Sandra Bland was also right.

[Xavier_Onassis]

to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.

Nothing ambiguous about that requirement. However, there is another provision that mandates what a driver is to do when being approached by a police vehicle:

Sec. 545.156.  VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE.  (a)  On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702 [lights and sirens], or of a police vehicle lawfully using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1)  yield the right-of-way;
(2)  immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; and
(3)  stop and remain standing until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

First, under subsection (2), "immediately" means just that. Not after the driver scratches her head, or turns down the radio, or signals a lane change, or does anything else, but get over to the far right now, first thing. That's what it says. What lane the driver may be moving from is irrelevant

The waters are somewhat muddied in these circumstances, however, because there is no evidence on the video that the officer was running with lights or sirens as he came up behind Ms. bland's car, and Section 545.156 mandates immediately pulling over when the emergency vehicle is using at least an audible signal. That said, what Ms. Bland, looking in her rear view mirror (which, according to her statement to the officer in the video, is what she was doing) did see the police car do is this:

-It made an illegal u-turn, starting from from the far right lane, beyond even the solid white line (a bike lane?), almost to the right curb, and then across the right lane, the designated turning lane, and the oncoming lane, and then well into both lanes of the perpendicular street, before completing it. See Section 545.101. There is no indication if this turn was first signalled by the officer or not, another potential violation here.

-It was speeding. The video reveals that this is a 20 MPH zone. Whatever speed the  squad car was actually going, given how fast the trees fly by and he catches up to her, he was doing more than 20.

But other sections of the Texas code say that the police can ignore these and most other traffic laws when they need to. They're supposed to use lights, or at least a siren, when they do, per Section 546.003, but even then they are given broad discretion to not use them. Section 546.004 essentially gives them discretionary carte blanche to do so.

So, here's what Sandra Bland's circumstances were at the time: She sees a squad car pull a sudden and radical u-turn and speed up behind her. It is maneuvering like it's on its way to an emergency. We see from the video, from when she first makes her right turn onto the street on which she was stopped, that her windows are rolled up, blocking outside noise. It is in the 90's in Waller County that day, so it's safe to assume that her air conditioning was on, adding more inside background noise to her environment. Maybe her radio was on as well. Is this squad car she sees coming up behind her like this running a siren, and she just can't hear it yet? Or is the officer exercising his discretion and not using it at all?

Either way, her safest and most reasonable maneuver is to do just what she did: get out of his way. It was obviously not a lane change under Section 545.104. She didn't need to change lanes. It was a move-over under Section 545.156. No signal required, or even permitted.

Sounds pretty compelling, huh? Or is it just more legal mumbo-jumbo? Matt Taibbi, I think, nailed it when he said, in his article, that the law, "...is so broad and littered with so many tiny technical prohibitions that a determined enough police officer can stop and/or arrest pretty much anybody at any time."

The cops I used to prosecute for readily admitted to me on many occasions that one of the easiest way to get a stop on a vehicle that they thought needed to be checked out was to suddenly speed up behind it, wait for it to move over, and nail it for the failure to signal a lane change. Once in traffic court it may or may not stand up. A fair judge will NG it. A fair prosecutor will dump it before trial and tell his cops to knock off the bullshit.

Either way, for the one writing the ticket, it really doesn't matter. After all, the point isn't the petty traffic violation. It's the stop. It's the "checking out" during the stop, the possibility of discovering something bigger and more criminal, be it a suspended license, or alcohol on the breath, or an outstanding warrant. Out-of-state plates are always way up there on the list of potentials, too. That's the point. Then again, some times it's nothing more than an opportunity to jack somebody who looks or acts like he--or she--could use a good jacking. That's the point, too.

There is nothing about Sandra Bland's murder, or about the events that led up to it, that can or should be overlooked, justified or excused. That's my point]Sandra Bland was Also Right

by
Rainmantim
Follow
for
Rainmantim

    148 Comments / 148 New

I just read Matt Taibbi's article in Rolling Stone, "Sandra Bland was Murdered." It is, as usual for that author, a thoughtful, provocative, and spot-on piece. With this, my first Daily Kos diary, I'd like to to add a small footnote to the discussion, one that I haven't seen raised elsewhere. It references portions of the full, released dash cam video of Ms. Bland's arrest, at least those parts that have clearly not been doctored. The point I wish to make is this: When Ms. Bland objected, on the video, to being stopped for failure to signal a lane change, under Texas law she was absolutely right to so object. My explanation is below.

I'm a retired attorney. I practiced law for 35 years. I was a full time county prosecutor right after I got out of law school, then after that, for about 20 years, I was a part-time municipal prosecutor, handling mostly routine traffic violations, in court, on a weekly basis. During my career I also taught policing techniques, procedures, and laws. I have dealt with cops a lot. And I know how to read a traffic code.

On the video, after being told that she was being stopped for failure to signal a lane change, Ms. Bland tells the arresting officer, in essence, that she was getting out of his way; that she saw his squad car coming up behind her in a hurry, and she moved over to let him by. That's exactly what she should have done in the circumstances, and doing so did not violate Texas law. It also did not justify the stop.

The portion of the Texas statutes known as The Rules of the Road can be found at:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/...

It reads much like the traffic code in my state and in most other states that I have read and studied. The section of it that covers the signalling of lane changes provides:

Sec. 545.104.  SIGNALING TURNS;  USE OF TURN SIGNALS.  (a)  An operator shall use the signal authorized by Section 545.106 [the vehicle's lighted turn signal or a hand signal] to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a parked position.

Nothing ambiguous about that requirement. However, there is another provision that mandates what a driver is to do when being approached by a police vehicle:

Sec. 545.156.  VEHICLE APPROACHED BY AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE.  (a)  On the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle using audible and visual signals that meet the requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702 [lights and sirens], or of a police vehicle lawfully using only an audible signal, an operator, unless otherwise directed by a police officer, shall:
(1)  yield the right-of-way;
(2)  immediately drive to a position parallel to and as close as possible to the right-hand edge or curb of the roadway clear of any intersection; and
(3)  stop and remain standing until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

First, under subsection (2), "immediately" means just that. Not after the driver scratches her head, or turns down the radio, or signals a lane change, or does anything else, but get over to the far right now, first thing. That's what it says. What lane the driver may be moving from is irrelevant

The waters are somewhat muddied in these circumstances, however, because there is no evidence on the video that the officer was running with lights or sirens as he came up behind Ms. bland's car, and Section 545.156 mandates immediately pulling over when the emergency vehicle is using at least an audible signal. That said, what Ms. Bland, looking in her rear view mirror (which, according to her statement to the officer in the video, is what she was doing) did see the police car do is this:

-It made an illegal u-turn, starting from from the far right lane, beyond even the solid white line (a bike lane?), almost to the right curb, and then across the right lane, the designated turning lane, and the oncoming lane, and then well into both lanes of the perpendicular street, before completing it. See Section 545.101. There is no indication if this turn was first signalled by the officer or not, another potential violation here.

-It was speeding. The video reveals that this is a 20 MPH zone. Whatever speed the  squad car was actually going, given how fast the trees fly by and he catches up to her, he was doing more than 20.

But other sections of the Texas code say that the police can ignore these and most other traffic laws when they need to. They're supposed to use lights, or at least a siren, when they do, per Section 546.003, but even then they are given broad discretion to not use them. Section 546.004 essentially gives them discretionary carte blanche to do so.

So, here's what Sandra Bland's circumstances were at the time: She sees a squad car pull a sudden and radical u-turn and speed up behind her. It is maneuvering like it's on its way to an emergency. We see from the video, from when she first makes her right turn onto the street on which she was stopped, that her windows are rolled up, blocking outside noise. It is in the 90's in Waller County that day, so it's safe to assume that her air conditioning was on, adding more inside background noise to her environment. Maybe her radio was on as well. Is this squad car she sees coming up behind her like this running a siren, and she just can't hear it yet? Or is the officer exercising his discretion and not using it at all?

Either way, her safest and most reasonable maneuver is to do just what she did: get out of his way. It was obviously not a lane change under Section 545.104. She didn't need to change lanes. It was a move-over under Section 545.156. No signal required, or even permitted.

Sounds pretty compelling, huh? Or is it just more legal mumbo-jumbo? Matt Taibbi, I think, nailed it when he said, in his article, that the law, "...is so broad and littered with so many tiny technical prohibitions that a determined enough police officer can stop and/or arrest pretty much anybody at any time."

The cops I used to prosecute for readily admitted to me on many occasions that one of the easiest way to get a stop on a vehicle that they thought needed to be checked out was to suddenly speed up behind it, wait for it to move over, and nail it for the failure to signal a lane change. Once in traffic court it may or may not stand up. A fair judge will NG it. A fair prosecutor will dump it before trial and tell his cops to knock off the bullshit.

Either way, for the one writing the ticket, it really doesn't matter. After all, the point isn't the petty traffic violation. It's the stop. It's the "checking out" during the stop, the possibility of discovering something bigger and more criminal, be it a suspended license, or alcohol on the breath, or an outstanding warrant. Out-of-state plates are always way up there on the list of potentials, too. That's the point. Then again, some times it's nothing more than an opportunity to jack somebody who looks or acts like he--or she--could use a good jacking. That's the point, too.

There is nothing about Sandra Bland's murder, or about the events that led up to it, that can or should be overlooked, justified or excused. That's my point

[Plane]

   I don't know this law, but I would not be surprised at all if this were entirely true.

    When you know the law better than the patrolman who is enforcing it on you , is teaching him better a good idea?

[sirs]

And yet......no one is arguing that she made an "illegal lane change", outside of the officer.  The issue is that she ran thru a stop sign which prompted the stop in the 1st place.  THAT'S what she was wrong about in the 1st place. 

Again, just speculation here, but the reason he was citing her for the illegal lane change vs the more egegious, and likely more costly, running a stop sign citation, is that it was a lesser offense.  Again, just speculation, but the stop was perfectly legal

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, he was just trying to be nice, by charging her with a lesser violation as some sort of favor. It filled his ticket quota and he did not have to ponder about what a bully and dick he was.

Maybe he was just out of warning tickets. They have quotas for those as well, though the rarely admit it. The fact remains that this poor woman is dead, because this fool made an illegal U turn and drove way over the speed limit to catch her.  he was not making the roads safer to drive on by doing this: just the opposite.

[sirs]

Yea, he probably was, since she had just broken the law, and its his job to enforce it.  Sure, he could have given her a warning.  That's probably what I would have done, but when she ran the stop sign, that made up his mind for him. 

And had she just accepted that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  And no, he didn't make an illegal u-turn since he was functioning in his capacity as a police officer.  You think the police should be citing themselves when they're speeding to a bank robbery??  ...or making a u-turn if they see a mugging taking place??    oy vey 

[Xavier_Onassis]

A cop should NEVER drive recklessly, no matter what he thinks he sees.

And giving quotas to cops is the cause of this, and should be made illegal. 

Many cops are assholes, this cop is one of them, and Sandra Balnd is dead because of him and his being a dick.

[sirs]

And this cop wasn't driving recklessly either.  A u-turn isn't reckless.  Speeding isn't reckless when there's no other traffic.  and you have absolutely no proof, what-so-ever, that he was trying to fill some quota, when apparently he just finished letting the previous stop leave with just a warning.

Try as you might, the only thing the cop is "gulity of" is pushing her buttons to the point of aggravation.  Everything else was legal and well within the law.  Nothing illegal in his conduct or driving

And we still don't know why she's dead, since that's still under investigation.  I'm still not convinced its a suicide, since that just doesn't make any sense.  But everything else, has

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you have seen the video, you can see that he turned rather wide, and of course he was SPEEDING because he was going over the SPEED LIMIT which I understand was 20 MPH, and he was clearly going faster than that.

She did NOT COMMITT the violation that he wanted to ticket her for, either, so the sumbitch was outt of line on that as well.

And now she is dead.

Because the cop was a dick.

[sirs]

Yea, I saw the video, and NOTHING he did was "reckless".  And he decided to ticket her for a lesser offense than what she did violate

[Xavier_Onassis]

The cop was CLEARLY speeding.
The law is the law. 
A Lane change and a missed stop sign is an insufficient reason for the cop to break the very laws he is supposed to enforce.

You sure seem to be happy about this poor woman being dead.

[sirs]

You're apparent grasp of law enforcement is as abysmal as your ignorance is in firearms.  POLICE ARE ALLOWED TO SPEED TO CATCH UP TO SOME INFRACTION/CRIME THEY WERE WITNESS TO OR HAVE BEEN CALLED TO

And you keep highlighting, for all to see, this pathologic need to change the subject when you're losing an argument.  How is demonstrating how utterly wrong you are in how the police conduct a traffic stop analogus to being "happy this woman is dead"??  100% pure idiocy.  IT'S A TRAGEDY SHE'S DEAD, AND I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED IT WAS A SUICIDE.  HOW THE HELL IS THAT ME BEING HAPPY SHE'S DEAD??

[Xavier_Onassis]

I can sense the joy in your writing.

You want the cop that caused her death to get off scot free. You want it to be her fault.

[Christians4LessGvt]

You want the cop that caused her death to get off scot free.

The cop did not cause her death, this bat-shit crazy woman on drugs was depressed & killed herself.
The cop should not be charged with any crime, because he committed no crime.

You want it to be her fault

It was her fault.
She ran the stop sign.
She was uncooperative.
She was on drugs,
She killed her self because she was bat-shit crazy.
End of story.

[sirs]

I can sense the joy in your writing.

You want the cop that caused her death to get off scot free. You want it to be her fault.

Any "joy" you're sensing is specific to demonstrating how wrong you consistently are.  And I'm already on record as opining that the officer was pushing her buttons and should have simply given her a warning.   But he did nothing wrong legally and unless you can provide some proof that he was in her cell & wrapped something around her neck, he has absolutely no basis of fault for her death.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So who is responsible for her death?

No one?

In the words often heard at Nuremberg, "I vass only vollowing ordersss!"

Lame.