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

[PredFan]

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.

His employer is only trying to ease tension in the community, because the officer did nothing wrong. You continue to refuse to answer my question; what did he do wrong?

 

[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.

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

Wrong. He didn't tell her to get out of the car because of the traffic stop, he told her to get out of the car because of her refusal to comply with his lawful order. The order to get out of the car is standard procedure all accross the nation. It is for the safety of both the officer and the driver. ALL cops do this because it separates the driver from any potential weapons he or she might have in the car. This is standard procedure and was not wrong. No police department or law enforcement department or grand jury or prosecutor anywhere would call that misconduct.

 

[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

Wrong. He didn't tell her to get out of the car because of the traffic stop, he told her to get out of the car because of her refusal to comply with his lawful order. The order to get out of the car is standard procedure all accross the nation. It is for the safety of both the officer and the driver. ALL cops do this because it separates the driver from any potential weapons he or she might have in the car. This is standard procedure and was not wrong. No police department or law enforcement department or grand jury or prosecutor anywhere would call that misconduct.

Asking her to put out her cigarrette was not a lawful order. And telling her to get out of the car in a traffic stop is not standard procedure

 

[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.

Read the statutes that I quoted earlier

Quote the statute that says you can blow through stop signs and refuse to use your turn signal.

 

[Muhammed]

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?

Watch the full dashcam video. She blew a stop sign and made a right turn without signaling right in front of him. Perhaps that had something to do with it.

She had to have seen him. It almost appears that she was purposefully trying to get pulled over.

 

[CremeBrulee]

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

Wrong. He didn't tell her to get out of the car because of the traffic stop, he told her to get out of the car because of her refusal to comply with his lawful order. The order to get out of the car is standard procedure all accross the nation. It is for the safety of both the officer and the driver. ALL cops do this because it separates the driver from any potential weapons he or she might have in the car. This is standard procedure and was not wrong. No police department or law enforcement department or grand jury or prosecutor anywhere would call that misconduct.

Asking her to put out her cigarrette was not a lawful order. And telling her to get out of the car in a traffic stop is not standard procedure

As one of the few remaining smokers in America, almost every interaction I have had with police officers while smoking usually begins with "Put the cigarette out."

 

[Muhammed]

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.

If the cop was an ass he would have been handing out tickets instead of warnings.

 

[Oldstyle]

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!"

What does this have to do with Progressives using the IRS to target conservatives? Get a clue, Joe...

 

[Oldstyle]

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

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

If you're not a lawyer then why are you passing yourself off as one? The following is what you posted.

'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.

If that's not your quote, Hawkeye...then you need to put it in quotation marks and attribute who's quote it is.

Whoever it is that you DID quote is talking crap because they don't know how to read a traffic code because what that trooper was giving a warning to Bland for is in fact a traffic violation in Texas.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

If you were using that tactic to generate money then why would you be writing a warning instead of a ticket? Your own argument defeats your claim of "entrapment".

 

[Oldstyle]

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

Wrong. He didn't tell her to get out of the car because of the traffic stop, he told her to get out of the car because of her refusal to comply with his lawful order. The order to get out of the car is standard procedure all accross the nation. It is for the safety of both the officer and the driver. ALL cops do this because it separates the driver from any potential weapons he or she might have in the car. This is standard procedure and was not wrong. No police department or law enforcement department or grand jury or prosecutor anywhere would call that misconduct.

Asking her to put out her cigarrette was not a lawful order. And telling her to get out of the car in a traffic stop is not standard procedure

You don't have the faintest idea what "standard procedure" is...do you, Hawkeye? Standard procedure in a traffic stop is for the police officer to tell the detained person to remain in their car for that person's safety. When a police officer tells a detained person to step out of the car it's become something other than a routine traffic stop. At that point the officer has concerns that the detained person may have something dangerous inside of the car and is going to remove them from the car for the safety of the officer. When a police office is interacting with you he or she does indeed have the right to tell you to extinguish a burning cigarette. Once again it's a safety issue.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

You really are a rookie! If you cut and paste someone else...then put that in quotations and attribute the origin. If you don't...anyone reading it is going to assume what is there is YOURS. Duh?

 

[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.

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.

Mike is not one of the board's more intelligent posters, Dannyboys!

 

[TooTall]

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

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?

Watch the full dashcam video. She blew a stop sign and made a right turn without signaling right in front of him. Perhaps that had something to do with it.

She had to have seen him. It almost appears that she was purposefully trying to get pulled over.

The video I watched started with the cop at her window, but thanks for the info.

 

[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.

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

Wrong. He didn't tell her to get out of the car because of the traffic stop, he told her to get out of the car because of her refusal to comply with his lawful order. The order to get out of the car is standard procedure all accross the nation. It is for the safety of both the officer and the driver. ALL cops do this because it separates the driver from any potential weapons he or she might have in the car. This is standard procedure and was not wrong. No police department or law enforcement department or grand jury or prosecutor anywhere would call that misconduct.

Asking her to put out her cigarrette was not a lawful order. And telling her to get out of the car in a traffic stop is not standard procedure

Again you are wrong. It absolutely is.

 

[PredFan]

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

Wrong. He didn't tell her to get out of the car because of the traffic stop, he told her to get out of the car because of her refusal to comply with his lawful order. The order to get out of the car is standard procedure all accross the nation. It is for the safety of both the officer and the driver. ALL cops do this because it separates the driver from any potential weapons he or she might have in the car. This is standard procedure and was not wrong. No police department or law enforcement department or grand jury or prosecutor anywhere would call that misconduct.

Asking her to put out her cigarrette was not a lawful order. And telling her to get out of the car in a traffic stop is not standard procedure

You don't have the faintest idea what "standard procedure" is...do you, Hawkeye? Standard procedure in a traffic stop is for the police officer to tell the detained person to remain in their car for that person's safety. When a police officer tells a detained person to step out of the car it's become something other than a routine traffic stop. At that point the officer has concerns that the detained person may have something dangerous inside of the car and is going to remove them from the car for the safety of the officer. When a police office is interacting with you he or she does indeed have the right to tell you to extinguish a burning cigarette. Once again it's a safety issue.

Exactly correct.

 

[dannyboys]

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

You're a fucking joke.
I will not waste bandwidth on you.
Permanent Ignore fuck-wit.

 

[MikeK]

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.

I'm saying, what he should have done was issue the warning or summons and say goodbye to what clearly was a situation that could escalate into an unnecessary confrontation that could divert him from patrol and waste a lot of time and taxpayer money. Instead he did what cops like him, and you, will do because they are driven by the sense of synthetic power that comes with a badge.

What you are doing here, and what you will continue to do until you are fortunate enough to retire, or you end up in handcuffs, yourself, is ignore the obvious fact that Encinio's actions have resulted in a shit-storm of disapproval and the death of what clearly was an emotionally disturbed individual.

If the stupid sonofabitch would simply have done what he was required to do and gotten the hell out of there none of this would be happening.

But of course you disagree.

 

[Claudette]

All that woman had to do was smile, accept the warning and go on her merry way.

Instead she ended up getting arrested and killed herself in a jail cell.

Talk about a fucking idiot.

End of fucking story.

 

[Muhammed]

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

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?

Watch the full dashcam video. She blew a stop sign and made a right turn without signaling right in front of him. Perhaps that had something to do with it.

She had to have seen him. It almost appears that she was purposefully trying to get pulled over.

The video I watched started with the cop at her window, but thanks for the info.

The one I saw starts with the officer giving a warning to a motorist for speeding. As soon as he starts driving away Bland runs a stop sign and he does a u-turn and starts following her.