Anyone remember Sandra Bland?

[Beau Vine 54,466]

5 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

I would be willing to bet this cop will work as a cop again regardless of what he promised.

Maybe he had to double pinky promise?  DIdja think of that, smartguy?

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

walk me through the legal process here please. 

Video is taken on her phone. Phone and it’s contents are her property. 

Phone is presumably confiscated?  Never returned to the family?  Returned without this video on it?

are we saying that the cops and lawyers had this video but the family did not?

if so, did the cops or lawyers have a duty to share this video before the trial?

if the lawyer had a duty to share this video but did not, why doesn’t that turn a case of cop lying into a case of conspiracy where at least 2 members of the city conspired to conceal the wrongdoing of the cop?

In a civil suit, presuming it was requested (which it probably was), everyone, from lawyers to party representatives to individual employees had an obligation to turn it over.

The actual civil lawyers for DPS and Waller County probably did not know of its existence. Those would likely have been from the AG's office and maybe some private lawyers that had no prior or intimate knowledge of the case.  It is entirely possible that non-lawyer or DA office or DPS employees knew of it and that it was responsive to a request, and they could likely be charged with some crime.

Generally speaking, "in-house" lawyers and employees always know what evidence and things they have far better than civil attorneys and a failure to disclose usually falls on those people rather than the civil lawyers.  Usually, not always.

Edited May 7, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hank Scorpio 17,731]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In a civil suit, presuming it was requested (which it probably was), everyone, from lawyers to party representatives to individual employees had an obligation to turn it over.

The actual civil lawyers for DPS and Waller County probably did not know of its existence. Those would likely have been from the AG's office and maybe some private lawyers that had no prior or intimate knowledge of the case.  It is entirely possible that non-lawyer or DA office or DPS employees knew of it and that it was responsive to a request, and they could likely be charged with some crime.

This is not necessarily true in Waller County. There is very little, if no, distinction between county attorneys and district attorneys in Waller county. It isn't big enough. Call and ask for the county attorney for a civil matter and you will end up in the DAs office. 

Also, they are some of the stupidest, laziest, and stubborn lawyers I have ever dealt with. Fuck that entire county and everyone in it. 

[Bash Riprock 1,695]

had no idea this guy was aggy

 

[RPM 26,360]

So the piece of shit was in the aggy cadet corps? It all makes sense. He looks like he's 5'5" - 5'6". Got that littleman syndrome, too.

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

2 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

This is not necessarily true in Waller County. There is very little, if no, distinction between county attorneys and district attorneys in Waller county. It isn't big enough. Call and ask for the county attorney for a civil matter and you will end up in the DAs office. 

Also, they are some of the stupidest, laziest, and stubborn lawyers I have ever dealt with. Fuck that entire county and everyone in it. 

Yeah, I would expect those types to be the culpable ones, lawyers or not.  And sometimes this shit happens because the government lawyers are such dipshits they don't understand their obligations or don't feel any compulsion about violating them.

And to clarify for the peanut gallery, there is usually a county attorney (elected) that has criminal and civil responsibility for matters involving the county.  There is also the district attorney that is actually a state employee and has criminal (obviously) and civil responsibility for things involving the district.

When I said "civil lawyers" above, I was referring to those lawyers representing the county and DPS in the Waller family civil suit.  Which might include one or two from the County Attorney or District Attorney's civil division.

Edited May 8, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[SHOOTER12 8,833]

10 hours ago, Captainant said:

This cop, who had been fired previously for racism and lying on police reports, arrested and detained an innocent woman under color of law and treated her like an animal. If you can't see the wrongdoing in that, then you're fucking blind.

Didn't keep up with this closely in the beginning but, that asshole was fired PREVIOUSLY for that crap?  I know there's a lot of crooked cops out there but you'd think of all agencies the damned DPS of all people would have a more stringent vetting process...WTH?

[SHOOTER12 8,833]

8 hours ago, 4th and 5 said:

The trooper is an asshole. And the worst kind of liar.

She did well to make the situation worse. She was getting a warning, instead she got dead.

As far as the law applicable to the situation:

The trooper is well within U.S. Supreme Court precedent to order her out of the vehicle (see below) and she is owed no explanation as to why. Is is a courtesy? Perhaps. Good police work to get compliance? Sure. Make people not hate cops? Definitely. Time to hold a trial on the side of the road? Definitely not.

Also, the cop is well within U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001)) and Texas statutes to arrest her for Failing To Signal Intent to Change Lane (exceptions being Open Container and Speeding by statute). 

From a legal aspect, her arrest was lawful for the traffic violation. Also possibly for Interference with Public Duties. I can't say on Resisting Search, Arrest or Transportation because it is not in the video, but the statute does require actual physical force directed at the police officer, not just being difficult, unruly, etc.

=================

“[M]ost traffic stops,” this Court has observed, “resemble, in duration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry.” Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439, n. 29 (1984) . Furthermore, the Court has recognized that traffic stops are “especially fraught with danger to police officers.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1047 (1983) . “ ‘The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants [of a stopped vehicle] is minimized,’ ” we have stressed, “ ‘if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.’ ” Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408, 414 (1997) (quoting Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 702–703 (1981) ); see Brendlin, 551 U. S., at 258. Three decisions cumulatively portray Terry’s application in a traffic-stop setting: Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977) (per curiam); Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U. S. 408 (1997) ; and Brendlin v. California, 551 U. S. 249 (2007) .

    In Mimms, the Court held that “once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment ’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.” 434 U. S., at 111, n. 6. The government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety, the Court said, outweighs the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle. Id., at 110–111. Citing Terry as controlling, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver “might be armed and presently dangerous.” 434 U. S., at 112.

    Wilson held that the Mimms rule applied to passengers as well as to drivers. Specifically, the Court instructed that “an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.” 519 U. S., at 415. “[T]he same weighty interest in officer safety,” the Court observed, “is present regardless of whether the occupant of the stopped car is a driver or passenger.” Id., at 413.

    It is true, the Court acknowledged, that in a lawful traffic stop, “[t]here is probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a minor vehicular offense,” but “there is no such reason to stop or detain the passengers.” Ibid. On the other hand, the Court emphasized, the risk of a violent encounter in a traffic-stop setting “stems not from the ordinary reaction of a motorist stopped for a speeding violation, but from the fact that evidence of a more serious crime might be uncovered during the stop.” Id., at 414. “[T]he motivation of a passenger to employ violence to prevent apprehension of such a crime,” the Court stated, “is every bit as great as that of the driver.” Ibid. Moreover, the Court noted, “as a practical matter, the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle,” id., at 413–414, so “the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal,” id., at 415.

Constant?  That you?

[SHOOTER12 8,833]

6 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

had no idea this guy was aggy

 

There's that aggy (Nazi) network for you.  He should have stuck to fisting cows.

[SHOOTER12 8,833]

Damned insomnia, yeah I know, there's a thread for that, but here I am.  FML

[hookemATL 11,916]

5 hours ago, SHOOTER12 said:

Didn't keep up with this closely in the beginning but, that asshole was fired PREVIOUSLY for that crap?  I know there's a lot of crooked cops out there but you'd think of all agencies the damned DPS of all people would have a more stringent vetting process...WTH?

DPS is filled with fat lazy corrupt pieces of shit just like any other PD. The beige cowboys are held to no higher standard than any other LEO. 

[SHOOTER12 8,833]

27 minutes ago, hookemATL said:

DPS is filled with fat lazy corrupt pieces of shit just like any other PD. The beige cowboys are held to no higher standard than any other LEO. 

They used to be.  When I was a kid, (eons ago granted). they were the creme de la creme.

Damned shame how far the bar has fallen.

[dirtonia 269]

Were they though? Doubt it.

[gyroprotagonist 2,595]

i am definitely going to promise not to ever be a cop next time i get indited and see if I get out of jail time.

[DaysOff 7,976]

had no idea this guy was aggy
 

What a fine institution. My last two traffic stops I noticed that ridiculous ring as the citations were being written. Couldn't have been for my Texas Ex sticker huh aggy.

[Bash Riprock 1,695]

 

 

1

10 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

What a fine institution. My last two traffic stops I noticed that ridiculous ring as the citations were being written. Couldn't have been for my Texas Ex sticker huh aggy.

I thought they produced prestigious Military Generals in the Corps of Cadets?

[Dahobbs 17,692]

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Problem with Civil case is tax payers not dick head foot that bill.

As to your point I'm not sure it would increase the fiduciary finding substantially (I'm sure there is a Tort lawyer floating around here), but certainly helps the case.

Tax payers pay like any other employer would be responsible for the actions of its employee. If you want the employee cop to also pay, tell your state rep to get the laws changed. But it would be absolute bullshit if the county was given freedom from liability because "tax payers" and it would completely remove the incentive for county to police its employees.  

And, yes, me.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Dahobbs

[TwiceHorn 31,554]

Reasonably sure the Texas Municipal League covers most of these events, not taxpayers, directly.  https://www.tmlirp.org/

 

And, no, there's no respondeat superior in 1983 cases like regular torts.  Government employers may choose to indemnify employees, but it's not automatic as in ordinary negligence cases.  Most of these wrongful death/unreasonable force things, the judgment is against the officer only.  TML provides insurance, I believe purchased by the entity, that pays these judgments (I think, they keep it on the QT purposely). 

This, however, wasn't an unreasonable force claim, it was a poorly run jail claim, at heart.  So, strictly speaking, the officer's actions had little to do with liability in this case, other than just general bad optics.  Still might have had something to do with the size of the settlement.

A city or county employer may be held liable along with the offending officer, if it is proved that the civil rights violation resulted from the practice and policy of the entity. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17,692]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Reasonably sure the Texas Municipal League covers most of these events, not taxpayers, directly.  https://www.tmlirp.org/

 

And, no, there's no respondeat superior in 1983 cases like regular torts.  Government employers may choose to indemnify employees, but it's not automatic as in ordinary negligence cases.

Good catch. 

[irishtexan 11,522]

Those cops totally killed that woman.

[Catdaddyhorn 3,447]