This is probably the least wrong thing they did. They saw someone driving dangerously and issued a citation for that.
That’s not what I said.
He was driving carelessly for sure - which is what he got ticketed for.
But they claimed afterward they thought he was speeding and even gave a number. It’s a very simple lesson - don’t make up stuff. Especially when you don’t need to.
They got him for driving carelessly. Everything else was trying to add unnecessary justification to pulling him over in the first place, which they did not need to do.
Let me be clear, I am not defending the officer’s actions overall, but police are trained to estimate speeds of cars and, in many states, a visual estimate of speed alone is sufficient to support a traffic stop.
Again, not my point.
If it was “he was being careless and he seemed to be going too fast”, fine.
Quoting the AP article, “they later said they clocked him at 60 mph”. In a 35? Actually clocked him? And 25 mph over without that being one of the tickets?
Again, making up details is not a good look, nor is it necessary. “Going faster than conditions warrant” is sufficient motivation, especially combined with the camera footage.
Kinda. Let me clear something up here. There seems to be a common misunderstanding of Penn v Mimms that officers need to ‘reasonably fear for their safety’ Similar to people misunderstanding Miranda Rights.
I saw the above video and I kept waiting for him to say as much but he never quite does.
Its my opinion that officers have carte blanche to order occupants out but thats it. Searches, pat downs…that all falls under other stuff.
And let me say something else…after seeing that video last night…well, there’s a channel Audit the Audit that gives grades, I’d give Tyreek a B- and the officers an F --------
Throwing him to the ground so hard, all that “When we tell you jump you jump” stuff. Forcing him to sit. After reexaming stuff, any dumb stuff Tyreek did is vastly outweighed by what came after.
IMHO
The article says clocked, but they don’t quote an officer saying clocked or saying that they used radar. Seems just as likely to me that the officer said observed or another similar word to indicate they they saw him drive and estimated a speed of 60, but their words were interpreted by AP to mean clocked via radar.
Yeah, that’s what he is saying: that the officer can order people to leave their car, but it’s doesn’t give them automatic rights to pat down, seach or handcuff the occupants without reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.
The problem here is violence in which the officers are forcing him to leave the car, slaming him to the ground and handcuffing him, all within seconds of when the officer told him to exit and without any apparent resistence.
They also don’t have a right to keep him handcuffed.
Here is a good rundown of the legal issues surrounding this traffic stop:
(20 minutes)
And now, CNN is reporting the cop has has numerous suspensions and reprimands over his career and a history of complaints about use of force, discourtesy, conduct unbecoming.
It’s stuff like this that has people not automatically giving cops the benefit of the doubt, especially over traffic stops. And especially, especially not over traffic stops of people of color.
“There is no law requiring people to have their windows down the entire time of a traffic stop. There are not laws which require drivers to answer questions outside of providing ID.” Or maybe it’s being cautious, since cop didn’t know if Hill was armed and reaching for weapon