Tyreek Hill and Scottie Scheffler

[superrific]

2. Removal from the car is warranted in any traffic stop. Technically, an officer can choose to arrest someone for a traffic violation such as reckless driving, which is what Hill was cited for. This almost never happens because it would be a waste of time for all involved. However, removing someone from a car who is already detained is not unlawful.

Reckless driving is a criminal offense, not a traffic violation. You cannot be arrested for a traffic violation. Removal from the car is only warranted if the officer has a reasonable fear for her safety. In some states, that might be more or less "all the time" but it varies state to state and anyway, "because I asked you to" is not actually a valid reason.

I'm not going into the weeds here, because I don't really know. As I have said, the issue is ridiculously complicated. You obviously don't really know either, so let's just put this aside.

All of the force that I saw was excessive.

 

[UNCatTech]

Cops and firefighters are required to put their lives on the line. They are required to run toward the shooter/fire, not away from the shooter/fire. Cops are required to pursue and interact with the most dangerous members of society. Within the confines of interacting with the most dangerous people in society (aka doing their job), their first priority should be taking basic steps to protect themselves. Asking a suspect to put their hands out the window, turn off their vehicle, open their window, etc are basic actions taken to protect their safety. Those steps aren't illegal or unconstitutional.

Agree. At the same time they are the professionals in these interactions and should have the training and ability to remain in control of emotions, access the situation, make a reasonable judgment of the need for escalation, and de-escalat where possible.

 

[ZenMode]

Maybe you could try that explanation again, because as written it doesn't convey the idea that you think it does. I mean, that's fine. If you explain yourself reasonably, it doesn't matter much if your first try wasn't very successful. But we can't read your mind, so clarity is important.

I see no reason to explain anything. I've stated that I don't believe Uvalde police were doing their job. Again, one of the jobs of police is to protect the public. Nothing the Uvalde police did was protecting anyone but themselves while leaving the public in danger.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Hill should not have been arrested.

Give him his citations and carry on.

He wasn't arrested. He was detained, cited, and released.

 

[UNCatTech]

Reckless driving is a criminal offense, not a traffic violation. You cannot be arrested for a traffic violation. Removal from the car is only warranted if the officer has a reasonable fear for her safety. In some states, that might be more or less "all the time" but it varies state to state and anyway, "because I asked you to" is not actually a valid reason.

I'm not going into the weeds here, because I don't really know. As I have said, the issue is ridiculously complicated. You obviously don't really know either, so let's just put this aside.

All of the force that I saw was excessive.

A question. I've been told that you can be taken to jail and have to bond out at the discretion of the officer, for any traffic violation. That, as I've been told, is why the citation states that you are signing in lieu of bail.

Is that considered being arrested?

 

[Bigs23]

He wasn't arrested. He was detained, cited, and released.

Krafty stated that he should have been arrested.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

We’ll see how this ends up.

Video cameras have made life much harder for these tough guy cops.

My bet is that it ends up with nothing happening, aside from maybe a verbal reprimand for the one cop for having an attitude. Unlike Hill, he did nothing that was unlawful.

 

[superrific]

My advice: don't go to medical school. You would struggle. Gloves are absolutely there to protect the surgeon AND the patient. Are you aware of blood borne pathogens? You may believe that snark can fool people into believing that you know what you are talking about in this case, but that belief would be misplaced.

GTFOH. My dad is a surgeon and my wife is a psychiatrist. I'm not going to discuss this badly off-topic nonsense. Yes, physicians benefit from gloves but that's not their primary purpose, and you referred also to a kitchen knife, which has nothing to do with doctor safety. Enough BS for now.

 

[StrangePackage]

He wasn't arrested. He was detained, cited, and released.

And the force with which he was detained was clearly excessive in respect to the criminal conduct observed and the demonstrable lack of safety concerns on the part of the officer.

If the citation could have been issued absent throwing the man to the ground and handcuffing him, and it clearly could have been, then there's no justification for doing that.

 

[Peppers49]

Some of you are over analyzing this lol. The bottom line is that it took about 1 minute from the time that the cop left his car for Tyreek Hill to be on the ground and handcuffed. That’s an insane overreaction by the cop for a traffic stop, no matter how you slice it.

 

[theel4life]

Some of you are over analyzing this lol. The bottom line is that it took about 1 minute from the time that the cop left his car for Tyreek Hill to be on the ground and handcuffed. That’s an insane overreaction by the cop for a traffic stop, no matter how you slice it.

 

[superrific]

A question. I've been told that you can be taken to jail and have to bond out at the discretion of the officer, for any traffic violation. That, as I've been told, is why the citation states that you are signing in lieu of bail.

It depends on the state. I don't know what the law is in FL, GA or NC. Others can answer that question. Where I live, you cannot be arrested for mere civil infractions, which is how the majority of traffic violations are classified. That means you cannot be taken to the jail without more.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

GTFOH. My dad is a surgeon and my wife is a psychiatrist. I'm not going to discuss this badly off-topic nonsense. Yes, physicians benefit from gloves but that's not their primary purpose, and you referred also to a kitchen knife, which has nothing to do with doctor safety. Enough BS for now.

I don't care what your father or wife does. Are you aware of PPE? Medical gloves are considered PPE. Slowly now, what do the first two P's in PPE stand for?

I'll help you out. Personal Protective Equipment.

 

[superrific]

I see no reason to explain anything. I've stated that I don't believe Uvalde police were doing their job. Again, one of the jobs of police is to protect the public. Nothing the Uvalde police did was protecting anyone but themselves while leaving the public in danger.

You linked to a post that does not explain that at all. Forget it. I don't care and it's not worth any discussion as to whether you did or didn't say something earlier in the thread. I take it your position now -- which is all that matters -- is that the police officer must balance personal safety with public safety. Fine. That's not quite the same thing as "first priority being personal safety" but to be honest, I'm not keeping close track of who exactly said what so maybe I'm putting someone else's words in your mouth. If so, I apologize. The trick, of course, is how to judge that balancing act.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

And the force with which he was detained was clearly excessive in respect to the criminal conduct observed and the demonstrable lack of safety concerns on the part of the officer.

If the citation could have been issued absent throwing the man to the ground and handcuffing him, and it clearly could have been, then there's no justification for doing that

The fact that Hill was removed from the vehicle for not complying with lawful orders is not the fault of the police officers. It is the fault of Hill.

 

[superrific]

I don't care what your father or wife does. Are you aware of PPE? Medical gloves are considered PPE. Slowly now, what do the first two P's in PPE stand for?

I'll help you out. Personal Protective Equipment.

Here's a general point to keep in mind: labels do not determine substance. You're not going to bait me into a discussion of this irrelevancy. I'll just say that if you are ever making an argument of the form, "the nature of the object is determined by the word we use to describe it," then you should reconsider. That is always bogus, even if it is sometimes accurate.

 

[StrangePackage]

The fact that Hill was removed from the vehicle for not complying with lawful orders is not the fault of the police officers. It is the fault of Hill.

Please give me the time in seconds that Hill was offered to comply with either request to lower the window or exit the car, prior to the officer either deciding to remove Hill, or an officer placing his hands on Hill.

Hill was issued contradictory commands within the span of less than 10 seconds and was forced out of the car without being given an opportunity to comply.

As you said the officers were in control of the situation and it was their conduct, not Hills, which is at issue here. There's a reason why Hill was only cited for a driving concern rather than resisting or obstruction, and why the officer is on administrative leave. If we are, as you seem to want to, to defer to the judgment of the police officers in any given situation then the fact that the officer has been placed on administrative leave is clear indication that his superiors believe that he was outside of the bounds of acceptable use of force in this circumstance.

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Here's a general point to keep in mind: labels do not determine substance. You're not going to bait me into a discussion of this irrelevancy. I'll just say that if you are ever making an argument of the form, "the nature of the object is determined by the word we use to describe it," then you should reconsider. That is always bogus, even if it is sometimes accurate.

You are the one who claimed that medical gloves aren't worn to protect the wearer, and then tried to laugh at me for stating otherwise.

 

[superrific]

Paul Harding
Deputy Sheriff since 2000, Flight Instructor Upvoted by

Originally Answered: Is it legal to refuse to roll down your window at a traffic stop?
The factor which really disrupts this theory is that a properly-conducted traffic stop is, at the least, a lawful detention based upon reasonable suspicion, and even more likely an arrest based upon probable cause. Lawful detention, as described in Terry v. Ohio, is the lesser standard, so I’ll just focus on that one to give our hypothetical driver every possible advantage in our hypothetical scenario.

Paul Harding, flight instructor, is not an authority about the law. For one thing, his first sentence is a logical contradiction and the rest of his post should be interpreted in that light. If the stop is, at the least, a lawful detention, that means there is a 100% chance of it being so. It cannot, therefore, be "even more likely" an arrest. Also, arrest is a higher standard (as the guy admits in the next sentence), so arithmetic aside, it cannot be "even more likely" to be an arrest than a detention (arrest being a subset of detentions).

I have no idea if what he says is right or wrong in the state of Florida, but why on Earth would you take his word for it?

 

[2ManyBlueCups]

Please give me the time in seconds that Hill was offered to comply with either request to lower the window or exit the car, prior to the officer either deciding to remove Hill, or an officer placing his hands on Hill.

Hill was issued contradictory commands within the span of less than 10 seconds and was forced out of the car without being given an opportunity to comply.

As you said the officers were in control of the situation and it was their conduct, not Hills, which is at issue here. There's a reason why Hill was only cited for a driving concern rather than resisting or obstruction, and why the officer is on administrative leave. If we are, as you seem to want to, to defer to the judgment of the police officers in any given situation then the fact that the officer has been placed on administrative leave is clear indication that his superiors believe that he was outside of the bounds of acceptable use of force in this circumstance.

Looking at the video, Hill was told at least five times to roll the window down. Hill had enough time crack the window to tell the officer "you're not going to tell me what to do" before rolling the window back up. He was clearly aware of the orders and had made a decision not to follow them. He was also told at least three times to get out of the vehicle before he was removed. Now, I personally believe that Hill should have been given more time to get out of the vehicle before he was removed. That said, that doesn't mean the officers were breaking the law or even policy when they did so.

The fact that an officer is on administrative leave does not mean that his superiors believe that the officer did anything wrong. It is standard protocol to place officers on administrative leave after any shooting, for example. This does not mean that he is suspended, or that he had to turn his gun in, or that he isn't getting paid. It just means that he's riding a desk until they determine if he should be punished or not.