IN police shatter car window, extract passenger after alleged seatbelt violation

[steveh_131]

I see two possibilities.

1. The cop thought the guy was a legitimate threat. If so, the cop is a cowardly little turd and needs to find a new career. One that suits cowards.

2. The cop was pissed off that the guy disobeyed. If so, the cop is an egotistical, violent bully and should be in jail.

Can anyone offer a third possible explanation for why this couldn't have been resolved peacefully? Perhaps a kind word and some reassurances that they aren't there to beat the **** outta him like I'm sure he's seen on YouTube?

Do you want people to continue to be afraid to exit their vehicle when a cop is present? Then keep this crap up.

 

[rambone]

I see two possibilities.

1. The cop thought the guy was a legitimate threat. If so, the cop is a cowardly little turd and needs to find a new career. One that suits cowards.

2. The cop was pissed off that the guy disobeyed. If so, the cop is an egotistical, violent bully and should be in jail.

Can anyone offer a third possible explanation for why this couldn't have been resolved peacefully?

The third possibility might be a variation of #2, but without the emotion (getting pissed). That would imply that the officer(s) lost their cool and did something out of character.

Simply stated, it is the Enforcer Mentality. The abuse comes not out of fear or anger, but from robotically enforcing every law, just because. The Enforcer scarcely knows what it means to stand down and walk away. The law must invariably be enforced. The Enforcer can carry this out without any emotion, and rests well at night knowing that he stayed within the law.

The Enforcer's actions don't make sense to a rational person. They don't keep anyone safe. They don't make the community a better place. To the unjaded normal person that possesses human empathy and reason, he appears to be a sadistic, authoritarian thug. But in his own eyes, he thinks he's performing like a good public servant. He fist-bumps his friends on a job well done. He is inebriated on power and is blind to how his actions affect others.

He is living embodiment of the Milgram Experiment.

 

[actaeon277]

The point is you can't just do what you wanna do when a police office is giving you a lawful order. There's a culture of people who think they're untouchable and when they get thumped they cry other words. It's ****ing old and I really don't care if the police get it wrong afew times in order to stop this mindset

Something like 10 years ago, or so, a Merrillville Police Officer was pulling over everyone in a teal Geo (I think that's what it was) that traveled on 61st Avenue..
Apparently someone flipped his sister or wife off or something. And he was pulling over EVERY teal GEO he could find.
Having them step out of the car, and read them the riot act.

Not every order an officer gives is lawful.
Most of them, sure.
All of them, no.

 

[lonehoosier]

So...they have to give you the right to remain silent?!?!?!

What kind of tool was that he used?

 

[other dave]

Hammond police sued over use of Taser during stop - Chicago Tribune

 

[AA&E]

So what exactly did the two PA Troopers do to the guy to deserve being ambushed?

There has been talk of an extramarital affair involving one of the police officer victims and the shooters sister in law. After the shooting the police immediately took the shooters brother (said sister in laws husband) into custody within the hour. They had a reason to suspect him, which suggests this talk might have some basis in truth.

 

[AA&E]

Police are not legally allowed to arrest someone for failure to identify themselves unless they have PC. Only then can they force you to identify yourself.

If they don't have PC and they arrest you for not identifying yourself, I'd be opening a lawsuit.

They didn't arrest him. They cited him for a seatbelt violation among other things (failure to assist law enforcement?) and let them go... after escalating it to this level.

 

[AA&E]

Yes, you are correct.

But don't go digging like a terrier through your stuff when the po-po roll up.

Remember the first rule of traffic school? Right, relax.

I don't know what the proper mix of fault here is. Maybe a jury will decide. Don't know.

If I was the insurance company, I'd write a check to make this stupidityfest disappear.

He went into his bag to retrieve a previously issued citation for not producing insurance while operating a motor vehicle. It was that officer that cited him and took his photo ID away. He was attempting to comply in their request to identify himself and explain why he didn't have a photo ID.

If you are such a scared little ***** that you can't conduct yourself professionally when a citizen is doing as you instructed him to, you probably shouldn't be in law enforcement.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He went into his bag to retrieve a previously issued citation for not producing insurance while operating a motor vehicle. It was that officer that cited him and took his photo ID away. He was attempting to comply in their request to identify himself and explain why he didn't have a photo ID.

Sure, makes sense, but the reason they wanted him out of the car is his digging in the man bag. OTOH, there is also the issue of just because the police can order him out of the car does not mean that they should.

Now, how the police get someone out of a car who does not want to come out of the car, is another issue, and I still have not seen an explanation for the taser. Wait and see.

 

[7urtle]

My guess is his Jeep, His wife's Miata(cuz no guy would drive one), and a Vespa or two?

no wife im gay
​purple somewhere

 

[dusty88]

He went into his bag to retrieve a previously issued citation for not producing insurance while operating a motor vehicle. It was that officer that cited him and took his photo ID away. He was attempting to comply in their request to identify himself and explain why he didn't have a photo ID.

If you are such a scared little ***** that you can't conduct yourself professionally when a citizen is doing as you instructed him to, you probably shouldn't be in law enforcement.

Exactly.

The people "digging like a terrier" (if that's what he did) are trying to comply.

Before I took any gun classes, I never heard discussion in general society about some idea that a cop thinks I'm diving for a gun when I paw through my purse, glove box, etc. 20 years ago, if a cop pulled me over, it was customary to get out of the car and start talking to them. Nobody freaked (at least not in the rural areas I lived in).

A cop needs to be trained that someone MIGHT be reaching for a gun, but a civilian is not trained to prove that everywhere he puts his hands is subject to suspicion of reaching for a deadly weapon. If the police officer was worried about that, he needs to speak accordingly and calmly take control of the conversation and the actions.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

There has been talk of an extramarital affair involving one of the police officer victims and the shooters sister in law. After the shooting the police immediately took the shooters brother (said sister in laws husband) into custody within the hour. They had a reason to suspect him, which suggests this talk might have some basis in truth.

Well I guess that makes it justified.

 

[ghuns]

Not certain that a halligan and Taser were the answer there.

When you're a halligan, everything looks like a car window.

There's a culture of people who think they're untouchable and when they get thumped they cry other words.

Have you considered that there's also a culture of people who are fearful of police? Actions by the police like this give legitimacy to those fears.

It's ****ing old and I really don't care if the police get it wrong afew times in order to stop this mindset

Prolly don't mind is we execute a few innocent men accused of murder as long as most of 'em are guilty. That'll stop the mindset that murder is OK.

 

[Ericpwp]

He went into his bag to retrieve a previously issued citation for not producing insurance while operating a motor vehicle. It was that officer that cited him and took his photo ID away. He was attempting to comply in their request to identify himself and explain why he didn't have a photo ID.

Where did you hear this? I had not heard this before. I was wondering where the ticket was from. I know that if you get a ticket in IL, you keep your license. I thought maybe it was an IL ticket and the police were calling BS on him for not having an ID. He did passively aggressively challenge them to get him out of the car. Not that I'm advocating for the way in which it was done.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I read one article where the PD is claiming the guy wasn't wearing his seat belt either. If that is true, then they have a right to enforce the law that mandates he wear his seat belt. Since that is an infraction in Indiana, then he has to provide his ID. From what I saw, he tried to provide it, but they refused, then they shattered his window. It seems they were hell bent on getting some form of official picture ID. My only assumption here is that they likely thought he had a warrant and didn't want to ID himself with legitimate ID. Unfortunately for Hammond PD, the law states that a person can provide information verbally. We only see part of the situation, so I'll withhold judgement until the prosecutor or civil case works itself out.

Except the minivan full of kids can't be pulled over JUST to enforce the seatbelt law. And when a vehicle is pulled over, the Richardson case affirmed that they can't just willy-nilly decide to expand the scope of the stop.

its really great when the police officers don't know the law.

Ain't it just, though?

 

[CathyInBlue]

The couple in that car provoked the cops and got minimally what they deserved.

When the cops provoke a citizen to criminal conduct, it's called a sting operation. When a citizen provokes a cop to criminal conduct, it's called getting what they deserve?

 

[Ericpwp]

I thought they could pull you over for a seatbelt, just not a checkpoint for them.

EDIT:
Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained solely because of a violation of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement agency may not use a safety belt checkpoint to detect and issue a citation for a person's failure to comply with this chapter.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I reiterate:

Sec. 3.1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a vehicle may be stopped to determine compliance with this chapter. However, a vehicle, the contents of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, or a passenger in a vehicle may not be inspected, searched, or detained SOLELY because of a violation of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement agency may NOT use a safety belt checkpoint to detect and issue a citation for a person's failure to comply with this chapter.

If there wasn't another reason in their reports for pulling this vehicle over, then these guys are gonna make new law just like Richardson did.

Speaking of making new law, I seem to recall some court somewhere deciding that it was unreasonable for a LEO to assume that someone digging around in their glove box is going for a gun when they do it right after the LEO demanded papers-please. Can anyone help me in recollection of such a case?

 

[Ericpwp]

"may not be inspected" is what I don't understand. Does this mean that they cannot run a warrant check on anyone, including the driver?

Everyone that has a seat belt is required to wear it in Indiana (IC 9-19-10-2). Is it "inspecting" a passenger if you check to see if he is wearing their belt? This cannot mean that you can only write a ticket for the initially observed offender, but not everyone else in the car in violation of IC 9-19-10-2.
.

 

[Hoosier8]

For now but are we beginning to see a pattern of police killings? The pa guy and before him that guy in ca that they burned in the cabin.
In between there the Ferguson shooting of police that had nothing to do with the Ferguson case.
Seems like the media keeps putting this out there and the people are picking it up and running with it.
The majority won't go out looking to hurt the police but at the same time won't help or will turn a blind eye, when the thugs are out, should the police need help.

Seems that is the culture now.

Actually, we are not seeing more police killings. The stats haven't changed that much. What is new is video of them.