A Texas state trooper said Sandra Bland assaulted him with her elbows and feet during her arrest, after which she was found dead in a jail cell. (photo: Tom Pennington/Getty)
25 July 15
Suicide or not, police are responsible for Sandra Bland's death
o
news broke yesterday that authorities in Waller County, Texas, have
"full faith" that Sandra Bland committed suicide. They said there was "no evidence of a struggle"
on the body of the 28-year-old African-American woman who was
ludicrously jailed last week after an alleged lane change violation.
In related news, the Texas Department of Safety ruled
that Brian Encina, the officer who arrested Bland, pulled her from her
car, and threatened her with a Taser, had merely violated the state's "courtesy policy." The state said there was "no evidence" yet of criminal behavior on Encina's part.
So barring something unexpected, we know now how this is going to play out in the media.
Many news outlets are going to engage in an indirect
version of the usual blame-the-victim game by emphasizing the autopsy
finding of suicide, questioning Bland's mental health history, and by highlighting the reports of marijuana found in her system.
Beyond that, we can expect a slew of chin-scratching "legal analyses"
concluding that while there may have been some minor impropriety on
officer Encina's part, the law governing police-motorist encounters is
too "complicated" to make this anything more than a tragic accident.
Media scandals are like criminal trials. They're about
assigning blame. Because Bland may have technically taken her own life,
the blame is now mostly going to fall on a woman with a history of
depression and drugs, instead of on a criminal justice system that
morally, if not legally, surely murdered Sandra Bland.
Backing up: It's been interesting following
conservative news outlets after the Bland case. They've been
conspicuously quiet this week, holstering the usual gloating backlash of
the "He'd be alive today, if he'd just obeyed the law" variety.
After the Garner, Brown and Freddie Gray cases, of
course, law-and-order commentators flocked to the blogosphere to explain
the secret to preventing police brutality.
It was simple, they explained. There's no police
corruption problem. The real issue is that there are too many people who
don't know how to behave during a car stop. Don't want to get murdered
by police? Be polite!
A writer named John Hawkins took on the subject for TownHall.com in a piece last year carrying the not at all joking headline "How to not get shot by police."
After revealing that his only real experience in this area involved
speeding tickets, Hawkins lectured readers that "the first key to not
getting shot" is to not think of the police as a threat:
"They're really not going to randomly beat you, arrest
you or shoot you for no reason whatsoever. It's like a bee. Don't start
swatting at it and chances are, it's not going to sting you.
"In fact, when a cop pulls you over, you should have
your license and registration ready, you put your hands on the steering
wheel so he can see them when he arrives, and you say 'yes, sir' and
'no, sir.'"
It's hard to wrap one's head around the absurdity of
someone like Hawkins imagining to himself that black America has not
already tried using the word "sir" as a strategy to avoid beatings and killings. But over and over again, we heard stuff like this from the Fox/Real Clear
crowd, which as time passed flailed around with increasing desperation
in search of a non-racial explanation for all of these violent episodes.
After Eric Garner was killed, for instance, a New York Post columnist named Bob McManus argued that we should only blame – the word "only" was actually used – the "man who tragically decided to resist." Michigan's even dumber Ann Coulter wannabe, Debbie Schlussel, countered that Garner would still be alive if his parents had raised him better, and if he wasn't a "morbidly obese asthmatic."
After Ferguson, it was the same thing. Editorials insisted that the solution to the brutality problem lay in "less criminality within the black community."
The officer who shot Michael Brown, Darren Wilson – the same guy who
called Brown a "demon" – insisted that Brown would still be alive "if he'd just followed orders."
But nobody yet has dared to say Sandra Bland would
still be alive today, if only she'd used her blinker. That's a bridge
too far even for TownHall.com types.
Suddenly even hardcore law-and-order enthusiasts are
realizing the criminal code is so broad and littered with so many tiny
technical prohibitions that a determined enough police officer can stop
and/or arrest pretty much anybody at any time.
Bland was on her way to a new job at Prairie A&M
university when she was pulled over for failing to signal when changing
lanes, something roughly 100 percent of American drivers do on a regular
basis. Irritated at being stopped, she was curt with Encina when he
wrote her up. He didn't like her attitude and decided to flex his
muscles a little, asking her to put out her cigarette.
She balked, and that's when things went sideways.
Encina demanded that she get out of the car, reached for his Taser,
said, "I'll light you up," and eventually threw her in jail.
Many editorialists following this narrative case
suddenly noticed, as if for the first time, how much mischief can arise
from the fact that a person may be arrested at any time for "failing to
obey a lawful order," which in the heat of the moment can mean just
about anything.
But this same kind of logic has underpinned modern
community policing in big cities all over America for decades now. Under
Broken Windows and other "zero tolerance"-type enforcement strategies,
police move into (typically nonwhite) neighborhoods in big numbers, tell
people to move off corners, and then circle back and arrest them for
"loitering" or "failing to obey a lawful order" if they don't.
Some cities have tried to put a fig leaf of legal justification on such practices by creating "drug-free" or "anti-loitering"
zones, which give police automatic justification for arrest even if a
person is guilty of nothing more than standing on the street. Failing to
produce ID – even in the halls of your own building, in some cases – or
being seen in or around a "known drug location" can similarly be
grounds for search or detention.
A related phenomenon is the policy governing "consent searches."
Police stop people on the highways, in airports, on buses, really
anywhere at all, and ask for their consent to search their property or
their persons. Sometimes they do the asking with a drug-sniffing dog
standing beside them.
Studies have consistently shown that black and Hispanic people are pulled over at a far higher rate than white people, usually more than double, even though white people are statistically more likely to have illegal drugs on them.
Add to this the whole galaxy of stop-and-frisk type
behaviors, also known as "Terry stops," in which any police officer with
an "articulable suspicion" that a crime of violence might be committed
can pat down and question any person.
The end of New York's infamous program
notwithstanding, there are millions of such stops every year. In
Chicago, for instance, recent data showed a rate of about a million
stops per year, with roughly 72 percent involving black people – and
this in a city that's only 32 percent black.
You add all this up, and we're talking about millions
upon millions of stops, searches and misdemeanor arrests and summonses
that clearly target black people at a far higher rate than the rest of
the population.
And if you're continually handcuffing people, sitting
on them, putting knees in their backs and dragging them to jail in cases
when you could have just handed over a summons, a certain percentage of
these encounters are going to end in fights, struggles, medical
accidents and other disasters. Like the Bland case.
We'd call it murder if a kidnapping victim died of
fright during the job. Of course it's not legally the same thing, but a
woman dying of depression during an illegal detention should be the same
kind of crime. It's especially true given our long and sordid history
of overpolicing misdemeanors.
In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander
described how white America re-seized control after slavery by
instituting a series of repressive "vagrancy laws," under which nonwhite
Americans could be arrested for such absurdities as "mischief" and
"insulting gestures."
In an eerie precursor to the modern loitering laws, many states even had stringent rules against "idleness." There were even states where any black male over 18 could be thrown in jail for not carrying around written proof that he had a job.
What exactly is the difference between being arrested
for "idleness" and being arrested for "loitering in a designated
drug-free zone"? What's the difference between an arrest for "mischief"
and an arrest for "disorderly conduct" or "refusing to obey a lawful
order"? If it's anything more than a semantic distinction, it's not much
more of one.
Law-and-order types like to lecture black America
about how it can avoid getting killed by "respecting authority" and
treating arresting cops like dangerous dogs or bees.
But while playing things cool might prevent killings
in some instances, it won't stop police from stopping people without
reason, putting their hands on suspects or jailing people like Bland for
infractions that at most would earn a white guy in a suit a desk
ticket. That's not just happening in a few well-publicized cases a year,
but routinely, in hundreds of thousands or even millions of incidents
we never hear of.
That's why the issue isn't how Sandra Bland died, but
why she was stopped and detained in the first place. It's profiling,
sure, but it's even worse than that. It's a systematic campaign to
harass people, using misdemeanors and violations as battering ram – a
campaign that's been going on forever, and against which there's little
defense. When the law can be stretched to mean almost anything, obeying
it is no magic bullet.
Comments
+47
#
2015-07-25 09:50
I saw the video
earlier on just once. Just prior to him pulling Ms. Bland over, he had
pulled over a white female college student. Was very polite to her and
told her several times that he was just giving her a warning and that it
would not cost her anything. Never raised his voice or threatened the
white girl. Then along came Ms. Bland, just the same as the other girl,
same driving lane, etc. Then for some reason, he just speeded up and
pulled her over. She was doing nothing wrong and complied with pulling
over right away. The video they show picks up here. They don't bother
showing how polite he was to the other girl.
+54
#
2015-07-25 09:53
Nice analysis, Matt.
But why are you even going along with the official story of suicide?
They're cops. They know what investigators would look for. They'd
certainly be quite capable of stringing Ms. Bland up and make it look
like suicide. I wouldn't believe anything the Texas justice (so-called)
system says.
+10
#
2015-07-25 10:35
Jasper, Ordinarily, I
would agree with you, but the problem is that there is a tape of the
entrance to her cell which shows nobody entering it. That tape can and I
assume IS being checked for erasures and tampering. Absent that tape my
belief would be that it would be damned near certainty she was
murdered.
+8
#
2015-07-25 12:00
In order to find her
hanging, someone would have had to enter the cell. There is reason to
suspect that someone going by the cell without entering saw her body
lying on the floor where she'd died from a cerebral hemorrhage after
having her head pounded on the pavement a couple days previously. They
then went into the cell and "found" her hanging there.
+13
#
2015-07-25 10:25
Yes. I was just thinking the same. I can't visualise how she is supposed to have killed herself.
+20
#
2015-07-25 10:32
Well said, Matt!
Has anybody (yet) suggested that she would still be alive if only she'd been born to white parents?
By the way. How do you spell "jail cell suicide"?
Answer: "C.O.V.E.R-U.P. "
Has anybody (yet) suggested that she would still be alive if only she'd been born to white parents?
By the way. How do you spell "jail cell suicide"?
Answer: "C.O.V.E.R-U.P. "
