Police Abuse

Texas Suspends Officer That Arrested Sandra Bland—Officer Violated 'Courtesy Policy'

Bland was pulled over for allegedly not signaling a lane switch, was arrested for allegedly assaulting a public servant, and died in jail three days later.

|

Facebook

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) officer, Brian Encinia, who pulled Sandra Bland over for allegedly not using her signal indicator in an interaction that eventually escalated and ended with the officer arresting Bland for "assaulting a public servant," has been placed on administrative duty after news of her death in jail earlier this week, ruled a suicide by the coroner, made national headlines.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

Authorities called a news conference to assure the public that the investigation will be thorough and said they welcomed the involvement of the FBI.

"I have every confidence that this investigation will be handled in a completely open and transparent manner," [Waller County Judge Trey] Duhon said. "We will make sure the full sunlight is shed on all the circumstances of this incident."

Waller County officials said they have been besieged by inquiries from national and international media and seemed to be caught off guard by accusations on social media that officials could not be trusted.

"I want people to know that this isn't going to be swept under the rug," Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis told the American-Statesman. "The right thing is going to happen."

DPS said Encinia was placed on administrative duty for violating procedures and the department's "courtesy policy," but won't say exactly what it was Encinia did that violated DPS policies and procedures.

As I wrote this morning:

Whether or not foul play was involved in Bland's death, police have not explained why she would have been pulled out of her car over a traffic stop that should have only led to a simple citation in the first place. Millions of people use the roads every day, and it shouldn't be strange, or something police can't handle, that some of these people might be upset when they're pulled over for an alleged infraction that's going to cost them money.

The investigation is being run by the Texas Rangers with the FBI joining in. The investigation ought to cover what happened to Bland from the moment she was pulled over for allegedly failing to use a signal until her death in a jail cell. Going from a government road to a government cage when you're responsible for no deaths, no injuries, no harm, is a problem.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

73 responses to “Texas Suspends Officer That Arrested Sandra Bland—Officer Violated 'Courtesy Policy'

  1. “DPS said Encinia was placed on administrative duty for violating procedures and the department’s “courtesy policy,” but won’t say exactly what it was Encinia did that violated DPS policies and procedures.”

    You know, this situation is tragic and not funny, but I would say that killing someone might qualify as discourteous.

    1. Except, of course, for the fact that she killed herself without any prompting from law enforcement.

      Indeed, she was simply waiting for a chance to commit suicide, and this was it.

      1. I think it’s reasonable to assume that since she spent the rest of her life without committing suicide, and that when her life was turned upside down after committing a minor traffic infraction she killed herself shortly thereafter, the triggering event might have been the arrest.

        1. You can’t say ‘triggering’ anymore because its, uh, *triggering* to people who’ve suffered gun violence.

          It has to be ‘contenting’ now (‘content warning’).

          ‘Cunting’ for short.

      2. Lol, you’re a fucking douchebag.

  2. In today’s Murika, any traffic stop by a LEO is potentially fatal. We’ve seen this too many times.

    I saw outlaw all traffic stops, period, unless it’s a kidnapping or someone fleeing the scene of a homicide or other serious danger to the public, it’s not worth it.

    1. They need to pass a law banning traffic stops… “Sandra’s Law” …

      1. Indeed. Why have license plates if you’re going to stop the car? Just send the citation to the address of record, like with red light cameras.

        1. With dashcams you have video evidence. Not a bad idea.

        2. All sorts of legal trickery is needed to get that to work for red light cameras.

          1. They need evidence that the car owner committed the violation. Some jurisdictions get around that through ‘deeming’ bullshit (and hoping that no-one challenges it)

          2. Rules for service-of-process.

          In AZ, for example, if you’re mailed a red-light ticket you *haven’t* been ‘served’ and you’re pretty free to simply toss it into the trash. If they feel strongly enough they’ll need to hire a process server to come by and tag you.

          Most are unaware of this and just pay anyway – nothing stopping the government from *lying* and threatening you in ways that would get a debt collector shut down – but its one of the reasons that red light/unmannned speeding cameras are so rare in this state.

  3. when you’re responsible for no deaths, no injuries, no harm, is a problem.

    OMFG! SHE FAILED TO SIGNAL A FETHING *TURN*!

    She broke the law. What else *could* they have done except arrest her?

    I mean, what, are you going to to say that turn signal laws are obviously useless and unnecessary since it become blatantly obvious that the majority *never* signal their turns and we have still avoided armageddon on the roads?

    She broke a law and was pulled out of the car and taken to jail – as anyone who breaks the law should be.

    1. Fingers possessed by the spirit of Tulpa?

    2. Not that this has anything to do with the article, but if you don’t signal before turning, you are an asshole.

      1. Sure, you’re an arsehole – but how many times has that arsehole actually *endangered anyone? Pretty close to nil and we need to do what we can to pare down the excuses law enforcement has to ‘interact’ with people.

      2. Far worse than not signaling when you intend to turn is signaling for miles and miles when you are not turning.

        1. “But, it was like that when I bought the car!”

    3. Oh, you’re one of those.

      Fuck you, shitty driver.

    4. She could have RECEIVED A TICKET like everyone else does for minor traffic violations! Instead she got the death penalty, covered up so it looks like a suicide. (Who the fuck would kill themselves over what is probably no more than a $100 fine?) These murdering cops, who I’m sure recognized her name, almost make me rethink my stance on the death penalty. It’s especially maddening because, as cops, they will no doubt get away with this.

    5. Christ people – I’m not saying that I don’t signal turns, I do. its fucking courteous.

      I’m saying that its not something that should be illegal in the first place.

  4. How often do you ever see somebody call BS on the “procedures were followed” line? The cops may very well have an arrest policy of punching you in the head and then kneeing you in the groin but it’s really beside the point that they’re “just following procedure”. If your procedures and policies are such that every interaction with the public starts with the assumption that everybody needs a good punch in the head and a knee to the groin, there’s something seriously wrong with the traiing manual and the psychopath that wrote it.

    1. “I was just following procedures” doesn’t sound substantially different from “I was just following orders”.

  5. As long as the suspension is paid.

    I think we can all agree that if you do the crime, you must be prepared to die at the hands of the government.

  6. OT: Did this get any discussion today?

    Is it OK to find it bewildering that none of you ever saw the inherent dangers of “getting government out of the marriage business”? I mean, it’s such a bad idea!!!

    1. Why is Shikha Dalmia a Reason contributor when she pens statist crap like this?

      1. She must give awesome fellatio to the board.

    2. She so badly misunderstands the point.

      Sure, the government will still *register* these arrangements – as they do with contracts.

      Two-person marriage will simply be one of several ‘marriage entities’ – such as sole-proprietorship, partnership, coop, etc are.

      Those aren’t government ‘defining’ anything, those arose from ‘law’ (as in the way people agree things should be done) enshrined in ‘legislation’ (legislatures codifying what people are already doing) – just as two-person marriage was, before the Mormon Genocide and the forceable institution of monogamous marriage.

      Get government out of the way and let people make their own contracts defining the responsibilities and privileges allowed in their relationships – and only step in when absolutely necessary to correct an egregarious imbalance – as the courts normally do for business relationships.

      1. I think you nailed it. I didn’t bother counting the number of logical fallacies because of all of her unsupported assertions. I’m not convinced that it’s possible to get government completely out of the marriage business because of inevitable disputes over joint property, inheritance and child support and custody (in the absence of a contract). I think inheritance, child support and custody could be handled by telling people: you should have had a contract if you wanted this enforced. But good luck with that politically. With joint property, I think divorce courts become inevitable. For high value items, like houses, cars, stocks, retirement accounts, etc., the same thing probably applies: you should have had your name on the title, account, etc. For more petty property, someone is going to wind up mediating the disputes, and you have de facto government involvement in marriage. It would be better than the current mess though. It’s just never going to happen.

        There are also immigration issues, but they would probably be much less important with much more liberal immigration policies.

        Sorry for kind of calling you an asshole above. Eh. Maybe I’m not really. Use your turn signal, you jerk.

        1. Oh, I didn’t think you were calling *me* an arsehole – I always signal a turn, its simply good practice – but accidents *caused* by not doing that are pretty damn rare.

          Rare enough that its kind of infuriating that no one is questioning the *pretext* of the stop in the first place, considering it justified, and only questioning what happened *after*.

          Like making drugs legal, if we pared down traffic codes to their minimums, the ratio of police/public interactions shifts from mainly negative to mainly positive.

          And its a hell of a lot easier to get rid of ‘no right turn on red’, requirements to signal turns, and bump up speed limits than it is to legalize marijuana.

          1. Oh, I didn’t think you were calling *me* an arsehole – I always signal a turn, its simply good practice – but accidents *caused* by not doing that are pretty damn rare.

            Rare enough that its kind of infuriating that no one is questioning the *pretext* of the stop in the first place, considering it justified, and only questioning what happened *after*.

            Eh, at least here in Dallas, cops aren’t going to pull you over for an orderly change of lane or turn without signalling. Typically they’re pulling the person over who doesn’t recognize that the white dashes are on the pavement for a reason. Not saying that I know whether she was like that, but I know that people who don’t signal turns and lane changes are ubiquitous around here, and that cops generally ignore them if they’re otherwise driving safely.

            1. I clicked submit before I made my actual point.

              I have no problem with cops pulling people over for traffic violations, assuming that the person is actually endangering the safety of those around them in some way. It’s the escalation of force that bothers me.

              We don’t know what prompted this cop to pull her over. Hell, I’m not entirely convinced that it wasn’t for Driving While Black. It could have been an orderly turn or lane change that she forgot to put her blinker on for (in which case I’m with you on questioning the pretext). Generally, my experience is that it’s not just forgetting a blinker for one turn.

              1. Weaving in and out of a lane is very different (and, IMO, a legitimate reason for a stop), but not signalling a *turn* is just idiotic law.

    3. Suppose that Osho, the Rolls Royce guru who encouraged free sex before getting chased out of Oregon, performed a group wedding uniting 19 people. Would that be acceptable? How about a church wedding ? or a civil union ? between a consenting mother and her adult son? And so on

      Dalmia is Alger Hiss?!?!?!?!?

      1. Those things will be legal eventually though the courts, just like gay marriage was.

        It’s going to be a race between incest and polygamy to be legal first. Polygamy is in the lead, but I think incest will ultimate be first, because that will be easier to fit on existing forms

        So I don’t see that as a valid objection.

        1. Those things will be legal eventually though the courts, just like gay marriage was.

          And rightfully so.

          It’s going to be a race between incest and polygamy to be legal first.

          And why would anyone care that either is legal?

        2. Re incest: British Pakistanis are THIRTEEN times more likely to have disabled children because of intermarriage

          So when do age of consent laws get struck down? NAMBLA wants to know.

          1. Fuck you Papaya. Did someone here claim children could consent?

            13×0 is still zero. What bullshit.

            Consenting adults may do as they please, it is not for the fucking state to decide.

            1. It’s like that joke about how people define slut as “anyone getting more than me”.

              See this line I have arbitrarily drawn? You see this line? Everything on this side of the line is fine, and everything on that side of the line is crass perversion for which there should be no mercy. Now guess which side of the line my own proclivities are on!

              It’s all about the line. If you make it “as much as I’m personally comfortable with, and no more” then the result is a chaotic tussle over whose line is “right”. If you select a neutral and less subjective line – oh, say, ability to consent – then you solve the problem but miss a stellar opportunity to wank about whose ‘normal’ achieves God-like perfection.

              It’s not just sex. My old landlord was a pothead, who loved to complain about the amount of weed his relatives smoked.

              “But Bill… you smoke weed.”
              “Just for my disability. Anyway, I need it.”

              Humans.

            2. But what is the definition of “adult,” oh wise Francisco? As you may have noticed, words are getting redefined these days. 18 years is not some cosmic law. Why not 16? Why not 14? Throughout history and in many different cultures, “adult” has meant “passed puberty,” or even just “reached puberty.” For some these days, that’s 9-10. So if we’re taking a multi-culti approach, I’d say that’s the lower limit. But if a 12-year-old can self-identify as having different chromosomes, so why can’t they identify as having more years than you think they have, with a true, inner age of 18?

              How can you argue against that? With appeals to “biology”? Nope, the courts have decided that mere biology is immaterial, so that’s out. And utilitarian arguments aren’t popular around here. So I’m not sure what’s left. Enlighten me.

              I’m not trolling. I think this is a serious logical flaw in a lot of pro-SSM arguments. People sneer at “imagined slippery slopes” and mock the “But people will marry their pets!!” types, but I think they have a point. If we can redefine “marriage” and “gender,” why can’t we refine “adult”?

              1. Of course you are trolling. You’re as bad as Eddie.

                IT’LL BE THE END OF THE WORLD IF WE ALLOW LIBERTY!

                Pick an age. 18 is probably too high, as my grandmother’s generation people were getting married at 14-16. But it’s irrelevant.

                There should be an age of consent above which, everyone is legally able to make their own decisions. Prior to that age, it should be left up to the parent or guardian as to whether the person is capable of taking responsibility for themselves (with the “child’s” consent), AND any person over the age of X (14, 15?) can petition the court for emancipation.

                Stop making excuses to restrict the voluntary actions of others who aren’t harming anyone. It’s not your place and it’s not the government’s place to tell people how to live their lives.

                1. Dude, I’m not Eddie. I’m not saying it’s the end of the world. I’m asking a philosophical question.

                  And when you say “not harming anyone”: Well, we know that inbreeding produces birth defects. It’s inarguable. Thus, incest can be said to harm others (at least if it involves reproduction). Assuming you agree that taking an action that greatly increases the chances of birth defects is harm to the child.

                  And we know (or at least I think we do) that sex is harmful at too early an age. So what is that age, and how do we decide it?

                  I don’t think this is as clear-cut as you seem to think it is.

                  1. The risks of inbreeding are far overblown.

                    1. The risks of inbreeding are far overblown.

                      The cake industry wholeheartedly agrees…

                  2. Assuming you agree that taking an action that greatly increases the chances of birth defects is harm to the child.

                    And you or Eddie reproducing would likely lead to the child being brainwashed into Christianity which does severe harm to the child….BAN SEX FOR CHRISTIANS!

                    Woman has an increased chance of having a fucked up kid if she’s a smoker. Ban sex for smokers? Woman has an increased chance of having a fucked up kid if she doesn’t eat her broccoli. Ban sex for non-broccoli eaters?

                    Lots of things increase risk. But it’s not your place to ban them. Make people aware of the increased risk and let them decide.

                    You do realize that a 40% increased chance of a defect that happens to 1 in 10,000 people is still a very small chance, right? Not tying my shoelaces increases my chance of falling off a tightrope by 50%. Let’s make a law prohibiting untied shoelaces.

                    Face it. Incest laws exist for religious reasons. Is it a good idea not to fuck your sister…sure…we don’t need a fucking law forcing people to do what’s good for them.

                    As to age of consent, I answered your question above.

                  3. Actually, it is arguable.
                    http://theconversation.com/bir…..ated-15809

              2. While we’re at it, we might as well redefine the word “consent”.

    4. “OT: Did this get any discussion today?”

      Yes

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..hands-on-m

    5. I will now say something good about that article.

      It’s the first time I’ve seen a Reason contributor take a position fundamentally dissimilar to others’. For all the “oh, it’s a diverse site,” most of the articles tend to flow along the same lines of thought. I think last contributor who had any major difference was Zenon Evans, who didn’t think Ukraine got what they were asking for, because US was the true aggressor.

  7. http://thelibertarianrepublic……g-victory/

    “The flag is just the beginning,” Kaolulo said. “Without a flag, you have no jurisdiction.”

    Somebody is taking Eddie Izzard too seriously.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k

    1. Does Kaolulo honestly believe any serious attempt at a Hawaiian succession is going to end well for his side?

      1. Of course – he expects that once they are independent then they’ll be able to kick out all the whites an Japanese while collecting ‘reparations’ or something. And that people will still be coming for tourism.

    2. This guy’s just cranky that they ran out of cake.

  8. it shouldn’t be strange, or something police can’t handle, that some of these people might be upset when they’re pulled over for an alleged infraction that’s going to cost them money.

    “Getting upset? Oh, you *know* that’s a paddling!”

    1. former Jimmy Carter staffer and now wackjob blogger

      At least he didn’t mention w**dc****ers.

      1. w**dc****ers

        wordcanklers? wandcandlers?

    2. “he calls for repealing the 2nd Amendment”

      Of course he does.

    3. “Protect Animals And The Environment. Shoot Republicans”

      Who does he think is gong to do the shooting?

      Ironically, the people most likely to shoot an R are the ones that are scared to death of even ‘owning’ a gun.

    4. Yeah, he then goes off on “anyone who doesn’t care” about animals. Then, just flat out says that plain, ol’ “humans” need to go (presumably he isn’t one).

      Really, if he’s feelin’ froggy, he can jump.

  9. “I have every confidence that this investigation will be handled in a completely open and transparent manner,” [Waller County Judge Trey] Duhon said. “We will make sure the full sunlight is shed on all the circumstances of this incident.”

    I’m wondering if he managed to keep a straight face while he said that, or if he burst out laughing in the middle.

  10. Update: PBS is broadcasting a stage version of Driving Miss Daisy which is even more annoying than the movie.

    1. *** pulls over to make water ***

      1. I hope they do Driving Miss Daisy: Tokyo Drift.

        1. Driving Pulp Fiction

          Vincent: Whoa!

          Coleburn: What the fuck’s happening, man? Ah, shit man!

          Vincent: Oh man, I shot Miss Daisy in the face.

          Coleburn: Why the fuck did you do that!

          Vincent: Well, I didn’t mean to do it, it was an accident!

          Coleburn: Oh man I’ve seen some crazy ass shit in my time…

          Vincent: Chill out, man. I told you it was an accident. You probably went over a bump or something.

          Coleburn: Hey, the car didn’t hit no motherfucking bump!

          Vincent: Hey, look man, I didn’t mean to shoot the bitch. The gun went off. I don’t know why.

          Coleburn: Well look at this fucking mess, man. We’re on a city street in broad daylight here!

  11. San Fransisco announces plan to build rail tunnel to expand commuter rail service all the was to San Diego.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1…..an-tunnels

  12. An engineer who was unemployed for a long time decided to open his own medical clinic. He promised a guaranteed cure for $500, and to pay $1,000 if he failed.

    A doctor thinks this is a good opportunity to make $1,000, and goes to the clinic.

    Doctor: “I have lost my sense of taste.”

    Engineer: “Nurse, please bring the medicine from box 22 and put 3 drops in the patient’s mouth.” She does this.

    Doctor: “This is gasoline!”

    Engineer: “Congratulations! You’ve got your taste back. That will be $500.”

    The doctor pays but is very annoyed and comes back a few days later.

    Doctor: “I have lost my memory, I can’t remember anything!”

    Engineer: “Nurse, please bring the medicine from box 22 and put 3 drops in the patient’s mouth.”

    Doctor: “But that’s gasoline!”

    Engineer: “Congratulations! You’ve got your memory back. That will be $500.”

    The doctor pays and leaves angrily, but returns several days later, more determined than ever to make his money back.

    Doctor: “I’ve lost my eyesight.”

    Engineer: “Sorry, I don’t have any medicine for that.” He hands the doctor $500 and says: “Here’s your $1,000.”

    Doctor: “But this is only $500!”

    Engineer: “Congratulations! You’ve got your eyesight back. That will be $500.”

  13. Finally someone is doing something about the squirrels.

    http://nbc4i.com/2015/07/17/sq…..n-germany/

  14. I hope this P O S cop gets a severe beat down! Worthless P O S. I bet that jackass doesnt even know what a turn signal switch is. I rearely ever see a P O S cop use turn signals.

    http://www.Private-VPN.tk

    1. AnonBot is gonna get subpoenaed if he isn’t careful.

  15. But as usual the cops will be vindacated. Someone really needs to look at who fills these positions in small towns. We give a guns and all power to bullies, morons and indivifual with serious psyhcologal problems. Get rid of city police period.

  16. Going from a government road to a government cage when you’re responsible for no deaths, no injuries, no harm, is a problem.

    She failed to immediately and unquestioningly obey the officer’s every whim.

    She’s lucky to be alive.

    Oh, wait. Um. Never mine.

    1. *mind*

      WHERE’S THE DAMN PREVIEW BUTTON?!?!?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.