Hammond Police Break Through Car Window and Taze Passenger with Kids in Back Seat

a reply to: charles1952

Sremmos80 Police don't confuse a report written by an officer back at the station with a statement issued by the police department. This statement is more than one person's recollection, and the department knows they will be sued and had better not say anything they can't prove.

Again, it is still just the police side of the story
Three sides to the story here, the families side, the cops side and the truth which will be a mixture of both.
To take what the police said as fact is is ignoring that they could, and most likely are, stretching and embellishing the events that took place.

Obviously you think the police did no wrong here based on the report that was given, which is exactly what the police want.
The department knows how the game works, this isn't their first rodeo.
To say they won't say anything they can't prove is just naive IMO, since their main reasoning is "fear of life" which is something you can never prove.

And what do you think about the fact that in the end no weapon was found? Does that not show with out a shadow of doubt that all of this was over nothing as they were absolutely wrong in every assumption they made??

a reply to: AnteBellum

If people continually see me harming people on the street, what will they think about me as a person in general? Will they trust me? Will they want to listen to me and my demands? Maybe out of fear at first, however in the long run it's only detrimental to myself. Eventually, the very same people I harm, will eventually harm me back. This might be out of anger, hatred, a sense of retribution, or perhaps the sense of putting an end to cruelty.

It's the same for the police. If people see an overbearing police force they will begin to resent it. As another poster said, they're potentially creating a more hostile environment for them to operate within. How long will it be before a mob of angry citizens take justice into their own hands after witnessing police act in an inappropriate manner? It could potentially spread leaving more police face the same street justice.

Sometimes I wonder if this is the plan, get the citizens so riled that they start going against the police so that they may put into place more harsher laws, more police, military equipment to keep the citizens subdued.

a reply to: AnteBellum

Ah, the classic partial-video-only-showing-some-of-what-happened. Why do you help perpetuate the hate for police? They are doing their job. Granted a seat belt violation is not a life and death situation, but these two were about as non-compliant as you can get.

First thing you do when you get pulled over is roll down your window so you appear inviting and not trying to hide. When you do everything you can to look like you're hiding something, guess what?, you look like you're hiding something and its suspicious.

Each and ever police officer has to assume they are going to be shot by each vehicle they stop and when you look like your trying to hide something, it makes them nervous.

Believe it or not, they actually have a job to do. Had these two idiots have simply complied with their orders, they probably would not even had gotten a ticket. The woman was on the phone for F sake. Being on the phone does not excuse you ever.

Do what they ask and you will probably be done with in 5 minutes.

I was pulled over by the CHP for going 80 in a 65, I had about 5 clips for my AR15 in the back seat in plain view, 2 AR15's in the truck with a drone. The cop didn't even bother me about the clips. Why? Cause I complied with everything they asked for right away, license, registration etc.

I didn't appear to be hiding anything, but I certainly had items that would raise a few questions etc.

I am in California by the way. My point is, we, as a population need to stop assuming the cops are bad, cause the vast majority are not and are simply tying to do their jobs. This "AM I BEING DETAINED" mentality needs to stop and quick.

a reply to: DigitalJedi805

en.wikipedia.org... for what its worth its actualy a real law....dating back to the time of king frigging George so id agree shady implementation of an ancient law
en.wikipedia.org...

This principle originates from Norman England, where local Sheriffs in England would be the only peace officer in an area. He would summon assistance from locals in order to enforce the King's laws or to apprehend an offender.[1] It subsequently became part of the common law that all persons must assist a constable or peace officer when so requested. This still remains as one of the few common law offences which has not been repealed today. Contents

dont see how this is even legal as cops get paid to get shot at and deal with risks and citizens dont,i mean if this is really still a law how can the police who are the ones paid to protect citizens(i know that court ruling says they dont really have to) yet at any time they can summon unpaid "deputies" who have to help under threat of arrests.....i just cant see how that is legal.

Alaska Title 11. Criminal Law Chapter 56. Offenses Against Public Administration Section 720. Refusing to Assist a Peace Officer or Judicial Officer. AS 11.56.720. Refusing to Assist a Peace Officer or Judicial Officer.[4] (a) A person commits the offense of refusing to assist a peace officer or judicial officer if, upon a request, command, or order by someone the person knows to be a peace officer or judicial officer, that person unreasonably fails to make a good faith effort to physically assist the officer in the exercise of official duties. (b) A person who, without expecting compensation, assists a person in accordance with this section is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering that assistance. This subsection does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of reckless, wilful, wanton, or intentional misconduct. (c) Refusing to assist a peace officer or judicial officer is a violation.

not the state in question but i still dont see how they get away with this legally

Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency IC 35-44.1-3 Chapter 3. Detention IC 35-44.1-3-3 Refusal to aid an officer [19] Sec. 3. A person who, when ordered by a law enforcement officer to assist the officer in the execution of the officer's duties, knowingly or intentionally, and without a reasonable cause, refuses to assist commits refusal to aid an officer, a Class B misdemeanor. As added by P.L.126-2012, SEC.54.

indiana code on the matter


www.msnbc.com... i guess the family is suing the police for excessive force

a reply to: AnteBellum

Do I understand you to say that pulling someone over for a seatbelt violation is always fraudulent and an abuse of power? If you are saying that, I'm surprised no lawyer or judge has mentioned it, and thatno state legislature has repealed their seat belt laws.

If you're saying that sometimes seat belt violations are fraudulent and abusive, how do you know this one is? If they're pulling over a Black is it fraudulent and abusive? But since it's sometimes OK, then it must be OK when they're pulling over Whites.

Can you see how irrational that is?

a reply to: illusion987

This "AM I BEING DETAINED" mentality needs to stop and quick.

No! Its called rights and we have them! Cops do not have the right to just do what ever they want to you on some false sense of fear, if we keep giving them inches, they will take miles.

If they can assume that every person is going to shoot them "cause it has happened before" then us citizens have the same right to think the same about the cops going to shoot us, cause guess what, it has happened before

a reply to: Sremmos80

Dear Sremmos80,

An interesting post which I thank you for. You're probably not surprised that I'm confused about some of your points. help me out here.

1.) Why does there have to be three sides? Isn't it possible that the family's story is completely right? I would think it's possible. Just as I would for the police side of the story.

Let me try to explain my thinking. I am not, as you say, thinking that the police did no wrong. That's an error in your understanding. Actually, I haven't even addressed that subject. It's very possible that the police used excessive force in gaining compliance, it's also possible that their city's procedure for handling that situation was different than what they did.

I disagree with your comment that the police most likely are stretching and embellishing the truth. We ever nothing in the family's video that contradicts anything the police said. There is no evidence at all that they are stretching anything. It is worth noting that the police called in a car to get a good recording of the event so that they couldn't stretch or embellish the facts.

And what do you think about the fact that in the end no weapon was found? Does that not show with out a shadow of doubt that all of this was over nothing as they were absolutely wrong in every assumption they made??

It does nothing of the sort. It makes no difference whether there was a gun found or not to the initial suspicion that there might be. The police don't have to know that a gun is there, have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of the evidence to ask a passenger to get out of a car.

Hmmmm, every assumption they made was wrong? They made a lot of assumptions, did they? Well, they didn't assume the passenger had a gun, they knew that they weren't satisfied that he didn't have a gun. Had they assumed that he had a gun, the police wouldn't have stood around waiting for backup, then a video car. They wanted to know that they were safe, and the passenger was doing nothing to reassure them.

It was not "all over nothing" A seat belt stop is legitimate and legal. Then the passenger starts acting all "squirrely" on them, and the police decide not to take any chances.

Do you have anything that contradicts the department's statement?

With respect,
Charles1952

I hate to be that guy, or the bad guy of this thread, but maybe someone can help me to better understand this video clip? What I saw was:They were legitimately pulled over then refused to comply with the police. The cops kept asking him to open the door and he kept refusing. So they busted the glass and tased him. What am I missing? Cops act like this where I live and we're mostly white here. If I got pulled over and started ignoring the officer then the same thing would happen to me.

Just throwing out some points here for consideration...

#1: Today's law enforcement, are frequently shown and seek out, video after video of "traffic stops gone bad" and they all have one thing in common! Uncooperative subject(s) and/or injured or dead cop! The recognizable precursors to violence are well documented.

#2: In many states, the law has been amended to make seat belts a stoppable offence! If the officer planned on giving the passenger a citation for a seat belt violation, he couldn't make it out to, "passenger in so-and so's car". The officer would need the information to complete the citation.

#3: LEO's have been constantly expanding their authority by systematically pushing the boundaries of it. And, with changing laws regarding use of force, an obvious effort has been made to allow more officer discretion when dealing with a suspect, issuing a citation or attempting to effect an arrest. This push, has been in the name of officer safety. But like many laws, they tend to go overboard, and are based purely on emotion or political popularity, at the time. Isn't it funny how a law can be passed, in some cases in a matter of weeks, but it takes years and years, for the obviously faulty ones, to be repealed or modified?

#4: In light of the laws mentioned in #3, as others have stated, the cops are well aware of when they are pushing the envelope of police power. But, they can not necessarily be faulted for it. They too, have a right to go home after their shift. And, in the interest of self-preservation, armed with multiple weapons, firearms, fellow officers and a DA's office full of legal knowledge, their best defense against the deployment of excessive force, is the phrase, "He looked like he was reaching for a weapon!"

a reply to: Auricom

It's the same for the police. If people see an overbearing police force they will begin to resent it. As another poster said, they're potentially creating a more hostile environment for them to operate within. How long will it be before a mob of angry citizens take justice into their own hands after witnessing police act in an inappropriate manner? It could potentially spread leaving more police face the same street justice.

Yes, there are abusive police. Yes they should be removed, everybody is agreed. But threads like this are also a part of the very problem. Calls to get rid of the police, for the citizens to take justice into their own hands (which is a polite way of calling for mass murders and lynchings), and telling people that it's completely understandable that they're afraid of the police, only make bad things worse.

There is no evidence here that the police were mindless, impatient, or excessively vicious. As far as we know, people were scared, but no one was hurt. Since this occurred what, a month ago? Had there been a hospitalization, we would have known about it. The passenger was brought to the hospital, which I suspect is procedure after a tazing, but he was shown walking way from the vehicle with his hands behind his back, with no apparent injury.

So what we have here are many posters calling for street violence, resistance to police, and encouraging fear of the police, based on little or nothing. Sensationalizing the trivial, means the important cases get treated as just one more occurrence.

Assuming that ATSers are rational, and are looking for the truth, the only conclusion I have to offer is that some here are trying to stir up violence against the government. Getting breathless over relatively nothing cases gets the mob stirred up, but does nothing to solve or even address the real problem of police misconduct.

With respect,
Charles1952

There is no evidence here that the police were mindless, impatient, or excessively vicious

Breaking out a window, tasering a man and dragging him out because the police didn't like the fact he didn't have an ID to their liking seems to fit that description.

That doesn't make for a world I find pleasant to live in. But, that's just me...Others will see it different.

a reply to: roadgravel

Dear roadgravel,

Breaking out a window, tasering a man and dragging him out because the police didn't like the fact he didn't have an ID to their liking seems to fit that description.

That's not why they pulled him out of the car. Among other things, he was asked to step out of the car which, as far as I know and nobody has questioned, the police have a right to do.

Please get the facts. Read the source article, read the police statement. Don't close your eyes to anything. You don't have to accept everything, but you should look at the information that's been presented or linked to.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Hey Charles! Hope your day is going well.

It may be true that this man was not completely cooperative and should have done things differently. But I have to ask, do you believe that this could have been handled differently by the police?

I think a trend we are seeing lately is the over-reaction by our LEO's, and use of violence against citizens that are not a violent threat themselves.

So should we have a discussion in our communities about how far an officer can go in certain situations? I truly believe there was other ways to take care of this situation, without breaking out a window ....etc.

The police lie often. The days of their word being gospel should be over for reasonable people. The fact that most people and the large majority of police do not speak out against abuse by police is very sad. Society is seeing what happens by letting it go on.

Why is everyone harping about the seatbelt violation? It doesn't matter what the vehicle was pulled over for. Non compliance is non compliance. It doesn't matter why the initial contact occurred, the escalation has nothing to do with that.

The video is clearly missing some pieces. Probably key pieces. No one saw the guy looking in his backpack or the backseat. If the cops ask him out of the vehicle and he doesn't get out, they are within their rights to break the window and taze him.

The argument that they were black so it was OK to not do what the police told them to holds no water. That's not how the world works.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I'm going to respond to this because I think you asked some good questions.

Yes, I think it most likely could have gone differently. I would want to see the full stop on video from both perspectives though.

If the cops were legitimately worried the guy was armed and saw him messing around in the backseat/backpack (did I hear backpack? I thought I heard backpack) then just sitting there for an hour would have been the wrong move.

My argument is more against people getting riled up acting like this happened or is somehow worse because the initial stop was for a seatbelt violation. That doesn't matter.

I'm all for calling out cops when they do crappy things, but there needs to be a balance. Knee jerk reactions on this site are as out of control as people here seem to think the police are.

a reply to: Domo1

I'd like to think our LEOs are better trained than to escalate a seatbelt violation into a tasing. We pay them, in part, to use good judgment and discretion. It's not in the public interest to escalate this type of situation. I would wager that if you asked any other driver on the street that day, not one would give a rat's ass if the dude was in a seat belt on or not. But I'm sure each one would have an opinion about the traffic delays the stop caused.

Years ago, in my hometown, a child was run over in her own front lawn by an LEO in pursuit of a non-violent offender. The result was there was some legislation or rules passed about when a police chase would be warranted. I view this stop in the same vein. It was excessive force and over-policing.

And it seems to happen most often to those most disenfranchised by society, historically speaking.

a reply to: Domo1

I agree.

Where I believe some people are getting outraged is that there is no one within the LEO community calling-out officers on their completely overboard actions. They go above and beyond to protect their brothers in uniform, even in cases of obvious brutality and over-reaction.

Yet, there are people such as you and I that will say to our fellow citizens....Hey, you were stupid and got what you deserved.

We need that to happen in the LEO community as well and I believe they could earn much more respect.

a reply to: charles1952

I tend to agree with you on all points. These videos, while indicating a growing concern, are but straws being piled onto the proverbial camel. Outrage, in this particular instance, does come off as petty with a dash of mob mentality. But, which straw will bring about the impending collapse?

It's obvious to we ATS'ers, that a dialog has long since been established. But how far-reaching has it become? Are those that have the power to effect the required changes hearing the public's discontent? And, if they are, Do they care? Or, was this expected because it has already been alluded to in a larger plan?

I do take exception to one particular part of your post. I noticed in previous posts, you alluded to being on the other side of the blue line? I'm not sure if I read it right, or whether you are still active, or not, but if so, I must assume that you never "rode the lightning"? Based solely, on your comment, that no one was injured...LOL

a reply to: kosmicjack

I'd like to think our LEOs are better trained than to escalate a seatbelt violation into a tasing. We pay them, in part, to use good judgment and discretion. It's not in the public interest to escalate this type of situation. I would wager that if you asked any other driver on the street that day, not one would give a rat's ass if the dude was in a seat belt on or not. But I'm sure each one would have an opinion about the traffic delays the stop caused.

But again, the minor traffic violation has hardly a thing to do with what happened. The guy making furtive movements and not getting out of the car escalated the situation.

The reason for the initial contact is essentially irrelevant. The reason the man was asked to provide ID and get out of the car was not because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

I'm sure the public doesn't care about the guy wearing a seatbelt. I'm sure the officers barely care about it either. It's not about the seatbelt.