It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We can sit here and rationalize all day/night/morning about a situation few of us have ever experienced, and hopefully never will.
. . .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 . . . have a history of overly-aggressive behavior.
WHOA! Hold on there. When was Jamal ever called a criminal in this situation?
originally posted by: justaquicknote88
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.
originally posted by: compressedFusion
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.
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."
This implies that you believe, on some level, that the police response is about their authority being challenged and not the law. It is not ok for the officers to do what they did if they have no cause. The appellate ruling of Adam Starr v. The State of Indiana is clear that they had no cause (if he was in fact wearing his seatbelt).
originally posted by: charles1952
Well, no, the police didn't actually do anything illegal, but they frightened a poor woman, and they lost patience with the passenger. It was OK that he didn't follow the policeman's orders because he was scared of the Hammond police. (Why? Had he had previous run-in's with Hammond police?)