Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
There is nothing to indicate he made the u-turn because he targeted her. He didn't speed up. She was at a red light. Obviously, she was driving slower than he was when the light changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Regarding Bland, that the officer caught up to Bland so quickly had less to do with the officer "speeding to catch up" than it did with her being stopped by a red light until he caught up,
Would you be kind enough to point out when the red light did turn "red" and her vehicle being "stopped" by that "red" light?
In this case trooper Encinia is the one who could best determine if Ms. Bland was under the influence of illicit substances during that fateful traffic stop. He would have no qualm to riddle her with DUI, DWI, and all other drug related charges if possible since he's poised to "light her up" at the slightest showing of disrespect.
But it seems like no stones should be left unturned here, why don't we explore a bit further?
"Authorities also released an initial toxicology report for Bland on Monday, a report that two experts who reviewed it for The Associated Press said raises the possibility that Bland may have used forbidden substance while in custody."
Would you be kind enough to point out when the red light did turn "red" and her vehicle being "stopped" by that "red" light?
Bland is "blatantly" stopped for the light at 1:44, if not earlier, and the light "blatantly" changes to green at 1:46. Thereafter, Bland begins to "blatantly" accelerate at about 1:48. And you'd be "blatantly" biased and blind for not admitting you can actually see that for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andymarksman
In this case trooper Encinia is the one who could best determine if Ms. Bland was under the influence of illicit substances during that fateful traffic stop. He would have no qualm to riddle her with DUI, DWI, and all other drug related charges if possible since he's poised to "light her up" at the slightest showing of disrespect.
But it seems like no stones should be left unturned here, why don't we explore a bit further?
"Authorities also released an initial toxicology report for Bland on Monday, a report that two experts who reviewed it for The Associated Press said raises the possibility that Bland may have used forbidden substancewhile in custody."
The officer did note Bland's unexpectedly belligerent and agitated behavior, and he did check Bland's record, which includes:
Quote:
Bland had several encounters with police in Illinois and Texas over the past decade, including repeated traffic stops and two arrests for drunk driving, one of which was dismissed.
She was also charged twice with possession of a small amount of [an illicit substance]. A 2009 case was dismissed, but she pleaded guilty last year to the other charge and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. (Chicago Tribune)
How can I tell you when they haven't specified? That statement could mean any number of things. It could be when he pulled out the taser. It could be when he reached in to physically removed her from the car. The stop itself was not a violation. There is no disputing the fact that she did, in fact, switch lanes without signaling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andymarksman
Would you be kind enough to point out when the red light did turn "red" and her vehicle being "stopped" by that "red" light?
You can't see the light from that distance. You can see a car crossing in front of her at 1:37 on the video, which would indicate she wasn't moving. The man crossing in front of her likely had a green arrow to make that turn which would mean the light was red for her. If he didn't have a green arrow, they still can't cross the intersection at the same time. As the officer is approaching her, she still appears to be at the light, and is slowly accelerating. HIS speed has not changed. This is why he caught up with her.
How can I tell you when they haven't specified? That statement could mean any number of things. It could be when he pulled out the taser. It could be when he reached in to physically removed her from the car. The stop itself was not a violation. There is no disputing the fact that she did, in fact, switch lanes without signaling.
You can't see the light from that distance. You can see a car crossing in front of her at 1:37 on the video, which would indicate she wasn't moving. The man crossing in front of her likely had a green arrow to make that turn which would mean the light was red for her. If he didn't have a green arrow, they still can't cross the intersection at the same time. As the officer is approaching her, she still appears to be at the light, and is slowly accelerating. HIS speed has not changed. This is why he caught up with her.
You did not ask me, but according to Steven McCraw,he did nor exhibit professionalism and courtesy during the entire contact. Plus when he reached into the car and grabbed her he violated lawful search & seizure.
You did not ask me, but according to Steven McCraw,he did nor exhibit professionalism and courtesy during the entire contact. Plus when he reached into the car and grabbed her he violated lawful search & seizure.
LittleEva, you are impressive in this thread. Best you've ever sounded. You are not the most stupid person on here. Sorry for saying that earlier.
My Bio Page - Texas - Dallas
