Deaf Mute shot by Dumb cop

He hit a tree on the way into his neighborhood.

Mark Barringer, a resident of the Seven Oaks neighborhood, said he saw the end of the 7-mile chase between Harris and Saunders. He said Saunders appears to have crashed his car into a tree entering the neighborhood. When the trooper drove by, Barringer said, heavy, white smoke was coming from under the hood...

Later, Barringer said he discovered a heavily damaged crepe myrtle at the neighborhood entrance about a half mile away. There was also a trail of what appeared to be radiator fluid leading to the shooting scene...
Click to expand...


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article98160357.html
 
Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excessive pedantry clouds the issue. Try to look at common vernacular...
"A diagnosis of Pancreat8ic Cancer is a death sentence..."
 
News: The chase reached a speed of 100mph. The guy's car is sideways on the shoulder of the exit ramp because the cop had just done a PIT maneuver and caused him to spin or slide.
 
HansMustermann said:
Calm down, Beavis ;)
Click to expand...

I'm breathing, I'm breathing.

It's a metaphor and maybe a bit of a hyperbole.
Click to expand...

I know it often is, but even so, by constantly repeating it, it becomes a perceived reality. Every time a cop kills someone, a poster here will describe it as an execution or a death penalty, to the point where it's hard to imagine any scenario in which they think a police officer would be justified in shooting.
 
Before Saunders can complete his rolling road block, according to the dispatches, Harris evades it by turning onto Seven Oaks Drive.

There, according to a neighborhood witness, another state trooper already is blocking Harris’ route to his home. Seven minutes and 17 seconds into the transmission, Saunders reports that Harris has stopped his car and tried to flee on foot.

"Have a jump and run, jump and run,” Saunders called in, his voice rising.

Twelve seconds go by.

“Shot fired, shot fired,” Saunders says. “Got one subject down. Go ahead and find me a medic.”...
Click to expand...


http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article98872112.html
 
William Parcher said:
It seems the answer is no. Media is saying it could take up to 3 months.
Click to expand...

I guess we wait then.

Hopefully, there won't be any of this "code of silence" stuff and the judge will be able to hear the facts. I know I'll be listening closely.
 
So... wait? He wasn't shot in some self defense, but because he was fleeing?

In Tennessee v. Garner, the supreme court, upholding the ruling of the 6th circuit, said that shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect is downright unconstitutional.
 
HansMustermann said:
So... wait? He wasn't shot in some self defense, but because he was fleeing?

In Tennessee v. Garner, the supreme court, upholding the ruling of the 6th circuit, said that shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect is downright unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It isn't a big deal, cops can shoot people while fleeing for trying to take their weapon why not this?
 
Argumemnon said:
I know it often is, but even so, by constantly repeating it, it becomes a perceived reality. Every time a cop kills someone, a poster here will describe it as an execution or a death penalty, to the point where it's hard to imagine any scenario in which they think a police officer would be justified in shooting.
Click to expand...

While I can see where you're coming from, I think that horse has already sailed. Err... I mean, that boat has already bolted ;)

In the aforementioned Tennessee v. Garner, the supreme court argued that, "The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment." I.e., just about says it as clear as it gets that that should have been a court's call, not up to the officer to decide. It stops just short of calling it a sentence by cop, basically.

And that was in 1985.

So, yeah, it's about 30 years too late to close that barn door :p
 
Reminds me of the state v Negro Will, NC 1834 (yes, I have weird stuff in my head).

"The prisoner [negro Will] was shot in the act of making off from his overseer, who was prepared to chastise [whip] him. A master's authority to apprehend his slave cannot be greater than that of a constable or sheriff to arrest for a misdemeanor; and a constable may not kill in order to prevent the escape of one guilty of that grade of offence. The law has so high a regard for human life, that it directs the officer to permit an escape rather than kill."

The judge is saying, well of course officers can't shoot fleeing suspects for misdemeanors, so this slave's overseer shouldn't have tried to murder him just for running away from a whipping.

We've managed to get rid of slaves and overseers entirely, and yet we're still quibbling over whether police can shoot fleeing suspects, which was assumed to be obvious in 1834.
 
PhantomWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...


Assuming an average level of skill and about 100 yards between the deaf man and the LEO, what are the actual odds of one of the, say 12 bullets would actually hit the target?
 
3point14 said:
PhantomWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

The point being made by the sort of comment above (although not in so many words) is essentially that some people believe there is no situation at all where the police are not justified in shooting someone (especially as long as they are brown enough). Real life continues to bear this out.

If shooting someone lying on the street on their back with both hands in the air yelling "Don't shoot. It's a toy truck." is okay, what in the hell possibly couldn't be?

Being shot for reaching into your vehicle after being ordered to reach into your vehicle also comes to mind.
Click to expand...
 
The problem obviously is not enough guns are out there keeping everyone safe. C'mon law abiding patriotic citizens of the USA, keep buying guns and fighting for relaxed gun laws until some poor widdle powice feel safe enough that they don't have to shoot unarmed people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom