No indictment in the Sandra Bland case

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're a cunt

This leaves no doubt that Asswipe Ziffle is the leader of SouthClown and Dumars. They're all pigs.

[Guest123018-4]

so typical of assup, like a little school boy that learned a new word.
Your mother must be so proud.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

so typical of assup, like a little school boy that learned a new word.
Your mother must be so proud.

She's a cunt.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

She's a cunt.

And a mattress dragging flat backer for any and ALL takers in the Austin area !

[Yosun]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Apparently he asked her to put out her cigarette and according to him, she blow smoke in his face. If this is true, she deserved to be hauled off to jail.

First of all, do you have a source for the officer saying she blew smoke in his face?

Second of all, blowing smoke in someone's direction and blowing it in someone's face are two different things. From what I saw in that dashcam video, the trooper was not close enough to Bland's car for smoke to be blown in his face.

Third, blowing smoke in someone's face is not assault. Rude? Sure. But if it was assault, why did the DPS emphasize "kicking" - again, a complete lie - to justify the charge of assaulting a public servant instead of emphasizing Bland allegedly blowing smoke in the trooper's face? Because hauling someone off to jail for something as trivial as blowing smoke in another person's face is ridiculous.

This doesn't mean she deserved to die or be killed, but there has been no evidence that she has been killed. all evidence so far points to suicide, and that's tragic on its own. but to attempt to charge people with murder or manslaughter with no evidence is horrible and these people should be out of power.

I wasn't arguing she was murdered; I was arguing she was illegally detained and that the Waller County jail is at least guilty of criminal negligence in caring for an inmate whose life is their responsibility. That's all.

Originally Posted by RayLengua

If you are ok with living in a state that has a state income tax and elects "nanny-state " politicians like Bllomberg as Mayor of NYC, then just keep your liberal, tax-and-spend loving ass right there ! Are you yet another liberal defending a member of the Dindu Nuffins so that you can feel good about yourself and say " well, I have black friends, therefore I'M NOT racist ! " Try not to sweat to much this winter with all of that "Global warming. climate change " that is expected for you Yankees

Again, ad hominem fallacy + strawman fallacy + association fallacy.

I am not a resident of NYC, so I did not vote for Bloomberg.

Have I ever indicated that I was a liberal, or are you often presumptuous of the politics of people who disagree with you?

If by "Yankee" you mean someone who was born in states that belonged to the Union during the Civil War, I can assure you I am not a Yankee. I simply live in New York state at present. I am not from New York.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Well, I've been to New York a number of times, and any time I was around a police officer (or someone who appeared to be "in authority") I was sufficiently respectful to them so it was UNNECESSARY for them to "tolerate" ANY "ATTITUDE."

That's nice. Would they have been justified in arresting you or beating you if you were, say, having a very bad day and happened to speak in a tone that could be interpreted as an "attitude?" Suppose.

But I was raised to be respectful to people generally, unless of course they are disrespectful to me, and then I figure that's what they understand best so I confirm so they will comprehend.

I was raised to be respectful of people as well, but that's still dodging the question. Is "attitude" or "disrespect" an arrestable offense?

If I were living in New York, the last thing I'd do is raise some questions about GOVERNMENT extorting money out of citizens. But you all elected Hillarious Clinton to the only elected office she's ever held, so your standards of integrity and acceptable honesty are quite clear! Extremely low, if they exist.

Does everyone love their strawman fallacies on this forum, or what?

I am not from New York, and I have not voted for Hilary Clinton for anything in my life.

Regarding the government extorting money from its citizens, I am going to simply state a fact: If government is not being funded by taxes (local, federal, or state), they are going to find an alternative means for funding. In Waller County's and Ferguson's case, apparently, it's via police exploiting citizens as a source of revenue. Whether you would prefer citizens be targeted/locked up purely for the state to extract money from them or a steady stream of state tax is entirely up to you.

As for myself, yes, I dislike the notion that police are above reproach, as that is the perfect recipe for living under a police state.

Otherwise, having a fucking merry christmas and stay home

Likewise.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yosun

I was arguing she was illegally detained ....

You should probably begin your discussion here .....

... what is your factual basis for the statement ...


"she was illegally detained"?

Here's the prior thread around the time this occurred ... http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1446687

You should probably do some reading on the first thread for a couple of reasons, the least of which is you are from NEW YORK and probably not familiar with Texas law relating to traffic violations and assaulting people (we don't have to shoot them down here to be charged!) and acceptable law enforcement procedures in Texas.

The second good reason is there is mention of the UTube version of the traffic stop and you should probably find the one that begins from his traffic stop right before he stopped Bland until other officers arrived at the scene of the Bland arrest. You said she didn't assault him ... she slapped him and my recollection she was trying to kick him...... she was legally detained for one or more traffic violations....until she was actually handcuffed and put into a transport vehicle to jail.

As for your "argument she was illegally obtained" .... you are wrong. She was not illegally retained.

As for "New York": What was the result of the grand jury in the Garner case?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You should probably begin your discussion here .....

And you "should probably begin your discussion" .....

BY ANSWERING THE "SIMPLE" QUESTION!

A ... "SIMPLE" ... "YES" ... or ... "NO" ... will do!

Fuk'n Cowardly Idiot!

[LexusLover]

Hey, BigTitsIdiot ....

Why aren't you out ambushing unarmed animals while they eat?

[Yosun]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You should probably begin your discussion here .....You should probably do some reading on the first thread for a couple of reasons, the least of which is you are from NEW YORK and probably not familiar with Texas law relating to traffic violations and assaulting people (we don't have to shoot them down here to be charged!) and acceptable law enforcement procedures in Texas.

As for "New York": What was the result of the grand jury in the Garner case?

First of all, I am going to presume you lack adequate reading comprehension. As I said three times in the same post you quoted me from...

I am not from New York. At present, I am a resident of New York.

Second of all, I wasn't singling out Texas and letting New York off the hook regarding matters of police brutality. The lack of indictments in the Garner case was absolutely baffling to me... as is the lack of accountability for the trooper who arrested Bland and for the jail that neglected their responsibility for her life while she was in their custody.

Third, I'm somewhat familiar with certain ass-backwards laws in Texas, such as this one from Texas code that essentially makes charging someone for resisting arrest legal even if the initial arrest or search was illegal:

Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You should probably begin your discussion here .....

... what is your factual basis for the statement ...


"she was illegally detained"?

If you want the short answer, it's quite simple. The charge was "assaulting a public official." The dashcam video shows no such assault, "kicking," or "slapping" occurred - and if there had, it had to have occurred when the trooper forced himself into Ms. Bland's car in order to force her out illegally.

The video is available for viewing by anyone with functioning eyeballs and 20/20 vision.
https://youtu.be/jpSEemvwOn4


Now, if you would like the long answer, shall we take the facts one at a time?

1. By the 2:15 mark, the trooper has already issued Ms. Bland a warning for an illegal lane change. As far as the law is concerned, the infraction by Ms. Bland had been settled and unless another infraction had been committed or was in the process of being committed, he had no further reason to detain her.

2. The trooper then asked if Ms. Bland if she was okay, to which she expressed irritation that he was (allegedly) tailgating her and that the lane change he'd pulled her over for was a result of her moving over to get out of his way. Now, whether the trooper was tailgating her or not, I don't know.

3. Then the moment came when the situation escalated. The trooper asked, "Would you mind putting out your cigarette, please?"

Bland responded, "I’m in my car, why do I have to put out my cigarette?"

The trooper then said, "Well, you can step on out now."

"I don't want to step out of my car."

"Step out of the car."

The trooper then opens the car door by force.

This argumentative exchange goes on for about thirty more seconds before the trooper essentially forces himself into the car to forcefully remove her - illegally.

At this point, as far as the law is (or should be) concerned, the trooper is out of bounds. The traffic infraction had been settled, so what cause does he have to ask her to step out of her vehicle? She was not smoking in a public building; she was smoking in her own privately owned vehicle. There is nothing in the video or elsewhere to indicate she had blown smoke in his face (and it still wouldn't qualify as assault if she had). And if he was ordering her to step out of her vehicle because she was irritated, "taking a tone," "copping an attitude," or otherwise questioning his authority... then, yes, he was illegally detaining her.

Questioning an officer's orders is not an arrestable offense. Period.

So, yes, the trooper was absolutely unprofessional in his conduct and should have been fired and faced consequences for abuse of authority, illegal detainment, and (arguably) excessive force for forcing himself into her vehicle to grab her and then pointing a Taser at her... for the crime of not putting out a cigarette in her own car, being irritated, and (allegedly) assaulting him after he'd tried to force his way into her vehicle to illegally detain her.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yosun

First of all, I am going to presume you lack adequate reading comprehension.

Third, I'm somewhat familiar with certain ass-backwards laws in Texas



1. By the 2:15 mark, the trooper has already issued Ms. Bland a warning for an illegal lane change. As far as the law is concerned, the infraction by Ms. Bland had been settled and unless another infraction had been committed or was in the process of being committed, he had no further reason to detain her.

See the first stupid ass thing you wrote? You wrote it. You are wrong.

See #1 ... you wrote it. You are wrong. She hadn't signed the warning in order for her to be released from being LAWFULLY DETAINED.

Don't "assume" that my failure to take your bullshit line by line and discuss it means I agree with your babble.

Please stay in New York. We already have enough carpet baggers down here.

[Yosun]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

See the first stupid ass thing you wrote? You wrote it. You are wrong.

See #1 ... you wrote it. You are wrong.

Are you often in the habit of making redundant statements such as "You're wrong" and "You wrote it"?

Also, tautological fallacy.

She hadn't signed the warning in order for her to be released from being LAWFULLY DETAINED.

Not her fault he never gave her the opportunity to sign the damn warning.

Refusing to sign a ticket or a warning could be grounds for arrest or simply additional fines, depending on jurisdiction, but she hadn't refused to sign it and that's not what he was demanding she exit her vehicle for. He wrote her a warning and had not given it to her for her to sign by the time he asked her to put out her cigarette, to which she asked why she had to put out her cigarette, to which he then proceeded to order her out of her vehicle - repeatedly telling her he was giving her a "lawful order."

Police require a warrant or probable cause to pull you over, to search your vehicle, and to order a suspect out of the vehicle.
http://www.texasstandard.org/shows/0...n-should-know/

What was the trooper's reasoning for Ms. Bland to get out of her vehicle? She wasn't refusing to sign the warning.

You continue dodging the question - did the trooper have legal grounds to force Ms. Bland to exit her vehicle? Let alone the legal grounds to physically remove her from her vehicle? For what reasoning? On what charges?

Don't "assume" that my failure to take your bullshit line by line and discuss it means I agree with your babble.

I will presume what I like about your reading comprehension when I have to repeatedly explain I am not from New York and you continue to refer to me as a "Yankee," a New Yorker, or...

Please stay in New York. We already have enough carpet baggers down here.

... a "carpetbagger."

I'm going to presume this is a derogatory reference to Northerners who went South during the Reconstruction era (1865 - 1877) and who were viewed in a negative light by Dunning school historians that labelled them thieving outsiders who interfered in Southern affairs while neo-Confederate terrorist groups like the Redshirts, the White League, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. resorted to burning black churches, burning down freedmen's schools, murdering freed blacks, Republicans, and schoolteachers, and contributed to voter fraud and staged political coups in order to remove elected Republicans from office.

Pardon me if I fail to see the insult, even if I was born in any of the Civil War-era Union states.

Also, ad hominem fallacy. Again.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yosun

Not her fault he never gave her the opportunity to sign the damn warning..

Until she signs the citation, whether a warning or not, she is not free to leave, which means she is lawfully detained. The rest of your post is the same bullshit.

Are you now arguing the grand jury was wrong? Apparently the grand jury will reconvene after the holidays are over and look at other aspects of the case .... hopefully they will be shown the full version of the trooper's cam recording with audio .. if so they will see and hear:

1. Bland passes the trooper who is on a traffic stop.
2. He is behind her some distance after the stop.
3. She changes lanes without a signal into his lane with him behind her.
4. He pulls her over.
5. He casually and politely asks her for her DL and about where she is going.
6. He was on the passenger side.
7. He returns to present her with a WARNING TICKET to sign.
8. She was "irritated" and began to question him about stopping her.
9. She starts up with the cigarette and he asks her to put it out.
10. Up to that point the trooper engaged in no negative activities.
11. She did, when all she had to do was keep her mouth shut and sign.
As was reported she was "intoxicated" on a prohibited substance.
12. Belligerence was her response.
13. She was still being detained.
14. He asked her to step out of the vehicle, which he can do lawfully.
15. She refused.
16. After several orders to exit, he reached in after telling her he would.
17. She slapped him while she was sitting in the car.
18. ........End of story. She goes to jail.

As for your claim about the warning there are pictures of a TxDPS warning citation at
Post #111 of the previous thread you missed on the same subject matter in which most, if not all, of your factual and legal claims were debunked.

It was clear from the video and audio she was given an opportunity to sign the warning.

As for ordering her out of the vehicle, I offer the following:

" Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977) (per curiam). See United States v. $404,905.00 in U. S. Currency, 182 F. 3d 643, 649 (CA8 1999). In Mimms, we reasoned that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighs the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle. 434 U. S., at 110–111. See also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 413–415 (1997) (passengers may be required to exit vehicle stopped for traffic violation)." Taken from the majority opinion in Rodriquez vs. U.S. decided April 2015 by U.S. Supreme Court.

The same "Court" that brought you "gay marriage"!!!!

Texas law is consistent with the SCOTUS .... as for the detention being "extended" ...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Until she signs the citation, whether a warning or not, she is not free to leave, which means she is lawfully detained. The rest of your post is the same bullshit.

Are you now arguing the grand jury was wrong? Apparently the grand jury will reconvene after the holidays are over and look at other aspects of the case .... hopefully they will be shown the full version of the trooper's cam recording with audio .. if so they will see and hear:

1. Bland passes the trooper who is on a traffic stop.
2. He is behind her some distance after the stop.
3. She changes lanes without a signal into his lane with him behind her.
4. He pulls her over.
5. He casually and politely asks her for her DL and about where she is going.
6. He was on the passenger side.
7. He returns to present her with a WARNING TICKET to sign.
8. She was "irritated" and began to question him about stopping her.
9. She starts up with the cigarette and he asks her to put it out.
10. Up to that point the trooper engaged in no negative activities.
11. She did, when all she had to do was keep her mouth shut and sign.
As was reported she was "intoxicated" on a prohibited substance.
12. Belligerence was her response.
13. She was still being detained.
14. He asked her to step out of the vehicle, which he can do lawfully.
15. She refused.
16. After several orders to exit, he reached in after telling her he would.
17. She slapped him while she was sitting in the car.
18. ........End of story. She goes to jail.

As for your claim about the warning there are pictures of a TxDPS warning citation at
Post #111 of the previous thread you missed on the same subject matter in which most, if not all, of your factual and legal claims were debunked.

It was clear from the video and audio she was given an opportunity to sign the warning.

As for ordering her out of the vehicle, I offer the following:

" Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977) (per curiam). See United States v. $404,905.00 in U. S. Currency, 182 F. 3d 643, 649 (CA8 1999). In Mimms, we reasoned that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighs the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle. 434 U. S., at 110–111. See also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 413–415 (1997) (passengers may be required to exit vehicle stopped for traffic violation)." Taken from the majority opinion in Rodriquez vs. U.S. decided April 2015 by U.S. Supreme Court.

The same "Court" that brought you "gay marriage"!!!!

Texas law is consistent with the SCOTUS .... as for the detention being "extended" ...

Richardson vs. Texas, 2nd Court of Appeals, 2013

"However, if an officer develops reasonable suspicion during a valid traffic
stop and detention that the detainee is engaged in criminal activity, prolonged or continued detention is justified. See Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 244; Haas v. State, 172 S.W.3d 42, 52 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. ref’d); see also United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 510–11 (5th Cir. 2004); McQuarters v. State, 58 S.W.3d 250, 256 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). Additional facts and information discovered by an officer during a lawful detention may form the basis for a reasonable suspicion that another offense has been or is being committed. Haas, 172 S.W.3d at 52."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yosun

Police require a warrant or probable cause to pull you over, to search your vehicle, and to order a suspect out of the vehicle.

She was lawfully detained when he made the traffic stop.

It is "reasonably suspicious" that someone who lights up a cigarette during a police contact is attempting to mask the smell of some substance the citizen believes the police might find "objectionable" .... and when coupled with an unnecessary belligerent attitude ... justifies a "further investigation" to determine if another crime is being committed....and at that point an officer is justified in separating the citizen from a position of having a weapon handy ... which means ... get out of the car .... the SCOTUS has for years applied the "stop and frisk" analysis to motor vehicles ... so does Texas.

Sibron vs. New York, explains the concept OF STOP AND FRISK quite well ... a New York case in SCOTUS. And it was a Minnesota case in SCOTUS that applied it to vehicles.

You can talk shit all you want to cloud that issue. But that was a legal fact.

Then come on down and give a Texas DPS trooper a "piece of your legal mind"!!!!

Oh, my "carpet bagger" title for you is not based on "reconstruction" history, it's a term I use for "know-it-all" Northerners who come down to Texas and attempt to tell Texans what their laws are, how they should be enforced, and generally what's wrong with Texas.

That would be you! And like you, most of them don't know shit from shinola about it.

[Guest123018-4]

Like Austin, the only problem with Texas is the people that are not from here........