Multiple times during
discussion of the Sandra Bland arrest video on CNN former NYPD detective and raging
copagandist Harry J. Houck
gets things wrong. Despite others on the program—including a former federal prosecutor, a black female whom Houck repeatedly disrespects by talking over—telling him that "there is no law against smoking in your own car" and that there is no
requirement to be a good mood when you're being pulled over by police, Houck continues to blame Sandra Bland's "arrogance" for everything that Officer Encinia to her, including slamming her head first into the ground when she's already been handcuffed:
“An officer does have the choice to bring anyone out of the vehicle when he stops them for his own safety,” Houck told CNN’s Don Lemon on Tuesday. “The whole thing here is that she was very arrogant from the beginning, very dismissive of the officer, alright?” [Emphasis added]
He didn't ask her to step out of the vehicle for his "safety." She was no threat to him at that point. He'd already written the warning, all he had to do was give it to her and have her sign it. His ego was bruised because she didn't comply with his illegal demand that she put out her cigarette, so he decided to arrest her right then and there. She contested, because it's pretty obvious that arrest would be illegal as well, but Houck fails to admit or understand that. To him, it's all
comply or die, and an officer's word is law.
Well, it's not.
Video below.
Under the First Amendment, we as citizens are supposed to be protected from retaliation by the government when we speak our minds. We're supposed to have the ability to "redress grievances" with the government.
Well, cops, are the face of government that most people are likely to come in contact with, and most often during traffic stops. CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill makes this clear to Houck, but he's having none of it:
“She has a right to be irritated,” Hill said. “A lot of us get irritated when we get pulled over. This officer comes to her and says, ‘Is there something wrong? You seem like you have an attitude.’ He’s trying to pick a fight with her.”
“Sometimes police officers act as if you’re not completely kowtowing and deferential, that somehow you’re violating a law,” he continued. “This is a perfect example of how vulnerable black women are in public spaces to law enforcement.”
Once Officer Encenia gets her to admit exactly why she's irritated, he goes out of his way to provoke her and then quickly turns into
Corporal Eric Casebolt with erratic behavior and giving contradictory orders until he's thrown her face-first to the ground and has his knee on her back, at which point she says, "I have epilepsy," and he responds:
"Good."
Clearly, she's not the only one who's emotional at this point.
But not to Houck, who goes on to claim she would've kept "coming at him" even if he'd tried to de-escalate. Excuse me, but if he hadn't forcibly pulled her out of the car, how exactly would she have continued to "come at him?" With spitballs?
All he had to do was give her the warning and go, but Nooooo. The fact is, he is the one trying to start a fight and provoke her. As you can see from Shaun King's clipped version of the what preceded Officer Encinia's stop of Bland, he clearly sees her driving the other direction, does an immediate U-turn and accelerates far above the 20 mph speed limit to catch her. She's his target the entire time, and it's only because she tries to move to the other lane and get out of his way that he supposedly stops her at all.
Houck also claims the power of clairvoyance, saying at one point, "I'm sure he wrote her a summons," which he claims is the pretext for her arrest. But the officer says he wrote her a warning. He's also wrong when he proclaims that she refused to provide her ID, but she actually said, "All I'm required to do is identify myself," and that's not absolute in Texas because they don't have a "papers please" law in effect there.
However, whenever anyone else, even an experienced prosecutor, offers an opinion during the discussion, Houck arrogantly claims, "You don't know that."
Seems to me that Harry Houck is the one who doesn't know much.
Police who have Houck's attitude, who believe they are some kind of gods or lords over the public, that they can pretty much arrest you for laws that don't even exist and you just have to sit their and take it—and if you don't take and dare to get "mouthy" you're ripe for a beat down—these cops are exactly what's wrong with our police forces today. This man is a disgrace, but unfortunately I expect that many long-term police officers would be saying the exact same pig-headed and blind things that Houck says and believes. And their behavior with the public likely reflects exactly that.
They've forgotten that they're public servants, not public overlords.
5:52 PM PT: The bystander video of Sandra Bland's arrest, just for reference.