5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
12744
Post by: Scrabb
*sigh*
How do these things keep happening? You'd think the rotten cops would be lying low by now. I guess consequences aren't severe enough to dissuade this sort of behavior.
Which is terrifying.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Lots of noise but not a lot of proof the PoPo did anything wrong. We'll see. The county did it right by immediately calling in the Rangers (the equivalent of the state FBI) and the actual FBI.
All I have to say is Frazzled inlaws are in Waller County and Frazzled is two miles from there. Bring your rent a mob riot squad and you'll get the business end of lots and lots and lots of 00 buckshot and .223 rounds.
We don't permit riots in Texas.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You know she's dead right?
Think I heard she suffers from depression, PTSD and some other mental issues
Found hanging in her cell from a plastic trash bag I believe.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Jihadin wrote:You know she's dead right?
Think I heard she suffers from depression, PTSD and some other mental issues
Found hanging in her cell from a plastic trash bag I believe.
Who are you responding to?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Woops
First paragraph
No coffee yet
42144
Post by: cincydooley
I've watched the video. She's non compliant the whole time. And there's pretty much zero evidence of any wrong doing at this point.
Doesn't help that the mob, in their power and wisdom, seems to know EXACTLY what happened.
We've got a similar one going on Cincinnati:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/22/questions-remain-unresolved-after-cincinnati-campus-cop-kills-unarmed-black-man/?tid=hpModule_9d3add6c-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
wow I just read that and the first couple comments. the guy was drunk, waving a open bottle of alcohol at the cop and then apparently hit the cop with his car and they are trying to say the cop wasn't justified in shooting him....jesus! what is justified then? is it ok to kill a suspect/criminal after they have shot you? or do you have to wait for a lawyer to give you the go ahead.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Ah, here we go, member #1 with the old "If a cop tells you to jump, you ask how high, or else you deserve to die."
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Wow, this traffic stop seemed perfectly reasonable until the cop let her get under his skin.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 lord_blackfang wrote:
Ah, here we go, member #1 with the old "If a cop tells you to jump, you ask how high, or else you deserve to die."
Please show where the suspect died for not complying in the fact pattern of the thread?
I see a suspect arrested for resisted arrest and assault of a police officer. The merit of those matters would have been proven or disproven at trial. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Dreadwinter wrote:Wow, this traffic stop seemed perfectly reasonable until the cop let her get under his skin.
It wasn't reasonable for her to blow smoke in his face. Sorry. but put your fething cigarette out.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
 Frazzled wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:
Ah, here we go, member #1 with the old "If a cop tells you to jump, you ask how high, or else you deserve to die."
Please show where the suspect died for not complying in the fact pattern of the thread?
I see a suspect arrested for resisted arrest and assault of a police officer. The merit of those matters would have been proven or disproven at trial.
Sure, she was being a gakhead, but why was she asked to step out of the vehicle for not putting out her cigarette?
Her death was probably not some crazy coverup by the police but instead because of mental illness. But still, that traffic stop was way over the line.
Frazzled wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:Wow, this traffic stop seemed perfectly reasonable until the cop let her get under his skin.
It wasn't reasonable for her to blow smoke in his face. Sorry. but put your fething cigarette out.
Where did that happen?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
lord_blackfang wrote:
Ah, here we go, member #1 with the old "If a cop tells you to jump, you ask how high, or else you deserve to die."
Nothing the officer did at the stop resulted in her death. Not a single thing.
You should probably read the story.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
lord_blackfang wrote:
Ah, here we go, member #1 with the old "If a cop tells you to jump, you ask how high, or else you deserve to die."
You (in the general sense) don't deserve to die, and there's no evidence that she was killed by anyone. It's just not recommended to piss off a cop, because they can legally do a lot of things to make your day a misery, on a fairly thin pretext.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
I don't get it. She was legitimately pulled over, was uncooperative and...not sure what happened then and made him get her down. She continues to resist and constantly insults him. Gets locked up (for resisting arrest I guess?) then kills herself, with the footage clearly proving that it was a suicide.
The policer officer obviously lacked training in deescalative dialogues and should have been more calm about the cigarette. He is already on the desk for that behavior.
Bland, however, instead of complying and going to the police station, then later on taking legal action, decided that it was a superb idea to constantly provoke and insult the policer officer. Not a smart idea after all.
Playing the race card on this, however, is just stupid.
OP, that title is just a poor clickbait attempt.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Sure, she was being a gakhead, but why was she asked to step out of the vehicle for not putting out her cigarette?
1. Please show proof that’s why she was asked to step out of the vehicle.
2. Being asked to step out of your vehicle is perfectly legal and within the rights of the officer to do.
Her death was probably not some crazy coverup by the police but instead because of mental illness.
That has neither been proven or disproven at this point. I’ll hold judgment until the Rangers and FBI finish their investigation.
But still, that traffic stop was way over the line.[.quote]
Again, how?
Where did that happen?
When she was talking to him. If she’s smoking a cigarette and talking to him, she’s blowing smoke at him. While I don’t like the “gain complete control of the situation and require compliance” training/culture taught to police, that’s just being polite, and she was asked to politely do so.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
You cannot talk to a person and blow a smoke a different direction? That is a pretty flimsy argument Fraz, as is your argument about being told to step out of the vehicle. He asks her to put it out, she refuses, he tells her to get out. That is exactly how it goes down.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The policer officer obviously lacked training in deescalative dialogues and should have been more calm about the cigarette. He is already on the desk for that behavior.
Agreed. Training/culture is for absolute compliance or the officer is to escalate, and training standards need to move away from that. A good parent isn't a hard ass mui macho, a good parent picks battles. Having said that there is an argument that dope/crack smokers will light a cigarette to cover the smell, but I have no proof of the veracity of that argument. I think he just got annoyed that she didn't immediately comply.
He should have simply said-"fine, forget the warning, welcome to planet ticket Yankee, have a nice day." If she had no warrants, add it to your quota and move on.
remember kids, be polite, even if you have to politely not give consent to searches or further discussion. If something needs to be fought, fight about it later.
Also, if you start hearing meow, best to ignore it... 
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Dreadwinter wrote:You cannot talk to a person and blow a smoke a different direction? That is a pretty flimsy argument Fraz, as is your argument about being told to step out of the vehicle. He asks her to put it out, she refuses, he tells her to get out. That is exactly how it goes down.
That's true, we can't tell exactly where she blew the smoke. However, it's pretty damn likely that she was either blowing smoke in his direction, or blowing him off and staring ahead whilst smoking a cigarette, just going by the interaction. Of course, everything to do with the traffic stop is mostly irrelevant, because she killed herself several days later, and that's what we should be focussing on.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadwinter wrote:You cannot talk to a person and blow a smoke a different direction? That is a pretty flimsy argument Fraz, as is your argument about being told to step out of the vehicle. He asks her to put it out, she refuses, he tells her to get out. That is exactly how it goes down.
1. She could have but I highly doubt she did. As noted, some police will argue addicts use cigarette smoke to cover. But simple politeness would be to not smoke a cigarette at the moment or put it out when asked.
2. As to pulling her out. As soon as he stopped her he was within his rights to have her step out, no reason needed. if you refuse to step out when asked, you're going to jail (at best). Automatically Appended Next Post: because she killed herself several days later, and that's what we should be focussing on.
Allegdly. Thats still being investigated. Frankly, any time there is a death in custody it should be heavily investigated by 3rd party investigators. I would also proffer any time there is a shoot it should likely be investigated by a 3rd party.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Frazzled wrote:
Allegdly. Thats still being investigated. Frankly, any time there is a death in custody it should be heavily investigated by 3rd party investigators. I would also proffer any time there is a shoot it should likely be investigated by a 3rd party.
Hear hear, something I agree with.
91
Post by: Hordini
I just find it incredible that someone would be that nasty when the officer was giving a warning, not a ticket.
If I were to get pulled over and get a warning rather than a ticket, I'm going to be pretty gracious and probably feel pretty lucky.
That said, I agree with Frazz. If he felt the need to do something further, he ought to have just given her a ticket rather than asking her to get out of the car.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Frazzled wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:You cannot talk to a person and blow a smoke a different direction? That is a pretty flimsy argument Fraz, as is your argument about being told to step out of the vehicle. He asks her to put it out, she refuses, he tells her to get out. That is exactly how it goes down.
1. She could have but I highly doubt she did. As noted, some police will argue addicts use cigarette smoke to cover. But simple politeness would be to not smoke a cigarette at the moment or put it out when asked.
2. As to pulling her out. As soon as he stopped her he was within his rights to have her step out, no reason needed. if you refuse to step out when asked, you're going to jail (at best).
Did you know many mental illnesses gravitate towards certain addictions specifically? Nicotine is one of the big ones, it helps relieve a lot of stress and stops people from becoming further agitated. If we are going by assumptions, I am going to assume that she was smoking to stop herself from further flying off the handle. You ever tried to take a cigarette from a nicotine addict with a mental illness? Do it one time, you would deserve everything that happens to you afterwards. It wouldn't be pretty.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Frazzled wrote: because she killed herself several days later, and that's what we should be focussing on.
Allegdly. Thats still being investigated. Frankly, any time there is a death in custody it should be heavily investigated by 3rd party investigators.
That's what I mean, though. That investigation should be the focus right now, rather than the smokescreen offered by the traffic stop.
I would also proffer any time there is a shoot it should likely be investigated by a 3rd party.
That would (hopefully) restore some level of confidence in the US police, and really should be implemented.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadwinter wrote: Frazzled wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:You cannot talk to a person and blow a smoke a different direction? That is a pretty flimsy argument Fraz, as is your argument about being told to step out of the vehicle. He asks her to put it out, she refuses, he tells her to get out. That is exactly how it goes down.
1. She could have but I highly doubt she did. As noted, some police will argue addicts use cigarette smoke to cover. But simple politeness would be to not smoke a cigarette at the moment or put it out when asked.
2. As to pulling her out. As soon as he stopped her he was within his rights to have her step out, no reason needed. if you refuse to step out when asked, you're going to jail (at best).
Did you know many mental illnesses gravitate towards certain addictions specifically? Nicotine is one of the big ones, it helps relieve a lot of stress and stops people from becoming further agitated. If we are going by assumptions, I am going to assume that she was smoking to stop herself from further flying off the handle. You ever tried to take a cigarette from a nicotine addict with a mental illness? Do it one time, you would deserve everything that happens to you afterwards. It wouldn't be pretty.
Whatever. As a former smoker who's had quite a few interactions with the PoPo (both as compatriot when shooting and potential violator) I'd never have a cigarette around a police officer. When I was in LA, being polite with slow movements and presenting no reason to alarm was a key strategy to not ending up on a car hood. For a certain period of time I was routinely pulled over (as in once every two weeks) because I was the wrong color in a neighborhood and they were routinely pulling me over thinking I was looking for drugs or hookers. You lose you cool-even if completely innocent-and you're going to jail or at least getting a bunch of tickets. Don't lose your cool and the situation ends better. Automatically Appended Next Post:  -Shrike- wrote: Frazzled wrote: because she killed herself several days later, and that's what we should be focussing on.
Allegdly. Thats still being investigated. Frankly, any time there is a death in custody it should be heavily investigated by 3rd party investigators.
That's what I mean, though. That investigation should be the focus right now, rather than the smokescreen offered by the traffic stop.
Agreed. And also I see what you did there -smokescreen... 
I would also proffer any time there is a shoot it should likely be investigated by a 3rd party.
That would (hopefully) restore some level of confidence in the US police, and really should be implemented.
Agreed. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote:Whatever. As a former smoker who's had quite a few interactions with the PoPo (both as compatriot when shooting and potential violator) I'd never have a cigarette around a police officer. When I was in LA, being polite with slow movements and presenting no reason to alarm was a key strategy to not ending up on a car hood. For a certain period of time I was routinely pulled over (as in once every two weeks) because I was the wrong color in a neighborhood and they were routinely pulling me over thinking I was looking for drugs or hookers. You lose you cool-even if completely innocent-and you're going to jail or at least getting a bunch of tickets. Don't lose your cool and the situation ends better.
Pick up the can, citizen.
123
Post by: Alpharius
The title is unnecessarily proactive and incendiary - so I've changed it.
Some posts in the thread break Rule #1.
So, here's a general in thread warning to knock it off.
Thanks!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: Frazzled wrote:Whatever. As a former smoker who's had quite a few interactions with the PoPo (both as compatriot when shooting and potential violator) I'd never have a cigarette around a police officer. When I was in LA, being polite with slow movements and presenting no reason to alarm was a key strategy to not ending up on a car hood. For a certain period of time I was routinely pulled over (as in once every two weeks) because I was the wrong color in a neighborhood and they were routinely pulling me over thinking I was looking for drugs or hookers. You lose you cool-even if completely innocent-and you're going to jail or at least getting a bunch of tickets. Don't lose your cool and the situation ends better.
Pick up the can, citizen.
No it was more [read between lines] "whats a redneck kicker like you doing deep in the barrio?"
I must admit I really enjoyed messing with them when the would roust the block party. Because I knew that 50% of time the time the cops would eventually be there I'd always just have a plastic liter bottle of Dr. Pepper. When they'd come in and started rousting the youngins and forcing them to poor out all their booze (occasionally arresting a fair number), I'd just laugh when they started looking at the Dr. Pepper bottle, explaining I knew they were coming and didn't need the hassle. I'd always offer them some and they would laugh (occasionally accepting) and move on. I got to know a few of them over time.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
I am actually indifferent on the subject. Shame on the police, but the women had done something clearly wrong. I have no further comments.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
I've smoked heavily, but never felt the need to kill myself or others if I didn't have a smoke. Why would this suspect off herself? Mental instability in itself shouldn't be a reason, but maybe she believed the police would get her in deep trouble? Some police officers like to list all the things they could potentially accuse you of and what things that could mean for you, either to get a confession fast or just to make you feel happy about only receiving a ticket.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Thats still not the fault of the officer. And investigators are allowed to lie and exaggerate to try and prompt a confession.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Already stated in Fox News (this early morning around 0400) the Arresting Officer violated some sort of "courtesy policy(?)" that is in play at the department by having his frame of mind run of the reservation (in getting angry)
CO2 sounds like
Edit
Courtesy On to Others
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Oh no, the officer wasn't "nice" to her.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
You are fine with a person in a position of power losing it and treating citizenry badly? He should be able to keep his cool in situations like this or he should not be in a situation like this. At my work, if I scream and yell at somebody and tell them "good" when they tell me they have epilepsy, I get fired and then reported and a large fine is issued to me, possibly even a mark on me record keeping me from ever working in a facility like mine ever again.
She was acting badly, but why was she acting badly? Was she having a bad day? Was she extremely stressed out?
Granted, this has nothing to do with the death, but the cop was not in the right to treat her like he did.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
As you said, it has nothing to do with what happened. Its not illegal to be mean.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
It is not, so why should she have been asked to step out of the vehicle?
It is not illegal to be mean, but it does help to show the community that the police are there to help. Instead of picking fights with people who are clearly having issues.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Can you show us that at the point of interacting with the officer, she was clearly having issues, which could not be misdiagnosed as being a dick? Note that I am not saying that she was acting like a dick, merely that anyone behaving in such a manner is not normally assumed to be having serious mental health issues.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Police Officer is being a dick: "it's not against the law to be a dick, this has nothing to do with what happened".
Chick is being a bitch: "she deserved everything that happened to her, should have checked her attidute!"
Good job Dakka.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Courtesy and respect works both ways.
Besides 2nd hand smoking can cause cancer to.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadwinter wrote:
You are fine with a person in a position of power losing it and treating citizenry badly? He should be able to keep his cool in situations like this or he should not be in a situation like this. At my work, if I scream and yell at somebody and tell them "good" when they tell me they have epilepsy, I get fired and then reported and a large fine is issued to me, possibly even a mark on me record keeping me from ever working in a facility like mine ever again.
She was acting badly, but why was she acting badly? Was she having a bad day? Was she extremely stressed out?
Granted, this has nothing to do with the death, but the cop was not in the right to treat her like he did.
Agreed with all of that.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
 d-usa wrote:Police Officer is being a dick: "it's not against the law to be a dick, this has nothing to do with what happened".
Chick is being a bitch: "she deserved everything that happened to her, should have checked her attidute!"
Good job Dakka.
Heh, business as usual in the OT. Context is important, though. The police officer being a dick is not really relevant to the apparent suicide several days later, but he did at least apparently get punished at some level for being a dick (I wish we had more information on this, sounds like a good idea for the police in general. ). On the other hand, the woman possibly being a bitch is pretty relevant to any discussion of the traffic stop, where at the very least the police officer was an idiot, and the woman might have been as well.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:Police Officer is being a dick: "it's not against the law to be a dick, this has nothing to do with what happened".
Chick is being a bitch: "she deserved everything that happened to her, should have checked her attidute!"
Good job Dakka.
I am sure in your mind you think that is what this thread has been saying.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
-Shrike- wrote:
Can you show us that at the point of interacting with the officer, she was clearly having issues, which could not be misdiagnosed as being a dick? Note that I am not saying that she was acting like a dick, merely that anyone behaving in such a manner is not normally assumed to be having serious mental health issues.
Issues =/= Serious Mental Issues
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Dreadwinter wrote: -Shrike- wrote:
Can you show us that at the point of interacting with the officer, she was clearly having issues, which could not be misdiagnosed as being a dick? Note that I am not saying that she was acting like a dick, merely that anyone behaving in such a manner is not normally assumed to be having serious mental health issues.
Issues =/= Serious Mental Issues
So Police officers are supposed to diagnose everyone who they interact with to see if they have mental issues or if they're just being dicks? Sorry, thats not a reasonable burden to give them.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Dreadwinter wrote: -Shrike- wrote:
Can you show us that at the point of interacting with the officer, she was clearly having issues, which could not be misdiagnosed as being a dick? Note that I am not saying that she was acting like a dick, merely that anyone behaving in such a manner is not normally assumed to be having serious mental health issues.
Issues =/= Serious Mental Issues
Ok, I thought that was what you meant. Apologies. In any case, can you show that she was clearly having issues at the point of interacting with the officer?
39550
Post by: Psienesis
So they released the dash cam footage...
... complete with amateur-level editing artifacts left (hint: cars don't vanish into thin air and then loop back into frame).
There's certainly something suspicious going on here.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
 Psienesis wrote:So they released the dash cam footage...
... complete with amateur-level editing artifacts left (hint: cars don't vanish into thin air and then loop back into frame).
There's certainly something suspicious going on here.
Didn't they reupload it?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I don't think the Dash-cam video is particularly relevant. She killed herself in her cell.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
 Grey Templar wrote:I don't think the Dash-cam video is particularly relevant. She killed herself in her cell.
Illegal abusive arrests are always relevant. Potential Staged suicides due to payback or coverup for prior interactions are also relevant.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
nkelsch wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't think the Dash-cam video is particularly relevant. She killed herself in her cell.
Illegal abusive arrests are always relevant. Potential Staged suicides due to payback or coverup for prior interactions are also relevant.
Thats some pretty big accusations to be making there.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
The video in the jail house I believe is motion sensor activated. So the video is going to jump
Edit
Which was re-uploaded? Dash cam or jail house video?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Psienesis wrote:So they released the dash cam footage...
... complete with amateur-level editing artifacts left (hint: cars don't vanish into thin air and then loop back into frame).
There's certainly something suspicious going on here.
Actually they said that was version uploaded and had glitches but that the FBI has the complete version on DVD.
As noted this has jack to do with her death. Automatically Appended Next Post: nkelsch wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't think the Dash-cam video is particularly relevant. She killed herself in her cell.
Illegal abusive arrests are always relevant. Potential Staged suicides due to payback or coverup for prior interactions are also relevant.
You just cited two things that aren't relevant to each other much less to her death. Whats relevant to her death are facts about...her death, not supposition.
Frankly being charged with resisting and maybe assaulting a PoPo are minor (the assaulting would likely have been dropped). Resisting is a low level misdemeanor. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:The video in the jail house I believe is motion sensor activated. So the video is going to jump
Edit
Which was re-uploaded? Dash cam or jail house video?
Dash cam.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Grey Templar wrote:nkelsch wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't think the Dash-cam video is particularly relevant. She killed herself in her cell.
Illegal abusive arrests are always relevant. Potential Staged suicides due to payback or coverup for prior interactions are also relevant.
Thats some pretty big accusations to be making there.
You must not be following the news... And the abusive, illegal arrest is already pretty evident from the video. Too many deviations from standard procedure happened on this case for them to be able to wrap this up as suicide, case closed. That is why it is being investigated as a murder by the DA.
I find it is funny how police are given every benefit of the doubt at every turn... but yet the victim is guilty at every turn.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You haven't shown how its illegal.
You haven't shown how they tie. Unless he choked her to death on the side of the road they aren't related.
You're charging murder. You have to at least have to have a modicum of evidence to support the charge else you're talking out of your ass.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Frazzled wrote:You haven't shown how its illegal.
You haven't shown how they tie. Unless he choked her to death on the side of the road they aren't related.
You're charging murder. You have to at least have to have a modicum of evidence to support the charge else you're talking out of your ass.
Hence why the DA is investigating murder charges... because there are inconsistencies which lead to 'her being found dead in her cell' is not what happened. The story being given by police don't match the situation and they are hiding behind the 'blue wall' hence an investigation.
And supreme court ruled this arrest would have been illegal:
Rodriguez v. United States held that police could not extend the length of a routine traffic stop, even for just a few minutes, absent a safety related concern or reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver may have committed an additional crime.
There was no safety concern, no additional crime, no legal reason to detain her or threaten her. Illegal arrest.
221
Post by: Frazzled
nkelsch wrote: Frazzled wrote:You haven't shown how its illegal.
You haven't shown how they tie. Unless he choked her to death on the side of the road they aren't related.
You're charging murder. You have to at least have to have a modicum of evidence to support the charge else you're talking out of your ass.
Hence why the DA is investigating murder charges... because there are inconsistencies which lead to 'her being found dead in her cell' is not what happened. The story being given by police don't match the situation and they are hiding behind the 'blue wall' hence an investigation.
Actually the FBI and Rangers are, not the local DA.
But thats not evidence. Please show some. You made these massive claims. Put up or shut up.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Past history she has a documented suicide attempt.
On the intake form she marked no to "Past History Suicide Attempt"
Two things the holding facility were not current on so far
The (some) guards were not current on Suicidal Prevention Class (Mandatory two hour class) given yearly
Also instead of checking on the inmate every hour on the hour they did it by intercom
Edit
First attempt was by pill after a lost pregnancy
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Jihadin wrote:Past history she has a documented suicide attempt.
On the intake form she marked no to "Past History Suicide Attempt"
Two things the holding facility were not current on so far
The (some) guards were not current on Suicidal Prevention Class (Mandatory two hour class) given yearly
Also instead of checking on the inmate every hour on the hour they did it by intercom
Edit
First attempt was by pill after a lost pregnancy
*Mug shots are normally done in the clothes they were arrested in, not in police scrubs unless there is physical evidence on the clothes which are needed.
*Mug Shots are also done twice and hers was only taken once
*Mug shots at this precinct are done in front of a brick wall, hers was done in front of a grey flat surface which matched the floor
*her mugshot doesn't match the angle of a directly forward shot. It is an 'undershot' which appears if she was lying flat on something and was being taken over her, not straight on.
*Timelines of interaction are based upon non-visible interactions which is against procedure
*Timelines also are based upon parties who have a motive to change times of the circumstances
*Crime scene was compromised as a reporter was able to enter the scene BEFORE photos were taken and manipulate items on the bed.
*Trashcans are not allowed in the cells, but this time there was one.
It is a lot of sloppy police work to allow so many circumstances that allowed such a suicide to take place. Or it is fabricated lies because they knew they were sunk for illegal arrest and were arrogant enough to believe they could get away with it.
Pretty clear abuse of power. For them to arrest, he would have either felt at risk or feared for safety, interesting as none of that was in his report.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/20/us/sandra-bland-arrest-death-videos-maps.html?_r=0
Things don't add up, and it looks like abuse of police power... so don't expect everyone to just say 'yup, good arrest, another dead thug, world keeps spinning.'
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I was interested in your posts till the last sentence
123
Post by: Alpharius
d-usa wrote:Police Officer is being a dick: "it's not against the law to be a dick, this has nothing to do with what happened".
Chick is being a bitch: "she deserved everything that happened to her, should have checked her attidute!"
Good job Dakka.
"Dakka"?
Who is this "Dakka" you're referencing?
 C'mon d-usa, you know better than that!
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Grey Templar wrote:Thats still not the fault of the officer. And investigators are allowed to lie and exaggerate to try and prompt a confession.
That seems like a bad idea.
221
Post by: Frazzled
nkelsch wrote: Jihadin wrote:Past history she has a documented suicide attempt. On the intake form she marked no to "Past History Suicide Attempt" Two things the holding facility were not current on so far The (some) guards were not current on Suicidal Prevention Class (Mandatory two hour class) given yearly Also instead of checking on the inmate every hour on the hour they did it by intercom Edit First attempt was by pill after a lost pregnancy
*Mug shots are normally done in the clothes they were arrested in, not in police scrubs unless there is physical evidence on the clothes which are needed. *Mug Shots are also done twice and hers was only taken once *Mug shots at this precinct are done in front of a brick wall, hers was done in front of a grey flat surface which matched the floor *her mugshot doesn't match the angle of a directly forward shot. It is an 'undershot' which appears if she was lying flat on something and was being taken over her, not straight on. *Timelines of interaction are based upon non-visible interactions which is against procedure *Timelines also are based upon parties who have a motive to change times of the circumstances *Crime scene was compromised as a reporter was able to enter the scene BEFORE photos were taken and manipulate items on the bed. *Trashcans are not allowed in the cells, but this time there was one. It is a lot of sloppy police work to allow so many circumstances that allowed such a suicide to take place. Or it is fabricated lies because they knew they were sunk for illegal arrest and were arrogant enough to believe they could get away with it. Pretty clear abuse of power. For them to arrest, he would have either felt at risk or feared for safety, interesting as none of that was in his report. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/20/us/sandra-bland-arrest-death-videos-maps.html?_r=0 Things don't add up, and it looks like abuse of police power... so don't expect everyone to just say 'yup, good arrest, another dead thug, world keeps spinning.'
Thats your argument? Please don't ever serve on a jury. You appear to be arguing that she was dead before the mugshot. Logically that means she had to be dead between them originally arresting her, and arrival at the jail, as booking occurs when you get there. per your logic he had to have strangled her, either before or while she was in the car, THEN took her to the jail, then photgraphed her. And it had to have been immediately before evidence of the strangling (blood pooling etc) occurred-or else it would be in the picture. Ok..... Its enough to look at, but nothing to level of the allegations you're making.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
d-usa wrote:Police Officer is being a dick: "it's not against the law to be a dick, this has nothing to do with what happened". Chick is being a bitch: "she deserved everything that happened to her, should have checked her attidute!" Good job Dakka.
1. Read the thread 2. Post in the thread In this order, please. Nothing you said happened in this thread actually happened. What you do is reinforcing a negative stereotype which serves for nothing except creating an unwelcome atmosphere and provoking other forum members.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Grey Templar wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: -Shrike- wrote:
Can you show us that at the point of interacting with the officer, she was clearly having issues, which could not be misdiagnosed as being a dick? Note that I am not saying that she was acting like a dick, merely that anyone behaving in such a manner is not normally assumed to be having serious mental health issues.
Issues =/= Serious Mental Issues
So Police officers are supposed to diagnose everyone who they interact with to see if they have mental issues or if they're just being dicks? Sorry, thats not a reasonable burden to give them.
Did I mention anything about mental health issues? Clearly this person was behaving in a strange way and he escalated the event because she refused to do something that was well within her rights to do. Please, stop putting words in my mouth.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Autoppsy notes large amounts of marijuana and old/new scars on her wrists.
(note autopsy done in Harris County-aka Houston, not Waller County)
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Waller-County-authorities-to-release-more-details-6401698.php
Waller County does not have a medical examiner's office. The Harris County Institute of Forensic Science conducted the autopsy on Bland and has ruled it a suicide by hanging. Bland's family has said they are waiting for results of an independent autopsy.
Besides the ligature marks on her neck, Duhon said the autopsy reports no significant injuries that could have led to Bland's death.
He said her arm, nor any other bone, was not broken – as Bland had told a friend in a call from her jail cell – but she did have a small, dark bruise on one arm.
The autopsy found no wounds to her head or face, Duhon said. In the dash cam video of her stop, Bland can be heard yelling that her head was slammed to the ground, although that part of the arrest is off screen.
"She had scratches on her back," he said. "Presumably from the arrest when the officers had their knees on her back."
The autopsy report also includes evidence of cutting on her wrists, Duhon said, ranging from completely healed and "older" to "newer with scabs."[i][u]
He noted that she declined EMS treatment at the time of her arrest.
Meanwhile, Prairie View officials named the officer who arrived as back-up for Encinia as Officer Pennie Goodie. The police department has initiated a review of her actions during the arrest, but no disciplinary actions have been taken against her, department officials said.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Sigvatr wrote: d-usa wrote:Police Officer is being a dick: "it's not against the law to be a dick, this has nothing to do with what happened".
Chick is being a bitch: "she deserved everything that happened to her, should have checked her attidute!"
Good job Dakka.
1. Read the thread
2. Post in the thread
In this order, please.
Nothing you said happened in this thread actually happened. What you do is reinforcing a negative stereotype which serves for nothing except creating an unwelcome atmosphere and provoking other forum members.
This thread doesn't need my help to do that.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Grey Templar wrote:I don't think the Dash-cam video is particularly relevant. She killed herself in her cell.
No, she was found dead in her cell.
Did she kill herself? That remains to be seen.
Did she hang herself, or was she hanged? That's a question that hasn't yet been answered.
From indications, however, she was not a likely candidate for suicidal actions.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Really, It seems like most posts have been reasoned on this thread. Automatically Appended Next Post: Psienesis wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't think the Dash-cam video is particularly relevant. She killed herself in her cell.
No, she was found dead in her cell.
Did she kill herself? That remains to be seen.
Did she hang herself, or was she hanged? That's a question that hasn't yet been answered.
From indications, however, she was not a likely candidate for suicidal actions.
She attempted suicide previously.
She had PTSD by self admission.
She had cut marks on her wrists.
37231
Post by: d-usa
There have been well thought out posts. There have also been the usual "cops are always right" posts, the usual "she had it coming" posts, "she had attitude, so the cop was right" followed by "so what if the cop had attitude, that's not against the law" posts. There have been "she blew smoke in his face, OMG" posts followed by "a dashcam video that appears edited doesn't have anything to do with anything" posts, "found dead = suicide because she has mental illness" posts and "how dare you suggest that shaky evidence and an active investigation suggests something sinister" posts.
That's why this thread does a good job showcasing the negative stereotype of the Dakka OT section, the opening post and initial title of the thread created the unwelcome atmosphere and provoked forum members, me pointing out the above is pretty tame compared to all that.
There is shaky evidence here, the appearance of an arrest on shaky grounds following a traffic stop that appears to have violated procedure, and appearance that some of the evidence has been tampered with. I think dismissing the issue because she has a history of mental illness is premature.
123
Post by: Alpharius
1) Yes, THIS. IS. DAKKA. DAKKA. (Channeling Leonidas)
2) THERE. IS. NO. "DAKKA".
Yeah?
Anyway, keep it polite - thanks!
39550
Post by: Psienesis
That was a year ago, prior to counseling. Her state of mind, prior to her arrest, indicates no warnings or inclinations of suicidal thoughts. While a previous suicide attempt indicates that another attempt in the future is probable, there's a lot (and I mean a lot) of conditions that go along with that.
Further, the listed reasons for her previous attempt are (generally speaking) not unusual (in this case, a miscarriage), but are also the sort that are less-likely to instigate a future attempt. Additionally, even the paperwork for her processing into jail is... dodgy. They list the in-processing time as 8:17 PM, even though a previous report states that it had been four hours previously.
The transcript of the traffic stop indicates that the arrest wasn't even proper. The orders he gives her during that interaction aren't lawful orders. She should have never been in that cell in the first place.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The transcript of the traffic stop indicates that the arrest wasn't even proper. The orders he gives her during that interaction aren't lawful orders. She should have never been in that cell in the first place.
Separate from the jail situation, but to your point. What was the unlawful order?
61618
Post by: Desubot
Psienesis wrote:That was a year ago, prior to counseling. Her state of mind, prior to her arrest, indicates no warnings or inclinations of suicidal thoughts. While a previous suicide attempt indicates that another attempt in the future is probable, there's a lot (and I mean a lot) of conditions that go along with that
didn't autopsy show recent attempts that have scabbed?
221
Post by: Frazzled
It noted cuts on her wrists, some old, some not old.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
d-usa wrote:There have been well thought out posts. There have also been the usual "cops are always right" posts, the usual "she had it coming" posts, "she had attitude, so the cop was right" followed by "so what if the cop had attitude, that's not against the law" posts. There have been "she blew smoke in his face, OMG" posts followed by "a dashcam video that appears edited doesn't have anything to do with anything" posts, "found dead = suicide because she has mental illness" posts and "how dare you suggest that shaky evidence and an active investigation suggests something sinister" posts.
That's why this thread does a good job showcasing the negative stereotype of the Dakka OT section, the opening post and initial title of the thread created the unwelcome atmosphere and provoked forum members, me pointing out the above is pretty tame compared to all that.
There is shaky evidence here, the appearance of an arrest on shaky grounds following a traffic stop that appears to have violated procedure, and appearance that some of the evidence has been tampered with. I think dismissing the issue because she has a history of mental illness is premature.
I agree with d-usa. This thread has the same manner of posts that nearly every LEO thread has had over the last 18 months which boils down to: it is acceptable for police to exceed their bounds when dealing with civilians, but if the civilian even moves an inch out of line then the consequences are entirely on the civilian's shoulders.
It doesn't matter if the cop is freaking out and doing shoulder rolls while manhandling children ("oh, the poor officer had to respond to a previous domestic abuse incident and was under stress") or if the cop is plugging holes in a 12 year old ("we thought he had a gun and gave him two whole SECONDS to comply with our orders") the cop always gets the benefit of the doubt and the civilian largely receives judgement, and at times, mocking from the posters here.
It's gross. Cops shouldn't be above the law just like they shouldn't be given consideration over civilians. The idea that society needs to protect cops more that civilians is ludicrous, but based on the types of responses that are common in these topics it would seem that civilians are merely around to pay cops' salaries and cautiously tip-toe out of their way lest they get the business end of a night stick, or worse.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
ABC News wrote:
The woman who was found dead in a Texas jail days after being arrested following a traffic stop told guards that she previously tried to kill herself, according to the sheriff's office.
A handwritten intake form from the Waller County Sheriff's Office indicates that Sandra Bland had tried to commit suicide either in 2014 or 2015 (the form says both). According to the handwritten document Bland made the attempt by taking pills after losing a baby.
On a computerized version of the suicide assessment form, it says that Bland did not have thoughts of suicide in the past year or the day she was taken into the jail. There were also answers of "no" to other questions such as if Bland had "visible signs of harm" or seemed hopeless.
This contradicts another article that had come across my feed that I'm trying to find again (might be contradiction, might just be an update), with the absence of mental health counseling, though it seems to posit (and this ties in to her recent social activity) that she was not currently suffering from depression, which is a strong indicator that suicide was not on the table.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Nobody noticed those at the jailhouse? Do they not look at people when they take them in?
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Dreadwinter wrote:
Nobody noticed those at the jailhouse? Do they not look at people when they take them in?
Might depend what she was wearing, and how big the cuts were. Anything like a suit (hadn't she just come back from an interview?) and it'd be pretty hard to notice. I don't actually know what the procedure is for checking people, though. Probably mostly limited to a search for weapons.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Dreadwinter wrote: Nobody noticed those at the jailhouse? Do they not look at people when they take them in?
"Aint nobody got time for that." From earlier posts it seems this holding facility has a LOT of issues to begin with Edit: I dont think they go through the full Monty for a holding faclity. kinda like the cooling tank no? not that iv ever been arrested or anything 
221
Post by: Frazzled
 DarkTraveler777 wrote: d-usa wrote:There have been well thought out posts. There have also been the usual "cops are always right" posts, the usual "she had it coming" posts, "she had attitude, so the cop was right" followed by "so what if the cop had attitude, that's not against the law" posts. There have been "she blew smoke in his face, OMG" posts followed by "a dashcam video that appears edited doesn't have anything to do with anything" posts, "found dead = suicide because she has mental illness" posts and "how dare you suggest that shaky evidence and an active investigation suggests something sinister" posts.
That's why this thread does a good job showcasing the negative stereotype of the Dakka OT section, the opening post and initial title of the thread created the unwelcome atmosphere and provoked forum members, me pointing out the above is pretty tame compared to all that.
There is shaky evidence here, the appearance of an arrest on shaky grounds following a traffic stop that appears to have violated procedure, and appearance that some of the evidence has been tampered with. I think dismissing the issue because she has a history of mental illness is premature.
I agree with d-usa. This thread has the same manner of posts that nearly every LEO thread has had over the last 18 months which boils down to: it is acceptable for police to exceed their bounds when dealing with civilians, but if the civilian even moves an inch out of line then the consequences are entirely on the civilian's shoulders.
It doesn't matter if the cop is freaking out and doing shoulder rolls while manhandling children ("oh, the poor officer had to respond to a previous domestic abuse incident and was under stress") or if the cop is plugging holes in a 12 year old ("we thought he had a gun and gave him two whole SECONDS to comply with our orders") the cop always gets the benefit of the doubt and the civilian largely receives judgement, and at times, mocking from the posters here.
It's gross. Cops shouldn't be above the law just like they shouldn't be given consideration over civilians. The idea that society needs to protect cops more that civilians is ludicrous, but based on the types of responses that are common in these topics it would seem that civilians are merely around to pay cops' salaries and cautiously tip-toe out of their way lest they get the business end of a night stick, or worse.
if its difficult for you to handle alternate views you should step back, take a debate class, and a history class on the First Amendment and up your game.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Frazzled wrote:
The transcript of the traffic stop indicates that the arrest wasn't even proper. The orders he gives her during that interaction aren't lawful orders. She should have never been in that cell in the first place.
Separate from the jail situation, but to your point. What was the unlawful order?
The police cannot legally detain you during a traffic stop any longer than it takes to issue a ticket, unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. You are also not obliged to obey ancillary commands during a traffic stop, which is what I think Psienesis is referring to. Officers can ask a motorist to exist the vehicle for the sake of safety, something the Supreme Court has said is okay so the officer asking her to step out the vehicle is not an unlawful order. The traffic stop should have ended with the officer handing her the ticket and sending her on her way. Yet, when he comes to her door to hand her the ticket, he tells her that she "seems irritated," to which she replied, "I am, I really am. I was getting out of your way … so I move over, and you stop me. So I am a little irritated, but that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket." The officer then asks her to put out her cigarette, an ancillary command that does not have to be obeyed. Within her rights, she responds with, "I’m in my own car. I don’t have to put out my cigarette." It was at this point that the officer decides to [unlawfully] extend and escalate the encounter. The officer asking her to get out of the car at this point was not unlawful (even though it was occurring during an unlawful extension of a traffic stop) and her refusal to do so is resisting arrest according to Texas law. The biggest problem here is the officer's use of force during the arrest, which is probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment. According to the Supreme Court, an officer's use of force must be objectively reasonable and not excessive. Even though she verbally resisted arrest, she posed no threat to the officer nor give any indication that she was trying to flee. The act of the officer violently reaching into her vehicle, then drawing his taser and threatening to "light her up," and finally pulling her out of the car are most definitely objectively unreasonable given how minor her alleged crime (improper lane change) was.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Dreadwinter wrote:
Nobody noticed those at the jailhouse? Do they not look at people when they take them in?
They don't typically strip search and write down all the scratches like when you rent a car, no.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Heard Judge set her bail at Five Grand. Since she couldn't make the bail she was held. As for a full 110% physical/mental/documentation inprocess I think, key word "think", that's fully done at a correctional facility not at a county holding facility.
221
Post by: Frazzled
“The police cannot legally detain you during a traffic stop any longer than it takes to issue a ticket, unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”
No. They can hold you for the investigatory stop for a reasonable period, until the interview has ended, or an arrest is made.
“ You are also not obliged to obey ancillary commands during a traffic stop, which is what I think Psienesis is referring to.”
No. You are obligated to obey commands about movement. A PoPo is fully within established rights under law and stare decisis to have you exit the vehicle until such time as the interview is ended.
The traffic stop should have ended with the officer handing her the ticket and sending her along her war.
No. The traffic stop should have ended when it ends.
“Yet, when he comes to her door to hand her the ticket, he tells her that she "seems irritated," to which she replied, "I am, I really am. I was getting out of your way … so I move over, and you stop me. So I am a little irritated, but that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket." The officer then asks her to put out her cigarette, an ancillary command that does not have to be obeyed. She rightfully responds with, "I’m in my own car. I don’t have to put out my cigarette." It was at this point that the officer decides to [unlawfully] extend and escalate the encounter. “
Please cite case law where it is unlawful to extend. Immediate response: her manner was indicative of someone under the influence of marijuana. (oh look she was under the influence of marijuana)
“The biggest problem here is the officer's use of force during the arrest, which is probably a violation of the Fourth Amendment. According to the Supreme Court, an officer's use of force must be objectively reasonable and not excessive. Even though she verbally resisted arrest, she posed no threat to the officer nor give any indication that she was trying to flee. The act of the officer violently reaching into her vehicle, then drawing his taser and threatening to "light her up," and finally pulling her out of the car are most definitely objectively unreasonable given how minor her alleged crime (improper lane change) was.”
That’s not illegal. She was resisting exiting the vehicle. At that point she’s defacto under arrest AND HAS NO LEGAL RECOURSE TO RESIST WHATSOEVER. Swing Away Merrill.
Do I think its clean? No I am in complete agreement. The officer is apparently escalating and handling the situation calmly. I beleive there's already been action against him for this internally.
Do I think it needed to happen-nope not at all.
Do I think its related to her death. Absent information coming to light otherwise, I see no indication of that.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
-Shrike- wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:
Nobody noticed those at the jailhouse? Do they not look at people when they take them in?
Might depend what she was wearing, and how big the cuts were. Anything like a suit (hadn't she just come back from an interview?) and it'd be pretty hard to notice. I don't actually know what the procedure is for checking people, though. Probably mostly limited to a search for weapons.
I believe it was called a Maxi Dress? She kept saying that in the dash cam. Wrist scars should be an immediate red flag on something is wrong. Doesn't require a strip search, you can notice that just looking over a person and I know they had to see her wrists, they handcuffed her.
221
Post by: Frazzled
And they may have. Doesn't mean they would have made a report of it.
23
Post by: djones520
d-usa wrote: Sigvatr wrote: d-usa wrote:Police Officer is being a dick: "it's not against the law to be a dick, this has nothing to do with what happened".
Chick is being a bitch: "she deserved everything that happened to her, should have checked her attidute!"
Good job Dakka.
1. Read the thread
2. Post in the thread
In this order, please.
Nothing you said happened in this thread actually happened. What you do is reinforcing a negative stereotype which serves for nothing except creating an unwelcome atmosphere and provoking other forum members.
This thread doesn't need my help to do that.
Hasn't prevented you from trying to misrepresent the narrative though.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Frazzled wrote:No. They can hold you for the investigatory stop for a reasonable period, until the interview has ended, or an arrest is made.
Only if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed, which is not the case here. The traffic stop was concerning an illegal lane change and by law it should have concluded with the issuance of a ticket. That isn't what happened because the officer escalated and extended the encounter. No. You are obligated to obey commands about movement. A PoPo is fully within established rights under law and stare decisis to have you exit the vehicle until such time as the interview is ended.
Yes. You do not have to obey ancillary commands from an officer. Asking someone to put out a cigarette is an ancillary command and she was legally within her rights to continue smoking. Keep in mind that I'm not saying it was the best course of action on her part, but she was well within her rights and that's all that matters. No. The traffic stop should have ended when it ends.
Exactly, after the ticket was issued, considering at no time did the officer become reasonably suspicious of any further crime. For more on that, see below. Please cite case law where it is unlawful to extend. Immediate response: her manner was indicative of someone under the influence of marijuana. (oh look she was under the influence of marijuana)
I'm glad you asked, since we just had a Supreme Court case decided in April about police detaining people during traffic stops. Here are some excerpts from Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion: ... a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.
[a traffic stop becomes unlawful if] it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.
As far as the marijuana is concerned, the officer made no mention of suspecting that she was under the influence of illegal drugs. Furthermore, her manner was indicative of someone who was pissed that they got pulled over for bs, which isn't against the law. Also, I don't know what kind of weed they have down in Texas, but I've never experienced any that makes someone irritated... unless there isn't any tasty snacks in arms reach. That’s not illegal. She was resisting exiting the vehicle. At that point she’s defacto under arrest AND HAS NO LEGAL RECOURSE TO RESIST WHATSOEVER. Swing Away Merrill.
You just demonstrated that you did not read anything I wrote. The arrest was legal even though it occurred in an unlawfully extended traffic stop. Her refusal to leave the vehicle is indeed resisting arrest in the state of Texas, therefore making the actual arrest lawful. The issue is the use of force during the arrest was not lawful because it was objectively unreasonable given her alleged crime and therefore a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Frazzled wrote:And they may have. Doesn't mean they would have made a report of it.
Why would you not report clear suicide scars? There are not very many things that leave wrist scars. Our police need more training in noticing these things and handling them if they are going to be interacting with citizens.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I've scars on my wrists and up my arms. Does not mean I have suicidal thoughts/tendencies though
4402
Post by: CptJake
I have a lot of Suicidal Tendencies.
Their early releases are some of my favorite discs to listen to when driving long distances.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
If she was in handcuffs, wouldn't there be red marks on her wrists anyway (when they're taking them off, as that's what we're discussing here)?
61618
Post by: Desubot
-Shrike- wrote:If she was in handcuffs, wouldn't there be red marks on her wrists anyway (when they're taking them off, as that's what we're discussing here)?
It probably wouldn't cause scabs. and scabs would mean the cuts on here wrist are recent.
meaning she had been recently having suicidal episodes.
The stress of getting locked up might of set her off again.
IMO
5742
Post by: generalgrog
This woman is dead, because of a racial profiling traffic stop...period
Is this what the arresting officer wanted? Probably not...but he pulled over the wrong person, who wasn't willing to be a sheeple. The officer should be fired for this incompetent, uncontrolled stop.
1)He pulled her over for "illegal lane change", when in fact he was the one who instigated her lane change.
2)He asked her if she was irritated...this was an instigatory question/act. In fact it was entirely possible he was doing what he was trained to do, in an effort to gain a response, so he could goad her into a situation whereby he could search her vehicle. Get her agitated to he can trump up a "reasonable suspicion".
3) He does have the right ask her to exit her vehicle, and in which case she should have complied, and sued the department later for violation of her civil rights. (racial profiling) Unfortunately for her, she did not have the self control to keep herself safe, from predatory policing practices such as what we see here. I.E. with her belligerent attitude she played right into the officers hands.
4) She was recording the officer, and he made her put her phone down...not sure if this was an illegal request of the officer at this point or not.
5) Officer knowingly took the lady out of view range of the dash cam...and you can hear him abusing her, throwing her to the ground, applying pressure to her handcuffs behind her back.
6) Officer asked bystander to stop recording the interaction...illegal to ask him to stop, unless he was interfering, which there is no evidence of this. That guy is going to release his recording at some point, and I don't think it will look favorably on the officer.
This is just another example of gestapo style policing in our country, and I'm sick of seeing this happen over and over.
GG
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
 Desubot wrote: -Shrike- wrote:If she was in handcuffs, wouldn't there be red marks on her wrists anyway (when they're taking them off, as that's what we're discussing here)?
It probably wouldn't cause scabs. and scabs would mean the cuts on here wrist are recent.
meaning she had been recently having suicidal episodes.
The stress of getting locked up might of set her off again.
IMO
I agree with everything you said, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that if there were red marks on her wrists from the handcuffs, any scabs or scars wouldn't stand out as much, and would be harder to notice from a quick glance when taking the handcuffs off.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
So...I just wanna see if I understand correctly, based on the posts I read here...
Woman is belligerent at traffic stop
Discussion/interaction with cop leads to her arrest
She is taken to jail and put in a cell
Dead by hanging with a bag
Has a suicide record but says she doesn't have one
She must have obviously been murdered because the cop didn't like her.
Did I get the jist of it?
61618
Post by: Desubot
 timetowaste85 wrote:So...I just wanna see if I understand correctly, based on the posts I read here... Woman is belligerent at traffic stop Discussion/interaction with cop leads to her arrest She is taken to jail and put in a cell Dead by hanging with a bag Has a suicide record but says she doesn't have one She must have obviously been murdered because the cop didn't like her. Did I get the jist of it?
Im pretty sure the last line is were people are split. And or some think this is a coverup because an officer might of done something illegal or in a grey area. or something.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Desubot wrote: -Shrike- wrote:If she was in handcuffs, wouldn't there be red marks on her wrists anyway (when they're taking them off, as that's what we're discussing here)?
It probably wouldn't cause scabs. and scabs would mean the cuts on here wrist are recent.
meaning she had been recently having suicidal episodes.
The stress of getting locked up might of set her off again.
IMO
Or had recently scraped her arms on the inside of the cuffs (which happens regularly), especially if the arresting officer tightens them too much (a distinct possibility, considered his agitated state).
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Okay, so watching one of the videos and reading every post in the thread now...
He goes to hand her a ticket and notices she's upset. She agrees and says because he pulled her over for the lane change. He asks her to put out her cigarette while they talk, she gives him attitude, and a couple places saying she breathed smoke in his face (There has been TONS of talk about second hand smoke causing lung cancer). I could easily see that being labeled "assault". Hell, I tried to punch out a college roommate who blew a hit of pot into my face. Some people, myself included, do not appreciate having something like that done. His asking her to step out of the car is probably nicer than I would have done; I'd have cursed up a storm at her.
The rest is where it seems to have gone to crap. Up until the events that took place after she was removed from the car, I'm fully with the policeman. He's still an officer of the law, and some respect should have been shown to him. It falls under the rule of "don't be a dick".
And I swear to God, if anyone tries to say I support the terrible tragedy that ended up happening to her or say that "she deserved it", I will yellow triangle the crap out of you until the mods ban you for life. What happened is awful. If she committed suicide, the station should deal with the consequences of negligence. If they murdered her and tried to cover it up and it's found out, they should serve a murder sentence.
All I'm prepared to say at the moment is that I fully support the officer in question until the events that take place AFTER she is out of the car.
I'm drawing it out so much so the people who are willing to jump to serious conclusions about cop-support have it verbally bludgeoned into their skulls where my opinion stands.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
1) Cop says, "Do you mind putting your cigarette out?". That's a request, Bland is fully within her rights to say "no" and keep smoking.
2) The order to step out of the car? This is a grey area. While a police officer has the right to ask you to step out of the vehicle under the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment gets involved here, too. What was the purpose of asking her to step out? It's possible he ordered her out for safety reasons, or to smell less smoke, which is legit. It's also possible that he ordered her out as a retaliatory measure for refusing to put her cigarette out... which is not.
The problem here is the latter event is very hard to prove, since, especially after the fact, the police are provided plenty of time to come up with valid reasons, under the Fourth Amendment, to justify the order... whether those reasons existed at the time of the order or not.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 generalgrog wrote:This woman is dead, because of a racial profiling traffic stop...period
GG
No, the woman is dead because she (presumably based on existing evidence that has been shared with the general public) killed herself by hanging.
The traffic stop was poorly handled. I'll assume you have some proof that racial profiling was involved, yeah?
Regardless, there is literally nothing to say that had she simply gotten a ticket, gone on her merry way, that she wouldn't have hung herself at her home that night. It's complete speculation to claim otherwise.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 cincydooley wrote: generalgrog wrote:This woman is dead, because of a racial profiling traffic stop...period
GG
No, the woman is dead because she (presumably based on existing evidence that has been shared with the general public) killed herself by hanging.
The traffic stop was poorly handled. I'll assume you have some proof that racial profiling was involved, yeah?
Regardless, there is literally nothing to say that had she simply gotten a ticket, gone on her merry way, that she wouldn't have hung herself at her home that night. It's complete speculation to claim otherwise.
Stop feeding into it Cincy
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Jihadin wrote: cincydooley wrote: generalgrog wrote:This woman is dead, because of a racial profiling traffic stop...period
GG
No, the woman is dead because she (presumably based on existing evidence that has been shared with the general public) killed herself by hanging.
The traffic stop was poorly handled. I'll assume you have some proof that racial profiling was involved, yeah?
Regardless, there is literally nothing to say that had she simply gotten a ticket, gone on her merry way, that she wouldn't have hung herself at her home that night. It's complete speculation to claim otherwise.
Stop feeding into it Cincy
Okay, I'll go have a beer.
Dark or Light?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
cincydooley wrote: Jihadin wrote: cincydooley wrote: generalgrog wrote:This woman is dead, because of a racial profiling traffic stop...period
GG
No, the woman is dead because she (presumably based on existing evidence that has been shared with the general public) killed herself by hanging.
The traffic stop was poorly handled. I'll assume you have some proof that racial profiling was involved, yeah?
Regardless, there is literally nothing to say that had she simply gotten a ticket, gone on her merry way, that she wouldn't have hung herself at her home that night. It's complete speculation to claim otherwise.
Stop feeding into it Cincy
Okay, I'll go have a beer.
Dark or Light?
I'm simple for an answer in this topic
Both
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Jihadin wrote: cincydooley wrote: Jihadin wrote: cincydooley wrote: generalgrog wrote:This woman is dead, because of a racial profiling traffic stop...period
GG
No, the woman is dead because she (presumably based on existing evidence that has been shared with the general public) killed herself by hanging.
The traffic stop was poorly handled. I'll assume you have some proof that racial profiling was involved, yeah?
Regardless, there is literally nothing to say that had she simply gotten a ticket, gone on her merry way, that she wouldn't have hung herself at her home that night. It's complete speculation to claim otherwise.
Stop feeding into it Cincy
Okay, I'll go have a beer.
Dark or Light?
I'm simple for an answer in this topic
Both
#AllBeersMatter ?
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
Jihadin wrote:I've scars on my wrists and up my arms. Does not mean I have suicidal thoughts/tendencies though
Are your scars marked directly down your arm along the veins? Because if so not knowing you, I would probably have somebody keep an eye on you in case. I also have scars on my arms and wrists, but they do not match intentional bodily harm. There is a difference between having scars on your arms and having scars where your veins are.
37231
Post by: d-usa
There is also the issue with people cutting without actually having any SI.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Very noticeable scars up my left and right fore arm and wrists occur over a military career
I also have PTSD. Does that automatically qualify me to go on Suicide Watch?
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Dreadwinter wrote: Jihadin wrote:I've scars on my wrists and up my arms. Does not mean I have suicidal thoughts/tendencies though
Are your scars marked directly down your arm along the veins? Because if so not knowing you, I would probably have somebody keep an eye on you in case. I also have scars on my arms and wrists, but they do not match intentional bodily harm. There is a difference between having scars on your arms and having scars where your veins are.
Were hers? I don't think so. The autopsy mentions them and specifically states the cuffs as the cause I believe. At least that's what NPR said.
The important thing isn't the scars/scabs/cuts on her wrists, it's the complete lack of defensive wounds on her. Or do people think the cop talked her into hanging herself?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 SlaveToDorkness wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: Jihadin wrote:I've scars on my wrists and up my arms. Does not mean I have suicidal thoughts/tendencies though
Are your scars marked directly down your arm along the veins? Because if so not knowing you, I would probably have somebody keep an eye on you in case. I also have scars on my arms and wrists, but they do not match intentional bodily harm. There is a difference between having scars on your arms and having scars where your veins are.
Were hers? I don't think so. The autopsy mentions them and specifically states the cuffs as the cause I believe. At least that's what NPR said.
The important thing isn't the scars/scabs/cuts on her wrists, it's the complete lack of defensive wounds on her. Or do people think the cop talked her into hanging herself?
Well one guard did say she was upbeat and in good spirit a few hours before she was found hanging from the ceiling.
Before that she was depress and crying for a couple days
Inmate in cell next to her did not hear anything during the time she took to hang herself
Though the 180 she did on behavior was a huge red flag
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
d-usa wrote:There is also the issue with people cutting without actually having any SI.
Cutting scars are very different from suicide wounds.
Jihadin wrote:Very noticeable scars up my left and right fore arm and wrists occur over a military career
I also have PTSD. Does that automatically qualify me to go on Suicide Watch?
That depends, are you currently emotionally distraught?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Dreadwinter wrote: Jihadin wrote:
Were hers? I don't think so. The autopsy mentions them and specifically states the cuffs as the cause I believe. At least that's what NPR said.
The important thing isn't the scars/scabs/cuts on her wrists, it's the complete lack of defensive wounds on her. Or do people think the cop talked her into hanging herself?
Actually, the lack of defensive wounds are not important here at all. It is pretty clear this woman killed herself. Now the question is, why did the jailers not have her on suicide watch?
https://news.vice.com/article/prosecutors-detail-sandra-bland-autopsy-report
Preliminary autopsy results released by the Waller County District Attorney's office Thursday claim Sandra Bland died as a result of suicide by hanging, backing up police allegations that she killed herself in her jail cell on July 13.
After a review by the medical examiner's office, Waller County Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam said no injuries were found on Bland's body that suggested a violent struggle. All injuries were consistent with strangulation, he said at a press conference Thursday afternoon.
"The only injury that was found close to the hands were some lacerations or abrasions on her wrists, which are consistent with being handcuffed and struggling," he said. "There were no bite marks or other injuries on her face, on her lips, on her tongue, which would be consistent with a violent struggle."
Bland, a 28-year-old black woman from Illinois, was arrested on July 10 while headed to Texas to start a new job when a police officer stopped her for failing to signal a lane change. The officer alleged she was "uncooperative" after he asked her to exit her car and took her into custody. Three days later, she was found dead in her cell, with authorities claiming she hanged herself with a plastic bag. Bland's family and friends have raised doubts, saying they have no evidence Bland had attempted suicide before or had a history of depression.
The incident is under review by several agencies. Diepraam shot down rumors that his office had not asked for and didn't intend to ask for a second autopsy. Her family can request a second autopsy if they choose, he said.
Related: Sandra Bland 'Previously Attempted Suicide,' Jail Documents Littered With Discrepancies Say
Documents released Wednesday by the Waller County Sheriff's office reveal several inconsistencies in official documents purporting to show what Bland told authorities while in jail. In one document, Bland reportedly said she had previously attempted suicide after she lost a baby. Another form indicates the attempt happened in 2015, while another says 2014. One form indicates that Bland had suicidal thoughts in the past year, while another said she hadn't. It is still unclear as to why Bland was not on suicide watch while being held. Jailers who spoke with Bland when she was being booked said she seemed fine, and that no one thought she was at risk.
In one questionnaire, Bland said she had epilepsy and was on medication for it, but in another document she circled that she wasn't on any medication. In a third document, she again indicated that she was on medication. The preliminary autopsy report also revealed Bland had a significant amount of marijuana in her system.
In a voicemail obtained by a Texas TV station Thursday, Bland can be heard asking, "How did switching lanes with no signal turn into all of this?" In the message, Bland says she's "still just at a loss for words honestly at this whole process."
The Bland family's attorney previously asked why a woman who had expressed excitement about two job offers would commit suicide. The case has gained national attention amid numerous cases of police brutality and has taken off on social media with hashtags #JusticeForSandy and #WhatHappenedToSandyBland.
In dashcam footage released of Bland's arrest, State Trooper Brian Encinia can be heard threatening to drag her out of the car, saying, "I will light you up." Encinia is now on administrative leave.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Ah...so it's gone from "the evil police strangled her and covered it all up" to "they didn't properly check in with her". OK my bad.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
When were we saying "the evil police strangled her and covered it all up" in here?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Dreadwinter wrote:When were we saying "the evil police strangled her and covered it all up" in here?
I think if you search nkelsch's posts you'll answer your question.
23
Post by: djones520
 CptJake wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:When were we saying "the evil police strangled her and covered it all up" in here?
I think if you search nkelsch's posts you'll answer your question.
Page 2 if you need help narrowing it down.
The OP pretty much pretty much said it as well.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
generalgrog wrote:This woman is dead, because of a racial profiling traffic stop...period
Is this what the arresting officer wanted? Probably not...but he pulled over the wrong person, who wasn't willing to be a sheeple. The officer should be fired for this incompetent, uncontrolled stop.
1)He pulled her over for "illegal lane change", when in fact he was the one who instigated her lane change.
2)He asked her if she was irritated...this was an instigatory question/act. In fact it was entirely possible he was doing what he was trained to do, in an effort to gain a response, so he could goad her into a situation whereby he could search her vehicle. Get her agitated to he can trump up a "reasonable suspicion".
3) He does have the right ask her to exit her vehicle, and in which case she should have complied, and sued the department later for violation of her civil rights. (racial profiling) Unfortunately for her, she did not have the self control to keep herself safe, from predatory policing practices such as what we see here. I.E. with her belligerent attitude she played right into the officers hands.
4) She was recording the officer, and he made her put her phone down...not sure if this was an illegal request of the officer at this point or not.
5) Officer knowingly took the lady out of view range of the dash cam...and you can hear him abusing her, throwing her to the ground, applying pressure to her handcuffs behind her back.
6) Officer asked bystander to stop recording the interaction...illegal to ask him to stop, unless he was interfering, which there is no evidence of this. That guy is going to release his recording at some point, and I don't think it will look favorably on the officer.
This is just another example of gestapo style policing in our country, and I'm sick of seeing this happen over and over.
GG
It certainly wasn't from this post either. Nope, not at all.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
CptJake wrote: Dreadwinter wrote:When were we saying "the evil police strangled her and covered it all up" in here?
I think if you search nkelsch's posts you'll answer your question.
Basically, the usual suspects. Nkelsch isn't the only one: there are others being clowns as well.
We had two possibilities in this: police were negligent in their duties, and she committed suicide OR police killed her. And like I said, the usual suspects all leapt to murder.
Either way, the cops at this jail are in deep poo. Either they committed murder or they did a piss-poor job of keeping her safe from harm. I expect lost jobs or heavy fines if it was negligence, which is what it's appearing to be at this point.
But I think we need to stop with "woman dies while in jail? Oh God, cops are murdererzzz!" The facts coming out suggest otherwise, from the coroner.
Until the next time you want to claim Dakka is a hive mind and look like a fool. Carry on.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
I just wonder how someone, knowing a cop is behind her, doesn't do everything completely by the book while driving? Doing anything illegal in front of a cop (no matter how minor) is just begging to get pulled over. Was she irritated because he got her for such a minor offense or at herself for not being smarter about it?
Seriously, a cop might not pull someone over for failure to signal if they just saw someone do it it traffic, but if it's obvious that they see the cop and then do something wrong, the cop pretty much has to enforce it. Regardless of someone's race I would expect that from any cop.
18698
Post by: kronk
Sounds like a lady went off the rails/meds and killed herself.
10050
Post by: Dreadwinter
I must have my crazy filter on too strong. I must have glossed over that stuff when I realized they were going full Jesse Ventura.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Dreadwinter wrote:I must have my crazy filter on too strong. I must have glossed over that stuff when I realized they were going full Jesse Ventura.
That's you're problem, right there. You should ignore those posters who haven't embraced the Dakka hive mind. All your post are belong to us.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
4402
Post by: CptJake
cincydooley wrote:Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
You need to narrow the frame of your questions I think. In the context "When the police have taken a person into custody" they absolutely are responsible for that person's safety, even from self inflicted injury/death. No police force will ever be perfect and a determined person is going to find a way, but the onus should ALWAYS be on the cops in these cases. Once they bring a person into custody they are responsible for the well being of that person.
91
Post by: Hordini
Dreadwinter wrote:I must have my crazy filter on too strong. I must have glossed over that stuff when I realized they were going full Jesse Ventura.
I just read part of an article full of Twitter comments from people who seriously think that Sandra Bland was already dead before arriving at the jail, and that the corrections officers put her body in an orange jumpsuit and took her mugshot. So the "theory" is that her mugshot is actually a postmortem photo of her.
The crazy is flowing.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
One or two have suggested that here too. I'm just going to start saying 'bah' to the idiotic posts here. Now I just need to find the Dilbert comment where Dogbert waves his paw while saying it and inject that in after those comments.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Dreadwinter wrote: d-usa wrote:There is also the issue with people cutting without actually having any SI.
Cutting scars are very different from suicide wounds.
Mostly true. I don't think I have seen exactly what kind of cuts she had on her wrists, so it's hard to tell.
Of course even with suicide cuts (real or "for attention") it can have a variety of presentation. How deep, how many, down the street vs across the road. Cuts, of any kind, can be an strong indicator of mental illness that requires closer monitoring and follow up, but they don't automatically mean that suicidal. And someone without much exposure to the different presentation of cuts and injuries of that kind might not be able to tell the difference between cutting and SI. That was my main concern. Automatically Appended Next Post: CptJake wrote: cincydooley wrote:Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
You need to narrow the frame of your questions I think. In the context "When the police have taken a person into custody" they absolutely are responsible for that person's safety, even from self inflicted injury/death. No police force will ever be perfect and a determined person is going to find a way, but the onus should ALWAYS be on the cops in these cases. Once they bring a person into custody they are responsible for the well being of that person.
That's my thought as well.
There are legitimate questions one can have about "should people be able to hurt themselves without police intervention" and right to suicide and other things like that. But I do think that those questions are out of the scope for this particular case.
Once you are in custody, they are responsible for your safety even if it is safety "against your will" so to speak. I would imagine that somewhere in their big book of procedures there is a page on what to do with prisoners suspected of mental illness or suicidal ideations as well as physical checks of inmates when they arrive and possible medical clearance. Some of that will depend on the size of the jail of course, with bigger places probably having more resources to thoroughly check someone on arrival.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
cincydooley wrote:Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Frazzled wrote:No. They can hold you for the investigatory stop for a reasonable period, until the interview has ended, or an arrest is made.
Only if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed, which is not the case here. The traffic stop was concerning an illegal lane change and by law it should have concluded with the issuance of a ticket. That isn't what happened because the officer escalated and extended the encounter.
No. You are obligated to obey commands about movement. A PoPo is fully within established rights under law and stare decisis to have you exit the vehicle until such time as the interview is ended.
Yes. You do not have to obey ancillary commands from an officer. Asking someone to put out a cigarette is an ancillary command and she was legally within her rights to continue smoking. Keep in mind that I'm not saying it was the best course of action on her part, but she was well within her rights and that's all that matters.
No. The traffic stop should have ended when it ends.
Exactly, after the ticket was issued, considering at no time did the officer become reasonably suspicious of any further crime. For more on that, see below.
Please cite case law where it is unlawful to extend. Immediate response: her manner was indicative of someone under the influence of marijuana. (oh look she was under the influence of marijuana)
I'm glad you asked, since we just had a Supreme Court case decided in April about police detaining people during traffic stops. Here are some excerpts from Justice Ginsberg's majority opinion:
... a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.
[a traffic stop becomes unlawful if] it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation.
As far as the marijuana is concerned, the officer made no mention of suspecting that she was under the influence of illegal drugs. Furthermore, her manner was indicative of someone who was pissed that they got pulled over for bs, which isn't against the law. Also, I don't know what kind of weed they have down in Texas, but I've never experienced any that makes someone irritated... unless there isn't any tasty snacks in arms reach.
That’s not illegal. She was resisting exiting the vehicle. At that point she’s defacto under arrest AND HAS NO LEGAL RECOURSE TO RESIST WHATSOEVER. Swing Away Merrill.
You just demonstrated that you did not read anything I wrote. The arrest was legal even though it occurred in an unlawfully extended traffic stop. Her refusal to leave the vehicle is indeed resisting arrest in the state of Texas, therefore making the actual arrest lawful. The issue is the use of force during the arrest was not lawful because it was objectively unreasonable given her alleged crime and therefore a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
Upon sleeping on it, I find your argument, persuasive.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
 Tannhauser42 wrote: cincydooley wrote:Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.
Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
d-usa wrote:
Once you are in custody, they are responsible for your safety even if it is safety "against your will" so to speak. I would imagine that somewhere in their big book of procedures there is a page on what to do with prisoners suspected of mental illness or suicidal ideations as well as physical checks of inmates when they arrive and possible medical clearance. Some of that will depend on the size of the jail of course, with bigger places probably having more resources to thoroughly check someone on arrival.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
I was coming at from situations my wife has had in the past with ED students; the teachers are told specifically told not to put their hands on the children if they're having outbursts to avoid lawsuits. In that same vein, they're also told not to let the student do 'undue harm' to themselves...
Not an easy line to walk, I don't think.
37231
Post by: d-usa
cincydooley wrote: d-usa wrote:
Once you are in custody, they are responsible for your safety even if it is safety "against your will" so to speak. I would imagine that somewhere in their big book of procedures there is a page on what to do with prisoners suspected of mental illness or suicidal ideations as well as physical checks of inmates when they arrive and possible medical clearance. Some of that will depend on the size of the jail of course, with bigger places probably having more resources to thoroughly check someone on arrival.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
I was coming at from situations my wife has had in the past with ED students; the teachers are told specifically told not to put their hands on the children if they're having outbursts to avoid lawsuits. In that same vein, they're also told not to let the student do 'undue harm' to themselves...
Not an easy line to walk, I don't think.
I was in the similar situation during my time in EMS and even now as a nurse in the ER.
In the EMS setting, legally we are not allowed to touch you at all unless you are giving us consent. Even if you are having a psychotic breakdown and are clearly out of your mind, that still remains (at least that was what was always drilled into our heads). Any touching at all could be assault, even if we are sitting next to you and doing a simple hand on your shoulder and going "listen, let us help you" thing. In those settings we basically had to wait for a cop to show up to place them in protective custody at which point the cop became the decision maker and he could give us consent to treat them.
In the ER we are also unable to treat anyone without consent and our options for consent are for a patient to come in while in police custody with a signed peace officer statement from the cop saying why this person is unable to provide consent, for a patient to be in the custody of our facilities police officers, or for us to call our own police officers after filling out our own third party statement and giving it to them.
It's a complicated issue.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
d-usa wrote:Any touching at all could be assault, even if we are sitting next to you and doing a simple hand on your shoulder and going "listen, let us help you" thing. In those settings we basically had to wait for a cop to show up to place them in protective custody at which point the cop became the decision maker and he could give us consent to treat them.
Yup. that's exactly the justification she told me. Almost made her quit her job in year #1.
In the ER we are also unable to treat anyone without consent and our options for consent are for a patient to come in while in police custody with a signed peace officer statement from the cop saying why this person is unable to provide consent, for a patient to be in the custody of our facilities police officers, or for us to call our own police officers after filling out our own third party statement and giving it to them.
It's a complicated issue.
So I assume when taking someone into custody there's a similar decision tree that's followed, perhaps?
37231
Post by: d-usa
There should be. The one consistent thing between all the different scenarios is that once the police takes someone in custody the decisions regarding safety, and the responsibility for it, transfers to the police.
They gain the power to consent for the person against their will because at that point the police, and not the person, are responsible for their safety.
That gets complicated down the line with inmates rights to refuse treatments, make advanced directives, go on hunger strikes, etc etc etc. But on the basic level that I would deal with, or like the situation in the article, the police gets to do what they need to do in order to keep you safe while they are on the line for your safety. That's why escalation of force gets to be a messy thing at times because it's a weird area where "allowed to hurt people" and "responsibility to make sure people don't get hurt" intersect.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Psienesis wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: cincydooley wrote:Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.
Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.
And when a Doctor makes a mistake and costs someone their life do they lose their career? Nope, they have insurance that pays the deceased family a huge amount of money and he continues on with his practice. But apparently that isn't ok for a cop because...Reasons..and or balance.
67730
Post by: stanman
I think the that the claims she's dead in the booking photo is reaching pretty hard. When somebody strangles or suffocates themselves they tend to rupture the blood vessels in their eyes and lips during the process. The eyes would be very bloodshot (and in some cases even completely blood red) if she was hung you'd also see very evident bruising around the neck. She has a rather blank and detached expression but she certainly doesn't appear to be lifeless corpse propped up for a photo.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
So are the claims that she somehow ingested a large amount of marijuana while in police custody. Not only was she in a prison jumpsuit, but you get searched like 10 times between the site of your initial arrest and walking into a cell.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Ghazkuul wrote: Psienesis wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: cincydooley wrote:Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.
Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.
And when a Doctor makes a mistake and costs someone their life do they lose their career? Nope, they have insurance that pays the deceased family a huge amount of money and he continues on with his practice. But apparently that isn't ok for a cop because...Reasons..and or balance.
It depends on the level of their mistake. There is a big gradient between "oops, that could have happened to anyone" and "gross negligence" for both cops and doctors, and the results of that varies with both as well.
Police departments and municipalities also often pay the deceased family a huge amount of money and the police officer gets to continue on with his job.
But hey, if you want to parade around here and pretend that nothing ever happens to doctors that kill someone while every police officer that killed someone is fired on the spot then go right on ahead.
4817
Post by: Spetulhu
d-usa wrote:There should be. The one consistent thing between all the different scenarios is that once the police takes someone in custody the decisions regarding safety, and the responsibility for it, transfers to the police.
Ofc, police can ask for help if they're not sure. At least over here. When taking in someone who is severely drunk or hyped up on drugs police sometimes take them via the ER before taking them to the station, just to get a medic's opinion on whether the person will survive without treatment. Even then the responsible attendant at the lockup (often not a cop but a security guard) is supposed to check on his prisoners regularly.
And if the place is well run you won't have any immediately dangerous object on you. I'll confess to being brought in for excessive intoxication a couple times while young and out of a job so I've seen it. I had to sign for getting back stuff like shoes, belt and any other clothes I could have used to hurt myself with (not that police cells in Finland have any points you could use to fasten an object for hanging yourself). Deaths in custody are usually professional drunks that have some medical condition and would have died on their own too - but it still means the police failed to have a medic check them out, probably because they're there for the fifth time that month.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Ghazkuul wrote: Psienesis wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: cincydooley wrote:Legit Question: how far, legally, it it the onus for police to protect people from themselves?
And more philosophically, should they?
In these days where a cop with an otherwise sterling record can make one mistake on camera and lose his career, they have to be as careful as possible, whether it's legally required or not.
Considering that their mistakes can cost someone their life? I'm ok with that.
And when a Doctor makes a mistake and costs someone their life do they lose their career? Nope, they have insurance that pays the deceased family a huge amount of money and he continues on with his practice. But apparently that isn't ok for a cop because...Reasons..and or balance.
Quite often they do, yes. Just because the malpractice insurance covers the bills does not mean their license to practice is not revoked by the medical board of the state in which they practice. That is a record that will follow a medical practitioner around forever.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Then we have these
John R. McLean, a Salisbury physician, was sentenced to eight years in federal prison Thursday, making him the second cardiologist in the country to face incarceration for implanting unnecessary coronary stents in dozens of patients, then fraudulently billing insurers thousands for the work.
A Louisiana doctor was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2009 under similar allegations. And a half-dozen other physicians, including Towson's Dr. Mark G. Midei, are accused in civil lawsuits of overusing stents, though they have not been charged criminally.
"I conclude, sadly, that this was a crime of greed," U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr. said of McLean's actions, which include falsifying patient records at Peninsula Regional Medical Center to justify the expensive procedures, then prescribing gratuitous follow-up tests for months afterward.
He was ordered to spend 97 months in prison, forfeit $579,000 in illegal proceeds and to pay the same amount in restitution to the public and private insurers he illegally billed. His lawyer plans to file an appeal and will ask that McLean, who was ordered to report for prison in February shortly after his 60th birthday, be allowed to remain free until the matter is resolved.
The sentence stunned his family, some of whom sobbed throughout the lengthy hearing, and sent a message about the "seriousness" of the crime, Quarles said.
Improper stenting has been a focus at the state and national levels over the past several years after Midei, a star cardiologist at St. Joseph Medical Center, was accused of implanting the tiny mesh tubes in hundreds of people whose arteries didn't need them. The allegations led to national media attention, a U.S. Senate inquiry, a multimillion-dollar settlement from the hospital and a debate in the medical community about the role of a physician's judgment in medical care.
Supporters of the embattled cardiologists — many of them stent patients — contend that the physicians are making sound calls based on certain symptoms. But malpractice attorneys, and in some cases prosecutors, say the doctors are overdoing the relatively simple procedures — which typically cost about $10,000 — driven by money and their egos.
McLean's desire to be the "biggest and the best cardiologist" at PRMC drove him to perform the unwarranted procedures, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Wilkinson.
"There's just some arrogance there," Wilkinson said. "At the end of the day, he made a lot of money, but he also made a really good reputation for himself."
McLean was indicted last year on charges he ran the fraudulent stent scheme from 2003 through 2007, when he resigned his practice privileges at PRMC after a hospital investigation. He was convicted this summer of health care fraud and of making false statements, and PRMC agreed to a $1.8 million settlement afterward to settle claims it did not put a stop to the improper procedures.
Several patients who received improper stents testified during the trial, according to court papers.
One man said he nearly died from blood loss after being required to take blood thinners. Another patient said she had a heart attack, brought on by the dye used in the procedure, while on the operating table.
"These people are looking to their cardiologists almost as if they're a god … we're talking about [their] hearts," Wilkinson said. "They're thinking that Dr. McLean is saving their life when really he's just looking for an opportunity."
McLean insisted he never meant to hurt anyone.
"I've worked hard all my life," he told the judge, characterizing himself as a perfectionist who lived for his practice, spending every other night on call for a decade and missing many of his daughter's milestones. The young woman, now 25, wiped away tears as he spoke.
"I never ever did anything intentionally dishonest to a patient," he said, denying that money drove him to do wrong. "I did the best I could, I always did the best I could."
He called himself a "broken man" and ticked off a list of ailments, including diabetes, vision problems and a previous heart attack. He said his mother is elderly and begged the court for "leniency and mercy" in sentencing.
His lawyer, Richard W. Westling, said he feared McLean would die in prison if forced to serve a lengthy term.
Quarles noted that McLean, a Baltimore native, had never been in trouble before, and commended him for the many good works he has done. Some of his supposed victims wrote letters to the court praising the doctor for saving lives and doing excellent work.
He "has done many positive things," Quarles said before sentencing him. "It's also clear that Dr. McLean implemented medically unnecessary stents for the basest of reasons … largely for the money."
Louisiana cardiologist Mehmood M. Patel, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2009 after being convicted of 51 counts of fraud connected to improper stents, is also appealing his conviction and is free on bond. Arguments were heard in Patel's appeals case Tuesday.
Westling said he will be watching closely for the outcome.
91
Post by: Hordini
Psienesis wrote:So are the claims that she somehow ingested a large amount of marijuana while in police custody. Not only was she in a prison jumpsuit, but you get searched like 10 times between the site of your initial arrest and walking into a cell.
People are claiming she ingested marijuana while in police custody? I'm seriously asking; I was under the impression that there was marijuana in her system because she had been smoking or ingesting marijuana sometime prior to getting arrested.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 Hordini wrote: Psienesis wrote:So are the claims that she somehow ingested a large amount of marijuana while in police custody. Not only was she in a prison jumpsuit, but you get searched like 10 times between the site of your initial arrest and walking into a cell.
People are claiming she ingested marijuana while in police custody? I'm seriously asking; I was under the impression that there was marijuana in her system because she had been smoking or ingesting marijuana sometime prior to getting arrested.
That was my perception to.
42342
Post by: Smacks
I just got home from the island of Malta, where people basically don't know how to drive. They speed, drive drunk, overtake on corners... The system there for negotiating blind intersections seems to be: speed through with complete disregard for traffic coming the other way, BUT half a second before you reach the intersection, you beep your horn... Presumably, so that people speeding the other way have half a second to contemplate what might have been, before their inevitable traffic death.
But of all the driving sins I witnessed in my short time there, by far the most infuriating was failure to signal. As someone from a country where drivers are quite good (relatively speaking), watching indicator lights is kind of second nature for me. They are really useful for anticipating what cars are about to do, even while you're just walking around. Finding myself in an environment where people don't use indicators at all (except to occasionally switch them on and forget about them) I found it confusing, dangerous and terrifying. Not only do people not use their indicators, but they will also beep their horn at you for crossing a road that you had no forewarning they might be about to turn down. It's the only time I think I've ever suffered from road rage as a pedestrian. It makes me want to rip people's doors off, and slam their face into the steering wheel repeatedly, beep, beep, beep, until they develop a deep Pavlovian aversion to the sound that their horn makes.
I know that police can't legally execute people for failure to signal... but if a few transgressors just happened to err... "have an accident", or "commit suicide" while in police custody... Well lets just say: I'd understand *taps nose*
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
 Smacks wrote:As someone from a country where drivers are quite good (relatively speaking)
All of you guys drive on the wrong side of the road! :O
42342
Post by: Smacks
Actually, countries that have left hand drive tend to have a lower collision rate, possibly because most people are right handed and right eye dominant, and it allows people to monitor oncoming traffic and the driver side wing mirror with their good eye. You can also operate the break and transmission without taking your good hand off the wheel. Most people also mount bikes from the left side, which over here places them on the pavement instead of in the road. All things considered, it is probably you who drives on the wrong side.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Smacks wrote:Actually, countries that have left hand drive tend to have a lower collision rate, possibly because most people are right handed and right eye dominant, and it allows people to monitor oncoming traffic and the driver side wing mirror with their good eye. You can also operate the break and transmission without taking your good hand off the wheel. Most people also mount bikes from the left side, which over here places them on the pavement instead of in the road. All things considered, it is probably you who drives on the wrong side.
where did you get those numbers from? also did those numbers come from population per capita or from vehicle per capita.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Ghazkuul wrote:where did you get those numbers from? also did those numbers come from population per capita or from vehicle per capita.
I think most of the research on the subject was done by a guy called J J Leeming, I don't know the details, and I don't really care that much, but I believe he compared traffic accidents, and it was based on the volume of traffic. The phenomenon has also been observed in the long term accident rates of countries that have switched from left to right such as Sweden (above what aught to be expected). People being right side dominant is common knowledge. If you want to get all patriotic about driving on the right, then meh. I probably can't prove beyond all doubt that driving on the left is really better, I just thought it was interesting to note that it might be, despite the right being more common.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Smacks wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:where did you get those numbers from? also did those numbers come from population per capita or from vehicle per capita.
I think most of the research on the subject was done by a guy called J J Leeming, I don't know the details, and I don't really care that much, but I believe he compared traffic accidents, and it was based on the volume of traffic. The phenomenon has also been observed in the long term accident rates of countries that have switched from left to right such as Sweden (above what aught to be expected).
People being right side dominant is common knowledge. If you want to get all patriotic about driving on the right, then meh. I probably can't prove beyond all doubt that driving on the left is really better, I just thought it was interesting to note that it might be, despite the right being more common.
lol im not trying to get all "Patriotic" im just wondering if it was a true study or if it was one of those famously flawed ones. you know "Eggs are unhealthy never eat them ....because reasons" and then 2 years later "eggs are amazing eat them every day...because reasons.'
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
The study is flawed and its author openly acknowledged it. Small sample size, no validity, no reliability.
42342
Post by: Smacks
Ghazkuul wrote:lol im not trying to get all "Patriotic" im just wondering if it was a true study or if it was one of those famously flawed ones. you know "Eggs are unhealthy never eat them ....because reasons" and then 2 years later "eggs are amazing eat them every day...because reasons.'
Ahh, phew! I always get scared in OT that I might be inadvertently getting into a three page argument amount something silly To the best of my knowledge, Leeming acknowledged some problems with sample size, which sounds like the main weakness (unfortunately, I can't find the actual study to reference). And right side dominance wasn't proven to be the cause of the disparity, so it is just speculation. But it makes sense to me that since humans are not perfectly symmetrical, driving on the left or right can't be perfectly equivalent. The difference is probably fairly negligible though.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
After a two day hiatus for calling a spade a spade:
The suicide/murder is under investigation and doesn't particularly matter to my main point, which is that the woman was in jail for 3 days for the crime of having attitude (or, possibly, the crime of having attitude while black) and I am disgusted by certain posters bending over backwards to defend the officer's abuse of power. Even if every part of his conduct was technically legal (which is very doubtful) the simple fact remains that he escalated the situation solely because she was giving him lip. Nothing she did ever suggested that she wouldn't cooperate with the lawful punishment for her actual traffic violation, which is usually a ticket, not being dragged out of the car, beaten and arrested.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
lord_blackfang wrote:After a two day hiatus for calling a spade a spade: The suicide/murder is under investigation and doesn't particularly matter to my main point, which is that the woman was in jail for 3 days for the crime of having attitude (or, possibly, the crime of having attitude while black) and I am disgusted by certain posters bending over backwards to defend the officer's abuse of power. Even if every part of his conduct was technically legal (which is very doubtful) the simple fact remains that he escalated the situation solely because she was giving him lip. Nothing she did ever suggested that she wouldn't cooperate with the lawful punishment for her actual traffic violation, which is usually a ticket, not being dragged out of the car, beaten and arrested.
His conduct was out-of-line which has not been doubted by a single person in this thread - please read the actual threads before commenting on them instead of commenting on an idealized version of the thread you have in your mind. He is already getting persecuted for his behavior. No problem here. Both parties are responsible for the arrest. The police offer let her get under his skin and Bland herself purposefully provoked the police officer and resisted arrest. At the very moment you resist arrest, you're putting yourself in trouble. Always follow a police officer's orders and later on, take legal action. It's that simple. He asked her to get out of the car, she refused. A lot. He repeatedly told her that he'd be using physical force to get her out. She resisted. A lot. Good plan, lady. Playing the race card on this is just stupid and nothing but irrational hatred for the police.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
lord_blackfang wrote:After a two day hiatus for calling a spade a spade:
The suicide/murder is under investigation and doesn't particularly matter to my main point, which is that the woman was in jail for 3 days for the crime of having attitude (or, possibly, the crime of having attitude while black) and I am disgusted by certain posters bending over backwards to defend the officer's abuse of power. Even if every part of his conduct was technically legal (which is very doubtful) the simple fact remains that he escalated the situation solely because she was giving him lip. Nothing she did ever suggested that she wouldn't cooperate with the lawful punishment for her actual traffic violation, which is usually a ticket, not being dragged out of the car, beaten and arrested.
Exactly !!!
Here is a pretty good analysis of how the arresting officer lied to his supervisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_wNH9OiYA
There are some great police officers out there, and I personally know a few. But this country needs to do some real serious soul searching on how we police ourselves. And it's not only black people that are targeted by these guys (bad cops). But black people, take the brunt of it.
With the movement that is growing, I'm hoping that local LE continues to make positive progress...although it's going much too slow for my taste.
GG
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
generalgrog wrote:There are some great police officers out there, and I personally know a few. But this country needs to do some real serious soul searching on how we police ourselves. And it's not only black people that are targeted by these guys (bad cops). But black people, take the brunt of it.
With the movement that is growing, I'm hoping that local LE continues to make positive progress... although it's going much too slow for my taste.
The irony, however, is that because of incidents like this and the media attention it gets, that progress will actually take even longer. The talent pool for potential police officers is shrinking. Not only because the private sector pays more, but for also the reason I mentioned earlier: make one mistake on camera that makes it to the media, and your career is over. Who wants to take that risk? We're almost getting to the point now where if a police officer just shouts at someone they'll get put on administrative leave while the incident is reviewed. We have hour long 5mph police chases because forcing the person over "might hurt them." We glorify our soldiers because of their ability to kill the bad guys, but we vilify our police officers just for giving us a speeding ticket.
Yes, there are bad cops out there, but there are far more good cops than bad, but it's the good cops who are ultimately paying the price for what the bad cops are doing.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Tannhauser42 wrote:We have hour long 5mph police chases because forcing the person over "might hurt them."
Actually, nobody really cares about the person being chased. The problem is when chases, and interventions for chases, hurt everyone else on the road.
So you have stricter guidelines on initiating chases, and when to terminate them, to protect the public instead of the guy driving away from the cops. Especially if you already have the information on who is driving, and you have one of those fancy "flying in the sky with a camera" things following it and know where the car is going anyway.
But hey, facts, who needs them.
Talking about facts, got any articles on cops being put on leave for yelling at people? Any of these numerous articles on cops being fired for making one mistake on camera since that is common problem that is keeping people from joining the police force?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Hmm, you know I can't remember the last time I heard about an innocent bystander getting hurt in a chase.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Grey Templar wrote:Hmm, you know I can't remember the last time I heard about an innocent bystander getting hurt in a chase.
That is because the Police generally go out of their way to keep civilians safe in such a situation. Just because some officers are donkey-caves doesn't mean they all are. Of course the inverse is also true.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:Hmm, you know I can't remember the last time I heard about an innocent bystander getting hurt in a chase.
It might be you've never heard of it because most police departments now have policies prohibiting them, because innocent bystanders kept getting hurt and it's overall poor policy.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
d-usa wrote:
Talking about facts, got any articles on cops being put on leave for yelling at people?
Talking about facts, let's see what I actually said. Oh, right, I said " almost getting to the point ".
12313
Post by: Ouze
Tannhauser42 wrote: We have hour long 5mph police chases because forcing the person over "might hurt them." We glorify our soldiers because of their ability to kill the bad guys, but we vilify our police officers just for giving us a speeding ticket.
This feels like a needless simplification. I don't think we, generally, glorify soldiers for their ability to kill "bad guys", but for their willingness to accept mediocre pay and abysmal working conditions in service of (the perception of) keeping our country safe. I can't speak for everyone who ever got a speeding ticket, but I feel like I've earned every single one I've ever gotten and I don't vilify the cops for giving them to me. I think in reality we vilify the police who act unprofessionally, and who needlessly escalate situations, and who in extreme cases take the lives of our citizens needlessly, under cover of law, without any consequence.
There has been a lot more coverage of this, and I think that's a good thing, because we deserve better policing in our cities. I would think every honest cop would welcome any spotlight on the bad apples that are making the rest of them look bad by comparison.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
A simplification? Yes, but I wouldn't say needless. But, I'm just going to stop at this point, as I doubt any further discussion will be productive.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I was going to say about the current situation like what's happening in NYC, Baltimore, and I think Furgeson(?), to name a few, of LEO's just "meeting the standards" and not exceeding standards. Why would they risk their career where everyone has a media device in their hands. Officer Wilson was cleared and he still lost it all to the media and public perception
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote:Hmm, you know I can't remember the last time I heard about an innocent bystander getting hurt in a chase.
You are either living under a rock or ignoring the news. It's not like there wasn't a case just a few months ago where a van got hit by the driver during a chase and they held down the guy until the police caught up. It was covered by our local news, most internet outlets, and the usual social media sites who thought it was funny that he was held down by a pissed off woman.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
d-usa wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Hmm, you know I can't remember the last time I heard about an innocent bystander getting hurt in a chase.
You are either living under a rock or ignoring the news. It's not like there wasn't a case just a few months ago where a van got hit by the driver during a chase and they held down the guy until the police caught up. It was covered by our local news, most internet outlets, and the usual social media sites who thought it was funny that he was held down by a pissed off woman.
Hardly either, but it doesn't sound like something that would make national news. Not like I trawl every local area in the country looking for stuff.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I guess it isn't unusual for you to not hear about (x) then? 
37231
Post by: d-usa
So people don't get hurt in chases because other people haven't heard about it happening, but they also can't be expected to be aware of all the news stories anywhere.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Hey, did I say anything of that sort? Putting words in my mouth much?
Just said I hadn't heard of any.
37231
Post by: d-usa
No.
Grey Templar wrote:Hmm, you know I can't remember the last time I heard about an innocent bystander getting hurt in a chase.
I am not.
Grey Templar wrote:
Hardly either, but it doesn't sound like something that would make national news. Not like I trawl every local area in the country looking for stuff.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I think you need to reread what I posted.
I simply said I hadn't heard of any. And then acknowledged I simply might not have been looking in the right places. I admitted my potential ignorance. I never asserted they don't occur.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
generalgrog wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:After a two day hiatus for calling a spade a spade:
The suicide/murder is under investigation and doesn't particularly matter to my main point, which is that the woman was in jail for 3 days for the crime of having attitude (or, possibly, the crime of having attitude while black) and I am disgusted by certain posters bending over backwards to defend the officer's abuse of power. Even if every part of his conduct was technically legal (which is very doubtful) the simple fact remains that he escalated the situation solely because she was giving him lip. Nothing she did ever suggested that she wouldn't cooperate with the lawful punishment for her actual traffic violation, which is usually a ticket, not being dragged out of the car, beaten and arrested.
Exactly !!!
Here is a pretty good analysis of how the arresting officer lied to his supervisor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_wNH9OiYA
There are some great police officers out there, and I personally know a few. But this country needs to do some real serious soul searching on how we police ourselves. And it's not only black people that are targeted by these guys (bad cops). But black people, take the brunt of it.
With the movement that is growing, I'm hoping that local LE continues to make positive progress...although it's going much too slow for my taste.
GG
You really want reform, you need to do some addressing of overall policy, much of which is influenced by police unions. Gotta reform the unions before you can reform the policy. Makes for a interesting proposition considering the people clamoring for change are the ones that are typically pro Union.
I'm intrigued to see how that dynamic will play out.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
I was listening to the radio yesterday and they we're talking to a forensics person about the autopsy report. It supports the suicide, she even had month old self inflicted wound, but the problem was that the police violated their own procedures when the previous suicide attempt uwas noted by her.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
 Co'tor Shas wrote:I was listening to the radio yesterday and they we're talking to a forensics person about the autopsy report. It supports the suicide, she even had month old self inflicted wound, but the problem was that the police violated their own procedures when the previous suicide attempt uwas noted by her.
But weren't there (for whatever reason) multiple copies of various forms, not all of which had all of the correct data on, including previous suicide attempts/depression?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
-Shrike- wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:I was listening to the radio yesterday and they we're talking to a forensics person about the autopsy report. It supports the suicide, she even had month old self inflicted wound, but the problem was that the police violated their own procedures when the previous suicide attempt uwas noted by her.
But weren't there (for whatever reason) multiple copies of various forms, not all of which had all of the correct data on, including previous suicide attempts/depression?
She changed her answers on similar questions on a few forms
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
Why didn't those evil bastards protect her from her changed answers!!!!!!
50512
Post by: Jihadin
That's like a privacy and a "embarrassment" thing. Something you do not want the world that's outside your source of comfort zone to know.
92521
Post by: BeAfraid
It was a wrongful arrest.
She died, regardless of whether she was murdered or not, as a consequence of being arrested.
MB
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
BeAfraid wrote:It was a wrongful arrest.
She died, regardless of whether she was murdered or not, as a consequence of being arrested.
MB
Ummmm, no.
Not how that works. If someone commits suicide because they got fired their boss isn't arrested for murder.
We may have a wrongful arrest, but that is separate from her apparent suicide.
64463
Post by: zgort
Frazzled wrote:
He should have simply said-"fine, forget the warning, welcome to planet ticket Yankee, have a nice day." If she had no warrants, add it to your quota and move on.
This. That cop has got to be wondering if that lady wouldn't have committed suicide if he didn't escalate, regardless if you think he did anything "wrong" or not.
It's a very sad story.
92521
Post by: BeAfraid
Grey Templar wrote:BeAfraid wrote:It was a wrongful arrest.
She died, regardless of whether she was murdered or not, as a consequence of being arrested.
MB
Ummmm, no.
Not how that works. If someone commits suicide because they got fired their boss isn't arrested for murder.
We may have a wrongful arrest, but that is separate from her apparent suicide.
The arrest seems to be causal in relation to her death.
It very much looks like: No Arrest:No Death
MB
221
Post by: Frazzled
BeAfraid wrote: Grey Templar wrote:BeAfraid wrote:It was a wrongful arrest. She died, regardless of whether she was murdered or not, as a consequence of being arrested. MB
Ummmm, no. Not how that works. If someone commits suicide because they got fired their boss isn't arrested for murder. We may have a wrongful arrest, but that is separate from her apparent suicide.
The arrest seems to be causal in relation to her death. It very much looks like: No Arrest:No Death MB
Dear God please never serve on a jury. Your "but for" argument is stretched too thin to contemplate. If only she hadn't interviewed at Prairie View, then she wouldn't have been pulled over, then she wouldn't have offed herself. Blame the Victim! OT but driving through Waller last night. From Brenham to Waller there were a lot of DPS on the road. Interesting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 zgort wrote: Frazzled wrote:
He should have simply said-"fine, forget the warning, welcome to planet ticket Yankee, have a nice day." If she had no warrants, add it to your quota and move on.
This. That cop has got to be wondering if that lady wouldn't have committed suicide if he didn't escalate, regardless if you think he did anything "wrong" or not.
It's a very sad story.
This WAPO editorial/article appears quite on point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-iraq-i-raided-insurgents-in-virginia-the-police-raided-me/2015/07/24/2e114e54-2b02-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
This is where Rhoads is wrong. We’ve seen this troubling approach to law enforcement nationwide, in militarized police responses to nonviolent protesters and in fatal police shootings of unarmed citizens. The culture that encourages police officers to engage their weapons before gathering information promotes the mind-set that nothing, including citizen safety, is more important than officers’ personal security. That approach has caused public trust in law enforcement to deteriorate.
It’s the same culture that characterized the early phases of the Iraq war, in which I served a 15-month tour in 2006 and 2007. Soldiers left their sprawling bases in armored vehicles, leveling buildings with missile strikes and shooting up entire blocks during gun battles with insurgents, only to return to their protected bases and do it all again hours later.
The short-sighted notion that we should always protect ourselves endangered us more in the long term. It was a flawed strategy that could often create more insurgents than it stopped and inspired some Iraqis to hate us rather than help us.
In one instance in Baghdad, a stray round landed in a compound that our unit was building. An overzealous officer decided that we were under attack and ordered machine guns and grenade launchers to shoot at distant rooftops. A row of buildings caught fire, and we left our compound on foot, seeking to capture any injured fighters by entering structures choked with flames.
Instead, we found a man frantically pulling his furniture out of his house. “Thank you for your security!” he yelled in perfect English. He pointed to the billowing smoke. “This is what you call security?”
We didn’t find any insurgents. There weren’t any. But it was easy to imagine that we forged some in that fire. Similarly, when U.S. police officers use excessive force to control nonviolent citizens or respond to minor incidents, they lose supporters and public trust.
That’s a problem, because law enforcement officers need the cooperation of the communities they patrol in order to do their jobs effectively. In the early stages of the war, the U.S. military overlooked that reality as well. Leaders defined success as increasing military hold on geographic terrain, while the human terrain was the real battle. For example, when our platoon entered Iraq’s volatile Diyala province in early 2007, children at a school plugged their ears just before an IED exploded beneath one of our vehicles. The kids knew what was coming, but they saw no reason to warn us. Instead, they watched us drive right into the ambush. One of our men died, and in the subsequent crossfire, several insurgents and children were killed. We saw Iraqis cheering and dancing at the blast crater as we left the area hours later.
With the U.S. effort in Iraq faltering, Gen. David Petraeus unveiled a new counterinsurgency strategy that year. He believed that showing more restraint during gunfights would help foster Iraqis’ trust in U.S. forces and that forming better relationships with civilians would improve our intelligence-gathering. We refined our warrior mentality — the one that directed us to protect ourselves above all else — with a community-building component.
My unit began to patrol on foot almost exclusively, which was exceptionally more dangerous than staying inside our armored vehicles. We relinquished much of our personal security by entering dimly lit homes in insurgent strongholds. We didn’t know if the hand we would shake at each door held a detonator to a suicide vest or a small glass of hot, sugary tea.
But as a result, we better understood our environment and earned the allegiance of some people in it. The benefits quickly became clear. One day during that bloody summer, insurgents loaded a car with hundreds of pounds of explosives and parked it by a school. They knew we searched every building for hidden weapons caches, and they waited for us to gather near the car. But as we turned the corner to head toward the school, several Iraqis told us about the danger. We evacuated civilians from the area and called in a helicopter gunship to fire at the vehicle.
The resulting explosion pulverized half the building and blasted the car’s engine block through two cement walls. Shrapnel dropped like jagged hail as far as a quarter-mile away.
If we had not risked our safety by patrolling the neighborhood on foot, trusting our sources and gathering intelligence, it would have been a massacre. But no one was hurt in the blast.
Domestic police forces would benefit from a similar change in strategy. Instead of relying on aggression, they should rely more on relationships. Rather than responding to a squatter call with guns raised, they should knock on the door and extend a hand. But unfortunately, my encounter with officers is just one in a stream of recent examples of police placing their own safety ahead of those they’re sworn to serve and protect.
Rhoads, the Fairfax County police lieutenant, was upfront about this mind-set. He explained that it was standard procedure to point guns at suspects in many cases to protect the lives of police officers. Their firearm rules were different from mine; they aimed not to kill but to intimidate. According to reporting by The Washington Post, those rules are established in police training, which often emphasizes a violent response over deescalation. Recruits spend an average of eight hours learning how to neutralize tense situations; they spend more than seven times as many hours at the weapons range.
Of course, officers’ safety is vital, and they’re entitled to defend themselves and the communities they serve. But they’re failing to see the connection between their aggressive postures and the hostility they’ve encountered in Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and other communities. When you level assault rifles at protesters, you create animosity. When you kill an unarmed man on his own property while his hands are raised — as Fairfax County police did in 2013 — you sow distrust. And when you threaten to Taser a woman during a routine traffic stop (as happened to 28-year-old Sandra Bland, who died in a Texas jail this month), you cultivate a fear of police. This makes policing more dangerous for everyone.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I read that the other day, it was a good article.
91
Post by: Hordini
I wonder how long it will be until someone (not on Dakka, just in general) claims that the footage of her in jail is actually computer animated, or a stunt double filmed after the fact, and that she was still dead when she was brought into jail.
4402
Post by: CptJake
I looked at that video, and there are artifacts in it that clearly show it is stunt double in a green room with computer animated background added in. There can be no real doubt she was dead when she was brought into the jail.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
 Xenomancers wrote:Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?
No. Read the thread and the article before commenting. Quite how you can see this as a "job well done" is beyond me, no matter what your opinions are on the traffic stop, or the apparent suicide whilst in police custody.
18698
Post by: kronk
CptJake wrote:I looked at that video, and there are artifacts in it that clearly show it is stunt double in a green room with computer animated background added in. There can be no real doubt she was dead when she was brought into the jail.
You can tell by the shadows.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
-Shrike- wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?
No. Read the thread and the article before commenting. Quite how you can see this as a "job well done" is beyond me, no matter what your opinions are on the traffic stop, or the apparent suicide whilst in police custody.
I skimmed through it - found no evidence of misconduct. The subject refused to put out a lit cigarette which could be used to harm the officer - furthermore the officer has every justification to remove you from your car if you are being non compliant. Further belligerence only insures your arrest. JOB WELL DONE.
I have an anecdote to add to this. I am white and I was once pulled over buy an officer because I didn't have my headlights on driving at night. One of the first things he asked me was are their any weapons in the car and I said yes and turned and looked at him. His hand immediately went to his sidearm and he told me "Don't reach for it." He had me step out of the car and I complied, I showed him my concealed carry permit and then he went on to let me go and told me to make sure I turn on my lights. I have no doubt in my mind that I would have had a gun in my face and been arrested if I had been non compliant in this event. Treating people with respect is the best way to get favorable outcomes out of people. Want to get a cop to arrest you? Blow smoke in their face and refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
Xenomancers wrote: -Shrike- wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?
No. Read the thread and the article before commenting. Quite how you can see this as a "job well done" is beyond me, no matter what your opinions are on the traffic stop, or the apparent suicide whilst in police custody.
I skimmed through it - found no evidence of misconduct.
Awesome. The police force itself disagrees with you, by the way.
The subject refused to put out a lit cigarette which could be used to harm the officer
So could car keys, glasses, or your fists. That's a fething stupid argument.
- furthermore the officer has every justification to remove you from your car if you are being non compliant.
But you don't have to comply with ancillary requests for something like this. We've already been over this already in this thread, she didn't have to put out that cigarette.
Further belligerence only insures your arrest.
Only if the officer doesn't de-escalate the situation.
JOB WELL DONE.
Sure. That's why this woman's dead, right? Job well done?
I have an anecdote to add to this. I am white and I was once pulled over buy an officer because I didn't have my headlights on driving at night. One of the first things he asked me was are their any weapons in the car and I said yes and turned and looked at him. His hand immediately went to his sidearm and he told me "Don't reach for it." He had me step out of the car and I complied, I showed him my concealed carry permit and then he went on to let me go and told me to make sure I turn on my lights. I have no doubt in my mind that I would have had a gun in my face and been arrested if I had been non compliant in this event. Treating people with respect is the best way to get favorable outcomes out of people. Want to get a cop to arrest you? Blow smoke in their face and refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.
Cool story. I love a nice story.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
-Shrike- wrote: Xenomancers wrote: -Shrike- wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?
No. Read the thread and the article before commenting. Quite how you can see this as a "job well done" is beyond me, no matter what your opinions are on the traffic stop, or the apparent suicide whilst in police custody.
I skimmed through it - found no evidence of misconduct.
Awesome. The police force itself disagrees with you, by the way.
The subject refused to put out a lit cigarette which could be used to harm the officer
So could car keys, glasses, or your fists. That's a fething stupid argument.
- furthermore the officer has every justification to remove you from your car if you are being non compliant.
But you don't have to comply with ancillary requests for something like this. We've already been over this already in this thread, she didn't have to put out that cigarette.
Further belligerence only insures your arrest.
Only if the officer doesn't de-escalate the situation.
JOB WELL DONE.
Sure. That's why this woman's dead, right? Job well done?
I have an anecdote to add to this. I am white and I was once pulled over buy an officer because I didn't have my headlights on driving at night. One of the first things he asked me was are their any weapons in the car and I said yes and turned and looked at him. His hand immediately went to his sidearm and he told me "Don't reach for it." He had me step out of the car and I complied, I showed him my concealed carry permit and then he went on to let me go and told me to make sure I turn on my lights. I have no doubt in my mind that I would have had a gun in my face and been arrested if I had been non compliant in this event. Treating people with respect is the best way to get favorable outcomes out of people. Want to get a cop to arrest you? Blow smoke in their face and refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.
Cool story. I love a nice story.
Your argument is baseless, as cigarette can cause serious bodily harm. Don't believe me? Try putting a lit one in your eye for a moment. Better yet, drop one down your shirt. Then we can see how harmless it really is. A woman hangs herself in her cell - I don't see how this is the fault of the police department. Care to explain how the police department is responsible for injuries prisoners commit on themselves?
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
A cigarette has an orange tip. That means it's a toy weapon. Even cops should know that.
Since we're apparently having a nonsense contest. 
12313
Post by: Ouze
That feeling when you sort of miss Biccat.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Xenomancers wrote:Care to explain how the police department is responsible for injuries prisoners commit on themselves?
The fact that there are protocols in facilities like prisons to monitor prisoners deemed at risk of self-harm and suicide certainly suggests that law enforcement has a responsibility to protect those incarcerated, even from themselves. Automatically Appended Next Post: Xenomancers wrote: Your argument is baseless, as cigarette can cause serious bodily harm. Don't believe me? Try putting a lit one in your eye for a moment. Better yet, drop one down your shirt.
So is it standard procedure for a police officer to lean down, with their shirt undone, within arms reach of the driver in a traffic stop? Seems a mighty idiotic thing to do if they're so worried about their personal safety. Forget about guns, if you're that close then worry about a knife in the side pocket of the door, they could grab you and slit your throat before you have a chance to do a thing.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
lord_blackfang wrote:
A cigarette has an orange tip. That means it's a toy weapon. Even cops should know that.
Since we're apparently having a nonsense contest.
Nonsense huh? That's a great way to give your argument credence. By completely ignoring the acts that give the officer justification to arrest the subject. I assure you there is no legal dispute that a lit cigarette is indeed dangerous. If this women is white do you think this article even makes a headline? NOPE. Nothing to see here ladies and gentleman.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Xenomancers wrote: lord_blackfang wrote: A cigarette has an orange tip. That means it's a toy weapon. Even cops should know that. Since we're apparently having a nonsense contest.
Nonsense huh? That's a great way to give your argument credence. By completely ignoring the acts that give the officer justification to arrest the subject. I assure you there is no legal dispute that a lit cigarette is indeed dangerous. If this women is white do you think this article even makes a headline? NOPE. Nothing to see here ladies and gentleman.
Except, as pointed out, refusal to put out a cigarette is not grounds for an arrest as it is not something that the person is legally required to comply with. If a police officer stops me on the street and tells me to stand on one foot, they can't legally arrest me for refusing.
18698
Post by: kronk
 A Town Called Malus wrote: Xenomancers wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:
A cigarette has an orange tip. That means it's a toy weapon. Even cops should know that.
Since we're apparently having a nonsense contest.
Nonsense huh? That's a great way to give your argument credence. By completely ignoring the acts that give the officer justification to arrest the subject. I assure you there is no legal dispute that a lit cigarette is indeed dangerous. If this women is white do you think this article even makes a headline? NOPE. Nothing to see here ladies and gentleman.
Except, as pointed out, refusal to put out a cigarette is not grounds for an arrest as it is not something that the person is legally required to comply with.
If a police officer tells me to stand on one foot, they can't legally arrest me for refusing.
Unless that's part of a field sobriety test!
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
A Town Called Malus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Care to explain how the police department is responsible for injuries prisoners commit on themselves?
The fact that there are protocols in facilities like prisons to monitor prisoners deemed at risk of self-harm and suicide certainly suggests that law enforcement has a responsibility to protect those incarcerated, even from themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote:
Your argument is baseless, as cigarette can cause serious bodily harm. Don't believe me? Try putting a lit one in your eye for a moment. Better yet, drop one down your shirt.
So is it standard procedure for a police officer to lean down, with their shirt undone, within arms reach of the driver in a traffic stop? Seems a mighty idiotic thing to do if they're so worried about their personal safety.
It's not standard procedure for the officer to endanger himself in any circumstance. This is why something as small as a cigarette needs to be considered dangerous - because it could be flicked into his eye - blinding him - at which point the subject could easily acquire a more dangerous weapon, or disarm the officer. Is it your opinion that officers should not consider burning objects dangerous? If so, why?
On the subject of monitoring prisoners for their own well being, sure, I can get on that page with you. However, is this an issue of police brutality? Maybe this discussion belongs in another thread? Automatically Appended Next Post: A Town Called Malus wrote: Xenomancers wrote: lord_blackfang wrote:
A cigarette has an orange tip. That means it's a toy weapon. Even cops should know that.
Since we're apparently having a nonsense contest.
Nonsense huh? That's a great way to give your argument credence. By completely ignoring the acts that give the officer justification to arrest the subject. I assure you there is no legal dispute that a lit cigarette is indeed dangerous. If this women is white do you think this article even makes a headline? NOPE. Nothing to see here ladies and gentleman.
Except, as pointed out, refusal to put out a cigarette is not grounds for an arrest as it is not something that the person is legally required to comply with.
If a police officer stops me on the street and tells me to stand on one foot, they can't legally arrest me for refusing.
Here in the US...the officer can indeed arrest you for failing to comply with the field sobriety test.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
I'd just thought of that so have slightly changed it to rule out that situation.
And really, do police officers even use that any more? Pretty sure all our officers in cars have a portable breathalyser to use instead.
18698
Post by: kronk
A Town Called Malus wrote: I'd just thought of that so have slightly changed it to rule out that situation. And really, do police officers even use that any more? Pretty sure all our officers in cars have a portable breathalyser to use instead.
I am not a lawyer, I think they give you a chance to show that you aren't drunk before they ask for the Breath-a-Lizer. If you can't follow simple commands like walk a line or count down from 43, then they have probably cause. Police on TV shows are really big on probable cause. Also, COPS is my favorite TV show of all time.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
 kronk wrote: A Town Called Malus wrote:
I'd just thought of that so have slightly changed it to rule out that situation.
And really, do police officers even use that any more? Pretty sure all our officers in cars have a portable breathalyser to use instead.
I am not a lawyer, I think they give you a chance to show that you aren't drunk before they ask for the Breath-a-Lizer. If you can't follow simple commands like walk a line or count down from 43, then they have probably cause. Police on TV shows are really big on probable cause.
Also, COPS is my favorite TV show of all time.
Seems a bit risky. They may be over the legal limit but still manage to pass the test, after all. Then if they crash and injure someone it would look bad on the police force for not breathalysing if they suspected drink-driving.
18698
Post by: kronk
I'm not a steel drum player, but that's very doubtful, IMHO. Add in checking your eyes for dilation, and I'm betting a trained Po-Po can pick out most drunks and get the probably cause for a Breath-a-lyzer test. Then if they crash and injure someone it would look bad on the police force for not breathalysing if they suspected drink-driving.
Probably.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Today I learned that if a police officer wants to talk to me while I am walking down the street the proper procedure would be for them to drive up to me, crack their window a little bit, slide a couple handcuffs through the crack, and request that I please curl up and handcuff my wrists and ankles so that they can talk to me without being in any danger.
Cop was a dick who needlessly escalated the situation that was already resolved by the time he decided to push buttons, arrested her for resisting arrests, and lied about what happened, all of which is on his tape.
He didn't kill her, but he still did stuff that was wrong.
221
Post by: Frazzled
lord_blackfang wrote:
A cigarette has an orange tip. That means it's a toy weapon. Even cops should know that.
Since we're apparently having a nonsense contest.
In high school I used a cigarette quite effectively to the face of someone annoying me in a parking lot. Turned a 3-1 advantage for them into a 1-1 with him out and one other running off. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cop was a dick who needlessly escalated the situation that was already resolved by the time he decided to push buttons, arrested her for resisting arrests, and lied about what happened, all of which is on his tape.
He didn't kill her, but he still did stuff that was wrong.
He was DPS. Thats standard procedure for DPS. (in case that doesn't translate I am agreeing with you).
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
And people say smoking is bad for your health
18698
Post by: kronk
d-usa wrote:Today I learned that if a police officer wants to talk to me while I am walking down the street the proper procedure would be for them to drive up to me, crack their window a little bit, slide a couple handcuffs through the crack, and request that I please curl up and handcuff my wrists and ankles so that they can talk to me without being in any danger.
Cop was a dick who needlessly escalated the situation that was already resolved by the time he decided to push buttons, arrested her for resisting arrests, and lied about what happened, all of which is on his tape.
He didn't kill her, but he still did stuff that was wrong.
It would be safer for the officer to just taze you first. 
Also, the officer was a dick. I think most of us agree on that. Further, the lady had serious emotional problems and killed herself. That's on her.
No one in this story is a hero.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I didn't often agree with him, but at least, you know, he made an effort. Not this "I didn't read the thread, lol, here are a bunch of provocative and ridiculous arguments, which I will simply repeat if anyone points out the holes in them".
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I think he made an effort and was quite sincere. You're right there.
I never agreed with anything he said, but he was consistent, sincere and put some thought (that I didn't agree with) into his arguments.
He also gave me loads of gold on minecraft to make a massive Menofix.
Edit: As to "it's on her" while yes, she ultimately made the choice (as far as I can see), she was able to do so in a cell. That shouldn't happen.
92521
Post by: BeAfraid
Xenomancers wrote: -Shrike- wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?
No. Read the thread and the article before commenting. Quite how you can see this as a "job well done" is beyond me, no matter what your opinions are on the traffic stop, or the apparent suicide whilst in police custody.
I skimmed through it - found no evidence of misconduct. The subject refused to put out a lit cigarette which could be used to harm the officer - furthermore the officer has every justification to remove you from your car if you are being non compliant. Further belligerence only insures your arrest. JOB WELL DONE.
I have an anecdote to add to this. I am white and I was once pulled over buy an officer because I didn't have my headlights on driving at night. One of the first things he asked me was are their any weapons in the car and I said yes and turned and looked at him. His hand immediately went to his sidearm and he told me "Don't reach for it." He had me step out of the car and I complied, I showed him my concealed carry permit and then he went on to let me go and told me to make sure I turn on my lights. I have no doubt in my mind that I would have had a gun in my face and been arrested if I had been non compliant in this event. Treating people with respect is the best way to get favorable outcomes out of people. Want to get a cop to arrest you? Blow smoke in their face and refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.
A "Cigarette?"
A "Deadly Weapon?"
Maybe there is something else you have been smoking.
Or a pretend news station you have been watching.
MB
221
Post by: Frazzled
I didn't see where he compared the cigarette to a deadly weapon. Can you clarify.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Frazzled wrote:I didn't see where he compared the cigarette to a deadly weapon. Can you clarify.
Pretty certain I never used that exact phrase. I did say a cigarette can cause serious bodily harm. This is indisputably true.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
d-usa wrote:Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.
Unless its weed, in which case its ok to smoke it.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Grey Templar wrote: d-usa wrote:Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.
Unless its weed, in which case its ok to smoke it.
the decrease in reaction time renders those burning sticks harmless to police officers
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
d-usa wrote:Now we know why the liberals want to make every area a non-smoking zone. To disarm us and take away our tiny smokey sticks that protect us from the police state.
I wouldn't call that a liberal issue I know plenty of conservatives that don't want smoke blown in their face. Myself included.
37231
Post by: d-usa
In other news (I figured one "cop stuff" thread is enough, but I could always start a new topic):
University of Cincinnati Police Officer charged based on body camera evidence.
tl;dr: Officer shoots guy, says he was dragged by his car, second officer that shows up later says he saw him being dragged, the body camera reveals it was a lie.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I saw that.
Is the video from the body cam available?
I think the only responsible thing to do is raze the University of Cincinnati (Cincinnati, the only town so messed up you need spell check to write it). Has anyone asked Johnny Fever about his opinion?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Not directly at the link I posted, but they do have a link on that site that forwards you to the local news who do have it posted.
221
Post by: Frazzled
OK I watched it once (got vertigo). Looks like car guy resists being pulled out of car and then gun goes off. Does that look accurate?
If so thats so a bad shoot.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote:OK I watched it once (got vertigo). Looks like car guy resists being pulled out of car and then gun goes off. Does that look accurate?
If so thats so a bad shoot.
I didn't watch it with the sound on (at work), but from what I could see it seems like the cop is trying to open the door and the guy I holding the door shut. The car (maybe) moves a tiny bit and the guy gets shot and the car takes off. My guess is that he didn't have the car in park (or had it in neutral if it was a manual) and when he held onto the door his foot might have slipped off the break causing the tiny movement (and the driving away once he was shot).
Nothing there to really justify any kind of shooting, and a stark difference to the "he drove away and dragged me along with his car, so I had to shoot him" story the cop initially told (and which was backed up by the other cop). It's a pretty good example of why body cams are a good development.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote:OK I watched it once (got vertigo). Looks like car guy resists being pulled out of car and then gun goes off. Does that look accurate?
If so thats so a bad shoot.
I didn't watch it with the sound on (at work), but from what I could see it seems like the cop is trying to open the door and the guy I holding the door shut. The car (maybe) moves a tiny bit and the guy gets shot and the car takes off. My guess is that he didn't have the car in park (or had it in neutral if it was a manual) and when he held onto the door his foot might have slipped off the break causing the tiny movement (and the driving away once he was shot).
Nothing there to really justify any kind of shooting, and a stark difference to the "he drove away and dragged me along with his car, so I had to shoot him" story the cop initially told (and which was backed up by the other cop). It's a pretty good example of why body cams are a good development.
Sounds off(same situation).
Even at best if driver tried to rev out of there, thats not a shooting circumstance. He's not presenting a threat to the officer or others. If the officer was caught or was struck/trying to be struck then yea, otherwise no way.
You can see why car stops are so dangerous though. If it didn't end so badly I'd show the kids. There's four times as a cop I would have flipped. He keeps reaching fast for stuff.
On the flipside if I were a definite bad guy with mal intent that cop would have been shot. He reached in positions on either side of him where the cop couldn't see and where people often stash firearms.
Its why I don't understand the practice of keeping them in the car. I'd tell them to get out of the car and come back to me. But hey I can barely use words so what do I know.
34390
Post by: whembly
Frazzled wrote:
Its why I don't understand the practice of keeping them in the car. I'd tell them to get out of the car and come back to me. But hey I can barely use words so what do I know.
At one point a long time ago...that was the policy in some areas. I think a driver (asked to get out of his car) got hit by an ongoing car that put a stop to that.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It seems like it could be argued either way. Having you stay inside the car also places a physical barrier between you and the officer and makes it harder for you to start a physical fight.
221
Post by: Frazzled
That is true.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think you might want to start a new thread if that hasn't happened because the article I read said the Cincinnati PD was preparing for possible riots when the tape came out. You know it's bad when, prior to the tape's release, the police chief is saying how bad it is and the cop's lawyer is saying he expects his client to be indicted.
I literally just woke up so if that already happened please disregard Automatically Appended Next Post: Looks like he got indicted for murder so maybe no point in a new thread because the facts are so clear and justice looks like it might actually happen
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/29/us/ohio-sam-dubose-tensing-indictment/index.html
37231
Post by: d-usa
I think Cincinnati might be one of the places where thinks may actually stay fairly calm. They learned from horrible riots in 2001, the PD already fired him, the family is very vocal and are encouraging calm.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
I really don't know what to make of this. It does indeed seem asinine but I like to give law abiding citizens the benefit of the doubt.
Here is the unedited version it has almost an additional minute of dialog with the two. It certainly paints a different picture getting shot after 10 secodns of talking and 2 minutes of talking is a dramatic difference. Though I am still not 100% convinced use of force was justifiable. However - from this video it is clear that the engine was revving BEFORE the man got shot. What is not clear from this video is if the officer was in anyway restrained from back up from the car or was dragged in any way. I am not certain that this would constitute use of deadly force even if this were the case but I could easily argue a case that this officers life was in danger of being run over by the mans car. I am certain though that in this culture of police hatred - this man will be annihilated by the mob and the media.
http://www.copblock.org/134093/dash-cam-video-released-officer-ray-tensing-charged-with-murder-in-fatal-shooting-of-sam-dubose/
12313
Post by: Ouze
Truly, someone will defend anything.
At this point, you have to be trolling
34390
Post by: whembly
@Xeno.
The police still CANNOT shoot a fleeing suspect like that. Full stop.
The only... ONLY way I can foresee it ever to be justified, is if the cops *sees* and *knows* that the driver is going to intentially run someone over to kill... but, that's crazy pants talking here.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Whoa
There's a 2nd body cam involved from another officer
Foreman (the Detective from Simpson diabolical) explained (they didn't show the 2nd video) that it seemed as the Officer pulled his weapon and had a "Negligent Discharge"
Pretty much he did from the video. He should have stepped back
The officer was saying he was worried about being pulled under or dragged by the vehicle yet the video
37231
Post by: d-usa
Well, as long as the guy "running" from the cop is fleeing from an unjust law he should be fine...
At this point, you have to be trolling
And here I thought that he said that he isn't a fan of smoke blowing in peoples faces Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:Whoa
There's a 2nd body cam involved from another officer
Foreman (the Detective from Simpson diabolical) explained (they didn't show the 2nd video) that it seemed as the Officer pulled his weapon and had a "Negligent Discharge"
Pretty much he did from the video. He should have stepped back
The officer was saying he was worried about being pulled under or dragged by the vehicle yet the video
So video 1 (from the guy that shot):
- Shows nothing happened to justify the shooting.
- Officer lied about being dragged.
Video 2 (from the other officer):
- Shows nothing happened to justify the shooting.
- Shows that the officer fired by mistake
- BOTH officers lied about the negligent discharge and tried to cover up the death by blaming the dead guy.
It seems like if they would have been honest to begin with Officer #1 would only be looking at a manslaughter charge at best. Of course cynical me might think that this was done on purpose to undermine the murder charge.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:Whoa
There's a 2nd body cam involved from another officer
Foreman (the Detective from Simpson diabolical) explained (they didn't show the 2nd video) that it seemed as the Officer pulled his weapon and had a "Negligent Discharge"
That sounds right. He pulls gun (not sure why) they struggle, gun goes off, "oh crap I forgot my drop gun...er he tried to run me over!"
Never a better example of needed body cams on da PoPo, for their protection and ours
(flip it-cop says car tried to hit, driver alive and says he didn't, people freak, but cam shows he actually did try to...)
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 whembly wrote:@Xeno.
The police still CANNOT shoot a fleeing suspect like that. Full stop.
The only... ONLY way I can foresee it ever to be justified, is if the cops *sees* and *knows* that the driver is going to intentially run someone over to kill... but, that's crazy pants talking here.
I'm not really disagreeing with you. This is the craziest thing I've ever seen a cop do. I was thinking purely from a legal perspective. Could the cop have feared for his own life from being run over by a car? If the cop was in fact stuck to the car in some way - he was indeed in danger. You can't really disagree with that. The video really isn't clear here. What we really need is the dash cam...Where is the dash cam?
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Xenomancers wrote:I really don't know what to make of this. It does indeed seem asinine but I like to give law abiding citizens the benefit of the doubt.
Here is the unedited version it has almost an additional minute of dialog with the two. It certainly paints a different picture getting shot after 10 secodns of talking and 2 minutes of talking is a dramatic difference. Though I am still not 100% convinced use of force was justifiable. However - from this video it is clear that the engine was revving BEFORE the man got shot. What is not clear from this video is if the officer was in anyway restrained from back up from the car or was dragged in any way. I am not certain that this would constitute use of deadly force even if this were the case but I could easily argue a case that this officers life was in danger of being run over by the mans car. I am certain though that in this culture of police hatred - this man will be annihilated by the mob and the media.
http://www.copblock.org/134093/dash-cam-video-released-officer-ray-tensing-charged-with-murder-in-fatal-shooting-of-sam-dubose/
The mental gymnastics required to justify a shooting in that case are absolutely mind boggling. Maybe you could tell me though - what do police boots taste like?
If anything, the other cop who lied needs to go to jail too as an accomplice.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
2nd body cam from the other officer debunked that.
Officer should not have drawn his weapon as you can tell the victim was taking off on a clear street.
I cannot locate that 2nd body cam video.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Jihadin wrote:2nd body cam from the other officer debunked that.
Officer should not have drawn his weapon as you can tell the victim was taking off on a clear street.
I cannot locate that 2nd body cam video.
I agree - if there is a clear view from a second body cam (I havnt seen that yet) - both officers should be convicted for lying to the police in a murder investigation and the man officer who fired the shots convicted of manslaughter or possibly murder.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Xenomancers wrote: Jihadin wrote:2nd body cam from the other officer debunked that.
Officer should not have drawn his weapon as you can tell the victim was taking off on a clear street.
I cannot locate that 2nd body cam video.
I agree - if there is a clear view from a second body cam (I havnt seen that yet) - both officers should be convicted for lying to the police in a murder investigation and the man officer who fired the shots convicted of manslaughter or possibly murder.
Don't worry... someone can manufacture a "Witness 40" if needed to come up with an account which isn't directly contradicted by videos to put it all in context and support the officers claims.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Um.
Prosecution/DA let him keep talking before they pulled the 2nd cam out showing how wrong he was........
Negligent Discharge into a head. I'm calling it to like Foreman.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Jihadin wrote:Um.
Prosecution/ DA let him keep talking before they pulled the 2nd cam out showing how wrong he was........
Negligent Discharge into a head. I'm calling it to like Foreman.
That doesn't make sense? They know they have cameras on right? You have to question things when you know you are being recorded and still lie about it? Can't rule out stupid I guess.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Xenomancers wrote: If the cop was in fact stuck to the car in some way - he was indeed in danger. You can't really disagree with that.
Yes, I really can.
Having watched the video, the car wasn't moving when the cop reached into it. The only reason he might have been in any danger of being dragged off was the fact that he placed his own body into the car window when he saw the victim go to turn the ignition. The danger arose due to the actions the cop took to prevent said danger.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
His weapon was across the side window threshold.
They showed the 2nd cam video from the other officer view. Stupidity of the LEO resulted in the driver death.
91
Post by: Hordini
It's hard to tell for sure from the video, but it almost looks like he ND'd.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
 Goliath wrote: Xenomancers wrote: If the cop was in fact stuck to the car in some way - he was indeed in danger. You can't really disagree with that.
Yes, I really can.
Having watched the video, the car wasn't moving when the cop reached into it. The only reason he might have been in any danger of being dragged off was the fact that he placed his own body into the car window when he saw the victim go to turn the ignition. The danger arose due to the actions the cop took to prevent said danger.
Unfortunately, that's fairly common - Through a combination of their own stupidity and poor training, cops put themselves in positions where their lives are threatened, kill someone, then argue that "he was comin' right for us." And before body cameras, people believed it.
I wonder how many people these morons have murdered, and walked due to a fellow cop's word against that of a witness?
37231
Post by: d-usa
You know, I don't buy into the whole "soldiers automatically make good cops/bad cops" argument that goes around. But I wonder if former soldiers that serve have better weapon discipline than some of the non-veteran cops.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Hordini wrote:It's hard to tell for sure from the video, but it almost looks like he ND'd.
I think you're right on the money there.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Xenomancers wrote: Jihadin wrote:Um.
Prosecution/ DA let him keep talking before they pulled the 2nd cam out showing how wrong he was........
Negligent Discharge into a head. I'm calling it to like Foreman.
That doesn't make sense? They know they have cameras on right? You have to question things when you know you are being recorded and still lie about it? Can't rule out stupid I guess.
I dunno. Maybe they just assume their friends will cover for them and delete the footage.
Or they can't handle being murderers, so they invent a new story and convince even themselves of it to remain the good guys in their own minds. That kinda is a human thing.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
lord_blackfang wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Jihadin wrote:Um.
Prosecution/ DA let him keep talking before they pulled the 2nd cam out showing how wrong he was........
Negligent Discharge into a head. I'm calling it to like Foreman.
That doesn't make sense? They know they have cameras on right? You have to question things when you know you are being recorded and still lie about it? Can't rule out stupid I guess.
I dunno. Maybe they just assume their friends will cover for them and delete the footage.
Or they can't handle being murderers, so they invent a new story and convince even themselves of it to remain the good guys in their own minds. That kinda is a human thing.
I think a lot of police suffer from "Uncle Ben" Syndrome, which is why they go overboard on routine stops trying to expose some sinister major crime. They feel every suspicious guy they give a ticket to and send on their way is moments from murdering a dozen babies and only if they had stopped them!!!
Of course a lot of that 'suspicion' is based upon racism, so it leads to issues...
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
lord_blackfang wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Jihadin wrote:Um.
Prosecution/ DA let him keep talking before they pulled the 2nd cam out showing how wrong he was........
Negligent Discharge into a head. I'm calling it to like Foreman.
That doesn't make sense? They know they have cameras on right? You have to question things when you know you are being recorded and still lie about it? Can't rule out stupid I guess.
I dunno. Maybe they just assume their friends will cover for them and delete the footage.
Or they can't handle being murderers, so they invent a new story and convince even themselves of it to remain the good guys in their own minds. That kinda is a human thing.
Some of them are possibly so used to altering the story to fit their own narrative and protect themselves that it has become second nature to lie in these situations. They don't even think about the bodycam as they're so used to just giving their side and that being it.
4402
Post by: CptJake
nkelsch wrote:
I think a lot of police suffer from "Uncle Ben" Syndrome, which is why they go overboard on routine stops trying to expose some sinister major crime. They feel every suspicious guy they give a ticket to and send on their way is moments from murdering a dozen babies and only if they had stopped them!!!
Of course a lot of that 'suspicion' is based upon racism, so it leads to issues...
Do you actually know any LEOs?
I think you are projecting your suspicions of LEOs onto their motivations and intent.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
CptJake wrote:nkelsch wrote:
I think a lot of police suffer from "Uncle Ben" Syndrome, which is why they go overboard on routine stops trying to expose some sinister major crime. They feel every suspicious guy they give a ticket to and send on their way is moments from murdering a dozen babies and only if they had stopped them!!!
Of course a lot of that 'suspicion' is based upon racism, so it leads to issues...
Do you actually know any LEOs?
I think you are projecting your suspicions of LEOs onto their motivations and intent.
I know 3 actually... And I worked closely with our City's police group in the schools for years.
They would do psychological tests on officers who applied and many would wash out for having hero complexes and wanting to 'drive into the city and bust perps' supposed to supporting the community as a member of it. Many of those people unfit to be a cop in our area would go elsewhere, like Baltimore. Basically people who were to damaged or unqualified to work in our county end up in Baltimore, where they have a huge issue of external police force who are not part of the community they are policing and lack a total understanding of the community they are supposed to 'protect'.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Some of them might just be lying jackasses, but I think that mls of them are probably not even lying on purpose. Despite some people painting cops as psychopaths, killing someone is a traumatic experience. It is hard to remember exactly what happened at that time and it is possible that they end up believing that their recollection is the way it happened.
There was a lot of talk about how stuff like that can happen when our favorite newscaster was being called out on his war zone stories.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
nkelsch wrote: I know 3 actually... And I worked closely with our City's police group in the schools for years. They would do psychological tests on officers who applied and many would wash out for having hero complexes and wanting to 'drive into the city and bust perps' supposed to supporting the community as a member of it. Many of those people unfit to be a cop in our area would go elsewhere, like Baltimore. Basically people who were to damaged or unqualified to work in our county end up in Baltimore, where they have a huge issue of external police force who are not part of the community they are policing and lack a total understanding of the community they are supposed to 'protect'.
I think The Wire had quite a few moments where it highlighted this problem, often by the actions and attitude of Bunny Colvin as he tried to correct it.
4402
Post by: CptJake
d-usa wrote:Some of them might just be lying jackasses, but I think that mls of them are probably not even lying on purpose. Despite some people painting cops as psychopaths, killing someone is a traumatic experience. It is hard to remember exactly what happened at that time and it is possible that they end up believing that their recollection is the way it happened.
There was a lot of talk about how stuff like that can happen when our favorite newscaster was being called out on his war zone stories.
Hell, witnessing an event can be traumatic, which is one reason even with multiple witnesses to an event there can be major discrepancies between what each says they saw. And in many cases each is convinced their version is true and accurate.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The moral of the story is that body cams did their job and were a good resource.
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote:The moral of the story is that body cams did their job and were a good resource.
Yes.
It also supports, if pulled over, be calm, don't be stupid, even if you're going to be convicted of something.
|
|
