Young woman changes lane without signal found dead in jail

[Jim Beaux]

This news article explains the smoking well.

http://www.cbs46.com/story/29620302/can ... ulled-over" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, what I got from the article was comply or suffer the wrath of abuse of power. Its simple if you dont have the authority to ask some not to smoke then you dont ask, period. The analogy of a 911 call is bogus as a paid public employee they have a job as a citizen we have expectations of the job being done. That being said I dont smoke so no biggie and I do teach my kids to comply, only to avoid the abuse of power or in some cases the unnecessary use of power which my son finds out every time he shoots off his mouth. He's a slow learner I guess.

He didn't abuse his power, he was well within his rights as a peace officer. You can flex your rights during a stop and so can LEOs. Police do have the right to have you step out and can arrest for a simple traffic violation. All this woman had to do was comply and she would have drove off with a warning that should could have later made into a paper airplane.

True, but did he have the right to ask her to put out cigarette?

As I see it, it was the LEO's professional opinion this incident could be addressed with nothing more than a Warning. Then he felt slighted & pursued a personal agenda to teach Bland who was the boss. He reacted due to emotion - it was a "Who do you think you are? Im the boss and you have to do as I say".

"Transactional Analysis " Is a theory that defines the 3 facets of our ego, parent/adult/child.

When anger or despair dominates reason, the Child is in control.

http://www.businessballs.com/transact.htm

[ShootDontTalk]

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.

[thenick_ttu]

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.

very well put

[carlson1]

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.

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.

[jmra]

Experts: Sandra Bland's toxicology report raises possibility she used marijuana in jail
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/28/ex ... ijuana-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She either used in jail or was such a heavy user that the drug had accumulated in her system and released at a much slower rate than normal. At the time of her death she had 3 times the legal amount set for drivers in CO.

[suthdj]

This news article explains the smoking well.

http://www.cbs46.com/story/29620302/can ... ulled-over" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, what I got from the article was comply or suffer the wrath of abuse of power. Its simple if you dont have the authority to ask some not to smoke then you dont ask, period. The analogy of a 911 call is bogus as a paid public employee they have a job as a citizen we have expectations of the job being done. That being said I dont smoke so no biggie and I do teach my kids to comply, only to avoid the abuse of power or in some cases the unnecessary use of power which my son finds out every time he shoots off his mouth. He's a slow learner I guess.

He didn't abuse his power, he was well within his rights as a peace officer. You can flex your rights during a stop and so can LEOs. Police do have the right to have you step out and can arrest for a simple traffic violation. All this woman had to do was comply and she would have drove off with a warning that should could have later made into a paper airplane.

True, but did he have the right to ask her to put out cigarette?

Let me modify this from "right" to authority to tell or order he to put out her cigarette, to make a little clearer.

[baldeagle]

Let me modify this from "right" to authority to tell or order he to put out her cigarette, to make a little clearer.

He never ordered her to put out her cigarette. He asked her and said please. When she refused and gave him lip, he ordered her out of the car. That was a lawful order.

[ShootDontTalk]

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.

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?

[talltex]

He didn't abuse his power, he was well within his rights as a peace officer. You can flex your rights during a stop and so can LEOs. Police do have the right to have you step out and can arrest for a simple traffic violation. All this woman had to do was comply and she would have drove off with a warning that should could have later made into a paper airplane.

As I see it, it was the LEO's professional opinion this incident could be addressed with nothing more than a Warning. Then he felt slighted & pursued a personal agenda to teach Bland who was the boss. He reacted due to emotion - it was a "Who do you think you are? Im the boss and you have to do as I say".

"Transactional Analysis " Is a theory that defines the 3 facets of our ego, parent/adult/child.

When anger or despair dominates reason, the Child is in control.

[

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

DING...DING...DING! we have a winner!
NIghtmare, there's a huge difference depending which position you are in...and I've been in both. The very words you chose to use: "flexing your rights", are indicative of the attitude..."i'll show her/him whose the boss!". If the officer chooses to flex HIS rights, you go to jail. If the civilian attempts to flex HIS/HER rights they will usually get a contempt of cop ticket at best or a more serious charge that's easy to make happen...resisting arrest. It's very plain when watching this video that the officers whole demeanor changes as soon as she starts to talk back to him. He asks her "would you mind putting out your cigarette while I'm talking to you", in a normal tone and when she tells him that she's in her car and she doesn't have to put it out, the officers attitude does a 180 and he begins to escalate the situation by telling her to get out of the car. She says 'what for, I don't have to get out of my car...I'm not under arrest". He then gets mad and jerks the door open saying "Well NOW you can get OUT of the car". As she argues, he starts yelling saying "you get out right now or I'll DRAG you out" several times then tells her "get out or I will light you up" with his Taser. The first day this story happened the DPS issued a statement before the video was ever released saying the officer was at fault and had violated departmental procedures. Sure, she was at fault for escalating it too, but she's not a trained LEO. She obviously had lots of issues, and I echo the question why her own family took no action to get her out of jail before she committed suicide. All that aside, there's no excuse for how quickly he overreacted and went from a warning ticket, to threatening to taze her and throwing her to the ground. He is a highly trained officer, schooled in de-escalation techniques, who is not supposed to lose his temper just because someone mouths off. This went south so fast it was like watching a couple of drunks start swinging pool cues over whose quarter was up next on the table. I can't understand the constant need to justify the actions of every officer that steps over the line. If he did the exact same thing to someone who did nothing but mouth off, and wasn't wearing a badge, he would be charged with aggravated assault.

[LSUTiger]

analysis of arrest tape from a former cop's perspective

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Keith B]

No indictment in this case

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/No-Ind ... 06801.html

A grand jury decided on Monday that no felony crime was committed by the sheriff's office or jailers in the treatment of a black woman who died in a Southeast Texas county jail last summer

[philip964]

DPS and Waller County pay 1.9 million to dead woman's family.

Same family that did not board a plane and come to Texas and bail her out of jail.

I would have let a jury decide.

[JALLEN]

DPS and Waller County pay 1.9 million to dead woman's family.

Same family that did not board a plane and come to Texas and bail her out of jail.

I would have let a jury decide.

Easy to say, unless you're the one writing the check.

I don't know how many times I've seen litigants reject settlement offers, and live to regret it.

It's a complex matrix of imponderables. What evidence will actually come in, what the make up of the jury wiil be, the demeanor and risk of impeachment of your witnesses and the strength of the case. You never really know how a case will go at trial.

They may have been looking at a risk of a hideously larger verdict. When
I was not yet a lawyer, working at a title insurance outfit, I expressed dissatisfaction with paying a man $40,000 for a missed quitclaim that resulted in a complete failure of title. The man had quitclaimed the property from his company to himself. The title searcher vested title in the company and the deed to the buyer was from the company. $40,000 was a lot of money back then. The property was a oceanfront site in the process of being developed into dozens of very expensive condos. The General Counsel patiently explained that $40,000 was cheap compared to having to pay more than $5 million after losing at trial, if we did lose, and potentially hundreds of thousands to try the case.

[3dfxMM]

I may be in the minority here, but to me, $40,000 is still a lot of money.