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: 17
34
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

So explain to me what is unjust about stepping out of a vehicle at a traffic stop? You are confusing some visionary statements by great men for what they are. Those men were talking about unjust laws when it came to the liberty and freedom of humans as a whole. The prevention of discrimination under the law.

Don't invoke what they said onto a routine traffic stop. It's like comparing having someone read your email without permission to being raped...It's a logical fallacy to the most extreme degree.




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Martin Luther King, in his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," called on all Americans to actively but peacefully oppose laws that were morally wrong. King wrote:
 
"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

This woman's death took away her right and her ability to STAY IN JAIL TO AROUSE THE CONSCIOUS OF THE COMMUNITY.

This woman was in a place to help make people aware while she was alive. She is even making people aware in her unfortunate death. This needs to stop. The laws need to reflect justice and safety for everyone. Phrases like the blue line need to go.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
Routine traffic stops are routinely unjust and discriminatory. Due to the Leo's abuse of power. I am choosing to ignore your analogy.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
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


The problem with your quote is the manner in which the law is decided to be be unjust. The founding fathers created the method in which laws are created, how they are signed into existence and force, and how those laws can be challenged in court.

If you think a law is unjust then make your argument to your representatives to get the law changed. If you are affected by the law make your argument to the judge.

Law Enforcement is a part of the Executive branch and thus has absolutely no authority on whether a law is brought into existence and if that law is valid in the eyes of a court.

Hence the reason trying to make an argument like you are suggesting about unjust laws must occur in the proper setting in front of the individuals who can actually do something about it and not argue it roadside with an officer.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Her death has nothing to do with the arresting officer. None of her rights were violated by the officer during the traffic stop.

If you are going to try and raise a point at least back it up when confronted with a challenge instead of ignoring the person simply because they don't agree with your interpretation of the law.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
I have no issue with what you are stating. I have previously stated the reason we have this problem is because the Leo have done just that and now the laws are not protecting the public.

Either I wasn't clear or I posted that elsewhere, my apologies. Law enforcement interpretation of laws while interacting with the public is the issue. These quotes were in response to the flippant remark that I had no choice but to obey laws. There are those minds that would consider that to be false.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
This woman's death took away her right and her ability to STAY IN JAIL TO AROUSE THE CONSCIOUS OF THE COMMUNITY.

I think that's the most important part, and one that is being flooded by the "the detention was legal/illegal" discussion.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
It's crazy how people want police to become robots with no emotions when dealing with irritated, unruly, and bitchy citizens.. but as soon as the police become robots with no emotions in other situations the citizens protest and riot about police officers being mind controlled emotionless robots who don't have feelings...


edit on 30-7-2015 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Iamthatbish

Her death has nothing to do with the arresting officer. None of her rights were violated by the officer during the traffic stop.

If you are going to try and raise a point at least back it up when confronted with a challenge instead of ignoring the person simply because they don't agree with your interpretation of the law.



Her death has everything to do with the officer. If it weren't for his arrogance she would have been happily on her way to her new job instead of sitting in jail. Just watching the video anyone can see when his 'roid rage kicked in because she dared answer him when he asked her what was bothering her----like he couldn't possibly guess! The business of the traffic stop was over yet he had to extend it---something the Black-Robed Tribe says is illegal---by asking questions that had nothing to do with law, thus detaining her and eventually prodding until he got the reaction he was looking for and had the excuse to abuse her.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Had it not been for her violating the law she never would have been stopped by the police.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Had she not rolled a stop sign and changed lanes illegally she would never have been pulled over. Even then, if she had just started off in a respectful manner she would have left within 4-5 minutes with a warning as can be seen from the video.

Source


Observing erratic driving. In general, police officers will pull you over if they notice that you are showing any of the signs of driving under the influence. These signs include swerving, speeding, driving too slowly, failing to stop, failing to yield, and any other indications that signal to the officer that you are driving drunk. In general, if you actually have a good reason for driving the way you were driving, the officer may let you go with only a ticket or a warning. However, officers will be looking to see if your eyes are blurred or if they smell alcohol on your breath. - See more at: dui.findlaw.com...


Again, some people will light cig's to try and mask the smell of drugs or alcohol.

Source


Bland was arrested on July 10 and held for three days. Toxicology tests during her autopsy showed the presence of a significant quantity of marijuana...and Diepraam indicated that THC, the principal drug component of marijuana, could have been in Ms. Bland’s system before her arrest, in sufficient quantities to still be detectable after several days.


And from the same source:


Why has no action been taken against the arresting officer? At this time, the Texas Rangers and DPS are conducting their own investigations into the traffic stop, as is a different assistant district attorney, Mia Magnus, who would be activated in the event that criminal violations are found. District Attorney Mathis has said no evidence of criminal behavior has been uncovered so far.


And again, the business of the traffic stop was NOT over. The ticket had not been explained to her (or she would have known it was only a warning) and she did not sign the ticket, nor had she actually attempted to sign the ticket. This much is obvious from the video.

And again, another person with a "roid rage" comment. This is just plane stupidity. I won't even call it ignorance anymore. It is stupidity. Have you even seen the video? Have you even seen an image of Brian Encinia?? To say he is on roids is just plane stupid, even beyond stupid.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Yeah, well, the first thing I think about when I see blue lights coming up fast behind is to get out of their way and using a turn signal might not be at the top of my mind. But nobody deserves to be thrown in jail for that or for expressing their opinions to the officer, especially after he asked her what was bothering her. He intentionally extended the stop longer than it needed to be, an action that the Supreme Court has ruled illegal.
Had it not been for the obvious 'roid rage from which he suffers and his inability to control himself, she would be alive today.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

What does a DUI stop have to do with failure to signal a lane change?
There is no law stating that a detained person must show respect to the cop. Let me repeat that in case you haven't been paying attention. The Black-Robed Tribe has ruled on that. In addition they have ruled that a cop can't intentionally extend a traffic stop---something he obviously did---just before he blew up and lost his marbles.
Anyone who has ever seen 'roid rage knows what it looks like. For anyone who hasn't seen it in action, that cop's response---to drag her out of the car and take her off-camera to abuse her is exactly what 'roid rage looks like. If you can't see that, you are wearing some sort of rose-colored glasses where cops are concerned.
He instigated the violence. He is supposed to be the professional. He needs a different job.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

You need to reread the scotus ruling on traffic stops before you try and make a claim that is false, like you just did. On average SCOTUS has ruled a traffic stop standard guideline is about 20 minutes and that guideline was established many years ago.

what you are referencing - They recently ruled a traffic stop cannot be extended based solely on the purpose of waiting for a K9 unit to arrive on scene/ intentionally delaying a person to cause them to be late as retribution etc. With that said a delay is permissible based on other factors - DWI/DUI/Investigative stop etc etc. SCOTUS has stated that a stop can extend beyond the 20 minute guideline but it is incumbent on the officer to justify that delay in court if it goes that far. In this instance her refusal to comply extended the traffic stop.

Discretion resides with the officer and not the driver / passenger of a motor vehicle.

If you watch the start of the video you will see the vehicle on the right side, rolling through a stop sign and failing to use a signal. She then failed to use a signal when she was stopped and if I am not mistaken the officer did not activate his lights until she made the illegal lane change.

Either provide evidence the cop was suffering from roid rage or stop making that claim. As for your last comment you would be incorrect. She escalated it by her actions and refusal to obey lawful commands.



The officers actions were not illegal.
The officers actions did not violate civil rights.
The officers actions did not violate the SCOTUS ruling.
edit on 1-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Stick to digging dirt bro, you're in over your head...

You are seriously confused on the law. And again with the stupidity of a roid rage comment. Grasping at straws much??

a reply to: diggindirt



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




They recently ruled a traffic stop cannot be extended based solely on the purpose of waiting for a K9 unit to arrive on scene/ intentionally delaying a person to cause them to be late as retribution etc.



The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion which clearly shows how wrong the Texas State Trooper who arrested Sandra Bland really was.

Rookie Texas state trooper Brian Encinia is facing harsh criticism after the two videos depicting his chaotic and brutal arrest of Sandra Bland in rural Waller County.



The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently issued a landmark ruling on the matter with an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg deciding the case of Rodriguez vs. United States in favor of the petitioner which exonerated Rodriguez.

Not content to merely settle one case, the Court opinion's author settled numerous matters of law involving traffic stops, and naturally drug sniffing dogs gained the most attention.

The key point of law in the court's ruling which applies to Sandra Bland's unlawful detention and arrest lies in one simple phrase: "Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are -- or reasonably should have been -- completed."


SOURCE

There was no reasonable reason for the officer to extend the stop once he had the citation/warning written, and the only other pending matter was her signature. He used unreasonable excuses, like asking her about her mood and to extinguish her cigarette, for not allowing Sandra Bland to just sign it and be one her way.




edit on 1-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

There was no law or civil rights violation.

We know this because the Prosecuting Attorney nor the FBI have gone after the trooper in question. You guys can try and trot out the SCOTUs ruling all you want but you are not understanding how it works, let alone the other rulings SCOTUs has made when it comes to traffic stop and the requirements placed on the officers.


A traffic stop ends when the officer releases the driver and NOT when a citation is written. As I stated time and time again its up to the officer to justify his actions and not 3rd parties who misunderstand SCOTUs rulings. If his actions violated a law or civil rights we would know since there would be criminal and civil investigations into the trooper.

You guys are grasping at straws.
edit on 1-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I guess he was just an asshole then.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




There was no law or civil rights violation.


Lots of professionals disagree with your opinion. There will be a civil rights suit filed. Mark my words!

Encinia is being investigated for violating PD policy, which is put in place to ensure that officer's follow laws, even civil rights laws that they might disagree with, and that it's not all and always a matter of one officer's personal discretion.



A traffic stop ends when the officer releases the driver and NOT when a citation is written.


The officer had no justification whatsoever NOT to release the clipboard for Ms Bland's signature.
edit on 1-8-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Police policies / guidelines are not laws.

There wont be a civil rights lawsuit against the trooper who did the traffic stop considering he did not violate any of her civil rights. When it comes to actions taken by law enforcement they have what's called qualified immunity. It means, absent criminal charges being filed, cannot be sued in a civil manner.

The officer had every legal right to conduct the stop up to and including asking her to step out of the vehicle.

The suspect had no legal right to refuse lawful verbal commands. As a matter of fact (and in general since state laws vary from one degree to the next) a person does not have the right to resist a false arrest. The requirement on legality and reasonableness resides with the courts and not the individuals
edit on 1-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join