Tyreek Hill

[VakAttack]

The men got a civil traffic infraction.  People in this thread keep talking about him going 100 mph, but the citation was for going 65 mph in a 40 mph zone, so it seems like this 100 mph talking point is just made up.  According to the reporting, the citation says they visually estimated his speed at 60 mph.

 

He was getting out of the car, as ordered, and yes, they grabbed him by his head and threw Hill to the ground.  The only reason this happened is because the cops didn't like his attitude, i.e. his words, i.e. his freedom of speech.  He was a dick to the cops, but that's not a crime, and he wasn't arrested for a crime.

 

[Paul158]

48 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

i didn't watch any video.

i just know if i was doing 105 in 35, the cop would be very angry with me. no matter my attitude after the fact.

 

Plus you are in a 350,000 dollar sports car. Driving like you are above the law. Acting like you are above the law.

[WrestlingRasta]

What I saw: 

The officer approaches and knocks on the window, Hill either is already rolling down the window or was already in the process, kind hard to tell from the angle but seems like the knock and window starting to come down at the same time (compliance). He rolls the window and hands the officer his license, and says “don’t knock on my window like that” a couple times. (No need for him to say that, was just a tap). Officer moves to the front of the windshield and hill rolls the window back up.  Officer knocks a couple times again and tells him to keep window down. He rolls window down partially. (Compliance). Second officer comes in escalating the situation, says we’re not playing this game, get out the car now, and opens the door. As he opens the door Hill starts to step out of the car with his left leg (compliance)…after which (and that’s important since we’re claiming non compliance here)…officer grabs him at the back of head, and puts him face first on the ground (you can nitpick over whether or not he was “thrown” to the ground). 
 

Hill had an attitude in saying don’t knock on my window like that, he didn’t need to go there.  However, that is not an arresting offense, telling a cop not to knock on your window like that, while not called for, is not a crime. Officers have an obligation and responsibility to deescalate situations like these, not escalate them. While having an attitude he did comply with their instructions. The second officer coming in completely escalated the situation and took it to a level it didn’t need to go. Both he and Hill are wrong here, but it may turn out to be that only one of them committed a crime. We shall see…

[ionel]

28 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

What I saw: 

The officer approaches and knocks on the window, Hill either is already rolling down the window or was already in the process, kind hard to tell from the angle but seems like the knock and window starting to come down at the same time (compliance). He rolls the window and hands the officer his license, and says “don’t knock on my window like that” a couple times. (No need for him to say that, was just a tap). Officer moves to the front of the windshield and hill rolls the window back up.  Officer knocks a couple times again and tells him to keep window down. He rolls window down partially. (Compliance). Second officer comes in escalating the situation, says we’re not playing this game, get out the car now, and opens the door. As he opens the door Hill starts to step out of the car with his left leg (compliance)…after which (and that’s important since we’re claiming non compliance here)…officer grabs him at the back of head, and puts him face first on the ground (you can nitpick over whether or not he was “thrown” to the ground). 
 

Hill had an attitude in saying don’t knock on my window like that, he didn’t need to go there.  However, that is not an arresting offense, telling a cop not to knock on your window like that, while not called for, is not a crime. Officers have an obligation and responsibility to deescalate situations like these, not escalate them. While having an attitude he did comply with their instructions. The second officer coming in completely escalated the situation and took it to a level it didn’t need to go. Both he and Hill are wrong here, but it may turn out to be that only one of them committed a crime. We shall see…

True but how many officers have been shot in just this type of situation.  He told him to keep the window down, the officers have no idea what he may or may not be reaching for when he rolls the window back up.  Should they have drawn their firearms?

PS:  if you look closely you may or may not be able to see that the 2nd officer is wearing a Tampa Bay shirt under his uniform. 

Edited September 10 by ionel

[WrestlingRasta]

4 minutes ago, ionel said:

True but how many officers have been shot in just this type of situation.  He told him to keep the window down, the officers have no idea what he may or may not be reaching for when he rolls the window back up.  Should they have drawn their firearms?

He had already re-rolled the window down, with the first officer looking at him, before the second officer came and said we’re not doing this, before that officer opened the door, before HIll started to step out of the car, which was before the officer grabbed him and face planted him on the ground. 
 

AGAIN…Hill was wrong in his attitude. No question about it.  That doesn’t mean the second officer was right. 

[mspart]

WR I saw what you saw but with a few differences, they are:

When the cop went to the front of the car, HIll rolled up his window.   The cop came back and knocked and said open the window.   Window did not come down (not compliance).   The cop waited for about 10 seconds and knocked again.  The cop knocked again and the window came partially down.   The cop then said they were getting him out of the car.   He was asked 3 times to get out of the car and didn't (not compliance).  The other cop  who said we're not playing this game appears to have opened the door (again not compliance).   The door opened and Tyreek's left foot started moving to the outside at the same time he was grabbed and pulled out of the car.   I couldn't tell which came first to be honest.  The cops did not slam him to the asphalt, but put him down.   Apparently he was on the phone with his agent Drew saying he was arrested.   (this may have been the reason he appeared not to be cooperating, he was busy on the phone).   Tyreek did not appear to fight with the cops (I suppose you can call this compliance), but he was still complaining that they were beating on his window.   The one cop took him to the sidewalk (he went so I suppose compliance) and the cop wanted him sitting on the deck but he wouldn't go (I suppose not compliance) so another cop came and put him on the deck.   He's complaining that he's had surgery on his knee.   But my understanding is he was late for the game he was to play in.    Knee must be good.  Looks like he had shoulder surgery to me by the scar on his back (neither here nor there).  

Tyreek did not display hostile behavior but was not compliant either.  

mspart

[ionel]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

He had already re-rolled the window down, with the first officer looking at him, before the second officer came and said we’re not doing this, before that officer opened the door, before HIll started to step out of the car, which was before the officer grabbed him and face planted him on the ground. 
 

AGAIN…Hill was wrong in his attitude. No question about it.  That doesn’t mean the second officer was right. 

but not all the way for an unobstructed view.

[mspart]

Just now, ionel said:

but not all the way for an unobstructed view.

This is true, it was about 20% down (not compliant).

mspart

[Caveira]

3 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Yes, there was no reason to physically grab him and throw him to the ground.  They told him to get out of the car, and he was getting out of the car.  I'm not saying he was pleasant with them, but it's weird to see the First Amendment Warriors in here saying it's ok to treat someone this way due to words.  And don't tell me it's because of the driving pattern, because it very CLEARLY was not the driving pattern that got him pulled out of the car, it was the attitude that they didn't like.

Once they make the decision to detain…. If you Are resisting you are going to the ground.  He was belligerent… he didn’t listen.  He was rude.   He didn’t get out of the car the first 7 times they asked….   He endangered x amount of lives…..   to the ground you go.   I’ve seen way worse of that as well.  Seemed pretty tame to me.   This is a wrestling board after all.   It was very gentle from that perspective imo.  

[WrestlingRasta]

You are not required to roll down your window all the way. You are required to roll your window down enough to hand over your id (which he did without even being asked) and see in. Partially rolling down your window is compliance, that’s just simply a matter of law, not opinion. Now, SHOULD he have kept it rolled down all the way, yeah probably. But that’s not non compliant, that’s being stupid, which is not a crime. 
 

I went and found a video that had the transcript, in which you are correct the first officer does in fact say you know what get out of the car, get out of the car get out of the car. Each time Hill says okay I’m getting out. And being that as soon as the door opened his foot was reaching for the ground, yeah pretty easy to say he was getting out. 
 

I’m more than comfortable saying Hill was wrong here (again) but also more than comfortable saying the cop was wrong too.  It appears not everyone is willing to see that. 

Edited September 10 by WrestlingRasta

[Caveira]

In most jurisdictions, exceeding the speed limit by a significant amount, typically considered to be 25 miles per hour or more over the posted limit, can be considered reckless driving and could lead to detainment….

 

 

……65 in a 40 is reckless.    Be a dik to the cops and you’re almost certain to see the back of a cell.  

Edited September 10 by Caveira

[ionel]

16 minutes ago, Caveira said:

In most jurisdictions, exceeding the speed limit by a significant amount, typically considered to be 25 miles per hour or more over the posted limit, can be considered reckless driving and could lead to detainment….

 

 

……65 in a 40 is reckless.    Be a dik to the cops and you’re almost certain to see the back of a cell.  

And a lot of times, especially if 25 over is same as 50 over, they may ticket the lower number that they know can be documented and hold up in court.  

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

And a lot of times, especially if 25 over is same as 50 over, they may ticket the lower number that they know can be documented and hold up in court.  

Point still is reckless driving can be a detainable offense …. The comments about I don’t have to roll my window down are nonsense imo in that situation.   
 

And the vid later of him saying I was nice and bla bla and I didn’t do nothing … was comical.  His end zone celebration tells you how much he cares for laws / police / etc…

[ionel]

13 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Point still is reckless driving can be a detainable offense …. The comments about I don’t have to roll my window down are nonsense imo in that situation.   
 

And the vid later of him saying I was nice and bla bla and I didn’t do nothing … was comical.  His end zone celebration tells you how much he cares for laws / police / etc…

I agree.  And he's had issues in the past so maybe explains a bit of the attitude.  

[Scouts Honor]

i just saw the vid

he is already trying to establish his dominance, by interrupting the officer several times.. dont knock dont knock

then rolls it back up

the when the officer FINALLY gets him to roll the window down again, he can't shut up.

rasta... you missed most of the video

there wasn't much compliance... and that little bit was always after several requests 

 

i had seen enough. didn't need to see more.

[Caveira]

… if he did no wrong.  Why did the news cut all his crap out of the vid ?    Not one comment about how he acted.    I don’t know if the media has an agenda or not.  lol.   Play the vid unedited.  Don’t add your news opinions and let the public decide.   Now some may say.  This is prolly not the body cam footage…. But given the police want to defend themselves and released it soon.  I would bet the msm didn’t even ask 
 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTFRCwwvj/

also …. He was in fact charged with reckless driving (according to the vid at least)…. Which is detainable a lot of the time.  

Edited September 11 by Caveira

[Caveira]

I mean.  I’m.  I mean.  I’m I was just doin what my uncle was telling me to do.  Just listen.   Just listen.  Put your hands on the steering wheel and just listen.   
 

I mean.  That’s what he did right ?

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTFRX9Td3/

[Caveira]

We are missing a few of his “upstanding citizen” interactions with the female race.   What’s the saying.  Step across the crack and I’ll break your leg ?   I digress 

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/tyreek-hill-domestic-violence-child-abuse-investigation/neqfn40200lt16ik2142ay772

[RockLobster]

5 hours ago, VakAttack said:

The men got a civil traffic infraction.  People in this thread keep talking about him going 100 mph, but the citation was for going 65 mph in a 40 mph zone, so it seems like this 100 mph talking point is just made up.  According to the reporting, the citation says they visually estimated his speed at 60 mph.

 

He was getting out of the car, as ordered, and yes, they grabbed him by his head and threw Hill to the ground.  The only reason this happened is because the cops didn't like his attitude, i.e. his words, i.e. his freedom of speech.  He was a dick to the cops, but that's not a crime, and he wasn't arrested for a crime.

 

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.

[fishbane]

13 hours ago, RockLobster said:

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.

What are the laws he broke?   He received two tickets.  One for a seatbelt violation and the other for careless driving.  These are minor traffic violations that have civil penalties.  They are noncriminal infractions under Florida law.  

It is also unclear that he did either of these things.  The police officer wrote on the ticket "visual estimation of 60 mph" to justify the careless driving.  There isn't anything to suggest his speed was actually measured.  From the video the seatbelt violation appears to have been observed after the car was stopped.  It would only be a violation to not have a seatbelt on whilst the car was moving.  He may have taken it off after he stopped to be able to reach and get the documents needed.  The officer asked him about the seatbelt.  Hill did not respond to this and instead repeatedly told him not to knock on his window. I suppose you're correct since if all but admit includes didn't admit any way shape or form.

13 hours ago, RockLobster said:

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

Should we be imagining the white driver telling the police officer not to knock on his window?  I think that was the problem with this stop, which though disrespectful isn't illegal.  If the police officer saw something that was a safety concern in the car the order to exit the vehicle would have come before he started to walk away presumably to write the citation and the window went back up.  Even then it was only after Hill didn't roll the window down fully after he told him to roll it down again.  

13 hours ago, RockLobster said:

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.

It is a potential reality, but not actual reality.  The police officer did not see any safety concern in the car.  If the decision to have him exit the car had any basis in officer safety it was that they couldn't see as clearly through the tinted windows. That's a reason to have him exit.  What's the justification to handcuff him?  Why didn't they check him for weapons?

14 hours ago, RockLobster said:

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

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.   

[ionel]

47 minutes ago, fishbane said:

 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.   

How does anyone know this?  Once he rolled the window up, refused to roll it down then only rolled down ~20% we don't know what the officer couldn't see and we have no idea what kind of similar safety issues he may have dealt with in the past.  

[fishbane]

8 minutes ago, ionel said:

How does anyone know this?  Once he rolled the window up, refused to roll it down then only rolled down ~20% we don't know what the officer couldn't see and we have no idea what kind of similar safety issues he may have dealt with in the past.  

Anyone?  Obviously the officer knows.  Other people can infer from his actions.  The officer seems willing to proceed with the stop with Hill inside the car, before Hill closed the window as the officer began to walk away to presumably write the citation.  Then the window dispute occurred.  The officer demanded the window be rolled down.  Hill didn't immediately rolled it down.  It took him about 10s to open his window and the officer unsatisfied with how much he rolled it down told him to exit.  With the window tint I think he had a reason to have him exit the vehicle, but it's how the cop acts after that take makes me think it's not officer safety.  Let him exit the car.  He said he was exiting.  He started exiting.  Why pull him out, throw him own the ground, and handcuff him? I don't see a safety reason for any of that.  Do you?  Then how they treated him after handcuffing him.  Why make him sit on the curb?

Safety issues the officer may have dealt with in the past?  That's of limited applicability.  There needs to be some fact particularized to this stop to justify the use of force. Otherwise any police officer that's experience a dangerous traffic stop could handcuff everyone traffic stops going forward.

[Caveira]

Slightly diff angle.  Doesn’t appear to be vigorously getting out of the car…. But his legs def are out of the car 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTF8DEuxN/

[RockLobster]

11 hours ago, fishbane said:

What are the laws he broke?   He received two tickets.  One for a seatbelt violation and the other for careless driving.  These are minor traffic violations that have civil penalties.  They are noncriminal infractions under Florida law.  

It is also unclear that he did either of these things.  The police officer wrote on the ticket "visual estimation of 60 mph" to justify the careless driving.  There isn't anything to suggest his speed was actually measured.  From the video the seatbelt violation appears to have been observed after the car was stopped.  It would only be a violation to not have a seatbelt on whilst the car was moving.  He may have taken it off after he stopped to be able to reach and get the documents needed.  The officer asked him about the seatbelt.  Hill did not respond to this and instead repeatedly told him not to knock on his window. I suppose you're correct since if all but admit includes didn't admit any way shape or form.

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.

11 hours ago, fishbane said:

Should we be imagining the white driver telling the police officer not to knock on his window?  I think that was the problem with this stop, which though disrespectful isn't illegal.

Yes, you should imagine that. It would help to clarify that disrespecting the police isn't a racial or "cultural" issue - it's merely a disrespectful issue. Even if it isn't illegal. And even if the disrespect is aimed at officers who are non-white.

None of the pertinent issues here have anything to do with skin color.

11 hours ago, fishbane said:

It is a potential reality, but not actual reality.  The police officer did not see any safety concern in the car.  If the decision to have him exit the car had any basis in officer safety it was that they couldn't see as clearly through the tinted windows.

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.

11 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.   

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

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

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

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.

 

[RockLobster]

10 hours ago, fishbane said:

Anyone?  Obviously the officer knows.  Other people can infer from his actions.  The officer seems willing to proceed with the stop with Hill inside the car, before Hill closed the window as the officer began to walk away to presumably write the citation.  Then the window dispute occurred.  The officer demanded the window be rolled down.  Hill didn't immediately rolled it down.  It took him about 10s to open his window and the officer unsatisfied with how much he rolled it down told him to exit.  With the window tint I think he had a reason to have him exit the vehicle, but it's how the cop acts after that take makes me think it's not officer safety.  Let him exit the car.  He said he was exiting.  He started exiting.  Why pull him out, throw him own the ground, and handcuff him? I don't see a safety reason for any of that.  Do you?  Then how they treated him after handcuffing him.  Why make him sit on the curb?

Safety issues the officer may have dealt with in the past?  That's of limited applicability.  There needs to be some fact particularized to this stop to justify the use of force. Otherwise any police officer that's experience a dangerous traffic stop could handcuff everyone traffic stops going forward.

I believe I have made a legitimate case to justify the use of force.

.. but, one more thing.

ionel, mspart, bigbrog, ohio elite... get off my side. I'm committed to honesty and truth, nothing at all like you turds.