It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dashcam Video of Violent Arrest of Sandra Bland Was Edited

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
The cop could EASILY have just given her the ticket and been on his way. He chose instead to tell her to put her cigarette out (why?), he chose then too tell her to get out of the car because she didn't immediately put it out but questioned why she had to put it out. He could have asked her again but he decided instead to be a completely asshole about it. There are many ways he could have handled this entire situation a lot easier but he chose to be a complete dickhead from start to finish. His safety was never in question at any point in this entire arrest. She didn't have a gun, she didn't have a bomb, she isn't a terrorist or a drug dealer. She simply didn't signal when changing lanes, the equivalent of spitting in the street; nobody got hurt, nobody gives a #...except that dickwad copper.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's not a personal attack, it's an observation. It's obvious that you support this officer's behavior, so It's only natural to assume that you would have reacted the same and treated the situation the same as "Officer I'll Light You Up."

This cops' behavior is so unjustifiable, the only people that I can find that support him are other cops, like you, or their moms and dads.

Like it or not, a lot of other professionals disagree with your take on the legal issues surrounding this case.


Questions continue to swirl around the July 10 traffic stop in Waller County, Texas that led to the death of 28-year old Sandra Bland. In fact, the more information about the case that is made public — from the video captured by the arresting officer’s dashboard camera to the audio recordings of calls Bland made to friends and family prior to her death — the more questions crop up. But the one thing that shouldn’t be in question is whether Sandra Bland’s rights were violated during her encounter with officer Brian Encinia. For reasons still unclear, Bland’s constitutional and civil rights were violated during her arrest that day, and as the video shows, Bland knew it. If you’re wondering what your rights are during an encounter with police, the video of Sandra Bland’s arrest offers several crucial lessons.



6 Legal Rights Sandra Bland Had During Her Arrest That Brian Encinia Didn't Seem To Be Aware Of

And just for giggle and snorts....




edit on 28-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
i find it interesting that police are not required to tell a person they are being arrested before what is deemed being arrested. Any dealing with the police seem to be labeled as resisting when a person doesn't even know they are under arrest at that point. For instance being asked out of a car and not getting out is deemed resisting.

Is the logic - commanded - must be followed - not followed - implied arrest

I wouldn't want an officer just grabbing me. I have no idea what it is about without some notification of what he is doing.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Another cool thing is police hand cuffing a person just because they want to. That should be a crime unless they have placed a person under arrest.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Another cool thing is police hand cuffing a person just because they want to. That should be a crime unless they have placed a person under arrest.




Nope they can do whatever they want then unless you have a camera on them its just your word against thiers if you live to even tell the tale. RIP



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
You think its justified and you do that for a living. . . I hope I never happen to be where you're working.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: Xcathdra
You think its justified and you do that for a living. . . I hope I never happen to be where you're working.




Never say never we reap what we sow, and our increased complacency is setting the stage for the kill shot to our rights.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
It's the catch 22 isn't it? Knowing your rights and standing up for them doesn't seem to be doing any good either.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: FormOfTheLord
It's the catch 22 isn't it? Knowing your rights and standing up for them doesn't seem to be doing any good either.



Thats just it we dont have any rights when it comes down to it, its just an illusion to keep people civil.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
This cops' behavior is so unjustifiable, the only people that I can find that support him are other cops, like you, or their moms and dads.

The problem is that part of his behaviour is justified, so if we say that his actions are unjustified we aren't been truthful.

The fact that the situation escalated mostly because of the officer's actions doesn't mean that what he was doing was illegal, after all, being an idiot is not illegal in any country, we just have to look at our politicians.

Also, when people even imply or directly accuse him (or some other person) of raping and killing Sandra Bland they are the ones acting like idiots and escalating a situation, like the officer did.

Things would be easier if people stopped to think before they act.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: windword
This cops' behavior is so unjustifiable, the only people that I can find that support him are other cops, like you, or their moms and dads.

The problem is that part of his behaviour is justified, so if we say that his actions are unjustified we aren't been truthful.

The fact that the situation escalated mostly because of the officer's actions doesn't mean that what he was doing was illegal, after all, being an idiot is not illegal in any country, we just have to look at our politicians.

Also, when people even imply or directly accuse him (or some other person) of raping and killing Sandra Bland they are the ones acting like idiots and escalating a situation, like the officer did.

Things would be easier if people stopped to think before they act.





What you are saying is pretty much right....but ..the officer escalated this so who else do we blame here ?...how is ok for the officer to escalate but the rest of us have to sit here a cop it up the ass....

You say that just because the officers actions are illegal ..i am not sure what you mean by this ?..... if i am not mistaken there are quite a few people getting shot and killed by police for being idiots and doing something illegal......should the same penalty not apply to the police themselves ?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneedshould the same penalty not apply to the police themselves ?


Sure but regardless if you are a civilian or an officer the appropriate place to make the argument is in the courtroom and not roadside.

If the officers actions were "illegal" he would be on paid leave waiting for criminal charges, which is not the case. He is working a desk while the command staff decides if he was being unprofessional to the driver and if his traffic stop violated department policy. Personally I think its being done because the death of a black woman occurred and the department doesn't want the headache of protests and riots because people don't know what their rights are or how they work, let alone the correct forum to argue it in.


As for comments by others about rights being taken away one at a time...

What right has been removed?
edit on 29-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Sure but regardless if you are a civilian or an officer the appropriate place to make the argument is in the courtroom and not roadside.



Cmon really.......?...the term illegal is decided by the officer at the time,or should i say what he/she deems to be illegal.....the average citizen is not versed with the laws..and lets face facts the laws are designed to be interpreted by those who are versed in them...not the layman




What right has been removed?


Again..really ?....the right to have an opinion has been taken away and if cannot see that well dude you are clearly part of the problem....



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Cmon really.......?...the term illegal is decided by the officer at the time,or should i say what he/she deems to be illegal.....the average citizen is not versed with the laws..and lets face facts the laws are designed to be interpreted by those who are versed in them...not the layman


And law enforcement does not determine guilt or innocence. As a Police officer if I witness a person walk up to another person, pull out a gun and shoot them dead, I can arrest that person and submit my PC to the prosecuting attorney, who has FINAL say on whether or not the suspect in question is actually charged with a crime.

Law Enforcement does not determine guilt or innocence - the courts do that.

The proper place to argue is a court room with the judge and not roadside with the officer.



originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Again..really ?....the right to have an opinion has been taken away and if cannot see that well dude you are clearly part of the problem....

I will ask you again, what right is being curtailed?

As for the ignorant comment about being a part of the problem I would say you are as well. You have made claims you cant support and demonstrated that you are at a loss as to how the law works, in addition to how our judicial system works.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You know what this is a difficult thing to discuss.....the impression that i get is that you *(from this forum) is you agree that it is ok for an officer to escalate the issue if the "person" does not bow down to commands....im not cool with that ....you can call me ignorant all you want but if you continue to defend the actions of out of control officers that is your call...as i said you are part of the problem




You have made claims you cant support and demonstrated that you are at a loss as to how the law works, in addition to how our judicial system works.


And there you go with those assumptions again....tell me do you do that often while arresting someone you deemed to be a criminal ?...FYI i am quite well versed in laws here locally in my country..after i felt the need to learn them after being completely screwed by the system,but as we have learnt there are different rules not only state to state but country to country...and more to the point a citizen should not have to so versed in these laws and if it became a necessity i can guarantee you the society being built is a really crap one and the people charged with enforcing these laws are using them to their advantage....
edit on 29-7-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP




Also, when people even imply or directly accuse him (or some other person) of raping and killing Sandra Bland they are the ones acting like idiots and escalating a situation, like the officer did.



This is rich! You compare my personal assessment to escalation the likes of this idiot cop actions, whose actions you and other LEOs are defending!

Sandra Bland's civil rights were violated. The charges of her arrest were fabricated, "felony assault on a public servant". As a result Sandra Bland was forcibly sexually assaulted, through a mandatory strip/cavity search, either on the side of road by the female officer that arrived to assist, or at the jail. 3 days later she was found dead in her jail cell.

Everything that happened here is the result of "Officer I'll Light You Up" unprofessionally escalating a situation.




edit on 29-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

So the opposite would be for you to defend the actions of a female who was in the wrong in the manner she presented her position and felt the officer should leave her alone, even though she was the one in the wrong?

check...

Its not a difficult thing to discuss. It only becomes difficult when people who think they know what the law is try to base their argument on a fallacy. That ignorance and expectation of thinking something she be argued roadside instead of the courts also makes you a part of the problem. Why bother making an argument if you aren't going to bother to learn what the law actually says and how it applies?

You also once again made a claim and failed to support it - twice now.

What rights were violated - specifically?



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

When Bland refused to put out her cigarette, Encinia responded by attempting to pull her out of her car, threatening to “yank” her out or “light” her with a taser. Unless Bland posed a threat to his immediate health or safety, the state trooper had no right to make her exit her vehicle, according to Harrington. Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg agreed with that assessment, telling the New York Times that “the motive for yanking her out seems to be her rude behavior.”


She could be arrested for the traffic violation. Of course he didn't state that point.

So


Unless Bland posed a threat to his immediate health or safety, the state trooper had no right to make her exit her vehicle


isn't necessarily true since she could be arrested for the violation. Petty but legal. But not informing the person just made it worse. She seemed to believe that is why she was being arrested, per her own words. Police often place a person under arrest before telling them why. It seems the law allows it but it doesn't seem correct.
edit on 7/29/2015 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

REally?


1. You Have The Right To Be Irritated When A Cop Pulls You Over

Correct - However the proper setting to argue is in a court room and not roadside with the officer. An officer is not a judge nor jury and the driver is not a judge nor jury. It becomes problematic though when the driver refuses to listen to what the officer is trying to explain to her and then turn around and blame the officer for her actions, which is what occurred.

You have a right to be irritated with the officer who also has a right to be irritated with you. Responding to an irritated driver is not a violation of any laws nor civil rights.



You can smoke in your own vehicle.

Yes you absolutely can. When the driver becomes agitated though and the officer has to reach into the vehicle to have her sign a citation the officer can request the cigarette be put out. When an officer asks the person to exit the vehicle he can again request the cigarette be put out.

Asking a person to put out their cigarette based on their actions is a reasonable request, as well as lawful. No law violation or civil rights violation occurred when the request was made to put it out.



The officer should give a reason for asking for asking you to exit your car.

When the request is made the result is to comply and not sit there and argue and then refuse based on a lack of knowledge about how the law works. I know officers who have the driver come back and sit in the passenger seat of their cruiser while they write citations. I know others who have pulled people out to better explain the situation if others are present in the vehicle. The driver / passengers gave be asked to step out and frisked, depending on the situation and the car itself can also be frisked.

At the same time if the driver is agitated its easier to remove them from the vehicle and face them head on, eye to eye, to explain the situation as opposed to having a person sitting in a running car where the person could just as easily drive off, escalating the situation.

An officer is required to provide answers but in a manner that is safe for the officer, driver and other people present.

No law violation or civil rights violation occurred.



You have a right to record your traffic stop.

Actually you do not. During a traffic stop the driver and passengers in the car are temporarily seized under the 4th amendment, which means their movement and actions can be restricted. If you want to record the stop that's fine but when you are told to put the phone down and deal with the situation you must comply. The rulings on recording a traffic stop apply to 3rd parties and not individuals who are the focus of the stop. Refusing to comply can result in a charge of resisting a lawful detention arrest or stop. Just as a 3rd party has a right to record, they must do so in a manner that doesn't place themselves or others in danger, and must do so in a manner that does not interfere with the officers actions. If their actions do they can be arrested for obstruction.

No law violation nor civil rights violation occurred.



Unless you post an immediate threat an officer cannot pull you from your car during a routine traffic stop

Absolutely wrong - an officer can have the driver step out of the vehicle and sit with him in the front seat of his patrol car while he writes a ticket / warning.

No law violation or civil rights violation occurred.



If you are under arrest you have the right to know why.

absolutely correct however this does not open the door for the driver / passengers to engage in an argument over an opinion of what the driver / passenger thinks as op[posed to what the law says. A courtroom is the appropriate place to make the argument and not roadside.

No law violation or civil rights violation occurred.



So I will ask you again, what law / civil right was violated?


edit on 29-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join