Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NO...I am saying we don't even call it a duck until we see evidence it is. And the benefit of the doubt belongs to both the police and the citizen. Now, if we knew the officer has a history of stopping those who DWB...that's a different issue. But how can you call it a duck? Cause the officer was white and the driver black? Not enough there to start waiting to hear the quack.

BTW...just so you know...while I am white...I am a part of a multi racial family, a champion of civil rights from the time CRA was signed and abhor racism in any form.

Also...did you watch the WHOLE video? The one from pull over on? The officer made mistakes....but so did she.

Look, all of us who are pontificating on this tragedy, and her death is tragic, will ever know all of it but there is more to learn that will come out in time.

It is a false equivalency to say that the officer made mistakes, but so did the citizen. The citizen's only obligation is to follow the law. It is not against the law to mouth off to a police officer.

Meanwhile, feel free to wait until the ornithologist pronounces it a duck. I won't wait, though. Most of the birds I have seen in my life that looked like ducks actually were ducks.

False equivalency my butt. Did you watch the whole video or not? If you do then we can talk further about what the officer and citizen should have done...otherwise I leave you with the following...I have not defended the officer, have not denied DWB happens and your bias is duly noted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I was pulled over and started acting agitated/nervous and refused a simple request to put out a cigarette (knowing that most non-smokers are bothered by smoke blowing in their face), I would not be surprised if the officer asked me to get out of the car. We can't see exactly what she was doing or how she was acting in the car, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the cop to request that she get out of the car if began suspecting that something else might be going on (hiding drugs, etc.). And when I refused and got extremely belligerent and combative, I would not expect him to just say, "okay, never mind, be on your way then."

What does it take to get everybody agree that a police officer acted wrongly in an interaction with a black person? This is a sincere question.

The police represent all of us and are acting in all of our names. I expect police officers to behave legally, ethically, and responsibly, not just when the person they're interacting with is respectful and deferential, but always. Always. Maybe you have other expectations.

He was wrong. He did not mantain control. How do you know it had something to do with her being black? She happened to be black, but you dont know his history. Maybe he was like that with other people. We have only heard about this because she killed herself.

Anonymous wrote:

NO...I am saying we don't even call it a duck until we see evidence it is. And the benefit of the doubt belongs to both the police and the citizen. Now, if we knew the officer has a history of stopping those who DWB...that's a different issue. But how can you call it a duck? Cause the officer was white and the driver black? Not enough there to start waiting to hear the quack.

BTW...just so you know...while I am white...I am a part of a multi racial family, a champion of civil rights from the time CRA was signed and abhor racism in any form.

Also...did you watch the WHOLE video? The one from pull over on? The officer made mistakes....but so did she.

Look, all of us who are pontificating on this tragedy, and her death is tragic, will ever know all of it but there is more to learn that will come out in time.

It is a false equivalency to say that the officer made mistakes, but so did the citizen. The citizen's only obligation is to follow the law. It is not against the law to mouth off to a police officer.

Meanwhile, feel free to wait until the ornithologist pronounces it a duck. I won't wait, though. Most of the birds I have seen in my life that looked like ducks actually were ducks.

What some of you posters fail to realize is that that most of these posters defending or giving the benefit of the doubt to the officer, are not really that invested in defending the officer. What they are really defending/holding on to/grasping for dear life their delusion that racism no longer exists. They don't want to see it, hear it, believe it because doing so would make them have to change their entire perspective about how the world operates and where they fit in it ! Bottom Line!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ok...so you are beginning with the premise it's a duck because she was pulled over and was black. So it's probably a duck until it chirps instead of quacks.

What I want to find out is if the woman he pulled over before Sandra was black. Did you watch that? Routine stop, went back to his car and checked then went back and gave a warning.

BTW...the officer shouldn't have asked Sandra what's wrong. Which he did well before it escalated. If her attitude sucked leave it alone and only ask that question when it might be related to health.

Here's what you're saying: Not everything that walks like a duck and talks like a duck is a duck. Therefore, we shouldn't assume that it's a duck just because it walks like a duck and talks like a talk. Instead, we should assume that it's not a duck until an ornithologist confirms that it is a duck.

So, unlimited benefit of the doubt for the police officer; no benefit of doubt at all for the citizen. Why?

NO...I am saying we don't even call it a duck until we see evidence it is. And the benefit of the doubt belongs to both the police and the citizen. Now, if we knew the officer has a history of stopping those who DWB...that's a different issue. But how can you call it a duck? Cause the officer was white and the driver black? Not enough there to start waiting to hear the quack.

BTW...just so you know...while I am white...I am a part of a multi racial family, a champion of civil rights from the time CRA was signed and abhor racism in any form.

Also...did you watch the WHOLE video? The one from pull over on? The officer made mistakes....but so did she.

Look, all of us who are pontificating on this tragedy, and her death is tragic, will ever know all of it but there is more to learn that will come out in time.

Anonymous wrote:

Ok...so you are beginning with the premise it's a duck because she was pulled over and was black. So it's probably a duck until it chirps instead of quacks.

What I want to find out is if the woman he pulled over before Sandra was black. Did you watch that? Routine stop, went back to his car and checked then went back and gave a warning.

BTW...the officer shouldn't have asked Sandra what's wrong. Which he did well before it escalated. If her attitude sucked leave it alone and only ask that question when it might be related to health.

Here's what you're saying: Not everything that walks like a duck and talks like a duck is a duck. Therefore, we shouldn't assume that it's a duck just because it walks like a duck and talks like a talk. Instead, we should assume that it's not a duck until an ornithologist confirms that it is a duck.

So, unlimited benefit of the doubt for the police officer; no benefit of doubt at all for the citizen. Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She was arrested on a Friday. A family member or friend would have been at that jail by that evening. She wasn't pulled out for being mouthy. She was pulled out because she refused to get out when asked multiple times to do it on her own.

And why did the police officer order her out of the car? Because she was mouthy.

Or he suspected something more might be going on because she was acting agitated, nervous, whatever. Or he was becoming concerned about her potential actions based on her demeanor and thought it would be safer to have her out of the car.

Or maybe he thought she was an illegal alien from Alpha Centauri. Or he suspected that she might be smuggling MiG aircraft in the trunk. Or he was becoming concerned that she was an ISIS terrorist who was about to use her cigarette to detonate a car bomb.

Is there any circumstance at all, whatsoever, involving black people and the police, where nobody on DCUM will defend the police officer's action as reasonable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I was pulled over and started acting agitated/nervous and refused a simple request to put out a cigarette (knowing that most non-smokers are bothered by smoke blowing in their face), I would not be surprised if the officer asked me to get out of the car. We can't see exactly what she was doing or how she was acting in the car, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the cop to request that she get out of the car if began suspecting that something else might be going on (hiding drugs, etc.). And when I refused and got extremely belligerent and combative, I would not expect him to just say, "okay, never mind, be on your way then."

What does it take to get everybody agree that a police officer acted wrongly in an interaction with a black person? This is a sincere question.

The police represent all of us and are acting in all of our names. I expect police officers to behave legally, ethically, and responsibly, not just when the person they're interacting with is respectful and deferential, but always. Always. Maybe you have other expectations.

When do we stop using color when color isn't a factor? I'm not black and I have encountered rude officers on occasion. I think part of the problem is we are shown incidents where the person is of color but we aren't shown the incidents when they aren't. That alone changes the perception.

Now...rather than people assuming it was a matter of color how about we defer judgement until it is proven otherwise?

The irony...
You're asking people to withhold judgement and not immediately rush to assume something because of race - but in many instances as many non-white people can tell you, people in law enforcement rarely withhold judgement and are quick to rush to assumptions because of race. Why is it so key for society to defer judgement in these cases after tragedy has struck but not a big deal to stress the same objectivity from law enforcement authorities which if they were less judgmental could very well prevent many of these tragedies from occurring in the first place?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you are assuming it's a duck based on color. Just curious...did you watch the entire video?

DWB is a known fact. It's less likely to occur today that it was when I first started driving back in the 60's but it does occur. Assuming that is likely the case when a person of color is pulled over creates the only alternative is to never pull a person of color over.

BTW...when I use ''person of color'' I am doing so intentionally because it goes beyond whether someone is black.

No, I am assuming that it's a duck because it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck. Maybe it isn't a duck. But it probably is.

Ok...so you are beginning with the premise it's a duck because she was pulled over and was black. So it's probably a duck until it chirps instead of quacks.

What I want to find out is if the woman he pulled over before Sandra was black. Did you watch that? Routine stop, went back to his car and checked then went back and gave a warning.

BTW...the officer shouldn't have asked Sandra what's wrong. Which he did well before it escalated. If her attitude sucked leave it alone and only ask that question when it might be related to health.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

She was arrested on a Friday. A family member or friend would have been at that jail by that evening. She wasn't pulled out for being mouthy. She was pulled out because she refused to get out when asked multiple times to do it on her own.

And why did the police officer order her out of the car? Because she was mouthy.

Or he suspected something more might be going on because she was acting agitated, nervous, whatever. Or he was becoming concerned about her potential actions based on her demeanor and thought it would be safer to have her out of the car.

Anonymous wrote:

But you are assuming it's a duck based on color. Just curious...did you watch the entire video?

DWB is a known fact. It's less likely to occur today that it was when I first started driving back in the 60's but it does occur. Assuming that is likely the case when a person of color is pulled over creates the only alternative is to never pull a person of color over.

BTW...when I use ''person of color'' I am doing so intentionally because it goes beyond whether someone is black.

No, I am assuming that it's a duck because it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck. Maybe it isn't a duck. But it probably is.

Anonymous wrote:

She was arrested on a Friday. A family member or friend would have been at that jail by that evening. She wasn't pulled out for being mouthy. She was pulled out because she refused to get out when asked multiple times to do it on her own.

And why did the police officer order her out of the car? Because she was mouthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If I was pulled over and started acting agitated/nervous and refused a simple request to put out a cigarette (knowing that most non-smokers are bothered by smoke blowing in their face), I would not be surprised if the officer asked me to get out of the car. We can't see exactly what she was doing or how she was acting in the car, but I don't think it's unreasonable for the cop to request that she get out of the car if began suspecting that something else might be going on (hiding drugs, etc.). And when I refused and got extremely belligerent and combative, I would not expect him to just say, "okay, never mind, be on your way then."

What does it take to get everybody agree that a police officer acted wrongly in an interaction with a black person? This is a sincere question.

The police represent all of us and are acting in all of our names. I expect police officers to behave legally, ethically, and responsibly, not just when the person they're interacting with is respectful and deferential, but always. Always. Maybe you have other expectations.

When do we stop using color when color isn't a factor? I'm not black and I have encountered rude officers on occasion. I think part of the problem is we are shown incidents where the person is of color but we aren't shown the incidents when they aren't. That alone changes the perception.

Now...rather than people assuming it was a matter of color how about we defer judgement until it is proven otherwise?

The thing is, I don't even think he was particularly rude. He was actually quite courteous in the previous traffic stop and up until Sandra started becoming belligerent and mouthy. He was only giving warnings in both cases! No fine, no court date.

I still think it's odd that no one showed up to pay the $500, or even came to the jail to visit. If I was thrown in jail, regardless of the reason, a family member would have been there within hours. The family does not seem to be indigent, and the mother was able to fly down when Sandra died and transport her body back to Illinois, and is now able to pay for a second autopsy. They seem pretty polished and well-dressed. I find it hard to believe they couldn't muster up $500. Sounds fishy.

That has troubled me as well. If she did reach out to family and they didn't help her then I would imagine they will have some guilt to deal with.

If my child was arrested and I thought a lesson was needed I might leave them in there 24 hours...but that would be it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:\

The thing is, I don't even think he was particularly rude. He was actually quite courteous in the previous traffic stop and up until Sandra started becoming belligerent and mouthy. He was only giving warnings in both cases! No fine, no court date.

I still think it's odd that no one showed up to pay the $500, or even came to the jail to visit. If I was thrown in jail, regardless of the reason, a family member would have been there within hours. The family does not seem to be indigent, and the mother was able to fly down when Sandra died and transport her body back to Illinois, and is now able to pay for a second autopsy. They seem pretty polished and well-dressed. I find it hard to believe they couldn't muster up $500. Sounds fishy.

I think it's pretty rude for a police officer to drag somebody out of the car for being mouthy. Actually I think it's pretty illegal, too, but I am not a lawyer.

And if you think it's fishy that the Sandra Bland was not able to post $500 bail on a Saturday, even though her mother flew down after Sandra Bland DIED, then I really don't know what to say.

She was arrested on a Friday. A family member or friend would have been at that jail by that evening. She wasn't pulled out for being mouthy. She was pulled out because she refused to get out when asked multiple times to do it on her own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When do we stop using color when color isn't a factor? I'm not black and I have encountered rude officers on occasion. I think part of the problem is we are shown incidents where the person is of color but we aren't shown the incidents when they aren't. That alone changes the perception.

Now...rather than people assuming it was a matter of color how about we defer judgement until it is proven otherwise?

It is a fact that that the police are far more likely to stop black people than white people for investigatory stops -- minor violations (like failure to use a turn signal) that police use as a pretext to investigate the driver.

It is also a fact that the police are far more likely to arrest black people for "contempt of cop" than white people.

Does that mean that, in this particular case, the police officer stopped and arrested Sandra Bland because she was black? No. But it's a reasonable assumption. The alternative is to say, "It looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, but let's defer judgment until it's proven that it's a duck."

But you are assuming it's a duck based on color. Just curious...did you watch the entire video?

DWB is a known fact. It's less likely to occur today that it was when I first started driving back in the 60's but it does occur. Assuming that is likely the case when a person of color is pulled over creates the only alternative is to never pull a person of color over.

BTW...when I use ''person of color'' I am doing so intentionally because it goes beyond whether someone is black.