Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Any man who ever has lived with a woman and who expects to have the last word in an argument with her is a goddam fool, which this cop obviously is -- among other things. Because men are born with muscles while women are born with the ability to peck men into fits of self-destructive rage. A phenomenon which Texas Patrolman Encinio has just experienced -- but probably is still too stupid to understand.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.
How many "interactions" with police officers have you had? And unless you were about to be handcuffed did you ever ask, Why? Or are you just naturally submissive and don't mind playing B&D games with some jerkoff who has a fragile ego and a badge?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."
Sorry that you haven't "lived with" a sane mature woman who sees herself in an equal partnership with her man. You have obviously been "living with", shall we say, 'fucking nut-jobs',Any man who ever has lived with a woman and who expects to have the last word in an argument with her is a goddam fool, which this cop obviously is -- among other things. Because men are born with muscles while women are born with the ability to peck men into fits of self-destructive rage. A phenomenon which Texas Patrolman Encinio has just experienced -- but probably is still too stupid to understand.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.
Listen up jerk-off! Anyone who finds themselves being put in handcuffs has fucked up big time.How many "interactions" with police officers have you had? And unless you were about to be handcuffed did you ever ask, Why? Or are you just naturally submissive and don't mind playing B&D games with some jerkoff who has a fragile ego and a badge?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."
How does smoking a cigarette while sitting in my car as a cop is interviewing me regarding a traffic violation equate to "a safety issue?" Don't you think that extreme nonsense is taking the issue of "officer safety" a bit too far?[...] 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.
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.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.
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.
How does smoking a cigarette while sitting in my car as a cop is interviewing me regarding a traffic violation equate to "a safety issue?" Don't you think that extreme nonsense is taking the issue of "officer safety" a bit too far?[...] 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.
I watch the TV "ride-along" documentary, COPS, now and then and I'm amazed at the ritual often seen of half-a-dozen cops perched behind the protective cover of three car doors with drawn and aimed pistols as one issues the commands:
"Driver, with your left hand, open the door! Now step out slowly! Put your hands behind your neck and interlace your fingers! Turn away from me! Walk backwards to the sound of my voice! Stop! Drop to your knees! Now lie face down with your arms straight out at your sides![/I]
For those who have never watched COPS, I'm not kidding. Every word of the above is true. The only thing missing from that absurdly redundant "procedure" is, "Wiggle your ears." And while it's true that the entire script is mandated procedure it is plainly obvious that it's a game the cops don't mind playing.
And now I expect you will tell me a cigarette in the hand of an ordinary motorist is a potential weapon.
Right?
How does smoking a cigarette while sitting in my car as a cop is interviewing me regarding a traffic violation equate to "a safety issue?" Don't you think that extreme nonsense is taking the issue of "officer safety" a bit too far?[...] 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.
I watch the TV "ride-along" documentary, COPS, now and then and I'm amazed at the ritual often seen of half-a-dozen cops perched behind the protective cover of three car doors with drawn and aimed pistols as one issues the commands:
"Driver, with your left hand, open the door! Now step out slowly! Put your hands behind your neck and interlace your fingers! Turn away from me! Walk backwards to the sound of my voice! Stop! Drop to your knees! Now lie face down with your arms straight out at your sides![/I]
For those who have never watched COPS, I'm not kidding. Every word of the above is true. The only thing missing from that absurdly redundant "procedure" is, "Wiggle your ears." And while it's true that the entire script is mandated procedure it is plainly obvious that it's a game the cops don't mind playing.
And now I expect you will tell me a cigarette in the hand of an ordinary motorist is a potential weapon.
Right?
When you C%P you're supposed to put it in quotation marks to show the content is not your's.I cut and paste and posted the link. So what is the problem. And I suggest you read the rules of the board.You DID NOT! put the fucking C&P in quotation marks asshole!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 murderedAt first I thought you were pretty reasonable and balanced. But then you disappointed.'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
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.
But then who would really expect you to know what they are intended for.
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!
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.
Escorting someone out of a bar unmistakably implies a disorderly, possibly violent person, which is a significant departure from a peaceful motorist who has committed some benign traffic infraction and is calmly waiting for you to issue a warning or a summons, in which case there is no cause for physical contact, therefore no reason to fear attack by a deadly cigarette.As someone who's had a cigarette ground into my forearm as I was escorting someone out of a bar I can state without a doubt that a lit cigarette is a potential weapon and I have the scar to prove 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?
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?
You're supposing that. That exists in your addled mind only. There is no statement from them saying that was the reason.
I provided a link to what I know his employer said he did wrong.
The scenario I described does not report on one lonely cop on a desolate country road who is confronting a driver whom he has cause to believe could be armed and potentially violent. I described (typically) three or more cars, which had participated in a pursuit in which there was no reason to believe the driver was armed or dangerous.And that isn't a "game" that the police are playing...in case you haven't noticed...police are being shot and killed at an ever increasing rate lately. The scenario you just described happens all the time now because quite frankly, the police are understandably on edge. They're being targeted for attack not because of anything they have done but rather for the uniform that they wear.
There are two reasons why police are being killed. One is that's the nature of the job. While the police occupation is by no means the most dangerous occupation (it's around number ten on the list) it does pose a risk which one either accepts or does not.And that isn't a "game" that the police are playing...in case you haven't noticed...police are being shot and killed at an ever increasing rate lately. The scenario you just described happens all the time now because quite frankly, the police are understandably on edge. They're being targeted for attack not because of anything they have done but rather for the uniform that they wear.
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?
You're supposing that. That exists in your addled mind only. There is no statement from them saying that was the reason.
I provided a link to what I know his employer said he did wrong.
Again, that is a lie. The link you provided does NOT say what he did wrong. Unless you can show me something that is on the video that no one else mentioned or saw, my "opinion" is the only thing that makes any sense.
If you disagree, then please show me what the officer did that was wrong.
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?
You're supposing that. That exists in your addled mind only. There is no statement from them saying that was the reason.
I provided a link to what I know his employer said he did wrong.
Again, that is a lie. The link you provided does NOT say what he did wrong. Unless you can show me something that is on the video that no one else mentioned or saw, my "opinion" is the only thing that makes any sense.
If you disagree, then please show me what the officer did that was wrong.
I in no way "lied". I presented an official statement from the dept.
Again, you seem to know better than the actual people who enforce the policies in question. You run with that. Just leave me out of your psychosis.
Unless you really believe we are living in Nineteen Eighty Four I suggest you shed the delusional notion that police should be looking for emotionally disturbed individuals.Where did you come up with the idea that the police should avoid emotionally disturbed individuals? That isn't their JOB, Sparky! They're out there on the streets LOOKING for emotionally disturbed individuals because it's disturbed individuals who do crazy things!
That is the whole point. The cop is making a routine traffic stop into something more. And nobody has to obey an unlawful order.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 procedureHe told her to get out of the car. For a routine traffic stop this was not a lawful orderNo, 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.
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.
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.
Some people are not that submissive. If I thought I was right and he was wrong I could not smile and accept it. Not in my nature.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.
