Next Level BS #11: The Overly Aggressive Hammond, Indiana Police Department

a reply to: charles1952

following the letter of the law often spells out the word 'brutality'. but it seems you're happy with that. many are not.

most, i would venture.

a reply to: charles1952
Damaging property, and initiating violence on someone that has not even shown any aggression, let alone violence is plain wrong. Anyone that cannot see that has a serious mental defect going on in their heads.

Apparently there are a whole lot of mentally defective cops out there on the streets these days. It has nothing to do with what is lawful, as the police police themselves, and the legislature and DA are a lot of the time too chicken# to do a thing about it, because they don't want to become a target themselves.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Dear SkepticOverlord,

What people are refusing to accept or acknowledge is that I have always agreed they didn't have to. Everybody square with that? Got it?

What is not, apparently, being accepted or acknowledged is the point that even though they didn't have to (clear now?), they were acting within the law when they did it.

Have we come to an understanding?

Would somebody say "Yes, we agree. Bad judgment but not illegal?"

I honestly don't believe I'm trolling. I'm attempting to bring serious, legal, information to a discussion whose members seem anxious to put the officers in jail or kill them, apparently thinking they've done something illegal. Isn't that fulfilling the motto of ATS?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Legality is not the point the point is common sense.

They are being taught to see everyone as the enemy. It's a real and growing problem. If they didn't see everyone as the enemy then they wouldn't act like this in the first place.

All this crap is a result of the drug war. It's literally Americas biggest problem.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4 and onequestion

You both ask about the letter of the law, onequestion says it's not about the law. If that's true, why did Joe, the host, bring up two statutes in an attempt to show the police were acting illegally? The fact is, that those statutes, the one about not searching a car or passengers for a seat belt violation (at about 4:20), and the one about "stop and identify" (at about 8:25), which Joe stresses, do not apply in this case.

Am I happy about Brutality? Of course not, silly thing to say.

Damaging property and initiating violence on someone who shows no aggression is just plain wrong? Sometimes it is the right thing to do. What do the police do when people block doorways, hold hands, refuse to leave, and gather into a tight clump? Ask them over and over again to leave? Fine, that's what the cops did in the video, asked the passenger over and over to just step out of the car. He refuses over and over. Do the police then just walk away? Some violence has to be used. Water cannons, tear gas, I don't know what all else, is an appropriate solution.

First off, that you for watching. I'll try to address all your points.

originally posted by: charles1952
I'd like to hear what move they're supposed to make. If you can come up with one that isn't insane, that might be an easy start. But did you also notice how Garth mentioned that Departments need more money for necessary training? Are you on board with that?

In my ideal utopian scenario, yes.

Second topic, the Hammond police force in general. How could a nice little piece of small town America have such problems? Going up I-90, the center of downtown Chicago is 23 miles away. Small town America, hah! Nowhere near the truth. The violent recruiting video said at the end "Hostage Rescue Team." You want them to be polite to the average citizen on the street? They never deal with the average citizen on the street. Yes, I want them to know how to shoot a rifle.

My basis for the this piece was a suburb of Buffalo, Amherst. They have a slightly larger population but more or less the same demographic... The local PD defers those "Hostage Rescue" scenarios to the Sheriff. Also, The annotations in the video went up later so here is the full video

The claim was made in the thread that the officers did nothing illegal. Supreme Court cases were cited, so was Indiana law. The piece of Indiana law you mentioned doesn't apply in this case. There was nothing presented that correctly said that anything the officers did was illegal. Let me repeat, the officers acted within the law. The officers, based on the evidence we have available, were perfectly within their rights. Nothing presented in your video changes that.

You're absolutely correct. Eichhorn and & Eichhorn, Hammond PD's firm, will argue all the points you made and win the day in court. Ideally, in a perfect world, the cop should have wrote the ticket and moved on. He probably caught some attitude and things escalated. These guys have been through the system numerous times and know how to play their cards right.

Now, did they do everything in the most polite manner possible? Who knows? This was video taped by the kid. Is it coincidence that the clip we see starts at least 15 minutes after the original stop? What happened before that? Certainly the kid was taping that as well. But this level of anger at the police isn't because they didn't make the stop in the most polite manner.

Yes, a lot of context is missing. I remain to my original point, write the ticket and move on.

You are quite correct in saying the car, driver, and passengers can't be inspected, searched, or detained just because of a seat belt violation. Please remember that nobody there was inspected, searched or detained just because of a seat belt violation, so why bother mentioning it?

See, I classified Jamal Jones as getting "inspected" by the police. They started with a visual inspection; large black male, baseball cap, baggy jeans. Now we have reasonable suspicion, lets get some identification...oh what you don't have any? Now you're scared?

***A lot of that is speculation..

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I honestly don't believe I'm trolling. I'm attempting to bring serious, legal, information to a discussion whose members seem anxious to put the officers in jail or kill them, apparently thinking they've done something illegal. Isn't that fulfilling the motto of ATS?

With respect,
Charles1952

I don't think you're purposefully trolling, but you do share some of the qualities. Some times when I finish reading you posts I want too


But I thank you for bringing challenge to some of the points in the video.

a reply to: theNLBS

I can take a hint. If SkepticOverlord thinks that I'm displaying "increasingly obvious trollery," and you're pointing out that I share some qualities of a troll, I'd better not say anything else on the subject.

If either of you would care to U2U me with something definite that you're objecting to, than I can learn from it and avoid it in the future. So far, it's been very vague, just the label, nothing more. You see, I don't think I've been accused of trolling (trollery?) before. I thought I was taking a well informed position and defending it. Obviously there's something I don't understand and would appreciate the help on the side.

The name is growing on me. Keep up the good work guys.

a reply to: charles1952

I don't think you are/were trolling at all. You merely stated an opinion that didn't entirely agree with the "Next Level BS" video. And for that, guaranteed, you will get SkepticOverlord all over you. Check all the "Next Level BS" threads... happens almost every time. What gives?

Doesn't matter, just an observation. Keep presenting your opinion in the dignified manner you have. I may not agree with all your opinions, but I can appreciate the manner in which you have presented them within this thread. Don't get bullied, even if it's the owner protecting the new "video baby".

Everyone has a right to their opinion.

a reply to: InTheFlesh1980

Dear InTheFlesh1980,

Thank you, that is very kind. There is another thread here which I enjoy immensely and spend a lot of time on, I'd hate to lose that because of a ban. I understand that management makes the decisions, and that no explanation is needed, but I feel cowardly for backing down.

But now to the thread, in the least trolling manner I know. Joe, the host, and Garth Holt, the policeman, emphasized the importance of communication between police and civilians. I'm worried that we may, unintentionally I hope, be creating the conditions which make communication more difficult.

Have we helped build the trust in the civilian community in this thread?

How do the police fell when they see us, civilians, calling for their death or imprisonment? Or when we calling them brutal, violent, and start bringing in Nazi comparisons.

Does either side have more of an incentive to talk with each other now? I don't see it. Yes, we have to identify seriously bad policemen. They exist, and we all know it. But I also think another type of person exists. The type that says whatever a policeman does is an indication of his sociopathic nature. It seems that we get a lot of that here. The Hammond, Indiana traffic stop doesn't, in my opinion, rise to the level of a case we should be foaming at the mouth about, but we are.

Do the policemen need more and better training? Why would anyone say no to that? Isn't that an important fix? Yet we hear, "In an ideal, Utopian scenario." Well, we all know that "ideal, Utopian scenarios" never happen. So we ask for better training but are unwilling to pay for it.

How do we get together on this? We have to. I hate brutality, I really hate cops getting killed. And the only solution anybody seems to be offering is "Jail them all." That's as foolish as dealing with the Black youth murder problem by saying "Jail them all."

We won't get to a solution if everyone is up to the neck in fear and distrust. Let's bring that fear down a notch.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

If I was a cop, I would refuse to behave that way even if my superiors demanded it.

We have a responsibility to do our jobs...

...BUT, we (more importantly) have a responsibility to BE HUMAN.

There is NO excuse for cops treating people like this.


To Joe:

GREAT episode!

You have begun to win me over.

a reply to: charles1952

Legal? What's legal?

Technically speaking (which you seem to enjoy) "legal" is what we the people deem appropriate behavior. Through legislation we decide (in theory at least) what we will and what we won't accept. We also expect those we appoint as officers of the court to show good judgement, restraint, common decency, concern for the communities they serve and to act in a safe and responsible manner.

Semantics, B.S. and quoting legal code won't cure this utter stupidity happening in some of our communities. Making excuses behind the "letter of the law" is even worse.

You keep saying the Officers never "violated the law", you know what? I GUARANTEE you I could find 173 lawyers who could prove they did in a court of law and with the right judge and jury get them locked up for a long time. But that's not the point...

The POINT is exactly what Garth said it was, how do we re-instill the care for your neighbor every member of any community should have and get our community police to get back to, wait for it... COMMUNITY POLICING rather than special forces wannabe patrolling as if they were on the mean streets of Baghdad?

We blew it as a society when we demanded the anti-terrorist attack readiness and militarization of Mayberry RFD's PD.

You say you agree they weren't "polite" but they were doing what they've been told to do per the letter of the law.

I say B.S., they were abusive thugs from an obvious department wide culture of thuggery which the record shows to evidently be the case.

You will never produce a written mandate that instructs street cops, STREET COPS(!) to smash windows and taze citizens who show zero aggression or threat during a routine TRAFFIC STOP.

Passing it off to "following orders" and "doing what the elected officials tell us to do" is a very tired and utterly ridiculous cop out (pun intended) for twisted power hungry wannabe THUG behavior. Which, by the way, appears as though is the real message coming down from on high at this department. "Let's all dress up and Rambo in our little town and see how many people we can make bend to our ridiculous, ignorant, uncivilized will"!

Many totalitarian regimes, that the world turned against and crushed I might add, come to mind when I hear that excuse. It doesn't belong in the free world of 2014, I disagree with your complaint about the comparison, it's valid IMO.

For the absolute mind bender, you go on to make the unbelievable statement that initiating violence against citizens who aren't aggressive can be right. Talk about twisting the wind to fill your sail! Talk about SPIN!

While there certainly are instances and situations where that statement holds water, this guy wasn't blocking the Officer's access to investigate a crime, he wasn't holding a bomb and threatening to pop it, he was SITTING IN HIS Girlfriend's CAR!

a reply to: charles1952

Charles:

I understand your sentiments. The issues with modern law enforcement behavioral patterns are not easily resolved, nor are the issues with the current dynamic of public response.

I am not pleased with the way the officers handled this particular traffic stop. In all honesty, I could have handled it infinitely better myself. I feel that the law enforcement officers, whether acting within or without their rights, failed miserably in their engagement with the public community they have taken oaths to serve.

It's a tough situation. They fuel the hatred directed at them with immature behavior, but they also deal with terrible situations and awful people on a regular basis. My feeling is that common sense could prevail in the majority of these situations. In this particular case, common sense was thrown to the wind.

Aside from these notions, thanks for your contribution to the discussions within this thread... and don't back down. Be respectful (if possible), but stick to your guns.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: theNLBS

If either of you would care to U2U me with something definite that you're objecting to, than I can learn from it and avoid it in the future. So far, it's been very vague, just the label, nothing more. You see, I don't think I've been accused of trolling (trollery?) before. I thought I was taking a well informed position and defending it. Obviously there's something I don't understand and would appreciate the help on the side.

It's ok, when you exhausts your energies in inspecting and verifying.. like the promethean neopelagian that you are, sometimes it can come across as demeaning, especially coming from a lawyer With the little knowledge that we have of each other sometimes the written word is interpreted differently. Like most instances of scarcasm for example.

Now for actually being labeled a troll... I feel you're just being misinterpreted. Afterall a trolling comment is simply starting an argument or sowing discord. But I digress. I welcome your criticism and challenges, it forces me to work harder on future episode arguments. Thanks.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: charles1952

To Joe:

GREAT episode!

You have begun to win me over.

Thanks.

Pretty wacky videos, never seen them before. The dude got tazed pretty good, was even expecting the whole dont taze me bro line.

I think people are to strung up over things, most of these things get started over a bunch of routine nothing or people out to prove something, and usually its something stupid. You have the citizens making this harder then it has to be, with the whole freedom thing. I mean sure you have freedom, but hey if you get pulled over for a speeding ticked, just follow along, take the ticket, and you will be on you way faster, and if you think you dont deserve it, take it up in court, and even that is a big waste, but at least you will get to your destinations faster without the hassle and killing your whole day over nothing. And off course you have prissy cops, or those holding grudges, or those on power trips I mean who would have thought that a uniform would make some people act a certain way, its totally shocking, or those just out to fill out there quota set for them by there precinct, and then you good ol fashion dirty cops.

And all of them, citizen and cop alike leading to some bizarre ham strung circumstance when they collide over parking infractions or speeding tickets or even seat belt violations. I mean the guy wast wearing his set belt, that's not good, it could be detrimental to your health if you crashed, or if you get pulled over and get tazed over not wearing a seat belt. I suppose they were just looking out for his health, not wearing you seat belt could be very dangerous in either case.

And what with the increasing militarization of the police force, its likely to get even more jovial, and by jovial I mean somebody's going to end up full of holes over nothing but perceived slights and respect my authority issues. I mean, I dont know what they do to train cops, but dam were do they find some of these people, maybe they should have some tests to see how well you can keep your head in tense or irksome situations. Mosley irksome situations it seems, if you cant handle a little questioning of your authority without losing it or finding a way around it. Then they may be in the wrong job, or there name is Eric Cartman.

Tense situations create nothing but more tense situations, defusing such situations without going postal should be on all police policy and training if its not already. And there should also be a policy from the top down on not creating these tense situations in the first place. Or we can let things go on as per usual, and watch the youtube videos grow into the even more bizarre wackiness.

a reply to: Springer

Dear Springer,

Thank you for explaining your differences with my position. I am, naturally, anxious about getting into a discussion with another owner, but I will be as careful as I know how.

You should know that in some areas I agree with you.

The POINT is exactly what Garth said it was, how do we re-instill the care for your neighbor every member of any community should have and get our community police to get back to, wait for it... COMMUNITY POLICING rather than special forces wannabe patrolling as if they were on the mean streets of Baghdad?

Yes, community policing has some attractive qualities. I haven't objected to it, no one has brought it up before. If a Department wants to build on that model in addition to the quick response teams and patrol, fine. I'm not clear on whether additional police would be required, but as long as the city approves and the citizens pay the extra costs, if any, that the feds don't cover,why not?

Of course, that requires cooperation from the citizens and that's not always easy. Muslims don't easily provide information about their fellow believers, you may recall the problem with Somalians in Minneapolis. I would think it would be difficult to get information about gangs in some cities (Snitches get Stitches). But there are many places where it has already been adopted, and more where it could be.

This concept requires honest input from the citizens that the program is designed to serve. In some areas I would expect it would take years before the community would cooperate. But that is not a rejection of the program.

But I do have some problems with your comments.

For the absolute mind bender, you go on to make the unbelievable statement that initiating violence against citizens who aren't aggressive can be right. Talk about twisting the wind to fill your sail! Talk about SPIN!

Obviously what I said is completely indefensible and insane, judging from your words. But your very next words are:

While there certainly are instances and situations where that statement holds water,

So, you agree with my completely indefensible and insane statement in some circumstances, just not this one. You'll remember that by refusing to get out of the car after multiple attempts he was committing an entirely new offense. Are the police required to ignore it? Should they have? Well, they had supervisors there and an official recording going on, they weren't acting out of a momentary flash of rage. Bad call? Maybe, maybe not. But not, wild, vicious, brutal, and worth going to jail over. Once again, and I'm sorry for the repetition, the passenger was committing an offense, unrelated to seat belts in front of them. They decided to arrest him for it. He wouldn't come out. Should the police have said, "Since you're not coming out, I suppose all we can do is let you go?" So they went in. Was there any other way to get in?

Passing it off to "following orders" and "doing what the elected officials tell us to do" is a very tired and utterly ridiculous cop out (pun intended) for twisted power hungry wannabe THUG behavior.

I think you go too far here. Should officers who believe marijuana should be legal, ignore people who are in possession, even if it's criminal in their state? If you tell officers, "Go ahead and enforce the laws you think are right," are we better off? Some people (NAMBLA for example) believe that man boy sex is good and beneficial. What does a NAMBLA police officer do if he only enforces the laws he thinks are morally legitimate?

And, finally, if we're upset because people are following the laws, why the emphasis on police and not the lawmakers? I've agreed that changing bad laws is a great idea. This is not Nazi Germany where all the lawyers, judges, and everyone else is a Nazi official, we can change bad laws, indeed, we should.

I say B.S., they were abusive thugs from an obvious department wide culture of thuggery which the record shows to evidently be the case.

You're assuming they're thugs? From that one stop? And remember, as was pointed out in NLBS, one of those officers had only one complaint filed against him in his career. That's not bad at all. But considering the department wide culture of thuggery, I don't know, I don't have enough information. Did they have more complaints than similar Chicago suburban areas? I don't think any of us know. Do we have the facts behind the incidents described in NLBS? No.

I do want to thank you very sincerely for raising these points. If I have misunderstood you, please correct me, and remember, we agree on what you see as the main point.

With respect,
Charles1952

More interesting controversy developing on Jones. They are gonna crucify this guy before everything is said and done.

A Hammond man suing the city and several police officers after they broke his car window and subdued him with a stun gun has a warrant for his arrest out of LaPorte County.

According to court records, Jamal Jones was arrested in 2007 on a Class A misdemeanor charge of dealing marijuana.

He failed to appear in December 2007, and a warrant was eventually issued in 2012. Another warrant was issued Thursday.

Makes me think real hard about what Garth said regarding ... the perception of the way authority is being exercised. What if public exposure is backfiring in this case?

ETA

Jones' attorney, Dana Kurtz, issued a statement Thursday night that said Jones was unaware of the warrant but will comply with the law.

"This is clearly (a) retaliation against Jamal Jones for filing a lawsuit against the Hammond Police Department for their use of excessive force against Jamal and his family during a routine traffic stop," Kurtz wrote.

The traffic stop has nothing to do with the marijuana charge, Kurtz wrote. The statement reiterated claims made in the lawsuit regarding the traffic stop and said: "It is an act of violence that has shocked the world." S ource 2

Maybe her too:

The traffic stop for which the family is suing Hammond officers was not Lisa Mahone's first run-in with law enforcement.

Mahone, 42, was charged July 19, 2011, in U.S. District Court with possession with intent to distribute coc aine. She was arrested following a traffic stop on Interstate 65 in Tippecanoe County.

According to a complaint, Indiana State Police found 485 grams of coc aine in her vehicle. She told the troopers she picked up the coc aine from a man in Chicago and was transporting it to Kentucky.

a reply to: theNLBS

Nicely done Joe, as always.

Some people may not agree with the emphasis of the commentary given by your good self, but the subject was covered in a comprehensive fashion, and the involvement of Garth was a wise move, because it balanced out the episode as a whole.

a reply to: Snarl

All of that maybe true, but it's not why they were detained and Jones was not arrested on the warrant at the time of this altercation. In fact, they didn't even search the vehicle for a gun, which they claimed was their chief cause for concern once they started getting criticized for the handling of this seatbelt violation.

So, IMHO, it's at least partially retaliatory, which Hammond police are also accused of doing to another family unlawfully detain and brutalized outside of their home. They were charged with every manner of ridiculous crime and were told the charges would only be dropped if the family wrote a letter of apology to the Hammond Police. The family refused , filed suit and the department dropped the charges and settled out of court.

a reply to: kosmicjack

I don't know what to say. Straight-up ... I'm flummoxed by what's going on in this case. The one thing about the stop that made me pause was the reported deployment of the spike strips (early on). I can't find anything in print as to why those were deployed during a seatbelt stop. That leads me to believe that the readership of ATS is missing out on some facts.

I figured this was a safer thread to post my thoughts to, because I don't want to put an opinion out in the midst of animosity. I am in agreement that things are going to get worse before they get better. I think it's part of 'the plan' and I don't think street cops were involved in that decision making process. There seems to be a very controlled escalation of tensions and it's going to take both sides to recognize this before either can begin to back down.

Wouldn't it be cool to come up with some feasible solutions on this site?