It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Obama
Politicians
Judges
Prosecutors
Lawyers
LEO Unions
Taser Manufacturers et al.

If you do not impact these people in this order ,NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.

This is not about a few bad cops,or a few mistakes,or a few people having bad days,this is about corrupted laws and processes,derelict Judges and prosecutors,dereict President and Politicians,the cops are only doing what they are supported in doing,EXACTLY what they are SUPPORTED IN DOING BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM and politicians who support it.

The Blue Line only exists because the System and its Processes are an utter failure when it comes to arresting and prosecuting LEOs,and everyone knows it.


It takes one unjust unprovoked physical or mentally abusive incident for a person to fear LEOs and people when they are afraid often turn that fear naturally into anger,it is human nature to do this.

If TENS of MILLIONS of people are wronged this way for 20 years what does anyone expect to have happen?

This is an EPIDEMIC and the impacts are like those of any other type of domestic terrorism.


edit on 7-10-2014 by one4all because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum

Dear AnteBellum,

Thank you for a thorough, thoughtful, and perhaps painful reply. I'll do my best with it.


A.) Yes, I think seatbelt laws are stupid, for adults but that makes no difference in this case it is only incidental to the real problem.
B.) Should they have been arrested, probably. The driver was being argumentative and didn't follow instructions she agreed to abide by when receiving a liscense to drive. A privilege.


We're together so far. Maybe this will work out.


C.) Passengers are not subject to do anything in a stop such as this unless the officers make a observation during their process which presents probable cause.


I'm not sure that's entirely correct. Here's the link:
www.law.cornell.edu...

Look for the paragraph marked (a) at the beginning, the discussion of Terry stops. The Supreme Court ruled in that case, that the police could order the passengers and driver out of the car. Once out of the car, the police can give a pat down to anyone they "reasonably believe" that the person might be armed and dangerous. They certainly don't need probable cause, and the police will argue that the man's behavior led them to "reasonably believe." for a pat down. But they didn't even need that to get him out of the car. They can order anyone and everyone out of the car if the original stop was proper.


D.) There were kids in the car. Hypocratic oath comes to mind, watch the video again closely, this time with your eyes open. The officer swung his tool in a manner that the trajectory of the broken glass was aimed torward the backseats. He didn't warn the children beforehand and took a nonchalant attitude doing it. These highly 'trained' men acted no better then the idiot parents they pulled over. If your reasoning is stupid begets stupid then you are spot on. And are getting very warm as to why I'm so aggrevated by such incidents.


You may be right that they swung in the wrong direction. The result, at any rate, was no injury to the children.


E.) Fear mongering - seriously, are you going to say I'm a sympathizer next?


I'm sorry that's the feeling I created. What I said was:


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.


I still think that many posters in the thread were (are?) fear mongering. By ignoring the law and the fact that they don't know what happened, those posters are encouraging fear. (I would have said OP if I had meant you specifically.


F.) These situations need to be addressed and held to a higher standard. This is the USA not some 3rd world desert location. Until some form of accountability other then 'Oops, if your unsatisfied with our service please hire a lawyer and take it to a judge' happens, things are going to get worse. Meanwhile the system is set up in a way that those the enforce the law know most about how to circumvent it.


Held to a higher standard than the law? What standard is that? They sometimes fall short. The results are often terrible when they do, and the punishment should be accordingly severe. But if the courts find they are not guilty of whatever it is, going after the police is counter productive. Go after the courts.


E.) I don't want to give away so easily my reasons for disliking the actions police have been accused of making in the past few months. You seem to know the answers already though. So, I am a single, 30 something, white, attractive(so I've been told), professional with my own business, house and 2 kids. I drive an Audi A4, wear a seatbelt and drive as carefully as a surgeon since most times I have kids in the car.


I don't need to know your reasons, nobody needs to. I have special reasons for disliking domestic CIA operations. There are a couple of other groups I especially dislike. Posters can call for the execution of every policeman in the country if they want to, some here have proposed drastic "solutions." But for whatever reason, it's not right or fair for people to jump on these officers in this case, with the facts we have.

As I mentioned, policemen gone bad are a terrible danger to society, and I agree they should be stopped. I, also, would like to see changes to prevent bad cops from performing illegal acts. Body cams might be a solution, but I haven't really heard of much else. I hope there are ideas to prevent abuse, and that they are pushed through. I would expect that these new ideas wouldn't hinder good cops, though.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Dear sheepslayer247,

Quit being so modest. But, if you don't like the spotlight, I'll turn it off.

As far as calling out people and policemen who are acting like jerks, I think I agree with you. In my post just above, I said that a bad policeman can be an extremely dangerous threat to his society, and could probably be dealt with even more harshly than a citizen. I don't see any disagreement.

Except maybe for one small point. Are we calling out people and policemen for being jerks, or for breaking the law? If it's breaking the law, then I'm fine. But Hoky Smokes, Bullwinkle, I would wager that most of the people think I'm a jerk, and you know what a sweetie I am.

Go after jerky bosses, counter staff, telephone hotline operators, pizza delivery men, just about any government employee? Let's start with the law breakers, OK?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum'
Guess I'll be that guy, because I'd rather see the truth be presented then more group-speak, popularity behavior.

Indiana has a Stop and Identify statute. Once there was an infraction, the police have every right to ask for an ID and arrest you if you don't provide it. I am not a cop lover, and I despise the way they are trained to lie and bamboozle us into giving up our rights. I didn't read the rest of the thread, but the bottom line is, and I know this won't be popular, the police had every right to take him out by force when he had no ID to show and refused to exit the vehicle. Legally, the guy does not have a leg to stand on, and his lawsuit will fail miserable. His lawyer is only out for publicity, like the slimy opportunist vulture he is.

Is every black person who gets pulled over, driving while black now? Give me a break. They got pulled over for a seat belt violation. I've had about a bunch of em in my lifetime, and I'm white.

I think people are watching Youtube videos and getting confused about what the laws may be in their particular state regarding traffic stops.

Can I be honest? I see a lot of people who just don't want to follow basic traffic stop laws (and other laws) anymore. They want to argue, get a bad attitude, claim they have rights and laws behind them that they really do not have, and then, when they get tazed and go to jail, it becomes some bs racial issues, police brutality..etc.

The guy was flat out in the wrong. You can look up the Indiana statutes dealing with Stop and Identify yourself. Terry stops have been in law for decades now anyway. Any outrage over them and individual state statutes in 2014 is ludicrous.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

You must be a big fan of the Patriot Act also!

You keep arguing the legality of this situation and the actions of the police being within those parameters, when that is NOT the issue in concern, just the framework in which it revolves around. Flame thrower's are not illegal, except maybe California, should we start selling them at Walmart because we can?

Laws are usually made for good reason, people see the need and then they are drafted up accordingly. But like time laws have to change to meet the social norms of the generation. It occurs in a few ways:

One is where subsequent legislation changes or amends specific portions of the law.
A second is where subsequent legislation repeals only specific portions of a law.
A third is where subsequent legislation repeals an entire law and replaces it with a new version of the law.
A fourth method is where a court declares part of a law unconstitutional and renders that portion void but leaves the rest in place.
The first three above follow the normal legislative process. There are two other methods for changing laws by direct participation of the citizens.
One is called INITIATIVE. Here, citizens themselves prepare the legislation and upon a proper petition, place the proposed legislation on the ballot for approval by the voters in the same way that candidates for office are elected.
The other is called REFERENDUM. One form of REFERENDUM is where citizens by petition call on the legislature to do some specific act such as review or repeal a specific law. If passed, the normal legislative process begins. Another, more common form is where the Legislature proposes a law for the direct approval of the citizens by their vote rather than by the legislature's vote.
Initiative and Referendum are often associated with another citizen based action called RECALL, in which citizens can petition for the removal of an elected official.
These three citizen-based methods are not permitted in every jurisdiction.
The reason I bring this up is at times there are laws on the books that began to be misused, even though technically they are correct and legal.
If you need a good example of this look at Stop-and-frisk in New York City and the battle that to this day ensues.

Is that the reason you left out the second half of #3, I posted:


C.) Passengers are not subject to do anything in a stop such as this unless the officers make a observation during their process which presents probable cause. This gets abused all the time by the way, due to the subjective nature of it relying solely on the discretion of the officer at the scene. Years ago here in NJ police used to lay in wait at toll booths to grab unsuspecting violators of seatbelt laws and use it as probable cause to look for other things wrong. It was overturned and all tickets were thrown out by the courts, including the DWI's they got in the process, insufficient PC and entrapment in some cases.

If this is the type of world you would like to live in, where strict accordance of the law must be observed, then I hope we never meet in a 'Stand-Your-Ground State' and I feel threatened by your presence.



You may be right that they swung in the wrong direction. The result, at any rate, was no injury to the children.

Thank god the children weren't hurt - this time! If I was to do something so reckless I could be charged with child endangerment. Why weren't the police in this circumstance being held to a higher social standard? They are the police - protect the innocent(the kids, regardless of their parents actions). They purpose is to protect and serve not harass and terrorize, even though as you have shown, we have given them the power to do so. Now it's time to take some of that power back through legislation.
This was over a seatbelt ticket, if you want to overlook the obvious in this and many other situations like it that have occurred recently, then that is your purgative. I assure you me and many countless others will not though.

So far a man was shot and killed for stealing/strong arming a clerk, boy was killed for holding a toy gun, another man shot at a gas station for well nothing at all, reckless drug raids by overzealous drug agents killing so many innocent people I've lost count, over enforcing and brutality everywhere, have you spent any time just here at ATS looking at some of the more heinously ridiculous cases occurring with such frequency now it's hard to keep track anymore?



I still think that many posters in the thread were (are?) fear mongering. By ignoring the law and the fact that they don't know what happened, those posters are encouraging fear. (I would have said OP if I had meant you specifically.


I think the police are the ones doing the fear mongering. By abusing the law and the fact that people won't know what happened in most cases, those monsters are encouraging fear.

So I ask again, what is it that YOU think I'm afraid of the police for, after seeing situations such as this? Why do YOU think I want to see changes made so this stops happening? If I'm not asking for police to stop doing their job and most if not all times am grateful for their services, what could it possibly be that I'm upset about?

If you could answer the questions you would understand my concern. I don't know at the moment if you are being defensive due to working in the field and you do not come off as blind. Contrary, your somewhat intelligent and in most cases regarding law I would agree with you completely. Things have gotten out of hand, just comparing my childhood interactions with police verses today is enough for me to see the differences.
I want to see changes made to the system that negates the need for such suspicion and utter discontent for the very people they are sworn to protect, us.

Do you have kids? If your child was acting like a idiot and the police sent to deal with broke their arm in the manner as shown in this video you wouldn't have a problem with it? ATS Link
edit on 10/8/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Calalini

Thank you for your post. I did some research. He was most likely obligated to provide his information because of the alleged seatbelt infraction. However, he could have verbally provided his information and satisfied the requirement. The ruling by the appellate court below leaves that as a viable option. Did they stop the car for the driver or the passenger not wearing the seatbelt? In any case, this is why we change laws and statutes. It isn't reasonable to smash open the window because they want information about his identity. That is taking things too far.

They are often referred to as Terry stops because of the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1. The court determined that it is not a violation of the 4th amendment based on the reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed.

In other words they don't simply have free reign against the 4th amendment even when it comes to producing ID. It just so happens that in 2009 there was a similar case in Indiana. A passenger in the vehicle, Mr. Adam Starr, was asked to produce identification and said he didn't have an ID. Incidentally he lied about not having ID because the police found it in the vehicle during the stop. He originally lost his case because he claimed as a passenger he wasn't subject to the "stop and identify" statute.

The Indiana Appellate Court overturned the previous ruling. They concluded that the passenger is not exempt, but Mr. Starr had no obligation to produce an ID because there was no reasonable suspicion of a crime.

Court Document
Indiana Lawyer: Adam Starr v. State of Indiana

"There was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an infraction or ordinance violation, giving rise to an obligation to identify himself upon threat of criminal prosecution."



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: compressedFusion

He was wearing a seatbelt. He had no ID to show as he had his license revoked due to insurance. He attempted to show them the ticket as ID, it wasn't sufficient to them. I can't really blame him for being reluctant to get out of the car at that point...they were looking to escalate because they did exactly that at every turn. They even tased him again, once out of the car, surrounded by multiple officers and it was evident at that point that he had no weapon.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Indiana has a Stop and Identify statute. Once there was an infraction, the police have every right to ask for an ID and arrest you if you don't provide it.


that statute says provide ID if in possession or provide name, address and DOB. To not is a class C misdemeanor.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

The thing is, he did show ID. His driver license was surrendered so all he had was the paper work given to him which he gives to the police in the video. The only thing he wasnt compliant with was getting out of the car because he was afraid.

Well the cops proved him right, he had every reason to be afraid.
edit on 8-10-2014 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Dear sheepslayer247,

Quit being so modest. But, if you don't like the spotlight, I'll turn it off.

As far as calling out people and policemen who are acting like jerks, I think I agree with you. In my post just above, I said that a bad policeman can be an extremely dangerous threat to his society, and could probably be dealt with even more harshly than a citizen. I don't see any disagreement.

Except maybe for one small point. Are we calling out people and policemen for being jerks, or for breaking the law? If it's breaking the law, then I'm fine. But Hoky Smokes, Bullwinkle, I would wager that most of the people think I'm a jerk, and you know what a sweetie I am.

Go after jerky bosses, counter staff, telephone hotline operators, pizza delivery men, just about any government employee? Let's start with the law breakers, OK?

With respect,
Charles1952


I agree. Perhaps jerk is not the term to use. Let's hold law-breakers accountable....LEO's and regular joes.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Agreed. i thought he was giving them info but they were not happy with it,



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
As a white man, I say this is pure racial abuse against some harmless black people not intending to do anything wrong. The cops and the town should be prosecuted and punished.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

So..this gets at the heart of the question about excessive force, race, however you want to frame it...if he was wearing the seatbelt, he provided them the only ID he had, it was a simple seatbelt stop, there were kids in the car - why the need for back up? Why did it need to escalate? What danger to society did he pose?

There does not appear to be any reasonable explanation other than - "Because we say so.."

And, for me, that is just not going to fly anymore.
And I could careless about the argument that some will use that LEOs "put their life on the line, etc.." Riiight. By choice. They are paid to do it, not forced to do it. And if they aren't trained to distinguish/determin between actual threats to their safety and the use common sense and civility, then they should be. And if they are and they fail to exercise proper discernment - they should be fired. And if a citizen loses their life due to that failure, they should be prosecuted.
edit on 10/8/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack
Great post.
That is what it all boils down to.
They escalated when there was no reason to do so.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I'm not trying to justify what the cops did was right by any means but I have seen several posts from the 1st page putting the blame on the police officers and the effect on the kids. Wait what...did I read that correctly? The two adults in the front seat obviously do not have the kids in mind either. Regardless of the offense, which sounds like it was seat belt violation, the passenger went scrounging in his backpack for his information. Ok there is the first problem. How exactly are they to know he wasn't going for a gun. That's why you sit with hands shown and when the PO approaches you then tell him my information is in the backpack. Are there bad apple police officers yes there are. Just like in the normal public...bad apples ruin it for the good ones. I've seen some legit videos where it seems cops are being dickheads and deserve to lose their jobs. But most of the time I see one's like this where had the adults cooperated this matter would not have escalated. People can sit here and watch videos all the time but go live in a cops shoes for a few days or a week. Then you'll see why they have the protocols they do.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: compressedFusion

He was wearing a seatbelt. He had no ID to show as he had his license revoked due to insurance. He attempted to show them the ticket as ID, it wasn't sufficient to them. I can't really blame him for being reluctant to get out of the car at that point...they were looking to escalate because they did exactly that at every turn. They even tased him again, once out of the car, surrounded by multiple officers and it was evident at that point that he had no weapon.


They only tased him once and that was getting him out of the car. The second one you may be referring to was when they were taking the prongs out. Maybe I missed the 2nd tase but I didn't see it.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I still don't know why the LEO didn't just give the woman driver an infraction ticket for not wearing her seatbelt, and get back in his car and leave. oh yeah, they were black and loud...therefore, they must be taught a lesson.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
I still don't know why the LEO didn't just give the woman driver an infraction ticket for not wearing her seatbelt, and get back in his car and leave. oh yeah, they were black and loud...therefore, they must be taught a lesson.

I seldom agree with you completely jimmyx from stockton, but this is one of those times.
Big star on that post!



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
This story actually made it to Fox News. They had two legal experts on there and both seemed to be in agreement that the cops were over the line. They said between the two arresting officers they had 4 previous civil rights violation complaints.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Sadly I doubt anything will be done about it. On the whole we are apathetic, we have our own problems to deal with.
While the corrupt police officers with the backup of a corrupt system are allowed to do these things with no punishment, then things are only going to get worse.
Sadly the police officers that really are good at their jobs get painted with the same tar brush.
Im surprised that the "good guys" arent making a stand against this sort of thing. I wonder if there really is any "good guys" left.
Dont blame me for thinking that way, they only have themselves to blame.
Im so sick of these cases now, I dont even want to watch the video.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join