Sandra Bland Arrest/Suicide.

[Rageaholic]

This is another police overreaction thread. But I don't see how anyone can justify this cops reaction. A quick recap.

1. Cop pulls woman over for failing to signal.
2. During the traffic stop, the cop asks her to put out her cigarette.
3. She says something to the extent of "why do I have to put my cigarette out?".
4. Cop tells her to get out of the car and that she's under arrest.
5. She refuses. So he goes batshit crazy and starts pummeling her and threatening her with a taser.
6. She's arrested and spends 3 days in jail before taking her own life.

Even if she hadn't committed suicide, the fact that she spent three days in jail over this is ridiculous in it's own right.

Here's a news article describing the story (though it's kind of long and depressing), and here's a video showing the arrest on dashcam.

[Aragarthiel]

I think this is another case where both parties are wrong. Too many people try to go for either/or, but they both did something wrong. He tried arresting her for not putting out a cigarette (though putting it out really wasn't a huge request, anyone who refuses is being rude in my opinion), and she resisted arrest.

Several of the stories I've read about this have given me the mindset that she was actually LOOKING to make a scene so the white cop would look like a bad guy. Anyone else get that feeling?

[Gravekeeper]

Several of the stories I've read about this have given me the mindset that she was actually LOOKING to make a scene so the white cop would look like a bad guy. Anyone else get that feeling?

No, quite the opposite. The cop wanted to arrest her and just needed a pretext so he goaded her into something. The arrest was unlawful and he had no legal basis or right to continue the stop. "Put out your cigarette" is not a lawful order in any jurisdiction in the US nor can he order her out of the car for Disrespecting his Authoritah(tm). She might be upset, but she was not wrong. The cop escalated the situation rather than deescalating it and conducted himself in an unprofessional and downright shitty manner. Which, on a side note, violated the state trooper "courtesy protocols". AKA the "don't be a fucking tool and act like a professional" policy. He also violated the department's traffic stop policies.

"Put out your cigarette" also does not warrant pulling a tazer and yelling "I will light you up" or when the person your arresting is upset and tells you they have epilepsy you don't respond with "Good". You also don't try to chase off the only eyewitness ( because they were recording the scene on their cell ). All of which the officer, of course, did not include in his report. In fact, he blatantly lies to his supervisor on the dash cam recording:

“I tried to de-escalate her, and it wasn’t working at all,” Encinia says. “I put the Taser away, I tried talking to her, trying to calm her down, and that was not working. … I’m trying to get her detained … just calm her down, saying’stop throwing your arms,’ what not. She never swung at me, (she was) just flailing, stomping around. And that’s enough, that’s when I detained her.”

He also further lies in his original report by saying he asked her to step out of her vehicle so he could "continue a safety investigation".

Additionally, she told the jail she had a history of depression and had previously attempted suicide. But they did not place her on suicide watch because she "didn't seem depressed". The state investigation also revealed that the guards had violated jail policy by failing to check on inmates properly. ( They are suppose to check on inmates every hour, face to face. Not just ask through the door if she's okay every few hours. )

So no, both sides are not wrong here. She was arrested because a cop was a power tripping dishonest asshole and died because she was held in detention by poorly trained idiots.

[Racket_Man]

nor can he order her out of the car for Disrespecting his Authoritah(tm).

You are wrong on this point here in the US. while watching the coverage over the last couple of days, there have been legal experts that point out there is a US Supreme Court ruling from the 1977 that does allow a LEO to order you out of the car for any reason mostly for safety reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_v._Mimms

http://www.policeone.com/legal/artic...traffic-stops/


Further update from 1997
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/20/us...urt-rules.html

[Aragarthiel]

"Put out your cigarette" is not a lawful order in any jurisdiction in the US nor can he order her out of the car for Disrespecting his Authoritah(tm).

The first part may be true, although smoke does tend to go right out a car window when it's rolled down, so I can see why the officer would ask her to put it out. I imagine she probably got an attitude about it, since anyone who isn't entitled wouldn't have much of a problem with that request if they can clearly see their smoke wafting into someone else's face.

The second part is where he was wrong, yes. He did fail to de-escalate from there, however, I don't see how she could be 100% innocent here. Not only did she argue with a simple request that anybody could ask of her in any situation, she resisted arrest, which is never a good idea under any circumstance. At that point she actually committed a crime whereas she had not before, so while the original charges may have been dropped, once she resisted she was pretty much guaranteed jail time.

[Greenday]

This really needs to be two separate issues.

While she was being a total dick about not putting the cigarette out (It's freaking common courtesy, just do it), that's not a justifiable reason to arrest her/threaten to taser her. The arrest was pretty bogus.

As for the suicide, it's a suicide by a troubled individual plain and simple. Her friends and family said she would never commit suicide and wasn't depressed. Bland admitted herself that she tried to kill herself last year.

People and the press need to stop making this out to be a death by cop. She killed herself and no one else aided her in that. 7pm she was alive. 8:55pm when she was checked in on again she was dead. No one entered her cell between those two times so suicide is the ONLY possibility. And that report that said they didn't check on her enough is bogus. She's an adult in jail. Adults can be left alone for two hours. What should they have done? Checked in on her every five minutes to offer her juice boxes and cookies? Fluff her pillow for her? It's jail. Other than the cop who arrested her, the rest of the crew working would have no idea at the time that she was in jail for a bogus reason. The only thing they knew at the time was that she was in jail for assaulting an officer.

[mjr]

People and the press need to stop making this out to be a death by cop. She killed herself and no one else aided her in that.

It's possible that it's being spun that if the officer hadn't behaved in the manner in which he did, the woman wouldn't have killed herself.

So they're associating the officer arresting her and such (instead of letting her off with a warning) with her killing herself.

It's a stretch, but that's the only thing I can think of.

Of course, it could be an "automatic" assumption, because you know, "Officer Whitey".

[Jetfire]

I admittedly haven't looked much into this example, but looking at the cigarette issue, asking to put it out (or at least put it down) is a very reasonable request.

It certainly is a control issue, but the cop normally wants to keep the situation under control and to keep the variables minimized. That's why they want to keep your hands visible and no sudden movements. A cigarette is a variable, and potentially a (relatively minor) dangerous one. It could cause burns to the cop or the person who was pulled over. It could also be used as a distraction, either by blowing smoke at the cop or just throwing it at the cop. (Most times when pulled over, the cops want NOTHING in your hands unless they ask you to get something).

Granted, most of my experience with Cops comes from watching Real Life shows; but just about every situations I've seen on "Cops" or similar shows, the first things asked if an officer pulls over someone who is smoking is "Please put down/put out the cigarette.", no matter what colour or race or sex is involved.

[Shangri-laschild]

People and the press need to stop making this out to be a death by cop.

If she did tell them about the depression and suicide issues though, then they screwed up. I still wouldn't call it death by cop but it's definitely negligence on the part of the jail.

[TheHuckster]

No matter what, unless she was being formally charged with a crime, there's no reason to hold her for three days. She should have been released before then, not that she should have been arrested in the first place.

I agree that she should have obliged to put out her cigarette, simply out of politeness, but it shouldn't have resulted in an arrest if she refused. Such a request is not unreasonable on the part of the officer It's simply a matter of good manners, and doesn't even have to do with whether it's a police officer or not. The officer asked her politely, and I'm quite surprised at how quickly it escalated after she refused.

[Rageaholic]

It's possible that it's being spun that if the officer hadn't behaved in the manner in which he did, the woman wouldn't have killed herself.

So they're associating the officer arresting her and such (instead of letting her off with a warning) with her killing herself.

It's a stretch, but that's the only thing I can think of.

Of course, it could be an "automatic" assumption, because you know, "Officer Whitey".

Actually, that's a lot more plausible than you'd think. This cop arrested her under false pretenses and had intended to have her in custody for at least 3 days. She probably had no contact with a lawyer, no indication that she'd ever get out, and heck, did she even get her one phone call?

I wonder if she hadn't taken her life, if she'd still be sitting in the jail cell. There has been a few cases where people have been arrested and forgotten about for up to 3 years.

[Gravekeeper]

You are wrong on this point here in the US. while watching the coverage over the last couple of days, there have been legal experts that point out there is a US Supreme Court ruling from the 1977 that does allow a LEO to order you out of the car for any reason mostly for safety reasons.

A LEO can order you out of your car during the "seizure" phase of a traffic stop ( you are considered "seized", legally ) without violating the Fourth Amendment, yes. However, the traffic stop was over at the point the cop decided to be a dick. The Supreme Court also ruled that a LEO cannot extend the duration of a routine traffic stop barring a legitimate safety concern or reasonable suspicion of a crime. Neither of which officer dickhead had. Legally, his seizure of her and her vehicle ended when he returned to her with her citation. At that point he no longer had any legal basis to keep her and her vehicle under seizure.

She is also under no obligation to put out her cigarette. Note her language "Why do I have to put out my cigarette in my car?". She is protected by the Fourth amendment in her vehicle and does not have to comply. By ordering her out of the car, the officer removes that protection and can technically legally order her to put out her cigarette. Just to be an asshole.

Additionally, the officer reached into the vehicle. By using this level of force, he re-initiated "seizure" under Fourth Amendment case law. Which clearly states that the use of force must be reasonable and not excessive and there must be a legitimate reason. Such as the suspect being an immediate safety risk to the officer or others. Which obviously, Bland was not nor was she guilty of anything aside from not licking his boots.

Finally, the officer may have violated her First Amendment rights if the officer's intention was ( as it apparently is ) retaliatory. Bland, in her vehicle, is protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. She is engaged in a constitutionally protected activity ( being annoyed at a traffic stop and declining to put out her cigarette ). If the officer's intent was retalitory and his resulting actions ( "I will light you up", etc ) intimidating in nature it could be ruled a violating of her First Amendment rights.

Which brings me back to my original assessment. The officer wanted a reason to retaliate against her for not Respecting His Authoritah(tm) and intentionally antagonized her into a position where he could technically arrest her.

Her death in jail is a separate matter and that is a failure on both the jail and its staff. Though given how she was arrested which led to the situation where she committed suicide ( left to rot for 3 days in jail over a lane change ) I wouldn't want to test a jury in a civil suit if I was this cop and his department.

[s_stabeler]

heck, did she even get her one phone call?

no such thing- that's a hollywood plot device, usually for pure dramatic effect. The onyl perso you HAVE to be able to CONTACT is your lawyer. The ability to use the pone otherwise is actually a privilege- but if you are allowed to, you can get as many phone calls as you want. ( oh, and if it isn't your lawyer or doctor, then can and will listen in on the call- and use the call as evidence, if you do something stupid like say "get rid of the heroin- the cops have caught me" then you can damn betcha there's be a tape player in court.)

also, can we please not speculate on what other things the cops may have done wrong? All we know is she was kept detained for an excessive period of time ( you are supposed to be charged within 24 hours of detention, 2 days at the MOST if they have a good excuse.)-= there has been no suggestion that she was held incommunicado.

I agree though, that I do NOT want to be the police department, or any of the officers involved in this case, when the inevitable lawsuit is filed (off the top of m head, wrongful death ( they just need to prove she should have been on suicide watch- and as she had said she was depressed, and had attempted suicide before,she damn well SHOULD have been- and that that failure lead directly to her death) not to mention suing over the rights violations caused by her being imprisoned without charge for 3 days ( you get 24 HOURS))

[Rageaholic]

no such thing- that's a hollywood plot device, usually for pure dramatic effect. The onyl perso you HAVE to be able to CONTACT is your lawyer. The ability to use the pone otherwise is actually a privilege- but if you are allowed to, you can get as many phone calls as you want. ( oh, and if it isn't your lawyer or doctor, then can and will listen in on the call- and use the call as evidence, if you do something stupid like say "get rid of the heroin- the cops have caught me" then you can damn betcha there's be a tape player in court.)

Well that's stupid. How the hell is anyone going to bail her out if she can't call them to come get her?

Truth really is stranger than fiction.

[TheHuckster]

You don't have bail set until after you've been formally charged and had a bail hearing. You don't get bail if you're simply jailed. In most cases, by the time you've been charged and have bail set, most of your friends and family are aware of your situation, either because your lawyer informed them or the police informed them.