Texas Civil Rights Director Dissects Trooper Abuses of Sandra Bland
By now, most of U.S. are well aware that the Sandra Bland case, does not accordingly fit her last name. Everywhere we turn, there are issues that glare to the realm of the extraordinary. Addressing the Civil Rights Sandra Bland was legally entitled to, is an online item by Rhonda Fanning, of the Texas Standard (A service of the Moody College of Communication at the University of Texas at Austin) who has posted a Q&A with Jim Harrington, (who is the actual Director of Texas Civil Rights Project).
Gist of the Q&A, is that - Sandra Bland was abused by an ill trained officer - who violated her Civil Rights.
[br]
[br]
[hr][br]
[center][font size=5]
Officers of Law are Trained to Mitigate - Not Instigate
[/font][/center]
[br]
At top of the Texas Standard online thread, there's also a recording of the Question & Answer session ("Q&A"
. Then the story begins with the fact that Sandra Bland was arrested, charged with assaulting a public servant and then became an untimely demise, 3 days later.
Next, the piece details the fact that the dashcam of the Texas State Troopers cruiser, was released, discussed about as being edited; and the corresponding denial of Texas Dept. of Public Safety, of any editing transpiring. Resulting from the banter concerning the arguable glitches (readily apparent in the video), the Texas Dept. of Public Safety yanked down the video from YouTube and has since replaced it with a "corrected" copy.
Meaning that they have now publicly declared to "editing" the video.
Be that as it may, with the Texas Rangers and the FBI now investigating the case (purportedly also seeking separate, totally independent, autopsy's of Sandra Bland). Hence, we mere sideliners shall turn to the many questions that beg.
Was it necessary for Sandra Bland to give anything more than identification, insurance and registration?
Did she have to put out her cigarette?
When the officer commanded her to get out of the car - was such a "lawful" order?
According to Texas Civil Rights Project Director - Jim Harrington - Sandra Bland's Civil Rights were violated, over and over again by a 1 year State Trooper who lost his tempers and abused his powers.
As we are only permitted to post but a section of the article, I'm providing (IMO) the 3 largest questions. They are excerpted separately; but you can see (and also listen) to them in their entirety, at the Texas Standard Story (where the pic above originates) - HERE. Of the 3 items noted, Texas Standard is asking the question and Jim Harrington is answering.
Was it necessary for Sandra Bland to give anything more than identification, insurance and registration?
“She’s right. Unfortunately, officers don’t like it when you know the law. In this case, even if you are right, you are still in danger. And that’s what we see unfolding here.”
[br]
Did she have to put out her cigarette?
When the officer commanded her to get out of the car - was such a "lawful" order?
“You can’t tell why. Certainly, telling her to put out the cig was not a lawful order. Just saying ‘Get out of the car,’ in and of itself, without an explanation, is not lawful. And you see him say that throughout the video without ever saying why [or] what’s going on here. It’s clear to me that he’s trying to assert authority that he probably does not have under the law, and he’s escalating the situation because he is upset. [He] doesn’t exercise the training that he needs to be exercising to de-escalate this situation.”
[br]
Other discussions include the issue of him threatening to "light her up" while aiming the taser at her face - was wrong. As was the threats that I'm going to yank you out of here (the car). And, no matter what other may say about Jim Harrington's take on the law (I'm not presently aware of - whether or not - Jim Harrington is a Texas attorney at law), the fact of the matter remains, this inexperienced State Trooper (who obviously was lying to his supervisor/dispatch about the way things went down), did things backwards.
His job was to mitigate (establish peace) - not to instigate (disturb/upset the peace).
[center][font size=4]
And the result of this totally improper, Civil Rights abuse of Sandra Bland
- is the fact that she is now dead!
[/font][/center]
[br][hr][br]
| 2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Officer was a tyrant | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Sandra Bland had the right to be concerned and assert her Civil Rights | |
0 (0%) |
|
| She didn't have to put out her cigarette | |
0 (0%) |
|
| He should have just given the warning ticket and let her go | |
1 (50%) |
|
| State Troopers can't threaten to "light you up" for no good reason | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Officers of law are to mitigate - not instigate | |
0 (0%) |
|
| Sandra's Civil Rights and person were being violated, when he threatened to yank her out of car | |
0 (0%) |
|
| She is dead, because another officer of the Law, felt black lives don't matter | |
0 (0%) |
|
| All of the Above | |
1 (50%) |
|
| Laser is wacky - this officer was just tacky | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
That is the problem right there, he is a rookie and doesn't know what he is entitled to do or not do OR he purposely broke the law himself.
Take your pick, either way all he had to do was give her the warning and go after the car he was ORIGINALLY chasing down.
