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.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 10:05 AM
BARNES -v- INDIANA reaffirmed the right to resist with lethal force if necessary all Unlawful intrusions made by Law Enforcement after the robed slime of the Indiana Supreme Court attempted to dictate that Warrants and Probable Cause were no longer valid in a "Post 9/11" world.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 11:16 AM
How is it that the answer to every one of the world's problems has become "education" and "training". As if enlightment some how repairs broken people.

Garth said he doesn't know how to make people more empathic. In this context, if an officer is unable to exhibit empathy to the citizenry he is sworn to protect, that makes him a f'ing sociopath! Nevermind "training" sociopaths.

Let's say the officers really do need more training. No budget, huh? I have a great idea. Buy less tanks! Buy less assault rifles with $1500 laser aimpoints, buy less heavy body armor! For crying out loud, the ski-mask fund alone could get some decent training.


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

The only reason they have all that gear is because of the drug war.

65% of swat raids are for drugs.

Biggest problem in America period.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 03:34 PM
a reply to: theNLBS

Most Republicans are soft on crime when it comes to authorities committing crimes like in Hammond, Indiana. Republicans sympathizing with bullying and criminal behavior is the problem. When their attitude starts to change, then the criminals can be punished and things can return to normal.

I think the solution is to help Republicans understand they are being terrorist sympathizers when they make excuses for the criminal behavior in many urban areas by police departments.

The best decision I ever made was to move from an urban area to rural New Hampshire where the cops are a mixed bag instead of being 100% rotten like in most urban areas.

Also, being forced to aid an officer is slavery. Why is there slavery in America? Also, being forced to provide ID is against the freedom of speech. I have a right to remain silent. If you don't like my rights, please get the hell out of this country and move to China, because in the USA we value the freedom of speech. 1st amendment rights are supposed to mean something.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 03:47 PM
a reply to: ketsuko
Until I start see some real effort out there to clean ranks of the abusive scum that seems to be dominating the police forces, they will not earn back my trust. All we ever see as a consequence of even killing people is paid vacation, half-hearted investigation into themselves, then clearing of all charges.

You know some good cops, then ask them what the latest excuse is that they are not busting the horrible cops out there. Ask them why never in one of those BS brutality videos out there, we never see one of these allusive good cops restrain or arrest the bad cops. Or even just open their mouth and tell them to stop.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 06:05 PM
a reply to: theNLBS

People need to meet with their local officials and protest for more legal actions for officers who operate outside the law. No paid vacations. Psychology exams for all officers. Real consequences just like normal citizens, this includes capital murder charges.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 07:01 PM
a reply to: theNLBS

I think that you can teach people empathy. I do it every day.

I train debt collectors for a multinational bank and we are really looking to shift how we do things. Once upon a time - before I was in the industry - it was all about getting the debtors debit card number. Now, I ram it down staff throats about thinking how the customer - yes - customer - must be feeling. No-one chooses to get into financial difficulties. No-one chooses to miss a bill payment.

The same goes with the Police. No-one -and I'm talking about your average Joe here - not a gang member or other such moron - chooses to get into an altercation with the Police. The very fact that the driver will have explained that she was on the way to the hospital fills me with rage. They should have cleared the roads for her; got her there fast. What transpired is repulsive. It exemplifies all that is wrong with power systems in the western world today.

I would love to spend some time with the Hammond PD to see how they do things: analyse their MO and see where the issues lie. It wouldn't be difficult. The problems are:

a - I'm British
b - I doubt they would allow anyone to do such a thing

My brothers and sisters in the US - I feel for you. It appears to me that you are being subjected to a gradual erosion of civil liberties and your enshrined rights.

ID checks remind me of Nazi Germany and the USSR. It's not what I would expect of your country. The UK is a pretty #ed up country, but at least our police don't think they are marines.

I'd love to spend time with these people. See how they operate. Establish their ethos. I'm sure it sucks but still - I'd do my damnedest to change it.

All best wishes,


edit on 11-10-2014 by cado angelus because: rioja

edit on 11-10-2014 by cado angelus because: Chateau Neuf Du Pape

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 12:50 AM

The very fact that the driver will have explained that she was on the way to the hospital fills me with rage. They should have cleared the roads for her; got her there fast.

Exactly what I was thinking... and when they got there, they could have found out if gramma was really dying or not, and had time to run the people involved for warrants. That would have made an entirely different video, wouldn't it?

Maybe slightly OT, but you would think drug mules would be smart enough to drive to the exact letter of the law when going anywhere, at anytime, including seat belts, having no busted lights, and correct tire tread depth, right down to signaling every turn correctly. Damn, watching this is like watching a Darwin Awards contest between Grand Prize Winners.

Not making excuses for the cops at all, but is it possible that they've found over the years that it's the people who are not submissive but rather defiant that end up being the ones with a long list of priors? As much as I don't like being submissive to someone loaded to the gills with weapons, it's actually my only defense, and that applies to most persons. Sure would be nice not to have to lower your window a lot to someone holding several weapons and an attitude, though.

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 03:50 AM
It's interesting to see the tone of this thread changing somewhat once the couples prior arrests come to light. It seems the woman driver had a valid driver's license and was not wanted by the law any longer, so we'll assume she paid her "debt to society". The passenger apparently still had unresolved legal matters due to selling pot and perhaps that was part of the reason he was not forthcoming with giving his ID ?

I guess enough people still see merit in "The War on Drugs" to justify so many citizens being forever labeled criminals if they are arrested for selling or using drugs. If only the same enthusiasm was shown by the legal system and it's enforcers to address the REAL CRIMES ruining America, maybe I could stomach the outright hypocrisy.

Sorry, back on topic....IMHO seat belt laws are BS and at the least are used to extort money from the public and at the worst, as in this case, used to "dragnet" for people with unresolved legal issues, which almost ALWAYS is unpaid fines! In CA you will actually have a warrant issued for your arrest if you have unpaid dog license fees. It wasn't entirely clear to me if they ever legally had a right to ask for this man's ID and to ask him to exit the car, which btw, almost always means you're going to be arrested ! If they didn't, should it even matter that he had sold "flowers" in the past ?

If anyone of us had broken out a window ,with children in the car, in a fit of RAGE and then violently attacked the passenger who posed no threat to us, we would be charged with assault, reckless endangerment of children and vandalism ! The worst part of that video was hearing that little girl crying, probably traumatized for life. NOTHING could possibly justify what happened to these people at the hands of these sadistic cops......

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 06:43 AM
Go protesting on the streets or this will just keep worsening .
America is becoming the new dictatorship and is slowly infecting the rest of the world ; the country who won't allign will be labelled as terrorists.
Rise perople, rise!

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 08:11 AM
See how the cops do their dirt work? They ask for ID and the man refuses. Nothing wrong there. Then they say step out of the vehicle and the man says no. You're now obstructing justice. Even though the cop has no reason to pull the man out of the vehicle other than to use more intimidation under duress. They will literally arrest you for resisting arrest, even though you broke no law initially. That which is pathetic to say the least. Then you got no knock raids killing people protecting their home's.

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 11:16 AM
Good video, very well put together with the facts of what took place. I hope this young man gets all the money he has coming to him and I can only wish that hopefully in the near future that any lawsuit settlements come out of either the police departments budget, or the police union retirement fund. Right now after a lawsuit takes place the tax payers are left to foot the bill for these corrupt swine. Right now there's hardly any deterrent to these pigs to cease violating peoples constitutional and state rights; hit these corrupt knuckle dragging drool monkey's where it hurts, the pocket book.

I really wish the MSM would also quit seeing this as only a racial problem and only reporting on it when it's a white cop beating an innocent black man, it's not. This is a problem everywhere in North America, even here in Canada. Here in Canada if you don't know your rights the police will take advantage of that during an interaction, especially young people under 25. I also am really hoping that law abiding black folks are starting to understand the reason and need for the 2nd Amendment and the right to defend yourself from this type of behavior if it were to spin out of control. Some, not all, black folks seem to have "forgotten" the importance of the 2nd amendment mainly because of partisan politics.

They certainly didn't "forget" about it's importance during the 50's and 60's when they were viciously attacked by pigs using dogs on a daily basis and beaten with clubs for merely protesting for equal rights. Firearms are an equalizer, it stops this type of tyranny running rampant. There's only so many passive hippie pot smoking songs that you can sing during a "sit in" -at some point there's a breaking point and you need to act.
edit on 12-10-2014 by Jocko Flocko because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 05:48 PM

originally posted by: charles1952
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,

Dear Charles, take away the jack boots, the armored vests, the black clothing, the m16's or Ar's (whatever their choice of auto weapon is). That in turn should take away their attitude to some degree and thus they become a little bit less aggressive. It used to be they talked to people instead of instant threats.......ahhh I am showing my age with that one.

I can think of many many times I have become involved with the police and almost all were good (fair) but I have two memories from years gone by where they were complete Arses and then some.

It seems to me that the legal angle is out the window, it means nothing now these days imho.
The Police also have a real love for black cars now as well, all they say on the decals is Police.....In our city it used to be the city crest with some nice

Now they look like doom and I believe that is the point.

Regards, Iwinder

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:46 PM
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.

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.

And use common sense. A serial killer locks himself in a car and says he won't come out because he's afraid. Do the police have the right to break into the car and arrest him? Sure.

What crime did the man commit to have the window smashed, tazered then dragged from the car? He was never told he committed a crime, your analogy of a serial killer in a car is just nonsense as they are miles apart and hold no similarities whatsoever.
I would not want to live in a country where you can be tazered and dragged from your car for not wearing a seat belt, how people can try to justify this mans actions is also mind boggling. You may know the law my friend, but how you interpret it is what defines a person and a nation.

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 10:04 PM
a reply to: redeyeblue

Dear redeyeblue,

I'm not sure if your question is directed to me, but if it is I'll try to answer it.

The passenger was not wearing a seatbelt. It's a trivial violation but a violation. Same thing for the driver. Now some officer discretion comes in. The Supreme Court has said that in that situation the officers may order everyone out of the car. Remember that we're not sure what the situation was because the video was such a small piece of the entire stop.

The police on the scene decided that they would exercise their right, and ordered the passenger out of the car, a completely lawful order. The passenger spent 15 minutes or more saying, I'm not going to follow your orders to get out of the car.

Briefly, Indiana law says you can't do that. The laws are earlier in the thread. His refusal violates that Indiana law and he has now committed an offense carrying a penalty of up to 6 months and $1000. The police see that going on, evaluate the mans behavior, and all of the other factors we aren't shown, they get some supervisors to the scene, and basically tell the passenger, if you're not coming out, we're coming in.

No way to get in that I know of, if they refuse to unlock the door, but to break the glass. Would you have wanted them to pump tear gas into a car with two kids? They don't break the back windows, because the kids are there. They don't break the driver's window because that wont get the passenger out. Only one choice left and they do it.

He was NOT Tazered and dragged from the scene for not wearing a seat belt.

I'd be happy to explain if you find this confusing. Sometimes I'm not as clear as I'd like to be.

With respect,

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 10:24 PM
a reply to: charles1952

Discretion is the key word here Charles.

These officers escalated the situation with little or no justification, the passenger did not commit a crime or was a suspect in a crime. When told of the occupants destination and reasons, the officers should have issued a ticket and let the occupants of the car proceed to their destination. What raised the suspicion of the officers by wanting the passenger to exit the vehicle? They ignored the seriousness of the occupants cause, the officers seemed to be looking for any excuse to detain in my opinion.

While as you say the officers did not commit any crime, it is how those laws are policed and interpreted that decides the relationship between the public and police. If this form of policing was regular and normal in any country, then it would not take long for society and law and order to break down into chaos despite what the letter of the law says.

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 10:41 PM
a reply to: redeyeblue

Dear redeyeblue,

Let us assume for just a moment that the driver did not claim to have a mother dying in the Hospital, does your analysis change?

With respect,

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 11:03 PM
a reply to: charles1952

Assumptions play no part in this, you are refering to the letter of the law so lets stick to the actual events.

For the record....My stance would still be the same, there was no justification to escalate the situation unless cause was given.On what grounds did the officer feel he needed the PASSENGER to exit the vehicle? He did not commit a crime, nor was there any crime reported, nor was he threatening, nor was he wanted for any crime when checked. It was a seat belt violation nothing more, a ticket should have been given and the occupants told to be on their way.

posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 12:07 AM
How about you hold people accountable for their actions? How about reward good police and fire the bad? I think that's the answer. Oh...and demilitarize the police. You wanna be G. I. Joe? Go enlist in the real military.

For gods sake... please work out you fat bastards.

posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 12:12 PM
Can someone show me a video of the events that lead up to them breaking the passenger window?
edit on 13-10-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in