State trooper who arrested Sandra Bland is ‘the Donald Trump of traffic cops,’ pastor says

[DonViejo]

A pastor who has spent time with the family of Sandra Bland said the state trooper who arrested her is “the Donald Trump of traffic cops.”

The Rev. Jamal Bryant, pastor of the Empowerment Temple Church in Baltimore, said state Trooper Brian Encinia was “completely out of line” when he arrested the 28-year-old civil rights activist after stopping her for a lane change violation, reported Mediaite.

“He’s completely out of line and has gone over the cliff over failure to use a traffic signal,” Bryant said Wednesday morning during an appearance on CNN’s “New Day.”

The pastor said the trooper became angry because Bland refused his order to put out a cigarette she was smoking in her car and violently pulled her outside the vehicle.

“She knew her rights and was fully equipped with the law and challenged him, and he was frustrated on that,” Bryant said. “Even the police department acknowledged that he broke procedure, courtesy and protocol.”

more
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/state-trooper-who-arrested-sandra-bland-is-the-donald-trump-of-traffic-cops-pastor-says/

[cwydro]

1. I'm sure that pastor means well, but to me that is trivializing

this horrific tragedy.

[Lee-Lee]

2. And by spreading bad info about what ones rights are during a stop

this pastor is setting the stage for more people to be misinformed and challenge officers with a faulty grasp of the law.

The instruction to put out the cigarette and exit the car were both well within an officers authority during a traffic stop. Period. People claiming otherwise and doing a broad disservice to their audience by giving them a flawed understanding of their rights that can cause them to react in a manner that will just make things worse on more stops.

[BillZBubb]

4. Bullshit!

That cop was totally out of line. Period.

[KitSileya]

6. You need to read Rodriguez vs United States.

"police could not extend the length of a routine traffic stop, even for just a few minutes, absent a safety related concern or reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver may have committed an additional crime. "

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/22/3683281/supreme-court-say-sandra-blands-arrest/

He had written the ticket, and was about to hand it to her when he started asking non-law related questions like how she's feeling, and then orders her to put out her cigarette. That is extending the length of the routine traffic stop, and because Bland knows her rights and refuses to follow unlawful orders, she is murdered. It's more correct to say that you need to stop spreading bad info.

[Lee-Lee]

7. No, that doesn't come close to the standard in Rodriuez

The questions he asked were all reasonable and the duration of the stop was well within reason.

Had he refused to hand over the ticket while waiting for a drug dog without reasonable suspicion, then it would apply.

Asking about the state of mind of a person who seems upset during a stop is well within reason.

[KitSileya]

14. I disagree, but since Bland is dead, we will never see her nail this cop in court.

Gee, how convenient for him that she died. How convenient for him that the cam video is doctored. How convenient for him that Republicans, other law enforcement officers (present and former) and the media automatically give him the benefit of the doubt, and Bland the suspicion of doubt.

[Ino]

22. There are laws...

and then there are the Laws Unto Themselves Who Do No Wrong, who are skilled at twisting any situation so they can do as they please and you are to blame.

[jeff47]

8. No, your rights to not disappear when a police officer tells you to do something.

What, specifically, is the legal justification for demanding she put out her cigarette? If you are planning to answer with "she might use it as a weapon!!" then you'll have to explain why the burning cigarette was perfectly fine earlier in the stop.

[Lee-Lee]

9. I've posted several times before why I never allowed anyone to smoke.

In a traffic stop or other encounter cops will watch your hands closely to ensure you don't grab a weapon. Smoking produces constant up-down movement that makes it harder.

If the need to arrest arises the lit cigarette becomes an injury hazard for both the officer and arrestee, as well as a fire hazard if dropped.

A cop, just like any other worker anywhere, has a right to do their job without unessecsry exposure to secondhand smoke.

[jeff47]

10. Then why did the cop wait until late in the stop to demand she stop smoking?

You kinda forgot to cover that.

If it is a danger, it was a danger the moment he walked up to the car. Not only a danger after he started getting angry.

[Lee-Lee]

11. Do we even know that she was smoking then?

Was she smoking when pulled over, or did she light up while he was in the car doing paperwork for several minutes?

Regardless, even if she was, it's his discretion during the stop. But given the several minutes that passed before he went back to the car it is pretty well within reason that she started smoking during that time- smokers do that out of habit under stress often without even thinking about it.

[jeff47]

12. Do we even know she wasn't smoking then?

Presumption of innocence does not go to the officer.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Innocence from what? Your making shit up

As I said- it doesn't matter if she was smoking then or not.

The officer, for the period she is detained to conduct the stop, has the lawful authority to issue instructions like "keep your hands where I can see them" "don't smoke" "don't reach under your seat" "take the keys out of the ignition". And he/she can issue those commands at any point during the stop and it remains just as legitimate.

It was a lawful instruction. Period. She refused. Then refused a second lawful command to exit the vehicle.

[jeff47]

15. Making shit up like "she must have lit the cigarette" when you have zero evidence she did?

You're starting with the premise that the cop must have been acting lawfully, and you're constructing a narrative around it to fit that premise.

You have no evidence she lit the cigarette later. Additionally, when the officer returned to the car, he started with her mood. Not "put out the cigarette".

You're also starting with the premise that the stop itself was justified. What happened that caused the officer to get back into his car, make a u-turn, and then tailgate her? If there had been something suspicious to trigger that, how come the police have not mentioned what it is, and instead start with the "didn't signal lane change"?

[Lee-Lee]

16. Go back and read

I said she "my have" done all that and it was within reason for it to have happened. Never claimed once was the absolute truth.

Have you ever been a cop working a traffic detail for a specific stretch of highway? You make a stop going one way, then make a u-turn when done to patrol the other way, make a u-turn at the end of the assigned area if you don't make a stop or if you do make a stop make a u-turn at the end of it and repeat again.

Watch when you see officers working traffic and you will see most go the opposite direction as the person they just stopped at the conclusion of the traffic stop. Just like we saw on this video.

Nothing illegal or incorrect in that procedure at all.

[jeff47]

18. Adding the qualifier and then writing as if it is not present

demonstrates you're not really believing the qualifier.

You make a stop going one way, then make a u-turn when done to patrol the other way, make a u-turn at the end of the assigned area if you don't make a stop or if you do make a stop make a u-turn at the end of it and repeat again.

Except the video shows that wasn't what happened. He made a U-turn and pursued this car. And did so at a speed where there was no way he could enforce traffic laws like speeding.

Nothing illegal or incorrect in that procedure at all.

Sure! That's why he's been assigned to desk duty for violating procedure. Because there was nothing incorrect in anything he did.

Though I am quite excited about the new physics we will discover from the temporal distortions on the dashcam video.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. The presumption was yours.

There's no reason to assert that she was smoking when she was pulled over.

I agree with the point posted upthread: citizens have a responsibility to comply with legal requests from law enforcement, and it pays to get advice from informed sources.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-stops-when-pulled-over-30186.html

[jeff47]

21. Yes, rights evaporate when a police officer tells you to do something.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. There are some requests that I don't have a right to refuse.

Produce ID and step out of the car, are two of them.

And in event of a disagreement over exactly where that line is, I have more to lose, being downrange of the gun.

"Put out the cigarette?" Maybe, maybe not. But civility demands that if I were asked to do that by someone riding in the car, I'd comply.

[libodem]

3. Thank you

Don. You bring us some of the best Information on DU.
I so appreciate you effort to educate us well.

[BillZBubb]

5. Trump is a buffoon. That cop is something much worse.

[Snotcicles]

17. He went over the cliff before Bland refused his order to put out a cigarette.

I noticed the second he realized she was upset he began his escalation, he wanted it to escalate thats why he started making it personal by asking her if she was Ok. He could not handle her not being totally submissive and dominated. He paused as if he was caught off guard that she dare express anything negative about their encounter. So to test her again he demand she put out her cigarette once that was challenged he could not control his rage. That became in his mind a disrespect that needed to be punished. If she had been white she most likely would not been interrupted, or possibly flirted with. At worst issued a warning.

[Snotcicles]

19. From what I've heard the method of pulling up behind motorists quickly, is to get them to

lane change without signaling. Where is Texas's Frank Serpico?

[Ino]

23. ^^^ this, exactly ^^^ (nt)