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.

 

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

page: 3
100
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952



If an officer sees a man committing a crime, then the man runs into a house, and slams the door right in the policeman's face, can the policeman kick down the door to arrest the guy? Of course, he can.

You need you refresh your knowledge of Indiana law. A person not wearing a seat belt is not the same as someone committing a violent crime and running from the police.


Similar situation. The officer sees a crime being committed, they know that the man is in the car. He won't come out. Officers are allowed to come in, even if the door is locked.

By all rights this guy could have pulled a gun and shot the police officer and it would have been legal. Hoosiers have the right to defend themselves against the police when they are committing acts of violence against them. The op's video is right and you are wrong. All that cop was supposed to do was give them a ticket and send them on their way these people should sue the police force because it would be an easy win because these cops were acting outside the law.


Sheeesh! That's on just about every TV crime show. Don't need a bar admission for that. In the case of the house, it's hot pursuit. In the case of the car, the officer doesn't even have to pursue, he's right there.

For someone who has their admission to the bar you seem to have a problem telling the difference between a violent crime and a non violent one. These people did not run from the police so there was NO HOT PURSUIT. You may know the laws of the state you reside in but you clearly know nothing of Indiana law.




posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Even in Indiana, if the person had shot the cop he would be arrested and charged with some form of homicide, sorry, that would have made his whole case invalid... The way he did handle it gives him ammo to go after these cops (monsters really)

That being said... I saw this video and wanted to hurl all over the place, I have never seen, even in some of the worst videos I have watched, such blatant and insane stupidity on the part of the Police. The guy was trying to give them the information they wanted, and they flat out refused to even acknowledge that, it was almost like they WANTED to do this, and found the perfect patsy to pull it on..

These are the kinds of cases, when people say the police were acting in a bad and out of control manner that I agree with them on, they should be, and will be prosecuted on a Federal Level you can be sure of that..



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
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.


Interesting. So what we have here it seems are two drug dealers (one with a warrant) that got pulled over? Are past drug charges enough evidence to do what was done?

I also believe we dont have the full full story. Why did they put down road spikes?
edit on 10-10-2014 by coop039 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: coop039

originally posted by: Snarl
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.


Interesting. So what we have here it seems are two drug dealers (one with a warrant) that got pulled over? Are past drug charges enough evidence to do what was done?

I also believe we dont have the full full story. Why did they put down road spikes?


Not sure what the definition of Supervised Release entails. Whole thing could've started off as a shakedown, but I don't know. She had a pound of coke in a vehicle once upon a time. I'd bet she was still on somebody's radar.

Thing about the road spikes: Unconfirmed statements she kept rolling her vehicle. I checked for obits on her mom dying too ... crickets.

I keep thinking back to another thing in Joe's video: The rate of crime in that area. Why is it so high? Who's doing it?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

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

Don't outstanding arrest warrants typically come up when someone is booked for "resisting arrest?"



originally posted by: coop039I keep thinking back to another thing in Joe's video: The rate of crime in that area. Why is it so high? Who's doing it?

It's a conundrum.

They average 8.21 violent crimes per 1,000 residents, which is well above Indiana at 3.46, and the national average of 3.9.

This with a police force with about 75% more officers per resident than is typical in the rest of Indiana… even neighboring Chicago. I don't know how a community of 80,000 +/- can afford a police force typical of one with 150,000 +/- residents.

That side of this equation is rather odd.
edit on 10-10-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord


That side of this equation is rather odd.


No one seems to be pointing it out and asking for an answer to that question in public. I looked for that too. I expect a stammering reply when it happens.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Supervised Release is just a fancy word for parole. The only difference is that it is given to you during sentencing as a fulfillment requirement. Depending on the technology the vehicles have, the cop would have definitely known as soon as they ran her license. I don't believe being on parole can be used as reasonable suspicion of anything in itself. I could be wrong though.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
I live in Indiana, and let me tell you a thing or two about Indiana 'cops'.

-- snip --

Same here.


originally posted by: neo96
And 20 years ago still in Indiana I was coming home from a crap job at a printing company.

Ended up getting pulled over by 6 cops with their guns drawn.

Silly me I was stupid enough to reach for my id. Since the law says I have to have it, and show my papers.


I did the same thing one night. Since I'd never even had a parking ticket I didn't think anything of reaching under the seat for my billfold. When I heard my (now) wife gasp and saw the look on her face when I lifted up, I turned around real slow. I had one officer down on one knee and the other laying across the hood, both ready to shoot, if necessary.

That one I blame on myself for being young and stupid.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I see a lot of people commenting both ways on how an officer "feels" about a situation.... whether it be that they should feel more empathy towards civilians or how they are supposed to feel when people are lashing out at them (IE: "calling for their death/imprisonment"). My issue with this is that we are looking at it from the wrong point, police need to REMOVE feelings and personal opinions/emotions from enforcing the law. I personally dont believe that training is the issue, I believe that by the training phase is too late of a correction. We are talking about training people to change that persons characteristics... well in that aspect then Dr Harold Shipman might have just needed a little more training, right?

The real way to fix the problem is to address the recruitment process into the police department, I could easily become an officer in my state, I actually attended an academy out here for a while. But I would be one of the first people to brush a man teeth with my Glock for touching a child, repercussions be damned. And no amount of training would fix that. And I could pass any personality test or training course on it. We all know that a sociopath could easily fool people into believing they are a "nice guy" and they could just as easily fool a police dept into it as well. The recruitment process should begin with a very intensive physiological evaluation done by highly trained individuals. I feel that this along with ongoing evaluations throughout employment would resolve a mass amount of the problems we are seeing.

Another problem that we have is that the police are being worked too hard. I know that sounds really corny to say, but it is true. Of all the police officers that I know none of them get very much time at home. They are constantly having to work over time on patrols or staying late to fill out paper work. Putting men/women in this type of environment is bound to cause a type of animosity towards people that are even the slightest bit disrespectful or have an attitude when asked to do something. Allowing them more time off would address this situation, but I do understand the inability to do so at this time. But the fact remains that this is an issue that also needs to be addressed.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Law is practiced in a court of law where ethics are practiced on the streets.

These officers exhibited questionable ethics while practicing law enforcement.

Police reports are being written (fabricated) as 'resisting arrest' so to progress funding for more security measures.

That's practicing unethical law enforcement?

We're talking about "professionals"?
edit on (10/10/1414 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

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

Don't outstanding arrest warrants typically come up when someone is booked for "resisting arrest?"



originally posted by: coop039I keep thinking back to another thing in Joe's video: The rate of crime in that area. Why is it so high? Who's doing it?

It's a conundrum.

They average 8.21 violent crimes per 1,000 residents, which is well above Indiana at 3.46, and the national average of 3.9.

This with a police force with about 75% more officers per resident than is typical in the rest of Indiana… even neighboring Chicago. I don't know how a community of 80,000 +/- can afford a police force typical of one with 150,000 +/- residents.

That side of this equation is rather odd.


Neither one came back with any wants or warrants when they ran them at the time, which means that neither adult in the car was wanted currently for anything..



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
Please remember that nobody there was inspected, searched or detained just because of a seat belt violation, so why bother mentioning it?

Tazing, removing from vehicle, handcuffing and leading to a destination IS detaining. If your aren't detained then your are free to go. He obviously wasn't. Also, there was no PC for their actions. Both adults had given their information to the police prior to the video film starting. Both adults are asking for other officers to be called to the scene because they are afraid since an officer has already pulled a gun. I watched this particular video which I hadn't seen before. It's 3.10 minutes and covers a little more of the episode. www.youtube.com...
edit on 10-10-2014 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

They are taking advantage of situations.

Think about that for a minute. Our law enforcers, they are taking advantage, they take advantage every chance they get.

Don't you think there is an I herient flaw in that mentality? I never try to take advantage. It's just not a part of my personality.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
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.


Now wait a second, the cops aren't the only ones who are being taught to see everyone as the enemy. Aren't we busily teaching ourselves to see all cops as the enemy too?

Now, taking a step back from Hammond, has anyone considered that part of the problem is the world we're asking our police officers to police? There was a cop who was shot dead in Topeka, KS, making a making a routine traffic stop. Without knowing it, he'd stopped a guy with outstanding warrants. Walk up to car, ask for license, get shot, die. No warning.

And seriously, it's not always about the law, either. We have so many laws that you can find legal precedent either way both to support and undermine you almost no matter what you do.

I think what it is is that we are increasingly intolerant of each other and the roles we are supposed to play in society in order for society to function. And what that happens, we HAVE no society, and if that isn't becoming clear to everyone by now, then I can't help you.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
The bodycount is way higher on the citizen side. Also, they are the ones with the "authority", the authority they are given, and the authority they perceive. I can't speak for everyone else, but I didn't teach myself to distrust cops, cops did, through their interactions with me personally, and people I know/knew.

Even Canadians, who have typically been very supportive of their police are starting to distrust them, at least the RCMP. They are bringing it upon themselves. I am not sure if it is getting bad, or just getting more coverage and was always this bad. More and more videos pop up every day that make me very glad we have no police force. The latest one here, a cop kneeling on a prone young man's back, punching him repeatedly in the head, even gets a shot or two in after cuffed. No excuse for that behavior.

edit on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:26:22 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
It is "their turf" and you are on it !



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
This is one of the better videos NLBS, good job. I think one of the biggest problems with this whole violent police behavior is the fact these people who file lawsuits settle out of court. These people need to press the issue and force the police to defend themselves in a court of law in front of a jury. And to not just sue the dept but the officer himself so he actually feels it instead of the police union taking care of him and the taxpayers footing the bill. The biggest problem with that though is it paints a huge target on your back from him and his fellow boys in blue. Is it possible to get a restraining order on a cop/s for harassment while in the line of duty? Something to keep him/them from pulling you over or at least making them call in someone else after pulling you over to do the actual questioning/ticket writing?



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Springer

Brilliant.. just brilliant



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
It's simple.

Arm a country's police force with ex military gear and cut their budgets. Lower budgets>lower moral>lower standards>more aggressive behaviour. Destabilize the economy. Civil unrest ensues, escalating to the point of marshall law followed by societal revolt and then.... total collapse. Ushering in the building of a new society.

A stable society.


An obedient society...


Governed, by a New World Order.



That is unless.... something comes along and accelerates this process. War, climate change or perhaps a deadly disease?....



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

I'll be honest. I have family who are cops. I hear about their concerns and fears every time we have a family reunion.

I live just down the interstate from Ferguson, and if you think things like that have no bearing on their mental state, no matter how well-intentioned they are in the course of their work, then you're crazy. You think they have no idea that conversations like this one aren't taking place among the rest of us, setting them ALL up as villains, then you're crazy.

This doesn't help create the big, happy less antagonistic cop world you want. It only encourages otherwise good people to either take a hard line they might otherwise not take or get out altogether and those who are left ... nobody wants those.

We need to be looking back at everyone for a solution. Society in general is the problem. Too many people run around with no regard for others in all walks of life, and it creates problems for everyone else. Things break down and people we want to help maintain control crack down tighter.

People who WILL NOT or CANNOT govern themselves must be governed, and it's bad news for the rest of us.



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join