Why don't you pick the parts you want for your argument then?
This part stands out for me;
officers legally don't have to explain why they want you to get out of a vehicle.
Therefore she is not complying with a legal order and whether people like it or not she is in the wrong.
Ok....
Seth Stoughton, a University of South Carolina law professor and former Florida police officer, said Enicinia missed several opportunities to de-escalate tension and should have explained in calmer tones what he was doing and why.
“He certainly has the legal authority to get her to step out of the car,” Stoughton said. “But in this case, if he is exercising his authority because she defying his direction to put out the cigarette, then that is more based on his ego than public safety.... Just because it is legal to order her out of the car doesn't make it a professional approach in modern policing.
“This is a systemic problem with policing,” Stoughton said. “There is emphasis on compliance over cooperation.”
There are no laws that require an officer to order alleged violators to extinguish a cigarette in their car during a traffic stop, he said.
“It was a request, not an order,” he said. “If a person was out of the car, then an officer could determine it poses a safety threat and order it be put out. But it is hard to argue that inside the car.”
Throughout, Bland is questioning why she is being arrested and often shouts expletives. Encinia responds in angry tones that she should obey his orders.
I don't know as that was his interpretation of events. I've watched the video and it's incredibly basic. if he was intentionally lying he shouldn't have.
Regardless, like others I have stated his threat of violence etc was incorrect and he acted unproffessional. I've stated that on many occasions. He will be punished, likely with a warning.
I standby the fact that she is not without blame, the article supports that.
I don't even know where to start with all this. I read that same piece days ago, and I know for a fact you've just cherry-picked the few bits that you feel suits your argument. your agenda is clear.
Well of course I have. I've stated very clearly that the article is contradicting two of the major claims/falsehoods made by the anti-police brigade. I've also pointed out however that the article also accepts Officer Encinea made mistakes, which you conveniently ignore.
You don't even know where to start? I'm not surprised. This thread is full of wild accusations, exaggerations and downright lies; yet the posters who propagate them either disappear, throw hissy fits, or simply ignore evidence and/or questions whenever it suits them, all the while claiming their proven distortions to be 'the truth'.
And you've got the temerity to accuse ME of having an agenda...
I don't know as that was his interpretation of events. I've watched the video and it's incredibly basic. if he was intentionally lying he shouldn't have.
Well if he wasn't intentionally lying, then there's something seriously amiss with his memory.
Regardless, like others I have stated his threat of violence etc was incorrect and he acted unproffessional. I've stated that on many occasions. He will be punished, likely with a warning.
A "warning" - wow: I bet no member of the public would get away with a warning for threatening a police officer with violence.
I standby the fact that she is not without blame, the article supports that.
She is only guilty of rising to a deliberate and systematic bait. For that I feel great sympathy.
this is actually pretty simple, guys. you're over-thinking it. it's worth repeating yet again that he has at the barest minimum been found to have violated Texas Department of Public Safety protocols. he has also been caught lying on tape too, which I imagine would constitute grounds for a misconduct charge for a public servant. that isn't the end of the matter either, as he is also facing criminal investigation by the Texas Rangers and the FBI....yet you're still here defending his right to make a "lawful order" even while he is abusing his power and violating protocols.
a life has been lost here, and for all the victim-smearing you wish to do, his actions have at least indirectly led to this happening. the lengths you're going to to defend the indefensible are pretty shameful.
She is guilty of not complying with a lawful order. That's not questionable and is fact.
Well it maybe, but as Seth Stoughton said in that very helpful link above, he should have explained in calmer tones what he was doing and why.
You seem a bit hung up on whether he was within the precise frame of the law, rather than whether lessons can be learned from his pretty obvious shortcomings.
Well of course I have. I've stated very clearly that the article is contradicting two of the major claims/falsehoods made by the anti-police brigade. I've also pointed out however that the article also accepts Officer Encinea made mistakes, which you conveniently ignore.
You don't even know where to start? I'm not surprised. This thread is full of wild accusations, exaggerations and downright lies; yet the posters who propagate them either disappear, throw hissy fits, or simply ignore evidence and/or questions whenever it suits them, all the while claiming their proven distortions to be 'the truth'.
And you've got the temerity to accuse ME of having an agenda...
no it isn't at all.
Officer Encinea hasn't merely "made mistakes" as you claim, he has violated Public Safety protocols at an absolute minimum.
I don't know as that was his interpretation of events. I've watched the video and it's incredibly basic. if he was intentionally lying he shouldn't have.
Regardless, like others I have stated his threat of violence etc was incorrect and he acted unproffessional. I've stated that on many occasions. He will be punished, likely with a warning.
I standby the fact that she is not without blame, the article supports that.
this is actually pretty simple, guys. you're over-thinking it. it's worth repeating yet again that he has at the barest minimum been found to have violated Texas Department of Public Safety protocols. he has also been caught lying on tape too, which I imagine would constitute grounds for a misconduct charge for a public servant. that isn't the end of the matter either, as he is also facing criminal investigation by the Texas Rangers and the FBI....yet you're still here defending his right to make a "lawful order" even while he is abusing his power and violating protocols.
a life has been lost here, and for all the victim-smearing you wish to do, his actions have at least indirectly led to this happening. the lengths you're going to to defend the indefensible are pretty shameful.
Re bits in bold - maybe they'll let him off the lying on "interpretation of events" ^_^
He has, unequivocally, been publically denounced for violation, as in he did not do his job accordingly and he LIED - whether he will face charges/dismissal after the 'investigation' is irrelevant...which part of the statement have you read as yes, he did a great job, within guidelines and with courtesy??? you haven't, he has been found to be wrong.
The 'discovery' which has been broadcast loud and clear does not shed any light at all or, let alone, excuse his publically denounced unprofessional behaviour......whether a 'crime' lol was being committed or not he has protocols to follow - he did not...besides which nothing in her manner or demeanour came across as irrational, aggressive - his did.........you want to keep on imagining scenarios perhaps you can use your imagination as to why he LIED to his sergeant?
No it's not irrelevant, as the ones who denounced him did it before the facts were out.
She was irrational and insulting to a degree that he would have been justified in charging her with disorderly conduct and probably making it stick. That's not imagined but real. If I were to imagine something I would imagine the judge looking at her past convictions, and at how she talked on the tape, and being none too pleased. Something that was probably weighing on her mind.
Rational is of course open to interpretation but we could use the way most reasonable persons in the US would talk to a police officer. Or really anyone. Her behavior would be out of place in a doctor's office or restaurant.
Officer Encinea hasn't merely "made mistakes" as you claim, he has violated Public Safety protocols at an absolute minimum.
Without the expanding on which protocols then we can't really say if they are mere mistakes of more serious.
If they are as stated in the LA Times link, they seem they were for his own safety and pretty minor violations
"Heal said when Bland refused to get out of the car the situation became more difficult. But reaching into a vehicle is often a mistake and makes an officer vulnerable. Heal said the officer should have handcuffed her immediately upon her getting out instead of waiting until they got off the road."
"In hindsight, Meyer said, it may have been better to wait for backup. “The lady seemed committed to her resistance to lawful detention and arrest, so the presence of a backup unit might not have made much difference,” he said.
“This is yet another case of someone who chooses to illegally resist the directions of a police officer, thus escalating the situation, “ he said.
Without the expanding on which protocols then we can't really say if they are mere mistakes of more serious.
If they are as stated in the LA Times link, they seem they were for his own safety and pretty minor violations
"Heal said when Bland refused to get out of the car the situation became more difficult. But reaching into a vehicle is often a mistake and makes an officer vulnerable. Heal said the officer should have handcuffed her immediately upon her getting out instead of waiting until they got off the road."
"In hindsight, Meyer said, it may have been better to wait for backup. “The lady seemed committed to her resistance to lawful detention and arrest, so the presence of a backup unit might not have made much difference,” he said.
“This is yet another case of someone who chooses to illegally resist the directions of a police officer, thus escalating the situation, “ he said.
Encinia has not spoken publicly about the incident and the Texas Department of Public Safety hasn't released much information about him. It has assigned him to administrative duties.
Odd that you should selectively copy and crop a piece that continues directly on to say.............
"We have certain procedures in place, and he did not comply with those procedures," said Steven McCraw, the department director. "One of the many procedures is letting the individual know in terms of what actions are going to be taken."
Hmm what a choice eh, what a conundrum, can't expect an officer to go about his job without baiting and bullying and staying within his taught 'procedures', nope just chuck in another nonsensical slur and point the direction of his abject failure to do his job elsewhere....frankly I think and hope HE was tested because the man was acting deranged....you have peculiarly low expectations of police and an obsession with weed
Officer Encinea hasn't merely "made mistakes" as you claim, he has violated Public Safety protocols at an absolute minimum.
What do you mean 'no it isn't at all?' It clearly states that the arrest WAS lawful - contrary to repeated claims - and that Ms Bland WAS told why she was being arrested; again contrary to repeated claims. There is no room for doubt on the matter - why try and claim there is?
this is actually pretty simple, guys. you're over-thinking it. it's worth repeating yet again that he has at the barest minimum been found to have violated Texas Department of Public Safety protocols. he has also been caught lying on tape too, which I imagine would constitute grounds for a misconduct charge for a public servant. that isn't the end of the matter either, as he is also facing criminal investigation by the Texas Rangers and the FBI....yet you're still here defending his right to make a "lawful order" even while he is abusing his power and violating protocols.
a life has been lost here, and for all the victim-smearing you wish to do, his actions have at least indirectly led to this happening. the lengths you're going to to defend the indefensible are pretty shameful.
The death of Sandra Bland is being investigated by the Texas authorities and the FBI, Officer Encinia is NOT under specific criminal investigation, despite your very weighted implication.
But you are right - it is all pretty simple. Sandra Bland chose to commit two traffic violations which led to her being stopped. She then chose to refuse a reasonable request, and more importantly a subsequent lawful order, which led to her arrest and incarceration. She then sadly chose to take her own life, POSSIBLY whilst under the influence of the drugs she chose to take.
What do you mean 'no it isn't at all?' It clearly states that the arrest WAS lawful - contrary to repeated claims - and that Ms Bland WAS told why she was being arrested; again contrary to repeated claims. There is no room for doubt on the matter - why try and claim there is?
The request for he to step out of the vehicle was entirely lawful, and the request to extinguish her cigarette entirely usual (and, I might add, one that any reasonable person would comply with).
you have added your own subjective opinion here, and it's probably not even worth commenting on it any further. again, only one (the same one) claims it's standard practice to have someone put out their cigarette. I also notice that you've completely ignored the bit that said
There are no laws that require an officer to order alleged violators to extinguish a cigarette in their car during a traffic stop, he said.
“It was a request, not an order,” he said. “If a person was out of the car, then an officer could determine it poses a safety threat and order it be put out. But it is hard to argue that inside the car.”
which, if I applied your powers of interpretation, could be said to "confirm" it was a completely unreasonable and unnecessary request.
It also confirms what swaydog and others mentioned earlier, that Ms Bland WAS told why she was being arrested - for resisting orders, which have been confirmed as lawful. That's two of the main arguments the anti-police posters have concentrated on completely discredited...
yes, she was eventually told she what she was being arrested for, after asking repeatedly and not being told. that much would've been clear had you a) watched the video and/or b) read the article properly
Throughout, Bland is questioning why she is being arrested and often shouts expletives. Encinia responds in angry tones that she should obey his orders.
or did you miss that bit? so no, the arguments have not been discredited by this opinion piece in any way, shape or form.
The death of Sandra Bland is being investigated by the Texas authorities and the FBI, Officer Encinia is NOT under specific criminal investigation, despite your very weighted implication.
[Waller County District Attorney Elton] Mathis told The Wall Street Journal that he is investigating Encinia for any violations of criminal laws. The FBI and Texas Rangers, the law enforcement agency with statewide jurisdiction over certain criminal investigations, have been assisting in this probe.
if I may be permitted to apply the same artistic license as kaybee, here is an excellent article that confirms that although Bland made a mistake, she should never have been arrested, and also found Encinia to be completely at fault for the incident.
here are the bits I've carefully selected in order to make me look right.
Two Texas lawmakers said Sandra Bland should have never been arrested after watching the video of the traffic stop taken from the Texas Department of Public Safety trooper’s car that was shown in a closed door meeting with Waller County officials before being released to the public late Tuesday.
“I think that once you see what occurred, you will probably agree with me she did not deserve to be placed in custody,” said state Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas.
State. Rep. Helen Giddings, D-DeSoto, concurred: “This young woman should be alive today.”
The video shocked civil rights attorney Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project.
“That was really outrageous. I was really stunned,” he said. “Man, he did everything wrong.”
“The problem here is, he’s the one who escalated everything,” Harrington said. “Dragging her out of the car is crazy.”
Encinia has not spoken publicly about the incident and the Texas Department of Public Safety hasn't released much information about him. It has assigned him to administrative duties.
Odd that you should selectively copy and crop a piece that continues directly on to say.............
"We have certain procedures in place, and he did not comply with those procedures," said Steven McCraw, the department director. "One of the many procedures is letting the individual know in terms of what actions are going to be taken."
The piece you've selectively copied does appear anywhere in the link I'm looking at.
Maybe you're reading a different link.
Even so , he did inform that she was legally obliged to exit the car. She continually refused which became grounds for an arrest. He then told her she was being arrested .Then she resisted arrest,during which he told her why she was getting arrested(for resisting). He later decided to just charge her with the more serious offence of assaulting a police officer.
So I'm not sure what Steven McCraw is specifically talking about.
Thanks for that youtube clip Anne.....I hadn't heard his snivelling lying, version......thank heaven for dash cams...because in a court of law that is what the pricks like this spout and Sandra would not have had a hope in hell, not that she did or had anyway.....a catalogue of lies and failure in their duty of care of a detained person.
He lied because he was wrong and he knew it.
It's clear to all and that is why this total irrelevance and emphasis has been placed on the toxicology results......it has nothing whatsoever to do with how he failed and lied, she was coherent, rational and asking justified questions.........the smear campaign on her is another place to try and hide and deflect behind a culture of abusive policing and desperate attempts to excuse this poor excuse of a pathetic, lying man.
You'll get no argument from me. Interesting that the FM I was replying to ignored my post and continued to push the one thing he may have actually got right, demanding she got out of the car, despite any natural, justifiable fear she would have. Her drug use at the scene wasn't an issue and it certainly can't be dragged up to justify his actions. Although I have no doubt it is being, just the same as her not wanting to get out of her car, by those it suits as a blatant deflection method.
if I may be permitted to apply the same artistic license as kaybee, here is an excellent article that confirms that although Bland made a mistake, she should never have been arrested, and also found Encinia to be completely at fault for the incident.
here are the bits I've carefully selected in order to make me look right.
Obviously his chief of police el al are all idiots when any DS member knows better. Now who should we believe, also excluding what we all saw and heard on the video, the overwhelming number of people who have said he was wrong and what we also heard from the PO's blatant lies after the event?
From this and other similar threads, I do wonder if some people bother with links at all and what their agenda is to be pushed to such extremes of denial.
Comments
I don't know as that was his interpretation of events. I've watched the video and it's incredibly basic. if he was intentionally lying he shouldn't have.
Regardless, like others I have stated his threat of violence etc was incorrect and he acted unproffessional. I've stated that on many occasions. He will be punished, likely with a warning.
I standby the fact that she is not without blame, the article supports that.
You don't even know where to start? I'm not surprised. This thread is full of wild accusations, exaggerations and downright lies; yet the posters who propagate them either disappear, throw hissy fits, or simply ignore evidence and/or questions whenever it suits them, all the while claiming their proven distortions to be 'the truth'.
And you've got the temerity to accuse ME of having an agenda...
Well if he wasn't intentionally lying, then there's something seriously amiss with his memory.
A "warning" - wow: I bet no member of the public would get away with a warning for threatening a police officer with violence.
She is only guilty of rising to a deliberate and systematic bait. For that I feel great sympathy.
She is guilty of not complying with a lawful order. That's not questionable and is fact.
a life has been lost here, and for all the victim-smearing you wish to do, his actions have at least indirectly led to this happening. the lengths you're going to to defend the indefensible are pretty shameful.
Well it maybe, but as Seth Stoughton said in that very helpful link above, he should have explained in calmer tones what he was doing and why.
You seem a bit hung up on whether he was within the precise frame of the law, rather than whether lessons can be learned from his pretty obvious shortcomings.
Officer Encinea hasn't merely "made mistakes" as you claim, he has violated Public Safety protocols at an absolute minimum.
Re bits in bold - maybe they'll let him off the lying on "interpretation of events" ^_^
if that genuinely was his interpretation of events, then he's clearly not fit to be employed as a public servant
Indeed - he'd have the memory of someone with borderline dementia. Seriously.
Trying to make it sound more than discourteous by using the word protocol, still doesn't mean he did anything unlawful.
Probably better than employing stoners though.
No it's not irrelevant, as the ones who denounced him did it before the facts were out.
She was irrational and insulting to a degree that he would have been justified in charging her with disorderly conduct and probably making it stick. That's not imagined but real. If I were to imagine something I would imagine the judge looking at her past convictions, and at how she talked on the tape, and being none too pleased. Something that was probably weighing on her mind.
Rational is of course open to interpretation but we could use the way most reasonable persons in the US would talk to a police officer. Or really anyone. Her behavior would be out of place in a doctor's office or restaurant.
Without the expanding on which protocols then we can't really say if they are mere mistakes of more serious.
If they are as stated in the LA Times link, they seem they were for his own safety and pretty minor violations
"Heal said when Bland refused to get out of the car the situation became more difficult. But reaching into a vehicle is often a mistake and makes an officer vulnerable. Heal said the officer should have handcuffed her immediately upon her getting out instead of waiting until they got off the road."
"In hindsight, Meyer said, it may have been better to wait for backup. “The lady seemed committed to her resistance to lawful detention and arrest, so the presence of a backup unit might not have made much difference,” he said.
“This is yet another case of someone who chooses to illegally resist the directions of a police officer, thus escalating the situation, “ he said.
Encinia has not spoken publicly about the incident and the Texas Department of Public Safety hasn't released much information about him. It has assigned him to administrative duties.
Odd that you should selectively copy and crop a piece that continues directly on to say.............
"We have certain procedures in place, and he did not comply with those procedures," said Steven McCraw, the department director. "One of the many procedures is letting the individual know in terms of what actions are going to be taken."
Hmm what a choice eh, what a conundrum, can't expect an officer to go about his job without baiting and bullying and staying within his taught 'procedures', nope just chuck in another nonsensical slur and point the direction of his abject failure to do his job elsewhere....frankly I think and hope HE was tested because the man was acting deranged....you have peculiarly low expectations of police and an obsession with weed
I really cannot take you seriously. at all.
What do you mean 'no it isn't at all?' It clearly states that the arrest WAS lawful - contrary to repeated claims - and that Ms Bland WAS told why she was being arrested; again contrary to repeated claims. There is no room for doubt on the matter - why try and claim there is?
The death of Sandra Bland is being investigated by the Texas authorities and the FBI, Officer Encinia is NOT under specific criminal investigation, despite your very weighted implication.
But you are right - it is all pretty simple. Sandra Bland chose to commit two traffic violations which led to her being stopped. She then chose to refuse a reasonable request, and more importantly a subsequent lawful order, which led to her arrest and incarceration. She then sadly chose to take her own life, POSSIBLY whilst under the influence of the drugs she chose to take.
Sandra Bland is a 'victim' of Sandra Bland.
*sigh...*
Ok, let me break it down for you.
it does not do this, at all. 4 experts gave their opinion, and only one has explicitly suggested she caused the incident to escalate
you have added your own subjective opinion here, and it's probably not even worth commenting on it any further. again, only one (the same one) claims it's standard practice to have someone put out their cigarette. I also notice that you've completely ignored the bit that said
which, if I applied your powers of interpretation, could be said to "confirm" it was a completely unreasonable and unnecessary request.
yes, she was eventually told she what she was being arrested for, after asking repeatedly and not being told. that much would've been clear had you a) watched the video and/or b) read the article properly
or did you miss that bit? so no, the arguments have not been discredited by this opinion piece in any way, shape or form.
this suggests differently: http://www.bustle.com/articles/100525-has-brian-encinia-been-fired-the-officer-who-arrested-sandra-bland-is-being-investigated
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trooper-in-sandra-bland-case-is-under-criminal-probe-1437589219
This is the link to the Wall Street Journal, but I cannot read it in full as I am not a subscriber
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/21/waller-county-press-conference/
here are the bits I've carefully selected in order to make me look right.
The piece you've selectively copied does appear anywhere in the link I'm looking at.
Maybe you're reading a different link.
Even so , he did inform that she was legally obliged to exit the car. She continually refused which became grounds for an arrest. He then told her she was being arrested .Then she resisted arrest,during which he told her why she was getting arrested(for resisting). He later decided to just charge her with the more serious offence of assaulting a police officer.
So I'm not sure what Steven McCraw is specifically talking about.
You'll get no argument from me. Interesting that the FM I was replying to ignored my post and continued to push the one thing he may have actually got right, demanding she got out of the car, despite any natural, justifiable fear she would have. Her drug use at the scene wasn't an issue and it certainly can't be dragged up to justify his actions. Although I have no doubt it is being, just the same as her not wanting to get out of her car, by those it suits as a blatant deflection method.
Obviously his chief of police el al are all idiots when any DS member knows better. Now who should we believe, also excluding what we all saw and heard on the video, the overwhelming number of people who have said he was wrong and what we also heard from the PO's blatant lies after the event?
From this and other similar threads, I do wonder if some people bother with links at all and what their agenda is to be pushed to such extremes of denial.
Another one but this time there's charges