Deaf mute father shot dead by police while trying to communicate with them

Page 6 of 12  
On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:58:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Figures. I can see pulling over to a quiet spot if that spot is 500 ft, 1000 ft down the road, but not if it's 7 miles, like this case was. There is no exception in the law. If you think you can't communicate with law enforcement or emergency responsders, you should carry a sign or written statement to that effect with you in the car. Again, that's a "conservative" thing. We take responsibility for our actions, our problems, our limitations and don't make excuses and try to put it off on someone else.

Suppose that place is 5 miles? 10 miles? 25 miles? Where is this "expectation" codified in the law?

Anything is possible, but with multiple cop cars with lights on following, it seems unlikely.

No evidence of that so far. The cop would only have access to the registered owner's information. How do you know who owned the car? It could be in anyone's name, including a leasing company.
He should have acted accordingly vs.

That part I agree with. It seems the police mishandled the end of this. An unarmed guy shouldn't wind up dead in a situation like this, police have to deal with people who aren't complying in one way or another all the time. The cops should not have been so close to the guy until the figured out what was going on, for starters. The cops had overwhelming force and resources there to deal with the guy, he wasn't going to get away, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 8:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:

A "quiet spot" means something different to a deaf person than it means to a hearing person.

It appears that in the US it's time we carry signs with us that explains our disabilities so the cops won't kill us.
[...]

Finally, we agree on something.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 11:20:04 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

As usual, wooosh! Complete deflection off into a different issue.

If I couldn't speak or hear, I can assure you I'd have been doing that all along.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 10:28 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Wrong. Put some cotton balls in your ears and go through a day or two like that trying to do your normal activities, and then tell me what it's like and how your perspective changes.
I guarantee that you will come back with a different response.
Most people couldn't get through a couple of hours doing their normal routine in the real world trying to function as hearing impaired.

It's a sad story when disabled people have to begin to carry signs with them so the cops WON'T KILL THEM!
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 12:07 PM, Muggles wrote:

I have never witnessed someone so enthralled with tunnel vision than you. You simply can see the other side.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 3:04 PM, Meanie wrote:

Can't
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/08/2016 21:47, Meanie wrote:

> There's no need to swear ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Was it John Major who said "wunt" instead of "won't"? I never heard him say "can't".
--
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/08/2016 22:51, James Wilkinson wrote:

Yes it was John Major.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 5:00 PM, Bod wrote:

LOL.. good one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/08/2016 23:07, Meanie wrote:

> :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 2:04 PM, Meanie wrote:

So, you want me to see the cops side and why he would kill a deaf mute for speeding??
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 5:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

I want you to see the fact that the entire story is not known and you don't have a clue to the justification of the cops actions. Instead, you are quick to crucify him/them without due process and assume a deaf man is automatically innocent due to his handicap. You don't even believe the driver, deaf or not, is remotely responsible even though he did EVERYTHING wrong in his behavior. You base your opinion from emotion which is most likely due to your own handicap and that is how liberals believe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 5:11 PM, Meanie wrote:

There is NO justification for killing anyone because of a speeding violation. LE are supposed to be trained to only use deadly force as a last resort, not kill as a first response.

Crucify? Odd word to use. If you put the words together, "speeding violation and speeder shot dead", something just isn't right. It's not rocket science to conclude the punishment did NOT fit the crime.

Based on all the information I've read, the cop shot the deaf man due to the deaf man didn't stop immediately because he was speeding. I'd really like to know just how fast the guy was going that earned him a death sentence by cop.

The driver had been speeding and should have gotten a ticket - not an immediate death sentence.
Speeding = minor thing Killing the speeder = majorly stupid

I base my opinion on logic.
A speeder should get a ticket - not death.
If the speeder and cop weren't communicating, the cop should have called in someone who COULD communicate with the speeder.
The cop made a whopper of a mistake that cost someone else their life.
The average citizen who makes the same kind of mistake usually ends up charged with some sort of crime up to or including murder.
Why are cops allowed to kill citizens who are unarmed?
All those questions other people have already asked.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 11:25 PM, Muggles wrote:

You have no concept of logic. If a "non-deaf" driver is speeding and he was pulled over, then exited the car and punched or assaulted the cop, by your "logic" he shouldn't be shot because it was "only speeding". That same idiotic logic allows anyone to act as they may and the cops are supposed to accept it because "they are trained". That's the most asinine logic I've ever read.

Because a citizen advances towards them, assaults them, threatens them, etc. but you don't understand that in your tunnel visioned liberal mentality. The sad part is, you think you're a realist. LMFAO. That's farthest from the fact. A realists understand how the world works and how people should comply with specific rules and incidents. You're a dreamer who believes everyone "should" act a specific way to accommodate their needs because it's a happy feel good moment. You're a dreamer with tunnel vision because you can't even admit nor recognize your liberal mindset while trying to convince yourself you're a conservative. Simply put, you're a lost basket case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Meanie wrote :

I recall a video used in a police training film which had a cop pulling over a truck. The driver got out and advanced a few steps toward the cop, then backed off and to the side, then danced side to side before quickly advancing a few step again and backing off and dancing again.
What he was doing was diverting attention away from the fact that the passenger was loading several weapons which were then used to kill that cop. The best chance for survival after being pulled over is quiet compliance. Cops have a tough job to do, and without them there would be more killings, not fewer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/28/2016 7:33 AM, Meanie wrote:

In your warped mind I can understand how you wouldn't recognize logic.

'Scuse me, you're creating your own scenario, and since you are doing that, do tell me what law states that a punch is punishable by bullet?
Cops are trained to subdue and cuff if someone does that - they aren't trained to shoot them under those circumstances.

Cops aren't supposed to simply KILL everyone who doesn't comply - they're trained to physically subdue them and cuff them.

Define "advances". In addition to that, at what point did this deaf man assault or threaten anyone? Are you saying using "sign language" is threatening in some way??
Gee ... if someone gives the finger to a cop is that a death sentence, now??

Liberal?? LOL I'm a conservative! You keep getting THAT wrong.
Conservatives have way more common sense than liberals. If something doesn't add up, something is wrong. Nothing this deaf man did constitutes a death sentence by cop. Cops are TRAINED to deescalate and communicate with civilians, but now it seems they are bypassing engaging their brains and training and just killing the citizens they're too lazy to do that with.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 11:25:26 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

The village idiot rides again!
LE are supposed to be trained to only use deadly force as a

What's not right is that you leave out what happens in between in all these cases. You did it with the jaywalkers who were arrested in TX, claiming they were arrested for jaywalking. You ignore that when the police approached them, they refused to cooperate, refused to produce ID, and used obscenities. We had a video showing two of the perps resisting arrest, struggling with police, as the cops tried to put handcuffs on them. The third perp, the girl was all up in the cops' grilles as they repeatedly and still politely were telling her to back away. You left all that out and run around claiming you can't understand why the police arrested them for "jaywalking". You're doing the exact same thing here.

More lies and lunacy.

You're the expert on stupid, that's for sure.

ROFL
And you're a conservative too, right?

The average citizen who crosses the street while texting, usually ends up making it to the other side with nothing happening, or with someone blowing the horn at them. Sometimes in a country of 320 mil though, they wind up dead. People shouldn't die from crossing the street, but sometimes mistakes they make contribute to their death.

Please stop the madness! Your madness that is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/28/2016 7:52 AM, trader_4 wrote:

So you believe it's OK for cops to kill someone for the crime of speeding?

The jaywalkers were tackled, roughed up, thrown to the ground, cuffed, and carted off to jail for "jaywalking". Do you really think that's a correct response from the cops for "jaywalking"?? You seem to think that sort of response is justified. I don't. Their response did not fit the alleged infraction.

You ignored the fact that it's lawful in Austin to refuse a request for ID if a person is not being arrested and detained. You also ignore the fact that it's NOT against the law to use profanity, either. Neither, is punishable by being tackled and thrown to the ground.
Once again the cops did not engage their brain and practice their training when they interact with the public and deescalate the situation and attempt to communicate with the people. The *cops* escalated the situation and ended up with a law suit against them and the city.
We live in the USA, not some third world country where cops can do anything they want up to and including just killing people in the streets because they feel like it.
Cops simply can't do just anything they want to do.

Of course, the perps were resisting! What the cops were doing was illegal!! In this country we have a right to resist unlawful actions by the cops. And guess what happened? The city of Austin and cops are being sued in a court of law.

You simply ignore the whole truth about the incident.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:07:29 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

?

No, just that you're the village idiot.

t

No they were not. They were carted off to jail for RESISTING ARREST. Again, they created the toxic environment and even admit it. The cops saw them jaywalking and came over to talk to them. They refused to show ID, used vulgarity. They turned what would have been a warning or at most a ticket, into resisting arrest
Do you really think that's a

Still lying.
You seem to think that

The response fit what we saw in the video, which was RESISTING ARREST. End of story.

After they refused to produce ID, they were being detained. If a cop can't ID you they can't give you a ticket, so they detained them to sort it out. At that point, the perps resisted the cops, it's right on the freaking video.
You also ignore the

Overview of Texas Disorderly Laws Various types of unruly or obnoxious conduct may violate Texas state law. P olice may use a disorderly conduct charge when a person is disturbing the p eace or behaving in a disruptive manner, but is not presenting any serious danger to the public. Disorderly conduct may be viewed as a "catch-all" cri me. See FindLaw's Public Safety Violations to learn about related offenses.
Examples:
Using abusive, profane or vulgar language in a public place

BS. The perps are the ones who escalated the situation. The police didn't use profanity, the police didn't refuse to produce ID, the police didn't resist arrest. In fact, even in that video as the cops are trying to subdue the two who are clearly resisting arrest, the loud mouth bitch is still up in the cops grills, giving them lip. You can hear the cops still telling her politely to back away, step aside. The cops were using restraint, because at that point they could have arrested her for interfering if they wanted to.

You on the other hand live in your own peculiar little universe.
Cops simply can't do just anything they want to do.

BS. The cops were trying to detain them because they would not cooperate on a jaywalking charge. You're amazing, you actually think that the correct thing to do is settle a law infraction by fighting with cops in the street. Try that next time a cop pulls you over. Better yet, lead them on a 20 mile chase, then refuse to produce ID, refuse to cooperate, and when they tell you to put your hands behind your back, resist that too, because the cop has no such "right"
In this country we have a right to resist unlawful actions by

Show us your reference for that. Not that it matters because radical leftist, loony lawyers sue the cops all the time, without regard to the facts. Winning is another matter.

you're simply the village idiot, yet again.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.