Deaf Mute shot by Dumb cop

[PhantomWolf]

Regardless, none of that justifies a shooting, from where I stand.

A traffic violation is not a threat to the cop's life, especially when he's out of the car. What's he gonna do, run the cop over on foot, or WTH?

In reality, this is the most dangerous time for a cop. If the driver gets out of the car and starts to approach the officer, 9 times out of 10 they plan to do bad things, it is a MASSIVE red flag. A second massive red flag is failing to obey orders. If they then make an action that can be interpreted as going for a weapon, there is a high likelihood they'll get themselves shot.

This is the thing about Monday Morning Quarterbacking, we know a lot more than the cop in the situation did at the time it occurred. For instance, we know the driver was deaf. I very much doubt that the cop did.

From his position he had a driver that first tries to flee, then when forced to stop gets out of the vehicle and acts in a massively aggressive manner approaching him and failing to obey direct orders.

Do you think that any of this might just have put the cops in a position where they were in the head space of "This guy is about to attack"?

From the POV of the driver, this guy did absolutely everything wrong on how to deal with getting stopped by a cop.

1) He failed to stop when signaled
2) He got out of the car
3) He approached the Officers
4) He failed to obey instructions
5) He acted aggressively

Yes, we know that some of those things he did because he was deaf, but at the time of the shooting the Officer did not know that, he just had to go on what he did know, and that was a guy that was flashing every single red flag that the next move was to pull a weapon and attack.

It seems that we expect out cops to be psychic.

They should just know that the gun a person is carrying is a fake or unloaded
They should just know if someone is deaf or mentally impaired
They should just know that the guy running out of the garage with a handgun is the home owner and not the armed intruder they were called for!

Well newsflash, cops aren't omniscient, they can't act based on hindsight before an action. Their actions should be judged on what they actually knew at the time, rather than what we find out after the fact.

 

[HansMustermann]

How about attacked with a deadly weapon, or does it only count if the police officer dies?

According to the FBI figures there are ~10,000 attacks on officers with deadly weapons each year, 2,000 of those with guns. That's nearly 30 attacks on officers a day, over 5 of them with firearms! That is not rare.

There are 1.1 million full-time state and federal law enforcement personnel in the USA, out of which about 765,000 sworn officers (you know, with arrest powers.) Plus some 100,000 part time personnel, out of which about 44,000 sworn officers.

That's approximately 820,000 or so cops over which those attacks are spread.

That tells me that on the average, any officer has about 1 in 82 chances of being attacked with a weapon on any YEAR, or 1 in 210 chances of being attacked with a gun. That's less than half a percent. Again, in a whole YEAR.

There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015. That boils down to about 1 in 6666 chance of being killed per YEAR.

That's only marginally more than the chance of death in a vehicle accident. So what next? Allow people to shoot those who drive carelessly near them?

Or let's put it in another perspective. The number of arrests in 2012 in the USA was 12,196,959. (According to the FBI, not some anti-cop group.) The probability of one of those attacks with a weapon happening is something like 1 in over 1200 arrests. Attacks with a gun, slightly less than 1 in 6000 arrests. Actually getting killed, that's about 1 in 100,000 arrests.

Counting just stopping a guy for a traffic violation, like the guy in this story, which overwhelmingly doesn't result in an arrest... yeah, the chances of the guy just pulling a gun on you because he ran a couple of traffic lights are negligible.

So, yeah, excuse me if I'm not impressed. It's hardly the kind of numbers that justify escalating everything into a life or death situation.

 

[marplots]

Well newsflash, cops aren't omniscient, they can't act based on hindsight before an action. Their actions should be judged on what they actually knew at the time, rather than what we find out after the fact.

This is true. What we should do is make sure all cops are told that deaf people exist.

 

[HansMustermann]

It seems that we expect out cops to be psychic.

They should just know that the gun a person is carrying is a fake or unloaded
They should just know if someone is deaf or mentally impaired
They should just know that the guy running out of the garage with a handgun is the home owner and not the armed intruder they were called for!

Well newsflash, cops aren't omniscient, they can't act based on hindsight before an action. Their actions should be judged on what they actually knew at the time, rather than what we find out after the fact.

I love it how you made a jump to just assuming he had a gun. Read my lips: since the guy didn't pull a gun, and didn't HAVE a gun on him, there's no reason for the cop to psychically know if the gun is a fake or unloaded.

Nor was there any reason to assume an armed intruder. The guy wasn't armed, he wasn't going in or out of any house, and there couldn't be any report of him intruding there since he just got there. With the cop in pursuit.

So please stop just pulling imaginary scenarios out of the ass.

Yes, if someone were to actually pull a realistic-looking fake gun at a cop, I'd count it a justified homicide when the cop puts a couple of rounds into him.

But that's not the case here. You can't use a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT scenario to justify a completely dissimilar one.

Essentially what you have there is at best an argument from analogy. But that's only as relevant as there are relevant shared attributes between the two. If there aren't, then it doesn't work that way. Just as you can't justify that whales fly based on the fact that airplanes fly, you can't justify shooting an unarmed man based on some scenario where the cop didn't know the gun was unloaded.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That tells me that on the average, any officer has about 1 in 82 chances of being attacked with a weapon on any YEAR, or 1 in 210 chances of being attacked with a gun. That's less than half a percent. Again, in a whole YEAR.

1 in 82 are pretty low odds. For instance your chance of being involved in a violent burglary in the US is 1 in 467, yet there are a lot of people on this board that will tell you that they have a gun in case of that occurring. Your chance of being attacked in a violent crime in 2014 was 1 in 273.

There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015. That boils down to about 1 in 6666 chance of being killed per YEAR.

Actually only 58 were murdered on the job, but again, deaths is irrelevant to the issue, cops are worried about being attacked, a situation that can lead to their being killed, not just being killed.

That's only marginally more than the chance of death in a vehicle accident. So what next? Allow people to shoot those who drive carelessly near them?

If drivers were being killed at those numbers because of the deliberate actions of other drivers to try and kill or maim them, then I'd say, yes, yes we should. But they aren't you are trying to compare accidents to actual malicious attacks.

Or let's put it in another perspective. The number of arrests in 2012 in the USA was 12,196,959. (According to the FBI, not some anti-cop group.) The probability of one of those attacks with a weapon happening is something like 1 in over 1200 arrests. Attacks with a gun, slightly less than 1 in 6000 arrests. Actually getting killed, that's about 1 in 100,000 arrests.

Hey, who needs road safety, when we put it in perspective there are only 1.22 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in the US in 2015. Might as well scrap all the safety features in your car, right?

Counting just stopping a guy for a traffic violation, like the guy in this story, which overwhelmingly doesn't result in an arrest... yeah, the chances of the guy just pulling a gun on you because he ran a couple of traffic lights are negligible.

Do you realise that Traffic Stops account for the 2nd most attacks on police officers, coming in just behind Domestic Dispute attendance. Saying it was just a traffic stop is like suggesting that a zookeeper is safe because he's about to walk into the lion's enclosure and not the Tiger's one.

So, yeah, excuse me if I'm not impressed. It's hardly the kind of numbers that justify escalating everything into a life or death situation.

Easy for someone that isn't the one putting their life on the line to say it from the comfort of their keyboard.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is true. What we should do is make sure all cops are told that deaf people exist.

Knowing that deaf people exist is a rather different thing from knowing that the person currently acting aggressively and not following instructions is deaf.

Please, though, for the enlightenment of everyone, feel free to explain how a person is supposed to determine the difference between an aggressive individual who is refusing to follow orders because they are bloody minded and don't want too with the one that doesn't obey because they have malicious intent towards the person giving the orders and finally the ones that simply can't hear the orders being given?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I love it how you made a jump to just assuming he had a gun. Read my lips: since the guy didn't pull a gun, and didn't HAVE a gun on him, there's no reason for the cop to psychically know if the gun is a fake or unloaded.

Nor was there any reason to assume an armed intruder. The guy wasn't armed, he wasn't going in or out of any house, and there couldn't be any report of him intruding there since he just got there. With the cop in pursuit.

So please stop just pulling imaginary scenarios out of the ass.

Yes, if someone were to actually pull a realistic-looking fake gun at a cop, I'd count it a justified homicide when the cop puts a couple of rounds into him.

But that's not the case here. You can't use a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT scenario to justify a completely dissimilar one.

Essentially what you have there is at best an argument from analogy. But that's only as relevant as there are relevant shared attributes between the two. If there aren't, then it doesn't work that way. Just as you can't justify that whales fly based on the fact that airplanes fly, you can't justify shooting an unarmed man based on some scenario where the cop didn't know the gun was unloaded.

Why do you assume that my post was only in reference to this one particular case and not a general reference to many cases where the cops have been pilloried for things that they could not have known at the time?

 

[Vermonter]

Regardless, none of that justifies a shooting, from where I stand.

A traffic violation is not a threat to the cop's life, especially when he's out of the car. What's he gonna do, run the cop over on foot, or WTH?

This is utterly false. In the first half of 2015 alone 64 officers died in the line of duty, and traffic stops were the leading cause.

There is no such thing as a routine traffic stop, and an officer is extremely vulnerable when they approach a car. Cops have -every- right to be on edge when approaching a stopped vehicle, especially when the suspect has not immediately complied with commands.

 

[William Parcher]

This cop may have seen the guy smash his car into another car or object during the pursuit and not even stopping for that. It looks like determined evasion and flight from the police. Then when he finally stops he advances towards the cop and doesn't respond to commands.

The cop is probably thinking of the worst.

 

[AcesHigh]

While this was the total number, not all of these were from criminal actions. Only 60 of them were murdered as a result of being attacked, shot, or deliberately hit with a car.

true, but then we are also not counting the number of cops who WERE shot at, or attacked, and either were not hit or were just wounded but did not die.

 

[Bob001]

This is utterly false. In the first half of 2015 alone 64 officers died in the line of duty, and traffic stops were the leading cause.
....

You are misinterpreting your own numbers. The majority of on-duty police deaths are the result of traffic incidents -- what most of us might call accidents -- not traffic stops.

Thirty officers were
killed as a result of traffic-related
incidents, increasing 20 percent
from the same period in 2014.

Officers feloniously killed during
a traffic stop or pursuit was the
leading circumstance of fatal
shootings, with four fatalities.

Job-related illnesses, such as heart
attacks, increased in the first half
of 2015, with 16 officer deaths
compared to 13 officers during the
same period in 2014.

So four times as many cops died from heart attacks as from traffic stops. Maybe it's time to ban doughnuts.

Police work isn't even in the top ten of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. There are more fatalities among taxi drivers, but they don't get to shoot anybody who scares them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is utterly false. In the first half of 2015 alone 64 officers died in the line of duty, and traffic stops were the leading cause.

There is no such thing as a routine traffic stop, and an officer is extremely vulnerable when they approach a car. Cops have -every- right to be on edge when approaching a stopped vehicle, especially when the suspect has not immediately complied with commands.

8 of the 39 officers shot and killed in 2015 were shot at traffic stops, and a further one was struck and killed by a drunk driver while conducting one.

The stats show that the top three dangerous jobs for cops are...

1st - Dealing with Domestic Violence instances
2nd - Traffic Stops
3rd - Warrant serving and arrests.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You are misinterpreting your own numbers. The majority of on-duty police deaths are the result of traffic incidents -- what most of us might call accidents -- not traffic stops.

However even you noted that Traffic Stops was the leading circumstance of death in fatal shootings. Traffic accidents might claim more lives, but they are accidents, we're only concerned with the deliberates, and as the article noted, the leading situation for Officer shooting deaths in 2015 was at traffic stops (20% of all 2015 shootings). This is direct opposition to the claim made that Traffic Stops weren't dangerous for cops. This claim is incorrect, they are in fact one of the most dangerous parts of the job coming in second to dealing with Domestic Violence calls.

So four times as many cops died from heart attacks as from traffic stops. Maybe it's time to ban doughnuts.

If doughnuts started shooting cops deliberately, you might have a point

Police work isn't even in the top ten of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. There are more fatalities among taxi drivers, but they don't get to shoot anybody who scares them.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

Again, you are conflating Accidental Deaths with Deliberate Deaths. If Taxi drivers were being attacked by their passengers at the rate Cops are, then no-one would be begrudging them shooting those passengers and being jumpy about ones that displayed signs of planning to attack them.

 

[cullennz]

Knowing that deaf people exist is a rather different thing from knowing that the person currently acting aggressively and not following instructions is deaf.

Please, though, for the enlightenment of everyone, feel free to explain how a person is supposed to determine the difference between an aggressive individual who is refusing to follow orders because they are bloody minded and don't want too with the one that doesn't obey because they have malicious intent towards the person giving the orders and finally the ones that simply can't hear the orders being given?

I still don't get the whole straight for the gun thing.

Do they not have tasers?
Batons
Pepper spray

 

[Bob001]

....
Again, you are conflating Accidental Deaths with Deliberate Deaths. If Taxi drivers were being attacked by their passengers at the rate Cops are, then no-one would be begrudging them shooting those passengers and being jumpy about ones that displayed signs of planning to attack them.

No, actually. Taxi drivers have a much higher murder rate than cops. So you'd be okay with arming them and letting them shoot anybody they don't like?
http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/ind...th_the_number_1_murder_rate_taxi_drivers.html

Nobody is drafted to be a cop. The job entails a certain amount of risk. That's what they sign up for. When we entrust a cop with the full power of the state, even of life and death, we expect him to exercise it responsibly. That means, at a minimum, not killing somebody unless there's no alternative; not on a hunch, not because he's scared.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, actually. Taxi drivers have a much higher murder rate than cops. So you'd be okay with arming them and letting them shoot anybody they don't like?
http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/ind...th_the_number_1_murder_rate_taxi_drivers.html

Nobody is drafted to be a cop. The job entails a certain amount of risk. That's what they sign up for. When we entrust a cop with the full power of the state, even of life and death, we expect him to exercise it responsibly. That means, at a minimum, not killing somebody unless there's no alternative; not on a hunch, not because he's scared.

*sigh* Once again, why are you looking at Murder Rate? This isn't that statistic that you need to be looking at, you want Assault Rate. Or like others do you consider a cop that gets shot seven times and lives to be irrelevant to this? Taxi drivers tend not to have the bullet proof vests and training, so yes they are more likely to die, but that are less likely to actually be attacked in the first place.

{Taxi drivers} are also victim to more non-fatal assaults (184 per 1,000 cabbies) than any other occupation with the exception of police (306 per 1,000) and private security guards (218 per 1,000).

source

 

[Bob001]

*sigh* Once again, why are you looking at Murder Rate? This isn't that statistic that you need to be looking at, you want Assault Rate. Or like others do you consider a cop that gets shot seven times and lives to be irrelevant to this? Taxi drivers tend not to have the bullet proof vests and training, so yes they are more likely to die, but that are less likely to actually be attacked in the first place.

Death is the same for everybody. The death rate allows direct comparison among jobs. But "assault on a cop," just like "resisting arrest," is pretty much anything he says it is. It might include shooting or stabbing; but it can also include:

You swing your arms to get away from a fight or other situation and accidentally strike a police officer
You drive too close to a police officer by the side of the road (assault with a vehicle is also consider assault with a dangerous/deadly weapon)
Any minor physical contact during the course of an arrest.

http://www.assaultandbattery.org/assault-battery-on-a-police-officer/

I repeat, the only justification for a cop to kill somebody is that he is in unmistakable mortal danger and has no alternative. Being mad or feeling afraid aren't good enough. Yet, somehow, we've allowed that to become the standard.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Death is the same for everybody. The death rate allows direct comparison among jobs.

Bulldust. Prove that the chance of death by an assailant with a knife is the same for an unarmed Taxi driver working alone vs a trained Police Officer who is wearing body armour, carrying a gun, and has a partner backing him up

But "assault on a cop," just like "resisting arrest," is pretty much anything he says it is. It might include shooting or stabbing; but it can also include:

http://www.assaultandbattery.org/assault-battery-on-a-police-officer/

These things classify as assault when done to anyone. Pushing or taking a swing at a Taxi driver counts as assault just as much as it does a cop.

I repeat, the only justification for a cop to kill somebody is that he is in unmistakable mortal danger and has no alternative.

Why do you hold Police to a higher standard than that required for legal self-defense?

The standard for Self defense in the US is...

A person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another. Deadly force may be used if the person also has a reasonably belief that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction or great bodily harm or death.

Why is this not the acceptable standard for Police?

Being mad or feeling afraid aren't good enough. Yet, somehow, we've allowed that to become the standard.

Prove this please.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, the point is that some of us would like them held to the SAME standard. You'll find that the standard of self-defense is more complicated even in the USA. See for example: http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/ or http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

Among other things, the judicial system requires:

- that the threat be IMMINENT. As in "RIGHT NOW!" I.e., it pretty much must boil to assault in progress or such, not just some guy acting erratically and your fearing that later he might escalate it. A guy threatening with a gun (whether drawn or just saying so) is immediate enough, your just thinking he MIGHT possibly have one, and he MIGHT possibly resort to it later is not it.

- there must be a REASONABLE fear of immediate harm. As in the "reasonable person" standard.

And I think that most people do not shoot a guy for just acting agitated and gesticulating. Unless he was actively swinging a fist at you, then no, just his moving his hands a lot does not pass that test.

- the law requires the response to be PROPORTIONAL to what they're defending from. E.g. you can't shoot someone for trying to slap you. That's where the self-defense defense fails right there. Specifically, using a gun against an unarmed opponent causes the self-defense defense to fail in most cases, because then the onus is on you to convince the court of exactly what unique circumstances made that guy a lethal threat. It's not as easy a task as it sounds.

Additionally, the level of force used may only be as high as reasonably required to remove the threat. Which I think in this case the cop failed miserably right there. Tazing the guy for example would have removed any perceived threat just the same.

Etc.

Acting just on unreasonably thinking there might be some kind of threat at most grants you an imperfect self-defense, which might lessen the charges, but is NOT a get out scot-free card.

So yes, a lot of us would just like cops to be held to the same standards. Well, maybe with an automatic "stand your ground" right thrown in, but that's about it. If anyone else wouldn't have a right to shoot an armed guy for appearing agitated and gesticulating, then basically some of us wouldn't think it was reasonable or proportional for a cop either.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So yes, a lot of us would just like cops to be held to the same standards. Well, maybe with an automatic "stand your ground" right thrown in, but that's about it. If anyone else wouldn't have a right to shoot an armed guy for appearing agitated and gesticulating, then basically some of us wouldn't think it was reasonable or proportional for a cop either.

Except that Bob wasn't expecting the same standard, he was expecting a higher standard.

Having an automatic "stand your ground" is required though, not just a maybe, having to have cops run away when threatened if they can is just stupid, their job is to go places and do things that will put them in danger.

I agree that no one should have the right to shoot someone just for appearing agitated, but the reality is that we don't know that, that was the actually the case in this incident, one of the reasons I haven't spoken about if the cop was right or not in this case, because we don't know the facts to determine that. Sadly many people don't seem interested in waiting to find out the facts first though, they just jump in to condemn first and worry about those pesky facts things later, if even then.