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

[wendiesan]

And I will stand by my statement and say sometimes you are far better of to remain civil and behave respectfully, even when you know you're in the right and the other person is not.

If I actually throttled the daylights out of someone every time I fight off the urge, this would be a much harsher world. I don't act on every impulse. No one should. Had two people been in better control of them selves, Sandra Bland would not have been in jail that day.

One really solid rule of dealing with conflict: It is very easy to escalate. Once escalated, it is much less easy to bring a situation back down. Someone needs to stay on top of their actions. If not the other person, it needs to be you, keeping cool for both sides.

If someone wants to engage in some civil disobedience, power to them. Changing how people see things is hard and necessary work. It is still civil disobedience. I have doubts Rosa Parks would have made such a powerful figure if she was shrieking "pussy!" at everyone at the time.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

When I looked at the video, and listened to and read comments about what happened, I thought you were being very, very generous to BE who had been "trolling" behind the victim, Sandra Bland (she was the victim of a violent arrest don't forget) and forced her to make the lane change so that he could have grounds to arrest her.

BE, IMO, had already decided he was going to make an arrest and get his quota made, and there was nothing Sandra Bland could have done to change it.
IMO, BE was looking for a response, and if he didn't get one through his nasty, unprofessional manner, he'd force one physically.

Sandra Bland was polite to him while she was in the car. He forced the issues, and he was not going to let her go. No matter how polite she was. It would not have mattered. He did not follow his training or correct procedures.

BE forced her to change lanes, thereby starting the incident.
BE unlawfully told Sandra Bland to put out her cigarette.
BE unlawfully demanded that Sandra get out of her car without giving her a reason.
BE refused to tell Sandra the charge on which she was being arrested.
BE held a taser to her face and threatened to light her up. If that thing had gone off accidentally she would, at the very least, have suffered catastrophic brain damage. He was not using a dangerous weapon in an authorized manner.
BE changed his story about the manner in which he claimed he had been assaulted.
BE slammed Sandra's head into the ground.
BE hurt Sandra's wrist.
When told of Sandra's medical condition, BE said "good".

IMO, Sandra was angry and frightened, and, after the recent series of situations in which unarmed black people have been assaulted (a 14 year old girl in a bikini was considered a threat by one gun carrying cop) or killed by LEOs, few could blame her. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who has been tailgated, bullied and told she is under arrest by a man who will not tell her what she is being charged with to just be cool and polite.

Perhaps BE should not have bellowed demands or shrieked that he was going to light Sandra up with his taser. I certainly don't think that made him a particularly powerful figure either.

Sandra Bland did not attack BE. BE is not a victim.
Sandra Bland was the victim.
BE instigated and escalated this fiasco every step of the way because, IMO, he wanted the result: meeting his arrest quota.

However, I will agree with you that someone at the scene could have and, I think, should have kept her cool and de-escalated the rapidly deteriorating situation.
She had the knowledge, the skills, the power and authority of her badge to do it.

And that person utterly failed to do what she had a duty to do, had been trained to do, and was being paid to do.

BE's partner failed to do her job. By not by not upholding the laws as she was sworn to do, IMO, she let down Sandra Bland, she let down her department, and she let down the citizens of Waller County.

 

[bluesneakers]

When I looked at the video, and listened to and read comments about what happened, I thought you were being very, very generous to BE who had been "trolling" behind the victim, Sandra Bland (she was the victim of a violent arrest don't forget) and forced her to make the lane change so that he could have grounds to arrest her.

BE, IMO, had already decided he was going to make an arrest and get his quota made, and there was nothing Sandra Bland could have done to change it.
IMO, BE was looking for a response, and if he didn't get one through his nasty, unprofessional manner, he'd force one physically.

Sandra Bland was polite to him while she was in the car. He forced the issues, and he was not going to let her go. No matter how polite she was. It would not have mattered. He did not follow his training or correct procedures.

BE forced her to change lanes, thereby starting the incident.
BE unlawfully told Sandra Bland to put out her cigarette.
BE unlawfully demanded that Sandra get out of her car without giving her a reason.
BE refused to tell Sandra the charge on which she was being arrested.
BE held a taser to her face and threatened to light her up. If that thing had gone off accidentally she would, at the very least, have suffered catastrophic brain damage. He was not using a dangerous weapon in an authorized manner.
BE changed his story about the manner in which he claimed he had been assaulted.
BE slammed Sandra's head into the ground.
BE hurt Sandra's wrist.
When told of Sandra's medical condition, BE said "good".

IMO, Sandra was angry and frightened, and, after the recent series of situations in which unarmed black people have been assaulted (a 14 year old girl in a bikini was considered a threat by one gun carrying cop) or killed by LEOs, few could blame her. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who has been tailgated, bullied and told she is under arrest by a man who will not tell her what she is being charged with to just be cool and polite.

Perhaps BE should not have bellowed demands or shrieked that he was going to light Sandra up with his taser. I certainly don't think that made him a particularly powerful figure either.

Sandra Bland did not attack BE. BE is not a victim.
Sandra Bland was the victim.
BE instigated and escalated this fiasco every step of the way because, IMO, he wanted the result: meeting his arrest quota.

However, I will agree with you that someone at the scene could have and, I think, should have kept her cool and de-escalated the rapidly deteriorating situation.
She had the knowledge, the skills, the power and authority of her badge to do it.

And that person utterly failed to do what she had a duty to do, had been trained to do, and was being paid to do.

BE's partner failed to do her job. By not by not upholding the laws as she was sworn to do, IMO, she let down Sandra Bland, she let down her department, and she let down the citizens of Waller County.

Clicking thanks simply wasn't enough. THANK YOU for this post.

 

[DeDee]

This is such a tragic case. Indeed it is sad.

RE the order to out out the cigarette: Smoking has become against most policy in many of our communities. For the doubt, let's say the PO was allergic to the smoke.

RE the order to put down her phone: In the full video, while still inside of her vehicle, she warns the PO that she is calling her lawyer.

RE the lack of bail being posted: Why could she not raise the bail required? Did she not have a friend or family member with a credit card? IIRC, she was being held on a $5000 bond, which in my state means she's out after posting 10% or $500. I would have used the title to my vehicle as collateral, if need be.

RE the PO over-reacting: In the full video that begins with the last car the PO stopped, he is quite cordial to the driver as he issues a warning. Sandra was also being issued a warning not a citation.

Personal experience: Three years ago, one cold winter's morning, in my quiet neighborhood, I came to a "California" or a rolling stop before turning left. PO was behind my car so quickly, I didn't see where he came from. His first words to me were, and I quote, "You just ran my stop sign." I was thinking, WTH, his stop sign? But I said, "I apologize, Officer." The investigation concluded with a warning. For the record, I never use rolling stops any more, even in my quiet neighborhood.

I am very interested in Sandra's claim of epilepsy. Was she on medication for it? Doing without it for three days would not be a good thing. I have a friend who has epilepsy. Back in the ole days, if the TV went off the air and became fuzzy dots, it would trigger an attack. She also suffers from severe migraines that put her in the bed in a dark room with no noise for hours, sometimes for days. Could florescent lights of the jail trigger an epilepsy or severe migraine attack?

I agree with SB. All of this for not signaling for a lane change? However, I was taught in driver's ed to always signal for turns even while at traffic lights and lane changes. It's also illegal to change lanes while driving under a green light as your vehicle is required to clear the intersection first.

JMHO, as always

 

[Norwegian]

When I looked at the video, and listened to and read comments about what happened, I thought you were being very, very generous to BE who had been "trolling" behind the victim, Sandra Bland (she was the victim of a violent arrest don't forget) and forced her to make the lane change so that he could have grounds to arrest her.

BE, IMO, had already decided he was going to make an arrest and get his quota made, and there was nothing Sandra Bland could have done to change it.
IMO, BE was looking for a response, and if he didn't get one through his nasty, unprofessional manner, he'd force one physically.

Sandra Bland was polite to him while she was in the car. He forced the issues, and he was not going to let her go. No matter how polite she was. It would not have mattered. He did not follow his training or correct procedures.

BE forced her to change lanes, thereby starting the incident.
BE unlawfully told Sandra Bland to put out her cigarette.
BE unlawfully demanded that Sandra get out of her car without giving her a reason.
BE refused to tell Sandra the charge on which she was being arrested.
BE held a taser to her face and threatened to light her up. If that thing had gone off accidentally she would, at the very least, have suffered catastrophic brain damage. He was not using a dangerous weapon in an authorized manner.
BE changed his story about the manner in which he claimed he had been assaulted.
BE slammed Sandra's head into the ground.
BE hurt Sandra's wrist.
When told of Sandra's medical condition, BE said "good".

IMO, Sandra was angry and frightened, and, after the recent series of situations in which unarmed black people have been assaulted (a 14 year old girl in a bikini was considered a threat by one gun carrying cop) or killed by LEOs, few could blame her. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who has been tailgated, bullied and told she is under arrest by a man who will not tell her what she is being charged with to just be cool and polite.

Perhaps BE should not have bellowed demands or shrieked that he was going to light Sandra up with his taser. I certainly don't think that made him a particularly powerful figure either.

Sandra Bland did not attack BE. BE is not a victim.
Sandra Bland was the victim.
BE instigated and escalated this fiasco every step of the way because, IMO, he wanted the result: meeting his arrest quota.

However, I will agree with you that someone at the scene could have and, I think, should have kept her cool and de-escalated the rapidly deteriorating situation.
She had the knowledge, the skills, the power and authority of her badge to do it.

And that person utterly failed to do what she had a duty to do, had been trained to do, and was being paid to do.

BE's partner failed to do her job. By not by not upholding the laws as she was sworn to do, IMO, she let down Sandra Bland, she let down her department, and she let down the citizens of Waller County.

Yes, thank you for this refreshing post.

 

[Cubby]

Posted her history last thread

serveral were from having no insurance, a bunch of charges were thrown out
but basically IMO irrelevent to now being dead as it relates to this whole mess imo

She had been charged with DUI twice. One conviction for dui and the other dismissed. I don't consider previous Dui incidents and being arrested while having high amounts of mj in her system irrelevent. Nor do I consider the numerous unpaid fines she had in multiple counties irrelevant. They're indicative of a pattern.......

I live in the area in IL where she had the numerous driving tix and dui. I know how the court system works for in IL and she would have had plenty of setvices available to help her. Her decisions were a snowball effect. It was quick fast bottom coming off pot and nictine as well as considering she was charged with felony and her family and friends had let her sit there a few days. That was a lot happening at once for someone with untreated depression and substance abuse problems.

 

[cady]

Houston we have a problem

this happened 10 days ago


[h=1]University cop indicted for murder in shooting of motorist Samuel DuBose[/h]
[video=cnn;us/2015/07/29/university-of-cincinnati-police-officer-body-cam-shooting-vo.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/us/ohio-sam-dubose-tensing-indictment/index.html[/video]

TY for OT. I have searched...is there a thread for this important story? JMO

 

[KateB]

Discuss Samuel Dubose here:

OH - Samuel Dubose, 43, Cinncinnati, 19 Jul 2015, police officer indicted for murder

 

[BellaVita]

Seriously, are most people concerned about how to act with LE?

I only looked into it years ago because of what I saw and heard. Now more and more people are learning it may be a death sentence

My family was very law-abiding, not even traffic tickets, and a member of the majority race in our area. Even 40 years ago, it was standard practice in my rather rural area to school your kids on how to behave during a traffic stop. The main things I remember hearing were always keep your hands on the wheel until instructed otherwise, be polite and never admit guilt.

 

[BellaVita]

With all the postings today of respect or lack of respect....I decided to again watch part of the arrest video. I found one on youtube that seemed to have better sound quality.
I'm sure I heard SB say 'I'm sorry' about not handing BE her DL. Also we can for sure hear "sir" when he asks her to stop talking on her phone.
I really didn't notice anything in her manner that would be considered rude or disrespectful until he ordered her out of her car.
And I think she really wasn't aware that he had the right to ask her to exit her car.
A few other things came to mind after more viewing.
SB asks if he wants her to sit on the ground. BE says no. He then tells her he is going to remove her glasses.
It just hit me today why he removed her glasses. He knew he was going to take her down even though she offered to sit on the ground.
Now to the alleged "kick" You can hear SB say you are about to break my wrist.
Is it possible that BE hurt SB (wrists) on purpose so she did in fact try to kick him? I think that is very possible.
According to BE he took SB down due to her kicking him,but if he hurt her on purpose to get a response....what an a** IMO

BBM: I keep reading she might not have known he had the right to have her exit the car. For somebody so into "rights", I find that odd. Also, ignorance of a law is not a defense for breaking it.

BBM: An alternative for why he removed her glasses: He felt because of her combativeness, she was a risk for physical confrontation and removing the glasses was for her own safety. Just like cuffing someone is for the safety of LE AND the detained. If the detained person is cuffed, that eliminates the possibility of the officer feeling threatened and is safer for the detained person because of that. It is a stretch, IMO, to say he was TRYING to get kicked by her.

 

[Elisaa444]

When I looked at the video, and listened to and read comments about what happened, I thought you were being very, very generous to BE who had been "trolling" behind the victim, Sandra Bland (she was the victim of a violent arrest don't forget) and forced her to make the lane change so that he could have grounds to arrest her.

BE, IMO, had already decided he was going to make an arrest and get his quota made, and there was nothing Sandra Bland could have done to change it.
IMO, BE was looking for a response, and if he didn't get one through his nasty, unprofessional manner, he'd force one physically.

Sandra Bland was polite to him while she was in the car. He forced the issues, and he was not going to let her go. No matter how polite she was. It would not have mattered. He did not follow his training or correct procedures.

BE forced her to change lanes, thereby starting the incident.
BE unlawfully told Sandra Bland to put out her cigarette.
BE unlawfully demanded that Sandra get out of her car without giving her a reason.
BE refused to tell Sandra the charge on which she was being arrested.
BE held a taser to her face and threatened to light her up. If that thing had gone off accidentally she would, at the very least, have suffered catastrophic brain damage. He was not using a dangerous weapon in an authorized manner.
BE changed his story about the manner in which he claimed he had been assaulted.
BE slammed Sandra's head into the ground.
BE hurt Sandra's wrist.
When told of Sandra's medical condition, BE said "good".

IMO, Sandra was angry and frightened, and, after the recent series of situations in which unarmed black people have been assaulted (a 14 year old girl in a bikini was considered a threat by one gun carrying cop) or killed by LEOs, few could blame her. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who has been tailgated, bullied and told she is under arrest by a man who will not tell her what she is being charged with to just be cool and polite.

Perhaps BE should not have bellowed demands or shrieked that he was going to light Sandra up with his taser. I certainly don't think that made him a particularly powerful figure either.

Sandra Bland did not attack BE. BE is not a victim.
Sandra Bland was the victim.
BE instigated and escalated this fiasco every step of the way because, IMO, he wanted the result: meeting his arrest quota.

However, I will agree with you that someone at the scene could have and, I think, should have kept her cool and de-escalated the rapidly deteriorating situation.
She had the knowledge, the skills, the power and authority of her badge to do it.

And that person utterly failed to do what she had a duty to do, had been trained to do, and was being paid to do.

BE's partner failed to do her job. By not by not upholding the laws as she was sworn to do, IMO, she let down Sandra Bland, she let down her department, and she let down the citizens of Waller County.

Yes! Yes, Wendiesan! I tried to say most of the above in too many posts over the last few days but you tied it all together nicely in this one. Yes, I know this post has already been quoted several times but it is too good imo to just thank.

I especially agree with you that BE was not going to let Sandra Bland go - No Matter How Polite She Was. Especially after she had the nerve to ask him why she had to put out her cigarette in her own car. I am of the opinion that a LEO that is professional, takes his/her job and sworn duties seriously, can think logically and quickly on his/her feet and is confident in the request he is making of the motorist would have responded to Sandra Bland in the only way that makes any sense and that is providing her with an explanation as to why the request is being asked.

Not to mention, at least IMO, more motorists than not are more likely to comply when they're acknowledged and provided an explanation. You know treating them like a human being. If BE thinks the best way to get a motorist to comply with a request (not a lawful order) is to ignore any question they have and then ordering them out of their vehicle as to show "Look, I'm in charge. I have the badge. I ask the questions..you just do what I say" well, I don't think that will work out for him in most cases.

To me this particular exchange during the traffic stop is very important because it is here where the traffic stop could and IMO definitely should have ended. If BE didn't have some sort of complex or power trip, or inflated ego, (whatever it was that triggered him to get aggressive after SB asks him that question...I mean he went from politely making a request to "I'm going to light you up" IMO very, very quickly.)

Sandra did break the law by not signaling during her lane change. Give her a warning or a ticket. I don't care which. That is the LEO's decision. But IMO that is ALL she deserved for that violation.

I get confused with how some people feel about this. (I'm speaking of the people I've spoken to, comments on articles, blogs, etc) I see many people agree that BE handled himself anything but professionally and he did many things wrong yet these same people then break down segments of the stop and justify this and that.....
when if he had handled the stop like he was supposed to - most of what happened - would not have happened..for example, everything from his reaction to her question about putting out the cigarette and after wouldn't have happened...if he had been doing his job the way he was trained to. Or perhaps if he had not let his ego take control...he didn't do himself any favors career wise that is for sure.

Thanks again for your opinion; it was good to hear.

JMO, MOO, IMHO, the above is my opinion ; yours may vary but I respect all view points the same.

 

[BellaVita]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

It's a ridiculous piece of writing. Comparing American LE to Middle East insurgents? I see nothing wrong with officers drawing their guns in these situations, securing the scene and then asking questions.

 

[human]

My family was very law-abiding, not even traffic tickets, and a member of the majority race in our area. Even 40 years ago, it was standard practice in my rather rural area to school your kids on how to behave during a traffic stop. The main things I remember hearing were always keep your hands on the wheel until instructed otherwise, be polite and never admit guilt.

Why? Were LE considered volatile where you live? I do not understand why people would be taught how to deal with LE. The thought of that is so absurd to me.

I learned that black children have been taught that for a reason. The question was asked in my city because the concept was so strange. It was an educational effort to show the difference between black and white families. It was not considered as standard

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

I never learned anything about being stopped by the police from my parents. Why would they teach something like that?

I only told my children after I saw what happened to people with the police. Until recently, we did not have much diversity in the city. So, the incidences I witnessed over the years were with whites. Terrifying.

Well, you are correct...my parents, back in 1970's, never saw the need to teach me, either.

Things have changed, and with all the outrage about traffic stops now, some LE and communities ARE trying to IMPROVE education and knowledge...I don't see how that is a bad thing? What is the negative of this?

Our teens and young adults - do you (collective you) think most really understand the 4th amendment and how it pertains to the little nuances in a traffic stop? I can tell you they don't. They hear it from their friends or family from stories of traffic stops in the past and are very skewed (or usually are, and laced with emotion), or see the sensational ones on the news.

JMO

 

[kimlynn]

BBM: I keep reading she might not have known he had the right to have her exit the car. For somebody so into "rights", I find that odd. Also, ignorance of a law is not a defense for breaking it.

BBM: An alternative for why he removed her glasses: He felt because of her combativeness, she was a risk for physical confrontation and removing the glasses was for her own safety. Just like cuffing someone is for the safety of LE AND the detained. If the detained person is cuffed, that eliminates the possibility of the officer feeling threatened and is safer for the detained person because of that. It is a stretch, IMO, to say he was TRYING to get kicked by her.

I don't think he knew he was going to kicked if that in fact happened. I do think it's possible he was trying to provoke some sort of reaction so his actions would be validated, and I can see him using pain to do so.
I wonder how many people have had LE take their glasses while cuffed for their own safety? Not many if any. IMO
When you think about it why would SB wait until another officer was pulling up to the scene to kick BE.

 

[BellaVita]

Why? Were LE considered volatile where you live? I do not understand why people would be taught how to deal with LE. The thought of that is so absurd to me.

I learned that black children have been taught that for a reason. The question was asked in my city because the concept was so strange. It was an educational effort to show the difference between black and white families. It was not considered as standard

No. LE was considered to be your friend and protector from the bad guys. All the bad guys in our area were white people. The members of my immediate and extended family are extremely law-abiding. Because of being rural, our area didn't have its own police force. We were served by state troopers. My dad had a great deal of respect for LE and taught us the same. He repeated his views numerous times and his thoughts became nearly a part of his kids' DNA. The principles he instilled in us were for the protection of both LE AND US. I never thought it strange to be taught these things. If all children aren't being taught these things, that is what I find strange. It's called parental guidance and prepares one for successful, independent living.

 

[KaaBoom]

My position has always been you respect law enforcement. If you cannot respect the man, then you respect the badge. The badge represents the laws we live under. If you find that you cannot or will not respect the man or the badge, then respect the gun the officer wears.

Those are things to be feared. Respect is earned.

 

[human]

Well, you are correct...my parents, back in 1970's, never saw the need to teach me, either.

Things have changed, and with all the outrage about traffic stops now, some LE and communities ARE trying to IMPROVE education and knowledge...I don't see how that is a bad thing? What is the negative of this?

Our teens and young adults - do you (collective you) think most really understand the 4th amendment and how it pertains to the little nuances in a traffic stop? I can tell you they don't. They hear it from their friends or family from stories of traffic stops in the past and are very skewed (or usually are, and laced with emotion), or see the sensational ones on the news.

JMO

I think it is bizarre that this has to happen in the "land of the free". It sounds like things I would read about the KGB or some Latin American dictator with his police squads that terrorized citizens.

What happened to black America over the years is now SOP? We need to be afriad of what LE will do to the citizens? That is so different from the friendly police officer I learned about as a child.

 

[kimlynn]

I think it is bizarre that this has to happen in the "land of the free". It sounds like things I would read about the KGB or some Latin American dictator with his police squads that terrorized citizens.

What happened to black America over the years is now SOP? We need to be afriad of what LE will do to the citizens? That is so different from the friendly police officer I learned about as a child.

Very true. I still remember an older AA woman during a protest asking of the police blockade in front of her over and over again what she should do when she needs help but she can't call the police because she fears them as much as she fears crime.
Made me water up listening to her because she sounded so sincere and plaintive. IMO

 

[KaaBoom]

The female officer came in with her lights so it should have been recording but the HD was full. Wow that isn't strange at all. IMO

ETA to remove word and use another.

Not only that, but they release the video's piecemeal, one at a time. Some of them badly edited, so then they reedit them and release them again. :facepalm: There is so much cover up going on here.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

I think it is bizarre that this has to happen in the "land of the free". It sounds like things I would read about the KGB or some Latin American dictator with his police squads that terrorized citizens.

What happened to black America over the years is now SOP? We need to be afriad of what LE will do to the citizens? That is so different from the friendly police officer I learned about as a child.

It's not a one way street, it really isn't. Policing has changed in the last 10-20-30-40 years, and it wasn't because they hired all ego-driven jerks.

I've tried to give a different perspective. What I've read here, by a few, (and NOT you, human!) is honestly, quite disturbing to me. Maybe because in "real life" if we encounter people with such animosity towards LE, we can talk and discuss in person and sometimes reason, or at least find common ground. Here, we don't have that opportunity.

It's a downer to me, honestly. I will still fight for the good and embrace the good that many first-responders do.

Ya'll have a great day, and stay safe