Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, the videos are always wrong...if they make the officers look bad.
While she does ave a point. When we watch these edited clips, there are always other circumstances that we are not aware of. That being said, it will be very unlikely that officer can talk his way out of this one. The video does not leave much room for mitigating circumstances to justify what we saw the officer do.
While she does ave a point. When we watch these edited clips, there are always other circumstances that we are not aware of. That being said, it will be very unlikely that officer can talk his way out of this one. The video does not leave much room for mitigating circumstances to justify what we saw the officer do.
No, you're wrong.
The defense will show the still of the man turned his torso back toward the cop with his arm in the position consistent with holding a weapon, and the cop will be found not guilty.
You cant train a cop in a certain way, give him a gun, tell him to do the job a certain at and then blame him when the elements of everything result in this. The cop followed his training and his orders. It wasn't his fault.
The problem is the system itself, which is seriously flawed (but not inherently racist).
There is no law that says one can be arrested for contempt of cop. He was a dirty cop who went after her using the excuse "she was acting strange".
I saw the dashcam video. She *was* acting strangely.
Nothing can obscure the fact that Sandra Bland possessed 100% total control over whether she went to jail or not. Really, all she had to do was shut up for a few minutes, collect her warning ticket, and she would have been permitted to go on her merry way.
For some reason, however, she figured it would be in her best interest to berate the cop. Unceasingly. The cop, rightly determining that this course of action on the part of Sandra Bland was indeed strange, took her to the Waller County lockup for observation.
Only after a few hours in the pokey did Ms. Bland came to an unavoidable conclusion, one that would have been stunningly obvious to literally every other person on Earth in the same situation: if she had just shut her mouth for a short while, the cop would have merely written her a warning ticket and allowed her to go on her way. She realized that she never should have landed in jail, and never would have done so, except for her inability to control her obstreperous and strange public behavior.
Upon coming to the realization that she herself was the only reason whatsoever she landed in the pokey was apparently just too much for her to process. In an act that can only be categorized as an insane overreaction to a situation she alone created, she hanged herself in her jail cell, which in and of itself constitutes yet another example of her bizarre behavior.
As I said earlier...I think she may have been a tad hard on herself. We all make mistakes, of course. Most of us choose to learn from those mistakes, thereby becoming better equipped to handle similar situations in the future.
Sandra Bland, however, didn't give herself that opportunity, however, and her failure in that regard is just one more manifestation of her "strange" behavior.
Nothing can obscure the fact that Sandra Bland possessed 100% total control over whether she went to jail or not.
The officer took her to jail over a lit cigarette. He had 100% control there. If she had 100% control she wouldn't have been in jail. This is you victim blaming, and yes I know yall hate those types of phrases, but this time it's accurate. All the cop had to do was write his little lane change ticket and be on his way. At no point should she had been pulled out of that car over a cigarette.
Patrick Harmon was in full retreat running away from a Salt Lake City officer when the cop opened fire. Harmon was shot in the back and later died. From the video I see no evidence of an imminent threat to the officer. Unjustified deadly use of force, manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.
We have to stop coddling these rogue cops. 99% of cops are professionals and would never do this. You can't weed out the bad apples by coddling them.
The officer took her to jail over a lit cigarette. He had 100% control there. If she had 100% control she wouldn't have been in jail. This is you victim blaming, and yes I know yall hate those types of phrases, but this time it's accurate. All the cop had to do was write his little lane change ticket and be on his way. At no point should she had been pulled out of that car over a cigarette.
So, by your own admission, she failed to obey a lawful order issued by a peace officer.
Like it or not, failure to obey a lawful order issued by a peace officer is illegal in the State of Texas. Given her truculent approach to the matter, and her failure to obey a lawful order, it is hardly surprising that she got a ride down to the county lockup.
As conclusively demonstrated before, Sandra Bland was in 100% total control of her destiny.
However, from the time she was pulled over and going forward, she made the wrong choice, time after time after time. From failing to obey lawful orders, to engaging in disorderly conduct, to hanging herself in jail...each and every decision she made, all of which were of her own volition, was wrong.
Every single one. Without exception.
Hey...I don't call'em like I see 'em.
I call'em the way they are.
Edited to add:
The SLC police shooting really doesn't bear much resemblance to the Sandra Bland case, which is mostly off-point anyway. In the SLC shooting, the case can be made that the officer didn't need to use deadly force to subdue the suspect. But the suspect bears at least some culpability; he didn't have to run, either (would have been well advised to avoid it, actually) thereby risking the police response that ensued.
In the Sandra Bland case, no deadly force was used by law enforcement. The only physical violence in that episode was perpetrated by Sandra Bland, on herself.
To the extent there may have been some abridgement/denial of due process in the Sandra Bland case, the only person responsible for any such abridgement/denial of Sandra Bland's due process was...Sandra Bland.
Last edited by Milton Miteybad; 10-12-2017 at 03:33 PM..
So, by your own admission, she failed to obey a lawful order issued by a peace officer.
Like it or not, failure to obey a lawful order is illegal in the State of Texas. Given her truculent approach to the matter, and her failure to obey a lawful order, it is hardly surprising that she got a ride down to the county lockup.
As conclusively demonstrated before, Sandra Bland was in 100% total control of her destiny.
However, from the time she was pulled over and going forward, she made the wrong choice, time after time after time. From failing to obey lawful orders, to engaging in disorderly conduct, to hanging herself in jail...each and every decision she made, all of which were of her own volition, was wrong.
The irony of it is that many of the people who are most gung-ho about granting law enforcement officers near unlimited power and adulation are the same people who claim to be small-government advocates who need broad Second Amendment rights to protect themselves from the threat that the State poses.
As Lord Acton opined, "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Ironic in a big sense. However, I feel like many persons who want law enforcement to have unlimited power and adulation don't think police brutality could ever happen to them. When said persons are thinking of "small government", they likely mean less input from the federal government for the purpose of granting law enforcement unlimited power.
Ironic in a big sense. However, I feel like many persons who want law enforcement to have unlimited power and adulation don't think police brutality could ever happen to them. When said persons are thinking of "small government", they likely mean less input from the federal government for the purpose of granting law enforcement unlimited power.
It depends on the person.
I can't count how many times I've said we have way too many armed government agents looking for problems.
I also took heat from liberals and conservatives when I started a thread suggesting cops have access to guns in their cars but don't carry them on their person unless responding to certain types of calls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
