Bowsite.com

The officer claims she kicked him, but failed to put in his report the threat to use a stun gun to light her up.

Last thread about the Garner settlement went un-posted.

Great editorial a few weeks back from a clergy about conservatives ought not to trust the government to carry out capital punishments-conservatives supposedly don't trust government, yet somehow they do with executions!!! BTW, same article said more than 150 people have been released from death row since the advent of DNA testing. 150 plus people the cops and prosecutors were sure did it!!!

Change is taking place and FOX was on the wrong side of all of this.

"Stun gun to light her up" is histrionic crap. You've made your mind up without facts.

No surprise, this is not the first time.

The relevant point is HER behavior.

And I disagree with it.

The stun gun thing is a quote direct from the dash cam video

still need to hear all the facts though

I would like to get the results of an unbiased investigation.

She, like the teenager in TX, was a disrespectful brat. Consequences don't match their behavior though, and that is what is finally changing in America. And freedom loving conservatives ought to be supporting that!

I believe she did commit suicide, I don't believe whatever happened on camera warranted being in jail for 3 days where she finally made the decision to go down that road. Time to start thinking about what is transpiring instead of chanting the same old line that coercive correction power is always good.

If she committed suicide, it's on her hand, nobody else's. I'm familiar with more than one case, including a former sister-in-law, who took the bedsheet route in jail. And, I'll take the hundreds of jail visits I have made, compared to your experience. I also know of others here who have experience in detention centers that dwarfs mine.

You spend your life looking for something wrong in every police encounter. I guess some cop didn't give you a lollipop when you were 5 and you've never forgiven them since.

Agree with you. I have posted it numerous times here that when I refused to place my wife in a potentially dangerous situation and did not comply with a trooper's demands, his response in our opinion was to abuse his authority.

The only difference between Sandra and myself probably, I have the resources, knowledge and proper behavior to stand up to this type of nonsense. And, I was not in TX:)

Lots of articles on this topic lately. Another lengthy one in the WSJ recently about how videos are making a huge difference. I for one am tired of the pay outs that are costing tax payers a lot of money for behavior that should not happen.

People ending up dead for whatever reason for simple mistakes like lane changes without signaling or selling loose cigarettes is not acceptable, even when the victim is in the wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it is high time conservatives stop supporting poor behavior by anyone that is part of the process that leads to these outcomes.

Go kiss the butt of another officer. Your opinion on things like the Slager shooting changed following the outspokenness of a few LE types here. BTW, even FOX had a judge say recently the Slager shooting was so out of line he will be convicted of something. 5 million pay out on the Garner case, get a life pontificating to your no doubt criminal clients who believe you are smarter than them.

Neither do three or 4 wrongs.

1. Illegal lane change 2. Belligerent to police 3. Overreaction by officer 4. kills self in jail

I would be willing to guess that police officers overreact hundreds of times a day in America. In the vast majority of cases the response is that the citizen walks away safe and healthy because they do not make mistakes 2 and 4 above.

oddly, both the cop and woman seem justified for the actions on camera

For me, I am tired of guys like bk who want to tell me they know more than all of us because they have experienced things first hand, and the rest of us did not. His claim that the suicide is all on the victim, then why do jails ask if there are suicidal tendencies of incoming criminals and have policies like hourly visual inspections? That's right smart guy, to prevent suicides! And according to the information released, those inspections did not occur on the schedule that was policy.

How much you want to bet the department will be held financially liable for some part of her death for violating their own policies?

The lawyer is not the smartest guy in the room!

Not a fact yet that she killed herself.

Hundreds of people, probably thousands make lane changes daily without signaling, yes that is technically illegal. But let's use your same logic, these happen daily without an arrest followed by a possible suicide. Let's have the same scale for both citizen and police behavior!

You are a highly intelligent individual, but I would never agree with you that the officer has less responsibility in these types of situations. I think that is what many are missing. They, like you and I in our professions, must be trained to not allow situations like this to escalate to that level, even when they are having a bad day. In your heart, you know those words are true. And logic dictates then that it is not just the "criminal" at fault.

I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe in trying to respect people and protect their self esteem, but as proven here, I fail at times. People are right to point those failures out to help one correct their behavior and improve, more so when the people we are pointing out with unacceptable behavior have the opportunity to take away our freedom or worse.

I said it before, America is coming to grips with this. There will be more changes and I hope conservatives will be able to take some credit for changes years from now we will recognize as having been necessary in a free society..

One of my closest friends is an LEO. I have contact with him very regularly, including entertaining his entire family in our home. He is one of the most respected people in my life. Was a Marine as well. We both know what we would do for each other if the proverbial whatever hit the fan.

We had a very heated 2 hour, pull to the side of the road, discussion over some of this. It came about because of the teenager in TX who was thrown to the ground.

He agreed with the officer at first, explained to me how their training allows them to go to one level higher in force than the person they are dealing with. He then agreed pulling weapons was not one level higher, that the girl did not have a weapon in her bikini.

I love this friend like a brother, and after an explosive discussion he ended up totally agreeing, the girl was a brat, did not listen, but given this area (which we both are familiar with) is not what some in the press would call the "hood", throwing her to the ground and kneeling on her back for that length of time was out of line. His superiors agreed, thankfully.

All of us want to support our police, military or any other first responders who put their lives on the line. But, there are bad ones and they must be weeded out. You take me to task for only disparaging officers, some of you only disparage those who disagree with officers. Time for you to admit when there is a bad one, no qualifiers, just say it.

PM me, I will provide you a number to call me. Given a level of comfort, and with permission from my friend, I will ask him to call you. You can get all of his pertinent LEO information, and ask him if I am a jerk, or just the opposite including to all LEOs I have dealt with. Without doing this, I will never let you get away with another criticism of me on this site. You have implied some not so nice things about me with your words, so man up or what you implied fits you.

Not going to disagree that it is the law breaker in all of these situations that first escalates it. (Careful on who is actually the law breaker though.)

The point I have been making, and I believe is starting to take hold in our country is that in spite of the criminal act, there are limitations to the response LE is allowed when it is a non-threatening, non-felony.

For too long I believe, and the WSJ states it, citizens have just always accepted the officers' view. But videos have changed that and now we are starting to question things. I believe our past lack of challenging the officer's view helped create a culture that enough officers today are having difficulty with some of their behaviors getting them into trouble.

Anyone giving people grief for wanting LE to follow our Constitution are no friends of freedom. Have no fear for standing up to them, we don't have to be in combat to take risk and exercise courage.

Pat, she would have NOT died there if not for the arrest. In jail for 3 days for what???

Personally, we all talk about reducing government, yet want to lock up people for minor stuff like this? Major movement afoot, and states like MN (I believe) are leading the way on trying to reduce jail time for minor violations by giving police more authority to send some folks directly to other facilities where they can be helped. No increase in crime yet, and other states are looking hard at this.

Agreement within Congress to look at other alternatives to locking people up for non-violent drug offenses. Cost of incarceration is over $30K per year.

Again, hopefully we conservatives will be leading the way on these types of changes that prove viable, i.e. cost saving without raising risk.

I was one of the first who thanked a prior Denver manager of safety when he fired rogue cops, so once again, HFW is off the mark. I actually, though, know the difference between heat of the moment conduct versus actual bad acts.

How someone spends three days in jail on a fairly minor beef? The bond is set, often according to a schedule, which increases with priors. The defendant can't post bond, either by cash, property or surety, and remains in jail pending a later court appearance. Why in this case, and what the bond was, I don't know.

WRT the "she was depressed" idea, everyone who gets booked into a jail is depressed at the time.

I thought that chit was supposed to make you mellow.

If she was STUPID enough to still act like an a-hole AFTER she was given a warning ticket then she obviously had other mental issues she wa dealing with and maybe shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place. Gawd forbid someone cut HER off, she'd of probably run them off the road.

Once again, it's just more of the same "white privilege/anti-cop attitude" that Obama and crew have made the cause of the day.

If you want to have an attitude, the LAST person you want to dump it on is an LEO, because it WILL NOT end well for you! You want to fight? Go to a bar and pick one.

I know this sounds harsh, but the gene pool was just improved a bit. Picking a fight with a cop (AFTER HE GIVES YOU A WARNING TICKET!!!) makes about as much sense as sticking you finger into a meat grinder.

Anyway, I'm about a 1/2 mile PAST this town (and back up to 55) when I see another vehicle behind me closing in. This road is a 2 lane but at this point straight as an arrow and no hills. I expected this car to pass but it just got REAL close . I slowed down so that the person would pass me be he just kept tailgating me so I put my signal on and pulled over. AT that piont I see tha MARS lights come on and the county sheriff's deputy pulls in behind me.

I had my licence and such ready when the officer came to the window, as well as my unstrung recurve and my pack sitting on the seat. He asked me why I pulled over, was I having trouble?

I told him that I pulled over because I was being tailgated in the middle of the night by who knows who!

He then asked me where I was going and I told him bowhunting. We then had a nice chat about deer hunting and he then said that I was going about 5 over the speed limit in that town and that they are extra cautious on Saturday nights with people coming home from being in the bars all night and he was just checking. He told me to be careful and wished me luck and I THANKED HIM and I went on my way.

I was a bit miffed about him tailgating me like he did, but the LAST thing I would have done was give him crap about it! If this is how they keep track of impaired drivers then it's good with me.

As it was if I'd of acted like Ms. Bland, not only would I have missed a RUT hunt, but my wife would have had to have bailed me out of jail....or on second thought she probably WOULDN'T have because I acted like an a**hole!!!

And bk knows I am telling the truth...the SC has decided you can exercise your free speech to an officer as long as it is not threatening. That is the law, not you your belief that you should not start something because it will not end well.

Be respectful, and stand up for your rights. HK, I am disappointed in you. My family outside of my wife does not know where I am at 24-7, so your assumption her family did not care is just that, an assumption unless you have information that she called them.

It seems it is OK to make assumptions when they support the view that LE is always right, but your are just an (fill in the blank) when you do otherwise.

No assumptions on my part here. She should have never been in jail for this, it is as simple as that. Total waste of our money, and it is our money!

Quit playing to the crowd here. It takes courage not to, but you can do it.

I don't play to anyone here. If you think I do, you don't pay much attention.

BTW, I am not still obsessing about an injustice (real or imagined) that happened in my life many years ago.

Nice try, maybe you are not as smart as I gave you credit for. I am not obsessing about anything, but I did learn from it and that real experience allows me to empathize better with people who have experienced similar circumstances. You know, that is how bk became such an expert on this topic-real experience.

The report I read stated she said she was not feeling suicidal the day she was processed. Without more knowledge, maybe she was not on suicide watch because of that? And you could have read this instead of asking your question which is playing to the crowd.

Also, as others pointed out, she had cell mates. Better questions would be did they observe her committing suicide, or did they participate in something more sinister?

And I read all of this BEFORE posting my comments.

Bland had a long history of legal problems. She also had use of a phone and made 5 phone calls to relatives to get bail...and obviously, her relatives did not come to her assistance (one can imagine why).

A definite red flag in my opinion. Fortunately it is not something I have first hand knowledge.

AM, typical of what you and others usually do in these types of situations. Her past somehow makes it OK that she is dead? Take her out of the gene pool? Yes, that is why the conservative brand that many want to see get the nomination never will.

The family might not have money for bail? Happens every day in America, just ask bk. And she was out of state which also made it more difficult no doubt. And, many people probably would not know how to deal with this. The fact that she called her family at least suggests that she has a relationship with them, that is a better assumption than the family doesn't care.

All the moralizing here and justifying what happened. Any conservative supporting this type of behavior has no chance of getting elected. The voices here do not represent mainstream America.

As was pointed out, this all started because the officer told her to put out her cigarette. She refused and it escalated from there. Was it illegal for her to smoke? Should the officer have asked her to put it out instead of ordering? Many will see it as another episode of an officer not liking a person not following his commands and going over the top.

A person dead after 3 days in jail for this? Americans will not support it!

I am headed to the farm for several days to a week of hard work, but fun. Just wanted you to know when I do not respond it is not that I have run for cover. Farm is in the middle of no where and I do not have cell coverage until I go to town for supplies. Thanks.

What's so hard to figure out about this???

She killed HERSELF! She has no one else to blame. End of story.

"She is stupid so now she is dead". Any candidate supporting that view is one everyone should, and will run from. All of us have done stupid things, we should all be dead?

For all you Bible thumpers, please point me to the verse that says stupid people should die and go to hell. I'm sure you will twist some verse. My suggestion, try living by the message the Bible communicates instead of finding words that justify such ridiculous positions.

That you would try to make an issue out of it, as though others were to blame, shows how far you will twist things to implicate the police.

It is not foreseeable that she would have killed herself from anything that preceded her death. Under your logic, the friends and family of Robin Williams should also be implicated in his death.

The more you post the more convinced I become that you are a person with an almost Quixotic fixation on argument, even to the extent of inventing an argument where none was offered.

Case in point the swipe at AM above. Nowhere in his post did Jack state, imply or even infer that her past makes her death "ok". Here is what he did post and it's veracity:

"Bland had a long history of legal problems."

True statement and is a simple reiteration of known facts.

"She also had use of a phone and made 5 phone calls to relatives to get bail..."

True statement, same connotation as above.

"and obviously, her relatives did not come to her assistance (one can imagine why)."

Again a true statement of fact. The last part is open to interpretation but offers that perhaps having been down this road many times her relatives may have thought that perhaps there was an object lesson in there somewhere. Another "perhaps" is that they were simply not in a position to render aid.

Nowhere in there is any justification of her death, your hyperbole and faux outrage notwithstanding.

For all you Bible thumpers, please point me to the verse that says stupid people should die and go to hell.

How about you point to the post where anyone fitting that criteria explicitly stated that the Bible states stupid people should die and go to hell. How about starting there and dialing down the hyperbole and histrionics for a moment.

Why can you convict her but come up with every reason to defend officers who shoot people in the back, especially with the common refrain that we need to wait for all of the facts?

Please enlighten me on any situation in which it is the best course to pass judgement absent all the facts. I'm all acquiver waiting for those pearls of wisdom.

Under your preferred course (as you seem to imply):

The officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates would have been drummed out of the Cambridge police force.

George Zimmerman would have been convicted of murdering Trayvon Martin.

Officer Darren Wilson would have been convicted of murdering Michael Brown.

In all 3 cases once all the facts were known the realities of each situation were clear; the accused had all acted appropriately and all the hullabaloo and outrage was unadulterated nonsense.

The saddest aspect is that there are very real instances of abuse of authority; some day you may very well be leading the charge to point out such a case and you will then understand the meaning of the boy who cried wolf.

Then again, perhaps not.

Your opinion does not matter any more. You immediately posted an attack, no doubt to show your LEO friends you are on their side, and what you accused me of was totally off base as I used a quote directly from the officer. Yes, his words were crap! And so are yours.

Mike,

What, maybe too smart for your own good eh? I am supposed to wait for all of the facts while it is OK for someone who doles out so many pearls of wisdom to conclude something about "my preferred course" as IMPLIED by my words. Too funny there.

Funny you did not cite the Garner case where the family and lawyer have 5.9 million reasons to support abuse of power. I call that selective wisdom minus the pearls.

Yes, I like to argue when I am passionate about something. And here is what I am passionate about...This stuff has to end. The perps, criminals, whatever words make you happy, were all wrong. But in a free country, minor episodes leading to death by government should not be acceptable. Maybe you will someday figure this out, but then probably not before it is too late to recognize you were one of the very smart sheeple.

I get to do a little concluding now based on what was implied above. Yes, Ms. Bland had attempted suicide-after a pregnancy termination. Guess what, clinical psychology has a name for women who experience physiological/chemical changes from pregnancy. I think it is as recognized as PTSD. Many of our vets have attempted suicide. The lack of insensitivity or inability to see how this relates is why women still flock to the Dems.

And you can bet there will be some liability since procedures were not followed. Heck even the TX DA said though he will wait for all of the facts, he did not like what he saw and initiated an investigation.

Don't confuse me with the lilly white teacher from KS. People who don't think, act or react the way I do still have a right to life IMO. Based on what has been reported so far, I would not doubt that Sandra's family was not willing to help with bail as apparently she owed money from at least several other incidents. Interpreting this as they have no right now to be concerned about her death is unbelievable.

Back from the farm early. After finishing mowing and spraying, it rained 1.5" in 2 hours. Dirt work was impossible. Home for 1-2 days before heading back.

Have to share this. I live in KS (5 minutes from MO border), farm is in MO. I stopped to get fuel in Cleveland MO, mainly just because of having been born and raised in Cleveland, OH. This is one of those 1 stop light towns that has gained a reputation for over use of ticketing for revenue.

PO pulls in as I am fueling my Tundra (very muddy) and had 3 extra gas cans on the ground for equipment. We give each other eye contact, and as I ALWAYS do when in close proximity and someone gives me eye contact, I said "good morning" (or other salutation). He responds "good morning, sir", which I say "Sir? I work for a living!" We both laugh. I then tell him thank you for being polite.

I have to go to another pump to get diesel fuel. He observes me. I go get ice, he still observes me. (I always observe what is transpiring around me.) As I am getting ready to depart, he says it looks like I am headed to deer camp. I say yes, that I have a farm and manage it for wildlife and have several relatives from both sides of the family from all over the country who come to hunt each fall. He says he likes the plotting and preparation as much as the hunting. I say so you hunt and we chat a little about it. We bid each other good luck and head our separate ways.

This is the typical way I treat every human, whether they wear a uniform or not! It does not matter what walk of life they are on, they deserve respect and I try to show it.

What that has to do with BS, the CF and conservatives? The tide is changing. There are too many of these episodes like the one discussed on this thread being caught on video. It does not matter who started it, the officer should be trained to deescalate minor incidents BEFORE they become a problem. Our jails are full of real criminals, too full to waste time and resources on petty stuff like this. And officers must know how to deal with cultural differences that DO exist, and must keep their egos in check.

I hope all read the CNN article posted above. I bet this was a legal exchange on the officer's part, but I also agree he goaded her.

And while some will want to tell us about all of their experience, my college has the Police Academy on it. I have a relative who was a former ADA, relative and friends who were former judges. Just like the SC, it is tough to find full agreement on every topic between them. And you hopefully can tell from some of my own personal behaviors that I do have experience-like why I always greet people in a friendly manner who have given me eye contact and are in close approximity-that is not just about being respectful, it may cause some hesitancy on someone who intends to do me harm thereby giving me just possibly a little more time to be prepared.

We all know more change is coming, and unless conservatives embrace it and help direct it towards a more productive outcome we will continue to be called bigots and racists and will be in the minority in national politics. I love this country, we cannot allow that to happen!!

Mike, I connected some dots of my own I guess. Got tired of reading about some of the harsh responses here, on topics for example Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. I had a student this summer who was going through the same thing, though born a female becoming a male.

Told me on the last day of class that his uncle, a colleague of mine at the school, and a liberal, told him to take me as I was fair to everyone. He thanked me for not disappointing him. We talked of his challenges. I even asked what was the proper way to refer to him, and he wanted a non-gender specific approach.

He told me I had convinced him that markets were the best solution to scarcity, but that conservatives were just too mean for him to support politically. Perception is reality. We are doomed if we can't change this. The demographics of this country have changed since many of us were born, and will continue on that same path.

Rhody, I will stick with my compound. I hit what I release at:)

That was in fun to show how if you goad someone, they will likely respond. So IMO officers don't get to do that and then respond with what we saw on this dash cam.

Mike, I thought further about your post above. You posted cases I have not expressed an opinion of, using what you thought was my implied logic.

Regarding the Ferguson case, the criminal was a thug, he crossed the line from being disrespectful/non-compliant to threatening. I agree with the results.

Regarding Travvon, based on what I have read and observed since, the shooter would have been convicted of manslaughter if FL law had allowed for both charges, and probably should have for my same logic as goading above.

But I did post my thoughts on Garner. Remember a year ago all of the commentary by the so called experts on here that it was not a choke hold. Whether they are technically right or not, the Garner family lost and so did the taxpayers. Maybe that ought to be the focus?

The horse thief beat up on TV helicopter camera, bad guy still facing charges but they settled for around $600K I believe. We lost again.

Cleveland, St Louis, all making major changes including civilian review boards in at least one town. Major credible news organizations such as the WSJ reporting on the changes taking place and the public's changing views about police behavior.

Yep, still too much black on black crime with next to no voice given to it by the self proclaimed promoters (I mean leaders) of blacks. Simply a disgrace, but does not justify what has been coming to light recently. This is a separate issue, and one that I express my opinion on just as I have done here.

Anyone else still wondering about that "hot, long summer" that was supposed to erupt? If it doesn't, will anyone else see this as an improvement that when the system listens and makes necessary, sensible changes we can have non-violent progress?

Please issue your same advice to the people who used "conservative" reporting sites to allow jewels like "THC was present in her blood" to imply something about Ms. Bland. Does anyone know if she travelled through CO on her journey, or partook in any other legal fashion? Facts, right? But facts are not important unless we are talking about defending a PO.

Typical of what I have read from many of AM's sources, very slanted stories that any fair investigator would wonder about the balance.

Well done, Slade.

Apparently, whether or not it was a suicide is unimportant, because YOU started a thread on it. And anyone insisting that the evidence is important is LEO biased in your "the police are always wrong" mind.

Go buy yourself that lollipop. No cop is going to give you one. Get over it.

I'll buy a lollipop and pretend I'm Kojack if you buy some integrity, then you can pretend you know what you are talking about.

Here are some facts. The officer never put his "histrionic crap" (your words) into his report. Ms. Bland would have went before a judge, obviously lacking resources, and it would have been her word against his, with his report as corroborating evidence to his story.

The only reason we know about it is because she died and the investigation, all of it will be made public. At a minimum this officer has selective memory. Others will view it as something else. And maybe this is what some are rioting about, cops are not always completely honest. And do you think it is just circumstance that we found out about the only time an officer has ever pulled a stunt like this?

I could care what bad cops think of me. Unlike you I am not going to kiss their butts or have my neck under their boot. Really, isn't that the stuff we rail against on the CF. I'll say it again, we don't need a revolution, we need people with enough courage to recognize and call out unconstitutional behavior. You are not one of them.

What, maybe too smart for your own good eh? I am supposed to wait for all of the facts while it is OK for someone who doles out so many pearls of wisdom to conclude something about "my preferred course" as IMPLIED by my words. Too funny there.

Yes, you should always wait for all the facts to come in before rendering judgement. May I take this as a sign that you intend to start, prior to having LEO's fitted for hemp neck ties?

Regarding your ending comment; what's funny is an educator who either can't follow an obvious train of thought or pretends not to when it lays bare his obvious bias. Cause and effect. You cannot chastise posters for advising to wait for facts to come in and then walk back from those statements when the outcome of your approach is made plain for all but the blind to see. Personally I don't find anything at all funny about hypocrisy of that magnitude.

Funny you did not cite the Garner case where the family and lawyer have 5.9 million reasons to support abuse of power. I call that selective wisdom minus the pearls.

Nothing at all funny about that; were you not so inclined to feel your layman's knowledge vastly superior to BK's juris doctorate you might accidentally learn a few things from him about why cases are settled even when the facts favor the defendant.

Or, if swallowing your ego proves too onerous, consult a good insurance actuary; he or she could tell you similar reasons for settlement of cases where the facts favor the party offering the settlement.

Again, you highlight your predisposition to assume guilt on the part of the LEO.

Yes, I like to argue when I am passionate about something. And here is what I am passionate about...This stuff has to end. The perps, criminals, whatever words make you happy, were all wrong. But in a free country, minor episodes leading to death by government should not be acceptable.

Again you highlight your myopic bias; you start with a point that no one would dispute (minor violations of the law should not end in death) but cannot restrain yourself from projecting a viewpoint on your protagonists that none ever expressed; specifically that these deaths are "acceptable".

Stating the deaths were "avoidable" (as all have done) is a simple statement of fact. Your outrage to the result blinds you to this very obvious reality and you read into simple basic language what exists only in your mind.

Maybe you will someday figure this out, but then probably not before it is too late to recognize you were one of the very smart sheeple.

See above; the one party blinded by his own hand is you.

And you can bet there will be some liability since procedures were not followed. Heck even the TX DA said though he will wait for all of the facts, he did not like what he saw and initiated an investigation.

You may want to spend some time re-reading the above, and pay particular attention to the words "he will wait for all of the facts". Given your conduct towards posters here advocating that very course may we conclude that you will soon be authoring a sternly worded rebuke to this DA? You know, damn the facts, let's move on to the execution?

(Obviously the last sentence was extreme hyperbole-I'm sure many here got it but I'm not placing bets on your interpretive skills.)

Don't confuse me with the lilly white teacher from KS. People who don't think, act or react the way I do still have a right to life IMO.

Save your implied bigotry for those in need of remonstration. But on the plus side I don't suppose I could have asked for a better example of your bias and implied bigotry. Thank you.

Based on what has been reported so far, I would not doubt that Sandra's family was not willing to help with bail as apparently she owed money from at least several other incidents. Interpreting this as they have no right now to be concerned about her death is unbelievable.

Leaving out the last sentence would have a been a first-time foray into a honest reading; too bad you couldn't rein in that penchant for hyperbole with a dollop of projection. Stating that her death was avoidable is not stating that family members have no basis for concern and is yet another pathetic attempt on your part to vilify honest renderings of fact(s).

And Mike,

Please issue your same advice to the people who used "conservative" reporting sites to allow jewels like "THC was present in her blood" to imply something about Ms. Bland.

You mean "conservative sites" like this one?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-bland-swallowed-or-smoked-large-quantity-of-marijuana-in-jail-da_55b12ba9e4b08f57d5d3f041

Or would you have preferred those other bastions of conservatism, the DailyKos? CNN?

Lastly, since you seem to like to focus on "selective" remembrances, how about you respond to my request to cite the Bowsite poster(s) who led you to posit the query "For all you Bible thumpers, please point me to the verse that says stupid people should die and go to hell."

Or, you could spare us any further pretense and own up to another example of how far off the mark you've been on a consistent basis.

According to HFW, I "kiss their butts or have your (my) neck under their boot."

Now, the fun part is that he doesn't have a clue about who the people here are. It's just that we must be motivated by wishing to "kiss their butts."

Try again. In the late 90's, I exposed Denver's civil forfeiture abuse in an editorial in the Denver Post, causing a legislative furor. Got the law changed after 2 years. Fought the Denver PD for nine years on the concealed weapons bill I co-authored and won.

And then there is this little tidbit. Guess why I put this here?

If you want admission into the Dumbbass hall of fame, your brass plaque awaits.

No apology will be coming. Yes I had the facts of watching the video before posting. Bk did not, but Mike that is somehow OK because of a JD?

You should re-read what I first posted. And I have not changed my position on anything TB. these actions are a total waste of our money, and for what? What is pathetic Mike is your explanation for " where was the family while she was in jail for 3 days? Now suddenly they are concerned about her?"

My judgment is not vastly superior to anyone's, nor is yours Mike. In fact mine is vastly inferior to the overwhelming public majority, which mainstream news sites have been sharing more stories on the public's increased skepticism with just taking one view in these incidents.

Mike, all of your other ranting is not worth responding to. I started this thread with I don't care what anyone thinks about the officer's actions. From there I continued to hammer away about changes that are forthcoming, and are necessary. Those changes will include letting poor officers go, changes to policy, increased training, more options instead of just going to jail etc. and I shared these.

The comment regarding Bible thumpers is from another thread where I expressed my reservations, actually lack of support, for capital punishment. I was given scripture verses to read in support of executions. God is perfect, man is not. 150 plus people released that would most likely have been executed. Same article I am referring to the author felt, though not proven, innocents probably had been executed before DNA. But probably these people were guilty of something, like THC in their blood?

That is funny! Dumbass is attacking me for histrionics for quoting the words of an officer.

I agree she had a lot of problems. Agree with that, but also think based on the material we have access to, she was turning the corner. Had graduated from college and was on her way to start a job at her former university.

Those facts just don't seem to make sense.

Gflight,

Very rational opinion , and here is the kicker...if that was his training or SOP, I do not blame him but the department. Agree that there will be a payout, and a scape goat.

This girl admitted she was suicidal when booked and got no watch...

No apology will be coming. Yes I had the facts of watching the video before posting. Bk did not, but Mike that is somehow OK because of a JD?

Please exclude me from things which I neither say nor echo; at least remove this aspect of your disingenous postings from your repertoire.

Secondly, and try to pay attention here, the comment about BK's JD was made in relation to why settlements are made and had nothing to do with the Bland case. Seeing as you have memory issues let me refresh the reference; it was to your mention of the settlement of the Garner case.

Of course I realize it isn't that you forgot or conflated the too; no, the issue is once again when caught with your foot in your mouth you attempt to misdirect rather than take the high road and own up to your error. So naturally, the "no apology" quip is laughable.

Personally I think every post you made should begin with the words "let me first apologize".

You should re-read what I first posted.

Physician, heal thyself. Your postings are replete with misrepresentations that can only lead one to speculate that your reading comprehension skills are lacking or the aforementioned unwillingness to own up to your errors is beating the crap out of your integrity.

What is pathetic Mike is your explanation for " where was the family while she was in jail for 3 days? Now suddenly they are concerned about her?"

Could you at least try to pay attention Sparky? I addressed Jack's comments; personally I have never offered a personal opinion on the familial participation aspect of this case. Are you lying again or just stupid?

Mike, all of your other ranting is not worth responding to. I started this thread with I don't care what anyone thinks about the officer's actions.

You started this thread as another thinly disguised anti-LEO rant and quickly moved to castigate any who dared raise legitimate points. You added the completely nonsensical rant about the fools who demand that we wait until all the facts are in which only further solidified your positions as the anti-LEO rant king and the village idiot of the Bowsite.

The comment regarding Bible thumpers is from another thread where I expressed my reservations, actually lack of support, for capital punishment. I was given scripture verses to read in support of executions.

Nice Dodge; now post the quotes from Bowsite contributors that categorically state that there are Biblical verses decreeing stupid people should die and go to hell. Grow a pair and pony up when you're clearly spoken out of your port hole and gotten called on it.

Nice try misdirecting all of your blather away from the facts simply state above. And when there is a settlement and other actions, once again there will be no one here to post it. So, grow a pair yourself and come back when you have a set.

There was nothing thinly disguised about what I did. I have stated for sometime there is a growing concern in too many instances of how LE is being conducted in our country. It is a threat to our freedoms IMO. It appears from the growing criticism on social media I am more correct than not. How else can I say it, I am not disguising it at all. Guilty as charged, and proud of it!

People who take their own life are not happy with anything.

I bet a future settlement will happen and not just because she is solely responsible. Your exact words were stated regarding Garner's death, it was his fault alone.

Never said otherwise to your point 2. EDIT: I see the confusion with what I said. Yes, you have to follow a lawful order. No, you do not have to go over board saying "yes sir, no sir" etc. as was suggested is behavior that will help, my words not theirs. Again, must follow commands that are lawful, the outcome should not be dependent on your politeness, the officer must also follow the law.

What I will echo again is acceptable norms are eventually decided by society. A lot of deciding going on right now.

And we agree again! But we taxpayers still lose.

That is very good to know, it still does not have anything to do with LE being responsible for this woman's death.

Appreciate the attempt at honest dialogue. Here's my honest answer. Human behavior is a grey area. To me, the best answer is one we have all seen regarding pornography...it is hard to define but we recognize it when we see it.

I have been consistent on my views regarding these. A non-violent, non-threatening, non-felony must be handled in a manner that does not lead to such harsh outcomes. Again, they got it right in Ferguson, but not with Garner, Slager, the horse thief, Baltimore, OK, the girl in TX, and Ms. Bland. I understand that we can disagree, reasonable people do. But, again just my honest opinion, on the CF it just seems that anyone not always agreeing with LEO conduct is taken to the woodshed. Again just speaking as honestly as I can.

And this behavior is what has caused all police a more difficult time at their job, and probably left many citizens at greater risk right now.

I did not read the manuscript, but watched the video multiple times. Did you read the report from CNN? I think they got it right. Legal, but still not right. However, both attorney friends I talked with said not knowing TX law, they will not be surprised if the officer doesn't face legal repercussions. Both very conservative guys.

Wouldn't you agree some of those lessons we learned as kids like 'more flies with honey...' Actually work best? Look no further than this exchange.

Thanks.

We can disagree. The LE system that handled Bland bears some responsibility IMO.In today's world, the litigious society we live in, that's just the way it is. In fact when in the corporate world, risk management instructions would always have us follow policy to avoid such dilemmas. The fact that they did not follow policy regarding hourly checks, at least that is what I have read, would make me very uneasy regarding legal culpability. I know I personally had to terminate people for much lower policy violations. Those terminations were about to some degree no doubt reducing the organization's liability by showing good faith in their execution of their responsibilities. That in itself can help reduce judgments.

Next up will be questions as to why the officer pulled up so quickly behind her, IF in fact he did. I can just see the racial profiling accusations and the authorities wanting this to go away before the JD steps in.

4:25 on is a riot and this cop is a gawdam saint

I've got a set, thank-you very much. Unlike you, I don't have to misrepresent what anyone says to make a point. Here's just a couple of examples in just this thread of you doing that very thing:

"AM, typical of what you and others usually do in these types of situations. Her past somehow makes it OK that she is dead? Take her out of the gene pool?"

Unless you can pull up a direct quote from Jack expressing those very thoughts you're projecting your interpretation onto him. You're misrepresenting what he wrote.

Put up the quote or own up to the misrepresentation.

"For all you Bible thumpers, please point me to the verse that says stupid people should die and go to hell. I'm sure you will twist some verse."

Same misrepresentation; absent direct quotes from posters you're again projecting your interpretation that feeds into your worldview.

Put up the quote(s) or own up to the misrepresentation.

And FYI, my response to the Garner settlement was anything but deflection; you, on the other hand missed the point that KPC very obviously got:

"Actually, a future settlement might well be forthcoming. However, it will probably have nothing whatsoever to do with guilt on the officers part. It will have to do with economics. It's much cheaper to write a check than it is to litigate."

And a last spot-on assessment from KPC:

"This cop was EXCEEDINGLY courteous and polite. Any escalation was as a direct result of Bland's refusal to obey a lawful order.

Anyone who can't see that either has an anti-cop bias, or simply is not in tough with reality."

Couldn't have said it any better, thanks.

This is an emotional topic, so let's try to keep it cool between us.

I thought I answered you, but I will try again. She was an azz She was abusive. How much does he have to take? I think the SC said free speech until it becomes threatening. I saw no threats. He asked her to put out her cigarette, it was a question, she said no. It was not the answer he wanted. I was honest about not reading the transcript, I did the portion just posted, so please answer about the CNN report.

I understand the questions are a tactic. But it does leave an option. One report I read stated one of his superiors said he did not follow policy as he was supposed to explain why he requested her to get out of the car. I don't know if that is accurate or not. But, I agree with the reporter who believed the officer asked in a way that goaded her.

As we communicate, it becomes clearer that at least IMO some of the folks seeing this differently than I do it is about respect. Not to sound harsh, but respect is not required by law. And that is where I think many who see it differently than you do get upset. It seems in too many of these situations, again IMO, if the officer is slighted an attitude develops that "I'll show you!"

I have the impression that at least some LEOs having to deal with scum all the time might develop an attitude where a person behaving like this woman did there is probably something criminal or something needing further investigation. My experience, more often than people care to admit behavior like this and even past minor criminal behavior like hers can be traced to mental challenges. I'll ask you a question...could better training help officers spot causational differences and lead to better outcomes for all parties, including giving the officer a better feeling as a public servant.

And yes, I know how some will laugh and call me names. At 56 and a resume I am comfortable with, you can bet I don't care. What I will bet is there will be more training and higher standards as we move forward. And to that I say good for everyone.

Headed back to the farm tomorrow morning. Re-stocked, sprayer repaired and ready to battle extremely hot weather. Look up some of my posts, only recently have I really got into the CF. 80 percent plus of my posts are about habitat and hunting.

BTW, I liked how walker would not attack a fellow republican today on FOX. We could learn from him and Reagan and adopt the philosophy of not speaking ill of another bow hunter. Remember that thread of mine a few weeks back?

I will communicate how I want and do not feel the need to justify myself to you. I am sure you were the kid on the play ground who always said "I am rubber you are glue". I will stand by my words, they were never meant to be direct quotes but representative of the themes expressed. Sorry you have an inability tograsp that.

Before you challenge that 80 percent comment, I was talking about all of my posts from the time I was first on BS. I do not post nearly as much about hunting or habitat management recently because I honestly am old enough to be a has been in those areas, really probably more accurate to say a never been.The younger guys are way ahead of me, but my love is habitat management as my handle suggests. I just don't have much to offer that a younger guy hasn't already done better, and some would say on this topic as well:)

But, I will not be backing down from my position on this topic, not in the least!

I will communicate how I want and do not feel the need to justify myself to you.

No, but you do need to justify misrepresenting those who's quotes do not mirror what you wrote. FYI, communication does not equal misrepresentation. That I or anyone should have to clarify this point speaks poorly of your character.

I am sure you were the kid on the play ground who always said "I am rubber you are glue".

As with most of your musings you are unfailingly off the mark. Apropos to bring up childhood refrains given your lack of maturity in dealing with evidence of your misrepresentations and your refusal to address them.

I will stand by my words, they were never meant to be direct quotes but representative of the themes expressed.

Wrong again; they are representative of your slanted and self-serving interpretation of what they expressed.

Sorry you have an inability tograsp that.

Sorry you're such a gutless pansy you can't own up to your obvious shortcomings.

Every human has a world view, and yes self interest is something that drives all of us, including blow hands like yourself.

Read this very slow, my words did not misrepresent anything because that is the way I interpreted it. Are you trying to speak for everyone? People can step up and explain their positions with more clarity if someone interpreted it incorrectly. That is what I have been doing with you, but you are too slow to catch on. I can keep trading insults with you all day, it will not make me back down one bit. Attempts at intimidation always fail with people who are anything but a pansy.

What is self serving, what do I have to gain? I will not be here forever. My life's situation is not going to improve. For me this is simply something that must be addressed in a free society. How many more deaths, how many more riots and property damage? Blaming one party, a refusal to see we all have a responsibility says something about our collective character. And really, at the end of the day, neither of us give two hoots about some guy on the web we will never meet.

I have a lot more short comings than are apparent here. On bended knee I ask for help daily. Sometimes my prayers go unanswered.

If you're going to insult my intelligence at least have the decency to attach a jpeg of a nice, juicy T-bone....

Seriously, I don't know if you're that obtuse or that deeply in denial about your motivations.

Let's take statements made about both the Garner and Bland case by some of the posters that went to the effect "had they complied with the police they'd still be alive."

No sane, reasonable person would remotely equate that to "they broke the law so they deserved to die."

The latter statement is not an interpretation of the first, it is a blatant distortion and you aren't even remotely close to being lacking enough in intelligence to miss the distinction between the two.

Contrary to what you purport there is a definite line with you as to where people can be contrary and where you willfully twist their words to suit yourself.

I'm sorry but it can't be made any plainer than that.

HFW, your tunnel vision speaks for itself.

If Ms. Bland hadn't acted the way she did she wouldn't have been arrested, period. I would hope that anyone with an ounce of common sense would know this.

Actions have consequences. Ultimately she has no one to blame but herself.

But since we should only deal in facts....

Fact: She admitted to being suicidal and was not on watch.

The settlement will be coming soon.

FYI, I did not mean Ms. bland was scum, just that officers in general deal with so many low life's on a regular basis it has to wear on them and it carries over into situations like this. We have different perspectives and that is OK.

KPC,

I don't think the officer ended up protecting us. I don't understand how we can conclude the "officer's instincts" proved correct. Most people are agitated at times, look at how many incidents of road rage we have and from people who have no history of problems.

Natural consequences of her own actions and emotional frailties? Do we admit she had challenges, and we are also admitting our current "natural" way to handle this is what is best? My rational, logical side tells me that is the crux of this matter, and that we are starting to see the majority of Americans are questioning this "natural" route. As a free people, who most of us still believe in God, we can and must do better. (Hopefully Mike can connect some dots there from previous posts.)

I am not qualified to say she was emotionally unstable, but based on what I observed there seems to be ample evidence to allow one to draw that conclusion. And in our country there seems to be more instability than at least what I observed when younger, observed being the key. Maybe we are just more aware of the problems because of the modern communications era we live in? Whatever the reason, if an officer thinks someone is emotionally unstable, I don't agree handling them with how we saw on this video helps anyone. If that makes me emotional, so be it.

We are allowed to draw different conclusions. Her suicide might have had something to do with the realization that the university would most likely terminate their offer of employment.

Back to TB's alleged that she kicked the officer. I did not observe that on the video. Did I miss it? That was in his report, but he failed to point out the threat of using a taser, which was on the video. A good attorney would probably challenge with some degree of success this officer's accuracy with the facts.

I did not take Mike's bait and get into an argument about minutia. Yes, I was emotional because the first response on this thread was a slam for histrionics when the officer's own words were used. When you attack me for behavior that you allow others to get away with unchallenged, that is inconsistency. Mike, the rubber/glue comment was the result of all of the names you called me. That is how I write and it implies nothing about my character, intelligence etc. I thought about using humor and saying your words prove you are a mommy's boy and just plain ugly, because that is how ridiculous your posts were to me.

Lastly, the comment about Bible Thumpers etc. was my frustration with views expressed over many threads that have support here. Views like our country will not be on a better path until God is brought back or to word it a different way our current challenges are due to a lack of morality in our country. (BTW, generally agree that a good dose of morality would help things, disagree that our government should impose it.). Another theme that goes unchallenged is stupid people that do stupid things end up dead. It is my own personal frustration, but many here know my back ground. That back ground to me does not see these two views as consistent. I have concluded in life that it is moral and just to see ourselves as our brothers' keepers, regardless of their intelligence. The results we have been discussing in these recent incidents IMO reflect a failure to live up to those high standards, again IMO.

I took the time to connect the dots there not because of what Mike posted about me, I really don't care, but because I realized if I truly believe that a God loving people must do better, I at least should try to do my part. This is a big deal for me as when I first started to read the CF I found myself sharing much in common. As time went on, and at least IMO inconsistent views like what I pointed out began to cause an unease, I am realizing that I share less in common than I originally thought.

Participating here has been good as it causes one to think, and a natural process of that is to solidify one's views. I guess I would say I am a fiscal conservative, but a social moderate, not quite a libertarian though as I believe in a strong national defense and trade. Some of the more socially conservative views expressed here, and obviously it is fine to believe those, IMO are not shared at this time by the majority of Americans. It is those social views though that I believe keep conservatives from winning at the national level. I deal with a diverse student base, and young people in general think we are out of touch, and worse. I know we are not, but agree at least at times we come off that way.

If this was my daughter, and she had emotional challenges, would I have wanted this outcome and would I have expected the system to do better? I know some will answer that with their usual typical response of she did it to herself. Maybe it is age, or lack of character on my part, or stupidity, but for me that is not an acceptable choice. And please no Bible verses to prove I am wrong. Hopefully one can tell that I give much reflection to issues like this. I struggle with guidance that we need to ask for help and listen to the Holy Spirit, yet some of us must hear different words in our hearts.

Too much mush I am sure for many of you, but I will stick by the incidents I cited as not the best outcome and both parties bear some responsibility in what happened. Think of this, Sandra admittedly had emotional challenges. How does an officer's lack of complete details in his report help the next step in the process she was in? Would his report not have caused a harsher punitive outcome, and how would a criminal punishment help anyone with an emotional problem? Would that punishment help them not do the same behavior again? The intentions of punishment work with a rational mind. Was the rush to judgment really about protecting society, or would punishment in this case possibly make her problem worse? We already have the answer to that.

I will try my hardest to never post again, not because of any hard feelings, I realize I will only cause aggitation as my views are not in the mainstream here. Hey, at least I did not get kicked off for being a troll;)

Sincerely, best wishes to all!

Not qualified to say....but yet you continue these Steven King length novels about what you are not qualified to say.

"but based on what I observed there seems to be ample evidence to allow one to draw that conclusion."

What have you observed? Nothing. You weren't there. You have an axe to grind, therefore you can only arrive at the conclusion you have already pre-determined. You can wax poetic about how that's not the case but it's really nothing but verbal masturbation.

Why don't YOU put on a uniform, wear a badge, put YOUR ass on the line and show us all how it should be done.

No....funny that.

Proverbs 29:11 A fool always loses his temper, But a wise man holds it back

I believe that the officer had a legitimate worry that the woman was not in a frame of mind to safely operate a vehicle on the road. Once the arrest was made, it was out of the officer's hands.

It always troubles me when I hear coarse, threatening, or profane language from people in authority - even in response to stressful situations.

Re-think your decision. Nobody here has suggested for you to leave.

" I realize I will only cause agitation as my views are not in the mainstream here."

I disagree. I believe your are being stubborn about this subject. Don't confuse difference of opinion with agitation.

Man up, put on your Nike's and just do it, stop with the jejuneness drama queen routine that's on par from a fourteen year old girl.

That's one interpretation and one that is ultimately self-serving. In my last post I put up two comments and I'm sure no one will question my analysis; that what was posted and your interpretation of those posts wasn't even remotely close to being on the same planet.

That distinction is most definitely not minutia, especially if it paints a poster as a callous, unfeeling excuse for a human being. Whether you choose to accept this analysis is entirely up to you but a little introspection on your practices here might serve you better than continued denials of your behavior.

Another theme that goes unchallenged is stupid people that do stupid things end up dead.

I would hope that when fact-based outcomes are clearly presented they are understood and even better taken as object lessons from which fewer (and ultimately no) similar outcomes occur. It is precisely when we turn away from such lessons that the same behavior gets repeated with the same tragic outcome(s).

No one ever said you had to like the outcome or the recognition of what led to it; what should never be backed away from though is any attempt to mute the lesson because any one person (or persons) found the outcome(s) to be personally painful or objectionable.

I will try my hardest to never post again, not because of any hard feelings, I realize I will only cause aggitation as my views are not in the mainstream here. Hey, at least I did not get kicked off for being a troll;)

I would much prefer that you remain and remain as an objective poster and not allow any personal bias to preclude taking comments here at face value and not immediately reading the lowest common denominator into them.

I have more problems with mainstream misrepresentations than I'll ever have with contrary viewpoints and/or opinions.

As should we all. It is important that we separate a discussion (even vigorous or heated) of information and opinions about various issues from personal opinions of each other.

Being Massachusetts I figured he would just open all his Xmas gifts.....;^)

Looks like there is more...

The cop tells the man that his brother has a drug problem and can then be heard saying, "What they should do is just take him up on the railroad tracks and tell him to lay down."

Apparently one of the deputies noticed my youngest son and 2 of his buds skateboarding around the local high school which is rural and has a huge parking lot. Seems the young deputy came over and detained them for quite some time. Demanded ID's, Demanded to search the car they came in. Harsh street interrogation. Threatened the kids with arrest if he noticed any graffiti or damage of any kind.

One of the kids got the voice recording on his phone. My wife was heading down to the S.O. to kick some ass. Haven't heard back just yet.

I will be having a discussion with the department as well when I get back.

Whatever happened to just checking someone out? Seasoned cops can tell if someone is a $4!tbag. These kids are genial, clean cut, and respectful. My son especially because my family and friends are quite literally LEO heavy.

If there has been vandalism at the school, I can see the concern, but from what I understand, this deputy was pretty rough on them. How about establishing a rapport? He had no probably cause to search the kids car.

"Should" get you a warning or citation unless you fail to put out your cigarette....

"But Houck, a retired New York Police Department detective, said the video concerned him.

"The one problem I have was just that he told her to get out of the car because she wouldn't stop smoking.""

"Encinia also wrote that Bland "was placed under arrest for Assault on a Public Servant."

But a dashcam video shows Encinia told her she was under arrest before the alleged assault took place.

Dash cam happened to have six video anomalies in two sections.

"We have certain procedures in place, and he did not comply with those procedures," said Steven McCraw, the department director.

"One of the many procedures is letting the individual know in terms of what actions are going to be taken."

"We have identified violations of the department's procedures regarding traffic stops and the department's courtesy policy," the department said in the statement.

Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told reporters Tuesday: "A DPS state trooper has an obligation to exhibit professionalism and be courteous throughout the entire contact, and that wasn't the case in this situation."

I see no problems with your scenario.

Selling cigarettes or failing to use a turn signal and the cop not following policy gets people paid and is minor crap. Whereas the cops behavior in those situations was uncalled for and unnecessary.

I am in complete understanding that to even want to be a effective cop you have to have an alpha personality and be assertive and many but not all of those have a need to be a bully.

I have always had good dealings with LEO's but I know some personally that will be out of line with perps and tell war stories about actions they have taken that are not Kosher.

A University of Cincinnati officer who shot a motorist during a traffic stop over a missing front license plate was indicted Wednesday on a murder charge, with a prosecutor saying the officer "purposely killed him" and "should never have been a police officer."

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced the grand jury indictment at a news conference to discuss developments in the investigation into the July 19 shooting of 43-year-old motorist Samuel DuBose by Officer Ray Tensing.

Levels of force come to mind.

If a suspect runs do we shoot him in the back?

Under what circumstances would it be justified?

When would it not be justified?

"It's kind of disturbing actually."

I agree very disturbing he was killed for bs.

So you believe government should have no restrictions?

Cops shouldn't have rules or comply with levels of force?

So if you were in San Antonio flirting with your wife it would be OK for a cop to shoot you in the head?

Is not my quote from Sleepy?

He also lives in Texas.

You could answer the questions before sleepy's comment if you would like to answer some.

As far as your question...

What would be the definition of beating?

Do you mean flirting or fighting? I flirt with my wife on a regular basis nothing wrong there. Fighting with the wife. We don't do that. Disagree yes, what married couple doesn't. I've never raised a hand to my wife and never will. Damnation to the man who does.

Your comparisons are extreme and unlikely. When a person is runs from the law there is always a reason. If you have a clear conscience and no skeletons in your closet, you should have nothing to fear from LE.

Yes, the man is dead because he ran. The officer pleaded not guilty to the charge. He will be thrown to the wolves regardless. That's the way our country is now being ran. People now believe it's ok to show open rebellion towards LE even if it's a simple traffic stop. I expect more of these incidents will happen before people wise up and cooperate with LE instead of fight with them.