A Texas grand jury on Monday declined to indict anyone in connection with the July arrest and subsequent death of Sandra Bland.
Bland, 28, was pulled over by police in Waller County, Texas, in July for failing to signal a lane change. A confrontation between Bland and the officers followed. She was arrested and taken to the county jail, where three days later she was found dead in her cell.
Bland's death was ruled a suicide, although family members and activists challenged that conclusion.
Her family is disputing how the case was handled. The Chicago Tribune reports:
"Right now the biggest problem I have is the entire process," Bland's mother, Geneva Reed-Veal, said at a press conference. "It's the secrecy of it all."
She added that no one in her family was interviewed about Bland's death during the court proceedings.
"I simply can't have faith in a system that's not inclusive of my family," Reed-Veal said at a news conference in Chicago. "We're supposed to have an investigation to show us what's happening. We know what we've been listening to in the media ... but we don't have any real evidence."
Despite Monday's decision, Special Prosecutor Darrell Jordan said the case is not resolved and that jurors would meet again next month to determine other aspects of the case.
A lawyer for the Bland family, Cannon Lambert, said it isn't clear what Jordan means by this.
According to The New York Times:
"We would like very much to know what in the heck they're doing, who they're targeting and if it has anything to do with Sandy and her circumstances," Mr. Lambert said.
Last August, Bland's family filed a wrongful death suit against a trooper involved in her arrest, the sheriff's office and her jailers, blaming them for her death by hanging.
According to jail intake documents, Bland had previously attempted suicide and was feeling "very depressed" the day she was arrested.
Waller County officials denied accusations that Bland was mistreated in jail.
The articles are confusing, though. CNN says that they declined to indict anyone "in connection with the case" but will reconvene to discuss "other charges." WHAT other charges? Charges in connection with WHAT? Against WHO? I wonder if the reporting was better, more accurate, and detailed if maybe this wouldn't feel so hopeless because there's a real second shot at justice for her (or, of course, potentially more enraging because there is no second shot).
I'll be honest and say I never expected an indictment. The odds always seem so slim.
There is no justice here. We didn't get an indictment in the Darrius Stewart case here even after the DA called for one. So, in my cynical response, I'm not shocked. It's standard.
Post by Velar Fricative on Dec 23, 2015 10:58:38 GMT -5
Terrible. The overall rarity of indicting LEOs is appalling in light of the crimes they commit. Not even video footage is enough in some cases. I wish this was surprising, but it's not. I hate everything.
The articles are confusing, though. CNN says that they declined to indict anyone "in connection with the case" but will reconvene to discuss "other charges." WHAT other charges? Charges in connection with WHAT? Against WHO? I wonder if the reporting was better, more accurate, and detailed if maybe this wouldn't feel so hopeless because there's a real second shot at justice for her (or, of course, potentially more enraging because there is no second shot).
On the news yesterday, they said they are going to assess if the arresting officer should be charged.
I seriously can't. If for no other reason than the focus on race relations today, you can't at least pursue the investigation? I need a lawyer to describe to me in detail why there are no grounds to pursue this.
I wish this surprised me. But they did a bang up job covering this up from the start.
Right?
You know, on the one hand, I think, "well, if there's a silver lining, perhaps the fact that all this stuff is at least getting news coverage might scare law enforcement to do better."
On the other hand, it seems the "do better" lesson is not "do better at not fucking killing people" but rather "do a better job of covering shit up."
The articles are confusing, though. CNN says that they declined to indict anyone "in connection with the case" but will reconvene to discuss "other charges." WHAT other charges? Charges in connection with WHAT? Against WHO? I wonder if the reporting was better, more accurate, and detailed if maybe this wouldn't feel so hopeless because there's a real second shot at justice for her (or, of course, potentially more enraging because there is no second shot).
On the news yesterday, they said they are going to assess if the arresting officer should be charged.
I seriously can't. If for no other reason than the focus on race relations today, you can't at least pursue the investigation? I need a lawyer to describe to me in detail why there are no grounds to pursue this.
Well I guess technically it was pursued and presented to a grand jury who decided there was not enough evidence to indict.
I'm curious what the arresting officer may be charged with considering she died what, 3 days later? Should n't that mean the charges would be against the Det. officers? Was there excessive force during the arrest do we know? I apologize for not knowing the ins and outs of what evidence we have, I probably need to go read up.
Does someone have a link that explains all the details of the case and why they don't think her death was a suicide? I haven't followed this closely and would like to read up on it.
I wish this surprised me. But they did a bang up job covering this up from the start.
Right?
You know, on the one hand, I think, "well, if there's a silver lining, perhaps the fact that all this stuff is at least getting news coverage might scare law enforcement to do better."
On the other hand, it seems the "do better" lesson is not "do better at not fucking killing people" but rather "do a better job of covering shit up."
Unfortunately, not when they know a ham sandwich is more likely to get indicted than they are. The media coverage means nothing thanks to Americans' overall short-term memories. As long as they don't get indicted and still can keep/get a job, it's all good.
A Texas grand jury on Monday declined to indict anyone in connection with the July arrest and subsequent death of Sandra Bland. ...
Despite Monday's decision, Special Prosecutor Darrell Jordan said the case is not resolved and that jurors would meet again next month to determine other aspects of the case.
A lawyer for the Bland family, Cannon Lambert, said it isn't clear what Jordan means by this. ...
I'm so sad - again. There is something so wrong in our justice system where we can't hold an entire department accountable for all the little misgivings that lead to a death of someone. I don't understand how they couldn't find anything wrong with this case enough to indict someone or at least do some sort of disciplinary action. Even the DOJ doesn't really have teeth over DA and police departments, they can investigate and try to come to an agreement, but they can't say, "You did X, Y, Z wrong and have to fix X, Y, Z by this date or we take funding!"
As to the second, what does that mean? How can there not be a clear path on this? So there are no indictments, but the special prosecutor can still look into other aspects and investigate? So this is like a path toward still indicting or the special prosecutor can go after the processes and practices that led to Sandra's death and make the departments change?
I tried reading a few more articles about this so I could get a better understanding but I'm still confused. Am I right is thinking that the grand jury was only looking at the charge of murder? And if that is a correct assumption, than what they are saying is that there isn't enough evidence to charge anyone with murder but that they will reconvene to look at other charges later. Is that even close to correct?