Tyreek Hill

[1032004]

11 hours ago, RockLobster said:

He was not complying with the order to exit the vehicle. He delayed as much as reasonably possible while talking on a cell phone. He was non-compliant for that duration.

When the doors were opened, he put his leg out of the door. But made no effort to get out in any way. None.

Watch the video again.

He wasn't using his leg to stand up, he was using it as leverage to remain in the vehicle. (Ask any wrestler, without the leg as a point of support, it would have been easy for the police to pull him out.)

One officer decided enough was enough, and yanked him out despite his non-compliance. That was not a easy task, this was a fit top NFL player... who then responded, in shock, "Damn..." Watch it again. It's not difficult to see.

Hill was not voluntarily exiting the vehicle. He was trying his best to stay in the vehicle and delay.

This is a joke, right?  He was clearly stepping out of the car after they opened the door.

Surprised it hasn’t been discussed in this thread yet, but curious what your opinion is of how the cop treated Calais Campbell? To me that was the most egregious action of the cop, and IMO shows his behavior is likely a pattern (as does the recent report of the number of times he’s been suspended).

[Caveira]

18 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

This is a joke, right?  He was clearly stepping out of the car after they opened the door.

Surprised it hasn’t been discussed in this thread yet, but curious what your opinion is of how the cop treated Calais Campbell? To me that was the most egregious action of the cop, and IMO shows his behavior is likely a pattern (as does the recent report of the number of times he’s been suspended).

Hardly.  He lolly gagged his azz out of the car.    He was a belligerent punk from second 0 of the stop.   I posted a vid from a side angle showing him getting out as slowly as he humanly could.    Those that will disagree…. Will disagree.   The cop was also in the wrong too….. but to exonerate this entitled punk is wrong too.   If he wasn’t in the nfl this wouldn’t even be on the local news.  

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Hardly.  He lolly gagged his azz out of the car.    He was a belligerent punk from second 0 of the stop.   I posted a vid from a side angle showing him getting out as slowly as he humanly could.    Those that will disagree…. Will disagree.   The cop was also in the wrong too….. but to exonerate this entitled punk is wrong too.   If he wasn’t in the nfl this wouldn’t even be on the local news.  

Good to see that you agree that he was getting out of the car

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Good to see that you agree that he was getting out of the car

Barely.  Outside of the kick they handled him just fine.   The kick was way over the top…. The vid it’s hard to see specifically what he kicks but it has to be the perp imo.  That’s uncalled for.

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, RockLobster said:

Except you'd be changing the facts about what actually occurred. The seatbelt violation was reported as being observed prior to the stop.

Who has made the claim that the seatbelt violation was observed before the stop? I haven't seen that claimed by anyone other than you.  Hill's lawyer said 

 “We don’t have any of the official police reports to state as to why he would plead guilty, as to why, whether or not he had his seat belt on. At one point, they were able to visibly see that Mr. Hill didn’t have his seat belt on.  Was it at the time of the traffic stop? You can take it off at that point before the officer got to the vehicle. We don’t have any information. So, naturally, he’s going to plead not guilty until we see the police report.” 

If Hill's lawyer doesn't know I don't know how you know.  It's safe to say the officer saw it when he asked and pointed to it.  Before the stop making the stop - I'm skeptical and no one is making that claim.  It would be a great question to ask the officer. Because it doesn't matter how the officer answers it.  Either way it helps Hill.  If he says he couldn't see that he wasn't wearing it before making the stop then there is reasonable doubt the violation occurred.  If he says he did then show the video and ask the officer to point out where he first spotted the violation.  The court can then judge how likely or unlikely his testimony is to be true.  Having watched the video I suspect this will hurt his credibility.

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

You don't know (neither do I.) Which is why I had posted that we can't comment on it... but it may have been more clear to have posted that "we can't intelligently comment on it."

So, sure anyone can comment. Intelligence be damned. That is the bulk of the internet. But I prefer intelligent posting.

Not really.  We have the officer's body cam.  It will tell show you at least the position of the officer and the car for the entire time before the stop.  The camera might have a different angle or looking in a different direction, but you can make an educated guess as to what the officer can see from that position.  If the officer ultimately says he could see it before making the stop, you and the court  wouldn't havee to take what he says as truth.  Just use a little critical thinking.

[fishbane]

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Get over this one. A crime is committed when someone breaks the law. Those that do so are criminals.

Try to use your lawyer schmawyer bullshit to try to misdirect the simple words of the english language into lawyer speak.

Doesn't change a single thing when we aren't in court.

Who is talking about lawyers?  I bet the officer that pulled him over wouldn't refer to the charge as a crime.  He's read the law and knows it's defined as a noncriminal violation.  Not all violations of the law are crimes, but all crimes are violations of the law.

[1032004]

6 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Who has made the claim that the seatbelt violation was observed before the stop? I haven't seen that claimed by anyone other than you.  Hill's lawyer said 

 “We don’t have any of the official police reports to state as to why he would plead guilty, as to why, whether or not he had his seat belt on. At one point, they were able to visibly see that Mr. Hill didn’t have his seat belt on.  Was it at the time of the traffic stop? You can take it off at that point before the officer got to the vehicle. We don’t have any information. So, naturally, he’s going to plead not guilty until we see the police report.” 

If Hill's lawyer doesn't know I don't know how you know.  It's safe to say the officer saw it when he asked and pointed to it.  Before the stop making the stop - I'm skeptical and no one is making that claim.  It would be a great question to ask the officer. Because it doesn't matter how the officer answers it.  Either way it helps Hill.  If he says he couldn't see that he wasn't wearing it before making the stop then there is reasonable doubt the violation occurred.  If he says he did then show the video and ask the officer to point out where he first spotted the violation.  The court can then judge how likely or unlikely his testimony is to be true.  Having watched the video I suspect this will hurt his credibility.

Not really.  We have the officer's body cam.  It will tell show you at least the position of the officer and the car for the entire time before the stop.  The camera might have a different angle or looking in a different direction, but you can make an educated guess as to what the officer can see from that position.  If the officer ultimately says he could see it before making the stop, you and the court  wouldn't havee to take what he says as truth.  Just use a little critical thinking.

FWIW, I’m not a cop or a lawyer, but I once received a seatbelt ticket for taking my seatbelt off after being pulled over.

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

FWIW, I’m not a cop or a lawyer, but I once received a seatbelt ticket for taking my seatbelt off after being pulled over.

Was that after being told to exit the vehicle? 

[fishbane]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

FWIW, I’m not a cop or a lawyer, but I once received a seatbelt ticket for taking my seatbelt off after being pulled over.

It is may vary by state.  The Florida statute specifies the vehicle must be in motion.  The officer may have seen it after the vehicle stopped and extrapolated to before the stop.

http://leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.614.html

Quote

It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle or an autocycle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle or autocycle is in motion.

Here is an example of an officer erroneously extrapolating to before the stop.  It's a good idea to keep it on. Fortunately for the lady in that video she had a dash cam that recorded the seatbelt removal.

https://youtu.be/wAqaGewmC70?si=FBDXTckijQ6LLdyp&t=115

[fishbane]

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

He was not complying with the order to exit the vehicle.

When wasn't he complying with that?  3s after the initial statement when he first says he was getting out? When he took his seatbelt off, opened the door, and moved his foot outside the vehicle - was he not complying through any of that?

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

He delayed as much as reasonably possible while talking on a cell phone.

This sound like another way of saying the delay wasn't unreasonably long.  Probably means the office should have been more patient as the amount of time it took was reasonable.

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

He was non-compliant for that duration.

I realize that then the person you are arguing on behalf of is in the wrong it may be tempting to make any argument that goes your way, but this is incredibly weak.  He was not complying with the order to exit the vehicle for 8s during which time he 1) said he was getting out, 2) unbuckled his seatbelt, 3) opened the door, and 4) swung his leg outside the car all whilst talking on the phone with his agent who is also a lawyer.  So it wasn't some unrelated call.  If the police allowed him to speak with his agent/lawyer it may have mediated the tense situation.

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

When the doors were opened, he put his leg out of the door. But made no effort to get out in any way. None.

The purpose of the detention was to cite and/or warn Hill for the moving violation and to do so in a safe manner. Before the order to exit the vehicle the officers had everything they needed to write him the tickets.  They wanted the window down to be able to observe him for reasons of officer safety.  Okay fine.  He opens it,  but they aren't satisfied with how open it is, so they order him to exit the vehicle.  Supreme Court case law (Mimms) says they can do this. He takes off his belt and opens the door.  

As soon as the door opens Hills leg swings outside the automobile as the officer is reaching for him and grabs him.  He stops moving or at least slows down after the officer grabs him.  Why is the officer grabbing him?  Is that justified?

I don't think so for a couple reasons.  1) Hill was complying 2) The officer seemed to grab him as soon as the door opened and not in reaction to any delay after the door opened even though Hill is telling him he is getting out 3) There was no officer safety reason for it.  If they were satisfied from an officer safety standpoint with an open window an open door provides even greater visibility.  If the argument is that Hill was moving slowly after the door was open then there isn't really an officer safety argument for expediting it.  The door is wide open they have full visibility of Hill and his movement.  The open door negates the threat of him reaching for a weapon they can't see because of tinted windows.  The car is surrounded by police.  There is no immediate threat.  Let him slowly exit.

There really isn't any thing Hill could have done differently that would fully satisfy apologists for the Miami police when exiting the vehicle.  If swiftly exits the vehicle some would say the police were justified in grabbing him because the swift exit could be interpreted as attempting to run.  If he exits slowly and deliberately as he was doing then it's that slow is somehow noncompliance.

13 hours ago, RockLobster said:

One officer decided enough was enough, and yanked him out despite his non-compliance.

To me that video had enough before that.  He was intent on somehow winning the encounter with Hill and likely made the decisions to put hands on him before the door opened. He forgot what officers are supposed to do on a traffic stop - write the ticket.  It takes the officers nearly 20 minutes to write the tickets and only start after some more important looking cops show up and tell them to.

13 hours ago, RockLobster said:

That was not a easy task, this was a fit top NFL player... who then responded, in shock, "Damn..." Watch it again. It's not difficult to see.

Hill was not voluntarily exiting the vehicle. He was trying his best to stay in the vehicle and delay.

That is a creative interpretation.  Here is an alternative interpretation.  Hill says damn not because he's surprised at the officer's strength and ability to drag him out of the car, but that he's surprised the officer would grab him at all since he is exiting the vehicle on his own.

Saying Hill wasn't exiting the vehicle is at odds with Hill statements and actions.  Hill says he exiting the car.  How can you intelligently argue against his on-site visual record especially when his actions in the video support that? 1) said he was exiting. 2) Removed seatbelt 3) opened door 4) started exiting the vehicle by swinging leg outside of the door 5) grabbed by officer.

Finally I am confident in saying if Hill was trying his best to stay in the vehicle he would have stayed in the vehicle longer.  

[VakAttack]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

Hardly.  He lolly gagged his azz out of the car.    He was a belligerent punk from second 0 of the stop.   I posted a vid from a side angle showing him getting out as slowly as he humanly could.    Those that will disagree…. Will disagree.   The cop was also in the wrong too….. but to exonerate this entitled punk is wrong too.   If he wasn’t in the nfl this wouldn’t even be on the local news.  

The door was open for less than a second when one cop grabbed him by his head and threw him to the ground as he was getting out of the car.  I've watched well over a thousand traffic stops as part of my job, this was completely unnecessary.  The cops job is not to rough up people who are rude to them; they are supposed to be the professionals in these interactions.

Edited Saturday at 08:00 PM by VakAttack

[ionel]

15 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

... grabbed him by his head and threw him to the ground ...

sure Jan  

[Bigbrog]

That is the problem today...you idiots that normalize ass$^# behavior.  Yep,...act like a freaking jerk and bad things happen...so weird...and some of your morons think that is okay...SMH

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

Welllll

https://jalopnik.com/cops-punished-dolphins-wide-receiver-tyreek-hill-bec-1851649292