Texas Trooper Who Arrested Sandra Bland Is Indicted on Perjury Charge

[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?

About being swung at by the perp...

I don't think that's what the GJ said. Their indictment said they don't believe the reason she was taken out of the car. Now...that's from the link I read. If media has broken more info since I read it I'll stand corrected. If he said she struck him and the video clearly shows that she didnt....then we have a perfectly good charge.

 

[bucs90]

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

Brian Encinia, who arrested Sandra Bland, is indicted - CNN.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wilson is a false direction, which does not hold any water here.

Either she swung at him or she did not. This is not an issue of law (which is the judge's domain) but one of fact, which is that of the jury.

 

[bucs90]

Wilson is a false direction, which does not hold any water here.

Either she swung at him or she did not. This is not an issue of law (which is the judge's domain) but one of fact, which is that of the jury.

If he said she swung at him....and video clearly disproved that....that would've been exposed within a week of the incident. It wasnt.

This is about his reason for removing her from the car. Legally he doesn't even need a reason on a lawful stop. The grand jury said they just didn't believe his stated reason of " a safer stop". Basically saying "You're lying...prove you aren't lying."

A prosecution on thoughts. Impossible to prove.

Anyone who has been a lawyer or cop knows how much of a massive shift this case could be for law enforcement. Maryland v. Wilson is LAW. To find him guilty would require overturning Wilson.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope your false flag defense will fail here as it did with you on the LEO. Wilson has nothing to do with this at all. No one is questioning his right to remove her from the car. Everyone has a right to know that he tells the truth. It appears he did not.

 

[bucs90]

Nope your false flag defense will fail here as it did with you on the LEO. Wilson has nothing to do with this at all. No one is questioning his right to remove her from the car. Everyone has a right to know that he tells the truth. It appears he did not.

Trooper in Sandra Bland traffic stop indicted, fired

There you go. The affidavit said he removed her "to conduct a safer traffic investigation" and the grand jury "found THAT statement to be false". THAT IS it. So....he says he removed an uncooperative and resisting driver (she was) and he has the right to do it (he does) and he cuffed her and moved her out of the roadway....all to make it a safer and more controlled situation.

And they're saying "We don't believe that's what you did it for".

Essentially....a prosecution on what they THINK he was thinking. NO PROOF he lied at all....about anything.

He's been indicted...but not yet arrested (about difference). The prosecutor is gonna have to decide if he wants to flush his career and get his ass sued to hell if he goes through with an arrest when there is obviously NO evidence to prove a lie.

 

[bucs90]

And Starkey....what's this other LE case?? You mean me saying the North Charleston cop WOULD get bonded out??? OH YEAH.....you missed the news.....HE GOT OUT THIS PAST MONDAY, JANUARY 4TH 2016....and probably won't ever be back in jail again.

See? I was right in the end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He said she hit him.

She did not him.

That's perjury.

No wonder you were fired. Do you protect all cops no matter what? You had no business being a cop.

No one was saying the other cop would not be bonded out. That's up to a judge. The bond was a million and the bondsman made him ante 25%. Wow!

 

[bucs90]

Starkey.....you're wrong. The prosecutor press conference is on video. He says the charge is based on "the reason the trooper said he removed her from her car". That reason was "safety". The jury decided they just didn't believe it. They're prosecuting his thoughts. They're saying "you said it was for safety...but we just don't believe that's what you were thinking".

So....they're gonna have to PROVE WHAT HE WAS THINKING.

WHICH IS why this prosecutor looks so distressed in the following link because he knows his career is gonna crash now with with circus trial.

Trooper in Sandra Bland traffic stop indicted, fired

 

[bucs90]

He said she hit him.

She did not him.

That's perjury.

No wonder you were fired. Do you protect all cops no matter what? You had no business being a cop.

No one was saying the other cop would not be bonded out. That's up to a judge. The bond was a million and the bondsman made him ante 25%. Wow!

Funny....because the prosecutor handling the case did not say anything about her hitting him. He CLEARLY says THE statement he is being charged for is the "reason for removing her from the car"....which the affidavit says was "to conduct a safer traffic stop".

You must have insider info the prosecutors don't have??
Trooper in Sandra Bland traffic stop indicted, fired



**Do you always lie? His bond was $500k....not a million. And bondsman charges 10% here....not 25. His lawyer is the #1 in the South so he probably paid it for him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is an issue of fact not law.

In other words, the grand jury is not buying your type of defense.

The grand jury believes he lied.

The DA is not stressed at all.

 

[bucs90]

This is an issue of fact not law.

In other words, the grand jury is not buying your type of defense.

The grand jury believes he lied.

The DA is not stressed at all.

What evidence do they have he lied? He said it was for safety. The SCOTUS allows him to do that.

They're basically saying "We know you said it was for safety...but we don't think that's what you were thinking".

How in the hell do they prove what they think he was thinking??

This charge is more of a joke than the Baltimore charges....and wow...I never thought I'd see a worse charge than Baltimore but this one is it.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I find it interesting you disrespect a black person even if by accident or perceived the black will get all loud and oh no you didnt but black people they can be " difficult" disrespectful and uncooperative with cops and don't realize cops actually have the authority to oh no you didn't them

 

[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.

I find it interesting you disrespect a black person even if by accident or perceived the black will get all loud and oh no you didnt but black people they can be " difficult" disrespectful and uncooperative with cops and don't realize cops actually have the authority to oh no you didn't them

everybody here knows his agenda all too well.

 

[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.

I find it interesting you disrespect a black person even if by accident or perceived the black will get all loud and oh no you didnt but black people they can be " difficult" disrespectful and uncooperative with cops and don't realize cops actually have the authority to oh no you didn't them

everybody here knows his agenda all too well.

You so missed his point.

He's saying....blacks will go nuts and act wild if you dare disrespect them. But....blacks will disrespect a cop and be shocked when the cop doesn't take their shit. (Que the "higher standard" response from the same folks who want cops "treated like anyone else would be. Can't be "like everyone else" if there's a double standard).

 

[Dot Com]

Your M.O. is still well known around here. You are a paler version of Tank. His racism is off of the scales

 

[MikeK]

The interest of "officer safety" has become just one more device which is used to enable and to justify excessive assertion of authority.

Most Americans aren't old enough to remember when a police officer would need probable cause to expand his actions beyond the reason he stopped a motorist. If you were stopped for passing a red light, unless the officer plainly observed or experienced something which constitutes an additional offense he had no right to further inconvenience the driver.

In the interest of further facilitating the War on Drugs the Supreme Court saw fit to replace the probable cause requirement with "reasonable suspicion," which essentially is a hunch. Now all a cop needs to say to justify ordering you out of your car after being stopped for an alleged traffic offense is he smelled the odor of marijuana, or something equally vague and flimsy.

Anyone who watches the tv "ride-along" documentary series, COPS, has seen many examples of this expanded power being abused by excessively authoritarian cops, the Sandra Bland incident being just one.

All Trooper Encinia needed to do, and should have done, with Sandra Bland is issue her a summons and be on his way. But he was unwilling to tolerate Bland's uppity attitude and he proceeded to deal with it by fabricating charges, a means of unnecessarily and aggressively asserting his authority which he'd become accustomed to during decades of lying -- prior to the advent of ubiquitous video evidence.

 

[bucs90]

Your M.O. is still well known around here. You are a paler version of Tank. His racism is off of the scales

I'm not racist. I hate all liberals.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Excluding your reflection in the mirror?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Your M.O. is still well known around here. You are a paler version of Tank. His racism is off of the scales

I'm not racist. I hate all liberals.

You're guilty of both, actually