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.

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?

I missed that and it should have been my third question. Do all 'lawyers' call a suicide murder? Or just those who have an agenda!

 

[dannyboys]

You have an articulate and good looking black woman who probably came from up north some where and you have a very red neck white officer with that hickey kind of country accent. He's probably spent his entire life within 10 miles of where that incident took place. I bet he has a half dozen confederate T shirts.

For some reason, and you can see it here on the USMB, conservatives and right wingers believe you should just give up every right you have and instantly jump at what a police officer says, no matter the circumstances, or you get what you deserve. Especially if you are black, Hispanic, gay or some other minority. It's an example of the ultimate police state.

So he stops her for not using her turn signal. Of course she should use her turn signal, that's what it's there for. He should have just given her a ticket or a warning. And if it was some other white with that hickey accent, you know he would have only given a verbal warning if he had bothered to stop them.

And I'll tell you something else. I have relatives in the deep south that I spent some vacations and a couple of summers with growing up. I speak perfect "Yawl (or as some USMB members insist, "ya'll"), and I have been stopped because my license is from out of state and I just start talking Yawl and they suddenly talk very nice and have never given me a ticket.

Clearly that officer provoked her and escalated the situation with "put out your cigarette" and "step out of the car" and arresting her. It wasn't that he wanted her respect. He wanted her to cower and shuffle and she wasn't having it. So in his tiny and racist little mind, he was teaching her a lesson and it was within his right to teach her that lesson no matter what the actual law said because of who he was, the uniform he was wearing and who she was. In that part of the country, it's the "natural order" of things.

You're being ridiculous. There is no indication whatsoever that the officer was racist.

Ok. I agree up to the point the cop lost his shit. Even his boss said he didn't follow procedure. What was she arrested for?
The cop had all of the control. You can't arrest someone for being a smartass. That's on video as well. The cop has an obligation to be professional as well since it's being recorders and all. Otherwise he is a liability.
Why you all defer to the cops is beyond me.

He didn't arrest her for being a smart ass but that's what started the whole thing.

Really? What did he pull her out to arrest her for then?

To do a breathalizer maybe. Anyone being that rude after being let off with a warning must be under the influence. If a cop says get out of the car, get out. You don't know your rights. All you know is you don't want to get lit up. Get out of the car. If a judge tells you to stop talking or sit down, do you do it?

I saw the video. She was acting very erratic. That made me suspect that she was on drugs. After seeing her mugshot I sure of it. She was obviously stoned.

According to records, she also had serious emotional problems. She was a cutter who had attempted suicide in the past.

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.

I hope Sharpton 'visits' her as soon as possible...........in the fucking ground!

 

[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

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.

I am not a lawyer

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Really? What did he pull her out to arrest her for then?

To do a breathalizer maybe. Anyone being that rude after being let off with a warning must be under the influence. If a cop says get out of the car, get out. You don't know your rights. All you know is you don't want to get lit up. Get out of the car. If a judge tells you to stop talking or sit down, do you do it?

But he didn't do a breathalyzer, did he?
How did the officer go from having the ticket in hand, ready to give it to her , to pulling her out of the car? The only thing that changed was his temper.

Wrong. She got hostile with him, and he told here to put out her cigarette. Her refusal constituted his more stern reaction. It was all on her.

He asked her to put it out. He didn't order her to. What he should have done was just give her the ticket in his hand and send her on her way.

Likely he would have done that had she not escalated it.

Stick to the facts in evidence. No supposition please. The press release says quite clearly what his employer thought of his conduct. Your denial and suppositions don't change that fact in any way.

 

[dannyboys]

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

At first I thought you were pretty reasonable and balanced. But then you disappointed.
You have zero proof the bitch was "murdered".
How about showing any proof of your assertion? The coroner (negro) ruled the death a suicide.
You have none. Therefore you are just another fuck-wit fool.
You don't deserve it but I'll give you and your fellow assholes here a little police force 'inner tennis:
Many patrol cars are now equipped with a little gadget hidden in the grill that basically scans all oncoming license plates. The scanner reads the plate and the computer does it's thing and a buzzer like thing goes off and the cop looks at the screen and he can see the long long history of the bitch's driving infractions. He decides to check and see if the bitch is still up to her old habits and pulls her over. He sees a woman smelling of dope and possibly stoned. She refuses to put out her cigarette which could and has been used to assault cops before by others.
This scanning device tells the cops if the license plate tags have expired, if the plates don't match the vehicle, if the plates are from a stolen vehicle, if the owner of the plates has any warrants.

 

[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

At first I thought you were pretty reasonable and balanced. But then you disappointed.
You have zero proof the bitch was "murdered".
How about showing any proof of your assertion? The coroner (negro) ruled the death a suicide.
You have none. Therefore you are just another fuck-wit fool.
You don't deserve it but I'll give you and your fellow assholes here a little police force 'inner tennis:
Many patrol cars are now equipped with a little gadget hidden in the grill that basically scans all oncoming license plates. The scanner reads the plate and the computer does it's thing and a buzzer like thing goes off and the cop looks at the screen and he can see the long long history of the bitch's driving infractions. He decides to check and see if the bitch is still up to her old habits and pulls her over. He sees a woman smelling of dope and possibly stoned. She refuses to put out her cigarette which could and has been used to assault cops before by others.
This scanning device tells the cops if the license plate tags have expired, if the plates don't match the vehicle, if the plates are from a stolen vehicle, if the owner of the plates has any warrants.

Who said she was murdered? My point of my cut and paste was to show that by Texas law she did everything right. I never claimed she was murdered

 

[dannyboys]

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.

So what you are saying is if a cop pulls a woman driver over and she is acts "moderately irrational" and "mildly hysterical" the proper thing for the cop to do is "get away from her as soon as possible".
You need a fucking physiatrist pal.

 

[dannyboys]

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.

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

At first I thought you were pretty reasonable and balanced. But then you disappointed.
You have zero proof the bitch was "murdered".
How about showing any proof of your assertion? The coroner (negro) ruled the death a suicide.
You have none. Therefore you are just another fuck-wit fool.
You don't deserve it but I'll give you and your fellow assholes here a little police force 'inner tennis:
Many patrol cars are now equipped with a little gadget hidden in the grill that basically scans all oncoming license plates. The scanner reads the plate and the computer does it's thing and a buzzer like thing goes off and the cop looks at the screen and he can see the long long history of the bitch's driving infractions. He decides to check and see if the bitch is still up to her old habits and pulls her over. He sees a woman smelling of dope and possibly stoned. She refuses to put out her cigarette which could and has been used to assault cops before by others.
This scanning device tells the cops if the license plate tags have expired, if the plates don't match the vehicle, if the plates are from a stolen vehicle, if the owner of the plates has any warrants.

Who said she was murdered? My point of my cut and paste was to show that by Texas law she did everything right. I never claimed she was murdered

You DID NOT! put the fucking C&P in quotation marks asshole!
But then who would really expect you to know what they are intended for.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

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.

So what you are saying is if a cop pulls a woman driver over and she is acts "moderately irrational" and "mildly hysterical" the proper thing for the cop to do is "get away from her as soon as possible".
You need a fucking physiatrist pal.

Acting irritated is a normal response not moderately irrational and asserting ones rights is not mildly hysterical

 

[Hawkeye2j]

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.

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

At first I thought you were pretty reasonable and balanced. But then you disappointed.
You have zero proof the bitch was "murdered".
How about showing any proof of your assertion? The coroner (negro) ruled the death a suicide.
You have none. Therefore you are just another fuck-wit fool.
You don't deserve it but I'll give you and your fellow assholes here a little police force 'inner tennis:
Many patrol cars are now equipped with a little gadget hidden in the grill that basically scans all oncoming license plates. The scanner reads the plate and the computer does it's thing and a buzzer like thing goes off and the cop looks at the screen and he can see the long long history of the bitch's driving infractions. He decides to check and see if the bitch is still up to her old habits and pulls her over. He sees a woman smelling of dope and possibly stoned. She refuses to put out her cigarette which could and has been used to assault cops before by others.
This scanning device tells the cops if the license plate tags have expired, if the plates don't match the vehicle, if the plates are from a stolen vehicle, if the owner of the plates has any warrants.

Who said she was murdered? My point of my cut and paste was to show that by Texas law she did everything right. I never claimed she was murdered

You DID NOT! put the fucking C&P in quotation marks asshole!
But then who would really expect you to know what they are intended for.

I cut and paste and posted the link. So what is the problem. And I suggest you read the rules of the board.

 

[Muhammed]

People who don't use their turn signals are fucking morons and assholes.

It turns out that this bitch had been pulled over before for failure to signal. I think it's safe to assume that she's one of those psychopaths and/or sociopaths who rarely if ever use their turn signals.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

People who don't use their turn signals are fucking morons and assholes.

It turns out that this bitch had been pulled over before for failure to signal. I think it's safe to assume that she's one of those psychopaths and/or sociopaths who rarely if ever use their turn signals.

Of course she was pulled over before for that. It is a calculated move by police to get a reason to pull someone over, you speed behind them so they naturally pull over to let you pass and then they nab you for failing to signal. No wonder she was irritated. It is a money generator. Basically entrapment.

 

[dannyboys]

Post the law or I call BS.

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

At first I thought you were pretty reasonable and balanced. But then you disappointed.
You have zero proof the bitch was "murdered".
How about showing any proof of your assertion? The coroner (negro) ruled the death a suicide.
You have none. Therefore you are just another fuck-wit fool.
You don't deserve it but I'll give you and your fellow assholes here a little police force 'inner tennis:
Many patrol cars are now equipped with a little gadget hidden in the grill that basically scans all oncoming license plates. The scanner reads the plate and the computer does it's thing and a buzzer like thing goes off and the cop looks at the screen and he can see the long long history of the bitch's driving infractions. He decides to check and see if the bitch is still up to her old habits and pulls her over. He sees a woman smelling of dope and possibly stoned. She refuses to put out her cigarette which could and has been used to assault cops before by others.
This scanning device tells the cops if the license plate tags have expired, if the plates don't match the vehicle, if the plates are from a stolen vehicle, if the owner of the plates has any warrants.

Who said she was murdered? My point of my cut and paste was to show that by Texas law she did everything right. I never claimed she was murdered

You DID NOT! put the fucking C&P in quotation marks asshole!
But then who would really expect you to know what they are intended for.

I cut and paste and posted the link. So what is the problem. And I suggest you read the rules of the board.

When you C%P you're supposed to put it in quotation marks to show the content is not your's.
Didn't they teach you that in grade nine?
"What is the problem" needs a question mark behind it because you are asking a question moron.
You don't need to use the word "And" in the beginning of a sentence. The word should be "pasted" not "paste.
I suggest you get out of your mommy's basement and GO BUY A FUCKING ENGLISH GRAMMAR BOOK!

 

[CremeBrulee]

While it's obvious the cop is an ass, I thought he gave her a couple chances to get out of the situation and she kept talking shit trying to get the last word in. Somehow I don't think the OP was being this antagonistic when he/she used a country accent to get out of said tickets. I have been pulled over by TxDPS and my accent has never gotten me out of a ticket while being respectful has. Even when there was little to zero cause for the stop.

 

[Muhammed]

People who don't use their turn signals are fucking morons and assholes.

It turns out that this bitch had been pulled over before for failure to signal. I think it's safe to assume that she's one of those psychopaths and/or sociopaths who rarely if ever use their turn signals.

Of course she was pulled over before for that. It is a calculated move by police to get a reason to pull someone over, you speed behind them so they naturally pull over to let you pass and then they nab you for failing to signal. No wonder she was irritated. It is a money generator. Basically entrapment.

Bullshit! There is no excuse whatsoever to refuse to use your turn signal.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

'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

At first I thought you were pretty reasonable and balanced. But then you disappointed.
You have zero proof the bitch was "murdered".
How about showing any proof of your assertion? The coroner (negro) ruled the death a suicide.
You have none. Therefore you are just another fuck-wit fool.
You don't deserve it but I'll give you and your fellow assholes here a little police force 'inner tennis:
Many patrol cars are now equipped with a little gadget hidden in the grill that basically scans all oncoming license plates. The scanner reads the plate and the computer does it's thing and a buzzer like thing goes off and the cop looks at the screen and he can see the long long history of the bitch's driving infractions. He decides to check and see if the bitch is still up to her old habits and pulls her over. He sees a woman smelling of dope and possibly stoned. She refuses to put out her cigarette which could and has been used to assault cops before by others.
This scanning device tells the cops if the license plate tags have expired, if the plates don't match the vehicle, if the plates are from a stolen vehicle, if the owner of the plates has any warrants.

Who said she was murdered? My point of my cut and paste was to show that by Texas law she did everything right. I never claimed she was murdered

You DID NOT! put the fucking C&P in quotation marks asshole!
But then who would really expect you to know what they are intended for.

I cut and paste and posted the link. So what is the problem. And I suggest you read the rules of the board.

When you C%P you're supposed to put it in quotation marks to show the content is not your's.
Didn't they teach you that in grade nine?
"What is the problem" needs a question mark behind it because you are asking a question moron.
You don't need to use the word "And" in the beginning of a sentence. The word should be "pasted" not "paste.
I suggest you get out of your mommy's basement and GO BUY A FUCKING ENGLISH GRAMMAR BOOK!

Now we have the punctuation police. Sorry my previous board simply required a link. The link after the article was sufficient to show what was cut and pasted. Let me get used to the new board. In the future it would be wiser to cut new people some slack until they get used to it. And the question mark period thing, a typo get over it. You have anger issues. From now on I will use the quotes.

 

[Hawkeye2j]

People who don't use their turn signals are fucking morons and assholes.

It turns out that this bitch had been pulled over before for failure to signal. I think it's safe to assume that she's one of those psychopaths and/or sociopaths who rarely if ever use their turn signals.

Of course she was pulled over before for that. It is a calculated move by police to get a reason to pull someone over, you speed behind them so they naturally pull over to let you pass and then they nab you for failing to signal. No wonder she was irritated. It is a money generator. Basically entrapment.

Bullshit! There is no excuse whatsoever to refuse to use your turn signal.

Read the statutes that I quoted earlier

 

[PredFan]

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.

I already answered that question. Nothing will happen to him because he followed widely accepted police procedures. If you disagree please tell us what it was he did wrong.

 

[PredFan]

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.

What did he do that was wrong?

 

[Hawkeye2j]

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.

I already answered that question. Nothing will happen to him because he followed widely accepted police procedures. If you disagree please tell us what it was he did wrong.

He told her to get out of the car. For a routine traffic stop this was not a lawful order