Deaf Mute shot by Dumb cop

[PhantomWolf]

My point is that a failure to respond to verbal orders isn't of overwhelming value in a world with deaf people or people who don't speak English. It shouldn't be the deciding factor when considering the use of deadly force.

Who says that it is? Failure to obey orders is one of a list of things that leads up to these incidents. The orders that usually get people dead when they fail to comply are the ones like... "Stop there, don't come any closer" or "Show me your hands"

If you get those sort of orders give then, yes, failing to obey them puts you at extreme chance of being shot because failing to follow them generally means that you have malicious intent, that you're trying to get close enough to attack, or that your hands are concealed because you're hiding a weapon.

 

[marplots]

It takes two people to cause these situations, but in the minds of the Cop haters, the victim can never have done anything wrong at all. Nope the cop was suppose to be a mind reader, the actions of the victim are totally irrelevant to it all cause the cop should have know that despite how he acts, he's not actually a threat.

One of those two people is a trained professional, acting under the authority of the state and who deals with the public on a regular basis. One is not.

I am perfectly willing to ask the professionals and see what they can come up with: "We'd like cops to shoot fewer unarmed civilians. What do you suggest?"

 

[marplots]

My point is that a failure to respond to verbal orders isn't of overwhelming value in a world with deaf people or people who don't speak English. It shouldn't be the deciding factor when considering the use of deadly force.

Who says that it is? Failure to obey orders is one of a list of things that leads up to these incidents. The orders that usually get people dead when they fail to comply are the ones like... "Stop there, don't come any closer" or "Show me your hands"

If you get those sort of orders give then, yes, failing to obey them puts you at extreme chance of being shot because failing to follow them generally means that you have malicious intent, that you're trying to get close enough to attack, or that your hands are concealed because you're hiding a weapon.

I think you just did, in your second paragraph.

 

[HansMustermann]

I guess with those odds you'd be quite happy to sit in a chair that has a 1 in 82 chance of electrocuting you once a year?

Note that that was the rate for assaults. The rate for actual deaths is more like one in 1 in 6666 years, as I calculated on page 2.

Guess what? People do stuff that has higher chances of death all the time. As I was saying, the chance of dying in a motorcycle accident is about 4 times higher, and we don't treat that as some heroic thing to do. Nor do we think that motorcyclists should have a right to shoot someone for driving too close and too aggressively.

Wow, you go from noting that there are 40 million encounters with cops in a year to rushing claim that the Police just shoot people for acting funny. Yet somehow the streets aren't running red with the blood of the thousands if not tens of thousands of those 40 million who likely acted funny, instead we're talking a handful, most likely 30 odd given the numbers reported in the news, but hey let's be generous and say 100 out of the 40 million where something goes terribly wrong. That is hardly the police just shooting everyone who acts funny.

1. I never said EVERYONE who acts funny. Running out of ideas and going for ye olde strawman already? Come on, we're barely on page 4

2. I've already mentioned that there are good cops and bad cops. Obviously not everyone goes for homicide at the drop of a hat. So I see no problem there.

3. Those people don't have a legal mandate to wave a gun in someone's face, nor are given the power to act in the name of the state. So there's little extra responsibility we can demand in exchange for that power. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility.

And yet with the odds (assuming they were just shooting random people they meet) of being killed by a cop is around 1 in 40,000 each year. Yet some how this converts to people needing to be terrified of the super bad bully boys that go around shooting everyone.

I never said you should be terrified, so again, that would be a strawman.

In reality, the odds of getting shot actually increase with your own behavior.

So what?

The same can be and IS said for rape victims, you know? Yet we don't automatically recognize the right to rape someone just because someone thought they acted provocatively.

The question still remains if in a particular situation the behaviour was actually warranting self-defense with deadly force, not whether it increased the likelyhood of getting shot. The question is precisely whether that increase is actually justified.

You know, like running from them, getting out of your car without being instructed to. Failing to comply with orders. Continuing to approaching them when told not to. Fumbling about in pockets or waistbands, quickly reaching into glove boxes and centre consoles. Saying, "I have a gun," and then reaching for it.

Time and time again when these incidents occur we see these same things happening, and we also see the same crowd leaping up and down about how terrible the cops are because they can't distinguish between behaviour that often leads to attacks on cops and just someone acting strange.

This is the thing. The reason that most of those in the 40 million don't get shot for "acting strangely" is that their "acting strangely" doesn't mimic the behaviour of those that are acting with malicious intent against the cop.

If you act like someone planning to attack a cop and then move in a way that looks like going for a weapon, don't be surprised if you end up on the wrong side of a bullet.

Again, stick to the actual facts of the situation at hand, not making up some OTHER, completely different, BS situation in which the shooting would be warranted. The fact is, the guy didn't actually have a weapon.

The thing about self defense, or any other legal situation really, is that you can't just imagine some demonstrably different situation as a defense. E.g., if I were charged with, say, shoplifting by just walking out the store door with the goods, I couldn't just present in defense a situation in which I was heading to the cashier instead. In the same vein, you can't just make up an excuse that hinges on the presence of a gun, for a situation where the guy was unarmed.

It takes two people to cause these situations, but in the minds of the Cop haters, the victim can never have done anything wrong at all.

Oooh, "cop haters". I was wondering how long you'd reach for ye olde ad hominem too. I mean, all that arguing nonsense had to be tiring on the imagination. Might as well reach for the classics, right?

Well, if you've read my messages at all, you've probably noticed that I'm not impressed much by browbeating. So save it for someone who cares, really.

Nope the cop was suppose to be a mind reader, the actions of the victim are totally irrelevant to it all cause the cop should have know that despite how he acts, he's not actually a threat.

Actually, on the contrary, what some of us ask is that the cop -- or anyone else involved in a self defense, really; there is no different standard -- doesn't act like he's a mind-reader. We'd rather they don't just assume to know a bunch of stuff pulled right out of the ass.

Hey, here's an idea. How about we make it so that cops aren't allowed to fire until fired on? Might mean more dead cops and criminals able to go on and kill other people instead of being stopped, but who cares if it save a few civilians from being shot by cops. Right?

Here's another idea, again: how about you address what's actually being said, not on whatever strawman or slippery slope justifies some self-righteous indignation.

 

[HansMustermann]

Who says that it is? Failure to obey orders is one of a list of things that leads up to these incidents. The orders that usually get people dead when they fail to comply are the ones like... "Stop there, don't come any closer" or "Show me your hands"

If you get those sort of orders give then, yes, failing to obey them puts you at extreme chance of being shot because failing to follow them generally means that you have malicious intent, that you're trying to get close enough to attack, or that your hands are concealed because you're hiding a weapon.

The point is precisely that one can't just assume malicious intent, when there are plenty of other explanations possible. I think at the very least, if enough cops aren't aware of that, they should get a lecture on the existence of deaf people and on the idea that some people actually talk with their hands.

And since you asked for the same standard for cops, I remind you that the second principle of self defense is IMMEDIATE danger, specifically as in "RIGHT NOW!", not just assuming malicious intent and the possibility of escalating later. If anyone other than a cop shot someone based on just assuming that they had a gun, and that they were going to pull it at some later time, that self-defense defense would fail almost automatically.

The most you can get is that you can argue that you mistook some act of the other guy as some kind of immediate aggression, and if that mistake is not very reasonable, the best you can get is "imperfect self-defense" which just means a reduced charge. You're still going to get at the very least manslaughter.

 

[deadrose]

I've seen local examples of cops charging people with assault on an officer for flipping sneakers towards an officer. On video. You know how kids will step on the heel to pull it off and then kick the sneaker towards wherever it's supposed to go? That. No force behind it. The cop bodyslammed the teenage girl into the holding cell toilet and then wrote a report claiming he had shin bruises and extensive pain. She may have been a mouthy brat for all I know, but there was serious disproportion in levels of force there, and yet nothing ever came of it.

Another cop, at the May Day march a couple years ago, claimed he'd been hit by a flying projectile, so the cops started macing people and throwing blast balls around. When the video was finally released a year later, oops - he fell because he tripped. Nothing hit him, nobody threw anything, that was all in his fevered imagination. I'm sure that was a comfort to the people that were injured by those blast balls.

It's really hard to take someone seriously when their definition of assault resembles bickering siblings in the back seat of a family car.

 

[Bob001]

....
If you get those sort of orders give then, yes, failing to obey them puts you at extreme chance of being shot because failing to follow them generally means that you have malicious intent, that you're trying to get close enough to attack, or that your hands are concealed because you're hiding a weapon.

This false belief is what gets people unjustly killed. It might also mean that you can't hear the instructions, that you don't understand them, that you need the officer to help you, that you are pulling out your wallet, etc., etc. The modern cop's fundamental mistake is seeing the citizens he is paid to serve and protect as the enemy. It might be worth studying what motivates someone to become a police officer. Considering that most departments don't require college degrees, or even any college education at all, it's one of the few jobs a typical applicant can find where he gets to boss people around.

 

[cullennz]

Who says that it is? Failure to obey orders is one of a list of things that leads up to these incidents. The orders that usually get people dead when they fail to comply are the ones like... "Stop there, don't come any closer" or "Show me your hands"

If you get those sort of orders give then, yes, failing to obey them puts you at extreme chance of being shot because failing to follow them generally means that you have malicious intent, that you're trying to get close enough to attack, or that your hands are concealed because you're hiding a weapon.

The question is why automatically shoot and not another method of subdueing such as taser, pepper spray or dogs.

They aren't holding a weapon

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Many cops are insufficiently trained, but more importantly, most civilians have never learned how to act around the police.
Having a weapon pointed at you by anyone increases your chances of reacting poorly out of pure fear and stress.
I think many officiers are not aware of this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Seriously? Have you been reading another thread?

I have seen every instance of you trying to use statistics being destroyed by looking at them and you still feel that they support your position.

Yes, you arguments are all about emotion, or perhaps you didn't really mean that anyone that disobeys or resists the police gets shot?

It is just the cops who are always covered when ever they do shoot someone in that situation. So they are always right to shoot in those situations but they have the freedom of choice not to.

 

[ponderingturtle]

One of those two people is a trained professional, acting under the authority of the state and who deals with the public on a regular basis. One is not.

Not really, lots of places still have entirely on the job training for police officers. They are not highly trained and licensed professionals you have in professions like barbers or such.

Now most states have professional standards for cops but not all of them have instituted that yet.

 

[Belz...]

Not if that's what they are!

But it isn't. A death sentence is given as punishment for a crime by the state. It's not a term that applies to a police shooting a suspect during an encounter, regardless of the reason (or lack thereof) behind it.

The only reason to use the term (colloquially) here is to elicit an emotional reaction rather than reasoned discussion. In other words, our mind is already made up, so discussion is pointless.

 

[William Parcher]

Eyewitness video shows part of the pursuit. The guy was stopped and sideways on the roadway shoulder. The cop was stopped too and trying to get the guy to comply I guess. He drives off instead.

Cellphone video obtained by Channel 9 is believed to show a portion of the pursuit that ended in the shooting death of a deaf man by a North Carolina Highway Patrol trooper.

On Thursday, a Channel 9 viewer came forward with a 50-second cellphone video and asked to remain anonymous.

The viewer said they reached for their phone after the pursuit passed their car on I-485, and then stopped traffic at the exit ramp to Rocky River Road.

The video shows a blue car stopped perpendicular on the exit ramp, and slightly off the roadway.

A Highway Patrol trooper can be seen standing outside that car's driver side door, while shielding himself behind his cruiser.

Two other unknown men are standing in front of the blue car when suddenly, the driver of the blue car reverses the vehicle, pulls forward and then drives away.

The trooper then runs and gets back into his cruiser and continues to pursue the vehicle...

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/ex...efore-trooper-shoots-kills-deaf-man/429858803

 

[Bob001]

Eyewitness video shows part of the pursuit. The guy was stopped and sideways on the roadway shoulder. The cop was stopped too and trying to get the guy to comply I guess. He drives off instead.
....

No one disputes that the police have a right to pull over an erratic driver or to lock up someone who resists arrest. The question here is whether this unarmed guy who apparently never even touched the cop deserved to be shot dead. I'd like to know during this alleged chase whether the cop ever called for back-up, or was he muttering "I'll make him sorry?"

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Look what we have here. The guy has major damage to the front of his car and it's missing the left front tire (riding on the rim). In that condition it's difficult to drive and exceed a highway speed limit. This suggests to me that the damage occurred after the speeding and during the police pursuit. Reports say the pursuit was about 7.2 miles and he stopped on his own street (but not in his driveway). Deafness doesn't prevent a person from feeling and seeing what is going on. It seems as if he was intentionally fleeing from the state trooper.

In a discussion about whether or not shooting this person was justified, this is very clearly an attempt at well-poisoning. "Oh, look! He did some bad stuff that's not, by itself, worthy of death. But that makes it's more likely that his death was justified."

 

[cullennz]

I'll say it again.

The question is if an unarmed person is acting irratically, why do the cops automatically go for their gun and not a taser or pepper spray?

 

[KatieG]

I'll say it again.

The question is if an unarmed person is acting irratically, why do the cops automatically go for their gun and not a taser or pepper spray?

Because they can

 

[Bob001]

I'll say it again.

The question is if an unarmed person is acting irratically, why do the cops automatically go for their gun and not a taser or pepper spray?

There was a time when a cop could get a reputation as a dangerous rogue if he used his nightstick a little too freely. Today his brothers in blue might call him a wimp for not shooting people.

 

[steve s]

I'll say it again.

The question is if an unarmed person is acting irratically, why do the cops automatically go for their gun and not a taser or pepper spray?

They tazed that white frat boy who stabbed that couple to death and then started chewing their faces off. Could we call that progress?

Steve S

 

[HansMustermann]

But it isn't. A death sentence is given as punishment for a crime by the state. It's not a term that applies to a police shooting a suspect during an encounter, regardless of the reason (or lack thereof) behind it.

The only reason to use the term (colloquially) here is to elicit an emotional reaction rather than reasoned discussion. In other words, our mind is already made up, so discussion is pointless.

Calm down, Beavis It's a metaphor and maybe a bit of a hyperbole. The common elements that make the metaphor work is that some official of the state X decided that person Y should die for whatever they had done.

It's not a perfect equivalence, sure, because metaphors aren't. They're supposed to illustrate something in domain B by moving existing knowledge between domain A to domain B, given some common attributes between the two situations.

In other words, with all due respect to Shakespeare, but the world isn't LITERALLY a stage either. We'll just have to live with that