This Black WAS abused by cops.. Sandra Bland

[rexlunae]

"Put your cigarette out" is fascism?

No, having officials of the state running around ordering people to do things arbitrarily without legal recourse is fascism. Cigarettes are just the particular manifestation of the principle. At the point that he asked her to extinguish her cigarette, she wasn't being arrested or frisked, and there's no law that I know of that authorizes such orders in general, so it seems to me like he had no authority to press the issue by force. Saying that he was authorized because he could have chosen to arrest her for the moving violation is actually inviting him to rewrite the facts posthumously. He didn't arrest her for the moving violation, that doesn't mean he has a retroactive right to arrest her if she did something he didn't like.

Look Rex these conversations are a lot more productive if we talk about how it is in regard to a particular case rather than how you think it should be.

Start a thread on how you think it should be if you want to talk about that. But this thread is about this case and under Texas Law he could have instantly taken her out of the car, frisked and cuffed her, taken to jail, where the nice lady cops would give her a cavity search, and kept her there until her bail hearing.

Maybe she didn't know that and you and GFR7 don't seem to know that but you need to know that so that you aren't arguing from ignorance.

He didn't arrest her for the traffic violation. That's what you don't seem to get. He had written a warning, and he deliberately escalated the situation because he felt that she was being disrespectful. And while it is true that in Texas, and in many other states, you can be arrested for nearly any crime, including traffic violations, you cannot be arrested for a bad attitude, and you cannot be arrested for smoking anywhere that it's legal to smoke, such as inside your own car. And whether or not his actions were arguably legal, officers should generally be trying to deescalate confrontations as a matter of policy for the sake of everyone's safety including the officer's, and he was clearly doing the opposite.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, I meant that plenty on youtube say, "I refuse to let you search my car" or, "I refuse to answer your questions" , etc.

I've seen cops say, "OK, good night, sir" and leave. If you don't believe me, look it up on Youtube.

Do you see them say no they wont exit the car when they were guilty of an offense and the cop just lets it go?

 

[GFR7]

Or, we'd like to hold cops to a high standard of conduct that protects everyone's safety. You act as if that authority is or should be beyond question. I think that's a recipe for fascism.

Of course their authority is not beyond question; they are here to serve. Yes, saying they are beyond reproach is horrid; it's a recipe for fascism - it is fascism. Fool, like his name, is too dense to see any of this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Having said all that...I’ve gotten out of more traffic tickets just by being respectful.
Respect doesn't seem like too much to expect from anyone, including cops (when it's warranted).

One really good thing to do, is if you are stopped at night, click on your dome light. It makes it hard for you to see anything outside, but it makes it easy for the cop to see inside. So what? So cops are always edgy in a stop; their worst nightmare is to make a routine traffic stop in which the driver is a wanted and violent criminal. Making it easy for them to see what's inside the vehicle immediately reduces the tension for them, and it also says that the driver is considerate of the justifiable fear police have in such cases.

And yes, I've been stopped several times, and always got warnings.

 

[GFR7]

Do you see them say no they wont exit the car when they were guilty of an offense?

Yes, I've seen one stopped at a DWI checkpoint, and refuse to answer whether he had been drinking that night. I've seen people refuse to give their license and registration. I saw a woman who refused to pull her vehicle over to secondary when the officer asked. It's quite educational. They are all white, btw.

Here is an example: Watch this.
He refuses to roll down his window further.
He refuses to answer questions.
Just watch. He makes Sandra Bland look like a choir girl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

 

[The Barbarian]

Of COURSE. Thank God the man was yanked from the streets.

It was, as is usually the case, a young officer. I think training should be less like basic training, and more like applied psychology. It's remarkable how well old cops can often control the situation and calm everyone involved.

The problem is, old cops don't usually do the training, and police academy instructors often present those situations as a challenge to one's authority and self-respect.

"Controlling the encounter" needs some redefinition, I think.

 

[GFR7]

It was, as is usually the case, a young officer. I think training should be less like basic training, and more like applied psychology. It's remarkable how well old cops can often control the situation and calm everyone involved.

The problem is, old cops don't usually do the training, and police academy instructors often present those situations as a challenge to one's authority and self-respect.

"Controlling the encounter" needs some redefinition, I think.

The basic training and whole militant attitude was born of the Reagen-era war on drugs, and stupid reality shows like COPS. Old cops came from a different era; a time and place that the young ones don't understand.

The police need a massive makeover, a massive pruning, and they will soon get both. Their era is over, their star is fading......Nothing lasts forever.

 

[fool]

No, I meant that plenty on youtube say, "I refuse to let you search my car" or, "I refuse to answer your questions" , etc.

I've seen cops say, "OK, good night, sir" and leave. If you don't believe me, look it up on Youtube.

Where they pulled over for a moving violation?

 

[GFR7]

Where they pulled over for a moving violation?

See the tape I posted. But there are plenty more. Plenty.

 

[fool]

Meaningless response.


You're wrong on all points. :cigar:

PUT OUT THAT CIGAR!

 

[GFR7]

PUT OUT THAT CIGAR!

I have a right to keep smoking. :AMR1:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes, I've seen one stopped at a DWI checkpoint, and refuse to answer whether he had been drinking that night. I've seen people refuse to give their license and registration. I saw a woman who refused to pull her vehicle over to secondary when the officer asked. It's quite educational. They are all white, btw.

Here is an example: Watch this.
He refuses to roll down his window further.
He refuses to answer questions.
Just watch. He makes Sandra Bland look like a choir girl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

A DWI checkpoint is not someone pulled over for a violation, remember i said the law was when someone had committed a violation, they can then be ordered of the car.

This is not the same thing at all. I even said if no law violation had occured, they could not legally order someone out. But a law violation had occured in sandras case - thats the difference.

Please show an example where someone was guilty of a violation, ordered out and then let go after refusing to get out.

 

[GFR7]

@Barbarian:

The growing movement for police accountability knows that training is not the only problem:

http://truthvoice.com/2015/07/probl...ally-ill-may-be-bigger-than-lack-of-training/

 

[Angel4Truth]

Where they pulled over for a moving violation?

No, they were at a DWI checkpoint which isnt the same thing at all.

 

[GFR7]

No, they were at a DWI checkpoint which isnt the same thing at all.

I think when a minor infraction such as failure to use turn signal when no traffic is around you (as opposed to say, drunk driving or speeding at 30 mph above the speed limit), can get you arrested, cuffed, pulled out of your vehicle-----

then it is time to sound the alarm; the citizenry is threatened with relative death, and a remedy must be swiftly found.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I think when a minor infraction such as failure to use turn signal when no traffic is around you (as opposed to say, drunk driving or speeding at 30 mph above the speed limit), can get you arrested, cuffed, pulled out of your vehicle-----

then it is time to sound the alarm; the citizenry is threatened with relative death, and a remedy must be swiftly found.

You can think all you want, but there are laws in texas, and what you think about them has no bearing on anything.

Dont resist and there will be no threat. Easy.

Waiting for you to show a video of the tons you claim youve seen where someone was ordered out after committing a law violation, they refused, and the cop just said ok and let them go. Huge bonus if its one from texas.

 

[fool]

No, having officials of the state running around ordering people to do things arbitrarily without legal recourse is fascism. Cigarettes are just the particular manifestation of the principle. At the point that he asked her to extinguish her cigarette, she wasn't being arrested or frisked, and there's no law that I know of that authorizes such orders in general, so it seems to me like he had no authority to press the issue by force. Saying that he was authorized because he could have chosen to arrest her for the moving violation is actually inviting him to rewrite the facts posthumously. He didn't arrest her for the moving violation, that doesn't mean he has a retroactive right to arrest her if she did something he didn't like.

The stop wasn't over.
He had the right to change his mind at any time and he did.
Are you going to stop arguing about how you want things to be and start talking about how things are?

He didn't arrest her for the traffic violation. That's what you don't seem to get.

Oh I get it and you don't.
He arrested her for kicking him when he was cuffing her.
Which he is allowed to do.

He had written a warning, and he deliberately escalated the situation because he felt that she was being disrespectful.

Which is his discretion.

And while it is true that in Texas,

This is the only sentence you need have wrote this entire thread.
Then you could go off on how you think it should be, rather than your misinformed ideas of how it is.

and in many other states, you can be arrested for nearly any crime, including traffic violations,

Good thing you understand that now, let's see if you jump the tracks...

you cannot be arrested for a bad attitude, and you cannot be arrested for smoking anywhere that it's legal to smoke, such as inside your own car.

But an officer can change his mind at his discretion on how he's going to handle your case, anywhere from simple warning to cavity search.
So you're WRONG.
When you're pulled over you're detained, which means cuffs and frisking and back to the station if he deems so.
Learn it.

And whether or not his actions were arguably legal,

You just said it right there.
You just said it.
You DO realize that he was within the law.
Good.
That's a break thru.

officers should generally be trying to deescalate confrontations, and he was clearly doing the opposite.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
Don't confuse it with the law.

 

[GFR7]

You can think all you want, but there are laws in texas, and what you think about them has no bearing on anything.

Dont resist and there will be no threat. Easy.

You underestimate how people's thoughts are shared, and thoughts turn to action. It has great bearing. Women seeking equality were once told that their thoughts had no bearing.

You have the right to resist, and police will understand this as their ranks grow thinner and thinner.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You underestimate how people's thoughts are shared, and thoughts turn to action. It has great bearing. Women seeking equality were once told that their thoughts had no bearing.

And it did them little good to whine about it only - it helped only by getting the laws changed, so move to texas and then contact your lawmakers there to change the laws and then contact the supreme court and tell them they were wrong about cops having the right to order you of your car when youve broken the law.

You have the right to resist,

not if you have commited a crime already, you dont, and its not wise to, even if you have done nothing wrong.

and police will understand this as their ranks grow thinner and thinner.

Not likely.

 

[GFR7]

And it did them little good to whine about it only - it helped only by getting the laws changed, so move to texas and then contact your lawmakers there to change the laws and then contact the supreme court and tell them they were wrong about cops having the right to order you of your car when youve broken the law.

not if you have commited a crime already, you dont, and its not wise to, even if you have done nothing wrong.


Not likely.

No point in arguing. You are likely younger than I and cannot recall a different police force in America. You also don't adhere to the historical theories I do. I can tell you though, they do pan out. Expect change.