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.

 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!

 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.

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.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Instead of picking fights with people who are clearly having issues.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

1) Yes, THIS. IS. DAKKA. DAKKA. (Channeling Leonidas)

2) THERE. IS. NO. "DAKKA".

Yeah?

Anyway, keep it polite - thanks!

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.

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?

 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?

It noted cuts on her wrists, some old, some not old.

 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.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:
It noted cuts on her wrists, some old, some not old.

Nobody noticed those at the jailhouse? Do they not look at people when they take them in?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It noted cuts on her wrists, some old, some not old.

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It noted cuts on her wrists, some old, some not old.

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

 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.

 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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It noted cuts on her wrists, some old, some not old.

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.

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.

“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.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It noted cuts on her wrists, some old, some not old.

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.

And they may have. Doesn't mean they would have made a report of it.

 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.

 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.

 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.