It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 08:58 PM
a reply to: AnteBellum

Sick of this yet? No? Well here is another one for you. Police officer in New York breaks a teens arm on a school bus, intentionally.

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 08:59 PM
Okay I give up. There's no sense in trying to be objective or provide a bit of reality on a site that's become a team sport.

Cops suck!

Lawbreakers are awesome!

edit on 7-10-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:08 PM
a reply to: Emerys

Now THAT was messed up!

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:15 PM

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: roadgravel

My passenger's license was suspended for possession. That was there probable cause according to them.

I had the feeling that would be their line. To them, once guilty, always guilty. Hope you beat it.

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:23 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:36 PM
a reply to: charles1952

An ATS legend? Not quite sure about that...but I'll take it as it floats my ego and we all need that from time to time.

As far as the actual encounter, I agree that the man in question could have handled this differently and may have provoked such a response by being a complete ass.

My point is that we need to call-out our fellow citizens when they act like jerks, and we need to call-out the LEO's when they do the same. I believe people are peeved because it seems the LEO's are not held accountable when they are shown to be out of line.

Can you agree?

We need to be consistent and realize that LEO's should not just be respected for the job they do, but also recognize that they make we all do. If they cross the line, as is the case in some circumstances, they should be held accountable for such actions.

What do you think?

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:40 PM
a reply to: AnteBellum

Sooo, I went back to read the source story, clicked the link to the Hammond Police Dept. statement, and found quite a few puzzling questions. From their statement:

Near the time that the back-up officer arrived, the first officer saw the passenger inside the vehicle drop his left hand behind the center console inside of the vehicle. Fearing for officer safety, the first officer ordered the passenger to show his hands and then repeatedly asked him to exit the vehicle. The passenger continued to refuse to leave the vehicle after repeated requests.

The first officer then asked for a Hammond police squad car that had video equipment installed to come to the scene. Another Hammond Police Officer arrived and began recording the incident. The recording officer then asked the passenger again to leave the stopped vehicle. By this time considerable time had passed and both the vehicle and the officers were in danger of being struck by passing traffic.

The driver of the vehicle then shifted her car into drive and moved her vehicle in a forward motion, and was told by an officer present that her tires would be deflated by a stop strip that was placed near her front tires.


At this time in our history, WHAT dept. would not have video equipment in each and every vehicle?

"By this time considerable time had passed and both the vehicle and the officers were in danger of being struck by passing traffic." Considerable time? If they were so worried about being hit by passing traffic, why not get a vehicle to block, or just get out of the road?

From the same source as above:

"The passenger continued to refuse to exit the vehicle after approximately thirteen minutes had elapsed and upon request by at least three different officers present at the scene of the stop. Fearing the occupants of the vehicle may have possessed a weapon, and seeing the passenger repeatedly reach towards the rear seats of the vehicle, the first officer then broke the passenger side window of the vehicle and the passenger was removed from the vehicle and was placed under arrest."

Thirteen minutes is beyond reasonable? And which is it? Fearing being struck by passing traffic, OR fearing the occupants of the vehicle may have possessed a weapon? I'm going to be honest here. IF I had any REASONABLE suspicion someone may have a gun, I would not be standing next to the window putting my face down next to it to hear. Sorry, I forgot they don't even need reasonable suspicion in Indiana. AND if they really believed the OCCUPANTS, plural, may have a weapon, why did they not break the woman's window, or taze her as well? A traffic stop for whatever reason, requires the use of stop strips?

If you can honestly believe this Official Statement is true, complete, and correct, why no mention of the tazer? There is more to this story, from both sides. The glossy version released by the police is no more true and complete, and the same goes for the citizen's statement. The following quote from the police statement says it best.

"The Hammond Police officers were at all times acting in the interest of officer safety and in accordance with Indiana law."

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:43 PM

originally posted by: charles1952
Please, answer my questions about the police report. They knew they were going to be sued and their statements would be used at trial. They have an extensive video record to compare the statement to, what is wrong with the statement?

If it is a fair trial then the police department will likely lose. Let's look at the basic points of the police report.

1.) Asked the driver and passenger to comply. The driver tried to leave and the passenger did not comply (he didn't have identification).

2.) The passenger made a gesture that caused the officers to become concerned and they asked for backup

3.) They were stopped for 13 minutes and the police were concerned for their safety due to oncoming traffic.

That's basically it. Please feel to add any further salient points.

Point 3 is a throw away point because they were situated in the grass away from oncoming traffic. In fact, the driver was arguably in more danger than the officers. Based upon the video and the police report the majority of the events take place on the passenger side of the vehicle. This means that most of the action by the officers was taking place on the curb with added protection of the parked cars. In fact, you could argue that the officers were responsible for the hazardous conditions because they placed spikes under the car making it impossible for the driver and the officers to move to a location that they deemed safer.

They won't be able to effectively argue point 2 either. The few minutes leading up to the forced extraction shows that the officers are not concerned for their safety. In fact, it is obvious from the video why they broke the glass. It was not in response to a fear of the passenger's behavior. It was quite the opposite at 1:36 in the video:

Officer: [approaches driver side door]
Officer: “If you don’t open the door I will open it for you. Do you understand?”
Driver: “Yes”
Officer: “Ok” [walks away over to passenger side door]
Driver: [cries out] “No”

Please note that the officer responsible for the forced extraction asks the driver to comply and if she understands, but proceeds to bust open the passenger side door.

It is crystal clear that they smashed the door as a result of their final ultimatum. The only fear at this point in the event is from the passengers and driver. I would say they had good reason to be afraid after an officer had already pulled a gun.

Point 1 can be shot down as well in light of the deconstruction of point 2. They were afraid for their safety and with good cause apparently.

I'm curious. After reading the police report and watching the video, do you really think it is ok to bust the window open, taser the man, get glass stuck in his back, and then hand-cuff him? What possible justification do you see for this given what we know from the police report and the video?
edit on 7-10-2014 by compressedFusion because: "video" replaced with "forced extraction"

edit on 7-10-2014 by compressedFusion because: added clarification for 1:36

edit on 7-10-2014 by compressedFusion because: "drivers" to "driver"

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:49 PM

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: diggindirt

I didn't post this. Nor would I without a video of the entire event.

Ooops, sorry, Hit the wrong "reply" button.
What could these folks possibly have done to deserve that sort of treatment? I can't imagine....I saw/heard a lot of fear and confusion in those voices and actions. When did being fearful and confused become a crime?

I'm hoping that everyone who views this video sends it to their Congress critters and their local law enforcement agencies with an email commentary. Many, many of them need to see what's happening.

ETA: I just re-watched the video and picked up on the fact that the driver was going to the hospital because she had been called by them to say that her mother was about to pass.
edit on 7-10-2014 by diggindirt because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:54 PM
a reply to: Emerys

That was truely horrible, as a mother of 2 kids so help me the day it comes to that. I mean it, you all will be speaking to me from jail after.
Thank you for posting that.

I need some help from the other side though, can you guys explain to me which people on the bus were more mentally disturbed in this case? The boy or the cops?

Wake up! Your kids can be next, that is unless you live in a town in which you are a cop also. Let's just hope your kids don't like to travel then.
edit on 10/7/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 09:55 PM

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: charles1952

...If [cops] cross the line, as is the case in some circumstances, they should be held accountable for such actions.

I agree, as would most. But, the problem lies with the departments and agencies that the cops work for, and the municipalities and districts that fund them. I'm sure many cops are punished and even fired, for their actions while on the job. But, you hardly ever hear about it. Yeah, sure. If their actions are so egregious that it makes the boob-tube, we will. But these are usually ones that are not only losing their jobs, they're likely facing prison sentences, as well.

What I believe it all boils down to, is two-fold. Appearances and liability. If a small-town police force gets enough complaints, they may censure an officer, or let him or her "resign". They may even fire one, to appease the citizens. But, what they don't want, are lawsuits or to lose face, in the public perception. I witnessed first hand, how a small town can lose it's entire force, over the actions of a few bad cops. No more city cops and the county got a nice contract from the city to provide law enforcement. Did it make the papers? Barely. The investigation by the FDLE, was so hush-hush, that the town forgot all about it within weeks...What did they find that was so bad, I wonder?

My guess is that the trail of corruption far surpassed the officer's actions, and may have implicated not only the Chief of Police, but the Mayor and some Councilmen and women, as well! And, that those cops probably weren't acting all on their own, and were only following orders!

Like in everything, just follow the money...If there is money being made, someone is manipulating something somewhere. And any statement with the words, "trust" and "government" in it, is an oxymoron to start with.

edit on 10/7/2014 by GoOfYFoOt because: added text...

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 10:30 PM
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

I agree with all you say with my logical mind. It's all certainly true.
However, I think the behavior we're witnessing comes from steroids. Take a look at the cops in both videos. I see classics signs of 'roid abuse in their physical appearance. To fail to address that issue first is simply spinning wheels.
I've spoken at length with our local sheriff about this issue and he contends that a large part of the problem would go away if they were tested for steroids. He's an old guy (my age) and remembers when the LEOs were good guys to the majority of the citizens. He won't conduct no-knock raids nor allow his deputies to participate in them. He's smart enough to know that the majority of homes in the county have firearms. His department has taught hundreds of us to handle weapons properly. Many of his men use the same shooting range that us plinkers use.
That's not say that there aren't mean bullies out there who don't do 'roids....

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 10:31 PM
This incident (the one that this thread is about) occurred in Hammond, Indiana. Hammond, Indiana's western border is flush with the Chicago, Illinois extreme southeast metro area. Hammond is 90% White. The Chicago metro that is adjacent to Hammond is 90% Black.

Indiana's taxes, gas prices, home prices, and overall cost of living is significantly lower than in Illinois. Hammond police and residents do not want any additional "bleed over" of minorities moving into their town. I get off the highway in Hammond to get gas when going on trips. It's swipe, pump, and get back on the highway ASAP.

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 10:46 PM
a reply to: diggindirt

Excellent point! Yes, even in my little town, there are many deputies, that have that exact same build. And, several that I went to school with, that were NOT that big, then...

Our town only has about 5,000 people living here. But, we have 3 different "fitness clubs"! One, is not a franchise and I believe is owned by a local LEO. Sometimes I'll drive by there late in the evening and see several marked patrol units and little else...Who knows what they are doing while on the clock! Probably making "Hanz and Franz" videos...

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:03 PM
Looks like it just hit AP.

Video shows officer using stun gun in traffic stop

The video, recorded by the driver's 14-year-old son, captured a Sept. 24 confrontation between two adults in the car and police that's the basis of a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court against several officers and the city of Hammond. After police pulled over the driver, Lisa Mahone, officers demanded that passenger Jamal Jones produce identification — something the lawsuit says Jones did not have with him.

The video shows an officer breaking the front passenger window with a club, with shards of glass showering the vehicle's four occupants, including Mahone's son and daughter in the back seat. An officer then shocked Jones with a stun gun.

Before that, Mahone could be heard saying she's scared after officers pulled a gun on them. The lawsuit says Mahone called 911 when she became concerned about the officers' actions.

"The officers from Hammond Police Department escalated the incident without any basis and without any cause," attorney Dana Kurtz said during a news conference Tuesday.

Hammond police spokesman Lt. Richard Hoyda did not immediately return a call seeking comment but issued a statement saying Jones had refused to comply with orders to get out of the car and that officers were concerned for their safety after seeing him "repeatedly reach towards the rear seats of the vehicle."

Police said Jones was arrested for failure to aid an officer and resisting law enforcement.

According to the lawsuit, Jones had surrendered his driver's license after being stopped for not paying his insurance and instead tried to show the officers a ticket with his information on it. The lawsuit says the officers rejected the ticket, but police said Jones had refused to hand it over.

The complaint alleges officers shocked Jones a second time after removing him from the car.

The lawsuit alleges excessive force, false arrest, assault and battery and other charges. It seeks unspecified damages.

The lawsuit mentions that two of the officers had been sued in the past for excessive force or unlawful arrest. Court records indicate an undisclosed settlement in one of the cases.

Dat last sentence doh!
edit on 7-10-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:10 PM
a reply to: Swills

That last sentence isn't particularly telling. I think it would be hard to find a doctor that hasn't been sued a number of times. People are a little sue happy. Settling doesn't mean much either. Beats paying for the lawyers.

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:10 PM
a reply to: Bone75

As soon as a gun was drawn, her and the kids should have gotten out of the truck.

The gun being drawn is the whole reason WHY she wouldn't open the car doors. She says that she's scared to get out because they pulled out a gun with two kids in the car.

Did no one else catch the irony of her saying "Why do you say no one's gonna hurt you? People are getting shot by the police...." then the glass shatters.

That cop just proved she was completely justified in her fear of violent police and what might happen if they got out of the car!

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:24 PM
a reply to: Domo1

Comparing cops to doctors may be comparing apples to oranges.

The doctor, physicians, nurses, anyone in medicine having malpractice insurance is because sometimes things go wrong.

Police, as far as I know, aren't required to have such insurance, although I'm sure it exists because insurance of all kinds exist. In fact, we can get insurance for ourselves the day the police cause us harm. Coverage for bodily injury, personal injury or property damage that results from law enforcement activities or operations and is caused by a wrongful act while conducting those activities or operations.

So comparing police who have in the past been found to use excessive force & unlawful arrest and a doctor who botch up hip surgery makes sense to you? This is America and people sue everyday but in at least 1 civil case an officer is guilty of exactly what we just watched in that video. Chances are he'll lose this case too.
edit on 7-10-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:26 PM
a reply to: AnteBellum

Omg. My jaw was literally on the floor! This family, apparently going to the hospital because the drivers mother is dying, and THIS HAPPENS? For not wearing a seat belt?

If these thugs are not fired and charged with assault, then something is truly wrong. They were cooperating. They were, and rightfully so, fearing for their lives and the lives of the CHILDREN in the car.

This is SO bad, it almost doesn't seem real.

Btw, it looked like the one thug was smiling when he was taking those taser barbs out of the man who was taken into custody. Sick, disgusting, and just total abuse of power.

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:45 PM
The TASERS are the causeof most of these problems.

Jesus already sue the pants off of some rich Police Dept and get these things thown out.

Many many people have been MURDERED in COLD BLOOD by Police weilding Tasers,COOKED from the inside out.

Find out WHO LIED to facilitate the first deployment of Tasers,then follow the money.Tasers kill so obviously people lied to get them where they are.

If a LEO has to use his hands or his gun he generally leaves people the heck alone because he has to take risks,this means yes he DOES get sworn at and talked down to and challenged and questioned and he does get refusals to comply.These are parts of the job.

I watched a woman being Tased fom behind just the other day.

Non-compliance before an arrest is initiated is not justification for murder or assault,FIRST you arrest then you demand compliance.Laws need to be changed to FORCE LEOs to arrest first and suffer a CONSEQUENCE if they arrest illegally...back to the legal system huh.

Its big game of the Police trying to breach your rights withpout actually arresting you,making you jump like a circus animal whenever they say so,trying to confuse or agitate people intentionally.

People are not Animals,and compliance is not needed unless you are being arrested,this is at the core level about Judges and prosecutors and lawyers and police unions,the entire group needs to be set straight using laws and jail time for abbrogation of public duty.

We all know the Police use the legal system and it helps them,so obviously to cut them off you hit the legal system first,but this mens you need to hit the Politicins before the Judges and the Posecutos at the sme time as the Judges.

Generally these rouge LEOs are committing acts of domestic terrorism.No different than people in Iraq or Syria or any other broken country.

There were kids in the car and in Civilised Country we dont Tase people in front of their kids,what if he had died?This is so far out of hand that if Obama doesnt do something he has to go over this issue.

This is a Presidential issue,one of the upmost urgency.

There is no more time to waste discussing things like some of the posters here do,they want to play lawyer when that part is one facet of the problem itself,those trying to justify this act are not looking at the entire issue,the laws and their interpretations as defined to and interpreted by Prosecutors and Judges MUST change,NOT the laws we asked for because they have screwed those already,intentionally creating deep red tape and an unweildy system that stymies the People at every turn intentionally creating windows of opportunity to have charges against LEOs thrown out for a variety of reasons.

LEO Unions/lawyers
Taser manufacturers and those who facillitated their implementation,Tasers destroyed the concept of community policing ,killed innocent people,and have turned good cops into bad cops every time they are deployed.

In the above order you seek change,but you need laws with Jail time for all parties concerned to make things stick.

Tasing someone in a car with kids in it is assine and is NOT AMERICAN.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in