On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 7:06:53 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
No one ever said that alone is enough. But now you have felony eluding,
*exactly* what I told you was possible. The Daily News now reports that
the chase speed reached over 100 MPH and he was doing 88 in a 70
when the cop clocked him for the initial speeding.
Yesterday you were telling us he was just a poor, confused deaf guy
who drove safely home and the cop executed him for speeding.
Now, as the cop, the chase ends and you have a felony suspect get
out of the car that's been behaving violently, aggressively, bizarrely.
We don't know what happened between that and the shot being fired.
Yet here you are, telling us that you know what happened, that you
even can read the perp's mind, and it's all the cop's fault.
How did jumping to those kinds of conclusions work in other cases?
Michael Brown for example?
I said he "drove home" in reference to him going to a place he felt
safe. You seem to like to embellish what I've actually said.
Can you show me where ANY of these things you've listed align with the
laws regarding lethal force in NC?
Using sign language is not bizarre behavior, violence, or aggression.
We've already established in a previous post that LE did know the man
was deaf, so why would LE not attempt to get him an interpreter and by
doing that deescalate the situation and promote communication??
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
Bingo! Welcome to the club! She won't attribute any of the blame for
what happened to the perp. In her world, the perp can create any kind
of toxic, volatile, chaotic scenario, and then when it leads to a bad
outcome, possibly because a cop only had a split second to react,
well it's all the cop's fault. Fortunately the law, juries and most
people don't see it that way. She'd fit right in with the crazy
prosecutor in Baltimore that thinks because a perp died, everyone
who had anything to do with apprehending and transporting him, was
guilty of a crime. We know how that all turned out too.
The cops are HIGHLY trained in deescalation and communication techniques
with the public. The public is NOT trained to deal with LE.
Those who are HIGHLY trained bear the responsibility for making the
choices that affect the outcome. When LE make decisions, they bear the
weight of those decisions, otherwise, there would be no need to legally
justify their actions in a lethal force scenario.
Your argument is the perp created the situation and made it worse/toxic.
I disagree. The perp responded to the actions of LE out of fear. His
actions may be judged as being good or bad, but the responsibility and
weight of the outcome is on the LE who have been trained to deal with
such scenarios. If they make a good choice, they bear that
responsibility, and likewise, they bear the same responsibility when
they make a bad choice.
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:01:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How much training does it take to know that you're supposed to pull over
when a cop is pursuing you? Does it take a graduate degree? Someone
posted the link to this guy's rap sheet and he's had similar run ins,
resisting, interfering with police, charges before. He didn't learn
from that? Why does he get a pass, but you have the cop already convicted,
when we don't even know what happened at the end? If you're incapable
of pulling over for a cop, then you should not be driving.
And you can't even comprehend that we don't know what justification
there was for the cop using his weapon, because there are few facts
about what happened at the end. No statement from the cop, no statement
from the police, no eyewitness testimony, no dash cams, body cams,
nothing. Yet here you are, leading the lynch mob.
Now you not only know what physically happened, you're also capable
of reading minds too.
I'm sure we'd all like to see what you'd do when put into a toxic, volatile,
chaotic situation with a felony perp and see what you'd do when you have
to make a life or death decision in a fraction of a second. A scenario
that you didn't create, but that was created by the perp.
And how convenient to sit in judgment as a Monday morning quaterback.
If the cops had stopped pursuing this guy, he went home barricaded
himself inside his house, shot his wife, whatever, why then you or
similar folks would be blaming the cops for that. WTF is wrong with
them? Why didn't they grab this obviously out of control mad man
when they had the chance? They knew he was dangerous, look at the
pursuit, look at the damaged cars, etc. They are supposed to be
He was afraid of the police, it's been mentioned in many articles, and
the source of that fear and previous confrontation with LE was said to
be related to accessibility with LE, as in, the ability to communicate
effectively with LE.
It appears that LE were well aware that the man was deaf, yet, they
still managed to go "Ooops!"
It would appear by your own reference that LE knew the man was deaf.
Yet, they STILL proceeded to shout orders to him and NOT understand him
when he was signing to them.
hmmmm .... I guess "Oooops!" is a good excuse in your book.
Again, North Carolina has laws that define what circumstances allow for
LE to use lethal force. Here it is again:
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:
[me: Is it reasonably necessary to shoot one unarmed man who is trying
to communicate with LE via sign language? No. There are other methods
available the officer could have chosen to subdue the man shy of lethal
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably
believes to be *the use or imminent use of deadly physical force*;
[me: the deaf man had no weapon, and sign language is NOT imminent use
of deadly physical force against the officer.]
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
[me: again there was no weapon, and the deaf man wasn't attempting to
escape by using a deadly weapon, nor could his actions, signing, post
any imminent threat of death to the officer OR injury, either.]
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon
him as a result of conviction for a felony.
[me: the deaf man was not a convicted felon trying to escape from custody.]
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*.
Now ... which criteria listed above by the NC state legislature existed
in this particular scenario that allows for lethal force by LE??
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 11:06:17 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Does article count now matter? There is little info out there, when
AP puts out a story based on what his brother said and it's picked
up and repeated by 50 papers, does that make it more credible?
It was all SPECULATION. He also had a conviction for theft. Was that
out of fear of police? He was apparently driving 88 in a 70 when the
cop first clocked him, was that out of fear of police? Seems to me if
the guy is really afraid, he'd not be breaking the law. And since he
had previous problems with the law, how did they end? Did the cops
just let him run away? From those experiences he knew how it would
end. Sounds more likely to me, that he thought he could use his
handicap as an excuse, do what he pleased, and this time he pushed it
too far and it ended badly.
Who has said "Ooopps"? No one. What is your basis for saying that it
appears that LE was well aware that he was deaf? I've not seen that
anywhere. And even if they were, it doesn't necessarily change a thing,
because we don't know what the perp did when he got out of the car.
If at the end of a felony high speed chase, both cars damaged, he charged
at the cop, was reaching into his waistband, or similar, just because
he's deaf, that makes it OK. Just because he's deaf, he can't have
a gun and be going for it? We don't know what happened. No statement
from the cop yet, no videos, nothing. Yet, you claim to know the facts.
So far, your facts are going down the drain, one by one. Yesterday it
was a guy peacefully driving home to a safe place. Now, based on what
we're reading, it looks like a felony high speed chase, with both cars
What reference are you referring to now? I haven't seen anything that
indicates that the cop knew.
What is your reference for that one? No one has said they saw or
heard what happened in anything I read. The signing BS was pure
SPECULATION from family, maybe neighbors, not statements about what
No one has said "Ooops" or given any excuse period. The investigation
has begun. Why do you insist on lying and making an ass of yourself?
Are you really that stupid? You can't apply the law until you know
exactly what happened just before he was shot. We don't know that.
I have not seen a single statement from a witness, other than that
a shot was heard almost immediately after the car stopped.
You have those statements, videos, forensics that show what happened?
Provide them right here, right now. Again, what happened in the
Michael Brown case? What did the full investigation determine
compared to the loons that were telling us how a cop just gunned
down an innocent black boy for no reason? You're just like the
dead guy here. Incapable of learning from experience.
There is plenty of info out there.
Additionally, you and others brought up in the discussion that the
police didn't know the man was deaf, but you brought up that information
because you thought it would bolster your argument in favor of the
officer's actions (the deaf man had a record and was DANGEROUS!!), but
what that information actually bolsters is the FACT the cops DID know
the man was deaf based on previous encounters with LE.
Now, tell me, was that information shared with the cop chasing the deaf
man? If he had previous encounters with LE where he couldn't
communicate via sign language and accessibility issues were a problem,
why wasn't an interpreter called when the man stopped and got out of the
car and tried communicating with LE?
You keep trying to support your argument, but you keep failing. Give
up. I'm able and prepared to discuss this topic. You aren't.
Can you show me, based on the laws the NC legislature have enacted,
where any of this points to a valid use of lethal force?
Good luck trying.
You've got to be kidding?? Right?
The officer is supposed to respond based on the law, not respond first
with deadly force and then determine *if* he acted in compliance of the
law. Lethal force has specific criteria, so, LE should know before they
cock their weapon.
Additionally, they didn't attempt to subdue the man using any number of
OTHER techniques they could've used that doesn't result in death. Why
was death their only option when THEY are HIGHLY trained in using many
other responses that are shy of shooting perps??
Did they know who they were chasing or did that come out after the fact?
Big differencev n how they would react.
Whatever took place happened in seconds. That is our point, if it was
not known yet it was too late to call an interpreter that would have
been some minutes away. Seconds made the difference. Even though you
don't yet know what transpired in those seconds you made a conclusion.
Discuss from your opinion, but not from FACTS.
We don't know because we don't have the facts of the case yet and choose
not to speculate.
Well, a reasonable timeline of events should have included the officer
running the car tag. A reasonable response should have given the name of
the car owner, his previous encounters with LE, and information about
the man himself, as in, any important information related. Since the
man was deaf, that would logically be part of that important information
relayed to the cop investigating the car tag ownership.
So, for the officer it's reasonable to conclude it WAS a possibility
that the man driving was deaf.
It's reasonable to conclude there were other options the officer had at
his fingertips he could have chosen. Other people here mentioned that
he could have kept his distance, which would have given him time to
better assess the situation.
Lethal force is a last option. It's reasonable to conclude after
researching NC laws on lethal force that the criteria given for legal
usage was not met.
Everything I've concluded is based on viable information.
Discussion is both from opinion and FACTS. Just because ALL facts are
not yet revealed to the public, it doesn't mean that many FACTS aren't
currently out there.
The problems I see are related to several things, such as, LE being
highly trained to deal with the public, whereas, the public is not to
deal with LE. Information existed that the man was deaf based on is
prior encounters with LE. There is chasm of accessibility between LE
and the deaf, so, why did LE not recognize sign language? Aren't LE
highly trained in addition to the fact that sign language is widely
recognized as a legitimate means to communicate globally?
Those are just a few issues I see here.
There are a lot of questions as to WHY LE responds the way they do these
days. They're on edge and believe everyone they encounter are bad
people who want to kill them, and the public is on edge and afraid of LE
because they come across as having itchy trigger fingers.
That's another issue that's at play in this particular scenario.
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
You sure haven't provided any. Almost all of what has been reported
the rest of us provided, with links and none of it relates to any of
what you;re claiming.
None of us said we knew for sure one way or the other. It was YOU
who claimed and keeps claiming that the police knew, that they would
have known he was deaf from the license plate. We simply pointed out
that the car could be registered to anyone. You have a cite that is was
registered to him? And even if it was, none of us know what info
is on a license in NC. That is why we know you need to wait for an
investigation, before jumping to foolish conclusions about what the
police knew or didn't know.
but you brought up that information
See, this is why you get no respect and get called the village idiot.
Now, you've twisted this into a lie. The arrest record I saw covered
several states and it's not clear what info that a cop might have
been able to pull up during the chase had in it. When a cop is pursuing
a fleeing suspect, you think he's reading arrest reports from another
state? And from what info we do have, the perp was dangerous, it looks
like it was a crash em, smash em chase at over 100 MPH. That is a felony.
Gee, when you were saying he was just a confused deaf guy who drove home
peacefully, what was I saying? That it's possible it was a felony eluding
situation and now, based on what we've just heard, that's what it looks
like. Why do you insist on making an ass of yourself?
The chase lasted 7 miles at speeds of over 100 MPH. Just how much time
do you think the cop had, while chasing the guy, to look up information,
for anyone to share information? And again, you start with a false
premise, that there was anything they could have shared. Was the car
even in his name? YOU tell us. YOU are the one reaching conclusions
without the facts. Why are we supposed to be telling you?
Because an interpreter can't communicate with a dead man, obviously.
You're clearly the village idiot. You see anyone here agreeing with
you? Even people here who don't agree on politics, on home repair,
all agree that you're wrong.
The village idiot rides again. All of us keep telling you that you
can't apply the law without knowing the facts. And there are no facts
as to what happened as the perp exited the car after a felony chase,
except that he was shot.
Again, how well did your approach work in the case of Michael Brown?
Don't you have a Black Lies Matter meeting to go to?
I'm not kidding but you're the village idiot, that's for sure.
And once again, without knowing the FACTS of what happened as the
felony perp exited the car, you can't judge whether he responded
correctly, within the law or not. Just because a deaf guy who was
a felony perp is dead, doesn't mean the cop did anything wrong.
not respond first
And you have no way of knowing if the criteria was met or not, because
we don't even have the statement of anyone that saw it to work with.
We have essentially nothing. Yet the village idiot knows what happened
and even knows what was in the mind of the perp. Yesterday you told us
how he was just a confused, deaf guy, that needes a safe, well lit
place to stop. Now that we know it was 6PM and the chase apparently
damaged both cars, left the cop car smoking (we have a named witness to
that), and the chase reached 100+ mph, how smart does all that BS sound?
We don't know if shooting was the only option, we don't know if there
were other options, we don't any of that because we don't know WTF
happened yet. How hard is that?
I'm sure you can calculate this. Tell me how long that chase lasted if
it only went on for 7 miles going 100mph? How long at 60mph? Take a
wild guess as to how long the chase lasted if he went 100mph for 5 miles
of the chase, and went 30mph for 2 miles of that chase?
Since his speed varied, take that into consideration.
How long did the chase last? Come on .... tell me.
Oh FFS, now you admit he led the cop on a high speed chase, both
scenarios involve several minutes time, during which the cop could not
look up information on the perp, he was driving too damn fast. After
that more than likely the cop came out of his car with his gun in his
hand instead of the holster.
You won't see this, since I am in your KF, but damn.
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
The village idiot is math challenged too? The chase was over in just
a few minutes. Do you expect the cop to be chasing the suspect at
100mph, managing a crashed car that's smoking, making sure not to
kill some innocent motorist, and pulling arrest record details from
other states? Or even this state? And to read them to the detail
level to find out that the perp is deaf? Is that even in any of the
arrest records a cop would have instant access to? And he would
only know who the perp *might be* if the car was registered to him,
attached to his license, something that, again, no one knows.
And any car that is registered to someone could be STOLEN and the
cop could be chasing someone who just used it to commit a murder
or armed robbery, for all the cop knows.
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 6:52:49 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
Oh Muggles dear... I just found this from a gun rights group website.
It's the description of the incident from the start with the speeding
incident until the shot was fired, using police communication and a
cell phone video of part of the chase.
The video shows that the officer had him stopped, went up to his car,
only to have the perp drive off *again*. The cop had used his car
in the pit maneuver to try to stop him. From the communication,
it's clear what I and others here have said could be the case, was
the case. There was no discussion about who the perp was, what his
arrest record was, that he was deaf, no records were pulled up.
It's only at the end, when he's dead, that dispatch tells the cop
who the car was registered to, and it was indeed the perp. I told
you there was no time to pull arrest records and the cop may not
have even know who the driver was. From this account, I'm right
again! This piece does a nice job demolishing the innocent, deaf
guy BS narrative that you tried to sell us.
ahh, Why didn't the officer have ANY information at the time he stopped
the man?? Nothing?? Is the officer supposed to even approach a stopped
vehicle without any information on the tag? hmmm Why were no records
So, with NO records pulled & NO information the cop pulled his gun, and
shot the man? Is THAT procedure? Legal? Did he do his due diligence
to deescalate or communicate? Did he call for back-up to subdue the man?
Did he do everything he could have done to prevent a fatal outcome? NO!
It's going to be a slam dunk for the family to sue that officer AND the
city for wrongful death.
Perfectly legal. The most information they could have had is who the
car was registered to. No more. Could have been a leasing company.
It was no longer a speeding stop but felony evading.
Again, you don't have ALL the FACTS yet.
When police make a traffic stop they don't know who the driver is, only
the registered owner. Could be a stolen car, bank robber, murderer.
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:20:04 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
If you were a cop, had just gone through a 100+ mph smash em, crash em,
felony pursuit, and it ended with the perp leaping from his car
and charging right at you, while you had your gun pointed at him,
would you have sent for records?
What happened there seems very typical of what would have happened
with any felony pursuit. Ever watch COPS on TV? You'd see it all
the time. Felony chase ends with guns drawn. Now all the ones I've
seen, the perp then stops misbehaving, doesn't charge the cop, etc.
But if you do that, then I'd expect you'd be shot and it would be
legal. We don't know the "procedure" for that PD in NC. Again,
we don't know what happened in those final seconds, so no judgment
about the legality can be made until the facts are known. Everyone
else here gets that, what is your unique problem?
Did he do his due diligence
I'm sure you'll find that this officer was not the only one in pursuit
and that there were other cops close behind or on their way. It ended
with the perp spun out, the perp then leaving his car. We don't know
what happened at that point, so there is no way to judge whether the
cop did everything right or not. For the record, the cop doesn't have
to do everything right for the shooting to be justified.
You're right it will be a slam dunk to sue, because anyone can sue
for just about anything. Winning a judgment will be a very different
matter. You really are clairvoyant. You know the facts before any
investigation, you know what was in the perp's mind, now you know
the outcome of a lawsuit, without facts too.
The cop in the video had a face to face with the deaf man that lasted
30-60 seconds or more. The cops back is facing the camera, so it's
obvious the two did have a face to face.
What is more likely to have happened... they just locked eyes and didn't
do anything else, or the cop was shouting orders at the man driving and
the man driving was trying to communicate in return? The latter is the
WHO doesn't recognize sign language in a 30-60 second or more time
period?? I don't know anyone who wouldn't recognize sign language. So,
either that cop was an idiot savant with no other skill, or he had a
face to face and literally SAW the man signing when he was stopped the
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.