GFR7
New member
They don't call them "public servants" for nothing. But this woman did not spit or threaten, and only became belligerent when she was unlawfully yanked from her car, and thrown to the ground.
This Black WAS abused by cops.. Sandra Bland
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It seems clear to me that he was looking for a reason to be able to order her out of her car.
I believe he wanted the situation to escalate, because he thought she was being uppity and he was going to fix that.
The officer is not permitted to make his own laws. So it's legal to be rude to him, just as it's legal to be rude to anyone else.
Cursed, yes. Spat upon is assault, and in most states, it's illegal to threaten people, including police.
No. The courts have held that the police have a duty to enforce the law, but not a duty to protect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...stitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0
And although it's generally a crime to lie to police, they are legally entitled to lie to you, in most cases.
Most cops are good people and will put themselves in harm's way to protect a citizen. But they aren't legally required to do so.
They are only required to enforce the law.
Most likely, the reason the officer ordered her out of the car was that she defied his unlawful order to put out the cigarette, and he was attempting to regain control of the situation. Lacking the skills of an experienced officer, he did exactly the wrong thing. A wiser man would have de-escalated the encounter.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I was reminded of a video that's probably familiar to a lot of us, it's been around for years. It shows a Maine state trooper exercising the kind of self-control that de-escalates instead of escalates and which, had Sandra Bland's arresting officer had some of it, he wouldn't be under the scrutiny he is now and she would be alive today. The Maine officer is professional, and there's no doubt throughout who's in control of the situation.
Warning: there's A LOT of profanity.
Warning: there's A LOT of profanity.
| . | |
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
And before someone like aCW comes along and tries to cast the above driver and Sandra Bland in the same light:
Don't bother.
Sandra Bland had good reason to say what she said, she was being subjected to an abuse of power. My sympathy is with her.
Don't bother.
Sandra Bland had good reason to say what she said, she was being subjected to an abuse of power. My sympathy is with her.
GFR7
New member
Exactly! :thumb: He didn't need to be petty: He might have shrugged off her irritability - instead, he swept to his revenge.
GFR7
New member
So is mine.
Yes, none of us wants to be subjected to abuse of power.
This woman was trying to begin a new life. She had lost a baby, she had a troubled past. Now, she wanted to put her college degree to work at a new career. She was dressed up, had makeup on, was on her way to an important meeting. And this idiot sidles up to harrass her. Now she's dead at 28. It's sickening. And it may well have been more of a sexist thing, and not so much racist.
Recall, too, that the Texas Dept. of Public Safety has roundly condemned this cop, and yanked him off the streets so he cannot conduct any traffic stops. Anyone who defends him, is going up against TX state protocol.
GFR7
New member
Excellent point. Thank you for posting this.
GFR7
New member
So why did the Texas Department of Public Safety say that the officer violated state procedures and protocol? They put it on him.
She was entirely law-abiding in her refusal to put out the cigarette. She was right; the officer was violating the law.
And now, it appears, he's going to be held responsible. He really has no excuse; a police officer is required to know the law.
GFR7
New member
Here is what one former prosecutor wrote to the newspaper, about this cop:
To the editor:
Most of the focus of this case is on Bland's apparent suicide, when the real issue is the validity of the arrest.
I am a retired death penalty appellate prosecutor. Had this woman just come from committing either the Aurora, Colo., South Carolina or Tennessee shootings, any evidence recovered from her would have been absolutely inadmissible because there was no probable cause for the police officer to do anything but write her a traffic ticket.
No police officer can either demand someone get out of the car or arrest them for refusing to put out a cigarette or for “talking back” during a traffic stop. “Contempt of cop” does not constitute probable cause even to search, let alone arrest.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-0724-friday-texas-sandra-bland-20150724-story.html
I don't think I would say she was driven to suicide but I do agree that this was a power hungry cop who was looking for a reason/way to assert his authority. Could she have handled it differently? Sure, but I put more of the blame with the cop. He began the escalation and cops can't let their egos get in the way.
GFR7
New member
Yours is a reasonable attitude, and shared by the majority.
Since you used my name in your post mzzzzz benedetti, I'll respond.
Again: This isn't about Sandra Bland nor the officer who arrested her. It's about the assault on the Judeo-Christianized criminal justice system and the radical changes that your Godless secular humanist left wants to make to it.
Professional anarchist GFR7 knows this as he and I have been over this numerous times in another thread. If he had an ounce of honesty and decency about him, he'd tell you the same thing.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
How law-abiding are we required to be? She pulled over when directed. She answered him when prompted. Is she required to put out her cigarette, when there's no reasonable need?
Why is good-ol' "don't tread on me" independence good for some, but for others, it's just being uppity?
I've watched the video several times now, and it all begins when he tells her she seems "very irritated." In my opinion that's a calculated move, it's not small talk. That right there is the first escalation. The second is when he says "Are you done?" after she answers the prompt which he initiated, which sure makes it appear that he wasn't really interested in an answer, that he just wanted to make the comment. And I believe the decisive escalation is when he tells her to put out her cigarette, and when she rightly refuses, he orders her out of the car - because he knows that's something he can make her do, and make her pay.
I'm pretty sure we'll never know for sure why he made the u-turn before pulling her over, either.
Why is good-ol' "don't tread on me" independence good for some, but for others, it's just being uppity?
I've watched the video several times now, and it all begins when he tells her she seems "very irritated." In my opinion that's a calculated move, it's not small talk. That right there is the first escalation. The second is when he says "Are you done?" after she answers the prompt which he initiated, which sure makes it appear that he wasn't really interested in an answer, that he just wanted to make the comment. And I believe the decisive escalation is when he tells her to put out her cigarette, and when she rightly refuses, he orders her out of the car - because he knows that's something he can make her do, and make her pay.
I'm pretty sure we'll never know for sure why he made the u-turn before pulling her over, either.
GFR7
New member
Very astute analysis; right on target. Well stated.
Nazaroo
New member
Problem here.
I'm definitely not a Godless secular humanist leftist,
But I'm also suspicious as to why the cop pulled her over, and harrassed her,
pulled her off camera, arrested her.
I'm also suspicious about how she suddenly died in jail.
I also would like to see our Judaeo-Christian justice system restored.
But I'm under no illusion that it is already massively corrupted and
has become a dangerous tool to persecute Christians.
Under the Judaeo-Christian justice system restored that I envision,
blacks aren't targeted, people have human rights and freedoms,
and there is a sensible balance of power between police and the public.
I am happy to see also the re-enstatement of sodomy, indecency, and obscenity laws,
but I don't want a police-state. That can't achieve what I am talking about.
For a decent theocratic government that is functional and tolerable,
you have to have a populace and government that actually believes in
those ideals.
Most importantly, I can't see police in 1880 pulling a man off his horse and incarcerating him
for smoking tobacco.
No you're not Naz, but like many good well meaning people, you've been fooled into this believing that this is all about Sandra Bland and the officer that arrested her...
it isn't.
Don't you find it suspicious when anarchists like GFR7 time after time show videos of local police supposedly committing crimes against citizens, not once does he pull up anything to do with misconduct of federal law enforcement?
Don't you find it suspicious that extremely well educated anarchists like GFR7 (refer to my WHMBR! Part 3 to see his education credentials) not once tell us the solution to this supposed problem, i.e. should local officials handle these cases on their own and take disciplinary action when called for, or does the federal government and it's civil rights division need to step in and make sure that justice is served (imprison said officer for civil rights violations and investigate the police dept. for racism and hence put yet another federal consent decree on the police dept.)?
You're an extremely intelligent well read person Naz, you really need to look at the big picture and see where this is leading a nation whose criminal justice system was once based on Judeo-Christian doctrine:
Tyranny.
I am not referencing this particular case. Still, at the moment, in the interests of self preservation she might have acted differently?
She could have pursued charges against the officer?
I am in no way condoning police brutality or even rough housing.
They are public servants. This is true. But they are not menials or slaves.