Texas Trooper Who Arrested Sandra Bland Is Indicted on Perjury Charge

[Faun]

Even in an automobile, a cigarette could be used to burn a cop handing the driver a citation or warning. If an officer orders someone to put out their cigarette, they can be arrested (depending on the state) if they fail to comply.

How many times has that happened?

Unless it is in preparation to effect an arrest, I don't believe there is a legal requirement for that anywhere in the U.S.

A burning ember could be considered a safety risk for a police officer and I don't see anything unreasonable about a cop, in arms reach of someone they're potentially handing a citation or warning, telling them to extinguish it.

 

[MikeK]

A burning ember could be considered a safety risk for a police officer and I don't see anything unreasonable about a cop, in arms reach of someone they're potentially handing a citation or warning, telling them to extinguish it.

A "burning ember?"

That sounds like something some paranoid cop cooked up, added to a training manual and it caught on.

How many other things can be a safety risk for a police officer? How many things might one have access to in their car which conceivably could be a "safety risk" for a cop? How many things could one stab a cop with? I often have an attache case next to me when I'm driving. How many potentially dangerous things could I have in there? Should I be required to toss that case into the back seat, or allow a search, because the cops are afraid?

Should cops suspect every citizen they stop for traffic offenses of being potentially assaultive? Or crazy? If so they should only perform stops in pairs while wearing shields and armed with shotguns.

Because I might fail to signal a turn or wear a seat belt is no reason for some cop to regard me as or treat me like a potential attacker. Because they get away with this nonsense day after day the majority of authority-worshipping Americans accept it as law, when it isn't. And if enough citizens decided to test it by taking it to court it soon will be changed.

The police occupation involves a certain level of risk -- as does a lot of other jobs. If one is unwilling to accept that risk one should not become a cop. There are plenty of comparatively safe jobs.

 

[mdavisyoung]

I think the cigarette is key, it was the cause of her refusing his authority, for which he was able to get her out of the car. Its not illegal to be mad about a ticket, she wasent posing a threat but she did refuse an order. He knew she would object to it just as much as she objected to the ticket, he could have let it go but decided he didnt want to, just like he didnt have to arrest her, he just wanted to.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[MikeK]

I think the cigarette is key, it was the cause of her refusing his authority, for which he was able to get her out of the car. Its not illegal to be mad about a ticket, she wasent posing a threat but she did refuse an order. He knew she would object to it just as much as she objected to the ticket, he could have let it go but decided he didnt want to, just like he didnt have to arrest her, he just wanted to.

She refused an order which he had no justifiable cause to issue -- and which I believe has ultimately led to his being indicted. He was offended by Bland's failure to assume a submissive posture and he maneuvered her into a position where he could hurt her by arresting her and the Grand Jurors were able to determine that.

When this case is tried in criminal court the prosecutor, who is an integral component of the law-enforcement community, will do his best to enable this trooper to evade conviction. If that happens, there are a dozen top shelf trial lawyers who are lined up to take it to civil court which is a very different arena.

 

[JoeB131]

The ticket wasent enough with her mouthing off like that. He had to put her in her place by making an impact on her life. The cigarette was key to escalating the scenario, but he had the right to ask her to put it out. He can probably get out of it if he can prove a cigarette is a threat to safety while conducting a traffic stop.

Yes, how dare she object to being racially profiled and falsely arrested.

Silly Darkie. Rights are for white people!

 

[Faun]

A burning ember could be considered a safety risk for a police officer and I don't see anything unreasonable about a cop, in arms reach of someone they're potentially handing a citation or warning, telling them to extinguish it.

A "burning ember?"

That sounds like something some paranoid cop cooked up, added to a training manual and it caught on.

How many other things can be a safety risk for a police officer? How many things might one have access to in their car which conceivably could be a "safety risk" for a cop? How many things could one stab a cop with? I often have an attache case next to me when I'm driving. How many potentially dangerous things could I have in there? Should I be required to toss that case into the back seat, or allow a search, because the cops are afraid?

Should cops suspect every citizen they stop for traffic offenses of being potentially assaultive? Or crazy? If so they should only perform stops in pairs while wearing shields and armed with shotguns.

Because I might fail to signal a turn or wear a seat belt is no reason for some cop to regard me as or treat me like a potential attacker. Because they get away with this nonsense day after day the majority of authority-worshipping Americans accept it as law, when it isn't. And if enough citizens decided to test it by taking it to court it soon will be changed.

The police occupation involves a certain level of risk -- as does a lot of other jobs. If one is unwilling to accept that risk one should not become a cop. There are plenty of comparatively safe jobs.

It remains a potential safety risk no matter what you call it so it's not unreasonable for an officer to order someone in that circumstance to extinguish it. As far as viewing her as a potential threat, I would imagine cops view every driver they approach as a potential threat. At least until they get a sense of who they are talking to.

 

[MikeK]

I think the cigarette is key, it was the cause of her refusing his authority, for which he was able to get her out of the car. Its not illegal to be mad about a ticket, she wasent posing a threat but she did refuse an order. He knew she would object to it just as much as she objected to the ticket, he could have let it go but decided he didnt want to, just like he didnt have to arrest her, he just wanted to.

Have you ever watched the occasional video of what Parking Enforcement Agents ("Meter Maids," etc.) endure from drivers who come upon them while or just after writing them a ticket? These ticket-writers are undoubtedly the most despised objects of public rage in the ranks of civil service. But unless they are physically assaulted they have no recourse to do anything about the angry protests expressed by the recipients of their parking (or other) tickets.

While it's true that Parking Enforcement Agents, who are uniformed and wear badges, have no authority to arrest, it wouldn't matter if they did. There are no laws that protect the personal sensitivities of Parking Enforcement Agents -- or cops. And if a Parking Enforcement Agent can't order a citizen, even a pissed-off, raging citizen, to put his cigarette out, why is it a cop can?

These gradually advancing "Officer Safety" procedures are conceived by cops who are assigned to formulate proposed policies. The proposed policies are usually approved by overly solicitous legislators who generally defer to pressure from powerful police unions. But in the specific example of this highly questionable authority of a cop to arbitrarily order a citizen who is cited for a traffic offense to put out his/her cigarette, when the issue is presented to an impartial jury there is likely to be some formal review of the need for this level of police authority.

I am curious to know if you, as a presumably ordinary citizen, believe that if you are pulled over for some minor traffic offense, and you happen to be smoking a cigarette or cigar, the cop should have the right to order you to put it out?

 

[mdavisyoung]

I think the cigarette is key, it was the cause of her refusing his authority, for which he was able to get her out of the car. Its not illegal to be mad about a ticket, she wasent posing a threat but she did refuse an order. He knew she would object to it just as much as she objected to the ticket, he could have let it go but decided he didnt want to, just like he didnt have to arrest her, he just wanted to.

Have you ever watched the occasional video of what Parking Enforcement Agents ("Meter Maids," etc.) endure from drivers who come upon them while or just after writing them a ticket? These ticket-writers are undoubtedly the most despised objects of public rage in the ranks of civil service. But unless they are physically assaulted they have no recourse to do anything about the angry protests expressed by the recipients of their parking (or other) tickets.

While it's true that Parking Enforcement Agents, who are uniformed and wear badges, have no authority to arrest, it wouldn't matter if they did. There are no laws that protect the personal sensitivities of Parking Enforcement Agents -- or cops. And if a Parking Enforcement Agent can't order a citizen, even a pissed-off, raging citizen, to put his cigarette out, why is it a cop can?

These gradually advancing "Officer Safety" procedures are conceived by cops who are assigned to formulate proposed policies. The proposed policies are usually approved by overly solicitous legislators who generally defer to pressure from powerful police unions. But in the specific example of this highly questionable authority of a cop to arbitrarily order a citizen who is cited for a traffic offense to put out his/her cigarette, when the issue is presented to an impartial jury there is likely to be some formal review of the need for this level of police authority.

I am curious to know if you, as a presumably ordinary citizen, believe that if you are pulled over for some minor traffic offense, and you happen to be smoking a cigarette or cigar, the cop should have the right to order you to put it out?

Ive seen it happen before, i myself do smoke and have been pulled over smoking, i actually asked the officer if he wanted me to put it out cause i figured he wouldve asked me to, but he didnt care. I failed to mention this earlier cause i wanted to have a fair discussion.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[mdavisyoung]

I think the cigarette is key, it was the cause of her refusing his authority, for which he was able to get her out of the car. Its not illegal to be mad about a ticket, she wasent posing a threat but she did refuse an order. He knew she would object to it just as much as she objected to the ticket, he could have let it go but decided he didnt want to, just like he didnt have to arrest her, he just wanted to.

Have you ever watched the occasional video of what Parking Enforcement Agents ("Meter Maids," etc.) endure from drivers who come upon them while or just after writing them a ticket? These ticket-writers are undoubtedly the most despised objects of public rage in the ranks of civil service. But unless they are physically assaulted they have no recourse to do anything about the angry protests expressed by the recipients of their parking (or other) tickets.

While it's true that Parking Enforcement Agents, who are uniformed and wear badges, have no authority to arrest, it wouldn't matter if they did. There are no laws that protect the personal sensitivities of Parking Enforcement Agents -- or cops. And if a Parking Enforcement Agent can't order a citizen, even a pissed-off, raging citizen, to put his cigarette out, why is it a cop can?

These gradually advancing "Officer Safety" procedures are conceived by cops who are assigned to formulate proposed policies. The proposed policies are usually approved by overly solicitous legislators who generally defer to pressure from powerful police unions. But in the specific example of this highly questionable authority of a cop to arbitrarily order a citizen who is cited for a traffic offense to put out his/her cigarette, when the issue is presented to an impartial jury there is likely to be some formal review of the need for this level of police authority.

I am curious to know if you, as a presumably ordinary citizen, believe that if you are pulled over for some minor traffic offense, and you happen to be smoking a cigarette or cigar, the cop should have the right to order you to put it out?

I like your thinking process btw

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[MikeK]

Ive seen it happen before, i myself do smoke and have been pulled over smoking, i actually asked the officer if he wanted me to put it out cause i figured he wouldve asked me to, but he didnt care. I failed to mention this earlier cause i wanted to have a fair discussion.

Interesting.

Do you mind if I ask your age?

 

[mdavisyoung]

Ive seen it happen before, i myself do smoke and have been pulled over smoking, i actually asked the officer if he wanted me to put it out cause i figured he wouldve asked me to, but he didnt care. I failed to mention this earlier cause i wanted to have a fair discussion.

Interesting.

Do you mind if I ask your age?

29 years old.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[MikeK]

29 years old.

Okay. Thanks.

The reason I asked: I'm 79. If you were my age your pre-conscious orientation would be conditioned by a time when some of today's actions by police were unlawful, unacceptable, and would have been regarded as serious infringements.

First, the Supreme Court has recently seen fit to replace the Probable Cause requirement to justify a search with the ridiculous and virtual tongue-in-cheek Reasonable Suspicion "requirement," which essentially is a hunch. In other words, if a cop wishes to search your car all that's required is for him to say he believes he smells marijuana. That's his "reasonable suspicion." And if it turns out he's wrong you have no recourse.

One of the most common provocations for the American Revolution was the unrestrained practice of British Regulars (the equivalent of today's cops) to arbitrarily kick in the door of some Colonial's house and ransack it looking for prohibited items. This provocation was the reason for the strict requirement for warrants and established good cause for police to break into a citizen's home.

Until recent years it took a lot for a judge to issue a break-in warrant. But now the rubber-stamped warrants are routinely issued and dozens of pre-dawn break-in SWAT raids take place dozens of times each day all across the Nation, often for such purposes as suspicion of marijuana possession. Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

Sometimes these raids are mistakes. Sometimes the wrong address is raided. Sometimes innocent people are brutally abused. Innocent people have been shot to death by these raiders. In one example some nitwit cop tossed a flash/bang grenade into a crib and nearly blew the face off a baby on a drug raid -- in which no drugs were found.
Horror as SWAT team throw a stun grenade into a toddler's CRIB

These encroachments on our Constitutional protections against abuse of government authority (police) are occurring incrementally, one little step at a time. And I've noticed that current generations are born into their time frame and are inclined to take these things for granted.

But we older Americans can remember when this Country was a very different place. The words, Constitution and Freedom had much stronger meanings.

 

[mdavisyoung]

I see, youre literally sitting back and watching the younger generations give up control over their own lives. I wonder though, is there that much of a difference between us now and us back then? Either way people had to give up life as the knew it to fight for independence, they had alot to give up. Do we today feel we have even more to give up than back then? Is it over for revolutions in America?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk