Cops Who Can't Keep Their Cool
If you need people to be achingly polite to you when you're on the job, get a job serving tea at The Four Seasons.
Ashley C. Ford tweet:
@iSmashFizzle
Me: It's not illegal to be rude to cops.
Them: Well, if you poke a bear, what do you expect?
Me: That's why we don't make bears cops.
Sandra Bland voicemail left for a friend: "...How did switching lanes with no signal turn into all of this, I don't even know."
As a Texan, I have to say that the Department of Public Safety troopers we have are not known for their manners. I've encountered surly DPS troopers many times. Cops in the big cities in Texas seem to be the most polite; every cop I've encountered here in Austin seemed like a human being.
DPS troopers in Texas aren't particularly well-paid; cops in many small Texas towns and even rural counties make more than starting DPS troopers in Texas. Many aspiring cops will go through the DPS academy in Austin and work as a trooper for a few years to puff their resume and gain experience, and then leave for more lucrative city or county employment. What's left is not always the cream of the crop.
roadgeek at July 23, 2015 7:11 AM
"...How did switching lanes with no signal turn into all of this, I don't even know."
It's important to note, however, that Ms. Bland had complete control of her reactions to douche cop. Compliance should have been her watchword that day in a rural Texas county, but she chose to behave as though she were still in Chicago, where she had left a lengthy trail of unpaid traffic tickets and assorted legal troubles.
It's also interesting to observe that she made multiple calls for bail to family and friends in Chicago, but not one of those peeps chose to assist her. I suspect she'd simply made too many of those sort of calls in the past, and people were tired of bailing Ms. Bland out and helping her pay her traffic tickets.
Supposition, I know, but the fact she was still in that jail after three days is telling. Ever jail in a small Texas town like Hempstead has at least one bail bondsman, and usually two or three, within a block. Yet she was still in jail three days later.
roadgeek at July 23, 2015 7:17 AM
Have and am seeing how people make the same "mistakes" over and over even knowing the outcome.
Sad for both parties although I understand the cop only put her in jail and did not keep her in jail.
3 days is sad and that plus her inability to shut up w/the cop does reflect on her previous behavior and life choices.
Shame.
Bob in Texas at July 23, 2015 7:31 AM
Not condoning the cop at all here; but, I do agree with roadgeek in that she did have (or should have had) complete control of how she reacted to the cop.
charles at July 23, 2015 7:48 AM
It may not be illegal to be rude to cops, but it's still monumentally stupid.
A lot of stupid things are legal.
Trust at July 23, 2015 9:57 AM
"achingly polite"
Oh Amy.
Dave B at July 23, 2015 10:08 AM
I wonder if Scott Lunger would have kept his cool in this traffic stop. You know, if the guy in the other car hadn't killed him before we could find out.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Person-Hospitalized-After-Reports-of-Alleged-Officer-Involved-Shooting-in-Hayward-318111931.html
Conan the Grammariang at July 23, 2015 10:24 AM
It could be asked, how did Scott Lunger's getting out of bed in the morning and going to work turn into all of this, I don't even know?
Dave B at July 23, 2015 10:53 AM
"Use common sense ... be polite ... shut the fuck up. If you follow these simple pointers, you probably won't get your ass kicked by the po-lice":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ
When this is a much better world, people in Ms. Bland's position won't even be pulled over. I don't know many people -- especially black people -- who believe that better world has already arrived and can be found in Texas.
If a woman got assaulted walking through Central Park at 2:00 a.m. or going to a frat house and drinking until she passed out, Amy would be the first one to say that while no one *deserves* to be assaulted, that doesn't mean you aren't responsible for using common sense and not placing yourself in harm's way. Talking back to a cop in that tone? Same thing.
JD at July 23, 2015 11:17 AM
I am exactly as polite to a police officer as I am to any man with a gun.
Matt at July 23, 2015 11:27 AM
Or woman with a gun for that matter.
Matt at July 23, 2015 11:28 AM
@JD Comparing police officers to murderers, rapists and frat boys, are we?
Allison at July 23, 2015 11:41 AM
It's important to note, however, that Ms. Bland had complete control of her reactions to douche cop. Compliance should have been her watchword that day in a rural Texas county,
Ah, compliance. Well then, roadgeek, I hope you as well as nick get ordered to fuck a dog by a cop that pulls you over.
I'd love to see your compliance
lujlp at July 23, 2015 12:40 PM
"Many aspiring cops will go through the DPS academy in Austin and work as a trooper for a few years to puff their resume and gain experience, and then leave for more lucrative city or county employment. What's left is not always the cream of the crop."-roadgeek
You know, other than patrolling the highways, "protecting"* the Capitol and surrounding state property, and pulling me over because my registration sticker is out, I'm not sure what Texas DPS actually does. And you're right about the bigger-city cops being the most polite: I assume it's because they're forced to contend with a more diverse citizenry and are also more likely to be monitored by watchdog groups. And, of course, the cities that pay well get a much larger crop of applicants from which to pick and choose.
*DPS was "guarding" the Capitol Complex when someone burned down the governor's mansion several years ago...
ahw at July 23, 2015 1:07 PM
"Talking back in that tone" is not illegal.
However, kicking someone "under color of authority" and then refusing to call an ambulance for a half hour with your bound victim dying in the back of your car gets you a conviction ... for 36 months.
Current guess is the killer cop gets out in four months.
I wonder how many years you'd get if you kicked a cop and delayed calling an ambulance, resulting in said officer's death? I wonder.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 23, 2015 5:43 PM
Ordinarily, I agree with you on just about everything you write. However, in this case of Sandra Bland, I must disagree.
Keep in mind: I’m not one to jump to the defense of police officers. They have overreached their authority and need to get away from the idea of acting as Law Enforcement and back to their roots as police officers and or peace officers.
Nonetheless, anyone bothering to view the full version of the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuPvDMN73hQ, might notice Sandy’s car appears in around 1:15 as she blasts through a stop sign and makes a right turn without using her signal (You can clearly see the stop sign at 1:29). This is why the cop turned around in pursuit. Then, when he got behind her, she made a lane change without using her signal.
From what we can see in this video, she was driving just any ol’ way she wanted. Moreover, she apparently felt she had a right to drive any ol’ way she wanted, and the officer had a right to pull her over no matter how illegal her actions.
Now, when a cop pulls over a vehicle, in which the driver has been violating traffic law after traffic law, three in a row in this case, and that driver begins to demonstrate a belligerent attitude, that officer has every right in the world to pull her out of her car and put her in handcuffs. She was driving dangerously, putting other citizens in danger. His job is to catch those bad drivers and give them tickets. A driver demonstrating a belligerent attitude after having violated three laws in some thirty seconds is a sign the driver is out of control and cares not about the law—the law which keeps you and me safe.
The officer intended by his words and actions to give her a simple warning. She pushed the issue and got arrested. I don’t know how traffic cops handle things in Illinois, but in Texas, the cops are sworn to uphold the law and putting handcuffs on belligerent traffic offenders is part of their job.
In this case, I must support the cop’s actions. He did the right thing for the right reasons. That woman, Sandra Bland, was obviously out of control. She was endangering the public by her actions. In the end, she was apparently a danger to herself as well.
Richard Speights at July 23, 2015 6:05 PM
correction:
"...and she felt the officer had no right to pull her over no matter how illegal her actions..."
Richard Speights at July 23, 2015 6:11 PM
Keep in mind: I’m not one to jump to the defense of police officers.
And yet you are
.
Nonetheless,
see
.
Now, when a cop pulls over a vehicle, in which the driver has been violating traffic law after traffic law, three in a row in this case, and that driver begins to demonstrate a belligerent attitude, that officer has every right in the world to pull her out of her car and put her in handcuffs.
For what exactly, driving dangerously or being belligerent
Also what three? You mentioned 'blowing thru a stop sign to make a right turn' changing lanes without a signal, and being belligerent. Are you saying belligerence towards a cop is crime?
Also that truck at 1:52 also blew thru a stop sign
.
A driver demonstrating a belligerent attitude after having violated three laws in some thirty seconds is a sign the driver is out of control and cares not about the law—the law which keeps you and me safe.
I know right, exasperation at having ones time wasted mean a shooting spree is just around the corner
.
The officer intended by his words and actions to give her a simple warning. She pushed the issue and got arrested.
Meaning the cop arrested her not for violating any crime but becuase she dared to backtalk
.
I don’t know how traffic cops handle things in Illinois, but in Texas, the cops are sworn to uphold the law and putting handcuffs on belligerent traffic offenders is part of their job.
But arresting people for violating the law itself isnt?
.
In this case, I must support the cop’s actions. He did the right thing for the right reasons.
REALLY?!? He had no intention of arresting her for moving violations that were NOT criminal acts and might have netted the state a few hundred dollars, but he was totally justified in arresting her because of her disrespectful attitude?
.
That woman, Sandra Bland, was obviously out of control. She was endangering the public by her actions.
Yeah, smoking in her car was real danger to the public, I mean it practically like gang raping toddlers
Moving out of the way of the ONE fast approaching cop car going well over the 20MPH speed limit with no other cars withing several hundered yards of her was basically like spraying an Uzi at a preschool
Rolling thru a stop sign when there was no oncoming traffic, my god, it would have been safer to the public had she robbed a bank.
So, Richard, what shade are your brown shirts?
Also do you ever get the shit off your nose and the taste of boot polish out of your mouth?
lujlp at July 24, 2015 12:37 AM
...putting handcuffs on belligerent traffic offenders is part of their job.
Mr. Krauthammer! I didn't know you were here posting, you pompous jackass!
And I'm pretty sure that's actually not "part of their job"...
You can now go back to your perfect little world (view).
DrCos at July 24, 2015 4:07 AM
Not much to add to lujlp's excellent fisking. But I will.
@Richard Speights -
This breathless hysteria about 'breaking traffic law after traffic law' is just too much to bear. These are trivial, civil infractions. They do not give the officer 'the right' to haul her out of her car and arrest her, no matter how many of them she commits. He gets to issue civil citations.
Look up the meanings of the word 'belligerent'. It does not mean, what you think it means. Ms Bland was mildly, non-violently, verbally resisting the officers foolish and officious, but non-enforceable instruction. There's no law against smoking in your car or while being issues a citation, and suggestions that smoking cigarette is somehow a threat to 'officer safety' are just paranoid delusions. If the officer is such a delicate snowflake that he cannot handle mild, verbal disagreement like this, and has to resort to threats and violence, he needs to look for other work. And get counseling.
She was not 'obviously driving dangerously'. She was driving as most people drive, which is to say, with a certain flexibility in regard to traffic laws. But that doesn't make her 'dangerous'. Rolling through a stop sign for a RH turn? Happens a bazillion times a day with no danger. Turning without signal? Likewise. News flash for you - almost-all traffic laws have virtually no impact (either way) on traffic safety, in fact, Monderman has proved conclusively that doing away with virtually all traffic laws and letting drivers sort it out for themselves actually improves traffic safety. Traffic law does not 'keep you and me safe' - its primate purpose has morphed into a) revenue generation and b) a mechanism to give police officers ways around the Constitution.
Unlike you, I have been a police officer, and I'm usually the first to jump the defense of officers. But this officer displays the very worst trends in US policing - officious, arrogant, confrontational, capricious and malicious.
For example, just ask yourself - why did the officer choose to arrest her on a Friday afternoon? On a charge (assault on an officer) which even the video shows did not occur before he arrested her for it? (May have happened after, but that's not the point). She shows up at the jail charged with assaulting the officer. He tells her she's 'going to jail'/under arrest' before she is even out of the car. Now you tell me when the assault for which she is arrested occurs?
I'll give you a clue. He arrested her, on a charge he knew could not be sustained by any evidence (he knew his dashcam was recording everything) but which he also knew virtually-assured that she would spend at least one night in jail, and hopefully more, because then it would be a weekend.
In other words - he gave her 'the ride'. Not for committing any crime (because she didn't, repeat after me, these are civil infractions) but because she sassed him. And because he knew that he would not suffer the slightest negative consequences for doing so. Unlike you, I have seen this done, many times, enough times to know the animal when I see it.
And this is 'doing the right thing for the right reasons?' I think - not.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 24, 2015 4:12 AM
And as for pulling her over for not signaling, as far as I can tell, I am the only person in this g-damned state who uses her turn signal. If that is the basis for pulling over and ticketing, Texas cops won't need to do any actual work ever again.
Astra at July 24, 2015 7:15 AM
Cops pull people over for not signaling when they're looking for an excuse to pull someone over. (I use my turn signal! And I always check my blind spot when I switch lanes!)
ahw at July 24, 2015 7:39 AM
He was never in any danger, she did not assault him (is she a bad UFC fighter?), and got out of his way when he drove up behind her.
Should have just shot her on sight. Damn bitch. (sarcasm)
Bob in Texas at July 24, 2015 7:47 AM
While a cop getting shot during a routine traffic stop is extremely rare, it does happen and every cop is aware of that.
As a result, they go into a traffic stop on high alert. Being belligerent to a cop who's already worried that you might pull a gun on him at any time is not a wise move.
The time and place to challenge the traffic stop is later, in court - which sucks because it means getting time off work (sometimes without pay) and going to the courthouse to present your case to a judge who has probably heard every version of "I didn't do it" there is and has likely become quite cynical when hearing challenges to traffic stops.
So, if you don't want to have to challenge it later, don't run stop signs and treat the turn signal lever in your car as a decoration while in the vicinity of a cop car. Be alert and watch your surroundings. When there's a cop around, drive like you read the manual.
Conan the Grammarian at July 24, 2015 9:05 AM
Half the young drivers I talk to today don't know their car has a blind spot.
========================================
Actually, she did.
"It's called 'Simple Assault by Contact' or possibly 'Offensive Touching' (a battery). You can be charged with it when you do it against even civilians (but ... only when there's compelling evidence). "
Here's an article on what constitutes Assault on a Police Officer in DC:
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10619/assaulting-a-police-officer-may-not-mean-what-you-think/
Conan the Grammarian at July 24, 2015 9:11 AM
Knew that Conan but it's a bogus charge in this case (unless she has the "death touch").
Bob in Texas at July 24, 2015 10:26 AM
@ Conan the Grammarian - indeed. This is typical of the general form and substance of many state laws.
And these are typically the (types of) laws that are used and abused to sentence otherwise-merely-difficult citizens to 'the ride'.
Nobody in his/her right mind can argue that Ms Bland, or a million others like her, 'resisted' or 'impeded' or 'intimidated' od 'assaulted' the officer at any time or in any meaningful way before he arrested her. She talked back, and refused to put out her cigarette. Big whoop. In what way is he 'resisted', 'impeded' or 'intimidated'? He's wearing body armor and armed with a club, pepper spray, a Taser and a semi-automatic handgun. She's a mouthy woman. 'Impeded', 'assaulted', my chrome-plated ass.
Quite the reverse, in fact - he is the one doing the intimidating, threatening her with jail, a Tasering, and who-knows-what else besides. For being mouthy.
But vaguely-written and poorly-enforced laws like this provide just enough of a hook for an officer who is tired, bored, irritated, racist, sexist or just plain-old mean to hang an arrest on - and then she gets 'the ride'. He's knows she'll bond out - eventually - and the charges will be dropped when the prosecutor says 'where's the evidence?' But in the meantime - he's ruined her day, her week, her year, her life - over what? Because nasty lady said mean words on him? Is that who you want policing you? Really?
Incidentally, as soon as I hear people saying 'well, she should just have been polite, it's her own fault, and anyway, she can sort it all out later in court' - that tells me that those people are just fine with the idea that an officer can sentence just-about anyone he/she likes to 'the ride'.
Remember, 'the ride' can include several days in GP at the county jail, full penitentiary-style strip-searching (aka 'spread 'em and cough' or a DRE) and examination for venereal disease, denial of any and all communications and (in some places at least) more-or-less complete incommunicado - your worried relatives call the cops because you didn't come home and they reply 'Don't know anything about it. If he's over 18, being missing is not a police matter. Click'. All sanctioned by the Supremes and/or 'within policy'.
When llamas is crowned emperor, that's another thing that is gone next day - special snowflake laws for police officers, that allow for this sort of abuse. We keep being told how hard it is to be a police officer, and it is - for about 0.0001% of the time. But it's made plain when you hire on, and a hard job means you have to work hard at it - not use special powers given only to you for the sole purpose of f**king people over. Pardon my French.
llater,
llamas
llamas at July 24, 2015 10:43 AM
@astra, I am a Texas driver that dosn't always use turn signals to change lanes. That's because if you signal, the car behind the space you intend to get into will speed up and block you. Ithey'll do it if they catch you looking, too. I don't know what their problem is, but I've learned to pull around the car and jump in. Occasionally, I cut people off. But the 100 times I tried to do it courteously, with signal, the same thing happened almost every time. Of course, there's nothing illegal about being a rolling road block, or any number of other driver behaviors that cause more accidents than turn signals.
Allison at July 24, 2015 11:30 AM
Me: It's not illegal to be rude to cops.
Them: Well, if you poke a bear, what do you expect?
Me: That's why we don't make bears cops.
That's a great comeback. However, even if police forces don't intentionally recruit them and try to screen them out if they apply, some bears are gonna become cops.
Richard: Nonetheless, anyone bothering to view the full version of the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuPvDMN73hQ, might notice Sandy’s car appears in around 1:15 as she blasts through a stop sign and makes a right turn without using her signal (You can clearly see the stop sign at 1:29). This is why the cop turned around in pursuit. Then, when he got behind her, she made a lane change without using her signal.
I think "blasts" is a bit dramatic. It's not as if she flies around the corner at 50 mph. There's a difference between breaking a traffic law and driving in an unsafe manner. Did she break the law by not stopping at the sign? Of course. Considering the fact that no cars were in view in the lane she pulled into, was her action unsafe? No. Few people, I think, come to a complete stop at a stop sign when making a right-hand turn when they can see there are no approaching vehicles in the lane they're turning into. I rarely, if ever, do. But if I see any vehicles approaching, I'll stop. It's called judgment.
That being said, I'd say it would have been reasonable -- although unnecessary -- for that cop to pull her over for not stopping at the stop sign. But pulling her over because she didn't signal a lane change in that particular situation? Totally lame. It's as lame as a cop in Seattle giving a pedestrian a ticket for crossing the street against a red light when there are no cars in sight. The cop's attitude is: I don't care if it's perfectly safe. It's AGAINST THE LAW AND THE LAWBREAKER MUST BE PUNISHED!
From what we can see in this video, she was driving just any ol’ way she wanted. Moreover, she apparently felt she had a right to drive any ol’ way she wanted, and the officer had a right to pull her over no matter how illegal her actions.
There's "driving any ol' way you want" as in sharply cutting in front of people on the freeway, driving through a red light when there are vehicles approaching from both the left and right, or texting while driving and there's "driving any ol' way you want" as in not stopping at a stop sign when you're making a right turn and no vehicles are approaching from the lane you're turning into and changing lanes without signaling when there's only one vehicle behind you and it's in the lane you're moving from, not the lane you're moving into. They are very different flavors of "driving any ol' way you want."
Now, when a cop pulls over a vehicle, in which the driver has been violating traffic law after traffic law, three in a row in this case, and that driver begins to demonstrate a belligerent attitude, that officer has every right in the world to pull her out of her car and put her in handcuffs.
When he comes back to her car after being in his, she's irritated (as I would be if got pulled over by a cop for that same lame reason) -- and states as much -- but she's not belligerent. And she's not belligerent when the cop asks her if she'd mind putting out her cigarette. Rather, she states that she's in her car and doesn't have to put out her cigarette and I'm sure that's true. I doubt there's some law in Texas stating that a driver has to comply with every request from a cop. It's the cop who becomes belligerent when she refuses his request, when he gets all butt-hurt and demands that she step out of the car. It's the cop who chooses to escalate matters. He may be a good cop in general but in this instance, he's an asshole on a power trip.
JD at July 24, 2015 12:49 PM
llamas (on another thread): @ Nick - you see, I watch that same video, and I don't see/hear Ms Bland picking a fight. I see/hear her expressing her disagreement at the officer's pointless and officious instruction to put out her cigarette, and then the officer is the one who picks a fight with her.
She was being perfectly compliant - if displeased - with the process of getting a ticket. It was the officer, with his schoolmarmy 'put out that cigarette' that escalated the encounter.
I couldn't agree more.
JD at July 24, 2015 1:09 PM
Am I the only guy here that's ever had a lit cigarette flicked into his face? Cops ask people to put their cigs out all the time. Go ahead, go ask one why.
Steve Daniels at July 24, 2015 3:47 PM
Steve,
At that point every thing done would have been more acceptable.
Simple.
Bob in Texas at July 24, 2015 4:52 PM
"When llamas is crowned emperor"
As long as the coronation isn't on a Tuesday morning. I have a LOT of meetings.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 24, 2015 8:22 PM
Steve, the cop was entitled to ask her to put out her cigarette. What he wasn't entitled to do was get all butt-hurt about it when she refused and then DEMAND that she get out of the car.
JD at July 25, 2015 11:28 AM
You're still required to come to a complete stop at the stop sign (or red light).
That one's even in the manual - and usually on the test.
Conan the Grammarian at July 27, 2015 8:49 AM
Leave a comment