Hammond Police Break Through Car Window and Taze Passenger with Kids in Back Seat

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Dear SkepticOverlord,

We can sit here and rationalize all day/night/morning about a situation few of us have ever experienced, and hopefully never will.

I agree that it is to be hoped that none of us ever have our car window broken, then be Tazed by police, but I would observe that many, many posters on ATS have been pulled over. I would guess they behaved differently and had different outcomes.

We can sit here and "rationalize?" What an odd choice of words. The posters here are calling for death, imprisonment, and whatever punishments they can dream up. Certainly that's a decision for the courts after a full trial. I've presented laws, and case cites intending to show that it would be very difficult to show that the police had done anything illegal.

I wouldn't describe that as rationalizing, but we have other problems with word meanings.

In all of my (I know, too long, didn't read) postings, I've said many things concerning the legality here, but none of them have been shown to be false or in error. I've asked for any additional information that might change things, but none has been offered.

What I'm getting is either mistaken ideas or "Is the best way to end this stand off. . . ?" This thread isn't about errors in police-community relations. This thread is about these cops and this passenger. For me, it's also about the rush to kill police or at least jail them for their "Illegality." I suppose, if you want to, you can call them jerks, but nobody has explained why they are criminals.

I don't believe, from the video, that the passenger was terrified.

Interesting concept you bring up

. . .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.

If that logic applies, try putting "Inner city Black youth" in place of "The Hammond Police."

WHOA! Hold on there. When was Jamal ever called a criminal in this situation?

This is the other situation where we might have trouble with words. Jamal was observed by multiple policemen committing a Class B misdemeanor by refusing to get out of the vehicle. Do you want to use "alleged criminal" instead? Fine, OK. But do you think police think "alleged robber," when they see one happening a few feet away?

But really, with all of the laws and Court holdings I've given and explained, THIS is what you object to?

I understand the emotion and pity we all have for everyone involved in this situation. I feel it too, and agree that police abuse needs to be more frequently identified and punished. But the analytical side of me says "These men have broken no laws."

Unless NLBS has some entirely new information that changes things, I'm afraid it's going to be, like this thread, a rant about how terrible the police are and how everybody is shaking in their boots. Well, do with it what you want.

You asked for a solution? One step is to turn down the fear and anger on both sides. Blacks (and indeed, every citizen) get upset when they're abused. Police get upset when they're abused. A Black leader calling out that Whites are devils of an inferior race who are out to kill the Blacks, does no good thing to solve this problem.

Also, stories about police misconduct which cause everybody to jump to "Kill the pig" sentiments without waiting for information which makes the story more complete, help fuel the fire.

With respect,
Charles1952

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.

While I share your sentiment regarding how judicial systems operate, I must disagree with your statements.
Law enforcement officers, have the power to arrest an individual that they "believe" has committed a crime, have seen commit a crime, or in some instances may commit a crime in the immediate future! They only cite the Statute that they "believe" the person under arrest has broken. And, once they deliver you to be booked, they write/type a report which contains their beliefs and what they observed. It is then, up to your arraignment judge at your first appearance and subsequently the District Attorney, who decides if the officer's statement and testimony warrant continuing with prosecution.

SO, in response to your statement, "Police do not 'know' the law". I agree, for they are not attorneys. But, they do have a working knowledge of many, many commonly broken statutes, and act within their authority (for the most part), when enforcing them!

a reply to: charles1952

I didn't see you touch on this particular case in Indiana that I mentioned earlier in this thread.

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.

Court Document
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."

A previous poster stated that the seat belt violation was for the driver. With that in mind please consider the following points

1.) Although the passenger is not exempt they must have cause to ask for information.
2.) He had no obligation to produce ID.
3.) Even if he did have an obligation to identify himself this would have been reasonably satisfied with both the verbal information he gave and the ticket he showed them. I have linked the document from the appellate court with the Judge's ruling. Please read for confirmation of this point because it is spelled out clearly.
4.) I believe he was in fact afraid. He was concerned about the gun they pulled out earlier. The fact that his window is up is confirmation that he was afraid.
5.) If the stop was for the driver not wearing her seatbelt as the other poster mentioned then your point about the class B misdemeanor is simply not true. This is definitely a violation of 4th amendment rights that the Supreme Court was trying to guard against in their decision on Terry v. Ohio.

I also find it interesting that you reason if they had just complied in a friendly and polite manner then there would not have been a problem. 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).

You can't have it both ways. Of course it is a good idea to be polite and courteous to the officer, but not doing so is not cause for an officer to fly off the handle. I believe most people here see this event as exactly that, and it would seem on some level you do as well. Otherwise, this wouldn't have happened right?

Only "GANG" I continue to be afraid of is our P.O.S Police only ones allowed to kill without cause and lie to get away with it. But in the end we need not worry cause if things ever get real bad, gonna be easy to tell the "GANG" members from the civilians trying to stay alive. The "GANG" members will be dressed in Black and Blue with "POLICE" all over their wear and vehicles and lets be honest not gonna be hard to pick out in a crowd or stay away from. Depending on how your situation turns out just a whole load of easily identifiable people, who with how they treat the public, I'm not so sure they're gonna wanna be......

SaneThinking

a reply to: windword

What does the officer have to gain by terrorizing them? Lose his job? He should have simply stepped out. He was not in fear. You could tell that after he was out and cussing the officers. He never got out of a car from the passenger side? Give me a break. Anyone can hand someone a piece of paper to tell them who you are.

Then, when driving away, he can tell his kids that sometimes you just have to comply especially if you do not have your ID. You should always carry your ID. You could be in an accident. It is not about Nazi Germany to have ID folks. Tell them how hard the officers job can be because there are criminals out there. To teach respect.

Nope. Instead, they call 911 because they were pulled over. I do not care to be honest why they were pulled over. She is an idiot for not wearing a belt though. Again, showing kids poor examples to follow in life.

If you read the report he cannot provide ID and he reached into the back of the car as they walked up. The cops had no idea who he is. Cop has no idea what he is reaching for. This is also why they dropped the strip.

The caller was even told by 911 that she is making it worse. Yelling into the phone. Then the calm talk.

Sorry, it could have all been prevented.

a reply to: matafuchs

Well, I believe that Jamal, and that the driver both had reason to be in fear for their lives, and the police were way out of line here. So, we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Nice sitting on the jury with you! Let's do lunch!

Just for the purpose of enlightenment...

If police observe you violating the law, you must produce ID.
It doesn't matter if you are driving, out in public, or standing on
your own private proerty. The reason for this is to verify identity
so you can be ticketed, or charged with a crime.

If you refuse to produce ID, or simply have no ID, (after police
have observed you in violation of law) then you can be arrested
until your ID can be confirmed.

Also, at any time, during any police encounter, (and at the officer's
discretion-if he fears you have a weapon) he can make you exit your
vehicle and frisk you, and the law even allows him to to a quick
search of your vehicle, as long as the scope of that search goes
no farther than to acertain that you have no weapon (within easy
reach of your person) while in that vehicle. It's called a "Terry Stop"
and has been deemed constitutional.

So, if this guy wasn't wearing a seatbelt, didn't produce ID, and the
police feared he had a weapon--pretty obvious considering one of
the cowardly LEO's pulled a gun in response to this man reaching
for his back pack, then this man violated all of the above pretext
and the police didn't break any law, or step outside of protocol.

All that being said--what a bunch of power hungry wussies we seem
to be hiring lately as LEO's. Holy crap guys, grows some balls, and
act like men. You took the job, and the job comes with risks.
You have to accept that and quit acting like scared babies, especially
in a scenario that involves a seatbelt violation, a man and a woman,
and children in the car....and you pull your gun!?

It's ridiculous, and I mean that literally--it is worthy of ridicule.

a reply to: windword

You get a star for that one.

www.youtube.com...

This is a reason to be worried about passengers. You never know.

a reply to: compressedFusion

Dear compressedFusion,

My apologies for not addressing your case. In the video, the passenger is not wearing a seat belt. In the department statement, the claim is that both driver and passenger weren't wearing their belts. Until I get further information, I have to believe that the passenger was in violation, therefore Starr doesn't apply, and the police had the right to ask for ID.

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).

Whether it implies anything or not, I don't know, but I don't agree with the conclusion that this was about their authority being questioned. One criminal offense occurred when the passenger continually refused to get out of the car. If you think that the police were acting because their authority was questioned, you might be right, I don't know what they were thinking.

Since there has been evidence provided that he was NOT wearing his seatbelt and no evidence that he was, we can only say that with the information we have the police did have cause.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

I read the police report when this was originally posted. I must have missed the part about the passenger not wearing his seatbelt. If true then you are correct about Starr.

a reply to: compressedFusion

Dear compressedFusion,

I'm sorry that the report doesn't let me cut and paste, but here's the link to the report:

www.chicagotribune.com...

I got my impression from the first full paragraph.

Really classy response, by the way. I wish there were more like it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Also, seems that the driver not only did not have a seat belt but did not have a proper plate and was issued a citation for License plate reciprocity.

seeclickfix.com...

13 minutes? They argued with the cops for 13 minutes? Arguing with 3 cops and still requesting a 'white shirt'... Also, during the stop, the driver put the car in gear and attempted to leave. This would be why strips should be used and based on this I would think the officers would be on edge with someone reaching behind a seat.

a reply to: matafuchs

You know the story -- White Cops BAD PEOPLE / Black -- victims. All the evidence you need.

I just saw the NLBS video on this thread. There was no new information offered that dealt with this stop. (At least, I didn't see any.) Portions of SkepticOverlord,s post were quoted (without attribution) in the thread.

No legal argument was offered. So with Joe spending 20 minutes on the topic and SkepticOverlord making several posts on the subject, it seems like the final result is this:

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?)

So remember, children, if the big, bad, scary policeman frightens you, you don't have to do anything he says. And you might as well just assume that all the policemen are scary, so, really, you never have to do anything they say. How do I know that all policemen are scary? Well, Louis Farrakhan says so. The president told the whole country that the policeman did something stupid in Cambridge. The people in Ferguson tell us, and it must be true, that one of those big scary policemen killed a little teenage boy for absolutely nothing when he had put his hands in the air and was getting on the ground to surrender. They also said that the policeman hit him with sixteen bullets. (Raise your hand if you believe that.) Any questions?

Yes, mommy, if the policemen are so bad, why shouldn't I kill them first? Well, son, some people do. In their circles it is a tremendous badge of pride and manhood to do that. There's only one reason not to. You might get caught. That means you won't get out of jail for a long time, maybe never.

Thanks mommy, now I understand the lesson of Hammond.

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?)

You're seriously asking WHY he was scared of the Hammond police, and the only suggestion you offer is the possibility of previous run-ins with them?

- A passenger in a car pulled over for a seat belt violation has spike strips laid out in front of the car and a gun pulled on him. These are SCARY things to have happen to you, are they not?

- You can hear the woman speaking to 911 explicitly voicing her fear of the Hammond Police. This is behavior perfectly consistent with a person who is in fact scared, is it not?

- You can hear the man asking for a superior officer to be on scene. This is also behavior perfectly consistent with a person who is in fact scared, is it not?

- Then you see him get tazed and dragged out of the car after being pelted with broken glass from the very same officers who displayed such scary behavior as laying out spike strips and pulling a gun on him. Thus completely justifying his aforementioned fear.

And your repeated response to all this is essentially: "The police did nothing illegal, but the passenger DID do something illegal by waiting in his car for a superior officer to arrive while the driver called 911 IN FEAR after having spike strips laid out in front of their car, being surrounded by officers, and having a gun pulled on them." Is it illegal to call 911 and wait for the police to arrive while simultaneously asking the same thing from the officers on scene due to a completely reasonable fear for your safety (and if this IS illegal, then what the hell else is a person supposed to do in that situation?)? I question your entire premise that, within the context of what happened, the passenger did ANYTHING illegal.

Given the outcome, it is beyond dispute that the passenger's fear of the Hammond Police was completely justified. This has been pointed out to you multiple time in this thread, and each time you've conveniently ignored it (troll behavior). And despite all of this, you have the gall to question WHY he was scared, then launch off into a multi-paragraph rant composed entirely of condescending baby talk downplaying his fear AND a triumvirate of racial talking points - in this case: Farrakhan, Obama, Ferguson (troll behavior).

Authoritarian apologist is too kind a label to fit you with. I'm going with troll. I will not be feeding the troll again.

a reply to: Anthem0

Good lord....If I could give you a hundred stars for this post I would gladly do so.
WELL said and spot on!

Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Tired of seeing the apologist....well, apologizing for abuses, apologizing for everything cops do...all the while, demonizing the common man.

I've been watching this thread develop and decided not to jump in but I am glad you did.

Afraid? No...defiant. There is a big difference.

"Let's see some identification" and "step out of the vehicle" are NOT requests! a reply to: charles1952