Texas Trooper Who Arrested Sandra Bland Is Indicted on Perjury Charge

[bucs90]

Brian Encinia, who arrested Sandra Bland, is indicted - CNN.com
For those that don't know....Supreme Court case Maryland vs. WILSON says cops can take you out of a car during a stop for no reason at all...for simple safety. It's as much the law as gay marriage.

The cop said in his affidavit that Bland was taken out of her car to conduct a safer stop.

The jury said....they just don't believe that's why.

In other words.....prosecuting his THOUGHTS. HOW in the hell are they going to prove what he was THINKING and not thinking???

The great American cop witch hunt continues.

BTW....not ONE prison guard where she hung herself was indicted.

Just the cop because....well....they think he just had to have had bad thoughts.


The system spoke. He obviously will be found not guilty because SCOTUS Maryland vs Wilson is LAW.

But the mob needed a pound of flesh.

Are your tears that salty?

Tears? Hardly. Surprise...yes. It's the first case I've ever heard of where a person's actions were perfectly legal. But the grand jury says even though what you DID was legal....we think you were thinking something else so you lied about why you said what your reason was for doing something legal. By definition the "thought police"

SCOTUS Maryland vs Wilson makes legal everything the cop did. It's just as legal as...say...gay marriage.

Bodecea....you should know about lying though. You were dishonest about a biggie for 20 years. How dare ye judge lest ye be judged haha!

 

[dannyboys]

How on earth was he to know that woman was batshit crazy?

You all seem to forget that she killer herself and the last time I checked suicide is not a crime

And if she went home and killed herself (if that's what actually happened) there wouldn't be an issue. But the minute this storm-trooper arrested her for something petty, he owned everything that followed.

He'll have a good old time with the brothers in prison. They LOVE ex-cops.

So If cop arrests someone....then 4 days later the person commits suicide in the jail....it's the cops fault? Good God you cop hating libs get more retarded by the day.

Oh....and he's not going to prison. This case is so ludicrous it won't even make it past a preliminary hearing. And EVEN if convicted....it's a petty charge and he has no rap sheet. He'd get probation at worst. And EVEN IF he went to prison.....cops don't go to general. They go where celebs go. It's a safety issue.

That's right. The prelim. hearing is just a formality. The Pros. knows there's no case but he had to give the cop-haters their pound of fresh.
The LEO walks guaranteed.
This police union lawyers are the best in the country. They have taken on the case. They don't do that when a cop is guilty.
They tell the cop to plead guilty period. They do not waste time on cases that aren't 100% winnable.

 

[bucs90]

Good -

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/texas-grand-jury-sandra-bland.html?_r=0

The charge stemmed from a one-page affidavit that Trooper Encinia filed with jail officials justifying the arrest of Ms. Bland, who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Prairie View, northwest of Houston, for failing to use her turn signal. Ms. Bland, 28, who was black, was returning to Texas in July to take a job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M.

The trooper wrote that he removed Ms. Bland from her car in order to conduct a safe traffic investigation, but “the grand jury found that statement to be false,” a special prosecutor, Shawn McDonald, said.

Yes. The grand jury simply said they don't believe safety is the reason he took her out of the car. SCOTUS Maryland v. Wilson grants cops the right to remove someone from a vehicle for ANY reason and the trooper cites safety.

Grand jury said they just don't believe him. LEGALLY he could've just given NO REASON to remove her (Maryland v. Wilson) but he said safety and the jury just said "We don't believe you".

So....there is absolutely no evidence he lied. He said it was for safety. It's now their job to prove what he was thinking.

Therefore....all he has to do is cite Maryland v Wilson, and then make them prove what he was THINKING at the time....which is impossible.

He's never gonna see trial. And if this solicitor takes this case....an unlawful arrest lawsuit will make this trooper rich because SUPREME COURT LAW already grants him the right to remove her for ANY reason he wants.

This is the most pathetic clown court I've seen since Baltimore.

We know why you're so invested in this mall cop/klanboi, The victim was African American

What EXACTLY did he lie about???

The grand jury found his statements to be untruthful.

Everything. The cop is a liar. He faces up to a year in jail.

WRONG. The prosecutor himself was asked what specifically he lied about. He said the single statement the jury didn't believe was the "removed from vehicle for a safer stop" statement. THAT was it. You idiots WANT it to be all of it. You must have inside info the prosecutors dont.

He is given authority by the SCOTUS to do what he did. That ruling itself cites safety as why cops are granted this power.

Basically....they arrested this cop as a way to challenge Maryland vs Wilson. They just don't believe she was removed for safety.

NOW....maybe in that cops mind he removed her because she pissed him off and it wasn't about safety. THAT IS what they'll have to prove. AND short of him pulling a Colonel Jessup on the stand....they hey have no chance of winning and he's going to file a wrongful arrest lawsuit on the solicitors office because SUPREME COURT LAW allows him to do what he did.

The solicitor knows this. Notice the indictment came....but he hasn't been arrested yet???? Solicitor knows this is trouble.

 

[bucs90]

How on earth was he to know that woman was batshit crazy?

You all seem to forget that she killer herself and the last time I checked suicide is not a crime

And if she went home and killed herself (if that's what actually happened) there wouldn't be an issue. But the minute this storm-trooper arrested her for something petty, he owned everything that followed.

He'll have a good old time with the brothers in prison. They LOVE ex-cops.

So If cop arrests someone....then 4 days later the person commits suicide in the jail....it's the cops fault? Good God you cop hating libs get more retarded by the day.

Oh....and he's not going to prison. This case is so ludicrous it won't even make it past a preliminary hearing. And EVEN if convicted....it's a petty charge and he has no rap sheet. He'd get probation at worst. And EVEN IF he went to prison.....cops don't go to general. They go where celebs go. It's a safety issue.

That's right. The prelim. hearing is just a formality. The Pros. knows there's no case but he had to give the cop-haters their pound of fresh.
The LEO walks guaranteed.
This police union lawyers are the best in the country. They have taken on the case. They don't do that when a cop is guilty.
They tell the cop to plead guilty period. They do not waste time on cases that aren't 100% winnable.

Yep. My Cousin Vinny could win this case even without Marissa Thome!

Anyone else ever heard of a case where the person's actions were 100% legal....but was prosecuted on what they think he was thinking?

The cop haters don't understand the seismic effects this single case can have on our justice system. This could be a Graham vs Connor or Terry vs Ohio level ruling.

 

[bucs90]

There is absolutely no evidence he lied. The solicitor hasn't formally arrested him yet. There's a reason why.

Maryland vs Wilson grants the cop the authority to do everything he did. And he's being charged for it.

It will be a 100% unlawful arrest. He's probably hoping they do arrest him because he's gonna have a kick ass lawsuit.

 

[Faun]

This is an issue of fact not law.

In other words, the grand jury is not buying your type of defense.

The grand jury believes he lied.

The DA is not stressed at all.

What evidence do they have he lied? He said it was for safety. The SCOTUS allows him to do that.

They're basically saying "We know you said it was for safety...but we don't think that's what you were thinking".

How in the hell do they prove what they think he was thinking??

This charge is more of a joke than the Baltimore charges....and wow...I never thought I'd see a worse charge than Baltimore but this one is it.

I watched the dash cam video. It looked to me like she was safer in her car than out of it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You were wrong when you said you would not be released from the police.

You are wrong on this. The officer is indicted for lying about the events, which is not protected by law.

What event did he lie about?

You tell us, since that is your thread's lead.

Wilson does not protect him, anymore than it did you.

Um....that's the point. There is no evidence of a lie. They said they just don't believe his affidavit saying she was removed for a "safer stop". Maryland v Wilson protects him there.

So....they're basically charging him for lying....and it's based on what they think he was thinking...not what he actually did.

They're gonna have to prove what he was THINKING to prove his reason for removing her was false.

Unless he pulls a Colonel Jessup and says "You're damn right I wasn't thinking that"....then this will be dismissed and he's gonna sue the pants off the prosecutors office...because a SCOTUS ruling protects him.

she was removed for a "safer stop"

She was stopped for failure to signal a lane change not a felony warrant. There was no need to make it a " safer stop", only give a warning or a ticket and move on.

Doesn't matter. Maryland vs Wilson SCOTUS grants cops that right. As beligierant as she was acting....she may have been hiding something and being like that to try to get the cop to back off. That's a common thug tactic, especially in suburban areas where cops aren't as aggressive.

What he did was 100% legal. And he's not being charged for what they jury THINKS he might have been THINKING.

That's a common thug tactic,

That's a common racist mistake made when operating under the belief that all blacks require a higher level of scrutiny due to the perception of inherint nefarity among blacks.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In other words.....prosecuting his THOUGHTS. HOW in the hell are they going to prove what he was THINKING and not thinking???

So, you like thoughts as a defense but not the other way around?

How many times have you disagreed with the police saying they Feared for their safety? Dont answer, I'll tell you, not one dam time. And thats after killing someone.

Now you want to act all indignant because a cop lied after a body shows up in their jail? You're offended by the wrong thing buddy

 

[pwjohn]

Good -

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/texas-grand-jury-sandra-bland.html?_r=0

The charge stemmed from a one-page affidavit that Trooper Encinia filed with jail officials justifying the arrest of Ms. Bland, who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Prairie View, northwest of Houston, for failing to use her turn signal. Ms. Bland, 28, who was black, was returning to Texas in July to take a job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M.

The trooper wrote that he removed Ms. Bland from her car in order to conduct a safe traffic investigation, but “the grand jury found that statement to be false,” a special prosecutor, Shawn McDonald, said.

Yes. The grand jury simply said they don't believe safety is the reason he took her out of the car. SCOTUS Maryland v. Wilson grants cops the right to remove someone from a vehicle for ANY reason and the trooper cites safety.

Grand jury said they just don't believe him. LEGALLY he could've just given NO REASON to remove her (Maryland v. Wilson) but he said safety and the jury just said "We don't believe you".

So....there is absolutely no evidence he lied. He said it was for safety. It's now their job to prove what he was thinking.

Therefore....all he has to do is cite Maryland v Wilson, and then make them prove what he was THINKING at the time....which is impossible.

He's never gonna see trial. And if this solicitor takes this case....an unlawful arrest lawsuit will make this trooper rich because SUPREME COURT LAW already grants him the right to remove her for ANY reason he wants.

This is the most pathetic clown court I've seen since Baltimore.

We know why you're so invested in this mall cop/klanboi, The victim was African American

What EXACTLY did he lie about???

The grand jury found his statements to be untruthful.

Everything. The cop is a liar. He faces up to a year in jail.

WRONG. The prosecutor himself was asked what specifically he lied about. He said the single statement the jury didn't believe was the "removed from vehicle for a safer stop" statement. THAT was it. You idiots WANT it to be all of it. You must have inside info the prosecutors dont.

He is given authority by the SCOTUS to do what he did. That ruling itself cites safety as why cops are granted this power.

Basically....they arrested this cop as a way to challenge Maryland vs Wilson. They just don't believe she was removed for safety.

NOW....maybe in that cops mind he removed her because she pissed him off and it wasn't about safety. THAT IS what they'll have to prove. AND short of him pulling a Colonel Jessup on the stand....they hey have no chance of winning and he's going to file a wrongful arrest lawsuit on the solicitors office because SUPREME COURT LAW allows him to do what he did.

The solicitor knows this. Notice the indictment came....but he hasn't been arrested yet???? Solicitor knows this is trouble.

You're full of shit. As usual.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bucs is ok with using thoughts as a defense...

 

[TNHarley]

Special prosecutor Shawn McDonald said Wednesday outside the courthouse that "the indictment was issued in reference to the reasoning that (Texas State Trooper Brian Encinia) removed her from her vehicle."
He explained the grand jury didn't believe Encinia's statement that he took her from the car she was driving so he could conduct a safer traffic investigation.
That is some bullshit.
IDK what his true intentions were but neither do they.
"social justice"

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

bucs90 has never met an abusive or corrupt cop he didn't like

 

[ClosedCaption]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

 

[bucs90]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

Well guess what....Supreme Court ruling Maryland vs Wilson grants cops that authority. All the other jibberish you've types is irrelevant because the LAW allows him to do what he did.

You don't like it? Well...we don't like gay marriage. But SCOTUS has ruled on both.

See? This cop is being thrown under the bus....and he's gonna emerge with a multi million dollar lawsuit against the county and solicitor for unlawful arrest. He has a god damn Supreme Court ruling as evidence that his actions were legal.

As for proving what he may or may not have been thinking? Yeah....good luck.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

Exactly.
The officer had no reason to escalate the stop beyond a ticket. Bland said it herself as she exited her vehicle. She said something like, " all of this for failing to signal?" The jury didn't miss this point.

 

[TNHarley]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

So he should be punished for not making sense?
Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?
YOU believe it
Social justice!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

Well guess what....Supreme Court ruling Maryland vs Wilson grants cops that authority. All the other jibberish you've types is irrelevant because the LAW allows him to do what he did..

He has the authority just not the circumstances to back up his thinking. He already said it was to make it safer, not that he has the authority.

He should've led with that...but instead he lied and wont be able to back it up.

Big deal, I know

 

[ClosedCaption]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

So he should be punished for not making sense?

Perjury is a crime isnt it?

Have cops never been run over in the side lanes?

Yes, but thats not his defense

You're trying to provide defenses he isnt presenting which means you're fishing for reasons why lying is ok.

 

[bucs90]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

Exactly.
The officer had no reason to escalate the stop beyond a ticket. Bland said it herself as she exited her vehicle. She said something like, " all of this for failing to signal?" The jury didn't miss this point.

Maybe not. But LEGALLY he can. That's the point. Wanna challenge Maryland vs Wilson? Fine. But you can't make an arrest because you just don't like his legal actions.

We don't Iike gay marriage. But it's the law.

 

[bucs90]

Taking someone out of their car for safety doesnt make sense unless we are supposed to believe the thoughts a cop gives automatically and cast aside reasoning and suspend disbelief. I think he'd have to explain why the stop wasnt safe to begin with but thats on video....cant lie about that champ

Well guess what....Supreme Court ruling Maryland vs Wilson grants cops that authority. All the other jibberish you've types is irrelevant because the LAW allows him to do what he did..

He has the authority just not the circumstances to back up his thinking. He already said it was to make it safer, not that he has the authority.

He should've led with that...but instead he lied and wont be able to back it up.

Big deal, I know

What PROOF is there that isn't his reason? Just because you don't believe it? Some criminals will act belligerent to get cops to back off and not discover what they're hiding. That's why Maryland vs Wilson granted this blanket authority to cops for safety to remove someone....because the cop CANNOT know what he doesn't know....whether the person is hiding something.

You can't prove what he was thinking. He doesn't have to prove it. The simple unknown in itself is enough to justify the safety concern.....and the SUPREME COURT agreed....because they made it legal to remove someone "for safety" even without any clear facts of what it is that is unsafe...because the cop cannot know what he doesn't know.