Police Brutality In Hammond, Indiana

I'm not saying what these cops did was right, because it's obviously not. But they don't have a case.

A police officer has the legal right to ask you to step out of the vehicle during a traffic stop. If you refuse, you are disobeying a lawful order and that opens the door for them to use force to remove you from the vehicle.

Pennsylvania_v._Mimms
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Should they have? No. This was obviously contempt of cop that led to this. But legally the cops are in the clear, at least for smashing the window and getting him out of the car.

Was the taser excessive force? Absolutely. They were never intended for use against someone who is passively resisting. But most states guidelines seem to allow use of a taser on anyone who is resisting nowadays, so they are probably in the clear for that as well.

People who try to excercise their rights should definitely learn what they are first.

dont pussyfoot around with the police ya fucking idiots.
roll the fucking window down, give your id and be on your way.

Idiots

Was the woman not wearing a seat belt? YES.

DID SHE AND HER PASSENGER REFUSE TO OPEN DOOR? YES.

Did she and her passenger throw their stupid attitude towards a cop? YES.

Did the driver and passenger IGNORE the cop's demands? YES.

Who is FULLY RESPONSIBLE for escalating a minor situation into a "disturbing" outcome? THE CAR'S OCCUPANTS.

I CANNOT tell you how sick I am of people crying about the rise of the police state when EVERYONE seems to be completely blind to America's rapid decent into a moral and intellectual wasteland.

"I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!!" (resistance) (glass shatters) police get job done THE HARD WAY.

children crying...boo boo. GET OVER IT!!!!

IF YOU DISRESPECT A COP, GOD HELP YOU!!!!

THIS. WILL. NEVER. EVER. CHANGE.

You break a law, stay calm, do as told, and ALL will be ok..SHOW ME A SINGLE CASE WHERE THIS ISN'T
TRUE!!!

Listen to that woman!!! I WOULD HAVE TAZED HER ASS FIRST

CAN I SPREAD SOME LIGHT ON YOUR DARKENED PATH? FOR WHICH REASON DO YOU THINK YOU ARE MOST ANGRIEST? BECAUSE OF THE PURPOSEFUL USE OF VIOLENCE TO AN INNOCENT CIVILIAN? FOR DISREGARDING SAFETY OF CHILDREN? FOR SHOWING UNRULY POWER AND LEAVING NO DOUBT THEY WOULD KILL AND GIVE ANY EXCUSE FOR PROVOCATION FOR DOING SO AND WOULD THUS BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THEIR *WORK*? CONSCIOUSLY ALL THESE REASONS COME TO MIND BUT LET ME SHARE WHERE THE TRUE INSANITY LIES:

It's very simple. The driver and or passenger were pulled over for not wearing a seat belt.

When this statute was put into effect what was the purpose of it

A) To help save lives because statistics say drivers who don't wear seatbelts that are involved in an accident or vehicle collision are at a greater risk to sustain serious injuries or death.

B) To help state officials collect revenue by maximizing their ticket quota. Also aiding in discovery of more infractions to ticket driver for. To have a chance to practice abuse of power and heighten the anxiety level by calling for back-up and having every inclination of what tactical weapon can be used lethal and non lethal and waiting for the reason to use them. Because that's what police training consists of, weapons and authority, nothing less nothing more. After authority is established well.. weapons are made to be used folks.

Those are your choices. If you let them choose the answer for you than there is no point in discussion is there?

If you let them choose the answer and you feel that they should be operating in the answer you've selected.. well that will drive you to insanity.

It's simple. Either accept you have let them choose for you.

Or...

First you can wake up

Then you can start to make a choice again.

***Good Luck And God Bless**

Oh, and for all you offering the justifications for assault on civilians - the police don't need your approval. They'll continue just fine without you defending their sadistic actions.

The sad part is, this guy missed his chance to get some shitty cops in trouble. According to an Indiana supreme court ruling, passengers do not need to show ID.

By refusing to step out of the vehicle, he threw that out the window. No cop is going to get in trouble for asking for ID from someone who was breaking the law.

If he had gotten out and continued to refuse, they probably would have pulled the same shit, hopefully incriminating themselves on camera.

I think things are getting to a tipping point where people are not going to take stuff like this aanymore...

Hey Pig...

People are LEGITIMATELY afraid for their LIVES. What part of that don't you get, shit-fer-brains?

There was a guy recent shot by a cop for OBEYING an order to produce his drivers license!


I know plenty of people who will not even call the police if they get robbed, or for anything else. Police are BRUTALIZING people all across this country, you fucking idiot. Just like the occupant in that car said!

"SHOW ME A SINGLE CASE WHERE THIS ISN'T TRUE!!!"

Where have you been living, asshole? Under a rock? People are being shot, dogs are being shot. People are being beaten into coma's, and tased to death.

It's a good thing that you are safe behind your keyboard, because if you were within reach, I'd kick your fucking teeth in. I hope you get eaten alive by the most agonizing cancer known to man.

in the video story it says that driver was trying to continue driving away until a tack strip was put down and that is only reason driver stopped. It's these videos where unless you read the whole story you think the worst. I mean yeah it was pretty messed up they do that with the kids in the back but what else are they supposed to do with someone that is refusing to exit the vehicle?

What is with all these situations involving white cops against blacks making video headlines lately??

Is all this trying to start a war of some kind?

you are not that stupid are you? If a tack strip was deployed the people would have been pulled from the vehicle long before the window was broke out. Truth is if you have commited no crime you can not be compelled to exit your home or vehicle and considering he asked for a supervisor to come out (which was ignored by the cops) he was willing to comply but only once a superior was present.

Not exactly, they do serve and protect their corporate masters, just not the public that pays their salaries. How the fuck does that work anyway?

This story has been changing as it goes around. IF the woman was trying to escape, as alleged by the mayor, and stop sticks were deployed, how come she was not charged with fleeing an officer, resisting arrest, etc, besides the seat belt violation? She was the ONLY one in the vehicle who WAS NOT wearing a seat belt.
As for the guy, according to Indiana law, he has to identify himself, which he did.There is no requirement under the state law that says he has to produce an ID.

So, the chick what got fingerbanged on the roadside or the people that ran into that cop what liked to stick his fingers up butts ... those are what? Funzies?

I think they are irresponsible parents..clearly they were confrontational., giving the police excuse ,regardless of their own children. Of corse I will look for the safety of the children . With his attitude they can even suspect the children were hostages .... Geez

My father has a case with the THPD in Terre Haute with the ACLU where an officer had "probable cause" to enter his home even though he was responding to a call to the next house. My father told them to get the fuck off his property and they just slammed him to the ground and arrested him and jailed him, then entered any ways. Good thing I wasn't there or I would have made good use of Indiana's Castle Doctrine..

Being a passenger does not accuse you of committing any crime. All he should have done was to refused to answer any questions.

i have lived in a few different parts of this country and there are towns where the cops are feared and distrusted and the towns folk know it , and there are towns where the cops are fair and just and the people know it , thank god i live where i do now our police force in my little town are very decent people, and we all know it.

No, it doesn't. But legally, in that state, he is required to give his name if asked by police at any time for any reason. Not an ID, just his name.

Also, legally, in the entire country, an officer is allowed to ask any or all of the occupants to step out of the vehicle during a traffic stop. No probable cause is required for this.

They can't search your car, but they are allowed to do a terry frisk for weapons. This does not include checking your pockets or shoes for drugs, they are only allowed to check for weapons.

When he refused to get out of the car, he was breaking the law.

LaPorte County issues warrant for man suing Hammond police

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.
[link to posttrib.suntimes.com]

This is getting more interesting by the minute.

LOL. So he didn't want to give his ID because he had a warrant. And if he had given them his ID, they would have ran it and asked him to step out of the vehicle so they could arrest him. And if he refused, they would have broken the window and dragged him out anyways.

Most of the psycho cops are returning vets with ptsd,so hopefully during ww3 there won't be ANY returning vets who become Nazis with a badge.......

Sorry, but his loudmouth bitch wife caused this. She was mouthing off like a screeching banshee. ffs

They probably knew who he was already, bc they ran the plates thus the registration. No wonder his wife was playing the victim card up front.

Oh, boy.

Hammond is like Gary's asshole as if Gary needed another asshole.

police enforcing a city ordinance,DWB,driving while black.could be an automatic death penalty.now enforced everywhere.