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

Possibly Encinia had in mind Chapter 542, Section 501 of the Texas Statutes, which says "a person may not willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of a police officer." In the video Encinia repeatedly says Bland has refused to comply with his lawful command to exit the vehicle, which is what leads him to threaten her with his stun gun, saying, "Get out of the car! I will light you up. Get out!" Bland says he has no legal right to demand that she leave her car based on a minor traffic infraction. Encinia insists he does have that authority.

Sadly, Encinia seems to be right, thanks to Pennsylvania v. Mimms, a 1977 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court said a police officer may order a legally detained motorist out of his car at will. The case involved a man named Harry Mimms, who was stopped by Philadelphia police for driving a car with expired tags. After Mimms was ordered out of his car, the officer noticed a suspicious bulge under his jacket that turned out to be a gun. Mimms was charged with illegal possession of a concealed firearm, and he tried to have the gun excluded as evidence by arguing that it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed, saying the officer needed some specific reason, beyond the traffic violation that resulted in the stop, to force Mimms out of his car. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, saying general concerns about officer safety are enough to justify such an order:

I cannot believe that you continue to assert that she was combative. He asked her if she was upset. She gave an honest answer and an explanation. HE escalated the situation, not her. If the arrest was so lawful, why did he perjure himself?

Excerpts from his statement:

"I tried to deescalate her and it wasn't getting anywhere at all. I put the Taser away. I tried talking to her, calming her down, and that was not working.
"I'm trying to get her detained, get her just to calm down, just calm her down, stop throwing her arms... She never swung at me, she's just flailing, stomping around and all kind of stuff. And I said, 'All right, that's enough.' That's when I detained her. And there (she) started going off, she started kicking and (inaudible)."
"We were in the middle of the traffic stop and... the traffic stop was not completed. I was trying to get her out over to sign. And you know just explain to her what was going on because I couldn't even get to do what I was telling her. I mean she just started going, 'This is a M.F. You give me M.F. ticket for a lane change.' I mean, she just started going...I just stepped back into the car and was like, 'Are you done, m'am. I need to tell you why and what I'm giving you.' And it just kept on going."
"I don't have serious bodily injury (laugh). But I was kicked."
"She's in the back of the car right now. She requested EMS because she said I threw her down intentionally for nothing. 'No, I put you down because you kicked me and you were fighting back.' I mean, I kept telling her to calm down, calm down...."
"She was detained...that's the key. That's why I'm calling you and asking, because she was detained. When she started -- that's when I was walking her over to the car, just to calm her down and just to stop -- and that's when she started kicking me... I don't know if it'd be (resisting arrest) or if it would be assault. I kind of lean toward assault versus resist, because...technically she's under arrest when a traffic stop is initiated...You're not free to go."
"I didn't say you're under arrest (to Bland). I never said, 'Stop. Hands up.'"
"Correct, that did not occur. It was just the assault part."
"She gave me her driver's license. I came back to the car, started running her stuff, printed it out. Went back to the car to complete, tell her what she was receiving, and what to do and so forth. And by that time, she's still very much irritated and so forth about my pulling (her) over because she didn't turn on her signal and so forth... I mean she wouldn't even look at me, she was just looking straight ahead and mad. And I'm at the driver's side and so I need to get her out of the car and over to the side on the sidewalk because I don't want to be out in the middle of the road while we're arguing or whatever. Well, not arguing. But I'm trying to tell her what she doing and she's arguing with me and so forth."
"When I had down her on the ground and the other officer came, I told her to stop resisting and that's when I told her, 'You're under arrest." I didn't tell her what for. At least I don't think I did."
"Yes, she kicked me, she started yanking away and trying to get away. And that's when I grabbed her arm. She's in front of me still. I controlled and I grabbed her by the shoulders and I brought her down into the grass away from the pavement."
"I mean, no weapons, she's in handcuffs...I only took enough force as I see necessary. I even deescalated once we were on the pavement, you know, on the sidewalk. So I allowed time. I'm not saying I just threw her to the ground. I allowed time to deescalate and so forth..."
"I've got some cuts on my hand. That is an injury, but I don't need medical attention. I've got three little circles from the handcuffs when she was twisting away from me."
"Over a simple traffic stop. Yeah, I don't get it. I really don't."

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Indicted-trooper-describes-Sandra-Bland-traffic-6742907.php

Did you watch that video seriously? Did you not see where she was fighting him in the car when he tried to pull her out? You don't call that combative? I can't believe you would say she wasn't? She was calling him a f***ing pussy over and over and cussing up a storm. I'd have thoughts of punching her in the face.

Dreams in her career has had to deal with uncooperative people, and she has empathy for officers who have to deal with the same. I get that. However, if we are going to be a civilized nation we have to be a nation of laws and we need to understand our constitution. It is an exciting time where the Supreme Court is scaling back the exceptions to the fourth amendment which have been abused by police agencies. The drug war sadly has turned our nation into a police state and the us and them syndrome is never good when the tail is wagging the dog. Dreams has lived in a combative environment where protecting kids and citizens required her probably to be caustic when interacting with the public who was uncooperative as we have seen her attack me and attack Chrissy, and getting impatient with non compliance with her views......it is a syndrome that most of my cop friends share, but in the end this great nation must stand on the rights of every citizen not to suffer the tyranny of government. Sandra died because of the same, and the causes of this tragedy are many, but the bottom line is when citizens do not stand up for their rights and have the courage to challenge authority peacefully, then we are doomed to tyranny which we will richly deserve. Gant talked about how the law enforcement community is just wrong on their interpretation of the exceptions and their needs to be reeducation. I think Dreams just needs to update with more extensive reading and catch up to what the Supremes and the American people are saying.......enough.

I have made government bullies cry at open government meetings because like Sandra, I did not accept their perceived right to take other folks rights away and accept their word as if they are bringing a tablet off a mountain.....pure bureaucratic bullies who can destroy people with government tyranny, and others at those meetings cringe when my rage surfaces, and this idea that a citizen in America has to be polite or cannot express a contrary opinion to authority.....I am so tired of the wussification of the American citizenship who rushed to justify this horrible tragedy with compounded error after error which in the end came down to the rights and protections that every American citizen has. Dreams thinks Sandra and the County Commissioner were being disrespectful......they were not......they were being courageous American citizens challenging constitutional abuses.

2seaoat wrote:Dreams in her career has had to deal with uncooperative people, and she has empathy for officers who have to deal with the same.   I get that.  However, if we are going to be a civilized nation we have to be a nation of laws and we need to understand our constitution.  It is an exciting time where the Supreme Court is scaling back the exceptions to the fourth amendment which have been abused by police agencies.  The drug war sadly has turned our nation into a police state and the us and them syndrome is never good when the tail is wagging the dog.   Dreams has lived in a combative environment where protecting kids and citizens required her probably to be caustic when interacting with the public who was uncooperative as we have seen her attack me and attack Chrissy, and getting impatient with non compliance with her views......it is a syndrome that most of my cop friends share, but in the end this great nation must stand on the rights  of every citizen not to suffer the tyranny of government.   Sandra died because of the same, and the causes of this tragedy are many, but the bottom line is when citizens do not stand up for their rights and  have the courage to challenge authority peacefully, then we are doomed to tyranny which we will richly deserve.  Gant talked about how the law enforcement community is just wrong on their interpretation of the exceptions and their needs to be reeducation.  I think Dreams just needs to update with more extensive reading and catch up to what the Supremes and the American people are saying.......enough.

I have made government bullies cry at open government meetings because like Sandra, I did not accept their perceived right to take other folks rights away and accept their word as if they are bringing a tablet off a mountain.....pure bureaucratic bullies who can destroy people with government tyranny, and others at those meetings cringe when my rage surfaces, and this idea that a citizen in America has to be polite or cannot express a contrary opinion to authority.....I am so tired of the wussification of the American citizenship who rushed to justify this horrible tragedy with compounded error after error which in the end came down to the rights and protections that every American citizen has.  Dreams thinks Sandra and the County Commissioner were being disrespectful......they were not......they were being courageous American citizens challenging constitutional abuses.  

Wow a moment of lucidity...well explained

2seaoat wrote:Dreams in her career has had to deal with uncooperative people, and she has empathy for officers who have to deal with the same.   I get that.  However, if we are going to be a civilized nation we have to be a nation of laws and we need to understand our constitution.  It is an exciting time where the Supreme Court is scaling back the exceptions to the fourth amendment which have been abused by police agencies.  The drug war sadly has turned our nation into a police state and the us and them syndrome is never good when the tail is wagging the dog.   Dreams has lived in a combative environment where protecting kids and citizens required her probably to be caustic when interacting with the public who was uncooperative as we have seen her attack me and attack Chrissy, and getting impatient with non compliance with her views......it is a syndrome that most of my cop friends share, but in the end this great nation must stand on the rights  of every citizen not to suffer the tyranny of government.   Sandra died because of the same, and the causes of this tragedy are many, but the bottom line is when citizens do not stand up for their rights and  have the courage to challenge authority peacefully, then we are doomed to tyranny which we will richly deserve.  Gant talked about how the law enforcement community is just wrong on their interpretation of the exceptions and their needs to be reeducation.  I think Dreams just needs to update with more extensive reading and catch up to what the Supremes and the American people are saying.......enough.

I have made government bullies cry at open government meetings because like Sandra, I did not accept their perceived right to take other folks rights away and accept their word as if they are bringing a tablet off a mountain.....pure bureaucratic bullies who can destroy people with government tyranny, and others at those meetings cringe when my rage surfaces, and this idea that a citizen in America has to be polite or cannot express a contrary opinion to authority.....I am so tired of the wussification of the American citizenship who rushed to justify this horrible tragedy with compounded error after error which in the end came down to the rights and protections that every American citizen has.  Dreams thinks Sandra and the County Commissioner were being disrespectful......they were not......they were being courageous American citizens challenging constitutional abuses.  

Calling someone a f***ing pussy is not disrespectful?

Calling someone a f***ing pussy is not disrespectful?

At what point in the tape did you hear the comment. I do not want to search for the context so if you could give me the tape read so I know what you are referencing, but this guy was a f****ing pussy and never should have been a police officer threatening to light somebody up the way he did......my goodness most of my friends would have sat there and just started laughing........but a pussy would never had said that to me......he would say it to Sandra.

Vikingwoman wrote:Did you watch that video seriously? Did you not see where she was fighting him in the car when he tried to pull her out? You don't call that combative? I can't believe you would say she wasn't? She was calling him a f***ing pussy over and over and cussing up a storm. I'd have thoughts of punching her in the face.

Excuse me? What right did he have to grab hold of her and threaten her like he did? You have serious issues. If you were a cop, you were a bad cop. At the point he decided to manhandle her over a damn LANE CHANGE, of all the stupid crap I've ever heard...and she explained why she was "upset". There's no law against being "upset". There's no law against smoking a cigarette in your car or failing to put it out. I don't care if she cussed him like a dog, after he laid hands on her and clearly threatened her. And apparently the legal authorities agree.

And apparently the legal authorities agree.


Agree Nobody likes to be called a pussy, but a Police Officer who is properly trained understands that his job is to deescalate a traffic stop....If you want to react like Barney, do not be surprised being called Barney.

Floridatexan wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:Did you watch that video seriously? Did you not see where she was fighting him in the car when he tried to pull her out? You don't call that combative? I can't believe you would say she wasn't? She was calling him a f***ing pussy over and over and cussing up a storm. I'd have thoughts of punching her in the face.

Excuse me?  What right did he have to grab hold of her and threaten her like he did?  You have serious issues.  If you were a cop, you were a bad cop.  At the point he decided to manhandle her over a damn LANE CHANGE, of all the stupid crap I've ever heard...and she explained why she was "upset".  There's no law against being "upset".  There's no law against smoking a cigarette in your car or failing to put it out.  I don't care if she cussed him like a dog, after he laid hands on her and clearly threatened her.  And apparently the legal authorities agree.  

Listen, let's be clear here who has the "serious issues". You're the one who comes on here and starts talking about her being DOA before she ever gets to the jail. That is so ridiculous it's beyond words and dumber than dumb. She was booked and therefore had to be alive to even get in the jail. Secondly, she refused to obey a lawful command to get out of the car and fought the cop. You seem to ignore that. There is no law against smoking in your car but when you are on a traffic stop and the officer asks you to put out your cigarette because he doesn't want to breath second hand smoke that may very well be an officer safety issue but in any regard she had to get out of the car. Texas law says you must exit the vehicle for any reason requested. It doesn't matter what the charge is she clearly refused a lawful command and became combative. Not only that she became disorderly and started calling the officer a F***ing pussy and fought the handcuffs. Texas DPS may agree he didn't follow policy procedures but to say he perjured himself is going to be hard to uphold especially if he had the right to tell her to exit the vehicle. And no legal authorities don't all agree. The grand jury indicted but they just hear one side of a story and a jury will decide on the law. Seaoat cites the 1983 action but the Supremes also upheld officers issuing lawful commands in Pennsylvania vs. Mims during a traffic stop. So stop trying to give uneducated and stupid opinions based on your narrow and racially biased mindset that every African American is a victim of discrimination even when acts are justified. I can see why the right resents that because now we have all police action on blacks are discriminatory.

2seaoat wrote:Calling someone a f***ing pussy is not disrespectful?

At what point in the tape did you hear the comment.  I do not want to search for the context so if you could give me the tape read so I know what you are referencing, but this guy was a f****ing pussy and never should have been a police officer threatening to light somebody up the way he did......my goodness most of my friends would have sat there and just started laughing........but a pussy would never had said that to me......he would say it to Sandra.

She started calling him a " f***ing pussy" after he walked her to the sidewalk several times. If you didn't hear that it shows you just heard what you wanted to hear and made your so called "right legal opinion" w/o regards to the whole interaction. He gave her a lawful order under Tx. law and followed through when she refused. That's hardly a pussy and I'm sure he would have said it to you just like I would have and followed through when your pompous ass didn't respond. You could then run down to your lawyers and tried to file a 1983 and tried to sue because you refused a lawful command. Good luck w/ that.

Well what is great about written conversations, they can be revisited. I saw an illegal arrest immediately and posted that the officer would lose his job and be prosecuted for a crime of lying on the police report. I had the skill and understanding to wade through the clutter of facts unlike people who do not have skills or experience and determine what is relevant and what is irrelevant.

You conceptually have a low aptitude to process complex legal concepts and do not have the experience to apply a higher aptitude to those problems. It certainly is not a matter of intelligence, just simple ignorance. So you immediately focused on the irrelevant, and stated that I am an idiot and that the officer was right, that he will never lose his job, and that he will not be prosecuted. You were completely wrong. I was completely right.

Was I just lucky? Was it a random response, or was it a certain response against improbable odds of what I was predicting. Now a fool is somebody who can not learn from experience. You are foolish Dreams. You are wrong again, as you have been year after year on this forum when you try to comprehend complex legal concepts. You are right on so many more issues, but you leave this foolishness behind. I have always admired how as a young woman who was a dealt some bad cards raised your family and had to put what could have been an unbelievable career in any field because you understood duty to your daughter and your role as a mother, and I sometimes feel that part of what fuels your foolishness here is those missed opportunities to have allowed your intelligence to meet opportunity, but you should never feel that you did not make the right choice when you put your child and your family first......and history has shown so many great women have been denied opportunity with that same paradoxical choice......quit being foolish and enjoy your retirement by reading, taking courses, and becoming the person you had to put on the back burner because you put other people first.......but please do not stop calling me chit for brains....we both enjoy it too much.

You make me laugh, Oatie. Not sure what you mean by putting an unbelievable career on hold to raise a family? I did have a career but if I could have afforded law school it would have been my first choice rather than just getting a graduate degree. I agree growing up we didn't have the best opportunities but I took advantage of what was available and did that. Now as for your continued insults that I don't have the concepts to grasp the legal aspects I have to wonder whether you actually do? I see this case in a different light and circumstances for many reasons I think you choose to ignore. It may be from a police perspective but I am more attuned to siding against police abuses. I see a situation regardless of what the stop was about of an officer requesting a citizen to exit her car which under the law of his state he had a right to do no matter what his reasons. I see a citizen being uncooperative, combative and verbally abusive. Now you may feel you can do and say anything you want during a traffic stop including asserting your rights being an asshole and I'm not going to disagree w/ that. But if the Supremes have held an officer can require you to step out of the car for officer safety which the officer did state he wanted to get out of traffic and took her to the side of the road to then I don't see how how a perjury charge can ensue.Officer safety to me is what should be conducive to the officer's opinion at the time and whether it was reasonable. If they find he had the legal right to ask her to exit her car and she refused then all your bloviating about your supreme court decisions mean squat. So far he has not been disciplined by his dept. for false arrest. This is just a grand jury indictment that he lied about the reasons he wanted her removed. It means little if the officer was within his rights to command her out of the car and she refused. So see you haven't considered all aspects of this case other than YOUR opinion he violated the law and I have to question your ability to comprehend concepts.

I have to question your ability to comprehend concepts.

Your response simply confirms what I have said for years. You lack the understanding that officer safety has been foreclosed by the officer's admissions and perjury, which is really not a very complex legal concept, but a bridge too far for you to cross without reading, training, or understanding. The good news is that we will see when this case is resolved, and can come back to this thread, and maybe you will be right......but right now you are just simply wrong.......again.

I didn't read any admissions by the officer other than why he removed her from the car which from what I've read he had the legal right to do. BTW, you never said he would be arrested for lying. That's something you patted yourself on the back for after the fact. You said he didn't have the right to remove her from the car under the Supreme's ruling for officer safety. And since we're bringing up wrongs, let me remind you you were wrong about the Trayvon Martin case and the county commissioner's case as you predicted the officer would get fired for her behavior when the commissioner actually apologized about his. So let's just say your legal opinions should be taken w/ a grain of salt, eh? Your constant criticisms about other people's lack of concepts may be a bit hypocritical and lacking when you look at your own.

I didn't read any admissions by the officer other than why he removed her from the car which from what I've read he had the legal right to do

I am watching the Packer game, and I have enough sense to know it has nothing to do with this case, conversely I have read what the officer said as to why he was asking Sandra out of the car.......then if you still cannot understand after reading the same which was provided to you by Tex, I will simply explain it by saying the Packers are wearing yellow and green.

And since we're bringing up wrongs, let me remind you you were wrong about the Trayvon Martin case and the county commissioner's case as you predicted the officer would get fired

Now you are simply lying. I never said the officer in Pensacola would be fired......are you utterly insane. I said the officer SHOULD have her file noted as to her conduct escalating that stop and magically having no basis for the same.

In Regard to Martin please take your time and go over every line I wrote concerning the Martin case and please show me where I was wrong. However, when you lie, I have very little time for the same. Ignorance is one thing but willfully lying about something is another, and like Bob on the Martin case your comprehension of shifting burdens of proof and presumptions are confused.

If I was wrong. I will not run away or lie. So go at it.

If you read it then you should know better than to apply your interpretation. You simply ignore glaring details.

Have you been drinking?

I don't lie, Oatie. I believe you said both a write up and termination and I am not going back 200 pages to prove it.

2seaoat wrote:Have you been drinking?

I don't drink either. You apparently didn't know she was calling him a f***ing pussy and being disorderly so you do ignore glaring details.

I don't drink either. You apparently didn't know she was calling him a f***ing pussy and being disorderly so you do ignore glaring details.


The glaring details you think will be covered in the criminal case will never go before a jury. The reason is they are not relevant. A motion in Limine by the state will limit and not allow the state to introduce prejudicial evidence to a jury. 100% certain on that issue. The issue will be did the officer lie about the reason for the extraction. He did. He will be convicted on the Perjury charge.

In regard to you not drinking. Good for you. I no longer can. In regard to lying, you are not drunk, you say you are not lying, then I suggest you get a Dr's appointment to check out dementia, because no knowledgeable person would suggest a legitimate termination for the escalation of that stop and the failure to have a basis for the same. We will never know, but there most certainly is a note in her file on how to deescalate a traffic stop, and having a basis for the same before pulling over law abiding citizens on a fishing expedition and thinking his constitutional rights do not matter........but I figure I lost you after Good for you.......

I disagree. The whole video will be admitted into evidence to show the officer's demeanor and state of mind after the removal from the car in believing he was within his rights of a lawful command and had no reason to perjure himself.

2seaoat wrote:I don't drink either. You apparently didn't know she was calling him a f***ing pussy and being disorderly so you do ignore glaring details.


The glaring details you think will be covered in the criminal case will never go before a jury.   The reason is they are not relevant.  A motion in Limine by the state will limit and not allow the state to introduce prejudicial evidence to a jury.  100% certain on that issue.  The issue will be did the officer lie about the reason for the extraction.  He did.  He will be convicted on the Perjury charge.

In regard to you not drinking.  Good for you.   I no longer can.  In regard to lying, you are not drunk, you say you are not lying, then I suggest you get a Dr's appointment to check out dementia, because no knowledgeable person would suggest a legitimate termination for the escalation of that stop and the failure to have a basis for the same.  We will never know, but there most certainly is a note in her file on how to deescalate a traffic stop, and having a basis for the same before pulling over law abiding citizens on a fishing expedition and thinking his constitutional rights do not matter........but I figure I lost you after Good for you.......

You have no evidence she was on a fishing expedition. The computer told her the tags didn't belong and that can be confirmed. You are just making up accusations you can't support like there being a note in her file.

Vikingwoman wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote:Did you watch that video seriously? Did you not see where she was fighting him in the car when he tried to pull her out? You don't call that combative? I can't believe you would say she wasn't? She was calling him a f***ing pussy over and over and cussing up a storm. I'd have thoughts of punching her in the face.

Excuse me?  What right did he have to grab hold of her and threaten her like he did?  You have serious issues.  If you were a cop, you were a bad cop.  At the point he decided to manhandle her over a damn LANE CHANGE, of all the stupid crap I've ever heard...and she explained why she was "upset".  There's no law against being "upset".  There's no law against smoking a cigarette in your car or failing to put it out.  I don't care if she cussed him like a dog, after he laid hands on her and clearly threatened her.  And apparently the legal authorities agree.  

Listen, let's be clear here who has the "serious issues". You're the one who comes on here and starts talking about her being  DOA  before she ever gets to the jail. That is so ridiculous it's beyond words and dumber than dumb. She was booked and therefore had to be alive to even get in the jail. Secondly, she refused to obey a lawful command to get out of the car and fought the cop. You seem to ignore that. There is no law against smoking in your car but when you are on a traffic stop and the officer asks you to put out your cigarette because he doesn't want to breath second hand smoke that may very well be an officer safety issue but in any regard she had to get out of the car. Texas law says you must exit the vehicle for any reason requested. It doesn't matter what the charge is she clearly refused a lawful command and became combative. Not only that she became disorderly and started calling the officer a F***ing pussy and fought the handcuffs. Texas DPS may agree he didn't follow policy procedures but to say he perjured himself is going to be hard to uphold especially if he had the right to tell her to exit the vehicle. And no legal authorities don't all agree. The grand jury indicted but they just hear one side of a story and a jury will decide on the law. Seaoat cites the 1983 action but the Supremes also upheld officers issuing lawful commands in Pennsylvania vs. Mims during a traffic stop.  So stop trying to give uneducated and stupid opinions based on your narrow and racially biased mindset that every African American is a victim of discrimination even when acts are justified. I can see why the right resents that because now we have all police action on blacks are discriminatory.

I agree with all of your comments on this thread.

I don't know about the rest of you. ..but the times I have been stopped I have never acted like an ass nor have I desrespected a police officer. What purpose does it serve?