Support NeoGAF

[Brianimaniac]

You do realize that you're basically saying "if she just did what she was supposed to, none of this would have happened", right?

That is literally blaming the victim for the outcome.

It is not victim blaming to say "cooperate with the police if you don't want to get arrested". People have taken this "victim blaming" crap to absurd levels, using it as a blanket defense to avoid any and all responsibility in situations that end poorly.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

I understand the jail is not in a position question why she was arrested and the charges. I'm asking why as a lay person if I notice a medical dependency in her paper work, why didn't the jail clarify with her for her own personal safety and theirs? Once the Police hand her off to them, they are responsible for her well being.

As someone above posted, it seems that this jail lacks proper training.

Oh, ok. That is largely a rhetorical question then, isn't it? Expect some healthy litigation.

From this point of yours, I couldn't quite tell:

3) She was toss in highest minimum security prison for a traffic stop. The report claims it for assault on the officer. No where in the recording of the actual arrest the officer mention she is attacking him.

Those are separate issues, the security level and what would need to be demonstrated at trial.

 

[FiggyCal]

It is not victim blaming to say "cooperate with the police if you don't want to get arrested".

Being unpleasant to the police is a crime now?

 

[AlphaSnake]

This is downright insane...

 

[Jpop]

It is not victim blaming to say "cooperate with the police if you don't want to get arrested". People have taken this "victim blaming" crap to absurd levels, using it as a blanket defense to avoid any and all responsibility in situations that end poorly.

Yes it is an you are.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

this whole stiuation is kinda crazy. One thing i personally feel though, this isnt a suicide. It was most def a murder

Murder by whom? The arresting officer? Jail personnel?
What evidence leads you to feel so strongly that it was a murder?

 

[Brianimaniac]

Being unpleasant to the police is a crime now?

She refused to get out of the car when he asked her to, and you are legally obligated to comply with that order. She refused.

 

[Chococat]

From this point of yours, I couldn't quite tell:

Ah, okay. It was just a stream of conscious questions that arose from reviewing both documents. I was just pointing out flaws I saw through the entire handle of Sandra.

 

[FiggyCal]

http://bennorton.com/dashcam-video-of-violent-arrest-of-sandra-bland-was-edited/

This is pretty damning though. Has there been any recent comments about the video footage being edited?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Yeah, the cop had his ego bruised, and proceeded to abuse his power. There's no getting around that.

 

[jmdajr]

States,City,County whatever... usually have total shit for tech equipment. That could be part of the problem.

Only way to know is to compare it to all the original footage in the vehicle throughout the day and more.

 

[heliosRAzi]

She refused to get out of the car when he asked her to, and you are legally obligated to comply with that order. She refused.

Asking is not an order

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

She refused to get out of the car when he asked her to, and you are legally obligated to comply with that order. She refused.

Except you are completely within your legal right to not step out of the car, even when asked. There is no legal obligation, just as there is no legal obligation for you to allow a cop to search your car without proper paperwork and probable cause.

 

[Brianimaniac]

Asking is not an order

He stated in plain language repeatedly that he was giving her a lawful order. You can't play these semantics games when he literally used the word you're going to sit here and say he didn't use. Try again, buddy.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

She refused to get out of the car when he asked her to, and you are legally obligated to comply with that order. She refused.

You have a pretty warped idea as to what cops are allowed to do.

He stated in plain language repeatedly that he was giving her a lawful order. You can't play these semantics games when he literally used the word you're going to sit here and say he didn't use. Try again, buddy.

Maybe you should try again buddy. Spend some more time reading up on what is and is not legally allowed.

 

[Ovid]

So basically, i know this was covered in the thread where people believe the footage wasnt edited...


however,

here is a person who edits footage for a living saying its clearly edited and not a malfunction

other news sites such as NY Times and LA Times picked it up too.


this whole stiuation is kinda crazy. One thing i personally feel though, this isnt a suicide. It was most def a murder

For those that don't know, Ava Duvernay made the movie "Selma" and turned down "Black Panther".

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

This is a traffic signal stop, and her being sassy is no reason ask her to step out of her vehicle, and certainty no reason to forcibly remove her for not complying to your bullshit. Write your stupid fucking ticket, have her sign it, and go about your damn business. Leave your ego out of this.

 

[heliosRAzi]

He stated in plain language repeatedly that he was giving her a lawful order. You can't play these semantics games when he literally used the word you're going to sit here and say he didn't use. Try again, buddy.

You're the one who said that he asked. And in the law, semantics is everything.

You're right, though. He told her to get out, but he didn't give a reason, which he is supposed to do.

 

[KidGalactus]

It is not victim blaming to say "cooperate with the police if you don't want to get arrested". People have taken this "victim blaming" crap to absurd levels, using it as a blanket defense to avoid any and all responsibility in situations that end poorly.

He's saying that if you behave a certain way, you are likely going to be brutalized by police officers. Therefore, if you act in that way, you should expect to be brutalized.

How is that not blaming a victim of brutality for the brutality perpetrated against them?

To be fair. I don't think the person i word left any harm. I just don't think they thought through what they were saying.

 

[Brianimaniac]

Except you are completely within your legal right to not step out of the car, even when asked. There is no legal obligation, just as there is no legal obligation for you to allow a cop to search your car without proper paperwork and probable cause.

You have a pretty warped idea as to what cops are allowed to do.



Maybe you should try again buddy. Spend some more time reading up on what is and is not legally allowed.

http://www.columbuscriminaldefensea...ng-a-traffic-stop-police-interaction-part-ix/

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

He stated in plain language repeatedly that he was giving her a lawful order. You can't play these semantics games when he literally used the word you're going to sit here and say he didn't use. Try again, buddy.

That is only permitted when there is clear and reasonable danger present, such as the appearance of a weapon. In this case, Bland had nothing except a cigarette in her hand. Legally, she does not have to get out of the car because there is no immediate threat to either the officer or her's safety. This could has easily been contested in court if she was alive.

 

[danwarb]

She refused to get out of the car when he asked her to, and you are legally obligated to comply with that order. She refused.

He only asked her to get out of the car because she didn't put out her cigarette. He only asked her to put out the cigarette bacause she didn't kowtow from the start, though she did comply up to that point.

The cop was wrong at every step. Why did he have to pick a fight? Because he wanted to hurt her.

 

[Nivash]

http://bennorton.com/dashcam-video-of-violent-arrest-of-sandra-bland-was-edited/

This is pretty damning though. Has there been any recent comments about the video footage being edited?

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the police blamed it on a glitched upload. If it's actually a deliberate edit intended to hide something it has to be one of worst cover-ups in history, it wouldn't be anywhere near subtle. Not to mention that the inconsistencies are at times where there shouldn't be anything to hide.

I don't know shit about video editing so I'm not ruling either way. However, I can't help but notice that the pro-cover up arguments are eerily similar to conspiracy theory arguments.

 

[Chococat]

He stated in plain language repeatedly that he was giving her a lawful order. You can't play these semantics games when he literally used the word you're going to sit here and say he didn't use. Try again, buddy.

He also at no point told her why she was being arrested. She absolute has the right to know why she was being detained. Her arrest record shows she was being arrested for "Assault Police Servant", an act the officer says happened after he detained her in cuffs. So what was the original arrest for?

Compliance with the police is a two way street. They have to tell you what they are doing and why if the want people to comply. They can't just arrest you and make up charges after the fact.

His lawful order is not lawful when he fails to inform her of her charge and her rights.

 

[heliosRAzi]

http://www.columbuscriminaldefensea...ng-a-traffic-stop-police-interaction-part-ix/

In that scenario, the officer orders the driver out to give them a pat down. The cop in this incident didn't give a reason.

 

[Byakuya769]

He stated in plain language repeatedly that he was giving her a lawful order. You can't play these semantics games when he literally used the word you're going to sit here and say he didn't use. Try again, buddy.

But he wasn't. He was just giving her a petulant order. She had not committed any offense worthy of arrest (and even for an arrest for a traffic violation, he had already wrote up the warning/ticket.. what the case for arrest there?), and he was not asking her to step out of the car for safety concerns.

People like you are why we still having petty officers abusing their power.

 

[HeySeuss]

Except you are completely within your legal right to not step out of the car, even when asked. There is no legal obligation, just as there is no legal obligation for you to allow a cop to search your car without proper paperwork and probable cause.

This is absolutely 100% not true. You are required to exit the vehicle upon request. There is supreme court case law giving us the right to order you out of the car for any reason we see fit. It is not the same as consenting to a vehicle search.

I've been a cop for 13 years. I don't need a specific reason and I don't have to tell you why I want you to step out of the car. It could be that I'm more comfortable handling a vehicle stop outside and feel its the safer way to do it. It can literally be whatever the officer feels more comfortable doing. I know highway patrol officers that get every single person they pull over out of the vehicle to conduct business.

 

[hitgirl]

"I will light you up"

Jesus christ, that's terrifying.

 

[Brianimaniac]

Since some people don't seem to want to click my link:

 

[jmdajr]

Since some people don't seem to want to click my link:

looks like wikki says similar

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court criminal law decision holding that a police officer ordering a person out of a car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

is there a specific way to carry out this step? specific language etc?

 

[HeySeuss]

Pennsylvania v. Mimms gives officers the authority to order the driver out of their vehicle.

Maryland v. Wilson gives officers the right to order any passenger out of the vehicle on any lawful traffic stop.

Edit beaten.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

http://bennorton.com/dashcam-video-of-violent-arrest-of-sandra-bland-was-edited/

This is pretty damning though. Has there been any recent comments about the video footage being edited?

What's the explanation for the audio continuing on while the video looped? There was video of something occurs in those few seconds of the loop that someone wanted to excise? That a huge chunk of time was cut out to the point that the officer was speaking in normal tones after whatever occurred and the moron cut cut stuff but not put it back together at a point where there was no car on tape?

 

[Brawndo Addict]

They can order you out of the car. Even the ACLU advises you to comply:

Q: What if law enforcement officers stop me in my car?

A: Keep your hands where the police can see them. You must show your drivers license, registration and proof of insurance if you are asked for these documents. Officers can also ask you to step outside of the car, and they may separate passengers and drivers from each other to question them and compare their answers, but no one has to answer any questions. The police cannot search your car unless you give them your consent, which you do not have to give, or unless they have “probable cause” to believe (i.e., knowledge of facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief) that criminal activity is likely taking place, that you have been involved in a crime, or that you have evidence of a crime in your car. If you do not want your car searched, clearly state that you do not consent. The officer cannot use your refusal to give consent as a basis for doing a search.

 

[Nivash]

In that scenario, the officer orders the driver out to give them a pat down. The cop in this incident didn't give a reason.

You should probably read for more than the first paragraph:

The U.S. Supreme Court decided many years ago, in a case called Pennsylvania v. Mimms, that an officer may order someone who he has stopped for a traffic violation to get out of the car. Thus, you do not have a choice in the matter. It does not matter that the weather is unpleasant or that the officer does not have a clear reason for asking you to get out. When the officer asks you to “please step out of your car,” you have to do it. As mentioned in Part VIII of this series, these sorts of “requests” can be confusing. A polite officer will often ask things like, “May I please see your license? Would you please step out of your car? Would you please pop your trunk? Would you please open your glove-box so I can take a look?” All of these sound like requests. But the first two are orders which may not be refused while the last two are fully optional requests which may, and should, be refused. The only way to tell the difference is to know your rights. Thus, as the CORRECT and BEST answers recognize, you must get out of the car when the officer asks you to.

The case in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

It actually deals with two separate situations: the order to get out of the car and circumstances of a pat down. The court established that an officer has the right to order someone out of a car on the grounds of officer safety. They did not in any way tie that to the pat down specifically, the dealt with the pat down separately (and concluded that the bulge in the pocket was enough for reasonable suspicion)

EDIT: Wow, regular pile-on happening here. Maybe we can settle this for now at least.

 

[jmdajr]

What's the explanation for the audio continuing on while the video looped? There was video of something occurs in those few seconds of the loop that someone wanted to excise? That a huge chunk of time was cut out to the point that the officer was speaking in normal tones after whatever occurred and the moron cut cut stuff but not put it back together at a point where there was no car on tape?

Could just be corrupt video. It happens when you move data around, convert from one format to another, etc.

 

[Chococat]

I've been a cop for 13 years. I don't need a specific reason and I don't have to tell you why I want you to step out of the car.

Fair enough. In your 13 years, have you every arrested someone and never told them why you're arresting them?

 

[heliosRAzi]

You should probably read for more than the first paragraph:



The case in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

It actually deals with two separate situations: the order to get out of the car and circumstances of a pat down. The court established that an officer has the right to order someone out of a car on the grounds of officer safety. They did not in any way tie that to the pat down specifically, the dealt with the pat down separately (and concluded that the bulge in the pocket was enough for reasonable suspicion)

Whoops, wrong about that one.

 

[beat]

How the fuck do you go from pulling over someone for not signalling a lane change (who gives a fuck!) to throwing them in jail.

Worse, according to the video, he u-turned as soon as he saw her, gave chase, and she only changed lanes because he was driving so fast to catch up to her that she (presumably) thought he was in a hurry. Even if she had signaled, he'd probably have pulled her over for something else.

 

[HeySeuss]

Fair enough. In your 13 years, have you every arrested someone and never told them why you're arresting them?

They all eventually get told why they are being arrested. Not always when the cuffs go on because I don't always know the exact charge or what else may have been done. But at bare minimum, they know what they go to jail for with the understanding that additional charges are possible.

They know because they have to sign the affidavit of what the crime is that they're being charged with. This is how most departments operate, but every state and jurisdiction has their own ways of doing things.

 

[Nivash]

Fair enough. In your 13 years, have you every arrested someone and never told them why you're arresting them?

If the transcript is correct Encinia did tell her. Eventually. In a rather roundabout way that's not clear at all.

"Encinia: You're going to jail for resisting arrest. Stand up."

Now, the funny thing about US law in this case is that you can be arrested for resisting arrest... without being charged for whatever you were supposedly resisting being arrested for.

The courts in the United States of America regard resisting arrest as a separate charge or crime in addition to other alleged crimes committed by the arrested person. It is possible to be charged, tried and convicted on this charge alone, without any underlying cause for the original decision to arrest or even if the original arrest was clearly illegal.

EDIT: Alternative source if the Wiki seems unreliable: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...rrested-for-resisting-arrest-yes-its-possible

 

[Chococat]

They all eventually get told why they are being arrested. Not always when the cuffs go on because I don't always know the exact charge or what else may have been done. But at bare minimum, they know what they go to jail for with the understanding that additional charges are possible.

So reviewing the video/transcript of this incident, what was the bare minimum Sandra was being arrested for? I understand charges could be added later, but what was the original reason him saying "your under arrest". His description to (I assume) dispatch was she was being arrest for the alleged assault.

They know because they have to sign the affidavit of what the crime is that they're being charged with. This is how most departments operate, but every state and jurisdiction has their own ways of doing things.

Are you saying that the police have the right arrest someone and not tell them until get to jail to sign the affidavit? Can you not see how the public can perceive that as abuse of power?

 

[Chococat]

Now, the funny thing about US law in this case is that you can be arrested for resisting arrest... without being charged for whatever you were supposedly resisting being arrested for.

So realistically, a citizen has has no rights in the eyes of law enforcement. So people really are guilt until proven innocent in the US.

 

[Van Owen]

AP:
Prosecutor on Bland autopsy: no injuries consistent with violent homicide; some with suicide.

 

[HeySeuss]

So reviewing the video/transcript of this incident, what was the bare minimum Sandra was being arrested for? I understand charges could be added later, but what was the original reason him saying "your under arrest". His description to (I assume) dispatch was she was being arrest for the alleged assault.



Are you saying that the police have the right arrest someone and not tell them until get to jail to sign the affidavit? Can you not see how the public can perceive that as abuse of power?

They go back to our department for processing and Miranda so they can be interviewed before they go to jail.

She was arrested for resisting arrest is what it sounds like to me. I would have arrested her for Failure to Comply and resisting arrest, if I even chose to arrest her to begin with.

I understand how the public can see that as an abuse of power. It doesn't happen very often that someone truly doesn't know what they're being arrested for though.

 

[HeySeuss]

If the transcript is correct Encinia did tell her. Eventually. In a rather roundabout way that's not clear at all.

"Encinia: You're going to jail for resisting arrest. Stand up."

Now, the funny thing about US law in this case is that you can be arrested for resisting arrest... without being charged for whatever you were supposedly resisting being arrested for.

I hate this loophole personally. I have never and would never arrest someone for resisting arrest without another charge. How can someone resist arrest if they don't know they're under arrest to begin with? It makes no sense and I do not agree with the logic.

 

[CrocMother]

I really feel for the family on this one. Accepting a loved one's death is hard enough without all this doubt, anger and media attention swirling around it.

Either your loved one was murdered, or they decided to end their life. Both of these seem so impossible to accept.

 

[Train of Midnight]

Now, the funny thing about US law in this case is that you can be arrested for resisting arrest... without being charged for whatever you were supposedly resisting being arrested for.

But you at least need to be under arrest for something first right? You can't be put under arrest for resisting arrest, if you weren't under arrest.

This hurts my head and my heart.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

But you at least need to be under arrest for something first right? You can't be put under arrest for resisting arrest, if you weren't under arrest.

This hurts my head and my heart.

Sure you can. Resisting is a charge that in all jurisdictions I'm aware of can be a stand alone charge.

 

[Gigglepoo]

The officer talking on the radio in the video, "I even deescalated once we were on the pavement, you know, the sidewalk."

It's shocking that the officer believes he deescalated the situation. Are police officers in that area so poorly trained or is he just blind to reality?

 

[Nivash]

So realistically, a citizen has has no rights in the eyes of law enforcement. So people really are guilt until proven innocent in the US.

But you at least need to be under arrest for something first right? You can't be put under arrest for resisting arrest, if you weren't under arrest.

This hurts my head and my heart.

Yeah, you still have to do something for the arrest to be lawful (but you can't resist an arrest even if it's illegal - you're supposed to contest it later). In this case she didn't exit the car which appears to be something on the line of failure to obey a police order or an interference with public duties. The latter might be the most suitable here considering that a case, Key v State, also took place in Texas and is similar: in that case, a man was sentenced for not adhering to a lawful police order to remain on the sidewalk.

This is pretty open to abuse though considering the power differential. You either have to be an officer yourself or have studied law to be able to distinguish a lawful order from a polite request that you can deny, so you could be refusing a lawful order and then resisting arrest without knowing that you're doing it.

IANAL and all that though. I'm just an amateur.