Most people can be fired for being bad at their jobs even if their behaviors aren't illegal.
I'm quite willing to believe that she committed suicide within a system that placed an unreasonable amount of stress on a taxed person who hadn't done anything wrong.
person who hadn't done anything wrong
Did you miss the part about changing lanes without signaling?
But what's lawful is the problem.
What would you like to be different?
The idea that prison officials would murder her like that seems pretty loony to me. I mean, I know they have a reputation for not being the best specimens of humanity but seriously. That said suicide also seems a bit strange to me, at least given the last things we know she did. Distraught? Absolutely I believe that, and I think almost anyone in her situation would be. But the mental illness stuff that they've been able to unearth sounds really situational and not very likely to result in this kind of behavior. Of course that said "...her friends and family said" is, in cases of mental health, not always as much evidence as it is for other problems.
4: I'd like the law to be such that disobeying a police order is not independently a crime unless there is some articulable public safety or law enforcement purpose for the order, which I think the order to exit the car in this case would clearly fail.
Also, maybe not jailing somebody for unpaid parking tickets unless they blocked me in. You can boot the fucking car or something.
What would you like to be different?
I'd like for police generally--overwhelmingly--to acknowledge that this officer, whether acting legally or not, acted wrongly in this situation, and I don't mean acted wrongly ethically (although of course it is wrong ethically), I mean acted wrongly in terms of doing his job as a police officer correctly and competently, and unless it is a behavior that had not been observed previously and that is remediated going forward, he should lose his job.
4: What would you like to be different?
I'm not sure we need to be proposing different laws/rules for the statement that "what's lawful is the problem" to be accurate. I can understand the overarching principle that police need to have the freedom to do their jobs by exerting control over a situation when things get hairy, and that's how we land on rules that allow them to order people out of their cars for no articulable reason whatsoever and then arrest them if they refuse. Honestly, even for how belligerently I phrased that, I see how this is (maybe) the right rule.
But it makes it *lawful* for some cops to act like assholes in circumstances where there is no actual risk to officer safety, and that's the problem.
On preview, I might agree with LB's 6, but I can see how that would be really hard to administer (though maybe less so in the age of dash-cams). And yeah, Moby's right, debtor's prison is shitty too, but I think that's kind of an ancillary, though related, issue.
Also, the threat with the taser part seems like it should be illegal right now, but I guess it isn't because he was vague about it?
Urple's 8 is better than my 6 (about which Osgood is right -- changing the law as I suggest wouldn't change anything unless the interaction happened to be filmed). Even if changing the law doesn't make sense, police department policies should prohibit cops from issuing orders to members of the public where they have no public safety or law enforcement purpose.
Intentionally dragging her out of the field of vision of the dashboard camera when arresting her* seems like the sort of thing that should be pretty seriously frowned upon, possibly even to the point of 'shifts-burden-of-evidence' in severe cases or cases where there's good reason to think the officer's story is false, as in this case.
*Especially when that's when the alleged assault on the officer happens, and when you can hear her being treated really aggressively, and when the other squad car which could have filmed the encounter wasn't recording at the time since the camera's memory was full or whatever the official explanation was.
Urple's 8 is better than my 6
I was thinking the opposite, that legislation that addresses the Mimms decision would be very doable and that trying to fire the cop who acted within policy and the law because you disagreed with how he handled the call wasn't going to happen.
the threat with the taser part seems like it should be illegal right now
That's another easy fix. For us the taser is the same as the baton in terms of requirements for use but in a lot places it's allowed as the next level of force after verbal, which is ridiculous.
I might agree with LB's 6, but I can see how that would be really hard to administer
As a blanket rule maybe but probably not that hard if you keep it to traffic stops.
Oh, this case. At a certain point you have to feel that systems with such egregious failures are being intentionally negligent. Here are a few of the points of failure:
1. The dashcam on the (second) officer's car, which was pointed in a useful direction, was allegedly "full" and not recording. So we can't see the part where Bland was off camera with Encinia. Very convenient -- and I say that as someone who actually believes that their explanation is plausible.
If you think that dashcams are important, then you implement them with consideration to how they are supposed to work. If you just plunk them on the car without attention to backup or Plan B (aka, what happens if the camera fills up?) then you aren't actually committed to functional dashcams. It's like issuing a weapon to an officer without thinking through how s/he will acquire ammunition.
2. The jail where Bland was being held had been cited before for failure to meet standards for checking on suicidal inmates. It was cited again several days after her death. Again, the fact that they didn't implement standard protocols responsibly says to me that they aren't meaningfully committed to preventing inmate deaths.
3. The discrepancies between the handwritten intake sheet and computerized intake sheet for Bland make it difficult to know whether they simply failed to note that she had MH issues, or whether they knew and deliberately tried to cover it up (when inputting the handwritten sheet into the computer). Absent the other facts of this case, I'd bet on garden-variety clerical error. Given everything else? More evidence that they don't take seriously what the screening form is meant to be capturing.
This is not even to get at why she was in the jail in the first place -- the petty, obedience-oriented style of policing that Encinia was practicing. There is no explanation in the world that could convince me that a white motorist is equally likely to have been a) stopped in the first place, and b) treated as she was even if they were exactly as obstreperous.
The idea that prison officials would murder her like that seems pretty loony to me.
You don't have to think they deliberately murdered her to think that law enforcement killed her. There are several theories floating around online (not linking them because I'm not a medical professional and really not equipped to gauge their accuracy) that focus on the idea that she could have suffered a head injury during the arrest that resulted in her later death -- and then the jail officials found her and panicked. I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't bet against it, either.
I'd like for police generally--overwhelmingly--to acknowledge that this officer, whether acting legally or not, acted wrongly in this situation, and I don't mean acted wrongly ethically (although of course it is wrong ethically), I mean acted wrongly in terms of doing his job as a police officer correctly and competently
Can I get a pony while we're at it?
(Has anybody linked here to the compilation of police union Twitter accounts being gross about people who died at the hands of officers?)
Actually if I did have to lay money on anything I'd go with 'died of respiratory failure as a result of a seizure followed by jail officials panicking and trying to make it look like a suicide' instead straight head injuries/suicide*/murder. It's hard to know for sure, but depending on which of the inconsistent documents is reliable it's totally possible that she was taking Keppra for epilepsy and they were being petty creeps about it and not letting her have any,** or putting off getting it for her or something. Withdrawal from an anticonvulsant plus stress plus a hard knock on the head earlier could absolutely add up to status epilepticus and kill someone who didn't get prompt treatment.
The oddness of the scene (she was practically kneeling; the scene seems to have changed between different journalists showing up to photograph it; etc.) combined with her behavior beforehand would make more sense in that case. It's strange that she wouldn't mention "they aren't giving me my meds" on a phone call though because that seems pretty important. And her family said they didn't think she was taking drugs for it either. (Of course the second of those could also be an explanation for the first, though I don't know for sure why that's something she'd keep to herself.)
*Only a little above it though.
**Which it turns out is something that you do actually see more often than is comforting.
If it's the same "articulable facts" standard that allows the police to do a Terry stop, that's almost no protection at all. All this cop would have to say (after the fact) is something like, she seemed nervous and agitated—maybe toss in a "furtive movement" or "fidgeting" while you type up the police report—so he ordered her out of the vehicle to investigate whether she had recently been the victim of a crime or had recently committed a crime.
MHPH's post reminds me that one of the most telling moments of the 52-minute recording is when Bland says "I have epilepsy!" and Encina replies "Good!"
Granted that he was adrenalinized. Granted that he clearly (if unreasonably) felt hard-done-by. Granted that he may not even have processed exactly what "I have epilepsy" meant in the context of a woman who had just received a head injury.
We don't even expect $7.50/hour cashiers to get away with treating customers this disrespectfully. I am FULLY willing to hold officers to the same standard as Au Bon Pain employees.
whether she had recently been the victim of a crime or had recently committed a crime
That is not a Terry stop.
I am FULLY willing to hold officers to the same standard as Au Bon Pain employees.
Come on, be realistic. I am very much a proponent of be nice until it's time to not be nice way of handling people but we're not cashiers.
The officer was absorbing a lot of information.
"Good morning sir! What can I arrest you for this morning?"
Actually given what I've seen of people generally that might work.
4: What would you like to be different?
I'd like to see police officers attend more webinars -- not just about diversity, either, there could be webinars about changes in the city's benefits vendors and new protocols for 911 operators. I'd like to see a larger investment by police departments in new technology initiatives, especially anything that requires further real-time reporting of various metrics by patrol officers during their shifts. I think it is extremely important, as well, to empower police officers to create their own plans and curricula for their professional development. Skip level meetings with senior officers should be expanded as well.
18: It's hard to know for sure, but depending on which of the inconsistent documents is reliable it's totally possible that she was taking Keppra for epilepsy and they were being petty creeps about it and not letting her have any
I was wondering about this: I haven't heard whether there's any corroboration that she had a seizure disorder.
Don't get me wrong, this would be okay too.
Further to 27: MHPH is absolutely right that if she was deprived of her medication and had a seizure, she could have stopped breathing.
18.2: It's strange that she wouldn't mention "they aren't giving me my meds" on a phone call though because that seems pretty important. And her family said they didn't think she was taking drugs for it either.
Even in this day and age, epilepsy is something people tend to keep on the down-low. It's not the wisest course of action among your loved ones, but it's not wildly implausible that she might have kept it from family.
In any case, whether Sandra Bland had a seizure disorder is something that should be fairly easily discoverable, unless medical privacy laws apply. There would be a doctor prescribing the meds, and a pharmacy dispensing them.
Not to mention she would have had the meds in her purse.
I've seen a couple of these pieces, and there seems to be some disagreement on whether the officer's command to exit the vehicle was legal. He never tells her why she has to get out of the car, does he? Is that a condition on the legality of the command?
On the question of the unpaid parking tickets leading to the jailing of the woman in the next cell: that shit needs to stop.
I'm expecting Radley Balko to be on the case, now in Texas rather than Missouri. Tapping fingers, Radley. Waiting.
30 - I wouldn't be surprised if at least some medical history documents remained private after death - it seems reasonable to say that people have at least some (more limited) interests in being able to control who sees them after they die. I suppose the fact that she (may?) have indicated a history of depression on her intake forms to the surprise of her friends/family could also count as a reason to think she'd been keeping quiet about some of her medical stuff, though it's hard to tell the severity involved.
Also she could easily have had them packed up for the move rather than in her purse or something. Keppra is a once-a-day maintenance drug so she wouldn't need to have it immediately on hand or anything, and it's ridiculously gentle as far as brain-drugs go so it wouldn't necessarily be something someone would worry over dosing later than normal or missing a dose or anything.
23: ? How is what you said in contradiction to what I said? I expect police officers to begin their interactions with the public respectfully, and to continue to be respectful even if it is necessary to use force to subdue them.
Respectful doesn't mean passive, and it doesn't mean the "customer" is always right -- it means that we grant greater powers to law enforcement than anyone else in society, and they have to live up to the power we vest in them.
I spent seven years having monthly meetings with law enforcement. I am intimately familiar with the many, many, many ways that some officers will tell you that it's impossible for them to do their jobs and meet basic standards of respectfulness. And yet, I have worked with other officers who managed to do so.
We are so far from the ideal right now in policing that if I let myself focus on how exhausting the slog of improvement is, I would get incredibly depressed. But that is not a reason to pretend that the ideal is not possible. It IS possible, and it's our responsibility as a society to keep working until we get there.
35.last: Ah, I see. I'm more familiar with the 2 or 3 times per day medications. Still, keeping it packed up for the move seems implausible to me. You'd keep it on you, the same way you keep your toothbrush with you when moving about.
As for the medical privacy issues, I just don't know what the laws say there.
Sure, sure - I just meant that it's not necessarily the sort of thing you'd keep in your purse or on your person at all times. Or at least not closely enough that it would come with you into booking, as opposed to staying in the car when you were arrested.
If I were taking it it would be readily accessible (not buried deep somewhere), but still packed away in a travel bag/small suitcase/etc. (It would also probably be a pain to carry around with you given the dosing involved. Like a lot of the drugs in the racetam family you need to take a lot to get an effect - as in, measured in grams.)
The long and the short of it is that cops aren't going to stop killing people until they face some kind of serious negative consequences for it. For those who prefer a state monopoly on violence, those consequences would appear to be limited to some kind of prosecution and long-term imprisonment or execution. However, the very people who are in a position to advance prosecutions of police officers are the very people they work with every day, who have many strong incentives not to enforce any of the possible consequences. So, essentially, there's nothing that can be done within our current framework. And then it's white supremacy all the way down.
I've been thinking about the idea of a People's Prosecutor, one empowered and tasked exclusively with investigating cops, prosecutors, and corrections officials. Incentives being what they are, the existing justice system can't self-police, but ISTM that having an office whose explicit job is to keep outside those incentives can break that grip.
Obviously I understand the reasons that the powers that be would fight such an idea, but are there real reasons it would be a terrible idea? In the back of my mind is the Roman idea of the Tribune of the Plebs.
The point about the Tribunes was that they were elected by the Plebs. If you created an elective post in the present state of US politics it would immediately become partisan, which would defeat the object. The same would apply to a Presidential appointment, so I have no idea how you would implement it.
Yes, an independent prosecutor whether elected or appointed would still be bound up in partisan (or in this case, often malignantly bipartisan) politics, but just not having to work with the police for other things should constitute a significant advance, no? And it is something I've seen as a specific demand from Black Lives Matter entities.
I was just googling and found a perennial proposal for an independent corruption-investigation body in India, the Lokpal Bill. Partially inspired by a similar commission in Hong Kong which in 1978 fired 119 police officers at a swoop (undemocratic of course).
Oh man, I hadn't seen 26 before. That's awesome.
I've been thinking about the idea of a People's Prosecutor
Of all the ways this can go wrong I think that "reality TV show hosted by Pres. Trump" should be somewhere on the list.
I'd been musing as well about the prospect of an independent prosecutor in all cases involving alleged police misconduct. Certainly in the Freddie Gray case here in Balto, there have been calls to replace Marilyn Mosby with one. (In that case, of course, Mosby is on the side of the angels, but that doesn't matter: she has quite arguable conflicts of interest.)
There was talk of such a rule change in the aftermath of Michael Brown's death in Ferguson, and then Eric Garner's. I haven't kept up with what's happened to that talk.
While prosecutorial standards obviously differ from state to state, county to county, city to city, is there some national umbrella organization that issues guidelines? Who should be lobbied to issue a directive, if such a thing is even possible? Do the feds have any say in this at all?
Or the individual states? Perhaps a state-wide directive?
Would it be the state attorney general?
And maybe the 50 state attorneys general have a national organization.
It's the National Association of Multi-state Bar and Legal Authority.
It is? Googling doesn't get me much of relevance for that. But I'll look further.
Uh, log out of google first if you're going to do that.
Oh, is this like the South Park episode with the National association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?
I was going to try to make a substantive comment, but couldn't think of one.
There is a National Association of Attorneys General. Not sure if that would be the best mechanism for this sort of thing or not.
I've been thinking about the idea of a People's Prosecutor, one empowered and tasked exclusively with investigating cops, prosecutors, and corrections officials.
Ontario has something like this.
The UK has two: HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, which is almost as old as modern policing and deals with routine inspections and general issues of policing practice, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is fairly recent and at least in theory does what it says on the tin. Neither of them are notoriously crap, but equally neither of them are often satisfactory from the point of view of the victims of poor practice or of complainants. I'd rather they existed than not, but I'd also rather they moved faster and more decisively than they do.
To be clear, HMIC is made up of permanent civil servants, and IPCC is about half ex-senior cops and half civilian appointees. I would prefer IPCC also to be made of permanent civil servants, and such as have never worked in the Home Office or Department of Justice.
In the criminal justice system, people with complaints against the police are represented by two separate yet equally important groups....