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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:07:29 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
No, just that you're the village idiot.
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
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.
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.
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.