BS Wildcats

Based on what he's done & said, I can only believe that had he been a white president, the press would have labeled him a racist quite sometime back.  And he's not a big fan of Christians, but then, if you're at all famIiar with with what happened at the 2012 Democratic convention, they voice voted to remove God from their Mission Statement.  Based on that, the Democratic Party is a party of atheist, so we shouldn't be surprised. 

Sad thing is that Iran is crazy enough to, and the administration we have now is blind to that.  There will be many that scoff at the comment about Israel being God's chosen ppl.  Most will know it when it is to late though.

I sure can't bswc.   Here's the real irony in this tragic story.  Back in the 50's & early 60's, I heard (never saw it myself) if you had a litter of dogs or cats and no one wanted them, folks would put the little things out of their, perceived, impending misery.  You do that now, you'll be arrested, and probably a big fine, and possible jail time.   Unborn babies, unwanted, are killed and mutilated for their organs. Legally.  
Again, as you said, maybe someone can explain this to all of us poor dumb folks. 

Sodom and Gomorrah can't hold a candle to the wickedness going on in the good ol' USofA right now.

What I don't understand, and never have, even before all this PP stuff is how abortion is not murder.  Maybe someone can explain that one to me, and please don't use not a living being until birthed.

I agree with you that there are issues, but why is the finger always pointed at the police first when an incident arises?  If the perpetrator didn't do anything wrong, there would be no interaction with the police in the first place.  We do not need to be hasty in placing all the blame on the cop.

What I don't understand, and never have, even before all this PP stuff is how abortion is not murder.  Maybe someone can explain that one to me, and please don't use not a living being until birthed.

Come on Smitty,  you know good and well that we cant be wasting our legal resources on such subject when we have not finalized the Leo the Lion Investigation as well as the Redskins changing their name.

I agree with you that there are issues, but why is the finger always pointed at the police first when an incident arises?  If the perpetrator didn't do anything wrong, there would be no interaction with the police in the first place.  We do not need to be hasty in placing all the blame on the cop.

How is an officer to determine someone is mentally unstable as soon as he walks to their car door?  Personally, I think the insanity excuse is used way to often in these mass shootings.  I will agree with you on that.

This officer may not have handled the situation 100% correct but he is in no way responsible for this woman's unfortunate death.
Does anyone disagree with this?

​(E) Citizens need to not drive off when cop has detained them
(F)  Citizens should not attempt to take a police officers weapon. 

I don't know why BD3 is so adamant in placing the blame on the cop.  As far as I know, no cop went into her cell and hung her.  As sad as that is, she did that to herself.  There is only one person to blame, Sandra Bland.

​Assuming you mean this as a serious question, you then are an example of what I have talked about in several threads and a short time ago, in the Sam Dubose thread. 
He needs no constitutional right (except perhaps free speech). The word "rights" is thrown out so often that I have serious doubts if very many people even have a clue what they are and I am serious. 
What the officer has is no "rights" but "authority". This are not against the law unless some government authority has written down something that says it is against the law. It can be statutory such as a state legislature passing a law or it can come down from a court of competent jurisdiction, not making law per se but ruling that an action violated someone's constitutional rights. 
The better question is, if an officer tells you to put out your cigarette, what right has he violated of yours?
An officer under both statute and case law has fairly extensive authority for safety. In fact if you want to see as close as you can routinely get from the US Supreme Court in close to a unanimous ruling, read many of the cases of officer's authority over people (over their constitutional rights) for safety purposes. You might find several 9-0, 8-1 and 7-2 votes in favor of officers. That is not true on searches and detentions but when it comes to safety, the highest court comes down heaving in favor of the police and people complying with orders. 
The entire argument of the cigarette is a moot point because while it is a smoke screen from people trying to defend Bland, it has no bearing. She was not arrested for smoking. I can tell you to recite the alphabet, sing me a song, discuss your favorite music or anything else and there is no right violated. That would happen if I tried to arrest you for those things. 
What the officer does have the authority to do under TX law and US Supreme Court rulings is to stop her for violating the law (Terry v. Ohio), order her out of the vehicle without any further cause needed (Pennsylvania v. Mimms) and make an arrest even for the simply charge of not signaling lane change (Atwater v. Lago Vista). It seems that people often overlook those points as it ends most discussions. 
This is the most simple this case can be put. The officer saw a criminal charge in his presence and stopped the person. The officer told the woman to put out her cigarette and she refused. The officer then orders her out of the vehicle by law and intends to arrest her. After being ordered out and refusing (a crime in itself in TX). The officer tries to get her to comply and she continues to refuse. He then tries to use force to get her out of the car and she resists. In fact TX law says that resisting arrest is a crime even if the arrest turns out to be illegal to begin with. The reason as mentioned previously, the place to fight that is in court, not convening your own person court of opinion on the side of the roadway. Arrests are not voluntarily by law. You might go without resistance but the arrest is not done with a person's consent. The officers tells you that you are under arrest, not asks you if you mind consenting. 
Case closed. The officer might have been rude, he might have been angry and he might have broken his company rules. None of that is illegal. 
It will fall on mostly deaf ears but I will make a suggestion that if an officer orders a person to do something while being detained, the best course of action is to comply. 

TCU and Baylor are running the state lately.

This is a pretty good description of what those who are rallying around Sandra Bland are doing, don't you think?

TCU and Baylor are running the state lately.

TCU and Baylor are running the state lately.

Aggie still can't outdo Texas, even after changing conferences.

Term limits!  They all get comfortable and look out for themselves instead of the voters that put them in that position.

Aggie still can't outdo Texas, even after changing conferences.

This "y'all" as you say, said he should be charged with murder and given the death penalty.  Puts a little wrinkle in you definition.

Punk thugs, even the white boy.  Go get a damn job and be respectful citizens!

Term limits!  They all get comfortable and look out for themselves instead of the voters that put them in that position.

Obamaphone, healthcare, food stamps, and so on.  These socialist want to keep the voters under their control.