Tyreek Hill

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

This is fun.

Broken laws do not equal tickets. As you well know, they are not the same.

The broken laws here were speeding and not wearing a seatbelt. Simple stuff. Both things observed by the officers.

I don't know where you are going with this.  You said he was being pulled over for "criminal behaviour."  That is not true.  He was being pulled over for speeding.  Both things he received tickets for were noncriminal civil infractions.  It is unclear from the video that was is guilty of either.  

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Exactly. Watch it again. It's difficult to see through the tinted windows. Guns? Who knows? Even through the tinted window it did look like he was putting his seat belt back on. Maybe. Like the kind of thing a guy would do before driving away and potentially putting the public at risk again.

How it looks on camera might be different than it appears to the officer.  It is my understanding that he was released and drove away after the stop.  I am sure he thought he was going to drive away from the stop when he was putting his seatbelt on after receiving a citation.  Not sure of the relevance.

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Major/minor violation - nah - that's for the courts to decide. That comes well after the police issue we're discussing.

The court decide guilt and the penalty.  The police decide what to cite him with and they decided to cite him for two minor violations.

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

From the video of what happened, it did appear that at least a couple laws were broken.

Which laws?  It is unclear to me that he is guilty of either citation.  The video did not show him driving without his seatbelt on.  His speed was not measured in the video.  

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

More importantly, Hill's behavior was putting officers at potential risk.

How so?  

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Hill was non-compliant, he was obviously argumentative, he had tinted windows that made it difficult to maintain contact, and he closed down contact by closing his window and not reopening after multiple officer requests. He was putting on his seat belt, and his behavior was no longer predictable.

It's that simple. He was a potential threat to officers and the public. It was a good move to remove him from the vehicle.

Hill gave him the documents necessary for the officer to issue the citation.  I don't know that an officer has the right to demand how open the window must be for a traffic stop.  But if the officer wants it down and you don't want to do it.  Either the window or the door must be open enough for the driver to give the officer the required documents and the officer to give the driver any ticket.

He did reopened the window.  It took him 10s to do so and apparently the officer was dissatisfied with how much he had opened it.  

The officer might have been justified in asking him to exit the vehicle.  He was complying with that command.  Where is the justification to use force and put him in handcuffs?

Edited September 12 by fishbane

[RockLobster]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

I don't know where you are going with this.  You said he was being pulled over for "criminal behaviour."  That is not true.  He was being pulled over for speeding.  Both things he received tickets for were noncriminal civil infractions.  It is unclear from the video that was is guilty of either.  

The reason(s) people are stopped often times don't match the ticket(s) they receive. It is your mistake to reason that they are equivalent. They are not. Argue what he was pulled over for or what he was ticketed for - as separate arguments.

[RockLobster]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

You said he was being pulled over for "criminal behaviour."  That is not true.  He was being pulled over for speeding.  Both things he received tickets for were noncriminal civil infractions.  It is unclear from the video that was is guilty of either. 

He was pulled over because the officers observed him breaking two laws. Speeding and not wearing a seat belt.

Because the trained officers observed him breaking laws, that makes him - by definition - committing crimes. And, because he was committing crimes, that makes him - by definition - a criminal.

To be fair, even if he was observed by trained officers - until he's actually convicted by a court of law he is only an alleged criminal who committed alleged crimes. As I said, the part that resolves the "alleged" is left to the court to decide.

[RockLobster]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

How it looks on camera might be different than it appears to the officer.  It is my understanding that he was released and drove away after the stop.  I am sure he thought he was going to drive away from the stop when he was putting his seatbelt on after receiving a citation.  Not sure of the relevance.

This has nothing to do with "after the stop." This is during the heated exchange before any citation.

You'll need to re-watch the video. Hill was putting his seatbelt on while the officer was asking him to put his window down (after he had already had it down and put it back up.)

It is difficult to see this because of the tinted windows, but watch carefully.

This is an important moment. It gives gravity to the reality that he might try to run and put the public at risk again. (As I've already posted above.)

[RockLobster]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

The officer might have been justified in asking him to exit the vehicle.  He was complying with that command.  Where is the justification to use force and put him in handcuffs?

That's a very good question.

Here's another one.

Hill's speed at that time is best described as 'leisurely.' This isn't a situation to be toyed with.

How much time should be given to an alleged criminal to comply with commands when his tinted windows, sketchy behavior, and non-compliant negative attitude keep him in a vehicle where he very well could have loaded handguns?

I've got an answer - not very much time. "Leisurely" is far too slow.

Accelerate the compliance. Get him out by force if necessary. Contain the situation so nobody gets hurt or killed.

If it hurt Hill's feelings... life lesson there. If you choose to break laws, you might get your feelings hurt. That's best case.

[fishbane]

2 hours ago, RockLobster said:

He was pulled over because the officers observed him breaking two laws. Speeding and not wearing a seat 

I don't know how the police would have seen him driving without his seatbelt on when he was allegedly speeding and his windows are tinted.  And as for speeding they didn't measure his speed, so this is a pretty weak observation - visual estimation.

2 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Because the trained officers observed him breaking laws, that makes him - by definition - committing crimes.

No it doesn't.  Both of the alleged laws there were broken are noncriminal civil infractions.  Florida code defines them as "noncriminal violations."  Are you trying to say that because he is alleged to have committed two noncriminal violations that makes him a criminal?  That makes no sense.

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

This has nothing to do with "after the stop." This is during the heated exchange before any citation.

You'll need to re-watch the video. Hill was putting his seatbelt on while the officer was asking him to put his window down (after he had already had it down and put it back up.)

It is difficult to see this because of the tinted windows, but watch carefully.

This is an important moment. It gives gravity to the reality that he might try to run and put the public at risk again. (As I've already posted above.)

I don't need to watch it again.  I saw it.  It just isn't as significant as you're trying to make it sound.  It's the classic conundrum that anything you do could be seen as suspicious by the police.  He doesn't have his seatbelt on.  Cop asks "Why aren't you wearing your seatbelt?"  Hoping he will admit to driving without it fastened.  He doesn't take the bait and puts his seatbelt back on.  Now it's "Why did you put on your seatbelt?  Not thinking of running are you?"`

Or he put it on so that it would be on when he drove away after the stop was over.  All that was left to do was for the officer to go back to his bike, run his information, and write whatever citations he was going to write.

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

That's a very good question.

Here's another one.

Hill's speed at that time is best described as 'leisurely.' This isn't a situation to be toyed with.

How much time should be given to an alleged criminal to comply with commands when his tinted windows, sketchy behavior, and non-compliant negative attitude keep him in a vehicle where he very well could have loaded handguns?

Why do you keep referring to him as a criminal when no crime has been alleged?  Any car could contain a gun. This doesn't mean that its reasonable for an officer to use force on any alleged speeder with tinted windows and a negative attitude.  Lots of people have a negative attitude when they get pulled over.  It might be rude but it's not illegal.  Lots of people have tinted windows.  Also not illegal.

He should have been given more time than he was.  Might have had to turn the car off, pit the car in park, or apply a parking brake.  He had to take off his seatbelt and he probably wanted to grab his cell phone before exiting the vehicle. It takes a few seconds.

If you are going to play the what if game with handguns in the car then why not do it in the other direction?  If the officer doesn't know who he is or anything about him then maybe the "leisurely" speed he is moving is not by choice.  Perhaps he is injured, recovering from surgery, or just crippled up.   

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Accelerate the compliance. Get him out by force if necessary. Contain the situation so nobody gets hurt or killed..

Also known as escalating the situation unnecessarily.  The person is complying then let them comply.  Why use force when it isn't necessary?  That sounds like it only increases the chances of someone being hurt.

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

If it hurt Hill's feelings... life lesson there. If you choose to break laws, you might get your feelings hurt. That's best case.

I suspect the feelings of the officer were hurt as much or more than Hill's.  But feelings really don't matter here. What matters is if the use of force was reasonable and the test for that is the Graham factors which are 

1) Severity of the crime at issue

Really minor.  Noncriminal civil infractions are alleged.

2) Threat to the safety of the officers and others

There are a few things the officer could point to here.  Hill not wanting to open the window with tinted windows are a risk.  Hill is a professional athlete and probably more of a physical threat than say an old lady.  Still he hasn't said or acted in a threatening manner.  There were no weapons mentioned or visible.  There isn't an immediate threat to anyone.

3) Level of Resistance

Low to nonexistent.  He is not actively resisting nor actively fleeing nor was he at any point during the stop.  He is not really passively resisting either.  Remaining in the car would be passive resistance.  He is exiting the vehicle.  He said he is getting out.  He has removed his seatbelt, opened the door, and is stepping outside when he is grabbed and thrown to the ground.

Let's be real these guys weren't thinking of Graham factors when they pulled him out.  They were put off by Hill's attitude.  It's reasonable that they dislike being talked to like that, but it's not a justification to use force.

[VakAttack]

On 9/10/2024 at 10:34 PM, RockLobster said:

I tend to agree with you more often than not. But here, I see things differently.

This is a driver who has broken at least two laws and was now being pulled over for criminal behavior. It's not like he didn't do anything wrong - he had. And he all but admitted it.

To paint the picture, imagine the driver of the car being white and imagine him have two loaded handguns - one under each leg.

Now watch it again. That is the potential reality that cops have to deal with. It is why they need to control the situation. It isn't necessarily a racist thing as much as it is a situational one.

"Controlling the situation" can and does get ugly. But it keeps cops coming home in their cars instead of in boxes.

Any notion that citizens who are committing crimes are somehow on equal footing as police officers is wrongheaded.

He was not pulled over for criminal behavior, he was being pulled over for a moving violation, which is a civil infraction in Florida.  All of these bootlicking arguments might make sense if they tried to have him get out for the car immediately, but they didn't, and these arguments about potential criminal infractions are NEVER brought up until later, after the video was released.  They only escalated the situation (for the first time) because they didn't like his attitude.  Then they told him to get out of the car WHICH HE WAS DOING and then they engaged him physically; after being ordered out of his car, he opened the door and within 1 second they have physically grabbed him for no reason other than the fact that they were annoyed by his lack of complete and utter immediate obedience and bowing.  COps are not allowed to just grab you because they feel like it.  They have to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of a crime having occurred, which they did not and never alleged they did; that argument has been made by the bootlickers afterward.  All cops have ever said, at least last I checked, was that he was uncooperative, which is not backed up at all by video.  Later on he also gets grabbed by his neck and kicked, all while not having resisted physically in any way.

 

Cops are allowed to pat you down for officer safety, but there's zero indication on the video that the multiple officers ever felt any sort of credible threat, nor is there any indication of a credible threat, nor did they ever do any sort of criminal investigation; all of that is just being added on post hoc by people that apparently want to argue that cops should be able to do whatever they want to citizens; they are not.  They are supposed to DE-escalate situations, not make them 10x worse.

 

You think cops can just put you in handcuffs every time they pull you over for speeding?  They can't.  And, legally, you are allowed to resist an arrest or detainment that is not lawful as long as you are not physically violent with the cops, which again, Hill was not, and he didn't even resist.  Truly it's unbelievable what you all are comfortable happening to regular citizens who have not committed any crimes.  Even if he had committed some sort of crime, there was no reason for the cops to make this physical.  Period.  End of story.  They did it because they felt disrespected.

Edited September 12 by VakAttack

[VakAttack]

5 hours ago, RockLobster said:

He was pulled over because the officers observed him breaking two laws. Speeding and not wearing a seat belt.

Because the trained officers observed him breaking laws, that makes him - by definition - committing crimes. And, because he was committing crimes, that makes him - by definition - a criminal.

To be fair, even if he was observed by trained officers - until he's actually convicted by a court of law he is only an alleged criminal who committed alleged crimes. As I said, the part that resolves the "alleged" is left to the court to decide.

This is just blatantly false.  There are criminal and civil traffic infractions, and the alleged events here were civil.

[Caveira]

I’m certainly not a lawyer.  Is this true?  Now they didn’t charge him with reckless…. Wonder if that’s after the incident they figured out who he was and wanted to minimize the situation?   Where did the 100mph rumor come from ?  If you Google it there are some sketchy articles out there saying so but it’s now known they didn’t measure his speed…. Someone earlier theorized they lowered it to 60 because it’s easier to prove?

Reckless driving is a criminal offense in Florida, while careless driving is a civil infraction. Reckless driving is defined as driving with a willful disregard for the safety of others or property, while careless driving is for less serious conduct.

In Florida, Reckless Driving is the operation a motor vehicle in a manner demonstrating a willful or wanton disregard for safety. As a criminal offense, Reckless Driving may carry misdemeanor or felony penalties, depending on whether the incident resulted in serious bodily injury.

 

 

[Bigbrog]

It's absolutely amazing how people think you can act like an A-hole to a cop and not follow directions and not have it result in what happened!  How hard is it to just comply respectfully, do what is asked, and 99.9% of the time you will be on your way??  It really isn't that hard of a thing to do.

Also, for those that say the cops had no reason to ask Hill to get out of his car after being non-compliant clearly have never been a cop and had to deal with what they deal with day in and day out.  You are the people that I wish could do a cop's job for even a day...you all would be p'ing down your leg.  SMH

Again, very simple concept, do as asked in a respectful manner and nothing will happen to you.

[VakAttack]

36 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I’m certainly not a lawyer.  Is this true?  Now they didn’t charge him with reckless…. Wonder if that’s after the incident they figured out who he was and wanted to minimize the situation?   Where did the 100mph rumor come from ?  If you Google it there are some sketchy articles out there saying so but it’s now known they didn’t measure his speed…. Someone earlier theorized they lowered it to 60 because it’s easier to prove?

Reckless driving is a criminal offense in Florida, while careless driving is a civil infraction. Reckless driving is defined as driving with a willful disregard for the safety of others or property, while careless driving is for less serious conduct.

In Florida, Reckless Driving is the operation a motor vehicle in a manner demonstrating a willful or wanton disregard for safety. As a criminal offense, Reckless Driving may carry misdemeanor or felony penalties, depending on whether the incident resulted in serious bodily injury.

 

 

No, they cited him for careless driving and the did that instead of speeding because they didn't actually measure his speed, they only gave a "visual estimation" so they can't prove what his actual speed was.  There's zero indication of anything relating to driving pattern or anything that would result in anything more than the civil citations issue.

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

It's absolutely amazing how people think you can act like an A-hole to a cop and not follow directions and not have it result in what happened!  How hard is it to just comply respectfully, do what is asked, and 99.9% of the time you will be on your way??  It really isn't that hard of a thing to do.

You give away the game immediately.  Being an asshole to a cop is grounds for them physically grabbing you, throwing you to the ground, kicking you, etc.  Because that's it.  The only time he didn't follow directions was with regards to not leaving his window open.  In every other scenario, he was compliant and following orders, even  as the supposed professionals around him grabbed THE MOMENT THE CAR DOOR OPENED as he was complying with their previous orders.

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Also, for those that say the cops had no reason to ask Hill to get out of his car after being non-compliant clearly have never been a cop and had to deal with what they deal with day in and day out.  You are the people that I wish could do a cop's job for even a day...you all would be p'ing down your leg.  SMH

It's a dangerous job, not a conscription.  Can't handle the feeling of potential danger?  Do something else.  It's not a license to manhandle people who haven't treated you with the respect you feel like you deserve.  And here's the thing, most actual street cops agree with me, not you.  I talk to them all the time.

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Again, very simple concept, do as asked in a respectful manner and nothing will happen to you.

But these cops don't have to be respectful at all, and in fact can physically attack us regular citizens.

[WrestlingRasta]

Unbelievable Vak, just amazing that you are going to sit here and argue that officers of the law, should actually put the law above feelings and emotions.   SMH.

[Scouts Honor]

23 hours ago, fishbane said:

 

The situation was a minor traffic violation.  It seems obvious from the video police acted the way they did because they felt disrespected by Hill and not because of any genuine concern for officer safety.   

the officer was very diplomatic, until he had had enough

i would not have been as patient 

[Scouts Honor]

i told a few of my wrestlers, who were less than compliant individuals in most cases.

if you ever, EVER, run into a situation where a cop is asking you questions... do what they ask, when they ask.

b/c i really like you, and dont want to go to your funeral.

 

a few years later, a few of my more high level athletes, who were good citizens in all situations learned by watching.

i was talking to them outside a tailgate for a husker game. they witnessed a man being asked questions very nicely and calmly, repeatedly, and he was not cooperative.

they found out quickly what happens in that instance. the man subdued was white and privileged.

he had the privilege of being knocked out.

[Wrestleknownothing]

38 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

the officer was very diplomatic, until he had had enough

i would not have been as patient 

There were multiple officers. The one who knocked on the window was very diplomatic. The one who got on the muscle and pulled him from the car, was not.

[fishbane]

24 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

the officer was very diplomatic, until he had had enough

i would not have been as patient 

Sounds like you don't have the temperament to be a police officer.  It's kind of difficult to lose your temper quicker than the officer that made the stop, but if you think you're up to the task lol.  How would you go about it?  Would you order him out of the car sooner?  Would you threaten to break his window 2s after telling him to get out instead of 4?

[RockLobster]

16 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't know how the police would have seen him driving without his seatbelt on when he was allegedly speeding and his windows are tinted.  And as for speeding they didn't measure his speed, so this is a pretty weak observation - visual estimation.

I don't know either. Neither of us was there. We couldn't possibly comment on it either way without being there.

Yet the police did see the seatbelt violation per their on-site visual record. These are things they are trained to see.

Ditto for speed. Both you and I have no idea. But the officers on-site have been trained and have experience.

Observations made may be weak, or they may be strong - those are the things that come out in court. You are still confusing the stop with some kind of semblance of a court case. Which this is not. Don't muddy this up.

He was pulled over for speeding and not wearing a seatbelt per the officer's trained perception. That is a fact.

[RockLobster]

16 hours ago, fishbane said:

No it doesn't.  Both of the alleged laws there were broken are noncriminal civil infractions.  Florida code defines them as "noncriminal violations."  Are you trying to say that because he is alleged to have committed two noncriminal violations that makes him a criminal?  That makes no sense.

Before you continue to argue, read and pay attention. 

I've already made this point, but I'll make it again now that you're paying attention.

Not complicated lawyer speak - just using a dictionary:

• Breaking the law is a crime. If you break the law you are committing a crime.
  • A crime occurs when someone breaks the law by an overt act, omission, or neglect that can result in punishment. A person who has violated a law, or has breached a rule, is said to have committed a criminal offense.

That being said, somehow in Florida code... breaking the law isn't necessarily a crime. Ummm... OK. 

Now here's the tricky part:

Per the use of English language. Breaking the law is a crime. And those who commit crimes are criminals.

Per Florida's code - it supersedes the English definitions in their state for their own specific legal purposes.

Maybe the best way to put it is that (again) leave the legal jargon for the courts where it belongs. This thread is about the stop, not about a future court case.

[RockLobster]

17 hours ago, fishbane said:

I don't need to watch it again.  I saw it.  It just isn't as significant as you're trying to make it sound.  It's the classic conundrum that anything you do could be seen as suspicious by the police.  He doesn't have his seatbelt on.  Cop asks "Why aren't you wearing your seatbelt?"  Hoping he will admit to driving without it fastened.  He doesn't take the bait and puts his seatbelt back on.  Now it's "Why did you put on your seatbelt?  Not thinking of running are you?"`

Or he put it on so that it would be on when he drove away after the stop was over.  All that was left to do was for the officer to go back to his bike, run his information, and write whatever citations he was going to write.

I'm neither trying to make it any more or less significant than it was.

Your story is interesting, but doesn't reflect what actually happened in this particular stop. At all.

We could use less fiction in this discussion.

[RockLobster]

17 hours ago, fishbane said:

Why do you keep referring to him as a criminal when no crime has been alleged?  Any car could contain a gun. This doesn't mean that its reasonable for an officer to use force on any alleged speeder with tinted windows and a negative attitude.  Lots of people have a negative attitude when they get pulled over.  It might be rude but it's not illegal.  Lots of people have tinted windows.  Also not illegal.

He should have been given more time than he was.  Might have had to turn the car off, pit the car in park, or apply a parking brake.  He had to take off his seatbelt and he probably wanted to grab his cell phone before exiting the vehicle. It takes a few seconds.

If you are going to play the what if game with handguns in the car then why not do it in the other direction?  If the officer doesn't know who he is or anything about him then maybe the "leisurely" speed he is moving is not by choice.  Perhaps he is injured, recovering from surgery, or just crippled up.   

As detailed above, the typical use of the words 'crime' and 'criminal' in our society both apply here. (If you think all internet forum posters need to learn legal code for 50 states in order to post without being chastised, you should think again.)

I never support the use of excess force. The discussion here is focused on how Hill was not at all innocent and that he was responsible for much of the chaos that ensued. And, to be fair, no - I agree that it was not all his responsibility.

Maybe more time, maybe more deep breaths, maybe more mutual respect from everyone involved. That would be better.

You and I know it was Tyreek Hill and that he wasn't going to be shooting anyone. That's the lens we see this through.

But the police officers didn't have that luxury.

[VakAttack]

11 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

Before you continue to argue, read and pay attention. 

I've already made this point, but I'll make it again now that you're paying attention.

Not complicated lawyer speak - just using a dictionary:

• Breaking the law is a crime. If you break the law you are committing a crime.
  • A crime occurs when someone breaks the law by an overt act, omission, or neglect that can result in punishment. A person who has violated a law, or has breached a rule, is said to have committed a criminal offense.

That being said, somehow in Florida code... breaking the law isn't necessarily a crime. Ummm... OK. 

Now here's the tricky part:

Per the use of English language. Breaking the law is a crime. And those who commit crimes are criminals.

Per Florida's code - it supersedes the English definitions in their state for their own specific legal purposes.

Maybe the best way to put it is that (again) leave the legal jargon for the courts where it belongs. This thread is about the stop, not about a future court case.

...except cops are part of LAW enforcement.  They are part of the legal system.  They know the difference between a civil traffic infraction and criminal traffic offense.  You're picking and choosing when you want to let words have their actual meanings within a given context.  If I told you "I'm feeling blue" I'm pretty sure you'd be able to tell I was talking about feeling sad, not that I'm feeling like a color.  These cops are part of the legal system, and are bound by those definitions and laws.  They know they can't arrest a person simply for speeding except in certain circumstances, which were clearly not met here.  These cops pushed the boundaries and stepped over thel ines of what they're allowed to do under the law.  I'm sorry that this seems to offend you.  Tyreek Hill did nothing wrong here other than be an asshole at the beginning, which is not an arrestable offense.  IT certainly didn't warrant the multiple physical attacks he got from the police, including after he was handcuffed.

Cops are given special powers within our society, and they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of society, but you would have us hold them to a lower standard.  Insane.

[RockLobster]

17 hours ago, fishbane said:

Also known as escalating the situation unnecessarily.  The person is complying then let them comply.  Why use force when it isn't necessary?  That sounds like it only increases the chances of someone being hurt.

Meh. Was he complying? That is certainly debatable. 

Force may have increased the chance of someone being hurt, but (IMO) decreased the chance of that someone being the police or the general public.

These guys are just doing their job trying to make the general public safe. By all reports, Hill was making the general public less safe. That was on him.

[VakAttack]

5 minutes ago, RockLobster said:

As detailed above, the typical use of the words 'crime' and 'criminal' in our society both apply here. (If you think all internet forum posters need to learn legal code for 50 states in order to post without being chastised, you should think again.)

I never support the use of excess force. The discussion here is focused on how Hill was not at all innocent and that he was responsible for much of the chaos that ensued. And, to be fair, no - I agree that it was not all his responsibility.

Maybe more time, maybe more deep breaths, maybe more mutual respect from everyone involved. That would be better.

You and I know it was Tyreek Hill and that he wasn't going to be shooting anyone. That's the lens we see this through.

But the police officers didn't have that luxury.

Actually, they knew almost immediately once they had his driver's license exactly who he was.  On one of the body cameras you can see them discussing it.  And then after that one of the officer kicked him while he was in handcuffs.