"Witnesses described him using his arms to try and communicate with police"
Using his arms how? Waving them around or sign language gestures? We
don't know the full details about HOW things were done. There are no
indications of time. Was it dark? Was it difficult to see anything in
his hands while he may have been "waving" them? Far too many variables
to consider. When an officer is directing instructions and a person
continues advancements without obeying those instructions, they have no
idea of intent and if they are armed or harboring a bomb.
The bottom line is simple... as I stated...cops have lights and sirens.
Sirens aren't always used, but lights are. We know blind people don't
drive, therefore, deaf people will see lights. It is known to NEVER exit
the car if being pulled over. This guy made all the wrong moves. If he
did it right, he'd be alive. I can't understand why it's that difficult
to gasp. I still favor the cops.
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 11:56:51 AM UTC-4, SBH wrote:
The driver isn't blameless, but from what we know so far, what happened
here sure sounds pretty bad on the part of the cop. It was just
a failure to stop for a traffic offense. He drove home, he's certainly
not the first guy that did it, drunks and similar do it frequently.
There were multiple cops in pursuit, plenty to be able to aprehend
him if he tried to get away. The guy didn't have any weapon, posed
no threat to the
cops. What was the urgent need to fire and take his life? The cops
are supposed to be trained professionals that know how to successfully
deal with all kinds of potentially dangerous situations. This incident
was relatively benign, yet the cop managed to end it with a fatality.
That cop's career is over and he'll probably be charged with manslaughter
and from what I've seen so far, he should be.
I'm still neutral until we find out more.
Why didn't he stop? It was dark and he was allegedly using sign
language. How many cops would recognize that in the dark? For that
matter, how many people, unless they have been trained?
OK. I'm almost neutral, 60 - 40 in favor of the cop for now. Facts may
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:05:38 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
How do you justify the cop shooting him when he was unarmed and using
sign language? I don't care what the guy is doing, he could be failing
his arms around, jumping up and down, taking his clothes off. Unless
he presents a deadly, immediate threat to the cop or someone else,
what's the justification for shooting? This guy apparently was a felony
chase, why didn't they follow the felony stop procedures, where the
cops stay protected, give him commands to lay down on the ground,
until they are sure what's going on? This looks an awful lot like
the shooting of the 12 year old in Cleveland, where the cops through
incompetence, just went right up to the guy, instead of just proceeding
cautiously and then panicked and overreacted to a threat that wasn't
He's deaf. What commands will he hear? He continued towards them and
not knowing he was deaf, they had no idea what was about to happen. If
he would have stayed in the car, the cops would have soon discovered he
was deaf and he'd be alive.
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 6:12:18 AM UTC-4, SBH wrote:
I didn't say he would hear any commands. I said if the cops followed
the felony stop procedure, they would have been a good distance away
from him, in protective positions, guns drawn, and there would have
been no immediate need to fire on him. Putting yourself in a position
where you need to fire should be the last resort, not the first option.
I'd like to see the reference for that. All I've read is that he got
out of the car and was using sign language to communicate. Even if
he was moving toward them, is that what cops are supposed to do,
trained to do? Shoot an unarmed man dead when they are plenty of
cops around and plenty of methods of subduing someone?
How well did that work for the black guy last month? He was pulled
over for a traffic stop and the cop shot and killed him while he
was sitting in the car, with his baby in the back seat.
Yes, they have a form filled out by your doctor. It does not give
detailed information to the police. Look at your license and see what
it says. Look at your registration and see what is says. Look at the
government regulations on medical record privacy and see what is is
allowed to say.
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered with this police
shooting. I've said for quite some time that cops are becoming overly
aggressive. If a cop can't tell someone is speaking sign language
there's something wrong with their training.
If anything, this should be a wake up call as to how police need to pay
more attention to the situation and the people they're interacting with.
IMO, there's no excuse for shooting unarmed people, let alone, using
lethal force as a first option.
Yes. Meantime, you and others are drawing conclusions without facts to
back them up.
I've said for quite some time that cops are becoming overly
Were you there? How well could the cop see? What was being gestured?
Please read your first statement about questions that need to be answered.
Maybe. What we really need is a weapon that will instantly immobilize a
person but is not lethal. Taser was supposed to partly fill that need
but you have to be fairly close. There are objections to the taser also,
but it is a better choice than a bullet.
Sign language is a well known means of communication. If someone had
spoken French, or German, or Chinese it would have been obvious they
needed an interpreter.
What is wrong with LE that they shoot first and think logically later?
Distance is the logical answer until communication can be established
between cops and the public. Lethal force isn't the answer.
I've read many articles at this point, and the information is pretty
much the same. The cop shot and killed a deaf mute because he had been
What's next? Cops killing little old ladies for going TOO slow in the
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.