Twitter

Monday, August 3, 2015

Sandra Bland Video Confirms She Yielded For Officer in Pursuit


This video confirms what Sandra said when she was stopped by Officer Brian Encinia: that she pulled over to yield to an officer in pursuit.

20 comments:

Redeye said...

This video confirms the traffic stop was racial profiling.

Upset Resident said...

The video confirms a TRAFFIC VIOLATION happened and the person who committed that traffic violation stopped. A person not white black etc a person was stopped for a traffic violation!!!!

Redeye said...

I don't know what video you are looking at, but there was no traffic violation. Sandra Bland was stopped and arrested for nothing.

Brian said...

Changing lanes without signalling is a traffic violation. The amount of traffic violations out there that you can be ticketed for is astounding. A friend of mine who was a police officer has told me many times that it virtually impossible to drive from one place to another and not commit an offense that could get you pulled over.

There are laws on which lane you must be in after make a turn, about how long you must travel in a lane before you can change lanes again. There are even laws that make it illegal to back in or out of your driveway.

Redeye said...

Sandra Nland was not arrested for a traffic violation.

Brian said...

Actually she was initially arrested for a traffic violation. When an officer pulls anybody over, that person is legally under arrest. Usually the traffic stop ends when the officer releases you under your own recognizance after the ticket has been signed.

Refuse to sign a traffic ticket and see what happens.

Officer Encinia was intending to let her go with a warning. Essentially he dropped the initial charges and charged her with something else.

Redeye said...

Sandra Bland asked 14 times why she was being arrested and Officer Encina didn't respond. We still don't know why she was arrested, which is why her family filed a wrongful death suit against "Officer" Encinia.

Brian said...

Officer Encinia isn't required by law to tell Sandra Bland why she is being arrest. It is consider good practice to but it is not required by law. The arraignment hearing is when the defendant is required by law to informed of any and all charges against and the judge determines if there was probable cause for the arrest. And that can be up to 3 days after the arrest.

Redeye said...

What world do you live in where police can arrest you because they feel like it Brian?

Brian said...

Did I say police could arrest you for no reason? No I did not. I said they did not have to tell you why you are being arrest at the time of the arrest which I sourced from 2 legal websites (nolo.com and findlaw.com).

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/10/do-police-have-to-inform-you-of-your-charges.html

Redeye said...

Again, what world do you live in where police don't have to tell you why are being arrested?

Brian said...

Read the article, they don't have to tell you why you are being arrested at the time of the arrest. They have to tell you when you are arraigned which has to occur between 2 to 3 days after you have been arrested. Reason for this is that the Police Officers do not actually file any charges against you. The District Attorney is who files any and all charges. And the District Attorney has 72 hours to file charges because of our right to a "speedy trial".

The Miranda Rights, listed below, are only applicable if you have been arrest and are being interrogated. If the police arrest you but never interrogate you, they don't have to read you the Miranda Rights. Nowhere in the Miranda Rights does it say that you have to be told why you are being arrested.

1. You have the right to remain silent and to refuse to answer questions.

2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.

3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.

4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.

5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.

Redeye said...

I don't know what universe you live in, but police cannot arrest citizens just because they want to. They can't lock you up just because they want to. Strike that, they used to couldn't lock you up just because they want to, but that was before the right wing rewrote the Constitution.
We live in the United States of America. The Land of the Free and the home of the brave. Remember?

Brian, you are under arrest for the murder of /robbery of/rape/child pornography, etc. You have the right to remain silent. Etc.

There is a difference between an arrest and an arraignment. Sandra Bland had the right to remain silent. She had the right to smoke a cigarette in her car. She had the right to ask why she was being arrested. She had the right to be treated like a human being. She did nothing, I repeat nothing, that was against the law. But if it makes you feel better to defend the indefensible have at it on your own blog.

Brian said...

US Supreme Court ruled in 2004 in Devenpeck vs Alford otherwise.

From the decision written by Justice Scalia:

"While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required."

By law, it is not required that the arresting officer(s) let you know why you are being arrested.

~Chip :) said...

Scalia? LOL.

I hope you remember that the next time you are arrested, Brian.

Brian said...

All but Rehnquist agreed with him. And Rehnquist abstained.

And I have been arrested, been pulled over and I understand I can't fight what is going on then and there. If I resist, no matter what the outcome is, I will still have lost. The time to fight back is later.

Brian said...

Do I like that police don't have to tell you why you have been arrested? H*** f***ing no. Every cop I know wouldn't do that to somebody if they had the choice. But they don't always have the choice. They want to treat others as they want to be treated.

Redeye said...

It is a brazen lie that police don't have to tell you why you are being arrested in the United States of America.

Brian said...

Please find case law that tells me what I have said is a lie.

It may not seem right but according to the Supreme Court of the United States in Devenpeck vs Alford, there is no constitutional requirement that the Police tell you why they have arrested. I don't like it, but I can't find any case law that says otherwise. I would love to see proof that what I have read is not true because what I have read does scare me.

Redeye said...

Read the Constitution of the United States of America, starting with the Preamble, then read all of the amendments, especially the 4th.