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

Page 10 of 12  
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 11:53:56 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Show us where that is codified in the law of NC. You can't, because it isn't. It's a crime to simply flee.
The deaf

It doesn't to you, but it does to the rest of us and it meets the definition of the law. Try doing that the next time a cop pulls you over and see what you get charged with. When the cop tries to arrest you for eluding, resist arrest, settle it right there in the street like you advocate, because according to you it would be an illegal arrest and see how that works out for you. And again, how do you know what happened during the chase? I've seen reports now that say both cars were damaged when they got to the perp's house and that a neighbor said the cop car arrived smoking. There has been very little reported on this, no statements even from the police, no video, nothing, Yet you jump to conclusions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/2016 7:24 AM, trader_4 wrote:

See requested information on NC laws that you could have researched yourself.
North Carolina General Assembly website: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-141.5.html
Here it says it's a class 1 misdemeanor unless the person does the things in section (b)[ If two or more of the following aggravating factors are present at the time the violation occurs, violation of this section shall be a Class H felony.].
§ 20-141.5. Speeding to elude arrest; seizure and sale of vehicles.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or public vehicular area while fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer who is in the lawful performance of his duties. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, *violation of this section shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor*.
NOTE: (b)"The amount of the fine for a Class 1 misdemeanor and a Class A1 misdemeanor is in the discretion of the court." http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/gs_15a-1340.23.html
Now, as far as North Carolina *defining* what exactly constitutes "speeding to elude arrest" see the following on the first link:
(f) Each law enforcement agency shall adopt a policy applicable to the pursuit of fleeing or eluding motorists. Each policy adopted pursuant to this subsection shall specifically include factors to be considered by an officer in determining when to initiate or terminate a pursuit. The Attorney General shall develop a model policy or policies to be considered for use by law enforcement agencies.
Additionally see this: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H427v7.pdf (f)Each law enforcement agency shall adopt a policy applicable to the pursuit of fleeing or eluding motorists. Each policy adopted pursuant to this subsection shall specifically include factors to be *considered by an officer* in determining when to initiate or terminate a pursuit. The Attorney General shall develop a model policy or policies to be considered for use by law enforcement agencies.
So, if each LE agency is responsible for the defining what constitutes "fleeing or eluding", how can any definition be codified under any law in NC?
NC says "fleeing or eluding" exists, but it leaves it up to various agencies to define policies concerning how they will define that infraction, in addition to, leaving it up to the officer as to how he actually interprets those policies that are supposed to define "fleeing or eluding".
So, once again, it puts responsibility of the incident and it's outcome onto the shoulders of the officer, and it says it specifically in letter (f) that I quoted above.
Additionally: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/gs_15a-401.html
NC statues state: Use of Deadly Force. -
(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection *only when* it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be *the use or imminent use of deadly physical force*;
b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of *a deadly weapon*, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents *an imminent threat of death* or *serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay*; or
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.
Nothing in this subdivision constitutes justification for willful, malicious or criminally negligent conduct by any person which injures or endangers any person or property, *nor shall it be construed to excuse or justify the use of unreasonable or excessive force*.
The scenario with the deaf man did not meet the criteria for the use of deadly force, therefore, the officer used "unreasonable and excessive force".

If you took the time to search out NC law and statues for yourself, you'd not look so silly at this point.

I've been pulled over by the cops one time in my entire 30+ years of being a licensed driver. I was on my way to get my car inspected because my sticker had expired. The cop stopped me to tell me my sticker had expired, and I told him I was on my way to get my car inspected at the garage down the street. That was it. The cop didn't get aggressive and I had no problem and went on my way.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Muggles wrote on 8/28/2016 :

This article says this:
""Any loss of life regardless of the circumstances is truly a tragic and sad event for all involved," he said. "Let us all refrain from making assumptions or drawing conclusions prior to the internal and independent reviews. ""
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/us/north-carolina-deaf-man-police-shooting/
Have you got anything more recent?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 4:00:22 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

His crime at that point was not just speeding. It was eluding police, which can be a felony. IDK the law in NC, but many states now take this very seriously, with stiff penalties.

That's the version from an unnamed neighbor or two, as interpreted by a reporter. What were the initial reports about Michael Brown in MO? Hands up, don't shoot? Just an innocent black child on his way how, confronted for no reason by a white cop. And after full investigations, all that turned out to be BS. Yet, here you are, doing the same thing.

Because they are probably all based on the same reporter or two, the same source. There is very limited info out there. Why can't you wait to see the police videos? To see any home security videos, have the testimony of all the witnesses? Have the cop tell his story? For forensics?

The village idiot rides again!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/29/2016 8:21 AM, trader_4 wrote:

When such details exist like: "the cops wanted to give the man a speeding ticket", "the man was a deaf mute", "the cops shot him when he was signing to them" are fact nothing will ever change those facts.
Other facts are: "cops are highly trained to deescalate and communicate", "cops have protocols and procedures to follow when they can't effectively communicate with the public", "cop kills man using sign language".
Those facts will never change.
Now, the cop can give excuses as to why he shot the man, but none of them include him engaging his TRAINING to deescalate and effectively communicate.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 3:49:24 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

+1000
And to that I'd add, who created this toxic environment? It was a simple traffic stop that would have ended with a ticket or warning. It was the perp who turned it into eluding, a crime. The cop probably made mistakes, that will come out in the investigation, he may be charged. But Muggles, as usual, refuses to recognize that the perp clearly shares some responsibility for what happened. To sit here and say it's OK to ignore police, to argue with police, to curse at them, to resist arrest, to lead them on a chase, and then you have no responsibility for these incidents ending badly, is nuts and dangerous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/29/2016 8:10 AM, trader_4 wrote:

The COPS created the toxic environment. THEY are highly trained to deal with the public and taught DEESCALATION AND COMMUNICATION techniques so they can calm scenarios vs. make it worse.
Cops are highly trained to deal with the public - the public is NOT trained to deal with cops. The buck STOPS with the cops.

So, why didn't the man get a ticket instead of a bullet?

There's NOTHING in any report or description on what happened that said the man was trying to elude the cops. He drove home and then stopped when he got to a place he felt he could stop.

Probably??

duh!

The "perp" is NOT highly trained to deal with cops, so, how is he supposed to know or even understand what the cops expect and/or want when the cops CAN'T communicate with him??
The responsibility falls on those who ARE highly trained.

No one has said it's "ok to ignore police".

Every citizen has a right to free speech, and regardless of what the cops believe, every citizen has a right to resist an unlawful arrest.

The cops could have stopped following the man, but they WANTED to give him a ticket for speeding. Do you think it was worth it?

--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Muggles brought next idea :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plummer_v._State
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/29/2016 11:08 AM, Muggles wrote:

I suppose you have the right to walk into a bank wearing a ski mask too. Why don't you try it and resist the impending arrest? Report back here and let us know how it went. Idiot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 5:55:03 PM UTC-4, Red wrote:

Muggles thinks the way to settle a dispute with a cop is right there in the street. No way you're taking me copper! That's not a lawful arrest. How well did that work out for those that tried it? Any success stories where they were not arrested? I know of a lot of failures, eg Michael Brown, Eric Garner, the dope last week in Louisiana. They lost and are dead.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It happens that Muggles formulated :
[...]

Okaaaay! :D
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 22:58:04 -0500, Muggles wrote:

By that logic, to anyone who is totally deaf, it matters not at all how quiet it is.

And I would too. I believe I said he should not stop if in a construction zone, tunnel, bridge, etc. The safe place is normally the roadway shoulder. The police stop their car behind you, and they leave their lights flashing to provide a physical barrier with a 'safe space' ahead of the police vehicle.

Then what is your point about about looking for a "safe space"?

The tag only shows owner info, not driver info. I'm pretty sure the investigation will show that the officer had no idea that the man was deaf.

Maybe it's not fair, but in his situation it would have been prudent. Don't deaf people read the news? When he realized that he had been involved in a car chase, he should have immediately acted accordingly. In other words, calmly accept the handcuffs and wait for the police to read the medical info from his license.
The deaf man made a serious error in judgement. Now I'm not saying that I'm 100% convinced that the officer did not make an error in judgement as well. I was not there. What I am saying is that deaf people should not be exempt from being pulled over by the police.
--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 10:25 AM, Mike Duffy wrote:

If you measure quiet by hearing only, then yes, but for deaf people quiet may also be measured by being in a perceived safe place.
Totally deaf people may actually feel the vibrations of sound, but that's a different discussion altogether, I think.

A safe place for a deaf person isn't necessarily on the side of the road. For example, I still have some hearing, but the side of the road wouldn't be a safe place for me to try to communicate with police. The background noise of the just being on the side of the road with cars passing by would be enough for me to not understand what people are actually saying. I'd need to pull over in an area where there's no active traffic and minimal background noise in order to understand what the cops would be saying to me.
A safe place for someone who's totally deaf would probably be even more specific than it would be for me.

The point is I'm explaining how hearing impaired people might respond, and when someone brings up the idea that people should pull over to a safe space if they notice the cops lights behind them, the idea of "safe space" for a hearing impaired person is very different than it is for people who hear normally, and "safe space" is probably even more specific to those people who are totally deaf.
Over the years I've noticed the gap in how hearing and hearing impaired people respond, behave, react and that includes the expectations that hearing people have with hearing impaired people.
I was once told by a manager that I should pretend that I could hear normally so I could attend various meetings and make the people there feel like I was a team player. It didn't matter that I couldn't actually understand the majority of what was said in those meetings. It was more important that I "appear" to be compliant and part of the team.
I'm not saying it's wrong to be seen as part of a team effort, but there is a problem with how hearing people put unrealistic expectations onto the hearing impaired. I'm just trying to explain this particular scenario from the perspective of being hearing impaired.

That's no excuse for killing someone who's unarmed.
One other thing ... sign language is known all over the world as a legitimate means of communication, and people recognize it even if they don't understand it the same way people would recognize someone speaking French even if they couldn't translate the language themselves. The logical response would be to find an interpreter to communicate with that person - not shoot them.

Hearing people don't always respond calmly, and they have the benefit of actually hearing and understanding words. Try to put yourself in the position of not being able to either speak or hear and find yourself in a situation that totally frightens you. How would you respond?

I disagree. The deaf man didn't kill anyone. The cop made the serious error in judgement.

The deaf man did pull over. What did he get for it? He's dead.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:02:05 -0500, Muggles wrote:

No. He went home instead.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 2:35:46 PM UTC-4, Mike Duffy wrote:

That's a typical Muggles spin tactic. "The deaf man pulled over". ROFL. It's kind of like saying, "judge, my client surrendered", when in fact he fled and the cops finally tracked him somewhere halfway around the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 3:50 PM, trader_4 wrote:

The man DID pull over and stop. If he hadn't done so, the story would have said the man continued to flee.
Get your facts straight.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2016-08-27 5:11 PM, Muggles wrote:

he had slowed down, and put on his four way flashers to acknowledge the cop.
--
Froz....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 5:11 PM, Muggles wrote:

Facts? LMFAO! Wow....it really is pointless arguing with a fool.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/27/2016 1:35 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:

... and stopped his car and proceeded to try to use sign language to communicate. For his efforts he was shot dead.
The man had no weapon, and his crime was speeding and not stopping when the cop thought he should have stopped. Since when is the death penalty a just punishment for speeding?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/08/2016 21:55, Muggles wrote:

can understand why now.
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.