Incident during Traffic Stop in Texas - Death While In Police Custody Under Investigation

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**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.

**Ouze**

I read that the other day, it was a good article.

**Frazzled**

More video in the jail. Nope they didn't wack her and fake a picture.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/29/427325564/texas-authorities-release-more-jailhouse-video-in-sandra-bland-case

**Hordini**

Frazzled wrote:
More video in the jail. Nope they didn't wack her and fake a picture.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/29/427325564/texas-authorities-release-more-jailhouse-video-in-sandra-bland-case

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.

**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.

**Xenomancers**

Is this yet another case that claims police brutality on a job well done?

**-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.

**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.

**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.

**-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.

**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?

**lord_blackfang**

Xenomancers wrote:
refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

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.

**Ouze**

That feeling when you sort of miss Biccat.

**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.

**Xenomancers**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

Xenomancers wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

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.

**kronk**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

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!

**MrDwhitey**

Ouze wrote:
That feeling when you sort of miss Biccat.

Oh my god.

**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:
Xenomancers wrote:
refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

kronk wrote:

Unless that's part of a field sobriety test!

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.

**kronk**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
kronk wrote:

Unless that's part of a field sobriety test!

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

kronk wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
kronk wrote:

Unless that's part of a field sobriety test!

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.

**kronk**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Seems a bit risky. They may be over the legal limit but still manage to pass the test, after all.

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.

**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.

**Frazzled**

lord_blackfang wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

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).

**A Town Called Malus**

Frazzled wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
refuse to drop what can be considered a deadly weapon.

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.

And people say smoking is bad for your health

**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.

**Ouze**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Ouze wrote:
That feeling when you sort of miss Biccat.

Oh my god.

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".

**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.