In the Philippines, anyone can do it.
Okay, so it's a different kind of speed.
OK ... then he killed the man for moving his arms trying to communicate
via sign language. THAT's not a good reason to kill someone, either.
Why would you even try to defend a cop who kills for such reasons??
Actually, I believe during the discussion other people surmised that the
cop shot him because he was waving his arms.
The problem is that man wasn't armed, and his crime was "speeding" and
stopping 8 minutes after the cops tried to stop him.
There's NO reason to kill someone over any of that.
The point at which information shows the cop had a legitimate reason to
kill the deaf driver, I'll change my conclusions. At this point in time
there is no evidence to support his actions to kill, and I see no issue
with my conclusions not being fair at this time.
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:07:09 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Wrong again and as usual, off yet again into another direction.
The point was if a cop is trying to pull you over, like everyone
here except you, I can see that it's OK to drive 500 ft or 1000 ft
to get to a suitable place to pull over, but not to go for 7 miles
or however long you happen to think makes you feel comfortable.
That's true regardless of any handicap. As someone pointed out,
this looks largely like a red herring. If you're deaf, you can't
hear the traffic noise that you claim is a problem, can you?
No lights? People get pulled over where there are no lights all
the time, the cop's car is typically positioned behind your stopped
car to provide lighting and the cop typically carries a flashlight.
In order to understand what happened, it's a good idea to analyze the
situation, and it's even a better idea to understand why people do what
You, otoh, are some sort of robot who tends to believe humans should
behave only one way, and if they don't, then they deserve what they get.
You evidently only see black or white and nothing in living color.
The point here is that the cop chose to kill a deaf mute man for
speeding vs. using his training in communicating with the man.
WRONG! LE can't expect people who can't HEAR or SPEAK to respond as if
they CAN hear and speak.
You tend to believe everyone should be entitled to behave any way they
want regardless of proper protocol and procedures and others should
simply accept it because they are human beings with emotions, different
experiences and handicaps.
The truth here is you lack full knowledge of the story and instantly
assume the cop ignored his training and shop. Even when I continue to
point out your tunnel visioned ignorance, you still fail to view the
other side proving my point.
I'm a realist. You can't expect people to be robots and all respond the
same way. Deescalation and communication with the citizens IS part of
protocol and procedures, yet, some cops skip those procedures and meet
out a death sentence themselves. Doesn't that bother you?
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 11:12:30 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Yet you put that burden on the police, that they have to act perfectly,
not make a mistake, be perfect robot. And again, note that in this
case, like almost every other one, the police did not create the toxic,
dangerous situation, the perp did. Even when you're in a normal,
calm environment and someone makes a mistake, it can lead to something
bad happening, someone dying. When you create a toxic, charged, stressed,
chaotic environment, the odds of something bad happen go up exponentially.
And when it does, it's not an execution for speeding. It's extremely
unlikely the cop was carrying out a "death sentence", it's far more
likely that at most it was a cop overreacting to what he saw happening
at that instant, or the gun going off by accident and speeding was not
even in his thoughts at the moment, only what was happening in front
of him. Why can't you wait for the facts, before rushing to crazy
conclusions? Then you claim you're a conservative? You sound more
like those Black Lies Matter nuts.
The police are highly TRAINED to interact with the public in a variety
of scenarios. They have protocol and procedures they're supposed to
follow and if they can't handle a situation they're to call for back-up
and a supervisor. All of that training and protocol they learn is for a
reason, and they're not supposed to be shooting citizens just because
they got antsy.
OTOH, the public is NOT trained to interact with LE, and often are
afraid of LE.
Who do you expect should be more likely to respond like a robot that's
been programmed? LE or the public?
Wrong. The cops did NOT engage their brains and extensive training -
they only engaged their testosterone. LE are trained to deescalate.
The public has no training.
Why do cops get to kill citizens and just go "OOOPSS! I made a mistake.
It was the citizens fault I killed them!"?? BUT, if a citizen kills a
cop in self defense in the same scenario, the citizen is charged and
deemed a murderer?
Yeah, and quite often it's the cops who are creating the toxic, charged,
stressed, chaotic environment where something bad happens.
Death by cop. No excuse. LE are trained - the public isn't.
What don't you get? Death by cop by accident is unacceptable. The cop
was TRAINED to do otherwise, yet, he chose to shoot and kill because he
did NOT engage his brain.
Show me facts that say the deaf man had a weapon and tried to shoot the
cop. Show me there weren't other people around who couldn't assist in
the situation for a better outcome.
Thus far, all information shows there should have been a different
outcome, and I imagine the family has grounds for a gigantic law suit.
If the deaf man had shot and killed the cop because he was afraid for
his life, the deaf man would be charged with murder.
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.