Politics
Video Rekindles Debate About Police Treatment of Blacks

Geneva Reed-Veal, center, hugs family members at a memorial service for her daughter Sandra Bland at Prairie View A&M University, Tuesday, July 21, 2015, in Prairie View, Texas. A newly released dashcam video documents how a routine traffic stop escalated into a shouting confrontation between a Texas state trooper and Bland, which led to her arrest. Bland was found hanging in her jail cell three days after the incident. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan)
PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press
WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — When Sandra Bland refused to put out her cigarette, the police officer opened her car door and tried dragging her out of the vehicle. She asked at least four times why she was being arrested and got no answer. When she told him she had epilepsy, he shouted, “Good!”
The tense dashcam video of the 28-year-old black woman getting pulled over by a white Texas state trooper for not signaling a lane change renewed the national debate Wednesday over how police treat blacks and outraged some critics of law enforcement who saw a motorist who was squarely within her rights.
Bland, who talked about police brutality on social media before her arrest, seemed to be aware of her civil liberties. And a range of experts said the officer’s orders to the 28-year-old motorist were probably lawful, even if his behavior appeared exceptionally aggressive for the circumstances.
Bland’s traffic stop drew special attention because she was found dead in her jail cell three days later, and family and supporters continue to dispute that she hanged herself with a plastic garbage bag, as authorities have concluded. The FBI is supervising a state investigation into the death.
Experts including former law enforcement officials and civil rights attorneys say the video is not a clear-cut case of an officer overstepping his authority in the face of an agitated motorist.
“Believe it or not, sometimes you can’t just look at the video and tell,” said Phillip Lyons, a former police officer and current dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas.
The video of the traffic stop in rural Waller County drew more than 1.2 million views on YouTube, less than a day after the Department of Public Safety made the footage public.
The state trooper pulled over Bland on July 10, when she was at Prairie View A&M University, a historically black college, to interview for a job at her alma mater.
The traffic stop swiftly escalates into a shouting match after trooper Brian Encinia tells Bland she seems “irritated” and asks her to put out her cigarette. When Bland protests — “I’m in my car. Why do I have to put out my cigarette?” — Encinia orders her on the street and opens the door to drag her out when she doesn’t comply.
Simply ignoring instructions to stop smoking typically isn’t sufficient grounds for police to demand someone to get out of their car. But officers also have wide discretion to take control of a scene.
Lyons said he saw nothing that was “clearly inappropriate or unnecessary” about the request, but the legal threshold rises when an officer determines that a driver must be physically removed from a vehicle.
The justification for using force is generally supposed to be proportional to the circumstances. Bland is asked more than a dozen times to get out. As he gives those orders, Encinia becomes visibly annoyed at her refusal and eventually reaches into the car.
“We don’t observe anything that would suggest there was a legitimate law enforcement reason to get out of the car. It seems to be just an issue of asserting his authority,” said Rebecca Robertson, the legal and policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.
But at the same time, Robertson said, if an officer instructs you to get out, “you have to get out of the car.”
Bland ultimately steps out of her car on her own after the trooper says, “I will light you up,” an apparent threat to use the stun gun he had drawn.
The speed with which Bland was threatened seems to run counter to best practices described in a 2011 Justice Department report about Tasers. The report cited a police survey in which most departments said they allow only “soft tactics,” such as pushing, against someone who refuses to comply but doesn’t physically resist.
Bland also tried recording the encounter on her phone before being told to stop, which experts say is a command police can rightfully make if it interferes with their duties.
To some experts who watched the video, it would have been in the interests of both Bland and Encinia to simply remain calm.
The director of the Department of Public Safety, Steve McCraw, has said Encinia violated internal policies of professionalism and courtesy, but he has not said the trooper acted outside the bounds of the law. Encinia has been placed on administrative leave for violating unspecified police procedures and DPS policy.
“His whole demeanor, his vocabulary, the way that he spoke to this motorist,” said Vernon Herron, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Health and Homeland Security at The University of Maryland. “I just think it added to the fact that she became combative.”
When the confrontation moves off-camera onto the sidewalk, Bland is heard screaming that the trooper is about to break her wrists as she is handcuffed. Bland was arrested for assault on a public servant. In an arrest affidavit, the trooper wrote that Bland had swung her elbows at him and kicked him in the shin.
___
Associated Press Writer Jamie Stengle in Dallas contributed to this report.
___
Follow Paul J. Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pauljweber .
___
Dashcam video posted by Texas Department of Public Safety: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaW09Ymr2BA .
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Activism
OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners
Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”
That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.
That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.
One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.
Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.
The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.
These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.
I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.
About the Author
Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.
Activism
OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners
In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.
In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.
A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.
At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.
This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.
This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.
Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.
“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.
Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.
“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.
As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.
Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.
It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.
When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.
About the Author
Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.
Activism
Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media
Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.
The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.
In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.
“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”
Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.
“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.
Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.
“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.
-
Activism4 weeks ago
AI Is Reshaping Black Healthcare: Promise, Peril, and the Push for Improved Results in California
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Barbara Lee Accepts Victory With “Responsibility, Humility and Love”
-
Activism4 weeks ago
ESSAY: Technology and Medicine, a Primary Care Point of View
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Newsom Fights Back as AmeriCorps Shutdown Threatens Vital Services in Black Communities
-
Activism4 weeks ago
Faces Around the Bay: Author Karen Lewis Took the ‘Detour to Straight Street’
-
Arts and Culture4 weeks ago
BOOK REVIEW: Love, Rita: An American Story of Sisterhood, Joy, Loss, and Legacy
-
#NNPA BlackPress4 weeks ago
The RESISTANCE – FREEDOM NOW
-
Alameda County4 weeks ago
OUSD Supt. Chief Kyla Johnson-Trammell to Step Down on July 1