TexasCHLforum.com

carlson1 wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote: As to the Trooper having a "right" to ask her to put out a cigarette, I say yes. He had the "right" to ask her to buy him a hamburger. Would her refusal be a cause for arrest? Obviously not. Those are not lawful orders.

Did he have the "right" to order her to step out of the car? Absolutely. That was a lawful order. Would her refusal be grounds for arrest? Maybe, but without the element of force, the charges would probably have been dropped. Her use of force changed everything. I still want to wait to hear from the Rangers.

No he did not have a right according to what Mr. Cotton describes.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Folks, we need to be careful about using the word "right" when we actually are asking whether something was unlawful. In a legal setting, a "right" refers to the ability to act or not act that is protected by a constitution or statute. The Trooper didn't have a "right" to ask her to put out her cigarette, but it wasn't unlawful.

Chas.

Thus the quotations. Nowhere in the law or Constitution does it state a law enforcement officer cannot speak to a citizen unless he is issuing lawful orders. The First Amendment does not cease to be in effect for him the moment he puts on the badge. He may ask the time of day; where you've been; where you're going; do you have anything in the vehicle I should know about, I see you carry a Glock, on and on. I would expect that you can state fairly reasonably that those words are his "right" under the First Amendment.

It seems to me it is important only to differentiate between ordinary reasonable First Amendment communication between two citizens and orders from the one with authority to give lawful orders which carry the force of law.

I believe the crux of this argument, and perhaps I'm hearing it wrong, is whether the request to put out the cigarette was a lawful order which she was bound by law to obey or not, and was her refusal grounds for arrest. I maintain that his request was simply ordinary reasonable conversation between himself and a citizen. I believe he knew it was, and also knew he had no grounds for arrest because no lawful order had been given. I maintain that he has the "right" to use any investigative tool, including free speech, not prohibited as being unlawful. I have witnessed veteran officers use that tool many times in person.

The officer had a Constitutional "right" to speak to Ms. Bland. She had the same "right" to ignore him or respond. His "right" bore no more weight of law than hers. If she were arrested for "failure to obey" his polite conversational request, then I believe we have a miscarriage of justice.

He asked her a simple polite question. She refused to answer. He issued a simple lawful order. Again she refused using force. Why are we making this so complicated?

Maybe I'm wrong here. The incident began with a request (which was framed as such and not a command - look at the transcript) to put out the cigarette.

I think the Trooper knew her criminal history at this point (because he had already "run" her DL) and he was looking to see if she would be compliant or not, possibly indicating some need for further investigation into possible criminal activity. We don't know, but it seems a reasonable person, knowing her prior criminal history, would be suspicious.

When she refused the request, he issued a lawful command to step out of the car. There is case law to support that as a lawful command.

At that point the ball was in her court. She could have obeyed the lawful command and stepped out. It appears she refused and went so far as to use force in resisting inside the car as the Trooper had to reach inside. We cannot see inside the car in the video, so we cannot say for sure that she did or didn't use force. Since she took her own life, we'll never hear her side. In the absence of any physical injuries, the Trooper's word is all we have.

If she used an element of force to resist a lawful order (to step out) at that point, the Trooper had grounds to arrest her for resisting arrest. Not simply because she refused, but because she used an element of force, which is necessary to support the resisting charge.

At this point, I believe a reasonable person might prepare to take his use of force to the next level to get her to comply with his lawful order to step out and her resistance using an element of force. So he drew a taser. His verbal statement was obviously not in line with policy.

Am I just seeing all this wrong, or is there a reasonable possibility of it happening this way?

As to the Trooper having a "right" to ask her to put out a cigarette, I say yes. He had the "right" to ask her to buy him a hamburger. Would her refusal be a cause for arrest? Obviously not. Those are not lawful orders.

Did he have the "right" to order her to step out of the car? Absolutely. That was a lawful order. Would her refusal be grounds for arrest? Maybe, but without the element of force, the charges would probably have been dropped. Her use of force changed everything. I still want to wait to hear from the Rangers.

I think before everyone jumps to assumptions, which usually ends with predictable results, that we should go re-read this thread. It is the very discussion being carried on about "lawful orders." This is not as simple an issue as is usually talked about today.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8297" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something else crossed my mind. Ms. Bland had prior arrests. The Trooper probably knew of these. He was not dealing with a complete unknown. I'm pretty sure this information comes up when running a DL through NCIC on a laptop in the cruiser.

He might have been slightly suspicious and asked her politely about the cigarette to "test the waters" of compliance. When she reacted the way she did, his suspicion level was raised.

When he asked her to step out and she refused, it appears she may have used FORCE to resist inside the car, thus grounds for arrest - if he wanted to push it. It seemed to me that he might not have wanted to as they reached the curb. He had discretion to not push the issue. From there the situation went south. However, no one did anything to hurt or injure her - as can be seen.

The family has entered into this ridiculous narrative that the police killed her because everyone should know that police cannot arrest or in any way impede anything certain groups of people want to do. Make no mistake though. I believe the evidence here will prove she is dead of her own hand.

And yes, these are assumptions on my part subject to predictable results.

cb1000rider wrote: I can't tell if that's a joke or not about Obama.
If you're saying that she shouldn't have "assaulted" a police officer and she'd still be alive, then I take issue with that. No one deserves to die for that offense.

Let's at least clear up one thing. People do not hang themselves because someone else forced them to. Suicide is very much a crime against oneself. Always has been, always will be. That woman is not dead because of a neck injury sustained during her arrest. She is not dead because she assaulted a police officer. She is dead because she hung herself. Playing with words won't change that fact. It appears, from what little evidence we have, that she hung herself.

Would you hang yourself because you thought you were wrongly arrested?

No one suggested anyone should die for assaulting a police officer. I trust you practice the same restraint.

A police officer has every right to not be assaulted, just like you do. The officers appear to have done considerably less than some civilians would have done in the same circumstances.

She was arrested for her behavior towards others. She appears to be dead because of her behavior toward herself.

Seems to me what is causing the media attention on this is a very very small group of police officers that are getting caught by technology (cameras) and the camera tells a very different story than the police report. Sorry, but we all wonder how long that's been going on.

Well you're going to have to enlighten me about what I missed in the video. How are other incidents linked to this case?

Let's let the investigation run its course. I have all the confidence in the world that the Texas Rangers will determine the truth.