Posted on 07/26/2015 9:41:43 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
Me too...and it's up to me when I choose to honor a request.
but one could argue that in context it was a polite order.
Many will try...but words have meaning...even under the law. (well unless you are on the supreme court...but I digress)
“Would you please step out of the vehicle, sir.” Order or request?
I'd term that a request and ask if "I am under arrest?"
If the answer is "yes"...I will get out, comply..and remain silent...if the answer is "no"...I will say "No thank you officer and would I like to sit here while you write the ticket"
Been there done that. the (no thank you part)
This goes directly to the old "do you mind if we search your car" request...
If you answer "No I dont mind" you have consented to a search...and anything found can be used against you in a court of law.....
If you answer "No, you dont have my permission"...and they search anyways(which they might)...anything found is "fruit from a corrupt tree" and any evidence found from an illegal search (without a search warrant)and cannot be used as evidence against you in court.
“Please put your hands behind you back, sir.” Order or request.
Request...IE: the word "please".
Again...the proper responce to this request is "am I under arrest officer?"
If the answer is "yes"...comply....
If the answer is "No"...request for a supervisor on scene to attempt to clear things up...
If one is not "under arrest"...one is "free to go"...there is no legal middle ground...and any good lawyer worth his salt will take care of it later by getting any charges against you thrown out.
And No I am not advocating "resistance" or even "non compliance"....I am saying know your rights...and know when they are being violated....fight it in court LATER.
Again it is a moot point.
Hardly...if "could you plase put your cigarette out" was a lawful order...and she refused to comply...then she has refused a lawful order. If it was a "request" and she refused to comply...then she dont not refuse a "lawful order" and thus he had no legal reason to order her out of the car.....the arguement that a cop can order you out of a car is the point that is moot....we know that...but what is or is not a lawful order is not a moot point.
Whether the cigarette thing was a lawful order or request makes no difference.
"do you mind if we search your car?"
Chose wisely...see above.
He had the authority to order her out of the car at any time.
But he did not do so until she refused a "request" to put her cig out...and that is not a moot point.
I have already said that if Bland wasnt stupif enough to hang herself...any decent lawyer would have gotten her out of trouble later....the fact the cop was removed from raod duty for proceedure voilations is enough to get your case dropped like a hot rock these days....
I'm sorry she killed herself, but she did...and that had nothing to do with the stop or the cop involved....but that in itself doesnt make the stop correct.
Yeah ...after having her on the scene for 15 minutes and taking the time to write her a warning...
Sorry...doesnt jive.
I’d like to see the report...it might clear up a few things.
I like it.
TROOPER: “Step out or I’ll remove you. I’m giving you a lawful order. Get out of the car now or I’m going to remove you.”
Words do indeed mean things. I'm glad you said that. These bold words clearly indicate that it was an order, not a request. There was no ambiguity.
Only in your little word Chris...everyone else understands that being "Cited" for a car accident involves a "citation'...IE...a ticket.
Nice try though..I'd give that a 5 on the BS scale.
I do give you props for not giving up....but you should....you are now flailing dude...
So, you’ve watched the videos, both of the pre-stop and the stop itself, and still think that officer friendly was well-intentioned and perfectly correct.
Wow, just wow.
We wonder what has happened to liberty (the right to be left alone, for those in Rio Linda and chris37), while the evidence sits in front of us, “live on tape”.
Here’s a clue, FRiend: she co-operated with the cop (yes, a bit pissy, but who isn’t annoyed and scared when pulled over) until he “requested”she put out her smoke. She declined to “obey” an ILLEGITIMATE request, when officer friendly turned into Gerhardt Gestapo.
Then the constable threatened her, made other unreasonable demands, dragged her sorry carcass out of the car, and then further defined how big his ego was by throwing her a55 in the hoosegow.
BTW, it’s spelled hippIE, you SFB. And if you call me that again NOOB, I will be quite cross indeed.
Just because I have more hair on my left pinkie toe than you do on your entire head does not make me some kind of sodialist freak.
I’ve wasted enough time on you for now. I have beer to drink and a 1973 Partridge-mobile to work on.
She was arrested for refusal to obey a lawful order -- meaning refusial to get out of the car.
She probably lit up the cigarrette to cover up the smell of marijuana.
No, I am not. You are.
Here let me educate you again...
At 2:44 he clearly cites the reason for stopping her is because she failed to signal lane change.
I am sorry that you do not understand simple English, but I am not surprised.
I am getting weary of educating you for free though. I’m going to send you a bill for my services if you don’t smarten up.
Ah yes...the "what am I being arrested for" argument when the answer becomes "resisting arrest"
TROOPER: “Do you mind putting out your cigarette, please?”
BLAND: “I’m in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?”
TROOPER: “Well, you can step out now
The now part means after she refused to put out the cigarette.
‘I’m going to send you a bill for my services if you don’t smarten up.”
Sure thing...all I need is your address and I will drop it off in person.
Dipshit.
Um chris...WHY is the officer off the road?
Could it be he violated DPS proceedures?
Could it be that is my point in the first place and not whether Bland killed herself or “deserved it” as you have stated?
Well now you did it...you LEO basher you...
Chris will be sooo miffed...I’m sure you will soon recieve a stongly worded post...and be placed on double secret probation.
You’re wrong. As I said, you can’t follow the simple facts of the case.
You can’t even follow a video with everything that happened right in front of your eyes.
Firstly, the request to extinguish a cigarette is not ILLEGITIMATE. A lit cigarette can cause injury and can be used as a dangerous weapon.
Secondly, he did NOT then threaten her. He ordered her to step out of the car, which she then refused to do. He then repeated the order and told her that he is giving her a lawful order, and then explained that he has the right to do so. He then pointed his taser at her, because she was not complying with his lawful order.
And he never DRAGGED her sorry carcass out of the car AT ALL. She got up out of the car on her own without him touching her at all.
And he threw her in the hoosegow, because she allegedly assaulted him, you cop-hating hippie licker, and yeah, I can tell you’re a drunk, it’s really easy considering that you watched the video but don’t know anything that happened in it.
We are sort of splitting hairs here but:
a) I would say technically putting a please in front of an order doesn’t necessarily make it a request, but putting a would you please in front of it would makeit a request.
b) Being ordered out of the car is not an arrest. All the police officer needs is a reason to make a valid traffic stop (reasonable suspicion of a crime or traffic violation) and he instantly has authority to order you out of the car at any time during the stop for any reason or no reason. That is why the cigarette request/order/whatever is irrelevant. Even if she said, “Yes sir, right away sir!” and immediately put it out, he STILL had complete authority to order her out of the vehicle. Once she refused that order she was justified his use of force and could have been arrested.
c) If you said no to the officer’s request to exit the vehicle he absolutely could have followed up with a clear order for you to exit. If you disobeyed that order he could legally progress along use of force continuum until you complied. That could include attempting to physically Remove you, threatening to taze you, tazing you, ordering you out at gunpoint and under extreme circumstances, shooting you.
BUWHAAHAHAHAHAHAH...told ya.
Told ya.
Am I supposed to be scared?
From what I understood watching Hannity a few nights ago, the specific procedure that he violated was that he failed to detail to her the next steps he was taking when he ordered her out of the car.
I take this to mean that he could have told her I am going to have you step out of the car, and I am going to place you in handcuffs for your safety and mine while I continue my investigation. You are not under arrest at this time.
I agree that he should have said this or something along those lines. However, the fact that he did not did not render his order unlawful, and it did not give her the right to resist him or assault him.
I’m not really sure what the proper remedy to this is, but he didn’t kill her, and he didn’t violate her rights, so that’s where I am on that.
Crim, why are you talking to yourself? And you did it twice no less...
You are making this too easy.
Calm down and relax.
Good night.
Um..no...just because many police forces abuse peoples rights to be secure in their personal spaces (vehicle)does not make ordering you out of your car for no vaild reason legal.
And I’m not trying to split hairs....I’m telling you what your rights are....if you refuse to assert them in the face of a threat of punishment by the state...that is your option.
I’m not getting out of my personal property unless I’m told I am under arrest...if I am told I am under arrest...then I will comply...if I am told I am not under arrest then I will sit in my car seat.
If take a bullet to the head for not being under arrest and asserting my rights, my heirs will be well taken care of.
The point remains...at no time did the officer order her out of the car UNTIL she refused to put out her smoke.
And refusal to put out a smoke is not in the texas penal code.
I predict the finacial fallout wont be from her suicide...it will be from the stop.
DPS has already admitted the stop wasnt handled right by taking the action of placing the officer of desk duty....any good lawyer will have a field day with this.
If the stop was proper..why take make a public statement that he violated preceedure.
If Bland wasnt stupid enough to kill herself she might have even gotten a settlement out of it.
I predict a costly settlement...paid for by the tax payers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.