Another outrage in Sandra Bland injustice: She couldn’t find $500 bail

[G_j]

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/another-outrage-in-sandra-bland-injustice-she-couldnt-find-500-bail.html/

Bond and bail are among those murky jailhouse issues that many of us have the good fortune to not really have ever had need to understand. In the case of Sandra Bland, whom authorities say killed herself after spending three days in a southeast Texas jail after an incident that began with a simple failure to change lanes July 10, here’s how the bond/bail system “worked”:

The court set a $5,000 bond, money that — could Bland have provided it — would have been returned to her when she showed up for official proceedings. Her second option was to pay a bail bondsman $500 (or 10 percent) to post the $5,000 for her. The $500 to the bail bondsman is not refundable.

Mother Jones explains the difficulties posed by the system and what some see as the inherent unfairness of it all. Not surprisingly, like so much of so-called justice in America, much of one’s fate rides on how wealthy (or not) one is.


...more...

[COLGATE4]

1. It is indeed sad that her family and friends seem to

have let her down - for $500! But that hardly merits a condemnation of the system of bail in this country. Or would you prefer to have the system in many third world countries where detainees are not allowed bail and held for long periods, often years until they finally get their court 'dates'?

[G_j]

2. $5000 bail for not using a turn signal?

you must be kidding!

[Igel]

4. You know the expression "It's not the crime, it's the coverup"?

It wasn't the ticket, it was the interaction with the policeman.

[magical thyme]

124. $5,000 for being rude seems excessive to me.

And I think that's really what it was.

She was rude and that got under the cop's skin. I can understand rudeness getting under your skin and pissing you off, but it's not an excuse for him to pull out his taser and lose it.

But I also wonder how much the fact that none of her family and friends seemed able or willing to pool their money to bail her out contributed to her suicide. It seems possible, given she had been trouble with the law numerous times before and owed thousands in fines, that maybe they were giving her some "tough love" and saying "no more." Did any of them talk to her or attempt to see her? Or did she just feel totally abandoned.
We don't know and will never know.

[davidn3600]

6. I think the charge was "assaulting an officer"

That's why it was $5,000.

[G_j]

7. which we know was a lie. nt

[truedelphi]

12. On one of the major TV networks, it was explained that she

had "swung her elbows" in the direction of the arresting officer... Who would swing their elbows at another person? If you are ticked off at someone, you swing your fists. This indicates to me that she was in cuffs at the time that she "assaulted" the officer! So she was arrested first, and they made up the charges later on.

[mythology]

18. It could also mean that he was trying to handcuff her and she jerked away,

hitting him in the process. It could also be that she tried to use an elbow to push past him. It's so intentionally vague as to be useless as a descriptor.

Which should be rather moot as he provoked the incident and thus the escalation. Unfortunately the law gives a wide discretion to cops in this realm.

[COLGATE4]

25. You need to look up what the law defines as "assault"

It does not require physical contact - in fact, when there is physical contact the charge then becomes 'assault and battery'. She was in cuffs for resisting arrest. Then she swung her elbows at the officer = charge #2, assault.

[G_j]

27. your defense of police abuse against African Americans

is noted...

[COLGATE4]

30. I'm merely pointing out that, on a whole number of important facts

regarding this case your statements have been wrong. Not sure how that constitutes a 'defense' of anything.

[BillZBubb]

29. Thanks for the right wing perspective.

[COLGATE4]

31. I wasn't aware that explaining what the Law says

is now considered a 'right wing perspective'.

[G_j]

33. defending racist police actions?

nah...

[COLGATE4]

34. You know, there's a saying in law that, when the facts

are against you, argue the law. And when the law is against you, argue the facts. And when both the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.

You're pounding the table.

[tkmorris]

46. Oh poppycock

The facts here are just fine thankyouverymuch. It is YOU who find them unfortunate, which is why you are "arguing the law", as you put it . Yes, it IS true that virtually any movement a suspect makes which the officer perceives as threatening can be argued to be "assault", but that is part of the problem, as well as the fact that many officers will get very creative in interpreting what constitutes an "assault". Time and again people are charged with this "crime" simply because the officer in question felt like throwing his weight around that day.

And yes, you are selecting your arguments most carefully in an attempt to defend the police. It's not the first time.

[COLGATE4]

53. Assuming for the sake of argument

that what you are saying is correct - the place to sort that out is in court, not getting into an altercation with the officer. And no, I'm not defending the police. But I am defending our legal system. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we agree with and which we therefore choose to obey. I'm perfectly willing to listen to any FACTS which do not support what I've written. For example, please give me a cite or other reference to your allegation that "Time and again people are charged with this "crime" simply because the officer in question felt like throwing his weight around that day." And no, anecdotal stories don't count as facts.

[truedelphi]

153. Thank you for doing battle with such an

Individual.

I remember when someone like this person was once on this site, and he almost went so far as to state that JFk died of a brain aneurism.

Where these people come from, I do not know.

[truedelphi]

152. But perhaps more importantly, right now there is a strong belief that when the

local Police Department says that such and so is the truth and the facts behind a matter, the public sees the statement the same way that Gallileo once saw the Church's arguments that the sun revolves around the earth.

[COLGATE4]

154. Hard to say. Juries by and large tend to accord

great weight and credibility to police officers' testimony.

[truedelphi]

155. Juries by and large tend to not be represenatative of any community.

Most people cannot afford to serve on a jury. And since "economic hardship" does give the average individual a dispensation from serving on a jury, the job then falls to people who are older and whoa re retired or semi-retired.

[COLGATE4]

156. Absolutely not true. Economic hardship is a very difficult

excuse to make. Juries tend to have many more working people than retired or semi-retired.

[AllFieldsRequired]

56. Sadly, the actual law does provide for police to arrest you for almost anything.

The way they can interpret actions against them, you could just stand there with a smirk on your face and they could arrest you for something.

But for some reason it seems far more likely this kind of arrest will occur if your skin isnt white, not sure why that is, but it is.


Could have something to do with my observation that many white people, even most I would say, are afraid of black people.

[840high]

116. Of course it's not. Except on DU.

[COLGATE4]

117. Yep. nt

[Uncle Joe]

51. She couldn't have resisted unless he was arresting her first, so why was he arresting her? n/t

[COLGATE4]

55. As I understand the charges, she was charged with 1) assault and 2) resisting arrest.

So the answer is assault.

[AllFieldsRequired]

58. Tecnically, but we all know the real reason was she dared to be black while driving

in his town.

She dared to be from out of town, and then she dared to question his authority, for which she gave her life.

[COLGATE4]

61. Which is why he was trying to give her a WARNING.

Got it.

[Uncle Joe]

67. He never told her it was just a warning until he had her handcuffed at that point it was too late to

defuse the situation.

[COLGATE4]

69. So?

[COLGATE4]

71. So? What difference would it have made?

[Uncle Joe]

73. At that point it didn't make any difference he was already arresting her, but a previous driver in a

red car on that dashcam video was told it was just a warning at least twice and was never ordered out of the car.

Had he told Bland upfront when she was honest about being irritated that this was just going to be warning, that may have soothed her emotions, instead he spitefully ordered Bland to put out her cigarette, knowing she was already upset.

All she did was ask why? That's when he ordered Bland out of the car and all that for an illegal lane change.

The officer clearly escalated the situation.

[AllFieldsRequired]

74. Never happen if she wasnt black and we all know it. That is why she is dead, wrong color

[COLGATE4]

75. He wouldn't have given her a warning if she wasn't black?

[AllFieldsRequired]

79. If she was white he would have hardly noticed the car existed, let alone pulled her over.

This isnt that hard to understand.

[COLGATE4]

88. And your evidence that this is the case is...?

'This isn't that hard to understand' doesn't constitute evidence in any court with which I am familiar.

[AllFieldsRequired]

89. Dear lord give me strength

[COLGATE4]

91. If you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the law,

please do yourself a favor and don't try and act as your own attorney.

[brush]

109. Sure wouldn't hire you

You act as though "driving while black" or "driving while brown" is just a figment of someone's imagination and not something that hundreds of thousands of POC have been pulled over for and in many cases killed.

Sandra Bland was one and Samuel DuBose was the latest in Cincinnati.

Maybe the ex-Cincinnati killer cop will hire you.

[COLGATE4]

113. Nope. I don't do criminal defense any more.

But thanks for the thought.

[Uncle Joe]

82. Again he only stated it was a warning after he already had her in handcuffs,

not before that nor before ordering her out of the car.

[Uncle Joe]

66. He asked her, how she was doing and Bland said she was irritated, that set the officer off,

he lost control of his emotions at that point.

Bland's irritability may have been due to the Keppra that she had been taking, irritability is one of the side effects, but that's all it was, irritability, nothing in the law requires a driver to be full of bliss, if they get pulled

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/keppra-side-effects.html

He wanted to hear that she was happy, but when he heard otherwise, he spitefully ordered Bland to put her cigarette out, knowing that she was already upset, when she questioned why she had to do such a thing, he ordered her out of her car for no good reason.

The trained professional officer clearly escalated the turn of events, he was intent on arresting her at that point before any elbow may have scraped him.

He took her out of the view of the police car dash cam, why have it in first place if it can't witness what takes place?

The only logical motivation for doing such a thing is for nefarious purposes.

The arrest was totally bogus and ultimately between that, the deliberate or non-deliberate incompetence of the jail personnel and $500 cost this young woman her life.

[questionseverything]

76. if the assault charge was for swinging her elbows after the cuffs were on

are you saying the cop was arresting her for not putting out her cig?

[COLGATE4]

143. No. He was arresting her for not complying with his order

to get out of the car and resisting arrest.

[pnwmom]

139. She was charged with assault, which is a CROCK, because he told her he was

arresting her when she was still in the car. But he wouldn't tell her what he was arresting her for -- because he didn't have any grounds.(Smoking a cigarette in your own car isn't grounds for arrest.)

Later, when she was out of the car and out of camera view, he claims she kicked him. And that's what supposedly justified the assault charge. But he had already arrested her and dragged her out of the car FOR NO REASON.

[COLGATE4]

147. No, but failure to comply with a lawful order is.

He told her she was under arrest only after she repeatedly refused his order to exit the car. That type of order to a detainee in a traffic stop is absolutely legal, according to the Supreme Court. The officer is not required to tell the detainee the reason for the arrest at the moment the detainee demands it, particularly while the arrest is still ongoing. And, as she was being taken into custody the officer said she kicked him, providing the basis for the assault charge.-

[pnwmom]

148. He only told her to exit the car when she refused to put out her cigarette.

Which hadn't been a lawful order.

There is no evidence that he told her to leave the car for any LAWFUL reason -- like being afraid for his safety.

I am aware of the ruling you're relying on. But the Supreme Court has more recently ruled that it is not lawful for a police officer to prolong an encounter for longer than necessary to accomplish the ticketing. And so, by ordering her out of the car he was unnecessarily prolonging the encounter. All he had to do was ask her to sign the ticket. He did not need to order her out of the car to accomplish this. By doing so he prolonged the encounter in an unlawful way.

[jwirr]

37. On the video we heard her specifically say "Don't touch me." She was probably moving her arm

to try to get away from his touch. And before anyone says he had a right to touch her she was going where he told her to go when she said it.

[truedelphi]

52. As a woman who lived in the Democratically-run city of Chicago and

Drove a whole lot of places late at night, back in the Seventies, I became aware of so many violations of police officers becoming sexual deviants with women they stopped in traffic.

So I would say that male cops should not be touching women who are stopped for traffic violations EVER!

If there is a problem, they should call to have a woman cop assist.

(Chicago was notorious for cops who got women out of cars late at night and then molested them. I don't know if the practice was stopped, but it was still on going when DU first came about in the early 2000's.)

[jwirr]

62. Exactly. I posted elsewhere about the whole police department being fired for rape when I was a kid.

[Quayblue]

140. my first experience with cops involved sexual deviance

And I was smiling and tap-dancing the whole time, scared shitless.

it burns me up that people think being nice and polite is good enough... It never will be when there is an agenda in place before a person is pulled over.

[COLGATE4]

17. For 1) assaulting the officer and 2) resisting arrest.

You need to get your facts straight.

[G_j]

20. Which we know is all manufactured lies.

as least some of us do.

[jwirr]

39. And you know that if any one of us white folk had been the one in that car neither of those

charges would ever apply for such a little thing as failing to use a turn signal. It would have been handled totally different by the cop.

[COLGATE4]

59. You mean he would have given us a warning?

[jwirr]

63. Or a ticket. He also would have been polite.

[COLGATE4]

65. My point was that he was in fact in the process of

giving her a warning - not a ticket - when the whole thing went south.

[daredtowork]

120. What happenened to the issue of the cop

following her in the first place? Or are we giving that a pass because "not technically illegal" or something?

[COLGATE4]

128. The cop seems to have been on traffic patrol. As such there's

no particular significance to the fact that he followed her. That's what traffic patrol cops do, day in and day out. Certainly there's nothing illegal (technically or otherwise) about them doing it. It may have been because he saw her exit the parking lot without stopping (as required). It may have been because she had out of state tags. At this point nobody knows for sure.

[AllFieldsRequired]

60. He would not have even seen you, you would have not mattered to him. He saw an unknown

black person, period.

That is a big deal to him.

[Fred Sanders]

104. The racist white cop had her criminally charged with resisting the illegal arrest and assault on a racist cop.

[LanternWaste]

5. You then believe that a $5000 bail is an appropriate measure

You then believe that a $5000 bail is an appropriate measure to ensure a defendant's court appearance accused of a minor traffic violation?


"Or would you prefer to have the system in many third world countries where..."
I imagine it must be rather difficult to posses a mind which perceives only two possibilities to any given situation.

[moonandsixpence.]

9. The actual amount was ony $500.

[PoliticAverse]

105. Bail was $5,000 for which she could pay a Bail Bondsperson a non-refundable $500. n/t

[moonandsixpence.]

110. Okay. Sounds good to me.

Still doesn't answer the question why her family didn't bail her out.

[PoliticAverse]

111. Bail was set on the 11th, she died the morning of the 13th.

Apparently bail was going to be posted for her later that day.

Note that she was in a different location than her family as she had traveled to find a new job.

[moonandsixpence.]

112. Um...Sorry but I have different feelings on all that.

Have you seen this video with her?

[pnwmom]

138. The actual amount of the bail was $5000.

But for a $500 to a "bail bondsman," you can get the bondsman to pay your $5,000.

HOWEVER, you never get that $500 back. If you pay the $5,000 in cash, you'll get it all back when you turn up for trial. But if you have to pay the $500 to a bondsman, that's their non-refundable fee.

A lot of people can't afford to throw $500 away.

[Catherine Vincent]

144. umm...what is this?

So you think this was a hoax?

[COLGATE4]

15. She was charged with assault and resisting arrest.

In my experience $5000 bail is on the low end for these two charges. Having to come up with $500 for a bail bondsman is not particularly harsh or onerous.

[G_j]

21. manufactured lies

would you care to address that? Or our we supposed to accept such blatant abuse and corruption in LE?

She should never have been arrested.

[COLGATE4]

23. That's your opinion. And you know what they say

about opinions...

[G_j]

24. if you saw the video and think that's an opinion

our conversation is over.. have a nice day

[jberryhill]

54. I agree she should not have been arrested in the first place

The judge setting bond looks at the charge, not the dashcam.

[BillZBubb]

32. Bullshit. For many Americans quickly coming up with $500 cash is near impossible

Are you that delusional? You sound like an elitist plus a few more adjectives I won't list.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. Coming up with $500 for the bail bond is onerous for a great many Americans.

To say otherwise is naive.

[jwirr]

40. Speaks someone with money. Most of the people I know could not come up with $500 without

using their money for basic necessities like food, heat or gas to get to work.

[COLGATE4]

57. That's true. It's harder being arrested if you're poor.

[PoliticAverse]

103. She was actually charged with "assaulting a public servant", a 3rd degree felony. n/t

[sabrina 1]

48. Why on earth was she not just issued a ticket for a minor traffic infraction?

Why was she abused by a nasty, bully of a cop when she was pulled over in the first place?

Ever been pulled for something minor like that?

I have, and no the cop wasn't friendly when I asked why, 'do I have to bring you DOWNTOWN or are you going to show me your PAPERS'? But he didn't pull me from the car, bad as he was and throw me on the ground, or order me to stop doing something I had a right to do in my own car, as was the case with Sandra.

I got a ticket. Wasn't hauled off to jail, no thousands of dollars worth of bail. A TICKET.

That is what should have happened in Sandra's case.

But it didn't, she is DEAD and there is simply no justification for that, none. Nor for the abuse of the victim by that cop for a stop that should have gone no further than a ticket.

[COLGATE4]

49. You're forgetting that he was in the process of

issuing her a WARNING, not even a ticket. Unfortunately because she chose not to comply with his instructions the whole thing went south and she was charged with assault and resisting arrest.

[Demit]

64. He didn't 'instruct' her to put out her cigarette, he asked her to.

And she didn't choose 'not to comply'. She asked why did she have to, as she was in her own car. The cop ignored her question and immediately told her to get out of the car.

Not to mention that she was in the process of going to sign the ticket, but he wanted her to put out her cigarette first. He was prolonging the stop.

A cop's power is not absolute. You have to comply with lawful orders, but the orders have to be lawful in the first place. This cop was under the impression his power was absolute, and so apparently are you.

[COLGATE4]

68. If you will take the time to look at earlier posts and threads

on the point, you will find that, during a traffic detention the officer has exceptionally wide power to order you to do things - get out of the car, turn off the car, take out the keys, put out the cigarette, stand here, sit there, etc. All of this has been declared legal by the Supreme Court. And yes, he did tell instruct her to put out the cigarette, albeit in a much more polite manner than is usually done. What he used was merely a variant of the language virtually all cops use now when ordering detainees - "Turn off the keys, OK?" "Get out of the car, OK?" "Put out the cigarette, OK?" Doesn't mean that it's a request. It's a lawful order.

[Demit]

83. Yes, I know the ordering out of the car was declared legal by the SC.

I don't think they specifically mentioned the order to put out a cigarette, though.

I don't consider being asked to do something a "variant" of being ordered to do something. They are two different things. The fact that "virtually all" cops phrase things that way indicates to me that they consider their power absolute, just as I said.

And your examples are orders. "Turn off," "Get out," "Put out" are all imperative sentences, and as such they are clearly commands. No one can mistake them for requests. Saying "I'd like you to put out that cigarette" or "I'm going to ask you to put out that cigarette"--those are not commands. That's not a cop being polite, that's a cop being ambiguous.

The cop could say "I'd like you to take your blouse off," and that might be what he'd like you to do, but his being a cop doesn't make it a lawful command, and it doesn't mean you have to comply.

[COLGATE4]

90. Putting out a cigarette isn't specifically mentioned

because there has never been litigation which discussed it. I assume there's no litigation because it got thrown out of court if it was ever challenged.

As long as the measure can be reasonably be construed to be being done for the purpose of officer safety, courts will have zero problem enforcing it. And yes, a cigarette can pose a risk to officer safety - the officer needs to be able to keep his/her eyes on the detainee at all times. Movement of the hands fooling with a cigarette can easily be a distraction which could be taken advantage of by a detainee. So, no cigarettes while you're being detained.

[oasis]

121. Cop appears to have his clipboard ready for her signature.

There's no need to ask her about her frame of mind. If he's truly worried about the cigarette,then he should let her sign and haul his ass out of there.

[COLGATE4]

127. A good point. We don't know what his thought processes

were. That will be up to an Inquiry panel to decipher.

[oasis]

129. An "inquiry panel" of half-wits could "decipher" what was going on

in that racist cop's head. He's toast, and rightly so.

[COLGATE4]

130. I assume you believe that he has the right to have

his side of the story heard, or should we just lynch him now?>

[oasis]

131. I'd love to hear "his side of the story". He won't remind anyone

of Col. Jessup, "A Few Good Men", that's for damn sure.

[COLGATE4]

132. I'm not sure I get the analogy - Jessup, as you will recall

actually blew up under cross examination and showed himself to be a party to the whole lie.

[oasis]

133. Unlike the upright Jessup, the cop scum

will never fess up.

[COLGATE4]

134. Do you really see Jessup as "upright"???????

[oasis]

135. "You want me on that wall, you need me

on that wall". At least the Jessup character stood for something that stemmed from a lifetime of service to his country. "You're goddam right I ordered the code red." Jessup said it with bravado.

I don't see a rogue cop trying to sell anyone HE did the right thing, when it's plain for all to see, he didn't. What's most important ,the cop knows he fucked up big time.

[COLGATE4]

136. Jessup orders the hazing and then the coverup of the killing

of one of his enlisted Marines and that in your mind stands for 'something that stemmed from a lifetime of service to his country'? Interesting point of view.

[oasis]

137. The injured ego of a rogue cop is the

indirect cause of a person's death. He did not have "the big picture" in mind as he escalated his encounter with Bland. He did it to soothe his ego.

Jessup believed his actions were in the best interests of the Marine Corps.

[COLGATE4]

146. Except Jessup is just Hollywood fiction.

[oasis]

149. Brilliant. I'll close with an important FACT

for you. The integrity of our entire justice system is undermined when outlaws with badges,guns and tasers are allowed to go unchecked within our communities.

[COLGATE4]

151. and fade to close with stirring music in the background...

[COLGATE4]

92. You're desperately trying to split hairs that, in real life

would have no bearing on much of anything. Are you serious that, while you are in detention by an officer and (s)he says to you "I'd like you to put out that cigarette" that this is somehow optional on your part because he's merely making a polite request? Really???

[JimDandy]

96. Yes. A request from a police officer is optional.

You don't get to intimidate others into thinking otherwise.

Sandra Bland rightfully questioned his request.

The type of police action Encinia pulled is WHY the public needs and is so rightfully demanding dash cams and officer cams nationwide.

You are the one desperately trying to concoct a hair.

[COLGATE4]

97. I hope you never try this theory out if you're stopped. nt

[JimDandy]

100. We must do what is right, the police and public alike.

I have had a streak of "Fairness" running through me since I was a little tike. That streak you're advocating...well, you can own it.

[COLGATE4]

102. Yep. Sounds about right. Do let me know

how it works out when you try it out with a cop in real life.

[JimDandy]

108. You're no longer worthy of any further replies on this matter.

Hopefully you'll have something worthy to contribute on another issue on DU, so it's just "bye for now".

[JimDandy]

84. Ahh yes...someone who reems others about 'facts'

now wants to play fast and loose with.

You don't get to pick and choose 'em: "You mind putting out your cigarette, please...would you mind?"

That is not an order. That is not a variant of an order. And had he actually tried to word it as an order, the legal community has already weighed in on that: it would have been an unlawful order. The correct sequence to make it a lawful order had to be first ordering her out of the car, then ordering her to put out her cigarette for purposes of his safety.

[COLGATE4]

87. OK. Start with Pennsylvania v. Mimms USSCt.

Officer has right to order driver out of car. No constitutional violation.

Show me evidence that the 'legal community has weighed in' that his ordering her to put out her cigarette was an unlawful order. There is absolutely no law or case law that even suggests much less states that there is any sequence necessary in ordering a detainee during a traffic stop to make that order "legal" so your second contention is just made up malarkey.

[JimDandy]

94. No. We start with the facts in this case.

It was not an order.

You don't get to play with a made up scenario. Deal with Reality.

[COLGATE4]

98. "Facts" for you being defined as "how you wish things should be"

rather than how they really are? Classic cognitive dissonance.

[JimDandy]

99. You are not worthy of my time. Or anyone elses'

after this reply. But I refuse to allow you to deliberately spread misinformation so, once again...

You have nothing and cannot refute the fact that: "You mind putting out your cigarette, please? Would you mind?" was a request and not an order.

Now, who wishes what about facts?

[COLGATE4]

101. Not only cognitively dissonant but grandiose as well. Wow.

[JimDandy]

106. Facts are facts. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

It was a request. You have nothing but useless blather now. I'm done with you.

[Fred Sanders]

107. Anyone denying what you say, which is the clear truth and the facts, is not worth arguing with.

And anyone deflecting from the ultimate fact Sandra Bland, deceased, was illegally arrested and imprisoned and died in the complete control of her criminal captors, is willfully being blind.

Sandra Bland was murdered. Murdered by kidnappers in uniforms in the most racist County in Texas.

Kudos to you for cutting through the crap to get at the core truth.

[sabrina 1]

72. Comply? With an illegal order? Since when do citizens have to 'comply' with

illegal orders from the police who seem to forget, who they work for?

Citizens have every right to question 'orders' from those they pay to protect them.

This notion seems to have developed over the years, that cops have RIGHTS to issue 'orders' that have zero to do with their job descriptions.

Such as the one who stopped ME. I had every right to ask WHY I was stopped, but this authoritarian individual didn't recognize that right.

Clearly something needs to be done about the way this country is policed. It is a disgrace and a shame that we are the ONLY country in the developed, and even much of the undeveloped world where being stopped by a cop is more frightening and DANGEROUS to citizens, than the offchance of being mugged by a criminal.

[COLGATE4]

78. The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Officers conducting a traffic stop have very wide discretion in ordering detainees to do any number of things - "put your hands on the wheel", "turn off the car", "get out of the car", stand over here"; "sit there"; "don't talk"; "put down the phone"; "put out the cigarette". There is nothing remotely illegal about any of those orders. And no, you don't have any legal right to ask why you were stopped.

[Logical]

77. You are missing the whole point. But I assume you know that. nt

[COLGATE4]

80. Not very logical. But I assume you know that. nt

[Logical]

81. I love the ass kicking you are taking though. Funny. nt

[COLGATE4]

93. Killer argument.

[840high]

114. Her sister said she would pay the bail -

she did not.

[COLGATE4]

118. Seems that Sister may have more than a little

responsibility in Sandra's death.

[tkmorris]

141. That's the silliest fucking thing I've heard all week.

So far, you have not suggested that law enforcement might have ANY responsibility for her death. But now her sister may. Because she didn't pay the bail promptly.

Are you being distastefully satirical?

[sufrommich]

3. She was worried she wouldn't get out in time to start

her new job.The job she moved half way across the country for and was her dream job.They most likely wouldn't hire her if she called from jail. I'm sure that contributed greatly to her state of mind.I hope her family sues the shit out of that police department.

[moonandsixpence.]

8. She had to come up with 10% of that.

So it would have been $500. Her family is not destitute and ended up going down to TX to "investigate" the situation and bring back her body. So they spent way more than that. Her mother is apparently a pastor in Chicago.

The reason given was that she called a friend in the area first. But the recording of the voicemail just has Sandra telling her friend about the situation and mentioning the bail; NOT asking for the money. And then she says to the friend: "Call me back." Where?! In the jail cell?!

Something is not adding up here...

[G_j]

10. there was no grounds for her arrest to begin with

and yes, the bail was set at $5000. Sure through a bondsman she could pay $500, so? The bondsman would pay the $5000.

[moonandsixpence.]

14. I don't know about bondsmen.

I have never been arrested or gone to jail. I am strictly going by the interviews with the family and their lawyer. And it was $500 they had to come up with. The lawyer claimed on a radio show that Sandra first called a local friend and that the family found out on Saturday and were "working on" getting the bail. That doesn't gibe with me. In this day and age with electronic sending of money, it would seem very easy to wire her the money ASAP.

[Lee-Lee]

70. A bondsman will take a wire transfer, credit card or Western Union

Bail bondsmen are on call 24/7 and where I worked if a person was posting bond within the next few hours we wouldn't even fully book them into the jail- keep them in holding and let them make calls on the pay phones. There was even a list of bondsmen that served that area posted for them.

The policy was if it looked like they could raise bond in 6 hours or less they just stayed in the intake/holding. It was preferable to all if they bonded out as keeping them in a cell cost money.

[moonandsixpence.]

95. Thank you! For the love of God

if PayPal can instantly send money, don't give me some story about Western Union in 2015.

[Lee-Lee]

122. Even if they insist on western union

It's fast- you go to one near you, transfer the money, phone the bond agent with the control # and it's done.

[COLGATE4]

26. No. The bondsman only pays if she doesn't show up. nt

[brush]

41. But the bondsman charges 10%, $500, to post the bail

Shame on the many here snarkily ridiculing her family for not having a spare $500 laying around. That's not

that unusual with so many living paycheck to paycheck. Everyone is not fortunate enough to be able to come up

with that amount immediately.

Her family was working to get the money up (probably pooling money). She talked to her sister on Saturday about

it. No one expected her to be dead the next day and their efforts would be too late. They were 1000 miles away

btw. And for those who think it's as simple as wiring the money, a bondsman had to be found, at long distance,

who would agree to put up the 10% of the $5000 bail, otherwise they would have to wire or deliver the whole

$5000 themselves — even you snarky ones would be hard pressed to come up with $5000 cash immediately.

[riderinthestorm]

11. She came from Naperville IL - median income is well north of $100k/household

its the wealthiest town in one of the wealthiest counties in the country. There's no section 8 housing in Naperville and there's no slum rentals for low income folks to live in.

I still don't understand why her family didn't bail her out on day 1 especially with her history of depression and epilepsy. It was $500...

[moonandsixpence.]

13. Thank you.

[G_j]

16. so what?

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 12:55 AM - Edit history (3)

what if they were dirt poor and couldn't possibly come up with the money? What is the difference? You are trying to find fault with the family, when she should NEVER have been arrested in the first place. Her family income is irrelevant. They may have handled this miserably, and seriously let her down. Still, they are not responsible for her death.

[Democat]

22. Trying to establish facts is not putting blame

It is important in any case to try to find out the facts.

[COLGATE4]

28. Facts, schmacts. So long as we have our

self-righteous outrage, who needs no stinkin' facts?

[Facility Inspector]

42. Naperville and greater DuPage has tons of Section 8 housing

Where do you get that information from?

[riderinthestorm]

44. Naperville currently has 9 apartments in a city with a population of 144,000

I'm sorry I wasn't exactly precise when I said Naperville has no Section 8 housing. I should have said they have almost no section 8 apartments since yeah, they have about 16 total possible apartments and only 9 available at the moment.

In a city with 144,000 residents...

http://www.gosection8.com/Section-8-housing-in-NAPERVILLE-IL/Main/faq.aspx



So you're right about that. I stand corrected.

And up yes Dupage County as a whole has a lot Section 8 apartments. The areas in Wheaton with the refugee populations, West Chicago, Aurora etc. I never said Dupage as a whole didn't have its fair share. I was specifically talking about Naperville and was referencing one marker to illustrate my point that it's a very wealthy town.

[Facility Inspector]

45. Section 8 encompasses more than just apartment rentals

You can rent single family homes and duplexes with Section 8 vouchers too.

Still, there's a big difference between NONE WHATSOEVER and ALMOST NO (which can mean SOME or MORE).


Thanks for clarifying your proposition.

[840high]

119. I don't understand either.

[Horse with no Name]

19. This is an area that activists could work on

Finding donors willing to put up bail for these misdemeanor infractions for the AA community and a hotline for these people to call.
I know that this is an issue of poverty and there are people of all color who need assistance, but AA's seem to be dying disproportionately while in the "care" of their local law establishments. It is imperative that their stay as guests of these local agencies be as limited as possible for their safety.

[jwirr]

35. This is exactly where the issue of money makes the difference in what we call justice. And this is

why many of us were against the death penalty in the 60s - unequal representation.

The well to do person has at least the money for the bail bondsman while the poor set in jail. The well to do person can hire a good lawyer while the poor get someone appointed who may or may not know what they are doing or they get a legal aides lawyer with the same problem. Either way the poor person gets screwed.

[Recursion]

38. A bondsman won't just take $500 from you and put up the $5000 bail

A bondsman will not just take 10% from a person from out of town; you need somebody with a local address to come make the bond for you.

Source: I've worked for a bondsman.

[Lee-Lee]

123. Interesting, here they would do it over the phone

And from anywhere inside the U.S.


One for a while would even take wire transfers from Mexico when he first started in the business- needless to say that didn't last past the first few court dates when he realized that around 70% of his bonded people skipped off to Mexico and his finances really took a beating.

[oasis]

126. She wouldn't have been a fight risk. A new job awaited her.

Bottom line she had no business being in jail in the first place. That racist cop provoked her when it looked as if she was indifferent to his authority. He's used to drivers pleading for him to give them a break.

[Hello Dragon]

43. Sad case

Heartbreaking.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, G_j.

[udbcrzy2]

85. She could have felt like she had been abandoned

A news agency interviewed one of the inmates and she told them that Sandra said that her room-mate (not in the jail) was suppose to be here in an hour, but it's been days now.

video interview with Sandra Bland's co-inmate
http://abc7chicago.com/news/video-raw-interview-with-sandra-blands-co-inmate/876221/

I know that she was an activist and may have contacted BLM (who do bail people out), but maybe she didn't feel the need to since she was waiting for someone else (the room-mate) to show up who didn't.

I haven't heard anymore from the family's independent autopsy, wondering what is going on with that.

[dembotoz]

86. disjusting

[Sunlei]

145. People get stuck in the system. I can't imagine how awful it must have been for Sandra