OT: Tyreek Hill detained outside stadium prior to Dolphins game, plans to play today

[signbabybrady]

Let’s answer the first question before we move on to the next. Do we agree they should have required the window to be kept down?
This conversation will take many tangents if we don’t agree on the previous steps.

I've answered that already

 

[Ring 6]

I've answered that already

Well I assumed you realized that no police force would ever instruct their officers to allow the tinted window to stay up and just walk away because it is poor safety for the officers.
If that’s your answer , we should stop there because I don’t think there is a point moving beyond not agreeing the officer must protect himself from all potential danger.

 

[signbabybrady]

Well I assumed you realized that no police force would ever instruct their officers to allow the tinted window to stay up and just walk away because it is poor safety for the officers.
If that’s your answer , we should stop there because I don’t think there is a point moving beyond not agreeing the officer must protect himself from all potential danger.

Yes and I have been asking if you think rushing a closed window like that is actually the safest thing to do for all involved?

 

[Ring 6]

Yes and I have been asking if you think rushing a closed window like that is actually the safest thing to do for all involved?

There is no point discussing that. You have a perspective that the police officer should expose himself to danger rather than annoy the law breaker.
So of course you think any action at all that they take is wrong, because they can’t even prioritize their own safety.
We will disagree 100% every step of the way on this. Why bother having the discussion?

 

[signbabybrady]

There is no point discussing that. You have a perspective that the police officer should expose himself to danger rather than annoy the law breaker.
So of course you think any action at all that they take is wrong, because they can’t even prioritize their own safety.
We will disagree 100% every step of the way on this. Why bother having the discussion?

I never said that

 

[Ring 6]

I never said that

So we agree that when a police officer pulls over an expensive car driving dangerously in a heavy pedestrian traffic area that there is a possibility there is a criminal in the vehicle who could have a weapon, right?

Do we disagree that whatever that % is, the police officer should act with an abundance of caution 100% of the time?

 

[signbabybrady]

So we agree that when a police officer pulls over an expensive car driving dangerously in a heavy pedestrian traffic area that there is a possibility there is a criminal in the vehicle who could have a weapon, right?

Do we disagree that whatever that % is, the police officer should act with an abundance of caution 100% of the time?

Yes.

Now, do you think rushing a vehicle with closed window that you perceive to be a threat the safest thing for you and the public?

 

[Ring 6]

Yes.

Now, do you think rushing a vehicle with closed window that you perceive to be a threat the safest thing for you and the public?

Well if we disagree that the police officer should act with an abundance of caution 100% of the time it’s pointless to move the next step.

 

[signbabybrady]

Well if we disagree that the police officer should act with an abundance of caution 100% of the time it’s pointless to move the next step.

We don't disagree on that no matter how many times you try to paint me that way.

 

[Ring 6]

We don't disagree on that no matter how many times you try to paint me that way.

Ok well you said “yes” to that in your last post when I asked you, so im
Not painting anything.


But if you agree, then we agree they needed to require him to keep the window down.

 

[signbabybrady]

Ok well you said “yes” to that in your last post when I asked you, so im
Not painting anything.


But if you agree, then we agree they needed to require him to keep the window down.

I said yes I agree.

They didn't need to do anything until they felt it was safe to do so. They chose to act without regard for anyone's safety really.

 

[Ring 6]

I said yes I agree.

They didn't need to do anything until they felt it was safe to do so. They chose to act without regard for anyone's safety really.

If you agree there is a chance that there is a weapon in the car and a criminal willing to use it, and that the police should act 100% of the time on the chance there is, then they simply cannot safely allow the tinted windows to obscure the inside of the vehicle.
If this were one of those cases they acted foolishly and unsafely.

 

[signbabybrady]

If you agree there is a chance that there is a weapon in the car and a criminal willing to use it, and that the police should act 100% of the time on the chance there is, then they simply cannot safely allow the tinted windows to obscure the inside of the vehicle.
If this were one of those cases they acted foolishly and unsafely.

Now can you explain to me how rushing the car was the safest thing do?

I think the officers would be lucky not to get shot.

The officers easily could have returned on the driver.

This was a heavily populated area so the likelihood of someone taking crossfire would be high.

They are lucky it was just Tyreek being an ass or this probably ends badly.

 

[Ring 6]

Now can you explain to me how rushing the car was the safest thing do?

I think the officers would be lucky not to get shot.

The officers easily could have returned on the driver.

This was a heavily populated area so the likelihood of someone taking crossfire would be high.

They are lucky it was just Tyreek being an ass or this probably ends badly.

How is letting him keep the window up safe?
Are you honestly telling me you think that when a traffic stop is made police policy should be if the driver closes his tinted window to hide what’s inside, they should walk away, write a ticket then come back and stand next to the window until he decides to put it down? That is voluntarily being defenseless

 

[signbabybrady]

How is letting him keep the window up safe?
Are you honestly telling me you think that when a traffic stop is made police policy should be if the driver closes his tinted window to hide what’s inside, they should walk away, write a ticket then come back and stand next to the window until he decides to put it down? That is voluntarily being defenseless

In either scenario they are approaching a closed window.

So yes I think stepping back from the situation for a moment would have been safer. Maybe assess what other citizens are in danger. Call for back up. Or again just give it a moment and return with the ticket so you have a reason for the window to come down so you can further assess.

I'm not acting like I have any answers at all. Which is why I'm asking if you think what they did was safe and if you think there was anything else maybe they could have done safer?

But you seem to have no interest in that sort of thing.

 

[Ring 6]

In either scenario they are approaching a closed window.

So yes I think stepping back from the situation for a moment would have been safer. Maybe assess what other citizens are in danger. Call for back up. Or again just give it a moment and return with the ticket so you have a reason for the window to come down so you can further assess.

I'm not acting like I have any answers at all. Which is why I'm asking if you think what they did was safe and if you think there was anything else maybe they could have done safer?

But you seem to have no interest in that sort of thing.

The difference is you are taking control of the situation.
He was already standing at the window, not approaching it, and the perp blatantly refused his order to put the window down.
That immediately creates a greater concern that there is something to hide. Walking away is not what an officer is trained to do. Talking control is.

I’m not understanding how you think there is less danger to the officer to allow the perp to disobey instruction and “give it a moment”. What is “giving it a moment” accomplishing.
You do understand that when that window goes up and he refuses to out it down the officer is trains to interpret that as a danger to him right?

This started with me asking what should he have done in response to that danger and after all this you are saying you have no answers at all.

Rather than playing gotcha, I am trying to break it down step by step.
We seem to be lost at the step of the officer, who must act in an abundance of caution for his safety seeing a perp obscure the inside of his vehicle. I say he must act. His life could be on the line and someone who is a threat to him would be acting exactly that way. You are saying give it some time a d see if he shoots before taking action. That is not acting in the interest of his safety.

There is no point in discussing what action he should take to control the situation if you think he should take none and hope he is safe.

 

[signbabybrady]

The difference is you are taking control of the situation.
He was already standing at the window, not approaching it, and the perp blatantly refused his order to put the window down.
That immediately creates a greater concern that there is something to hide. Walking away is not what an officer is trained to do. Talking control is.

I’m not understanding how you think there is less danger to the officer to allow the perp to disobey instruction and “give it a moment”. What is “giving it a moment” accomplishing.
You do understand that when that window goes up and he refuses to out it down the officer is trains to interpret that as a danger to him right?

This started with me asking what should he have done in response to that danger and after all this you are saying you have no answers at all.

Rather than playing gotcha, I am trying to break it down step by step.
We seem to be lost at the step of the officer, who must act in an abundance of caution for his safety seeing a perp obscure the inside of his vehicle. I say he must act. His life could be on the line and someone who is a threat to him would be acting exactly that way. You are saying give it some time a d see if he shoots before taking action. That is not acting in the interest of his safety.

There is no point in discussing what action he should take to control the situation if you think he should take none and hope he is safe.

So like I said four pages ago sorry you're right the only option was to recklessly charge the vehicle

 

[Ring 6]

So like I said four pages ago sorry you're right the only option was to recklessly charge the vehicle

Well they clearly needed to take control of the situation. What would you have them do, in order to address the potential danger they are in?

 

[signbabybrady]

Well they clearly needed to take control of the situation. What would you have them do, in order to address the potential danger they are in?

I've made plenty of suggestions already.

You can't even answer if you actually think what they did was safe?

And I've asked you the same thing what else do you think they could have done?

 

[Ring 6]

I've made plenty of suggestions already.

You can't even answer if you actually think what they did was safe?

And I've asked you the same thing what else do you think they could have done?

As I e said I am taking this step by step. You seem to be waffling on each step.

You suggested they could have done nothing and allowed him to obscure himself but you agree the officers needed to treat him as a threat.

Do we agree at this point that they needed to address the threat? Or are you still in the stand around until you get shot and just hope you don’t argument?.