I don't know Texas state law so I couldn't give you a specific criminal statute that she was being arrested for but I am sure there is some law (as there is in most states) for not obeying a lawful command. I can't believe you are still trying to argue whether refusing to get out of the car is an arrest-able offense after I just quoted the case law that says you have to listen to the officer. So yes, it is an arrest-able offense, the law is perfectly clear about that. And as I said in the other thread, Graham v. Connor looks at the situation from a reasonable officer's point of view, not the officer that was on scene but I'm getting tired of repeating myself so I will let you read that in the other thread.

Whether or not it is arrest-able isn't the point. He didn't have to order her out of the car in the first place. Why have her step out of the car? He is clearly not in the right state of mind, so much so that its affecting how he's doing his job. Just from the video, you can tell this officer is a dangerous individual. Someone that becomes so angry that they lunge into a car and threaten to "light someone up" is not a peace officer, its someone on a power trip.

Really? People who are fighting depression wouldn't kill themselves? Not to mention the part of the autopsy report that just came out even says the injuries are consistent with a suicide and there are no signs of a struggle; and she had lots of cut marks on her arms and wrists. Another inmate that was in the cell near Bland said that Bland was very emotional during her stay in jail. And the sheriff's office released 3 hours of footage showing that nothing suspicious happened. The investigation isn't over yet but all of this evidence is already piling up and it is looking like she did commit suicide.

Did you read what I had wrote? I said it doesn't make sense for her to kill herself at that time, since she was just about to be released and would've been on her way to her new job which she was reportedly very happy about.

It does happen to powerful people, it just doesn't make national headlines as often. Remember a couple years ago when Reese Witherspoon and her husband were pulled over? Her husband got arrested for DUI and Reese Witherspoon got arrested for disorderly conduct.

Except as belligerent as she was, Reese Witherspoon was not treated the same as Sandra Bland. Compare those two videos and you'll begin to see why people are afraid when they get pulled over.

 

Whether or not it is arrest-able isn't the point. He didn't have to order her out of the car in the first place. Why have her step out of the car? He is clearly not in the right state of mind, so much so that its affecting how he's doing his job. Just from the video, you can tell this officer is a dangerous individual. Someone that becomes so angry that they lunge into a car and threaten to "light someone up" is not a peace officer, its someone on a power trip.

Did you read what I had wrote? I said it doesn't make sense for her to kill herself at that time, since she was just about to be released and would've been on her way to her new job which she was reportedly very happy about.

Except as belligerent as she was, Reese Witherspoon was not treated the same as Sandra Bland. Compare those two videos and you'll begin to see why people are afraid when they get pulled over.

 

We are just going in circles with this. I already stated about 15 times that he can order her out of the car if he wants to. Did he have to? No. Was he legally allowed to? Yes. In this situation that is all that matters. It doesn't matter that he didn't have to have her step out of the car, he was within his legal right to do so. I'm not even sure why this is a huge point of contention because it is almost completely irrelevant to what happened in her jail cell.

Just because you have good things in your life doesn't mean you still won't kill yourself if you are suffering from depression. There are plenty of people who had lots of things going for them and they still killed themselves. There is no telling what was going through her head while she was in that jail cell. According to the witness in the cell across from her she was very upset the entire 3 days she was there, constantly crying, and very emotional. She also had approximately 30 cut marks on her arms and the medical examiner has stated there is no signs of a struggle or foul play and that everything is consistent with a suicide.

We are just going in circles with this. I already stated about 15 times that he can order her out of the car if he wants to. Did he have to? No. Was he legally allowed to? Yes. In this situation that is all that matters. It doesn't matter that he didn't have to have her step out of the car, he was within his legal right to do so. I'm not even sure why this is a huge point of contention because it is almost completely irrelevant to what happened in her jail cell.

Just because you have good things in your life doesn't mean you still won't kill yourself if you are suffering from depression. There are plenty of people who had lots of things going for them and they still killed themselves. There is no telling what was going through her head while she was in that jail cell. According to the witness in the cell across from her she was very upset the entire 3 days she was there, constantly crying, and very emotional. She also had approximately 30 cut marks on her arms and the medical examiner has stated there is no signs of a struggle or foul play and that everything is consistent with a suicide.

It is relevant because the officer needlessly created a dangerous situation where he had to arrest someone, because of his own emotional and unbalanced reaction. It is not illegal to smoke inside of your car. At what point is a person too emotional and violently abusive to be a police officer? If he can't cite someone for improper signalling without causing the situation to get violent, how is he supposed to protect the community? I could care less about "well, legally he had the right to ask her to get out of her car"...so obviously the reasonable thing to do is lunge into the car screaming, draw your taser, beat her, threaten her, and then allegedly slam her head into the ground? Police have use of force policies, and maybe they should have escalation of force policies.

I do not trust the police department under who's watch Sandra Bland died. So far, they've given no reason why we should trust them. Apparently Sandra Bland told a jailer that she tried to kill herself once before? Well, she's not around anymore to confirm that. Its on a document that someone else wrote and signed off on. If that's true, I think it still leaves them partly responsible for her death, since they knowingly left someone with a history of attempted suicide in a cell, unsupervised, with the tools necessary to kill herself. If her suicide was not so out of the blue as you claim, then they should have taken better precautions.

It is relevant because the officer needlessly created a dangerous situation where he had to arrest someone, because of his own emotional and unbalanced reaction. It is not illegal to smoke inside of your car. At what point is a person too emotional and violently abusive to be a police officer? If he can't cite someone for improper signalling without causing the situation to get violent, how is he supposed to protect the community? I could care less about "well, legally he had the right to ask her to get out of her car"...so obviously the reasonable thing to do is lunge into the car screaming, draw your taser, beat her, threaten her, and then allegedly slam her head into the ground? Police have use of force policies, and maybe they should have escalation of force policies.

I do not trust the police department under who's watch Sandra Bland died. So far, they've given no reason why we should trust them. Apparently Sandra Bland told a jailer that she tried to kill herself once before? Well, she's not around anymore to confirm that. Its on a document that someone else wrote and signed off on. If that's true, I think it still leaves them partly responsible for her death, since they knowingly left someone with a history of attempted suicide in a cell, unsupervised, with the tools necessary to kill herself. If her suicide was not so out of the blue as you claim, then they should have taken better precautions.

Because it is the law. I'm done arguing this point with you, I have given you plenty of case law that says it is legal. If you don't like the law then go to court and challenge it, that is part of the democratic process of our nation.

So now you are changing your position from "her death is suspicious" and "people don't just randomly commit suicide" to "she killed herself but it is still the police's fault"? To me it just sounds like you are trying to find a way to pin her death on the police. Even though she is the one who killed herself it isn't her fault, it is those corrupt police that helped her do it.

Because it is the law. I'm done arguing this point with you, I have given you plenty of case law that says it is legal. If you don't like the law then go to court and challenge it, that is part of the democratic process of our nation.

So now you are changing your position from "her death is suspicious" and "people don't just randomly commit suicide" to "she killed herself but it is still the police's fault"? To me it just sounds like you are trying to find a way to pin her death on the police. Even though she is the one who killed herself it isn't her fault, it is those corrupt police that helped her do it.

Well let me ask you, if you were a reasonable officer, would you have handled the situation in the same way? Would have endangered yourself by lunging into the car screaming, grabbing hear, and threatening to "light her up", or was there a better way to handle that situation?

And no, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not pinning her death on them, I'm saying that the absolute best case scenario for the police is that all of their officers were 100% honest with investigators and in their reports, and that she was able to kill herself in police custody, which is still not an acceptable standard for law enforcement in America in my opinion.

 

(Also, Pennsylvania v. Mimms states that an officer can order a suspect out of a car to prevent danger to the officer. Can you honestly tell me that the officer in this case was not on a power trip, but in fact ordered her out to prevent himself being harmed?)

 

Edited July 24, 201510 yr by Riley24

N/A

Edited November 14, 20178 yr by Account Deleted

That's not why she was arrested...lol she was fighting with the officer and being very disrespectful. she was smoking a cigarette and was blowing smoke in his face. He warned her many times. She was arrested for those reasons.

That's not why she was arrested...lol she was fighting with the officer and being very disrespectful. she was smoking a cigarette and was blowing smoke in his face. He warned her many times. She was arrested for those reasons.

You see, i have a problem with this. This is no different than having a group of party goers at a bar or a club smoking right next to you. You know you can't do shit because they have the right to do that. But an officer, a civilian with a government uniform doing social work, they have to deal with this. They can't just give a outburst or be willing to write up a lengthy paperwork over something minor. I bet you that his own father smokes, like most texas folks do, is he gonna write up his pops over blowing smoke in his face ? I don't think so. This exploits the bias. 

Some figures in this community will nail their nuts to the wood and live by the law, and there are others who will turn a blind eye to it. The law is the law, but the officer is a tool of the law, and if that tool can not effectively de-escalate the situation, why keep it. I did not see the reason why the officer had to level up his force continuum over a cigarette smoke in his face.  

Also, what's up with the rumors that's spreading around claiming her mug shot was taken while she was dead. 

Edited July 25, 201510 yr by Drunkpolice

Well let me ask you, if you were a reasonable officer, would you have handled the situation in the same way? Would have endangered yourself by lunging into the car screaming, grabbing hear, and threatening to "light her up", or was there a better way to handle that situation?

And no, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not pinning her death on them, I'm saying that the absolute best case scenario for the police is that all of their officers were 100% honest with investigators and in their reports, and that she was able to kill herself in police custody, which is still not an acceptable standard for law enforcement in America in my opinion.

 

(Also, Pennsylvania v. Mimms states that an officer can order a suspect out of a car to prevent danger to the officer. Can you honestly tell me that the officer in this case was not on a power trip, but in fact ordered her out to prevent himself being harmed?)

 

No, I probably wouldn't have handled it the same way but that doesn't mean the officer handled it the wrong way; there isn't only one right answer on how to handle a situation.

Isn't that the same thing as blaming the police for her death? You just said in the best case scenario she was able to kill herself in police custody which is still not acceptable. That sounds a lot like blaming the police. What would you have them do differently? You want them to dedicate a deputy to sit in the cell with her and watch her every move? Most jails have more prisoners than they have deputies on duty so they can't watch what every single one is doing 24/7. If someone is determined to kill themselves then they will find a way to do it people on suicide watch can still find a way to kill themselves. The only guaranteed way to prevent that is to literally have a guard sit there and key their eyes on them every second of the day.

 

I can't tell you anything about why he ordered her out of the car. I couldn't see what the officer saw and I don't know what was going through his mind. All I know is what I saw in the dashcam footage from his patrol car. I'm not going to sit here and try to speculate what his reason was because I will be here all night.

You see, i have a problem with this. This is no different than having a group of party goers at a bar or a club smoking right next to you. You know you can't do shit because they have the right to do that. But an officer, a civilian with a government uniform doing social work, they have to deal with this. They can't just give a outburst or be willing to write up a lengthy paperwork over something minor. I bet you that his own father smokes, like most texas folks do, is he gonna write up his pops over blowing smoke in his face ? I don't think so. This exploits the bias. 

Some figures in this community will nail their nuts to the wood and live by the law, and there are others who will turn a blind eye to it. The law is the law, but the officer is a tool of the law, and if that tool can not effectively de-escalate the situation, why keep it. I did not see the reason why the officer had to level up his force continuum over a cigarette smoke in your face.  

I'm not sure where that information came from but I didn't see the officer say anything about getting smoke blown in his face during the dashcam footage. As far as I remember he just asked her to put it out, he never gave the reason why. He asked her to put it out, she refused, he then asked her to step out.

Thats totally different. His father blowing smoke around him. The girl was blowing smoke directly at his face and he told her to stop.

That's not why she was arrested...lol she was fighting with the officer and being very disrespectful. she was smoking a cigarette and was blowing smoke in his face. He warned her many times. She was arrested for those reasons.

No, I probably wouldn't have handled it the same way but that doesn't mean the officer handled it the wrong way; there isn't only one right answer on how to handle a situation.

Isn't that the same thing as blaming the police for her death? You just said in the best case scenario she was able to kill herself in police custody which is still not acceptable. That sounds a lot like blaming the police. What would you have them do differently? You want them to dedicate a deputy to sit in the cell with her and watch her every move? Most jails have more prisoners than they have deputies on duty so they can't watch what every single one is doing 24/7. If someone is determined to kill themselves then they will find a way to do it people on suicide watch can still find a way to kill themselves. The only guaranteed way to prevent that is to literally have a guard sit there and key their eyes on them every second of the day.

 

I can't tell you anything about why he ordered her out of the car. I couldn't see what the officer saw and I don't know what was going through his mind. All I know is what I saw in the dashcam footage from his patrol car. I'm not going to sit here and try to speculate what his reason was because I will be here all night.

But there is a wrong way, and it includes lunging into a car, screaming like a maniac, and violently attacking someone.

Being partly responsible isn't the same as being appointed blame. Maybe check in on her from time to time, and make sure she doesn't have anything that she can harm herself with, both of which they apparently did not do.  (Or also maybe don't throw someone in jail for a dumb situation that they didn't react perfectly to). You might be thinking "there's no way they could have known", but as you said, she allegedly told a jailer that she was previously suicidal. 

If he thought she was a danger inside the car, he would have included that in the report. Call it what it is, he was on a power trip and was clearly not in the right state of mind. That definitely plays a factor here. Its a lot more nuanced than "Well, he had the right to arrest her so nothing else matters". 

Edited July 25, 201510 yr by Riley24

You see, i have a problem with this. This is no different than having a group of party goers at a bar or a club smoking right next to you. You know you can't do shit because they have the right to do that. But an officer, a civilian with a government uniform doing social work, they have to deal with this. They can't just give a outburst or be willing to write up a lengthy paperwork over something minor. I bet you that his own father smokes, like most texas folks do, is he gonna write up his pops over blowing smoke in his face ? I don't think so. This exploits the bias. 

Some figures in this community will nail their nuts to the wood and live by the law, and there are others who will turn a blind eye to it. The law is the law, but the officer is a tool of the law, and if that tool can not effectively de-escalate the situation, why keep it. I did not see the reason why the officer had to level up his force continuum over a cigarette smoke in his face.  

Also, what's up with the rumors that's spreading around claiming her mug shot was taken while she was dead. 

There is a difference though, you won't see a cop at a bar beside party goers for a traffic stop, or see a cop at a bar period for that matter. Whether or not his father smokes is irrelevant too, he isn't at home or at his parents house and his father isn't the one being pulled over and being disrespectful. Using those as "comparisons" makes no sense and for the most part is largely irrelevant given that neither one of those comparisons have anything to do with the common traffic stop. 

You can, however, tell how a traffic stop will go based on someones demeanor, actions and attitude. If you're smoking and it's blowing into the officers face (either intentionally or unintentionally) then I don't see the problem of asking for it to be put out until the stop is over. For me for example, I have a strict policy in not having anyone smoke in my car, nor in my house as it makes me nauseous and makes it harder for me to breath, my family and friends respect this and understand. The officer asked to put it out, she refused, she acted like a dink and proceeded to be disrespectful over something that could of easily been avoided had of she just respected the request by the officer. 

Also, a lot of states have a smoking ban in all enclosed public places (including bars/clubs and restaurants). Depending on the city, state, bar/club and restaurant some will have designated smoking areas and others will just flat out ban it to where you need to be X distance from the premise to even think about smoking.

The traffic stop was not text-book, but on the other hand her actions, attitude and overall demeanor wasn't particularly all that great either. 

Edited July 25, 201510 yr by Solidefiance

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh77lT1rUV2chj72DO

Obviously she had a really fucking bad day.

But there is a wrong way, and it includes lunging into a car, screaming like a maniac, and violently attacking someone.

Being partly responsible isn't the same as being appointed blame. Maybe check in on her from time to time, and make sure she doesn't have anything that she can harm herself with, both of which they apparently did not do.  (Or also maybe don't throw someone in jail for a dumb situation that they didn't react perfectly to). You might be thinking "there's no way they could have known", but as you said, she allegedly told a jailer that she was previously suicidal. 

If he thought she was a danger inside the car, he would have included that in the report. Call it what it is, he was on a power trip and was clearly not in the right state of mind. That definitely plays a factor here. Its a lot more nuanced than "Well, he had the right to arrest her so nothing else matters". 

Screaming like a maniac? He was yelling commands at her and threatening to taser her if she didn't comply. I like how you try to make it sound as if he was beating the shit out of her. He was trying to pull her out of the car. Should police officers not put their hands on someone who isn't complying? Should they just stand there and ask nicely and when the suspect still refuses just say "pretty please"?

The investigation is still ongoing so I don't know why she wasn't put on suicide watch. The paperwork that they filled out when she was brought into the jail says she told them something about trying to overdoes on pills after having a miscarriage but then on another page when it asked if she was suicidal they circled no. Maybe that question meant was she suicidal at the moment of being brought into the jail. I know at my sheriff's office the detention deputy who in processes the inmate will ask them if they want to harm themselves or others and if they say no then they circle no. Unless they tell you they are suicidal or have committed an act that leads you to believe they are suicidal there is no way of knowing that they are suicidal. Like I said, the investigation is still ongoing so this is all just speculation on my part.

He doesn't have to include that in the report. It could be that he just didn't want to be standing in the road with traffic. Not every danger involves the person inside the car.

N/A

Edited November 14, 20178 yr by Account Deleted

The investigation is still ongoing so I don't know why she wasn't put on suicide watch. The paperwork that they filled out when she was brought into the jail says she told them something about trying to overdoes on pills after having a miscarriage but then on another page when it asked if she was suicidal they circled no. Maybe that question meant was she suicidal at the moment of being brought into the jail. I know at my sheriff's office the detention deputy who in processes the inmate will ask them if they want to harm themselves or others and if they say no then they circle no. Unless they tell you they are suicidal or have committed an act that leads you to believe they are suicidal there is no way of knowing that they are suicidal. Like I said, the investigation is still ongoing so this is all just speculation on my part.

He doesn't have to include that in the report. It could be that he just didn't want to be standing in the road with traffic. Not every danger involves the person inside the car.

He is clearly not in the right state of mind. Yes, he put himself in danger by lunging into the car like that. Remember how the Batlimore officers said they didn't fasten Freddie Grey's seat belt because they would have had to reach past him in a narrow space, and even though he was in cuffs, he could still bite them. How does police training allow for those BPD officers to be justified in not fastening his seatbelt, but also justify an officer lunging head first into a car with an un-detained suspect? I can't be the only one that sees that gap in logic. And about him not including his reason for asking her to get out of the car in the first place, he easily could have went up to the passenger side to avoid traffic. He asks her to put out her cigarette, and she says no (which she has every right to), and he says "Well, you can step on out now". In his voice, you can hear how angry he is. So he asked her to step out of the car because she was being disrespectful (also not a crime). Can't you see that the entire interaction shifted when she didn't get out of the car? But since his state of mind was wrong before that, it was really his anger that fueled the rest of the interaction. Using the vagueness of Penn. vs Mimms, this officer was able to needlessly take out his anger and frustration on someone for being disrespectful to him.

 

I found this on reddit, its worth a quote. The officer had three choices when she refused to put out her cigarette. 

"1) acknowledge her rights to smoke and proceed to issue the warning,

2) explain the reason for his polite request and ask her nicely again and leaving the right entirely to her,

3) yank her out of the car and treat her like a dog that won't stop pissing on the rug."

 

You're right, its still ongoing. If she showed the deputies that she was a suicidal risk, and they did nothing to keep her safe, that could be very bad. Checking "no" after they said she told her she had attempted suicide in the past doesn't add up. I hope all of it can be cleared up in an investigation.

Edited July 25, 201510 yr by Riley24

He is clearly not in the right state of mind. Yes, he put himself in danger by lunging into the car like that. Remember how the Batlimore officers said they didn't fasten Freddie Grey's seat belt because they would have had to reach past him in a narrow space, and even though he was in cuffs, he could still bite them. How does police training allow for those BPD officers to be justified in not fastening his seatbelt, but also justify an officer lunging head first into a car with an un-detained suspect? I can't be the only one that sees that gap in logic. And about him not including his reason for asking her to get out of the car in the first place, he easily could have went up to the passenger side to avoid traffic. He asks her to put out her cigarette, and she says no (which she has every right to), and he says "Well, you can step on out now". In his voice, you can hear how angry he is. So he asked her to step out of the car because she was being disrespectful (also not a crime). Can't you see that the entire interaction shifted when she didn't get out of the car? But since his state of mind was wrong before that, it was really his anger that fueled the rest of the interaction. Using the vagueness of Penn. vs Mimms, this officer was able to needlessly take out his anger and frustration on someone for being disrespectful to him.

 

I found this on reddit, its worth a quote. The officer had three choices when she refused to put out her cigarette. 

"1) acknowledge her rights to smoke and proceed to issue the warning,

2) explain the reason for his polite request and ask her nicely again and leaving the right entirely to her,

3) yank her out of the car and treat her like a dog that won't stop pissing on the rug."

 

You're right, its still ongoing. If she showed the deputies that she was a suicidal risk, and they did nothing to keep her safe, that could be very bad. Checking "no" after they said she told her she had attempted suicide in the past doesn't add up. I hope all of it can be cleared up in an investigation.

You are right, police officers are trained that lunging into a car is very dangerous and should be avoided if possible, that doesn't make it illegal for him to do so though. That was the officer's decision to take the risk of get inside of that car. And that is a common issue in the courts. There have been cases that were too vague and so the courts reversed the ruling, but so far there hasn't been any court ruling that has reversed Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

The question they checked no on could have referred to are they suicidal right now which seems to likely be the case. One questions asks if they have ever been suicidal and the other asks if they are suicidal right now. Depending on how long ago her last suicide attempt was they might have believed that she no longer wanted to kill herself. Again, this is just my speculation since I don't know anything about this sheriff's office.

You are right, police officers are trained that lunging into a car is very dangerous and should be avoided if possible, that doesn't make it illegal for him to do so though. That was the officer's decision to take the risk of get inside of that car. And that is a common issue in the courts. There have been cases that were too vague and so the courts reversed the ruling, but so far there hasn't been any court ruling that has reversed Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

Because Penn. v. Mimms is not a case people care about until a cop violently attacks someone in their car. How is it that a case that started after police ordered a suspect out to find a gun is distorted into giving a Texas State Trooper the legal ability to attack a woman in her car for standing up to him? Instead of diffusing the situation, he escalated it. If he had explained to her the apparent extent of his power in a traffic stop instead of threatening to "light her up", the entire situation may have been avoided. If I was in the majority of Americans that have never heard of Penn. v. Mimms, I would be absolutely terrified that a state trooper is lunging into my car, grabbing me, and threatening me. I have no idea how I would react. I may try to call my lawyer or record him, both of which he chose to prevent her from doing. Look beyond the simplicity of the legal ruling of Penn. v. Mimms. It is incredibly easy to brush your hands and say "wellin the context of a supreme court case regarding a completely different situation, he legally  didn't do anything wrong so that's that.". Do me a favor and approach this story as a human being. There is plenty of more nuance to it than just whether or not he could ask her to get out of the car.

-She had the right to smoke in her car (funny that you don't seem at all concerned with the legality of the rest of his actions).

-The officer offered no reason for asking her to get out of the car, either in the official report or to her at the time

-The officer is clearly emotional and in a poor state of mind

-The officer is reactionary, and escalates the situation

-The officer's emotions lead him to endanger his suspect and himself by lunging into her car

-He never told her what she was under arrest for, leading her to believe she was being arrested for a failure to signal (after being forced into another lane by the same officer's alleged wreckless driving). You say that officers don't ell suspects why they're being arrested because it might enrage them, but the opposite happened in this case. It was the officer's refusal to answer the question that agitated her, as it would anyone. It begs the question, did the officer even know at the time why he was arresting her? Then when she's out of the car and calm, he still does not answer the question, he corrals her around with a taser even though she is not resisting physically.

Watch the video again, the whole version. You could write a novel about all of the officer's misconduct and lies that he told. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_wNH9OiYA

 

Edited July 30, 201510 yr by Riley24

He doesn't have to include that in the report. It could be that he just didn't want to be standing in the road with traffic. Not every danger involves the person inside the car.

Oh, please.  Why is anyone even still bothering to offer a defence for this guy's actions?  He approached the car from the passenger's side at first - this clearly put him out of the way of traffic.  No reason why he couldn't have done so again when approaching for the second time.

I think we've clarified that nothing he did was illegal, but it is becoming widely accepted that this was still an extremely poor display of policing.  A cop should never meaninglessly escalate the situation, and he did just that.  Claiming that she was ordered out of the car for anything other than as a stupid emotional reaction to the refusal to stop smoking is about as credible as the theories flying around surrounding her death.  I really don't get why people are still arguing about her death.  You cannot reasonably expect to be able to prevent every suicide in jail.  I think the more pressing issue is the fact that this stop was allowed to escalate to the point where she got taken to jail in the first place, and then also the trooper's blatant lies during his conversation with the supervisor.

Because Penn. v. Mimms is not a case people care about until a cop violently attacks someone in their car. How is it that a case that started after police ordered a suspect out to find a gun is distorted into giving a Texas State Trooper the legal ability to attack a woman in her car for standing up to him? Instead of diffusing the situation, he escalated it. If he had explained to her the apparent extent of his power in a traffic stop instead of threatening to "light her up", the entire situation may have been avoided. If I was in the majority of Americans that have never heard of Penn. v. Mimms, I would be absolutely terrified that a state trooper is lunging into my car, grabbing me, and threatening me. I have no idea how I would react. I may try to call my lawyer or record him, both of which he chose to prevent her from doing. Look beyond the simplicity of the legal ruling of Penn. v. Mimms. It is incredibly easy to brush your hands and say "wellin the context of a supreme court case regarding a completely different situation, he legally  didn't do anything wrong so that's that.". Do me a favor and approach this story as a human being. There is plenty of more nuance to it than just whether or not he could ask her to get out of the car.

-She had the right to smoke in her car (funny that you don't seem at all concerned with the legality of the rest of his actions).

-The officer offered no reason for asking her to get out of the car, either in the official report or to her at the time

-The officer is clearly emotional and in a poor state of mind

-The officer is reactionary, and escalates the situation

-The officer's emotions lead him to endanger his suspect and himself by lunging into her car

-He never told her what she was under arrest for, leading her to believe she was being arrested for a failure to signal (after being forced into another lane by the same officer's alleged wreckless driving). You say that officers don't ell suspects why they're being arrested because it might enrage them, but the opposite happened in this case. It was the officer's refusal to answer the question that agitated her, as it would anyone. It begs the question, did the officer even know at the time why he was arresting her? Then when she's out of the car and calm, he still does not answer the question, he corrals her around with a taser even though she is not resisting physically.

Watch the video again, the whole version. You could write a novel about all of the officer's misconduct and lies that he told. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_wNH9OiYA

 

That is not why Harry Mimms was ordered out of the car, the officers ordered him out of the car and upon him exiting the vehicle noticed a bulge which allowed them to conduct a pat down in accordance with Terry v. Ohio. You expect officers to explain case law to people who are belligerent? You want the officer to stop and say "according to Pennsylvania v. Mimms I am legally allowed to order you out of the vehicle so you must comply"? Even if the officer did do that do you really think this lady (or almost any other person) would give two shits about case law? No, they would still refuse.

I am concerned with the legaility of the rest of his actions. He has the right to ask her to stop smoking and she has the right to say no. There is nothing illegal about asking someone to put a cigarette out.

I did watch the whole video, the 50 minute long video that shows the entire stop. The video you posted is only a portion of the stop and also obviously biased.

Oh, please.  Why is anyone even still bothering to offer a defence for this guy's actions?  He approached the car from the passenger's side at first - this clearly put him out of the way of traffic.  No reason why he couldn't have done so again when approaching for the second time.

I think we've clarified that nothing he did was illegal, but it is becoming widely accepted that this was still an extremely poor display of policing.  A cop should never meaninglessly escalate the situation, and he did just that.  Claiming that she was ordered out of the car for anything other than as a stupid emotional reaction to the refusal to stop smoking is about as credible as the theories flying around surrounding her death.  I really don't get why people are still arguing about her death.  You cannot reasonably expect to be able to prevent every suicide in jail.  I think the more pressing issue is the fact that this stop was allowed to escalate to the point where she got taken to jail in the first place, and then also the trooper's blatant lies during his conversation with the supervisor.

It is very possible that he ordered her out of the car based on his emotions. However, she would have more of a case for herself if she did not resist. Legally she was in the wrong and the officer was right, however screwed up you think that is it is the truth. Unfortunately even if an officer is out of line or clearly wrong the best course of action is to comply with them and fight it in court. I know that sounds really shitty, and it is, but there isn't really any other way of dealing with that kind of situation.