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

[arkansasmimi]

REASONS FOR A STOP
Police officers may stop a motorists for these reasons:

>Traffic violations
>Probable cause to make an arrest
>Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on personal observations and information from other police officers, the police radio or a witness.
>Outstanding warrants.
>A police officer can also stop for minor infractions such as darkly tinted windows, inoperative equipment or failing to signal before a turn
http://www.seattle.gov/police/traffic/stops.htm

 

[arkansasmimi]

AUSTIN, TEXAS — The top boss over the Texas trooper who arrested Sandra Bland said there was reason to pull her over for failing to signal a lane change and told lawmakers Thursday that the trooper remains on the state payroll because the investigation is still playing out.

"There was a reason, if you look at it from a traffic violation standpoint," Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said, responding to sometimes pointed questions from lawmakers during a hearing at the state Capitol. "But again, I don't want to prejudge. I don't know what the trooper is going to say in terms of when he's interviewed. When the investigation is over with, I'll be able to assess."

He later told reporters that while he had not yet spoken to Trooper Brian Encinia, the Texas Rangers and FBI have interviewed the trooper
Read more at http://www.wral.com/texas-trooper-s...op-sandra-bland/14803465/#eZodE2BQpk7G1Q7T.99

 

[Montjoy]

REASONS FOR A STOP
Police officers may stop a motorists for these reasons:

rsbm

I'm not sure why you posted this -- it's not like people are disputing that he was legally entitled to pull her over. The issue for most here is how he treated her after he pulled her over. Making it seem like people are saying he wasn't allowed to pull her over seems to be deflecting from the main issue.

 

[human]

BBM: We are only supposed to discuss this case on this thread. Nobody was killed on this traffic stop.

Um, I am talking about things that can get you killed on a traffic stop like reaching for your license in a glove box, for instance.

Things that the average person would not think about as we are taught LE is your friend from friendly officer visits at school.

As a teacher, many of my families had police interactions. I wanted the children to not fear the police so every year I had an officer come to class and do some fun things with the kids. They all got a fake badge and a look into the police car.

I had no idea a person could die on a traffic stop doing the wrong moves until I heard and saw some very disturbing interactions a few years ago. That perked me right up.

 

[Lilibet]

There is no reason people would know this. Is it taught in Driver's Ed now? Is it on the written test for your permit? How would anyone know what there rights and the rights of LE are?

I was curious about your very good question so I looked up the Drivers' Manuals for TX, IL as well as my own state of OR. All of them have instructions about what to do during a traffic stop. The instructions for IL, where SB has/had a license (and traffic offenses) were the most comprehensive about the rights and responsibilities of both LE and the driver. (See page 83 of the PDF linked below. It won't let me copy/paste). TX (page 66) was the least comprehensive and OR (not linked) was in the middle.

I will admit that most of us don't read the entire manual very often, but the information is available. I'm glad I reviewed it for my home state. I'm going to take a look at bordering states too.

https://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a112.pdf

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/Forms/DL-7.pdf

 

[human]

It is ones responsibility to know what ones rights are I guess. Especially if one is going to say they know their rights. Especially with so much avail at our finger tips. Google is amazing. I am learning all kinds of stuff following these cases.

How many people follow these cases? How many are responding on here?

I never thought I needed to know my rights as I am an American and did not live in a police state. Believe me, the average person is livng their life and not worried about their rights.

 

[human]

I was curious about your very good question so I looked up the Drivers' Manuals for TX, IL as well as my own state of OR. All of them have instructions about what to do during a traffic stop. The instructions for IL, where SB has/had a license (and traffic offenses) were the most comprehensive about the rights and responsibilities of both LE and the driver. (See page 83 of the PDF linked below. It won't let me copy/paste). TX (page 66) was the least comprehensive and OR (not linked) was in the middle.

I will admit that most of us don't read the entire manual very often, but the information is available. I'm glad I reviewed it for my home state. I'm going to take a look at bordering states too.

https://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a112.pdf

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/Forms/DL-7.pdf

Wow. Who knew! Not me. Maybe I was taught that almost 50 years ago?

I was helping a parent of a child I had in school try to pass her permit test. I got the rules of the road book for her.

She failed it a couple of times . I found a practice test online. I took it and could not pass it. A lot has changed since I took the test 50 years ago. No freeways where I lived. All the new signs that we do not have in the city where I lived.

Look online for a permit test where you live and see if you pass.

 

[arkansasmimi]

rsbm

I'm not sure why you posted this -- it's not like people are disputing that he was legally entitled to pull her over. The issue for most here is how he treated her after he pulled her over. Making it seem like people are saying he wasn't allowed to pull her over seems to be deflecting from the main issue.

Respectfully disagree, I have seen the Family Lawyer state that Trooper BE looked SB in the face an targeted her. Have seen multiple times here on WS members post that he had no right to pull her over, called it bogus reasons and so forth.

I have seen it posted that he couldn't legally have her step out of her car. That's not true either.

 

[human]

I was curious about your very good question so I looked up the Drivers' Manuals for TX, IL as well as my own state of OR. All of them have instructions about what to do during a traffic stop. The instructions for IL, where SB has/had a license (and traffic offenses) were the most comprehensive about the rights and responsibilities of both LE and the driver. (See page 83 of the PDF linked below. It won't let me copy/paste). TX (page 66) was the least comprehensive and OR (not linked) was in the middle.

I will admit that most of us don't read the entire manual very often, but the information is available. I'm glad I reviewed it for my home state. I'm going to take a look at bordering states too.

https://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a112.pdf

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/internetforms/Forms/DL-7.pdf

Illinois. Very excellent. I imagine there are questions on the permit test re traffic stops. That is great!

 

[KateB]

Sandra Bland and Samuel DuBose talked back to police -- and died
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/07/sandra_bland_samuel_dubose.html

Many of us caution one another, especially our children, to never backtalk cops. Some might advise a deferential silence because they believe the police are always deserving of respect. Others might give that advice because they've encountered violent police with super short fuses. Regardless of the reason, our highest court has said our deference isn't required. That court has said that our ability to give officers a piece of our mind distinguishes us from police states.

Link to the law resource page on the US Supreme Court ruling cited in this.

 

[arkansasmimi]

How many people follow these cases? How many are responding on here?

I never thought I needed to know my rights as I am an American and did not live in a police state. Believe me, the average person is livng their life and not worried about their rights.

Respectfully, just because the average person is living their life and not worried about their rights, means nothing, legally. It means something to you if you happen to find yourself in a situation where you should have. That's why lawyers have booming businesses. JMHO

 

[Lilibet]

How many people follow these cases? How many are responding on here?

I never thought I needed to know my rights as I am an American and did not live in a police state. Believe me, the average person is livng their life and not worried about their rights.

Most people don't know their rights (or responsibilities) because they haven't had a reason to google as we have here.

Of course, we don't live in a police state, but given the volatile times we are living in (on both sides of the law), IMO if someone is going to assert their rights with a policeman, it would be wise to know what those rights are...and aren't. I'm speaking generally in answer to your comment, not specifically about SB.

Slightly OT, but relevant IMO: It was interesting to read in the CA manual (pages 74-75) about enforcement stops. It said that the officer is concerned with your, your passengers' and his own safety. It explained that not exiting the vehicle unless instructed and keeping your and your passengers' hands in view helps the officer to not feel threatened, since most attacks on LE occur in those ways. I'm not relating this to SB or BE, but it emphasized to me that officers are under duress and we should try to do what we can to help them feel safe. And I would hope they would do the same, as they have in my limited experience. Sort of Golden Rule.

https://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf

 

[human]

Most people don't know their rights (or responsibilities) because they haven't had a reason to google as we have here.

Of course, we don't live in a police state, but given the volatile times we are living in (on both sides of the law), IMO if someone is going to assert their rights with a policeman, it would be wise to know what those rights are...and aren't. I'm speaking generally in answer to your comment, not specifically about SB.

Slightly OT, but relevant IMO: It was interesting to read in the CA manual (pages 74-75) about enforcement stops. It said that the officer is concerned with your, your passengers' and his own safety. It explained that not exiting the vehicle unless instructed and keeping your and your passengers' hands in view helps the officer to not feel threatened, since most attacks on LE occur in those ways. I'm not relating this to SB or BE, but it emphasized to me that officers are under duress and we should try to do what we can to help them feel safe. And I would hope they would do the same, as they have in my limited experience. Sort of Golden Rule.

https://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl600.pdf

Once again I am very impressed. Great that they have this in the manual, I wonder when these things were put into manuals?

 

[Montjoy]

We've read over and over here about how people should be more respectful of the police. I'd have a much easier time supporting that sentiment if the police could be more respectful of the rights of the American public. After all, they're the paid, professional public servants in their encounters with citizens. I mean, what are they paid to do if not protect people, and that means first and foremost protecting and respecting their rights.

"To serve and protect" should be more than a catchphrase.

 

[KateB]

Sandra complied with all the driver's handbook rules (less the turn signal violation, of course.) until asked to put out her cigarette, didn't she? At the point BE pulls his taser and threatens to light her up, goes beyond the DMV handbook.

MOO.

 

[BellaVita]

Sandra Bland and Samuel DuBose talked back to police -- and died
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/07/sandra_bland_samuel_dubose.html

Link to the law resource page on the US Supreme Court ruling cited in this.

Not sure about SD yet, but I'm sure about SB. She died because she killed herself, not because she talked back to a police officer. Such headlines are untruthful and inflammatory. In the case of SB, no basis in fact at all.

 

[Montjoy]

Sandra complied with all the driver's handbook rules (less the turn signal violation, of course.) until asked to put out her cigarette, didn't she? At the point BE pulls his taser and threatens to light her up, goes beyond the DMV handbook.

MOO.

I seem to think that the officer asked her "Do you mind putting out your cigarette?", so it wasn't even an order. Even if it was an order, I'm not sure that it was a legal order while she was still in the car and, so far as she knew, not under arrest.

The officer ramped up his hostility from 0-60 in about half of a second. I've seen more self-restraint from drunk steroid abusers in a rugby match.

 

[KateB]

Not sure about SD yet, but I'm sure about SB. She died because she killed herself, not because she talked back to a police officer. Such headlines are untruthful and inflammatory. In the case of SB, no basis in fact at all.

It is based on that she never should have been taken to jail for a minor traffic violation. It does appear that by talking back, she incited BE to pull his taser and violate her civil rights. Her mental illness resulting in the suicide may not would have happened if BE had respected her rights to express her opinion. That does not come from any DMV handbook, either.

 

[JeannaT]

I've followed this case from the very beginning, since I am in Texas and it's been huge news here.

Here's the deal (and maybe some other posters have said this too, I haven't read the whole 12 pages).

You don't backchat a cop. You don't backchat a coach, a sports referee, a teacher, a principal, a TSA officer, an IRS official, a bouncer, a judge, or a cop. You aren't on an equal footing in the relationship. They have command of the situation, and can't be expected to have to cajole/plead with/convince people to do what they are being asked to do and offer explanations for their requests. We as a society have kind of forgotten that people in certain positions are to be obeyed when they tell you what to do. Within reason. And although this cop was a jerk and pulled her over for not using a turn signal, he was giving her a warning and not a ticket. At which point she started backchatting him and then when he requested that she put the cigarette out (kind of an unreasonable jerky thing to ask, he really didn't need her to do it) she flat refused him and then refused to get out of the car when told to exit the vehicle.

These aren't two citizens on equal footing, one telling the other what to do. This is a cop telling her to do this. What would our public places be like, if everytime a cop told someone to go sit on the curb, vacate the location, etc. got backchat and refusal to cooperate? Bedlam is what.

It's a great skill, really, knowing when to shut your mouth. She should have shut her mouth, put out her cigarette, taken her warning ticket and left. And maybe written something to the police chief about being treated disrespectfully.

If all the cops who were jerks were all fired, we wouldn't have enough cops to do their job.

That is certainly a skill I've taught my kids. Shut your mouth. Don't go on and on and on refusing to get out of the car, and saying ooohhhhhhhh, I can't WAIT to see you in court, ooohhh, I can't wait til this goes to court.

Sad that her family wouldn't come bail her out before tragically she killed herself.

 

[Montjoy]

If all the cops who were jerks were all fired, we wouldn't have enough cops to do their job.

rsbm -

I agree with you on this point. But I don't see keeping and promoting all of the jerks as a solution that the US should be proud of.