SANDRA BLAND

We're left with little but questions.

Why did the Officer Encinia ask Bland to put out her cigarette, if he was just seconds from letting her go with a warning?

And why did she refuse, pointing out she was in her own car?

Tragically, her statement led directly to the next part: Okay, get out of the car. A command she repeatedly refused, apparently, forcing a confrontation.

Police officers are, of course, persons of authority. They don't like having their authority challenged, even over what may start out to be a trivial matter.

A spokesman for the police said officers should perform their duties with courtesy. But faced with a flat refusal to obey, how does courtesy proceed?

Are we to imagine the officer calling in the fire department to cut the roof off the woman's car so she could be airlifted—with careful courtesy—by rescue 'copter?

The woman had just been accepted for a job at a university only a few hundred yards (it is reported) from the traffic incident. Was she riding the high of that triumph when she decided to throw a spanner into the machinery of that officer's day?

Bland had previously posted activist videos about police abuse. Was she thinking of the Black Lives Matter movement, unwilling to give an inch to a white cop? Unwilling to take any guff at all?

Did she see this incident as her personal example of police brutality, eager to see where the escalation might lead? As she was led off in cuffs she can be heard speaking enthusiastically about her coming day in court.

Some critics question the traffic stop itself.

Failure to signal a lane change is a pretty rinky-dink crime spree. It is, nevertheless, a legitimate, on-the-books infraction, one from which a ticket might possibly arise. Critics claim the police are nitpicking chumps to bother with this law. They wonder why it's a crime at all.

But consider this: Should signaling lane-changes cease to be a legal mandate, who's to the say the appropriate police response to a breach of good manners might not be to stop a driver and—in the name of public safety—remind him or her of that which is just common sense: Let other drivers know what you intend to do so you don't freak 'em out.

In regard to the Bland stop, however, critics know the enforcement of this so-called traffic infraction was just an excuse for a white officer to get a black woman in his power. With tragic but predictable results.

That's Act One in the drama. Sandra Bland's death in custody only brings up more questions.

Three days later. What was she still doing in jail? The figure of $5,000 comes up. Was she having trouble coming up with the bond?

Though she had admitted attempting suicide before, the jailers failed to put her under suicide watch.

At least this is one mistake Bland's family cannot fault. They claim to have no knowledge of any previous suicide attempt. No sense in trying to prevent a suicide that was simply not in the offing, right?

Bland posted a video talking of depression and PTSD. Her family denies she was depressed. Either Bland is lying, or the family is suffering from a lack of knowledge. Hard as that might be for them to believe.

The family wants an independent autopsy, perhaps expecting to find fingerprints on the woman's neck. Or a bullet hole in the back of her head. I don't think they're going to be happy with the results. It doesn't matter. Disappointing data can easily be ignored.

(That's how we humans traditionally handle unruly facts.)

After all, it's well known white cops are itching to murder black people whenever and wherever. And they don't need a reason.

But if it turns out Bland needed a reason, despite her "ecstasy" over getting the new job, maybe it was this: That job might just vanish in the light of her arrest. Perhaps she saw her happy future melting away.

(Did Michael Brown see his eminent college future disappear in the eyes of a policeman determined to arrest him for the crime he'd just committed?)

In the unlikely event the cops didn't murder Sandra Bland, we have to answer the question: Why did she do it?

Could it be she felt the pressure to take one for the team? To add her name to the list of the infamous? To venture just one small step toward that glorious day when black folks can reach the tipping point and come the ultimate conclusion: It's time to burn this country to the ground for its own good.

And make it happen for reasons that are far too obvious to bother examining. When you know you're right, go ahead and do what you gotta do.

Hey, that's human behavior at its finest!

ALIENS AMONG US

Donald Trump is surging in the Presidential polls, riding his anti-Mexican ticket. Many Republican candidates deplore his stance (while envying his numbers), but a few applaud his ability to get the subject in front of the American public.

Apparently, vast numbers of Americans have never heard of the problem of illegal immigrants and our dangerously porous borders. Trump is out to change all that.

One thing is certain: Soon as they found out about it, a whole lot of Americans came out solidly against it.

Trump says a great number of these illegal Mexicans are rapists and criminals. Fortunately for him, a 5-time deported Mexican shot a woman in San Francisco—a so-called sanctuary city.

Here's another thing we know for sure. From now on, every time some illegal alien messes up, the case will prove Trump right. And it's inevitable—there will always be some screw-ups. Each and every one is a feather in Trump'
s bizarre hair.

(I've heard the crime rate actually decreases as the rate of illegals increases, but let's not let stuff like that get in the way of a good story.)

It's a perfect situation: Folks know what they know and everywhere they look they find proof to back them up. We're really good at this. Doesn't matter what you think you know, proof is on its way!

Trump's most twisted notion has so far gone unchallenged: He says the Mexican government itself is responsible for sending legions of defective people to the U.S.

The image I get, they've set up catapults on the border and are slinging their worse citizens our way—a kind of Sinaloa Airlift.

In a post script to his message of doom, Trump allows that some of them might be "good people."

Sounds like he's saying they're not all criminals. That would be weird, because technically they are all criminals. That's the "illegal" part of "illegal alien."

Maybe Trump thinks as long as they're breaking the law to get here, it's a short hop to literally committing crimes against American citizens.

(The crimes they commit against other illegal aliens are of course irrelevant.)

The fact of illegal immigration is a major and legitimate problem that needs addressing. But now, thanks to Trump, it's been reduced to a question of how bad those people are and how many gibbets we need to construct.

Demonizing a class of people for the purposes of political gain is a standard move among demagogues. Just ask Hitler how well it works in a free society beset by woes.

When economies turn sour, it's always handy to find your scapegoat and put him to work electing you to office.