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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 11:52 PM
a reply to: charles1952

We can sit here and rationalize all day/night/morning about a situation few of us have ever experienced, and hopefully never will.

I think we can all agree, that we had two people genuinely afraid of the police, at a time today, when many people are more terrified of the police.

For better or worse, justified or not, that's the situation.

And perhaps rightfully so? The Hammond police, and the cops involved in this video, have a history of overly-aggressive behavior.

Is the best way to end this stand off of aggressive police (guns were initially drawn) demanding someone exit a car, where that person doesn't want to because he's afraid, to smash the window and taze the man?

I think we can all agree, that's not the solution.

So what is?

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:01 AM
Preparing for violence.

The Hammond, IN Police Recruitment Video.

The title of the music is "Titans of War."

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:02 AM

originally posted by: charles1952

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.

You went straight from the stop to the ordering out of the car. In light of the information S.O. provided, it sounds like they broke the law by asking him for ID in the first place. If he was wearing his seat belt, then they had no right to say a word to him.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:06 AM

originally posted by: charles1952
Breaking a window (or a door) to arrest the criminal who won't come out on his own? No. No illegality there.

WHOA! Hold on there. When was Jamal ever called a criminal in this situation?

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 01:13 AM

originally posted by: Trueminatti
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.

You need to stop with that crap. The cops in the video may very well be racist, but no one participating in this thread is. Some of us just like to have all of the facts available before jumping on a bandwagon.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 03:13 AM

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: AnteBellum

Jesus Christ! A new one every day! How sickening! Something must be done about this... More and more people are going to be hating the PD and there will be fallout.

Yes, there is a new one every day.

I think of situations like this, and I relate them to rape. Now before people go all crazy at me for making such a comparison- give me just a minute to explain it in full.

People, the majority being female, are raped every day. Scan the news of various cities around the Country and I promise you will find at least 1 rape every day being reported. However, it is common knowledge that many many more rapes go unreported. A study done by the University of Kansas showed that as many as 1 million rapes go unreported each year. FBI statistics for 2010 reports that there was a total of 85,000 rapes that year.

Now think about those numbers for a second. 85,000 reported vs 1,000,000 unreported. That is a HUGE difference.

Now how does that relate to the OP?

I believe/suspect that issues like what we see in this video are reported in the same way. Yes we see a new video/news story every single day, but how many more are there that we do not see? How many more were not caught on video? How many more are NOT reported at all? I would suggest that the number is much much higher.

Now consider for a moment that we have not even discussed the degree of offense. Using sex crimes as an example again- there are various degrees. From the guy who reached out and grabbed a girl's butt (and that is sexual assault), to a person who commits an act of forcible sexual intercourse. So there are varying degrees. Police corruption/brutality are the same way. I consider a video like this to be a more extreme act while much lesser offenses go unnoticed. How many more are simply not recorded? How many more police interactions were way out of line, but leave no proof of being so? Let's suppose this exact same Police interaction we are seeing in the video was happening two blocks over, but this guy didn't have a locked car door so he was forcibly pulled from the car and tazed, but there is no broken car window and no video. Do you think that guy is going to file a complaint? For most people, the answer is no.

Also, let me go a bit deeper on the issue- Has anyone ever noticed how most of these type of incidents we hear about come from areas where the population is very large? Where it is common for you to be surrounded by total strangers every where you go? I do not believe this is without reason. In cases of rape, the victim more often than not knows their attacker. This reason is cited often for a reason why so many cases go unreported. So what about Police corruption/brutality in more rural areas? How quick would a person be to report an Officer in a town where any time you go out in public you know everyone either personally or by the friend of a friend? I live an area where you can talk to a total stranger, mention an Officer by name, and get a response like, "Oh yeah, my brother went to high school with him". I am also not in a completely rural area. There are places much smaller than the area I live. So I believe in much the same way as sex crime statics, when people know their attacker they are much more likely to NOT make a report.

Videos like this are the very tip of iceberg.

One day I might have to make a thread about the Jeff Davis 8 and the theory surrounding the Police involvement in those unsolved murders. A case like that would really highlight my the point I am trying to make here.

edit on 9-10-2014 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 03:23 AM

originally posted by: Glassbender777
WTF, I really dont see what the point of breaking the window, tazing the man, and creating life long fear in those kids, all for what. The police need to be taken down a few notches. and some prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

Well if they don't stop this none sense, that will probably come to be a day to day thing, "The police need to be taken down", and i'm sure there are lots of people already thinking about this everywhere. Not that i would like it, they better fix this crazy behavior, but we all know there are people who already have gone beyond wishing for a reasonable solution.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 08:26 AM
a reply to: AnteBellum

how long before people get tired of police brutality and start to do things like what happened near me in England...

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 08:30 AM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

To be 'used' as a pretext. It was not 'used' as a pretext. That is why they were pulled over. However, once the passenger began question the officers who were simply doing their job the 'situation' changes. It is no longer a stop for just a seat belt. Asking for 'white shirts'. When keeping it real goes wrong. There is no lawsuit here. Waste of time, energy and money.

Watch this video...with a window up....what can happen in a blink...

He could have simply gotten out and they would be on their way. Instead, kids are traumatized and she needs a new window.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 08:49 AM
a reply to: matafuchs

Why do cops carry guns?

It isn't for their own protection. It is for the authority that the guns give to the officer.

If police officers didn't have a gun strapped on their side, most people would give them a happy 'UP YOURS' when they told them that they were going to take their money because they chose not to wear a seat belt.

If you give them any 'lip', most officers escalate to violence, otherwise, the citizen would be seen as having some right to free speech.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 09:25 AM
a reply to: matafuchs

To be 'used' as a pretext. It was not 'used' as a pretext.

Unless you're a mind reader from a distance, I don't see how anyone could "know" that. If, as the court documents claim, the officers threw a spike strip down before they even approached the driver, then that seems to be a clue to some motive above and beyond that of a simple seat belt violation stop, in my opinion.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 10:06 AM
a reply to: illusion987

Your not to smart buddy. Cops are murderers, thieves, kidnappers and rapists. We have a right to be suspicious. We have a right to assert our rights. Even speaking to a cop is dangerous. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY ARE "DOING THEIR JOBS." The entire premise of their job is a joke, and a violation of basic human law. NO service can be provided at the barrel of a gun. They are most definitely all bad. The "good" ones sit by and watch their buddies destroy the lives of innocent people, watch them kidnap and cage free people for non violent crimes, watch them murder, watch them traumatize children, etc. You are the type of person that causes the continuation of their over exertion of unlawful force. The officers became aggressive with no legitimate provocation. This is a sign of their true nature and training. They are thugs and criminals.

edit on 9-10-2014 by justaquicknote88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-10-2014 by justaquicknote88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 10:20 AM
a reply to: C0le

It's an unjust law first off. It is unreasonable search and seizure. A Constitutional violation, no matter what a judge would have us believe. Asking someone to step out of the vehicle because they could potentially have a weapon is idiotic. IF an individual did indeed have a weapon, and they intended to use it, they would. Second off, they had no reason to suspect him of any wrongdoing. Third off, there are situations when using discretion is more important than their idiotic intentions. In a situation like this, where it was a seat belt violation (which is another invalid law), it would have been in everyone's best interest for them to just move on. Instead they decided to over exert their authority. Why did they do that? Because they can. That isn't a good enough reason for me. I'm sure it's not a good enough reason for most of us.

edit on 9-10-2014 by justaquicknote88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 10:29 AM
a reply to: charles1952

Police do not know the law. This can be proven easily. Next time you go to court, ask the officer to cite the law that you have broken. Ask him what the elements of a crime are. Ask him what a cause of action is. There must be, no matter what , a valid cause of action in order to be interacted with by an agent of the state against your will. One of those things is damage to person, property, etc., the other is a bad contract. Every single interaction, imprisonment, traffic stop, ever initiated in the history of history is unlawful without one of those two elements. The basic premise of police is unjust. I never signed any contract with any individual asking for his protection. In order for a service to be justly rendered, for or against anyone, they must have legitimately requested it. This extends all the way to the top. No service can be provided at the barrel of a gun, governments are NOT here to protect and should be abolished.

edit on 9-10-2014 by justaquicknote88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 10:45 AM
a reply to: windword

It is a traffic stop. No matter what it is for it is a traffic stop. Even if it is only for a seat belt violation that they are pulled over how does the cop know when he walks up to the car they will not try to flee? or open fire? Because there are kids? A police officer has no idea what is in that car unless they are mind readers also.

Is it overkill...maybe...but it is not illegal.

Guns drawn? I have had guns drawn on me and I am white. It is not about color it is about safety.

Not all cops are bad. Not all doctors are bad. Not all lawyers are bad. I mean, if you think all cops are bad then why can't cops think all blacks are thugs? All heavy metal listeners are drug addicts and devil worshipers? Your logic cannot go only one way.

Get rid of cops and see how long all of you last...
The lefties will say there is peace the right will say we are protected with guns and the criminals will have a field day.

(post by junglimogli removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 11:12 AM
a reply to: Bone75

Dear Bone75,

You are absolutely right. I did jump over the steps too quickly. I have to plead laziness. At the time I didn't feel like retyping my long post which went into detail. I honestly forgot, until just now, that I could cut and paste.

But you deserve a more complete explanation.

I hope, my now, everyone agrees that a policeman can pull a cop over for a seat belt violation. Whether the law is fair or not, it's the law.

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 Supreme Court is saying (but taking two cases to do it) that the police can order the driver out of the car once the car has been stopped for a violation. (The Mimms rule) Then they say that [I]Mimms[/I] applies to passengers as well.

So unless the Supreme Court has reversed itself, or there's something else I haven't found, it is perfectly legal for the police to order anyone and everyone out of a car they've stopped.

The idea that they had no right to speak to the passenger is entirely wrong, whatever SkepticOverlord might have said.

As far as asking him for ID, I believe that was legal, but set it aside for a minute. The police stop the car for a legitimate reason, seat belts. They order the adults out of the car, as they are allowed to under the Supreme Court decisions I've just mentioned. The passenger says no. Under Indiana law, as mentioned earlier, that is a Class B misdemeanor with a punishment of up to 6 months. The police see that offense occurring, and they arrest him, which they should do. He refuses to go out, so to effect the arrest, they go in.

Now, back to speaking to the passenger. The police statement says that neither one had their seatbelts on. That means they were both violating the seatbelt law, and they could be questioned, under Indiana law as well as Supreme Court decisions. The Indiana law reads:

IC 34-28-5-3.5 Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

So, obviously the police can speak to the passenger if his seat belt was unbuckled. It's not buckled in the video. And as far as the passenger being in fear, there's nothing in the video to indicate that. He asks several times if the "white shirts" are coming, and talks without sounding excited or afraid (although that's a subjective judgment, I don't know what he would sound like if he really was afraid).

If there's anything I haven't explained well, please ask. I'd really like this to be understood.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 11:17 AM
a reply to: justaquicknote88

Dear justaquicknote88,

There must be, no matter what , a valid cause of action in order to be interacted with by an agent of the state against your will. Every single interaction, imprisonment, traffic stop, ever initiated in the history of history is unlawful without one of those two elements.

That is a nice, simple, theory, easy to understand.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has said, on dozens of occasions, that it is wrong. Relying on that theory will do you no good at all, unless laws, and possibly the Constitution are changed.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 11:21 AM
a reply to: matafuchs

As a member of the jury of public opinion, after seeing the video, reading the complaint and the police report, I conclude that the spike strip is indicative of an agenda, above and beyond a simple seat belt violation stop, that leads me to believe that the seat belt violation was pretext to stop and harass (terrorize) the family.

It's no less than fascist domestic terrorism. That's my verdict, and I'm sticking to it.

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 11:27 AM
a reply to: charles1952

Except that, where a Terry Stop is concerned, it allows officers to briefly detain people for investigative purposes when there is an reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.

No suspicion of criminal activity was indicated in the police report. And not wearing a seatbelt isn't criminal.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in