Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe cops in the Hammond Indiana case were RACIST and I can PROVE IT!
First, from Indiana State Code:
IC 9-19-10
Chapter 10. Passenger Restraint Systems
...
IC 9-19-10-2
Front seat occupants; safety belt standards; use of belt
Sec. 2. Each front seat occupant of a passenger motor vehicle that is equipped with a safety belt meeting the standards stated in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 208 (49 CFR 571.208) shall have a safety belt properly fastened about the occupant's body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7.
...
IC 9-19-10-2.5
Repealed
(Repealed by P.L.67-2004, SEC.14.)
IC 9-19-10-3 Version a
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.57-1998, SEC.2. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.116-1998, SEC.2.
Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not be stopped, inspected, or detained solely to determine compliance with this chapter.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a stop, an inspection, or a detention of a person to determine compliance with section 2.5 of this chapter.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.57-1998, SEC.2.
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.116-1998, SEC.2. See also preceding version of this section amended by P.L.57-1998, SEC.2.
Sec. 3. 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.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.116-1998, SEC.2.
Chapter 10. Passenger Restraint Systems
...
IC 9-19-10-2
Front seat occupants; safety belt standards; use of belt
Sec. 2. Each front seat occupant of a passenger motor vehicle that is equipped with a safety belt meeting the standards stated in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 208 (49 CFR 571.208) shall have a safety belt properly fastened about the occupant's body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7.
...
IC 9-19-10-2.5
Repealed
(Repealed by P.L.67-2004, SEC.14.)
IC 9-19-10-3 Version a
Stopping, inspecting, or detaining vehicle
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.57-1998, SEC.2. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.116-1998, SEC.2.
Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person may not be stopped, inspected, or detained solely to determine compliance with this chapter.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a stop, an inspection, or a detention of a person to determine compliance with section 2.5 of this chapter.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.57-1998, SEC.2.
Note: This version of section amended by P.L.116-1998, SEC.2. See also preceding version of this section amended by P.L.57-1998, SEC.2.
Sec. 3. 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.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.116-1998, SEC.2.
Source.
The only violation the police used in their stop was the driver failing to wear a seat belt but that is explicitly prohibited as a reason for stopping, inspecting, or detaining a vehicle. The only exception to that prohibition WAS REPEALED. This meant therewas no exception.
Upon further action, stops were allowed, but nothing else could be done. They could not detain or inspect the vehicle. When they brought out the dogs, they flagrantly violated the law.
This makes the everything that occurred after the stop a violation of the civil rights of the occupants of that vehicle.
This was a racially motivated attack on individuals. Every cop involved in that stop should be in prison.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1765 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (25)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The cops in the Hammond Indiana case were RACIST and I can PROVE IT! (Original Post)
MohRokTah
Oct 2014
OP
gopiscrap
(23,760 posts)1. Fucking cops!
I have never met a white cop who isn't a racist cracker. That's one of the reasons these pigs become cops!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)2. You've proven that they've violated the law, not that they're racists.
You've offered no evidence of that.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)3. But you know, deep down, they are. nt
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)4. Entire compliment of the vehicle was African American and they violated their civil rights.
I need no other evidence to prove the racism.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)5. *1000
aggiesal
(8,914 posts)6. You'll shoot your eye out! ...
I grew up in Hammond ...
Been back once since 1980.
Never had a problem with police.
The person that wrote A Christmas Story, Jean Sheppard(?), also grew up in Hammond.
I'm certain the movie is based on Hammond, because he makes references
to "... up in Chicago..." and "... down in Griffith...", and there is a street
called Hohman, which is the ficticious name of the city where the story is placed.
The police in Hammond must have been a whole lot nicer back then.