This Black WAS abused by cops.. Sandra Bland

[Rusha]

You are SO wrong, but then, that's to be expected.

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/tex...er/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Salon Magazine? Okay ... from you, that is to be suspected.

 

[Nazaroo]

There's an argument for putting the cigarette out, because it could be a 'weapon' or simply an offensive method to express superiority or whatever.

The whole reason we smoked in the 60s was because men smoked to look tough.
Everybody smoked, for the same reason.

But honestly, how tough or how scared is a cop going to be
from a woman sitting in a car with a smoke?

A bigger man would have just brushed it off as BS.

 

[GFR7]

There's an argument for putting the cigarette out, because it could be a 'weapon' or simply an offensive method to express superiority or whatever.

The whole reason we smoked in the 60s was because men smoked to look tough.
Everybody smoked, for the same reason.

But honestly, how tough or how scared is a cop going to be
from a woman sitting in a car with a smoke?

A bigger man would have just brushed it off as BS.

:BRAVO: Of course he would have. This cop was a trouble-making wimp.

 

[GFR7]

Salon Magazine? Okay ... from you, that is to be suspected.

This from Rolling Stone sums up all aptly:

That's why the issue isn't how Sandra Bland died, but why she was stopped and detained in the first place. It's profiling, sure, but it's even worse than that. It's a systematic campaign to harass people, using misdemeanors and violations as battering ram – a campaign that's been going on forever, and against which there's little defense. When the law can be stretched to mean almost anything, obeying it is no magic bullet.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sandra-bland-was-murdered-20150724?page=3

 

[annabenedetti]

Why do you suppose he told her to put out her cigarette?

Bump.

 

[GFR7]

Bump.

I believe it was to escalate the situation, which it did. And not, as some say, because he feared she would burn him.

 

[GFR7]

One last word for all of you who defend the cop:

Why did the Texas Department of Public Safety assert that the officer violated the agency’s procedures during the traffic stop, and why was he subsequently placed on administrative leave???

Anyone care to answer? :think:

 

[Rusha]

I believe it was to escalate the situation, which it did. And not, as some say, because he feared she would burn him.

One last word for all of you who defend the cop:

Unlike you, no one has *blindly* defended anyone. You refuse to accept that fact that she contributed to the outcome of her situation and made the decision to end her own life. THAT decision, is solely on her.

 

[GFR7]

Why do you suppose he told her to put out her cigarette?

I gave my response; am curious to know what you believe about why he asked? :think:

 

[GFR7]

Donald Trump's comments on the arrest of Sandra Bland:

Trump: ...I will tell you that I saw that clip, on your show, by the way. I thought it was terrible. He was so aggressive. It was a traffic signal as I understand it. And you know, who gets out of a car for a traffic signal? I haven't been pulled over in a while actually. But, seriously he just looked very aggressive. I didn't like his demeanor. I thought it was terrible to be honest with you. And I'm a huge fan of the police. I think the police have to be given back power but this guy was overly aggressive, terribly aggressive.

Cooper: Do you think that happens to African Americans more than it does to you or I?

Trump: I hope it doesn't but, it might. And, you know, I have a great relationship with African Americans, as you possibly have heard. I just have great respect for them and you know they like me. I like them. The answer is, it possibly does. It shouldn't and its very sad if the case is. ... I will say though in this case I watched that so closely. I watched it a few times. He was terrible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...guing-comments-about-sandra-bland-yes-really/

 

[GFR7]

Trooper Brian Encinia claims Bland was combative and demanded she stop recording the arrest, but laws state that it is legal to record police if it doesn’t interfere with their duties.

1. Brian Encinia’s Is A Fairly New State Trooper
Encinia has no to very little experience and background as a peace officer.

2. Preliminary Investigation Revealed Encinia Violated Protocols and Policy
Texas Department of Public Safety officials informed reporters this week that Encinia violated traffic stop and courtesy protocols. Legal experts claim his alleged abrasive behavior to be a factor. Bland’s rights were violated during the arrest. Citizens are allowed to remain silent after handing over their license and proof of insurance.

3. Key Details About His Encounter With Sandra Bland Were Left Out of his Report.


4. Trooper Brian Encinia’s Digital Presence Has Vanished
Typical of someone guilty and trying to hide

5. Lawmakers Side With Sandra Bland Over her Arrest
Texas Government states Trooper Brian Encinia did not display proper conduct. “Regardless of the situation, the state trooper has an obligation to exhibit professionalism and be courteous,” said Director Steve McCraw. “That did not happen in this situation.”
When asked by reporters if Sandra Bland caused her own death, West said “no.” He also added that she didn’t deserve to be arrested in the first place.

6. Trooper Brian Encinia Is On Administrative Leave
Trooper Brian Encinia is on administrative duty until the investigation is complete. The FBI is working with the Texas Rangers on the case after it was labeled Bland’s death was a suicide. Her family has hired an independent medical examiner an autopsy is scheduled to be released in the next few days.

http://www.uglyjudge.com/abuse-of-power-is-what-killed-sandra-bland/

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian, regarding Connie's notion that police are above other citizens:
The Constitution says they are equals. And it protects the right to disrespect police officers. In fact, the law allows one to be downright rude:

Wow, you are a wealth of information barbarian.

That's how it works. The Consititution rules. Cops are only servants. That's why any citizen can compel a police officer to identity himself, but in most states, police can only compel a citizen to identify himself under very limited circumstances. If you were a police officer, as you've sometimes claimed, you'd know this.

Henceforth, those laws that are made to protect law enforcement while making a lawful arrest (hindering a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, obstructing a law enforcement in the line of duty, resisting arrest) are all unconstitutional

Sorry, that excuse won't work. There are also very specific laws regarding what constitutes obstruction, and being impolite or refusing to put out a cigarette don't qualify. With the advent of cell phone cameras, a lot of cops are finding out the hard way when they lose their jobs or face criminal charges.

Seattle has had some issues with that um?

Barbarian observes:
BTW, there's going to be an independent autopsy. If everything comes back as the police said, then they should be O.K. If we see some kind of injury to her head or other issues, then someone's in big trouble.

A rational person would wait for that.

Because those racist county medical examiners who did the autopsy just can't be trusted.

I said "rational." You have a written excuse, Connie.

The things we learn from cop hating Libertarians like the barbarian.

I'm all in favor of culling out the criminals and leaving the vast majority of good and lawful cops free to do their jobs.

Which Connie considers to be "cop hating." For reasons we all understand.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Still infatuated with calling a man a by a female's name (does the barbarian not know that LGBTQueer month ended in June?) the barbarian writes:

Barbarian, regarding Connie's notion that police are above other citizens:
The Constitution says they are equals. And it protects the right to disrespect police officers. In fact, the law allows one to be downright rude:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Wow, you are a wealth of information barbarian.

That's how it works. The Consititution rules. Cops are only servants. That's why any citizen can compel a police officer to identity himself, but in most states, police can only compel a citizen to identify himself under very limited circumstances. If you were a police officer, as you've sometimes claimed, you'd know this.

Like I said, you're a wealth of information, too bad none of it is true.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Henceforth, those laws that are made to protect law enforcement while making a lawful arrest (hindering a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, obstructing a law enforcement in the line of duty, resisting arrest) are all unconstitutional

Sorry, that excuse won't work. There are also very specific laws regarding what constitutes obstruction, and being impolite or refusing to put out a cigarette don't qualify. With the advent of cell phone cameras, a lot of cops are finding out the hard way when they lose their jobs or face criminal charges.

Obstructing, hindering and resisting arrest are still valuable tools used by law enforcement, edjumacate yourself:

PENAL CODE
TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.38.htm

Seattle has had some issues with that um?

Sodom and Gonorrhea North has many issues. Heroin addicts pretty much owned the streets for awhile because SPD was laying low because of a federal consent decree put on them by your favorite administration. The topic is above your IQ level so I'll save space and not waste talking about federal consent decrees and how the citizenry of the city that it's placed on are the ones that are hurt because of it.

Barbarian observes:
BTW, there's going to be an independent autopsy. If everything comes back as the police said, then they should be O.K. If we see some kind of injury to her head or other issues, then someone's in big trouble.

A rational person would wait for that.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Because those racist county medical examiners who did the autopsy just can't be trusted.

I said "rational." You have a written excuse, Connie.

BTW, how did that independent autopsy of Ferguson thug Michael Brown go, i.e. did they find that he was shot in the black like you liberals claimed he was or that Officer Darren Wilson stood over him and fired repeatedly from close range?

Autopsy away all that you like (and be sure to send the taxpayers the bill), Bland had a previous attempted suicide (the article is from the porno website Huffington Post, so it must be true)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/22/sandra-bland-suicide_n_7852002.html

and it appears that she was successful this time.

 

[The Barbarian]

(does the barbarian not know that LGBTQueer month ended in June?)

You always remind us of the dates.

Barbarian, regarding Connie's notion that police are above other citizens:
The Constitution says they are equals. And it protects the right to disrespect police officers. In fact, the law allows one to be downright rude:

Wow, you are a wealth of information barbarian.

Barbarian observes:
That's how it works. The Consititution rules. Cops are only servants. That's why any citizen can compel a police officer to identity himself, but in most states, police can only compel a citizen to identify himself under very limited circumstances. If you were a police officer, as you've sometimes claimed, you'd know this.

Like I said, you're a wealth of information, too bad none of it is true.

Well, let's take a look...

"Stop and identify states"

A civilian flipping off a police officer can't be cause for a vehicle stop or arrest, a federal appellate court has ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the "ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity."

The ruling conforms to existing legal precedent, said Devallis Rutledge, POLICE's legal expert.

"You can contact the person," Rutledge said. "You cannot detain the person. It doesn't provide grounds for arrest. It's just not criminal."

In the most recent case, John Swartz and his wife Judy Mayton-Swartz had sued two St. Johnsville (N.Y.) Police officers who arrested Swartz in May 2006 after he flipped off an officer who was using a radar device at an intersection. Swartz was later charged with a violation of New York's disorderly conduct statute, but the charges were dismissed,
http://www.policemag.com/channel/pa...ourt-flipping-off-cops-is-constitutional.aspx


Connie writes:

Henceforth, those laws that are made to protect law enforcement while making a lawful arrest (hindering a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, obstructing a law enforcement in the line of duty, resisting arrest) are all unconstitutional

Barbarian chuckles:
Sorry, that excuse won't work. There are also very specific laws regarding what constitutes obstruction, and being impolite or refusing to put out a cigarette don't qualify. With the advent of cell phone cameras, a lot of cops are finding out the hard way when they lose their jobs or face criminal charges.

Obstructing, hindering and resisting arrest are still valuable tools used by law enforcement

Some crooked police try that excuse. The courts toss it out every time. Fortunately, cities are starting to fire or indict cops for that kind of corruption. Video has made it a lot easier to burn criminals in that regard.

Your own city has started to crack down on criminal within the police department.

Barbarian observes:
BTW, there's going to be an independent autopsy. If everything comes back as the police said, then they should be O.K. If we see some kind of injury to her head or other issues, then someone's in big trouble.

A rational person would wait for that.

Connie hyperventilates:

Because those racist county medical examiners who did the autopsy just can't be trusted.

Barbarian chuckles:
I said "rational." You have a written excuse, Connie.

Connie tries to change the subject:

BTW, how did that independent autopsy of Ferguson thug Michael Brown go

Nice try. But you aren't smart enough to do that kind of thing, Connie.

Autopsy away all that you like (and be sure to send the taxpayers the bill), Bland had a previous attempted suicide

And the sheriff had been fired from a previous police position for racism and other offenses. What matters is what happened this time. We'll see.

 

[The Barbarian]

law doesnt require him to provide a reason she was being arrested.

The Supreme Court has ruled that one can't even be detained without a reason being provided:

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a punishable crime. If the officer has reasonable suspicion the detainee is armed, the officer may perform a "pat-down" of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the Court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop; some states (e.g., Colorado) require that a person detained provide additional information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. (392 U.S. at 21)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

 

[The Barbarian]

False, the supreme court has already upheld that an officer has the right to ask someone to step out of the car and they have to comply.

Depends on the state. Federal law does not prohibit that kind of behavior by the police, but some states do.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Still infatuated with calling a man a by a female's name (does the barbarian not know that LGBTQueer month ended in June?) the barbarian writes:

You always remind us of the dates.

I really shouldn't bring up the topic of homosexuality with you barbarian. With your Catholic and Boy Scout background (I won't mention family members cuz that's a no no, you learned that after a long ban for mocking a grieving mother didn't cha barbarian?) I understand that it's a very sensitive issue with you.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Like I said, you're a wealth of information, too bad none of it is true.

Well, let's take a look...

A civilian flipping off a police officer can't be cause for a vehicle stop or arrest, a federal appellate court has ruled...

Boy, if that isn't a feather in you and your fellow ACLU'ers cap, nothing is (because when our Christian Founding Fathers coined the phrase "freedom of speech", at the forefront of their minds were losers using an absolutely filthy gesture to show disrespect towards those who were ordained by God per Romans 13:4).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Obstructing, hindering and resisting arrest are still valuable tools used by law enforcement

Some crooked police try that excuse. The courts toss it out every time. Fortunately, cities are starting to fire or indict cops for that kind of corruption. Video has made it a lot easier to burn criminals in that regard.

Your own city has started to crack down on criminal within the police department.

(Yet the cop-hating leftist doesn't provide any examples.)

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
BTW, how did that independent autopsy of Ferguson thug Michael Brown go

Nice try. But you aren't smart enough to do that kind of thing, Connie.

Is it true that you racists (the barbarian's racism has been established in the following thread) http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111114

use the following phrase when talking about former Ferguson MO Police Officer Darren Wilson?

"The white boy that got away".

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Autopsy away all that you like (and be sure to send the taxpayers the bill), Bland had a previous attempted suicide

And the sheriff had been fired from a previous police position for racism and other offenses. What matters is what happened this time. We'll see.

You leftists batting average on independent autopsies aren't too good barbarian, don't get your hopes up on jailing police and correction officers that are just trying to do their jobs.

 

[The Barbarian]

I really shouldn't bring up the topic of homosexuality with you barbarian.

You always bring it up. If we were talking about the right way to make chicken fried steak, you'd find a way to work your obsession into that conversation. I mean, I love photography, but I don't feel the need to tell everyone about my favorite activity in each thread.

With your Catholic and Boy Scout background (I won't mention family members cuz that's a no no, you learned that after a long ban for mocking a grieving mother didn't cha barbarian?)

Aw, he's trying to make me angry. You're such a drama queen, Connie.

Connie is shocked to find out that police are limited by the law:

Like I said, you're a wealth of information, too bad none of it is true.

Barbarian observes:
Citizens aren't required to be respectful of police. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that they can be downright rude, if they wish.

Boy, if that isn't a feather in you and your fellow ACLU'ers cap,

Sure is. Equality under the law is a basic premise of American jurisprudence. Galls you to find that out, doesn't it, Connie?

nothing is (because when our Christian Founding Fathers coined the phrase "freedom of speech", at the forefront of their minds were losers using an absolutely filthy gesture to show disrespect towards those who were ordained by God per Romans 13:4).

It must be infuriating to learn that being a cop isn't license to break the law. If you really were a cop, you'd already know that.

Connie admits:

Obstructing, hindering and resisting arrest are still valuable tools used by law enforcement

Barbarian observes:
Some crooked police try that excuse. The courts toss it out every time. Fortunately, cities are starting to fire or indict cops for that kind of corruption. Video has made it a lot easier to burn criminals in that regard.

Your own city has started to crack down on criminal within the police department.

Connie tries to change the subject:

BTW, how did that independent autopsy of Ferguson thug Michael Brown go

Barbarian observes:
Nice try. But you aren't smart enough to do that kind of thing, Connie.

Is it true that you racists (the barbarian's racism has been established in the following thread) http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...d.php?t=111114

Nope. That one didn't work, either. You need to learn a little subtlety if you want try dishonest arguments.

Autopsy away all that you like (and be sure to send the taxpayers the bill), Bland had a previous attempted suicide

Don't think that will show up on an autopsy, nor would it be a defense, if something incriminating shows up. But as I said, rational people will wait to see what it says before making a decision.

Barbarian observes:
And the sheriff had been fired from a previous police position for racism and other offenses. What matters is what happened this time. We'll see.

You leftists batting average on independent autopsies aren't too good barbarian, don't get your hopes up on jailing police and correction officers that are just trying to do their jobs.

The police have already determined that the officer did not follow the law. He was new to the job, and was under the impression he had a right to tell her to put out a cigarette and to be respectful.

So he needlessly escalated the situation. Now he's been removed from his duties, and might have ended his career. I bet he wishes he had followed procedures.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The police have already determined that the officer did not follow the law. He was new to the job, and was under the impression he had a right to tell her to put out a cigarette and to be respectful.

So he needlessly escalated the situation. Now he's been removed from his duties, and might have ended his career. I bet he wishes he had followed procedures.

Again, for those that are bright enough to see the big picture (which counts out the barbarian), this case isn't about Sandra Bland (just like it wasn't about thugs St. Trayvon Martin or St. Michael Brown etc. etc. etc), it's a full frontal assault on our Judeo-Christianized criminal justice system, the basis which is local accountability .

Be patient barbarian, you'll have your federal bureaucracy (equivalent to the Nazi Gestapo) running the show soon enough (even more so than it's doing now).

 

[bybee]

So the police officer must be respectful whilst citizens get to act in any vulgar, hateful, contemptible manner they choose? How interesting.
The police officer must stay cool whilst being spat on and cursed and threatened? How interesting.
And then!
The police officer must respond to the needs of persons who engage in these behaviors with alacrity to save them in time of need?
How interesting.