Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math???

Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math??? (Page 48)
Thread Tools
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2015, 02:18 PM
 
SHE was being an argumentative asshole. She needed to STFU. Instead she kept running her mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQDvYOt_iA
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 10:40 AM
 
Chicago Independent Police Review Authority fires supervising investigator Lorenzo Davis who found cops at fault in shootings | WBEZ 91.5 Chicago
A Chicago investigator who determined that several civilian shootings by police officers were unjustified was fired after resisting orders to reverse those findings, according to internal records of his agency obtained by WBEZ.
Davis’s termination came less than two weeks after top IPRA officials, evaluating Davis’s job performance, accused him of “a clear bias against the police” and called him “the only supervisor at IPRA who resists making requested changes as directed by management in order to reflect the correct finding with respect to OIS,” as officer-involved shootings are known in the agency.
The performance evaluation covered 19 months and concluded that Davis “displays a complete lack of objectivity combined with a clear bias against the police in spite of his own lengthy police career.”

“I did not like the direction the police department had taken,” Davis said. “It appeared that officers were doing whatever they wanted to do. The discipline was no longer there.”

“If there are a few bad police officers who have committed some shootings that are unnecessary or bad then it erodes the public’s confidence in all the other police officers out there,” Davis said.

Through most of his IPRA tenure, Davis’s performance evaluations showered him with praise. They called him an “effective leader” and “excellent team player.”

The final evaluation, issued June 26, said he “is clearly not a team player.”
It sounds like they want a rubber stamp to give legitimacy to the police.



Since its 2007 creation, IPRA has investigated nearly 400 civilian shootings by police and found one to be unjustified.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
A young woman with good relations with family and friends. Starting a new job in a new city in a matter of days. Pulled over for allegedly signaling a lane change improperly. The mother of all BS traffic citations. Handcuffed and arrested for allegedly assaulting a police officer. Bond was set at only $5000. Then all of a sudden ... [I]"Goodbye cruel world! I might miss work on Wednesday!"
...
The Waller County sheriff, R. Glenn Smith, said in an interview that Ms. Bland had mentioned a suicide attempt during interviews with two officials who processed her entry into the jail on July 10. Sheriff Smith said that jailers had elected not to place a suicide watch on her cell after she told them that she was not depressed at the time, but was just angry about her detention.

In addition, the authorities late on Wednesday released the 15-page jail-booking screening form, which included questions about Ms. Bland’s mental health. On the form, the “yes” box was checked in response to the question, “Have you ever been depressed?” On whether she had ever attempted suicide, the form noted “yes,” in 2014, by using “pills” because of a “lost baby.”
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 02:18 PM
 
^^^^^

That's what they claim she wrote. Her family and their attorney have questioned it because they were unaware of any previous suicide attempt and they don't even know if it's her handwriting or not. The family attorney also received a text from the Waller County DA saying they needed to keep her body available for a possible second autopsy because the first was "defective". I think this op-ed sums up my thinking on this case thus far ...

Originally Posted by Charles Blow - NY Times Columnist
I have so many questions about the case in which Sandra Bland was arrested in a small Texas town and died in police custody. These are questions that ought to be easy to answer, questions that I suspect many others may share. Here are just some of my areas of inquiry.

1. On the video released by the Texas Department of Public Safety of Bland’s traffic stop, the arresting officer, Brian Encinia, tells her that the reason for her stop is that she “failed to signal a lane change.” The officer returns to his car, then approaches Bland’s vehicle a second time. He remarks to Bland, “You seem very irritated.” Bland responds, “I am. I really am.” She continues, “I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over, and you stop me. So, yeah, I am a little bit irritated.”

Was Bland simply trying to move out of the way of a police vehicle?


The video shows the officer’s car accelerating behind Bland’s and passing a sign indicating a speed limit of 20 miles per hour. How fast was the officer closing the distance on Bland before she changed lanes? Was it completely reasonable for her to attempt to move out of his way?

2. The officer, while standing at the closed driver’s side door, asks Bland to extinguish her cigarette. As soon as she refuses, he demands that she exit the vehicle. Was the demand to exit because of the refusal? If so, what statute in Texas — or anywhere in America! — stipulates that a citizen can’t smoke during a traffic stop?

3. According to Encinia’s signed affidavit, Bland was “removed from the car” and “placed in handcuffs for officer safety.” The reason for the arrest is unclear to me. At one point, Encinia says, “You were getting a warning until now you’re going to jail.” So, what was the arrest for at that point? Failure to comply? Later in the video, Encinia says, “You’re going to jail for resisting arrest.” If that was the reason, why wasn’t Bland charged with resisting arrest? The affidavit reads, “Bland was placed under arrest for Assault on Public Servant.”

Encinia’s instructions to Bland are a jumble of confusion. After she is handcuffed, he points for her to “come read” the “warning” ticket, then immediately pulls back on her arm, preventing her from moving in the direction that he pointed, now demanding that she “stay right here.” He then commands Bland to “stop moving,” although, as she points out, “You keep moving me!” What was she supposed to do?

4. According to Encinia’s affidavit, at some point after being handcuffed, “Bland began swinging her elbows at me and then kicked my right leg in the shin.” On the dashcam video, a commotion happens out of view of the camera, with Bland complaining that she is being hurt — “You’re about to break my wrist!” and “You knocked my head in the ground; I got epilepsy!” Encinia and another officer insist that Bland stop moving. Encinia can be heard to say, “You are yanking around! When you pull away from me, you are resisting arrest!” (Neither the dashcam video nor a video taken by a bystander shows a discernible kick.)

When Encinia re-enters the frame of the dashcam, he explains to a female officer: “She started yanking away, then kicked me, so I took her straight to the ground.” The female officer points to Encinia’s leg as she says: “Yeah, and there you got it right there.”

Encinia says, “One thing for sure, it’s on video.” Only, it isn’t. Why exactly was Bland walked out of the frame of view of the dashcam for the arrest procedure?


5. The initial video posted by Texas authorities also has a number of visual glitches — vanishing cars, looping sequences — but no apparent audio glitches.

The director of “Selma,” Ava DuVernay, tweeted: “I edit footage for a living. But anyone can see that this official video has been cut. Read/watch. Why?”
She included a link to a post pointing out the discrepancies in the video.

According to NBC News:

“Tom Vinger, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety, blamed a ‘technical issue during posting.’ He said that the department was working to correct the video.”

What kinds of “technical difficulties” were these? Why wouldn’t the audio also have glitches? (Authorities have now released a new, slightly shorter video.)

6. Texas authorities say that, while in the Waller County jail cell, Bland used a trash bag from a trash can in the cell to hang herself. Is it standard procedure to have trash cans with trash bags in jail cells? Is the can secured to the floor? If not, couldn’t it be used by an inmate to hurt herself, or other inmates or jail staff?

According to a report on Wednesday by The Houston Chronicle:

“Bland disclosed on a form at the jail that she previously had attempted suicide over that past year, although she also indicated she was not feeling suicidal at the time of her arrest, according to officials who attended the Tuesday meeting with local and state leaders investigating the case.” Shouldn’t they have known it was a suicide risk?

The Bureau of Justice Statistics points out that suicide is the No. 1 cause of non-illness-related deaths in local jails (although blacks are least likely to commit those suicides), and between 2000 and 2011 about half of those suicides “occurred within the first week of admission.”

Why weren’t more precautions taken, like, oh, I don’t know, removing any suicide risks from the cell?


7. Houston’s Channel 2 aired “exclusive video from inside the Waller County jail cell where Sandra Bland was found dead.” In the video, a trash can — a very large one — is clearly visible. But, strangely, it appears to have a trash bag in it. If Bland used the trash bag to hang herself, where did the one in the can come from? Did they replace it? Why would the jail staff do that?

8. NBC News’ John Yang also toured the cell, and in his video he says that “things are really the same as it was that morning” when officers found Bland’s body, including food (“Dinner Untouched” was the language used in title of the video on NBCNews.com) and a Bible on the bed opened to Psalms. (That Bible appears to be closed in the Channel 2 video. Who opened it between the two videos?).



Top, a still from Houston’s Channel 2 video shows orange shoes and a closed Bible. Below, a still from an NBC News video, with no shoes and an open Bible.


And what page is the Bible opened to in the NBC video? It is open to Psalm 119 and at the top of the page are verses 109-110: “Though I constantly take my life in my hands, I will not forget your law. The wicked have set a snare for me, but I have not strayed from your precepts.” Eerie. Or, convenient.

Also in the Channel 2 video, there are orange shoes on the floor by the bed. In the NBC video, they are gone. Who moved them? Why? Where are they?

Yang says of the trash bag in the can: “Around her neck, they say, was a trash bag, an extra trash bag from this receptacle.” So what gives here? “Extra trash bag”? Was there more than one trash bag in the cell or had that one been replaced?

(It is also worth noting that the video shows what appears to be a rope holding a shower curtain.)

Isn’t this an active investigation? Shouldn’t that cell be treated like a crime scene? Why are reporters allowed to wander through it? Who all has been in it?

Maybe there are innocent and convincing answers to all these questions, and others. I hope so. People need things to make sense. When there are lapses in logic in what people think would be reasonable explanations, suspicion spreads.
Questions About the Sandra Bland Case | NY Times

But if that's not enough for this to be a little "suspect" we also have this from Texas Tribune reporter Alana Rocha where she relayed on Twitter what the Waller County DA Elton Mathis recently said ....

Originally Posted by Alana Rocha - Texas Tribune
Mathis: Bail bondsman who spoke to #SandraBland says she was afraid for her safety. Only had $100, not enough to post $500 bond.


OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 23, 2015 at 02:33 PM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^^

That's what they claim she wrote. Her family and their attorney have questioned it because they were unaware of any previous suicide attempt and they don't even know if it's her handwriting or not.
You do realize you're entering conspiracy territory here, right?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 02:27 PM
 
I'm only relaying what her family said. Maybe she wrote it ... maybe not. One of the jail intake forms says she was feeling depressed ... and another one didn't. What's up with that? Her sister did acknowledge in the interview that she suffered a miscarriage about a year ago. And it's quite natural for a woman to deal with a bout of depression after such a loss. Which is why they don't think it had anything to do with the situation at hand. They certainly don't believe she would kill herself hours before she was going to get out of jail over this situation. Especially when she was looking forward to dealing with the trooper in court! That being said ... "conspiracy" is not a word I would use because that implies certain planning ahead of by multiple people. OTOH ... a very sloppy "cover up" after the fact just might be at play here of a rash action taken by an individual. What do you think of the discrepancies in the photos outlined above? If she hung herself with a trash bag why is there a trash bag still in the trash can? She's going to take one out, replace it with an extra, and then hang herself? Why are the orange shoes present in one photo but not the other? Why is the bible open in one photo but not the other? What do you think about the report that the local DA said the bail bondsman said that she told him that she wanted out of jail immediately because she feared for her safety?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 23, 2015 at 02:45 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 03:58 PM
 
Now they are trying to claim Sandra Bland either smoked or swallowed a large quantity of marijuana while in jail. WTF? Having marijuana in her system is one thing. A lot of people smoke weed. And even if that were the case it's entirely irrelevant to the situation at hand. But now the toxicology report indicates that she ingested it one way or the other while in jail? As if she wouldn't have been searched when she was arrested?

Sandra Bland, the black woman found hanging dead in a Texas jail days after a traffic stop, smoked or possibly swallowed a large amount of marijuana while in custody, her family's attorney reported the district attorney as saying.

Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis made the disclosure in a text message to attorney Cannon Lambert, who has called the state's autopsy on the Chicago-area woman defective, Lambert said.

"Looking at the autopsy results and toxicology, it appears she swallowed a large quantity of marijuana or smoked it in the jail," Mathis said in a text message to Lambert that the attorney provided to Reuters
.


Reuters could not immediately verify the authenticity of the text. Repeated calls to Mathis' office were not returned.

"This will of course be very relevant in any future criminal or civil litigation," the message from Mathis to Lambert said.

Bland was pulled over on July 10 near Prairie View, Texas, northwest of Houston, for failing to signal a lane change. After the incident escalated into an altercation between her and the trooper, Bland was taken into custody and charged with assaulting an officer. She was found hanging in her jail cell on July 13 with a plastic trash bag around her neck.

Her death was originally ruled a suicide, although officials have said they are handling it as a murder probe.

According to Lambert, Mathis said the state needs to conduct a second autopsy on Bland, whose body was returned to the Chicago area on Wednesday in preparation for a funeral on Saturday.

"The family's confidence is shaken by the continued discrepancies that are surfacing," Lambert said in an email to Reuters.

Waller County Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam told NBC News further tests were required to determine how much marijuana was in her system and for how long to conclude when it was ingested and what role, if any, it played in her death.

CBS News reported that Mathis had asked that Bland's body be preserved after a toxicology test found a substantial amount of marijuana in her system at the time of her death, but denying that he had ordered a second autopsy.


Waller County Sheriff Glenn Smith, whose office operates the jail where Bland died, could not be reached immediately for comment Thursday on the report of marijuana in her system.

Smith told Reuters on Wednesday that the jailers on duty when Bland was admitted felt she was not a suicide risk based on their observations and her statement on the questionnaire that she was not depressed at the time.

JAIL CITED

The jail where Bland died was cited three days after her death by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards for failing to complete visual face-to-face observations of inmates every 60 minutes as required by state regulations.

It was also cited for failing to produce written records to prove that jail staff had undergone required yearly training in the recognition, supervision, documentation and handling of inmates who are mentally disabled or potentially suicidal.

The jail also failed an inspection in November 2012 for failing to complete hourly observations after an inmate's suicide, state records show.

Bland was being held alone in a cell designed for up to five women when she was found dead.
Sandra Bland had marijuana in her system, DA reported as saying | Reuters

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2015, 04:36 PM
 
It would appear the local DA is now convinced it was a suicide ....

A Waller County prosecutor said Thursday that details of an autopsy of Sandra Bland, who was found dead in her jail cell, show no evidence of a violent struggle or homicide.

Warren Diepraam also said that the autopsy showed that Bland had ingested a large amount of marijuana, but that it was not clear how much or when.


The autopsy was conducted by the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office after the 28-year-old black woman was found July 13 hanging by a trash bag. She had been jailed after being stopped by a Texas Highway Patrol trooper for allegedly failing to signal a lane change.

Diepraam, in a meeting with reporters, said the autopsy details, such as the state of Bland's hands, eyes, mouth and neck, showed no indication that she had engaged in a violent struggle.

"At this particular time, I have not seen any evidence that this is a homicide," Diepraam said.

Earlier, District Attorney Elton Mathis said that the autopsy was not flawed but that additional testing might be needed to determine exactly what happened to Sandra Bland in her jail cell.


"The he autopsy was actually very revealing and helpful," he said. The medical examiner ruled Bland's death a suicide by hanging; Bland's body has been transported to the Chicago area for her eventual funeral.

But questions, both from county officials and Bland's family in the Chicago area, remain. Bland's family has said she was eager to start a new job at nearby Prairie View A&M University, about 50 miles northwest of Houston, and was not suicidal.
Prosecutor: 'No sign of homicide' in Sandra Bland autopsy

This case is odd to say the least. So many discrepancies. On the one hand you say that she "ingested a large amount of marijuana" ... possibly while in custody ... which can put you to sleep if the amount is high enough .... but OTOH you are convinced it was a suicide because there was no sign of a "violent struggle". I don't know. We'll see what the independent autopsy has to say. But if it turns out she did kill herself IMO the trooper is still partially culpable because he was clearly out of line and she never should have been arrested in the first place.

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 07:36 AM
 
Remember how NBC edited Zimmerman's words to paint him as a racist? Consider the source.
I don't watch any NBC sources because its bound to be propaganda.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Something doesn't add up here.

Davis claims shit started hitting the fan within the last year. So we'll say 2014.

Davis joined in 2008.

He was leading a squad of investigators by 2010.

Sooo... with the possible exception of a single case, every shooting he investigated for six years straight was kosher?

If what they want is a rubber stamp (and I agree they do), it looks like that's exactly what he gave them for over half a decade.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:27 AM
 
...and that they fired him as soon as he stopped?

Perhaps the events of that inspired this thread inspired him to start doing his job honestly? Or made him think he had political cover?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...and that they fired him as soon as he stopped?
That's what it looks like to me.

But that's absolutely, positively not what he's claiming. He says he has six years of unimpeachable performance.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That's what it looks like to me.

But that's absolutely, positively not what he's claiming. He says he has six years of unimpeachable performance.
...as an an employee, not as an investigator (if you catch my drift)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...as an an employee, not as an investigator (if you catch my drift)
I do, but if you fail to address the 6 years you apparently failed as an investigator, your credibility is going to take damage.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I do, but if you fail to address the 6 years you apparently failed as an investigator, your credibility is going to take damage.
I understand that as well. I look at it like a whistleblower case. It's not that you approved of what you were doing its that you really didn't have a better alternative.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:49 AM
 
Then admit that.

Ignoring that part is something I'd expect, I dunno... a cop to do.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Then admit that.
At this point in time, it's really is asking too much (of these morally compromised nitwits). I'll take what we can get (as long as its honest).
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 10:07 AM
 
State Trooper Brian Encinia: Hello ma’am. We’re the Texas Highway Patrol and the reason for your stop is because you failed to signal the lane change. Do you have your driver’s license and registration with you? What’s wrong? How long have you been in Texas?

Sandra Bland: Got here just today.

Encinia: OK. Do you have a driver's license? (Pause) OK, where you headed to now? Give me a few minutes.

(Bland inaudible)

(Encinia returns to his car for several minutes, then approaches Bland again.)

Encinia: OK, ma'am. (Pause.) You OK?

Bland: I'm waiting on you. This is your job. I'm waiting on you. When're you going to let me go?

Encinia: I don't know, you seem very really irritated.

Bland: I am. I really am. I feel like it's crap what I'm getting a ticket for. I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me. So yeah, I am a little irritated, but that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket, so [inaudible] ticket.

Encinia: Are you done?

Bland: You asked me what was wrong, now I told you.

Encinia: OK.

Bland: So now I'm done, yeah.

Encinia: You mind putting out your cigarette, please? If you don't mind?

Bland: I'm in my car, why do I have to put out my cigarette?

Encinia: Well you can step on out now.

Bland: I don’t have to step out of my car.

Encinia: Step out of the car.

Bland: Why am I ...

Encinia: Step out of the car!

Bland: No, you don’t have the right. No, you don't have the right.

Encinia: Step out of the car.

Bland: You do not have the right. You do not have the right to do this.

Encinia: I do have the right, now step out or I will remove you.

Bland: I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself. [crosstalk] I am getting removed for a failure to signal?

Encinia: Step out or I will remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order.

Get out of the car now or I’m going to remove you.

Bland: And I’m calling my lawyer.

Encinia: I’m going to yank you out of here. (Reaches inside the car.)

Bland: OK, you’re going to yank me out of my car? OK, alright.

Encinia (calling in backup): 2547.

Bland: Let’s do this.

Encinia: Yeah, we’re going to. (Grabs for Bland.)

Bland: Don’t touch me!

Encinia: Get out of the car!

Bland: Don’t touch me. Don't touch me! I’m not under arrest -- you don't have the right to take me out of the car.

Encinia: You are under arrest!

Bland: I’m under arrest? For what? For what? For what?

Encinia (to dispatch): 2547 county fm 1098 (inaudible) send me another unit. (To Bland) Get out of the car! Get out of the car now!

Bland: Why am I being apprehended? You're trying to give me a ticket for failure ...

Encinia: I said get out of the car!

Bland: Why am I being apprehended? You just opened my --

Encinia: I‘m giving you a lawful order. I’m going to drag you out of here.

Bland: So you’re threatening to drag me out of my own car?

Encinia: Get out of the car!

Bland: And then you’re going to [crosstalk] me?

Encinia: I will light you up! Get out! Now! (Draws stun gun and points it at Bland.)

Bland: Wow. Wow. (Bland exits car.)
So, uh, why did he order her to exit her car and what was he arresting her for?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, uh, why did he order her to exit her car and what was he arresting her for?
I haven't watched the video beyond the glitch part, so I'm only going off the transcript.

At the very least, she could be arrested for obstruction in failing to get out of the car when commanded.

There could be any of a million legit reasons he wanted her to get out of the car. It's going to be the first step if he planned to search the car.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I haven't watched the video beyond the glitch part, so I'm only going off the transcript.

At the very least, she could be arrested for obstruction in failing to get out of the car when commanded.

There could be any of a million legit reasons he wanted her to get out of the car. It's going to be the first step if he planned to search the car.
The way it reads to me is she wanted to keep smoking since she was in her car, so he wanted her out of her car so she would put it out.

But seriously, that shit escalates quickly.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The way it reads to me is she wanted to keep smoking since she was in her car, so he wanted her out of her car so she would put it out.

But seriously, that shit escalates quickly.
As far as the escalation goes, refusing to get out of your car is going to totally flip out a cop.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 11:47 AM
 
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 06:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, uh, why did he order her to exit her car and what was he arresting her for?
As I mentioned earlier, he IMMEDIATELY got pissed off when she asked him why she had to put out her cigarette when she was in her own car. He ASKED her to put it out ... but apparently in his mind it really wasn't a "request". IOW ... he decided to throw his weight around because he could. Seems to me if he was going to give her a written warning he could have just handed it to her and they both could have been on their way. Simple as that.

Ms. Bland was calm in her interaction with the trooper until he escalated the situation be ordering her to exit the car. What was he going to do? Arrest her for smoking in her own car? Arrest her for not putting it out immediately when he asked her to? In fact as the confrontation went on she asked him 14 TIMES why she was being arrested before he said "resisting arrest". And then she wasn't even officially charged with that on his written affidavit? WTF! As I said earlier, seems like a clear cut case of arrest her now because he FELT LIKE IT ... and come up with a REASON later.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 07:03 PM
 
Doesn't she need to get out of the car if he demands it?

As in, she's breaking the law by refusing.


This question is separate from whether the cop is a total jerk.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Doesn't she need to get out of the car if he demands it?
I believe so.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
This question is separate from whether the cop is a total jerk.
Still, the question remains, what was he arresting her for?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Doesn't she need to get out of the car if he demands it?

As in, she's breaking the law by refusing.


This question is separate from whether the cop is a total jerk.
4 law enforcement experts gave varying answers to how the situation was handled overall. But yes she did need to get out of the car when he demanded it. But her reaction can't be judged in a vacuum. By his own words he was going to give her a written warning. So clearly he didn't have any "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" that any sort of crime had been committed that would warrant her being detained outside of her vehicle. The video makes it abundantly clear that he ordered her out of the car immediately when she questioned why she had to put out her cigarette in her own car after he asked her to do so. It wasn't an order. But his entire demeanor changed the instant she "bruised his ego" as her sister noted in a recent press conference. So just because he could order her out of the vehicle doesn't mean that he should have under the circumstances.

That being said, she erroneously believed that she didn't have to get out unless he was arresting her. That's simply not the case. And she wouldn't be the only person who believes this. The entire situation could have and should have been avoided. The trooper escalated the situation by taking things from 0-100 in half a second because she had the nerve to be irritated by being pulled over for some BS and to question why she had to stop smoking in her own car. It was downright petty. Point. Blank. Period!

Can a police officer order you out of your car during a routine traffic stop as a Texas trooper did to Sandra Bland? And what about ordering you to put out a cigarette while you are still in your car?

Yes, an officer can order you out of your car, police experts agreed. But whether an officer can command you to extinguish a cigarette is murkier, depending on whether the cigarette is perceived as a threat. Several also said that some of the trooper’s actions were unprofessional and did not make for good policing.


Specifically, Texas Trooper Brian T. Encinia should not have reached into Bland’s vehicle when she refused his commands or threatened to “light” her up with a Taser, experts who saw the video said.

Three days after Bland’s July 10 arrest in Prairie View, Texas, she was found hanging from a plastic bag in her jail cell, officials said. A preliminary autopsy classified her death as a suicide, but this has been disputed by Bland’s family, who say she was a vibrant woman with a bright future.

Encinia has been placed on administrative leave for violating department procedures and Department of Public Safety courtesy policy, officials said. They have not elaborated on the violations.

The Times asked four nationally known police experts to review the video and comment on Encinia’s tactics.

Seth Stoughton, a University of South Carolina law professor and former Florida police officer, said Enicinia missed several opportunities to de-escalate tension and should have explained in calmer tones what he was doing and why.

“He certainly has the legal authority to get her to step out of the car,” Stoughton said. “But in this case, if he is exercising his authority because she defying his direction to put out the cigarette, then that is more based on his ego than public safety.... Just because it is legal to order her out of the car doesn't make it a professional approach in modern policing.

“This is a systemic problem with policing,” Stoughton said. “There is emphasis on compliance over cooperation.”

There are no laws that require an officer to order alleged violators to extinguish a cigarette in their car during a traffic stop, he said.

“It was a request, not an order,” he said. “If a person was out of the car, then an officer could determine it poses a safety threat and order it be put out. But it is hard to argue that inside the car.”


The dash cam video released Tuesday by Texas authorities captured the beginning of the confrontation between the two. Bland’s arrest takes place outside the camera range, but the audio continued.

At first, Encinia approaches Bland's vehicle and takes her license and registration before returning to the police cruiser. The officer returns to the driver's side and asks Bland to put out her cigarette. She refuses.

Encinia shouts at her to obey his orders and to get out of the car. He reaches through the open driver's-side door after Bland refuses to comply and pulls out a Taser. “Get out of the car,” he said. “I will light you up. Get out. Now. Get out of the car.”

After a few moments, Encinia steps back and Bland gets out of the car. The exchange grows more animated and hostile.

“You're about to break my wrist,” Bland is heard to say. At one point, she shouts, “You're a real man now!”

Throughout, Bland is questioning why she is being arrested and often shouts expletives. Encinia responds in angry tones that she should obey his orders.

Ed Obayashi, a sheriff's deputy in Northern California and attorney who advises several sheriff's departments, said the initial stop and interaction comply with case law dealing with police powers to detain a person. But, he said, events take a negative turn after Encinia comments to Bland that she seems irritated because she was pulled over and then asked her to put out her cigarette.

“The officer here acts very appropriately up until the time he says can you put out that cigarette and she asks why she cannot smoke in her car,” Obayashi said. “He then says, ‘I need you to step out of your car.’ Under Supreme Court doctrine he has the right to tell her to step out of the car. But then, as she refuses and he struggles to get her out of the vehicle, he threatens her with a Taser.

“When he says ‘I am going to light you up,’ things go south,” Obayashi said. “He is pointing a Taser and the verbal discourse is on. What follows is the perfect storm.”


After Bland steps out of the vehicle, the trooper orders her to the side of the road.

Obayashi said the trooper keeps relative control as he informs her that she is being arrested for resisting orders. As the pair move out of the camera's vision, a struggle can be heard.

Bland repeatedly uses expletives and complains, “You are about to break my wrists.” She complains about her head and says she suffers from epilepsy. Encinia replies, “Good.”

Obayashi said officers legally don't have to explain why they want you to get out of a vehicle. Given Bland’s belligerence and behavior, Encinia could have perceived her as representing a potential danger.

The trooper later wrote in an affidavit that Bland kicked him, leading to his use of force in which he took her to the ground.

“People don't appreciate the danger of escalating a situation with law enforcement,” said Charles “Sid” Heal, a former L.A. County sheriff's commander and force expert. “If a person believes they have a case, wait until after jail and sue. You don't want to escalate the situation to the point the officer feels threatened.”

Heal said the roadside confrontation is all too common.

“As far as what I saw on the video I wouldn't say that it was outside of standards nationwide,” he said. In terms of courtesy, Heal said, “raising your voice to a suspect is lowest level of force.”

Heal said when Bland refused to get out of the car the situation became more difficult. But reaching into a vehicle is often a mistake and makes an officer vulnerable. Heal said the officer should have handcuffed her immediately upon her getting out instead of waiting until they got off the road.

“If she kicked him as he says when they were out of the car, then at that point some kind of force is necessary,” Heal said.

Retired Los Angeles Police Capt. Greg Meyer said Bland's behavior led to the result.

“Officers have complete discretion to control the movements of the violator, including making them get out the car,” he said.

Meyer said it is standard practice to have someone put out their cigarette.

“No one, including a police officer, wants to get a burning cigarette jammed into their face or eye; it’s basic procedure,” he said. “The officer asked politely if she would mind putting out her cigarette. The violator then raised her voice, actively resisted multiple lawful directions to get out of the car. The officer requested a backup officer to respond. The officer raised his voice several times in what turned out to be a futile effort to overcome that resistance.”

In hindsight, Meyer said, it may have been better to wait for backup. “The lady seemed committed to her resistance to lawful detention and arrest, so the presence of a backup unit might not have made much difference,” he said.

“This is yet another case of someone who chooses to illegally resist the directions of a police officer, thus escalating the situation, “ he said.
Can a police officer order you out of your car? Experts weigh in on Sandra Bland case - LA Times

Naturally I think the retired LA Capt. Meyer is full of sh*t. First of all the trooper was outside of her car and not close enough for Ms. Bland to "jam a burning cigarette into his face or eye. Furthermore, there was absolutely nothing about her demeanor was threatening towards the trooper at all. That is just the all-too-typical tendency of some LEO's to imagine outlandish threats to their personal safety that simply aren't there. The video also makes it abundantly clear that Ms. Bland never raised her voice to the trooper until after he raised his voice at her and tried to drag her out of her vehicle. She certainly didn't raise her voice when she questioned why she had to put out her cigarette in her own car. She said that quite calmly. The analysis of the other experts was pretty much spot on.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Still, the question remains, what was he arresting her for?
Not getting out of the car I presume.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not getting out of the car I presume.
I think Dakar's point is that logically speaking one can't be "resisting arrest" unless one is already being placed under arrest for some other reason. A reason that the trooper never once articulated.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
4 law enforcement experts gave varying answers to how the situation was handled overall. But yes she did need to get out of the car when he demanded it. But her reaction can't be judged in a vacuum. By his own words he was going to give her a written warning. So clearly he didn't have any "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion" that any sort of crime had been committed that would warrant her being detained outside of her vehicle. The video makes it abundantly clear that he ordered her out of the car immediately when she questioned why she had to put out her cigarette in her own car after he asked her to do so. It wasn't an order. But his entire demeanor changed the instant she "bruised his ego" as her sister noted in a recent press conference. So just because he could order her out of the vehicle doesn't mean that he should have under the circumstances.

That being said, she erroneously believed that she didn't have to get out unless he was arresting her. That's simply not the case. And she wouldn't be the only person who believes this. The entire situation could have and should have been avoided. The trooper escalated the situation by taking things from 0-100 in half a second because she had the nerve to be irritated by being pulled over for some BS and to question why she had to stop smoking in her own car. It was downright petty. Point. Blank. Period!



Can a police officer order you out of your car? Experts weigh in on Sandra Bland case - LA Times

Naturally I think the retired LA Capt. Meyer is full of sh*t. First of all the trooper was outside of her car and not close enough for Ms. Bland to "jam a burning cigarette into his face or eye. Furthermore, there was absolutely nothing about her demeanor was threatening towards the trooper at all. That is just the all-too-typical tendency of some LEO's to imagine outlandish threats to their personal safety that simply aren't there. The video also makes it abundantly clear that Ms. Bland never raised her voice to the trooper until after he raised his voice at her and tried to drag her out of her vehicle. She certainly didn't raise her voice when she questioned why she had to put out her cigarette in her own car. She said that quite calmly. The analysis of the other experts was pretty much spot on.

OAW
I see a continuum of possibilities ranging from the officer is the biggest asshole on the force to Bland coming off like she was guilty of something, even though she wasn't.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 08:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I think Dakar's point is that logically speaking one can't be "resisting arrest" unless one is already being placed under arrest for some other reason. A reason that the trooper never once articulated.

OAW
He's not obligated to tell her why she's under arrest.

At least, not in Texas AFAIK.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2015, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He's not obligated to tell her why she's under arrest.

At least, not in Texas AFAIK.
I'm not sure about that. The trooper definitely doesn't have to explain why he wants her to step out of the vehicle. But he does have to tell her the charge she's being arrested for. AFAIK.

Update:

Then again maybe not ...

It is a common misapprehension that police officers are required to tell you why you're being arrested or what offense you've committed when you're being arrested.

This legal legend may be supported by some state laws, like New York's, that require police to notify suspects of the reason for their arrests. But even these state laws allow police to forgo this requirement if it isn't practical.

Here is a general overview of when officers have to inform you of your charges:

There Must First Be an Arrest

Police can often detain or hold a suspect temporarily without completing an actual arrest. You have the right to remain silent whether you're actually under arrest or simply being detained, but police officers don't have to tell you anything either.

Most states have laws that define what kinds of crimes are "arrestable offenses." But the U.S. Supreme Court has held that arrests which violate these laws may still be constitutional, as long as they are supported by probable cause.

All arrests without a warrant must be supported by probable cause, no matter which state you're in. So every legal arrest must be based on probable cause that a suspect has committed a crime.
Do Police Have to Inform You of Your Charges?

As I stated earlier, by his own admission he was going to let her go with a warning. The video shows nothing that he can point to that would reasonably point to "probable cause" that she had committed a crime between the time he approached her vehicle with the written warning and the time he demanded she exit the vehicle.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 24, 2015 at 09:10 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2015, 02:34 PM
 
He didn't need probable cause to demand she exit the vehicle.

Once she refuses, he's got all the probable cause he needs.


These things are the same if he's the biggest dick on the force, or he's nicest guy on the planet.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2015, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
He didn't need probable cause to demand she exit the vehicle.

Once she refuses, he's got all the probable cause he needs.

These things are the same if he's the biggest dick on the force, or he's nicest guy on the planet.
But you could easily turn this on its head, too: if the cop does not want to escalate the situation, he or she can handle the situation very differently. Maybe he or she is not legally obliged to state a reason for his or her actions, but it'd be increase the chances of cooperation — a course of action which keeps the cop safer, too. Trying to drag someone who hasn't been violent out of the car seems like a very stupid idea to me. And it is being exacerbated by the fact that the cop should not expect someone to know the ins and outs of the law. Plus, not having to state a reason for arresting someone is very fishy in my opinion as it may allow someone to make up charges after the fact.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2015, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But you could easily turn this on its head, too: if the cop does not want to escalate the situation, he or she can handle the situation very differently. Maybe he or she is not legally obliged to state a reason for his or her actions, but it'd be increase the chances of cooperation — a course of action which keeps the cop safer, too. Trying to drag someone who hasn't been violent out of the car seems like a very stupid idea to me. And it is being exacerbated by the fact that the cop should not expect someone to know the ins and outs of the law. Plus, not having to state a reason for arresting someone is very fishy in my opinion as it may allow someone to make up charges after the fact.
I got pulled over for speeding once, and the cop thought I was running drugs. I wasn't, so the "probable cause" he had can at best be described as a "hunch".

When he told me to get out of the car, had I refused (despite being 100% courteous during the encounter, and at this point totally unaware of his "hunch"), and the trooper escalated the **** out of the situation, you would blame him for it? I wouldn't.


Is it probable this cop is an asshole who was trying to put a small black woman "in her place"? Sure.

Is it an absolute? No. A scenario like the one I describe above is too much within the realm of possibility.

I'm sure most people will object to this, but I feel people are taking Bland's suicide (or worse) as evidence of her total innocence (which it is), but are then using that as as a post hoc slam on how the officer conducted himself.

I was innocent of everything except for speeding. I certainly wasn't treated like I was innocent. I argue that was okay in my situation. In Bland's? The best I can do is it's probably not okay.


I agree in theory they should need to tell you why you're being arrested, but it's too easy a system to game.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2015, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I got pulled over for speeding once, and the cop thought I was running drugs. I wasn't, so the "probable cause" he had can at best be described as a "hunch".

When he told me to get out of the car, had I refused (despite being 100% courteous during the encounter, and at this point totally unaware of his "hunch"), and the trooper escalated the **** out of the situation, you would blame him for it? I wouldn't.


Is it probable this cop is an asshole who was trying to put a small black woman "in her place"? Sure.

Is it an absolute? No. A scenario like the one I describe above is too much within the realm of possibility.

I'm sure most people will object to this, but I feel people are taking Bland's suicide (or worse) as evidence of her total innocence (which it is), but are then using that as as a post hoc slam on how the officer conducted himself.

I was innocent of everything except for speeding. I certainly wasn't treated like I was innocent. I argue that was okay in my situation. In Bland's? The best I can do is it's probably not okay.


I agree in theory they should need to tell you why you're being arrested, but it's too easy a system to game.
Last time (only time, actually) I got arrested, the cop had no idea what to charge me with. He had to ask someone else at the station (within earshot of me) what he could possibly charge me with. The other officer just shrugged and suggested an anti-riot disorderly conduct statute at me (blocking the sidewalk I was walking on, in other words just made some shit up). Unfortunately, this is how a lot of them operate. They don't care if the charges are gonna stick, just gotta make sure they win any pissing matches they get into, regardless if the person they're arresting is within their rights or not. In the same incident, they took the phone of the girl I was arrested with and deleted the video of the incident from it (patently illegal). Before they got my arms I tossed my phone to my buddy in a way they couldn't see and he slipped away to a safe distance. The guy kept asking me where my phone was and I didn't say a word, and he wasn't exactly gentle with me despite me offering no resistance and stating my intent to comply. The ACLU was interested in the video, but declined to move forward once the state dropped the charges.

Same cop a few weeks later beat the shit out of a drunk person who was so drunk he couldn't stand. Nothing like seeing a cop pound someone who's limp as a noodle and already on his back to make you realize what a piece of shit they are. I used to defend cops vehemently, but seeing this cop in my home town disgrace himself over and over with not-a-one other cop giving a shit made me decidedly anti-cop.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2015, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it probable this cop is an asshole who was trying to put a small black woman "in her place"? Sure.
Actually Sandra Bland was not a small woman at all. She was slender but she stood 6 ft tall. Hence why many people are skeptical that she hung herself in that cell from the top bar of the privacy partition. It was reported that she was found hanging with a trash bag around her neck in a "semi-standing" position. Think about that good people! This wasn't the type of hanging that we envision where the person is literally hanging by their neck with their feet off the ground because the top bar wasn't high enough for all that. The type of hanging where she would have been totally helpless to stop the process once it started. On the contrary they want us to believe that even though she was hours from being bailed out of jail ... she basically choked herself out when she could have simply stood straight up to stop it all.

Suffice it to say I don't trust the local Texas authorities as far as I can throw them. We'll see what the independent autopsy results show.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 26, 2015 at 08:27 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2015, 08:18 PM
 
I stand corrected.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2015, 09:32 PM
 
And to be clear, there definitely seems to be something shady with the "suicide". No question there.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2015, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Last time (only time, actually) I got arrested, the cop had no idea what to charge me with. He had to ask someone else at the station (within earshot of me) what he could possibly charge me with. The other officer just shrugged and suggested an anti-riot disorderly conduct statute at me (blocking the sidewalk I was walking on, in other words just made some shit up). Unfortunately, this is how a lot of them operate. They don't care if the charges are gonna stick, just gotta make sure they win any pissing matches they get into, regardless if the person they're arresting is within their rights or not. In the same incident, they took the phone of the girl I was arrested with and deleted the video of the incident from it (patently illegal). Before they got my arms I tossed my phone to my buddy in a way they couldn't see and he slipped away to a safe distance. The guy kept asking me where my phone was and I didn't say a word, and he wasn't exactly gentle with me despite me offering no resistance and stating my intent to comply. The ACLU was interested in the video, but declined to move forward once the state dropped the charges.

Same cop a few weeks later beat the shit out of a drunk person who was so drunk he couldn't stand. Nothing like seeing a cop pound someone who's limp as a noodle and already on his back to make you realize what a piece of shit they are. I used to defend cops vehemently, but seeing this cop in my home town disgrace himself over and over with not-a-one other cop giving a shit made me decidedly anti-cop.
I've never had a bad experience with the police. That has to color my perception.

I'm anti-government, so from a philosophical standpoint, I'm going to lean towards limiting the police as much as possible.

Despite my anti-government position, I have a certain fondness for rule of law, and the order it implies. I find myself more attracted to it the older I get.

I think most cops are racist.

I think cops have a pretty thankless job. They should get paid more.

A bad cop is an extraordinarily bad thing.

I don't like defending cops, but I consistently see analysis of police behavior which assumes a lot of things I don't think are safe to assume.


I'm kinda all over the place.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 02:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I got pulled over for speeding once, and the cop thought I was running drugs. I wasn't, so the "probable cause" he had can at best be described as a "hunch".

When he told me to get out of the car, had I refused (despite being 100% courteous during the encounter, and at this point totally unaware of his "hunch"), and the trooper escalated the **** out of the situation, you would blame him for it? I wouldn't.
I certainly would, because all these hunches can be justified after the fact — even if the hunch is proven wrong. Escalating the eff out of a situation as you put it is wrong and moronic. In my experience cops are going after the easy targets who likely don't fight back. Are they frisking people who look like investment bankers for cocaine or kids who look like stoners for MJ? Which drug is more serious? What person likely has more influence? Or the better lawyer?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is it an absolute? No. A scenario like the one I describe above is too much within the realm of possibility.
Because “anything is possible” should serve as justification for inappropriate police action?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 03:09 AM
 
Where do you get I'm trying to justify inappropriate police action from "it's probable this cop was being an asshole"?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 04:20 AM
 
Its weird but when the cops **** up badly, you expect them to be on their best behaviour for a while afterwards. Its like cops in America decided to go the other way. "Hey guys, instead of keeping our heads down for a bit, lets get even worse and show everyone that we all do this shit all the time. They can't suspend every cop in the country right?"
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 05:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where do you get I'm trying to justify inappropriate police action from "it's probable this cop was being an asshole"?
From the last bit: “… and the trooper escalated the **** out of the situation, you would blame him for it? I wouldn't.”
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not getting out of the car I presume.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I think Dakar's point is that logically speaking one can't be "resisting arrest" unless one is already being placed under arrest for some other reason. A reason that the trooper never once articulated.

OAW
Right, its the mysterious resisting arrest with no initial arrest reason given. Be compliant and they win by wasting your day. Be non-compliant and they win by having a real charge for your ass. Either way, you lose.

But my other point is, if you go back a step further, why did he ask her out of the car? Even some of the experts see the same connection I do, that it was a direct result of her not putting out her cigarette (Which, of course, she was well within her rights to refuse)
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 09:45 AM
 
Here's my nominee for most 21st Century headline ever: Police shut down concert because of rapper Chief Keef’s hologram appearance
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 11:20 AM
 
Looks more like Keef was trying to circumvent the warrants for his arrest in that state (deadbeat dad, failure to appear, and DUI charges), There's the issue of "benefitting financially from an appearance while avoiding prosecution", which appears to be forbidden according to Illinois state law, though that's pretty well buried in the news piece.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 11:23 AM
 
He was in Indiana.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 11:29 AM
 
But he could be arrested and extradited to Illinois, so he was trying to avoid that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
But he could be arrested and extradited to Illinois, so he was trying to avoid that.
You've changed your argument.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2015, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
From the last bit: “… and the trooper escalated the **** out of the situation, you would blame him for it? I wouldn't.”
That was a hypothetical scenario with me. I got out of the car when asked, so there was no escalation.

The reason the trooper would have been justified to rapidly escalate in my scenario is because if I'm running drugs, I'm likely armed.

The point is: here is a scenario where if you saw a video, you would see me acting polite and courteous, and then seen a trooper flip the **** out on me for no apparent reason.

What would have appeared on video as "no reason" would in reality have been "there is a decent enough probability this person is carrying a gun". This wouldn't have been a post hoc argument on his part. Once he sat me down in his cruiser (in front), he told me his hunch, said he was going to search my vehicle, and call in a K-9 unit to double-check. This guy was serious.


As an aside, there was a roach I had lost floating around in the back seat which I wasn't able to find until much later. What saved me was a bit of 20th century technology. I had actually been on a location scout, and the trooper came across my stack of Polaroids in the glove compartment, which I had dated and labeled. When he saw those with that day's date on them, he realized my story was legit, called off the dogs, and let me go.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,