Police attack family during traffic stop in Hammond Indiana

Where is "conduct" , as used in your quoted statue, defined? I assume that is the part that you are contending equates to the use of force.

 

They did not define conduct but since it is in GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION which is Indiana law that defines how force is used by police officers I would assume it defines the use of force. If you wish to disprove me or contend that the law is wrong please post some refuting legal precedent from Indiana courts or laws that have taken the place of this law. Otherwise all I am hearing has been opinion from everyone until now.

Here you can have the link to the law

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=5

 

Schematics. No deference between being detained or held in jail . Either way your under state control and your right the cop can do whatever he wants . Like ivory soap most cops are 99.9% pure just like you and me . And .001% are bad , just like you and me.

 

I'm not saying the law doesn't say it, but if it justifies the level of force used in the situiation in the video then the law is wrong and should be changed.

But I haven't seen anything to back up those who claim the law authorizes that level of force.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If the law says that you should prove it.

 

The police asked them for THIRTEEN MINUTES to open their door and step out and they refused, for THIRTEEN MINUTES!!

Let me tell you this: If you ever get pulled over, and the police ask you to step out of the car and you repeatedly refuse them for THIRTEEN MINUTES, you WILL get you window smashed in.

If you don't get that then you just don't get reality.

 

You think that justifies damaging private property and assaulting a person who wasn't even under arrest?

 

§ 504. Execution of public duty.
(a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, conduct is justifiable when it is required or authorized by any law of the following:
(1) The law defining the duties or functions of a public officer or the assistance to be rendered to such officer in the performance of his duties.
(2) The law governing the execution of legal process

§ 505. Use of force in self-protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

(c) Requisite state of mind.--The justification afforded by subsection (a) of this section applies:
(1) when the actor believes his conduct to be required or authorized by the judgment or direction of a competent court or tribunal or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; and
(2) when the actor believes his conduct to be required or authorized to assist a public officer in the performance of his duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded his legal authority.

And finally the most important

§ 508. Use of force in law enforcement.
(a) Peace officer's use of force in making arrest.--
(1) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.


These three sections make what he did legal, I believe I have proven my point unless some one can prove otherwise.

 

That last part applies to an officer placing simeone under arrest. Did the police say they my were placing him under arrest before they forcibly removed him from private property?

What criminal act was he being charged with?

 

When he refused to get out of the car he committed a misdemeanor once he went for his backpack that would be construed as possibly going for a weapon. You would not have to say you are under arrest since the act of going for the backpack could have led to a person who committed a crime getting a weapon.

 

Huh? Do you think the 50's were the good old days where if you were pulled over you and the officer asked you to exit the vehicle you could flip him off and drive away?

 

Oh the crime

C 9-21-8-1
Failure to comply with lawful order or law enforcement officer
Sec. 1. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly fail to comply with a lawful order or direction of a law enforcement officer invested by law with authority to direct, control, or regulate traffic.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

 

I repeat: If you ever get pulled over, and the police ask you to step out of the car and you repeatedly refuse them for THIRTEEN MINUTES, you WILL get you window smashed in. If you don't get that then you just don't get reality. When the police say step out, you step out. If you don't then you are already breaking the law, and you'll get what you get.

 

Where does the law say that him reaching into his bag constitutes the act of getting a weapon? Keep in mind he had just been asked for ID.

What statute would he have been in violation of?

Also, they had plenty of time to inform him he was under arrest in the at least 3 minutes that passed after he reached into his bag.

 

No one has shown that the police had the legal authority to act as the did.

If the police were acting within their authority, then I think we should work to change that.

Is it a problem of bad law or bad cops?

 

Half the kids born today are fatherless bastards.

Their Welfare dependent single mothers raise them and make sure no male ever confronts them in the schools where they go.
They learn disrespect for authority.

When they meet the policeman, they are trained to disobey and resist the official powers invested in the Law.
Now, these attacks which are very normal and standard workings for the police are being attack as a crime against the criminal.

- - - Updated - - -

?
You must be an anarchist or a single mother or a Welfare raised person.

 

Single Mothers raise VIOLENT criminal fatherless kids:

 

Again, as many posters have said regarding this, WHEN ASKED TO COMPLY, G-DAMMIT, YOU BETTER FRIGGIN COMPLY.
Stupidaz sat there with window up REFUSING to roll it down while the even stupider driver was mouthing off the whole time. If you do not want to act a fool in front of your kids, act like A SOMEBODY and quit acting like a something or other.

You libs kill me, and I dare you to answer one simple question:

HOW LONG MUST THE POLICE PLAY CAT AND MOUSE WITH THIS IDIOT TO GET HIM TO COMPLY TO THEIR REQUESTS?

 

\

I believe I have outlined the legal justification so you have given nothing but opinions and questions. Can you show us anything in Indiana laws that says he went beyond his authority?

 

We're the police working within their legal authority in this situiation? Where s
Does it say so in the law?

Do you think the amount of force used was justified?

 

Good grief. What planet are you on!!!

Why do police pull people over?
Because they saw a crime or are investigating a crime.
If you refuse to cooperate, you are obstructing justice, which is crime.
The police have the legal right to arrest you if you are obstructing their investigation of a crime.

There. Do you want me to draw colorful lines for you too so it looks like a map?

 

Huh? Were you there and asked a cop for his ID?

 

(deleted - mistake)

 

You haven't adequately responded to my last rebutted of your legal argument.

I can't show you in writing what's not in his authority because that's now what's in writing. What is within his authority is in writing, and no one has been able to find where it says he was authorized to do what he did.

 

We are a nation of laws and no one is above the law, not even the lawkeepers.

where the police acting lawfully? Where does the law say they were?

If they were, then I think we should work to change it.

- - - Updated - - -

What statute involving obstruction of justice was he violating?

 

Awesome. Nothing left to talk about then.