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

I know she wasn't shot. I'm not blaming the cop for her death simply his (*)(*)(*)(*) poor behavior during the stop. You told me I have no idea how dangerous cops are. I gave you an example of why I consider cops dangerous. I don't think cops are evil but I know they are only human and capable of making mistakes. This cop made a mistake in the way he handled the Sandra Bland it's a shame your bias won't allow you to look at the situation objectively.

I have no idea who Brian Fitch is. If he deserved to be shot by police, well that happens too.

 

BINGO …

When I posted, "You have no idea …"
I went on to mention -- again -- how Officer Scott Patrick was murdered in cold blood by Brian Fitch during a routine traffic stop on July 30, 2014 …

Cops are not mind readers, but respond -- defensively -- to *signals* …

Sandra Bland was giving *signals* -- of obvious mounting hostility -- to the officer who stopped her entirely legally and properly …

Was she armed … ??? Was she about to attack the officer … ??? Did she have a gun or a knife or pepper spray … ???

He asked her … then told her … to extinguish her cigarette … (LEGALLY, as per "Pennsylvania v. Mimms) … She refused …

He ordered her out of her vehicle (LEGALLY, as per Pennsylvania v. Mimms) … She refused …


YOUR attitude is:
"Oh, yeah … Sometimes a cop is murdered in cold blood during a routine traffic stop … But it's what (s)he signed up for … (*shrug*) …"

 

Dude your mixing up posters and i'm done discussing this with a person who has openly admitted they are biased toward the police and incapable of objective thought on the issue.

 

I have several times openly given the caveat that I am biased in favor of the police … (as per "Pennsylvania v. Mimms;" so is The Supreme Court of The United States &#8230

That fact does not mean that I am "incapable of objective thought on the issue" …

It does seem to me, OTOH, that the oh-so-currently-fashionable habit of hysterical knee-jerk cop-bashing is indeed irrational …

I ALWAYS want to know, "What are the FACTS and the LAW in this case … ???" … ALL of the facts ...

 

Got it. So you're accusing Texas law enforcement of lying in order to cover their own asses.

Some friend of the police you're turning out to be, lol.

 

No …
I simply reflect that this is a tragedy that need not have happened, all around …

But the basic deal is neatly summarized in Chris Rock's handy public service video …

Google: "How To Not Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police" ...

 

It wasn't a demonstration, the second a police officer detains you they have authority over you and they cannot so it for "whatever reason" which was certainly not the case here.

 

That compared to how they treat white people. Aiming an M16 at cars on the highway.

[video=youtube;dcjOgJ7b0uI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcjOgJ7b0uI[/video]

here is what came of his..."lawsuit"

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/...s-Debate-Tried-For-Second-Time-232412011.html

Me personally I would take a fine then be shot at 4 times for reaching for my wallet that i left in my console.

 

Ok why wasn't this guy instantly hand cuffed?

[video=youtube;k8-ycSkoYfc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8-ycSkoYfc[/video]
Hmmm...
No that is not what they signed up for...but quit denying bias when it is in cold hard truth in front of you.
legal gun ownership has been awhile a long time now..And it is videos like the above is why I see why cops sometimes act the way they do...last time I seen the flashen lights..car was off and hands out the window.
I was 17..I do not break the law often like that...back then at times I couldn't even afford to obey it..I just got lucky.

 

If police officers do not have reason to trust the public they have vowed to serve and protect, and fear for their basic safety in the performance of their duties, then they should not have signed up to become police officers in the first place.

Comparatively speaking, it is like choosing to marry someone with an extensively documented case of domestic violence and abuse, despite knowing full well that you will be subjected to the same treatment.

 

Good, then you finally agree that the arresting officer didn't do his job correctly. I figured you would see the light eventually.

You can stop spamming that whenever. Nobody is swayed by comedy sketches. Also, I don't know why you think a skit that implies an unfounded accusation of marijuana possession or playing loud rap music will likely result in being physically assaulted by cops. Hell, they even recommended having a white friend to help prevent a beat down from the police.

Again, I don't think you're doing any favors to the few honest policemen left in America by posting things like that.

 

Street cops work every hour of a shift in the REAL world, which is not populated exclusively innocent harmless angels …

When street cops or sheriff's deputies are dispatched on an emergency call it isn't because some guy at the bowing alley bowled his first perfect game and the mayor needs the cops to give the guy a medal … Rather it is because some guy at the bowling alley got drunk and is brandishing his pistol at another guy who he suspects has been banging his wife …

 

Where did you get the idea that every member of the public is a law abiding citizen?

 

What gives the cops the right to treat every citizen as a hardened career criminal armed with a bazooka Ana blasting cop killer on the radio?

 

Please educate yourself for fracks sake. You watch too much news. You probably think a redneck with a concealed carry permit will shoot you at any moment😉

Cops according to training and statistics deal with some situations in a more careful manner. A minivan gong 10miles over in a school zone won't be treated the same as an Escalade doing 100mph on i95 at 3am. Or do you think cops shouldn't deal with the driver of the Escalade with extreme caution?

Cops also deal with angry raving rude people much differently than those who quietly hand over their license and registration and say sorry.

They have NO OBLIGATION to treat you with respect when you don't treat them with any. They're not Starbucks baristas. And even then I don't blame a kid working at Starbucks if he spits in your coffee if you treat him like a n idiot, because you're late for work. I've seen that plenty of times and it makes me sick. Same when people treat cops like pricks when they haven't done anything wrong. YOU were the one speeding. YOU broke the law. YOU had an expired plate. If you're going to berate a cop for essentially just serving you coffee, his job, who's the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Blah blah apologist bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Cops are civil SERVANTS not (*)(*)(*)(*)ing military commandos. You're ******ned right they owe all of us respect. Without public funds they wouldn't even (*)(*)(*)(*)ing exist.

 

If a police officer cannot demonstrate their authority over a member of the public for whatever reason, then ultimately what was the purpose of the police officer deciding to order Sandra Bland out of her motor vehicle in response to her questioning him as to why she needed to extinguish her cigarette? Ultimately what was the presence of a lit cigarette preventing the police officer from doing in issuing a traffic citation for failure to signal a lane change? What was the extinguishing of the cigarette contingent upon the police officer being able to fully perform his duties?

Do not continue to cite the Mimms decision as if it is the only answer that is relevant, as it is not. You have just said that a police officer cannot order you to do whatever they want to demonstrate that they have absolute authority over you. Therefore there must be a reasonable purpose behind the request that the cigarette be extinguished, and that Sandra Bland exit her motor vehicle for questioning the police officer as to why she needed to.

If there was a legitimate and necessary reason that goes beyond "because he said so" which is nothing more than a demonstration of authority over others, what was the reason?

- - - Updated - - -
MOD EDIT - Rule 3
- - - Updated - - -

None of which does anything to invalidate the above claim. If police officers do not have reason to trust the public they have vowed to serve and protect, and fear for their basic safety in the performance of their duties, then they should not have signed up to become police officers in the first place.

 

The nineteenth century united states supreme court case Coffin v United States that established the concept of presumption of innocence doctrine into the legal system of your country.

Until such time that someone is proven guilty, in a court of law, they are legally regarded as innocent.

 

It wasn't a demonstration, he had detained her and was EXERCISING his authority. And by law she had to comply with his request/orders.

It was for a specific reason.

Why do you keep bringing up these strawmen arugments?

He doesn't even have to have a statement prupose, if he wants her out of the vehicle to continue the stop so be it, she has no legal right to refuse that lawful order. That being said the cigarette smoke being an irritant and a distraction while he is attempting to discuss the ticket or warning he is issuing certainly makes his request for her to extinguish not only lawful but reasonable and when she refuse his ordering her out of the vehicle quite reasonable along with being lawful.

No I said they cannot detain you for no reason, but once they do they have authority over you as stated in Mims.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting trivia about our court system.

Now try again. Where did you get the idea that every member of the public is a law abiding citizen?

- - - Updated - - -

They don't and they don't. Specious argument.

 

Demonstrate the court precedent that holds a police officer may order someone detained to perform absolutely any number of actions, regardless of whether or not they are warranted or ultimately necessary.

And only after Sandra Bland questioned him as to why she needed to extinguish her cigarette while she was in her motor vehicle. In simpler terms, that specific reason was needless retaliation over a perceived demonstration of disrespect.

It is not a strawman argument. The actions of the police officer are unjustified as they are in response to a perceived demonstration of disrespect.

And if a police officer orders you to engage in jumping jacks, or strip naked while you are being questioned, you are legally obliged to do such, correct?

The exhaust from motor vehicles passing by are far more of an irritant due to volume. And passing motor vehicles amount to far more of a distraction, as the police officer must wonder if any one of them may swerve and run into him simply because he is out in the open. That would not warrant the police officer shutting down all traffic in the are for the purpose of issuing a traffic citation.

Absolute authority, no matter what?

From the criminal justice system of your country. Until such time someone has been convicted in a court of law of a specific offense, they are legally regarded as a law abiding citizen, and subject to protections as such.

Explain the justification for police officer retaliating against individuals recording them going about their duties in a public venue.

 

Which has nothing to do with the procedural law enforcement safeguard of police officers guaranteed in Pennsylvania v. Mimms … (hint: the SCOTUS justices already knew about "presumption of innocence" when they decided Pennsylvania v. Mimms … duh &#8230

 

A cop can't, first of all, lawfully order you to stop doing something that you have every legal right to do - including smoking a cigarette.

What's specious is the unflinching support you and others like you give to police. You will use any ridiculous rationale to excuse murder by cop. You will worm out any half dead excuse to make sure the boys in blue are unchallenged.

We have daily, 3 people killed by police in this country. 3! And all you can do is sit here and blame all of the public, despite the fact we are all innocent until proven guilty - not proven guilty by an adrenaline junky military drop out cop - but by a jury of our peers. This level of police violence is absolutely unacceptable. And even worse is you and others absolute and unflinching acceptance of it.


Grotesque.

 

None of which holds that a police officer is free to use deadly force as a first resort simply because someone demonstrates noncompliance. A police officer cannot legally shoot you for standing in place, walking away without their permission, filming them in public even after they tell you to stop, being too intoxicated to comply with verbal commands on where to stand or not stand while you are being processed, or being hearing impaired and legitimately unable to comply with their verbal commands.

 

Your straw man is on the verge of catching fire ...

 

Prove that it is incorrect without citation of the Mimms case yet again. Show that deferment to the police applies in any and all circumstances.