http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBh3wzXd3vg
Let us stipulate that trooper Brian Encina behaved unprofessionally and atrociously by any standard in his handling of the vehicle stop of Sandra Bland in Prairie View, Texas, on July 10, setting into motion a series of events that led to Bland’s death by apparent suicide in a jail cell three days later. The police work shown by the dashcam video is unforgivable, and could be used in officer trainings on how not to handle a traffic stop.
That does not make him responsible for Bland’s death, however. He was not responsible for an incompetent bail system that had this woman in jail for three days, apparently because it was a weekend, and if she did take her own life (agreed: since her family has no reason to trust authorities at this point, nothing is likely to convince them of that no matter what the evidence, and also agreed, the suicide verdict looks mighty shaky at this point), that is, by law and logic, an intervening cause that exonerate the officer in Bland’s death. Activists will make the obvious Freddie Gray comparisons, but in this case there is no reason to believe that the officer, no matter how wrongful his conduct, either intended or contributed to her death. At worst, Encina is guilty of bad policing and using excessive force. This is not the Freddie Gray case, unless there was a dark conspiracy of frightening proportions.
Once again, however, a black citizen is dead after a confrontation with a white cop. For many pundits, civil rights advocates and black racists as well as irresponsible elected officials, that’s evidence enough that this was a racial incident. It isn’t evidence enough, however. The racial identities of the participants do not mean race was a factor, and absent some other facts that we have not learned about yet, any effort to suggest otherwise is nothing but the Zimmerman con, assuming racism unjustly to advance a political agenda. Let’s see if the Justice Department launches a civil rights investigation this time….again, assuming nothing more suspicious turns up. That would be the smoking gun evidence of this DOJ’s bias. I wouldn’t bet against it happening.
“We have to interpret the death of Sandra Bland in light of other tragedies involving the deaths of unarmed blacks after confrontations with police,” we will hear. No, we really don’t have to interpret her death that way, and shouldn’t, because to do so would be unfair and irresponsible. Eric Garner’s death after resisting an arrest on a minor charge because officers over-reacted and he was grossly overweight, and Michael Brown’s death because he charged his arresting officer after trying to grab his gun, and Tamir Rice’s shooting because a trigger-happy cop didn’t follow protocol and had been given mistaken information by the 911 personnel, and Walter Scott’s virtual execution as he attempted to flea an arrest for non-payment of spousal support have no relevance to Bland’s death at all, either individually or collectively.
The use of the list of well-publicized deaths involving white officers and black suspects to color the interpretation of every subsequent incident has become a classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, so named because the technique resembles a poor marksman shooting at the side of a barn and drawing the target around some of the shots. Had Bland been white, or Encina black, and if the incident had not ended with Bland’s death, the story would probably not have made the national news, even if the conduct of the two participants had been exactly the same.
Writing about the Bland tragedy in Slate, the online magazine’s resident racialist, Jamelle Bouie, concludes,
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.
What an awful, illogical, unethical statement:
1. As I just explained, there is no “extension” from the arrest to Bland’s death. Encinia did many wrongful things, but Bland’s death by suicide, or however she died once she was out of his control, cannot be blamed on him. If Bland killed herself, Bland is primarily responsible, and the police officer isn’t culpable.
2. Of course Bland shares responsibility for her arrest. To claim otherwise, even if, as I do, one recognizes that a better cop would have handled the situation differently and perhaps wouldn’t have stopped Bland’s vehicle at all, is to assert that citizens have no duty to treat police officers as they would want to be treated themselves, and as the public servants they are, not as a presumed foe with likely hostile intent. Bland was defiant and uncooperative from the beginning, and had she not been—and she should not have been—she would not have been arrested. It is true that if Encinia had not been an incompetent police officer, he would have de-escalated the situation rather than metaphorically throwing kerosene on it, but as the saying goes, “It takes two to tango.”
3. Citizens have a duty to treat officers with respect. The evidence suggest that the African American community either does not believe this duty exists or is actively encouraging the opposite. The majority of the tragedies of the last many months involving police turned tragic a black suspect resisted police authority. I understand: blacks feel they have good reasons to distrust police. This cultural divide, however, helps explain why police have antagonistic feelings toward African Americans. Each attitude feeds the other.
4. If Bland had not been defiant, she might well be alive today. This implicates a prominent item on a list of unwritten ethical duties I am compiling: the duty not to be tempt disaster, or “Don’t be an idiot.” Yes, an individual has a right to walk through a poor area of his city at night carrying cash in a bucket and not be robbed, and yes, an attractive young women should be able to act like Jodie Foster’s character in “The Accused,” doing sexually provocative dances for a bunch of horny young drunks in a bar and not be gang raped. Nonetheless, taking the risk is irresponsible, and the soon-to-be victims share some responsibility for their fates. When Encinia asked Bland, in an already tense exchange, to stop smoking, what good could have possibly come from her response, “I am in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?” I was once asked by a police officer during a stop to turn off my car radio. My response: “Certainly, Officer.” True, he couldn’t force me to turn off the radio, but common sense dictates that this is a small courtesy to extend when it is in the interest of all parties to keep matters civil. Bland’s gratuitous defiance triggered the officer’s authority, upheld by the Supreme Court to order her to step out of her car to ensure the officer’s safety. By verbally refusing to comply with Encinia’s requests during the stop, Bland was resisting arrest under Texas law, and could be charged with a misdemeanor, even if the stop itself was unjustified. When Encinia says he is “giving a lawful order” to tell her to step out, he is legally correct. Again, the officer was professionally wrong, incompetent and ethically offensive in giving the order, but Bland lit the fuse.
5. If the black community would stop encouraging its members to defy police authority and resist arrest, there would be fewer tragedies like the ones that have roiled national race relations during the Obama Administration.
6. Bouie’s “total deference” is not required to accord police basic respect and the presumption of good will, which is exactly what anti-police activists in the African American community want to deny them. Law enforcement will not work if police have to fear that even minor interactions with citizens will be net with suspicion, lack of respect, failure to cooperate and defiance. Bouie doesn’t want to live in an America where police are regarded as trustworthy public servants and not racist vigilantes with guns? Great: let him get unlucky enough to have an encounter with a an angry, frustrated cop on the verge of snapping and he may get his wish.
Maintaining a law-abiding community is not just the duty of police; it is the duty of every citizen. In addition to not violating the law and not enabling or encouraging those who do, citizens have a duty to cooperate with the law enforcement process. One aspect of that cooperation is to be as respectful and civil to police officers as a citizen would want the police to be toward her, even if a particular officer appears to be wrong or abusing power.
A community that will not acknowledge that duty will succeed only in making law enforcement unbearably difficult, causing exactly the kind of people we should want to recruit as police officers to avoid the calling. This, in turn, will contribute to a downward spiral of lawlessness, violence, and distrust.
Let us stipulate that trooper Brian Encina behaved unprofessionally and atrociously by any standard. Stipulate too that Sandra Bland should not have been in jail, and should not be dead today. Stipulate that Sandra Bland’s death was a tragedy, and that she did not deserve to die.
But her own unethical conduct contributed to her fate. She was not blameless.
________________________
Source: Slate
Ethics Alarms 
As I believe I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, I was a Sherriff’s deputy in Duval County (Jacksonville), Florida about 25 years ago. Every so often, we would end up getting the short straw, and find ourselves patrolling a crack-infested neighborhood called “The Hill”, which was just off of Jax Beach. We HATED having to pull people over, or even get out of the car. Not only was it dangerous, but you had to deal with the inevitable attitudes. Believe me, we didn’t feel like we were “in charge”, and could just push people around with impunity. When you pull someone over, and they display hostility, you go on high alert, fearing that the situation could escalate very quickly. When you’re in this situation, being the one to back down and yield is simply not an option. When you do so, you give up the advantage of “command presence”, and this could result in you being killed. It’s really a psychological game that you have to play, and we dreaded it. You have to be convincing, and it takes a great deal of finesse. In situations where things have gotten out of hand, it’s usually the result of a detainee refusing to yield, and the officer MUST regain control, so he or she gets more overbearing, which then results in the machismo and “saving face” in front of friends thing demanding a response in kind on the part of the detainee, etc., etc. You get really, really tired of having to go through this, day after day, over and over again, and you end up getting an attitude. All you want to do is do your job, keep the peace to the best of your ability, and get home to your family, but there is a seemingly endless sea of assholes who seem to want to make life a living hell for you. I ended up HATING that job, in short order. I can’t imagine doing that as a career, especially in a city.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/contol_vs_command.htm
Click to access command_presense.pdf
http://www.policeone.com/officer-safety/articles/2748139-how-command-presence-affects-your-survival/
What’s your take on body cams?
I think they’re a good thing, protecting good cops, keeping bad ones honest, and providing a means of redress to abused citizens.
HOWEVER, whom the digital transcripts are released to should be strictly controlled. There should be a good record of what occurred, but no, that doesn’t mean that it should necessarily be on the evening news, for the media to selectively edit, and for every armchair quarterback to pronounce judgment on the performance of a job they have ZERO experience in. I look at the comments sections of many of the articles published concerning recent cases. This leaves me convinced that too many citizens are morons, utterly lacking the sophistication, empathy, and creativity needed to fairly assess what they’re looking at. I can’t see how this would make things better.
That’s just my opinion. I’m sure there are other considerations, especially legal considerations, that I’m not accounting for.
5. If the black community would stop encouraging its members to defy police authority and resist arrest, there would be fewer tragedies like the ones that have roiled national race relations during the Obama Administration.
Unfair Jack. Have you not heard of the warnings and admonishments that EVERY black family gives their children? For you to think that if blacks simply “behaved better” there would be fewer tragedies is pure speculation. Blacks have a legitimate and well founded fear of all encounters with the police. It seems though that anything short of complete capitulation regardless of circumstance is enough to get you roughed up at best, and killed at worst. While Bland’s behavior is open to interpretation and civil folks can disagree, the bottom line is she did comply with the officer. He didn’t like her body language and asked her a stupid question that he didn’t really care about anyway. Her respectful and truthful answer still wasn’t good enough. Now he had to show her who was
boss, and the incident snowballed from there. And there’s a big difference between a car radio that could impact communication, and a cigarette that he simply didn’t like.
UR: I keep hearing from middle to upper class blacks, like Charles Blow, about such warnings. If this was the case with Mike Brown, for example, it didn’t take. Are single parent, stressed, poor A-A families conveying that message. I am dubious. If they were, this wouldn’t keep happening. I would no more defy a police order—and I’m a lawyer—that didn’t involve incrimination than I would fly. I wasn’t even taught that. I have respect for the system. Bland obviously didn’t.
Whether the cigarette request was reasonable or not—maybe he has asthma—is irrelevant. It took nothing to comply with it, and her refusing was calculated contempt. Foolish and gratuitous.
Obviously, I can’t speak for every black family. But every one that I know of, warns their children, especially male children, about the potential pitfalls of dealing with the police. I sincerely understand the rational school of thought that would lead one to believe that simple compliance, and a “yes sir no sir” approach to dealings with the police is enough to protect you from an escalation during a confrontation. I assure you, it’s not. I’ve witnessed first hand, aggressive behavior by police against blacks doing little more than not moving as fast as the officer would like. I’ve also seen a relative taken to jail for outstanding traffic tickets, after the alarm at his home triggered what should have been a routine “hey, I live here, here’s my proof, the dog accidentally triggered the alarm”. What many blacks are trying to communicate, is that the sheer volume of negative interactions we have with the police, regardless of guilt, behavior, educational background or circumstance is what causes tension, and in many instances FEAR. As much as folks that don’t share this experience want to play devils advocate, and look for an excuse other than race to explain this, more times than not, it’s the underlying factor. So we’re reduced to having to be subjected to the whims and moods of any police officer on any given day. We must give up our civil rights quickly and without any protestation or attempt at negotiation. The alternative is an ass whipping or worse. Surely you don’t believe that blacks are making all of this up? And in spite of what appears to be a rash of such incidents (tied together or not) I assure you that these incidents happen way more frequently than reported…
I agree that there is good reason for fear, and reason to distrust, and that it is based on race. I do not understand how anyone could think that reacting as Sandra Bland did, or Walter Scott, or Eric Garner, or Mike Brown, no matter what the circumstance, is anything but provocative, dangerous and foolish….and maybe paranoid as well as self-fulfilling prophesy. Police may be many things, including racists, but to view them as murderous racial assassins just looking for ways to harm innocent African Americans approached pathology. Was Bland afraid she’s be shot if she complied with the officer’s “lawful command”? Why would she fear that? If she didn’t fear that, why be defiant to an obviously aggravated cop?
I don’t think her attitude shows fear. It shows contempt. It shows defiance. It shows entitlement. It shows a particular brand of black “keep-on-talking-smack-until-you-shut-the-other-person-up” aggressiveness. It’s calculated to escalate, anger, and cause intemperate responses. It works exactly that way.
Police and others who have to gain control in confrontations with it need rigorous training. Backing down is the least effective and most dangerous thing to do because it signals weakness. It’s not unlike dealing with a small defiant child except it can have much more severe and lasting consequences.
If we could really have a civil dialog about it each participant would see how their behavior contributes to the escalation. Unfortunately, there can be no civil dialog as long as either side is allowed to shout the other side down.
I increasingly think it’s encouraged and supported by those who want to destroy society.
I thought this was a traffic stop. What had Ms. Bland done that warranted a “need to gain control in confrontations”? And why does a police officer feel the need to assert power and control in minor circumstances, and we all agree this was a minor incident. He had already won. She didn’t even dispute his actions, and until the officer provocatively asked her “Are you Ok”? it was still all good. After he got an answer he didn’t like, that included an acknowledgement of getting a ticket, he asked her “are you done”? He was out of line, and then resorted to “the law” when she objected to the cigarette, which was an obvious attempt to further provoke her. And why do we want to hold ordinary citizens to a standard that makes them succumb to those in authority that we refuse to hold to a standard anywhere close to the same, and who routinely lie and get away with it?
We stipulated that his demeanor and conduct were inexcusable. I still don’t see that the cigarette request was designed to provoke her. It was designed to establish that he was in charge (see Joe’s comment). So if she puts out the cigarette and says “Anything else, officer?” what has she lost?
I think there’s a missing word in this, and I want to make sure before I respond…
In other words give up our rights under the constitution just to make sure we don’t hurt some cops feelings and let him feel he is in charge, if he was a professional it would not be necessary and she would not be dead
There was nothing unconstitutional in the exchange at all.
They provoked each other. I’ll grant, but my point is still valid. People on both sides need to learn more positive ways to handle potentially explosive situations. Police need rigorous training and citizens need to learn how to be respectful while not allowing themselves to be victimized. Neither party said or did anything to stop and de-escalate. If either one had the outcome would have been much different.
Once a police officer has raised the stakes it’s foolish to keep on pushing. The outcome might get Al Sharpton all up in it, but there is no good outcome for either party. Why do that over a traffic stop?
I don’t disagree. The point I’m making is that the police officer already has control, a badge, a gun, and the weight of the law on his side. Sandra Bland was not disrespectful, or out of line in answering the question he asked. He simply didn’t like her answer, then decided he’d push her. The cigarette was simply a prop in the larger confrontation. He was determined to show her who was boss, and she wanted to hold onto some sense of dignity or whatever, in the face of being given a ticket for something she felt was unwarranted. Neither of them reacted well. But the professional in this altercation is the one to be held to a higher standard. And last I checked, disagreeing with a police officer was not a crime, and shouldn’t get you arrested…
I think we are in agreement. I do still believe that her response didn’t show fear. She was a lot of things, but not in fear.
Look up interracial rape rates and get back to me
I once told a deputy sheriff that I would comply with his request for ID and proof of insurance as soon as he explained his probable cause for stopping me (this, too, was a traffic stop). He did so, and what he saw as probable cause had no basis in Texas law. I told him that, he disagreed and I then told him that we could argue that for days, and since neither of us were lawyers, settle nothing. Told him to write the ticket, and we’d settle it in the proper venue, traffic court. He did, and we parted more or less amicably. Turned out I was right, but only by a very strict interpretation of the law (my belief is that ALL law should be very strictly enforced, observed and interpreted. Otherwise, it is rather pointless.).
Oh, oh, Prairie View, Texas. Be prepared for Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and the crew to show up to do their thing. Predictably, someone from the department of justice will start an in depth investigation on racism in the Prairie View PD. Too bad Obama is in Kenya. He’ll miss a great opportunity to get involved in this.
To be clear, if someone hasn’t already done it, the assertion that cops pull over more black people in Prairie View than white people needs to be adjusted to the fact that, Prairie View A&M University makes it’s home there. That University was a historically all black school, a tradition that de facto still exists, and over 90% of the town itself is made up of black people.
It would make sense for blacks to be pulled over way more than whites in a pure raw numbers evaluation.
So noted, but irrelevant to this discussion. Bland committed a traffic offense, and the officer had every right to pull her over. The issue here is the behavior of the cop and the unnecessary escalation.
Right. The closest comparison is the Eric Garner case—minor infraction, legitimate arrest, subject resists, gross and incompetent over-reaction by police, unintended death.
The comment was merely to head off a common go-to diversion.
This whole country needs a couple generations’-long PSA campaign to Fight The Assholery – relentless re-education in expression of basic person-to-person civility and respect through non-verbal and verbal communications.
I know: I’m as guilty as anyone of assholery; I need the confrontation of my own denial as urgently as anyone. I believe my most obvious weak spots are with unwelcome phone callers and young, brash, ambitious pracititioners of professions. Older folks who say and do things when they ought to know better also have ways of finding my shortest patience and most grotesquely expressed hostility. Otherwise, I believe I communicate decently toward incompetent and/or surly service providers and wage-earners – even toward uppity cops. Maybe I am just a racist and all-star bigot, anyway, just for saying that much; after all, I have long admitted to being a “homophobe.”
Unfortunately, that PSA campaign isn’t going to happen, and instead, we are going to see, and suffer, many more generations’-long refinements in assholery – more instead of less racism; more instead of less bigotry in general; and more and more heavy-handed, authoritarian speech suppression (including orchestrated mob violence to “work” hand-in-hand with the censors), all for the ostensible sake of fighting assholery. Sandra Bland’s death will be exploited to encourage even more young black women to not just emulate her, but to out-perform her with ever louder, ever more hostile and racism-laden, racism-validated “lip service.” Just watch.
For certain bullies, a Golden Age of Assholery lies ahead.
I sympathize just about 100% with Bland after watching the entire video. That creep knew he was out of line and immediately started covering his ass with his coworkers once he succeeded in putting Bland in her place and having her hauled off for being mean to him with her words. Anyone can have a bad day and overreact to being disrespected, but any decent cop, after even a moment’s refelection, would have reversed course and let her go free. Swallow your pride, man,
Of course, Bland’s death was bad moral luck and he didn’t kill her, but he bears some responsibility. Abuse of power and stripping people of their dignity opens doors for this kind of thing to happen. If she had been able to hang in there (and that’s assuming she wasn’t murdered) she might have been in line for a nice payday in court.
He’s 100% wrong; she was 100% stupid. It’s like saying the bear is 100% accountable for mauling some fool who tries to wrestle him. Bad cop, obviously a bad cop–just try to survive the stop and leave ASAP. He violated the duty not to be a dick; she violated the duty not to be an idiot. And she’s the dead one. Who “won”?
Fine bad cop. What do you do about it? He was in the wrong but if you can afford to bring a lawsuit what jury will award anything and given qualified immunity what incentive is there to avoid those lawsuits even if the cop lost every single one? If a jury awards something will that lead to a firing or even a write-up?
Do we have minor freedoms if you’re forced to give them up under threat of arrest just because a cop wants to assert his dominance?
Honestly Jack, your reasoning sounds like the compliance dodge to me. Do what you’re told and get out of there and leave the cop thinking that what he did was acceptable. Even if you don’t care about your own minor freedoms is there no obligation to the next person who might value theirs?
Who wins? Who would lose. If you defy the cop and prevail maybe he learns a lesson. Defy a cop when I’m in the right and die for it? I can’t speak for others, for me it’d be no loss to the world were I to leave it and if the media picked it up and it led to change it might even be that my time on earth helped make some lives better.
It’s not a complaince dodge at all. The law enforcement officer is charged with knowing the law, and citizens need to give him or her the benefit of the doubt when he is trying to do his job. If there is an injustice or buse of power, address it afterwards. Your approach—and my father’s, by the way: he would have agreed with you (but he also was in the habit of defying his CO during WWII)—allows every citizen to place his or her assessment of what a law enforcement officer “should” be doing over the judgment of the officer. That’s chaos. That justifies every perp resisting arrest. That means that it is always the police against us, as adversaries. This Kant. Would a universal rule work in which every citizen was free to defy police on their own assessment—invariably biased—that the cop was wrong? It would not. It would be—Baltimore.
I you want to stand on your rights, then go to jail. That’s civil disobedience. And hope for the best. (Killing yourself in jail, however, is not what Thoreau recommended.)
Actually that turns out not to be the case. I’m a long time popehat reader Jack and I thought you were as well, Heien v. State of North Carolina
How? Is justice to be only for those rich enough to afford to bring a lawsuit and charismatic enough to convince a jury they were mistreated? Was your father by any chance an old curmudgeon that a jury would have found offputting? How about if an officer mistreats a homosexual in a conservative area, not with a beating but just with unreasonable orders and excess rudeness? One who has a habit of pulling over black drivers and very few white ones?
The system is flawed, police have lots of powers and little to no oversight; and yes the police are against us, that’s their job, make arrests. I hope you didn’t think they were there to help people, not after Warren v. District of Columbia
Changes need to be made, if you won’t agree to less power then agree to more oversight, increase hiring standards, if every order must be obeyed then you must only have the few exceptional people who won’t give unnecessary orders, discipline and dismissal must be easy, bodycams must be used and no cop must be taken at her word, the recordings used instead.
1. “Needs” and “must” are two different things, and words. I citizen doesn’t have to provide anything but minimal cooperation to police officers. They don’t need to be polite, or volunteer information. They don’t have to answer questions. Criminal lawyers (like Ken) believe one should always treat police as adversaries. That is a low risk strategy. It is a legal strategy. It’s not ethical, in many cases.
2. “How? Is justice to be only for those rich enough to afford to bring a lawsuit and charismatic enough to convince a jury they were mistreated? Was your father by any chance an old curmudgeon that a jury would have found offputting? How about if an officer mistreats a homosexual in a conservative area, not with a beating but just with unreasonable orders and excess rudeness? One who has a habit of pulling over black drivers and very few white ones?”
a. Nonsense. If there is a real lawsuit, with damages, a lawyer will take the case on a contingency basis. If there isn’t, then it doesn’t matter. Being irritated doesn’t deserve damages.
b. How do those examples argue for being an asshole to nasty cops?
c. Sorry, you don’t know what you are talking about. There is plenty of oversight, lots of good cops and some bad ones. The police are not adversaries, and if you think so, see what happens without them. I’ve worked with police, I have friends who are police, and i have many interactions with police. Your anti-police bias is counter factual and irrational.
d. Warren does not mean what you think it does. The public duty doctrine simply allows police to make trade-offs, as their job requires. They have a duty to protect the public, but not every individual member of the public. That means that there is no basis for an individual who is harmed by a bad cop’s breach of duty to the public to sue individually. Think about it. Warren is a good decision on the law.
A: a breach doesn’t matter if you can’t show damages? So even though demanding a woman put our her cigarette was uncalled for and therefore beyond the scope of what the cop could order he would always get away with that little violation. No Jack, unacceptable. To misquote Ken, [people have] been elevated beyond [their] ability and character: given power, and [lack] the maturity or intellect to wield it justly.
B: The alternative is complete submission to injustice.
C: Person experience to the contrary. I’ve tried to report police misbehavior. My anti-police bias is the result of bad police encounters.
D: I think it means that cops don’t have to show up when my aunt has her unstable son-in-law screaming and pounding on her door but their duty somehow involves stopping and trying to question me if I dare walk the 4 blocks to 7-11 at 1 am and not just once but on three occasions. Very suspicious a person who wears light colors, chooses well lit streets, carrying nothing but a small purse heading toward a convenience store. I have much empathy of Trevon Matren.
Being asked to put our a cigarette is hardly oppression or abuse of power. Maybe he’s allergic. Maybe she was blowing smoke in his face. Maybe he wanted her full attention. She has no damages, and she hasn’t been mistreated. A fair, ethical person would comply. There is literally no reason not to, except to show defiance and hostility. Once hostility is shown, the cop is justified in reducing all risks.
If she wasn’t legally obligated to do it and he still enforced it, it was abuse.
Even if i were to concede an ethical obligation to put the cigarette out as at the very least it would have been mannerly to do so, it was still abuse o his part. That’s a number seven, his behavior wasn’t justified by hers, you cannot hold her to blame for his actions. And I saw you palm that card, in no sane world does defiance automatically translate to a threat to someone’s safety.
Don’t believe me? Ask Thoreau, ask Gandhi, ask King, ask every hippie whoever chained herself to a tree and then went limp as she was dragged away.
addendum to C:
Why must this be phrased as a choice between no policing at all or policing in its current form? Why not try a system where we place greater limits on police power and deny the job to bullies? Why don’t we take Terry seriously and fire anyone who makes a stop without reasonable suspicion? Why don’t we fire and then jail anyone who makes an arrest for contempt of cop? Why not institute periodic justice department audits for civil rights violations? Why not instead of deferring to police, hold them to a standard high enough to justify wielding the power of the state?
Because it would be disastrous, cops would get killed and crime would flourish. The job is almost impossible now. There is a thin line between contempt of cop and interfering with a police officer’s lawful performance: no citizen should cme close to the line, that’s all/ The demonizing of police is irresponsible, unwarranted and unfair, substantially based on selective news reporting and cultural animus against police fueled by self-righteous drug fans. It’s not unusual that members of groups that have a disproportionate rate of being involved in crime or controversies with the police are biased against police, and vice-versa.
But maybe those that have a bias against police have it for good reason?? Traffic stops should never turn into a confrontation about anything other than the traffic issue. This officer had no intention of arresting her at all when he stopped her. Her attitude towards him should not change this. She didn’t threaten him in any way. She was truthful and perhaps rude in her expression. That simply isn’t a crime, and the police officer should not get a pass. I agree with the comments earlier about over site and training for police officers. I also think that with the increased militarization of police forces, we need to consider having distinct branches of the police force where a different attitude and culture could take root. We should think about perhaps a group of cops that deal solely with traffic stops and don’t carry guns. We also have technology that can catch up with traffic violators-toll booth cameras come to mind. If police are going to continue to treat citizens in this manner, we must come up with some sort of solution. The answer can’t simply be do as I say, when I say, and if I’m wrong, take it to my supervisor. That clearly isn’t working….
I think this is a fair and balanced analysis of the Bland stop, by a publication that has been prolific in its analysis of the Bland tragedy: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/22/sandra_bland_arrest_her_detention_was_legal_but_encinia_used_excessive_force.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
Traffic cops who don’t carry guns? How many cops STILL get shot, and shot at, despite the fact that they’re armed, during a routine stop? People are led around by the nose by a media that portrays an epidemic of police-on-detainee violence, but says nothing about how many cops are shot and killed in the line of duty, much less how many have had an armed criminal to contend with. We would ask the people charged with policing a populace with a heavily-armed criminal element to do so unarmed? Unthinkable! No peaceable citizen should be prevented from being armed, especially not a working cop.
The overwhelming majority of police have never fired their service revolver. And you’re missing my point. The public will behave much less aggressively with an unarmed traffic only officer. What I’m suggesting is a change in how police interact with the public, and it will obviously change how the public interacts with them. We also need to get away from chasing everyone for a traffic violations. A person that has a warrant for unpaid child support then gets pulled over by an armed cop who will run his name through a system is more likely to behave aggressively. What I’m suggesting is by no means a fully developed system. But there is precedent, and given the hostility on both sides, is worth exploring. A meter enforcer is in a uniform, gets abused on occasion and interacts with the public daily without a firearm, all over this country. The answer to every altercation cannot and should not be handled on the business end of a gun. And this has nothing to do with gun rights or gun control. It’s about trying to alter the arc of citizen/police interactions.
You say that someone dealing with an unarmed cop is less likely to act aggressively as if that is a self-evident fact. I have serious doubts about that.
Reducing freedoms to privileges that an agent of the state can take away on a whim… Why doesn’t that terrify you? If you believe it’ll lead to more crime why is that not preferable? Would a stolen car really be worse than losing the ability to move about without a government agent stopping you and making arbitrary demands on pain of imprisonment or death?
What’s your take on the stonewall riot? Some of us celebrate it with yearly parades.
You’re hysterical. Take a pill. “Reducing freedoms to privileges that an agent of the state can take away on a whim” is unproductive hyperbole. Who took anything away from Bland “on a whim”? I’d like to see everyone who changes lanes without signalling get pulled over, personally. It’s dangerous. My opinion of the Stonewall riot is the same as my opinion of any riot: they are unlawful, reckless, dangerous and wrong. The fact that the Stonewall riot drew attention to serious injustice and discrimination against gay citizens is fortunate, but that does not make the riot itself ethical after the fact, nor does it validate rioting. It’s a marker of social change, just like John Brown’s Harper’s Ferry raid (which was terrorism). It is reasonable to celebrate the marker; nobody should celebrate a riot.
And Stonewall has NOTHING to do with Sandra Bland.
” I’d like to see everyone who changes lanes without signalling get pulled over, personally. It’s dangerous” I couldn’t agree more. It highlights an observation I made in my last post. People are led around by their noses by the media. They can frame a statistical non-event, like mass shootings, as an epidemic that MUST be addressed by more “common sense” gun laws, no matter the likelihood of positive net effect, or the effect on a very important freedom,while 100,000 (!) people a year, NEEDLESSLY, die in automobile accidents every single year. Every single one is due to some sort of carelessness or even willful recklessness, most often traceable to a habit like changing lanes without signaling, talking on cell phones, playing with the radio, speeding, a hot temper,what have you. Every gun control talking point can be applied to this situation, and is a much better fit. It’s only a matter of time before some lunatic shoots up another school or theater, and politicians will finally have the political hay and public demand to bring their long-time dream of registration or disarmament to fruition. The irony is that nearly 300 people will die that day on our highways, as they do every day, due to rank stupidity and laziness like changing lanes without signaling.
Wow! I just watched the video, and sorry, but Bland was wrong. She was obviously told by some street lawyer that she didn’t have to comply with lawful orders, and his request to put out the cigarette was lawful, as was his order for her to step out of the car when she became uncooperative. Actually, she’s lucky that she didn’t get hurt when she was removed from the car. The officer has the right and the responsibility (both to himself and believe it or not the arrestee) to use all force necessary to extract and restrain her. I would have ordered her maybe twice to get out of the car before removing her. It’s not about ego; it’s 100% about safety.
Eh, okay; maybe I should have watched the entire video. Still, She should have minded her manners (it seems that she initiated the hostile tone), should have put out the cigarette, and should have DEFINITELY gotten out of the car. He was wrong in how he escalated force in many ways, but I don’t think many people understand the real-time progression of events here, and the importance of having physical control of the situation. I would be interested to know what exactly happened with the cigarette. Was it just in her hand, or was smoke getting in his eyes somehow? A body cam might have been helpful here.
Here’s how I saw it. She was in her car as he ran her plates. She lit a cigarette and started to fume. He returned with no intention of giving her a ticket. (if you watched the entire video, it appears that he had given another traffic warning minutes before pulling her over) He noticed that her body language and expression was bad. (not a crime, and no safety issue here) He asked her if she was OK knowing that she wasn’t. It’s a stupid question, that he knew the answer to, but he was purposely provoking her. She answered his question, and he asked her another stupid one-“Are you finished?.” Then in a clear attempt to exert control, even though he already had power and the upper hand, he asked her to put out the cigarette. This had zero to do with his health , safety or any other issue. He simply wanted to show her who’s boss. You don’t need a body cam to interpret this. Was her reaction poor under the circumstances? Yes. But she should not be subjected to this type of questioning and harassment for changing lanes. Give her the warning or the ticket, and move on down the road.
That was unkind of you.
Oh yeah, I’m not attempting to be dispassionate. I’m just pointing out where my sympathies lie. I tried to put myself into the cop’s shoes, but honestly if I had that kind of power I hope I would appreciate a citizen who understood what her rights were and wasn’t going to talk to me like a scared kitten just because I have a gun and a badge. Then again, I’ve heard that that line of work does a number on people.
It does. You can appreciate a citizen knowing the law, but not the attitudes. The attitudes get very, very tiring. And, she apparently didn’t know the law, because justified or not, having her step outside of the car (search incident to arrest) was a lawful order that she must follow. In many cases, refusal to exit a vehicle should prompt an officer to prepare for trouble. It’s often a bad sign.
What ever happened to our eloquent President’s arrogant foreign policy of “Don’t do stupid shit?” I wish he’d give a speech along those lines relative to these arrest fiascos.
So Jack – what was she arrested for?
Why was the bail for this set to such a level that the money couldn’t be raised without swinging penalties in interest?
If those questions can’t be answered, what reason does anyone have to think that the rest of the system is less broken?
See http://www.texasstandard.org/shows/current/10-things-about-the-sandra-bland-traffic-stop-every-texan-should-know/
1. She was arrested for being uncooperative and resisting the lawful command of a police officer. That was a valid charge, just one that shouldn’t have been necessary.
2. The bail system has been challenged on the grounds that it is disproportionately hard on the poor. I can’t determine how poor Bland and her family were. Were there no bail bondsmen in that area who were around on weekends? Here bail was $5000, which means that they would pay a bail bondsman 10% to put up the money. $500 is not unreasonable. Bail is a very old system: as with fines, it is only unfair if you believe punishment and penalties should be different according to the financial means of the criminal. As with all “fairness” disputes, this depends on your definition of “fair.” (I should post on this issue.)
3. One case doesn’t show that anything is broken. Bland seems to have killed herself: absent that, the whole incident would have had minor consequences all around.
What was the “lawful command”?
Here a dirty cop lies to his superiors.
And then, there is this little gem:
The arresting officer has been charged with perjury before the grand jury. Here is a link:
That would seem to throw or shed a whole new light on the incident. Can the grand jury reconvene and issue an indictment now?
jvb