Posted on 07/22/2015 8:09:54 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg
(CNN)Anger over Sandra Bland's death in a Texas jail has boiled over after newly released video showed what happened at the traffic stop that led to her arrest.
Now, many question whether she should have been arrested at all.
The dashcam video shows Texas state Trooper Brian Encinia pulling Bland over July 10 for allegedly failing to use her turn signal. What started as normal conversation gets testy after Encinia asks her to put out her cigarette.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Good thing you won’t be a juror. A common sense Texan will be the juror and the cop will be safe and the family won’t get nada.
Do you like people breaking into your house? No?? Then you must support laws against that. You must also be a big government lover cause I’m sure there are many thieves that hate those laws and prefer to ignore them.
None of you ramblings make any logical sense and you constantly contradict yourself.
What you don’t seem to get is that she was forcibly removed from the car because she gave her opinion to the cop that it was a BS stop..He did not like her attitude. That is the basis of her civil rights being violated. First Amendment .You could even say, because her rights were violated- that she had the right to fight back. Somehow, I think he was beating the c**p out of her. If you cannot see that, that this was police abuse, then I feel sorry for you and Mr Texas.
Wait and see, big lawsuit coming. I give this guy less than 6 months on the force.
Breaking into a house is way different than a lane violation. Get real, stop talking stupid.
I'm sorry, but that is total 100% pie in the sky.
The entire case here is not some traffic infraction, but when the cop told her to put out her cigarette.
Remember, the traffic stop was all but over. He'd ALREADY signed the warning and walked back to give it to her and then demanded she put out her cig. Total intimidating use of authority only meant to escalate the situation. It worked!
The rest is history and she ends up dead in while in their custody.
Big time lawsuits...The lone female motorist should still be alive today and on her new job.
I see, so ordering her to extinguish her cigarette is a violation of her civil rights is it?
Good luck with that.
And if he was beating the crap out of her, where are her injuries?
Where’s your proof?
What I get is that since you don’t like what happened, you will just make sh*t up to justify your absurd position.
What I get is that most of humanity is a giant swath of blithering stupidity.
"All but over", the expression you are so fond of using, means THE STOP WASN'T OVER!!
So thank you for repeatedly pointing out that the stop wasn't over, which is obvious to everyone except you, even though you keep saying it...
Why did the professional officer simply not hand her the completed ticket and say have a good day, good bye?
Because the stop wasn’t over, like you keep telling us.
You might want it to have been over, but it wasn’t over, which is why it didn’t end there, but rather it continued on, because it wasn’t over.
It was all but over, which means that it was everything but over, which means that it was still in progress.
Got it?
Good.
Why did the professional officer simply not hand her the completed ticket and say have a good day, good bye?
Instead of evading the question, give it a shot.
You’re an idiot.
See the tagline.
I am not sure i noticed any factual information in your reply, so I’ll just respond in kind
NO YOU’RE STUPID
Thanks. I read your earlier posts, but still, it seems to me that *just* because something is written in a state law it doesn’t mean that it allows a police officer, or anyone, to violate the rights of a citizen. That’s my point.
-BTW, you may have me confused with someone else claiming the cop was racist, I didn’t. However, racism these days does NOT need to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, at least WRT the media and the real world repercussions.
I must say, respectfully, that if you think the cop was being reasonable and lawful (or that the laws under which said cops actions would be considered reasonable is just)you have a very different view of the role of police and the State than I do or would want to; I see a thuggish A-hole who gives all cops a bad name and a really good example of why so many citizens do not trust cops these days.
Respectfully..
No, it is the same point. You say not to enforce one law (i.e. traffic law), but other taxpayers say not to enforce another law (i.e. thieves). Who gets to decide??
After all, traffic offenses, including lane change violations, account for more deaths and property damage than all felony crimes combined, including B&E.
Besides, assaulting a police officer, which is was Sandra was arrested for, is also way different than a traffic violation. She wasn’t arrested for a traffic stop, but she was arrested for assault.
I agree that the law doesn’t allow anyone to violate a person’s rights, but in this case, the cop did not violate her rights. Being rude does not equal a violation of rights.
For some reason, a reason not yet known to any of us, the cop felt the need to ask her more questions. It could be due to her behavior, because of her history, or just because he wanted to do it. His motives are unknown.
Asking her to put out the cig is not a violation of her rights, is reasonable, and does not violate the law.
Was she swinging the cig around wildly while she was complaining to the cop? Was he worried about getting burned? Did he want the smoke gone so he could see if he smelled MJ since she had a history of possession? Did he want the smoke gone so he could see her eyes more clearly to determine if she was high since her behavior was odd, especially since the autopsy did later show that she WAS stoned? All of those are valid, legal reasons to tell her to put out the cig. Since cigs are not covered anywhere in the Constitution or any civil right (if they were then all public places would have to allow smoking) and telling her to put it out does NOT violate any laws then she should have complied and complained to his superiors later about it.
She chose NOT to comply, which is a violation of TX law so the cop told her to exit the vehicle. Again, she refused, which is a violation of law. He also attempted to cuff her for officer safety, which SCOTUS has ruled is legal and does not violate any rights. She chose to fight him instead, which is against the law.
If you think any of those things violated her rights then I challenge you to provide the law or statute and section of that law/statute to support that claim.
Had he ordered her to give him a bj then that would violate her rights and the law. If he used his authority or position to force her to give him money then that would be a violation of her rights and the law. Had he called her a racial slur then that would violate her rights and the law. Just being rude or gruff doesn’t violate any laws or any rights. If it did then all of our bosses would be in jail right now.
I apologize if I confused you with another poster. You’re right that racism doesn’t have to be proved to the media, but it does have to be proved in court. For criminal prosecution it would have to be “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and civil prosecution would have to be “based on the weighted evidence”. In either case, the cop is safe because he never used any slurs and he never made any indication that he pulled her over or arrested her for being black. Absent any evidence, criminal or civil prosecution is not likely.
I don’t think cops should have ultimate authority, but I do think they should have the authority granted to them by the people that they serve. This cop was granted the authority, by the people of TX, to make this traffic stop, give lawful orders, and to arrest people for violating those laws or for assaulting the officer. Had he acted outside of the authority granted to him, then I too, would side against him. In this case, he acted well within his authority. Again, rudeness is not illegal even if it is bad practice.
I still maintain that she was still accountable for her own actions though. Even if the cop was rude, but didn’t violate the law, then she could have remained calm as well and complied with his lawful orders. She chose not to. That is on her. Had she complied, even with her bad attitude, then the stop would have probably ended or at the very least, she would have a better argument against the cop because she could prove that she complied with all of his lawful orders, but was still harassed. She lost that argument when she chose to violate the laws of TX.
“you sound like a big government lover. . I am a libertarian.”
I did want to point out that you claim to like small government but also stated that you’re against the ‘war on drugs’. Fair enough. I would assume then that you support legal MJ, given that you’re from WA. I don’t want to debate the war on drugs or the pros/cons of MJ since that is off topic.
However, just for your information, since the legalization of MJ in WA and CO, there are currently many more laws on the books to regulate MJ than there were outlawing MJ. Now there are laws about amounts of possession, how much you can buy, how to tax, who can sell, when they can sell, etc., etc. Previously, there were only laws against any possession. By legalizing MJ, those states have greatly expanded government because of the increased regulation and because of the increased bureaucracy that was implemented to manage those regulations. Supporters of legal MJ are pro big government or else they simply don’t understand how the real world works.
Not too mention, based on the stats released by CO last month...MJ related crime has increased, underage MJ use has increased, medical issues and ER visits related to MJ have increased, school dropout rates have increased, DUIs related to MJ have increased...and the expected taxes are not nearly as large as anticipated and do have not yet offset the increased costs listed above.
Those ashes on the cig are placed usually in the ashtray while in the vehicle,
this means the person would be reaching around in the vehicle during a traffic stop.
Can anybody in their right mind justify a person reaching around in a
vehicle during a stop? Cig or not, reaching around with your hands
during a stop might just get you Shot, and most certainly would get you
in trouble.
Why nobody puts this together is beyond me.
There is no need to respond to your moronic ramblings with facts.
You wouldn’t know what to do with them anyway. There’s no sense in wasting acts on someone who is incapable of processing them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.