 sj |
||
|
||
BS: DWB (again)
|
|
|
Subject: BS: DWB (again) From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Jul 15 - 05:16 PM http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/22/1404628/-Dashcam-footage-clearly-shows-the-real-reason-Sandra-Bland-changed-lanes-in-the-first-place?detail=email# Time for US citizens to rise in justified anger? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:10 PM We apparently follow different news feeds, Richard, or you would know that is already the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:47 PM Unless by rising up you mean, rioting and looting, which I don't think you do, but thought I should inquire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 23 Jul 15 - 09:36 PM Having problems with Mudcat posting. Hoping what follows is the entire post that should have appeared above, including link and correction to punctuation (for pendants.) Richard, unless by rising up you mean rioting, violence that destroys or damages neighborhoods and communities and looting, and usually inflicts the most damage to minority neighborhoods and communities. That has not happened, at least not yet. I don't think that is what you mean by 'rising up,' but think it prudent to inquire. It does seem likely her death was by suicide. But that suicide appears to have stemmed from her unwarranted arrest. Her arrest apparently was 'lawful' but was provoked by abysmal policing and abuse of lawful power. http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=425376966&m=425376967 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jul 15 - 02:11 AM It doesn't appear to me that her arrest was lawful. He arrested her before she exited the car. At that point he never claimed that she had 'touched' or assaulted him. (Janie, you made me laugh: I doubt you meant pendants; pundits seems more likely. Although bright baubles 'round the neck might indeed brighten my world, which greatly needs brightening these days.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Backwoodsman Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:23 AM Ebbing, I'm sure Janie meant 'pedants', not pundits! But hey ho, we knew what she meant! 👍🏻😎 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:11 AM *blush* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:32 AM Ebbie, According to the law professor interviewed on NPR, the Courts have ruled that law enforcement can lawfully even if unreasonably order one to get out of the car (or stay in the car) on a traffic stop. Then, if one does not comply with the order, one can legally be arrested. She was within her rights to not put out the cigarette, but that pissed the cop off and he turned into a bully of the worst kind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Backwoodsman Date: 24 Jul 15 - 08:17 AM No {{blush}} necessary, Janie - we all do it (or that ****ing iPad Predictive Text does it for us!). :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:30 PM A police car or an emergency vehicle is coming up behind me. I pull off into the slow lane to let them past without even thinking about it, still less signalling. That's normal practice in the UK. It's incredible that it can evidently be seen as an infringement in the States. Well I suppose it wouldn't be if it wasn't a black driver and a psychotic cop. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: GUEST Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:45 PM It seems like an odd place and time for anyone to commit suicide? That in itself, outside the altercation, puts questions about the, official version of events in some minds, including mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Nigel Parsons Date: 24 Jul 15 - 08:04 PM MGoH: Yes, that's the way to do it. (Sorry Mr Punch) The Highway Code makes it clear that you must signal before moving out, but makes no mention of signalling to pull back in. Presumably this is because there is a legal requirement to pull back to the left after overtaking, and so other road users should be expecting this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:07 PM Backwoodsman, I'm sure you are right: Janie meant pedant rather than pundit. Although I do rather like 'pundit': "an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public." :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:12 PM I don't signal to move back in in most circumstances, but if I see an emergency vehicle vehicle behind me I'll signal left to let the driver know that I've seen him. I don't know about "must" signal to move out. If I'm on the motorway and there's nothing behind, there's no point in signalling to move out. It's only worth signalling when someone in your vicinity needs to know what you're intending to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:59 PM It was a crap but legal traffic stop. Not uncommon when driving through small towns in the USA with an out-of-state plate. As I know from experience. Probably even more likely if driving while Black through a small town with an out-of-state license plate. While racism may well have been one factor in Ms. Bland getting pulled over, I could see a very similar outcome in terms of landing in jail unjustly but legally for my own pale skinned, 21 year old, blue-eyed, blond haired son who is assertive about his rights and also assertive in confronting absurd but legal actions by police who lack professionalism while traveling. Keeps me awake at night. It does appear, however, that Ms. Bland did commit suicide, and the person who chooses that course is responsible. Let us blame the officer for doing a terrible job and hold him responsible for provoking and escalating a situation so that he actually provoked an arrest. Terrible. Terrible. But if any foul play is involved, all information thus far indicates it was in terms of creating the climate that lead to Ms. Bland's arrest and incarceration. Once she was incarcerated, however unjustly, there is nothing so far that indicates she was murdered or assaulted or otherwised abused during her incarceration. The jail obviously made mistakes regarding monitoring and assessing risk for suicide or self-harm. I haven't seen anything to suggest those mistakes were caused by racism. Her death by suicide is a tragedy and a travesty in many, many ways. But it seems pretty clear she was not murdered or assaulted or abused once she was wrongfully, though perhaps legally incarcerated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: wysiwyg Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:26 AM Terrible, multiplied. The arrest having been illegal, and her head having been slammed in the arrest, and the lack of medical care and observation for a stated epileptic, and the strip search are all assaults, some of them also battery. If any of the foregoing can be "proven," i.e. adjudged, then her death (in most states) would also be felony murder. (In some US states, any death that occurs in conjunction with a felony is first-degree murder.) Not sure about this state.... tho it can easily be seen that in a "hang 'em all" state, a white victim's murderer would likely be executed. Oh gee would anyone want to do a coverup to prevent a white cop from being executed..... no of course not. This is going to drag on for quite awhile... so stay tuned. It will be one thing if the feds get involved, and another if the NAACP law team gets involved. Al Sharpton is already involved, and he's no slouch. Nor is Lawrence O'DOnnell. Nor is Loretta Lynch. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: wysiwyg Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:39 AM PS nor is the family's current attorney any slouch. Among Sandra's most recent words, she spoke of her desire to change her home state's justice for Black lives, which matter. I am sure that her mother, who is also no slouch, will do ALL SHE CAN to honor that vocation at every step. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 15 - 10:21 AM "I'll signal left". Best remember we are in a forum where that means different things according to which side of the road we drive on. Better avoid terms "left" and "right" in this context to avoid misunderstandings. We also appear to have different rules about driving in other ways. I doubt if any of us know enough to comment usefully on the tragic death in custody. That's especially true for those of us in the Old World. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 15 - 12:45 PM Come on now, Kevin. Gotta make these yanks do at least a bit of mental processing! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:46 PM But how would they know you're not an American with some terrible driving behaviour? There's a logic in having a place name in your handle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 15 - 12:55 AM I suppose this won't be a very popular view here, but it seems to me that Ms. Bland escalated the situation into a confrontation, and then she lost. The initial contact between the officer and Ms. Bland was normal, not an indication of any problem whatsoever. But then the officer went back to his car to do his computer checks and write the ticket or warning, and that part of getting a ticket is the part that seems to take forever. So, Ms. Bland was aggravated when the officer went back to her car, and she lost her cool. Not just a minor slip - she kept provoking the officer until he arrested her. Now, certainly the officer should not have lost his temper, but it's a normal thing to do under constant provocation - and even then, there's nothing in the video that shows the officer did anything improper. On the other hand, it's clear that Ms. Bland was doing all she could to provoke the officer, even though she may not have done anything unlawful. I have a daughter who's mentally ill and convinced that the whole world is out to get her, so she does her best to provoke other people until they react and prove her presupposition that they're out to get her. It's a shame that this happened, but I think it would not have happened if Ms. Bland would have been just a bit more cooperative. I think there's a good chance she would have gotten off with just a warning. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 15 - 01:39 AM Joe, she asserted her legal rights. It's not a matter of your view being unpopular-- it's also in conflict with every legal analyst who has commented on any news channel but Fox (which I don't follow daily). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 15 - 03:00 AM You know, sometimes it isn't the smartest thing in the world to "assert one's legal rights." She provoked the cop, and had no need to. We have far too many legalistic people in the world who think they can do whatever they want to their fellow humans, no matter how nasty, because it's legal. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: GUEST,Sol Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:10 AM You're right Joe, and these agitators are on both sides of the legal spectrum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:26 AM Gotta disagree with you on this one, Joe. While it may have been wiser for her to have been obesquious rather than assertive, the officer appears to have grossly over-reacted. In his role as an officer, he had the responsibility to not over-react, and even to be expected to de-escalate, not escalate. While she may have been somewhat provocative, I don't think her reaction to being pulled is likely to be rarely encountered by law enforcement. It was he who was in the position of power and authority, and he abused that power. The legal analysts address not only the issue of asserting rights, but agree that this was an example of really bad policing. Your argument, if you think it through, is the same argument that blames the victim for the actions of the abuser in cases of domestic abuse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 26 Jul 15 - 11:47 AM Genie posted the following link to Facebook a little while ago. It is by Seth Stoughton, the same former police officer and law professor interviewed by NPR at the above link. kingpointsmemo.com/cafe/sandra-bland-video-legal-but-not-good-policing
By Seth StoughtonPublishedJuly 24, 2015, 10:07 AM EDT 29866 views 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 15 - 11:54 AM Janie, Do you realise how hard it is to read a really long post all in italics? I gave up, and suggest that others probably did the same. Not the best idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 26 Jul 15 - 12:02 PM Thanks for the feedback, Guest. You can always click the link and read it there, Guest. It has been recommended many times by mods that if possible, one post the contents of a link, because links often go dead. I used italics to signify the entire body was cut and pasted, i.e. quoted, and not my own words. I hear your complaint about that, and in the future will simply start and finish the cut and paste with quotes. Maybe I also need some direction as to when to actually post the contents of a link, and when it is not appropriate. That advice about pasting contents applies to music threads, not to BS. One screen of cut-and-paste is the rule of thumb devised by Joe Clone many years ago. And if you use <blockquote> </blockquote> around the quoted text, it is inset on the page. <ul> </ul> also works. ---mudelf Fixed it. The post was well within the traditional one-screen limit, by the way. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 15 - 12:10 PM Janie, thank for for that analysis. I had not known she was being "warned," not ticketed. Even sadder. Guest, it's common practice to use italics to indicate a quoted passage. (It saves having to renew the quotation a=marks at each paragraph.) It's also very simple, if one finds any internet material difficult to read, to copy and paste it into a word processor to reformat it-- I do that for white type on a black background, for example. Janie provided information. Deciding whether it's important enough to take on board is a personal choice that doesn't make sense to me in today's racially charged times. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: akenaton Date: 26 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM Joe is correct, even in the UK it is a bad career choice to provoke the police. As I have said many times, a US law officer has one difficult and dangerous job to do, given the availability of firearms; that surely must be taken into account where criticism of the US is concerned. These guys know exactly where and in what circumstances they are likely to be harmed.....and like most folks, behave accordingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Jul 15 - 02:35 PM I am horrified by the advice not to assert one's legal rights. Or, to put it another way, not to be "uppity". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 15 - 02:58 PM These guys know exactly where and in what circumstances they are likely to be harmed.....and like most folks, behave accordingly. Tell that to Abner Louima, Walter Scott & all the others too numerous to mention, Pharoah. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: akenaton Date: 26 Jul 15 - 03:08 PM Oh, I'm sure there are abuses of power Greg. That happens everywhere. A guy lives in a holiday house near me, who instructs the police on the use of firearms....I wouldn't trust the man with a pop gun, seems totally unbalanced. Cursing or swearing at the police whilst protesting "ones legal rights", will earn you a charge in my country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Jeri Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:00 PM People who are usually considered to be in positions of authority typically have training in how to not react. If I had to have it as a person who saw patients (although all I did was talk to them and listen), cops would have had it. We had classes, and we had exercises involving pretend patients who were stressed, unreasonable, and intentionally provocative so we could practice not being stupid. Perhaps it's not surprising that some people still got upset. The police, I'm sure, have been trained how to NOT escalate situations or allow others to do so. This cop lost it. I watched the video, and thought that, at any time during the whole confrontation, he had treated her as a fellow human and just gave her the impression he had a little bit of respect and compassion, the situation would have been defused. Seriously, when someone pushes you, and YOU have the gun, the handcuffs, and the power of the law, you quit fucking pushing back. Yes, she could have stifled herself, but police have to not allow people to get under their skin lose control over themselves, and simply react. That's what the Internet's for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: GUEST,Olddude Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:16 PM You take her info, it was a traffic stop, you writeher a ticket and let her go on her way. You could also ticket her to appear for disorderly conduct if you wish. He way over reacted |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: akenaton Date: 26 Jul 15 - 05:43 PM Seemed to me the lady had a huge chip on her shoulder? perhaps some mental instability or political activism?. Police officers may be trained to always be totally in control, but they are human beings with life problems to deal with over and above their paid employment, which I have noted as being extremely hazardous. I think Public service employees in the States, like police officers, firemen, and paramedics deserve huge support from the populace, something which it appears they rarely receive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:20 PM Cut to the chase, Ake - she didn't deserve to die because she didn't use her turn signal to change lanes, or put out her cigarette when the officer stopped her. She didn't even deserve to go to jail. She's entitled to have a chip of her shoulder - in hindsight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:25 PM Yeah. We're gonna say bad manners gets people the death penalty. Oh wait. How many mouthy white women died this way.... I'll go count em. Let's also count how many female officers.... cuz combine "white" and "male" plus "badge" and "guns n tasers" is such a comforting image. Last night I drove home fast over the ridges. I'd enjoyed some facepainting so was concerned (Fetching Tigress) that if I got stopped by a bored State he might assume alcohol had been involved. But I knew I'd never get what Sandra Bland got. Right? Joe, ask your better half if you're looking at this right, K? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: akenaton Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:32 PM Of course she did not deserve to die GUEST, perhaps she did not deserve to be arrested, but surely the lady took her own life while in custody, is that not a sign of mental instability?....Perhaps she was attempting to make some sort of twisted political point? She did belong to some activist group protesting police treatment of coloured people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:36 PM S'matter Joe - didn't she bow and scrape & shuffle enough for ya? She also forgot to say "Yes Massa". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: akenaton Date: 26 Jul 15 - 07:17 PM That's a bit below the belt for you Greg? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 15 - 09:35 PM No, there was no need for her to be obsequious. All she had to do, was be businesslike, and she would have been on her way with a warning ticket - no fine, no jail, no court appearance. But she went way out of her way in the other direction. She didn't do one thing and then stop. She kept pushing and pushing until the guy finally broke. And then, as far as I can tell, he did not respond with brutality. No, the guy should not have lost his temper, but we're all human and we all have our breaking points. She kept pushing until she found his. It's too bad she committed suicide, but I see no evidence of police misconduct in this situation. I've investigated a number of "resisting arrest" cases and often sided against the arresting officer because he lost control of the situation when he shouldn't have. But in this case, the fault was Ms. Bland's. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Jul 15 - 09:50 PM Anyone who threatens to use a potentially deadly device, a taser, in a situation where there is not a threat to their own life or to someone else's, is not fit to be a police officer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:09 PM I understand your perspective, Joe, though I disagree with it. All I know about this case is what has been published. I understand there is always more to the story than gets reported, and what gets reported will always have 'angles.' I understand that we are all human, including law enforcement officers. I know you are a reasonable person and that you have experience in this area. I'd like to understand better your perspective. Professor Stoughton's analysis seems very reasonable and cogent to me. Help me understand the holes in his perspective. I will also say that I think there are actually two different issues that have emerged around this very tragic and sad series of events. Good policing is one issue. The death of some one once in custody is another issue. It is the policing issue I am asking you about, i.e. the events that resulted in her arrest and incarceration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:36 PM As an aside, thank you, mudelf. Will refrain from cutting and pasting below the line in the future and will bookmark this thread to come back to instructions re how to copy links above the line in the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Janie Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:39 PM erk again. ...how to copy content from other sources... not copy links. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:51 PM Yeah, we want to have both the text and the link for music stuff because that's what we collect - music information. And too often, the links in our music threads are dead ten years later when somebody tries to look something up. For non-music threads, the discussions are more topical, and there's no need for us to store topical discussion information that's ten years old. There are plenty of other sites that can do a far better job of that. But our primary function is as a folk music reference, so we like to collect all the folk music information we can get - not just links. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:56 PM Here's what Reggie Harris said on Facebook on this subject:
I posted "The Talk", a few months ago.. a Norman Rockwell-ish pic of two Black parents talking to their young son about the necessary protocols that he should be aware of, whenever he found himself encountering the police. That post got about 4 days of activity on this page, with folks commenting all over the spectrum. Many were decrying the need for such a talk. Others agreed with the post and shared their own stories and thoughts. But as I shared then, my own mom had the talk with me, in lieu of my absent dad. And, I never forgot what she and others imparted to me...that while you may HAVE rights, staying alive to face another day is an important aspect and skill set of being Black in America. Ms. Bland followed her heart and stood her ground. God bless her! While we cannot categorically say that State Trooper Brian Encinia was reacting on the basis of race, I can say that the lessons learned from my mom, and from years of traffic stops, tell me that breaking that protocol, set things in motion that cost her her life. Does that make her wrong for standing up for her rights? No! Does that excuse the trooper his violation of her rights? No! But as her family lays her to rest, my heart breaks for what might have been and for what we all still must face to end this madness. I have two now-adult children who liked to provoke police, and both paid the price. One still does, and she gets locked up in a mental ward once a year as a result. The older one did this a lot when he was around twenty, but now he's 42 and past that stage. But I saw him in action - he felt he was in the right, and he just wouldn't let go of it. He had no need to provoke the police, but he still did it. He had to prove that the cops were the "bad guys, and so he provoked them. And so he ended up in court a few times and in jail once. And yes, Janie, Prof. Stoughton offers excellent advice, and an excellent officer would very likely behave as Stoughton recommends. This officer didn't - but I'd describe him as a mediocre officer, not a bad one. Most employees of most employers are mediocre. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jul 15 - 04:18 AM Another one bites the dust http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/native-american-found-in-jail-after-traffic-fine-arrest/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: DWB (again) From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Jul 15 - 04:20 AM Once is unfortunate, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action. http://uk.businessinsider.com/kindra-chapman-died-in-police-custody-2015-7?r=US&IR=T |
