Sandra Bland's family 'infuriated' at video of her arrest

Just more lame excuses for why this incompetent police officer didn't do his job correctly...not very good excuses either.

 

Probably so … not least because settling for a sum is less expensive than going to a full scale trial ...

 

Those "facts" are not in evidence …

What is that officer's history … ???
Does (s)he have prior complaints of misconduct, abuse of office, unnecessary roughness … ???

Before I am willing to render a judgment, I want to know the FACTS -- ALL of them ...

 

What was unprofessional he had every right and authority to ask her to step our of the vehicle in order not to be distracted or irritated by her smoking a cigarette in his face, after already showing her arse she refused to exit. The rest is history. And why would the city hand over a dime?

 

She broke the law with the improper lane change, I have been pulled over for the same, admitted I did it and would be more careful and was told to go on my way. She copped an attitude, she then refused his polite request to extinguish the cigarette she was smoking in his face so he lawfully ordered her to exit the vehicle, she then refused. SHE drove the sequence of events not the officer.

- - - Updated - - -

What are they going to sue for?

 

Before you are willing to render a judgment? WTF? You've been defending the guy for that past few pages! You even made the idiotic statement that this officer performed his duties correctly even though his superiors stated that he DID NOT. That's why he's still riding a desk today.

 

I am a citizen … with an admitted bias, i.e., I come from a law enforcement family …
So, yes I tend to give the cops the benefit of the doubt unless I have FACTS at hand indicating otherwise …

Remember "Ferguson," e.g. … ??? …
"Hand up … !!! Don't shoot … !!!" turned out to be entirely bogus …
The District Attorney, Grand Jury and U. S. Justice Department found that Officer Darren Wilson acted properly within the scope of his duties and the letters of the law … ALL of the physical FACTS (evidence) corroborated the officer's account of what really happened …
None the less, there were riots, destruction, violence and looting … and Officer Wilson "fell on his own sword" and resigned …

I have several times watch the Sandra Bland video … SHE created the problems … If I had been her dad, sitting in the passenger seat, I would have told her, "SHUT UP … !!! Do what the officer says … )
(BTW, again, see: Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 1977) ...

 

She broke the law and was recieving a citation. The cop chose to escalate the situation by responding to her rant. Instead of giving her the ticket and letting her go. He decided to go fishing and see what he could catch and he caught her.

To bad she wasn't taught to hold her tongue around cops because they are one smart ass remark away from finding a reason to take you to jail. Defend this all you want to but when the family sues the city will pay. It's just a shame this officer won't even recieve a come to Jesus meeting over his actions. Only in government can an employee act inappropriately, cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars and keep their job.

 

Those "facts" are my opinion and I never claimed any different. Why does the officer have to have a history of it? Perhaps it was this one time, people do make mistakes or maybe the officer ha a history of it. I'm going off what's on the video and I can hear the switch in his attitude and a jury will as well.

 

Ms Bland was unfortunately the cause of her own arrest and death …

That was the case in Ferguson, too …

 

Why mention Ferguson? The are two different situations. Bringing it up here doesn't strengthen your argument. Why didn't the officer let her sign the ticket and leave? He wanted to give her a hard time because she mouthed off. That's not OK. She had a smart mouth, well boo hoo. He is the one charged with being a professional not her. If I acted the way the officer did every time someone smarted off to me I'd be in a fight everyday. But I can't hide my bad behavior behind a badge.

 

I bring up "Ferguson" because that case (in media hype hysteria) at first reports seemed to be an absolute horror case of a bad cop run amuck …
But it turned out not to be so …
I object to the rush*to*judgment -- BAD*cop -- hysteria ...

But, no … the Sandra Bland case was NOT that she "mouthed off," but that she refused to comply with the officer's legal and reasonable commands and requests …

again, again, and again … see: Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 1977 …

 

I haven't seen you relying on "FACTS" very much. What I saw was you declaring that the officer in question did everything correctly, then when it was shown that he was actually found to have NOT done his job correctly, you started coming up with excuses and dodges with statements like the police are, "running scared," and other such tripe.

Then, after all of that, you start babbling about needing all of the facts BEFORE rendering a judgment as if you hadn't rendered it already in the most obstinate of ways.

What you would have done if you were this grown woman's father (what an odd hypothetical, btw) does not excuse the cop for going on a power trip and doing his job incorrectly.

 

I agree that Sandra Bland was both "obstinate" and very foolish …

There is no evidence that the officer was on a power trip …

I'll post it again …

see: Pennsylvania v. Mimms … 1977 ...

(1) As far as I have seen on the video (which I have watched several times), the officer did nothing wrong …
(2) The media and the "Cops Are On A Power Trip" have sensationalized this case, as they did in "Ferguson" ...

 

And I'll post this again...

According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, Officer Brian Encinia violated departmental procedures and policies.

Are you saying that they are liars?

 

But not the law … as per, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 1977 …

Have you read the SCOTUS decision … ??

 

When did I ever say that he broke the letter of the law? I maintain now, as I've always maintained, that the officer in question did not do his job correctly. The TX Dept. of Public Safety agrees with me. Apparently you think they're lying? Why can't you answer that simple question?

 

Then they should not sign up to become police officers in the first place.

 

Simply because what you do is supposedly legal, does not mean it was done in an acceptable manner. Simply because a police officer can indeed demonstrate their authority over you for whatever reason they choose, does not mean that they should engage in such behavior.

Legally a police officer is within their authority to kill you if they believe you present a threat, even if you do not. They can shoot you in the back if you are in the process of fleeing. Does that mean they should do such, simply because they can?

 

I'm not defending her actions. She was wrong for resisting, and it cost her dearly. The officer was also wrong. We are way past first reports in this case. There is no similarities between it and Ferguson. Should she have complied? Absolutely because if you don't the cops will beat you until you do. For no other reason than my own personal safety I comply with all officer request. I know they are some of the most dangerous people a person can have the displeasure of encountering. Unfortunately for her she didn't.

The officer made a choice, instead of listening to her complaint and giving her the ticket like a professional he let his pride get hurt and decided to demonstrate his power. Instead of acting like a decent human being he decided to be a dick. Two wrongs never make a right. The thing here is one of them is paid to keep a level head and be a professional not get into a dick swinging contest when one of his employers is telling him they aren't happy because they are getting a ticket.

 

Many officers and departments are now -- post-"Ferguson" -- reacting defensively when situations like the Bland case arise, simply to attempt to deflect mob hysteria (as when Officer Darren Wilson resigned even though he knew that he had acted properly) …

 

You suggest that Officer Scott Patrick "should not have signed up to become a police officer in the first place" … ???
Why … ??? He inconvenienced the city by being shot by a psychopath during a routine traffic stop … ???

 

No, you have no idea …
No officer can read minds … but often pay close attention to *signals* … and they act in self defense accordingly … (which they are allowed to do, as per the SCOTUS, in Pennsylvania v. Mimms &#8230

 

That is precisely why they are dangerous. They will not hesitate to shoot if they perceive a risk, not if their is an actual threat just if they feel the need to shoot. Here's a prime example of why I consider the police as dangerous.
[video=youtube_share;-XFYTtgZAlE]http://youtu.be/-XFYTtgZAlE[/video]

Let me guess it was the guy's fault for naively reaching for his wallet to fast . One innocent wrong move may just be your last when encountering the police.

 

Sandra Bland was NOT shot … She was first detained, and later arrested …

Brian Fitch, OTOH, was shot multiple times in a pitched gun battle with police after he fled the scene of his having murdered Officer Scott Patrick in cold blood during a routine traffic stop on July 30, 2014 ...