Dashcam Video of Violent Arrest of Sandra Bland Was Edited

a reply to: Xcathdra
We disagree so I guess we'll have to see how things fall out.
If you can justify that cop's attitude and behavior, you belong in North Korea rather than the US.
I know 'roid rage when I see it---it's not that difficult to notice when one snaps the way he did with the passive/aggressive. But you see, there can be no proof because he wasn't drug tested. He and all others should be anytime they perpetrate violence on another human.
They are public servants---not gods and if the level of behavior doesn't improve, I fear they're all going to find out the hard way and they'll have only their own arrogance to blame.

a reply to: raymundoko
The cop instigated the violence. He was wrong.
Watch the video and see him snap. It's classic 'roid rage fueled by cop arrogance. You are the one trying to grasp at straws to defend a violent man who attacked a woman for no reasonable cause. He's crazy. She's dead.

Are we supposed to take you seriously? I just can't with the stupidity of the roid rage comments...

a reply to: diggindirt

a reply to: diggindirt

Ironically enough the suspect was drug tested and marijuana was found in her system.

The IA investigation will result in the trooper being notified of his garrity rights. The Trooper can be ordered to answer guilt seeking questions with regards to his actions. Unlike the 5th amendment, an officer cannot refuse to answer the questions. If he does refuse to answer questions then he is assumed guilty with reference to the IA investigation.

As I have stated over and over - The officers actions requires the officer to justify them.

Your N. Korea comment is way off base. You guys are not understanding how the laws work when it comes to traffic stops and liability. Making a stand roadside is a massive failure considering the officer is not the one the suspect needs to argue their case to.

It is irrelevant if the driver thinks the officer is in the wrong. Almost all state laws require a person to comply with law enforcement to prevent situations from spiraling out of control. they are designed that way to move the disagreement / complaints / etc into the judicial arena, which is exactly where it belongs.

The IA investigation is being carried out by the Texas Rangers instead of DPS to remove any appearance of impropriety.


Terry vs Ohio - SCOTUS ruling on police frisking a suspect (A frisk is not a search). Scotus has since expanded a frisk to include the interior of a motor vehicle in some situations.

* - For Their Own Safety, Police Can Order People Out of Cars in Routine Stops, Court Rules
* - Stems from Maryland vs Wilson - Applies to Passengers.
* - [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms]Pennsylvania v. Mimms - Applies to driver

WASHINGTON, Feb. 19— The Supreme Court ruled today that police officers may order passengers out of the cars they stop for routine traffic violations, even in the absence of any reason to suspect that the passenger has committed a crime or presents a threat to the officer's safety.

The 7-to-2 decision, adopting a position long advocated by police organizations, was an extension of a 1977 Supreme Court decision permitting police officers to order the driver out of the car in a routine traffic stop.

Here is the 2015 ruling people keep trying to use in their argument.
* - Justices: Drug search that delays traffic stop is unconstitutional - April 2015

WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police cannot detain drivers stopped for traffic violations in order to search for drugs without reasonable suspicion.

The 6-3 decision was a victory for privacy groups opposed to police searches and a defeat for the government and law enforcement officials.

"A traffic stop does not license police to pursue unrelated investigations that prolong detention of car and driver beyond the time it takes to complete the stop's traffic-centered mission," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. A dog sniff, she added, "lacks the same tie to roadway safety."

As you can see the ruling applies to situations where a person is delayed pending the arrival of a drug dog. An officer can no longer detain a vehicle/driver for extended periods of time while waiting for a K9 unit to arrive. It applies to a situation where an officer stops a vehicle for one thing and then initiates a secondary unrelated investigation. Absent plain view the officer must justify the extended detention and then link the secondary investigation into the primary reason for the stop.

* - SCOTUS rulings traffic stop lengths
* - US vs Childs - 2001
* - ILLINOIS V. CABALLES (deals with drug dogs

SCOTUS has not set a concrete time limit on traffic stops and they have stated they wont. Its totality of circumstances and is on a case by case basis.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Police policies / guidelines are not laws.

Why are they in place?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ironically enough the suspect was drug tested and marijuana was found in her system.

Really? You're going there? Now I know you're getting desperate.

Terry vs Ohio - SCOTUS ruling on police frisking a suspect (A frisk is not a search). Scotus has since expanded a frisk to include the interior of a motor vehicle in some situations.

WTF? A "Frisk" isn't a search? What is it? First base? A way to break the ice to get friendly with a suspect?

* - For Their Own Safety, Police Can Order People Out of Cars in Routine Stops, Court Rules
* - Stems from Maryland vs Wilson - Applies to Passengers.

Are you kidding me? Officer "I'll Light You Up" ordered Sandra Bland out of her car for HIS own safety? Please! Maybe the other poster is right, North Korea might be a place more appropriate for you and your ilk.

Do you even read your own posts? What message are you trying to send?

Like I said. and keep saying. There are LOTS of professionals, including police, who don't agree with you, and don't support that cop's behavior. If you support the actions of that cop, you are part of the problem. I hope something happens to make that real clear to you, real soon!

You keep trying to pull people over, here online, and give them a warning or a citation for their opinions and attitudes, here on ATS, I can only imagine what you do and how you assert your ego on the job. I hope I never have to meet you in person and I pity the people that do!

Sandra Bland is dead because of that POS cop's attitude. What you're trying to sell us is tyranny. You're trying to tell us that Sandra Bland deserved what she got, and so do we if we have any kind of attitude that might upset your delicate ego!


the Maddness!

Are you a US citizen?
What is your background?

I ask because I have seen people from other countries try and make the same type of arguments you are.

originally posted by: windword


Why are they in place?

They define the standard operating procedures for the agency in question. They are designed to standardize daily operations and to ensure that Officer A's actions are consistent with Officers B's actions are consistent with Officer C's actions.

They are guidelines and are not laws.

originally posted by: windword
Really? You're going there? Now I know you're getting desperate.

Not at all... If you are going to look at a situation they you must take into account ALL information, regardless if that information works in favor of or against any given argument.

originally posted by: windword

WTF? A "Frisk" isn't a search? What is it? First base? A way to break the ice to get friendly with a suspect?

A frisk is an external pat down of a suspect to ensure the individual does not have any weapons / contraband on their persons. A frisk does not permit an officer to reach inside of an individuals clothes unless they detect contraband and can identify the contraband by touch.

A frisk is not intrusive where as a search is.

originally posted by: windword
Are you kidding me? Officer "I'll Light You Up" ordered Sandra Bland out of her car for HIS own safety? Please! Maybe the other poster is right, North Korea might be a place more appropriate for you and your ilk.

Your the one trying to make an argument without adequate knowledge and understanding of the law.

originally posted by: windword
Do you even read your own posts? What message are you trying to send?

Trying to educate people who are not familiar with the laws and how they work. Trying to educate the people on police procedures. Trying to educate the people so they can make a more informed opinion.

If you are ignorant of the law and police procedures then you cant exactly identify problems let alone put forth methods to correct the problem.

originally posted by: windword
Like I said. and keep saying. There are LOTS of professionals, including police, who don't agree with you, and don't support that cop's behavior. If you support the actions of that cop, you are part of the problem. I hope something happens to make that real clear to you, real soon!

I've been doing this for over 10 years in 2 states now. I am pretty confident in what I am saying.

originally posted by: windword
You keep trying to pull people over, here online, and give them a warning or a citation for their opinions and attitudes, here on ATS, I can only imagine what you do and how you assert your ego on the job. I hope I never have to meet you in person and I pity the people that do!

ah yes -when your argument fails you resort to personal attacks. Maybe you should educate yourself on the laws first before trying to pretend you know how they work.

originally posted by: windword
Sandra Bland is dead because of that POS cop's attitude. What you're trying to sell us is tyranny. You're trying to tell us that Sandra Bland deserved what she got, and so do we if we have any kind of attitude that might upset your delicate ego!

She is dead because she hung herself. The trooper marked the section on the booking form that she had tried suicide in the past. The jail is at fault for not placing her into suicide precaution.

originally posted by: windword

the Maddness!

The only madness is you trying to make an argument when you don't have adequate understanding / knowledge of the law. You further reinforce that point by constantly referring to what other people are saying as your argument. Your responses also demonstrate that you are also a part of the problem.

* - You have no idea what a frisk is and how it works, let alone the laws and rulings behind it.
* - You don't understand the difference between a law, a supreme court ruling and what policy and procedures / standard operating guidelines are.
* - You have argued, incorrectly, how the SCOTUS ruling on time delays on traffic stops works and how it applies.


You have a choice -
You can either spend the time learning and educating yourself or you can continue to willfully choose ignorance, and by extension allow your issues with law enforcement to continue to blind you.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you a US citizen?

Yes. Just did jury duty a couple of weeks ago.

They define the standard operating procedures for the agency in question. They are designed to standardize daily operations and to ensure that Officer A's actions are consistent with Officers B's actions are consistent with Officer C's actions.

Yes. That's what I said. Even his superiors say he violated policy. Since the Supreme Court ruling is based on the reasonableness of every step of the stop, the department has rules that make sure that one cops personal roid rage isn't justification for a wrongful arrest.

Not at all... If you are going to look at a situation they you must take into account ALL information, regardless if that information works in favor of or against any given argument.

The only reason for bringing the "she had marijuana in her system" to the table is to smear the character of the victim. It had nothing to do with why she was stopped or why officer "I'll Light You Up" arrested her.

A frisk is an external pat down of a suspect to ensure the individual does not have any weapons / contraband on their persons.

So, it's a search, then. Don't pee on my leg and tell it's raining!

Your the one trying to make an argument without adequate knowledge and understanding of the law.

I'm the one using my eyes and ears to determine the justification, from my perspective as an American citizen and motorist, of this officers actions, from beginning to end.

I'm the one bring forward professional opinions from people in the know, who were hired to educate the public and whose opinions are respected enough for them to have their articles published in mainstream media publication and broadcasts, WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU!

She is dead because she hung herself.

I don't believe that for one minute, either. But she never should have been arrested, in the first place.

I've been doing this for over 10 years in 2 states now. I am pretty confident in what I am saying.

I'm not confident in your assessments one little bit. If we sat on the same jury, your 10 years wouldn't mean squat to me. I find it troubling that you're so inured to this cops actions after ten years. If we sat on the same jury, there is no way you could convince me that this cops actions were justified...ever!

Apparently nobody can convince you what the actual law is either.

Do me a favor and fight with the officer at your next traffic stop and record it for us.

Remember to verbally exert your "knowledge of the law" during the encounter.

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: windword


Yes. Just did jury duty a couple of weeks ago.

ok....

originally posted by: windword
Yes. That's what I said. Even his superiors say he violated policy. Since the Supreme Court ruling is based on the reasonableness of every step of the stop, the department has rules that make sure that one cops personal roid rage isn't justification for a wrongful arrest.

No its not what you said. You are trying to argue he broke the law when he didn't. Policies / procedures / guidelines have nothing to do with the reasonableness standard. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he was having "roid rage".

originally posted by: windword
The only reason for bringing the "she had marijuana in her system" to the table is to smear the character of the victim. It had nothing to do with why she was stopped or why officer "I'll Light You Up" arrested her.

Like what you are doing by claiming the officer was having roid rage with nothing to support your claim? Secondly, your ignorance is showing once again. What if she had drugs on her person? What if she had drugs in her car? You can be charged with DWI/OUI with marijuana. Those tests require a person to complete tasks while multitasking as well as bodily reaction to stimuli etc.

As I stated totality of circumstances. Its not a smear tactic, its a fact she had it in her system. Your use of roid rage though is an intentional smear. Does that make you a part of the problem? yup.

originally posted by: windword
So, it's a search, then. Don't pee on my leg and tell it's raining!

No a frisk is not a search. I provided you with the difference and explained it. Here let me show you how you are wrong.

* - Stop and Frisk
Stop and Frisk is a result of Terry vs Ohio. A frisk is not a search and is not covered by the 4th amendment.
* - A search is intrusive and falls under the 4th amendment.

Absent a warrant an officer must have -
* - Consent to search
* - Plain view contraband
* - Search incident to arrest
* - etc etc etc.

A frisk is not a search and the Supreme Court has stated as much in their rulings establishing the case law.

originally posted by: windword
I'm the one using my eyes and ears to determine the justification, from my perspective as an American citizen and motorist, of this officers actions, from beginning to end.

But you are not. You are ignoring the laws and rulings that govern the officers actions. You don't understand the difference between laws, rulings and policies. You refuse to accept factual information if it doesn't support your incorrect view (which is why your view is incorrect I might add).

When reviewing officer actions it cannot be viewed in a 20/20 hindsight manner. The standard set by SCOTUS is what did the officer perceive when force was used. Since the officer nor suspect has the benefit of hindsight, information after the fact cannot be used to judge officer actions.

Your citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with officer actions.

originally posted by: windword
I'm the one bring forward professional opinions from people in the know, who were hired to educate the public and whose opinions are respected enough for them to have their articles published in mainstream media publication and broadcasts, WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU!

Actually you aren't bringing any professional opinions. What you are bringing is legal strategies based on how each individual would prosecute or defend. You are not understanding the difference between law enforcement functions and judicial proceedings. A lawyer is a member of the Judicial branch where as Law Enforcement is a member of the executive branch. Our functions on the road are completely different than a court room.

A court room is exactly the place where a person who does not like the law or thinks the officers actions are wrong / illegal to be argued - NOT roadside.

Secondly the problem is you are trying to use their positions to formulate your own argument, which is lacking in truth and understanding.

originally posted by: windword
I don't believe that for one minute, either. But she never should have been arrested, in the first place.

Sure she should of. Why are you so insistent on ignoring law when it doesn't suit your argument? SCOTUS has ruled an individual can be arrested for minor traffic offenses.

Are you saying SCOTUS is right when it supports your position but wrong when it doesn't?

Again that is being a part of the problem.

originally posted by: windword
I'm not confident in your assessments one little bit. If we sat on the same jury, your 10 years wouldn't mean squat to me. I find it troubling that you're so inured to this cops actions after ten years. If we sat on the same jury, there is no way you could convince me that this cops actions were justified...ever!

To be honest im not all that concerned about your opinion of me. I know what I am talking about and have the training and experience to back it up. What do you have aside from someone elses opinion and your willful ignorance of law?

Lets see what the IA investigation turns up and argue from there. I will say though I have not seen any indication of criminal charges or an FBI civil rights investigation into the officers actions.

What happens if you are proven wrong? Is it your fault you are wrong or will you blame the talking heads on tv that you are using in this thread?

I am man enough to admit if I made a mistake / am wrong.

Are you?

a reply to: Xcathdra

No its not what you said. You are trying to argue he broke the law when he didn't. Policies / procedures / guidelines have nothing to do with the reasonableness standard.

It IS what I've been saying! He violated policy. He was NOT acting in a reasonable manner, according to his superiors. If he had followed the policies and procedure, in place to ensure that both the officers and citizens are protected, Sandra Bland would NOT have been arrested.

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence he was having "roid rage".

His actions reveal evidence of unreasonable rage. Are officers drug tested regularly for steroids? They should be!

What if she had drugs in her car? You can be charged with DWI/OUI with marijuana. Those tests require a person to complete tasks while multitasking as well as bodily reaction to stimuli etc.

The stop had nothing to to do with drugs or DUI. While the officer did exhibit signs of steroid use, Sandra Bland did not exhibit any behavior that would make us believe she was high on pot.

No a frisk is not a search.

Please. It's this kind of game playing that makes your opinion questionable.

frisk (frĭsk)
v. frisked, frisk·ing, frisks
v.tr.
To search (a person) for something concealed, especially a weapon, by passing the hands quickly over clothes or through pockets.

Actually you aren't bringing any professional opinions.

Yes I have. I've linked articles from CNN, LA Times, NY Post, ect. Plus some professional police officers opinions, I'll post again!

Here's what other cops have to say about him:

Unless I heard wrong, she was threatened with arrest because she refused to get out of the car. Pennsylvania v Mimms says that I can legally order anyone who is pulled over for a traffic violation to step out of the car. There's no requirement to have probable cause, or reasonable suspicion, or any specific reason whatsoever, beyond the original reason for the stop. If I tell somebody to get out of the car and they refuse, that's grounds for an arrest.
That being said, it looks to me like he took it to the next level (ordering her out of the car) because she didn't do what he told her to do and put the cigarette out. If that's the case, I'm not really on board with it. If you've got the ticket, warning, whatever already written, get her to sign it and go on. It's not worth turning a simple traffic stop into a major ordeal just because somebody wouldn't put a cigarette out.

This Trooper will be crucified . Its just not worth doing all this cause she had a cigarette and your about to hand her a warning ticket.
I am not saying he caused this but he will be painted as a racist trooper who dragged her out of her car for contempt of Cop and caused her to kill herself. People will scream that she was not a threat to him and the uncaring cops and jail deputies "killed" her.

Siiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhhhh.........
Dude, issue the f****n warning and move on. It's NOT WORTH IT. Prepare for the next # storm over THIS????? Our jobs aren't hard enough these days already....we're yankin females out of vehicles cause our ego got hurt cause she wouldn't tremble and put out the stupid cigarette????? Let's pose this question- suppose she had stepped out when he asked her to....THEN WHAT??? You were gonna scold her about the cigarette??? What was his plan?? What was going to be the purpose of pulling her out?
My opinion probably won't be popular on here but oh well. I'm as PRO-US Pro Police as anyone but I can recognize when we're being dumb. This was dumb. Even tho the death/suicide wasn't his fault-- The public perception and backlash is NOT worth it.

As a 20-year Army vet and former corrections officer, I can tell you that I have been in a lot of stressful confrontations. Never would I have conducted myself this way. That's not how you get results, unless that's exactly the results you're looking for.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cops-sandra-bland-video_55afd6d3e4b07af29d57291d?

The standard set by SCOTUS is what did the officer perceive when force was used.

The officer perceived "Contempt of Cop" and proceeded to punish Ms Bland for offending his ego.

What happens if you are proven wrong?

I won't be prove wrong. Justice may not be served, but I won't be proven wrong.

a reply to: windword

It's really not worth our time to continue this useless typing. These guys are authoritarians and nothing that can be said can change that. Only a real life experience can make any difference with them because their brains are washed with "Cops don't do wrong because they know the law."
You see, peons like us can't possibly "understand" the law from their viewpoint because we will never occupy the lofty position they hold.
These guys are so scared and pumped on chemicals that we the public can't imagine such a state of mind as theirs. They see everyone as a criminal needing to be taken to jail and any excuse, even failure to signal, deserves jail if we don't immediately fall to the ground and lick their boots on command. They will initiate violence to justify their overgrown egos and then claim the "suspect" was a threat!

originally posted by: windword


Please. It's this kind of game playing that makes your opinion questionable.

Ok so it is now evident that you are being intentionally ignorant while refusing to accept facts that contradict your failure just so you can argue. There is absolutely no point in correcting your mistakes since you refuse to learn while ignoring anything that does not support your fallacies.

When you want to learn come back and join the conversation. If all you want to do is be intentionally ignorant then that's all on you.

a reply to: diggindirt

Its not being authoritarian to know the law and how it applies. Its being incredibly and intentionally naïve to disregard factual information when it doesn't support a persons point of view.

You guys seem to ignore the concept of it taking 2 to tango. In this instance the reason for law enforcement contact in the first place was based on law violations she committed. I find it interesting that you guys ignore that and focus on law enforcement.

Has it not occurred that had she not broken the law she never would have been stopped?

Why is it so difficult for people to take the time to educate themselves on the law? Would it not be better to actually know and understand the law, even if you don't agree with it, in order to put yourself into a better position to change said law?

I see people bitch all the time about the law when its clear they don't know it. They refuse to read it and understand while having no issues bitching. Bitching alone doesn't fix things and you cant fix something you know nothing about.

^^
SPAMMER