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: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
They were stopped for not wearing a seatbelt. They did break the law. After that you better follow ALL the instructions police give you. Driver and passenger were not compliant. What was the police supposed to do? Wish them well and let them go?

Also, the lady driver smoked with kids in the back seat … WTF!




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I will not say that I side with the police on this one, but I also cannot side with the vehicle's occupants, and I will explain why. Having read the police report, the vehicle was pulled over because neither the driver or the passenger were wearing seat belts. After they had pulled over the officer requested identification from the driver, and she complied. The cop then asked the passenger for identification, which apparently is legal in that state. He said he didn't have any, so the cop asked him to write his name down on a piece of paper. The passenger told the cop that he wasn't going to do his job for him, and that the cop should give him a piece of paper. The cop told him that he could see a piece of paper in the console. So obviously there was non-compliance from the outset.

The passenger also wouldn't roll down his window all the way, although that is not a crime in itself. The passenger was reaching all over the car, as evidenced by the video. Sometime during the altercation the driver put her vehicle in drive and started moving forward, and was told that a spike strip would ruin her tires. Anyway, so the cops called not only for backup, but called for a squad car equipped with cameras so they could record the incident. They did not mind being recorded, or at the very least knew they were being recorded. The cops ask the passenger to step out of the vehicle, which they can do and is perfectly legal.

The passenger would not exit the vehicle, despite multiple requests. Now there were words exchanged, and the police report claims that the glass was broken and the man tazed because he started reaching for something, which could have been a weapon. Now we cannot see exactly what happens in the video, but here is what we can determine: the passenger raises his voice to the cops through the window, and immediately after the passenger lowers his head and shoulders from the opening in the window, he leans forward and looks to be going into the glove box, or that general area. We cannot see his hands, but the movement of his body suggests that he very well could have been reaching inside it, which is what the police report claims. So seeing this, the officer thought he could have been reaching for a weapon, and having no other way to reach the suspect, he breaks the glass.

I am absolutely positive that this situation would have turned out fine had the driver and passenger not been such complete idiots, and had they complied. You don't know what will happen if you comply, but there is a better chance of things going smoothly, as opposed to non-compliance, when you know things are going to get rocky to a higher degree. That is just common sense. And while I hate police brutality and violence, and think that too many cops are sociopaths, it is not like the cop just walked up and started wailing on the guy. The man had every means to comply with the officers, who were within their bounds to ask him for compliance in the aforementioned ways. His non-compliance is what got him charged for interfering with an officer. You have to do what police tell you to do, at least when they are within their legal right to do so. And even if they are not, you should do it anyway, and dispute it later. This is why you should record them, even though they should be the ones wearing body cams.
Once I was a stupid 18 year old driving over 120 mph, racing early in the morning hours on some backroads with some friends. The cop literally had to chase us down, but I didn't stop because I didn't want to take my eyes off the road at that speed, and never looked in my rearview mirror so I didn't know he had been behind me. Anyway, he could have taken me to jail on the spot for going that speed, and for who knows what else, but I was respectful and polite, I made his job as easy as possible, stuff like turning on the dome light, and he let me go with a warning. Had I been the least bit non-compliant I probably would have seen what jail is like.

So I am of the opinion that even if you are right, you should be compliant, because being non-compliant or challenging the officer in any way, is not going to help you one bit. If the cop is on a power trip does one really think the best course of action is to feed that power, allowing him to exercise even more of his ill-used authority? No. Your best bet is to diffuse the situation to the best of your ability. And there is constant talk about cops having it out for black people, but I do not understand if this is because cops are on a power trip, or they are racist. I mention this because people are already bringing up the race issue, when there is nothing in the video that suggests this was race-motivated. The fact that the cop is white and the people in the vehicle are black is not sufficient evidence of racism, although some do not seem to grasp this fact. Does this mean that white cops cannot pull over any vehicle that has a black person in it, or vice-versa? Racism exists, and it exists with cops as well, but I'm sick of people making everything out to be about race. These people were not pulled over because they were black, but were pulled over because they weren't wearing their seatbelts. Honestly I would expect this type of non-compliant behavior from someone who doesn't have enough common sense to wear a seatbelt, no matter what color they are. I mean it takes 2 seconds out of your life, and increases your chances of surviving a crash by a highly significant amount.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AnteBellum

Get a lawyer and sue the police for 100 billion dollars.
Only when money is involved will there ever be a change.

Fire the chief of police. Or vote him out.


No it doesn't...Only when it comes out of their pockets will it evince change. They just tax us more when we sue them for abusing their authority. Their only answer to being called out on abusing the authority we give them is to abuse it farther, until they've wrested total control of the people away from the people. That inevitably leads to one thing, revolution, I would like to avoid that if at all possible...

Jaden



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
This threads a great example of cop hate regardless of reality. The guy was given a lawful order to exit the vehicle, he chose to disregard that lawful order, end of story.

There's no abuse of power here. It's sad that most of the people who frequent this board go completely against its motto of deny ignorance. Instead they choose to let their blind hatred for law enforcement cloud reality and paint an image they WANt to see.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: C0le

There's a lot more to this story after our research on the matter. We're getting into the detail in tomorrow's NLBS episode.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
If he would have gotten out of the vehicle they would have driven away. If he had dropped the cigars and not charged a cop he would be alive. If he would have not attacked the neighborhood watch patrol and walked home he would be alive.

What is so hard? This is not a just a black thing but when you see videos all over the internet with F$%# the POLICE and you do not comply, when they can ticket you, then what do you expect?

I am tired of police officers who habitually overstep the line but they have always been here. What is happening is people are acting self righteous and as if they do not have to comply if they do not want too. They do not have to do what an officer tells them and they can blame fear.

Ever see this one?

www.youtube.com...

In front of kids...

White guys can attack cops too...it is not a 'black thing'

www.youtube.com...

or how about this one?

www.youtube.com...

Sorry, but he acted like a jack ass and got tazed....


edit on 10pm31pmf0000002014-10-08T16:04:01-05:000401 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
All I wanted to do here was say something like:

Stop calling for the death and imprisonment of the police in this particular case. We don't have enough facts, we've seen maybe 10% of the entire event. There are legal arguments that could be made for the police. The arguments might not prevail, but it's not as clear cut as everybody seems to think. Don't reject the Department statement completely. Calm down, read, research, and wait.

Don't let other events determine your feelings about this particular case. It may be that there is a massive problem with abusive police throughout the country. That's separate from judging this one particular case. If the law is wrong, and it may be, I don't know, change the law. But don't expect the police to not enforce laws as they are written.

Stop jumping to conclusions condemning these particular officers, there will be time for that when we know more.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

In Indiana, there are specific laws restricting what police officers can do when stopping a vehicle for a seatbelt violation. Here's a pertinent paragraph of the chapter:

Sec. 3. A vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.

The stated policy, in Indiana, for rules of engagement of Indiana police officers stopping a car for a seatbelt violation is… “m’am I pulled you over because of a seat belt violation, here’s your ticket and you need to pay it by so and so date, thank you, you may now be on your way”

Edit to add: through our research, we also found that in Indiana law, a seatbelt violation is considered the lowest of petty violations, not to have a fine more than $25, with no reporting of the violation to insurance. And that seatbelt violations are not to be used as a pretext for stopping a vehicle, or persons in a vehicle, for which police have other suspicions beyond the seatbelt violation.


edit on 8-10-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0le
This threads a great example of cop hate regardless of reality. The guy was given a lawful order to exit the vehicle, he chose to disregard that lawful order, end of story.


Except that Lisa Mahone, his girlfriend in the driver's seat, was on the line with 911 requesting a supervisor on the scene before they exited the car. She said they would, but were worried about the overaggressive nature of the police on the scene.

That's a reasonable request, recommended by the ACLU, in such a situation.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Seat belt stop becomes an issue when he reached into a backpack which means he could have a weapon/drugs/etc...that is why they wanted him out of the vehicle. He ran his mouth.

The reason that law is on the books is that police commonly use 'suspicion' of not having a belt on as a reason to stop. Then, when they see you have it on if they smell weed or alcohol it is a done deal and they toss the vehicle.

Sorry, I am not about police violence,especially in front of kids, but he should always show children how to respect the law. Not all cops are bad and that is what he and the driver are teaching the kids and keeping the cycle of ignorance going.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The Mrs. and I got pulled over by a State Trooper because I wasn't wearing a seat belt.

We were polite and compliant as was the officer and we were on our way in less than 5 minutes with nothing more than a verbal warning.

I've been pulled over for operating my motorcycle at 100mph+ on the side roads of a deserted industrial park. I was compliant and respectful, acknowledged that I had broken the law and was sent on my way with nothing more than a warning and a word of thanks for my honesty with the officer.

The only problems I have had with the police were those I brought upon myself when I was young and figured the rules applied to somebody else.

IMHO, from what is shown in the video and what we can read in the police statement it looks like the police gave the couple a ton of latitude which they abused.

I would say this video should be used by some of the 4th amendment advocacy groups as an example of how not to assert your rights during a police stop.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
Seat belt stop becomes an issue when he reached into a backpack...

Here's the lawsuit

See what I posted above. Police in Indiana are prevented, by state law, for using a seatbelt stop as a pretext to look for other potential violations. As soon as they were stopped, the police put a spike strip in front of the car.

Jamal, the passenger, was reaching into the backpack to get a ticket that had all his information on it, because he didn't have ID. And told the officers that's what he was doing.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Hello, boss. Good to see you enter the discussion. There are a couple of things that have been overlooked.

1.) No matter how petty the offense in terms of fines, it is still classified as a moving violation and the officer has every right to pull some one over for it.

2.) Now, about ordering them out of the car, here's a little legalese from a Supreme Court case. I've taken out some portions of the case cites and added paragraph breaks:

Three decisions cumulatively portray Terry’s application in a traffic-stop setting. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Court held that “once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment ,” because the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighs the “de minimis” additional intrusion of requiring a driver, already lawfully stopped, to exit the vehicle.

Citing Terry, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver might be armed and dangerous. 434 U. S., at 112. Wilson, held that the Mimms rule applies to passengers as well as drivers, based on “the same weighty interest in officer safety.”

Brendlin, 551 U. S., at 263, held that a passenger is seized, just as the driver is, “from the moment [a car stopped by the police comes] to a halt on the side of the road.” A passenger’s motivation to use violence during the stop to prevent apprehension for a crime more grave than a traffic violation is just as great as that of the driver. And as “the passengers are already stopped by virtue of the stop of the vehicle,” “the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal,”

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that it is perfectly permissible to require the driver AND passengers to get out of the car.

Sure, he could have handed her a ticket and walked away, but there was nothing in the law to prevent him from ordering the two of them out. All perfectly legal.

Forgive me, but I would question the conclusions you draw from your legal research. First, even you agree that stopping a car for a seatbelt violation is legal. The Supreme Court has said that there is no objection to ordering the passenger out of the car. When the passenger refuses a lawful order of the police, he is committing a new offense.


we also found that in Indiana law, a seatbelt violation is considered the lowest of petty violations, not to have a fine more than $25, with no reporting of the violation to insurance. And that seatbelt violations are not to be used as a pretext for stopping a vehicle, or persons in a vehicle, for which police have other suspicions beyond the seatbelt violation.


Since the police had no other suspicions beyond the seatbelt violation, your statement doesn't apply. (assuming that's what you meant to say.)


edit on 8-10-2014 by charles1952 because: too long



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Cont.

Sec. 3. A vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.


That's not the most recent statement of the law, but the changes don't apply to this case. How do you interpret that? Surely they can be detained, how else are you going to write a ticket and hand it to them. We are not talking about an inspection or a search. So, why was he detained? Because, as I mentioned, he violated another Indiana law.


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.


Ind. Code § 35-44-3-7

That carries a penalty of up to 6 months and $1000.

The passenger (in the video, at least) doesn't show fear of being killed, that's the woman. Besides, if he stands up in front of a judge and says "It's perfectly reasonable to be afraid that I was going to be shot. There are three policemen, three civilian witnesses, the whole thing's being recorded by two cameras, it's daylight, and there was traffic going by." The judge will ask him if really thought that being shot was a reasonable possibility, then find him guilty.


Oh, and that ACLU thing? A link might be helpful. After searching through maybe a dozen pages, including the ACLU home page, all I can find is this:

IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR
Stop the car in a safe place as quickly as possible. Turn off the car, turn on the internal light, open the window part way and place your hands on the wheel.
Upon request, show police your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance.
If an officer or immigration agent asks to look inside your car, you can refuse to consent to the search. But if police believe your car contains evidence of a crime, your car can be searched without your consent.
Both drivers and passengers have the right to remain silent. If you are a passenger, you can ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, sit silently or calmly leave. Even if the officer says no, you have the right to remain silent.


www.aclu.org...

Nothing there about refusing to exit the car.

Of course it's up to you, but I would strongly suggest you either wait for more information or double check your research. Please make a much better job of it than has so far been done.
edit on 8-10-2014 by charles1952 because: add

edit on 8-10-2014 by charles1952 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Thank you for bringing more light to this situation and this thread.

Here in NJ after the toll booth debacle, it was widely known they cannot stop you solely for this infraction, a non-moving violation. In addition, they basically only have the right to send you on your way with what was a $65 ticket, the lowest here in NJ; no points or insurance points either, for I believe it's a municipal fine.

I could not find the approximate code for Indiana, which was not surprising. Again thanks for clearing this up, for now everyone can see what happened here was a flagrant abuse of power on the police department's part. Not to mention the scars they have left on this family, their children and the community at large.

Can't wait to hear what's said on the show!
edit on 10/8/2014 by AnteBellum because: add



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum

Dear AnteBellum,

I know this is a large favor to ask, but please look at my excessively long post above. I don't believe SkepticOverlord has clarified any issues, he has muddied them.

The police were justified in the stop, in the request to get people out of the car, the failure of the passenger to get out meant he was committing a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to 6 months in jail. The passenger was committing a crime and it was a flagrant abuse of power to arrest him? Please take a look at my work.

The police may have done a wrong thing, or a bad thing, but nobody has shown yet that they did an illegal thing.

I sometimes split myself into two parts. There is the empathetic part which says "No wonder you hate police. I'm really sorry for you and for all other victims, there are too many. We have to do something as quick as we possibly can."

Then there is the analytical part of me which says "We are a nation of laws, our elected representatives write the laws. they should be obeyed until changed. Now, which law did the police break? The stop? No. The ordering out of the car? No. The arrest of an individual committing a Class B misdemeanor in front of them? No. Breaking a window (or a door) to arrest the criminal who won't come out on his own? No. No illegality there.

I've been focusing on the analytical side because so many posters are concentrating on the empathetic side.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

The police were not justified in doing anything other then issuing a seatbelt citation, which makes everything they did afterwards subsequently ILLEGAL.

SO hit the nail on the head finding the specific codes and ordinances this fell under. I could not due to time and inability. But it's just like NJ, I didn't want to post information from personal experience without proper documentation, being unfamiliar with Indiana law.

SO usually does not go on record making statements unless he has the information to back it up or if you say how great RT is too many times(lol). I trust he does in this case given what I've heard on TV and in other conversations with lawyers today. I'm sure it will all air on NLBS you should follow the episode.


Add: I think the only exception in doing what the police did in this case is if there is something illegal 'in plain sight' inside the vehicle itself. Like if they saw a gun or smelled illicit drug use.
edit on 10/8/2014 by AnteBellum because: add



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AnteBellum

Dear AnteBellum,

If you (or SkepticOverlord) believe that it is unjustifiable to stop a car for a seat belt violation, I'm afraid I don't know what to say.

Seat belt laws weren't written with the intention that they wouldn't be enforced. To enforce it, you have to stop the car long enough to hand them a ticket. How can the stop be improper? Nobody has presented any evidence indicating tht iot was a pretense stop, pulling them over for the seat belt all the while they were suspected of some other crime.

If you got this idea from SkepticOverlord, I will tell him that he is wrong. (Assuming that the facts we have available are correct and nothing else pops up to dramatically change the situation.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I would love to put a lie detector on some of you and ask if you would feel the same if a black cop smashed a window with a white baby in the back, and just ignored how the white occupants SAID they feared for their life and wondered why the black cop would pull out a gun on them and how people are getting shot by the police.

The occupants were scared for their lives with a baby in the back. A group of thugs told them to get out so they could hurt them. A very accurate assumption by the occupants. Then the police go and prove that their fear was justified and people come in here and defend that. Some of you are sick. I mean really sick...


Why do people citing the police report, which im sure is 100% true, completely ignore how scared the occupants were? Their fear tells a much more detailed story than the police report.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Hello again, I'm really glad you're posting this stuff, it gives people a chance to see it and comment before it gets spread to NLBS, then all over the net.


Here's the lawsuit


Remembering, of course, that this is only the family's story filtered through a lawyer. If people here are going to reject the Department's statement as obviously biased, on what grounds can they accept the family's attorney's statement?


See what I posted above. Police in Indiana are prevented, by state law, for using a seatbelt stop as a pretext to look for other potential violations.


Since they weren't looking for other potential violations, the stop was not prevented by Indiana state law.


As soon as they were stopped, the police put a spike strip in front of the car.


I don't see why that is illegal. Perhaps they have a lot of experience with people just driving away? I don't know. Again, "jerks?" Maybe, maybe not, but not illegal.


Jamal, the passenger, was reaching into the backpack to get a ticket that had all his information on it, because he didn't have ID.


We saw that in the video, but remember that with or without the ticket, the Courts have held that the officers can order passengers out of the car. When he refused, which was before offering the ticket in the video, he committed a new crime.


And told the officers that's what he was doing.


So the message he sent to the officers was "I have this backpack with a lot of stuff in it. I'm going to pull out a piece of paper. This is not the time to shoot me."

Please, SkepticOverlord, please explain how you are reaching the conclusions you are. I don't see any legal justification for them. If you've found something in your research, what is it?


edit on 8-10-2014 by charles1952 because: bracket problem



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join