But she didn't make him smile while doing so. Pay attention if you don't stroke an officer's ego you are screwed.
First 8 minutes of this video he was completely nice to and the same with both of them. Her belligerence pushes this situation. I guess it is a matter of perspective, but he seemed to be very calm and accommodating until she refused to exit the car. Seemed relatively clear to me the reason he asked her out of the car was the refusal to put out the cigarette. She is combative from first greet, and he was honestly not an asshole until she refused to put out the cigarette. Once after the exit, she never once remotely acted compliant. At 13:50 on, there is a fellow female officer (who happens to be black) on site who says she saw everything and agreed with the arresting officer. Depending on the length of the bystanders video, this video did not change my opinion. Thanks for saving me the time with the imbed too.
Completely agree. Saying you should just "go along with whatever an officer tells you to do" and saying "its a complete bullshit abuse of power" are not mutually exclusive. Yes, allowing an officer to fuck with you and violate your rights might save your life/hassle/etc, so its probably the best thing to do. That doesn't change the fact that a citizen should never, ever have to make that decision. This seems pretty fundamental to me....I thought I was pretty liberal but apparently not.
Ugh... Couldn't care less that another loudmouth person who thinks they need to inhibit police from doing their job is gone.
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? “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? “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? “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? “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? “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? “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. 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? “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? “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? “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.”
You could've cared less and not bothered sharing your thoughts on it (which are no surprise to anyone).
The transcript of the voicemail Bland left on a friend's phone when she called from jail. Doesn't seem to me (who is admittedly not an expert on this sort of thing) like someone planning to kill themselves but who knows. "Hey this is me. I’m (um). I just was able to see the judge. I don’t really know. They have me at a $5,000 bond. I’m still just at a loss for words honestly at this whole process. How did switching lanes with no signal turn into all of this, I don’t even know. (Um) But I’m still here, so I guess call me back when you can.” http://abc7chicago.com/news/voicemail-from-sandra-bland/872860/
What did you think about his explanation to his supervisor? Also what did you think about fact that he had to explain the definition of assault to his supervisor and the fact that he kept telling his supervisor "that is enough for assault"? To me it comes across as though the supervisor was not buying it. I'm surprised you did not comment on that, that was what I discussed in the posts you replied to asking for the link.
I'm finding myself agreeing with a lot of what you are saying. The cop seems fairly cordial, he doesn't have an attitude, he makes the same kind of small talk - how long have you been in Texas? - as he did with the previous stop - are you taking a lot of classes? That changes when the woman tells him why she's irritated. I think she could have said the exact same thing without her attitude - I saw you coming up and wanted to get out of your way, that's why i didn't signal and just got over. She definitely had some attitude in how she said that. He doesn't seem to like that, and that's when it all changes and he tells her to put the cigarette out and it escalates from there. And let's also not forget that the cop was not even giving her a ticket, he was giving her the same warning he gave the previous stop. The cop needs to be able to handle people with attitude better than that. Shrug it off, explain to them what's going on, and move on. I think they both fed off each other and made the situation worse. I still side with the civilian though, the cop has to deescalate that, not make it worse.
This seems absurd to expect though. He notices she's irritated, asks her to explain why, and she does in an irritated yet controlled tone. That's kinda like seeing someone in pain, asking why they're in pain, and expecting them to stop wincing/crying or whatever and give a clear concise explanation. You can't reasonably ask a civilian in her situation to entirely remove their emotions from that situation (especially when they're being invited to explain said emotions). That's the job of the professional law enforcement officer. And this one failed to do that and wound up escalating the situation. (And I know you said you agree with the cop being at fault and all. Just responding to that one part of your post.)
I don't disagree. Ideally she would have been calm and not have an attitude. But it's also not illegal to have an attitude and be upset, the cop should really almost expect people to be either upset or pissed off every time he stops someone.
Exactly. Who isn't mad when they get pulled over by a cop? Even if you know you deserve it you're going to be mad at yourself.
Seemed like he was trying to convey the stop, and was deciding on what charges to pursue. He had to know about the recording, and that the supervisor would have access to it, and that so would her defense right? If his reason for asking her to exit the vehicle was the cigarette, I would have thought he would mention it in the discussion, but maybe I missed it? Not sure, but I think that is relatively standard practice to discuss what to charge for on the arrest. in this case it seemed they were discussing assault on an officer versus resisting arrest. Hard to say without hearing the response from the Supervisor. Would seem that at some point the supervisor agreed upon a charge, and sent him to booking right? Again with both knowing that the dash cam footage would be available right? To me that is really hard to infer. Mainly because you can not hear the supervisor's voice. If its me in her shoes, I go the polite route, I take my warning/ticket, I thank the officer for his service, and I go about my marry way. Again, he was not an asshole to her at all until he asked her to exit the vehicle. up till then, he was no more a dick to her than the first stop in the video. You can be polite without having to kiss ass or stroke ego. I too don't disagree with this, and also vote for theriner69er ' s ideal options.
the mental gymnastics it takes to be that pro-police state kill me, however, it likely has been instilled in so many from a very young age.
I have never been shitty with a cop. I'd probably actually put that on the list of easiest things I've ever done too.
Ideally, yes, that's how it would go. But that's not realistic. You agreed with my previous post about why that's not a reasonable expectation. Regardless, the cop should just continue "doing his job" and give the citation/warning and be on his way. He actively chose to make the traffic stop into an ordeal. He asked someone who is clearly angry with him to do something courteous for him. And when they didn't, he took revenge. It'd be like getting into an argument with a stranger at a bar and then asking if they'd mind watching your seat while you go to the rest room. Of fucking course they're not going to want to do you any favors. You just pissed them off. (And, in that scenario, if they refused to save your seat for you and you decided to punch them and escalate the situation and a fight began, who do you think would be held responsible in the court of law?) He could have just issued the ticket to the angry woman and been on his way and been all smug about 'winning' the interaction while the woman is surely pissed off for quite a while. Instead, he took it personally and acted unprofessionally and the entire situation blew up. I'm not trying to excuse Bland's poor attitude. Merely trying to explain why she or most anyone would be irritated. The major issue in this is that the individual professionally trained and paid to deescalate situations like this forced the situation to do exactly the opposite. Most in this thread think police should be held to higher standards of expectation than average citizens. They certainly get more leeway when it comes to use of force (especially lethal) than the average citizen so it only seems fair to expect more of them in everyday interactions. (And apparently this officer's department's code of conduct does exactly that.)
I don't know how that is pro police state. I just have a thought that by and large most of our law enforcement officers are trying to do a good job and make it home safe at night. Are they going to ask for a sip of your soda and arrest you if you decline? Are they really going to perform a strip search on the side of the road? Come on man. We are a country of laws. If you don't follow them, you get caught, then you have to deal with it. Can be done any number of ways. Deal with the police politely, or kop an attitude and hope for the fucking best. I've met you, I know if you were pulled over for an iproper fucking lane change, you would not have been a super dick to the cop to try to see what you could get away with. he asks to put out a cig, you would out out a cig. He asks for a drink of you soda or water, you probably let him finish it. He asks for a strip search, you probably start to slow the roll and ask for the cuntiest of dinners first. Did this cop cross the line? Probably, but this chick really seemed to want him to.
I disagree. I think she was trying to make sure he stayed within his own lines of conduct. And he did not.
This is quite literally the definition of being pro police state. The rest well, like I said, your views on the matter have probably been instilled in you since you were very young. Also, you have met me but you know very little about my experiences with police.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one then, because this chick was just straight up pissed from the get go. Officer was not. She was pissed off before he left. He was just the same as he was on the prior stop until the cigarette. Still need a NoleNBlue opinion on the cigarette request.
Most are pro "don't question and listen to the cops" when it isn't their kind getting shot and hanged
Holy shit, now its racial and they literally lynched her in the cell huh? You know the 2nd officer to arrive was a black female right?
I mean it was racial from the get go And what the hell does that matter? That's asinine, Freddie Gray had multiple black officers too
Right. This is the point when Bland denied him a courteous request in which she is in no way legally obligated to oblige at that point. Then, he matches or even goes above Bland's level of irritation. From there, the situation only escalates more. I'm not totally sure how NNB will respond but I'm fairly confident he will agree that the cop should have just given her the warning (or even written her a citation) and then gone on his way without turning the whole thing into a fiasco that legally didn't need to happen.
I've said several times over the past 2 days that the cop could have handled himself differently. The question I asked is could the citizen as well. My question to NNB is just about the cig request. Does he just have to put up with the smoke? According to the officer in the 52 min video, she is technically under arrest at the start of the pull over. Not sure of that validity.