When you upload things to youtube, the transcoder can break your video and audio.
Not saying that’s what happened here, but just remember, any video you see on youtube EVER by nature has been edited.
Well, if that’s the case, I’m sure we’ll see them re-upload the unaltered video.
Yup, any minute now.
Just finished the vid. That glitch in the Matrix looping was weird, but then the video ran longer than the sound, so I wonder if you just cut that looping out it would sync up with the audio again?
I like her, I like how she simply refused to be subordinated and put down, and I can totally relate to how she felt. (Copsplaining and the way they take ownership of the narrative just drives me nuts. I really don’t value anyone else doing my thinking for me, and “because I said so” carries zero weight with me.) She just wasn’t going to submit to an authority that she saw entirely lacking in moral basis – people I guess she saw as the enemy.
I think suicide, after three days in jail, is not out of the question, unfortunately. Three days of sitting and thinking and raging and feeling the awful wrongness of it. But, let the evidence speak for itself.
Listening to the trooper talk to his (I think) sergeant, he was already making significant edits to the story of what we’d just seen. Several times he was in with the “you knows” (you know, don’t look too closely here, just take this leap of faith with me) and starting to say his first thought then quickly changing it to something that sounded better. He couldn’t even plainly say he’d pulled her over for a lane change without signal, he had to embellish it with “she didn’t turn on her signal and so forth and so forth”.
Why did he ask her to put the cigarette out? I guess he was already preparing to take her out of the car?
If he thought he was going to deescalate by further exercise of authority, man was he ever wrong. The only way to deescalate that was to end the encounter.
Idiot, sadistic cop. There was no reason to escalate the situation. There was no reason to ask her to put out the cigarette, and no reason to say “step out of the car” when she refused.
Of course, there was no reason to pull her over for something as minor as a lane change without a signal when a cop appears behind you.*
And yet the cop-defenders are out in force where ever this video is posted, pompously explaining that “when a cop tells you to get out, you get out,” It shouldn’t have reached that point. It doesn’t matter what happens after it reached that point.
*Jesus Christ, if lane-changing without a signal was enough to get you pulled over, they’d pull over 90% of Massachusetts, and probably most other states to. In other circumstances, this might actually be a good thing.
Yep.
Looks like they are working with Youtube/Google on reuploading it.
If it had been a white dude sitting in their car asking “am I being detained” those same defenders would have been “look at him knowing his rights!”
“Police promise they’ll do better job of forging evidence in the future, and regret the mistake.”
The racism and sexism here seem tough to prove, but I have no doubt that he felt disrespected, and by a woman, and by a black woman. Can’t have that! When he asked her to put out the cigarette, I also have no doubt he did so as a way of asserting his position “above” her. Of putting her in her place, not just as a citizen being confronted by a cop, but as a black woman being confronted by a white-male cop. I have no doubt that if a white man had acted the very same way in that situation, he’d still be alive, and of course would not have been arrested.
Exactly.
The “bad apples” problem seems to be extended even to the police department’s computers…
Ultimately when you watch the beginning portion of what led to the very moment she gets pulled form the car you can easily hold BOTH of them accountable. Was the cop a dink…sure was. But he wasn’t being abusive, he wasn’t being argumentative…she started that. She had a chip on her shoulder from the moment he pulled her over. Now…I understand why she was aggravated and ticked off, but man alive…take the dumb $20 ticket and move along with your day. These are the moments where it is ok to simply swallow your emotions and get the hell out of there.
Right up to that moment though…the blame shifts entirely to him. And the resulting situation is entirely his fault. His job is to de-escalate. He escalated it to an unsalvageable state. HE should also have done the same thing…she was aggravated…she was posturing. He should have checked his ego at the door and given her the ticket, reprimanded her verbally by saying, “Here’s your ticket. Its a $20 fine (or whatever the exact amount)…if you don’t like it get the law changed. I didn’t write them, I just enforce them. Have a good day ma’am” And then gone back to the station and told the story of the crazy lady who was pissed you gave her a ticket. No harm done. End of story.
But no…he allowed HIS emotions to run unchecked and HIS ego & pride took over. HE is supposed to know better. Everything after that point is on him. Because HE had the power in the situation, and HE abused it.
I am not letting her off the hook for copping an attitude over something so petty, but I hold him responsible for being in the position to prevent everything that happened after the moment he opened that door.
That’s how many dashcams work. They record in discrete segments, which could be 60 seconds or 10 minutes long or whatever. Each segment is a file. When the dashcam starts a new file, to prevent there being any gap in the recording, the next file starts a second or two before the prior one ends. That’s why at 32:37 you see a car dissappear then re-enter the scene. That’s also why the audio ends before the video does. I don’t know the model of dashcam or how it handles the audio recording, but if the audio isn’t recorded and stitched together in the same overlapping loopy manner, of course it would end before the video.
My guess is they used software provided by the dashcam manufacturer to stitch the files together. They could have used actual video editing software, but would that assuage anybody’s concerns? This is also why the video they released starts with the tail end of a prior interaction – it was part of the first file to show Sandra Bland, and they didn’t edit that part out.
Besides, the video is plenty damning. She was arrested for not being grateful for being pulled over, for telling him why she was upset, and for not putting out a cigarette.
I think what it comes down to is that the harm of copping an attitude is negligible. I don’t think she needs to be left off the hook for having an attitude- lots of people have attitudes. It’s not a crime or a sin, it’s just moderately annoying. People have the absolute right to be jackasses, and plenty of them are exercising it (just ask anyone who has ever worked in the service industry). On the other hand, a cop pulling someone over for no apparent reason and then getting aggressive when they don’t act subservient enough is definitely a problem. It caused a lot of harm, it has the potential to cause a lot of harm.
The problem is whenever we have these discussions is there’s a tendency to default to “both sides” arguments, which by false equivalency work to reinforce the idea that, say, cops should be treated like grizzly bears- dangerous, aggressive, prone to attacking at the least provocation…and that like grizzly bears, the accountability for their attacks rest on the person who stupidly blundered into their den.
Since when is it against the law to cop an attitude?
He didn’t pull her over for “no apparent reason” You can clearly see her blinker didn’t go on when she turned. He pulled her over for a ticky-tacky moving violation that is most likely rarely if ever enforced.
My argument is not a “both sides” argument of false equivalency at all. She throws her attitude first at the officer doing his job. We pay him to enforce the laws regardless of how minor and ridiculous they may seem. He didn’t pull her over and draw his weapon screaming “GET OUT OF THE CAR”. He walked up…told her why he pulled her over and clearly she must have been flippant in her body language because he asked what the issue was “You ok? You seem irritated.” and she answered with an attitude “I am. this is crap…”
RIGHT THERE! It should have been the end. He should have given the ticket and walked away and sent her and her “irritation” on its merry way. She gets to have the attitude…that is her right. And I would argue that if she hadn’t had the attitude, if she hadn’t “put him in his place” like she did, nothing inherently in that situation points to him escalating at all.
He is at fault for it, no doubt. He was in the position of power and abused it, no doubt. He is responsible for everything after “Please put out your cigarette”. Just give her the ticket and send her on her way…THAT was his job. He failed miserably.
and @anon15383236 Its not against the law at all…but its not a wise choice in that situation is it. Its not a mature thing that an adult should do in that situation. Just take the ticket and drive along. Contest it if you want, pay it if you want. Whatever. But its not wise nor smart to have that attitude for something so petty. Pick your battles. Her attitude did not warrant everything that happened to her whatsoever…but her attitude contributed to it.
Yeah, but let’s be honest. If I pulled that attitude I’d get a more expensive ticket.
Not beaten half crazy and then found dead three days later in jail, and I know it.
Heck, I’d say he’s responsible for everything after the “You seem irritated.” OF COURSE the person is irritated, whether they’re at fault or not, you’re intruding on their day and dealing out a punishment to them. Asking a question like that is just rubbing it in and provoking a response. Following it up with an unjustified order to put out the cigarette is just icing on the cake.
And – to put the discussion back where it belongs – it shouldn’t have.
Being an asshole is your god given right! (especially in New York apparently)
She was trying to. She repeated several times that she accepted that he was writing her a ticket.
- “I’m waiting on you. Whatever you want me to do.”
- “So yeah, I am a little irritated. But that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket. So write your ticket.”
The first time she refused anything is when he arbitrarily asked her to put out her cigarette, which was her right. He then tells her to step on out. Whether or not she does, it should not have reached that point.
Citizens have a right to be irritated. They have a right to be annoyed at a capricious-seeming cop. The cops job is not to escalate that. The way he jumped so suddenly to “well you can step on out now” was clearly him itching to exercise his authority.
