Provides an indication of her attitude regarding interactions with LEO.What the fuck does that have to do with her specifically being yanked from her car over having an attitude and a cigarette.
I swear, you guys go straight to work on the smear campaigns.
Provides an indication of her attitude regarding interactions with LEO.
She could have been polite and put out the cigarette. She chose to be an impolite criminal that acted belligerently and told the police officer what he could and could not do. Black people just cause their own problems trying to be uppity with a police officer. This may sound like I am against Black people, but I am only trying to show that this is not the way civilized people act. If you resist arrest, the police are required to take their response up to the next level.
All she had to do is put out the cigarette and be polite. She would have probably been issued a ticket and left on her own.
Sandra Bland was not being arrested for refusing to put out the cigarette she was arrested for resisting the lawful order to get out of the vehicle. She made things worse by striking the trooper and the arrest became Assault of a Public Servant.
Here's a good article on the subject.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...s_legal_but_encinia_used_excessive_force.html
The Supreme Court didn’t buy that argument. “Authority for the seizure... ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the majority. The court focused exclusively on the true “mission” of traffic stops—incidentals such as “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.” All of these things are well and good when the initial stop is valid.
The problem arises when a well-meaning officer turns the traffic inquiry into a prolonged, crime-fighting one. Such unrelated “detours” away from the original traffic mission, the court observed, are unconstitutional without independent, reasonable suspicion that an actual crime has taken place. A cop’s “large hunch” about criminal wrongdoing won’t do.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...upreme-court-rules-against-long-traffic-stops
It wasn't a lawful order.
No, it wasn't a lawful order. From the CNN article linked previously:
Further misfeasance, it not malfeasance, by the bully with a badge:
Yeah, no.
Sandra Bland was not being arrested for refusing to put out the cigarette she was arrested for resisting the lawful order to get out of the vehicle. She made things worse by striking the trooper and the arrest became Assault of a Public Servant.
Here's a good article on the subject.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...s_legal_but_encinia_used_excessive_force.html
That's an interesting article. But I'm curious how that squares with the Recent Supreme Court ruling in Rodriguez v. United States,. The traffic stop should have been over when he handed her the ticket. There was no lawful means to tell her to leave the vehicle once the traffic stop was concluded.
Trooper Had Legal Right To Order Bland Out of Vehicle
We're told toxicology reports will show Sandra Bland had marijuana in her system, but it still does not tell us why/how she died.
Rob Wu (@IAmRobWuFox26) July 23, 2015
That's an interesting article. But I'm curious how that squares with the Recent Supreme Court ruling in Rodriguez v. United States,. The traffic stop should have been over when he handed her the ticket. There was no lawful means to tell her to leave the vehicle once the traffic stop was concluded.
I read transcripts. Can't say for sure she was under arrest for failing to get out of the car. Usually before cop puts hands on you they state "you are under arrest"
Unclear if he was going to arrest her before asking her to get out or after she started arguing.
When cop was finished with previous ticket that passed each other on the road. Cop then turned around and started following her. She was targeted. Question is why??
He never handed her the ticket. He was on his way back to her vehicle to do just that.
The Supreme Court didnt buy that argument. Authority for the seizure... ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction areor reasonably should have beencompleted, wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the majority. The court focused exclusively on the true mission of traffic stopsincidentals such as checking the drivers license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobiles registration and proof of insurance. All of these things are well and good when the initial stop is valid.
Exactly. So, when he checked her plates and wrote the ticket, the traffic stop had been concluded. All he had to do was hand her the ticket and keep it moving.
Again from Rodriguez v. United States.
Or the attiude of the LEO.
Nothing was concluded. She hadn't been served with the warning ticket. Pretty hard to claim it was concluded when it clearly wasn't.
I'm not following you here? Can you elaborate/restate that? To the bolded: how do you come to that conclusion?
He had no rationale(registration sticker, burned out light, etc) to turn around and start following her.
In fact he stated the reason for pulling her over was lane change without signaling. Remember she changed lanes to get out of his way and forgot to signal.
Since he had no justification for "slow rolling" behind her why did he turn around? He made a conscious decision after seeing her I'm going to start following her. That's what I mean by targeted
How did you conclude that he turned around just to follow her? How did you conclude that if that's why he turned around, he had no reason to?
The reason for pulling her over doesn't have to have anything to do with the reason he turned around.
Nice opinion piece.
And the words aren't just concluded, it's actually "authority for the seizure... ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction areor reasonably should have beencompleted".
And having the warning in hand with the person about to sign the warning seems like one can say the seizure stemming from the traffic infraction should have been reasonably concluded and there was no further need to ask her to leave the vehicle.
But, it sounds like you are just being a police apologist.
Unless you have something else or unless the cop lied to Sandra he seems to have decided I'm going to follow her until she does something wrong and then nab her.
Again his stated reason for pulling her over was the illegal lane change and that didn't happen until he turned around and followed.
You are the one filling in with fiction. The burden is on you to prove he targeted her.
And again, his reason for turning around doesn't have to be the reason he gave for pulling her over. Your assumption that he targeted her is leading you to believe they were for the same reason. Until you can prove that, all you have is a reason why she was pulled over.
Again his stated reason for pulling her over was the illegal lane change and that didn't happen until he turned around and followed.
So what was the reason for seeing her and then turning around?
So what was the reason for seeing her and then turning around?
How do you know he turned around specifically to follow her, as opposed to turning around simply to go the other direction?
Bland: I am. I really am. I feel like it's crap what I'm getting a ticket for. I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me. So yeah, I am a little irritated, but that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket, so [inaudible] ticket.