In light of the way so many similar incidents have turned out, I guess we could say it’s a miracle nobody got killed in this incident. You had four black people in a car, one of whom reached into a bag and one and another who was holding a cellphone. Since any unannounced movement is suspicious and everything in the world looks like a gun, you could be the world’s most depressed optimist and say it’s great that a couple of people were terrorized and/or injured but four people didn’t die.
The same Constitution which was cited in the Supreme Court ruling stating that the police have the lawful authority to order passengers out of a car during a traffic stop?
From the article linked in the OP:
Now, while it’s technically true that the police are allowed to ***ask ***anything they damn well please, I’m not aware of any law that compels a passenger in a vehicle to provide identification, or indeed to carry it in the first place. I’ve been in a car that was stopped for a moving violation on more than one occasion (as both passenger and driver), and never has anyone other than the driver been asked for any identification.
Holy shit. We’re supposed to treat cops – who work for us – the same way we deal with wild bears. Doesn’t that sound just a little bit fucked up to you?
I’m not sure what the legal requirements are. In the bigger picture, that’s not the point. Why are the police aiming guns at a car full of people who they’ve just pulled over for a seatbelt violation? Why, as they say here, are they asking this guy for ID anyway? (Presumably it’s because they got pissed at him for freaking them out.) Why does this thing escalate over and over? Why is it impossible for any officer to say ‘These people are freaked out but obviously not a danger to anyone; if they were we wouldn’t have been sitting here for so long. They’re freaked out. Let’s resolve this and let everybody go on with their day?’
Indiana would appear to be a stop-and-identify state, in which a person being lawfully detained is obligated to identify themselves upon request and may be arrested for failure to do so;
[QUOTE=IC 34-28-5-3.5]
A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person’s:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver’s license, if in the person’s possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
[/QUOTE]
It is the assertion of your ilk that the police are wild animals who harass innocent people for no other reason than because they can. If this is true, then why would you not treat them as such?
Because sometimes a seatbelt violation turns into this.
Believe it or not, cops are people, and they like to go to work in the morning with the expectation that they’ll be going home again at night.
OK. So, if the police are good you should do what they say because they are acting to protect you and your community. If they are bad you should do what they say because they might kill you.
And in neither case should you complain or assert your rights.
Have I got it?
Pretty much, yes. In neither situation is it to your advantage to make them mad.
Thought so. Never assert rights, never complain. I see.
And yet, here we are - in a situation in which police officers drew their guns and pointed them at people whose only offence was a seatbelt violation. What do you think went wrong?
I’ve been pulled over by cops twice and I know people who have and I’ve seen video of people who have. This is the FIRST time I’ve ever heard of cops pulling a spike chain in front of a vehicle as soon as its pulled over. If I was in a car when they did that, it would put me very much ill at ease.
They were rowdy and noncompliant, and failed to sufficiently explain their actions to the officers.
You really don’t understand that you’re trying to reply to something I never said, do you?
Perhaps you should go back and re-read that post you quoted. I lay out what I said and what you said I said that I in fact did not say.
So? They’re not being considered for membership of a local country club. What justified threats of force followed by actual force?
Ach, look, don’t bother to answer that - it’s already obvious what you’ll say. Try something simpler - in a situation where there is quite clearly no threat to anyone’s life, can you see a better approach the officers could have taken?
I suppose they could have laid siege to the car and refused to budge for however long it took for the passengers to have to get out for one reason or another, but that wouldn’t have been an efficient use of anyone’s time.
There are some times I wish we could vote people off this island
Who am I kidding? This cop sucker is comedy gold!
I don’t know. The cops in the video seemed pretty thick.
(Oh, and typo or intentional, “shituation” is a great word).
All I gotta say is thank goodness for camera phones. Without this technology, stories like this would forever be treated like second-hand anecdotes about Big Foot sightings. I wonder how bad police were behaving before cameras were all over the place. It’s scary to contemplate.
Have we see any indication bullying cops are curbing their aggression, despite there being a new embarrassing example each week of jackboot policing? I would think every local police department across the country would be advising their force to cease with any unnecessary displays of violence. I mean, at least until Ferguson was well behind us. Either this messaging is not happening or the cops are unable to reign themselves in when they get the urge to become abusive.
The victims in this case are suing the Hammond Police. Best wishes to them.
(autoplaying video…) Cops Pulled Gun, Tasered Passenger During Traffic Stop: Suit – NBC Chicago