• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deaf Mute shot by Dumb cop

Well, that certainly doesn't taste like what it says on the label.


Facts will trickle in and hopefully staunch the flood of opinionated speculation.
 
My point is your speculation seems like a poor variant of skepticism with the amount of information in that article.
 
Couple of things.

There is a massive range of levels of what is hearing impairment.

Secondly. I might have missed it but where does it say he was a mute?

Levels of hearing loss

We use the term 'hearing loss' to cover all kinds of deafness.

There are four different levels of hearing loss, defined by the quietest sound that people are able to hear, measured in decibels (dB).

Mild hearing loss:

Quietest sound: 25 - 39 dB.
Can sometimes make following speech difficult, particularly in noisy situations.

Moderate hearing loss:

Quietest sound: 40 - 69 dB.
May have difficulty following speech without hearing aids.

Severe hearing loss:

Quietest sound: 70 - 94 dB.
Usually need to lipread or use sign language, even with hearing aids.

Profound deafness:

Quietest sound: 95 dB+
Usually need to lipread or use sign language.
Click to expand...
 
While there are a lot of questions that need answering regarding this case, we're unlikely to get many of those answers. We're missing the only person who could tell the driver's side of the story.

If there is any reason that you might not react immediately and with complete submission to an officer, you can be shot for disobeying their commands. If you couldn't hear them, too bad. If you're neurologically impaired in any way, too bad. Do a search, you'll find people being killed for being deaf, or autistic, or being physically unable to comply promptly, or even for having a current medical crisis like a stroke.

Of course, this isn't the official way, but it's all in the interpretation, which is why unconscious, prone, handcuffed people are beaten while the officers yell "Stop resisting!" repeatedly.

This is an ongoing problem though. When John T. Williams was shot here several years ago, it was noted that he was hard of hearing and also was listening to the radio on earbuds (at a higher volume, one would assume). From the position of his wounds, the ME determined that he was just starting to turn around to see what the commotion behind him was. Officer Birk's car was parked so the dashcam missed all the action, but the audio recorded the very short time between Birk's first "Hey!" and his first shot. It was ruled unjustified, but Birk was allowed to resign so as not to affect his career choice, and the city ended up paying the wrongful death fine. Under Washington State law, there was virtually no way to find him guilty, unless it was premeditated and malicious.

I've given cops the benefit of the doubt for much of my life, going with the "few bad apples" analogy. About the time they tried to run one of my friends off the force for being a good cop, I gave up on that.
 
Was he blind too? Police lights are pretty hard to ignore...

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
From what I have read, the driver's car had front end damage, and one tire ripped off the wheel after stopping. The guy was...... white so no outrage in the near future. Move on.
 
deadrose said:
While there are a lot of questions that need answering regarding this case, we're unlikely to get many of those answers. We're missing the only person who could tell the driver's side of the story.

If there is any reason that you might not react immediately and with complete submission to an officer, you can be shot for disobeying their commands. If you couldn't hear them, too bad. If you're neurologically impaired in any way, too bad. Do a search, you'll find people being killed for being deaf, or autistic, or being physically unable to comply promptly, or even for having a current medical crisis like a stroke.
....
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe that there could be two sides to this story. TV reports included comments from neighbors that he was shot a few seconds after he pulled into the driveway of his home. One speculated that the cop misinterpreted his efforts to sign.

But I wonder if it would make sense for someone in this situation to have a "Deaf Driver" sign in his rear window. It might save him from angry cops and ordinary road rage.
https://www.amazon.com/Deaf-Driver-...=1471924842&sr=8-1&keywords=deaf+driver+decal
 
Bob001 said:
It's hard to believe that there could be two sides to this story. TV reports included comments from neighbors that he was shot a few seconds after he pulled into the driveway of his home. One speculated that the cop misinterpreted his efforts to sign.

But I wonder if it would make sense for someone in this situation to have a "Deaf Driver" sign in his rear window. It might save him from angry cops and ordinary road rage.
https://www.amazon.com/Deaf-Driver-...=1471924842&sr=8-1&keywords=deaf+driver+decal
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Although really, I do have to agree that some sort of indicator is generally a good idea - I don't know how common they are, though.
 
Bob001 said:
It's hard to believe that there could be two sides to this story. TV reports included comments from neighbors that he was shot a few seconds after he pulled into the driveway of his home. One speculated that the cop misinterpreted his efforts to sign.
Click to expand...

Remember that TV reports had neighbours saying that Michael Brown was shot while walking backwards with his hands up too.

But I wonder if it would make sense for someone in this situation to have a "Deaf Driver" sign in his rear window. It might save him from angry cops and ordinary road rage.
https://www.amazon.com/Deaf-Driver-...=1471924842&sr=8-1&keywords=deaf+driver+decal
Click to expand...

Might work better then just assuming that they are psychic....
 
He wasn't obeying orders and was gesticulating madly what else do people expect a cop to do in that situation?

It isn't like it is that uncommon for the police to shoot deaf people for not obeying their commands.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
He wasn't obeying orders and was gesticulating madly what else do people expect a cop to do in that situation?

It isn't like it is that uncommon for the police to shoot deaf people for not obeying their commands.
Click to expand...

shoot first and hope no one asks questions later?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
shoot first and hope no one asks questions later?
Click to expand...

When faced with a possibly armed person acting aggressively and erratically, and refusing to follow instructions, how long do you wait before acting? Consider that to draw and fire a weapon requires about 0.75 seconds. To react to someone drawing a weapon between 1.5 and 2.5 seconds.
 
I'm not sure exactly how one measured that to actually draw, aim AND fire a weapon, it takes less time than to squeeze the trigger when you're already having your weapon out and pointed at the guy. Seems pretty unlikely to me, because if that were the case, we'd tell cops to keep their weapons holstered when dealing with a suspect.
 
HansMustermann said:
I'm not sure exactly how one measured that to actually draw, aim AND fire a weapon, it takes less time than to squeeze the trigger when you're already having your weapon out and pointed at the guy. Seems pretty unlikely to me, because if that were the case, we'd tell cops to keep their weapons holstered when dealing with a suspect.
Click to expand...

You're not taking into account that to draw aim and fire a weapon a person don't have to first recognise the danger and react to it, they have already determined to fire, and so they merely have to draw, aim, and fire. The Cop has to recognise and react to the danger presented, and this is what takes the time. As humans, when something takes us by surprise, it takes us between 1-2 seconds just to process the data we are seeing and react (sometimes longer). Note that this is a perception + reaction time for something that is unexpected, so we compare it to Driver reactions times rather than a reaction test where we are expecting to be tested.

As to the timing, 0.75 seconds is quite slow, the fastest quick draw competitors are able to do the draw, aim, and fire in just 0.06 seconds!
 
That's BS. If a cop has a gun aimed at a suspect acting erratically (which is the excuse to just at someone trying sign language), yet somehow his reaction time totally wouldn't be like he's about to be tested, but like that of someone totally not expecting anything to happen, then you have to wonder if they just suffered brain damage. The notion that TWO cops ('cause those guys usually have backup) would fall into the totally not expecting to react otherwise, even though it's apparently worrying enough to warrant shooting first... yeah, pull the other one.

In fact, as two of your own links say, when expecting something to happen, the human reaction time is more like 0.2 to 0.25 seconds. Way faster than the vast majority of people can draw, aim and fire.

The comparison to quick draw competitions is also 100% bogus for most police situations.

In one of those competitions, the gun is drawn from a holster on the hip, with the hand starting almost on top of it, for a start. Yes, if the suspect was wearing an opened holster and had his hand hovering over it, THEN I'd be ok with the cops shooting first. But pretending that the same imminent danger applies to someone drawing from a pocket inside the coat, is just plain silly.

Second, in a fast draw competition, you aim from the hip and have to pop a large stationary balloon at about 8 ft distance, right in front of you. It's not as much aiming at all, as just being trained to end up with the gun in the right position for that situation, and that situation only.

If any aiming is involved at all, that is. A lot of competitions are with blanks, and you don't have to actually hit anything. Just draw and fire, in any direction.

It also uses very slow .22 bullets -- usually wax bullets; the world fast draw association even prohibits actual live ammo -- propelled only by the primer, and no actual gunpowder. So the recoil is negligible.

As anyone who ever fired a handgun can tell you, that's NOTHING like an actual life and death situation, and wouldn't work that way. Even with a wimpy .32 ACP gun (yeah, I've actually fired a PPK), even using just one hand is going to make your accuracy go WAY down on account of recoil. Fire from the hip with actual deadly ammo? Yeah, right. Good luck hitting anything.

So basically, yeah, if someone were starting with their hand hovering over the gun, with a competition holster on their hip, facing you, at 8 ft or less, and shooting .22 wax bullets propelled only by the primer... yeah, THEN you might have to worry about their giving you a bruise with it before you can react. Otherwise, please.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom