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: 16
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
This is rich! You compare my personal assessment to escalation the likes of this idiot cop actions,

Yes, because your assessment is just that, an assessment, like the one the officer used to base his actions. Both implied the target of the assessment did (or had intentions of doing) something worse than can be seen on the video, and that's how situations escalate.


whose actions you and other LEOs are defending!

What actions am I (not a LEO, as your sentence appears to imply) defending?


Sandra Bland's civil rights were violated.

Maybe, I do not know or pretend to know the rights of US citizens.


The charges of her arrest were fabricated, "felony assault on a public servant".

Only if that happened outside the camera's field of view, which is possible but not provable.


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.

"Either on the side of the road" or "at the jail"? Does that mean that you don't know when it happened? Do you really know that it happened?

Also, my comment was about your "probably raped", as that's "adding fuel to the fire" without any supporting evidence from the video.


3 days later she was found dead in her jail cell.

That's a fact, and a shame, and if it wasn't a suicide (which is always possible) I hope they catch the responsible(s) for it.


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

Up to a point, yes, but if it was me, for example, I wouldn't be answering like that to the officer or anyone else that wasn't being rude (which he wasn't, at first). So, while he, being a LEO, had much more responsibility of maintaining the peace on that situation, he wasn't the only "actor".




posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

What I am doing is explaining how her civil rights were not violated and demonstrating how her actions caused the problems people are bitching about.

The responses by some are based on an opinion of how they "think" things should work instead of actually learning the law and understanding how it really works.

There were no criminal violations committed by the officer.
There were no civil rights violations committed by the officer.
People are intentionally ignoring the drivers actions and failure to comply with the law.

Your attempts to try and paint me as corrupt or somehow supporting an illegal action is sad and pathetic and you really need to stop. Just because someone doesn't like the laws in question doesn't mean they are invalid and should be ignored.


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



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP




Also, my comment was about your "probably raped", as that's "adding fuel to the fire" without any supporting evidence from the video.


Right, because rape never happens in the prison system. Tell ya what, if your mother, your sister, your daughter or your wife find themselves victimized and on the other side of a bogus felony assault of police officer, and after they go through a forced strip/cavity search, tell them it probably wasn't rape!



"Either on the side of the road" or "at the jail"? Does that mean that you don't know when it happened? Do you really know that it happened?


It means that, in my opinion, the reason they sent a female (black) officer to the scene was to do a strip search. If it did, or if it didn't happened on the side of the road, it still happened before she was given her orange jump suit. I can see the "dead" in her eyes. I recognize the vacant stare.



Up to a point, yes, but if it was me, for example, I wouldn't be answering like that to the officer or anyone else that wasn't being rude (which he wasn't, at first). So, while he, being a LEO, had much more responsibility of maintaining the peace on that situation, he wasn't the only "actor".


But it wasn't you. This officer was provoking the woman. He, and only he, escalated the situation. That my take on it, and I'm not alone.

The fact is, there are a LOT of professional that disagree with you and Xcathdra, and assert that Ms Bland's civil rights were violated. At the end of the day, your opinion is no more valid than mine. We are just a bunch of anonymous people expressing opinions in an open forum.


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



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Your attempts to try and paint me as corrupt or somehow supporting an illegal action is sad and pathetic and you really need to stop.


Whoa! Take it down a notch there. Don't escalate the situation! I never said anything about corruption, I said that by defending this cop's action, you enable tyranny.



Your attempts to try and paint me as corrupt or somehow supporting an illegal action is sad and pathetic and you really need to stop.


And, what I'm doing is posting opinions of professional who disagree with you. They are more numerous than those that back up your conclusions.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Right, because rape never happens in the prison system.

I didn't say that, your answer appears to be trying to make it look like I said something I never did. I was talking about this case, about your "probably raped".


Tell ya what, if your mother, your sister, your daughter or your wife find themselves victimized and on the other side of a bogus felony assault of police officer, and after they go through a forced strip/cavity search, tell them it probably wasn't rape!

I don't have any problems with facts, only with hypothesis presented as facts.


It means that, in my opinion, the reason they sent a female (black) officer to the scene was to do a strip search. If it did, or if it didn't happened on the side of the road, it still happened before she was given her orange jump suit. I can see the "dead" in her eyes. I recognize the vacant stare.

I agree that it probably happened, I just do not agree with presenting opinions as facts. As for the vacant look in her eyes on the mug shot we will probably never know the reason behind it, as Sandra Bland was the only person capable of answering that.


But it wasn't you. This officer was provoking the woman. He, and only he, escalated the situation. That my take on it, and I'm not alone.

Yes, that's your take on it, mine is slightly different, just that.


The fact is, there are a LOT of professional that disagree with you and Xcathdra, and assert that Ms Bland's civil rights were violated.

I didn't say they weren't, did I?


At the end of the day, your opinion is no more valid than mine. We are just a bunch of anonymous people expressing opinions in an open forum.

True, what I was trying to point was to the fact that some people present their opinions and theories as if they are known and confirmed facts.

Even if it was a lawful arrest and nothing wrong was done to Sandra Bland in jail, the fact is that the system, at least, let her die.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
She was never handed the warning, that is what you source says...

At this point you're just angry you are wrong and you are just arguing to argue.


Surely he had been trained to know the moment she refused his "exit order," she unwittingly committed a technical violation that would ultimately form the basis of an arrest. But like most citizens, Bland was shocked at the notion that we can be ordered from our cars during a routine stop. It just feels wrong, doesn't it?

Not to the U.S. Supreme Court it doesn't.


a reply to: windword



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Her detainment wasn't illegal.

a reply to: Iamthatbish



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
I've made my feelings known about this on the previous page. I will repeat that I'm firm in this belief. Thank you for replying.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP




I didn't say that, your answer appears to be trying to make it look like I said something I never did.


It was sarcasm. not intended to put words in your mouth, but to defend myself from accusations of illogical and hyperbolic leaps of logic and speculation.

You're right, we'll never know what really happened. But, I'll trust my eyes and ears, my sense of empathy and my gut reaction to the message that was undeniable clear to my psych, that came across through the "dead rage" in that woman's eyes, before I'll trust the justice system to be forthcoming with the truth.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

LOL!

Context! Context! Context!




State legislators who saw the video of the arrest of the woman, Sandra Bland, just before it was publicly released sharply condemned the officer’s behavior, which the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Steven McCraw, said was a violation of department arrest procedures. State Senator Royce West, Democrat of Dallas, said Ms. Bland, 28, should never have been taken into custody.
www.nytimes.com...






edit on 30-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Double post?
edit on 30-7-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

As in you pick your own context?

You've now been asked several times: What laws were broken? What civil rights were violated? Elaborate in your own words instead of linking a wrong opinion piece.

Edit, I also like your article, because West is a race-baiter and is completely wrong.

She never signed her ticket, she never had it explained to her. No laws were broken, no civil rights were violated. All you have demonstrated is that a politician, like most, are completely ignorant of the law.
edit on 30-7-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Are you a cop Ray? The way you insist on putting me in my place, seemingly requiring me to admit that you're right, I'm wrong, and no one is going to "move-on" until your ego is satisfied, one might take that guess.

At the end of the day, you're just an anonymous person on the internet with an opinion. On the other hand, there are named professionals out there, paid to analyze, opine and educate the public, who are disagreeing with your anonymous opinion, all day long!

I make my own evaluations, thank you.

You are of course, also welcome to your own.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I am not a cop, but what I see from you is someone who just hates cops. You are the problem. You add fuel to a fire that shouldn't have even been burning in the first place. You agitate for no reason other than to satiate your desire to hate LEO's. You hope for them to be evil and you impugn wrong motives where none should be. You make baseless accusations to further feed the flames, like that Sandra was raped, or that the officer was on Roids (Really, have you even seen him? He's probably never taken a roid in his life)...

My reason for being in this thread and constantly correcting you is so that this blatant ignorance on your part doesn't go unchecked. Unchecked ignorance just spreads, and many people here are susceptible to ignorance when it suits their predispositions. I am denying ignorance.

Edit, now lets go through one of your links "experts" and see what he actually says:

Source

Let's look at what he says about the legality of it:


First, was his conduct legal?...If your motor vehicle is lawfully stopped for a traffic violation, police can order you out of the car. Period.

Like the vast majority of citizens, Sandra Bland appeared to be just unaware of the rule; as evidenced by her audible objection to the idea that you could be ordered out of your car after failing to signal a turn. Bland says, "Wow, really, for a failure to signal? You're doing all of this for a failure to signal?" The officer certainly was aware that he had this power.

Surely he had been trained to know the moment she refused his "exit order," she unwittingly committed a technical violation that would ultimately form the basis of an arrest. But like most citizens, Bland was shocked at the notion that we can be ordered from our cars during a routine stop. It just feels wrong, doesn't it?

Not to the U.S. Supreme Court it doesn't.

What about ordering a driver to get off the phone or put out a cigarette? While not directly addressed by the Supreme Court, such orders would likely be permissible, based on the general feel of court decisions on this issue. To the court, traffic stops are "especially fraught with danger to police officers."

This risk to officers, drivers, and passengers is minimized, if the "officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation." And that's exactly what officers are trained to do. Giving orders to a driver to turn off the radio or extinguish his corn cob pipe would probably fall under the jurisdiction of this "unquestioned command" over the situation.


So up to that point your own legal analyst completely disagrees with you, and thinks the entire stop is perfectly legal...

Now where does he go after that?


Perhaps more important, even if it was legal, was it fair?


You see what he did there? He went right from the legality of it to the "fairness of it". This tricks the simple minded into a bait and switch tactic. The reader still thinks they are reading a legal analysis, when now they are just reading an opinion on if it is fair or not.

Let's look at one more legal point he makes though:


At some point, the trooper also figured he could charge Bland with resisting arrest for her "attitude." Texas' resisting arrest statute shows an arrestee no quarter. A person can "resist arrest" in Texas even if they make no contact with the officer. Any force used to avoid a detaining grip, whether pulling away, thrashing, or just being combative, counts as resisting arrest under Texas law. But what if the arrest itself is unlawful? In Texas, that doesn't matter either, it seems. A defendant prosecuted for resisting arrest cannot use as a defense the fact that the actual arrest was illegal! Advantage: law enforcement, at least in the Lone Star State.


So both his orders, even putting out the cigarette, and her arrest were legal according to your legal expert...

Care to argue more on how your legal experts agree with you? They don't. You are confusing opinion with legality, and you are falling for the race-bait they are throwing out there.
edit on 30-7-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

and all of your named sources and experts are ignoring one key fact.

The trooper in question violated no laws, criminal or civil. How do we know this? Because he has not been charged by the state for violating any state law and he has not been charged by the feds for any civil rights violations. the only thing they are going after him on is violating departmental policy, which is not a law violation nor a civil rights violation, and even then they don't seem quite sure what policy violation they are trying to use.

hence the reasons he was reassigned to desk duty pending the end of the IA investigation.

The suspect is at fault - plain and simple - because she had no idea what the laws are and how they work. She demonstrated that by her actions and comments and refusal to obey lawful commands.


edit on 30-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I can do this all day.


Either way, the police bear moral responsibility for Bland’s death. Trooper Encinia chose to pull her over for a minor infraction. He chose to escalate the situation, and he chose to go from writing a ticket to making an arrest.

Yes, Bland could have been less irritated, and she could have obeyed the command to put out her cigarette. But it’s not illegal to be frustrated with the police, and it’s not a crime to smoke. Moreover, it’s an officer’s job to remain calm and resolve situations without additional conflict. It’s not an imposition to expect as much from men and women entrusted with the right to detain and to use lethal force.

Think of it this way: If you are inclined to blame Bland for her arrest (and by extension her death), then you’re sanctioning an America where police command total deference, where you have to obey regardless of what you’ve done or what’s the law. You might want to live in that America. I don’t.
www.slate.com...


Like I said, to justify this officer's action is to justify tyranny. Doing so make that person part of the problem, not part of the solution.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

I don't think you know what tyranny is...



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
All you did was proove that the laws have been rigged in LEO's favor. On this fact there had better be checks and balances to ensure Leo's are more professional and humane to the public they serve.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

And? Does a law that is rigged make it a law that can be broken? This has gone to the supreme court and they don't feel it is rigged, so the people in charge of protecting civil liberties and freedoms disagree with you that the law is rigged.

But even if it is rigged, take that up with the courts, not an officer at a traffic stop. His job is to enforce the law, "rigged" or otherwise.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
A law that is rigged is a law the needs tone changed.
"An unjust law is no law at all" Martin Luther King
"If a law is unjust, Amanda is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson
edit on 30-7-2015 by Iamthatbish because: added quote



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join