General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnother outrage in Sandra Bland injustice: She couldn’t find $500 bail
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/another-outrage-in-sandra-bland-injustice-she-couldnt-find-500-bail.html/Bond and bail are among those murky jailhouse issues that many of us have the good fortune to not really have ever had need to understand. In the case of Sandra Bland, whom authorities say killed herself after spending three days in a southeast Texas jail after an incident that began with a simple failure to change lanes July 10, heres how the bond/bail system worked:
The court set a $5,000 bond, money that could Bland have provided it would have been returned to her when she showed up for official proceedings. Her second option was to pay a bail bondsman $500 (or 10 percent) to post the $5,000 for her. The $500 to the bail bondsman is not refundable.
Mother Jones explains the difficulties posed by the system and what some see as the inherent unfairness of it all. Not surprisingly, like so much of so-called justice in America, much of ones fate rides on how wealthy (or not) one is.
...more...
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)have let her down - for $500! But that hardly merits a condemnation of the system of bail in this country. Or would you prefer to have the system in many third world countries where detainees are not allowed bail and held for long periods, often years until they finally get their court 'dates'?
G_j
(40,372 posts)you must be kidding!
Igel
(35,383 posts)It wasn't the ticket, it was the interaction with the policeman.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)And I think that's really what it was.
She was rude and that got under the cop's skin. I can understand rudeness getting under your skin and pissing you off, but it's not an excuse for him to pull out his taser and lose it.
But I also wonder how much the fact that none of her family and friends seemed able or willing to pool their money to bail her out contributed to her suicide. It seems possible, given she had been trouble with the law numerous times before and owed thousands in fines, that maybe they were giving her some "tough love" and saying "no more." Did any of them talk to her or attempt to see her? Or did she just feel totally abandoned.
We don't know and will never know.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)That's why it was $5,000.
G_j
(40,372 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)had "swung her elbows" in the direction of the arresting officer... Who would swing their elbows at another person? If you are ticked off at someone, you swing your fists. This indicates to me that she was in cuffs at the time that she "assaulted" the officer! So she was arrested first, and they made up the charges later on.
mythology
(9,527 posts)hitting him in the process. It could also be that she tried to use an elbow to push past him. It's so intentionally vague as to be useless as a descriptor.
Which should be rather moot as he provoked the incident and thus the escalation. Unfortunately the law gives a wide discretion to cops in this realm.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)It does not require physical contact - in fact, when there is physical contact the charge then becomes 'assault and battery'. She was in cuffs for resisting arrest. Then she swung her elbows at the officer = charge #2, assault.
G_j
(40,372 posts)is noted...
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)regarding this case your statements have been wrong. Not sure how that constitutes a 'defense' of anything.
Response to G_j (Reply #27)
840high This message was self-deleted by its author.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)is now considered a 'right wing perspective'.
G_j
(40,372 posts)nah...
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)are against you, argue the law. And when the law is against you, argue the facts. And when both the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.
You're pounding the table.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)The facts here are just fine thankyouverymuch. It is YOU who find them unfortunate, which is why you are "arguing the law", as you put it . Yes, it IS true that virtually any movement a suspect makes which the officer perceives as threatening can be argued to be "assault", but that is part of the problem, as well as the fact that many officers will get very creative in interpreting what constitutes an "assault". Time and again people are charged with this "crime" simply because the officer in question felt like throwing his weight around that day.
And yes, you are selecting your arguments most carefully in an attempt to defend the police. It's not the first time.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)that what you are saying is correct - the place to sort that out is in court, not getting into an altercation with the officer. And no, I'm not defending the police. But I am defending our legal system. We don't get to pick and choose which laws we agree with and which we therefore choose to obey. I'm perfectly willing to listen to any FACTS which do not support what I've written. For example, please give me a cite or other reference to your allegation that "Time and again people are charged with this "crime" simply because the officer in question felt like throwing his weight around that day." And no, anecdotal stories don't count as facts.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Individual.
I remember when someone like this person was once on this site, and he almost went so far as to state that JFk died of a brain aneurism.
Where these people come from, I do not know.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)local Police Department says that such and so is the truth and the facts behind a matter, the public sees the statement the same way that Gallileo once saw the Church's arguments that the sun revolves around the earth.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)great weight and credibility to police officers' testimony.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Most people cannot afford to serve on a jury. And since "economic hardship" does give the average individual a dispensation from serving on a jury, the job then falls to people who are older and whoa re retired or semi-retired.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)excuse to make. Juries tend to have many more working people than retired or semi-retired.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)The way they can interpret actions against them, you could just stand there with a smirk on your face and they could arrest you for something.
But for some reason it seems far more likely this kind of arrest will occur if your skin isnt white, not sure why that is, but it is.
Could have something to do with my observation that many white people, even most I would say, are afraid of black people.
840high
(17,196 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)So the answer is assault.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)in his town.
She dared to be from out of town, and then she dared to question his authority, for which she gave her life.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Got it.
Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)defuse the situation.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)red car on that dashcam video was told it was just a warning at least twice and was never ordered out of the car.
Had he told Bland upfront when she was honest about being irritated that this was just going to be warning, that may have soothed her emotions, instead he spitefully ordered Bland to put out her cigarette, knowing she was already upset.
All she did was ask why? That's when he ordered Bland out of the car and all that for an illegal lane change.
The officer clearly escalated the situation.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)This isnt that hard to understand.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)'This isn't that hard to understand' doesn't constitute evidence in any court with which I am familiar.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)please do yourself a favor and don't try and act as your own attorney.
brush
(53,968 posts)You act as though "driving while black" or "driving while brown" is just a figment of someone's imagination and not something that hundreds of thousands of POC have been pulled over for and in many cases killed.
Sandra Bland was one and Samuel DuBose was the latest in Cincinnati.
Maybe the ex-Cincinnati killer cop will hire you.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)But thanks for the thought.
Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)not before that nor before ordering her out of the car.
Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)he lost control of his emotions at that point.
Bland's irritability may have been due to the Keppra that she had been taking, irritability is one of the side effects, but that's all it was, irritability, nothing in the law requires a driver to be full of bliss, if they get pulled
He wanted to hear that she was happy, but when he heard otherwise, he spitefully ordered Bland to put her cigarette out, knowing that she was already upset, when she questioned why she had to do such a thing, he ordered her out of her car for no good reason.
The trained professional officer clearly escalated the turn of events, he was intent on arresting her at that point before any elbow may have scraped him.
He took her out of the view of the police car dash cam, why have it in first place if it can't witness what takes place?
The only logical motivation for doing such a thing is for nefarious purposes.
The arrest was totally bogus and ultimately between that, the deliberate or non-deliberate incompetence of the jail personnel and $500 cost this young woman her life.
questionseverything
(9,666 posts)are you saying the cop was arresting her for not putting out her cig?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)to get out of the car and resisting arrest.
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)arresting her when she was still in the car. But he wouldn't tell her what he was arresting her for -- because he didn't have any grounds.(Smoking a cigarette in your own car isn't grounds for arrest.)
Later, when she was out of the car and out of camera view, he claims she kicked him. And that's what supposedly justified the assault charge. But he had already arrested her and dragged her out of the car FOR NO REASON.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)He told her she was under arrest only after she repeatedly refused his order to exit the car. That type of order to a detainee in a traffic stop is absolutely legal, according to the Supreme Court. The officer is not required to tell the detainee the reason for the arrest at the moment the detainee demands it, particularly while the arrest is still ongoing. And, as she was being taken into custody the officer said she kicked him, providing the basis for the assault charge.-
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)Which hadn't been a lawful order.
There is no evidence that he told her to leave the car for any LAWFUL reason -- like being afraid for his safety.
I am aware of the ruling you're relying on. But the Supreme Court has more recently ruled that it is not lawful for a police officer to prolong an encounter for longer than necessary to accomplish the ticketing. And so, by ordering her out of the car he was unnecessarily prolonging the encounter. All he had to do was ask her to sign the ticket. He did not need to order her out of the car to accomplish this. By doing so he prolonged the encounter in an unlawful way.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #148)
COLGATE4 This message was self-deleted by its author.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)to try to get away from his touch. And before anyone says he had a right to touch her she was going where he told her to go when she said it.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Drove a whole lot of places late at night, back in the Seventies, I became aware of so many violations of police officers becoming sexual deviants with women they stopped in traffic.
So I would say that male cops should not be touching women who are stopped for traffic violations EVER!
If there is a problem, they should call to have a woman cop assist.
(Chicago was notorious for cops who got women out of cars late at night and then molested them. I don't know if the practice was stopped, but it was still on going when DU first came about in the early 2000's.)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Quayblue
(1,045 posts)And I was smiling and tap-dancing the whole time, scared shitless.
it burns me up that people think being nice and polite is good enough... It never will be when there is an agenda in place before a person is pulled over.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)You need to get your facts straight.
G_j
(40,372 posts)as least some of us do.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)charges would ever apply for such a little thing as failing to use a turn signal. It would have been handled totally different by the cop.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)giving her a warning - not a ticket - when the whole thing went south.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)following her in the first place? Or are we giving that a pass because "not technically illegal" or something?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)no particular significance to the fact that he followed her. That's what traffic patrol cops do, day in and day out. Certainly there's nothing illegal (technically or otherwise) about them doing it. It may have been because he saw her exit the parking lot without stopping (as required). It may have been because she had out of state tags. At this point nobody knows for sure.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)black person, period.
That is a big deal to him.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You then believe that a $5000 bail is an appropriate measure to ensure a defendant's court appearance accused of a minor traffic violation?
"Or would you prefer to have the system in many third world countries where..."
I imagine it must be rather difficult to posses a mind which perceives only two possibilities to any given situation.
moonandsixpence.
(59 posts)Response to moonandsixpence. (Reply #9)
tkmorris This message was self-deleted by its author.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)moonandsixpence.
(59 posts)Still doesn't answer the question why her family didn't bail her out.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Apparently bail was going to be posted for her later that day.
Note that she was in a different location than her family as she had traveled to find a new job.
moonandsixpence.
(59 posts)Have you seen this video with her?
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)But for a $500 to a "bail bondsman," you can get the bondsman to pay your $5,000.
HOWEVER, you never get that $500 back. If you pay the $5,000 in cash, you'll get it all back when you turn up for trial. But if you have to pay the $500 to a bondsman, that's their non-refundable fee.
A lot of people can't afford to throw $500 away.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #138)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Catherine Vincent
(34,491 posts)So you think this was a hoax?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)In my experience $5000 bail is on the low end for these two charges. Having to come up with $500 for a bail bondsman is not particularly harsh or onerous.
G_j
(40,372 posts)would you care to address that? Or our we supposed to accept such blatant abuse and corruption in LE?
She should never have been arrested.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)about opinions...
G_j
(40,372 posts)our conversation is over.. have a nice day
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The judge setting bond looks at the charge, not the dashcam.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Are you that delusional? You sound like an elitist plus a few more adjectives I won't list.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)To say otherwise is naive.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)using their money for basic necessities like food, heat or gas to get to work.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why was she abused by a nasty, bully of a cop when she was pulled over in the first place?
Ever been pulled for something minor like that?
I have, and no the cop wasn't friendly when I asked why, 'do I have to bring you DOWNTOWN or are you going to show me your PAPERS'? But he didn't pull me from the car, bad as he was and throw me on the ground, or order me to stop doing something I had a right to do in my own car, as was the case with Sandra.
I got a ticket. Wasn't hauled off to jail, no thousands of dollars worth of bail. A TICKET.
That is what should have happened in Sandra's case.
But it didn't, she is DEAD and there is simply no justification for that, none. Nor for the abuse of the victim by that cop for a stop that should have gone no further than a ticket.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)issuing her a WARNING, not even a ticket. Unfortunately because she chose not to comply with his instructions the whole thing went south and she was charged with assault and resisting arrest.
Demit
(11,238 posts)And she didn't choose 'not to comply'. She asked why did she have to, as she was in her own car. The cop ignored her question and immediately told her to get out of the car.
Not to mention that she was in the process of going to sign the ticket, but he wanted her to put out her cigarette first. He was prolonging the stop.
A cop's power is not absolute. You have to comply with lawful orders, but the orders have to be lawful in the first place. This cop was under the impression his power was absolute, and so apparently are you.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)on the point, you will find that, during a traffic detention the officer has exceptionally wide power to order you to do things - get out of the car, turn off the car, take out the keys, put out the cigarette, stand here, sit there, etc. All of this has been declared legal by the Supreme Court. And yes, he did tell instruct her to put out the cigarette, albeit in a much more polite manner than is usually done. What he used was merely a variant of the language virtually all cops use now when ordering detainees - "Turn off the keys, OK?" "Get out of the car, OK?" "Put out the cigarette, OK?" Doesn't mean that it's a request. It's a lawful order.
Demit
(11,238 posts)I don't think they specifically mentioned the order to put out a cigarette, though.
I don't consider being asked to do something a "variant" of being ordered to do something. They are two different things. The fact that "virtually all" cops phrase things that way indicates to me that they consider their power absolute, just as I said.
And your examples are orders. "Turn off," "Get out," "Put out" are all imperative sentences, and as such they are clearly commands. No one can mistake them for requests. Saying "I'd like you to put out that cigarette" or "I'm going to ask you to put out that cigarette"--those are not commands. That's not a cop being polite, that's a cop being ambiguous.
The cop could say "I'd like you to take your blouse off," and that might be what he'd like you to do, but his being a cop doesn't make it a lawful command, and it doesn't mean you have to comply.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)because there has never been litigation which discussed it. I assume there's no litigation because it got thrown out of court if it was ever challenged.
As long as the measure can be reasonably be construed to be being done for the purpose of officer safety, courts will have zero problem enforcing it. And yes, a cigarette can pose a risk to officer safety - the officer needs to be able to keep his/her eyes on the detainee at all times. Movement of the hands fooling with a cigarette can easily be a distraction which could be taken advantage of by a detainee. So, no cigarettes while you're being detained.
oasis
(49,454 posts)There's no need to ask her about her frame of mind. If he's truly worried about the cigarette,then he should let her sign and haul his ass out of there.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)were. That will be up to an Inquiry panel to decipher.
oasis
(49,454 posts)in that racist cop's head. He's toast, and rightly so.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)his side of the story heard, or should we just lynch him now?>
oasis
(49,454 posts)of Col. Jessup, "A Few Good Men", that's for damn sure.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)actually blew up under cross examination and showed himself to be a party to the whole lie.
oasis
(49,454 posts)will never fess up.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)oasis
(49,454 posts)on that wall". At least the Jessup character stood for something that stemmed from a lifetime of service to his country. "You're goddam right I ordered the code red." Jessup said it with bravado.
I don't see a rogue cop trying to sell anyone HE did the right thing, when it's plain for all to see, he didn't. What's most important ,the cop knows he fucked up big time.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)of one of his enlisted Marines and that in your mind stands for 'something that stemmed from a lifetime of service to his country'? Interesting point of view.
oasis
(49,454 posts)indirect cause of a person's death. He did not have "the big picture" in mind as he escalated his encounter with Bland. He did it to soothe his ego.
Jessup believed his actions were in the best interests of the Marine Corps.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)oasis
(49,454 posts)for you. The integrity of our entire justice system is undermined when outlaws with badges,guns and tasers are allowed to go unchecked within our communities.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)would have no bearing on much of anything. Are you serious that, while you are in detention by an officer and (s)he says to you "I'd like you to put out that cigarette" that this is somehow optional on your part because he's merely making a polite request? Really???
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)You don't get to intimidate others into thinking otherwise.
Sandra Bland rightfully questioned his request.
The type of police action Encinia pulled is WHY the public needs and is so rightfully demanding dash cams and officer cams nationwide.
You are the one desperately trying to concoct a hair.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)I have had a streak of "Fairness" running through me since I was a little tike. That streak you're advocating...well, you can own it.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)how it works out when you try it out with a cop in real life.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Hopefully you'll have something worthy to contribute on another issue on DU, so it's just "bye for now".
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)now wants to play fast and loose with.
You don't get to pick and choose 'em: "You mind putting out your cigarette, please...would you mind?"
That is not an order. That is not a variant of an order. And had he actually tried to word it as an order, the legal community has already weighed in on that: it would have been an unlawful order. The correct sequence to make it a lawful order had to be first ordering her out of the car, then ordering her to put out her cigarette for purposes of his safety.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Officer has right to order driver out of car. No constitutional violation.
Show me evidence that the 'legal community has weighed in' that his ordering her to put out her cigarette was an unlawful order. There is absolutely no law or case law that even suggests much less states that there is any sequence necessary in ordering a detainee during a traffic stop to make that order "legal" so your second contention is just made up malarkey.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)It was not an order.
You don't get to play with a made up scenario. Deal with Reality.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)rather than how they really are? Classic cognitive dissonance.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)after this reply. But I refuse to allow you to deliberately spread misinformation so, once again...
You have nothing and cannot refute the fact that: "You mind putting out your cigarette, please? Would you mind?" was a request and not an order.
Now, who wishes what about facts?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)It was a request. You have nothing but useless blather now. I'm done with you.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)And anyone deflecting from the ultimate fact Sandra Bland, deceased, was illegally arrested and imprisoned and died in the complete control of her criminal captors, is willfully being blind.
Sandra Bland was murdered. Murdered by kidnappers in uniforms in the most racist County in Texas.
Kudos to you for cutting through the crap to get at the core truth.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)illegal orders from the police who seem to forget, who they work for?
Citizens have every right to question 'orders' from those they pay to protect them.
This notion seems to have developed over the years, that cops have RIGHTS to issue 'orders' that have zero to do with their job descriptions.
Such as the one who stopped ME. I had every right to ask WHY I was stopped, but this authoritarian individual didn't recognize that right.
Clearly something needs to be done about the way this country is policed. It is a disgrace and a shame that we are the ONLY country in the developed, and even much of the undeveloped world where being stopped by a cop is more frightening and DANGEROUS to citizens, than the offchance of being mugged by a criminal.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Officers conducting a traffic stop have very wide discretion in ordering detainees to do any number of things - "put your hands on the wheel", "turn off the car", "get out of the car", stand over here"; "sit there"; "don't talk"; "put down the phone"; "put out the cigarette". There is nothing remotely illegal about any of those orders. And no, you don't have any legal right to ask why you were stopped.
Logical
(22,457 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)she did not.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)responsibility in Sandra's death.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)So far, you have not suggested that law enforcement might have ANY responsibility for her death. But now her sister may. Because she didn't pay the bail promptly.
Are you being distastefully satirical?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)her new job.The job she moved half way across the country for and was her dream job.They most likely wouldn't hire her if she called from jail. I'm sure that contributed greatly to her state of mind.I hope her family sues the shit out of that police department.
moonandsixpence.
(59 posts)So it would have been $500. Her family is not destitute and ended up going down to TX to "investigate" the situation and bring back her body. So they spent way more than that. Her mother is apparently a pastor in Chicago.
The reason given was that she called a friend in the area first. But the recording of the voicemail just has Sandra telling her friend about the situation and mentioning the bail; NOT asking for the money. And then she says to the friend: "Call me back." Where?! In the jail cell?!
Something is not adding up here...
G_j
(40,372 posts)and yes, the bail was set at $5000. Sure through a bondsman she could pay $500, so? The bondsman would pay the $5000.
moonandsixpence.
(59 posts)I have never been arrested or gone to jail. I am strictly going by the interviews with the family and their lawyer. And it was $500 they had to come up with. The lawyer claimed on a radio show that Sandra first called a local friend and that the family found out on Saturday and were "working on" getting the bail. That doesn't gibe with me. In this day and age with electronic sending of money, it would seem very easy to wire her the money ASAP.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Bail bondsmen are on call 24/7 and where I worked if a person was posting bond within the next few hours we wouldn't even fully book them into the jail- keep them in holding and let them make calls on the pay phones. There was even a list of bondsmen that served that area posted for them.
The policy was if it looked like they could raise bond in 6 hours or less they just stayed in the intake/holding. It was preferable to all if they bonded out as keeping them in a cell cost money.
moonandsixpence.
(59 posts)if PayPal can instantly send money, don't give me some story about Western Union in 2015.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)It's fast- you go to one near you, transfer the money, phone the bond agent with the control # and it's done.
Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #122)
Name removed Message auto-removed
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)brush
(53,968 posts)Shame on the many here snarkily ridiculing her family for not having a spare $500 laying around. That's not
that unusual with so many living paycheck to paycheck. Everyone is not fortunate enough to be able to come up
with that amount immediately.
Her family was working to get the money up (probably pooling money). She talked to her sister on Saturday about
it. No one expected her to be dead the next day and their efforts would be too late. They were 1000 miles away
btw. And for those who think it's as simple as wiring the money, a bondsman had to be found, at long distance,
who would agree to put up the 10% of the $5000 bail, otherwise they would have to wire or deliver the whole
$5000 themselves even you snarky ones would be hard pressed to come up with $5000 cash immediately.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)its the wealthiest town in one of the wealthiest counties in the country. There's no section 8 housing in Naperville and there's no slum rentals for low income folks to live in.
I still don't understand why her family didn't bail her out on day 1 especially with her history of depression and epilepsy. It was $500...
moonandsixpence.
(59 posts)G_j
(40,372 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 12:55 AM - Edit history (3)
what if they were dirt poor and couldn't possibly come up with the money? What is the difference? You are trying to find fault with the family, when she should NEVER have been arrested in the first place. Her family income is irrelevant. They may have handled this miserably, and seriously let her down. Still, they are not responsible for her death.
Democat
(11,617 posts)It is important in any case to try to find out the facts.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)self-righteous outrage, who needs no stinkin' facts?
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)Where do you get that information from?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'm sorry I wasn't exactly precise when I said Naperville has no Section 8 housing. I should have said they have almost no section 8 apartments since yeah, they have about 16 total possible apartments and only 9 available at the moment.
In a city with 144,000 residents...
http://www.gosection8.com/Section-8-housing-in-NAPERVILLE-IL/Main/faq.aspx
So you're right about that. I stand corrected.
And up yes Dupage County as a whole has a lot Section 8 apartments. The areas in Wheaton with the refugee populations, West Chicago, Aurora etc. I never said Dupage as a whole didn't have its fair share. I was specifically talking about Naperville and was referencing one marker to illustrate my point that it's a very wealthy town.
Facility Inspector
(615 posts)You can rent single family homes and duplexes with Section 8 vouchers too.
Still, there's a big difference between NONE WHATSOEVER and ALMOST NO (which can mean SOME or MORE).
Thanks for clarifying your proposition.
840high
(17,196 posts)Horse with no Name
(33,958 posts)Finding donors willing to put up bail for these misdemeanor infractions for the AA community and a hotline for these people to call.
I know that this is an issue of poverty and there are people of all color who need assistance, but AA's seem to be dying disproportionately while in the "care" of their local law establishments. It is imperative that their stay as guests of these local agencies be as limited as possible for their safety.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)why many of us were against the death penalty in the 60s - unequal representation.
The well to do person has at least the money for the bail bondsman while the poor set in jail. The well to do person can hire a good lawyer while the poor get someone appointed who may or may not know what they are doing or they get a legal aides lawyer with the same problem. Either way the poor person gets screwed.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A bondsman will not just take 10% from a person from out of town; you need somebody with a local address to come make the bond for you.
Source: I've worked for a bondsman.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And from anywhere inside the U.S.
One for a while would even take wire transfers from Mexico when he first started in the business- needless to say that didn't last past the first few court dates when he realized that around 70% of his bonded people skipped off to Mexico and his finances really took a beating.
oasis
(49,454 posts)Bottom line she had no business being in jail in the first place. That racist cop provoked her when it looked as if she was indifferent to his authority. He's used to drivers pleading for him to give them a break.
Hello Dragon
(18 posts)Heartbreaking.
Uncle Joe
(58,506 posts)Thanks for the thread, G_j.
udbcrzy2
(891 posts)A news agency interviewed one of the inmates and she told them that Sandra said that her room-mate (not in the jail) was suppose to be here in an hour, but it's been days now.
video interview with Sandra Bland's co-inmate
http://abc7chicago.com/news/video-raw-interview-with-sandra-blands-co-inmate/876221/
I know that she was an activist and may have contacted BLM (who do bail people out), but maybe she didn't feel the need to since she was waiting for someone else (the room-mate) to show up who didn't.
I haven't heard anymore from the family's independent autopsy, wondering what is going on with that.