So you go back up to the car. You ask the driver to step out, you give instructions pursuant to securing his weapon, depending on the severity of the indicated "possible match," maybe you even place him in handcuffs and put him on the curb or in the car or whatever. You keep him that way until you can confirm or dispel the match.

BUT HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART: when the officer asks you to do these things, obviously you know that it is inconsistent with "just a speeding offense," and you probably ask "why?" While the officer is facing you, possibly wanted, known to have a weapon, in a vehicle, unsecured, is it reasonable of him to say "oh well I'm being told you might be a wanted axe murderer and I don't want you to kill me so I need to secure you until I find out if you are or not." Now the guy who thought he got away with it 12 years ago halfway across the country and didn't want to risk getting into a shooting war with you because he thought he was in the clear just LOST that sense of security and GAINED the initiative. That's a FAST way for the officer to find himself in a fight for his life AND THE COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT. So he isn't required to explain himself to you, at least not immediately. You are obligated to comply. Reasonable officers like me (I like to think) will say "I'll explain everything to you in a moment but right now I need you to do what I tell you to." Once your weapon is secure, you're secured, and I have better control over the situation, I will say "hey, here's the deal, [blah blah], I'm sure it's just a mistake but let me sort it out and I will send you on your way as soon as I can." When it comes through that it's not a match, you're not the guy, you more or less immediately get out of the cuffs, get your gun back, and get sent on your way--most likely with the added bonus of NOT getting a ticket for the infraction.

And if you have a problem with any of that, you can take it up in court or file a complaint with the department or even go to the media, but you get to do all of those things AFTER the fact because that's how the rule of law works, and by then the officer has had the luxury of going home to his family with the same number of holes he went to work with.

This is just an EXAMPLE of why it works the way it does. There are a myriad of reasons why an officer might ask/order you to do something on a traffic stop, and he may not always be at liberty to explain himself to you, but the courts recognize that there are reasons for this and the burden is on you to comply, not make the officer's job more difficult. Of course there are some who take advantage of the rules and abuse their authority, but I am of the opinion, especially in Virginia, that they are the vast minority and the exception to the rule--and again, you can always sue them later.

[cybercoma]

Bland's case took place in Texas, as well. Bear in mind that Texas has "Peaceable Journey" laws which allow people to carry handguns in their vehicles without a permit. Every single traffic stop, the cops should assume someone has a firearm in their vehicle. That reason alone gives the cop the right to ask her to exit her vehicle, but is not the only reason he can do so.

Look, I agree with the notion that what happened to Bland should not have happened. However, there's a lot of people arguing the wrong point here. There is no argument when it comes to following an officer's orders in Texas. She was required to exit her vehicle and put out her cigarette. As soon as she refused that lawful order, she was committing an arrestable offence.

[Rue]

The camera shows the cop asked the driver to exit because she had a lit cigarette.

A lit cigarette constitutes:

a. a potential weapon; at close range it could be used to blind the police officer's eyes for example by

an unstable person;

b. emits toxic fumes that under the laws of each state of the US constitutes a work place hazard and a police officer under their state's occupational health and safety laws are not required to breath in second hand smoke and so can askt he smoker to go out in the open;

c. asking the driver to get out of the car only became an option exercised when the driver refused to butt our her cigarette-had she done that, she would have been given a warning and sent on her way;

d. being out in the open, the cigarette smoke would not be in the officer's eyes and not so close to him to present itself as a possible weapon;

e. by refusing to get out, the driver chose to escalate the situation;

f. the officer technically violated only one protocol, raising his voice too soon but that would constitute a minor reprimand;

g. once the driver refuses to get out of the vehicle, she is resisting; when she then begins to call the police officer a pussy many times and swears at him and belittles him as she did she engages in crime capable of being arrested for;

h. the video camera clearly shows the driver's beligerence, refusal to stop smoking and resisting using abusive language;

i. the preceding stop on video can be used to show the police officer pulled over a young black woman student and gave her a warning and was polite, repudiating the false accusations on this forum the officer is racist and can be used to show evidence of his calm behaviour. In fact his asking her if she was o.k. and sayinfg to her over 3 times o.k. to her answers showed he was not being aggressive.

Finally the video does not show the size of the woman or her facial gestures. Her body weight, size and behaviour are all relevant to determining what reasonable force is needed to counter this-the tape does not show that.

There is no proof the driver killed herself simply because she was stopped for a ticket. Even if that is the case the driver's perceptions of being unfairly treated are not reliable if she killed herself as her entire ability to perceive would be tainted by her being imbalanced.

Law is not about inneuendos spread about racism or police brutality- you must prove them not assume them as Guard did. He could not see the driver's face, he has no idea how big she was, what her pre-existing mental history was and what happened as she resisted physically and yet he's ready to pronounce judgement.

That is precisely why we have a system of laws the presumes us innocent until proven guilty-precisely so that people like Guard can not order a lynch mob. The court will require more than subjective biases against police and assumptions what they do is wrong simply because they carry out their duties and people resist them.

[WIP]

Well, Whites are less likely to be involved in crime than Blacks.

And whites are less likely to be targeted specifically by police.

I got my taste of profiling about 15 years ago, when I was still doing the long drive to and from work, and for several weeks or months, the usual road I used to get to the QEW and out of town was under construction. Unfortunately, the next best alternative meant driving my rusty old sports sedan through a notorious red light district where the hookers and drug dealers do business at 3 in the morning.

Because of the look of my car (which was actually mechanically fit) at 3:00 a.m. through this part of town, I was stopped at least once a week by cops looking for something....anything to make a bust! I can just be thankful that I'm not black and did not meet up with one of the especially corrupt cops who's not above dropping a dimebag or something in the back seat to make his night.

But, every time it was the same crap: police car with overhead lights on pulling me over...telling me to put my hands on the steering wheel and remain in the vehicle....then asking for driver's licence, insurance and registration..... doing a quick search of the back seat with his flashlight...telling me to open the glove compartment and a work bag I kept on the right seat...then asking me to pop the trunk...then going back to his cruiser with a disappointed look on his face....then after checking in and running info online telling me to go 20 to 30 minutes later. At no point are you allowed to ask questions...or if you do...they just ignore you and bark orders. It would always be at least 15 to 20 minutes in before I had the chance to mention the construction (which he should have been aware of!) and that I'm trying to get out and on the highway to get home...and this is in Canada, not Baltimore, Chicago, NYC or one of the notorious corrupt podunk towns down south!

If you've never been profiled....even if you're white, or are mostly white and pass for an average white guy, you've lived a charmed life! And I don't think you get that opportunity if you're black or aboriginal.

Edited August 6, 2015 by WIP

[bush_cheney2004]

...If you've never been profiled....even if you're white, or are mostly white and pass for an average white guy, you've lived a charmed life! And I don't think you get that opportunity if you're black or aboriginal.

Even if you have been profiled....big deal. Happened to me many times, and I didn't wonder how things were done in Canada at the time.

Comply with the officer's lawful orders, and be on your way...or get stupid and pitch a fit.

[WIP]

Even if you have been profiled....big deal. Happened to me many times, and I didn't wonder how things were done in Canada at the time.

Comply with the officer's lawful orders, and be on your way...or get stupid and pitch a fit.

In another lifetime, I would have felt out of place at the Nuremberg rallies!

[bush_cheney2004]

In another lifetime, I would have felt out of place at the Nuremberg rallies!

Cops love traffic stop drama queens....breaks up the boredom.