Texas Trooper Who Arrested Sandra Bland Is Indicted on Perjury Charge

[Political Junky]

Good -

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/texas-grand-jury-sandra-bland.html?_r=0

The charge stemmed from a one-page affidavit that Trooper Encinia filed with jail officials justifying the arrest of Ms. Bland, who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Prairie View, northwest of Houston, for failing to use her turn signal. Ms. Bland, 28, who was black, was returning to Texas in July to take a job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M.

The trooper wrote that he removed Ms. Bland from her car in order to conduct a safe traffic investigation, but “the grand jury found that statement to be false,” a special prosecutor, Shawn McDonald, said.

 

[bucs90]

Brian Encinia, who arrested Sandra Bland, is indicted - CNN.com
For those that don't know....Supreme Court case Maryland vs. WILSON says cops can take you out of a car during a stop for no reason at all...for simple safety. It's as much the law as gay marriage.

The cop said in his affidavit that Bland was taken out of her car to conduct a safer stop.

The jury said....they just don't believe that's why.

In other words.....prosecuting his THOUGHTS. HOW in the hell are they going to prove what he was THINKING and not thinking???

The great American cop witch hunt continues.

BTW....not ONE prison guard where she hung herself was indicted.

Just the cop because....well....they think he just had to have had bad thoughts.


The system spoke. He obviously will be found not guilty because SCOTUS Maryland vs Wilson is LAW.

But the mob needed a pound of flesh.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your link goes to an entirely different story.

 

[bucs90]

Your link goes to an entirely different story.

Oops. Corrected it. That was the link about Arabs and blacks doing mass rape in Europe.

 

[JoeB131]

Brian Encinia, who arrested Sandra Bland, is indicted - CNN.com
For those that don't know....Supreme Court case Maryland vs. WILSON says cops can take you out of a car during a stop for no reason at all...for simple safety. It's as much the law as gay marriage.

The cop said in his affidavit that Bland was taken out of her car to conduct a safer stop.

The jury said....they just don't believe that's why.

In other words.....prosecuting his THOUGHTS. HOW in the hell are they going to prove what he was THINKING and not thinking???

The great American cop witch hunt continues.

BTW....not ONE prison guard where she hung herself was indicted.

Just the cop because....well....they think he just had to have had bad thoughts.


The system spoke. He obviously will be found not guilty because SCOTUS Maryland vs Wilson is LAW.

But the mob needed a pound of flesh.

He did lie about the circumstances of the stop. It's right there on tape. And if he hadn't thrown this woman who had mental issues in jail for no good reason, she might be alive today.

If it gets the next cop to think twice about a DWB, I'm all for it.

 

[bucs90]

Brian Encinia, who arrested Sandra Bland, is indicted - CNN.com
For those that don't know....Supreme Court case Maryland vs. WILSON says cops can take you out of a car during a stop for no reason at all...for simple safety. It's as much the law as gay marriage.

The cop said in his affidavit that Bland was taken out of her car to conduct a safer stop.

The jury said....they just don't believe that's why.

In other words.....prosecuting his THOUGHTS. HOW in the hell are they going to prove what he was THINKING and not thinking???

The great American cop witch hunt continues.

BTW....not ONE prison guard where she hung herself was indicted.

Just the cop because....well....they think he just had to have had bad thoughts.


The system spoke. He obviously will be found not guilty because SCOTUS Maryland vs Wilson is LAW.

But the mob needed a pound of flesh.

He did lie about the circumstances of the stop. It's right there on tape. And if he hadn't thrown this woman who had mental issues in jail for no good reason, she might be alive today.

If it gets the next cop to think twice about a DWB, I'm all for it.

No he didnt

 

[bucs90]

This will be our first THOUGHT prosecution. Should be interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

No he didnt

Guy, did you watch the tape where he threatened to "light your ass up", pinned her into the dirt, handcuffed her, ignored her pleas that he was hurting her?

Or do you just not care because she was black.

So Sandra Bland get brutalized for not getting out of the Car, but Ammon Bundy can take Federal Property at gunpoint, and that's okay by you?

Silly Darkie! Rights are for White People!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The vid demonstrates it was not about a safe stop but about a cop out of control. Wilson is a guide not an absolute. The guy in North Charleston is finding that out as is the guy in Chicago.

 

[bucs90]

The vid demonstrates it was not about a safe stop but about a cop out of control. Wilson is a guide not an absolute. The guy in North Charleston is finding that out as is the guy in Chicago.

A guide??? Wilson is A SUPREME COURT LAW. It's as much the law of the land as gay marriage.

All the other shit is not what he was indicted for. The jury said....they didn't believe his affidavit where he said he took her out of the car for a safer stop. And his ability to make that call is protected by Maryland v Wilson. He will be cleared.

 

[Political Junky]

It sure made the evening news. He's been fired as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You were wrong when you said you would not be released from the police.

You are wrong on this. The officer is indicted for lying about the events, which is not protected by law.

 

[bucs90]

Good -

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/texas-grand-jury-sandra-bland.html?_r=0

The charge stemmed from a one-page affidavit that Trooper Encinia filed with jail officials justifying the arrest of Ms. Bland, who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Prairie View, northwest of Houston, for failing to use her turn signal. Ms. Bland, 28, who was black, was returning to Texas in July to take a job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M.

The trooper wrote that he removed Ms. Bland from her car in order to conduct a safe traffic investigation, but “the grand jury found that statement to be false,” a special prosecutor, Shawn McDonald, said.

Yes. The grand jury simply said they don't believe safety is the reason he took her out of the car. SCOTUS Maryland v. Wilson grants cops the right to remove someone from a vehicle for ANY reason and the trooper cites safety.

Grand jury said they just don't believe him. LEGALLY he could've just given NO REASON to remove her (Maryland v. Wilson) but he said safety and the jury just said "We don't believe you".

So....there is absolutely no evidence he lied. He said it was for safety. It's now their job to prove what he was thinking.

Therefore....all he has to do is cite Maryland v Wilson, and then make them prove what he was THINKING at the time....which is impossible.

He's never gonna see trial. And if this solicitor takes this case....an unlawful arrest lawsuit will make this trooper rich because SUPREME COURT LAW already grants him the right to remove her for ANY reason he wants.

This is the most pathetic clown court I've seen since Baltimore.

 

[Dot Com]

Good -

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/texas-grand-jury-sandra-bland.html?_r=0

The charge stemmed from a one-page affidavit that Trooper Encinia filed with jail officials justifying the arrest of Ms. Bland, who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Prairie View, northwest of Houston, for failing to use her turn signal. Ms. Bland, 28, who was black, was returning to Texas in July to take a job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M.

The trooper wrote that he removed Ms. Bland from her car in order to conduct a safe traffic investigation, but “the grand jury found that statement to be false,” a special prosecutor, Shawn McDonald, said.

Yes. The grand jury simply said they don't believe safety is the reason he took her out of the car. SCOTUS Maryland v. Wilson grants cops the right to remove someone from a vehicle for ANY reason and the trooper cites safety.

Grand jury said they just don't believe him. LEGALLY he could've just given NO REASON to remove her (Maryland v. Wilson) but he said safety and the jury just said "We don't believe you".

So....there is absolutely no evidence he lied. He said it was for safety. It's now their job to prove what he was thinking.

Therefore....all he has to do is cite Maryland v Wilson, and then make them prove what he was THINKING at the time....which is impossible.

He's never gonna see trial. And if this solicitor takes this case....an unlawful arrest lawsuit will make this trooper rich because SUPREME COURT LAW already grants him the right to remove her for ANY reason he wants.

This is the most pathetic clown court I've seen since Baltimore.

We know why you're so invested in this mall cop/klanboi, The victim was African American

 

[bucs90]

You were wrong when you said you would not be released from the police.

You are wrong on this. The officer is indicted for lying about the events, which is not protected by law.

What event did he lie about?

 

[bucs90]

Good -

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/texas-grand-jury-sandra-bland.html?_r=0

The charge stemmed from a one-page affidavit that Trooper Encinia filed with jail officials justifying the arrest of Ms. Bland, who was pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Prairie View, northwest of Houston, for failing to use her turn signal. Ms. Bland, 28, who was black, was returning to Texas in July to take a job at her alma mater, Prairie View A&M.

The trooper wrote that he removed Ms. Bland from her car in order to conduct a safe traffic investigation, but “the grand jury found that statement to be false,” a special prosecutor, Shawn McDonald, said.

Yes. The grand jury simply said they don't believe safety is the reason he took her out of the car. SCOTUS Maryland v. Wilson grants cops the right to remove someone from a vehicle for ANY reason and the trooper cites safety.

Grand jury said they just don't believe him. LEGALLY he could've just given NO REASON to remove her (Maryland v. Wilson) but he said safety and the jury just said "We don't believe you".

So....there is absolutely no evidence he lied. He said it was for safety. It's now their job to prove what he was thinking.

Therefore....all he has to do is cite Maryland v Wilson, and then make them prove what he was THINKING at the time....which is impossible.

He's never gonna see trial. And if this solicitor takes this case....an unlawful arrest lawsuit will make this trooper rich because SUPREME COURT LAW already grants him the right to remove her for ANY reason he wants.

This is the most pathetic clown court I've seen since Baltimore.

We know why you're so invested in this mall cop/klanboi, The victim was African American

What EXACTLY did he lie about???

 

[JakeStarkey]

You were wrong when you said you would not be released from the police.

You are wrong on this. The officer is indicted for lying about the events, which is not protected by law.

What event did he lie about?

You tell us, since that is your thread's lead.

Wilson does not protect him, anymore than it did you.

 

[Moonglow]

You were wrong when you said you would not be released from the police.

You are wrong on this. The officer is indicted for lying about the events, which is not protected by law.

What event did he lie about?

About being swung at by the perp...

 

[Dot Com]

This must be on Drudge, thats how our usual suspects came up w/ their pre-packaged talking-points.

 

[bucs90]

You were wrong when you said you would not be released from the police.

You are wrong on this. The officer is indicted for lying about the events, which is not protected by law.

What event did he lie about?

You tell us, since that is your thread's lead.

Wilson does not protect him, anymore than it did you.

Um....that's the point. There is no evidence of a lie. They said they just don't believe his affidavit saying she was removed for a "safer stop". Maryland v Wilson protects him there.

So....they're basically charging him for lying....and it's based on what they think he was thinking...not what he actually did.

They're gonna have to prove what he was THINKING to prove his reason for removing her was false.

Unless he pulls a Colonel Jessup and says "You're damn right I wasn't thinking that"....then this will be dismissed and he's gonna sue the pants off the prosecutors office...because a SCOTUS ruling protects him.