Discussion for article #238725
The dashcam video shows
cop was going in opposite direction and made
a U turn to specifically “toy” with this unfortunate black woman or more accurately target.
He deliberately sped up giving the impression he was rushing to a call and Bland thought
she was giving him the right of way, Your analysis is a pile of crap
10 Likes
There is an alarming number of people in law enforcement who seem to believe that if you don’t address them as “Sir” and jump when they say “jump!”, then they are well within their rights to arrest you … or perhaps even shoot you where you stand.
29 Likes
Well written article. However it doesn’t hit much on the fact that Ms. Bland was arrested for not getting out of the car when the officer told her to. I think this causes some major pause to most thinking people: no blatant crime committed, no threat to the officer, no public safety concern. Her arrest was basically for not complying with an out-of-line cop’s command. Seems a change to laws is necessary to set the bar for arrest higher.
48 Likes
Agreed. According to the apologia written here, Bland was arrested for not getting out of the car. However, she didn’t have to got out of the car in the first place. Therefore, this whole murderous folly comes down to….lack of compliance.
Whatever stupid sht the police insist be forced upon you, if you do not obey that stupid sht, you will be arrested. Not so much for any “crime” but the lack of compliance. To ANYTHING the LEO tells you to do.
16 Likes
Small-town cops make up reasons to harass, humiliate, and hustle out-of-towners. It intimidates and enhances revenue. Just one more (predictable) story in the Naked Hicktown. It is why I stay on the interstate when traveling.
12 Likes
“That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.”
Does he really have carte blanche? The ruling was specifically concerning safety concerns, yet Encinia sites none…he doesn’t even include the fact she was smoking a cigarette in his report later, nor any other safety concerns…for himself or anyone else.
The court gives a great deal of latitude towards law enforcement in traffic stop situations…but that’s based entirely upon safety concerns. Where the officer has absolutely no safety concerns…none that are even enough for him to remember when filling out his paperwork a few hours later…then his actions become much more limited. Indeed, a recent SCOTUS decision, Rodriguez vs. United States, rather severely restricted the length of a traffic stop. By that ruling, the stop ended as soon as he handed her the warning. And that ruling was just in April of this year.
So given no safety concerns, the traffic stop has ended legally…everything he does after the point is probably NOT legal. If you want to float some fanciful notion that smoking threatened his health (something that is complete conjecture) keep in mind that he is not required, indeed has no legal need or authority at that point, to be sticking his head into her car…and can easily withdraw it.
But nice try and trying to paint a matter of grey as a matter of clarity, with of course, the white officer clearly not breaking any laws.
26 Likes
Is it legal for the officer to threaten the citizen? What does “I’ll light you up!” mean? It seems to me that the citizen was threatened with violence. Is that legal?
11 Likes
Yes, he does under this ruling. The idea is that the court is loathe to take the judgment away from a police officer on the scene at the time regarding what constitutes a threat to safety, the officer’s or anyone else’s. That said, the issue is hiring and training. The court shouldn’t stand on high and dictate very specific rules related to situations where they cannot see every possible scenario. That also gets people killed. The responsibility is with law enforcement agencies to conduct proper training that detail and enforce proper consequences for this behavior. Where the agencies fall down on this responsibility is where DOJ needs to get involved.
10 Likes
“Are you done?” I’ll bet he talks to his wife that way too.
12 Likes
Actually, the analysis is quite good. The fact that this was likely a “driving while black” scenario is a separate issue.
12 Likes
My husband noted that the officer deliberately moved her out of the range of the dashcam – so abuse won’t be seen?
21 Likes
Actually, you do have to get out of the car if the officer commands you to do so. The article clearly explains why. We can disagree with the logic behind it, but she did have to get out of the car.
2 Likes
“A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 , than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323 . Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.”
He had completed all such tasks. He had reviewed her license, her insurance,etc. and issued the warning. At that point, the stop is completed, and every action he takes after that is a violation of the 4th Amendment, according to Rodriguez v. United States. Indeed, he specifically makes it an unlawful seizure by actually reaching into the car and SEIZING her
You may think that the court “shouldn’t” dictate specific rules, by the SCOTUS disagrees with you, in quite a few cases. Here specifically, they have determined, by a 6-3 vote (not that it matters except to show that it crossed over partisan lines somewhat), that there are indeed rules regarding how a police officer can conduct a traffic stop.
This is made even worse, because like I pointed out, in his own incident report, he doesn’t claim any threat to his safety or anyone else’s, thus further vacating your argument that cops need to have leeway due to safety concerns. He had NO safety concerns, by his own admittance.
22 Likes
The analysis here matches what I’ve been reading elsewhere. I do think blacks are harassed by law enforcement for minor infractions. I think this is a shining example of that harassment. It’s bad policing but it is legal.
But in a similar situation (and I have been stopped for traffic violations), my behavior will be different in the future. I will remain as silent as possible before someone who can throw my white behind into jail for my mouthy mouth. I want to improve my chances of emerging safely from an encounter with a possible bad egg who carries a gun, a taser, and who can do me bodily harm.
I will keep my mouthy mouth shut, turn on my smartphone and place it on my car’s console. Answer yes sir and no sir and volunteer absolutely no information. Smoke may be coming out of my ears in rage but I will remain silent.
“Are you okay?” Yes, sir. “You seem irritated.” No, I’m okay, sir. “Would you please roll down your window?” Yes, sir. “Would you…” Yes, sir. (I might not be able to manage the “sirs”.)
This is the “model” for a anyone dealing with the police.
10 Likes
On the basis of what? What happened such that he could claim that she needed to get out of the car?
3 Likes
If it’s true that Sandra Bland notified the jailers that she was suicidal and they ignored her…
They’re culpable.
4 Likes
Given all the black people who are dead or beaten in police stops, police also need to recognize that people may not be disobeying a lawful order, so much as they are really just acting in self-defense.
17 Likes
That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.
From what we’ve been seeing lately, ego occupies a central place in modern policing.
22 Likes
I’m not talking about rules regarding a traffic stop or police activities, I’m talking about specific rules regarding judgments on what constitutes a threat to safety. Your very point that the court falls back on the ‘reasonable’ man scenario demonstrates my point. That they are loathe to DICTATE what the reasonable man should do because every situation is different.
EDITED FOR CLARITY: Reasonable man is a judgment call and then the court goes back and says, you made the wrong judgment, it wasn’t reasonable. What they don’t do is tell you what ‘reasonable’ is defined as before hand because it is defined within the context of the moment at hand.
You asked a question in your first post about whether he has carte blanche to ask her to get out of the vehicle. That’s all I was addressing.
1 Like