Dashcam Video of Violent Arrest of Sandra Bland Was Edited

a reply to: windword

A policy violation is not a law violation.

It's starting to seem that in many places a police violation of law isn't a police policy violation either.

originally posted by: roadgravel
It's starting to seem that in many places a police violation of law isn't a police policy violation either.

The first major hurdle with police violating the law is who is going to arrest the cop?
I say this because I watched a cop who was falling down drunk leaving a party and another cop said, "Do you think you should be driving?" The drunken cop said.... "Who is gonna arrest me?" Of course there were no arrests when he drove away in his truck.

a reply to: raymundoko

Perhaps I should clarify - I live in Scotland.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, whatever that constitutional thingy was, I posted earlier, from the Supreme Court........He violated that.

How did she end up dead over a signal hung in a jail cell. . . . . It could have been murder

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: butcherguy

If you check your sarcasm you would notice the claim was he pulled her out of the car for refusing to put her cigarette out, which is not the case.

LOL

Sure! You keep telling yourself that.

a reply to: windword

I don't need to considering you can hear her in the video stating your pulling me out of my car for a signal violation.

The SCOTUS ruling addresses instances where a car is stopped, a search is requested and refused, and the officer then holds the car in place pending the arrival of a K-9 unit. The ruling requires an officer to complete his business in a timely manner with as little interruption to the driver as possible. This is required because a traffic stop is a technical seizure under the 4th amendment with modifications considering the venue in question is an automobile and not a private residence.

We have always been required to complete traffic stops in an efficient manner and the longer we hold a person / car the more the officer is going to be required to justify the extended amount of time.

In this instance the traffic stop was not over with. The stop does not end when a citation is written and as you can see in the video she never signed the citation nor did she allow the officer to explain the citation / court dates etc. The stop ends when the officer releases the person/car.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is no excuse for the way that cop escalated this situation. There is no defense for the way this officer behaved, or what finally happened to this woman.

9 The central
tenet of Terry provides that, "[in] justifying the particular intrusion
the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with the rational inferences
from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."0 The Terry
Court employed a two-prong analysis to determine whether the
step was reasonable: (1) whether the police officer was justified
at the beginning of the stop; and (2) whether the officer's actions
were reasonably related to the circumstances that triggered
the initial interference.'
www.highbeam.com...

That officer, who arrested Sandra Bland, was NOT justified and his actions were NOT reasonable.

a reply to: windword

Terry vs Ohio deals with the ability of an officer to FRISK an individual for officer safety.

A FRISK is NOT a search.

his actions were justified.

A country that is 91% white? Glad we cleared that up.

no racism here

a reply to: Sharted

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: windword

Terry vs Ohio deals with the ability of an officer to FRISK an individual for officer safety.

A FRISK is NOT a search.

his actions were justified.

When considering challenges to police intrusions that occur
in the context of a motorist detention, the Court looks to the
reasonableness component of the Fourth Amendment.35 While
motorists enjoy significant interests in automobile travel which
are protected by the Fourth Amendment,3 6 a traffic stop lawfully
may be initiated based on an officer's articulable and reasonable
belief that a motorist is in violation of the traffic law.

The law regarding an officer's intentions during traffic stops
developed from the Supreme Court's holding in Terry v. Ohio!"
Terry represented a departure from the Court's prior requirement
that a police officer needed probable cause to suspect
criminal activity when detaining an individual. 9 The central
tenet of Terry provides that, "[in] justifying the particular intrusion
the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with the rational inferences
from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."0 The Terry
Court employed a two-prong analysis to determine whether the
step was reasonable: (1) whether the police officer was justified
at the beginning of the stop; and (2) whether the officer's actions
were reasonably related to the circumstances that triggered
the initial interference.'

Not justified.

You just proved it was justified. The video shows her both running a stop sign and making an illegal lane change.

a reply to: windword

a reply to: raymundoko

It stopped being justified when the cop escalated the situation. Apparently his superiors think the same, because the incident is being investigated as a civil right violation. We'll see what comes of it.

But this is where Encinia’s actions veer from the lawful to the questionable—and then to the probably illegal. By leaning into Bland’s car and seemingly attempting to yank her out, Encinia initiated the use of force to “seize” her (in Fourth Amendment terms). Here, the case law is clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force during a seizure must be “objectively reasonable” and not “excessive.” To gauge reasonable force, courts weigh the severity of the alleged crime; whether the suspect poses an immediate safety risk; and whether the suspect is resisting or evading arrest.

The first two factors here weigh heavily against Encinia. As Bland repeatedly notes, her alleged crime (a failure to signal) is astonishingly minor. Moreover, Bland does not appear to pose any kind of real safety risk to Encinia or to others. Bland does verbally resist arrest, but at no point does she attempt to flee. In light of her behavior, Encinia’s actions seem objectively unreasonable. He violently grabs Bland, aims his stun gun at her, and threatens to “light [her] up,” then roughly pulls her out of her vehicle. Although part of the encounter occurs off camera, Bland verbally accuses Encinia of slamming her head into the ground.

Asking Sandra Bland to Get Out of Her Car Was Legal. What Happened Next Likely Was Not.

a reply to: windword

Justified...

I do this for a living. Her refusal to obey a lawful command to exit the vehicle is where her issue started. At that point she was resisting a lawful detention / stop. The citation / charge in question can be an arrestable offense / book and release.

She had no justifiable reason to refuse that command, regardless of what she thinks about it. The place to argue the issue is in court and not roadside.

When affecting an arrest the officer, per scotus rulings, the officer needs to use the least amount of force possible and should deescalate the situation as soon as possible while at the same time they are allowed to use such force as to overcome the level of resistance they are experiencing from the subject.

An officers actions / use of force cannot be reviewed as a 20/20 hindsight review. It must be viewed as what the officer perceived the moment force was used.

When it comes to using a taser it falls to state law and the department policy with the exception of any state located within the 9th circuit court of appeals where they have ruled where a taser must fall with a subject resistance control / use of force continuum. Texas falls in the 5th circuit and is governed by state law and departmental policy.

As for your article I just stated a traffic stop is a technical seizure under the 4th however it does not meet the same requirement as a persons house. The moment the officer had the PC to issue the citation he had the PC to effect an arrest. There is no 4th amendment violation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A lot of people, who also do this sort of thing for a living, disagree with you. But I understand that you want to protect the thin blue line, and maintain the perception that cops are always justified and everyone should tremble at their awesome feet, respect their authority.

I guess you would have conducted the stop and handled the situation exactly the same way.

Have a nice day officer!

a reply to: windword

Do you always make a personal attack when info comes up that doesn't support your position? Knock the thin blue line BS off also. You don't know me and tying to state that is where I fall with no evidence is just sad on your part.

Trooper Encinia is still on the job, albeit desk duty right now. There is still no word specifically on what polices he may have violated (traffic policy and courteous guidelines is being discussed). There is no formal criminal investigation into Trooper Encinia’s actions as no laws were broken.

The anomalies with the dash cam footage occurred during the download. Austin DPS asked the FBI to review all video footage to confirm an anomaly and not tampering and it will be released in full on dvd.

That's an opinion piece...you won't find a legitimate news agency backing that up...

a reply to: windword

a reply to: raymundoko

No kidding Einstein! It's all opinion until a judge and/or jury rule.

originally posted by: raymundoko
A country that is 91% white? Glad we cleared that up.

no racism here

a reply to: Sharted

Scotland and England have a LONG history of hating each other, however, we are the same race......what does this have to do with anything?