Dashcam Video of Violent Arrest of Sandra Bland Was Edited

originally posted by: roadgravel
She could be arrested for the traffic violation. Of course he didn't state that point.

She didn't give him the opportunity when she decided to argue with him and then refuse to comply with lawful verbal commands.

originally posted by: roadgravel
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.

An officer has a right to pull a driver out of a vehicle, contrary to the wrong interpretation used by the cited opinion article. As for placing a person under arrest I tell them as I am taking them into custody. I have even delayed until they are in handcuffs if the person is acting aggressive and is known to fight with law enforcement.

with that said it still does not give the suspect the right to refuse to comply with the officer commands / actions based solely on the personal opinion and trying to argue that opinion roadside instead of in the proper setting - A courtroom in front of the judge.

During a traffic stop the driver, as well as any and all passengers present, in addition to people walking / driving by safety falls to the officer, and as such the officer has a right to direct any of those groups based on safety. Its why passengers can be told to remain in a car and not get out, its why people involved can be told to stop recording and to listen / pay attention to what the officer is saying.

If a driver / passengers are injured its the officers responsibility.

a reply to: Xcathdra

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...

Sure she was a bit lippy but you know what i was under the impression there were actual criminals out there...judging by the action you are defending she was a criminal and deserved what she got....

I apologize for my confusement this woman did not come across to me as a dangerous criminal in need of discipline....

a reply to: Xcathdra

I bet he let her attitude be the reason for the arrest even though it was legal.

My point on the stating the reason for the arrest is that it would seem to be a reasonable way the law should work, although your point of the aggressive nature of some people is most likely why it is the way it is.

I actually agreed with that fact he can remove her.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That '6 reason' article is a bit scary in the sense that what is stated isn't entirely true. Wonder who uses flawed logic next time due to it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Like I said, there are a LOT of professionals out there that absolutely disagree with your take the legal issues surrounding the arrest of Sandra Bland. The only people that I can find, including mainstream media, who are defending this cops actions are other cops and their cronies.

I believe that you're probably trying to do a good thing here. By defending the unjustifiable actions of a roid crazed cop, you probably believe that you're warning people that, just because they think they have rights, the cops don't care about rights. So, "Shut up and comply, for your own good!" But, you're actually enabling tyranny.

If people want the leeway that officers have removed then that is something to take up with the legislators.

One thing that has crossed my mind is:

If everyone starts to believe and act on the idea that officers should be given grief at every stop then we probably will end up with a force of only bullies who love confrontation and work to escalate every situation to the point they can be violent.

Cause and effect.

Your source uses laws about being stopped on the street or checkpoint, not at a traffic stop...and again, and opinion piece. Legitimate news won't run with such pieces because they've already had experts vet the tapes and determine now laws were broken.

You are just making yourself look more and more ingnorant of the law.

a reply to: windword

a reply to: raymundoko

Take your objections up with the article's author and its publishers. It was published to directly address Sandra Bland's arrest.

Here's another opinion:

Reasonable minds may disagree on the final analysis, but this is mine: The car stop concluded, and all reasonable suspicion evaporated the moment the officer returned to the car with either a ticket or a warning. He knew it, even if he failed to make Bland aware of it.

At that point, Bland was technically and constitutionally free to leave, though it's likely she -- and virtually every other driver -- would not be aware of that fact. (The trooper probably was aware of this from his training, but had no incentive to volunteer it).

While it was lawful to initiate further conversation with Bland for investigatory purposes, this officer's questions were designed to instigate -- not investigate. Asking someone what their problem is, or commanding them to put out their cigarette is just not the same as asking a driver if they had anything to drink tonight or if they have any weapons on them. Those are questions designed to investigate. This officer's questions and orders had another design: They goaded this driver into getting frustrated. That's not opinion; the trooper's words speak for themselves.
www.cnn.com...

In the case of Rodriguez v. United States it was determined that police were not allowed to extend the length of a routine traffic stop. That ruling effected lengths of even a few minutes, unless there was a clearly demonstrable safety concern or an additional crime that had been committed in the course of the stop.

But what is clear now, from the video, is that there was no other crime, nor a safety concern. The officer was acting in violation of the law, as defined by the Supreme Court.

Full Transcripts of Sandra Bland Arrest Prove Cops Broke The Law and Made False Arrest

originally posted by: roadgravel
If people want the leeway that officers have removed then that is something to take up with the legislators.

One thing that has crossed my mind is:

If everyone starts to believe and act on the idea that officers should be given grief at every stop then we probably will end up with a force of only bullies who love confrontation and work to escalate every situation to the point they can be violent.

Cause and effect.

Really is just another one of many cycles

First, I don't agree with the way the stop was handled.

Haven't we heard that she didn't finish signing the ticket? If that is true then she is not free to leave despite what it being said on the internet as for as stops.

Has it been released that she did sign. If so the officer needed to let it go.

I have nothing further to add in regards to The illegal detainment of this woman.

The reaction of some LEO to this isn't helping the public's opinion of their safety in simple traffic stop. Its a rediculous thought that knowing your rights and standing up for them is giving officers greif. I've types it before and it needs to be typed here too. THIS IS WHY THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT SHOOT ANYTHING IN UNIFORM!!

From my perspective, the LEO create the problem and then get laws passed with excuses that allow them to continue to cause the very problem in the first place!

We need laws that hold LEO more accountable to their behavior. A person shouldn't be afraid of a simple traffic stop. Unless there's some idiotic thought that the entire public is going to change, the LEO needs to have better training how how to deescalate with illegal arrests.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

No illegal but certainly unnecessary and seemingly based on an officer's ego.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Iamthatbish

No illegal but certainly unnecessary and seemingly based on an officer's ego.

Legality is decided in a courtroom well after the fact based on who's legal team was better prepared in their arguments. From what we've seen, this woman's rights were violated and others will keep having their rights violated because there are still LEO that find this acceptable.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

we probably should all stop talking opinion, ours or others, close the discussion and wait for official ruling in a couple of years.

a reply to: roadgravel
My opinion on official rulings is very strong. The official ruling comes after too much lawyering up and "clarification ". The truth doesn't require time to memorize. The truth and the judges ruling are not always the same.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: roadgravel
My opinion on official rulings is very strong. The official ruling comes after too much lawyering up and "clarification ". The truth doesn't require time to memorize. The truth and the judges ruling are not always the same.

But as you mentioned before the judicial system determines the legality. That's what we've got going in the country.

a reply to: roadgravel
Is it splitting hairs to keep this thought in mind?

-> Every single case sets pressident. Therefore what was legal in this instant may change after the judge makes a ruling.

I do think of this while people are pointing out all the legalities of this situation from different perspectives. I made my decision. I'm not afraid to admit this fact or the fact the the rulings on cases like these only matter to me due to the repercussions of said rulings.

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
a reply to: roadgravel
Is it splitting hairs to keep this thought in mind?

-> Every single case sets pressident. Therefore what was legal in this instant may change after the judge makes a ruling.

I would hope this case changes something, for the better, in how stops are handled.

a reply to: roadgravel that's a very good way to look at it.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
What you are saying is pretty much right....but ..the officer escalated this so who else do we blame here ?

We blame him, but for what he did, not for what people assume he did.

...how is ok for the officer to escalate but the rest of us have to sit here a cop it up the ass....

Who said it was OK? Who are saying that we have to "sit here"?

You say that just because the officers actions are illegal

No, I didn't say that.

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 ?

Shooting people? I'm against it, unless there's a very good reason for it, and being an idiot is not one.

If those idiots you talk about were also doing illegal things then it's not the same situation, as I was talking about acting like an idiot, not about doing illegal things.