Video of Sandra Bland re-released

[A Perez]

Liberals are invited to play detective again. Please watch the whole 52 minutes in search of alteration.

 

[Moonglow]

One less cop in town.....

 

[Moonglow]

The voice of the cop is lying about the whey the incident unfolded...He did not try to calm her down and he never told her what she was under arrest for...

 

[Moonglow]

Around her we have a name for them kind of officers, pussies....

 

[emilynghiem]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

 

[MarcATL]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

Agree...

Turns Out That Sandra Bland Was Absolutely Right, And, The Damn Cop Was Lying, As Usual

 

[emilynghiem]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

Agree...

Turns Out That Sandra Bland Was Absolutely Right, And, The Damn Cop Was Lying, As Usual

Dear MarcATL
I would focus on each case individually to make sure there is justice.
Not assume "AS USUAL" which starts the denial and defense game.

As with this case, had the questions just been asked and procedures followed,
nothing would have escalated. But adding that ASSUMPTION that a political
statement needs to be made, or an example made of someone for "others"
is what escalates into worse problems that didn't need to be dragged into each incident.

If we want "escalation" to stop, we can't engage in that either.
Just stick to each case, and quit making political collective statements at anyone's expense.
When cops do that, it ends up profiling people just because of assumptions or
risks the person "could be LYING and actually be armed and reaching for a gun"

If you don't like that assumption, then the same
should apply to assuming "the cops will always lie."

BTW here's a clear case where a bad corrupt police official
was caught setting up a no-knock raid based on a lie.

'You lie, you die' | HPD undercover cop lied about drug buy that led to deadly raid, Chief Acevedo says

If we are going to get credible support for REAL cases of
deadly corruption, we can't "cry wolf on all cases" and
discredit the real cases where this clearly occurred!

Gerald Goines, officer who led deadly HPD drug raid, has retired

 

[Godboy]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

That is a dumb woman. If a cop asks me to put out a cigarette during a traffic stop, im doing it. Its irrellevent that i dont have to by law. Not putting out the cigarette is going to piss him off and i dont want to make the guy angry who is deciding whether or not to give me a ticket.

Try using a little common sense for once in your retarded lives.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

Agree...

Turns Out That Sandra Bland Was Absolutely Right, And, The Damn Cop Was Lying, As Usual

Dear MarcATL
I would focus on each case individually to make sure there is justice.
Not assume "AS USUAL" which starts the denial and defense game.

As with this case, had the questions just been asked and procedures followed,
nothing would have escalated. But adding that ASSUMPTION that a political
statement needs to be made, or an example made of someone for "others"
is what escalates into worse problems that didn't need to be dragged into each incident.

If we want "escalation" to stop, we can't engage in that either.
Just stick to each case, and quit making political collective statements at anyone's expense.
When cops do that, it ends up profiling people just because of assumptions or
risks the person "could be LYING and actually be armed and reaching for a gun"

If you don't like that assumption, then the same
should apply to assuming "the cops will always lie."

BTW here's a clear case where a bad corrupt police official
was caught setting up a no-knock raid based on a lie.

'You lie, you die' | HPD undercover cop lied about drug buy that led to deadly raid, Chief Acevedo says

If we are going to get credible support for REAL cases of
deadly corruption, we can't "cry wolf on all cases" and
discredit the real cases where this clearly occurred!

Gerald Goines, officer who led deadly HPD drug raid, has retired

There is a power dynamic involved here to where you can't demand citizens act as police officers do...

Citizens are not empowered with the right to use lethal force to the degree that police are -- so the onus is on the police to behave more professionally

 

[Godboy]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

Agree...

Turns Out That Sandra Bland Was Absolutely Right, And, The Damn Cop Was Lying, As Usual

Dear MarcATL
I would focus on each case individually to make sure there is justice.
Not assume "AS USUAL" which starts the denial and defense game.

As with this case, had the questions just been asked and procedures followed,
nothing would have escalated. But adding that ASSUMPTION that a political
statement needs to be made, or an example made of someone for "others"
is what escalates into worse problems that didn't need to be dragged into each incident.

If we want "escalation" to stop, we can't engage in that either.
Just stick to each case, and quit making political collective statements at anyone's expense.
When cops do that, it ends up profiling people just because of assumptions or
risks the person "could be LYING and actually be armed and reaching for a gun"

If you don't like that assumption, then the same
should apply to assuming "the cops will always lie."

BTW here's a clear case where a bad corrupt police official
was caught setting up a no-knock raid based on a lie.

'You lie, you die' | HPD undercover cop lied about drug buy that led to deadly raid, Chief Acevedo says

If we are going to get credible support for REAL cases of
deadly corruption, we can't "cry wolf on all cases" and
discredit the real cases where this clearly occurred!

Gerald Goines, officer who led deadly HPD drug raid, has retired

There is a power dynamic involved here to where you can't demand citizens act as police officers do...

Citizens are not empowered with the right to use lethal force to the degree that police are -- so the onus is on the police to behave more professionally

Assuming every cop is going to be an emotionless robot at all times is childish and naive. You better treat that cop like hes a human being, otherwise youre going to have a very bad day.

 

[Aba Incieni]

She smoked cigarettes so she was worse than Hitler.

 

[harmonica]

.....blacks unjustifiably hate cops/whites/America--so they like to INITIATE trouble when stopped by cops..they don't want to be polite/sensible/etc

 

[leftwinger]

.....blacks unjustifiably hate cops/whites/America--so they like to INITIATE trouble when stopped by cops..they don't want to be polite/sensible/etc

Deys' gotta chip on der' shoulders big as a mountain. Whites pop off too but not 95% of em shoot off mouths as the slower learners.

 

[bodecea]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

That is a dumb woman. If a cop asks me to put out a cigarette during a traffic stop, im doing it. Its irrellevent that i dont have to by law. Not putting out the cigarette is going to piss him off and i dont want to make the guy angry who is deciding whether or not to give me a ticket.

Try using a little common sense for once in your retarded lives.

There are always those who hand their rights over to authority with both hands.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The voice of the cop is lying about the whey the incident unfolded...He did not try to calm her down and he never told her what she was under arrest for...

What about the curds, Little Miss Muffet?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Around her we have a name for them kind of officers, pussies....

I hope you try that same kind of shit with a police officer. Your attitude will have you eating pavement!

 

[emilynghiem]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

That is a dumb woman. If a cop asks me to put out a cigarette during a traffic stop, im doing it. Its irrellevent that i dont have to by law. Not putting out the cigarette is going to piss him off and i dont want to make the guy angry who is deciding whether or not to give me a ticket.

Try using a little common sense for once in your retarded lives.

Sure Godboy but common sense goes both ways.

 

[harmonica]

.....typical black ''incident''' = black escalates ''problem'' --no common sense/no politeness/ arrogant for NO reason/etc etc
jackasses..being jackasses then blaming the cops !!! hahahhahahahaha

 

[miketx]

I think the ^ 10 minute video ^ (even with editing) is enough to show and make the points of
where the officer was excessive, and Bland was within her rights to contest his actions:

10 Things About The Sandra Bland Traffic Stop Every Texan Should Know | Texas Standard

SEE TEXT QUOTED BELOW, EMPHASIS AND ENURMERATION ADDED IN BOLDFACE:

On July 10, 28-year-old Sandra Bland was arrested and charged with assaulting a public servant. She was taken to the Waller County Jail; three days later, she was found in her cell dead from what officials called suicide. Both the FBI and the Texas Rangers launched investigations trying to find out what happened.

Dashboard camera footage from Bland’s traffic stop was released on Tuesday. (Note: The video was uploaded to YouTube Tuesday evening; it has since been taken down, after people pointed out errors and inconsistencies in the video, which led many to believe it had been edited. A DPS spokesman denied editing the video, and said this morning they would re-upload the footage without errors or omissions.)

Questions, in the wake of the video: What are the rules? Not policies or politeness – specifically, what are your rights when you’re pulled over by police?

Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaks with Texas Standard about the footage of the arrest, point-by-point. Here’s a transcript of the conversation, edited for brevity and clarity:

The trooper asks, “You mind putting out your cigarette please?” And Ms. Bland says, “Well, I’m in my car – why do I have to put out my cigarette?” Does she have to put out her cigarette?

(1) “No, she doesn’t have to put out her cigarette. And you wonder why the officer is even bothering with that. This is part of his escalation of the whole event that unfolded, unfortunately.”

The next part: “Step out of the car.” Ms. Bland says, “You do not have the right.” He interrupts – “I do have the right, step out of the car or I will remove you.” Does he have the right, first, to order her to step out of the car, and second, to actually physically remove her from the car?

(2) “He does not have the right to say get out of the car. He has to express some reason. ‘I need to search your car,’ or, whatever; he needs to give a reason. He can’t just say ‘get out of the car’ for a traffic offense.”

It’s one thing to say he has a reason; it’s another to say he has to give a reason. He may have had probable cause, or thought he had it, we don’t know. Does he have to state it?

(3) “He doesn’t have to state probable cause; he has to state some reason … And that’s part of the training that he should have had about how to de-escalate a situation. She’s clearly upset about what happened, particularly – as we know later on – that she moved over because he was tailing her. … He should be working on de-escalation. That’s the key. ”

Ms. Bland says, “I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself.” Is she right or wrong?

(4) “She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”

The trooper says, “I am giving you a lawful order.” Now, is the is the lawful order to extinguish the cigarette, or to get out of the car, or neither?

(5) “You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”

“I’m gonna yank you out of here,” is what the trooper says. Can he physically “yank” her out of her vehicle?

(6) “He can’t do that either, unless she’s posing a threat to his welfare and safety. What he should have done was just wait for backup, if he couldn’t de-escalate it himself. But you don’t just pull somebody out of the car, and point that taser in her face. What if it had gone off? She’d have permanent brain damage.”

She says, “Dont touch me, I’m not under arrest.” Trooper says, “You are under arrest. She says, “Under arrest for what?” He then turns to his shoulder mounted radio, and asks for another unit.

(7) Does he have an obligation as a law enforcement officer to tell her why she is under arrest?

“Yes. He needs to – it’s not clear to her what’s going on. He needs to tell her, ‘You’re under arrest because …,’ but you can’t really tell her that. Because you can’t tell from the video that there’s any reason to have her under arrest.

She asserts her right to record this with her cell phone. That’s a right that has been clearly established. Is that true?

(8) “She has a right to do that. But that’s another example where the officer perceives this as a challenge to his authority – and it further escalates the whole scenario.”

When he says “get out of the car, or I will light you up,” he is apparently referring to the use of a taser. Is that a legitimate threat? Is that something that’s okay for officers to do in that situation?

(9) “No – here’s the situation where he is clearly violating her constitutional rights. This is excessive force on the part of the officer – to take that taser and point it in her face and say, ‘I’m going to harm you.’ Taser is the last recourse to a gun. And if he can’t get her out, he can’t de-escalate it, he’s got to wait for another officer to come and talk through this.”

Right now, the trooper has been placed on administrative duty. He’s not on leave, he’s still working for DPS. It’s our understanding that there is a violation of policy here – he should not have allowed it to escalate.

We are talking about a certain level of discretion that the state apparently entrusts with its troopers. Should officers have that much discretion?

(10) “He clearly exceeded that. … The discretion here is, how do you de-escalate the situation? He could have just given her the ticket and walked away. Just like that. But he had to go through this confrontation. Of course, there are questions of race that come up here. And the fact that this is an out-of-state car moving through the town – and we know in Texas that’s a pretty typical profiling event. What bothers me a lot is that troopers are supposed to be the best-trained police officers we have in the state. This guy is clearly out of control – clearly shouldn’t be out on the streets dealing with people – [given] this level of escalation that he provokes.”

Agree...

Turns Out That Sandra Bland Was Absolutely Right, And, The Damn Cop Was Lying, As Usual

Run from the cops loser.