# Another filmed police encounter (Hammond, IN) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 7, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645 "2014-10-07T13:23:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/341 "2014-10-08T18:37:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Is it really? I think there’s an INCREDIBLY narrow and probably imaginary scenario in which staying in the car actually results in a better outcome… I don’t think so – a rather non-imaginary scenario might be the cops agreeing to give the driver the ticket (like she asked – she said “just give me the ticket!” or something similar) for the seatbelt violation and letting them go on their way. Or the cops calling for a supervisor, like the passenger asked, who might be able to reassure the passenger that he was in no danger of violence if he got out of the car. I see no risk to the cops if they treat people who are scared of the police as if their fear is actually reasonable, rather than reinforcing this fear – and in the long run, reinforcing this fear might be far more dangerous to the cops. > [@](#): > > you have to have a cop whose corrupt or at least mean enough to beat/tase/be violent to the guy once he gets out of the car, but not resourceful enough to use any means, legal or not, to do anything to the guy if he stays IN the car; plus you have to have “police supervisors” of some sort who are going to show up in response to this 911 call and put a stop to the situation. It seems like the guy had a “hey, my car is a safe zone, as long as I’m in here nothing bad can happen to me” mindset. Which, as was clearly demonstrated by what actually happened, was in actuality totally incorrect. Yes, it was incorrect, because he probably never thought the cops would shower glass onto children and tase him when he had done nothing violent whatsoever. > [@](#): > > The main thing I get out of this and many similar incidents is that cops should have lapel and dashboard cams at all times. It’s inevitable that when cops are people, and civilians are people, and people are imperfect, there will be times when things go wrong and rights are violated and, to be crude, shit happens. But it’s imperative to a just and lawful society that as much information is available as possible so that a fair and impartial justice system can come to a truthful determination as to what happened and what the correct consequences should be. I frankly don’t care to try to pass judgment as to which side was “right” in this incident… but I’m very very glad that the actions of everyone involved were accurately recorded. I think that makes it VASTLY more likely that justice will end up being done. One thing I get out of this is that some cops are way, way too quick to resort to using force when it might not be necessary. What was the reason to use force in this situation? It wasn’t to protect the cops. It wasn’t to protect the public. The only rational reason was to _protect the authority of the cops_ – to send the message that “if you don’t obey, you will regret it”. That is a bad reason, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/342 "2014-10-08T18:37:45Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Furthermore, people keep bringing up that the family was going to the hospital to visit their dying mother. Does that matter? Should cops start asking people what business they are on, and if it seems important, they should just not enforce laws they would otherwise enforce? It’s a reminder that these people were under stress and deserved more sympathy. > [@](#): > > Is it really? I think there’s an INCREDIBLY narrow and probably imaginary scenario in which staying in the car actually results in a better outcome… It’s what the guy feared. There’s some basis for that. > [@](#): > > I’m very very glad that the actions of everyone involved were accurately recorded. I think that makes it VASTLY more likely that justice will end up being done. Don’t get too glad. All this did was create a chance this will turn out the right way. It probably won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/343 "2014-10-08T18:40:55Z")
“Whatever you do, don’t stop foaming at the mouth.” I don’t think hyperbole helps, whether the person sees it as defensive or offensive. Given where we are and the motto, it also seems kinda ironical that so many people here are wilfuly ignorant of their own motivations when being snotty and nasty and combative. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/344 "2014-10-08T18:40:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yet another resemblance between these cops and bad, frustrated parents: they gave an order for no particular reason, then had to go to unreasonable lengths to enforce it because they were afraid of losing face. I don’t think you can conclude the order was given for no particular reason. What do you base that on? Officers during a vehicle stop I believe have a presumptive ‘officer safety’ based reason for ordering people out of the vehicle. In your view, what would be reasonable lengths to enforce their order to exit the vehicle? Is there any way that would be reasonable in your view to force the exit of the vehicle? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes – he was not going to stay in the car forever. That still doesn’t justify breaking the window and tasing him. Let me rephrase. Once the order was given, there was no turning back - the guy was going to exit the vehicle _immediately to comply with the order_ one way or another. Do you agree with that? > [@](#): > > You don’t think that’s a reasonable fear, but I do. Obviously they do, or he would have left the car when ordered. I can’t quite parse what you are saying. Are you saying it’s a reasonable fear for them to have, or for you to have, or for the general public to have, or something else? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/345 "2014-10-08T18:44:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Let me rephrase. Once the order was given, there was no turning back - the guy was going to exit the vehicle _immediately to comply with the order_ one way or another. Do you agree with that? I don’t agree that this has to be true – why was their no turning back? Is it that bad if cops change their minds if they realize this man presents no risk and no one is in any danger? Is it that bad if they wait longer, perhaps calling for a supervisor? What would be wrong with these options? > [@](#): > > I can’t quite parse what you are saying. Are you saying it’s a reasonable fear for them to have, or for you to have, or for the general public to have, or something else? It’s a reasonable fear for many people, including these people, to have. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/346 "2014-10-08T18:48:33Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think you can conclude the order was given for no particular reason. What do you base that on? There’s no reason apparent in the video. > [@](#): > > Officers during a vehicle stop I believe have a presumptive ‘officer safety’ based reason for ordering people out of the vehicle. That’s a legal justification for ordering him out of the car, not a reason to give the order. If all he did was fail to wear a seatbelt, there is no reason to order him out of the car. The driver was accused of the same, and nobody told her to get out. > [@](#): > > In your view, what would be reasonable lengths to enforce their order to exit the vehicle? Is there any way that would be reasonable in your view to force the exit of the vehicle? Why are we back on this again? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/347 "2014-10-08T18:49:05Z")
> [@Fallen](#): > > “Whatever you do, don’t stop foaming at the mouth.” > > I don’t think hyperbole helps, whether the person sees it as defensive or offensive. Given where we are and the motto, it also seems kinda ironical that so many people here are wilfuly ignorant of their own motivations when being snotty and nasty and combative. It is ironic that, in your attempt at a higher-level, holier than thou corrective admonition regarding tone, that you would characterize people as foaming at the mouth, snotty, nasty, combative and ignorant. Gee, you really compel me to see your perspective when you put it like a total asshole might put it. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/348 "2014-10-08T19:04:05Z")
In MA passengers are not required to carry ID or provide it if asked. For passenger seat belt violations the officer has a choice of ticketing the passenger or driver so if they can’t I’D the passenger they can just fine the driver instead. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/349 "2014-10-08T19:04:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > There’s no reason apparent in the video. From this do you conclude there was in fact, no reason? That seems like a stretch. > [@](#): > > That’s a legal justification for ordering him out of the car, not a reason to give the order. If all he did was fail to wear a seatbelt, there is no reason to order him out of the car. The driver was accused of the same, and nobody told her to get out. My guess is that because at some point in time the passenger made a furtive movement (described by police accounts). This was probably when he reached into a bag to retrieve ID or paperwork or something that was requested. This is what sounds like led to the initial unholstering of weapons. This precipitated the order to exit and why he was ordered and not the driver. > [@](#): > > Why are we back on this again? I didn’t know this was resolved. Did I miss it? You stated that _‘…then had to go to unreasonable lengths to enforce it because they were afraid of losing face.’_ By stating this, you are implying that there are reasonable lengths they could have gone to to enforce their order. What are they? Previous posters have said that they could have waited for a supervisor to arrive, waited the duration of their shift (presumably in rotation indefinitely until the occupants choose to exit, or die in the vehicle), or continue to debate with the folks for some indeterminate amount of time. I hadn’t read your take on it so I’m asking. I understand there may not be a bright line distinction between X is not enough time and X + Y is enough, but is there a ball park how long to wait before engaging in force in either duration or number or orders given? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t agree that this has to be true – why was their no turning back? Is it that bad if cops change their minds if they realize this man presents no risk and no one is in any danger? Is it that bad if they wait longer, perhaps calling for a supervisor? What would be wrong with these options? Waiting for a supervisor to arrive for a traffic stop doesn’t seem practical to me. Does it seem practical to you? Let’s play that out. What if they wait for a supervisor and the supervisor assures the passengers that they are not in any physical danger, they will be getting a ticket and probably arrested for obstruction or some other related charge. Then the passenger still refuses to exit. What would be your solution? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/350 "2014-10-08T19:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Waiting for a supervisor to arrive for a traffic stop doesn’t seem practical to me. Does it seem practical to you? Let’s play that out. What if they wait for a supervisor and the supervisor assures the passengers that they are not in any physical danger, they will be getting a ticket and probably arrested for obstruction or some other related charge. Then the passenger still refuses to exit. What would be your solution? They could write a ticket for the driver and go home. They could call in a higher ranking police officer. They could follow them home (or to the hospital, their destination) and wait for them to get out of the car. They could say “if you don’t get out, we’re going to smash the window”. If he does nothing, they could say “we’re getting ready to smash the window – please have the children cover their faces and get in a safe position” before actually smashing the window. These all sound like better options than what the officers actually did. Their actions served no purpose in either protecting themselves or protecting the public, and in fact endangered the children in the car as well as portraying themselves in a bad light and in a way that is likely to lead to less cooperation among people in the future. When no one is in any danger, and no one is being arrested for a crime, why should non-violence _ever_ be responded to with violence by cops? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/351 "2014-10-08T19:25:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They could write a ticket for the driver and go home. They could call in a higher ranking police officer. They could follow them home and wait for them to get out of the car. They could say “if you don’t get out, we’re going to smash the window”. If he does nothing, they could say “we’re getting ready to smash the window – please have the children cover their faces and get in a safe position” before actually smashing the window. > > These all sound like better options than what the officers actually did. Their actions served no purpose in either protecting themselves or protecting the public. Ok, let’s parse this out a bit: [ul] [li]\*\*They could write a ticket for the driver and go home. \*\*[/li]This would be after they had ordered the person to exit in this scenario. So this means they could have either changed their mind on the order, or allow the order to be undermined. Is that right? \_ [li]\*\*They could call in a higher ranking police officer. \*\*[/li]This is the ‘call in a supervisor’ line of thought. What happens if that is done and the situation is unchanged? How many supervisors are on duty as a proportion of traffic stops are there? Again that seems impractical. \_ [li] **They could follow them home and wait for them to get out of the car.** [/li]Do you think it is reasonable to allow a vehicle to depart in the middle of a traffic stop? That seems even more impractical than the above. \_ [li] **They could say “if you don’t get out, we’re going to smash the window”. If he does nothing, they could say “we’re getting ready to smash the window – please have the children cover their faces and get in a safe position” before actually smashing the window.** [/li]This seems to hinge on whether sufficient warning was given before smashing the window. I agree with this. I think there should be at least one warning that if the person does not comply they will be forcibly removed. I’m not sure if this was done or not but given the encounter was approximately 13 minutes and there was visible warning given the reactions I think this may have been satisfied. Do you think that in this situation the idea of breaking the window was never conveyed to the people in the car? [/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/352 "2014-10-08T19:30:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > From this do you conclude there was in fact, no reason? That seems like a stretch. It’s not, and you’ll go on to demonstrate why. > [@](#): > > My guess is that because at some point in time the passenger made a furtive movement (described by police accounts). This was probably when he reached into a bag to retrieve ID or paperwork or something that was requested. This is what sounds like led to the initial unholstering of weapons. This precipitated the order to exit and why he was ordered and not the driver. None of this makes sense. To start with, “furtive movement” is an easily-abused term because of its utter vagueness. He didn’t do anything “furtive.” He reached into his bag to comply with their order, and they found that confusing. What’s the logic here- they had to order him out of the car because he surprised them? Why is that? He gave them what they wanted, did he? Did they think maybe he _still_ had a weapon in the bag? > [@](#): > > I didn’t know this was resolved. Did I miss it? You stated that _‘…then had to go to unreasonable lengths to enforce it because they were afraid of losing face.’_ By stating this, you are implying that there are reasonable lengths they could have gone to to enforce their order. What are they? My comment was that they never had to give the order in the first place, and you’re asking about their enforcement of the order I said they didn’t need to give. The proper way to resolve the situation was talking to the people in the car. End of story. > [@](#): > > is there a ball park how long to wait before engaging in force in either duration or number or orders given? Why is it necessary to use force against people who are accused of a minor traffic violation and whose actions are not a threat to the police or anyone else? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/353 "2014-10-08T19:36:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Ok, let’s parse this out a bit: > [ul] > [li]\*\*They could write a ticket for the driver and go home. \*\*[/li]This would be after they had ordered the person to exit in this scenario. So this means they could have either changed their mind on the order, or allow the order to be undermined. Is that right? > \_ Yes. > [@](#): > > [li]\*\*They could call in a higher ranking police officer. \*\*[/li]This is the ‘call in a supervisor’ line of thought. What happens if that is done and the situation is unchanged? How many supervisors are on duty as a proportion of traffic stops are there? Again that seems impractical. > \_ Yes, impractical. Still better than showering children with glass and tasing a non-violent person. > [@](#): > > [li] **They could follow them home and wait for them to get out of the car.** [/li]Do you think it is reasonable to allow a vehicle to depart in the middle of a traffic stop? That seems even more impractical than the above. > \_ Impractical, but still better than what they did. > [@](#): > > [li] **They could say “if you don’t get out, we’re going to smash the window”. If he does nothing, they could say “we’re getting ready to smash the window – please have the children cover their faces and get in a safe position” before actually smashing the window.** [/li]This seems to hinge on whether sufficient warning was given before smashing the window. I agree with this. I think there should be at least one warning that if the person does not comply they will be forcibly removed. I’m not sure if this was done or not but given the encounter was approximately 13 minutes and there was visible warning given the reactions I think this may have been satisfied. Do you think that in this situation the idea of breaking the window was never conveyed to the people in the car? > [/ul] I don’t know if they made it clear – they didn’t seem to in the video. This is the worst of the options I offered, because getting this guy out of the car was totally unnecessary. Showering children with glass was not worth it in this case. The police did harm here, not good. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/354 "2014-10-08T19:39:46Z")
But you see, if the police give a minor arbitrary order and it’s not followed, civil society will collapse. Anarchy in the streets, dogs and cats living together. That or the cop suffers a minor embarrassment if he has made the mistake of getting ego gratification from ordering people around. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/355 "2014-10-08T19:40:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > None of this makes sense. To start with, “furtive movement” is an easily-abused term because of its utter vagueness. He didn’t do anything “furtive.” He reached into his bag to comply with their order, and they found that confusing. What’s the logic here- they had to order him out of the car because he surprised them? Why is that? He gave them what they wanted, did he? Did they think maybe he _still_ had a weapon in the bag? I don’t know. Your original statement was that there was no particular reason to order the passenger out of the vehicle. I stated a possible reason. Whether or not you agree with it, I think it fits the fact pattern and can be identified as a possible reason. Therefore your conclusion that there was no particular reason is unfounded with the information we have. > [@](#): > > My comment was that they never had to give the order in the first place, and you’re asking about their enforcement of the order I said they didn’t need to give. The proper way to resolve the situation was talking to the people in the car. End of story. > > Why is it necessary to use force against people who are accused of a minor traffic violation and whose actions are not a threat to the police or anyone else? Okay, from the totality of your statements I am interpreting that to mean that you believe that the order to exit itself was unreasonable and therefore there was no reasonable way to enforce that order. Is that a fair interpretation? If that is the case, then my earlier statement to iiandyiiii that the calculus was wrong is true. The decision to order the passenger out of the car was the tipping point. Once that order was given and not complied with, the result was a foregone conclusion. Windows broken/tased/etc. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/356 "2014-10-08T19:42:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If that is the case, then my earlier statement to iiandyiiii that the calculus was wrong is true. The decision to order the passenger out of the car was the tipping point. Once that order was given and not complied with, the result was a foregone conclusion. Windows broken/tased/etc. No, because the cops are humans and not automatons, and have the capacity to _change their minds_. ---
**Author:** ![Fallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@Fallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fallen)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/357 "2014-10-08T19:47:39Z")
"It is ironic that, in your attempt at a higher-level, holier than thou corrective admonition regarding tone, that you would characterize people as foaming at the mouth, snotty, nasty, combative and ignorant. Gee, you really compel me to see your perspective when you put it like a total asshole might put it." It’s not “holier than thou” nor a “corrective admonition”. It’s an observation, and one not directed to you in particular (the set-up here is a little odd, in that you can either choose to reply to whole thread and not to a particular person’s post). I should’ve made the ironical “what’s good for the goose” more clear. I meant no offense, though around here a knee-jerk misanthropic reaction is expected. (Of course, it won’t make any less angry in general or less frustrated with their lot in life, nor does it provide any relief. It may, however, keep someone from popping his/her significant other or animal in the head with a frying pan when (s)he gets home and is faced with [whatever unsatisfactory situation], and for that I guess it’s worth it?) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/358 "2014-10-08T19:48:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t know. Your original statement was that there was no particular reason to order the passenger out of the vehicle. I stated a possible reason. Whether or not you agree with it, I think it fits the fact pattern and can be identified as a possible reason. Therefore your conclusion that there was no particular reason is unfounded with the information we have. You do understand I was talking about a good and logical reason, right? A reason that makes no sense - which boils down to ‘he startled the cops’ - does not get the job done. If that’s the best you can come up with, I’m sticking to my description. > [@](#): > > Okay, from the totality of your statements I am interpreting that to mean that you believe that the order to exit itself was unreasonable and therefore there was no reasonable way to enforce that order. Is that a fair interpretation? I said there was no _reason_ to give the order. You figure out if I think the order was un_reason_able. (I think it’s better to say it was arbitrary and unnecessary.) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/359 "2014-10-08T20:17:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If that is the case, then my earlier statement to iiandyiiii that the calculus was wrong is true. The decision to order the passenger out of the car was the tipping point. Once that order was given and not complied with, the result was a foregone conclusion. Windows broken/tased/etc. The tipping point was when guns were aimed at these people. It’s borderline crazy to say anything else. That’s what turned this from a routine traffic stop into a confrontation. And the more you think about it, the more ridiculous that confrontation ought to seem. The police pointed guns at a family in a car after Jones went to comply with their order. At no time were they an obvious threat, and the idea that he was going to pull a gun on the cops when he was in a car with children at a point when they physically couldn’t have driven away because of the spikes is just nuts. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645/360 "2014-10-08T20:24:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Waiting for a supervisor to arrive for a traffic stop doesn’t seem practical to me. They weren’t waiting for a supervisor in connection with a simple traffic stop. They would have been waiting for a supervisor in lieu of smashing a window. I have much sympathy for the idea that police orders should be obeyed. However, there is an on-going scandal of American police tasing or even shooting innocent people, especially Blacks. To fear the police is hardly irrational. Is the scandal of excessive police force overblown by media attention? Perhaps. OTOH, on YouTube you can watch dozens of stupid tasing incidents, etc etc. till you’re bored. Many cops who obviously use excessive force are still not dismissed. Would obeying the cop’s instructions have been the “percentage play” for Jamal Jones? Yes, I think so. Was his fear irrational in today’s still-racist America? No. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-filmed-police-encounter-hammond-in/700645.md?page=19)