On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:49:40 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How long does it take for someone to present a deadly threat to
an officer? What does "almost immediately" mean? To one person
that could mean a second, to someone else minutes.
If you exit the car, are coming toward the cop, reach
into your waistband and the cop thinks he sees a gun, then what?
And the "they" this is coming from, are how many people, standing
where? What did they actually see? What did they actually say to
reporters? From what I've seen it looks
like there was maybe one person who was interviewed, we have no
idea how far away he was or what specifically he saw.
I have yet to see a news story that says that directly. That identifies
anyone specifically saying they saw it. What I see
are his family and neighbors speculating that they THINK that would be
what he would have been doing. And then the gullible, who want to blame
the cops, take the bait. As for the actual FACTS, here's an
example from CNN:
"Here's what we know so far about the shooting:
Daniel Harris was driving a Volvo on Interstate 485 in the Charlotte area w
hen a trooper tried to pull him over on suspicion of speeding around 6:15 p
.m. Thursday, the North Carolina State Highway Patrol said.
Harris did not stop, but instead exited I-485 and drove to his Charlotte ne
ighborhood, highway patrol Sgt. Michael Baker said.
At the neighborhood, Harris "exited his vehicle, and an encounter took plac
e between the driver and the trooper," leading to the shooting, Baker said.
Harris died at the scene. Police haven't elaborated on the encounter or rev
ealed what, if anything, the two said or otherwise communicated, or whether
the trooper knew Harris was deaf.
AFAIK, from all that's been stated, the family didn't see anything.
They are merely speculating.
More opinion, not fact and from an obviously very biased source. What
do you expect a brother to say, who didn't see anything that happened?
Another example of sadly biased reporting. They print this, as if it's
a fact that the cop knew he was deaf. No one has established that.
No one has said who's name the car was in and whether even a NC
driver's license, which may not have been tied to that car, has
that info on it.
Good source for things happening in NC, a paper in England.
Sad that you never learn. What was ginned up in the days following
the Michael Brown shooting? Remember the poor innocent black child
that was walking in the street on the way home, who was executed by
the cop? Remember "hands up, don't shoot"? Following full investigations
the truth came out and it was very different from what was first
heard. Many of the "witnesses" fessed up that they didn't really
see it, were lying, etc. It turned out that the innocent black
child had just robbed a convenience store and the cop was stopping
the two of them because they matched the description. It turned
out that the innocent child had assaulted the cop while the cop
was still in his car, tried to get the cops gun, the gun went off
injuring Brown. Yet Brown was still not deterred. All supported
by forensics. A very, very, different story than the BS that
emerged in the first week.
You and others are saints for even attempting to instill logic within a
densely populated forest of emotionally enraged liberal tunnel visioned
idiocy. Unless the driver actually pulled a gun on the cops, she will
NEVER cease to accept the fact it's his fault.
The buck stops at the feet of the cop who chose to shoot the man.
The law specifically defines under which circumstances deadly force can
be used, and these particular circumstances deadly force was not a legal
Maybe I misunderstood your previous posts , this is the first one I've
seen you come right out and say that the cop was wrong . We still don't have
all the facts , and those facts may indicate that the cop was in fact
justified . If both cars were banged up ... that ain't just a guy not
What I've said all along is that the cop used deadly force when he
should have given the man a speeding ticket. The scenario of events
demanded that the police officer seek out other means to deescalate and
communicate with the deaf man AND engage his lengthy and extensive
professional training for a better outcome.
I've also said that LE is HIGHLY trained to deal with the public in all
sorts of scenarios, BUT the public is NOT highly trained to deal with LE
and often have no clue how to do so, therefore, the onus of
responsibility for this situation becoming volatile and dangerous is on
the HIGHLY trained police officer. He had other options like tasering
the man, calling in back-up, calling for a supervisor, and getting an
interpreter to communicate with the deaf man. Did he try ANY of those
options? No - he chose to shoot an unarmed deaf man who couldn't hear
their commands and his only means of communicating was sign language.
He was shot for waving his arms at the cops.
I've also challenged other arguments that have said that the cop had
every right to respond that way, including, the arguments that the deaf
man was trying to "evade" LE, which would have changed his crime from a
misdemeanor 1, to a felony. EVEN if that WERE true the punishment he
got does NOT fit his crime.
Additionally, I've challenged other arguments along the way, and even
researched the North Carolina laws that reference how speeding and
fleeing and evading police is defined, who is responsible for how it's
defined, how the responsibility is divided up between local LE by
enacting policy and procedures, and how the individual officer is
responsible to interpret those local LE policies.
The objections of several people here are that I've chosen to have an
opinion before all of the evidence has been gathered and investigated,
but there are FACTS that will never justify deadly and those facts will
never change, therefore, I've simply stood my ground as far as my
opinion is on this topic.
The point at which someone can prove the punishment for the deaf mans
actions were deserving of a death, I'll be happy to change my viewpoint.
Oh ... one other thing. I've taken this stand because I'm hearing
impaired, and I want people to know how this scenario is perceived by
people from a hearing impaired point of view.
I can hear some, and I'm not totally deaf, but I can understand not
wanting to pull over on a noisy highway and wanting to go to a safe
place that "I" feel is safe, which might not be as soon as someone else
who is a fully hearing person.
Some people have said that there's a specific protocol drivers should
follow if the cops try to stop them: stop asap, put your hands on the
steering wheel, and wait for the cop to approach you. The major problem
with that is the public has NO idea they're supposed to do that - the
public has NO training on how to deal with LE. Sure, we can watch
Youtube videos, but that does not equal training.
LE is HIGHLY trained to deal with the public. They're taught how to
assess scenarios, how to deescalate situations, and how to communicate
with us, BUT, still people are shot and killed because they don't engage
I find that very sad.
And I say that until we have all the facts , we don't know if the cop was
justified or not . I as defending you until it was pointed out to me that
you have jumped out on a limb with no justification in facts . I'll withhold
judgement until we have those facts .
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 7:17:04 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
But we do know damn well that the cop didn't shoot the guy when he should
have given him a speeding ticket. The shooting, by what little we have
to go on, occurred after a 7 mile chase that ended with both cars damaged,
the police car smoking, the perp's car spun out in front of his house.
If that's correct, then it was at least felony eluding, by a guy with
a history of resisting police in multiple states.
The man was speeding. The cops escalated the situation. Had they backed
off, they could have approached the man later and given him the ticket,
and found out he was deaf and mute. They could have made other choices
as to how they would follow-up other than lethal force.
While I agree that the general public has no idea how to act when
stopped, how much training do you think it would take to just sit in the
car, maybe put the window down (as many cars now have electric windows)
and put your hands on the wheel unntuil instructed otherwise.
Maybe the states could put a few 15 second ads on the television to do
While not everyone is required to do it, many states have driver
education for the high school students that are arund 15 to 16 years
old. They should be instructed there as how to act. I remember taking
a course in high school during the summer break and even had to spend a
few hours at the court house as an observer during some traffic cases.
I live in NC and am 66 and took that dirvers ed, so most people of
drivers age should have had the chance to do it. I am thinking that if
one does not take the course they have to be 18 to obtain a drivers
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
You're talking about the public. We have people who get driver's
licenses who have all sorts of personal issues. Some might be able to
actually REMEMBER such training, others may simply forget everything
they've been taught when under stress. <shrugs>
OTOH, LE is screened to only allow people who have the innate abilities
needed to retain such training.
That might help. It might even be a great idea. The problem I see with
it is that people may see it as promoting a police state.
I don't know what driver's ed teaches these days, but when I took it
cops weren't so aggressive and neither were people who were driving.
It would be a good idea now-a-days to include drivers ed training on how
to respond to LE, but LE should be required to teach that, imo.
Thanks for responding! :)
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 7:25:49 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:
And this perp was not the general public. He has a rap sheet with other
arrests for resisting, interfering with law enforcement in several states.
This wasn't his first rodeo. Anyone capable of learning, would have
learned from those other incidents. This guy instead does what Muggles
advocates. He decided who's right and who's wrong and if he thinks he's
right, then he won't stop, won't cooperate with a cop. We can all see
how that worked out here and in so many other cases.
I've responded to another of your posts after this one, and explained in
detail my stance on this topic.
Additionally, even IF both cars were banged up, it's STILL NOT grounds
for using lethal force under the laws written by the legislature of
Cars get banged up all the time in fender benders, and it's still
illegal to use deadly force over it.
The NC laws state specifically the conditions that have to be met in
order for deadly force to be legal. Fender benders/banged up cars isn't
on the list.
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.