Waller County: 'Illegal' Lane Change leads to Death

So, rather than talk about the point the poster made (the officer has a higher standard of conduct as a result of his training and position), you write off his comment as nothing but bias (which is HILARIOUS, coming from you) and instead comment on his grammar.

<iframe width='640' height='360' src='http://cache.vevo.com/assets/html/embed.html?video=USRV81400343&autoplay=0' frameborder='0' allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You may end up being right but you failed to understand that the traffic stop was over already. Cop said it was over himself. He asked her out not for a safer traffic investigation. He asked out cause he was pissed she disrespect him.

 

No, the stop was not over. It was about to be over but she prolonged it with her strange behavior.

 

This may be true but it will never be proven in a court so it is irrelevant.

 

He said he was going to give her a warning on the traffic violation. That was clearly over.

 

Notice how you said "was going to" and not "did".....that's the difference between not over and over. Sure, the stop was about to be over, but the crazy woman acted unstable and hostile which prolonged the stop and ultimately led to her arrest.

 

It's over. Unless you think he's lying about the warning ticket, which would be another perjury charge. There is also likely paper trail - the written warning ticket itself and if process required, entry into the system.

This isn't about the women anymore. She's gone. This is about the cop being charged with perjury and if he will be found guilty or not. Some people are just so anal about focusing on the women.

 

Again, until a ticket or warning is ISSUED, it's not over. I don't know why you are failing to understand that basic concept, but it won't change.

Also, you're right, this isn't about the crazy woman that got herself arrested and then killed herself, it's about a frivolous Perjury charge with no hopes of a conviction. Since the SC has ruled that there is an inherent safety reason to ask someone to step out of their car, there's no way anyone can prove that his intentions were anything else. It's like shooting someone that breaks into your house that has a gun, sure maybe you are doing it because you know them and hate them but since you have cause for self defense, there's no chance that anyone could prove your hatred for them is why you shot them rather than the self defense reason. Even if someone thinks that he might have been lying, there's just no way to prove it, and you'd have to prove it to get a conviction.

 

So if the official told the lady this is a warning and bye without issuing an actual warning ticket, it's not over? This has happen before dude. It was over. Anyone without a bias know exactly what happen. Whatever the official pulled the lady over for (some traffic violation - it was failure to signal i believe) was over. What happen next was separate from that initial traffic event. It was a power move that pretty much every official disagree with.

I don't know what was presented to the Grand Jury so I'm not making any assumptions. You can keep assuming.

 

Sure, if he told her that this is a warning and bye, it would be over at that point, but that didn't happen. The stop didn't end and there's really no way you can spin what happened to change that obvious fact. Sure the cop had the intention of ending the stop, but he never got a chance to do so because crazy woman.

 

LOL, you just can't stay away from the woman huh? So anal.

That point isn't that important anyway. The argument in court is going to be about did he lie. Whatever that was presented to the Grand Jury was enough to secure a case. You may assume things, but I'm doubtful the Grand Jury come to a decision based on nothing or very weak information provided to them.

The cop will have to argue why he thought it was not safe to let her stay in the car. He never asked her out for what 5 mins. So it's obvious that he felt safe with her in the car while he completed his investigation for the traffic violation he stopped her for. Clearly, he's using the safe investigation excuse now after he went way over norm. Since he was also previously disciplined in 2014 for unprofessional conduct (and if that's allowed in court), I wouldn't be too surprise the Jury might surprise you.

 

I'm merely correcting your inaccurate statements that you can't seem to stop making.

As to the Grand Jury, I'm pretty sure the prosecutor didn't mention the fact that the SC ruled that police officers have an inherent justification to ask anyone to step out of their vehicle for safety purposes during a stop. Omit that, and it looks like you have a case. Of course, when you factor that in, you absolutely don't have a case, but I have the feeling that this indictment was more to make the public happy than anything else.

 

Nay, you merely being anal and keep bringing up the women and overly protective of this particular bad cop. Moving on.

 

Please do, if you can't get basic facts about the case correct, even when I poitn them out to you, then it's best you do move on.

 

LOL, there isn't any basic fact. It's your opinions and assumptions. Don't confuse that with fact.

I tell you what I agree with so you are happy. There is a very good reason why it's only a perjury charge and that's because the prosecutor probably felt that is the only thing they could get a trial on.

 

No, there really IS fact, it's a fact that the stop wasn't over when he asked the woman to step out of the vehicle. That's fact.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the basis of opinion when you say that the stop was over, I'm pointing out the fact that it wasn't. Just because the stop was about to be over doesn't make it over. If you want clarification on this, try and drive off before an officer issues you notice of a ticket or warning. You'll get a quick education on the subject.

 

[rquoter]Sandra Bland's family says civil suit settled for $1.9M

Attorneys for the Sandra Bland family say a settlement has been reached in their civil suit.

Cannon Lambert, attorney for Bland's family, told Eyewitness News the wrongful death lawsuit was settled for $1.9 million.

The settlement with the Texas Department of Public Safety was capped by state statutes. The agency will pay $100,000.

The Waller County jail, meanwhile, will pay the bulk at $1.8 million.

As a condition of the settlement, Bland's mother, Geneva Reed-Veal, says the Waller County jail must provide emergency nurses for all shifts; use automated electronic sensors to ensure accurate and timely cell checks; and activity seek the passage of additional state funds for for jail intaking, inmate screening, training and additional jail support.

Any legislation passed which benefits Waller County must be named in Sandra Bland's honor, Reed-Veal says.[/rquoter]

 

Remind me again how she killed herself? It was a plastic bag or something, right? Is that why they were able to get 1.9 mil for a suicide, because they shouldn't have had things like that in cells?

Or was it more to do with her arrest?

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. She killed herself. How is Waller County responsible?

 

In your statement below, BTX:

I would hope that people watch the video of Sandra Bland and learn not to act like a completely disrespectful ass to police. Nothing good can come of that.

If you use the plural "people," you then have to pluralize its modifier.

Your sentence should read:

I would hope that people watch the video of Sandra Bland and learn not to act like completely disrespectful asses to police. Nothing good can come of that.

Perhaps you should attend to the grammar beam in your own eye before you criticize the grammar speck in your neighbor's eye (paraphrased, with apologies to Luke and/or God).

 

I think it was more of a move to stop people from rioting like is common when you get BLM nonsense started. They pay off the family and make this situation a net win for them and in turn they don't encourage violence as so many others have.