The cops in the Hammond Indiana case were RACIST and I can PROVE IT!

[MohRokTah]

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Repealed
(Repealed by P.L.67-2004, SEC.14.)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.

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 The only exception to that prohibition WAS REPEALED.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.

[gopiscrap]

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]

2. You've proven that they've violated the law, not that they're racists.

You've offered no evidence of that.

[kelliekat44]

3. But you know, deep down, they are. nt

[MohRokTah]

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]

5. *1000

[aggiesal]

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.