Seaoat please tell me your not right again.....Sandra Bland cop indicted

http://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-grand-jury-indicts-trooper-in-sandra-bland-case-1452119688

Justice is often slow, but at least the officer will get a trial, and will have no problem posting bond. This is a great country, and I do not care a whit if he is found guilty or innocent, but he clearly lied as I originally pointed out and he was going to be prosecuted for those discrepancies which were shameful. He will be able to work another job, raise his family, and probably will have a great many people who will support him, Sandra just will not be afforded those same options in her young life.......it is a sad story for all involved. We just have to have police respect citizens, and we can go such a long way to making this country right again.

However, I have no problem being proven right again, because my big head hardly can get in the front door anymore.

Late Wednesday, the Texas Department of Public Safety announced that it was firing Mr. Encinia following the grand jury’s decision. He had been placed on administrative duties following Ms. Bland’s arrest.

Our resident experts are silent and were outspoken how I was wrong again.

On this stop and the Mays stop.......

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t20684-i-just-saw-the-video-on-the-police-stop-on-the-tx-driver-who-committed-suicide?highlight=illegal+stop

Uh huh Seaoat. In the end you just simply FOS as usual.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/632170/Artificial-pancreases-to-be-trialled-as-scientists-move-closer-to-controlling-diabetes

2seaoat wrote:Late Wednesday, the Texas Department of Public Safety announced that it was firing Mr. Encinia following the grand jury’s decision. He had been placed on administrative duties following Ms. Bland’s arrest.

Our resident experts are silent and were outspoken how I was wrong again.

On this stop and the Mays stop.......

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t20684-i-just-saw-the-video-on-the-police-stop-on-the-tx-driver-who-committed-suicide?highlight=illegal+stop

It was more than obvious that Sandra Bland was mistreated by police at the stop (for changing lanes???). I am sickened by what police got away with in her case...and that her life was taken by a bunch of creepy Texas redneck cops...because it looks like not only the cop who stopped her, but police at the jail, who contributed to her death.

It was more than obvious that Sandra Bland was mistreated by police

I can only speak to the arresting officer. It was a very sad story, and it certainly was NOT obvious to many folks who constantly blindly support police right or wrong. Obvious is a matter of many criteria, but changes from this horrible drug war and the abuses of the police and the complicity of the lower courts expanding exceptions to the fourth amendment have cause irreparable harm to this nation which may take a generation to have citizens understand their rights under the fourth amendment. There will be a civil settlement next, and like the Pensacola case with the kid ran over on a bike, there will likely not be a trial as the family takes the money and the lawyers tell the family to settle......without trials and these large civil settlements, this stuff continues to get swept under the rug......we need trials to seek the truth.

Oh wait a minute now! What the trooper was indicted for had nothing to do w/ what you said,Oatie. You need to cease patting yourself on the back. He'll never be convicted of perjury and that was silly of the grand jury to indict him. He would never be indicted if she hadn't of killed herself which by the way the family who wouldn't bail her out and left her in there now wants money for her death.

Oh wait a minute now! What the trooper was indicted for had nothing to do w/ what you said,Oatie. You need to cease patting yourself on the back.


Dreams:

He's not going to lose his job.

I haven't even read the article but I can tell you now the prosecutor is not assigned because of the officer.

You didn't get it, Oatie. You're friggin delusional.

all this BS Oatie is saying just goes to show he knows squat about what's legal and not legal. Posting case law that has nothing to to w/ this case is absurd.

WTF are you talking about?

Do you understand that you're a friggin idiot who can't understand rulings? It doesn't have to be officer safety,duncehead.

I just know bullshit when I see it and see somebody who is woefully incompetent in deciphering the law.The gall of you to think you are more knowledgeable than actual lawyers. It's actually funny.



Seaoat:

He will be prosecuted for lying on a police report.  He lied to cover up an unlawful arrest. .  

this officer will lose his job

it matters little what I think, the officer lied to cover up the same, and he will have criminal charges brought against him, and because his acts were intentional he will NOT be able to hide in the civil suit behind the shield of sovereign immunity and his personal assets will be at risk.......justice

Why do you persist in being stupid.  Do you agree the officer verbally told his supervisor that he was asking the driver to leave the vehicle to sign the citation?  Do you understand that this explanation forecloses your irrelevant attempts to make this about officer safety which can be a reasonable exception to the fourth amendment protections.  Do you understand that the very purpose of Gant was to tell this so called scholars that officers no longer have carte blanche use of officer safety exception to avoid citizen protections under the fourth amendment and goes so far as to explicitly state what is being taught by law enforcement is incorrect and they were correcting these misconceptions.   Apply the facts and the law in a logical and correct manner and you might be able to carry on an intelligent conversation, but you simply are not well read, and I think the petulant child who is having a tantrum is exactly what happens when your misconceptions are corrected.

I might mention that Ghost shared in my ridicule, but T was the one person who properly referenced Gant and got this right in his case law. I was impressed. Of course Boards and Sal got it right.

The mother of Sandra Bland is not being smart. She is upset that there are not more charges which could result in justice. However, the current charge does not stop a future grand jury from bringing felony charges even if the current prosecutors does not bring them at this time. I understand the mom's anger, but one step at a time. This officer is wrong and he needs to be punished.

Floridatexan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Late Wednesday, the Texas Department of Public Safety announced that it was firing Mr. Encinia following the grand jury’s decision. He had been placed on administrative duties following Ms. Bland’s arrest.

Our resident experts are silent and were outspoken how I was wrong again.

On this stop and the Mays stop.......

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t20684-i-just-saw-the-video-on-the-police-stop-on-the-tx-driver-who-committed-suicide?highlight=illegal+stop

It was more than obvious that Sandra Bland was mistreated by police at the stop (for changing lanes???).  I am sickened by what police got away with in her case...and that her life was taken by a bunch of creepy Texas redneck cops...because it looks like not only the cop who stopped her, but police at the jail, who contributed to her death.

What documentation backs up your opinion.

2seaoat wrote:Oh wait a minute now! What the trooper was indicted for had nothing to do w/ what you said,Oatie. You need to cease patting yourself on the back.


Dreams:

He's not going to lose his job.

I haven't even read the article but I can tell you now the prosecutor is not assigned because of the officer.

You didn't get it, Oatie. You're friggin delusional.

all this BS Oatie is saying just goes to show he knows squat about what's legal and not legal. Posting case law that has nothing to to w/ this case is absurd.

WTF are you talking about?

Do you understand that you're a friggin idiot who can't understand rulings? It doesn't have to be officer safety,duncehead.

I just know bullshit when I see it and see somebody who is woefully incompetent in deciphering the law.The gall of you to think you are more knowledgeable than actual lawyers. It's actually funny.



Seaoat:

He will be prosecuted for lying on a police report.  He lied to cover up an unlawful arrest. .  

this officer will lose his job

it matters little what I think, the officer lied to cover up the same, and he will have criminal charges brought against him, and because his acts were intentional he will NOT be able to hide in the civil suit behind the shield of sovereign immunity and his personal assets will be at risk.......justice

Why do you persist in being stupid.  Do you agree the officer verbally told his supervisor that he was asking the driver to leave the vehicle to sign the citation?  Do you understand that this explanation forecloses your irrelevant attempts to make this about officer safety which can be a reasonable exception to the fourth amendment protections.  Do you understand that the very purpose of Gant was to tell this so called scholars that officers no longer have carte blanche use of officer safety exception to avoid citizen protections under the fourth amendment and goes so far as to explicitly state what is being taught by law enforcement is incorrect and they were correcting these misconceptions.   Apply the facts and the law in a logical and correct manner and you might be able to carry on an intelligent conversation, but you simply are not well read, and I think the petulant child who is having a tantrum is exactly what happens when your misconceptions are corrected.

First of all, no one is having a tantrum so I don't know why you are saying that. Secondly, the argument was about Bland being given a lawful order and refusing. Your argument was she did not have to get out of the vehicle under your Supreme Court decision. My argument was she was given a lawful order in which you previously argued lawful orders were to be obeyed under another case for officer safety. Now the issue here I'm saying is the grand jury indicted the trooper for lying about the reason he ordered Bland out of the car. If he is trained and believes he can arrest someone for disobeying a lawful order then he can't be convicted of lying because that is his training. He would not be at fault but his training would be. They are going to have to decide whether he intentionally lied to cover up what he knew was legally wrong or he was trained to arrest on a disobedience of a lawful order. He may have been wrong under Gant for ordering her out of the car but she was arrested for assaulting the officer in which I don't believe the family has a case. They already declined to press charges for this officer's involvement in her death so all the faily can really sue for is the officer illegally demanding her to get out of the car. In that case, there would be no damages if she she had complied and not assaulted him. I think it's going to be a complicated case. Now if they fire him for illegally ordering her out of the car it may stick but the general consensus is he gave an order which she refused and it will depend on how the jury views it. He's an example of the Waller Co. Sheriff's opinion on this case.


"Melissa Hamilton, visiting criminal law scholar at the University of Houston, said Bland had no legal right to remain in her car after the trooper ordered her out.

"Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court has made it clear police are in charge at a traffic stop, and they can make anybody get out of the car — driver or passenger — for no reason whatsoever," she said. "The idea for that is to allow police to control a potentially dangerous situation."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/22/texas-grand-jury-declines-to-indict-sheriffs-office-jailers-in-sandra-bland-case.html

I posted what you said at the time of the death of Sandra, and I posted what I said at the time. I think you missed the point that you were completely wrong in every regard and I was correct. It was not me calling you a petulant child now, but what I called you when I was correct on everything and you wrong on everything.......nothing new in our discussions, and we both enjoy this, and I love you calling me names........I thought you would have learned by now, but do you really want me to correct your last post, or do you just want to eat crow?

You know I love being a dick to stimulate conversation and get your dander up, but a simple Seaoat your the man will do.

Still has pretty much zero to do with the suicide of that troubled woman.

Still has pretty much zero to do with the suicide of that troubled woman.


Troubled woman? I will wait for the civil trial to come to your conclusion. The family and their law team have NO evidence of what happened in the jail. Six months and they have not turned over transcripts of investigations. So you can jump to that conclusion, but a young woman was going to a new job and was stopped for a turn signal and spent three days in jail. You might be correct after we get the transcripts of the jail investigation, and see interviews and reports from officers at the jail to determined she had a predisposition or some other explanation of the probable cause of her death. We will go with suicide because that is the conclusion of the investigation, but the civil suit will have cross examination and further light will be shined on this, but if you think the improper arrest and lies to cover up the same have nothing to do with the ultimate death of Sandra, you are not familiar with the standards of proof, and the concept of breach of duty in a civil suit.

In graduate school I traveled and studied in Mexico and had little money on me, and had interaction with local Mexican police who carried machine guns and would stop your car on rural roads. I could have been arrested for any wrongful reason and thrown in a Mexican jail with no money and no easy way to get bail or be released.........life can be raw at times and I agree she may have been troubled, but if I was thrown in a hostile jail in Mexico with little hope of being released in the short term, I too would be troubled. The issue is causation and breach of duty in a civil suit.......she will win in trial or settlement and I hope the family takes the risk of no money and goes to trial.....but the lawyers want a fat settlement.

2seaoat wrote:I posted what you said at the time of the death of Sandra, and I posted what I said at the time.  I think you missed the point that you were completely wrong in every regard and I was correct.   It was not me calling you a petulant child now, but what I called you when I was correct on everything and you wrong on everything.......nothing new in our discussions, and we both enjoy this, and I love you calling me names........I thought you would have learned by now, but do you really want me to correct your last post, or do you just want to eat crow?

You know I love being a dick to stimulate conversation and get your dander up, but a simple Seaoat your the man will do.

No, I don't agree you were correct on everything.I don't think you read my post correctly either. The trooper arrested her for assaulting him. He may have been incorrect for pulling her out based on the supremes but she still assaulted him. The only thing the family may sue for is an unlawful arrest but the jail has been held to be not responsible for her death which he did not cause but which they are trying to sue him over.I don't think there will be a settlement over her death. I think the case will ultimately be over the arrest. You can't sue someone and win because you killed yourself for being arrested. I haven't called you names today but you as usual have tried to insult me. I think you're wrong about what will be the outcome of this case too.

The grand jury has ruled there were no criminal violations at the jail and I don't believe a jury will hold the jail responsible either. The trooper will not be held responsible for her death. That will ridiculous.

What really bothered me about this case (besides her death ofcourse) was the officer taking the lady out of the camera view. I want every interaction of law enforcement with the citizenry recorded. I think that would solve much of the problem.

The grand jury has ruled there were no criminal violations at the jail and I don't believe a jury will hold the jail responsible either. The trooper will not be held responsible for her death. That will ridiculous.


In a civil suit the ultimate issue will not be the same as in a grand jury finding of probable cause. There are different standards which you clearly do not completely understand. There are a great many concepts which I could broach with you, but needlessly there will be three types of civil suits which will result and they will be presented in a multi count format, and the 1983 action could be brought in the federal courts. They can go with a straight up 1983 civil rights action which has really nothing to do with race, but deprivation of constitutional rights. There will be an assessment of the officers actions and the damages to the Plaintiff. The second is a straight up intentional tort of which could involve false arrest, battery, and assault(the mother claims she was struck in the car), however, the I will light you up comment can be considered an assault under civil tort standards, and there will be a typical necessary elements which must be met by the plaintiff, but the burden of proof will be different in those same intentional acts which may not meet the final criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. The final approach will be a straight up negligence case that in combination the agents breached their duty to the defendant which resulted in damages. The negligent standard in jail suicides was almost impossible until the early eighties under two concepts which favored the police which was first sovereign immunity, and the more important second consideration when talking about negligence is comparative negligence where the actions of a person who may have committed suicide will have the breach allocated between their actions by a judge or jury. Before the early eighties the jail suicides were virtually blocked but in the last thirty years as sovereign immunity has been overturned in the famous Molitor vs Kaneland where I actually met one of the little girls who got burned up in a bus collision. The Supremes said sorry King, you will be held to a limited extent for your acts. At the same time jail standards and procedures were proving by experts that suicides in lock ups can be avoided with proper jail procedures and protocols.

I have explained I lived in a community where there was a rash of jail suicides with young dui males where it had become an epidemic, and in fact the courts awarded damages and legal arguments over turned traditional police protections where protocols and procedures contributed to the death of a person in custody. This case is simple. They will win the 1983 count. They will win probably at least one or two of the intentional tort counts, and I honestly do not know what Texas has on Tort immunity and where there limits are on comparative negligence and could not give an opinion. Contrary to your conclusions, the family will be paid on this case in those civil counts. I only want a trial.......it is necessary.

2seaoat wrote: .... I agree she may have been troubled, ....

That's all you had to say.

Where is the evidence that Sandra Bland assaulted the officer? That's right...there is none. The officer has now been indicted for lying about the circumstances of the arrest...that means his story that she assaulted him has no credibility. I believe it is very likely that Sandra Bland was DOA at the jail and a cover story was concocted out of thin air. I think he killed her off-camera...or at least caused life-threatening injuries that led to her demise.

2seaoat, TEOTWAWKI posted that this was a felony murder back in July. So I just fail to see your point.

Floridatexan wrote:
Where is the evidence that Sandra Bland assaulted the officer?  That's right...there is none.  The officer has now been indicted for lying about the circumstances of the arrest...that means his story that she assaulted him has no credibility.  I believe it is very likely that Sandra Bland was DOA at the jail and a cover story was concocted out of thin air.  I think he killed her off-camera...or at least caused life-threatening injuries that led to her demise.

I think you have lost your mind!

Was her mug shot a dead photo, were calls to family members faked? How did they keep rigor mortise from setting in?

You can't sue someone and win because you killed yourself for being arrested.

Actually, you can, but It simply would be too hard to try to explain. I will give you the short version. A custodial facility and their agents have a duty to protect somebody in their custody. If they breach the standards and the result is death, a wrongful death action will examine the duty owed to the person in custody and the question is did they breach that duty, and was that breach a contributory factor or proximate cause of the samein the ultimate damage which was her death. I really think you need to do some reading on this subject, because your understanding of these issues is dated at best.

Floridatexan wrote:
....  I believe it is very likely that Sandra Bland was DOA at the jail and a cover story was concocted out of thin air.  I think he killed her off-camera...or at least caused life-threatening injuries that led to her demise.

Ah c'mon ... you really think they could have pulled such a conspiracy off? You know how many $13 hour jailers they would have to buy or intimidate into silence for that? Many of them African Americans themselves. And they are all County employees at the jail .... the trooper is (was) a State employee. Why would they, all of them, stick their necks out for such a thing.

That's just crazy conspiracy talk, and not even a very good one. The Netflix documentary about martians on the moon is more credible.