You may consider being cuffed a detainment, but SCOTUS doesn't.
I never asked to leave. I spent most of my time there chatting with the officer on my own while not in cuffs. Just two guys talking about the weather. No harm done.
Tyreek Hill detainment
- Thread starter Brons2
- Start date
- Status
That is correct. The whole 1:45 video is on YouTube. I watched most of it last night.
Calais was calm and kind of funny. He drives a Tesla. The cop says something along the lines of, this is what you get when you don't do what we say after they handcuff him. Someone else drives his car away.
Johnnu Smith pulls over in front of Hill in what looks like a Bently SUV. His companion films the police interaction from what appears to be at least the 25 ft allowable range and the police hassle him.
A bystander records from about 25 ft and gets yelled at by the police who now want videographers 50 ft away.
The surrounding scene after the stop is just as chaotic as the initial stop.
The definition of detainment is your not free to leave. Being handcuffed is the absolute definition of being detained.
I think your mistaking detained vs arrest.
No, being handcuffed is not being detained. The SCOTUS ruled on that, so you can't say the since I was cuffed, I was detained.
I am not mistaking the difference between being cuffed, detained, and arrested.
Agree to disagree here. Although he was not the driver he was the owner of the vehicle which the officer confirmed and consequently told him to move it. I know there is at least one former LEO on this site who could provide some clarity.
I would love to see that ruling?
If your not being detained then your free to leave at any time. So you were free to walk away in your handcuffs?
11 pages of useless bickering.
Yes, I suspect we wouldnt be seeing some of the comments that we do if those people watched those auditor video's
Yes again, very easy to see.
We ran out of thick vs thin variants.
I would question that statement. Im looking at Supreme Court Law and not seeing what could be applied to this thread topic or what happened to you.
It isnt clear cut but the Supreme Court seems to make it clear in the TINY amount of case I just reviewed that as a rule ... well instead of me typing here it is. But there is not a blanket you can be handcuffed statement, under certain conditions such as this and being they were put in handcuffs it was considered a detention. Detention is mentioned in all three paragraphs 1,2 & 3
This was a case of a court ordered search warrant.
" 1. Mena’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. That detention is consistent with Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, 705, in which the Court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority “to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/03-1423
@wwillson
In defense of what happened to you, you have a good point. I just found this, I think very informative to this discussion as I even learned something here too. But do note, it is still a detention, called an investigatory detention and allow by law if it fits the requirements below in the link we does give police a wide latitude.
"When a police officer detains you, you are held in police custody for a short period of time. Under certain circumstances, police officers can temporarily detain a suspect while the officer conducts a brief investigation to determine if the suspect is involved in criminal activity. This is called an investigative detention.
During an investigative detention, the suspect is not free to leave, may be handcuffed for officer safety, and may even be frisked (briefly searched) for weapons. This is often referred to as a “Terry stop,” named for the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio, that first approved the concept of investigatory detentions."
Source =
https://jmarshlaw.com/detain-or-arr...-what-does-it-mean-to-be-detained-nbsp-strong
Last edited:
Ps. I see this thread as a healthy conversation and informative.
More commentary, from sheriff candidates...
Hint: they were disturbed by what they saw. So was I; there was no reason for the officer's rapid escalation which resulted in a dangerous situation.
Hint: they were disturbed by what they saw. So was I; there was no reason for the officer's rapid escalation which resulted in a dangerous situation.
I would guess it was for several factors combined, but only the officer knows for sure.
The thread is interesting to see the same event viewed very differently by many people with very different perspectives.
Were all a product of our lifetime of experience and all view the world through a different lens. I am always surprised on how different reasonable people can view the world. Makes me wonder not just which is right, but what does right even mean?
Were all a product of our lifetime of experience and all view the world through a different lens. I am always surprised on how different reasonable people can view the world. Makes me wonder not just which is right, but what does right even mean?
There's some of that as usual but there's been some very good and thoughtful comments. If you find it useless, don't participate.
The opening sentence of my business law textbook was, "Reasonable people can see the same set of circumstances very differently." The prof really tried to keep reminding us of this idea throughout the course and often we were asked to pick a position we believed in and then asked to argue some other competing position. They were useful exercises.
Just like the account I wrote about the time they wrongly stopped me at gunpoint thinking I stole a car, I would not be happy at all. Thats obvious. What I would say or do is give Dad or Mom a hug and tell them Thank God you are OK, and affirm they did the right thing by not being combative with a cop even though the cop was wrong. Their life is too valuable to let an argument spin out of control and a tradegy occour.
Sure. Personally I do not think the Officer had cause to put hands on Mr. Hill. He had his paperwork; the window was not closed; he was co-operating. The Officer's rhetoric was wrong. The body-cam footage showed Hill berated by an officer as being “f-----g confused” after he was yanked from his sports car and pushed to the street to be handcuffed.
An elderly person would likely be injured, perhaps badly, by the Officer's actions, specifically being pushed to the asphalt. Anyone could have been. That's my opinion.
Now you are speculating about a cop doing this to a frail elderly person, not a combative NFL diva driving an exotic car.
Lets be real, its very unlikely to happen but thats your "what if".
Lets be real, its very unlikely to happen but thats your "what if".
- Status
Similar threads
