by Ugh
First let me say that I of course have no idea what actually happened to Sandra Bland in prison after being pulled over for failing to signal a lane change. To me it seems that it should simply not be physically possible to hang oneself in a prison cell, but I'm guessing that's not doable absent other objectionable measures for people not on suicide watch. Moreover, the idea that you can't get bail because it's a weekend is rather unconscionable, if not unconstitutional, but apparently that's just fine and dandy. Don't get arrested on a Friday (or sick, for that matter). UPDATE: This article states that Bland could have made bail over the weekend, but that she didn't have the money (and points out another problem with the US justice system).
In any event, it seems to me that it's quite possible that she hanged herself, just as it's quite possible that she was murdered by the police for some reason (disrespect?). I'm guessing we won't find out to anyone's satisfaction.
Of course, she never should have been in prison in the first place. What we seem to have in the U.S., is a large % of police officers looking for an excuse to stop and question someone, and then behaving like absolute prick douchebags when the person stopped behaves in anything other than an obsequious manner. Any hint of noncompliance or disrespect must be met with the full Cartman. What we also seem to have is the ability and preference of officers to just out and out lie in police reports and use "resisting arrest" as an all purpose excuse for bad police behavior – before or after the fact. "He's resisting! He's resisting!" followed by a beating and then cover up.
I forget where I read that as a ballpark estimate 15% of officers will do the right thing no matter what and 15% of officers are at the opposite end of the scale, and which group the remaining 70% – and thus the department generally as a whole – goes along with determines the quality and professionalism of a particular department. I have no idea if that's true but it seems right. I also recall reading Ta-Nehisi Coates being of the view that a police department that just has "a few bad apples" is like a restaurant telling you that the rat you saw was the only one in the restaurant. It's not very comforting.
I’m also reminded of the officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates, Jr. saying that Gates had engaged in “tumultuous behavior” in the officer’s police report. Right.
I’m also reminded of the officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates, Jr. saying that Gates had engaged in “tumultuous behavior” in the officer’s police report. Right.
I’m also reminded of the officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates, Jr. saying that Gates had engaged in “tumultuous behavior” in the officer’s police report. Right.
Of course, she never should have been in prison in the first place.
This needs to be repeated over, and over, and over. She should not have been in jail.
Stop and seizure for an unsignaled lane change is stupid. Does it annoy me when people change lanes without a signal? Sure. Do I think they all need to be pulled over? No. Are most of them pulled over? No, hardly any ever are.
If we have laws that are broken countless times by large portions of the population, and only the barest fraction of those are prosecuted, that’s not a good law.
It’s a tool to prosecute and persecute whoever the police don’t like. Minorities, the poor, whoever. Best case scenario, it’s making somebody’s day worse, stretching their finances, and generally giving them a poor interaction with the police. Worst case, this happens. Or Walter Scott happens.
Sometimes (many times), I wish we didn’t turn to law enforcement for everything. I think PSAs would be just as effective at encouraging use of turn signals. IMHO.
Of course, she never should have been in prison in the first place.
This needs to be repeated over, and over, and over. She should not have been in jail.
Stop and seizure for an unsignaled lane change is stupid. Does it annoy me when people change lanes without a signal? Sure. Do I think they all need to be pulled over? No. Are most of them pulled over? No, hardly any ever are.
If we have laws that are broken countless times by large portions of the population, and only the barest fraction of those are prosecuted, that’s not a good law.
It’s a tool to prosecute and persecute whoever the police don’t like. Minorities, the poor, whoever. Best case scenario, it’s making somebody’s day worse, stretching their finances, and generally giving them a poor interaction with the police. Worst case, this happens. Or Walter Scott happens.
Sometimes (many times), I wish we didn’t turn to law enforcement for everything. I think PSAs would be just as effective at encouraging use of turn signals. IMHO.
Of course, she never should have been in prison in the first place.
This needs to be repeated over, and over, and over. She should not have been in jail.
Stop and seizure for an unsignaled lane change is stupid. Does it annoy me when people change lanes without a signal? Sure. Do I think they all need to be pulled over? No. Are most of them pulled over? No, hardly any ever are.
If we have laws that are broken countless times by large portions of the population, and only the barest fraction of those are prosecuted, that’s not a good law.
It’s a tool to prosecute and persecute whoever the police don’t like. Minorities, the poor, whoever. Best case scenario, it’s making somebody’s day worse, stretching their finances, and generally giving them a poor interaction with the police. Worst case, this happens. Or Walter Scott happens.
Sometimes (many times), I wish we didn’t turn to law enforcement for everything. I think PSAs would be just as effective at encouraging use of turn signals. IMHO.
This is a great post as well.
This is a great post as well.
This is a great post as well.
I, too, wish that there were more people making use of their “person driving is NOT an idiot” lights, AKA, turn signals. But it seems that I’m to be disappointed, again and again.
Back on the subject, this whole incident stinks on ice; good cops, making a legal arrest, don’t need to doctor the dashcam video.
I, too, wish that there were more people making use of their “person driving is NOT an idiot” lights, AKA, turn signals. But it seems that I’m to be disappointed, again and again.
Back on the subject, this whole incident stinks on ice; good cops, making a legal arrest, don’t need to doctor the dashcam video.
I, too, wish that there were more people making use of their “person driving is NOT an idiot” lights, AKA, turn signals. But it seems that I’m to be disappointed, again and again.
Back on the subject, this whole incident stinks on ice; good cops, making a legal arrest, don’t need to doctor the dashcam video.
Even if Sandra Bland had spent a reasonably comfortable weekend in jail and been bailed out on Monday, the cop would still be a Texas-size a$$hole.
Don’t tell me he’s not a fncking racist, because I don’t care. I’ve been in EXACTLY the same situation — tailgated by a cruiser, changed lanes in a hurry to get out of his way, been pulled over for not signaling — and the way cops drive around here makes me reasonably certain it will someday happen again. I’m considerably older and more crotchety now than I was last time, so I doubt I’ll get off with a warning next time.
Incidentally, last time I got a traffic ticket — about 20 years ago, here in MA — I told the cop, very politely, that I’d see him in court. I was looking forward to that, because it was a bogus ticket. Alas, he did not show up and the judge dismissed it.
Since then, I have learned from more recent “violators” that nowadays you have to pay a $25 “fee” just to challenge a ticket before a magistrate (where you invariably lose) and another $50 fee to “appeal” before an actual judge. How this can be constitutional beats me.
–TP
Even if Sandra Bland had spent a reasonably comfortable weekend in jail and been bailed out on Monday, the cop would still be a Texas-size a$$hole.
Don’t tell me he’s not a fncking racist, because I don’t care. I’ve been in EXACTLY the same situation — tailgated by a cruiser, changed lanes in a hurry to get out of his way, been pulled over for not signaling — and the way cops drive around here makes me reasonably certain it will someday happen again. I’m considerably older and more crotchety now than I was last time, so I doubt I’ll get off with a warning next time.
Incidentally, last time I got a traffic ticket — about 20 years ago, here in MA — I told the cop, very politely, that I’d see him in court. I was looking forward to that, because it was a bogus ticket. Alas, he did not show up and the judge dismissed it.
Since then, I have learned from more recent “violators” that nowadays you have to pay a $25 “fee” just to challenge a ticket before a magistrate (where you invariably lose) and another $50 fee to “appeal” before an actual judge. How this can be constitutional beats me.
–TP
Even if Sandra Bland had spent a reasonably comfortable weekend in jail and been bailed out on Monday, the cop would still be a Texas-size a$$hole.
Don’t tell me he’s not a fncking racist, because I don’t care. I’ve been in EXACTLY the same situation — tailgated by a cruiser, changed lanes in a hurry to get out of his way, been pulled over for not signaling — and the way cops drive around here makes me reasonably certain it will someday happen again. I’m considerably older and more crotchety now than I was last time, so I doubt I’ll get off with a warning next time.
Incidentally, last time I got a traffic ticket — about 20 years ago, here in MA — I told the cop, very politely, that I’d see him in court. I was looking forward to that, because it was a bogus ticket. Alas, he did not show up and the judge dismissed it.
Since then, I have learned from more recent “violators” that nowadays you have to pay a $25 “fee” just to challenge a ticket before a magistrate (where you invariably lose) and another $50 fee to “appeal” before an actual judge. How this can be constitutional beats me.
–TP
I’m guessing we won’t find out to anyone’s satisfaction.
Also, while details are important in the specific case, I think its largely irrelevant to the bigger question of how we maintain law and order in this country.
Even if she did commit suicide while in custody, I would assume that being incarcerated for no reason contributed to that. Even if she was secretly depressed and went off her meds because she was in jail, that would still indicate a huge problem, because:
*she never should have been in jail in the first place.*
I’m guessing we won’t find out to anyone’s satisfaction.
Also, while details are important in the specific case, I think its largely irrelevant to the bigger question of how we maintain law and order in this country.
Even if she did commit suicide while in custody, I would assume that being incarcerated for no reason contributed to that. Even if she was secretly depressed and went off her meds because she was in jail, that would still indicate a huge problem, because:
*she never should have been in jail in the first place.*
I’m guessing we won’t find out to anyone’s satisfaction.
Also, while details are important in the specific case, I think its largely irrelevant to the bigger question of how we maintain law and order in this country.
Even if she did commit suicide while in custody, I would assume that being incarcerated for no reason contributed to that. Even if she was secretly depressed and went off her meds because she was in jail, that would still indicate a huge problem, because:
*she never should have been in jail in the first place.*
Does it seem that there are an increasing number of police officers who either don’t read the news about the rash of police brutality killings and abuses, or who read the news and use the reports and the condemnations of the abuses as motivational instructional manuals on how to be dumb, effing, bullying motherfatherf*ckers?
Is there stupid in the national water supply in this country, or do we as a blockhead culture just come by it naturally?
WTF?
Would the NRA and Second Amendment rights numbskulls please come forward and support Sandra Bland defending herself with deadly force against this cop and that town’s police force.
Or is this big, violent, murderous government that conservatives can live with, as long as it is blacks who die.
I’m thinking of starting a non-profit bizarro world NRA type of organization that supplies heavy weaponry to 11 million immigrants, 16 millions Obamacare recipients, and all groups who are brutalized to defend themselves against the brutality of oppressive conservative governance.
That Texas town’s police force and many other need to be disarmed and have their law enforcement powers revoked.
Here in Denver, we’ve got yahoos with automatic weapons now showing up and “policing” military recruitment centers after the recent shootings in Tennessee The same people, I expect who recently were cleaning their weapons to defend themselves against the same military’s Jade Helm exercises to imprison Americans in bunkers excavated below Walmarts.
No doubt some of the same armed filth too that hightailed out to Cliven Bundy’s fraudulent operation to take on the same government they are now “protecting”.
Donald Trump has found the central artery of the pigf*cking conservative movement to inject his hate into.
Suddenly the Republicans don’t seem to like political incorrectness when sent their way.
I hope everyone enjoys the murderous, hateful monster that has broken its tether from the conservative mother ship that created, bred, and fed it with its violent, hateful rhetoric all these decades in the cause of maintaining a majority.
Its going to eat everyone unless its stopped in its tracks with a cream pie to the brain.
Does it seem that there are an increasing number of police officers who either don’t read the news about the rash of police brutality killings and abuses, or who read the news and use the reports and the condemnations of the abuses as motivational instructional manuals on how to be dumb, effing, bullying motherfatherf*ckers?
Is there stupid in the national water supply in this country, or do we as a blockhead culture just come by it naturally?
WTF?
Would the NRA and Second Amendment rights numbskulls please come forward and support Sandra Bland defending herself with deadly force against this cop and that town’s police force.
Or is this big, violent, murderous government that conservatives can live with, as long as it is blacks who die.
I’m thinking of starting a non-profit bizarro world NRA type of organization that supplies heavy weaponry to 11 million immigrants, 16 millions Obamacare recipients, and all groups who are brutalized to defend themselves against the brutality of oppressive conservative governance.
That Texas town’s police force and many other need to be disarmed and have their law enforcement powers revoked.
Here in Denver, we’ve got yahoos with automatic weapons now showing up and “policing” military recruitment centers after the recent shootings in Tennessee The same people, I expect who recently were cleaning their weapons to defend themselves against the same military’s Jade Helm exercises to imprison Americans in bunkers excavated below Walmarts.
No doubt some of the same armed filth too that hightailed out to Cliven Bundy’s fraudulent operation to take on the same government they are now “protecting”.
Donald Trump has found the central artery of the pigf*cking conservative movement to inject his hate into.
Suddenly the Republicans don’t seem to like political incorrectness when sent their way.
I hope everyone enjoys the murderous, hateful monster that has broken its tether from the conservative mother ship that created, bred, and fed it with its violent, hateful rhetoric all these decades in the cause of maintaining a majority.
Its going to eat everyone unless its stopped in its tracks with a cream pie to the brain.
Does it seem that there are an increasing number of police officers who either don’t read the news about the rash of police brutality killings and abuses, or who read the news and use the reports and the condemnations of the abuses as motivational instructional manuals on how to be dumb, effing, bullying motherfatherf*ckers?
Is there stupid in the national water supply in this country, or do we as a blockhead culture just come by it naturally?
WTF?
Would the NRA and Second Amendment rights numbskulls please come forward and support Sandra Bland defending herself with deadly force against this cop and that town’s police force.
Or is this big, violent, murderous government that conservatives can live with, as long as it is blacks who die.
I’m thinking of starting a non-profit bizarro world NRA type of organization that supplies heavy weaponry to 11 million immigrants, 16 millions Obamacare recipients, and all groups who are brutalized to defend themselves against the brutality of oppressive conservative governance.
That Texas town’s police force and many other need to be disarmed and have their law enforcement powers revoked.
Here in Denver, we’ve got yahoos with automatic weapons now showing up and “policing” military recruitment centers after the recent shootings in Tennessee The same people, I expect who recently were cleaning their weapons to defend themselves against the same military’s Jade Helm exercises to imprison Americans in bunkers excavated below Walmarts.
No doubt some of the same armed filth too that hightailed out to Cliven Bundy’s fraudulent operation to take on the same government they are now “protecting”.
Donald Trump has found the central artery of the pigf*cking conservative movement to inject his hate into.
Suddenly the Republicans don’t seem to like political incorrectness when sent their way.
I hope everyone enjoys the murderous, hateful monster that has broken its tether from the conservative mother ship that created, bred, and fed it with its violent, hateful rhetoric all these decades in the cause of maintaining a majority.
Its going to eat everyone unless its stopped in its tracks with a cream pie to the brain.
What we seem to have in the U.S., is a large % of police officers looking for an excuse to stop and question someone, and then behaving like absolute prick douchebags when the person stopped behaves in anything other than an obsequious manner.
In addition to the income derived from fines, etc. (c.f. Furguson, MO) there is the little matter of asset forfeiture.
If the police decide to sieze your assets, what do you have to get them back? You have to prove that they were NOT being used in commission of a crime. That is, you are effectively considered guilty and fined unless you can prove your innocence. Even if you are never charged with a crime.
“Innocent until proven guilty” apparently does not apply. But it does make a great source of income for the arresting jurisdiction.
What we seem to have in the U.S., is a large % of police officers looking for an excuse to stop and question someone, and then behaving like absolute prick douchebags when the person stopped behaves in anything other than an obsequious manner.
In addition to the income derived from fines, etc. (c.f. Furguson, MO) there is the little matter of asset forfeiture.
If the police decide to sieze your assets, what do you have to get them back? You have to prove that they were NOT being used in commission of a crime. That is, you are effectively considered guilty and fined unless you can prove your innocence. Even if you are never charged with a crime.
“Innocent until proven guilty” apparently does not apply. But it does make a great source of income for the arresting jurisdiction.
What we seem to have in the U.S., is a large % of police officers looking for an excuse to stop and question someone, and then behaving like absolute prick douchebags when the person stopped behaves in anything other than an obsequious manner.
In addition to the income derived from fines, etc. (c.f. Furguson, MO) there is the little matter of asset forfeiture.
If the police decide to sieze your assets, what do you have to get them back? You have to prove that they were NOT being used in commission of a crime. That is, you are effectively considered guilty and fined unless you can prove your innocence. Even if you are never charged with a crime.
“Innocent until proven guilty” apparently does not apply. But it does make a great source of income for the arresting jurisdiction.
The arresting officer was a Department of Public Safety Trooper. It was a questionable stop and a bad arrest. Most troopers would not have done that. At least one I know would have done at least what Trooper Encinia did and more.
Ms. Bland died in the Waller County jail. Unlike every other county contiguous to Harris County, Waller has experienced virtually no suburban growth from Houston. It’s population is 43K plus. We are dealing with a relatively small, rural law enforcement community and a jail that doesn’t get a lot of action.
Ms. Bland gave a history of attempted suicide after the loss of a child. Maybe that was enough to put a relatively unsophisticated, rural jail staff on notice of the need for a suicide watch, maybe not. She denied any recent suicidal ideation, which leaves open the question of whether she was prone to depressive bouts and was unaware of the need for treatment.
Maybe she was murdered, and if she was, we are talking about something hugely and vastly different than a bad arrest morphing into a tragedy.
I seriously doubt this was murder. Very seriously. Suicide is hard to predict even for medical professionals in a clinical environment. In almost every instance, it is unpredictable, almost by definition, if only as to timing.
There are stupid arrests and valid arrests everyday–10’s of thousands of them. Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide? Seriously?
Encinia is toast and an arrogant, vindictive prick. Ok, that’s true for a lot of people. Did he have any reason to foresee a suicide?
Yes, it is ridiculous for someone to be in jail over the weekend without bail. In a large urban jurisdiction, that is probably less likely to happen. Small counties can’t afford to have magistrates on call 24/7.
Bad police officers are prone to heavy-handedness, and on a continuum, are prone to criminal activity up to and including murder.
Here, you have a bad arrest. The autopsy results just came out. Here is a link: http://www.houstonpress.com/news/sandra-bland-autopsy-results-released-7615052.
It looks like suicide and it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.
The arresting officer was a Department of Public Safety Trooper. It was a questionable stop and a bad arrest. Most troopers would not have done that. At least one I know would have done at least what Trooper Encinia did and more.
Ms. Bland died in the Waller County jail. Unlike every other county contiguous to Harris County, Waller has experienced virtually no suburban growth from Houston. It’s population is 43K plus. We are dealing with a relatively small, rural law enforcement community and a jail that doesn’t get a lot of action.
Ms. Bland gave a history of attempted suicide after the loss of a child. Maybe that was enough to put a relatively unsophisticated, rural jail staff on notice of the need for a suicide watch, maybe not. She denied any recent suicidal ideation, which leaves open the question of whether she was prone to depressive bouts and was unaware of the need for treatment.
Maybe she was murdered, and if she was, we are talking about something hugely and vastly different than a bad arrest morphing into a tragedy.
I seriously doubt this was murder. Very seriously. Suicide is hard to predict even for medical professionals in a clinical environment. In almost every instance, it is unpredictable, almost by definition, if only as to timing.
There are stupid arrests and valid arrests everyday–10’s of thousands of them. Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide? Seriously?
Encinia is toast and an arrogant, vindictive prick. Ok, that’s true for a lot of people. Did he have any reason to foresee a suicide?
Yes, it is ridiculous for someone to be in jail over the weekend without bail. In a large urban jurisdiction, that is probably less likely to happen. Small counties can’t afford to have magistrates on call 24/7.
Bad police officers are prone to heavy-handedness, and on a continuum, are prone to criminal activity up to and including murder.
Here, you have a bad arrest. The autopsy results just came out. Here is a link: http://www.houstonpress.com/news/sandra-bland-autopsy-results-released-7615052.
It looks like suicide and it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.
The arresting officer was a Department of Public Safety Trooper. It was a questionable stop and a bad arrest. Most troopers would not have done that. At least one I know would have done at least what Trooper Encinia did and more.
Ms. Bland died in the Waller County jail. Unlike every other county contiguous to Harris County, Waller has experienced virtually no suburban growth from Houston. It’s population is 43K plus. We are dealing with a relatively small, rural law enforcement community and a jail that doesn’t get a lot of action.
Ms. Bland gave a history of attempted suicide after the loss of a child. Maybe that was enough to put a relatively unsophisticated, rural jail staff on notice of the need for a suicide watch, maybe not. She denied any recent suicidal ideation, which leaves open the question of whether she was prone to depressive bouts and was unaware of the need for treatment.
Maybe she was murdered, and if she was, we are talking about something hugely and vastly different than a bad arrest morphing into a tragedy.
I seriously doubt this was murder. Very seriously. Suicide is hard to predict even for medical professionals in a clinical environment. In almost every instance, it is unpredictable, almost by definition, if only as to timing.
There are stupid arrests and valid arrests everyday–10’s of thousands of them. Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide? Seriously?
Encinia is toast and an arrogant, vindictive prick. Ok, that’s true for a lot of people. Did he have any reason to foresee a suicide?
Yes, it is ridiculous for someone to be in jail over the weekend without bail. In a large urban jurisdiction, that is probably less likely to happen. Small counties can’t afford to have magistrates on call 24/7.
Bad police officers are prone to heavy-handedness, and on a continuum, are prone to criminal activity up to and including murder.
Here, you have a bad arrest. The autopsy results just came out. Here is a link: http://www.houstonpress.com/news/sandra-bland-autopsy-results-released-7615052.
It looks like suicide and it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.
Encinia is toast and an arrogant, vindictive prick. Ok, that’s true for a lot of people. Did he have any reason to foresee a suicide?
Some comments, McK:
How is he toast? I assume he has been or will soon be fired. After that?
Was his boss or whoever not aware that he was an arrogant, vindictive prick? How many other avp’s are state troopers, and what do we do about it?
Suicide may not have been directly forseeable, but the rates are a lot higher in jail than in the general public. So, probably, is violence and other unpleasant things. She should not have been in jail, so yes, he’s accountable. by way of analogy, I wonder what the accident rate is for drunk drivers. I bet it’s pretty low, especially for those who are just above the threshold. But when it happens no one excuses the driver on the grounds that it was a long shot.
Encinia is toast and an arrogant, vindictive prick. Ok, that’s true for a lot of people. Did he have any reason to foresee a suicide?
Some comments, McK:
How is he toast? I assume he has been or will soon be fired. After that?
Was his boss or whoever not aware that he was an arrogant, vindictive prick? How many other avp’s are state troopers, and what do we do about it?
Suicide may not have been directly forseeable, but the rates are a lot higher in jail than in the general public. So, probably, is violence and other unpleasant things. She should not have been in jail, so yes, he’s accountable. by way of analogy, I wonder what the accident rate is for drunk drivers. I bet it’s pretty low, especially for those who are just above the threshold. But when it happens no one excuses the driver on the grounds that it was a long shot.
Encinia is toast and an arrogant, vindictive prick. Ok, that’s true for a lot of people. Did he have any reason to foresee a suicide?
Some comments, McK:
How is he toast? I assume he has been or will soon be fired. After that?
Was his boss or whoever not aware that he was an arrogant, vindictive prick? How many other avp’s are state troopers, and what do we do about it?
Suicide may not have been directly forseeable, but the rates are a lot higher in jail than in the general public. So, probably, is violence and other unpleasant things. She should not have been in jail, so yes, he’s accountable. by way of analogy, I wonder what the accident rate is for drunk drivers. I bet it’s pretty low, especially for those who are just above the threshold. But when it happens no one excuses the driver on the grounds that it was a long shot.
it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.
Since you’re a lawyer, McKinney, I’m sure you know the doctrine of taking the victims as you find them. You know too that it’s a tort law doctrine, but wrongful death isn’t inappropriate here.
it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.
Since you’re a lawyer, McKinney, I’m sure you know the doctrine of taking the victims as you find them. You know too that it’s a tort law doctrine, but wrongful death isn’t inappropriate here.
it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.
Since you’re a lawyer, McKinney, I’m sure you know the doctrine of taking the victims as you find them. You know too that it’s a tort law doctrine, but wrongful death isn’t inappropriate here.
I want to echo what byomtov said:
She should not have been in jail
If we didn’t resort to heavyhanded solutions to non-problems, these kind of events would happen less frequently.
She was stopped, assaulted, and imprisoned on the loosest of pretexts. You don’t need to be a soothsayer to think that *something* bad will come from that.
It was a bad arrest, and that’s on the arresting officer.
I want to echo what byomtov said:
She should not have been in jail
If we didn’t resort to heavyhanded solutions to non-problems, these kind of events would happen less frequently.
She was stopped, assaulted, and imprisoned on the loosest of pretexts. You don’t need to be a soothsayer to think that *something* bad will come from that.
It was a bad arrest, and that’s on the arresting officer.
I want to echo what byomtov said:
She should not have been in jail
If we didn’t resort to heavyhanded solutions to non-problems, these kind of events would happen less frequently.
She was stopped, assaulted, and imprisoned on the loosest of pretexts. You don’t need to be a soothsayer to think that *something* bad will come from that.
It was a bad arrest, and that’s on the arresting officer.
I’ll just leave this link to a Houston Chronicle article right here.
I’ll just leave this link to a Houston Chronicle article right here.
I’ll just leave this link to a Houston Chronicle article right here.
To me it seems that it should simply not be physically possible to hang oneself in a prison cell, but I’m guessing that’s not doable absent other objectionable measures for people not on suicide watch.
You really can’t, no. The problem is that you’re thinking hang as in “suspend yourself from something high” (which admittedly is what happened here), but all you actually need to do is involuntarily constrict your breathing, which can be done with far more things and far more subtly. Stopping someone determined from strangling themself takes fairly intrusive measures.
To me it seems that it should simply not be physically possible to hang oneself in a prison cell, but I’m guessing that’s not doable absent other objectionable measures for people not on suicide watch.
You really can’t, no. The problem is that you’re thinking hang as in “suspend yourself from something high” (which admittedly is what happened here), but all you actually need to do is involuntarily constrict your breathing, which can be done with far more things and far more subtly. Stopping someone determined from strangling themself takes fairly intrusive measures.
To me it seems that it should simply not be physically possible to hang oneself in a prison cell, but I’m guessing that’s not doable absent other objectionable measures for people not on suicide watch.
You really can’t, no. The problem is that you’re thinking hang as in “suspend yourself from something high” (which admittedly is what happened here), but all you actually need to do is involuntarily constrict your breathing, which can be done with far more things and far more subtly. Stopping someone determined from strangling themself takes fairly intrusive measures.
Suicide may not have been directly forseeable, but the rates are a lot higher in jail than in the general public
Suicide in jail is more foreseeable than in the general population because people with disorders associated with suicide are also prone to behaviors that result in confrontations with the police.
The best predictor of suicide is bipolar disorder, with a successful suicide rate of 15% or thereabouts.
I’m sure you know the doctrine of taking the victims as you find them.
Yes, the “thin skulled” doctrine. See above. Nothing about Ms. Bland was overtly suggestive of suicidal tendencies. If law enforcement is liable when a prisoner commits suicide, absent some kind of actual or constructive notice of suicidal inclination, the easy answer is to stay the hell out of law enforcement and let the citizens take their chances with those who should be behind bars.
Suicide may not have been directly forseeable, but the rates are a lot higher in jail than in the general public
Suicide in jail is more foreseeable than in the general population because people with disorders associated with suicide are also prone to behaviors that result in confrontations with the police.
The best predictor of suicide is bipolar disorder, with a successful suicide rate of 15% or thereabouts.
I’m sure you know the doctrine of taking the victims as you find them.
Yes, the “thin skulled” doctrine. See above. Nothing about Ms. Bland was overtly suggestive of suicidal tendencies. If law enforcement is liable when a prisoner commits suicide, absent some kind of actual or constructive notice of suicidal inclination, the easy answer is to stay the hell out of law enforcement and let the citizens take their chances with those who should be behind bars.
Suicide may not have been directly forseeable, but the rates are a lot higher in jail than in the general public
Suicide in jail is more foreseeable than in the general population because people with disorders associated with suicide are also prone to behaviors that result in confrontations with the police.
The best predictor of suicide is bipolar disorder, with a successful suicide rate of 15% or thereabouts.
I’m sure you know the doctrine of taking the victims as you find them.
Yes, the “thin skulled” doctrine. See above. Nothing about Ms. Bland was overtly suggestive of suicidal tendencies. If law enforcement is liable when a prisoner commits suicide, absent some kind of actual or constructive notice of suicidal inclination, the easy answer is to stay the hell out of law enforcement and let the citizens take their chances with those who should be behind bars.
There are stupid arrests and valid arrests everyday–10’s of thousands of them. Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide? Seriously?
It can be, and often is, a traumatic and life changing experience. You could lose your job, your family, your health, your savings, life. So….why not?
There are stupid arrests and valid arrests everyday–10’s of thousands of them. Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide? Seriously?
It can be, and often is, a traumatic and life changing experience. You could lose your job, your family, your health, your savings, life. So….why not?
There are stupid arrests and valid arrests everyday–10’s of thousands of them. Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide? Seriously?
It can be, and often is, a traumatic and life changing experience. You could lose your job, your family, your health, your savings, life. So….why not?
I’ve been in EXACTLY the same situation — tailgated by a cruiser, changed lanes in a hurry to get out of his way, been pulled over for not signaling…
“I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me.”
The Transcript Of Sandra Bland’s Arrest Is As Revealing As The Video
I’ve been in EXACTLY the same situation — tailgated by a cruiser, changed lanes in a hurry to get out of his way, been pulled over for not signaling…
“I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me.”
The Transcript Of Sandra Bland’s Arrest Is As Revealing As The Video
I’ve been in EXACTLY the same situation — tailgated by a cruiser, changed lanes in a hurry to get out of his way, been pulled over for not signaling…
“I was getting out of your way. You were speeding up, tailing me, so I move over and you stop me.”
The Transcript Of Sandra Bland’s Arrest Is As Revealing As The Video
If law enforcement is liable when a prisoner commits suicide, absent some kind of actual or constructive notice of suicidal inclination, the easy answer is to stay the hell out of law enforcement and let the citizens take their chances with those who should be behind bars.
You are omitting a key fact – there was no reason for Bland to be in jail at all. If she had been apprehended while robbing a bank the story would be different. But she wasn’t. She didn’t want to put out her cigarette. That’s pretty much it.
So it’s not that law enforcement is always responsible for bad things that happen to prisoners (though it is more often than they admit) but that law enforcement is responsible for bad things that happen to prisoners who, by no reasonable standard, ought to be prisoners.
Lock up people on a whim and yes, you are responsible for what happens to them in jail.
If law enforcement is liable when a prisoner commits suicide, absent some kind of actual or constructive notice of suicidal inclination, the easy answer is to stay the hell out of law enforcement and let the citizens take their chances with those who should be behind bars.
You are omitting a key fact – there was no reason for Bland to be in jail at all. If she had been apprehended while robbing a bank the story would be different. But she wasn’t. She didn’t want to put out her cigarette. That’s pretty much it.
So it’s not that law enforcement is always responsible for bad things that happen to prisoners (though it is more often than they admit) but that law enforcement is responsible for bad things that happen to prisoners who, by no reasonable standard, ought to be prisoners.
Lock up people on a whim and yes, you are responsible for what happens to them in jail.
If law enforcement is liable when a prisoner commits suicide, absent some kind of actual or constructive notice of suicidal inclination, the easy answer is to stay the hell out of law enforcement and let the citizens take their chances with those who should be behind bars.
You are omitting a key fact – there was no reason for Bland to be in jail at all. If she had been apprehended while robbing a bank the story would be different. But she wasn’t. She didn’t want to put out her cigarette. That’s pretty much it.
So it’s not that law enforcement is always responsible for bad things that happen to prisoners (though it is more often than they admit) but that law enforcement is responsible for bad things that happen to prisoners who, by no reasonable standard, ought to be prisoners.
Lock up people on a whim and yes, you are responsible for what happens to them in jail.
This comment doesn’t really have a “point” to make about Ms. Bland, however…
Back in early 90’s/late 80’s, Philly/NJ area, a teacher (IIRC, grade school/middle school) was accused of child molestation, and indicted.
Prosecutor made a big public deal about it, bail denied, heavy charges being pushed; I’d be surprised if there wasn’t super pressure to plea out; all that “you know how popular child molesters are in prison?” stuff.
A week before trial, the guy hung himself in jail.
Normally, that would be the end of it, right? “guilty conscience” and all that. But a few weeks later, the prosecution story completely fell apart. The guy was completely innocent, and even the prosecutor fully admitted it.
From the guy’s point of view, can you really blame him for hanging himself? He was looking at a long spell in prison with a child molestation conviction if he took a plea deal, and even longer sentence if found guilty, and even if found not guilty, having his life and career ruined, with a cloud of suspicion hanging over him.
Psychologically, jail may be hardest for the innocent.
This comment doesn’t really have a “point” to make about Ms. Bland, however…
Back in early 90’s/late 80’s, Philly/NJ area, a teacher (IIRC, grade school/middle school) was accused of child molestation, and indicted.
Prosecutor made a big public deal about it, bail denied, heavy charges being pushed; I’d be surprised if there wasn’t super pressure to plea out; all that “you know how popular child molesters are in prison?” stuff.
A week before trial, the guy hung himself in jail.
Normally, that would be the end of it, right? “guilty conscience” and all that. But a few weeks later, the prosecution story completely fell apart. The guy was completely innocent, and even the prosecutor fully admitted it.
From the guy’s point of view, can you really blame him for hanging himself? He was looking at a long spell in prison with a child molestation conviction if he took a plea deal, and even longer sentence if found guilty, and even if found not guilty, having his life and career ruined, with a cloud of suspicion hanging over him.
Psychologically, jail may be hardest for the innocent.
This comment doesn’t really have a “point” to make about Ms. Bland, however…
Back in early 90’s/late 80’s, Philly/NJ area, a teacher (IIRC, grade school/middle school) was accused of child molestation, and indicted.
Prosecutor made a big public deal about it, bail denied, heavy charges being pushed; I’d be surprised if there wasn’t super pressure to plea out; all that “you know how popular child molesters are in prison?” stuff.
A week before trial, the guy hung himself in jail.
Normally, that would be the end of it, right? “guilty conscience” and all that. But a few weeks later, the prosecution story completely fell apart. The guy was completely innocent, and even the prosecutor fully admitted it.
From the guy’s point of view, can you really blame him for hanging himself? He was looking at a long spell in prison with a child molestation conviction if he took a plea deal, and even longer sentence if found guilty, and even if found not guilty, having his life and career ruined, with a cloud of suspicion hanging over him.
Psychologically, jail may be hardest for the innocent.
McTx: Most troopers would not have done that. At least one I know would have done at least what Trooper Encinia did and more.
Then what the hell do you intend to do about it? As a lawyer, as a voter, as a citizen, do you have any responsibility besides mentioning it on ObWi?
And if you had the power to do anything, what would it be? Put him “on desk duty”?
McTx: Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide?
Being arrested by a powertripping a$$hole who made it perfectly clear that your only choice was to kiss his Texan a$$, when you are 1000 miles from home, is vastly different from being arrested by a cop you know by name because he’s arrested you 6 times before, as you were leaving the gas station you just robbed.
McKinney, you count as a reasonable person around here, but there are times when I marvel at your callousness.
–TP
McTx: Most troopers would not have done that. At least one I know would have done at least what Trooper Encinia did and more.
Then what the hell do you intend to do about it? As a lawyer, as a voter, as a citizen, do you have any responsibility besides mentioning it on ObWi?
And if you had the power to do anything, what would it be? Put him “on desk duty”?
McTx: Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide?
Being arrested by a powertripping a$$hole who made it perfectly clear that your only choice was to kiss his Texan a$$, when you are 1000 miles from home, is vastly different from being arrested by a cop you know by name because he’s arrested you 6 times before, as you were leaving the gas station you just robbed.
McKinney, you count as a reasonable person around here, but there are times when I marvel at your callousness.
–TP
McTx: Most troopers would not have done that. At least one I know would have done at least what Trooper Encinia did and more.
Then what the hell do you intend to do about it? As a lawyer, as a voter, as a citizen, do you have any responsibility besides mentioning it on ObWi?
And if you had the power to do anything, what would it be? Put him “on desk duty”?
McTx: Does anyone think being arrested is a reasonably foreseeable cause of suicide?
Being arrested by a powertripping a$$hole who made it perfectly clear that your only choice was to kiss his Texan a$$, when you are 1000 miles from home, is vastly different from being arrested by a cop you know by name because he’s arrested you 6 times before, as you were leaving the gas station you just robbed.
McKinney, you count as a reasonable person around here, but there are times when I marvel at your callousness.
–TP
“Yes, the “thin skulled” doctrine. See above. Nothing about Ms. Bland was overtly suggestive of suicidal tendencies.”
The entire point of the thin skull rule is that a tortfeasor can be liable regardless of whether he had notice of the plaintiff’s unusual vulnerability, so I don’t see why it matters whether Ms. Bland overtly suggested that she had suicidal tendencies.
But since you ask, it looks like she did mention past instances of suicide on her intake forms:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandra-bland-said-she-was-depressed-attempted-suicide-jail-records-n396886
“Yes, the “thin skulled” doctrine. See above. Nothing about Ms. Bland was overtly suggestive of suicidal tendencies.”
The entire point of the thin skull rule is that a tortfeasor can be liable regardless of whether he had notice of the plaintiff’s unusual vulnerability, so I don’t see why it matters whether Ms. Bland overtly suggested that she had suicidal tendencies.
But since you ask, it looks like she did mention past instances of suicide on her intake forms:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandra-bland-said-she-was-depressed-attempted-suicide-jail-records-n396886
“Yes, the “thin skulled” doctrine. See above. Nothing about Ms. Bland was overtly suggestive of suicidal tendencies.”
The entire point of the thin skull rule is that a tortfeasor can be liable regardless of whether he had notice of the plaintiff’s unusual vulnerability, so I don’t see why it matters whether Ms. Bland overtly suggested that she had suicidal tendencies.
But since you ask, it looks like she did mention past instances of suicide on her intake forms:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sandra-bland-said-she-was-depressed-attempted-suicide-jail-records-n396886
Against the “thin skull” doctrine we must weigh the numbskull doctrine: cops can do no wrong to uppity civilians.
–TP
Against the “thin skull” doctrine we must weigh the numbskull doctrine: cops can do no wrong to uppity civilians.
–TP
Against the “thin skull” doctrine we must weigh the numbskull doctrine: cops can do no wrong to uppity civilians.
–TP
I wish we didn’t turn to law enforcement for everything. I think PSAs would be just as effective at encouraging use of turn signals.
Here in the good old people’s republic, we’re on it.
Although I’m not sure requests for the driving public to suggest the next highway sign message is going to end well.
I have no idea what to say about Sandra Bland’s death. She was changing lanes to GET OUT OF THE COP’S WAY, and now she’s dead.
WTF do you say about something like that?
“I’m gonna light you up!”, says Encinia. Who the f*** is he, Tony freaking Montana?
What we need are PSA’s telling people how to deal with insane, violent, childish bullies with badges. What we really need are for insane, violent, childish bullies to not be cops.
It is a really hard job. That’s why assholes should not be allowed to do it.
I wish we didn’t turn to law enforcement for everything. I think PSAs would be just as effective at encouraging use of turn signals.
Here in the good old people’s republic, we’re on it.
Although I’m not sure requests for the driving public to suggest the next highway sign message is going to end well.
I have no idea what to say about Sandra Bland’s death. She was changing lanes to GET OUT OF THE COP’S WAY, and now she’s dead.
WTF do you say about something like that?
“I’m gonna light you up!”, says Encinia. Who the f*** is he, Tony freaking Montana?
What we need are PSA’s telling people how to deal with insane, violent, childish bullies with badges. What we really need are for insane, violent, childish bullies to not be cops.
It is a really hard job. That’s why assholes should not be allowed to do it.
I wish we didn’t turn to law enforcement for everything. I think PSAs would be just as effective at encouraging use of turn signals.
Here in the good old people’s republic, we’re on it.
Although I’m not sure requests for the driving public to suggest the next highway sign message is going to end well.
I have no idea what to say about Sandra Bland’s death. She was changing lanes to GET OUT OF THE COP’S WAY, and now she’s dead.
WTF do you say about something like that?
“I’m gonna light you up!”, says Encinia. Who the f*** is he, Tony freaking Montana?
What we need are PSA’s telling people how to deal with insane, violent, childish bullies with badges. What we really need are for insane, violent, childish bullies to not be cops.
It is a really hard job. That’s why assholes should not be allowed to do it.
Psychologically, jail may be hardest for the innocent.
That’s what I keep thinking. In the United States, we punish prisoners with extraordinary severity, and there’s a general understanding that if you go to prison, for any reason, your life as you knew it is over. Couple that with the pressures brought to bear to keep cases from even going to trial, and you have a situation in which someone thrown in the local jail may well have reason to believe that their innocence will not matter much. And they’ve probably never even thought about this particular life detour happening to them.
Radley Balko wrote an interesting article about jail suicides:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/17/a-primer-on-jailhouse-suicides/
It turns out people commit suicide far more often in jail than in prison. Which makes a certain amount of sense: the majority of people in prison have gotten used to their situation by now. Someone in jail has likely just experienced the biggest shock of their life.
Also, white people actually commit suicide in jail more often than black people, as a fraction of their numbers. But that should probably be seen as an extension of the fact that white people commit suicide far more often in general. It seems to be seen more as an option in white US culture.
There may also be a feeling among white Americans that they have more to lose. And, notice, Sandra Bland, at this moment, had a lot to lose. She was on her way to take an exciting new job that was a major positive change in her life. Imagine ending up in jail at that particular moment in your life, being a black person on the receiving end of a gross malfunction of justice and knowing there was little chance you’d get a fair shake. She may have figured it was all just gone now, her one shot at her dream job blown because some random cop decided to be an asshole: instead, she’d have some long stint in prison and a life as a black person with a criminal record, for no real reason at all.
Psychologically, jail may be hardest for the innocent.
That’s what I keep thinking. In the United States, we punish prisoners with extraordinary severity, and there’s a general understanding that if you go to prison, for any reason, your life as you knew it is over. Couple that with the pressures brought to bear to keep cases from even going to trial, and you have a situation in which someone thrown in the local jail may well have reason to believe that their innocence will not matter much. And they’ve probably never even thought about this particular life detour happening to them.
Radley Balko wrote an interesting article about jail suicides:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/17/a-primer-on-jailhouse-suicides/
It turns out people commit suicide far more often in jail than in prison. Which makes a certain amount of sense: the majority of people in prison have gotten used to their situation by now. Someone in jail has likely just experienced the biggest shock of their life.
Also, white people actually commit suicide in jail more often than black people, as a fraction of their numbers. But that should probably be seen as an extension of the fact that white people commit suicide far more often in general. It seems to be seen more as an option in white US culture.
There may also be a feeling among white Americans that they have more to lose. And, notice, Sandra Bland, at this moment, had a lot to lose. She was on her way to take an exciting new job that was a major positive change in her life. Imagine ending up in jail at that particular moment in your life, being a black person on the receiving end of a gross malfunction of justice and knowing there was little chance you’d get a fair shake. She may have figured it was all just gone now, her one shot at her dream job blown because some random cop decided to be an asshole: instead, she’d have some long stint in prison and a life as a black person with a criminal record, for no real reason at all.
Psychologically, jail may be hardest for the innocent.
That’s what I keep thinking. In the United States, we punish prisoners with extraordinary severity, and there’s a general understanding that if you go to prison, for any reason, your life as you knew it is over. Couple that with the pressures brought to bear to keep cases from even going to trial, and you have a situation in which someone thrown in the local jail may well have reason to believe that their innocence will not matter much. And they’ve probably never even thought about this particular life detour happening to them.
Radley Balko wrote an interesting article about jail suicides:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/17/a-primer-on-jailhouse-suicides/
It turns out people commit suicide far more often in jail than in prison. Which makes a certain amount of sense: the majority of people in prison have gotten used to their situation by now. Someone in jail has likely just experienced the biggest shock of their life.
Also, white people actually commit suicide in jail more often than black people, as a fraction of their numbers. But that should probably be seen as an extension of the fact that white people commit suicide far more often in general. It seems to be seen more as an option in white US culture.
There may also be a feeling among white Americans that they have more to lose. And, notice, Sandra Bland, at this moment, had a lot to lose. She was on her way to take an exciting new job that was a major positive change in her life. Imagine ending up in jail at that particular moment in your life, being a black person on the receiving end of a gross malfunction of justice and knowing there was little chance you’d get a fair shake. She may have figured it was all just gone now, her one shot at her dream job blown because some random cop decided to be an asshole: instead, she’d have some long stint in prison and a life as a black person with a criminal record, for no real reason at all.
From the article that Matt links to:
That it was an arrest for a minor crime may not matter. In fact a sense of injustice can only add to the emotional damage. Someone may be sitting in a cell for longer than they were supposed to be. So the walls start closing in. There’s the uncertainty, of not knowing when you’re going to get out. There’s the loss of control. You’re cut off from family and friends. And it’s all beyond your control. That can be really difficult, especially for someone who hasn’t experienced it before.
From the article that Matt links to:
That it was an arrest for a minor crime may not matter. In fact a sense of injustice can only add to the emotional damage. Someone may be sitting in a cell for longer than they were supposed to be. So the walls start closing in. There’s the uncertainty, of not knowing when you’re going to get out. There’s the loss of control. You’re cut off from family and friends. And it’s all beyond your control. That can be really difficult, especially for someone who hasn’t experienced it before.
From the article that Matt links to:
That it was an arrest for a minor crime may not matter. In fact a sense of injustice can only add to the emotional damage. Someone may be sitting in a cell for longer than they were supposed to be. So the walls start closing in. There’s the uncertainty, of not knowing when you’re going to get out. There’s the loss of control. You’re cut off from family and friends. And it’s all beyond your control. That can be really difficult, especially for someone who hasn’t experienced it before.
“It is a really hard job. That’s why assholes should not be allowed to do it.”
I’m not convinced it is a hard job, other than possibly the self control it takes to resist becoming a violent, childish bully asshole prick with shit for brains..
The Zimbardo experiment comes to my mind when I see this stuff.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/august22/prison2-822.html
“It is a really hard job. That’s why assholes should not be allowed to do it.”
I’m not convinced it is a hard job, other than possibly the self control it takes to resist becoming a violent, childish bully asshole prick with shit for brains..
The Zimbardo experiment comes to my mind when I see this stuff.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/august22/prison2-822.html
“It is a really hard job. That’s why assholes should not be allowed to do it.”
I’m not convinced it is a hard job, other than possibly the self control it takes to resist becoming a violent, childish bully asshole prick with shit for brains..
The Zimbardo experiment comes to my mind when I see this stuff.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/august22/prison2-822.html
Although I’m not sure requests for the driving public to suggest the next highway sign message is going to end well.
Actually, I think that’s actually a really good way to go about it…it engages the public in governance and safety rather then issuing dictums from on high.
I’d also recommend Matt’s Balko link.
Although I’m not sure requests for the driving public to suggest the next highway sign message is going to end well.
Actually, I think that’s actually a really good way to go about it…it engages the public in governance and safety rather then issuing dictums from on high.
I’d also recommend Matt’s Balko link.
Although I’m not sure requests for the driving public to suggest the next highway sign message is going to end well.
Actually, I think that’s actually a really good way to go about it…it engages the public in governance and safety rather then issuing dictums from on high.
I’d also recommend Matt’s Balko link.
I’m not convinced it is a hard job
People, in general, don’t like interacting with you, you probably see more examples of the negative aspects of humanity than most, and I imagine large portions of the job is trying to communicate with and/or mediate disputes between difficult people.
I’d fully expect it to be a hard job.
That’s not meant to excuse bad behavior, just recognition that we are asking people to do a very hard job when we employ them as police officers.
The Zimbardo experiment comes to my mind when I see this stuff.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025
Or, less humorously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Criticism
Their results and conclusions differed from Zimbardo’s and led to a number of publications on tyranny, stress, and leadership. Moreover, unlike results from the Stanford prison experiment, these were published in leading academic journals such as British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Psychology Quarterly, and Personality and Social Psychology Review.
I’m not convinced it is a hard job
People, in general, don’t like interacting with you, you probably see more examples of the negative aspects of humanity than most, and I imagine large portions of the job is trying to communicate with and/or mediate disputes between difficult people.
I’d fully expect it to be a hard job.
That’s not meant to excuse bad behavior, just recognition that we are asking people to do a very hard job when we employ them as police officers.
The Zimbardo experiment comes to my mind when I see this stuff.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025
Or, less humorously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Criticism
Their results and conclusions differed from Zimbardo’s and led to a number of publications on tyranny, stress, and leadership. Moreover, unlike results from the Stanford prison experiment, these were published in leading academic journals such as British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Psychology Quarterly, and Personality and Social Psychology Review.
I’m not convinced it is a hard job
People, in general, don’t like interacting with you, you probably see more examples of the negative aspects of humanity than most, and I imagine large portions of the job is trying to communicate with and/or mediate disputes between difficult people.
I’d fully expect it to be a hard job.
That’s not meant to excuse bad behavior, just recognition that we are asking people to do a very hard job when we employ them as police officers.
The Zimbardo experiment comes to my mind when I see this stuff.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3025
Or, less humorously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Criticism
Their results and conclusions differed from Zimbardo’s and led to a number of publications on tyranny, stress, and leadership. Moreover, unlike results from the Stanford prison experiment, these were published in leading academic journals such as British Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Psychology, Social Psychology Quarterly, and Personality and Social Psychology Review.
Then what the hell do you intend to do about it? As a lawyer, as a voter, as a citizen, do you have any responsibility besides mentioning it on ObWi?
And if you had the power to do anything, what would it be? Put him “on desk duty”?
I exposed it in open court, in front of a judge and jury. The jury didn’t buy it because it was a fairly subtle point lost in the larger picture that my client was above the legal limit at 7 a.m. when he crossed the middle line and killed a very nice lady. Still, the DPS trooper planted alcohol on the scene.
Parenthetically, it was a civil suit for monetary damages. My client went to prison on a plea after the civil trial.
I’d put the trooper in prison for tampering with evidence.
Lock up people on a whim and yes, you are responsible for what happens to them in jail.
Ok, write that into law and watch the police over-correct in the other direction. When women and children are murdered at an even higher rate because the grounds to arrest the murdering piece of shit are unclear, we will have a different discussion.
The remedy, not a satisfactory one, is that, like most bad people, you nail them when they do something bad. Cops too.
Encinia is likely to be fired unless his union, assuming there is one, puts him back on the job.
Want to talk about police unions?
Then what the hell do you intend to do about it? As a lawyer, as a voter, as a citizen, do you have any responsibility besides mentioning it on ObWi?
And if you had the power to do anything, what would it be? Put him “on desk duty”?
I exposed it in open court, in front of a judge and jury. The jury didn’t buy it because it was a fairly subtle point lost in the larger picture that my client was above the legal limit at 7 a.m. when he crossed the middle line and killed a very nice lady. Still, the DPS trooper planted alcohol on the scene.
Parenthetically, it was a civil suit for monetary damages. My client went to prison on a plea after the civil trial.
I’d put the trooper in prison for tampering with evidence.
Lock up people on a whim and yes, you are responsible for what happens to them in jail.
Ok, write that into law and watch the police over-correct in the other direction. When women and children are murdered at an even higher rate because the grounds to arrest the murdering piece of shit are unclear, we will have a different discussion.
The remedy, not a satisfactory one, is that, like most bad people, you nail them when they do something bad. Cops too.
Encinia is likely to be fired unless his union, assuming there is one, puts him back on the job.
Want to talk about police unions?
Then what the hell do you intend to do about it? As a lawyer, as a voter, as a citizen, do you have any responsibility besides mentioning it on ObWi?
And if you had the power to do anything, what would it be? Put him “on desk duty”?
I exposed it in open court, in front of a judge and jury. The jury didn’t buy it because it was a fairly subtle point lost in the larger picture that my client was above the legal limit at 7 a.m. when he crossed the middle line and killed a very nice lady. Still, the DPS trooper planted alcohol on the scene.
Parenthetically, it was a civil suit for monetary damages. My client went to prison on a plea after the civil trial.
I’d put the trooper in prison for tampering with evidence.
Lock up people on a whim and yes, you are responsible for what happens to them in jail.
Ok, write that into law and watch the police over-correct in the other direction. When women and children are murdered at an even higher rate because the grounds to arrest the murdering piece of shit are unclear, we will have a different discussion.
The remedy, not a satisfactory one, is that, like most bad people, you nail them when they do something bad. Cops too.
Encinia is likely to be fired unless his union, assuming there is one, puts him back on the job.
Want to talk about police unions?
Why weren’t these guys available to protect Sandra Bland?
http://wonkette.com/591956/military-recruiters-not-thrilled-with-militia-protecting-them-by-accidentally-shooting-stuff
The guy at the end of the article with the citations for shooting off his gunmouth in public, I expect, believes shooting his weapon at will in public, into the air, at a chicken, at cars, at liberals, not merely possessing and carrying it, is protected by the Second Amendment AND should probably be protected speech under the First Amendment.
I’ll bet I can get five Supreme Court justices within the next five years, particularly if the violent, murderous GOP takes the White House and maintain its hold on Congress and appoints a couple more insane sociopaths to the Court, to agree with both of those stipulations.
Why weren’t these guys available to protect Sandra Bland?
http://wonkette.com/591956/military-recruiters-not-thrilled-with-militia-protecting-them-by-accidentally-shooting-stuff
The guy at the end of the article with the citations for shooting off his gunmouth in public, I expect, believes shooting his weapon at will in public, into the air, at a chicken, at cars, at liberals, not merely possessing and carrying it, is protected by the Second Amendment AND should probably be protected speech under the First Amendment.
I’ll bet I can get five Supreme Court justices within the next five years, particularly if the violent, murderous GOP takes the White House and maintain its hold on Congress and appoints a couple more insane sociopaths to the Court, to agree with both of those stipulations.
Why weren’t these guys available to protect Sandra Bland?
http://wonkette.com/591956/military-recruiters-not-thrilled-with-militia-protecting-them-by-accidentally-shooting-stuff
The guy at the end of the article with the citations for shooting off his gunmouth in public, I expect, believes shooting his weapon at will in public, into the air, at a chicken, at cars, at liberals, not merely possessing and carrying it, is protected by the Second Amendment AND should probably be protected speech under the First Amendment.
I’ll bet I can get five Supreme Court justices within the next five years, particularly if the violent, murderous GOP takes the White House and maintain its hold on Congress and appoints a couple more insane sociopaths to the Court, to agree with both of those stipulations.
Something ate my comment (the dog?). Let’s try again.
I’m not convinced it is a hard job
I imagine how hard of “a job” “it” is depends on where you work and in what specific position, which is what the scare quotes are for – to note that being a cop isn’t the same for everyone who can be called one.
I’d also imagine that, no matter where you might work as a cop, if you have to, say, show up at the home of a 16-year-old who just died of an overdose and discuss the details with the kid’s parents, who are total strangers to you, that might readily be categorized as being hard.
Responding to a call and finding severely abused, very young children would probably be a difficult thing.
Seeing a decapitated body at the scene of an automobile accident is likely hard.
Wrestling a violent, mentally disturbed person who has just wet and soiled himself probably isn’t the most pleasant experience.
You’re far more likely to see and end up involved in some of the worst crap that happens among humans if you’re a cop. That Trooper Encinia is a total fnckwad doesn’t change that.
Something ate my comment (the dog?). Let’s try again.
I’m not convinced it is a hard job
I imagine how hard of “a job” “it” is depends on where you work and in what specific position, which is what the scare quotes are for – to note that being a cop isn’t the same for everyone who can be called one.
I’d also imagine that, no matter where you might work as a cop, if you have to, say, show up at the home of a 16-year-old who just died of an overdose and discuss the details with the kid’s parents, who are total strangers to you, that might readily be categorized as being hard.
Responding to a call and finding severely abused, very young children would probably be a difficult thing.
Seeing a decapitated body at the scene of an automobile accident is likely hard.
Wrestling a violent, mentally disturbed person who has just wet and soiled himself probably isn’t the most pleasant experience.
You’re far more likely to see and end up involved in some of the worst crap that happens among humans if you’re a cop. That Trooper Encinia is a total fnckwad doesn’t change that.
Something ate my comment (the dog?). Let’s try again.
I’m not convinced it is a hard job
I imagine how hard of “a job” “it” is depends on where you work and in what specific position, which is what the scare quotes are for – to note that being a cop isn’t the same for everyone who can be called one.
I’d also imagine that, no matter where you might work as a cop, if you have to, say, show up at the home of a 16-year-old who just died of an overdose and discuss the details with the kid’s parents, who are total strangers to you, that might readily be categorized as being hard.
Responding to a call and finding severely abused, very young children would probably be a difficult thing.
Seeing a decapitated body at the scene of an automobile accident is likely hard.
Wrestling a violent, mentally disturbed person who has just wet and soiled himself probably isn’t the most pleasant experience.
You’re far more likely to see and end up involved in some of the worst crap that happens among humans if you’re a cop. That Trooper Encinia is a total fnckwad doesn’t change that.
There are many hard jobs. People “generally don’t like interacting with” cancer doctors or tax auditors; special-ed teachers and social workers “probably see more examples of the negative aspects of humanity than most”; and those jobs have the additional frustration that you generally don’t get to tase people or shoot them when they don’t kiss your ass.
Enough already with the sympathy for armed civil servants. The good, conscientious ones among them deserve good pay, generous pensions, and a modicum of respect in proportion to the respect they show for the rest of us. They do NOT deserve to think of themselves as a class apart from and above the populace — unless the populace keeps exalting them to that status.
–TP
There are many hard jobs. People “generally don’t like interacting with” cancer doctors or tax auditors; special-ed teachers and social workers “probably see more examples of the negative aspects of humanity than most”; and those jobs have the additional frustration that you generally don’t get to tase people or shoot them when they don’t kiss your ass.
Enough already with the sympathy for armed civil servants. The good, conscientious ones among them deserve good pay, generous pensions, and a modicum of respect in proportion to the respect they show for the rest of us. They do NOT deserve to think of themselves as a class apart from and above the populace — unless the populace keeps exalting them to that status.
–TP
There are many hard jobs. People “generally don’t like interacting with” cancer doctors or tax auditors; special-ed teachers and social workers “probably see more examples of the negative aspects of humanity than most”; and those jobs have the additional frustration that you generally don’t get to tase people or shoot them when they don’t kiss your ass.
Enough already with the sympathy for armed civil servants. The good, conscientious ones among them deserve good pay, generous pensions, and a modicum of respect in proportion to the respect they show for the rest of us. They do NOT deserve to think of themselves as a class apart from and above the populace — unless the populace keeps exalting them to that status.
–TP
“Want to talk about police unions?”
Yes.
I believe they should stick to securing salaries, benefits, and working conditions for employees, including cops, but stop protecting abusive murderous cops.
Autoworkers, service employees, and plenty of other represented workers aren’t protected by their unions if they kill someone on the auto assembly lines or while serving them cheeseburgers.
There needs to be a complete restructuring of training for law enforcement as well. What do these people THINK they are doing in these jobs if not protecting and serving citizens like Sandra Bland, instead of routinely brutalizing them.
They need extensive psychological, racial, and yes, political screening, because I guarantee you that the great majority of abusive, machismo cops in this country are not voting for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders.
They are jacking off to Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Rick Perry and the rest of the armed violence-mongers spewing their crack hate directly into the central arteries of this macho, hateful culture bred and fed with the mother’s milk of rhetorical hate these many decades by the Republican Party.
I also want the citizenry and law enforcement completely disarmed while going about their jobs and their daily lives. Law enforcement can keep their weapons under lock and key in an armory and the citizenry can do the same.
As a show of good faith, I appoint McKinneyTexas to be in charge of law enforcement and citizen armories across the country.
If he says its OK to shoot crows on a Thursday, fine by me, but you take the gun home with you, you’ll do time. If he makes an exception for beat and traffic cops to carry a weapon because of some exception circumstance, go get it, but if you even come close to using that weapon, or your MACE, or your truncheon without justification beyond a shadow of a doubt, you will do time.
We’ll see how that goes, and then maybe I’ll further appoint McKT to inspect all nuclear weapons programs and sites around the globe.
“Want to talk about police unions?”
Yes.
I believe they should stick to securing salaries, benefits, and working conditions for employees, including cops, but stop protecting abusive murderous cops.
Autoworkers, service employees, and plenty of other represented workers aren’t protected by their unions if they kill someone on the auto assembly lines or while serving them cheeseburgers.
There needs to be a complete restructuring of training for law enforcement as well. What do these people THINK they are doing in these jobs if not protecting and serving citizens like Sandra Bland, instead of routinely brutalizing them.
They need extensive psychological, racial, and yes, political screening, because I guarantee you that the great majority of abusive, machismo cops in this country are not voting for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders.
They are jacking off to Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Rick Perry and the rest of the armed violence-mongers spewing their crack hate directly into the central arteries of this macho, hateful culture bred and fed with the mother’s milk of rhetorical hate these many decades by the Republican Party.
I also want the citizenry and law enforcement completely disarmed while going about their jobs and their daily lives. Law enforcement can keep their weapons under lock and key in an armory and the citizenry can do the same.
As a show of good faith, I appoint McKinneyTexas to be in charge of law enforcement and citizen armories across the country.
If he says its OK to shoot crows on a Thursday, fine by me, but you take the gun home with you, you’ll do time. If he makes an exception for beat and traffic cops to carry a weapon because of some exception circumstance, go get it, but if you even come close to using that weapon, or your MACE, or your truncheon without justification beyond a shadow of a doubt, you will do time.
We’ll see how that goes, and then maybe I’ll further appoint McKT to inspect all nuclear weapons programs and sites around the globe.
“Want to talk about police unions?”
Yes.
I believe they should stick to securing salaries, benefits, and working conditions for employees, including cops, but stop protecting abusive murderous cops.
Autoworkers, service employees, and plenty of other represented workers aren’t protected by their unions if they kill someone on the auto assembly lines or while serving them cheeseburgers.
There needs to be a complete restructuring of training for law enforcement as well. What do these people THINK they are doing in these jobs if not protecting and serving citizens like Sandra Bland, instead of routinely brutalizing them.
They need extensive psychological, racial, and yes, political screening, because I guarantee you that the great majority of abusive, machismo cops in this country are not voting for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders.
They are jacking off to Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Rick Perry and the rest of the armed violence-mongers spewing their crack hate directly into the central arteries of this macho, hateful culture bred and fed with the mother’s milk of rhetorical hate these many decades by the Republican Party.
I also want the citizenry and law enforcement completely disarmed while going about their jobs and their daily lives. Law enforcement can keep their weapons under lock and key in an armory and the citizenry can do the same.
As a show of good faith, I appoint McKinneyTexas to be in charge of law enforcement and citizen armories across the country.
If he says its OK to shoot crows on a Thursday, fine by me, but you take the gun home with you, you’ll do time. If he makes an exception for beat and traffic cops to carry a weapon because of some exception circumstance, go get it, but if you even come close to using that weapon, or your MACE, or your truncheon without justification beyond a shadow of a doubt, you will do time.
We’ll see how that goes, and then maybe I’ll further appoint McKT to inspect all nuclear weapons programs and sites around the globe.
McKinney,
Good on you for doing what you could w.r.t. that bad cop.
As for police unions, it’s regrettable IMO that they get more deference from proud union busters like Scott Walker than teachers’ unions do. We can discuss why that might be, sometime.
Just for curiosity: if Encinia gets busted down to civilian, is there anything in Texas law that would keep him from owning a gun in the future?
–TP
McKinney,
Good on you for doing what you could w.r.t. that bad cop.
As for police unions, it’s regrettable IMO that they get more deference from proud union busters like Scott Walker than teachers’ unions do. We can discuss why that might be, sometime.
Just for curiosity: if Encinia gets busted down to civilian, is there anything in Texas law that would keep him from owning a gun in the future?
–TP
McKinney,
Good on you for doing what you could w.r.t. that bad cop.
As for police unions, it’s regrettable IMO that they get more deference from proud union busters like Scott Walker than teachers’ unions do. We can discuss why that might be, sometime.
Just for curiosity: if Encinia gets busted down to civilian, is there anything in Texas law that would keep him from owning a gun in the future?
–TP
There are many hard jobs.
True! (Did someone say otherwise?)
They do NOT deserve to think of themselves as a class apart from and above the populace
Also true, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a hard job, in certain respects.
There are many hard jobs.
True! (Did someone say otherwise?)
They do NOT deserve to think of themselves as a class apart from and above the populace
Also true, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a hard job, in certain respects.
There are many hard jobs.
True! (Did someone say otherwise?)
They do NOT deserve to think of themselves as a class apart from and above the populace
Also true, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a hard job, in certain respects.
The title “Peace Officer” should replace the titles Law Enforcement Officer, Police Officer, and most of all, Trooper.
You wanna troop, join the Marines.
Or go to the movies.
As for Ann Coulter, does she get torn to bits and eaten during her cameo as Madame Vice President in Sharknado III?
Or does she eat the sharks?
The title “Peace Officer” should replace the titles Law Enforcement Officer, Police Officer, and most of all, Trooper.
You wanna troop, join the Marines.
Or go to the movies.
As for Ann Coulter, does she get torn to bits and eaten during her cameo as Madame Vice President in Sharknado III?
Or does she eat the sharks?
The title “Peace Officer” should replace the titles Law Enforcement Officer, Police Officer, and most of all, Trooper.
You wanna troop, join the Marines.
Or go to the movies.
As for Ann Coulter, does she get torn to bits and eaten during her cameo as Madame Vice President in Sharknado III?
Or does she eat the sharks?
i believe TX law requires that he be given one new gun for every year served, and as much ammo as he can hold in his garage.
i believe TX law requires that he be given one new gun for every year served, and as much ammo as he can hold in his garage.
i believe TX law requires that he be given one new gun for every year served, and as much ammo as he can hold in his garage.
McK,
Ok, write that into law and watch the police over-correct in the other direction. When women and children are murdered at an even higher rate because the grounds to arrest the murdering piece of shit are unclear, we will have a different discussion.
This is a cop-out, so to speak. There are gray areas, no doubt, but this wasn’t close. Bland was no threat to Encinia. Not even Encinia claims that she was doing anything threatening, or that he had reason to believe she had drugs, or whatever.
She was unhappy over getting a ticket. Well, most people are, even when they know they deserve it. Instead of reacting to as he did to what he considered disrespectful behavior he should have ignored it, written the ticket or warning, and gone on. And troopers ought to be trained to do that, rather than swaggering around to show who’s boss.
The remedy, not a satisfactory one, is that, like most bad people, you nail them when they do something bad. Cops too.
What do you propose? How about a weekend in jail, for starters?
McK,
Ok, write that into law and watch the police over-correct in the other direction. When women and children are murdered at an even higher rate because the grounds to arrest the murdering piece of shit are unclear, we will have a different discussion.
This is a cop-out, so to speak. There are gray areas, no doubt, but this wasn’t close. Bland was no threat to Encinia. Not even Encinia claims that she was doing anything threatening, or that he had reason to believe she had drugs, or whatever.
She was unhappy over getting a ticket. Well, most people are, even when they know they deserve it. Instead of reacting to as he did to what he considered disrespectful behavior he should have ignored it, written the ticket or warning, and gone on. And troopers ought to be trained to do that, rather than swaggering around to show who’s boss.
The remedy, not a satisfactory one, is that, like most bad people, you nail them when they do something bad. Cops too.
What do you propose? How about a weekend in jail, for starters?
McK,
Ok, write that into law and watch the police over-correct in the other direction. When women and children are murdered at an even higher rate because the grounds to arrest the murdering piece of shit are unclear, we will have a different discussion.
This is a cop-out, so to speak. There are gray areas, no doubt, but this wasn’t close. Bland was no threat to Encinia. Not even Encinia claims that she was doing anything threatening, or that he had reason to believe she had drugs, or whatever.
She was unhappy over getting a ticket. Well, most people are, even when they know they deserve it. Instead of reacting to as he did to what he considered disrespectful behavior he should have ignored it, written the ticket or warning, and gone on. And troopers ought to be trained to do that, rather than swaggering around to show who’s boss.
The remedy, not a satisfactory one, is that, like most bad people, you nail them when they do something bad. Cops too.
What do you propose? How about a weekend in jail, for starters?
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki:
“I, too, wish that there were more people making use of their “person driving is NOT an idiot” lights, AKA, turn signals. But it seems that I’m to be disappointed, again and again.
Back on the subject, this whole incident stinks on ice; good cops, making a legal arrest, don’t need to doctor the dashcam video.”
From what I could tell from the first (i.e., doctored) video, it was a clear case of somebody getting the f*ck out of the way of a police car zooming up behind them at high speed.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki:
“I, too, wish that there were more people making use of their “person driving is NOT an idiot” lights, AKA, turn signals. But it seems that I’m to be disappointed, again and again.
Back on the subject, this whole incident stinks on ice; good cops, making a legal arrest, don’t need to doctor the dashcam video.”
From what I could tell from the first (i.e., doctored) video, it was a clear case of somebody getting the f*ck out of the way of a police car zooming up behind them at high speed.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki:
“I, too, wish that there were more people making use of their “person driving is NOT an idiot” lights, AKA, turn signals. But it seems that I’m to be disappointed, again and again.
Back on the subject, this whole incident stinks on ice; good cops, making a legal arrest, don’t need to doctor the dashcam video.”
From what I could tell from the first (i.e., doctored) video, it was a clear case of somebody getting the f*ck out of the way of a police car zooming up behind them at high speed.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas: “It looks like suicide and it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.”
First, you are now defending the police.
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas: “It looks like suicide and it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.”
First, you are now defending the police.
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas: “It looks like suicide and it looks like Ms. Bland may have been prone to suicide.”
First, you are now defending the police.
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.
To be fair, cleek, Trooper Encinia will have to wait five years after his conviction to once again exercise his weapons fever.
This, of course, violates the common sense, common law fundamental of “once an asshole, always an asshole”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas
However, like a rapist, I think he should be required to be castrated and undergo severe testosterone deprivation therapy to remove his macho impulse to dominate and abuse the weak.
Then he can stay home and fondle his breasts in the garage instead of his weapons.
To be fair, cleek, Trooper Encinia will have to wait five years after his conviction to once again exercise his weapons fever.
This, of course, violates the common sense, common law fundamental of “once an asshole, always an asshole”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas
However, like a rapist, I think he should be required to be castrated and undergo severe testosterone deprivation therapy to remove his macho impulse to dominate and abuse the weak.
Then he can stay home and fondle his breasts in the garage instead of his weapons.
To be fair, cleek, Trooper Encinia will have to wait five years after his conviction to once again exercise his weapons fever.
This, of course, violates the common sense, common law fundamental of “once an asshole, always an asshole”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas
However, like a rapist, I think he should be required to be castrated and undergo severe testosterone deprivation therapy to remove his macho impulse to dominate and abuse the weak.
Then he can stay home and fondle his breasts in the garage instead of his weapons.
I want to second HSH’s 10:47 and 11:25.
And I want to disagree strongly with this:
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.
Absolutely not. The presumption of innocence is of critical importance in our justice system. Just because someone works for the government DOES NOT mean that standard should be relaxed.
I want to second HSH’s 10:47 and 11:25.
And I want to disagree strongly with this:
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.
Absolutely not. The presumption of innocence is of critical importance in our justice system. Just because someone works for the government DOES NOT mean that standard should be relaxed.
I want to second HSH’s 10:47 and 11:25.
And I want to disagree strongly with this:
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.
Absolutely not. The presumption of innocence is of critical importance in our justice system. Just because someone works for the government DOES NOT mean that standard should be relaxed.
I would prefer that charge to be placed on the cop if they no-show. Possibly along with a contempt of court charge.
Seriously: if you write a legitimate ticket, you should have to defend it in court. If that means you write fewer capricious citations, all to the good. Quit screwing with people just because you can. There should be repercussions for doing that, and cops that want to keep their profession cleaned up should support that, as well as a number of other (mostly unrelated to this topic) things that are IMO salutary for the rehabilitation of our police force.
I pretty much agree with the consensus opinion regarding Bland’s treatment, and don’t have anything new to add in that area.
I would, however, want there to be more coverage in the dashcam, along with some strictures against removing people from the field of regard of the camera. She was off-camera for a LONG time.
I would prefer that charge to be placed on the cop if they no-show. Possibly along with a contempt of court charge.
Seriously: if you write a legitimate ticket, you should have to defend it in court. If that means you write fewer capricious citations, all to the good. Quit screwing with people just because you can. There should be repercussions for doing that, and cops that want to keep their profession cleaned up should support that, as well as a number of other (mostly unrelated to this topic) things that are IMO salutary for the rehabilitation of our police force.
I pretty much agree with the consensus opinion regarding Bland’s treatment, and don’t have anything new to add in that area.
I would, however, want there to be more coverage in the dashcam, along with some strictures against removing people from the field of regard of the camera. She was off-camera for a LONG time.
I would prefer that charge to be placed on the cop if they no-show. Possibly along with a contempt of court charge.
Seriously: if you write a legitimate ticket, you should have to defend it in court. If that means you write fewer capricious citations, all to the good. Quit screwing with people just because you can. There should be repercussions for doing that, and cops that want to keep their profession cleaned up should support that, as well as a number of other (mostly unrelated to this topic) things that are IMO salutary for the rehabilitation of our police force.
I pretty much agree with the consensus opinion regarding Bland’s treatment, and don’t have anything new to add in that area.
I would, however, want there to be more coverage in the dashcam, along with some strictures against removing people from the field of regard of the camera. She was off-camera for a LONG time.
“prone to suicide” makes me think she’s committed suicide before, on more than one occasion.
Which…just…no.
“prone to suicide” makes me think she’s committed suicide before, on more than one occasion.
Which…just…no.
“prone to suicide” makes me think she’s committed suicide before, on more than one occasion.
Which…just…no.
Just for curiosity: if Encinia gets busted down to civilian, is there anything in Texas law that would keep him from owning a gun in the future?
Not that I am aware of, and I am pretty sure if he gets booted, that he would still be eligible for hire as a peace officer in Texas.
I’ve seen worse examples of cops getting fired for worse and getting rehired by other agencies.
This is a cop-out, so to speak. There are gray areas, no doubt, but this wasn’t close. Bland was no threat to Encinia. Not even Encinia claims that she was doing anything threatening, or that he had reason to believe she had drugs, or whatever.
If I thought it was a cop out, I wouldn’t have written it. I agree this wasn’t a gray area, but the WaPo refers to a Reddit thing with a lot of peace officers commenting. The police take is interesting even if it seems clear to me that Encinia was stupid for forcing Ms. Bland out of her car. He claims she kicked him. In cop land, that gets you a ride downtown, period full stop. I think Encinia is either lying or blowing inadvertent contact all out of proportion, but my mind-reading isn’t dispositive.
Paranoia is an occupational hazard of being a cop. Encinia will be fired, hopefully, but if we are going to hold officers liable for what happens in jail to people they erroneously arrest, the smart play for cops is to err on the side of not being held liable. You will get a different variety of tragedy from that program.
What do you propose? How about a weekend in jail, for starters?
In this case, fire him. Arresting her wasn’t a crime and holding him liable for the errors, if any, of the Waller County jailers is a bridge too far and Ms. Bland’s depression.
First, you are now defending the police.
I don’t think so. I am, acting in my divinely-appointed role of “voice of reason”, arguing *for* perspective and *against* overreaction.
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities
The reason for autopsies in cases like this is precisely to rule out homicide. Whether you *consider it to be murder* or investigate to *rule out foul play* is semantics.
I believe they should stick to securing salaries, benefits, and working conditions for employees, including cops, but stop protecting abusive murderous cops.
With respect, it is precisely when a cop is in a jam that he/she needs his union. Plenty of allegations of abuse are unfounded. Here, the cop was abusive, not particularly violent and certainly not murderous. But for Ms. Bland’s death, this would not be news, even if the video were available.
Autoworkers, service employees, and plenty of other represented workers aren’t protected by their unions if they kill someone on the auto assembly lines or while serving them cheeseburgers.
Again, with respect, getting a union employee fired for a safety violation *can be* difficult, depending on the union. I’ve seen some union/management partnering well on work place safety and I’ve seen union enabling persistent unsafe practices and blaming management for inadequate training. Generally, the more sophisticated the craft, the better the union is on safety.
Just for curiosity: if Encinia gets busted down to civilian, is there anything in Texas law that would keep him from owning a gun in the future?
Not that I am aware of, and I am pretty sure if he gets booted, that he would still be eligible for hire as a peace officer in Texas.
I’ve seen worse examples of cops getting fired for worse and getting rehired by other agencies.
This is a cop-out, so to speak. There are gray areas, no doubt, but this wasn’t close. Bland was no threat to Encinia. Not even Encinia claims that she was doing anything threatening, or that he had reason to believe she had drugs, or whatever.
If I thought it was a cop out, I wouldn’t have written it. I agree this wasn’t a gray area, but the WaPo refers to a Reddit thing with a lot of peace officers commenting. The police take is interesting even if it seems clear to me that Encinia was stupid for forcing Ms. Bland out of her car. He claims she kicked him. In cop land, that gets you a ride downtown, period full stop. I think Encinia is either lying or blowing inadvertent contact all out of proportion, but my mind-reading isn’t dispositive.
Paranoia is an occupational hazard of being a cop. Encinia will be fired, hopefully, but if we are going to hold officers liable for what happens in jail to people they erroneously arrest, the smart play for cops is to err on the side of not being held liable. You will get a different variety of tragedy from that program.
What do you propose? How about a weekend in jail, for starters?
In this case, fire him. Arresting her wasn’t a crime and holding him liable for the errors, if any, of the Waller County jailers is a bridge too far and Ms. Bland’s depression.
First, you are now defending the police.
I don’t think so. I am, acting in my divinely-appointed role of “voice of reason”, arguing *for* perspective and *against* overreaction.
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities
The reason for autopsies in cases like this is precisely to rule out homicide. Whether you *consider it to be murder* or investigate to *rule out foul play* is semantics.
I believe they should stick to securing salaries, benefits, and working conditions for employees, including cops, but stop protecting abusive murderous cops.
With respect, it is precisely when a cop is in a jam that he/she needs his union. Plenty of allegations of abuse are unfounded. Here, the cop was abusive, not particularly violent and certainly not murderous. But for Ms. Bland’s death, this would not be news, even if the video were available.
Autoworkers, service employees, and plenty of other represented workers aren’t protected by their unions if they kill someone on the auto assembly lines or while serving them cheeseburgers.
Again, with respect, getting a union employee fired for a safety violation *can be* difficult, depending on the union. I’ve seen some union/management partnering well on work place safety and I’ve seen union enabling persistent unsafe practices and blaming management for inadequate training. Generally, the more sophisticated the craft, the better the union is on safety.
Just for curiosity: if Encinia gets busted down to civilian, is there anything in Texas law that would keep him from owning a gun in the future?
Not that I am aware of, and I am pretty sure if he gets booted, that he would still be eligible for hire as a peace officer in Texas.
I’ve seen worse examples of cops getting fired for worse and getting rehired by other agencies.
This is a cop-out, so to speak. There are gray areas, no doubt, but this wasn’t close. Bland was no threat to Encinia. Not even Encinia claims that she was doing anything threatening, or that he had reason to believe she had drugs, or whatever.
If I thought it was a cop out, I wouldn’t have written it. I agree this wasn’t a gray area, but the WaPo refers to a Reddit thing with a lot of peace officers commenting. The police take is interesting even if it seems clear to me that Encinia was stupid for forcing Ms. Bland out of her car. He claims she kicked him. In cop land, that gets you a ride downtown, period full stop. I think Encinia is either lying or blowing inadvertent contact all out of proportion, but my mind-reading isn’t dispositive.
Paranoia is an occupational hazard of being a cop. Encinia will be fired, hopefully, but if we are going to hold officers liable for what happens in jail to people they erroneously arrest, the smart play for cops is to err on the side of not being held liable. You will get a different variety of tragedy from that program.
What do you propose? How about a weekend in jail, for starters?
In this case, fire him. Arresting her wasn’t a crime and holding him liable for the errors, if any, of the Waller County jailers is a bridge too far and Ms. Bland’s depression.
First, you are now defending the police.
I don’t think so. I am, acting in my divinely-appointed role of “voice of reason”, arguing *for* perspective and *against* overreaction.
Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities
The reason for autopsies in cases like this is precisely to rule out homicide. Whether you *consider it to be murder* or investigate to *rule out foul play* is semantics.
I believe they should stick to securing salaries, benefits, and working conditions for employees, including cops, but stop protecting abusive murderous cops.
With respect, it is precisely when a cop is in a jam that he/she needs his union. Plenty of allegations of abuse are unfounded. Here, the cop was abusive, not particularly violent and certainly not murderous. But for Ms. Bland’s death, this would not be news, even if the video were available.
Autoworkers, service employees, and plenty of other represented workers aren’t protected by their unions if they kill someone on the auto assembly lines or while serving them cheeseburgers.
Again, with respect, getting a union employee fired for a safety violation *can be* difficult, depending on the union. I’ve seen some union/management partnering well on work place safety and I’ve seen union enabling persistent unsafe practices and blaming management for inadequate training. Generally, the more sophisticated the craft, the better the union is on safety.
McTX: But for Ms. Bland’s death, this would not be news, even if the video were available.
You really think so? You might be right.
Just as I might be right to say this: had the cop been black, the driver a cute blonde, the incident gone down the exact same way, and the woman merely spent an uncomfortable weekend in jail, the video would have gone triple platinum.
–TP
McTX: But for Ms. Bland’s death, this would not be news, even if the video were available.
You really think so? You might be right.
Just as I might be right to say this: had the cop been black, the driver a cute blonde, the incident gone down the exact same way, and the woman merely spent an uncomfortable weekend in jail, the video would have gone triple platinum.
–TP
McTX: But for Ms. Bland’s death, this would not be news, even if the video were available.
You really think so? You might be right.
Just as I might be right to say this: had the cop been black, the driver a cute blonde, the incident gone down the exact same way, and the woman merely spent an uncomfortable weekend in jail, the video would have gone triple platinum.
–TP
Tony P:
had the cop been black, the driver a cute blonde, the incident gone down the exact same way, and the woman merely spent an uncomfortable weekend in jail, the video would have gone triple platinum.
I think that projection is inconsistent with Matt’s link upstream:
As it turned out, the total population of people who were committing suicide in jails at that time wasn’t predominantly African American. It was actually disproportionately white. The race angle was largely the result of media outlets looking for and highlighting those cases.
While not the same situation, obviously, as no one died in your hypo, I think its suggests your case would be unlikely to go ‘triple platinum’. If people weren’t paying attention to white suicides in jail, as Balko notes, why would they pay attention to a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend?
Note, none of that should be construed to suggest their isn’t systemic bias in our justice system. Just that I find your hypo unlikely.
Tony P:
had the cop been black, the driver a cute blonde, the incident gone down the exact same way, and the woman merely spent an uncomfortable weekend in jail, the video would have gone triple platinum.
I think that projection is inconsistent with Matt’s link upstream:
As it turned out, the total population of people who were committing suicide in jails at that time wasn’t predominantly African American. It was actually disproportionately white. The race angle was largely the result of media outlets looking for and highlighting those cases.
While not the same situation, obviously, as no one died in your hypo, I think its suggests your case would be unlikely to go ‘triple platinum’. If people weren’t paying attention to white suicides in jail, as Balko notes, why would they pay attention to a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend?
Note, none of that should be construed to suggest their isn’t systemic bias in our justice system. Just that I find your hypo unlikely.
Tony P:
had the cop been black, the driver a cute blonde, the incident gone down the exact same way, and the woman merely spent an uncomfortable weekend in jail, the video would have gone triple platinum.
I think that projection is inconsistent with Matt’s link upstream:
As it turned out, the total population of people who were committing suicide in jails at that time wasn’t predominantly African American. It was actually disproportionately white. The race angle was largely the result of media outlets looking for and highlighting those cases.
While not the same situation, obviously, as no one died in your hypo, I think its suggests your case would be unlikely to go ‘triple platinum’. If people weren’t paying attention to white suicides in jail, as Balko notes, why would they pay attention to a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend?
Note, none of that should be construed to suggest their isn’t systemic bias in our justice system. Just that I find your hypo unlikely.
thompson: … why would they pay attention to a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend?
Because the video would not be of a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend. That would make it to MSNBC’s weekend line-up at best. But video of a black cop being an asshole to a white woman? Fox would be running it on a continuous loop in prime time.
Oh sure, there would be lots of people dismissing the whole thing as much ado about nothing because, hey, nobody got killed, and policing is a hard job, and at most all it shows is one bad apple in the otherwise sweet-smelling barrow-load that is American law enforcement, so what’s the big whoop?
Besides, driving is a privilege not a right, as we all know, so neither you nor I nor women of any color have actual rights when we’re behind the wheel and a cop pulls us over. Smile at the cop and say “thank you sir, may I have another?” and you’ll be fine.
–TP
thompson: … why would they pay attention to a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend?
Because the video would not be of a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend. That would make it to MSNBC’s weekend line-up at best. But video of a black cop being an asshole to a white woman? Fox would be running it on a continuous loop in prime time.
Oh sure, there would be lots of people dismissing the whole thing as much ado about nothing because, hey, nobody got killed, and policing is a hard job, and at most all it shows is one bad apple in the otherwise sweet-smelling barrow-load that is American law enforcement, so what’s the big whoop?
Besides, driving is a privilege not a right, as we all know, so neither you nor I nor women of any color have actual rights when we’re behind the wheel and a cop pulls us over. Smile at the cop and say “thank you sir, may I have another?” and you’ll be fine.
–TP
thompson: … why would they pay attention to a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend?
Because the video would not be of a blonde cooling her heels in jail over a weekend. That would make it to MSNBC’s weekend line-up at best. But video of a black cop being an asshole to a white woman? Fox would be running it on a continuous loop in prime time.
Oh sure, there would be lots of people dismissing the whole thing as much ado about nothing because, hey, nobody got killed, and policing is a hard job, and at most all it shows is one bad apple in the otherwise sweet-smelling barrow-load that is American law enforcement, so what’s the big whoop?
Besides, driving is a privilege not a right, as we all know, so neither you nor I nor women of any color have actual rights when we’re behind the wheel and a cop pulls us over. Smile at the cop and say “thank you sir, may I have another?” and you’ll be fine.
–TP
And that, right there, is a statement filled with sad resignation.
And that, right there, is a statement filled with sad resignation.
And that, right there, is a statement filled with sad resignation.
But video of a black cop being an asshole to a white woman? Fox would be running it on a continuous loop in prime time.
Then you no doubt remember the continuous looping during prime time of this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/miami-cop-punches-model_n_7216074.html
But video of a black cop being an asshole to a white woman? Fox would be running it on a continuous loop in prime time.
Then you no doubt remember the continuous looping during prime time of this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/miami-cop-punches-model_n_7216074.html
But video of a black cop being an asshole to a white woman? Fox would be running it on a continuous loop in prime time.
Then you no doubt remember the continuous looping during prime time of this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/05/miami-cop-punches-model_n_7216074.html
Besides, driving is a privilege not a right, as we all know, so neither you nor I nor women of any color have actual rights when we’re behind the wheel and a cop pulls us over. Smile at the cop and say “thank you sir, may I have another?” and you’ll be fine.
Police may lawfully require anyone in a car to get out. Failure to do so is, in Texas, and in most other jurisdictions, a crime.
The vast majority of police stops don’t escalate and in most instances that I’ve seen in passing by, the driver and other occupants remain in the car.
But, if the officer says ‘get out’, out you get. Putting up a fight with an officer looking for a pretext plays right into his/her hands.
Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. There are good reasons for the rule.
Besides, driving is a privilege not a right, as we all know, so neither you nor I nor women of any color have actual rights when we’re behind the wheel and a cop pulls us over. Smile at the cop and say “thank you sir, may I have another?” and you’ll be fine.
Police may lawfully require anyone in a car to get out. Failure to do so is, in Texas, and in most other jurisdictions, a crime.
The vast majority of police stops don’t escalate and in most instances that I’ve seen in passing by, the driver and other occupants remain in the car.
But, if the officer says ‘get out’, out you get. Putting up a fight with an officer looking for a pretext plays right into his/her hands.
Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. There are good reasons for the rule.
Besides, driving is a privilege not a right, as we all know, so neither you nor I nor women of any color have actual rights when we’re behind the wheel and a cop pulls us over. Smile at the cop and say “thank you sir, may I have another?” and you’ll be fine.
Police may lawfully require anyone in a car to get out. Failure to do so is, in Texas, and in most other jurisdictions, a crime.
The vast majority of police stops don’t escalate and in most instances that I’ve seen in passing by, the driver and other occupants remain in the car.
But, if the officer says ‘get out’, out you get. Putting up a fight with an officer looking for a pretext plays right into his/her hands.
Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. There are good reasons for the rule.
Thompson, good one.
Should that officer have been fired?
Looked like a bit of an over-reaction to me. Particularly the kick, although the punch was a pretty nasty bit of work.
Thompson, good one.
Should that officer have been fired?
Looked like a bit of an over-reaction to me. Particularly the kick, although the punch was a pretty nasty bit of work.
Thompson, good one.
Should that officer have been fired?
Looked like a bit of an over-reaction to me. Particularly the kick, although the punch was a pretty nasty bit of work.
Looked like a bit of an over-reaction to me. Particularly the kick, although the punch was a pretty nasty bit of work.
The punch gave her a concussion. As a general rule, I think punching a handcuffed arrestee hard enough to concuss should be, bare minimum, a firing offense.
I’d probably like to see prosecution as well.
Looked like a bit of an over-reaction to me. Particularly the kick, although the punch was a pretty nasty bit of work.
The punch gave her a concussion. As a general rule, I think punching a handcuffed arrestee hard enough to concuss should be, bare minimum, a firing offense.
I’d probably like to see prosecution as well.
Looked like a bit of an over-reaction to me. Particularly the kick, although the punch was a pretty nasty bit of work.
The punch gave her a concussion. As a general rule, I think punching a handcuffed arrestee hard enough to concuss should be, bare minimum, a firing offense.
I’d probably like to see prosecution as well.
Police may lawfully require anyone in a car to get out. Failure to do so is, in Texas, and in most other jurisdictions, a crime.
…
Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. There are good reasons for the rule.
Officer safety? Anything else?
Police may lawfully require anyone in a car to get out. Failure to do so is, in Texas, and in most other jurisdictions, a crime.
…
Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. There are good reasons for the rule.
Officer safety? Anything else?
Police may lawfully require anyone in a car to get out. Failure to do so is, in Texas, and in most other jurisdictions, a crime.
…
Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. There are good reasons for the rule.
Officer safety? Anything else?
Sandra Bland: What we know about her mysterious death in a jail cell
Sandra Bland: What we know about her mysterious death in a jail cell
Sandra Bland: What we know about her mysterious death in a jail cell
I hope that Florida cop who slugged the handcuffed model was fired and prosecuted.
I also hope the model was prosecuted for kicking the cop AND using racist profanity toward the cop, if indeed that occurred, if only to incite conservative’s ire about politically correct language policing.
The police don’t like it either when you immediately get out of your car during a traffic stop and meet them halfway.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I’m told to jump, I like to be in a standing position first.
If a routine traffic stop is a declaration of martial law instead of an opportunity for some gentle driver education (unless it is obvious that the driver is overtly hostile and/or intoxicated), then we’re thinking about this in the entirely wrong way.
Two irresistible conditioning forces in America are set in motion during these confrontations. The American instinct since Tea Party times to resist authority and yell, “who do you think you are, lording it over me?”, and the opposite, mostly male American instinct, when wearing a military-style uniform, handcuffs, a truncheon, and a weapon, of expecting others to submit to domination, sometimes violently.
I suggest two laws. All drivers, male and female, must not wear pants while driving, and no police officers on traffic duty may wear pants either.
That way, traffic stops would devolve quickly into embarrassment, nervous laughter, and the motivation to get them over with as soon as possible.
Come to think of it, diplomatic negotiations between countries, votes in the House of Representatives, and press conferences should also be conducted sans pants.
I will note that the no pants rule in World Wide Wrestling doesn’t seem to diminish the violence, but they may be faking.
My personal experiences with traffic stops (half a dozen in nearly 50 years), all routine, except one that resulted in a DWAI for me, have been uniformly business-like and without confrontation, though the experience of being handcuffed and then stuffed into the back of a police cruiser to be transported to jail left me feeling somewhat manhandled (I’d have gone along without the cuffs, etc), but chastened, which I guess was the point.
However this:
“Putting up a fight with an officer looking for a pretext plays right into his/her hands.”
Officers with a pretext should be stripped of all pretexts in police training and trained to cool their heels and defuse situations.
I hope that Florida cop who slugged the handcuffed model was fired and prosecuted.
I also hope the model was prosecuted for kicking the cop AND using racist profanity toward the cop, if indeed that occurred, if only to incite conservative’s ire about politically correct language policing.
The police don’t like it either when you immediately get out of your car during a traffic stop and meet them halfway.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I’m told to jump, I like to be in a standing position first.
If a routine traffic stop is a declaration of martial law instead of an opportunity for some gentle driver education (unless it is obvious that the driver is overtly hostile and/or intoxicated), then we’re thinking about this in the entirely wrong way.
Two irresistible conditioning forces in America are set in motion during these confrontations. The American instinct since Tea Party times to resist authority and yell, “who do you think you are, lording it over me?”, and the opposite, mostly male American instinct, when wearing a military-style uniform, handcuffs, a truncheon, and a weapon, of expecting others to submit to domination, sometimes violently.
I suggest two laws. All drivers, male and female, must not wear pants while driving, and no police officers on traffic duty may wear pants either.
That way, traffic stops would devolve quickly into embarrassment, nervous laughter, and the motivation to get them over with as soon as possible.
Come to think of it, diplomatic negotiations between countries, votes in the House of Representatives, and press conferences should also be conducted sans pants.
I will note that the no pants rule in World Wide Wrestling doesn’t seem to diminish the violence, but they may be faking.
My personal experiences with traffic stops (half a dozen in nearly 50 years), all routine, except one that resulted in a DWAI for me, have been uniformly business-like and without confrontation, though the experience of being handcuffed and then stuffed into the back of a police cruiser to be transported to jail left me feeling somewhat manhandled (I’d have gone along without the cuffs, etc), but chastened, which I guess was the point.
However this:
“Putting up a fight with an officer looking for a pretext plays right into his/her hands.”
Officers with a pretext should be stripped of all pretexts in police training and trained to cool their heels and defuse situations.
I hope that Florida cop who slugged the handcuffed model was fired and prosecuted.
I also hope the model was prosecuted for kicking the cop AND using racist profanity toward the cop, if indeed that occurred, if only to incite conservative’s ire about politically correct language policing.
The police don’t like it either when you immediately get out of your car during a traffic stop and meet them halfway.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I’m told to jump, I like to be in a standing position first.
If a routine traffic stop is a declaration of martial law instead of an opportunity for some gentle driver education (unless it is obvious that the driver is overtly hostile and/or intoxicated), then we’re thinking about this in the entirely wrong way.
Two irresistible conditioning forces in America are set in motion during these confrontations. The American instinct since Tea Party times to resist authority and yell, “who do you think you are, lording it over me?”, and the opposite, mostly male American instinct, when wearing a military-style uniform, handcuffs, a truncheon, and a weapon, of expecting others to submit to domination, sometimes violently.
I suggest two laws. All drivers, male and female, must not wear pants while driving, and no police officers on traffic duty may wear pants either.
That way, traffic stops would devolve quickly into embarrassment, nervous laughter, and the motivation to get them over with as soon as possible.
Come to think of it, diplomatic negotiations between countries, votes in the House of Representatives, and press conferences should also be conducted sans pants.
I will note that the no pants rule in World Wide Wrestling doesn’t seem to diminish the violence, but they may be faking.
My personal experiences with traffic stops (half a dozen in nearly 50 years), all routine, except one that resulted in a DWAI for me, have been uniformly business-like and without confrontation, though the experience of being handcuffed and then stuffed into the back of a police cruiser to be transported to jail left me feeling somewhat manhandled (I’d have gone along without the cuffs, etc), but chastened, which I guess was the point.
However this:
“Putting up a fight with an officer looking for a pretext plays right into his/her hands.”
Officers with a pretext should be stripped of all pretexts in police training and trained to cool their heels and defuse situations.
Officer safety? Anything else?
Different reasons I’ve read depending on circumstances. Apparently, there are enough of them for the SCT to have ruled that, without exception, an officer can make and enforce that request. Doesn’t excuse what Encinia did, but that is apparently the law.
Officer safety? Anything else?
Different reasons I’ve read depending on circumstances. Apparently, there are enough of them for the SCT to have ruled that, without exception, an officer can make and enforce that request. Doesn’t excuse what Encinia did, but that is apparently the law.
Officer safety? Anything else?
Different reasons I’ve read depending on circumstances. Apparently, there are enough of them for the SCT to have ruled that, without exception, an officer can make and enforce that request. Doesn’t excuse what Encinia did, but that is apparently the law.
I hope that Florida cop who slugged the handcuffed model was fired and prosecuted.
A four week suspension without pay.
Oh yes, they took it *seriously*. And yes, the union is appealing the suspension. Because it’s “unfair”.
I hope that Florida cop who slugged the handcuffed model was fired and prosecuted.
A four week suspension without pay.
Oh yes, they took it *seriously*. And yes, the union is appealing the suspension. Because it’s “unfair”.
I hope that Florida cop who slugged the handcuffed model was fired and prosecuted.
A four week suspension without pay.
Oh yes, they took it *seriously*. And yes, the union is appealing the suspension. Because it’s “unfair”.
Yeah, thompson, good one. Sure does prove your point: as long as nobody dies, a cop can be all the violent asshole he wants to be, and it’s not big news. Like slarti says, sad.
And yeah, McKinney, in most traffic stops the valiant LEO not only doesn’t order you out of your car but positively orders you to stay in it. That seems like a good rule, actually. Aside from the possibility that you might be a ninja warrior in mufti who could overpower the strapping young man with the gun and the badge, there’s also the chance you could be hit by a passing car if the road is a busy one.
But the rule for which you say “there are good reasons” appears to be “if the officer says ‘get out’, out you get”. Sure I will; I’m not an idiot. If an armed carjacker said the same thing, I’d do the same thing, and for the same reason. That’s the way it is: the fellow with the gun expects obedience, and it’s unwise to give him an argument instead. Except “the way it is” with carjackers is a regrettable shit-happens misfortune, while “the way it is” with cops is in principle a policy matter. So “right or wrong, that’s the way it is” strikes me as a pretty sheep-like attitude, and I’m not even a libertarian.
And The Count just said it all better than me. I endorse his no-pants proposal.
–TP
Yeah, thompson, good one. Sure does prove your point: as long as nobody dies, a cop can be all the violent asshole he wants to be, and it’s not big news. Like slarti says, sad.
And yeah, McKinney, in most traffic stops the valiant LEO not only doesn’t order you out of your car but positively orders you to stay in it. That seems like a good rule, actually. Aside from the possibility that you might be a ninja warrior in mufti who could overpower the strapping young man with the gun and the badge, there’s also the chance you could be hit by a passing car if the road is a busy one.
But the rule for which you say “there are good reasons” appears to be “if the officer says ‘get out’, out you get”. Sure I will; I’m not an idiot. If an armed carjacker said the same thing, I’d do the same thing, and for the same reason. That’s the way it is: the fellow with the gun expects obedience, and it’s unwise to give him an argument instead. Except “the way it is” with carjackers is a regrettable shit-happens misfortune, while “the way it is” with cops is in principle a policy matter. So “right or wrong, that’s the way it is” strikes me as a pretty sheep-like attitude, and I’m not even a libertarian.
And The Count just said it all better than me. I endorse his no-pants proposal.
–TP
Yeah, thompson, good one. Sure does prove your point: as long as nobody dies, a cop can be all the violent asshole he wants to be, and it’s not big news. Like slarti says, sad.
And yeah, McKinney, in most traffic stops the valiant LEO not only doesn’t order you out of your car but positively orders you to stay in it. That seems like a good rule, actually. Aside from the possibility that you might be a ninja warrior in mufti who could overpower the strapping young man with the gun and the badge, there’s also the chance you could be hit by a passing car if the road is a busy one.
But the rule for which you say “there are good reasons” appears to be “if the officer says ‘get out’, out you get”. Sure I will; I’m not an idiot. If an armed carjacker said the same thing, I’d do the same thing, and for the same reason. That’s the way it is: the fellow with the gun expects obedience, and it’s unwise to give him an argument instead. Except “the way it is” with carjackers is a regrettable shit-happens misfortune, while “the way it is” with cops is in principle a policy matter. So “right or wrong, that’s the way it is” strikes me as a pretty sheep-like attitude, and I’m not even a libertarian.
And The Count just said it all better than me. I endorse his no-pants proposal.
–TP
I also hope the model was prosecuted for kicking the cop AND using racist profanity toward the cop, if indeed that occurred,
Ok, well that gets us pretty close to authorizing Ms. Bland’s arrest. I heard the profanity. Encinia says he was kicked. Is the fact that she kicked Encinia and used profanity but not racist profanity sufficient to distinguish one case from the other, assuming Encinia is telling the truth (not an assumption I make, but it is common here and elsewhere to pick a side and determine witness credibility accordingly)?
FWIW, I am skeptical of most eye witnesses, especially *interested* eye witnesses, and that includes my own clients. Cops, Bland’s family, social justice activists, police experts, anyone with an ax to grind needs to be heard but not relied upon until the evidence is corroborated. People flip all the time. They say stuff and recant all the time. They say stuff that is just a big lie and unless confronted with direct, objective contrary evidence, will stick with the lie no matter what. The most common witness screw up is to think about something they’ve seen, start mentally filling in blanks and then those filled in blanks become reality. Introduce the chance for gain, whether it’s money, notoriety or what have you and school is out.
I also hope the model was prosecuted for kicking the cop AND using racist profanity toward the cop, if indeed that occurred,
Ok, well that gets us pretty close to authorizing Ms. Bland’s arrest. I heard the profanity. Encinia says he was kicked. Is the fact that she kicked Encinia and used profanity but not racist profanity sufficient to distinguish one case from the other, assuming Encinia is telling the truth (not an assumption I make, but it is common here and elsewhere to pick a side and determine witness credibility accordingly)?
FWIW, I am skeptical of most eye witnesses, especially *interested* eye witnesses, and that includes my own clients. Cops, Bland’s family, social justice activists, police experts, anyone with an ax to grind needs to be heard but not relied upon until the evidence is corroborated. People flip all the time. They say stuff and recant all the time. They say stuff that is just a big lie and unless confronted with direct, objective contrary evidence, will stick with the lie no matter what. The most common witness screw up is to think about something they’ve seen, start mentally filling in blanks and then those filled in blanks become reality. Introduce the chance for gain, whether it’s money, notoriety or what have you and school is out.
I also hope the model was prosecuted for kicking the cop AND using racist profanity toward the cop, if indeed that occurred,
Ok, well that gets us pretty close to authorizing Ms. Bland’s arrest. I heard the profanity. Encinia says he was kicked. Is the fact that she kicked Encinia and used profanity but not racist profanity sufficient to distinguish one case from the other, assuming Encinia is telling the truth (not an assumption I make, but it is common here and elsewhere to pick a side and determine witness credibility accordingly)?
FWIW, I am skeptical of most eye witnesses, especially *interested* eye witnesses, and that includes my own clients. Cops, Bland’s family, social justice activists, police experts, anyone with an ax to grind needs to be heard but not relied upon until the evidence is corroborated. People flip all the time. They say stuff and recant all the time. They say stuff that is just a big lie and unless confronted with direct, objective contrary evidence, will stick with the lie no matter what. The most common witness screw up is to think about something they’ve seen, start mentally filling in blanks and then those filled in blanks become reality. Introduce the chance for gain, whether it’s money, notoriety or what have you and school is out.
Sure does prove your point: as long as nobody dies, a cop can be all the violent asshole he wants to be, and it’s not big news.
That wasn’t my point. My point was your hypothetical was unlikely. Which I feel I stated pretty clearly when I wrote: I find your hypo unlikely.
Sure does prove your point: as long as nobody dies, a cop can be all the violent asshole he wants to be, and it’s not big news.
That wasn’t my point. My point was your hypothetical was unlikely. Which I feel I stated pretty clearly when I wrote: I find your hypo unlikely.
Sure does prove your point: as long as nobody dies, a cop can be all the violent asshole he wants to be, and it’s not big news.
That wasn’t my point. My point was your hypothetical was unlikely. Which I feel I stated pretty clearly when I wrote: I find your hypo unlikely.
Officer Encinia could have thanked Bland for pulling over to get of his way (it’s disorienting many times to have a police cruiser or fire truck pull up behind you, lights flashing and sirens blaring and remember to put your signal on, or even to remember your left from your right as you get of the way with your heart pounding.)
He also could have let the cigarette lighting go, tipped his hat and told to have a safe day and remember to use her signal in future and marched back to his cruiser to look for bigger fish to fry.
He started it and escalated, for no justifiable reason which then justifiably angered her.
There was no indication that if he let her continue on to her business, that she might commit anything more untoward than lighting another cigarette at an inopportune moment.
It’s the onus on the officer to try and ascertain that he’s about to embark on a confrontation in which both parties might be tired of being f*cked with and to stand down.
How do I know this? I only know what I witnessed, which is to say, not a blessed thing.
Otherwise, I defer to your experience and agree with your realistic appraisal of the stuff that comes out of witness’s mouths.
In addition to better police training, our society needs better person training with one of the lessons being that self-interest against all odds, rather than doing our best to contravene the truth for the small beer of furthering our narrow interests, is a dumb way to conduct ourselves, for whatever reason.
Of course, an unintended consequence would be the need for fewer attorneys.
On the other hand, you’d have more time to blog. 😉
Officer Encinia could have thanked Bland for pulling over to get of his way (it’s disorienting many times to have a police cruiser or fire truck pull up behind you, lights flashing and sirens blaring and remember to put your signal on, or even to remember your left from your right as you get of the way with your heart pounding.)
He also could have let the cigarette lighting go, tipped his hat and told to have a safe day and remember to use her signal in future and marched back to his cruiser to look for bigger fish to fry.
He started it and escalated, for no justifiable reason which then justifiably angered her.
There was no indication that if he let her continue on to her business, that she might commit anything more untoward than lighting another cigarette at an inopportune moment.
It’s the onus on the officer to try and ascertain that he’s about to embark on a confrontation in which both parties might be tired of being f*cked with and to stand down.
How do I know this? I only know what I witnessed, which is to say, not a blessed thing.
Otherwise, I defer to your experience and agree with your realistic appraisal of the stuff that comes out of witness’s mouths.
In addition to better police training, our society needs better person training with one of the lessons being that self-interest against all odds, rather than doing our best to contravene the truth for the small beer of furthering our narrow interests, is a dumb way to conduct ourselves, for whatever reason.
Of course, an unintended consequence would be the need for fewer attorneys.
On the other hand, you’d have more time to blog. 😉
Officer Encinia could have thanked Bland for pulling over to get of his way (it’s disorienting many times to have a police cruiser or fire truck pull up behind you, lights flashing and sirens blaring and remember to put your signal on, or even to remember your left from your right as you get of the way with your heart pounding.)
He also could have let the cigarette lighting go, tipped his hat and told to have a safe day and remember to use her signal in future and marched back to his cruiser to look for bigger fish to fry.
He started it and escalated, for no justifiable reason which then justifiably angered her.
There was no indication that if he let her continue on to her business, that she might commit anything more untoward than lighting another cigarette at an inopportune moment.
It’s the onus on the officer to try and ascertain that he’s about to embark on a confrontation in which both parties might be tired of being f*cked with and to stand down.
How do I know this? I only know what I witnessed, which is to say, not a blessed thing.
Otherwise, I defer to your experience and agree with your realistic appraisal of the stuff that comes out of witness’s mouths.
In addition to better police training, our society needs better person training with one of the lessons being that self-interest against all odds, rather than doing our best to contravene the truth for the small beer of furthering our narrow interests, is a dumb way to conduct ourselves, for whatever reason.
Of course, an unintended consequence would be the need for fewer attorneys.
On the other hand, you’d have more time to blog. 😉
Encinia could have and should have done a lot of things differently. What seems obvious to you and me isn’t so obvious to others who are not in bad faith. Which means that a lot of this is subjective if not highly subjective. Not *this* as in Ms. Bland’s arrest, but *this* as in problematic police conduct. There are people going a lot softer on Encinia than I am who I do not believe are in bad faith. Wrong, but not in bad faith.
Like you, I know porn when I see it. I know bad policing when I see it, or at least I think I do.
I don’t presume bad policing, but I don’t presume guilt either. Nor am I surprised when one happens and the other does not.
Of course, an unintended consequence would be the need for fewer attorneys.
On the other hand, you’d have more time to blog. 😉
There is that. I would like there to be one less full time practicing attorney, but that’s not happening anytime soon.
Encinia could have and should have done a lot of things differently. What seems obvious to you and me isn’t so obvious to others who are not in bad faith. Which means that a lot of this is subjective if not highly subjective. Not *this* as in Ms. Bland’s arrest, but *this* as in problematic police conduct. There are people going a lot softer on Encinia than I am who I do not believe are in bad faith. Wrong, but not in bad faith.
Like you, I know porn when I see it. I know bad policing when I see it, or at least I think I do.
I don’t presume bad policing, but I don’t presume guilt either. Nor am I surprised when one happens and the other does not.
Of course, an unintended consequence would be the need for fewer attorneys.
On the other hand, you’d have more time to blog. 😉
There is that. I would like there to be one less full time practicing attorney, but that’s not happening anytime soon.
Encinia could have and should have done a lot of things differently. What seems obvious to you and me isn’t so obvious to others who are not in bad faith. Which means that a lot of this is subjective if not highly subjective. Not *this* as in Ms. Bland’s arrest, but *this* as in problematic police conduct. There are people going a lot softer on Encinia than I am who I do not believe are in bad faith. Wrong, but not in bad faith.
Like you, I know porn when I see it. I know bad policing when I see it, or at least I think I do.
I don’t presume bad policing, but I don’t presume guilt either. Nor am I surprised when one happens and the other does not.
Of course, an unintended consequence would be the need for fewer attorneys.
On the other hand, you’d have more time to blog. 😉
There is that. I would like there to be one less full time practicing attorney, but that’s not happening anytime soon.
thompson,
You may have meant something different, but what I understood you to consider “unlikely” was the proposition that a video of my “hypo” would go viral. The video you linked to obviously did not, or I probably would have known about it.
So I conceded what I thought was your initial point: that even with the races reversed, it would not go viral if nobody died.
I doubt you’re saying that anything else about my “hypo” was implausible. And I certainly did not mean to suggest that you approve of the video not going viral.
–TP
thompson,
You may have meant something different, but what I understood you to consider “unlikely” was the proposition that a video of my “hypo” would go viral. The video you linked to obviously did not, or I probably would have known about it.
So I conceded what I thought was your initial point: that even with the races reversed, it would not go viral if nobody died.
I doubt you’re saying that anything else about my “hypo” was implausible. And I certainly did not mean to suggest that you approve of the video not going viral.
–TP
thompson,
You may have meant something different, but what I understood you to consider “unlikely” was the proposition that a video of my “hypo” would go viral. The video you linked to obviously did not, or I probably would have known about it.
So I conceded what I thought was your initial point: that even with the races reversed, it would not go viral if nobody died.
I doubt you’re saying that anything else about my “hypo” was implausible. And I certainly did not mean to suggest that you approve of the video not going viral.
–TP
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_07/we_deserve_good_policing056749.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_07/we_deserve_good_policing056749.php
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_07/we_deserve_good_policing056749.php
And I certainly did not mean to suggest that you approve of the video not going viral.
I appreciate you saying that.
So I conceded what I thought was your initial point: that even with the races reversed, it would not go viral if nobody died.
I think its more complex then that. My point, to the extent that I have one, is this:
My interpretation of your point (which I could have misinterpreted) was that bad police interactions with whites would be far more likely to go viral. I don’t think that’s the case, and possibly they would be even less publicized. I think Balko’s article speaks to that.
In short, race is not the determining factor in whether something like this goes viral.
I think, predominantly, it’s dumb luck one way or another. Or, possibly, it’s what fits the speaker’s narrative.
None of which is to say there isn’t systemic racism in our criminal justice system. Just that I don’t think there is an obvious racial bias in what goes viral.
And I certainly did not mean to suggest that you approve of the video not going viral.
I appreciate you saying that.
So I conceded what I thought was your initial point: that even with the races reversed, it would not go viral if nobody died.
I think its more complex then that. My point, to the extent that I have one, is this:
My interpretation of your point (which I could have misinterpreted) was that bad police interactions with whites would be far more likely to go viral. I don’t think that’s the case, and possibly they would be even less publicized. I think Balko’s article speaks to that.
In short, race is not the determining factor in whether something like this goes viral.
I think, predominantly, it’s dumb luck one way or another. Or, possibly, it’s what fits the speaker’s narrative.
None of which is to say there isn’t systemic racism in our criminal justice system. Just that I don’t think there is an obvious racial bias in what goes viral.
And I certainly did not mean to suggest that you approve of the video not going viral.
I appreciate you saying that.
So I conceded what I thought was your initial point: that even with the races reversed, it would not go viral if nobody died.
I think its more complex then that. My point, to the extent that I have one, is this:
My interpretation of your point (which I could have misinterpreted) was that bad police interactions with whites would be far more likely to go viral. I don’t think that’s the case, and possibly they would be even less publicized. I think Balko’s article speaks to that.
In short, race is not the determining factor in whether something like this goes viral.
I think, predominantly, it’s dumb luck one way or another. Or, possibly, it’s what fits the speaker’s narrative.
None of which is to say there isn’t systemic racism in our criminal justice system. Just that I don’t think there is an obvious racial bias in what goes viral.
A four week suspension without pay.
Oh yes, they took it *seriously*. And yes, the union is appealing the suspension. Because it’s “unfair”.
My favorite part of this was that the suspension was to be served two days at a time over several months. Wouldn’t want to cause him any difficulties just because he’s being “punished”, after all.
A four week suspension without pay.
Oh yes, they took it *seriously*. And yes, the union is appealing the suspension. Because it’s “unfair”.
My favorite part of this was that the suspension was to be served two days at a time over several months. Wouldn’t want to cause him any difficulties just because he’s being “punished”, after all.
A four week suspension without pay.
Oh yes, they took it *seriously*. And yes, the union is appealing the suspension. Because it’s “unfair”.
My favorite part of this was that the suspension was to be served two days at a time over several months. Wouldn’t want to cause him any difficulties just because he’s being “punished”, after all.
Wouldn’t want to cause him any difficulties just because he’s being “punished”, after all.
If only we took that stance in general by, say, not setting bail for non-flight risks.
Wouldn’t want to cause him any difficulties just because he’s being “punished”, after all.
If only we took that stance in general by, say, not setting bail for non-flight risks.
Wouldn’t want to cause him any difficulties just because he’s being “punished”, after all.
If only we took that stance in general by, say, not setting bail for non-flight risks.
What we seem to be reaching as a concensus here is that everybody (not just black teenage boys) needs to be given The Speech: Never do anything even vaguely disrespect, or that can concievably be construed as threatening, when dealing with the police. Always be as obsequious as possible.
Because it doesn’t matter how blatantly unjustified his conduct. It doesn’t matter how innocent your behavior has been up to that point. Because if you do anything else, Bad Things can happen to you, and you have little or no recourse at all.
Which is one hell of a view to have to take of the world.
What we seem to be reaching as a concensus here is that everybody (not just black teenage boys) needs to be given The Speech: Never do anything even vaguely disrespect, or that can concievably be construed as threatening, when dealing with the police. Always be as obsequious as possible.
Because it doesn’t matter how blatantly unjustified his conduct. It doesn’t matter how innocent your behavior has been up to that point. Because if you do anything else, Bad Things can happen to you, and you have little or no recourse at all.
Which is one hell of a view to have to take of the world.
What we seem to be reaching as a concensus here is that everybody (not just black teenage boys) needs to be given The Speech: Never do anything even vaguely disrespect, or that can concievably be construed as threatening, when dealing with the police. Always be as obsequious as possible.
Because it doesn’t matter how blatantly unjustified his conduct. It doesn’t matter how innocent your behavior has been up to that point. Because if you do anything else, Bad Things can happen to you, and you have little or no recourse at all.
Which is one hell of a view to have to take of the world.
Chris Rock – How not to get your ass kicked by the police! (YouTube)
Chris Rock – How not to get your ass kicked by the police! (YouTube)
Chris Rock – How not to get your ass kicked by the police! (YouTube)
“Which is one hell of a view to have to take of the world.”
Why, you can take that set of rules and advice, and slap a new cover on the book: “How to Survive a Fascist Occupation”
“Which is one hell of a view to have to take of the world.”
Why, you can take that set of rules and advice, and slap a new cover on the book: “How to Survive a Fascist Occupation”
“Which is one hell of a view to have to take of the world.”
Why, you can take that set of rules and advice, and slap a new cover on the book: “How to Survive a Fascist Occupation”
wj:
Because if you do anything else, Bad Things can happen to you, and you have little or no recourse at all.
Greenfield has talked this fairly often, most recently with regards to Sandra Bland:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/24/no-butts-for-sandra-bland/
If you want to use the stop as an opportunity to assert your constitutional rights — and don’t forget about your right to curse at police, as long as you’re going for broke — that’s your choice. But it is highly unlikely to get you back on the road swiftly and without risk of serious harm.
There is nothing wrong with exercising your constitutional rights, though whether they’re properly exercised is never as clear as people think, but as long as courts defer to officer safety, there will be a price to be paid. Was disagreeing over whether to snuff out a butt worth it for Sandra Bland? Choose wisely, as you life may depend on it.
wj:
Because if you do anything else, Bad Things can happen to you, and you have little or no recourse at all.
Greenfield has talked this fairly often, most recently with regards to Sandra Bland:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/24/no-butts-for-sandra-bland/
If you want to use the stop as an opportunity to assert your constitutional rights — and don’t forget about your right to curse at police, as long as you’re going for broke — that’s your choice. But it is highly unlikely to get you back on the road swiftly and without risk of serious harm.
There is nothing wrong with exercising your constitutional rights, though whether they’re properly exercised is never as clear as people think, but as long as courts defer to officer safety, there will be a price to be paid. Was disagreeing over whether to snuff out a butt worth it for Sandra Bland? Choose wisely, as you life may depend on it.
wj:
Because if you do anything else, Bad Things can happen to you, and you have little or no recourse at all.
Greenfield has talked this fairly often, most recently with regards to Sandra Bland:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/07/24/no-butts-for-sandra-bland/
If you want to use the stop as an opportunity to assert your constitutional rights — and don’t forget about your right to curse at police, as long as you’re going for broke — that’s your choice. But it is highly unlikely to get you back on the road swiftly and without risk of serious harm.
There is nothing wrong with exercising your constitutional rights, though whether they’re properly exercised is never as clear as people think, but as long as courts defer to officer safety, there will be a price to be paid. Was disagreeing over whether to snuff out a butt worth it for Sandra Bland? Choose wisely, as you life may depend on it.
Some things never change:
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675037201_Nazi-abuse-of-Jews_beating_atrocities_amateur-footage_USA-280
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oheIkf6dr
We’re nothing exceptional — just like everyone else.
Some things never change:
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675037201_Nazi-abuse-of-Jews_beating_atrocities_amateur-footage_USA-280
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oheIkf6dr
We’re nothing exceptional — just like everyone else.
Some things never change:
http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675037201_Nazi-abuse-of-Jews_beating_atrocities_amateur-footage_USA-280
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oheIkf6dr
We’re nothing exceptional — just like everyone else.
She kicked him? When? I missed that on the video, but it seems to me that it would be hard to do that while sitting in the driver’s seat.
She kicked him? When? I missed that on the video, but it seems to me that it would be hard to do that while sitting in the driver’s seat.
She kicked him? When? I missed that on the video, but it seems to me that it would be hard to do that while sitting in the driver’s seat.
If she did kick him, how much unjustified abuse, provocation and antagonism does someone have to endure before she can be excused for kicking another person, even if that person was a police officer? Why is it that a cop can unnecessarily escalate a situation to the point that only the most disciplined pacifist would refrain from fighting back, to then charge his victim with resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer?
Escalate and cry foul seems to be the MO.
If she did kick him, how much unjustified abuse, provocation and antagonism does someone have to endure before she can be excused for kicking another person, even if that person was a police officer? Why is it that a cop can unnecessarily escalate a situation to the point that only the most disciplined pacifist would refrain from fighting back, to then charge his victim with resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer?
Escalate and cry foul seems to be the MO.
If she did kick him, how much unjustified abuse, provocation and antagonism does someone have to endure before she can be excused for kicking another person, even if that person was a police officer? Why is it that a cop can unnecessarily escalate a situation to the point that only the most disciplined pacifist would refrain from fighting back, to then charge his victim with resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer?
Escalate and cry foul seems to be the MO.
Bernie,
Which “she” are you asking about, and which video?
The woman in the video thompson linked to (yesterday at 3:14) is the white woman who, while handcuffed, kicks (at) the black cop who then punches her in the head.
If Trooper Encinia says Sandra Bland kicked him off-camera, some people will give him the benefit of the doubt because the presumption of innocence is on a sliding scale: “troopers” are presumed more innocent than “violators”. That’s the way it is, and our friend McKinney warns of dire consequences if it were any other way.
–TP
Bernie,
Which “she” are you asking about, and which video?
The woman in the video thompson linked to (yesterday at 3:14) is the white woman who, while handcuffed, kicks (at) the black cop who then punches her in the head.
If Trooper Encinia says Sandra Bland kicked him off-camera, some people will give him the benefit of the doubt because the presumption of innocence is on a sliding scale: “troopers” are presumed more innocent than “violators”. That’s the way it is, and our friend McKinney warns of dire consequences if it were any other way.
–TP
Bernie,
Which “she” are you asking about, and which video?
The woman in the video thompson linked to (yesterday at 3:14) is the white woman who, while handcuffed, kicks (at) the black cop who then punches her in the head.
If Trooper Encinia says Sandra Bland kicked him off-camera, some people will give him the benefit of the doubt because the presumption of innocence is on a sliding scale: “troopers” are presumed more innocent than “violators”. That’s the way it is, and our friend McKinney warns of dire consequences if it were any other way.
–TP
Tony,
I understood the claim to be that Bland kicked Encinia, and that established that she was a threat and should be ordered out of the car.
Sounds like I got it wrong.
Tony,
I understood the claim to be that Bland kicked Encinia, and that established that she was a threat and should be ordered out of the car.
Sounds like I got it wrong.
Tony,
I understood the claim to be that Bland kicked Encinia, and that established that she was a threat and should be ordered out of the car.
Sounds like I got it wrong.
No, in the transcript he states (long after the fact) that the reason he got her out of her car was so he could take her to the sidewalk and calmly explain the situation to her safely away from traffic, or words to that effect. Ordering her out of the car was in order to increase his safety and her understanding, and then she just had to ruin things with her unprovoked escalation. So typical, amirite?
No, in the transcript he states (long after the fact) that the reason he got her out of her car was so he could take her to the sidewalk and calmly explain the situation to her safely away from traffic, or words to that effect. Ordering her out of the car was in order to increase his safety and her understanding, and then she just had to ruin things with her unprovoked escalation. So typical, amirite?
No, in the transcript he states (long after the fact) that the reason he got her out of her car was so he could take her to the sidewalk and calmly explain the situation to her safely away from traffic, or words to that effect. Ordering her out of the car was in order to increase his safety and her understanding, and then she just had to ruin things with her unprovoked escalation. So typical, amirite?
The reason this particular “traffic stop” video has me so pissed off is that I drive every day and even occasionally smoke a cigarette in my car.
In other words, I can see myself in Sandra Bland’s predicament even more easily than I could see myself in the shoes of the black men we’ve seen get killed by assholes in blue.
It gives me little comfort that I am white and male and drive mostly in MA. Warren County TX has no monopoly on power-tripping cops. Or on the politically correct, not to say popularly accepted, view that cops are entitled to grovelling obsequiousness from any citizen they interact with.
I can hardly wait for the day when every car has a video camera in it — a camera that can stream its video to The Cloud in real time, at the push of a button. That won’t prevent the likes of “Trooper” Encinia from being assholes, of course. But it might, possibly, make it easier for more people to see themselves in the position of the driver accosted by the alleged protector of society. And that might, just might, lead to a change in the public’s tolerance for arrogance on the part of our armed civil servants.
–TP
The reason this particular “traffic stop” video has me so pissed off is that I drive every day and even occasionally smoke a cigarette in my car.
In other words, I can see myself in Sandra Bland’s predicament even more easily than I could see myself in the shoes of the black men we’ve seen get killed by assholes in blue.
It gives me little comfort that I am white and male and drive mostly in MA. Warren County TX has no monopoly on power-tripping cops. Or on the politically correct, not to say popularly accepted, view that cops are entitled to grovelling obsequiousness from any citizen they interact with.
I can hardly wait for the day when every car has a video camera in it — a camera that can stream its video to The Cloud in real time, at the push of a button. That won’t prevent the likes of “Trooper” Encinia from being assholes, of course. But it might, possibly, make it easier for more people to see themselves in the position of the driver accosted by the alleged protector of society. And that might, just might, lead to a change in the public’s tolerance for arrogance on the part of our armed civil servants.
–TP
The reason this particular “traffic stop” video has me so pissed off is that I drive every day and even occasionally smoke a cigarette in my car.
In other words, I can see myself in Sandra Bland’s predicament even more easily than I could see myself in the shoes of the black men we’ve seen get killed by assholes in blue.
It gives me little comfort that I am white and male and drive mostly in MA. Warren County TX has no monopoly on power-tripping cops. Or on the politically correct, not to say popularly accepted, view that cops are entitled to grovelling obsequiousness from any citizen they interact with.
I can hardly wait for the day when every car has a video camera in it — a camera that can stream its video to The Cloud in real time, at the push of a button. That won’t prevent the likes of “Trooper” Encinia from being assholes, of course. But it might, possibly, make it easier for more people to see themselves in the position of the driver accosted by the alleged protector of society. And that might, just might, lead to a change in the public’s tolerance for arrogance on the part of our armed civil servants.
–TP
She should not have been arrested and should not have been in jail.
If the cop had behaved professionally, she may have committed suicide anyway, but it would not have been the cop’s fault.
As it is, the cop put himself directly in a position of responsibility for her death.
I’d like to know why he walked her out of view of the dash cam. Can anyone think of a good reason for that?
She should not have been arrested and should not have been in jail.
If the cop had behaved professionally, she may have committed suicide anyway, but it would not have been the cop’s fault.
As it is, the cop put himself directly in a position of responsibility for her death.
I’d like to know why he walked her out of view of the dash cam. Can anyone think of a good reason for that?
She should not have been arrested and should not have been in jail.
If the cop had behaved professionally, she may have committed suicide anyway, but it would not have been the cop’s fault.
As it is, the cop put himself directly in a position of responsibility for her death.
I’d like to know why he walked her out of view of the dash cam. Can anyone think of a good reason for that?
I highly recommend the Orin Kerr post at Volokh on the WaPo I linked above (and link again here) to everyone. It’s frightening and shows some rather obvious blinds spots in the Law.
I highly recommend the Orin Kerr post at Volokh on the WaPo I linked above (and link again here) to everyone. It’s frightening and shows some rather obvious blinds spots in the Law.
I highly recommend the Orin Kerr post at Volokh on the WaPo I linked above (and link again here) to everyone. It’s frightening and shows some rather obvious blinds spots in the Law.
Eleven good reasons.
1. He was shy and was afraid his toupee would fall off during the mayhem and he’d be caught on camera chasing it across the prairie in a high wind.
2. He was sure the seat of his pants would split on camera when he bent over to beat her and administer his special brand of frisking.
3. The resume he was planning on submitting for the job opening for head of the F.B.I. under a Republican (fill-in-the-blank) Administration in November of 2016 might have been compromised by insufficient brutality caught on video.
4. The Governor of Texas has requested that all state troopers take their traffic stop brutality off camera so as not to sully the State’s reputation for attracting out-of-state job seekers who don’t want to pay taxes. However, screaming at newbies and threatening to “light them up” is the kind of hazing that is acceptable to the Governor on camera in case the person harbors any intentions of importing Obamacare into Texas.
5. As it happens, the U.S. Military’s Jade Helm exercise in Texas has direct video feed access by suspicious means into state troopers’ car videocams and he was afraid the Kenyan in the White House would order his butt kicked via drones commandeered from beneath a local Radio Shack.
6. The trooper was proposing marriage off camera to Ms Bland, except that she was the one on her knees, and he was embarrassed that his parents might mistake her for Sidney Poitier.
7. Rick Perry and Sean Hannity, each wearing the backwards baseball caps of glory hole submission, were hovering in a helicopter overhead with the sights of a high-powered North Korean anti-aircraft gun trained on Bland and they didn’t want to damage the trooper’s patrol car with a 500-round burst of Republican justice.
8. He mistook her for a Mexican illegal wetback (50 shades of brown) and wanted to palpate her calves for drugs according to procedures explained in Steve King’s Handbook for Armed Law Enforcement Sh*theads.
9. He wanted to rehearse a reenactment of the Comanche raiding party’s kidnapping of Cynthia Ann Parker in 1836 before committing it to film, for a home movie he’s working on to help restore a lesser form of savagery into Texas culture.
10. He noticed Ann Coulter had arrived at the scene to join in the fun but she insisted that she wanted to kick the living daylights out of Bland off camera with her stilleto heels while convincing the woman that suicide is painless. Coulter was afraid the camera would catch her big brave balls dangling below the hem of her miniskirt.
Bonus 11: Catching Ebola from Africans on camera is frowned upon.
Apologies to the nice people in Texas who put up with me. All seven of you deserve medals.
Eleven good reasons.
1. He was shy and was afraid his toupee would fall off during the mayhem and he’d be caught on camera chasing it across the prairie in a high wind.
2. He was sure the seat of his pants would split on camera when he bent over to beat her and administer his special brand of frisking.
3. The resume he was planning on submitting for the job opening for head of the F.B.I. under a Republican (fill-in-the-blank) Administration in November of 2016 might have been compromised by insufficient brutality caught on video.
4. The Governor of Texas has requested that all state troopers take their traffic stop brutality off camera so as not to sully the State’s reputation for attracting out-of-state job seekers who don’t want to pay taxes. However, screaming at newbies and threatening to “light them up” is the kind of hazing that is acceptable to the Governor on camera in case the person harbors any intentions of importing Obamacare into Texas.
5. As it happens, the U.S. Military’s Jade Helm exercise in Texas has direct video feed access by suspicious means into state troopers’ car videocams and he was afraid the Kenyan in the White House would order his butt kicked via drones commandeered from beneath a local Radio Shack.
6. The trooper was proposing marriage off camera to Ms Bland, except that she was the one on her knees, and he was embarrassed that his parents might mistake her for Sidney Poitier.
7. Rick Perry and Sean Hannity, each wearing the backwards baseball caps of glory hole submission, were hovering in a helicopter overhead with the sights of a high-powered North Korean anti-aircraft gun trained on Bland and they didn’t want to damage the trooper’s patrol car with a 500-round burst of Republican justice.
8. He mistook her for a Mexican illegal wetback (50 shades of brown) and wanted to palpate her calves for drugs according to procedures explained in Steve King’s Handbook for Armed Law Enforcement Sh*theads.
9. He wanted to rehearse a reenactment of the Comanche raiding party’s kidnapping of Cynthia Ann Parker in 1836 before committing it to film, for a home movie he’s working on to help restore a lesser form of savagery into Texas culture.
10. He noticed Ann Coulter had arrived at the scene to join in the fun but she insisted that she wanted to kick the living daylights out of Bland off camera with her stilleto heels while convincing the woman that suicide is painless. Coulter was afraid the camera would catch her big brave balls dangling below the hem of her miniskirt.
Bonus 11: Catching Ebola from Africans on camera is frowned upon.
Apologies to the nice people in Texas who put up with me. All seven of you deserve medals.
Eleven good reasons.
1. He was shy and was afraid his toupee would fall off during the mayhem and he’d be caught on camera chasing it across the prairie in a high wind.
2. He was sure the seat of his pants would split on camera when he bent over to beat her and administer his special brand of frisking.
3. The resume he was planning on submitting for the job opening for head of the F.B.I. under a Republican (fill-in-the-blank) Administration in November of 2016 might have been compromised by insufficient brutality caught on video.
4. The Governor of Texas has requested that all state troopers take their traffic stop brutality off camera so as not to sully the State’s reputation for attracting out-of-state job seekers who don’t want to pay taxes. However, screaming at newbies and threatening to “light them up” is the kind of hazing that is acceptable to the Governor on camera in case the person harbors any intentions of importing Obamacare into Texas.
5. As it happens, the U.S. Military’s Jade Helm exercise in Texas has direct video feed access by suspicious means into state troopers’ car videocams and he was afraid the Kenyan in the White House would order his butt kicked via drones commandeered from beneath a local Radio Shack.
6. The trooper was proposing marriage off camera to Ms Bland, except that she was the one on her knees, and he was embarrassed that his parents might mistake her for Sidney Poitier.
7. Rick Perry and Sean Hannity, each wearing the backwards baseball caps of glory hole submission, were hovering in a helicopter overhead with the sights of a high-powered North Korean anti-aircraft gun trained on Bland and they didn’t want to damage the trooper’s patrol car with a 500-round burst of Republican justice.
8. He mistook her for a Mexican illegal wetback (50 shades of brown) and wanted to palpate her calves for drugs according to procedures explained in Steve King’s Handbook for Armed Law Enforcement Sh*theads.
9. He wanted to rehearse a reenactment of the Comanche raiding party’s kidnapping of Cynthia Ann Parker in 1836 before committing it to film, for a home movie he’s working on to help restore a lesser form of savagery into Texas culture.
10. He noticed Ann Coulter had arrived at the scene to join in the fun but she insisted that she wanted to kick the living daylights out of Bland off camera with her stilleto heels while convincing the woman that suicide is painless. Coulter was afraid the camera would catch her big brave balls dangling below the hem of her miniskirt.
Bonus 11: Catching Ebola from Africans on camera is frowned upon.
Apologies to the nice people in Texas who put up with me. All seven of you deserve medals.
Cop Culture Meets Pop Culture: The days of a policeman’s word as the final word are finally over
Cop Culture Meets Pop Culture: The days of a policeman’s word as the final word are finally over
Cop Culture Meets Pop Culture: The days of a policeman’s word as the final word are finally over
Charles, that article is one heck of a fine piece of work.
We’re a mess.
Charles, that article is one heck of a fine piece of work.
We’re a mess.
Charles, that article is one heck of a fine piece of work.
We’re a mess.
Me: “Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.”
thompson: “Absolutely not. The presumption of innocence is of critical importance in our justice system. Just because someone works for the government DOES NOT mean that standard should be relaxed.”
Please note what I said. For example, if I gun somebody down, the police will likely start under the assumption that it’s a murder. They still have to prove it, of course.
And when it comes down to the government’s action, presumption of innocence is neither called for nor always a good idea. When somebody goes in alive and comes out dead, that’s a Bad Thing, and should be treated as such.
Me: “Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.”
thompson: “Absolutely not. The presumption of innocence is of critical importance in our justice system. Just because someone works for the government DOES NOT mean that standard should be relaxed.”
Please note what I said. For example, if I gun somebody down, the police will likely start under the assumption that it’s a murder. They still have to prove it, of course.
And when it comes down to the government’s action, presumption of innocence is neither called for nor always a good idea. When somebody goes in alive and comes out dead, that’s a Bad Thing, and should be treated as such.
Me: “Second, she went in alive and came out dead. That should be considered a murder until proven otherwise, by outside, impartial and competent authorities.”
thompson: “Absolutely not. The presumption of innocence is of critical importance in our justice system. Just because someone works for the government DOES NOT mean that standard should be relaxed.”
Please note what I said. For example, if I gun somebody down, the police will likely start under the assumption that it’s a murder. They still have to prove it, of course.
And when it comes down to the government’s action, presumption of innocence is neither called for nor always a good idea. When somebody goes in alive and comes out dead, that’s a Bad Thing, and should be treated as such.
Presumption of innocence is for criminal trials, not investigation.
I’d like to add to what Barry said:
“Someone goes in alive, is completely in the power, and under the supervision of a governmental entity, and comes out dead.”
With power and control (should) come responsibility.
Presumption of innocence is for criminal trials, not investigation.
I’d like to add to what Barry said:
“Someone goes in alive, is completely in the power, and under the supervision of a governmental entity, and comes out dead.”
With power and control (should) come responsibility.
Presumption of innocence is for criminal trials, not investigation.
I’d like to add to what Barry said:
“Someone goes in alive, is completely in the power, and under the supervision of a governmental entity, and comes out dead.”
With power and control (should) come responsibility.
Please note what I said.
I did. And I disagreed with it. But perhaps I’m just unclear on what your usage of “considered” means. Who is doing the considering, and what is the legal and practical effects of the consideration?
Because honestly, there are 2 ways I can parse that in an example where there is an absence of compelling evidence either way:
(1) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are legal steps taken to convict the government agents. This strikes against an essential component of our system of justice.
OR
(2) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are no legal ramifications. In which case, I’m lost as to your point.
Please, enlighten me as to what specific polices and actions you are proposing.
Please note what I said.
I did. And I disagreed with it. But perhaps I’m just unclear on what your usage of “considered” means. Who is doing the considering, and what is the legal and practical effects of the consideration?
Because honestly, there are 2 ways I can parse that in an example where there is an absence of compelling evidence either way:
(1) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are legal steps taken to convict the government agents. This strikes against an essential component of our system of justice.
OR
(2) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are no legal ramifications. In which case, I’m lost as to your point.
Please, enlighten me as to what specific polices and actions you are proposing.
Please note what I said.
I did. And I disagreed with it. But perhaps I’m just unclear on what your usage of “considered” means. Who is doing the considering, and what is the legal and practical effects of the consideration?
Because honestly, there are 2 ways I can parse that in an example where there is an absence of compelling evidence either way:
(1) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are legal steps taken to convict the government agents. This strikes against an essential component of our system of justice.
OR
(2) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are no legal ramifications. In which case, I’m lost as to your point.
Please, enlighten me as to what specific polices and actions you are proposing.
Criminal investigators presume someone is guilty and try to find evidence to prove whom that might be.
Prosecuting attorneys’ jobs are to presume whomever the criminal investigators have fingered as the guilty party is in fact the guilty party and try to prove it to a jury and judge, and if you don’t believe that, try being charged with a crime and experiencing the presumptions for your own selves and instruct your attorney to bargain with them given the odds of their presumptions against the presumptions of a judge and jury.
The courts presume innocence unless proven guilty, with different standards applied in criminal versus civil cases.
Various states of relaxation permeate all three of those contexts in an imperfect system.
If a guy was to make a movie of Sandra Bland’s life and death, he might presume she had an appointment with a nasty destiny, because of some guilt already imprinted upon her.
She was driving. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She didn’t signal properly, in a dicey situation that anyone could find themselves in, though I think we can presume from ample historical evidence, repeated ad nauseam in this country, what her presumed guilt really was. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She questioned the cop’s presumption of her rights. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She was smoking a cigarette. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
Maybe she sat in jail for a bit and contemplated all the cop’s presumptions and her own presumptions undertaken when she innocently took a new job, packed up her car, and drove it while being herself across state lines, and all of the presumptive baggage strangers around her loaded her car with about who she was and what she represented and how the presumptions of these strangers might play out in a society loaded with presumption, even if she hadn’t signed up to represent.
Maybe she thought, well, when all of this is said and done, I’ll write a Kafka-like story about a woman who came to in an automobile and who is presumed by society to be a cockroach/beetle type of creature from the get-go because of some guilt visited upon her without invitation, long before she was born.
Maybe she thought, f*ck it, I’m tired of being f*cked with and ended it.
Maybe she thought, well, the new job is probably down the tubes, so f*ck it.
My presumption is that the cop could have and should have walked away from this encounter. He had numerous opportunities to stand down and let her go with a POLITE warning.
I’m exactly 100% right about that.
P.S. For various reasons and according to one’s political leanings, public servants at all levels are presumed to be guilty suspects from the get go in America. Usually, first of all, guilty of theft, because they earn their living from the public coffers, and more subtly, of some inadequacy presumed to be attendant to their decision to seek employment in the public sector rather than in the private sector.
So, we’re all presumed guilty of one thing or another when we get out of bed in the morning. Such is life in a nation of judgmental pigf*ckers that prides itself on an adversary culture.
Criminal investigators presume someone is guilty and try to find evidence to prove whom that might be.
Prosecuting attorneys’ jobs are to presume whomever the criminal investigators have fingered as the guilty party is in fact the guilty party and try to prove it to a jury and judge, and if you don’t believe that, try being charged with a crime and experiencing the presumptions for your own selves and instruct your attorney to bargain with them given the odds of their presumptions against the presumptions of a judge and jury.
The courts presume innocence unless proven guilty, with different standards applied in criminal versus civil cases.
Various states of relaxation permeate all three of those contexts in an imperfect system.
If a guy was to make a movie of Sandra Bland’s life and death, he might presume she had an appointment with a nasty destiny, because of some guilt already imprinted upon her.
She was driving. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She didn’t signal properly, in a dicey situation that anyone could find themselves in, though I think we can presume from ample historical evidence, repeated ad nauseam in this country, what her presumed guilt really was. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She questioned the cop’s presumption of her rights. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She was smoking a cigarette. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
Maybe she sat in jail for a bit and contemplated all the cop’s presumptions and her own presumptions undertaken when she innocently took a new job, packed up her car, and drove it while being herself across state lines, and all of the presumptive baggage strangers around her loaded her car with about who she was and what she represented and how the presumptions of these strangers might play out in a society loaded with presumption, even if she hadn’t signed up to represent.
Maybe she thought, well, when all of this is said and done, I’ll write a Kafka-like story about a woman who came to in an automobile and who is presumed by society to be a cockroach/beetle type of creature from the get-go because of some guilt visited upon her without invitation, long before she was born.
Maybe she thought, f*ck it, I’m tired of being f*cked with and ended it.
Maybe she thought, well, the new job is probably down the tubes, so f*ck it.
My presumption is that the cop could have and should have walked away from this encounter. He had numerous opportunities to stand down and let her go with a POLITE warning.
I’m exactly 100% right about that.
P.S. For various reasons and according to one’s political leanings, public servants at all levels are presumed to be guilty suspects from the get go in America. Usually, first of all, guilty of theft, because they earn their living from the public coffers, and more subtly, of some inadequacy presumed to be attendant to their decision to seek employment in the public sector rather than in the private sector.
So, we’re all presumed guilty of one thing or another when we get out of bed in the morning. Such is life in a nation of judgmental pigf*ckers that prides itself on an adversary culture.
Criminal investigators presume someone is guilty and try to find evidence to prove whom that might be.
Prosecuting attorneys’ jobs are to presume whomever the criminal investigators have fingered as the guilty party is in fact the guilty party and try to prove it to a jury and judge, and if you don’t believe that, try being charged with a crime and experiencing the presumptions for your own selves and instruct your attorney to bargain with them given the odds of their presumptions against the presumptions of a judge and jury.
The courts presume innocence unless proven guilty, with different standards applied in criminal versus civil cases.
Various states of relaxation permeate all three of those contexts in an imperfect system.
If a guy was to make a movie of Sandra Bland’s life and death, he might presume she had an appointment with a nasty destiny, because of some guilt already imprinted upon her.
She was driving. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She didn’t signal properly, in a dicey situation that anyone could find themselves in, though I think we can presume from ample historical evidence, repeated ad nauseam in this country, what her presumed guilt really was. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She questioned the cop’s presumption of her rights. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
She was smoking a cigarette. What could be more guilty than that, one cop apparently presumed.
Maybe she sat in jail for a bit and contemplated all the cop’s presumptions and her own presumptions undertaken when she innocently took a new job, packed up her car, and drove it while being herself across state lines, and all of the presumptive baggage strangers around her loaded her car with about who she was and what she represented and how the presumptions of these strangers might play out in a society loaded with presumption, even if she hadn’t signed up to represent.
Maybe she thought, well, when all of this is said and done, I’ll write a Kafka-like story about a woman who came to in an automobile and who is presumed by society to be a cockroach/beetle type of creature from the get-go because of some guilt visited upon her without invitation, long before she was born.
Maybe she thought, f*ck it, I’m tired of being f*cked with and ended it.
Maybe she thought, well, the new job is probably down the tubes, so f*ck it.
My presumption is that the cop could have and should have walked away from this encounter. He had numerous opportunities to stand down and let her go with a POLITE warning.
I’m exactly 100% right about that.
P.S. For various reasons and according to one’s political leanings, public servants at all levels are presumed to be guilty suspects from the get go in America. Usually, first of all, guilty of theft, because they earn their living from the public coffers, and more subtly, of some inadequacy presumed to be attendant to their decision to seek employment in the public sector rather than in the private sector.
So, we’re all presumed guilty of one thing or another when we get out of bed in the morning. Such is life in a nation of judgmental pigf*ckers that prides itself on an adversary culture.
So, the first post of that comment, when I hit post, a message came up with after some lengthy delay that declared “No root for comment”.
After kicking the computer in the fender a couple of times, etc., it happened again, resulting in twin comments.
Sorry.
I dunno, I presume some primordial guilt I carry around.
So, the first post of that comment, when I hit post, a message came up with after some lengthy delay that declared “No root for comment”.
After kicking the computer in the fender a couple of times, etc., it happened again, resulting in twin comments.
Sorry.
I dunno, I presume some primordial guilt I carry around.
So, the first post of that comment, when I hit post, a message came up with after some lengthy delay that declared “No root for comment”.
After kicking the computer in the fender a couple of times, etc., it happened again, resulting in twin comments.
Sorry.
I dunno, I presume some primordial guilt I carry around.
2) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are no legal ramifications. In which case, I’m lost as to your point.
I think what Barry is saying is that you treat it like a murder for the purposes of investigation, at least until that investigation leads to strong evidence otherwise. You don’t say, “Well, they said she hung herself, so I guess that’s what happened.” (I don’t know if that’s how anyone handled this, but I’d say that’s Barry’s point, as opposed to a suggestion that someone be convicted immediately under the presumption of guilt.)
2) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are no legal ramifications. In which case, I’m lost as to your point.
I think what Barry is saying is that you treat it like a murder for the purposes of investigation, at least until that investigation leads to strong evidence otherwise. You don’t say, “Well, they said she hung herself, so I guess that’s what happened.” (I don’t know if that’s how anyone handled this, but I’d say that’s Barry’s point, as opposed to a suggestion that someone be convicted immediately under the presumption of guilt.)
2) It’s ‘considered’ murder, and there are no legal ramifications. In which case, I’m lost as to your point.
I think what Barry is saying is that you treat it like a murder for the purposes of investigation, at least until that investigation leads to strong evidence otherwise. You don’t say, “Well, they said she hung herself, so I guess that’s what happened.” (I don’t know if that’s how anyone handled this, but I’d say that’s Barry’s point, as opposed to a suggestion that someone be convicted immediately under the presumption of guilt.)
It was worth saying twice Count! I’ll see if I can take one of them down though.
It was worth saying twice Count! I’ll see if I can take one of them down though.
It was worth saying twice Count! I’ll see if I can take one of them down though.
My presumption is that the cop could have and should have walked away from this encounter.
This. Thank you.
My presumption is that the cop could have and should have walked away from this encounter.
This. Thank you.
My presumption is that the cop could have and should have walked away from this encounter.
This. Thank you.
I’m not the first to point this out or anything, but it is striking how much the “if only she’d done/not done X” commentary when it comes to abusive, violent, sometimes murderous police officers is structurally like “if only she’d done/not done X” commentary about rape victims. The latter seldom if ever accounts for the rape of pre-pubescent minors or of old women in nursing homes, neither of whom are out there wearing sexy stuff, leading men on with arousing remarks, or any of that other stuff. The article CharlesWT linked to above has a good sampler of videos illustrating the point that no tactic will reliably insure your safety – Tamir Rice wasn’t insolently smoking at the cops, for instance.
In both cases, there are various combinations of fearing to confront the actual perpetrators, making excuses for them, and whatever. But really, people don’t have to engage in elaborate rationales for why this rape victim kinda deserved it if people don’t feel at liberty to rape others, and people don’t have to work out complicated codes of conduct that might or might not work if cops don’t feel at liberty to harass and kill people.
I’m not the first to point this out or anything, but it is striking how much the “if only she’d done/not done X” commentary when it comes to abusive, violent, sometimes murderous police officers is structurally like “if only she’d done/not done X” commentary about rape victims. The latter seldom if ever accounts for the rape of pre-pubescent minors or of old women in nursing homes, neither of whom are out there wearing sexy stuff, leading men on with arousing remarks, or any of that other stuff. The article CharlesWT linked to above has a good sampler of videos illustrating the point that no tactic will reliably insure your safety – Tamir Rice wasn’t insolently smoking at the cops, for instance.
In both cases, there are various combinations of fearing to confront the actual perpetrators, making excuses for them, and whatever. But really, people don’t have to engage in elaborate rationales for why this rape victim kinda deserved it if people don’t feel at liberty to rape others, and people don’t have to work out complicated codes of conduct that might or might not work if cops don’t feel at liberty to harass and kill people.
I’m not the first to point this out or anything, but it is striking how much the “if only she’d done/not done X” commentary when it comes to abusive, violent, sometimes murderous police officers is structurally like “if only she’d done/not done X” commentary about rape victims. The latter seldom if ever accounts for the rape of pre-pubescent minors or of old women in nursing homes, neither of whom are out there wearing sexy stuff, leading men on with arousing remarks, or any of that other stuff. The article CharlesWT linked to above has a good sampler of videos illustrating the point that no tactic will reliably insure your safety – Tamir Rice wasn’t insolently smoking at the cops, for instance.
In both cases, there are various combinations of fearing to confront the actual perpetrators, making excuses for them, and whatever. But really, people don’t have to engage in elaborate rationales for why this rape victim kinda deserved it if people don’t feel at liberty to rape others, and people don’t have to work out complicated codes of conduct that might or might not work if cops don’t feel at liberty to harass and kill people.
The perpetrators are really the victims of everyone else’s failure to properly account for their proclivities.
The perpetrators are really the victims of everyone else’s failure to properly account for their proclivities.
The perpetrators are really the victims of everyone else’s failure to properly account for their proclivities.
Matt Taibbi is good on this, too.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sandra-bland-was-murdered-20150724?page=3
Matt Taibbi is good on this, too.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sandra-bland-was-murdered-20150724?page=3
Matt Taibbi is good on this, too.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sandra-bland-was-murdered-20150724?page=3
“when a cop pulls you over, you should have your license and registration ready, you put your hands on the steering wheel so he can see them when he arrives”
Better to open the your window and put your hands out on the door so they can see them before they arrive. Also never try to be funny because cops have a shitty sense of humor, also if they make a racist joke it is wise to laugh along with them.
“when a cop pulls you over, you should have your license and registration ready, you put your hands on the steering wheel so he can see them when he arrives”
Better to open the your window and put your hands out on the door so they can see them before they arrive. Also never try to be funny because cops have a shitty sense of humor, also if they make a racist joke it is wise to laugh along with them.
“when a cop pulls you over, you should have your license and registration ready, you put your hands on the steering wheel so he can see them when he arrives”
Better to open the your window and put your hands out on the door so they can see them before they arrive. Also never try to be funny because cops have a shitty sense of humor, also if they make a racist joke it is wise to laugh along with them.
Probably better to open the window but not pull out your license and registration until asked. Otherwise you are moving around in the car as he is approaching, which could be seen as threatening. For example, if your registration is in the glove box, and you are reaching for it as he arrives, you could equally well be reaching for a gun.
Probably better to open the window but not pull out your license and registration until asked. Otherwise you are moving around in the car as he is approaching, which could be seen as threatening. For example, if your registration is in the glove box, and you are reaching for it as he arrives, you could equally well be reaching for a gun.
Probably better to open the window but not pull out your license and registration until asked. Otherwise you are moving around in the car as he is approaching, which could be seen as threatening. For example, if your registration is in the glove box, and you are reaching for it as he arrives, you could equally well be reaching for a gun.
If you’re sufficiently paranoid (and who is to say that is inappropriate?), you keep the insurance and registration in a holder attached to the sun visor.
If you’re sufficiently paranoid (and who is to say that is inappropriate?), you keep the insurance and registration in a holder attached to the sun visor.
If you’re sufficiently paranoid (and who is to say that is inappropriate?), you keep the insurance and registration in a holder attached to the sun visor.
… you could equally well be reaching for a gun.
In this country, yes.
So we must all very carefully restrict our actions during a traffic stop, because FREEDOM!
–TP
… you could equally well be reaching for a gun.
In this country, yes.
So we must all very carefully restrict our actions during a traffic stop, because FREEDOM!
–TP
… you could equally well be reaching for a gun.
In this country, yes.
So we must all very carefully restrict our actions during a traffic stop, because FREEDOM!
–TP
I always try to carry a fake plastic arm and hand with me while driving so that when the officer peers into the car he’ll notice that I have all three hands on the wheel.
If it’s at night and I’m alone, I duck down real quickly and move to the passenger’s seat without the officer noticing, and claim that the driver, whoever she was, got away.
But seriously, if stopped, I immediately duck into the glove box and find the registration and insurance cards and fetch my license from my wallet so that I can appear prepared.
Plus, if it’s at night, I’m embarrassed to have to remove my glasses so I can see closeup and rummage at length, while the officer cools his heels window side, through the glove box and ferret out THIS year’s registration and insurance cards from among the half-folded maps and expired credentials, loose fuses, and that pastrami sandwich I lost track of two weeks ago.
I always try to carry a fake plastic arm and hand with me while driving so that when the officer peers into the car he’ll notice that I have all three hands on the wheel.
If it’s at night and I’m alone, I duck down real quickly and move to the passenger’s seat without the officer noticing, and claim that the driver, whoever she was, got away.
But seriously, if stopped, I immediately duck into the glove box and find the registration and insurance cards and fetch my license from my wallet so that I can appear prepared.
Plus, if it’s at night, I’m embarrassed to have to remove my glasses so I can see closeup and rummage at length, while the officer cools his heels window side, through the glove box and ferret out THIS year’s registration and insurance cards from among the half-folded maps and expired credentials, loose fuses, and that pastrami sandwich I lost track of two weeks ago.
I always try to carry a fake plastic arm and hand with me while driving so that when the officer peers into the car he’ll notice that I have all three hands on the wheel.
If it’s at night and I’m alone, I duck down real quickly and move to the passenger’s seat without the officer noticing, and claim that the driver, whoever she was, got away.
But seriously, if stopped, I immediately duck into the glove box and find the registration and insurance cards and fetch my license from my wallet so that I can appear prepared.
Plus, if it’s at night, I’m embarrassed to have to remove my glasses so I can see closeup and rummage at length, while the officer cools his heels window side, through the glove box and ferret out THIS year’s registration and insurance cards from among the half-folded maps and expired credentials, loose fuses, and that pastrami sandwich I lost track of two weeks ago.
“Keep your hands on the wheel. License and registration please.”
*reaches for license and registration*
“I SAID KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE WHEEL!”
True story as related by a friend. Cop relented when it was pointed out that it’s hard to do both.
“Keep your hands on the wheel. License and registration please.”
*reaches for license and registration*
“I SAID KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE WHEEL!”
True story as related by a friend. Cop relented when it was pointed out that it’s hard to do both.
“Keep your hands on the wheel. License and registration please.”
*reaches for license and registration*
“I SAID KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE WHEEL!”
True story as related by a friend. Cop relented when it was pointed out that it’s hard to do both.
I think what Barry is saying is that you treat it like a murder for the purposes of investigation, at least until that investigation leads to strong evidence otherwise.
If you’re saying custodial deaths should be investigated, I have zero disagreement.
What I don’t get is what, specifically, does ‘considered a murder’ and ‘until proven otherwise’ mean? And by specifically, I mean what policies and procedures are being suggested in those phrases, and how does that differ from the current policies and procedures? Or is it just rhetorical flair, with no actual substance?
Because those phrases make me very uncomfortable, for the reason I noted.
I think what Barry is saying is that you treat it like a murder for the purposes of investigation, at least until that investigation leads to strong evidence otherwise.
If you’re saying custodial deaths should be investigated, I have zero disagreement.
What I don’t get is what, specifically, does ‘considered a murder’ and ‘until proven otherwise’ mean? And by specifically, I mean what policies and procedures are being suggested in those phrases, and how does that differ from the current policies and procedures? Or is it just rhetorical flair, with no actual substance?
Because those phrases make me very uncomfortable, for the reason I noted.
I think what Barry is saying is that you treat it like a murder for the purposes of investigation, at least until that investigation leads to strong evidence otherwise.
If you’re saying custodial deaths should be investigated, I have zero disagreement.
What I don’t get is what, specifically, does ‘considered a murder’ and ‘until proven otherwise’ mean? And by specifically, I mean what policies and procedures are being suggested in those phrases, and how does that differ from the current policies and procedures? Or is it just rhetorical flair, with no actual substance?
Because those phrases make me very uncomfortable, for the reason I noted.
And by specifically, I mean what policies and procedures are being suggested in those phrases, and how does that differ from the current policies and procedures?
As written or as executed? Are you suggesting that existing practices are of a sufficiently high standard, and without excessive deference to the police, such that we shouldn’t be discussing this sort of thing (because it makes you very uncomfortable)?
“Should be investigated” leaves a lot of room for cursory, superficial and perfunctory action.
And by specifically, I mean what policies and procedures are being suggested in those phrases, and how does that differ from the current policies and procedures?
As written or as executed? Are you suggesting that existing practices are of a sufficiently high standard, and without excessive deference to the police, such that we shouldn’t be discussing this sort of thing (because it makes you very uncomfortable)?
“Should be investigated” leaves a lot of room for cursory, superficial and perfunctory action.
And by specifically, I mean what policies and procedures are being suggested in those phrases, and how does that differ from the current policies and procedures?
As written or as executed? Are you suggesting that existing practices are of a sufficiently high standard, and without excessive deference to the police, such that we shouldn’t be discussing this sort of thing (because it makes you very uncomfortable)?
“Should be investigated” leaves a lot of room for cursory, superficial and perfunctory action.
True story as related by a friend. Cop relented when it was pointed out that it’s hard to do both.
Why am I thinking of the bank robbery in Raising Arizona?
True story as related by a friend. Cop relented when it was pointed out that it’s hard to do both.
Why am I thinking of the bank robbery in Raising Arizona?
True story as related by a friend. Cop relented when it was pointed out that it’s hard to do both.
Why am I thinking of the bank robbery in Raising Arizona?
Count: when dealing with things like photo-radar or photo-red-light enforcement, it’s always best to have a right-hand-drive car (best is something like a Toyota model that they sell in Japan, so it doesn’t look TOO unusual).
Install a fake driving wheel on the left, a tiny one on the right, and put a crash test dummy with a John Boehner mask in the “driver’s seat”.
When the citation arrives, tell the judge “well, I sometimes loan my car to high ranking republicans, and you know how THEY are.” Make sure to wear a Reagan mask yourself, just for the yuks.
Switch to Clinton masks in “R” jurisdictions. Not for use in actual traffic stops. Your mileage may vary. Consult your doctor if police detentions last for more than three hours. No refunds.
Count: when dealing with things like photo-radar or photo-red-light enforcement, it’s always best to have a right-hand-drive car (best is something like a Toyota model that they sell in Japan, so it doesn’t look TOO unusual).
Install a fake driving wheel on the left, a tiny one on the right, and put a crash test dummy with a John Boehner mask in the “driver’s seat”.
When the citation arrives, tell the judge “well, I sometimes loan my car to high ranking republicans, and you know how THEY are.” Make sure to wear a Reagan mask yourself, just for the yuks.
Switch to Clinton masks in “R” jurisdictions. Not for use in actual traffic stops. Your mileage may vary. Consult your doctor if police detentions last for more than three hours. No refunds.
Count: when dealing with things like photo-radar or photo-red-light enforcement, it’s always best to have a right-hand-drive car (best is something like a Toyota model that they sell in Japan, so it doesn’t look TOO unusual).
Install a fake driving wheel on the left, a tiny one on the right, and put a crash test dummy with a John Boehner mask in the “driver’s seat”.
When the citation arrives, tell the judge “well, I sometimes loan my car to high ranking republicans, and you know how THEY are.” Make sure to wear a Reagan mask yourself, just for the yuks.
Switch to Clinton masks in “R” jurisdictions. Not for use in actual traffic stops. Your mileage may vary. Consult your doctor if police detentions last for more than three hours. No refunds.
Are you suggesting that existing practices are of a sufficiently high standard
No, I absolutely am not.
I am *saying* I don’t know what Barry’s point was, and a reasonable interpretation of ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’ strikes against the presumption of innocence.
Which would be bad.
He says that’s not his point. So I’d like to know what it is.
such that we shouldn’t be discussing this sort of thing (because it makes you very uncomfortable)?
What makes me uncomfortable is undermining due process rights, which I stated pretty explicitly before.
Which, again, Barry said wasn’t his point. Which, again, is why I’m trying to figure out what his point is.
Are you suggesting that existing practices are of a sufficiently high standard
No, I absolutely am not.
I am *saying* I don’t know what Barry’s point was, and a reasonable interpretation of ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’ strikes against the presumption of innocence.
Which would be bad.
He says that’s not his point. So I’d like to know what it is.
such that we shouldn’t be discussing this sort of thing (because it makes you very uncomfortable)?
What makes me uncomfortable is undermining due process rights, which I stated pretty explicitly before.
Which, again, Barry said wasn’t his point. Which, again, is why I’m trying to figure out what his point is.
Are you suggesting that existing practices are of a sufficiently high standard
No, I absolutely am not.
I am *saying* I don’t know what Barry’s point was, and a reasonable interpretation of ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’ strikes against the presumption of innocence.
Which would be bad.
He says that’s not his point. So I’d like to know what it is.
such that we shouldn’t be discussing this sort of thing (because it makes you very uncomfortable)?
What makes me uncomfortable is undermining due process rights, which I stated pretty explicitly before.
Which, again, Barry said wasn’t his point. Which, again, is why I’m trying to figure out what his point is.
I think Barry was just calling for the investigation to proceed “as if it were” a homicide. Presumably different investigatory approaches are taken when starting from “assume it’s a homicide” rather than “assume it’s a suicide.” Or instead of assume, “looks like a”.
I think Barry was just calling for the investigation to proceed “as if it were” a homicide. Presumably different investigatory approaches are taken when starting from “assume it’s a homicide” rather than “assume it’s a suicide.” Or instead of assume, “looks like a”.
I think Barry was just calling for the investigation to proceed “as if it were” a homicide. Presumably different investigatory approaches are taken when starting from “assume it’s a homicide” rather than “assume it’s a suicide.” Or instead of assume, “looks like a”.
I think this is a good article, but still like every other article I’ve seen it claims that Sandra refused to put out her cigarette when in actuality she was only asking for a reason.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing
We deserve more than just legal policing. We deserve good policing.
I think this is a good article, but still like every other article I’ve seen it claims that Sandra refused to put out her cigarette when in actuality she was only asking for a reason.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing
We deserve more than just legal policing. We deserve good policing.
I think this is a good article, but still like every other article I’ve seen it claims that Sandra refused to put out her cigarette when in actuality she was only asking for a reason.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing
We deserve more than just legal policing. We deserve good policing.
Presumably different investigatory approaches are taken when starting from “assume it’s a homicide” rather than “assume it’s a suicide.”
I would assume in both cases, the body would be transferred to the medical examiner, who determines cause of death. A LE agency with jurisdiction can pursue (or not) the case based on the ME’s findings and other evidence.
If the argument is for an unaffiliated LE agency to do the inquiry in custodial deaths, I think that’s a good idea.
If they point is one of dissatisfaction with how this is typically handled, its on I share.
But I don’t get what ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’ means as a practical measure. Clearly how I interpreted it initially was wrong. That’s fine. But I’m left asking what the practical meaning of that phrase is.
Is the DA compelled to press charges, or bring evidence to a grand jury? Or a detective must visit the scene? Or what?
There are things that might help, and maybe Barry has some good ideas. I’m just asking what they are.
Presumably different investigatory approaches are taken when starting from “assume it’s a homicide” rather than “assume it’s a suicide.”
I would assume in both cases, the body would be transferred to the medical examiner, who determines cause of death. A LE agency with jurisdiction can pursue (or not) the case based on the ME’s findings and other evidence.
If the argument is for an unaffiliated LE agency to do the inquiry in custodial deaths, I think that’s a good idea.
If they point is one of dissatisfaction with how this is typically handled, its on I share.
But I don’t get what ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’ means as a practical measure. Clearly how I interpreted it initially was wrong. That’s fine. But I’m left asking what the practical meaning of that phrase is.
Is the DA compelled to press charges, or bring evidence to a grand jury? Or a detective must visit the scene? Or what?
There are things that might help, and maybe Barry has some good ideas. I’m just asking what they are.
Presumably different investigatory approaches are taken when starting from “assume it’s a homicide” rather than “assume it’s a suicide.”
I would assume in both cases, the body would be transferred to the medical examiner, who determines cause of death. A LE agency with jurisdiction can pursue (or not) the case based on the ME’s findings and other evidence.
If the argument is for an unaffiliated LE agency to do the inquiry in custodial deaths, I think that’s a good idea.
If they point is one of dissatisfaction with how this is typically handled, its on I share.
But I don’t get what ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’ means as a practical measure. Clearly how I interpreted it initially was wrong. That’s fine. But I’m left asking what the practical meaning of that phrase is.
Is the DA compelled to press charges, or bring evidence to a grand jury? Or a detective must visit the scene? Or what?
There are things that might help, and maybe Barry has some good ideas. I’m just asking what they are.
I’m a little surprised we haven’t yet heard criticism from law and order, but small government conservatives that the officer was actually a nanny-state liberal Hillary supporter who was demanding from Sandra Bland that his airspace not be invaded by second-hand cigarette smoke which could cause him physical harm and THAT, and that only, makes any discourtesy, overreaction, and abuse on his part unjustified.
All else was by the book.
I’m a little surprised we haven’t yet heard criticism from law and order, but small government conservatives that the officer was actually a nanny-state liberal Hillary supporter who was demanding from Sandra Bland that his airspace not be invaded by second-hand cigarette smoke which could cause him physical harm and THAT, and that only, makes any discourtesy, overreaction, and abuse on his part unjustified.
All else was by the book.
I’m a little surprised we haven’t yet heard criticism from law and order, but small government conservatives that the officer was actually a nanny-state liberal Hillary supporter who was demanding from Sandra Bland that his airspace not be invaded by second-hand cigarette smoke which could cause him physical harm and THAT, and that only, makes any discourtesy, overreaction, and abuse on his part unjustified.
All else was by the book.
Or better yet:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/elisabeth-hasselbeck-fox-sandra-bland
See, I went over to TPM after that 5:15 pm comment above to learn that conservative reality beat me to the punch again.
Curses! I’m losing my touch.
Or better yet:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/elisabeth-hasselbeck-fox-sandra-bland
See, I went over to TPM after that 5:15 pm comment above to learn that conservative reality beat me to the punch again.
Curses! I’m losing my touch.
Or better yet:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/elisabeth-hasselbeck-fox-sandra-bland
See, I went over to TPM after that 5:15 pm comment above to learn that conservative reality beat me to the punch again.
Curses! I’m losing my touch.
Texas Prosecutor Names Committee to Review Sandra Bland Case
Texas Prosecutor Names Committee to Review Sandra Bland Case
Texas Prosecutor Names Committee to Review Sandra Bland Case
Charles:
It is sad that an article that is nominally about a committee investigating the death is mostly about Bland’s potential (maybe, we’re not sure) pot use.
Up until I read it, I was slightly optimistic because of the title.
Charles:
It is sad that an article that is nominally about a committee investigating the death is mostly about Bland’s potential (maybe, we’re not sure) pot use.
Up until I read it, I was slightly optimistic because of the title.
Charles:
It is sad that an article that is nominally about a committee investigating the death is mostly about Bland’s potential (maybe, we’re not sure) pot use.
Up until I read it, I was slightly optimistic because of the title.
It is sad that an article that is nominally about a committee investigating the death is mostly about Bland’s potential (maybe, we’re not sure) pot use.
Hard to know what that all means though. From the article, it seems likely that she might have been given it in prison (framed?).
I have nothing against marijuana use, so I agree that if it’s an attempt to derail the investigation, that’s not good. But maybe there’s another angle.
It is sad that an article that is nominally about a committee investigating the death is mostly about Bland’s potential (maybe, we’re not sure) pot use.
Hard to know what that all means though. From the article, it seems likely that she might have been given it in prison (framed?).
I have nothing against marijuana use, so I agree that if it’s an attempt to derail the investigation, that’s not good. But maybe there’s another angle.
It is sad that an article that is nominally about a committee investigating the death is mostly about Bland’s potential (maybe, we’re not sure) pot use.
Hard to know what that all means though. From the article, it seems likely that she might have been given it in prison (framed?).
I have nothing against marijuana use, so I agree that if it’s an attempt to derail the investigation, that’s not good. But maybe there’s another angle.
A different take…
Anonymous Says ‘Sandra Bland Was Murdered’, Calls For National ‘Day of Rage’
A different take…
Anonymous Says ‘Sandra Bland Was Murdered’, Calls For National ‘Day of Rage’
A different take…
Anonymous Says ‘Sandra Bland Was Murdered’, Calls For National ‘Day of Rage’
To clarify things:
When a murder is suspected, the people involved don’t get to investigate it, or hold the evidence. The people who do investigate and decide to prosecute are people who are quite fine with concluding that there was indeed a murder, and with putting people in prison for the rest of their lives.
The way that we treat deaths in custody would be analogous to allowing the person with the smoking gun to investigate the incident.
To clarify things:
When a murder is suspected, the people involved don’t get to investigate it, or hold the evidence. The people who do investigate and decide to prosecute are people who are quite fine with concluding that there was indeed a murder, and with putting people in prison for the rest of their lives.
The way that we treat deaths in custody would be analogous to allowing the person with the smoking gun to investigate the incident.
To clarify things:
When a murder is suspected, the people involved don’t get to investigate it, or hold the evidence. The people who do investigate and decide to prosecute are people who are quite fine with concluding that there was indeed a murder, and with putting people in prison for the rest of their lives.
The way that we treat deaths in custody would be analogous to allowing the person with the smoking gun to investigate the incident.
The way that we treat deaths in custody would be analogous to allowing the person with the smoking gun to investigate the incident.
So who do you think should investigate custodial deaths? My understanding is both the Texas Rangers and the FBI are investigating Bland’s death at a county facility (http://www.dps.texas.gov/director_staff/media_and_communications/2015/pr20150716.htm ). The Rangers were called in by the county when Bland was found, and the FBI was called in by DPS.
What procedures would you like to put into place? Immediate elevation to the FBI? Recruitment of a neighboring county to investigate? Continuous monitoring of county jails by the DOJ?
Again, I’m not trying to say there isn’t a problem, there is. I’m just unclear on what you are suggesting to fix it. Or if you’re not suggesting a change, that’s fine too, I just misunderstood.
The way that we treat deaths in custody would be analogous to allowing the person with the smoking gun to investigate the incident.
So who do you think should investigate custodial deaths? My understanding is both the Texas Rangers and the FBI are investigating Bland’s death at a county facility (http://www.dps.texas.gov/director_staff/media_and_communications/2015/pr20150716.htm ). The Rangers were called in by the county when Bland was found, and the FBI was called in by DPS.
What procedures would you like to put into place? Immediate elevation to the FBI? Recruitment of a neighboring county to investigate? Continuous monitoring of county jails by the DOJ?
Again, I’m not trying to say there isn’t a problem, there is. I’m just unclear on what you are suggesting to fix it. Or if you’re not suggesting a change, that’s fine too, I just misunderstood.
The way that we treat deaths in custody would be analogous to allowing the person with the smoking gun to investigate the incident.
So who do you think should investigate custodial deaths? My understanding is both the Texas Rangers and the FBI are investigating Bland’s death at a county facility (http://www.dps.texas.gov/director_staff/media_and_communications/2015/pr20150716.htm ). The Rangers were called in by the county when Bland was found, and the FBI was called in by DPS.
What procedures would you like to put into place? Immediate elevation to the FBI? Recruitment of a neighboring county to investigate? Continuous monitoring of county jails by the DOJ?
Again, I’m not trying to say there isn’t a problem, there is. I’m just unclear on what you are suggesting to fix it. Or if you’re not suggesting a change, that’s fine too, I just misunderstood.
First, the autopsy should not have been done by the county ME. The local prosecutor should not have been involved.
As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted.
First, the autopsy should not have been done by the county ME. The local prosecutor should not have been involved.
As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted.
First, the autopsy should not have been done by the county ME. The local prosecutor should not have been involved.
As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted.
First, the autopsy should not have been done by the county ME.
Ok, to ask again, who should do it then.
The local prosecutor should not have been involved.
Who should be, and how does that get triggered?
As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted.
And what policies are you suggesting that will prevent or that from happening in the future?
First, the autopsy should not have been done by the county ME.
Ok, to ask again, who should do it then.
The local prosecutor should not have been involved.
Who should be, and how does that get triggered?
As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted.
And what policies are you suggesting that will prevent or that from happening in the future?
First, the autopsy should not have been done by the county ME.
Ok, to ask again, who should do it then.
The local prosecutor should not have been involved.
Who should be, and how does that get triggered?
As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted.
And what policies are you suggesting that will prevent or that from happening in the future?
And what policies are you suggesting that will prevent or that from happening in the future?
IMO, coming down HARD on cops who do this crap might teach other cops to think before they go full Cartman on the next person.
that’s the theory behind all the rest of the CJ system, right? make the penalties harsh enough and predictable enough that people are dissuaded from breaking the rules in the first place.
And what policies are you suggesting that will prevent or that from happening in the future?
IMO, coming down HARD on cops who do this crap might teach other cops to think before they go full Cartman on the next person.
that’s the theory behind all the rest of the CJ system, right? make the penalties harsh enough and predictable enough that people are dissuaded from breaking the rules in the first place.
And what policies are you suggesting that will prevent or that from happening in the future?
IMO, coming down HARD on cops who do this crap might teach other cops to think before they go full Cartman on the next person.
that’s the theory behind all the rest of the CJ system, right? make the penalties harsh enough and predictable enough that people are dissuaded from breaking the rules in the first place.
How bout police chiefs and mayors around the country have their police staff, all the way down to the secretaries, or have they all been made redundant, sit down and watch a video mashup of every instance of abuse and killing by cops against citizens over the past two years (the length should rival “The Sorrow and the Pity”) in this country and rather than taking questions once the lights come up, announce that if anyone on the payroll engages in any behavior even approaching this sh*t, their badges and guns will be confiscated and their butts will be sent to jail, so help me God, plus the chief and mayor will take you into the parking lot and hurt you.
Whatever happened to the Riot Act!
How bout police chiefs and mayors around the country have their police staff, all the way down to the secretaries, or have they all been made redundant, sit down and watch a video mashup of every instance of abuse and killing by cops against citizens over the past two years (the length should rival “The Sorrow and the Pity”) in this country and rather than taking questions once the lights come up, announce that if anyone on the payroll engages in any behavior even approaching this sh*t, their badges and guns will be confiscated and their butts will be sent to jail, so help me God, plus the chief and mayor will take you into the parking lot and hurt you.
Whatever happened to the Riot Act!
How bout police chiefs and mayors around the country have their police staff, all the way down to the secretaries, or have they all been made redundant, sit down and watch a video mashup of every instance of abuse and killing by cops against citizens over the past two years (the length should rival “The Sorrow and the Pity”) in this country and rather than taking questions once the lights come up, announce that if anyone on the payroll engages in any behavior even approaching this sh*t, their badges and guns will be confiscated and their butts will be sent to jail, so help me God, plus the chief and mayor will take you into the parking lot and hurt you.
Whatever happened to the Riot Act!
How bout police chiefs and mayors around the country have their police staff, all the way down to the secretaries, or have they all been made redundant, sit down and watch a video mashup of every instance of abuse and killing by cops against citizens over the past two years (the length should rival “The Sorrow and the Pity”) in this country and rather than taking questions once the lights come up, announce that if anyone on the payroll engages in any behavior even approaching this sh*t, their badges and guns will be confiscated and their butts will be sent to jail, so help me God, plus the chief and mayor will take you into the parking lot and hurt you.
Whatever happened to the Riot Act!
How bout police chiefs and mayors around the country have their police staff, all the way down to the secretaries, or have they all been made redundant, sit down and watch a video mashup of every instance of abuse and killing by cops against citizens over the past two years (the length should rival “The Sorrow and the Pity”) in this country and rather than taking questions once the lights come up, announce that if anyone on the payroll engages in any behavior even approaching this sh*t, their badges and guns will be confiscated and their butts will be sent to jail, so help me God, plus the chief and mayor will take you into the parking lot and hurt you.
Whatever happened to the Riot Act!
How bout police chiefs and mayors around the country have their police staff, all the way down to the secretaries, or have they all been made redundant, sit down and watch a video mashup of every instance of abuse and killing by cops against citizens over the past two years (the length should rival “The Sorrow and the Pity”) in this country and rather than taking questions once the lights come up, announce that if anyone on the payroll engages in any behavior even approaching this sh*t, their badges and guns will be confiscated and their butts will be sent to jail, so help me God, plus the chief and mayor will take you into the parking lot and hurt you.
Whatever happened to the Riot Act!
Read the Riot Act twice, in case it doesn’t sink in the first time, daggummit!
Read the Riot Act twice, in case it doesn’t sink in the first time, daggummit!
Read the Riot Act twice, in case it doesn’t sink in the first time, daggummit!
coming down HARD on cops who do this crap might teach other cops to think before they go full Cartman on the next person.
I think, realistically, that’s the only way this changes. You have to make officers personally liable when they fail. Either through actual loss of wages, criminal penalties, or whatever is appropriate for the level of failure.
In theory, that could/should be done by departments, DAs, and judges. Getting them to do their jobs, however, has proven to be a challenge.
coming down HARD on cops who do this crap might teach other cops to think before they go full Cartman on the next person.
I think, realistically, that’s the only way this changes. You have to make officers personally liable when they fail. Either through actual loss of wages, criminal penalties, or whatever is appropriate for the level of failure.
In theory, that could/should be done by departments, DAs, and judges. Getting them to do their jobs, however, has proven to be a challenge.
coming down HARD on cops who do this crap might teach other cops to think before they go full Cartman on the next person.
I think, realistically, that’s the only way this changes. You have to make officers personally liable when they fail. Either through actual loss of wages, criminal penalties, or whatever is appropriate for the level of failure.
In theory, that could/should be done by departments, DAs, and judges. Getting them to do their jobs, however, has proven to be a challenge.
Not a lot of improvement is going to happen as long the police unions stand in the way.
Police Unions Must Not Block Reform
Not a lot of improvement is going to happen as long the police unions stand in the way.
Police Unions Must Not Block Reform
Not a lot of improvement is going to happen as long the police unions stand in the way.
Police Unions Must Not Block Reform
Not a lot of improvements are going to happen as long as citizens on juries (Grand and Petit) let cops walk on their crimes.
It’ll take both top-down and bottom-up pressure.
Not a lot of improvements are going to happen as long as citizens on juries (Grand and Petit) let cops walk on their crimes.
It’ll take both top-down and bottom-up pressure.
Not a lot of improvements are going to happen as long as citizens on juries (Grand and Petit) let cops walk on their crimes.
It’ll take both top-down and bottom-up pressure.
Texas county releases footage to dispel rumors over woman’s death
Texas county releases footage to dispel rumors over woman’s death
Texas county releases footage to dispel rumors over woman’s death
Thompson: “Ok, to ask again, who should do it then.”
Um, at the very least state-level authorities.
I’m going to risk being rude, but was this a serious question? If I state that not having intimately-involved people investigating things is bad, do you actually need help figuring out some alternatives?
Thompson: “Ok, to ask again, who should do it then.”
Um, at the very least state-level authorities.
I’m going to risk being rude, but was this a serious question? If I state that not having intimately-involved people investigating things is bad, do you actually need help figuring out some alternatives?
Thompson: “Ok, to ask again, who should do it then.”
Um, at the very least state-level authorities.
I’m going to risk being rude, but was this a serious question? If I state that not having intimately-involved people investigating things is bad, do you actually need help figuring out some alternatives?
Barry, don’t you understand? You need to post names, phone numbers, work histories and criminal background checks of *exactly* the people that should investigate Ms. Bland’s death, otherwise it’s *your* fault that the investigate is messed up.
Barry, don’t you understand? You need to post names, phone numbers, work histories and criminal background checks of *exactly* the people that should investigate Ms. Bland’s death, otherwise it’s *your* fault that the investigate is messed up.
Barry, don’t you understand? You need to post names, phone numbers, work histories and criminal background checks of *exactly* the people that should investigate Ms. Bland’s death, otherwise it’s *your* fault that the investigate is messed up.
If I state that not having intimately-involved people investigating things is bad, do you actually need help figuring out some alternatives?
You haven’t really proposed any alternatives other then ‘at the very least state-level’, and you don’t like the job state-level authorities have done. So…that doesn’t strike me as a solution you would be happy with. But maybe I’m wrong?
I’m entirely comfortable saying I need help figuring out alternatives, because no good ones are obvious to me.
Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies frequently work together closely, and, if nothing else, are very sympathetic to each other. It doesn’t strike me as obvious that a state-level, or even federal, investigation isn’t going to support local officials by default.
Stating it’s bad (a statement I agree with!) is not a solution, but you seem to be implying you have a solution.
You started out by saying it needs to be ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’, but haven’t really explained what that actually means as a practical measure. You than suggested someone else needs to perform the investigation, which seems very reasonable to me, but you refuse to be specific about who that is, why they are qualified, and why you think they will provide an honest and thorough investigation.
The closest thing you have come to a specific suggestion is ‘state-level’, despite the fact that you don’t seem to think much of the state-level involvement (unless you said this: As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted. to point out what trustworthy folks they are).
You seem to imply (and maybe I’m misinterpreting you) that you are suggesting something to fix the problem. I’d be really interested in discussing that fix. But I’d need some specifics, because these are complex and difficult problems.
If, on the other hand, you’re just venting about how shitty the situation is, great, I’ll leave you to it. Everybody needs to vent. But if you have ideas or thoughts about how to fix the problem, I’m actually interested in hear what they are.
If I state that not having intimately-involved people investigating things is bad, do you actually need help figuring out some alternatives?
You haven’t really proposed any alternatives other then ‘at the very least state-level’, and you don’t like the job state-level authorities have done. So…that doesn’t strike me as a solution you would be happy with. But maybe I’m wrong?
I’m entirely comfortable saying I need help figuring out alternatives, because no good ones are obvious to me.
Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies frequently work together closely, and, if nothing else, are very sympathetic to each other. It doesn’t strike me as obvious that a state-level, or even federal, investigation isn’t going to support local officials by default.
Stating it’s bad (a statement I agree with!) is not a solution, but you seem to be implying you have a solution.
You started out by saying it needs to be ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’, but haven’t really explained what that actually means as a practical measure. You than suggested someone else needs to perform the investigation, which seems very reasonable to me, but you refuse to be specific about who that is, why they are qualified, and why you think they will provide an honest and thorough investigation.
The closest thing you have come to a specific suggestion is ‘state-level’, despite the fact that you don’t seem to think much of the state-level involvement (unless you said this: As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted. to point out what trustworthy folks they are).
You seem to imply (and maybe I’m misinterpreting you) that you are suggesting something to fix the problem. I’d be really interested in discussing that fix. But I’d need some specifics, because these are complex and difficult problems.
If, on the other hand, you’re just venting about how shitty the situation is, great, I’ll leave you to it. Everybody needs to vent. But if you have ideas or thoughts about how to fix the problem, I’m actually interested in hear what they are.
If I state that not having intimately-involved people investigating things is bad, do you actually need help figuring out some alternatives?
You haven’t really proposed any alternatives other then ‘at the very least state-level’, and you don’t like the job state-level authorities have done. So…that doesn’t strike me as a solution you would be happy with. But maybe I’m wrong?
I’m entirely comfortable saying I need help figuring out alternatives, because no good ones are obvious to me.
Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies frequently work together closely, and, if nothing else, are very sympathetic to each other. It doesn’t strike me as obvious that a state-level, or even federal, investigation isn’t going to support local officials by default.
Stating it’s bad (a statement I agree with!) is not a solution, but you seem to be implying you have a solution.
You started out by saying it needs to be ‘considered a murder until proven otherwise’, but haven’t really explained what that actually means as a practical measure. You than suggested someone else needs to perform the investigation, which seems very reasonable to me, but you refuse to be specific about who that is, why they are qualified, and why you think they will provide an honest and thorough investigation.
The closest thing you have come to a specific suggestion is ‘state-level’, despite the fact that you don’t seem to think much of the state-level involvement (unless you said this: As for the DPS, please look at the video which they posted. to point out what trustworthy folks they are).
You seem to imply (and maybe I’m misinterpreting you) that you are suggesting something to fix the problem. I’d be really interested in discussing that fix. But I’d need some specifics, because these are complex and difficult problems.
If, on the other hand, you’re just venting about how shitty the situation is, great, I’ll leave you to it. Everybody needs to vent. But if you have ideas or thoughts about how to fix the problem, I’m actually interested in hear what they are.
step aside, ghost of Sandra Bland. there’s a new police-murdered black person in town: Sam Dubose.
same shit, different day. same apologists, same excuses, i’m sure.
step aside, ghost of Sandra Bland. there’s a new police-murdered black person in town: Sam Dubose.
same shit, different day. same apologists, same excuses, i’m sure.
step aside, ghost of Sandra Bland. there’s a new police-murdered black person in town: Sam Dubose.
same shit, different day. same apologists, same excuses, i’m sure.
I think we should form an evaluation committee for Barry’s proposed solutions to this problem to determine whether implementing them is worthwhile before we send them to the Obsidian Wings Bureau of Policy Making for All Government Endeavors.
I think we should form an evaluation committee for Barry’s proposed solutions to this problem to determine whether implementing them is worthwhile before we send them to the Obsidian Wings Bureau of Policy Making for All Government Endeavors.
I think we should form an evaluation committee for Barry’s proposed solutions to this problem to determine whether implementing them is worthwhile before we send them to the Obsidian Wings Bureau of Policy Making for All Government Endeavors.
I think we should form an evaluation committee for Barry’s proposed solutions to this problem to determine whether implementing them is worthwhile before we send them to the Obsidian Wings Bureau of Policy Making for All Government Endeavors.
Yeah, or we could talk about the pros and cons of different policies, be informed by the debate, and advocate for them to our elected reps, and hopefully affect a positive change.
So this sort of shit doesn’t keep happening. Because, as demonstrated by cleek’s comment, it will. Not that that fact wasn’t obvious to anybody who has been paying attention.
I think we should form an evaluation committee for Barry’s proposed solutions to this problem to determine whether implementing them is worthwhile before we send them to the Obsidian Wings Bureau of Policy Making for All Government Endeavors.
Yeah, or we could talk about the pros and cons of different policies, be informed by the debate, and advocate for them to our elected reps, and hopefully affect a positive change.
So this sort of shit doesn’t keep happening. Because, as demonstrated by cleek’s comment, it will. Not that that fact wasn’t obvious to anybody who has been paying attention.
I think we should form an evaluation committee for Barry’s proposed solutions to this problem to determine whether implementing them is worthwhile before we send them to the Obsidian Wings Bureau of Policy Making for All Government Endeavors.
Yeah, or we could talk about the pros and cons of different policies, be informed by the debate, and advocate for them to our elected reps, and hopefully affect a positive change.
So this sort of shit doesn’t keep happening. Because, as demonstrated by cleek’s comment, it will. Not that that fact wasn’t obvious to anybody who has been paying attention.
thompson, we do actually have some precedent for dealing with situations where the local police are implicated/involved in actions which appear to be contrary to law. The Feds come in and sort things out.**
Of course, that was during the Civil Rights era, when the local police were frequently active participants in attacks against (peaceful!) demonstrators. But still, it was violence against those who did nothing to deserve it, so it seems relevant.
**cf the use of the 101st Airborne in Little Rock. Of course, that would likely mean that the folks who are hysterical about Jade Helm would insist it meant all their fears were being realized. Tough.
thompson, we do actually have some precedent for dealing with situations where the local police are implicated/involved in actions which appear to be contrary to law. The Feds come in and sort things out.**
Of course, that was during the Civil Rights era, when the local police were frequently active participants in attacks against (peaceful!) demonstrators. But still, it was violence against those who did nothing to deserve it, so it seems relevant.
**cf the use of the 101st Airborne in Little Rock. Of course, that would likely mean that the folks who are hysterical about Jade Helm would insist it meant all their fears were being realized. Tough.
thompson, we do actually have some precedent for dealing with situations where the local police are implicated/involved in actions which appear to be contrary to law. The Feds come in and sort things out.**
Of course, that was during the Civil Rights era, when the local police were frequently active participants in attacks against (peaceful!) demonstrators. But still, it was violence against those who did nothing to deserve it, so it seems relevant.
**cf the use of the 101st Airborne in Little Rock. Of course, that would likely mean that the folks who are hysterical about Jade Helm would insist it meant all their fears were being realized. Tough.
Yeah, or we could talk about the pros and cons of different policies, be informed by the debate, and advocate for them to our elected reps, and hopefully affect a positive change.
Which isn’t the same thing as needling Barry over a single statement he made – which you initially objected to over the presumption of innocence in criminal trials, which was completely irrelevant to his statement about investigations.
My point here is that you’re making all about Barry.
Yeah, or we could talk about the pros and cons of different policies, be informed by the debate, and advocate for them to our elected reps, and hopefully affect a positive change.
Which isn’t the same thing as needling Barry over a single statement he made – which you initially objected to over the presumption of innocence in criminal trials, which was completely irrelevant to his statement about investigations.
My point here is that you’re making all about Barry.
Yeah, or we could talk about the pros and cons of different policies, be informed by the debate, and advocate for them to our elected reps, and hopefully affect a positive change.
Which isn’t the same thing as needling Barry over a single statement he made – which you initially objected to over the presumption of innocence in criminal trials, which was completely irrelevant to his statement about investigations.
My point here is that you’re making all about Barry.
The guy that shot Dubose was a university cop.
This may be kind of a silly question, but do university police really need to be armed?
What is the status of somebody like a university cop? Can they arrest people? Are they subject to the same rules of engagement as regular cops are?
What kind of training is required of them in terms of handling their weapons? Or in terms of crowd control, or negotiating conflict?
Who was this guy, and why did he have a gun?
The guy that shot Dubose was a university cop.
This may be kind of a silly question, but do university police really need to be armed?
What is the status of somebody like a university cop? Can they arrest people? Are they subject to the same rules of engagement as regular cops are?
What kind of training is required of them in terms of handling their weapons? Or in terms of crowd control, or negotiating conflict?
Who was this guy, and why did he have a gun?
The guy that shot Dubose was a university cop.
This may be kind of a silly question, but do university police really need to be armed?
What is the status of somebody like a university cop? Can they arrest people? Are they subject to the same rules of engagement as regular cops are?
What kind of training is required of them in terms of handling their weapons? Or in terms of crowd control, or negotiating conflict?
Who was this guy, and why did he have a gun?
The guy that shot Dubose was a university cop.
This may be kind of a silly question, but do university police really need to be armed?
What is the status of somebody like a university cop? Can they arrest people? Are they subject to the same rules of engagement as regular cops are?
What kind of training is required of them in terms of handling their weapons? Or in terms of crowd control, or negotiating conflict?
Who was this guy, and why did he have a gun?
The guy that shot Dubose was a university cop.
This may be kind of a silly question, but do university police really need to be armed?
What is the status of somebody like a university cop? Can they arrest people? Are they subject to the same rules of engagement as regular cops are?
What kind of training is required of them in terms of handling their weapons? Or in terms of crowd control, or negotiating conflict?
Who was this guy, and why did he have a gun?
The guy that shot Dubose was a university cop.
This may be kind of a silly question, but do university police really need to be armed?
What is the status of somebody like a university cop? Can they arrest people? Are they subject to the same rules of engagement as regular cops are?
What kind of training is required of them in terms of handling their weapons? Or in terms of crowd control, or negotiating conflict?
Who was this guy, and why did he have a gun?
I know Rutgers University police are, effectively, NJ State Troopers who have a particular assignment within a particular unit and special uniforms. Otherwise, same authority and training.
I know Rutgers University police are, effectively, NJ State Troopers who have a particular assignment within a particular unit and special uniforms. Otherwise, same authority and training.
I know Rutgers University police are, effectively, NJ State Troopers who have a particular assignment within a particular unit and special uniforms. Otherwise, same authority and training.
Police departments on University of California campuses are staffed by regular police officers, will all the duties of same. They may spend more time dealing with “drunk and disorderly” problems than most departments, and don’t have jail facilities of their own (they use the local county jail, if necessary). But they can do anything any other police department can do,
Police departments on University of California campuses are staffed by regular police officers, will all the duties of same. They may spend more time dealing with “drunk and disorderly” problems than most departments, and don’t have jail facilities of their own (they use the local county jail, if necessary). But they can do anything any other police department can do,
Police departments on University of California campuses are staffed by regular police officers, will all the duties of same. They may spend more time dealing with “drunk and disorderly” problems than most departments, and don’t have jail facilities of their own (they use the local county jail, if necessary). But they can do anything any other police department can do,
You know, I just had to look into that last comment, because I thought I might have been taking long-standing “word on the street” as fact. As it turns out, though RUPD has jurisdiction over the entire state, their training is the same as municipal police, not NJ State Troopers. So they’re like municipal cops, but have jurisdiction over all of NJ.
In any case, they’re real cops, to be sure.
You know, I just had to look into that last comment, because I thought I might have been taking long-standing “word on the street” as fact. As it turns out, though RUPD has jurisdiction over the entire state, their training is the same as municipal police, not NJ State Troopers. So they’re like municipal cops, but have jurisdiction over all of NJ.
In any case, they’re real cops, to be sure.
You know, I just had to look into that last comment, because I thought I might have been taking long-standing “word on the street” as fact. As it turns out, though RUPD has jurisdiction over the entire state, their training is the same as municipal police, not NJ State Troopers. So they’re like municipal cops, but have jurisdiction over all of NJ.
In any case, they’re real cops, to be sure.
I understand a cops job can be frustrating, occasion traumatic and often tedious and depressing but the point of the TPM article I posted is that being a ‘good cop’ is not a hard.
If Trooper Encinia can’t be charged with something like ‘disorderly conduct’ I see no solution.
I still wonder if these bully cops are born with shit for brains or is it an attitude that develops from doing the gig.
I understand a cops job can be frustrating, occasion traumatic and often tedious and depressing but the point of the TPM article I posted is that being a ‘good cop’ is not a hard.
If Trooper Encinia can’t be charged with something like ‘disorderly conduct’ I see no solution.
I still wonder if these bully cops are born with shit for brains or is it an attitude that develops from doing the gig.
I understand a cops job can be frustrating, occasion traumatic and often tedious and depressing but the point of the TPM article I posted is that being a ‘good cop’ is not a hard.
If Trooper Encinia can’t be charged with something like ‘disorderly conduct’ I see no solution.
I still wonder if these bully cops are born with shit for brains or is it an attitude that develops from doing the gig.
Why am I so bad with edit? My eyesight is not what it use to be. my apology
Why am I so bad with edit? My eyesight is not what it use to be. my apology
Why am I so bad with edit? My eyesight is not what it use to be. my apology
My point here is that you’re making all about Barry.
I’m really not trying to, beyond trying to get either a specific answer or a ‘hey, wasn’t trying to suggest something specific’. I’m frustrated, a little, that asking him for clarification of what he meant generally leads to equally vague, and sometimes condescending, answers.
This is a hard problem, and I think recognizing it as such is important. If he doesn’t have all the answers, that’s fine. If he doesn’t have any of the answers, that’s fine too. I don’t either. But if he has an idea of how an administrative or legal fix that would provide checks against this, I’m actually very interested in hearing what it is. Because we need good ideas.
My point here is that you’re making all about Barry.
I’m really not trying to, beyond trying to get either a specific answer or a ‘hey, wasn’t trying to suggest something specific’. I’m frustrated, a little, that asking him for clarification of what he meant generally leads to equally vague, and sometimes condescending, answers.
This is a hard problem, and I think recognizing it as such is important. If he doesn’t have all the answers, that’s fine. If he doesn’t have any of the answers, that’s fine too. I don’t either. But if he has an idea of how an administrative or legal fix that would provide checks against this, I’m actually very interested in hearing what it is. Because we need good ideas.
My point here is that you’re making all about Barry.
I’m really not trying to, beyond trying to get either a specific answer or a ‘hey, wasn’t trying to suggest something specific’. I’m frustrated, a little, that asking him for clarification of what he meant generally leads to equally vague, and sometimes condescending, answers.
This is a hard problem, and I think recognizing it as such is important. If he doesn’t have all the answers, that’s fine. If he doesn’t have any of the answers, that’s fine too. I don’t either. But if he has an idea of how an administrative or legal fix that would provide checks against this, I’m actually very interested in hearing what it is. Because we need good ideas.
If Trooper Encinia can’t be charged with something like ‘disorderly conduct’ I see no solution.
Yes, I think responsibility needs to hit individual officers. I think criminal liability is fine, but it would depend on DAs pursuing charges against the police, which is rare.
I’d be for having an extension of malpractice into policing. They are professionals that wield considerable power over peoples lives, just like doctors or lawyers. I think making them personally liable when they fail to act reasonably would make a lot of sense.
If Trooper Encinia can’t be charged with something like ‘disorderly conduct’ I see no solution.
Yes, I think responsibility needs to hit individual officers. I think criminal liability is fine, but it would depend on DAs pursuing charges against the police, which is rare.
I’d be for having an extension of malpractice into policing. They are professionals that wield considerable power over peoples lives, just like doctors or lawyers. I think making them personally liable when they fail to act reasonably would make a lot of sense.
If Trooper Encinia can’t be charged with something like ‘disorderly conduct’ I see no solution.
Yes, I think responsibility needs to hit individual officers. I think criminal liability is fine, but it would depend on DAs pursuing charges against the police, which is rare.
I’d be for having an extension of malpractice into policing. They are professionals that wield considerable power over peoples lives, just like doctors or lawyers. I think making them personally liable when they fail to act reasonably would make a lot of sense.
Problem is that a lot of police malpractice is considered legal and proper. I would assert that most SWAT actions are an abuse of police powers.
Problem is that a lot of police malpractice is considered legal and proper. I would assert that most SWAT actions are an abuse of police powers.
Problem is that a lot of police malpractice is considered legal and proper. I would assert that most SWAT actions are an abuse of police powers.
This is a hard problem
it’s not a hard problem in countries.
in the UK, for example, whole years go by when the police don’t kill a single person. we can’t even go one fucking week without a egregious, pointless murder of a black person by a white cop.
This is a hard problem
it’s not a hard problem in countries.
in the UK, for example, whole years go by when the police don’t kill a single person. we can’t even go one fucking week without a egregious, pointless murder of a black person by a white cop.
This is a hard problem
it’s not a hard problem in countries.
in the UK, for example, whole years go by when the police don’t kill a single person. we can’t even go one fucking week without a egregious, pointless murder of a black person by a white cop.
in other countries.
in other countries.
in other countries.
I once had the opportunity to watch a Bobby deal with a local drunk at 4am on the stoop of Victoria Station. It was a most polite conversation on both ends that I had ever witnessed, I could imagine nothing like it ever happening in America.
I once had the opportunity to watch a Bobby deal with a local drunk at 4am on the stoop of Victoria Station. It was a most polite conversation on both ends that I had ever witnessed, I could imagine nothing like it ever happening in America.
I once had the opportunity to watch a Bobby deal with a local drunk at 4am on the stoop of Victoria Station. It was a most polite conversation on both ends that I had ever witnessed, I could imagine nothing like it ever happening in America.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed. Which naturally makes the police twitchy. And, depending on the immediate environment and his past experience, quite possible hostile. It’s a matter of self defense and self preservation.
That, in turn, causes policemen to be seen, by large segments of the population, as probably hostile. No matter whether the individual has done anything illegal or not.
In contrast, the Bobby is in a situation where the chance of the drunk (or anybody else) he is dealing with being armed in minimal. So he can afford to be relaxed. And, as a result, the person he is dealing with doesn’t see him as a hostile force.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed. Which naturally makes the police twitchy. And, depending on the immediate environment and his past experience, quite possible hostile. It’s a matter of self defense and self preservation.
That, in turn, causes policemen to be seen, by large segments of the population, as probably hostile. No matter whether the individual has done anything illegal or not.
In contrast, the Bobby is in a situation where the chance of the drunk (or anybody else) he is dealing with being armed in minimal. So he can afford to be relaxed. And, as a result, the person he is dealing with doesn’t see him as a hostile force.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed. Which naturally makes the police twitchy. And, depending on the immediate environment and his past experience, quite possible hostile. It’s a matter of self defense and self preservation.
That, in turn, causes policemen to be seen, by large segments of the population, as probably hostile. No matter whether the individual has done anything illegal or not.
In contrast, the Bobby is in a situation where the chance of the drunk (or anybody else) he is dealing with being armed in minimal. So he can afford to be relaxed. And, as a result, the person he is dealing with doesn’t see him as a hostile force.
It’s a matter of self defense and self preservation.
In most cases, I doubt that:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bureau-labor-statistics-released-top-10-dangerous-jobs-report-police-officer/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/02/once-again-police-work-is-not-getting-more-dangerous/
And, of course, almost half of officer fatalities are traffic related:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0281.pdf
Which makes sense…driving is a dangerous activity, and if you drive a lot, accidents will happen.
None of this is to say policing doesn’t have challenges and risks not seen by the average office worker. But I don’t think those dangers are a valid reason for the amount of violence exercised by the police.
It’s a matter of self defense and self preservation.
In most cases, I doubt that:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bureau-labor-statistics-released-top-10-dangerous-jobs-report-police-officer/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/02/once-again-police-work-is-not-getting-more-dangerous/
And, of course, almost half of officer fatalities are traffic related:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0281.pdf
Which makes sense…driving is a dangerous activity, and if you drive a lot, accidents will happen.
None of this is to say policing doesn’t have challenges and risks not seen by the average office worker. But I don’t think those dangers are a valid reason for the amount of violence exercised by the police.
It’s a matter of self defense and self preservation.
In most cases, I doubt that:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bureau-labor-statistics-released-top-10-dangerous-jobs-report-police-officer/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/02/once-again-police-work-is-not-getting-more-dangerous/
And, of course, almost half of officer fatalities are traffic related:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0281.pdf
Which makes sense…driving is a dangerous activity, and if you drive a lot, accidents will happen.
None of this is to say policing doesn’t have challenges and risks not seen by the average office worker. But I don’t think those dangers are a valid reason for the amount of violence exercised by the police.
indicted for murder
there. that wasn’t so hard.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed
hmmm. a solution suggests itself.
indicted for murder
there. that wasn’t so hard.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed
hmmm. a solution suggests itself.
indicted for murder
there. that wasn’t so hard.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed
hmmm. a solution suggests itself.
thompson,
fair enough. I should have phrase it as perceived self defense and self preservation. Which, after all, is what drives their actions.
thompson,
fair enough. I should have phrase it as perceived self defense and self preservation. Which, after all, is what drives their actions.
thompson,
fair enough. I should have phrase it as perceived self defense and self preservation. Which, after all, is what drives their actions.
But I don’t think those dangers are a valid reason for the amount of violence exercised by the police.
There is no valid reason for the amount of police violence happening in this country. But I do think there’s a very real perception of danger that drives a lot of it. So wj’s right in that sense – police are often jumpy about the people they interact with because they have such an anticipation of armed conflict.
It’s probably a way overblown fear, at least in most places, but that’s how humans tend to assess risk – by how bad the outcome might be, without regard to the likelihood.
But I don’t think those dangers are a valid reason for the amount of violence exercised by the police.
There is no valid reason for the amount of police violence happening in this country. But I do think there’s a very real perception of danger that drives a lot of it. So wj’s right in that sense – police are often jumpy about the people they interact with because they have such an anticipation of armed conflict.
It’s probably a way overblown fear, at least in most places, but that’s how humans tend to assess risk – by how bad the outcome might be, without regard to the likelihood.
But I don’t think those dangers are a valid reason for the amount of violence exercised by the police.
There is no valid reason for the amount of police violence happening in this country. But I do think there’s a very real perception of danger that drives a lot of it. So wj’s right in that sense – police are often jumpy about the people they interact with because they have such an anticipation of armed conflict.
It’s probably a way overblown fear, at least in most places, but that’s how humans tend to assess risk – by how bad the outcome might be, without regard to the likelihood.
In contrast, the Bobby is in a situation
I can’t find a good, simple set of numbers on UK police fatality rates, but they don’t seem wildly different than US ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
US has ~1.2 million officers, while UK has about 0.13 million.
Referring to unofficial logs, US fatalities are around 130-170 a year, while UK fatalities are around 10-13:
http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=annual-roll-of-honour
https://www.odmp.org/
So, roughly speaking, a factor of 10 more officers and a factor of 10 more fatalities.
Again, none of this should be construed as minimizing the difficulties and dangers officers face…but I don’t think its simply that US officers face disproportionately more danger.
In contrast, the Bobby is in a situation
I can’t find a good, simple set of numbers on UK police fatality rates, but they don’t seem wildly different than US ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
US has ~1.2 million officers, while UK has about 0.13 million.
Referring to unofficial logs, US fatalities are around 130-170 a year, while UK fatalities are around 10-13:
http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=annual-roll-of-honour
https://www.odmp.org/
So, roughly speaking, a factor of 10 more officers and a factor of 10 more fatalities.
Again, none of this should be construed as minimizing the difficulties and dangers officers face…but I don’t think its simply that US officers face disproportionately more danger.
In contrast, the Bobby is in a situation
I can’t find a good, simple set of numbers on UK police fatality rates, but they don’t seem wildly different than US ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_number_of_police_officers
US has ~1.2 million officers, while UK has about 0.13 million.
Referring to unofficial logs, US fatalities are around 130-170 a year, while UK fatalities are around 10-13:
http://www.policememorial.org.uk/index.php?page=annual-roll-of-honour
https://www.odmp.org/
So, roughly speaking, a factor of 10 more officers and a factor of 10 more fatalities.
Again, none of this should be construed as minimizing the difficulties and dangers officers face…but I don’t think its simply that US officers face disproportionately more danger.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed. Which naturally makes the police twitchy.
The wingnut theory that having everybody armed to the teeth will engender a more polite and respectful society notwithstanding no doubt.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed. Which naturally makes the police twitchy.
The wingnut theory that having everybody armed to the teeth will engender a more polite and respectful society notwithstanding no doubt.
An American policeman is in an environment where there is a significant chance that the person they are dealing with is armed. Which naturally makes the police twitchy.
The wingnut theory that having everybody armed to the teeth will engender a more polite and respectful society notwithstanding no doubt.
wj, yes, you are exactly correct.
Greenfield has written about this a great deal, for example:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/09/30/the-slippery-slope-of-risk/
What he’s attempting to argue is that Officer Hancock, despite having no reason in the world to suspect Airman Davidson was inclined to do harm to anyone, saw something in his hand, and in utter ignorance, shot Davidson rather than risk the possibility of risk.
Therein lies the slippery slope of risk. Excuse number 3 used to apply to an officer who observed a gun in a person’s hand, and when the gun was positioned such that it could shoot at the officer or some other person, the excuse applied. This posed “what is reasonably [perceived as] an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury.” A gun. Pointed at someone. This constituted a risk.
Here, the officer knew nothing. He had no reason to suspect any threat of harm to anyone under any circumstances. But when he saw an object in Davidson’s hand, it posed a risk of a risk. It doesn’t matter that it was a wallet. It could have been a Wii controller. It was an object, a thing coupled with the absence of certainty of safety.
The evaluation isn’t ‘is there a reasonable threat?’, which you or I would be held to if we tried to claim self defense, but its often ‘is there a complete certainty of safety?’
wj, yes, you are exactly correct.
Greenfield has written about this a great deal, for example:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/09/30/the-slippery-slope-of-risk/
What he’s attempting to argue is that Officer Hancock, despite having no reason in the world to suspect Airman Davidson was inclined to do harm to anyone, saw something in his hand, and in utter ignorance, shot Davidson rather than risk the possibility of risk.
Therein lies the slippery slope of risk. Excuse number 3 used to apply to an officer who observed a gun in a person’s hand, and when the gun was positioned such that it could shoot at the officer or some other person, the excuse applied. This posed “what is reasonably [perceived as] an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury.” A gun. Pointed at someone. This constituted a risk.
Here, the officer knew nothing. He had no reason to suspect any threat of harm to anyone under any circumstances. But when he saw an object in Davidson’s hand, it posed a risk of a risk. It doesn’t matter that it was a wallet. It could have been a Wii controller. It was an object, a thing coupled with the absence of certainty of safety.
The evaluation isn’t ‘is there a reasonable threat?’, which you or I would be held to if we tried to claim self defense, but its often ‘is there a complete certainty of safety?’
wj, yes, you are exactly correct.
Greenfield has written about this a great deal, for example:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/09/30/the-slippery-slope-of-risk/
What he’s attempting to argue is that Officer Hancock, despite having no reason in the world to suspect Airman Davidson was inclined to do harm to anyone, saw something in his hand, and in utter ignorance, shot Davidson rather than risk the possibility of risk.
Therein lies the slippery slope of risk. Excuse number 3 used to apply to an officer who observed a gun in a person’s hand, and when the gun was positioned such that it could shoot at the officer or some other person, the excuse applied. This posed “what is reasonably [perceived as] an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury.” A gun. Pointed at someone. This constituted a risk.
Here, the officer knew nothing. He had no reason to suspect any threat of harm to anyone under any circumstances. But when he saw an object in Davidson’s hand, it posed a risk of a risk. It doesn’t matter that it was a wallet. It could have been a Wii controller. It was an object, a thing coupled with the absence of certainty of safety.
The evaluation isn’t ‘is there a reasonable threat?’, which you or I would be held to if we tried to claim self defense, but its often ‘is there a complete certainty of safety?’
and who is more polite and respectful than the always over-armed policemen of America ?
and who is more polite and respectful than the always over-armed policemen of America ?
and who is more polite and respectful than the always over-armed policemen of America ?
Jeff: “I once had the opportunity to watch a Bobby deal with a local drunk at 4am on the stoop of Victoria Station. It was a most polite conversation on both ends that I had ever witnessed,”
British manners being what they are, that was the US equivalent of a vicious tongue-lashing by that Bobby.
Jeff: “I once had the opportunity to watch a Bobby deal with a local drunk at 4am on the stoop of Victoria Station. It was a most polite conversation on both ends that I had ever witnessed,”
British manners being what they are, that was the US equivalent of a vicious tongue-lashing by that Bobby.
Jeff: “I once had the opportunity to watch a Bobby deal with a local drunk at 4am on the stoop of Victoria Station. It was a most polite conversation on both ends that I had ever witnessed,”
British manners being what they are, that was the US equivalent of a vicious tongue-lashing by that Bobby.
I keep hearing about Southern manners but have never been south of the Mason Dixon line to witness it for myself.
I keep hearing about Southern manners but have never been south of the Mason Dixon line to witness it for myself.
I keep hearing about Southern manners but have never been south of the Mason Dixon line to witness it for myself.
AFAIKT, ‘southern manners’ are a myth.
people are no more or less friendly in NC than they are in upstate NY.
AFAIKT, ‘southern manners’ are a myth.
people are no more or less friendly in NC than they are in upstate NY.
AFAIKT, ‘southern manners’ are a myth.
people are no more or less friendly in NC than they are in upstate NY.
People in upstate (or at least western) NY are more friendly than people in Philadelphia, though. That I can say with confidence.
People in upstate (or at least western) NY are more friendly than people in Philadelphia, though. That I can say with confidence.
People in upstate (or at least western) NY are more friendly than people in Philadelphia, though. That I can say with confidence.
This is the kind of bullsh1t from cops that really bothers me and that I mentioned in the post; it is all too casual and premeditated, it seems.
This is the kind of bullsh1t from cops that really bothers me and that I mentioned in the post; it is all too casual and premeditated, it seems.
This is the kind of bullsh1t from cops that really bothers me and that I mentioned in the post; it is all too casual and premeditated, it seems.
So I played the body-cam video, which segued right into an ad for Lamb of God’s new album, which sequed right into a video showing some kind of small, marine molluscs. WTF? (Not as “WTF?” as the cops outright lying to cover up a murder, but still…)
So I played the body-cam video, which segued right into an ad for Lamb of God’s new album, which sequed right into a video showing some kind of small, marine molluscs. WTF? (Not as “WTF?” as the cops outright lying to cover up a murder, but still…)
So I played the body-cam video, which segued right into an ad for Lamb of God’s new album, which sequed right into a video showing some kind of small, marine molluscs. WTF? (Not as “WTF?” as the cops outright lying to cover up a murder, but still…)
The risk of a risk reminds me of Dick Cheney’s “1% doctrine”.
I note with interest that, for a certain faction in the US, the 1% doctrine only applies to things you can shoot at. A 1% chance of climate catastrophe is not enough to justify massive retaliation. A 1% chance of people dying due to Medicare or Medicaid cuts is not enough to justify even harsh rhetoric. A 1% chance of another banking crisis is not enough to justify even modest reforms of financial regulations.
And of course the 100% chance that another mass shooting will happen in the next few weeks is not remotely a reason to question the guns-for-everybody interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Nor is the 100% chance that another black man will be shot by a power-tripping chicken-livered white cop in the next few months any reason to believe that maybe “cop culture” is more defective in all respects than “black culture”.
The 1-percenters are a menace to civilization, but experience has shown that they constitute 27% of the American population. They represent something less than that of the ObWi commentariat, thank goodness. Alas, it’s the American population, not the ObWi commentariat, that elects the “leader of the Free World”.
–TP
The risk of a risk reminds me of Dick Cheney’s “1% doctrine”.
I note with interest that, for a certain faction in the US, the 1% doctrine only applies to things you can shoot at. A 1% chance of climate catastrophe is not enough to justify massive retaliation. A 1% chance of people dying due to Medicare or Medicaid cuts is not enough to justify even harsh rhetoric. A 1% chance of another banking crisis is not enough to justify even modest reforms of financial regulations.
And of course the 100% chance that another mass shooting will happen in the next few weeks is not remotely a reason to question the guns-for-everybody interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Nor is the 100% chance that another black man will be shot by a power-tripping chicken-livered white cop in the next few months any reason to believe that maybe “cop culture” is more defective in all respects than “black culture”.
The 1-percenters are a menace to civilization, but experience has shown that they constitute 27% of the American population. They represent something less than that of the ObWi commentariat, thank goodness. Alas, it’s the American population, not the ObWi commentariat, that elects the “leader of the Free World”.
–TP
The risk of a risk reminds me of Dick Cheney’s “1% doctrine”.
I note with interest that, for a certain faction in the US, the 1% doctrine only applies to things you can shoot at. A 1% chance of climate catastrophe is not enough to justify massive retaliation. A 1% chance of people dying due to Medicare or Medicaid cuts is not enough to justify even harsh rhetoric. A 1% chance of another banking crisis is not enough to justify even modest reforms of financial regulations.
And of course the 100% chance that another mass shooting will happen in the next few weeks is not remotely a reason to question the guns-for-everybody interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Nor is the 100% chance that another black man will be shot by a power-tripping chicken-livered white cop in the next few months any reason to believe that maybe “cop culture” is more defective in all respects than “black culture”.
The 1-percenters are a menace to civilization, but experience has shown that they constitute 27% of the American population. They represent something less than that of the ObWi commentariat, thank goodness. Alas, it’s the American population, not the ObWi commentariat, that elects the “leader of the Free World”.
–TP
accessory to murder after the fact?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/29/the_sam_dubose_police_report_is_full_of_falsehoods_from_ray_tensing_s_colleagues.html
accessory to murder after the fact?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/29/the_sam_dubose_police_report_is_full_of_falsehoods_from_ray_tensing_s_colleagues.html
accessory to murder after the fact?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/29/the_sam_dubose_police_report_is_full_of_falsehoods_from_ray_tensing_s_colleagues.html
Purjury, at minimum. Which pretty well eliminates a future in law enforcement.
Purjury, at minimum. Which pretty well eliminates a future in law enforcement.
Purjury, at minimum. Which pretty well eliminates a future in law enforcement.
Perjury, obstruction of justice, accessory (was he driving the ‘getaway car’?), conspiracy.
Throw the book at him. It’s not as if prosecutors don’t have lots and lots of tools they can use, if they want to.
Perjury, obstruction of justice, accessory (was he driving the ‘getaway car’?), conspiracy.
Throw the book at him. It’s not as if prosecutors don’t have lots and lots of tools they can use, if they want to.
Perjury, obstruction of justice, accessory (was he driving the ‘getaway car’?), conspiracy.
Throw the book at him. It’s not as if prosecutors don’t have lots and lots of tools they can use, if they want to.
And just to be clear, I was talking about the officer(s) who corroborated the story that the officer involved told. Because part of the way you address the conspiracy of silence in police departments is to come down hard, not only on those who misbehave, but on those who attempt to shield them from punishment.
And just to be clear, I was talking about the officer(s) who corroborated the story that the officer involved told. Because part of the way you address the conspiracy of silence in police departments is to come down hard, not only on those who misbehave, but on those who attempt to shield them from punishment.
And just to be clear, I was talking about the officer(s) who corroborated the story that the officer involved told. Because part of the way you address the conspiracy of silence in police departments is to come down hard, not only on those who misbehave, but on those who attempt to shield them from punishment.
It is no secret that American police rarely observe the laws of the land when out wilding with each other, and as any candid criminal judge will tell you, perjury is often their native tongue in court.
– Gore Vidal, Shredding the Bill of Rights, Vanity Fair, 1998
hat tip to Balloon Juice
It is no secret that American police rarely observe the laws of the land when out wilding with each other, and as any candid criminal judge will tell you, perjury is often their native tongue in court.
– Gore Vidal, Shredding the Bill of Rights, Vanity Fair, 1998
hat tip to Balloon Juice
It is no secret that American police rarely observe the laws of the land when out wilding with each other, and as any candid criminal judge will tell you, perjury is often their native tongue in court.
– Gore Vidal, Shredding the Bill of Rights, Vanity Fair, 1998
hat tip to Balloon Juice
not long ago in California
http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/ricardo-diaz-zeferino-video-shot-killed-gardena-california-police-shooting-victim-2013-unarmed-officers-lawsuit-judge-release-dash-camera-footage-mendez-cuff-sanderson-toda/
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office found that the
“officers acted in lawful self-defense and defense of others”
not long ago in California
http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/ricardo-diaz-zeferino-video-shot-killed-gardena-california-police-shooting-victim-2013-unarmed-officers-lawsuit-judge-release-dash-camera-footage-mendez-cuff-sanderson-toda/
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office found that the
“officers acted in lawful self-defense and defense of others”
not long ago in California
http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/ricardo-diaz-zeferino-video-shot-killed-gardena-california-police-shooting-victim-2013-unarmed-officers-lawsuit-judge-release-dash-camera-footage-mendez-cuff-sanderson-toda/
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office found that the
“officers acted in lawful self-defense and defense of others”
jeff:
That’s another demonstration of the ‘risk of risk’ evaluation. The DA in that case:
“…it is reasonable to believe that he officers lost sight of Diaz’s right hand and believed he was going to reach for a weapon. They made a split second decision and they were not required to hold fire in order to ascertain whether Diaz would, in fact, injure or kill them.”
They *couldn’t see his hand* so they didn’t have to hold their fire. There was no apparent risk, they just couldn’t be absolutely certain there was not risk.
And that is “officers act[ing] in lawful self-defense and defense of others”. And that’s why we have a problem with police violence in this country. These men weren’t even disciplined.
jeff:
That’s another demonstration of the ‘risk of risk’ evaluation. The DA in that case:
“…it is reasonable to believe that he officers lost sight of Diaz’s right hand and believed he was going to reach for a weapon. They made a split second decision and they were not required to hold fire in order to ascertain whether Diaz would, in fact, injure or kill them.”
They *couldn’t see his hand* so they didn’t have to hold their fire. There was no apparent risk, they just couldn’t be absolutely certain there was not risk.
And that is “officers act[ing] in lawful self-defense and defense of others”. And that’s why we have a problem with police violence in this country. These men weren’t even disciplined.
jeff:
That’s another demonstration of the ‘risk of risk’ evaluation. The DA in that case:
“…it is reasonable to believe that he officers lost sight of Diaz’s right hand and believed he was going to reach for a weapon. They made a split second decision and they were not required to hold fire in order to ascertain whether Diaz would, in fact, injure or kill them.”
They *couldn’t see his hand* so they didn’t have to hold their fire. There was no apparent risk, they just couldn’t be absolutely certain there was not risk.
And that is “officers act[ing] in lawful self-defense and defense of others”. And that’s why we have a problem with police violence in this country. These men weren’t even disciplined.
“And that’s why we have a problem with police violence in this country. These men weren’t even disciplined.”
Actually, a preceding problem is that officers are trained and encouraged to act this way and know beforehand that they won’t be disciplined.
“And that’s why we have a problem with police violence in this country. These men weren’t even disciplined.”
Actually, a preceding problem is that officers are trained and encouraged to act this way and know beforehand that they won’t be disciplined.
“And that’s why we have a problem with police violence in this country. These men weren’t even disciplined.”
Actually, a preceding problem is that officers are trained and encouraged to act this way and know beforehand that they won’t be disciplined.
I guess we can all count ourselves lucky that the “standard” isn’t risk-of-risk-of-risk.
I guess we can all count ourselves lucky that the “standard” isn’t risk-of-risk-of-risk.
I guess we can all count ourselves lucky that the “standard” isn’t risk-of-risk-of-risk.
What would risk-of-risk-of-risk look like? Armed citizens can be shot on sight, unless they have no hands and are wearing close-toed shoes?
What would risk-of-risk-of-risk look like? Armed citizens can be shot on sight, unless they have no hands and are wearing close-toed shoes?
What would risk-of-risk-of-risk look like? Armed citizens can be shot on sight, unless they have no hands and are wearing close-toed shoes?
This is what it looks like:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/30/1407259/-Two-men-One-armed-and-violent-the-other-unarmed-and-non-violent-One-white-one-black-one-dead
Never let them use their hands to reach for and eat fish either. That’s risky:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/23/1372773/-MO-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-prevent-food-stamp-recipients-from-buying-fish-among-other-things
I think those who call for a day of rage in this country are short by 364 days.
This is what it looks like:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/30/1407259/-Two-men-One-armed-and-violent-the-other-unarmed-and-non-violent-One-white-one-black-one-dead
Never let them use their hands to reach for and eat fish either. That’s risky:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/23/1372773/-MO-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-prevent-food-stamp-recipients-from-buying-fish-among-other-things
I think those who call for a day of rage in this country are short by 364 days.
This is what it looks like:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/30/1407259/-Two-men-One-armed-and-violent-the-other-unarmed-and-non-violent-One-white-one-black-one-dead
Never let them use their hands to reach for and eat fish either. That’s risky:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/23/1372773/-MO-lawmakers-introduce-bill-to-prevent-food-stamp-recipients-from-buying-fish-among-other-things
I think those who call for a day of rage in this country are short by 364 days.
can you go catch your own damn fish, or is that against the rules, too?
can you buy bait, or is that considered to be “sushi”?
can you go catch your own damn fish, or is that against the rules, too?
can you buy bait, or is that considered to be “sushi”?
can you go catch your own damn fish, or is that against the rules, too?
can you buy bait, or is that considered to be “sushi”?
Haven’t read the small print in the bill yet, but rumors are that you can use a fly fishing rod and attach a Cheeto as a lure on the hook and troll for poor people.
When they reach for the Cheeto, you can shoot them and testify that killing them for their attempted snacking on the public dime was justified because they were reaching with one hand while their other hand was out of sight busy keeping body and soul together.
Haven’t read the small print in the bill yet, but rumors are that you can use a fly fishing rod and attach a Cheeto as a lure on the hook and troll for poor people.
When they reach for the Cheeto, you can shoot them and testify that killing them for their attempted snacking on the public dime was justified because they were reaching with one hand while their other hand was out of sight busy keeping body and soul together.
Haven’t read the small print in the bill yet, but rumors are that you can use a fly fishing rod and attach a Cheeto as a lure on the hook and troll for poor people.
When they reach for the Cheeto, you can shoot them and testify that killing them for their attempted snacking on the public dime was justified because they were reaching with one hand while their other hand was out of sight busy keeping body and soul together.
Why Blame Marijuana For Sandra Bland’s Death?
Why Blame Marijuana For Sandra Bland’s Death?
Why Blame Marijuana For Sandra Bland’s Death?
Not a bad article as the technicalities of THC concentrations go, but the argument that she killed herself because she was stoned isn’t worthy of serious consideration in the first place. It’s plainly ridiculous straw-grasping. Don’t take that as a beef with the guy who wrote the article, though, because it’s not.
Not a bad article as the technicalities of THC concentrations go, but the argument that she killed herself because she was stoned isn’t worthy of serious consideration in the first place. It’s plainly ridiculous straw-grasping. Don’t take that as a beef with the guy who wrote the article, though, because it’s not.
Not a bad article as the technicalities of THC concentrations go, but the argument that she killed herself because she was stoned isn’t worthy of serious consideration in the first place. It’s plainly ridiculous straw-grasping. Don’t take that as a beef with the guy who wrote the article, though, because it’s not.
Here’s an idea: all monetary awards should come out of police pension funds so that tax payers aren’t on the hook for misconduct and so the few ‘good’ police who are only complicit in turning a blind eye or covering for police criminality has something to lose.
Here’s an idea: all monetary awards should come out of police pension funds so that tax payers aren’t on the hook for misconduct and so the few ‘good’ police who are only complicit in turning a blind eye or covering for police criminality has something to lose.
Here’s an idea: all monetary awards should come out of police pension funds so that tax payers aren’t on the hook for misconduct and so the few ‘good’ police who are only complicit in turning a blind eye or covering for police criminality has something to lose.
Is it really straw-grasping?
Or just a piece of “blacks are all drug users, so they might do any kind of irrational (and dangerous to others or even themselves) thing at any time” thinking? Which would not really be conscious straw grasping.
Is it really straw-grasping?
Or just a piece of “blacks are all drug users, so they might do any kind of irrational (and dangerous to others or even themselves) thing at any time” thinking? Which would not really be conscious straw grasping.
Is it really straw-grasping?
Or just a piece of “blacks are all drug users, so they might do any kind of irrational (and dangerous to others or even themselves) thing at any time” thinking? Which would not really be conscious straw grasping.
If it weren’t specifically about marijuana, maybe not. Since no one has suggested anything like her being high on crack or PCP or such, I think it is. Pot just doesn’t make people all that crazy.
(I know I’m more like to do something nuts after drinking perfectly legal whiskey than if I’ve smoked some weed. I mean, you might want to stay out my way if you’re a Dorito or something, but otherwise it’s going to be pretty safe.)
If it weren’t specifically about marijuana, maybe not. Since no one has suggested anything like her being high on crack or PCP or such, I think it is. Pot just doesn’t make people all that crazy.
(I know I’m more like to do something nuts after drinking perfectly legal whiskey than if I’ve smoked some weed. I mean, you might want to stay out my way if you’re a Dorito or something, but otherwise it’s going to be pretty safe.)
If it weren’t specifically about marijuana, maybe not. Since no one has suggested anything like her being high on crack or PCP or such, I think it is. Pot just doesn’t make people all that crazy.
(I know I’m more like to do something nuts after drinking perfectly legal whiskey than if I’ve smoked some weed. I mean, you might want to stay out my way if you’re a Dorito or something, but otherwise it’s going to be pretty safe.)
could pot have interacted with some other drug she was taking (or should have been taking but wasn’t, due to being locked up)?
but, yeah, pot doesn’t usually make people suicidal. it usually makes people want to sit down and think deep thoughts. it can make you paranoid if you’ve never done it before and you don’t know what’s going on. but suicidal seems like a stretch.
but, maybe her own personal brain chemistry made her react differently than anyone i’ve ever known.
could pot have interacted with some other drug she was taking (or should have been taking but wasn’t, due to being locked up)?
but, yeah, pot doesn’t usually make people suicidal. it usually makes people want to sit down and think deep thoughts. it can make you paranoid if you’ve never done it before and you don’t know what’s going on. but suicidal seems like a stretch.
but, maybe her own personal brain chemistry made her react differently than anyone i’ve ever known.
could pot have interacted with some other drug she was taking (or should have been taking but wasn’t, due to being locked up)?
but, yeah, pot doesn’t usually make people suicidal. it usually makes people want to sit down and think deep thoughts. it can make you paranoid if you’ve never done it before and you don’t know what’s going on. but suicidal seems like a stretch.
but, maybe her own personal brain chemistry made her react differently than anyone i’ve ever known.
Since Ms. Bland wasn’t obviously impaired when she was arrested (otherwise, it would have clearly been part of the ’cause’ for the arrest), then massive amounts of THC in her corpse implies that somehow she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
And no one noticed the smell? Srsly?
Really, a lab mistake (or deliberate smear) seems more likely; otherwise the question is about the “when and where” the THC got into her body.
Since Ms. Bland wasn’t obviously impaired when she was arrested (otherwise, it would have clearly been part of the ’cause’ for the arrest), then massive amounts of THC in her corpse implies that somehow she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
And no one noticed the smell? Srsly?
Really, a lab mistake (or deliberate smear) seems more likely; otherwise the question is about the “when and where” the THC got into her body.
Since Ms. Bland wasn’t obviously impaired when she was arrested (otherwise, it would have clearly been part of the ’cause’ for the arrest), then massive amounts of THC in her corpse implies that somehow she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
And no one noticed the smell? Srsly?
Really, a lab mistake (or deliberate smear) seems more likely; otherwise the question is about the “when and where” the THC got into her body.
jeff: damage awards should be split between the officer (current assets + pension), whoever HIRED the officer, and whatever politician has oversight of the police department.
Make ’em all pay, make ’em all hurt, make ’em all squeal, make ’em all reconsider their ways.
I’d spread it around some, because you want (most of) them to ‘survive’ the experience, but learn from it.
jeff: damage awards should be split between the officer (current assets + pension), whoever HIRED the officer, and whatever politician has oversight of the police department.
Make ’em all pay, make ’em all hurt, make ’em all squeal, make ’em all reconsider their ways.
I’d spread it around some, because you want (most of) them to ‘survive’ the experience, but learn from it.
jeff: damage awards should be split between the officer (current assets + pension), whoever HIRED the officer, and whatever politician has oversight of the police department.
Make ’em all pay, make ’em all hurt, make ’em all squeal, make ’em all reconsider their ways.
I’d spread it around some, because you want (most of) them to ‘survive’ the experience, but learn from it.
she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
or she ate some .
she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
or she ate some .
she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
or she ate some .
or she ate some
If jail food were that good, people would be dying to get incarcerated.
or she ate some
If jail food were that good, people would be dying to get incarcerated.
or she ate some
If jail food were that good, people would be dying to get incarcerated.
Well, Dr. Ben Carson-(R), POTUS primary candidate thinks that conditions in US prisons are too good, so people will try not only to get in but also to stay there. Free food, healthcare and good airconditioning. Just great for the lazy and the homeless, especially during wintertime.
[sarcasm]as a hereditary n-word he of course remembers that natives in the colonies were not thrown into jail but flogged and sent back to work (unless executed) because even a colonial jail was paradise compared to the normal conditions for colonial natives outside, so if jail was an option the natives would deliberately commit crimes to get a nice holiday behing bars.[/sarcasm]
Wise man that he is Dr.Carson leaves the conclusions to the audience. Others, less wise, have openly called for charging inmates rent and some states are already implementing it (at least that is what I have heard).
Well, Dr. Ben Carson-(R), POTUS primary candidate thinks that conditions in US prisons are too good, so people will try not only to get in but also to stay there. Free food, healthcare and good airconditioning. Just great for the lazy and the homeless, especially during wintertime.
[sarcasm]as a hereditary n-word he of course remembers that natives in the colonies were not thrown into jail but flogged and sent back to work (unless executed) because even a colonial jail was paradise compared to the normal conditions for colonial natives outside, so if jail was an option the natives would deliberately commit crimes to get a nice holiday behing bars.[/sarcasm]
Wise man that he is Dr.Carson leaves the conclusions to the audience. Others, less wise, have openly called for charging inmates rent and some states are already implementing it (at least that is what I have heard).
Well, Dr. Ben Carson-(R), POTUS primary candidate thinks that conditions in US prisons are too good, so people will try not only to get in but also to stay there. Free food, healthcare and good airconditioning. Just great for the lazy and the homeless, especially during wintertime.
[sarcasm]as a hereditary n-word he of course remembers that natives in the colonies were not thrown into jail but flogged and sent back to work (unless executed) because even a colonial jail was paradise compared to the normal conditions for colonial natives outside, so if jail was an option the natives would deliberately commit crimes to get a nice holiday behing bars.[/sarcasm]
Wise man that he is Dr.Carson leaves the conclusions to the audience. Others, less wise, have openly called for charging inmates rent and some states are already implementing it (at least that is what I have heard).
Since Ms. Bland wasn’t obviously impaired when she was arrested (otherwise, it would have clearly been part of the ’cause’ for the arrest), then massive amounts of THC in her corpse implies that somehow she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
Going by CharlesWT’s link, the THC levels weren’t so massive and could have been from post-mortem release of fat-cell accumulation from prior use.
Since Ms. Bland wasn’t obviously impaired when she was arrested (otherwise, it would have clearly been part of the ’cause’ for the arrest), then massive amounts of THC in her corpse implies that somehow she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
Going by CharlesWT’s link, the THC levels weren’t so massive and could have been from post-mortem release of fat-cell accumulation from prior use.
Since Ms. Bland wasn’t obviously impaired when she was arrested (otherwise, it would have clearly been part of the ’cause’ for the arrest), then massive amounts of THC in her corpse implies that somehow she went all Rasta and smoked some major ganja while in jail.
Going by CharlesWT’s link, the THC levels weren’t so massive and could have been from post-mortem release of fat-cell accumulation from prior use.
Just for the record, since the thread is getting played out:
My sister-in-law informs me that her son (my nephew) was told by a friend of his who is in training to become a policeman that any driver who wants to reduce the chance of escalation during a traffic stop would do well to turn off his ignition and leave the keys on top of the dashboard where the cop can see them when he walks up to the car.
I’m curious: has anybody else heard this advice?
If so, does anybody but me think that traffic cops are getting too uppity in their expectations of obsequious servility from the motoring public?
I’m inclined, myself, to invest in a dummy set of keys for dashboard display purposes, just in case this actually becomes A Thing.
–TP
Just for the record, since the thread is getting played out:
My sister-in-law informs me that her son (my nephew) was told by a friend of his who is in training to become a policeman that any driver who wants to reduce the chance of escalation during a traffic stop would do well to turn off his ignition and leave the keys on top of the dashboard where the cop can see them when he walks up to the car.
I’m curious: has anybody else heard this advice?
If so, does anybody but me think that traffic cops are getting too uppity in their expectations of obsequious servility from the motoring public?
I’m inclined, myself, to invest in a dummy set of keys for dashboard display purposes, just in case this actually becomes A Thing.
–TP
Just for the record, since the thread is getting played out:
My sister-in-law informs me that her son (my nephew) was told by a friend of his who is in training to become a policeman that any driver who wants to reduce the chance of escalation during a traffic stop would do well to turn off his ignition and leave the keys on top of the dashboard where the cop can see them when he walks up to the car.
I’m curious: has anybody else heard this advice?
If so, does anybody but me think that traffic cops are getting too uppity in their expectations of obsequious servility from the motoring public?
I’m inclined, myself, to invest in a dummy set of keys for dashboard display purposes, just in case this actually becomes A Thing.
–TP
Turning off the ignition, yes. Haven’t heard of the keys procedure.
I had forgotten that the officer in this clip speaks German and then English like Colonel Klink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unseSFWjuqs
One thing I believe cops are understandably wary about is drivers pulling a gun of them.
Especially the kind with a license.
Turning off the ignition, yes. Haven’t heard of the keys procedure.
I had forgotten that the officer in this clip speaks German and then English like Colonel Klink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unseSFWjuqs
One thing I believe cops are understandably wary about is drivers pulling a gun of them.
Especially the kind with a license.
Turning off the ignition, yes. Haven’t heard of the keys procedure.
I had forgotten that the officer in this clip speaks German and then English like Colonel Klink.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unseSFWjuqs
One thing I believe cops are understandably wary about is drivers pulling a gun of them.
Especially the kind with a license.
“on” them.
Never misuse a word when speaking to an American cop either.
It’ll cost ya.
“on” them.
Never misuse a word when speaking to an American cop either.
It’ll cost ya.
“on” them.
Never misuse a word when speaking to an American cop either.
It’ll cost ya.
I heard of the key procedure near to 15 years ago, so this part of a maximally submissive pose isn’t new, though it may only recently getting more popular.
I heard of the key procedure near to 15 years ago, so this part of a maximally submissive pose isn’t new, though it may only recently getting more popular.
I heard of the key procedure near to 15 years ago, so this part of a maximally submissive pose isn’t new, though it may only recently getting more popular.
They are trained to shoot first and then “answer” questions later, and we’re trained to be submissive.
It’s moving up the pop charts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
They are trained to shoot first and then “answer” questions later, and we’re trained to be submissive.
It’s moving up the pop charts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
They are trained to shoot first and then “answer” questions later, and we’re trained to be submissive.
It’s moving up the pop charts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Count,
That’s a hell of a link you’ve got there. You deserve “almost $1000 an hour” for your testimony.
But I’ll pick one nit with you: this “Dr.” Lewinsky characters does NOT appear to offer “training” to us civilians on how to be adequately “submissive”. We have to train ourselves I guess.
–TP
Count,
That’s a hell of a link you’ve got there. You deserve “almost $1000 an hour” for your testimony.
But I’ll pick one nit with you: this “Dr.” Lewinsky characters does NOT appear to offer “training” to us civilians on how to be adequately “submissive”. We have to train ourselves I guess.
–TP
Count,
That’s a hell of a link you’ve got there. You deserve “almost $1000 an hour” for your testimony.
But I’ll pick one nit with you: this “Dr.” Lewinsky characters does NOT appear to offer “training” to us civilians on how to be adequately “submissive”. We have to train ourselves I guess.
–TP
Tony, I’m sure if you weren’t a lazy parasitic Taker trying to get something for nothing on the Makers’ hard-earn-then-stolen tax dime, and were willing to pony up $1000, the good doctor would be willing to spend an hour teaching you haw to move very slowly, telegraph all and only innocuous movements, and announce your intended actions before carrying them out in such a way that it won’t interfere with your silent mouthing of prayers that the officer won’t need to shoot you anyway.
Tony, I’m sure if you weren’t a lazy parasitic Taker trying to get something for nothing on the Makers’ hard-earn-then-stolen tax dime, and were willing to pony up $1000, the good doctor would be willing to spend an hour teaching you haw to move very slowly, telegraph all and only innocuous movements, and announce your intended actions before carrying them out in such a way that it won’t interfere with your silent mouthing of prayers that the officer won’t need to shoot you anyway.
Tony, I’m sure if you weren’t a lazy parasitic Taker trying to get something for nothing on the Makers’ hard-earn-then-stolen tax dime, and were willing to pony up $1000, the good doctor would be willing to spend an hour teaching you haw to move very slowly, telegraph all and only innocuous movements, and announce your intended actions before carrying them out in such a way that it won’t interfere with your silent mouthing of prayers that the officer won’t need to shoot you anyway.
He trains the cops to train us, with variations according to melanin content.
Between the brutality and shooting by those who serve as the front-line “point-of-sale” to the public for conservative/libertarian (where are the Oath Keepers and the Red Staters when people are gunned down on a weekly basis, I ask you, besides cheering) authoritarian big government, and threats to punch out their enemies, prompted by the pigf*ckers in the Conservative media —
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/kindergarten-teachers-deserve-to-be.html
— these people seem to think they are Christian Bosnian Serbs on the hunt or maybe
Hutus answering the call.
I’d say there is only one way to deal with this.
He trains the cops to train us, with variations according to melanin content.
Between the brutality and shooting by those who serve as the front-line “point-of-sale” to the public for conservative/libertarian (where are the Oath Keepers and the Red Staters when people are gunned down on a weekly basis, I ask you, besides cheering) authoritarian big government, and threats to punch out their enemies, prompted by the pigf*ckers in the Conservative media —
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/kindergarten-teachers-deserve-to-be.html
— these people seem to think they are Christian Bosnian Serbs on the hunt or maybe
Hutus answering the call.
I’d say there is only one way to deal with this.
He trains the cops to train us, with variations according to melanin content.
Between the brutality and shooting by those who serve as the front-line “point-of-sale” to the public for conservative/libertarian (where are the Oath Keepers and the Red Staters when people are gunned down on a weekly basis, I ask you, besides cheering) authoritarian big government, and threats to punch out their enemies, prompted by the pigf*ckers in the Conservative media —
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/kindergarten-teachers-deserve-to-be.html
— these people seem to think they are Christian Bosnian Serbs on the hunt or maybe
Hutus answering the call.
I’d say there is only one way to deal with this.
From the link Posted by: Countme-In | August 02, 2015 at 12:42 PM:
It really only needs to be a possibility for the purposes of introducing reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But, then, how doesn’t it give officers almost complete immunity from murder convictions in all but the most egregious cases, like that of Walter Scott – and even then, only when someone else is there to shoot the video?
And why wouldn’t the same principle apply to legally armed civilians who feel threatened (and don’t wear body cameras)?
I have some amount of sympathy for cops who have to walk up to a car not knowing the intentions of the driver, who may or may not be armed. And no one wants to be the one in a million (or whatever number it is, per traffic stop) who gets shot. But Dr. Lewinski’s line of reasoning leads to a system that is unworkable. It’s effectively a license to kill, based on the killer’s say-so.
Such is the politeness of the armed society, I guess.
From the link Posted by: Countme-In | August 02, 2015 at 12:42 PM:
It really only needs to be a possibility for the purposes of introducing reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But, then, how doesn’t it give officers almost complete immunity from murder convictions in all but the most egregious cases, like that of Walter Scott – and even then, only when someone else is there to shoot the video?
And why wouldn’t the same principle apply to legally armed civilians who feel threatened (and don’t wear body cameras)?
I have some amount of sympathy for cops who have to walk up to a car not knowing the intentions of the driver, who may or may not be armed. And no one wants to be the one in a million (or whatever number it is, per traffic stop) who gets shot. But Dr. Lewinski’s line of reasoning leads to a system that is unworkable. It’s effectively a license to kill, based on the killer’s say-so.
Such is the politeness of the armed society, I guess.
From the link Posted by: Countme-In | August 02, 2015 at 12:42 PM:
It really only needs to be a possibility for the purposes of introducing reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But, then, how doesn’t it give officers almost complete immunity from murder convictions in all but the most egregious cases, like that of Walter Scott – and even then, only when someone else is there to shoot the video?
And why wouldn’t the same principle apply to legally armed civilians who feel threatened (and don’t wear body cameras)?
I have some amount of sympathy for cops who have to walk up to a car not knowing the intentions of the driver, who may or may not be armed. And no one wants to be the one in a million (or whatever number it is, per traffic stop) who gets shot. But Dr. Lewinski’s line of reasoning leads to a system that is unworkable. It’s effectively a license to kill, based on the killer’s say-so.
Such is the politeness of the armed society, I guess.
From the link Posted by: Countme-In | August 02, 2015 at 12:42 PM:
It really only needs to be a possibility for the purposes of introducing reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But, then, how doesn’t it give officers almost complete immunity from murder convictions in all but the most egregious cases, like that of Walter Scott – and even then, only when someone else is there to shoot the video?
And why wouldn’t the same principle apply to legally armed civilians who feel threatened (and don’t wear body cameras)?
I have some amount of sympathy for cops who have to walk up to a car not knowing the intentions of the driver, who may or may not be armed. And no one wants to be the one in a million (or whatever number it is, per traffic stop) who gets shot. But Dr. Lewinski’s line of reasoning leads to a system that is unworkable. It’s effectively a license to kill, based on the killer’s say-so.
Such is the politeness of the armed society, I guess.
From the link Posted by: Countme-In | August 02, 2015 at 12:42 PM:
It really only needs to be a possibility for the purposes of introducing reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But, then, how doesn’t it give officers almost complete immunity from murder convictions in all but the most egregious cases, like that of Walter Scott – and even then, only when someone else is there to shoot the video?
And why wouldn’t the same principle apply to legally armed civilians who feel threatened (and don’t wear body cameras)?
I have some amount of sympathy for cops who have to walk up to a car not knowing the intentions of the driver, who may or may not be armed. And no one wants to be the one in a million (or whatever number it is, per traffic stop) who gets shot. But Dr. Lewinski’s line of reasoning leads to a system that is unworkable. It’s effectively a license to kill, based on the killer’s say-so.
Such is the politeness of the armed society, I guess.
From the link Posted by: Countme-In | August 02, 2015 at 12:42 PM:
It really only needs to be a possibility for the purposes of introducing reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. But, then, how doesn’t it give officers almost complete immunity from murder convictions in all but the most egregious cases, like that of Walter Scott – and even then, only when someone else is there to shoot the video?
And why wouldn’t the same principle apply to legally armed civilians who feel threatened (and don’t wear body cameras)?
I have some amount of sympathy for cops who have to walk up to a car not knowing the intentions of the driver, who may or may not be armed. And no one wants to be the one in a million (or whatever number it is, per traffic stop) who gets shot. But Dr. Lewinski’s line of reasoning leads to a system that is unworkable. It’s effectively a license to kill, based on the killer’s say-so.
Such is the politeness of the armed society, I guess.
Lawsuit Blames State Police and Local Jail for Sandra Bland’s Death: Bland’s mother says “she never should have been inside of a jail.”
Lawsuit Blames State Police and Local Jail for Sandra Bland’s Death: Bland’s mother says “she never should have been inside of a jail.”
Lawsuit Blames State Police and Local Jail for Sandra Bland’s Death: Bland’s mother says “she never should have been inside of a jail.”
I get stopped maybe more than average because I frequently drive late at night, and quite often am leaving bars after closing time.
My drill for getting pulled over is:
with the last item probably being the most important.
If the cop asks me if I know why he stopped me, and I actually do know why he stopped me, I just say “yes” and state what it was I think I did wrong. It’s not like it’s a big mystery in most cases, and it’s not like I’m going to trick him out of writing me up with some kind of Jedi mind trick if that’s what he’s gonna do.
If I actually don’t know why I was stopped, I just say so.
Any other questions, the answers are “yes”, “no”, or a simple, concise statement of whatever the relevant fact is. Barring actual medical emergencies (“I’m speeding because my passenger is bleeding profusely”) never make excuses about why you were doing whatever it was you were doing.
Quite often – must times, actually – they just tell me to straighten up, fly right, and have a nice day.
I’m an old balding white guy who drives a minivan, so I’m not likely to be seen as a particularly high-risk dude, but you never know.
There is absolutely no upside, ever, in pushing a cop’s buttons.
The logical end state of Lewinsky’s research and training is that cops should simply shoot everyone they pull over immediately, preferably without even leaving the cruiser. It’s really freaking disturbing that he gets paid for training cops.
I get stopped maybe more than average because I frequently drive late at night, and quite often am leaving bars after closing time.
My drill for getting pulled over is:
with the last item probably being the most important.
If the cop asks me if I know why he stopped me, and I actually do know why he stopped me, I just say “yes” and state what it was I think I did wrong. It’s not like it’s a big mystery in most cases, and it’s not like I’m going to trick him out of writing me up with some kind of Jedi mind trick if that’s what he’s gonna do.
If I actually don’t know why I was stopped, I just say so.
Any other questions, the answers are “yes”, “no”, or a simple, concise statement of whatever the relevant fact is. Barring actual medical emergencies (“I’m speeding because my passenger is bleeding profusely”) never make excuses about why you were doing whatever it was you were doing.
Quite often – must times, actually – they just tell me to straighten up, fly right, and have a nice day.
I’m an old balding white guy who drives a minivan, so I’m not likely to be seen as a particularly high-risk dude, but you never know.
There is absolutely no upside, ever, in pushing a cop’s buttons.
The logical end state of Lewinsky’s research and training is that cops should simply shoot everyone they pull over immediately, preferably without even leaving the cruiser. It’s really freaking disturbing that he gets paid for training cops.
I get stopped maybe more than average because I frequently drive late at night, and quite often am leaving bars after closing time.
My drill for getting pulled over is:
with the last item probably being the most important.
If the cop asks me if I know why he stopped me, and I actually do know why he stopped me, I just say “yes” and state what it was I think I did wrong. It’s not like it’s a big mystery in most cases, and it’s not like I’m going to trick him out of writing me up with some kind of Jedi mind trick if that’s what he’s gonna do.
If I actually don’t know why I was stopped, I just say so.
Any other questions, the answers are “yes”, “no”, or a simple, concise statement of whatever the relevant fact is. Barring actual medical emergencies (“I’m speeding because my passenger is bleeding profusely”) never make excuses about why you were doing whatever it was you were doing.
Quite often – must times, actually – they just tell me to straighten up, fly right, and have a nice day.
I’m an old balding white guy who drives a minivan, so I’m not likely to be seen as a particularly high-risk dude, but you never know.
There is absolutely no upside, ever, in pushing a cop’s buttons.
The logical end state of Lewinsky’s research and training is that cops should simply shoot everyone they pull over immediately, preferably without even leaving the cruiser. It’s really freaking disturbing that he gets paid for training cops.
There is absolutely no upside, ever, in pushing a cop’s buttons.
On many extremely useful but potentially dangerous machines, design standards require that certain buttons be carefully recessed so that they can not be pushed by mistake. Machines that don’t meet those standards are generally not allowed on the factory floor. Evidently, we accept looser standards on policemen than on stamping presses.
–TP
There is absolutely no upside, ever, in pushing a cop’s buttons.
On many extremely useful but potentially dangerous machines, design standards require that certain buttons be carefully recessed so that they can not be pushed by mistake. Machines that don’t meet those standards are generally not allowed on the factory floor. Evidently, we accept looser standards on policemen than on stamping presses.
–TP
There is absolutely no upside, ever, in pushing a cop’s buttons.
On many extremely useful but potentially dangerous machines, design standards require that certain buttons be carefully recessed so that they can not be pushed by mistake. Machines that don’t meet those standards are generally not allowed on the factory floor. Evidently, we accept looser standards on policemen than on stamping presses.
–TP
Good point Tony….but alas, police folks do not come equipped with a prominently displayed safety warning label, and I have yet to have one of them hand me a safety manual.
Good point Tony….but alas, police folks do not come equipped with a prominently displayed safety warning label, and I have yet to have one of them hand me a safety manual.
Good point Tony….but alas, police folks do not come equipped with a prominently displayed safety warning label, and I have yet to have one of them hand me a safety manual.
police folks do not come equipped with a prominently displayed safety warning label
I think the badge and the gun get the point across.
It’s weird that people going about their daily business should even have to think twice about cops, but weird appears to be our national middle name.
police folks do not come equipped with a prominently displayed safety warning label
I think the badge and the gun get the point across.
It’s weird that people going about their daily business should even have to think twice about cops, but weird appears to be our national middle name.
police folks do not come equipped with a prominently displayed safety warning label
I think the badge and the gun get the point across.
It’s weird that people going about their daily business should even have to think twice about cops, but weird appears to be our national middle name.
what russell said.
and also good to turn on interior over head lamp in your car if pulled over after dark.
They could not see one of his hands.
http://thegrio.com/2015/08/06/dashcam-video-released-jonathan-ferrell-police-killing/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/the-killing-of-jonathan-ferrell/279883/
what russell said.
and also good to turn on interior over head lamp in your car if pulled over after dark.
They could not see one of his hands.
http://thegrio.com/2015/08/06/dashcam-video-released-jonathan-ferrell-police-killing/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/the-killing-of-jonathan-ferrell/279883/
what russell said.
and also good to turn on interior over head lamp in your car if pulled over after dark.
They could not see one of his hands.
http://thegrio.com/2015/08/06/dashcam-video-released-jonathan-ferrell-police-killing/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/the-killing-of-jonathan-ferrell/279883/