The Assassination of Sandra Bland and the Struggle Against State Repression

[niyad]

The Assassination of Sandra Bland and the Struggle Against State Repression



?itok=a6pvT__s
Protesters march from Waller County Jail to the Waller County Courthouse, Friday, July 17, 2015, in Hempstead as they questioned the death of Sandra Bland, who was found hanging in a jail cell by a plastic trash bag on Monday, three days after being arrested during a traffic stop near Prairie View A&M University. (Photo: Melissa Phillip/Houston Chronicle)

During the struggle in South Africa black activists who were captured by the state had a strange habit of jumping to their deaths from the windows of jails and court houses whenever the authorities would turn their backs. In the U.S. the method of suicide black prisoners appear to choose is death by hanging, that is when they are unable to pull a gun from an officer and shoot themselves in the chest while handcuffed behind their backs.

In Waller County, Texas, Sandra Bland, a young black woman from Illinois, an activist with black lives matter, who was, according to friends and family, excited about her new job in Texas is stopped for a minor traffic, beaten, jailed and found dead two days later in her cell. Her death labeled a suicide by the Waller County Sheriff Glen Smith.

Because Sandra Bland was an activist who advised others about their rights and the proper way to handle a police encounter, no one is accepting the official explanation that she took her own life. And even if any evidence emerges that after being isolated for three days and subjected to the kind of treatment that Texas racists have been known to melt out to uppity black folks and she may have taken her own life in a moment of acute depression, those state officials are still guilty of murder because she should have never been in that cell.

. . . . .



Coming right before the Black Lives Matter Movement gathering in Cleveland, Sandra’s murder dramatically drives home the ever present dangers of not just being black in a culture of normalized anti-blackness, but the vulnerabilities associated with being a black activist and especially a black woman activist. Historically the tyranny of white power has always had its most dehumanized expressions in relationship to black women. The unrestrained and unlimited power of white supremacist domination converged on the captive bodies of black women during slavery and has symbolically and literally continued during the post-enslavement period of capitalist/colonialist subordination of black people in the U.S.

. . . .


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/07/22/assassination-sandra-bland-and-struggle-against-state-repression

[malaise]

1. Are you watching Lawrence

his is fugging madness.

[niyad]

2. no, not near television.

[malaise]

5. Her sister and her lawyer are on

say they just received a text from the DA in the racist country - they want to do another autopsy.
Family say no - they had one done and the funeral will be on Saturday.

[niyad]

7. I am with you. wouldn't trust those murderous bastards for anything.

[Rex]

38. Wait...why would they want another autopsy?

Yeah...we know why. I hope they catch each and every officer involved in her murder. Trash bags are not standard issue in jail cells so this is really starting to look bad for the PD.

[malaise]

6. Her sister and the lawyer are questioning that so called form

Now these fuggers want another autopsy

[niyad]

8. I have two letters for those murdering bastards:

**

[pnwmom]

3. She should have been on suicide watch, based on the questionnaire they claim she filled out.

And a doctor should have examined her for a head injury, since she said her hearing was affected by hitting her head, and that she had epilepsy.

She shouldn't have been allowed to refuse a medical exam, if that in fact is what happened.

[niyad]

4. and her family says they have no knowledge of that kind of health problem or suicidal tendencies.

[pnwmom]

10. She was 28 so she might not have shared that with them. But that isn't how I interpreted

the lawyer's statement.

To me, he seemed to be addressing the issue of depression, not epilepsy.

But it doesn't really matter. SHE told the cop she had epilepsy, so they should have had a medical person examine her before they threw her into the cell alone for three days.

[libodem]

11. Yes.

Suicide watch with every 15 minute checks. Police should be liable for not providing adequate close observation. If they can't she needed to in a mental health unit under close obs.

Not that I think she offed herself for one single second.

Nope.

[pnwmom]

12. I agree. I don't think she did it -- but they are wrong either way.

[libodem]

9. I thought I had caught

It that she was an Activist. She was targeted.

[niyad]

13. from wiki:

Bland was from Naperville, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, and one of five sisters. Bland attended Prairie View A&M University outside Hempstead, Waller County in Texas for her undergraduate education. At Prairie View, Bland was recruited as a summer counselor for three years, played in a band, and volunteered for a senior citizens advocacy group.

Bland returned to Illinois in 2009, and in January 2015 began posting videos about many subjects, including police brutality against blacks. In one post Bland wrote, "In the news that we’ve seen as of late, you could stand there, surrender to the cops, and still be killed." Bland has been described as a civil rights activist in Chicago, and a part of the Black Lives Matter campaign. In July Bland, now 28 years old, came back to Hempstead seeking a job at Prairie View A&M University. She had reportedly secured a job at the University.

[libodem]

14. What a promising young life

Somebody knew who she was and was waiting for her. I can just feel it in my bones.

[niyad]

16. I had the same thought.

[niyad]

17. because of course, the cop was all wonderful and helpful up until that moment.

nice way to exonerate that racist, vicious bastard. does it occur to you that, no matter her behaviour, in all likelihood, he was going to continue being vicious and brutal? no matter if she failed to put out the cigarette, that was absolutely NO justification for his behaviour. have you WATCHED the video? "I'm going to light you up???" that vicious bastard did not need any excuse for his behaviour.

[CANDO]

22. I've not exonerated that cop

Where the fuck did you read me saying anything other than that cop was only justified in the initial traffic stop? Beyond that, he should've been far more professional in how he handled her shitty attitude. Violate a traffic law...and then be all butt hurt like you're above obeying one of the most basic and easiest to adhere to.

[niyad]

23. sorry, but that is EXACTLY what you are doing. nobody deserves to die because of an arrogant,

bullying, racist bastard whose ego exploded because he wasn't obeyed.

[CANDO]

28. Bull shit

I've not justified her death. Stop with your bullying tactics toward me. Just because you don't like what I have to say, gives you no right to put words in my mouth.

[niyad]

29. yes, his behaviour, and any defense or excusing or justifying of it, or blaming the dead, certainly

is bs.

[CANDO]

31. Wow that's awesome!

We agree to disagree.

[MrMickeysMom]

46. Lots of other people do not agree with you, either

[nc4bo]

18. .

[CANDO]

21. :)

[Brickbat]

19. "Did she have to put out the cigarette? No. But doing so probably would've led to the cop just

issuing her a warning on the turn signal issue."

Since he had already written the ticket and was in a position to wrap up the stop when he asked her to put out the cigarette, this is highly unlikely.

[johnp3907]

20. Yep.

Give her the ticket and walk away? Nope. He escalated the situation just to show her who's boss. I can't believe how many DUers are defending him.

[niyad]

24. sadly, I am not in the least surprised.

[Rex]

41. It is just a few and they know better but have no shame in their body.

They also out themselves when they do this, so it is a good thing IMO when they show their hand.

[TheSarcastinator]

26. shhh someone is busy defending

racist killers.

[Horse with no Name]

30. Not that it matters but the DPS here in Texas

Don't "write" tickets.
They have a computer in their cars with mini-printers. Most of the time, before they even get out of their cars for the initial contact, they have run your plates and checked the insurance database. When they come to your window, they tell you why you were stopped and ask for your license (the past few times I have been stopped, they didn't even require proof of insurance).
They return to their cars and spend a few minutes running your license and make the decision whether to ticket you or issue a warning.
They enter the info in the computer and then print it out whether it is a warning or a ticket.
There was no deciding to tear up the ticket because once he hits enter, the ticket is in the database minutes before it is ever given to the driver.
The ticket was a "done deal". All he had to do was hand it to her, have her sign it, tell her to have a nice day and then move on to harass the next person. Two minutes tops.
We all know that didn't happen. He varied widely from standard procedure.

Also, I saw someone ask why he went to the passenger side initially. DPS here does that frequently. I personally find it unnerving.

[hamsterjill]

33. The trooper also states to Ms. Bland in the video that he was going to have given her a warning.

He tells her after she is handcuffed that he was, in fact, only going to have given her a warning.

That fact should be easy to verify as it would already have been entered into the computer.

This information doesn't impact your post in any way. I'm just sharing information from having watched the full video yesterday.

[Horse with no Name]

35. I am not sure which video I have seen

I missed that, but the premise is the same. Whatever he decided to do was done and there is a record of it.
If he indeed told her it was a warning, I am trying to remember but I don't think I had to sign my warning, only a ticket. So he would have just handed it to her and been done. He spent more time exposing himself to her smoke by asking her to put out her cigarette than he would have just handing it to her and moving on.
He was just taunting her at that point.

[hamsterjill]

37. In the 52 minute video that I saw yesterday

The video begins with the trooper at the traffic stop previous to Ms. Bland's stop. He is (indeed) issuing a warning to that particular driver. If *I* remember the correct sequence of events in the video, I believe you are absolutely correct in that the first driver was not asked to sign the warning. I don't remember that driver signing and the audio on the tape is clear with the officer telling that driver she (I believe it was a female driver although you certainly do not see her face) was to receive only a warning.

But yes, the premise is the same. We are on the same page in that respect. Whatever he decided to do was done and there IS a record of it.

I feel that facts such as these - however miniscule - may ultimately have a great bearing on the outcome of this situation.

Edited to add: As to your comment (up post) about him going to the passenger side - the trooper actually addresses this, as well, in the audio portion of the tape that I viewed. He explained that he went to the passenger side because of traffic and safety concerns, etc. Again, I'm stressing - my post has no impact on your original information. Just sharing what I remember seeing/hearing.

[Horse with no Name]

42. Absolutely. The little facts make up the big picture

Rodriguez v. United States can be applied in this situation and the SCOTUS held


1. Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.

A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 , than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323 . Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407.

Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 –659. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission.

In concluding that the de minimis intrusion here could be offset by the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs, the Eighth Circuit relied on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 . The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms.

The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously should earn extra time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation is unpersuasive, for a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to complete his traffic-based inquiries is “unlawful,” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop. Pp. 5–8.

2. The determination adopted by the District Court that detention for the dog sniff was not independently supported by individualized suspicion was not reviewed by the Eighth Circuit. That question therefore remains open for consideration on remand. P. 9.

741 F. 3d 905, vacated and remanded.

[hamsterjill]

43. Thank you for this.

Interesting (and relevant!) case law here.

There are other aspects to the tape that I saw that I feel aren't being given any emphasis. Since you and I seem to be able to have a calm discussion (as opposed to some exchanges here), I will mention them. I mention them only because I think they are going to be used by either one side or the other, and I think they are going to have relevance in some respect.

First, the trooper is heard in a conversation with (I'm guessing) a superior. The conversation is recorded inside his patrol car and is "one-sided", meaning that you hear only his portion of the conversation and not the other person's.

In that conversation, the trooper indicates that Ms. Bland has asked for EMS, and EMS does ultimately arrive. Two EMT's park in front of the tow truck and then go presumably toward Ms. Bland. Their involvement and interaction with her is off camera and out of audio range, but again THERE WILL BE A RECORD OF THIS. I've read somewhere else that Ms. Bland refused medical care. I'm not sure whether that refusal is factual or not. But whether or not she did refuse medical care, there will be a record of the EMT's being there and they will be able to testify as to Ms. Bland's condition at that time. There have been some assertions that she may have sustained a concussion at the time of her arrest. Certainly something like that, or something related to epilepsy might NOT be easily ascertainable by an EMT, particularly if she did (indeed) refuse care.

But a dislocated shoulder or something like that (which is also being discussed) WOULD most likely be visible enough that an EMT would notice and make note of even without a physical examination. Again, I mention this only because this is something where there will be a record and information can be gleaned from that record.

Ms. Bland tells the trooper on the tape that she has epilepsy. In a news conference yesterday, the lawyer for the family indicated that the family was not aware of any medication that Ms. Bland was taking for either epilepsy or for depression. It will be easily ascertainable whether or not Ms. Bland had epilepsy and that will be a fact that will be relevant.

It is also interesting to me that no one (to my knowledge) has indicated that one of the two officers that responded as backup to the patrolman is (I believe) a Black female officer. The two that respond as backup are not in DPS uniforms and therefore, we can reasonably assume that they are either County officers or City officers. And one more time - I'm not making a judgment call one way or the other here. I'm waiting for more information and more facts. I'm merely discussing this with you, and mentioning things that I found interesting that may or may not prove relevant for either side of this issue.

I appreciate the opportunity to have had this discussion with you - calmly and clearly. I think we need more of that here on DU. An exchange of facts and information - without insult and name calling, etc.

Peace.

[Horse with no Name]

44. Living in Texas I can say that this stuff is not "by the book"

None of it. So much of it doesn't make sense.
A person in custody does not have the "right" to refuse treatment (especially if injured in custody) and honestly, I don't believe she would have anyway since she had already made a vocal note that her head was smashed into the ground. She was an advocate for this. She would have wanted outside documentation of this.

I saw the mugshot last night and these were my observations:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7001279

And thank you. I don't come here a lot anymore because the discourse can sometimes get a little too much. It is nice to have a good interaction.

[hamsterjill]

45. Lifelong Texan here, too.

I agree that the mug shot looks strange. I concur with the comments that it looks like she is on the floor and the picture is taken above her. But I am no expert.

The trooper was absolutely, undeniably and indefensibly wrong in the way that he handled things. He should never have let his temper get the best of him regardless of what Ms. Bland did. Now, I don't think that she should have called him the names that she did either, but in this scenario, HE was the professional and he should not have allowed himself to react to her the way that he did. I'll probably get blasted here for saying that I don't like that Ms. Bland called the trooper bad names, but my real intent for even saying that is because I hope that the next time a person of color is stopped that this incident doesn't get repeated. I don't want anyone else to die! When someone - ANYONE - is stopped by a police officer, they should be compliant, and they should say as little as necessary to answer his/her questions accurately but they should not resort to name calling and they should not give more information than is requested.

Definitely some issues with the time in jail, etc., too. Strange to me that the cops freely revealed that Ms. Bland told them she had attempted suicide once before because that sets them up for further action by the family, etc. for failure to keep her safe when they KNEW she might be suicidal. (I'm not yet suggesting that she did or did not commit suicide, merely make the observation about the police action of releasing that information).

But I guess I'm losing the trail when I try to figure out what I think happened once she got to jail. Does anyone really believe that Patrolman Encinia came back to the jail and murdered Ms. Bland himself? Was it one or more of his buddies? I mean, who do we think committed the murder? "They" did it doesn't suffice. There's got to be one or more persons charged.

At this point (and I'm still reserving judgment), I tend to think the scenario that something health related happened to Ms. Bland is more realistic. Certainly, that could have been as a result of the trauma/treatment she received either during the arrest or after, but we don't KNOW. We can only surmise and speculate.

It's equally as concerning to me that her family didn't seem to know whether or not she had depression or epilepsy. If Ms. Bland had epilepsy and she was as close to her family as they are insisting she was, I would think her family would have been aware of it. If she did not, then she lied to the trooper and that is, unfortunately, going to go against her character. If she had it and was denied medication while in jail, then the jailers are guilty. The fact that Ms. Bland couldn't get anyone to help her raise a mere $500 for bail is interesting to me as her family certainly doesn't appear indigent. Perhaps they were unwilling to help her because of some past issues? Perhaps she did not want to ask? We don't know.

See, all of this is again speculation and guessing. We don't know. I'm merely throwing out thoughts, etc. I am merely having a discussion - such an unusual idea for a DISCUSSION BOARD, right???!!!

Like you, I've started to shy away from this place. I've had some completely innocuous posts jumped on and branded as "racist" when that intent had never even entered my mind. If you don't go along with the majority opinion on DU, you can get slammed. I don't like that. I'm here to discuss. To discuss facts and observations. The name calling and profiling by ANYONE is unacceptable to me and I think it should be stopped. It's out of hand on DU and I think we are going to see some serious consequences if it is not reined in. I've seen some race baiting by both sides of the white/black movement here. It's ridiculous. We are all human beings, we are all Democrats, and we all want justice. But justice gained by manipulating opinion rather than dealing in fact is not true justice. And I want true justice.

Again, I appreciate the exchange and the civility. I'm sure we are all going to learn more as this case progresses and more facts are brought to light.

[brush]

32. Oh please!

She's to blame for her murder?

The cop escalated the situation and we all saw it on the video. If you can't deescalate a minor-as-it-can-get-not-signaling-for-a-lane-change traffic stop, the last thing you should be is a cop.

He's an unprofessional hothead.

I for one am tired of all the whitesplaining to dead, unarmed black people that "only if you had complied" . . . so stop with the cop apologist rhetoric.

[CANDO]

34. I'll let my comments stand.

Sorry you seem to be reading more than what I said.

[brush]

36. And so will I.

[Rex]

40. No people are calling you our for what you are doing and now you pretend ignorance.

Which is okay, because you fool nobody in this forum. Nice try BTW.

[Rex]

39. Blaming the victim is sad, but you did just that and are okay with it.

Keep it classy.

[samsingh]

27. kick