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

[bluesneakers]

What was the point of calling for backup if BE had no intention of waiting for backup to arrive? BE really took a chance with putting his arm and top half of his body into her car since she had a "weapon" in her hand.

I don't know anyone that would be pleased and happy when pulled over by LE. Of course Ms. Bland was upset, like others would be, and I'm sure that BE has dealt with other drivers that were also upset. If his training did not teach him how to deal with drivers then the training needs to be looked at and reworked. If BE did have the proper training in how to deal with drivers but did not use the techniques he learned then he needs to no longer be a trooper that deals with drivers.

MOO

I wonder this too. Waiting for backup to arrive might have given him the minute or two he needed to cool down before doing something irrational. A sort of time-out, if you will.

 

[kimlynn]

Which imo is impressive. Lots and lots of people would have been terrified in her situation.

Just seeing and hearing BE on video scared me. I can only imagine having to deal with him screaming in my face and trying to tug me out of my car for a traffic violation.
People don't always show fear but that doesn't mean they aren't afraid. IMO

 

[arkansasmimi]

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

Respectfully BBM, their business was not over, as he never gave her the warning citation. It was still on his clipboard.
I don't plan on arguing with anyone. Opinions and perceptions can differ. What was said by each and what their actions were at the time (we can only see Trooper BE) You can see if you look at the video during that 1 min 12 sec iirc, the movement in the car. I find it very valid that there is a big possibility that Trooper had concerns of possible weapon. They are trained to be cautious. She did not comply with the Troopers orders. She even said, the "light up comment first". You dont have to take my word, go back and listen to the dash cam video *times I used on these was from someone else video they used for their transcript.

1017 Dispatch: need another unit 2457
1019 Trooper Get out of the car - NOW (*13)
1020/1021 SB Why am i being apprehended? - you trying to give me a ticket for failure
1022 Trooper: NOW
1023 Trooper: I said GET OUT OF THE CAR (*14)
1024 S: Why am I being apprehended?
1030 Trooper gets taser and points
1031 Trooper Get out of the car! (*15)
1032 SB: And then you gonna stun me ETA : change from Light to Stun from SB
Trooper: I Will LIGHT YOU UP- GET OUT
1035 Trooper: NOW **Trooper backs up
1036 SB Wow * starts exiting
1037 Trooper: Get out of car ** SB gets out holding up phone appears to be filming (*16)

JMHO

 

[kimlynn]

We know some of the background of SB as far as previous arrests. I wonder if we will find out the details about the past discipline issue on BE.
Seems only fair. IMO

 

[bluesneakers]

We know some of the background of SB as far as previous arrests. I wonder if we will find out the details about the past discipline issue on BE.
Seems only fair. IMO

Not only that, has anyone checked his criminal record?

 

[arkansasmimi]

So, in your opinion, how many innocent people being killed is acceptable?

And, in your opinion, if you want to buy a toy gun at WalMart should you call the clerk over to pick it up and carry it to the register for you?

Sandra Bland was not in Walmart, nor did she die by a gun, real or toy.... She committed suicide, per the official autopsy report. IIRC the Mods want us to stick to this case on this thread.

 

[arkansasmimi]

See, this whole head slamming thing...where were those contusions in the autopsy report again? And that broken arm?

Not saying her head didn't hit the ground. A couple days later though, no bruises.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

I agree... told her sister possible fracture wasn't it? Yet she denied EMT when they arrived?

 

[Confusion]

I know I said I wasn't going to argue with you, but I really hate when people do this.

Respectfully BBM, your correct, SOME PEOPLE do keep saying that, on these 3 threads, and in SM. HE DID HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE HER STEP OUT OF THE CAR. There is even US Supreme Court cases to back it up. SOME PEOPLE are also keep saying that he had to tell her what she was arrest for at the time she kept asking, Again, that is incorrect and also US SUPREME COURT cases to back that up. I posted links few pages back... There are a lot of stuff SOME PEOPLE keep saying that isn't true.

You're skipping a big part of my statement in your response. I said some people said that he had a right to arrest her because of her foul language, but you try to show that I'm wrong by using something completely different as your evidence. For the record, DPS guidelines (which were linked to earlier, and I believe quoted) state that he can't order her out of the car without reason - or keep her there longer than it takes (or should take) to complete the business at hand. He kept her there much longer than it should have taken to give her the warning ticket and have her sign it.

Respectfully BBM, their business was not over, as he never gave her the warning citation. It was still on his clipboard.
I don't plan on arguing with anyone. Opinions and perceptions can differ. What was said by each and what their actions were at the time (we can only see Trooper BE) You can see if you look at the video during that 1 min 12 sec iirc, the movement in the car. I find it very valid that there is a big possibility that Trooper had concerns of possible weapon. They are trained to be cautious. She did not comply with the Troopers orders. She even said, the "light up comment first". You dont have to take my word, go back and listen to the dash cam video *times I used on these was from someone else video they used for their transcript.

1017 Dispatch: need another unit 2457
1019 Trooper Get out of the car - NOW (*13)
1020/1021 SB Why am i being apprehended? - you trying to give me a ticket for failure
1022 Trooper: NOW
1023 Trooper: I said GET OUT OF THE CAR (*14)
1024 S: Why am I being apprehended?
1030 Trooper gets taser and points
1031 Trooper Get out of the car! (*15)
1032 SB: And then you gonna light me
1033 Trooper: I Will LIGHT YOU UP- GET OUT
1035 Trooper: NOW **Trooper backs up
1036 SB Wow * starts exiting
1037 Trooper: Get out of car ** SB gets out holding up phone appears to be filming (*16)

JMHO

I didn't say their business was over, I said it would be over once he gave her the warning. You can make all of the excuses for his actions that you want to, but he never said he thought he saw a weapon and one was not found in the car as far as I've heard. His reason was to get out of the road, but he would have been out of it much quicker if he'd just let her sign and leave.

MOO

 

[arkansasmimi]

I didn't go back and watch the whole video but SB said (I think) you're going to stun me versus you gonna light me. Good job on getting as much as you did.
I felt the conversation with his Sgt to be important as it showed how BE gave a different reality than what really happened during the traffic stop. IMO

Thank you. I will have to go back and relisten again. I used your dash cam video, so our times would be same http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...County-13-July-2015-3&p=11974114#post11974114

ETA.. I think your right, STUN Me instead of Light me. Thank you.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I know I said I wasn't going to argue with you, but I really hate when people do this.

You're skipping a big part of my statement in your response. I said some people said that he had a right to arrest her because of her foul language, but you try to show that I'm wrong by using something completely different as your evidence. For the record, DPS guidelines (which were linked to earlier, and I believe quoted) state that he can't order her out of the car without reason - or keep her there longer than it takes (or should take) to complete the business at hand. He kept her there much longer than it should have taken to give her the warning ticket and have her sign it.



I didn't say their business was over, I said it would be over once he gave her the warning. You can make all of the excuses for his actions that you want to, but he never said he thought he saw a weapon and one was not found in the car as far as I've heard. His reason was to get out of the road, but he would have been out of it much quicker if he'd just let her sign and leave.

MOO

Respectfully, my point was, just because some people are saying whatever doesn't make it so. I have read many diff links and I haven't seen one that said Trooper BE couldn't order her out of the car without reason. There is even US Supreme Court cases stating that if your asked by LEO to exit car, you have to. And I am not trying to make excuses for Trooper BE. I do not know which of the department procedures he violated or which Department of Public Safety courtesy policy. So far we haven't been told.

Yes, an officer can order you out of your car, police experts agreed. But whether an officer can command you to extinguish a cigarette is murkier, depending on whether the cigarette is perceived as a threat. Several also said that some of the trooper’s actions were unprofessional and did not make for good policing.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sandra-bland-arrest-experts-20150722-story.html#page=1

 

[arkansasmimi]

I listened to another video on youtube and I heard SB say ' you're going to stun me' I could be wrong though. IMO

I agree and changed where I could. My head hurt after stop/start/restart listening, at times there was cross talk. Thank you again. Honestly I hadn't realized she said anything about the taser until I listened with headphones.

 

[arkansasmimi]

"And then you gonna light me..." could be in reference to turning on his lights to pull her over. Especially after saying that she moved over because she thought he needed to get by her in a hurry.

MOO

No, she said stun me instead of light me. You have to listen close, to even hear her say it. I went back and listened again.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Finally getting to watch the news conference from few days ago without interruption. When SB was taken to the bathroom by Officer Goodie to change into her jail uniform, she was allowed into the bathroom for small amount of time alone. Very possible if she had any marijuana on her or hidden in her body cavity, she could have swallowed it at this time. JMHO

[video=youtube;QiSzDEn5-dg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiSzDEn5-dg[/video]

 

[arkansasmimi]

42:46 mark they speak of the Magistration Process (when she saw the Judge for bond, it was in the booking room) She was not appointed an attorney, they state that happens when she makes her first appearance, gathering info to see if she qualifies. The judge at the news conference has not seen her forms. Bond set at 1pm on Saturday July 11. They believe she made about 6 phone calls 46:29 on tape. 22 min of phone calls [video=youtube;QiSzDEn5-dg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiSzDEn5-dg[/video]

 

[katydid23]

Not only that, has anyone checked his criminal record?

In your country, can cops be hired if they have a criminal record?

 

[Elisaa444]

We may just have to say we have different perceptions here. Which is fine, it's not cut and dry like we're calculating the number of hours in a month.

I disagree that SB was just enquiring as to why she should put out her cigarette. From the moment where she is telling BE what his job is, she's itching for a fight. Had he come back with "it's the law", "it's polite", "smoke gives me asthma"... ANYTHING, IMO, SB's response would have been " Well I don't have to." To me, she sounds like the worst kind of teenager, pushing limits. "You can't make me." Not the way to deal with people.

Law enforcement officers are supposed to be trained to deal with this. BE somehow managed to not follow that training. They both were acting badly.

At its core, it's an asymmetrical interaction. BE can arrest SB. SB can't arrest BE. All throughout though, SB seems to behave as if this is no different than someone cutting her off in line at the market. If you're smart, you go into that kind of situation much differently.

You don't have the right to call a lawyer in the middle of a traffic stop. Hello, your attention is needed with the situation at hand. So what should someone read into this if not, "I don't need to listen to you, my lawyer will back me up."

Bottom line, I don't admire SB. I don't see her as some kind of civil rights activist. Do I think she deserves to be dead? Of couse not. She didn't deserve to run into a sour tempered cop either. Things should have been done differently on both sides.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

BBM, I agree with you. Of course, it is fine that we have different perceptions. Over the years, on this forum, I've learned A LOT and that mainly came from posters that had an opposing opinion to mine. I also responded to your posts because I appreciated how you gave your opinion on the discussion at hand yet at the same time you made a point to note what we did agree on while respecting my opinion. I appreciate that a lot because when it comes to cases such as this one, where many people have very strong opinions, the discussion can become tense or in my experience often times offensive.

Because of the way you responded to my replies I absolutely understand where you're coming from. For example, when you said if BE had answered Sandra Bland's question as to why should she have to put out her cigarette - and regardless - of the reason that BE would give - she would have still continued with "well, I don't have"....do I think it is unreasonable to think that she would have not done just that? No, I agree with you there. Even if BE explained to her why he was asking her to put it out - yes I can absolutely see her telling him she does not have to and I can see her not complying.

Because of the power and control an LEO has and because of how highly I hold them (because I come from a family of many LEO's) I just wish he would have answered her instead of doing what he did. Because we can speculate but we really don't know what she would have done if he had answered her. Also, I wish he would have tried to lessen the tension from the get go when she was mouthy. (he is supposed to do this...if not LEO's would have a hell of a day to day job...my brother said he picks and chooses his battles because if he didn't he wouldn't last long because it is a stressful job already and one has to do whatever they can to keep things civil and in control as possible...to be clear when he said "he picks and chooses" he is not talking about which violation to write them up for or to arrest them or not...he is talking about things like does he really want to spend time arguing with a motorist as to can she legally smoke inside of her vehicle? no...he wants to do what he has to and be on his way...he needs to be freed up as soon as he can be because if a serious call comes in where he is needed down the street... he doesn't want to be tied up fighting with this woman over something like what happened in this situation.)

I wish he would have said something like: "you said you just got to Texas yesterday....Welcome btw, I don't want to welcome you here to your new home town with a ticket. I know you changed lanes because you thought I needed to get by but if I needed to quickly get by a motorist I would have my lights and siren on..just so you know for the future."

Then he is being friendly and trying to lessen the tension and if she still has a bad attitude or is mouthy then she is the one that looks bad and he is seen as doing what he could to try to make this traffic stop go as smooth as possible. He would be able to point out in the dashcam, the times he tried to lessen the tension...where he tried to get her to understand what was going on by answering the questions she asked...I would have been able to defend him (not completely) if he had tried those things which is what he essentially should have done. Also, I would have seen Sandra's behavior in a different way if she was continuing to meet his friendliness/professionalism/respect with an attitude, mouthing off at him, etc.

One more thing, I am a total Night-Owl too illowfight2:

 

[BritsKate]

It was a jailmate, who said she became despondent after her family refused to take her calls. Sorry, I don't have time right now to go back through all the links to find the exact quote.

I do have this. Apparently her mother was called immediately, and nothing happened with that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...bail-before-allegedly-committing-suicide.html

But why, even if true, does this matter? There are all sorts of reasons her family may not have responded - we simply don't know why. Either way, it's hardly indicative of them not caring for her - I'm sure they didn't for a moment ever think her life was at risk.

I just don't get why her prior convictions, past marijuana use, or failure to pay fines matter in a traffic stop gone bad. Or how her family not bailing her out - for whatever reason - is in anyway relevant to either a traffic stop gone bad or a jail not following standard operating procedures.

To me, it comes across as justifying the actions of a trooper whose own boss states he didn't follow procedures correctly and the intake process of a jail that's already been cited for failures specifically in regards to suicide prevention. Regardless of anything Sandy did, or didn't do, you still have both a trooper and a jail failing to follow protocol.

Respectfully BBM, your correct, SOME PEOPLE do keep saying that, on these 3 threads, and in SM. HE DID HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE HER STEP OUT OF THE CAR. There is even US Supreme Court cases to back it up. SOME PEOPLE are also keep saying that he had to tell her what she was arrest for at the time she kept asking, Again, that is incorrect and also US SUPREME COURT cases to back that up. I posted links few pages back... There are a lot of stuff SOME PEOPLE keep saying that isn't true.

Absolutely you're right but in this case it isn't quite so simple as quoting People vs. Mimms. Here's a great article explaining the different points of constitutional rights - and may go a long way in explaining why Sandy felt she had the right to not comply with the officer's 'lawful' order...

So in short: Bland did not have to put out her cigarette. She likely had to exit the car, although it’s possible to that she didn’t have to because the officer was ordering her out of the car for reasons of retaliation — a possibility that might have been raised later in court, but wouldn’t persuade the officer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../23/the-law-of-the-sandra-bland-traffic-stop/

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

Having the right and being right are wholly different in my opinion. Legally, an officer superficially has the right to order someone from the vehicle and if they don't comply, he/she can use reasonable force to remove that person from the vehicle. But was he right? I'd say absolutely not.

BE escalated events very, very quickly and made several errors. At no point did he explain to Sandy why he wanted her to exit the vehicle and the transcript certainly seems to imply it was somehow related to her refusal to extinguish her cigarette - which was framed as a request but technically 'could' be a lawful order citing officer safety. And then you have the added issue that the warning was already written and did BE even have grounds to detain her further? And that becomes a sticking point, was his lawful order to exit the vehicle actually legal because if it wasn't, Sandy didn't have to comply in the first place. JMO

These both go into great detail about finer points that, if followed correctly, may have made all the difference:

The question there becomes, is the officer’s order lawful? What crime is he investigating, is there a lawful basis to detain her there by the side of the road at this point? If it is a lawful order for her to step out of the vehicle, she does have to follow it. But I haven’t seen any basis in the dashcam video for the detention to continue at this point.

So breaking it down further, we have a woman stopped by the side of the road. Alone with a police officer who is making unlawful demands of her. You dont have to obey an unlawful order, but on the other side of it, with what amount of force can you resist an unlawful order? Because, it is important to remember that you still have the right to defend yourself against a police officer’s unlawful actions.

http://www.attn.com/stories/2498/sandra-bland-arrest-lawful

You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation

http://www.texasstandard.org/storie...a-bland-traffic-stop-every-texan-should-know/

 

[BritsKate]

In your country, can cops be hired if they have a criminal record?

I dunno where bluesneakers lives but other countries certainly do have differing procedures when it comes to hiring, or at least maintaining employment, in law enforcement with a criminal record.

Separate figures obtained from 18 forces showed that there are at least 295 officers and police community support officers (PCSOs) with convictions who are currently serving with the police.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33635962

Police officers must respect and uphold the law. They should be law abiding and have high standards of personal behaviour and social conduct.

Applicants with criminal associations or convictions could become vulnerable to pressure to disclose information. Their position as a witness in court could also be undermined. Therefore, we are careful about recruiting people with cautions or convictions. You must declare any caution or conviction for any criminal offence, even if this was as a juvenile or is now considered ‘spent’ (under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - Exemptions Order 1975). You must also declare any involvement with police, military or transport police investigations, even where the investigation did not lead to a prosecution.

Motoring convictions are considered with regard to the nature of the offence, the number of offences and how long ago they occurred. Candidates will be rejected if they have convictions for reckless or dangerous driving; or one offence of drink driving, drunk in charge or drugs driving within the last ten years. You must also declare other serious motoring convictions, such as driving without insurance or failing to stop after an accident or driving whilst disqualified.

BBM

http://www.surrey.police.uk/Careers/Police-Officers/Am-I-eligible

 

[cady]

It was a jailmate, who said she became despondent after her family refused to take her calls. Sorry, I don't have time right now to go back through all the links to find the exact quote.

I do have this. Apparently her mother was called immediately, and nothing happened with that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...bail-before-allegedly-committing-suicide.html

The bail amount had not been determined at the point where she called a bondsman and the bondsman called her mother. What amount was the mother supposed to send? JMO

 

[Cubby]

The issue is the choices she made when stopped.

Why is it OK for others to do things that are not right, but she is horrible for what exactly? Not accepting being pulled out of her car and having her head slammed on the ground? Silly woman. Sounds like a good time to me

I don't think she was a horrible person. Not all. Just because I believe Sandra is responsible for her own behavior and I see many red flags related to addiction and depression doesn't mean I think she is a horrible person. I don't believe the disease defines anyone. I see her as an unfortunate victim of untreated addiction and depression/mental illness.