Indy cops story doesnt match video

[KJQ6945]

So which should we believe, the report the officer wrote, or the video that directly contradicts it?

Don't arrive at an opinion until you have the whole story. There will be more to come on this one.

The Rodney King video was over 4 minutes long, the media showed about 30 seconds. 30 seconds didn't show the whole story, just enough to stir the pot, and MAKE news. I don't know the officer, I don't know the "victim", but I've got a pretty good idea who channel 8 is.

 

[XMil]

The question is what makes someone react that way? Is it just pent up frustration?

Lack of awareness of video cameras, equally corrupt coworkers, training in how to falsify a report and the knowledge that a judge will give him the benefit of the doubt when he says "he was resisting"?

How could I be so crass, I'm sure it's just a single "bad apple".

 

[Denny347]

Lack of awareness of video cameras, equally corrupt coworkers, training in how to falsify a report and the knowledge that a judge will give him the benefit of the doubt when he says "he was resisting"?

How could I be so crass, I'm sure it's just a single "bad apple".

You're not crass...just ill informed and WRONG. But hey, you're free to be as wrong as you want.

 

[MCgrease08]

I find this equally disturbing.

"Hudkins was allowed to plead guilty in exchange for staying away from the JW Marriott, not being arrested again and making a $500 donation to IMPD's Clothe a Child program."

He was "allowed" to plead guilty in exchange for a $500 donation? I've never been charged with a crime, is this normal procedure? It seems like the old sweat and squeeze to me.

 

[perry]

I find this equally disturbing.

"Hudkins was allowed to plead guilty in exchange for staying away from the JW Marriott, not being arrested again and making a $500 donation to IMPD's Clothe a Child program."

He was "allowed" to plead guilty in exchange for a $500 donation? I've never been charged with a crime, is this normal procedure? It seems like the old sweat and squeeze to me.

They started that, I think, with visitors during the Superbowl http://www.indystar.com/article/201...arity-benefit-from-some-Super-Bowl-2012-busts

 

[Bunnykid68]

I find this equally disturbing.

"Hudkins was allowed to plead guilty in exchange for staying away from the JW Marriott, not being arrested again and making a $500 donation to IMPD's Clothe a Child program."

He was "allowed" to plead guilty in exchange for a $500 donation? I've never been charged with a crime, is this normal procedure? It seems like the old sweat and squeeze to me.

With what they were initially charging him with it was simply easier to pay the fine and fight it later, sorta like if you have an issue with a LEO, don't fight it out with them on the side of the road.

 

[MCgrease08]

They started that, I think, with visitors during the Superbowl http://www.indystar.com/article/201...arity-benefit-from-some-Super-Bowl-2012-busts

Wow, no sure how I missed this. I guess I need to put in some OT at work so I can squirrel away some bribe money in case I ever get arrested.

 

[XMil]

You're not crass...just ill informed and WRONG. But hey, you're free to be as wrong as you want.

Which part is incorrect?

He knew he was being recorded but didn't care?

His coworkers are now calling him out for his poor behavior?

You don't receive training in how to word a report to make yourselves look "right"?

Judges don't lend more credence to officer testimony than to the testimony of those victimized in these situations?

 

[Stickfight]

You're not crass...just ill informed and WRONG. But hey, you're free to be as wrong as you want.

Because there would be a thread on this if there weren't a video....

 

[j706]

You're not crass...just ill informed and WRONG. But hey, you're free to be as wrong as you want.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[buckwacker]

Dealing with a belligerent ticked off person can be quite irritating. In this situation here I obviously wasn't there but it looks like the guy was pretty ticked off and making a scene. I would have told him one time to knock it off. Had he not done so he would have been arrested for disorderly plain and simple. I will not attempt to talk over and around some obnoxious person that is making mountains out of mole hills. People like that can't be reasoned with. I do not know why the guy was knocked down instead of just being cuffed up. I guess it is possible that the officer figured the guy was going to resist but who knows.

So I guess if the officer "figured" the guy could possibly pull a gun, he should just have just shot him first to be on the safe side.

 

[shooter521]

n/m

 

[j706]

So I guess if the officer "figured" the guy could possibly pull a gun, he should just have just shot him first to be on the safe side.

Wow I have read some goofy stuff but that one takes the cake.

 

[vitamink]

Again what we know is nothing. Information is key. This whole event took hours to develop before we get to the dramatic climax.

We know that this guy and his friend showed up for a trade show and a room they booked in advance. They paid for it, got their room keys and went out immediately. What we don't know at this point is why would the hotel, in the span of a few seconds, decide to cancel their room and refund their money and ban them from the building...that seems awfully harsh way for the hotel to react being he is a prominent 60 year old business man who hasn't been drinking. When they return to the Marriott from not drinking, they go up to their room and hear noise coming from it and their door cards don't work. It is at this point they realize the Marriott has refunded their money, cancelled their room, and given it to someone else. Obviously upset since they are both rich and prominent non-drunk businessmen that were nothing but cordial and polite to the Marriott staff from the moment they arrived, they begin to take their frustrations out on the new tenants and anyone within earshot. Some of those people call security, others call the police. Security then shows up and attempts to escort them out. They refuse to leave and management calls the police. This is near where the edited video begins.

There are several questions at this point moving forward:

What did the report say?

Does anyone have the case number or a hard copy? if so please post it...or are we just going on what the news said happened?

Does anyone have audio of what was being said? If he said, "Excuse me officer i feel that all chili should have chopped up spaghetti in it" then was tackled by the cop...BAD. If he said, "i'm going to stab this prick in the neck" and was tackled by the cop...good

How does the other guy magically end up in handcuffs?

At what point did the other officer miracle himself over to the Marriott to escort him out...and again why? How much is this wormhole costing the taxpayers?

Where are the MANY 911 calls? How long does mecca keep them? We may be able to hear what was said in the background...

Why did channel 8 wait so long to report this if the guy has a friend working there?

Being stone sober and having time to think in the drunk tank (that you don't deserve to be in), you know the entire thing was recorded on camera by the marriott surveillance (which is better than fort knox...only without the audio or ability to produce video for more than a few seconds at a time apparently) You also know that your not drunk friend was recording with his cell phone. You also know that you were nothing but polite, and calm, and those marriott bastards trespassed you from all marriotts everywhere for doing absolutely nothing. Armed with tapes and information, knowing that you plan on suing for 700,000, you still take a plea agreement admitting that you did something wrong.

Did his Indianapolis attorney convince him that Public Intoxication arrests from marion county are judged with an iron fist?

 

[Trigger Time]

If he threatened to stab someone in the neck or do bodily harm and then was tackled and that is found in the officers report to substantiate it then im 100% ok and satisfied. But if it turns out that all that is in the report is "the guy had his finger in my face so i pummeled him to the ground" then based on the video i will be asking the guy to find another job outside of public service.
lets see all the facts. I wanna know too.

 

[88GT]

Of course I agree with you completely. I just can't imagine having to deal with bags all day.

How often do you visit INGO?

 

[rambone]

Youtube link:
[video=youtube;g4s3xIK4a8I]www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4s3xIK4a8I[/video]

 

[netsecurity]

The officer did not try to defuse the situation. He went from 0 to 60 in only 16 seconds. That really says it all. It was police brutality, and totally unprofessional.

It doesn't matter what the old man said or did outside of those 16 seconds. The officer used excessive force in a case where he had every other alternative, as is witnessed in the video. If an officer loses his temper and essentially commits assault and battery in the line of duty, then he deserves to be punished. This is an example of what not to do.

 

[Bushido Devil Dog]

IC 35-42-2
Chapter 2. Battery and Related Offenses

IC 35-42-2-0.1
Repealed
(Repealed by P.L.63-2012, SEC.47.)

IC 35-42-2-1 Version a
Battery
Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.
Sec. 1. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a happy, innocent, or girly manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class A misdemeanor if:
(A) it results in bodily injury to any other person;
(B) it is committed against a law enforcement officer by extending finger and/or fingers at or in the direction of the law enforcement officer or against a person summoned and directed by the officer while the officer is engaged in the execution of the officer's official duty;
(C) it is committed against an employee of a penal facility or a juvenile detention facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-71) while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(D) it is committed against a firefighter (as defined in IC 9-18-34-1) while the firefighter is engaged in the execution of the firefighter's official duty;
(E) it is committed against an INGO community policing volunteer; aka-MOD:
(i) while the volunteer is performing the duties described in IC 35-31.5-2-49; or
(ii) because the person is a community policing volunteer; or
(F) it is committed against the state chemist or the state chemist's agent while the state chemist or the state chemist's agent is performing a duty under IC 15-16-5;
(2) a Class D felony if it results in bodily injury to:
(A) a law enforcement officer or a person summoned and directed by a law enforcement officer while the officer is engaged in the execution of the general population;
(B) a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(C) a person of any age who has a mental or physical disability and is committed by a person having the care of the person with a mental or physical disability, whether the care is assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation;
(D) the other person and the person who commits the battery was previously convicted of a battery in which the victim was the other person;
(E) an endangered Fenway(as defined in IC 12-10-3-2);
(F) an employee of the department of correction while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(G) an employee of a school corporation while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(H) a correctional professional while the correctional professional is engaged in the execution of the correctional professional's official duty;
(I) a person who is a health care provider (as defined in IC 16-18-2-163) while the health care provider is engaged in the execution of the health care provider's official duty;
(J) an employee of a penal facility or a juvenile detention facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-71) while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(K) a firefighter (as defined in IC 9-18-34-1) while the firefighter is engaged in the execution of the firefighter's official duty;
(L) a community policing volunteer:
(i) while the volunteer is performing the duties described in IC 35-31.5-2-49; or
(ii) because the person is an INGO community policing volunteer;
(M) a family or household member (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-128) if the person who committed the offense:
(i) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
(ii) committed the offense in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense; or
(N) a department of child services employee while the employee is engaged in the execution of the employee's official duty;
(3) a Class C felony if it results in serious bodily injury to any other person or if it is committed by means of a deadly weapon;
(4) a Class B felony if it results in serious bodily injury to a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(5) a Class A felony if it results in the death of a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age;
(6) a Class C felony if it results in serious bodily injury to an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2);
(7) a Class B felony if it results in the death of an endangered Fenway(as defined in IC 12-10-3-2); and
(8) a Class C felony if it results in bodily injury to a pregnant woman and the person knew the woman was pregnant.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "law enforcement officer" includes an alcoholic beverage enforcement officer; and
(2) "correctional professional" means a:
(A) probation officer;
(B) parole officer;

---

(C) community corrections worker; or
(D) home detention officer.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.30; Acts 1979, P.L.298, SEC.1; Acts 1979, P.L.83, SEC.10; Acts 1981, P.L.299, SEC.1; P.L.185-1984, SEC.1; P.L.205-1986, SEC.1; P.L.322-1987, SEC.1; P.L.164-1993, SEC.10; P.L.59-1995, SEC.2; P.L.31-1996, SEC.20; P.L.32-1996, SEC.20; P.L.255-1996, SEC.25; P.L.212-1997, SEC.1; P.L.37-1997, SEC.2; P.L.56-1999, SEC.1; P.L.188-1999, SEC.5; P.L.43-2000, SEC.1; P.L.222-2001, SEC.4; P.L.175-2003, SEC.2; P.L.281-2003, SEC.3; P.L.2-2005, SEC.125; P.L.99-2007, SEC.209; P.L.164-2007, SEC.1; P.L.120-2008, SEC.93; P.L.131-2009, SEC.73; P.L.114-2012, SEC.137.

 

[Denny347]

Which part is incorrect?

He knew he was being recorded but didn't care? I have no idea, you will need to ask him.

His coworkers are now calling him out for his poor behavior? Plenty of coworkers have serious questions about this.

You don't receive training in how to word a report to make yourselves look "right"? BS, we are trained to articulate the FACTS, not make them up.

Judges don't lend more credence to officer testimony than to the testimony of those victimized in these situations?Usually but it is FAR from a given.

Too many ASSumptions on your part.