N/S Tyreek Hill arrested for traffic violation by stadium in Miami on gameday (Hill played) [Reckless driving & seatbelt charges dismissed] (1 Viewer)

[MarCowMar]

A prisoner does not have the same rights as a civilian, there's zero comparison here.

The comparison--introduced by dennisrwoo through their work history--is that they are both use-of-force work, and thus both have rules and decisions related to non-compliance.

If you find zero comparative value in their work, that is fine, but I am genuinely curious to hear how they deal with a subject who attempts to dictate an interaction, w/out using force. I think a skilled/clever worker could sometimes, but doubt that all workers could do it 100% of the time.

The civilian is not the professional LEO, the civilian is a free man that violated the speed limit. That violation does not take away his rights.

Not in dispute.

Or he could just ignore the civilian's attitude because his actions were not harming anyone but himself. The cop had everything he needed to complete the traffic stop.

The things the officer lacked due to Hill's actions were visibility of activity in the vehicle to ensure their safety, a means to interact with the driver, and the driver's registration and insurance (if what I'm seeing in the video is accurate--only his license was turned over).

He doesn't roll the window up in the cop's face, he rolled it up as the cop steps away, assuming the cop was going to continue with reasoning for the the stop and start the citation.

The bodycam shows the officer never walks away. He leans forward to look at the front of the vehicle (he'd have to walk back to return to his motorcycle), and as he does Hill begins rolling up the window. The officer instructs him to lower the window several times and he refuses. The officer remains at the side of the vehicle until they decide to remove Hill from it.

This was a Traffic Stop, not a Terry Stop. Terry Stops are generally referenced when police are conducting searches without a warrant, there's no searches happening here as the reason for the stop was to issue a traffic citation.

Not in dispute.

The cop had all the info to do just that.

Again, the cop did not have insurance/registration, visibility of the inside of the vehicle, or a means to interact with the driver.

Lemme guess, you are puzzled because the only thing you are willing to fight for in the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment, the 4th be damned.

False dichotomy and strawman fallacies. Enjoyable discussion overall though.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Again, the cop did not have insurance/registration, visibility of the inside of the vehicle, or a means to interact with the driver.

If the cop needed those items from the driver, why did he not ask for them? The driver gave him the opportunity to asked for those items when the driver surrendered his license to the cop. Clearly, the cop didn't need those items to complete his citation because the citation was eventually issued without those items. Everything else you said had nothing to do with the reason for the stop.

 

[DaveXA]

The comparison--introduced by dennisrwoo through their work history--is that they are both use-of-force work, and thus both have rules and decisions related to non-compliance.

Again, you're comparing apples and peanuts. They're not remotely the same thing and the ground rules are different for both.

If you find zero comparative value in their work, that is fine, but I am genuinely curious to hear how they deal with a subject who attempts to dictate an interaction, w/out using force. I think a skilled/clever worker could sometimes, but doubt that all workers could do it 100% of the time.

It takes little skill to take someone's documents and go process a ticket. It doesn't take that much skill to remain professional with a civilian who may not be responding well in a stressful situation, and getting pulled over is always a stressful ordeal. A well-trained cop understands this and is why they're supposed to use de-escelation actions to calm a given situation rather than pour gas on the fire as happened here.

Not in dispute.

The things the officer lacked due to Hill's actions were visibility of activity in the vehicle to ensure their safety,

This is simply not true. Reeks of making excuses for bad cop behavior. The cop who had TH's ID had already started walking away to process the ticket when he rolled the window up, which is when TH called his agent to let him know what was going on. The cop on the left in the video has a freakout and starts rapping on the window and Hill rolled os window 1/3 of the way. Literally seconds later he's getting pulled out of the car. Talk about going 0-100 in no time. They gave him no time to open the door and let himself out. At no time did he impede the officers or threaten their safety, period.

a means to interact with the driver,

Cracking the window open enough to have a conversation was all that was needed.

and the driver's registration and insurance (if what I'm seeing in the video is accurate--only his license was turned over).

Some states dont require registration or insurance papers as that's already on record. In this day in age when all of that information is easily obtainable, a license is all that should be required. That varies base on jurisdiction. And the cops never made an issue of that anyway so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

The bodycam shows the officer never walks away. He leans forward to look at the front of the vehicle (he'd have to walk back to return to his motorcycle), and as he does Hill begins rolling up the window. The officer instructs him to lower the window several times and he refuses. The officer remains at the side of the vehicle until they decide to remove Hill from it.

You and I interpret waking away differently then. The cop took 2 steps towards the motorcycles to go process the ticket and it was at that point TH rolled up his window. The cop on the left got butthurt that TH rolled up the window and understandably TH became defensive at that point. You've got a group of belligerent cops at the window after providing ID, what do you think is about to happen?

Not in dispute.

Again, the cop did not have insurance/registration, visibility of the inside of the vehicle, or a means to interact with the driver.

They never once said they needed it. The cop had what he needed and never asked for additional documents. The police had never said anything related to that. And the visibility thing is nonsense. They were able to see what was up when the window was open and TH gave them his ID. After he closed the window and cracked it back open, there was nothing blocking interaction there. There's absolutely no excuse for the escalating. I've seen cops let much worse go.

False dichotomy and strawman fallacies. Enjoyable discussion overall though.

How? I'm not seeing a strawman here, so explain why you think it is.

 

[MarCowMar]

If the cop needed those items from the driver, why did he not ask for them? The driver gave him the opportunity to asked for those items when the driver surrendered his license to the cop. Clearly, the cop didn't need those items to complete his citation because the citation was eventually issued without those items. Everything else you said had nothing to do with the reason for the stop.

If you think the cop had a chance to ask for those, you watched a different video than me. Hill had refused to answer all questions up to that point and was in fact ignoring the officer other than to give the officer instructions.

Hill terminates the interaction at 1:22 by instructing the officer to "Do what you got to do." then rolls up his window. The officer instructs Hill to roll the window back down and knocks on the window multiple times. Hill eventually cracks the window and instructs the officer: "Don't tell me what..." and things escalate from there.

How is the officer supposed to do what he has to do when Hill has instructed the officer not to initiate interaction by knocking on the window, closes his window, and then refuses to re-open it?



If you listen to the tone of the officer around 1:16 he's in a polite, conversational mode, but perhaps wasn't someone who follows football and understands that Hill would expect deference. He states that he had to knock to let Hill know he was there. Hill was unsatisfied with that and tried to assert dominance through his window games--and he probably could have if he had just cracked the window--but everything I've examined so far indicates Drew will be spending a lot of time soothing Hill's ego and gently dissuading him from pursuing anything legally.

 

[DaveXA]

If you think the cop had a chance to ask for those, you watched a different video than me. Hill had refused to answer all questions up to that point and was in fact ignoring the officer other than to give the officer instructions.

Hill terminates the interaction at 1:22 by instructing the officer to "Do what you got to do." then rolls up his window. The officer instructs Hill to roll the window back down and knocks on the window multiple times. Hill eventually cracks the window and instructs the officer: "Don't tell me what..." and things escalate from there.

How is the officer supposed to do what he has to do when Hill has instructed the officer not to initiate interaction by knocking on the window, closes his window, and then refuses to re-open it?



If you listen to the tone of the officer around 1:16 he's in a polite, conversational mode, but perhaps wasn't someone who follows football and understands that Hill would expect deference. He states that he had to knock to let Hill know he was there. Hill was unsatisfied with that and tried to assert dominance through his window games--and he probably could have if he had just cracked the window--but everything I've examined so far indicates Drew will be spending a lot of time soothing Hill's ego and gently dissuading him from pursuing anything legally.

Making excuses for a cop who has been suspended from the force a total of 6 times and needlessly escalating what should have been a garden variety traffic stop is wild. And their complete lack of situational awareness is disturbing tbh.

There's a good reason he's been fired.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

If you think the cop had a chance to ask for those, you watched a different video than me. Hill had refused to answer all questions up to that point and was in fact ignoring the officer other than to give the officer instructions.

He had the opportunity to asked for those items when he chose to berate the driver about their seatbelt.

Hill terminates the interaction at 1:22 by instructing the officer to "Do what you got to do." then rolls up his window. The officer instructs Hill to roll the window back down and knocks on the window multiple times. Hill eventually cracks the window and instructs the officer: "Don't tell me what..." and things escalate from there.

How is the officer supposed to do what he has to do when Hill has instructed the officer not to initiate interaction by knocking on the window, closes his window, and then refuses to re-open it?

The cop is under no obligation to adhere to the drivers "demands". The driver can be the biggest butt crevasse as long as his antics are not physical, there is no reason for the cop to address the driver's verbal tantrum. The cop's failure here is that he didn't proceed with the reasoning behind the stop. DO YOUR JOB! Then we can proceed with, what should have been, a routine traffic stop.

If you listen to the tone of the officer around 1:16 he's in a polite, conversational mode, but perhaps wasn't someone who follows football and understands that Hill would expect deference. He states that he had to knock to let Hill know he was there.

Meh.

Hill was unsatisfied with that and tried to assert dominance through his window games--

They showed him! RESPECT MY AUTHORITAAAY!!!!!!!

Drew will be spending a lot of time soothing Hill's ego and gently dissuading him from pursuing anything legally.

And Miami-Dade will be doing the same for this officer!

 

[Big_L]

If you think the cop had a chance to ask for those, you watched a different video than me. Hill had refused to answer all questions up to that point and was in fact ignoring the officer other than to give the officer instructions.

Hill terminates the interaction at 1:22 by instructing the officer to "Do what you got to do." then rolls up his window. The officer instructs Hill to roll the window back down and knocks on the window multiple times. Hill eventually cracks the window and instructs the officer: "Don't tell me what..." and things escalate from there.

How is the officer supposed to do what he has to do when Hill has instructed the officer not to initiate interaction by knocking on the window, closes his window, and then refuses to re-open it?



If you listen to the tone of the officer around 1:16 he's in a polite, conversational mode, but perhaps wasn't someone who follows football and understands that Hill would expect deference. He states that he had to knock to let Hill know he was there. Hill was unsatisfied with that and tried to assert dominance through his window games--and he probably could have if he had just cracked the window--but everything I've examined so far indicates Drew will be spending a lot of time soothing Hill's ego and gently dissuading him from pursuing anything legally.

How many traffic stops have you conducted?

 

[MarCowMar]

Again, you're comparing apples and peanuts. They're not remotely the same thing and the ground rules are different for both.

Apples and peanuts are both edible. They both can be consumed raw. They both can be grown in North America. They both can be made into butter. The fact that they're not identical doesn't mean they can't be compared in some respects.

The similarity that prison and police work have is that they both involve use of force. I'm not sure why you dispute that so vehemently. I agreed with you that they are not perfectly comparable, and I wasn't even the forum participant who introduced the comparison.

It takes little skill to take someone's documents and go process a ticket. It doesn't take that much skill to remain professional with a civilian who may not be responding well in a stressful situation, and getting pulled over is always a stressful ordeal. A well-trained cop understands this and is why they're supposed to use de-escelation actions to calm a given situation rather than pour gas on the fire as happened here.

From what I see the cop was in defusal mode up until 1:20 in the interaction. I'm not sure where this cop would rank on the global skill level but Hill was obviously afforded multiple opportunities to avoid a physical interaction. I'd argue with you that it's easy to interact with civilians who have committed crimes or misdemeanors, but we seem to disagree on enough already!

This is simply not true. Reeks of making excuses for bad cop behavior. The cop who had TH's ID had already started walking away to process the ticket when he rolled the window up, which is when TH called his agent to let him know what was going on. The cop on the left in the video has a freakout and starts rapping on the window and Hill rolled os window 1/3 of the way. Literally seconds later he's getting pulled out of the car. Talk about going 0-100 in no time. They gave him no time to open the door and let himself out. At no time did he impede the officers or threaten their safety, period.

Respectfully disagree. Sometimes people just see a situation differently--even when it's on video. I think the in-person discussion that a jury affords helps reconcile these differences.

Cracking the window open enough to have a conversation was all that was needed.

100% agree. If Hill cracked the window we likely would never be having this conversation.

Some states dont require registration or insurance papers as that's already on record. In this day in age when all of that information is easily obtainable, a license is all that should be required. That varies base on jurisdiction. And the cops never made an issue of that anyway so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Fair enough--in my state license/insurance/registration are separate papers. The license is for the driver. The insurance is obtained from a private company for the car, and the registration is from the state. I would hand all three over if I wanted to withstand a traffic stop that didn't involve opening my windows.

You and I interpret waking away differently then. The cop took 2 steps towards the motorcycles to go process the ticket and it was at that point TH rolled up his window. The cop on the left got butthurt that TH rolled up the window and understandably TH became defensive at that point. You've got a group of belligerent cops at the window after providing ID, what do you think is about to happen?

Agree that he had about two steps toward his motorcycle and was standing directly by the window when Hill rolled it down. Agreed that the cop was "butthurt" and look forward to seeing that terminology used in the casework. I don't think Hill became defensive till that door came open. The classic moment when a bully realizes their target is going to put up a fight.

They never once said they needed it. The cop had what he needed and never asked for additional documents. The police had never said anything related to that. And the visibility thing is nonsense. They were able to see what was up when the window was open and TH gave them his ID. After he closed the window and cracked it back open, there was nothing blocking interaction there. There's absolutely no excuse for the escalating. I've seen cops let much worse go.

Respectfully disagree. Will be interesting to see how Hill proceeds legally from here.

How? I'm not seeing a strawman here, so explain why you think it is.

"Lemme guess, you are puzzled because the only thing you are willing to fight for in the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment, the 4th be damned."

You don't see how this is a strawman argument? It asserts that I'm only willing to fight for the 2nd Amendment, when I am in fact in favor of an immediate, nationwide assault weapons ban.

 

[MarCowMar]

He had the opportunity to asked for those items when he chose to berate the driver about their seatbelt.

How is asking him why he wasn't wearing a seatbelt berating him? It was clearly an opportunity for Hill to state he had taken it off to retrieve his identification or provide an excuse but Hill was too slow to pickup on that.

The cop is under no obligation to adhere to the drivers "demands". The driver can be the biggest butt crevasse as long as his antics are not physical, there is no reason for the cop to address the driver's verbal tantrum.

If the driver prevents the officer from completing the stop or endangers the officer, the officer has legal authority to use force. Hill blocked interaction with the officer and prevented the officer from seeing activity in the vehicle by rolling up his window.

And Miami-Dade will be doing the same for this officer!

We'll see. There's obviously subjectivity on these matters but I think it's pretty clear Hill overplayed his hand. As DaveXA indicates, the event is likely a nothingburger if Hill just cracked his window.

 

[MarCowMar]

How many traffic stops have you conducted?

The # of traffic stops I've conducted is equal the number of football teams I have coached.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

If the driver prevents the officer from completing the stop or endangers the officer, the officer has legal authority to use force. Hill blocked interaction with the officer and prevented the officer from seeing activity in the vehicle by rolling up his window.

Clearly, the driver did not obstruct the officer's ability to issue the citation. How did the driver, REASONABLY, endanger the police? They KNEW the identity of the driver, they KNEW the car was registered by the driver because the cop that made the stop reported the plate to dispatch before engaging the driver. If they felt any fear at that point, the perhaps they should seek another profession.

We'll see. There's obviously subjectivity on these matters but I think it's pretty clear Hill overplayed his hand.

I disagree, he exerted his 1st Amendment rights to voice his displeasures of his interactions with the police.

As DaveXA indicates, the event is likely a nothingburger if Hill just cracked his window.

Also, it would have been a nothingburger had the cop just issue the citation.

 

[DaveXA]

The # of traffic stops I've conducted is equal the number of football teams I have coached.

You do understand you're responding to a former cop who knows how these things work right?

I'm gonna go with the guy with first hand experience in this sort of thing.

 

[DaveXA]

Apples and peanuts are both edible. They both can be consumed raw. They both can be grown in North America. They both can be made into butter. The fact that they're not identical doesn't mean they can't be compared in some respects.

I mean, suit yourself, but it doesn't hold water to me. They're different scenarios that require different responses.

The similarity that prison and police work have is that they both involve use of force. I'm not sure why you dispute that so vehemently. I agreed with you that they are not perfectly comparable, and I wasn't even the forum participant who introduced the comparison.

I dispute it because no force was required with TH. That's the difference. The cops chose to use force when it wasn't warranted. And this is precisely why the cop was fired.

And who brought it up is irrelevant.

From what I see the cop was in defusal mode up until 1:20 in the interaction. I'm not sure where this cop would rank on the global skill level but Hill was obviously afforded multiple opportunities to avoid a physical interaction. I'd argue with you that it's easy to interact with civilians who have committed crimes or misdemeanors, but we seem to disagree on enough already!

There was nothing to defuse up until that point. You had an understandably nervous Hill telling them not to knock on the window and go do what you gotta do. He's clearly stressed and nervous. A good cop will say thank you for the ID and will go process the ticket. And TH was not afforded anything of the sort. What the heck sort of comment is that? What exactly did Hill do that warranted a physical reaction? Speeding doesn't warrant a physical reaction, his comments didn't warrant a physical reaction, his rolling the window up, then back down 1/3 of the way didn't warrant a physical reaction. There's literally no reason to open his door and pull him out other than the cops being bullies. I mean, if defending bullies is your thing, ok then.

Respectfully disagree. Sometimes people just see a situation differently--even when it's on video. I think the in-person discussion that a jury affords helps reconcile these differences.

I'd love for this to go before a jury, the police would be in a world of hurt in a courtroom on this. There's a reason the cop was fired in this case.

100% agree. If Hill cracked the window we likely would never be having this conversation.

He did crack the window 1/3 of the way open. In fact, the cop even says they're taking him out of the car AFTER he's already opened the window. It's like he responded like a spoiled brat because he didn't get exactly what he wanted.

Fair enough--in my state license/insurance/registration are separate papers. The license is for the driver. The insurance is obtained from a private company for the car, and the registration is from the state. I would hand all three over if I wanted to withstand a traffic stop that didn't involve opening my windows.

What is done in your state is irrelevant. What matters is Florida and local laws. I give a cop whatever he asks me to give him. If he only says ID, I give him ID. If he asks for more, I give him whatever he requests. It's that simple.

Agree that he had about two steps toward his motorcycle and was standing directly by the window when Hill rolled it down. Agreed that the cop was "butthurt" and look forward to seeing that terminology used in the casework. I don't think Hill became defensive till that door came open. The classic moment when a bully realizes their target is going to put up a fight.

Irony thinking TH is the bully here. Smh.

Respectfully disagree. Will be interesting to see how Hill proceeds legally from here.

Sure, we'll see.

"Lemme guess, you are puzzled because the only thing you are willing to fight for in the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment, the 4th be damned."

You don't see how this is a strawman argument? It asserts that I'm only willing to fight for the 2nd Amendment, when I am in fact in favor of an immediate, nationwide assault weapons ban.

 

[MarCowMar]

I mean, suit yourself, but it doesn't hold water to me. They're different scenarios that require different responses.

I dispute it because no force was required with TH. That's the difference. The cops chose to use force when it wasn't warranted. And this is precisely why the cop was fired.

And who brought it up is irrelevant.

There was nothing to defuse up until that point. You had an understandably nervous Hill telling them not to knock on the window and go do what you gotta do. He's clearly stressed and nervous. A good cop will say thank you for the ID and will go process the ticket. And TH was not afforded anything of the sort. What the heck sort of comment is that? What exactly did Hill do that warranted a physical reaction? Speeding doesn't warrant a physical reaction, his comments didn't warrant a physical reaction, his rolling the window up, then back down 1/3 of the way didn't warrant a physical reaction. There's literally no reason to open his door and pull him out other than the cops being bullies. I mean, if defending bullies is your thing, ok then.

I'd love for this to go before a jury, the police would be in a world of hurt in a courtroom on this. There's a reason the cop was fired in this case.

He did crack the window 1/3 of the way open. In fact, the cop even says they're taking him out of the car AFTER he's already opened the window. It's like he responded like a spoiled brat because he didn't get exactly what he wanted.

What is done in your state is irrelevant. What matters is Florida and local laws. I give a cop whatever he asks me to give him. If he only says ID, I give him ID. If he asks for more, I give him whatever he requests. It's that simple.

Irony thinking TH is the bully here. Smh.

Sure, we'll see.

It seems we've laid all our cards on the table, so as a moderator and a former officer you deserve the final point and I'll just add that I've found the discussion enriching and will enjoy hashing it out further if we get some more details in court!

 

[DaveXA]

It seems we've laid all our cards on the table, so as a moderator and a former officer you deserve the final point and I'll just add that I've found the discussion enriching and will enjoy hashing it out further if we get some more details in court!

I'm not the former officer. I'm referring to the poster you quoted. Big_L.

And agreed, we'll see. I suspect there will be a pretty substantial settlement before it get litigated. There's definitely substantial risk exposure in allowing this to transpire in court imo.