Everyone is dancing around the truth in the Sandra Bland arrest. What happened is obvious.

[TooTall]

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

 

[Kondor3]

What happened is obvious.

The dumbshit hung herself in her cell.

Nature has de-selected her.

Next slide, please.

 

[westwall]

ADDRESS the OP boys and girls.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

'm a retired attorney. I practiced law for 35 years. I was a full time county prosecutor right after I got out of law school, then after that, for about 20 years, I was a part-time municipal prosecutor, handling mostly routine traffic violations, in court, on a weekly basis. During my career I also taught policing techniques, procedures, and laws. I have dealt with cops a lot. And I know how to read a traffic code.

On the video, after being told that she was being stopped for failure to signal a lane change, Ms. Bland tells the arresting officer, in essence, that she was getting out of his way; that she saw his squad car coming up behind her in a hurry, and she moved over to let him by. That's exactly what she should have done in the circumstances, and doing so did not violate Texas law. It also did not justify the stop.

The portion of the Texas statutes known as The Rules of the Road can be found at:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/...

It reads much like the traffic code in my state and in most other states that I have read and studied. The section of it that covers the signalling of lane changes provides:

Sec. 545.104. SIGNALING TURNS; USE OF TURN SIGNALS. (a) An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 [the vehicle's lighted turn signal or a hand signal] to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.

Nothing ambiguous about that requirement. However, there is another provision that mandates what a driver is to do when being approached by a police vehicle:

Sec. 545.156. VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE. (a) On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702 [lights and sirens], or of a police vehicle lawfully using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1) yield the right-of-way;
(2) immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; and
(3) stop and remain standing until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

First, under subsection (2), "immediately" means just that. Not after the driver scratches her head, or turns down the radio, or signals a lane change, or does anything else, but get over to the far right now, first thing. That's what it says. What lane the driver may be moving from is irrelevant

The waters are somewhat muddied in these circumstances, however, because there is no evidence on the video that the officer was running with lights or sirens as he came up behind Ms. bland's car, and Section 545.156 mandates immediately pulling over when the emergency vehicle is using at least an audible signal. That said, what Ms. Bland, looking in her rear view mirror (which, according to her statement to the officer in the video, is what she was doing) did see the police car do is this:

-It made an illegal u-turn, starting from from the far right lane, beyond even the solid white line (a bike lane?), almost to the right curb, and then across the right lane, the designated turning lane, and the oncoming lane, and then well into both lanes of the perpendicular street, before completing it. See Section 545.101. There is no indication if this turn was first signalled by the officer or not, another potential violation here.

-It was speeding. The video reveals that this is a 20 MPH zone. Whatever speed the squad car was actually going, given how fast the trees fly by and he catches up to her, he was doing more than 20.

But other sections of the Texas code say that the police can ignore these and most other traffic laws when they need to. They're supposed to use lights, or at least a siren, when they do, per Section 546.003, but even then they are given broad discretion to not use them. Section 546.004 essentially gives them discretionary carte blanche to do so.

So, here's what Sandra Bland's circumstances were at the time: She sees a squad car pull a sudden and radical u-turn and speed up behind her. It is maneuvering like it's on its way to an emergency. We see from the video, from when she first makes her right turn onto the street on which she was stopped, that her windows are rolled up, blocking outside noise. It is in the 90's in Waller County that day, so it's safe to assume that her air conditioning was on, adding more inside background noise to her environment. Maybe her radio was on as well. Is this squad car she sees coming up behind her like this running a siren, and she just can't hear it yet? Or is the officer exercising his discretion and not using it at all?

Either way, her safest and most reasonable maneuver is to do just what she did: get out of his way. It was obviously not a lane change under Section 545.104. She didn't need to change lanes. It was a move-over under Section 545.156. No signal required, or even permitted.

Sounds pretty compelling, huh? Or is it just more legal mumbo-jumbo? Matt Taibbi, I think, nailed it when he said, in his article, that the law, "...is so broad and littered with so many tiny technical prohibitions that a determined enough police officer can stop and/or arrest pretty much anybody at any time."

The cops I used to prosecute for readily admitted to me on many occasions that one of the easiest way to get a stop on a vehicle that they thought needed to be checked out was to suddenly speed up behind it, wait for it to move over, and nail it for the failure to signal a lane change. Once in traffic court it may or may not stand up. A fair judge will NG it. A fair prosecutor will dump it before trial and tell his cops to knock off the bullshit.

Either way, for the one writing the ticket, it really doesn't matter. After all, the point isn't the petty traffic violation. It's the stop. It's the "checking out" during the stop, the possibility of discovering something bigger and more criminal, be it a suspended license, or alcohol on the breath, or an outstanding warrant. Out-of-state plates are always way up there on the list of potentials, too. That's the point. Then again, some times it's nothing more than an opportunity to jack somebody who looks or acts like he--or she--could use a good jacking. That's the point, too.

There is nothing about Sandra Bland's murder, or about the events that led up to it, that can or should be overlooked, justified or excused. That's my point

Sandra Bland was Also Right

 

[Harry Dresden]

ADDRESS the OP boys and girls.

who dean?....the guy only answers questions he wants to answer,he cant backup his accusations he makes against people,so the conversation drifts....

 

[Jarlaxle]

She was high on pot and should never have been on the road. She was arrested before she killed someone.

All in all, the world is a tiny bit better now that she's gone.

And this folks is coming from a conservative christian.....may God have mercy on their ignorance and stupidity!!

No, it's coming from a psychopathic bitch.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I still would like to know why she was still in jail for 3 damn days. In Cook county, Illinois a few hours in Oconee county, South Carolina just one night to see the magistrate at 9 am.

Because she committed Contempt Of Cop and they demanded she be PUNISHED.

 

[Oldstyle]

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

'm a retired attorney. I practiced law for 35 years. I was a full time county prosecutor right after I got out of law school, then after that, for about 20 years, I was a part-time municipal prosecutor, handling mostly routine traffic violations, in court, on a weekly basis. During my career I also taught policing techniques, procedures, and laws. I have dealt with cops a lot. And I know how to read a traffic code.

On the video, after being told that she was being stopped for failure to signal a lane change, Ms. Bland tells the arresting officer, in essence, that she was getting out of his way; that she saw his squad car coming up behind her in a hurry, and she moved over to let him by. That's exactly what she should have done in the circumstances, and doing so did not violate Texas law. It also did not justify the stop.

The portion of the Texas statutes known as The Rules of the Road can be found at:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/...

It reads much like the traffic code in my state and in most other states that I have read and studied. The section of it that covers the signalling of lane changes provides:

Sec. 545.104. SIGNALING TURNS; USE OF TURN SIGNALS. (a) An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 [the vehicle's lighted turn signal or a hand signal] to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.

Nothing ambiguous about that requirement. However, there is another provision that mandates what a driver is to do when being approached by a police vehicle:

Sec. 545.156. VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE. (a) On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702 [lights and sirens], or of a police vehicle lawfully using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1) yield the right-of-way;
(2) immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; and
(3) stop and remain standing until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

First, under subsection (2), "immediately" means just that. Not after the driver scratches her head, or turns down the radio, or signals a lane change, or does anything else, but get over to the far right now, first thing. That's what it says. What lane the driver may be moving from is irrelevant

The waters are somewhat muddied in these circumstances, however, because there is no evidence on the video that the officer was running with lights or sirens as he came up behind Ms. bland's car, and Section 545.156 mandates immediately pulling over when the emergency vehicle is using at least an audible signal. That said, what Ms. Bland, looking in her rear view mirror (which, according to her statement to the officer in the video, is what she was doing) did see the police car do is this:

-It made an illegal u-turn, starting from from the far right lane, beyond even the solid white line (a bike lane?), almost to the right curb, and then across the right lane, the designated turning lane, and the oncoming lane, and then well into both lanes of the perpendicular street, before completing it. See Section 545.101. There is no indication if this turn was first signalled by the officer or not, another potential violation here.

-It was speeding. The video reveals that this is a 20 MPH zone. Whatever speed the squad car was actually going, given how fast the trees fly by and he catches up to her, he was doing more than 20.

But other sections of the Texas code say that the police can ignore these and most other traffic laws when they need to. They're supposed to use lights, or at least a siren, when they do, per Section 546.003, but even then they are given broad discretion to not use them. Section 546.004 essentially gives them discretionary carte blanche to do so.

So, here's what Sandra Bland's circumstances were at the time: She sees a squad car pull a sudden and radical u-turn and speed up behind her. It is maneuvering like it's on its way to an emergency. We see from the video, from when she first makes her right turn onto the street on which she was stopped, that her windows are rolled up, blocking outside noise. It is in the 90's in Waller County that day, so it's safe to assume that her air conditioning was on, adding more inside background noise to her environment. Maybe her radio was on as well. Is this squad car she sees coming up behind her like this running a siren, and she just can't hear it yet? Or is the officer exercising his discretion and not using it at all?

Either way, her safest and most reasonable maneuver is to do just what she did: get out of his way. It was obviously not a lane change under Section 545.104. She didn't need to change lanes. It was a move-over under Section 545.156. No signal required, or even permitted.

Sounds pretty compelling, huh? Or is it just more legal mumbo-jumbo? Matt Taibbi, I think, nailed it when he said, in his article, that the law, "...is so broad and littered with so many tiny technical prohibitions that a determined enough police officer can stop and/or arrest pretty much anybody at any time."

The cops I used to prosecute for readily admitted to me on many occasions that one of the easiest way to get a stop on a vehicle that they thought needed to be checked out was to suddenly speed up behind it, wait for it to move over, and nail it for the failure to signal a lane change. Once in traffic court it may or may not stand up. A fair judge will NG it. A fair prosecutor will dump it before trial and tell his cops to knock off the bullshit.

Either way, for the one writing the ticket, it really doesn't matter. After all, the point isn't the petty traffic violation. It's the stop. It's the "checking out" during the stop, the possibility of discovering something bigger and more criminal, be it a suspended license, or alcohol on the breath, or an outstanding warrant. Out-of-state plates are always way up there on the list of potentials, too. That's the point. Then again, some times it's nothing more than an opportunity to jack somebody who looks or acts like he--or she--could use a good jacking. That's the point, too.

There is nothing about Sandra Bland's murder, or about the events that led up to it, that can or should be overlooked, justified or excused. That's my point

Sandra Bland was Also Right

For a lawyer you seem to have difficulty with word comprehension, Hawkeye! Yes, you're required to move over when an emergency vehicle approaches with audible and visual signals...ie lights and sirens. The trooper didn't have either on until after Sandra Bland pulled to the side without signalling. It doesn't matter if it was a "lane change" or simply pulling over since under Texas law you're required to used turn signals for a minimum of a hundred feet before doing EITHER.

 

[MikeK]

When detained individuals refuse to follow directions given to them by a uniformed police officer, it's not a "verbal confrontation", Hutch...it's breaking the law.

A uniformed police officer is required to perform his duties in a specific and prescribed manner, called Procedure. When procedure is deliberately violated the misconduct can rise to the level of criminal behavior.

What misconduct rose to the level of criminal behavior in that traffic stop?

None that I'm aware of. I did not refer specifically to the Bland incident but to general circumstances.

She was an idiot for arguing about getting a warning. He let her get under his skin. If I were him I would have simply torn up the warning and issued her a ticket.

Agreed. That was the most he should have done.

The cop wasn't dealing with a contemptuous, confrontational male, but rather a woman in a moderately irrational, mildly hysterical frame of mind -- which a man of his age and presumed experience should not regard as unusual. Any man who has lived with women, whether a mother, sisters, wife and/or daughters knows very well that most women react emotionally to stressful situations. And any sensible man knows the best way to deal with an emotional woman is to ignore her outbursts and get away from her as soon as possible, which is what Encinia should have done.

This woman had not committed some egregious criminal offense, nor was she assaultive or abusive. She had, possibly unwittingly, committed a minor traffic infraction. So I don't believe there are too many sensible, intelligent police officers who would disagree that Encinia's actions were excessive, unnecessary and clearly counterproductive.

 

[MikeK]

Good article here: The deeper meaning in the Sandra Bland arrest video - Chicago Tribune

 

[thereisnospoon]

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

§545.104 - SIGNALING TURNS; USE OF TURN SIGNALS (a) An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.
(b) An operator intending to turn a vehicle right or left shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.
(c) An operator may not light the signals on only one side of the vehicle on a parked or disabled vehicle or use the signals as a courtesy or "do pass" signal to the operator of another vehicle approaching from the rear.

That is Texas law, Hawkeye...there is no exemption to the use of turn signals because you're pulling over to allow and emergency vehicle to pass. It was not an illegal stop...nor was his order for her to exit the vehicle illegal.

I cringe when these people like the OP to which you responded make up shit as they go to support their agenda.

 

[Oldstyle]

When detained individuals refuse to follow directions given to them by a uniformed police officer, it's not a "verbal confrontation", Hutch...it's breaking the law.

A uniformed police officer is required to perform his duties in a specific and prescribed manner, called Procedure. When procedure is deliberately violated the misconduct can rise to the level of criminal behavior.

What misconduct rose to the level of criminal behavior in that traffic stop?

None that I'm aware of. I did not refer specifically to the Bland incident but to general circumstances.

She was an idiot for arguing about getting a warning. He let her get under his skin. If I were him I would have simply torn up the warning and issued her a ticket.

Agreed. That was the most he should have done.

The cop wasn't dealing with a contemptuous, confrontational male, but rather a woman in a moderately irrational, mildly hysterical frame of mind -- which a man of his age and presumed experience should not regard as unusual. Any man who has lived with women, whether a mother, sisters, wife and/or daughters knows very well that most women react emotionally to stressful situations. And any sensible man knows the best way to deal with an emotional woman is to ignore her outbursts and get away from her as soon as possible, which is what Encinia should have done.

This woman had not committed some egregious criminal offense, nor was she assaultive or abusive. She had, possibly unwittingly, committed a minor traffic infraction. So I don't believe there are too many sensible, intelligent police officers who would disagree that Encinia's actions were excessive, unnecessary and clearly counterproductive.

Mike, did you just excuse what Bland did because she's an "emotional woman" and blame the police officer for not knowing that he should get away from her? I can't believe in this day and age you're that much of a chauvinist! Seriously...check yourself...because THAT is some weak shit!

 

[Oldstyle]

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

'm a retired attorney. I practiced law for 35 years. I was a full time county prosecutor right after I got out of law school, then after that, for about 20 years, I was a part-time municipal prosecutor, handling mostly routine traffic violations, in court, on a weekly basis. During my career I also taught policing techniques, procedures, and laws. I have dealt with cops a lot. And I know how to read a traffic code.

On the video, after being told that she was being stopped for failure to signal a lane change, Ms. Bland tells the arresting officer, in essence, that she was getting out of his way; that she saw his squad car coming up behind her in a hurry, and she moved over to let him by. That's exactly what she should have done in the circumstances, and doing so did not violate Texas law. It also did not justify the stop.

The portion of the Texas statutes known as The Rules of the Road can be found at:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/...

It reads much like the traffic code in my state and in most other states that I have read and studied. The section of it that covers the signalling of lane changes provides:

Sec. 545.104. SIGNALING TURNS; USE OF TURN SIGNALS. (a) An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 [the vehicle's lighted turn signal or a hand signal] to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.

Nothing ambiguous about that requirement. However, there is another provision that mandates what a driver is to do when being approached by a police vehicle:

Sec. 545.156. VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE. (a) On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702 [lights and sirens], or of a police vehicle lawfully using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1) yield the right-of-way;
(2) immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; and
(3) stop and remain standing until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

First, under subsection (2), "immediately" means just that. Not after the driver scratches her head, or turns down the radio, or signals a lane change, or does anything else, but get over to the far right now, first thing. That's what it says. What lane the driver may be moving from is irrelevant

The waters are somewhat muddied in these circumstances, however, because there is no evidence on the video that the officer was running with lights or sirens as he came up behind Ms. bland's car, and Section 545.156 mandates immediately pulling over when the emergency vehicle is using at least an audible signal. That said, what Ms. Bland, looking in her rear view mirror (which, according to her statement to the officer in the video, is what she was doing) did see the police car do is this:

-It made an illegal u-turn, starting from from the far right lane, beyond even the solid white line (a bike lane?), almost to the right curb, and then across the right lane, the designated turning lane, and the oncoming lane, and then well into both lanes of the perpendicular street, before completing it. See Section 545.101. There is no indication if this turn was first signalled by the officer or not, another potential violation here.

-It was speeding. The video reveals that this is a 20 MPH zone. Whatever speed the squad car was actually going, given how fast the trees fly by and he catches up to her, he was doing more than 20.

But other sections of the Texas code say that the police can ignore these and most other traffic laws when they need to. They're supposed to use lights, or at least a siren, when they do, per Section 546.003, but even then they are given broad discretion to not use them. Section 546.004 essentially gives them discretionary carte blanche to do so.

So, here's what Sandra Bland's circumstances were at the time: She sees a squad car pull a sudden and radical u-turn and speed up behind her. It is maneuvering like it's on its way to an emergency. We see from the video, from when she first makes her right turn onto the street on which she was stopped, that her windows are rolled up, blocking outside noise. It is in the 90's in Waller County that day, so it's safe to assume that her air conditioning was on, adding more inside background noise to her environment. Maybe her radio was on as well. Is this squad car she sees coming up behind her like this running a siren, and she just can't hear it yet? Or is the officer exercising his discretion and not using it at all?

Either way, her safest and most reasonable maneuver is to do just what she did: get out of his way. It was obviously not a lane change under Section 545.104. She didn't need to change lanes. It was a move-over under Section 545.156. No signal required, or even permitted.

Sounds pretty compelling, huh? Or is it just more legal mumbo-jumbo? Matt Taibbi, I think, nailed it when he said, in his article, that the law, "...is so broad and littered with so many tiny technical prohibitions that a determined enough police officer can stop and/or arrest pretty much anybody at any time."

The cops I used to prosecute for readily admitted to me on many occasions that one of the easiest way to get a stop on a vehicle that they thought needed to be checked out was to suddenly speed up behind it, wait for it to move over, and nail it for the failure to signal a lane change. Once in traffic court it may or may not stand up. A fair judge will NG it. A fair prosecutor will dump it before trial and tell his cops to knock off the bullshit.

Either way, for the one writing the ticket, it really doesn't matter. After all, the point isn't the petty traffic violation. It's the stop. It's the "checking out" during the stop, the possibility of discovering something bigger and more criminal, be it a suspended license, or alcohol on the breath, or an outstanding warrant. Out-of-state plates are always way up there on the list of potentials, too. That's the point. Then again, some times it's nothing more than an opportunity to jack somebody who looks or acts like he--or she--could use a good jacking. That's the point, too.

There is nothing about Sandra Bland's murder, or about the events that led up to it, that can or should be overlooked, justified or excused. That's my point

Sandra Bland was Also Right

And I can't believe that any reputable lawyer would classify what happened to Sandra Bland in that jail as "murder"! Where did you get your license...from a mail order catalog?

 

[JoeB131]

A better question might be...how do you go from getting a warning to getting arrested simply because you feel the need to tell the cop giving you the warning that you think he's being petty? Sign the ticket. Drive away.

So let me get this straight.

Lois Lerner asking Teabaggers to prove they are actually charity groups when they are fraudently claiming to be so is the most horrible violation of human rights, ever.

But this girl needed to totally be "lit up" for refusing to put out a cigarette.

"Silly Negro. Rights are for White People!"

 

[JoeB131]

When detained individuals refuse to follow directions given to them by a uniformed police officer, it's not a "verbal confrontation", Hutch...it's breaking the law.

When Teabagging groups claim to be Charities and they are actually doing politics, and they refuse to provide needed documents, its' also "breaking the law."

 

[JoeB131]

The police department, and the FBI will exonerate the officer. I guarantee it.

No, they won't. They've already admitted he was in the wrong.

The only question is, will he merely lose his job, or will he do some jail time.

 

[JoeB131]

It's going to be interesting to see what side they fall on. I think they may back up the cop but privately tell him not give warnings for changing lanes again. They came out too early and said protocol was not followed. To be fair, they will have to walk that back and explain the situation.

.
You think they are ever going to put THIS time bomb out back on the street? Fuck, no. Regardless of how any criminal investigation turns out, they are going to fire this guy. He's probably ALREADY goign to cost this county MILLIONS of dollars, and if he ever does something like this again, or something worse, like maybe shoot some negro who boosted some smokes, it would be a disaster.

Losing his job is probably his best outcome.

Personally, I'm hoping he gets convicted and shanked in a lunch line.

 

[JoeB131]

She may have been stoned but I think what she was trying to do was goad the officer into doing something wrong. She was an activist. I believe she fully intended to give the officer as much trouble as she could. Maybe she thought she'd get a visit from Al Sharpton.

Still doesn't make what the officer did okay.

 

[JoeB131]

Mike, did you just excuse what Bland did because she's an "emotional woman" and blame the police officer for not knowing that he should get away from her? I can't believe in this day and age you're that much of a chauvinist! Seriously...check yourself...because THAT is some weak shit!

No, he should have let her go because he broke the law.

Bland s Fate Sealed by Bad Policing RealClearPolitics

A close reading of the transcript of this encounter also shows that Encinia misled his supervisor on another point when he radioed in his account of what happened. “I tried to de-escalate her. It wasn’t getting anywhere, at all. I mean I tried to put the Taser away. I tried talking to her and calming her down, and that was not working,” he said.

In fact, he did just the opposite. When Encinia returned to Bland's car with a warning ticket, he could have simply handed it over and let her drive off. But she was still smarting over being stopped, and he didn’t like her attitude. He extended the traffic stop for no good reason, which is something the Supreme Court said this year inRodriguez v. United States that cops can’t do.

In that 6-3 decision, the high court ruled that stopping someone “for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that violation,” and that the officer’s authority over the person ends “when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are — or reasonably should have been — completed.”

But after writing Bland a warning ticket, Encinia didn’t let her go; he ordered her to stop smoking and get out of the car for no good legal reason.

Then, to cover his tracks — an apparent violation of the Rodriguez ruling — Enciniatold his supervisor during their radio exchange that his confrontation with Bland happened while “we were in the middle of a traffic stop and the traffic stop was not completed.”

 

[TooTall]

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

What rule says one cannot smoke in one's own vehicle?

When a cop wants you out of the car he doesn't need a lighted cigarette flicked into his face.

You need to look at Texas Law. And under Texas law the cop was wrong. Number one she was illegally stopped because she pulled away to allow the emergency vehicle to pass. No turn signal required. It was an illegal stop therefore any order he gave her was an unlawful order.

Post the law or I call BS.

'm a retired attorney. I practiced law for 35 years. I was a full time county prosecutor right after I got out of law school, then after that, for about 20 years, I was a part-time municipal prosecutor, handling mostly routine traffic violations, in court, on a weekly basis. During my career I also taught policing techniques, procedures, and laws. I have dealt with cops a lot. And I know how to read a traffic code.

On the video, after being told that she was being stopped for failure to signal a lane change, Ms. Bland tells the arresting officer, in essence, that she was getting out of his way; that she saw his squad car coming up behind her in a hurry, and she moved over to let him by. That's exactly what she should have done in the circumstances, and doing so did not violate Texas law. It also did not justify the stop.

The portion of the Texas statutes known as The Rules of the Road can be found at:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/...

It reads much like the traffic code in my state and in most other states that I have read and studied. The section of it that covers the signalling of lane changes provides:

Sec. 545.104. SIGNALING TURNS; USE OF TURN SIGNALS. (a) An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 [the vehicle's lighted turn signal or a hand signal] to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.

Nothing ambiguous about that requirement. However, there is another provision that mandates what a driver is to do when being approached by a police vehicle:

Sec. 545.156. VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE. (a) On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702 [lights and sirens], or of a police vehicle lawfully using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1) yield the right-of-way;
(2) immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; and
(3) stop and remain standing until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

First, under subsection (2), "immediately" means just that. Not after the driver scratches her head, or turns down the radio, or signals a lane change, or does anything else, but get over to the far right now, first thing. That's what it says. What lane the driver may be moving from is irrelevant

The waters are somewhat muddied in these circumstances, however, because there is no evidence on the video that the officer was running with lights or sirens as he came up behind Ms. bland's car, and Section 545.156 mandates immediately pulling over when the emergency vehicle is using at least an audible signal. That said, what Ms. Bland, looking in her rear view mirror (which, according to her statement to the officer in the video, is what she was doing) did see the police car do is this:

-It made an illegal u-turn, starting from from the far right lane, beyond even the solid white line (a bike lane?), almost to the right curb, and then across the right lane, the designated turning lane, and the oncoming lane, and then well into both lanes of the perpendicular street, before completing it. See Section 545.101. There is no indication if this turn was first signalled by the officer or not, another potential violation here.

-It was speeding. The video reveals that this is a 20 MPH zone. Whatever speed the squad car was actually going, given how fast the trees fly by and he catches up to her, he was doing more than 20.

But other sections of the Texas code say that the police can ignore these and most other traffic laws when they need to. They're supposed to use lights, or at least a siren, when they do, per Section 546.003, but even then they are given broad discretion to not use them. Section 546.004 essentially gives them discretionary carte blanche to do so.

So, here's what Sandra Bland's circumstances were at the time: She sees a squad car pull a sudden and radical u-turn and speed up behind her. It is maneuvering like it's on its way to an emergency. We see from the video, from when she first makes her right turn onto the street on which she was stopped, that her windows are rolled up, blocking outside noise. It is in the 90's in Waller County that day, so it's safe to assume that her air conditioning was on, adding more inside background noise to her environment. Maybe her radio was on as well. Is this squad car she sees coming up behind her like this running a siren, and she just can't hear it yet? Or is the officer exercising his discretion and not using it at all?

Either way, her safest and most reasonable maneuver is to do just what she did: get out of his way. It was obviously not a lane change under Section 545.104. She didn't need to change lanes. It was a move-over under Section 545.156. No signal required, or even permitted.

Sounds pretty compelling, huh? Or is it just more legal mumbo-jumbo? Matt Taibbi, I think, nailed it when he said, in his article, that the law, "...is so broad and littered with so many tiny technical prohibitions that a determined enough police officer can stop and/or arrest pretty much anybody at any time."

The cops I used to prosecute for readily admitted to me on many occasions that one of the easiest way to get a stop on a vehicle that they thought needed to be checked out was to suddenly speed up behind it, wait for it to move over, and nail it for the failure to signal a lane change. Once in traffic court it may or may not stand up. A fair judge will NG it. A fair prosecutor will dump it before trial and tell his cops to knock off the bullshit.

Either way, for the one writing the ticket, it really doesn't matter. After all, the point isn't the petty traffic violation. It's the stop. It's the "checking out" during the stop, the possibility of discovering something bigger and more criminal, be it a suspended license, or alcohol on the breath, or an outstanding warrant. Out-of-state plates are always way up there on the list of potentials, too. That's the point. Then again, some times it's nothing more than an opportunity to jack somebody who looks or acts like he--or she--could use a good jacking. That's the point, too.

There is nothing about Sandra Bland's murder, or about the events that led up to it, that can or should be overlooked, justified or excused. That's my point

Sandra Bland was Also Right

My first question is WHY did the officer, if he really did, make a U-turn to go after and stop Sandra Bland? My second question is what video did you see where this was discussed by Sandra Bland and could you please link to it?