Closing your garage door is now an executable offense in America

[Loren Pechtel]

No assumption. The police did not report he aimed his weapon. And they fired through a closing door.

That doesn't matter. He closed the door and obviously that door provides no cover. So he concealed himself in possession of a gun upon seeing the police and they could not see where the hell he was aiming, if anywhere. Remember: if they could shoot him, he could have shot them just as easily.

Your conjectures reflect on your state of mind, not the facts of the case. There is simply no way for you to know that he was going for cover.

Technically concealment, but what do you think he was doing?

Concealment is also called soft cover.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Closing the garage door on the police after being told to drop his weapon (and also not dropping it) is 99% of the reason he was shot according to the jury.

1. The family says that is a false claim. The gun was found in his pocket after being shot in the head dead. How do you explain that?
2. Actually, the jury awarded each family member $1 for all the damages due to a black life lost. They then determined, incorrectly it looks like, the dead guy was 99% at fault, so they awarded 1% of the emotional and material damage to the family. So they gave them 4 cents.

Since we are being told that privilege is relative and so many families got $0, it means this is black privilege.

My guess:

He opened the door intending to scare off whoever was there griping about the noise. He saw the cops and had an "oh, shit!" moment, closed the door and put the gun away.

Then they shot him after he put the gun away. [assuming he had it out which is not a conclusion]

Less likely:

Someone in the house put the gun in his pocket afterwards.

This is impossible according to court documents which were already cited in this thread. The reason your weird guess is impossible is that SWAT said the gun was in his pocket. They gassed the place with tear gas so people would not be able to see and then they went in with a robot. There wasn't opportunity for anyone to do this.

 

[Juma]

My guess:

He opened the door intending to scare off whoever was there griping about the noise. He saw the cops and had an "oh, shit!" moment, closed the door and put the gun away.

Then they shot him after he put the gun away. [assuming he had it out which is not a conclusion]

Less likely:

Someone in the house put the gun in his pocket afterwards.

This is impossible according to court documents which were already cited in this thread. The reason your weird guess is impossible is that SWAT said the gun was in his pocket. They gassed the place with tear gas so people would not be able to see and then they went in with a robot. There wasn't opportunity for anyone to do this.

What? SWAT team? What the fuck? That is not lawenforcement, that is fucking war!

 

[Axulus]

I'm not sure why going from the gun in his hand when the cops initially confronted him to his back pocket as the garage door was closing is so difficult of a scenario to believe. It takes only a few seconds to make such a transfer.

You actively disobey cop commands after you flash a gun to them, it is not unreasonable for the cops to fear for their life at that point.

That is the story the jury found plausible.

 

[bilby]

Really? Under what law? It's not unlawful to be drunk in your own home in Florida, is it? It's not unlawful to be in possession of a gun in your own home in Florida, is it? Is there a specific Florida or Federal statute that prohibits handling your own gun on your own property while intoxicated? If so, please provide a link.

It's not illegal to be drunk.

It's not illegal to drive a car.

Does that mean it's legal to drive drunk?

That response oddly bears no relation to the question asked.

It appears from information provided by other posters that it is unlawful to be intoxicated while 'ready to discharge a weapon'; But that clearly can't be a problem for a person whose gun is not loaded, as it is not 'ready to discharge'.

So, can you please provide a link to the law that makes it illegal in Florida to be in possession of an unloaded gun while intoxicated. Or withdraw your factually incorrect claim.

- - - Updated - - -

The police were there, responding to a noise complaint, to request of someone to keep noise down. The BAC was measured at autopsy, not any kind of knowledge by police at the time. Also irrelevant is the police record. Again, noise complaint. My nephew had one of those once because his band is loud. No one got shot.

Because he didn't point a gun at the cops. This guy opened the door with a gun in his hand. A very bad idea when it's the cops.

But not illegal in Florida. And how does he know it's the cops before he opens the door?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not sure why going from the gun in his hand when the cops initially confronted him to his back pocket as the garage door was closing is so difficult of a scenario to believe. It takes only a few seconds to make such a transfer.

Why do you assume that the police are telling the truth about seeing a gun?

That is the story the jury found plausible.

Do you have a link that verifies what story the jury believed?

 

[Toni]

That response oddly bears no relation to the question asked.

It appears from information provided by other posters that it is unlawful to be intoxicated while 'ready to discharge a weapon'; But that clearly can't be a problem for a person whose gun is not loaded, as it is not 'ready to discharge'.

So, can you please provide a link to the law that makes it illegal in Florida to be in possession of an unloaded gun while intoxicated. Or withdraw your factually incorrect claim.

But the perp was black, bilby. That's the part that matters. He was black and owned a firearm. No matter that this is perfectly legal to do in FL.

 

[steve_bank]

Started a thread on deadly force.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not sure why going from the gun in his hand when the cops initially confronted him to his back pocket as the garage door was closing is so difficult of a scenario to believe. It takes only a few seconds to make such a transfer.

Why do you assume that the police are telling the truth about seeing a gun?

That is the story the jury found plausible.

Do you have a link that verifies what story the jury believed?

I don't think it is a stretch, seeing their award of $4 was pretty much trolling the family of the person who was shot to death by the Police.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm not sure why going from the gun in his hand when the cops initially confronted him to his back pocket as the garage door was closing is so difficult of a scenario to believe. It takes only a few seconds to make such a transfer.

Well, first of all, it's because we often hear stories of police shooting someone they think has something in their hand. Second, this isn't a criminal justice case but a civil one where burdens of evidence may be different. Third, witnesses who are not police say there was nothing in his hand. Fourth, according to timing it doesn't seem there were seconds to put the gun away and that's the one where you are not actually responding to any content in a post I have written where such content is very detailed but instead make a de novo post out of thin air, saying "oh my, I can't understand it." If you look at the posts I have written you can see the timing issues...but let's get into them again for the reader's benefit...

You are claiming that maybe he put the gun away as the garage door closed. First maybe he didn't have the gun out. Second maybe he had something else small in his hand police mistook for a gun such as a garage door opener or a wallet. Even so, if he had a gun out but put it in his back pocket, police for the most part would have seen him put it in his back pocket and then would not have shot. Note that one officer shot him as he was closing the door not after the door was closed all the way. So the officer has his gun out, the garage door is closing, and the officer bam, bam, bam fires really fast..killing Gregory Hill instantly, with a shot to the brain which vicinity in the brain means he had no motor functions. Putting the gun in his back pocket after being shot is out of the question. Putting his gun in his back pocket while his mid-section was visible under the garage door is also out of the question, otherwise police would have allegedly not shot and if they did, then they'd be at fault to some significantly greater extent. Now, what about the very small window of time remaining if it even exists? The one where somewhere between when the bottom of the garage door was between his mid-section and his knees, he put the gun in his back pocket, followed by the cop shooting him when the bottom of the garage door was between his knees and feet in height? Is it theoretically possible? Maybe, but look at all the hoops you have to jump through and all the witness testimony you have to get rid of, all the timing you have to create to the benefit of the police. And miraculously Gregory Hill has to randomly decide to put the gun in his back pocket just before being shot in order for this reaching out of nether regions to have any possibility of working in theory. Why do you feel it is necessary to engage in such ..., well, apologetics, for lack of a better word? Remember this isn't a criminal trial.

You actively disobey cop commands after you flash a gun to them, it is not unreasonable for the cops to fear for their life at that point.

That is the story the jury found plausible.

I don't think it's reasonable. Note I am using a different word. Maybe theoretically possible. Is it plausible? ehhh, probably not? And is that the burden?

As to the jury...did all members really find it plausible like you are suggesting:

Hours before the verdict, the jury sent the judge a note with a question: "If we find minimal negligence, can the courts overrule monetary amounts presented by the jury?"

The judge replied that she did not understand, and asked them to clarify. They never did.

At another point, they said they were struggling to reach a unanimous decision. The judge told them to keep trying.

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/l...-family-man-killed-st-lucie-deputy/665842002/

The jury seems to have been pressured to agree.

 

[marc]

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/l...-family-man-killed-st-lucie-deputy/665842002/

The jury seems to have been pressured to agree.

My thought before reading that article was 'what were the instructions given to the jury?'. Like how in the Zimmerman case 'Stand Your Ground' was not being officially used as a defense, but the jury instructions made it part of the defense.

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you assume that the police are telling the truth about seeing a gun?

Do you have a link that verifies what story the jury believed?

I don't think it is a stretch, seeing their award of $4 was pretty much trolling the family of the person who was shot to death by the Police.

It was a poke in the eye. But the 99% responsibility could have been driven by his drunkenness and his race.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Also, he was listening to rap music at the time. I read that the music was by Drake--the guy that used to be in DeGrassi.

I can definitely see myself being at home, having some drinks, maybe a couple of mud slides or beers and listening to some Led Zeppelin. I mean, you feel very safe in your own home--safe enough to have one too many and chill out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do you assume that the police are telling the truth about seeing a gun?

Do you have a link that verifies what story the jury believed?

I don't think it is a stretch, seeing their award of $4 was pretty much trolling the family of the person who was shot to death by the Police.

It was a poke in the eye. But the 99% responsibility could have been driven by his drunkenness and his race.

The 99% responsibility was the same as the $4. He was drunk, yeah... but I wasn't aware of how many people were shot by the police because they were drunk. He is somewhat culpable with what happened, but based on what I've seen, the Police were reckless in their use of force.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It was a poke in the eye. But the 99% responsibility could have been driven by his drunkenness and his race.

The 99% responsibility was the same as the $4. He was drunk, yeah... but I wasn't aware of how many people were shot by the police because they were drunk. He is somewhat culpable with what happened, but based on what I've seen, the Police were reckless in their use of force.

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wait, so if carrying a loaded gun while under any kind of influence at all from controlled substances is a legal issue, then where were all these people against this poor guy, when George Zimmerman was carrying a gun while under Adderall and Temazepam for his mental conditions?

*crickets*

 

[laughing dog]

It was a poke in the eye. But the 99% responsibility could have been driven by his drunkenness and his race.

The 99% responsibility was the same as the $4. He was drunk, yeah... but I wasn't aware of how many people were shot by the police because they were drunk. He is somewhat culpable with what happened, but based on what I've seen, the Police were reckless in their use of force.

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

What evidence do you have that this man aimed a gun at the police?

 

[coloradoatheist]

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

What evidence do you have that this man aimed a gun at the police?

I am not the one who needed the evidence, that was the jury.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

What evidence do you have that this man aimed a gun at the police?

I am not the one who needed the evidence, that was the jury.

You are claiming something that may be different than what was stated. You are claiming he "aimed" the gun. Previously, we heard he had a gun in his hand. Aiming is beyond that. Could you please go back and review your sources to ensure you have that right and maybe dig into this, let us know if you made an error or not?

From court document in post#38:

...Hill stood facing out of the garage with his left hand on the door and his right hand down. Newman drew his gun, and as the garage door started to go down, fired four times toward Hill, tracking upward. A SWAT team arrived, and when it went inside the garage, it confirmed that Hill was dead and found a gun in his back pocket. He had been shot three times: twice in the abdomen and once in the head. Bryant's expert concluded that after sustaining the head wound, Hill would have been incapable of any motor function....

Hill's hand was down. The garage door merely started to go down, not even that far when the officer immediately fired. Not only was there no time for him to put it in his pocket but if he did, the police ought to have stopped firing, but there also is no mention of him aiming it. So, if you have a source with different info about aiming it that is a court document and not a blog three times removed from primary sources, please submit such evidence to the thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It was a poke in the eye. But the 99% responsibility could have been driven by his drunkenness and his race.

The 99% responsibility was the same as the $4. He was drunk, yeah... but I wasn't aware of how many people were shot by the police because they were drunk. He is somewhat culpable with what happened, but based on what I've seen, the Police were reckless in their use of force.

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

If the guy aimed a gun at an officer, they would have found him 100% responsible.