Kneel and kiss the ring you peasants.
 

Who would have thought running your mouth is illegal these days.

Kneel and kiss the ring you peasants.

Cop Expert: Why Sandra Bland's Arrest Was Legal But Not Good Policing
 

Interesting take on the story, from TPM,

As the video of Sandra Bland’s arrest makes its way into homes and offices around the country, people are aghast that the failure to use a turn signal led to a woman’s arrest and, ultimately, her death by what officials have identified as suicide. People want to know if the officer’s actions—asking that Bland put out her cigarette and demanding that she step out of her car—were legal. But that’s the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking whether it was good policing.

As a former police officer, and now as a legal scholar who studies policing, I know the law is not a moral compass. An officer’s actions can be entirely lawful, and yet fail to meet the high standards that we should expect from our law enforcement professionals, our community guardians. When we focus on whether the police acted lawfully, we are missing the chance to ask whether they acted appropriately. As I watch the dash camera video of the traffic stop, I can’t help but think of the distinction between lawful policing and rightful policing.

Here’s what we see in the video: After issuing a warning ticket in an earlier traffic stop, Trooper Brian Encinia is driving through an intersection to within several car lengths of a vehicle in front of him, Sandra Bland’s car. Seconds later, Bland changes from the left lane to the right lane, but she does so without signaling. Within ten seconds, Encinia pulls behind her and activates his overhead lights (this is when the audio recording comes online, which happens automatically when the lights are activated). About 20 seconds after the lane change, Bland has pulled over.

The initial portion of the traffic stop is entirely unremarkable. Encinia walks up to the passenger-side window—not an unusual approach—and identifies the reason for the stop before asking for Bland’s driver’s license and insurance. He asks her a few questions—how long she has been in Texas (“Got here yesterday”) and where she’s headed (“Work”). He asks Bland for her driver’s license a second time. Although neither Encinia nor Bland sound happy, both are polite. He calls her “ma’am.” She answers his questions and apologizes for not providing her driver’s license, which she thought she had already handed him. He says, “Give me a few minutes, alright?” before walking back to his car.

Almost five minutes later, Encinia walks up to the driver’s side of Bland’s car carrying a ticket book. Almost immediately, he sees something that makes him ask, “You okay?” When Bland tells him that she’s waiting on him, he replies, “You seem very irritated.” She is, and she explains why: She switched lanes because she saw him accelerating behind her and wanted to let him pass. “So, yeah, I am a little irritated,” she says. “But that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket.”

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

To be fair, I don’t know Encinia’s reasons for having Bland step out of the car. Perhaps he would have done so regardless, even if she hadn’t been smoking, although the video suggests otherwise (he did not have the driver step out during the previous stop, and he did not put his pen away and his ticket pad down until after Bland refused to put out her cigarette, indicating that he was originally planning on talking over the warning ticket while she sat in her car). Regardless, it is problematic when officers focus on compliance—expecting people they interact with to be entirely deferential—to such an extent that they neglect cooperation, which must be earned.

Imagine the potential change in the tone of the encounter if Encinia had said, “You’re right, you don’t have to, and I’m sorry to ask, but cigarette smoke sets off my asthma. Would you mind putting it out or in the ashtray, please, just while I’m talking to you?” Or if, upon hearing her refusal, he had simply acknowledged it and turned to the warning ticket. Either way, he would have been signaling to Bland that he respected her control over at least some aspects of the encounter, rather than demanding she recognize his dominance.

This is a particularly important point to keep in mind given the potential for race, gender and class dynamics to affect police encounters. We all—officer and civilian, black and white—have implicit and unconscious biases that affect the way we perceive the world and how we set our expectations. For example, officers may expect more deference from a black woman driving an older car than they do from a white attorney in an expensive D.C. neighborhood. And as a result, they may react to a lack of deference very differently.

When Encinia ordered Bland to exit her vehicle, she refused. “I don’t have to step out of my car.” Rather than handling the remainder of the stop with her sitting in the car, or explaining why he wanted her to step out of the car, or attempting to obtain her cooperation, or calmly explaining the law, Encinia simply invoked his legal authority, shouting at one point, “I gave you a lawful order.” He was right. It was lawful. And when Bland did not obey, she was refusing a lawful order, a crime under Texas law. Her arrest, like the confrontations that led up to it, may have been lawful, but it was entirely avoidable had Encinia chosen a different approach.

We all deserve more than legal policing. We deserve good policing.

Seth Stoughton is a law professor at the University of South Carolina, where he is affiliated with the Rule of Law Collaborative. He served as a police officer and investigator for more than seven years. Follow him on Twitter @PoliceLawProf.

I'll simplify that for you. "Anyone is a dangerous individual". Easier?

I have a liberal nephew (where did we go wrong? :rolleyes: ) We had a disagreement over an officer who shot a man approaching him with a knife.
His argument was that 9 times out of 10, a man with a knife can be safely disarmed by someone well trained. (possibly right, his assertion, not mine).

His sister married a police officer, and hubby's question to him was "So, if I face that situation 50 times in my years on the force, how is that going to work out for me?"

You have some "great solutions" for police work. Do you have a good answer for hubby-cop's question?

I pop the circuit breakers downstairs, and then treat the outlet as if it's live. I take my grandkids to a park, and watch every nearby adult as if they're a potential predator. I haven't had a flat tire in years, and air up my spare regularly.

And, during 364 days in the jungle, nobody shot me. That "other" day was a B*tch. :D

So, if you can identify which day, which person, which relaxed approach is going to be "the one" that puts you in the hospital, you'd make a great cop.

Otherwise, after a few years and sharing the experiences of the "old-timers", you'd be a lot like the rest of the guys on the force, I'd wager.

I would not have thought it was illegal last time I heard a hammer pulled back as I was told one more word and my head was going to be blown off. That was the Disney version mind you all for 57 in a 55 and me trying to get out of the car since I had weapons carried legally in plain view. That was my lesson in releasing things my dad had taught me. The Clarence Darrow act played much better with the Lt. That was in 88 and I haven't forgot it again...:eek:

My argument stems from the fact that she already had been smoking, must have been because he doesn't say "don't light that up", and decided to have her step out after she gives him some lip. She seems distraught, she doesn't have a knife. she is sitting in her car. I don't see evidence she's going to pull a Jim West move on the cop. And another question to ask. If she simply stepped out, and got detained/searched/arrested, what what have been the reason? What defense against unlawful search and siezure does she have? Oh I pulled her out becasue she was smoking...

You are starting to read like a troll. Some here have posted their arguments supporting the officer asking her to put out her cigarette, others have countered, and the rebuttals have been presented. It should end at that since no minds will be changed.

Yet, you have not addressed her comments about moving to Texas to "stop all of the injustices in the South". (Lofty goal for one young lady, wouldn't you think?) And the fact that she stated that she had attempted suicide in the past and that her arms had marks possibly supporting that claim.

How about this tweet on 8 April:

Sandra Bland
‏@a_sandybeach AT FIRST THEY USED A NOOSE, NOW ALL THEY DO IS SHOOT #BlackLivesMatter #SandySpeaks https://instagram.com/p/1N70zQgwZp/

Pat

"Can" vs. "should" is a tough concept for a lot of people. Anyone in a position of authority needs to understand the difference and act appropriately, otherwise they're part of the problem.

Are LEO recruiting efforts aimed more at those who do things because they can, vs. recruting those who consider whether they should?

And what about LEO training? Do the various police academies put much effort into educating new officers on using discretion? Just because an officer can do something legally doesn't mean they should. It seems many interactions with the public lean more toward muscle and intimidation than critical thinking and being a part of the community, which only deepens the us vs. them divide.

Sure call me a troll if you wish. My statements are meant to provoke thought about the situation at hand. Rise of the Warrior Cop is the thread title, I guess musings about the latest officer involved story leading to a death may not be the most appropriate place to put it but better than starting another thread.

My guess is that you don't personally know many black people. After most of the events like this, posts like that are all over social media by a variety of my black friends, some of whom are regular people, some are lazy POS's, and some of whom are U.S. Army senior NCO's and Officers. Here's my take on it: Ms. Bland is another person with a difficult life, and is making grandiose statements, not a sleeper cell black power/anti-government insurgent.

For me one of the underlining problems with today's police is not getting enough HUMINT on a subject. It takes time, and today Americans are all about self gratification or here and right now.

SO Police are acting fast and not getting the real story.

Could one make the same case for Dylann Roof and John Russell "Rusty" Houser?

Dylann Roof and John Russell "Rusty" Houser are other persons with a difficmaking grandiose statements, not a sleeper cell white power/anti-government insurgentult life, and is .

...

Recruiting efforts around here go two ways, either you apply with a department and they make the effort in trying to vet you, or you self sponsor the academy. If you self sponsor you are 100% guaranteed a job upon graduation unless you a purely a dirtbag (happened to two in my class, they will never be working in law enforcement) because A) it's cheaper to hire a self sponsor then to pay to send a guy and B) it shows you can take initiative.

A good number of departments have civil service tests one has to pass in order to be hired as well as background checks and in some cases psychological evaluations.

On the subject of training, it verys from academy to academy. I chose to self sponsor the best academy in my state, it is CALEA certified (the only one in the state) and has an awesome staff. Our instructors teach critical thinking along with a metric ton of other information, but, the academy is only 11 weeks (480 hours) that's just not enough time to teach everything or even 10% of what you need to know in this careerfield. To make matters worse, departments around here are mostly poor, thus for a lot of guys the academy is the only training they will ever get. For you military guys, think it like going to basic, and then being assigned as what ever your MOS is having never been to AIT and receiving little to no upgrade training once you get to your unit. The few departments that can get up the money for some training try to focus on skills that improve an officers ability to survive a lethal encounter. Sure some departments can occasionally get free training offered to them, but this is usually few and far between.

Thus if your department isn't offering the training your only option is to seek it yourself, but then you have the crowd that is either to lazy to do it or like a lot of guys, just don't have the money or time (wife, kids, bills, working 120 hours in 2 weeks as well as a second or third job etc) and what little time they have they just want to rest or spend it with family.

Bad guess! It's just that my black friends studied hard, work hard and don't feel that they are owed anything from anybody or that "the man" is out to get them. But then, most of them grew up in the '50s and '60s. Go figure.

Pat

More information is coming out that the very premise of the raid was a complete fabrication.....LINK

Richard, I completely agree.

I understand this is getting to be a touchy subject, and will leave my comments as previously stated. I mean no disrespect, I feel for the woman. If you take anything away from this conversation it is that I feel police detaining a person is psychologicaly equivalent to assaulting someone, and you ought to have a VERY good reason.

Paslode, I don't know what happened when you quoted me, but look back at your post, the time it was written, mine, and the time it was written. ???:confused:

Interaction between the police and the public has slowly devolved to the point where most of what the police say to the average person during a stop amounts to little more than...

"I'm Rick James, bitch"







...power's a hell of a drug

I noticed big lag during word entry, must have been the NSA messing with time stamps ;)

I guess I should belabor the point again.

Like any other organization or group, there are bad cops. Denial damages credibility. Failure to act on bad cops destroys it.

Maybe this guy was just having a bad hair day, but he appears to me to have, at least in this case, overreacted badly to a challenge of his authority.

Until the police start taking care of their own bad apples, community support for LE will continue to erode. Too many cops I know abuse their privilege to excuse semi-criminal behavior themselves. I am certain that this has not escaped the notice of their co-workers, but most are still on the job years later.

On the other hand, Ms. Bland chose to kill herself, not sure why the cops are being blamed for that.

Not too many people want to take that job with the gun and the badge and clean-up society's messes, and seeing people at their very worst, while at a significant risk to their lives.

Kids are also not being brought up to respect the uniform, if not the wearer, and are looking for a confrontation from the start. 20 years ago, most people conducted themselves with respect in interacting with LE. Now the opposite seems to be true for many.

Bad cops exist, just like bad citizens. The screening process for selection and termination appears to be ineffective, and I suspect that unions have some role in that. In my opinion, multiple incidents of excessive use of force and payouts of millions of taxpayer dollars in judgements should result in consequences, including personal liability and if warranted, prosecution and incarceration. To do otherwise risks a complete collapse of trust and confidence.

TR

SWAT to inspect for code violations?

SWAT raids house to inspect for code issues and shoots family dog from 12 feet (in police report).

LINK

Sure the family was a nuisance but outside the raid, the only charges were for vehicle registration traffic citations.

Really, a tactical unit for code violations?

This is what happens when you give "cowards" guns, a badge and unlimited authority. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Maybe instead of "tactical" shooting classes we need "Grow a Spine or Grow Some Balls" classes......


A "man" enters the same house and after upsetting the dog drops to a knee to call the dog cause he felt bad he upset him.

Code Officials are 'Gods' who can bring their wrath in many ways.

Just today I had another telling conversation with a cop. I was talking to a guy about the police shooting in Cincinnati. The cop mentions that the guy also has an open container in his car , info not seen in the news, as if that was another indicator he should have been shot for trying to flee...

SWAT Assault on Home Ruled Unreasonable
 

The actions of SWAT teams and their predisposition to chunking flash bangs in houses makes is making it really hard to convince people that they are actually good guys.