Texas Trooper Who Arrested Sandra Bland Is Indicted on Perjury Charge

[Skylar]

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.

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

 

[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.

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

 

[Skylar]

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.

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

I call them like I see them.

Its a charge based solely on state of mind. Unless there are elaborate texts or witnesses of the officer stating that his reasoning for pulling over Bland was something OTHER than what he stated, you've got reasonable doubt.

And that's not even taking into account the huge bias toward believing cops in most trials.

There may be some evidence that the prosecution has that they haven't yet revealed. Because on its face, conviction seems very unlikely.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

If he hadn't arrested her, she'd still be alive today.

This Piece of Shit will never work as a cop again, that's the good thing.

 

[JoeB131]

There's an old saying in legal circles that you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Jake! Getting an indictment from a grand jury really doesn't mean much since only the prosecution presents evidence and the defense isn't allowed to argue at all. It will be the DA's choice whether to go forward with this prosecution...trust me...the DA is VERY stressed having to make the call on this.

Yes, it's stressful actually conceding the Darkies have rights.

Point is, a young woman is dead. Someone needs to be held accountable.

 

[Skylar]

There's an old saying in legal circles that you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Jake! Getting an indictment from a grand jury really doesn't mean much since only the prosecution presents evidence and the defense isn't allowed to argue at all. It will be the DA's choice whether to go forward with this prosecution...trust me...the DA is VERY stressed having to make the call on this.

Yes, it's stressful actually conceding the Darkies have rights.

Point is, a young woman is dead. Someone needs to be held accountable.

This seems much more a civil issue than a criminal one.

 

[bucs90]

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.

If he hadn't arrested her, she'd still be alive today.

This Piece of Shit will never work as a cop again, that's the good thing.

Ah. So now when an inmate commits suicide we are gonna arrest the cop that put them in jail? Thats gonna work out so well.

 

[MikeK]

I had a similar situation with a Texas cop many years ago after being in Houston for a few days. Still had PA license plates on my car. I was at the downtown P.O. and when I was leaving the drive-thru drop area there were 5 lanes to choose from and I didn't know which one to take. Evidently I took the wrong one and was pulled over by a motorcycle cop. Tall black boots, dark aviator shades, racer helmet...the whole over-compensation act.

I told him my situation and gave him my PA driver's license. He wouldn't cut me any slack. When I seemed "irritated" he actually threatened to arrest me for having a "bad attitude". His exact words.

If I had been a black woman instead of a white woman, I'm sure he would have Sandra Blanded me in a nanosecond.

Full Gestapo costume. I know the type. They take that job mainly for the pleasure they derive from asserting themselves.

Unfortunately, unless you have a credible witness (or a recording) the cop can fabricate or exaggerate some reason to arrest you, which is what the trooper did to Bland.

Cops should be made to understand they are not sacred cows and there is no law against a citizen expressing annoyance at being issued a summons, which is what Bland did. The trooper stepped over the line when he took exception to Bland's apparent irritation and unnecessarily escalated the situation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bucs, no one is questioning whether he had the right to remove her from her car. He is indicted for lying. And the vids prove he is lying. It's perjury, son, and Wilson does not protect him. Why were you fired in Charleston area?

What SPECIFICALLY does the video prove he lied about??? None of you can say. I want a specific "he said this, and THIS never happened". There's not one.

The cited quote in the affidavit that the charges are for are that he removed her for "safety". Pennsylvania vs Mimms 1977 states this is reason enough...and NO SPECIFIC threat needs to exist...just the unknown itself is enough to cite "officer safety". If you read the law you'd know this.

He's being charged for citing a reason for doing something and SCOTUS cites EXACTLY that reason as justification for doing what he did. Word for word.

You can't say specifically what he lied about that was disproved on camera.



Charleston? I worked in Atlanta dumbass. Zone 3. Google it.

You were fired there for brutality, right?

I don't have to prove anything. That is up to the DA. The grand jury said he lied, and Wilson can't protect him from perjury.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Texas Perjury Laws - FindLaw
Good luck to them proving their guess is proof. statist dumbfuck

I believe in following the law, so if that is statism, OK. It's up to jury to convict him. If they do, tough. The department is now in the processing of terminating his employment. Good riddance to trash like him, and you, for that matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

That's why the PD is terminating him.

 

[Skylar]

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

That's why the PD is terminating him.

Grounds for termination and grounds for conviction of a crime....aren't the same. There may indeed be more to the story. But on the face of it, with the information we have now? That prosecution is a long shot.

As always, I'd rather be right than consistent. And if there is additional evidence that the grand jury got to see that we don't know about, my opinion on the matter may change.

But if not.....this would seem more of a face saving measure. That's a big 'if', though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

That's why the PD is terminating him.

Grounds for termination and grounds for conviction of a crime....aren't the same. There may indeed be more to the story. But on the face of it, with the information we have now? That prosecution is a long shot.

As always, I'd rather be right than consistent. And if there is additional evidence that the grand jury got to see that we don't know about, my opinion on the matter may change.

But if not.....this would seem more of a face saving measure. That's a big 'if', though.

Perhaps. But he will be gone, and the PD and the community will be better off.

 

[bucs90]

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

That's why the PD is terminating him.

Because he was unprofessional and used poor judgement. I'm ok with the firing actually. But he did not commit a crime.

 

[Skylar]

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

That's why the PD is terminating him.

Because he was unprofessional and used poor judgement. I'm ok with the firing actually. But he did not commit a crime.

He did and he should have been fired. He handled the situation with Sandra Bland horribly, escalating a situation that didn't need to be escalated. Its his job to calm tense situations. Not to escalate them out of control with declarations of 'I'm gonna light you up!'

But on what basis would they charge with him perjury? Was his report of the incident significantly different than the dashcam account, perhaps?

On its surface, this seems a face saving measure.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Because I can is not a reason. He said for Safety reasons. He needs reasons why it was unsafe.

NO he doesn't. You say he does. The Supreme Court says he doesnt. They said it TWICE.

Want reasons? Maybe she has a gun under the seat. Maybe she has warrants or drugs and that's why she's acting belligerent and may floor it any moment. Maybe she has a knife in the car. Maybe while he is standing next to the traffic lane a passing drunk driver hits him.

ANY of that could be possible. And NONE OF it can an officer know or forsee.

So....you see....THAT IS why SCOTUS ruled that officers don't need a specific reason. The wild card of the unknowns is enough to grant them the right to remove her without a reason.

For educated liberals....you all sure are fucking stupid about SCOTUS laws that don't involve gay sex.

So in short you support thoughts as a defense but not the other way around.

See the problem yet?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's going to be a hard case to prosecute. Reasonable doubt is almost built into the case.

You aren't exactly a right winger. But that's the most fair and reasonable post on this thread yet.

That's why the PD is terminating him.

Because he was unprofessional and used poor judgement. I'm ok with the firing actually. But he did not commit a crime.

That's merely your opinion. The jury will be the finder of facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hold on !!! Normally would not have merged 2 mature threads --- because posts get shuffled by date/time -- BUT

I saw the 2 OPs cross-posting and figured they'd like a shorter commute.. Call me with complaints.

 

[MikeK]

Because he was unprofessional and used poor judgement. I'm ok with the firing actually. But he did not commit a crime.

The Grand Jury seems to think he did.

The problem lies in the fact that many (most) cops have grown so accustomed to a certain standard of conduct, one which recently has come under scrutiny since the advent of covert recording devices, they have come to believe that presumptive standard of conduct is lawful.

When one assumes an occupation which entails imposing significant inconvenience and/or considerable expense on others for committing minor traffic or civic offenses, regardless of the propriety and justification of the imposition, unless one is officially endowed with tyrannical authority one cannot and should not expect to be regarded with meek and submissive disposition by the recipient of one's officious action.

This is not to say a cop who issues a traffic summons is expected to endure physical or extreme personal abuse as the result. But the idea that a citizen who has been cited for punishment by another citizen who does that for a living should be forbidden to express annoyance or irritation because of the experience is plainly tyrannical.

 

[Oldstyle]

There's an old saying in legal circles that you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, Jake! Getting an indictment from a grand jury really doesn't mean much since only the prosecution presents evidence and the defense isn't allowed to argue at all. It will be the DA's choice whether to go forward with this prosecution...trust me...the DA is VERY stressed having to make the call on this.

Yes, it's stressful actually conceding the Darkies have rights.

Point is, a young woman is dead. Someone needs to be held accountable.

Why does someone need to be "held accountable"? She killed herself. Over a freaking traffic stop! You know who's "accountable", Joe? She is!