TX - Sandra Bland, 28, found dead in jail cell, Waller County, 13 July 2015 #3

[Cubby]

And he knew she had no lawyer? Do most people have a lawyer on their speed dial?

She could have called a referral service

I did not say whether or not he knew if she had a TX lawyer. imo, I think her dialing a lawyer was bs. Who decides they need a criminal lawyer in less than 24 hours after moving cross country? Addicts are liars, believe me as I have seen enough of them being in recovery myself. The decade or so of her court records and personal experince lead me to belive she is an addict. Plus, she was from the same county I am in.

 

[Cubby]

How did she smuggle it into jail?

You
misread my post. I said it was unlikely she smuggled it into jail. imo she had to use or ingest prior to being stopped.

 

[Confusion]

Keep listening, that wasn't a transcript of the full video.

As volatile as she was, the cigarette could have been used as a weapon blowing smoke in his face to interfere with his vision or poke him in the face with the lit end of the cigarette. It's not unheard of for abuse or assault victims to have burn marks on their body.

I've seen and heard the video several times. Some people keep saying that he had a right to order her out of the car, and arrest her, because of the language she was using. All the times I've heard it and the times I've read transcripts, I've never heard/seen her swear before she was forced out of the car and out of camera range.

 

[pepelepolecat]

There was some discussion about that in the press. In a live person, those THC levels translate to someone high. If that person hasn't used since 3 days ago, and that is residual, that person was what I would call heroically high. THC and metabolites ate stored in body fat. When a person dies, suddenly the amount of available THC increases as the body tissues break down. So quite difficult to correlate concentration after death to concentration before death.

I don't think anyone would deny SB used, but nothing supports she was high when pulled over.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

bbm -- interesting info. Thank you for this.

 

[Night-owl]

bbm -- interesting info. Thank you for this.

I think the study people were citing is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413259/

And wooo-doggies, that's some scintillating reading right there.
[emoji6]

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

I did not say whether or not he knew if she had a TX lawyer. imo, I think her dialing a lawyer was bs. Who decides they need a criminal lawyer in less than 24 hours after moving cross country? Addicts are liars, believe me as I have seen enough of them being in recovery myself. The decade or so of her jcourt records and personal experince lead me to belive she is an addict. Plus, she was from the same county I am in.

Someone who pays attention to the news, and as an activist she is well aware of current events and what police officers do and how much they're able to get away with. I say she undoubtedly had an attorney friend to call, and can't imagine why of all things she would lie about it.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you think the phone call to her lawyer was BS. I believe her. I also don't think she was an addict.

 

[Cubby]

Dupage county court records are online at dupagecase.com The site specifically says it is not for research and users for research risk losing access. Being in DuPage myself, I don't want to risk losing access, but I am sure if she hired an atty for her DuPage cases it would be listed.....

 

[bluesneakers]

Keep listening, that wasn't a transcript of the full video.

As volatile as she was, the cigarette could have been used as a weapon blowing smoke in his face to interfere with his vision or poke him in the face with the lit end of the cigarette. It's not unheard of for abuse or assault victims to have burn marks on their body.

He must have been so scared.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Someone who pays attention to the news, and as an activist she is well aware of current events and what police officers do and how much they're able to get away with. I say she undoubtedly had an attorney friend to call, and can't imagine why of all things she would lie about it.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you think the phone call to her lawyer was BS. I believe her. I also don't think she was an addict.

Even if she only had an attorney in Illinois, the attorney should have been able to put her in touch with someone who practiced in Texas. There's no evidence that she lied, and I can't think why she would, so I'll sit next to you on the believing bench.

 

[Cubby]

Part of SB's DUI conviction, if it occured in DuPage which I believe it did, would include a substance abuse screening, and somewhere the requirements of her sentencing, likely treatment and DuPage uses HAS on County Farm Rd. for outpatient treatment. It would be nice to know the sentencing and results of any court ordered substance abuse assesment. Of course it is MO that she was an addict and that is based on my successfully completing outpatient treatment and attending 12 step meetings. I wouldn't expect the average person who hasn't walked in those shoes, or someone who does not specialize in addiction treatment to recognize the signs addicts see in other addicts. Prior to treatment and recovery I did not recognize those signs. My sons father is still 'out there' as those in recovery say . I'm hoping to go back to school for a degree in an addiction related field.

 

[Night-owl]

Even if she only had an attorney in Illinois, the attorney should have been able to put her in touch with someone who practiced in Texas. There's no evidence that she lied, and I can't think why she would, so I'll sit next to you on the believing bench.

Why would you think it's a good idea to call anyone in the middle of a traffic stop? Like an attorney is going to tell you, "You tell that officer (and that jail warden, and that judge) what your rights are, you go woman!"

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[human]

If someone was treating me like that abusive BE, I would be locking my door and figuring out how to call an attorney.

LE where I lived tased a man and he died. Drunk. So drunk that he was totally out of it, My friend witnessed it in front of his store and called other LE to stop it.

 

[arkansasmimi]

He could have charged hee with both.... SB broke the law- and based on her history along with msm reporting the high thc I think she was thinking wtf was i doing. Substance abusers are very impulsive.... Her mouth running is clearly indicative of that impulsiveness.

He could have charged her with a good handful of diff things.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I think what has enraged so many around the world, including his employers is he went bonkers, Peroid - yeling. secreaming yanking her door open, cowering over he in her vehicle,while still screaming at her inside the car, physically yanking at her person , and screaming I am going to light you up - most reasonable folks, with allthat occurred very rapidly would scare anyone.

Is someone is lunging at a cop then maybe the taser being pulled might have been a bit ok, but screaming at a lady, who just by vertue of her being sitting and him cowering over her is scary as heck - especially wiht someone you know also has a gun.

We have it on video, we have him altering his version of events to his boss, in his report. The only thing we dont have is him off camera being supposedly kicked. I would think that if the arrest was cause a citizen kicked a cop, the prudent thing to do would be to take a picture of this alledged assulat, for later in court.

We have concrete data that he lies-peroid. imo
,

When the Trooper told her MULTIPLE times to get out of the car, she telling him she didnt have to and was reaching for something saying she was calling her lawyer.... all the time being non compliant. For all I know and possibly the Trooper too, she could have been reaching for a weapon. Just as the officer that was in the Today Show link, he said it was fine and your right to film the police, just dont make sudden moves and thats exactly what SB did.

 

[arkansasmimi]

SB's swearing rises to the level of verbal abuse and threats, IMO. She wasn't just swearing out of frustration-- she was clearly verbally abusing, baiting/ antagonizing, and threatening the officer, IMO. And escalating the situation.

She should have exercised her "right to remain silent", or at a minimum, faked some polite behavior. IMO, she is responsible for escalating the situation, and causing her own arrest. It's not like she hadn't been arrested before-- with her history, she should have been an "expert" at acting socially appropriately, to get out of trouble.

I'm glad she was arrested before she hurt someone else. Her history of nearly $8000 in unpaid traffic fines, substance abuse, and multiple traffic violations-- along with her impulsive, argumentative, and combative behavior makes me really glad she was off the streets.

Be that as it may, it's very sad and unfortunate she chose to commit an impulsive suicide 3 days later. I can't fathom why so many want to blame her suicide on the arresting officer-- but no one is criticizing the family members who wouldn't bail her out, and only a few find fault with the jail personnel. A lot of people want to pile on the arresting officer, but ignore how her own behavior rapidly escalated the situation from a simple stop, to an arrest.

People who want to make every encounter confrontational and oppositional have a very hard time moving smoothly and successfully through life-- they have trouble with a lot of social interactions, can't hold jobs, can't follow rules or laws, defy and combat any forms of authority, and generally live within a lot of self-induced chaos. IMO. (And that's leaving out the considerable compounding effects of substance abuse and mental illness.) Police officers are faced with dealing with these kinds of deeply dysfunctional people 24/7-- and they don't get to make any mistakes, lose their temper, or have a bad day.

Respectfully BBM, she did at 940 mark. LOL that didnt last After she was told to step out of the car, and telling him she didnt have to... 940/941 SB: I refuse to talk to you other than to identify myself

 

[arkansasmimi]

This was a warning stop, casue someone thought they were getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle coming up behind you fast. Riots, murders,rapes in progress, shooting require a different kind of response that a minor road incident. I saw three cars on the road - its not like her getting out the way caused a three car pileup - she moved, quickly, as we are required to do, she was thinking he needed her to let him pass, that makes sense, she says it at the onset

It was a traffic stop because she broke the law. Then she broke the law again when she refused multiple orders to get out of her car. Went as far as telling the officer she didnt have to, and telling him what he couldnt do. She was WRONG. She did have to get out when the Trooper instructed her to. No if an's or but's about it.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I totally agree, and I think that protecting your constitutional rights is a battle that's always worth fighting. If a neighbor, relative or even a stranger treated me with the disdain that BE showed SB, I could ignore it. If that same person were to try doing something or to make me do something that would violate my rights, I'd be just as likely to stand my ground as SB was during that stop. IMO, if you freely give up your rights in order to avoid a conflict, you're going to eventually find yourself without any rights.

MOO

How were her rights violated? Because he asked her to step out of the car??? He NOT Once said step out because you didnt put your cig out. Or give a reason why he asked her to step out. HE DID NOT HAVE TO. She was incorrect in her telling him she didnt have to. She was non compliant and then resisted many times. She had the right to remain silent. Heck she even said she was going to then in next breath broke that statement.

 

[Elisaa444]

BE was entirely unprofessional. At a minimum he should get a written reprimand and retrained. And I don't know what would make me confident in his ability to act w/o direct supervision. You can argue he should be fired, and I couldn't really disagree. He damn well should have known you don't give someone the opportunity to argue. Don't tell someone to do something (put out the cigarette) that you're not willing to enforce. I don't recall seeing anyone on this board saying that, wow, was one professional cop.

Was BE baiting SB? I would say IMO, yes. You can dangle a hook in front of me all day, but you have to bait it tons better than that for me to hit it. Was SB baiting BE? Again, IMO, yes. If my supervisor told me to put out my cigarette while she's talking to me and I came back with " I know my rights" and "I'm calling my lawyer", I'm probably fired. I don't for one second think SB was asserting her rights, she was pushing an issue.

Someone needed to be smart and in control in that situation. It could have been either of them. It was neither.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

1st BBM

I haven't seen anyone express that on this forum either because it would be just be too ridiculous.


2nd BBM

BE was on duty. BE was being paid to do his job at that traffic stop. BE was the trained LEO. He went through training as to how to handle all aspects of traffic stops. BE was trained to NOT escalate situations. He was trained to de-escalate situations. I don't care how many times Sandra Bland was stopped prior or how many violations she received. I don't care how many outstanding fines she had. Sandra Bland was not professionally trained in the do's and don'ts of a traffic stop. Therefore, IMO, it was BE's job to be the smart one and the one to maintain control of the situation. It was his job and only his job. I find it perplexing that one would hold Sandra Bland to a higher standard to be the "smart one" or the one to remain "in control" or even to hold her equally. BE is the LEO which means he is supposed to be the one who knows what to do in situations and what not to do. MOO.

In response to your post in general:

Right. I agree, if I responded that way to my supervisor I'd likely be fired too. But that is not how Sandra Bland responded when BE politely asked her "you mind putting out your cigarette please?"

She did not tell him that she was going to call an attorney. She did not say anything about her rights.

She asked him one question which was:

"Why do I have to put out my cigarette since I'm in my own car?"

Using your same example ...if my supervisor politely asked me to do something and I asked him a question regarding as to why do I need to do x, y or z - I would be in shock if he then fired me. I'm absolutely sure he would simply explain to me why he is asking and why I should do it. I'm confident in saying that any supervisor I've ever had would have no problem with me asking them a question. I was always taught from a young age "there is no such thing as a dumb question."

I'm a very detailed person. So, when I post about the exchanges between BE and Sandra Bland I literally follow exactly what was said and when. When he asks her to please put out her cigarette that is not when she brings up contacting an attorney. The ONLY thing she says after he asks her to put out her cigarette is the question as to why. She brings up contacting an attorney after BE orders her to exit her vehicle. When he tells her to get out of her car that is when she says something to the effect of "you can't do that. " But, again all of that was done AFTER he says "Well, you can get out of the car.."

** The above is my opinion only. Your may vary. I respect all opinions and views just the same. "

 

[JeannaT]

You must be very young, if you think cops are more respectful and restrained now.

The first time I was ever pulled over, if you can even call it that. I was making a right turn and I heard a car horn beep. I looked over and saw a police car beside me. I rolled down my window, and the cop called to me, "One of your brake lights is out. Please get it fixed as soon as you can". I said, "Oh thanks, I dind't know.", and he drove off. In those days if a cop stopped me to question me, they would ask me if I would mind answering a few questions. Then they would ask one or two quick questions, and that would be it.

Fast-forward 30 years later and the cops are pulling me over and giving me tickets for every stupid little thing they can think of. Ordering me out of my car, hand cuffing me, searching my car without my consent, threatening me. I could go on with endless examples of how cops are worse today then ever before. People are not getting fed up with the police, because they are becoming more respectful.



It would be nice if that is the way it worked, but that is not the case. Cops are murdering people, even when they know they are being recorded. Cops today just don't care.

No, I'm not young. I guess every body has their own experiences with cops then and now, and my experiences then was that you could get the daylights beaten out of you for nothing. It does seem true that there have been a lot of shootings of citizens by police in the news recently, but almost all of them have been doing things I can't believe they'd have the brass to do. Grabbing a cop's gun, dragging a cop who was half in their vehicle, pulling a gun on a cop, etc. It's true that there are some innocent people who have been shot, but not that many. Usually they're in an altercation. With a cop. Which used to be called "suicide by cop".

Maybe it's just because I spent time in small towns, but you avoided cops when I was a young adult. Look at your shoes, and keep moving. At Gruene Hall (oldest dance hall in Texas) cops hung out there at closing time looking for young men to brutalize. Same thing with BoHickey's in south east Texas. You walk out of there and look a little defenseless and you'll get your face smashed in by cops. I certainly remember WELL Rodney King, and the only reason it made news is because there was video. This kind of stuff happened ALL THE TIME off camera. I remember well the Abner Louima case, in NYC, where a compliant Black man had his bowels removed with a broom handle while everyone in the station looked the other way to his panicked screams. And when his brother came in to file a complaint, he was dismissed and threatened. It wasn't until the media got involved, that anyone cared.

I remember this stuff. I certainly don't see anything AT ALL like this happening now. There are shootings, but when you rewind what happened, it's not much of a surprise that the suspect gets shot. Of course, there were great cops, before, and bad ones, and there still are great ones and bad ones. It was just accepted - from what I saw - for cops to brutalize suspects just for the shear pleasure of it.

 

[Confusion]

How were her rights violated? Because he asked her to step out of the car??? He NOT Once said step out because you didnt put your cig out. Or give a reason why he asked her to step out. HE DID NOT HAVE TO. She was incorrect in her telling him she didnt have to. She was non compliant and then resisted many times. She had the right to remain silent. Heck she even said she was going to then in next breath broke that statement.

I'm not going to sit here and argue about how my opinions and perceptions differ from someone else's, but I will say that I don't believe that he had the right to grab her and/or try to yank her out of her car. I also don't believe (not quite as firmly, but enough to state it) that he had the right to point his taser at her and threaten to use it when she was sitting in her car, had not threatened him in anyway (other than with a call to her lawyer), and hadn't even raised her voice much. He had already called for back up by that time, and he should have just waited for it or let her leave since their business was already completed once he gave her the warning.

MOO