On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:36:34 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
The village idiot rides again!
Even when presented with good evidence, you claim to see something very
different than what's there. I knew from casual observation that the
cop was not up at the driver's window for 30 to 60 secs. I just played
it again. He walks up to the car in a posture that looks like he may
be holding his gun in both hands in front of him at 6 secs. At 20 secs
the perp is backing away, the cop is turned away from the door.
That is just 14 secs.
The cops back is facing the camera, so it's
More total stupidity. How do you know what direction the perp's
head was facing? You don't. The perp, who was obviously intent on
fleeing, could have been trying to start the car, looking ahead
as to where to go next, or just deliberately ignoring the cop.
What makes you think a guy who's fleeing, is in the middle of felony
eluding, who's had the cop pit maneuver him, is interested in
communicating at all? Why can't you wait for the statements, the
dash cams, etc? WTF is wrong with you?
And off further into the wilderness. It was 14 secs, not 30 to 60,
obviously you aren't even interested in the most basic facts that
are available, you just make crap up. It's pure speculation that
the perp was using sign language in that brief period. And then
you go on to conclude that the cop was an idiot.
Run along now, your angry lynch mob is calling you.
The actual video caught about 19 secs, but the videographer didn't begin
recording when the event began. They began recording some time AFTER it
Any reasonable conclusion would take into account a minimum and maximum
time adjustment for what took place before filming actually began.
Obviously, your ability to analyze what you see in front of you is lacking.
Did you notice in the choppy video footage that the cop was facing the
driver at the driver's side window? The video showed he was there at
least 20 seconds, but that video didn't catch the entire amount of time
that the officer and deaf man had face to face contact.
Taking into account that the video didn't record all of the face to face
time period, do you think 30 - 60 seconds (rough estimate-it could have
been longer) is enough face to face time for the officer to realize the
driver was deaf and couldn't speak?
Set a timer, look into a mirror, and put yourself in their places. Wave
your arms like your signing and try to speak without actually saying any
words. If you were highly trained LE, would you recognize someone
trying to communicate using sign language? How many educated people
don't recognize sign language up close like that?
If you were the deaf man, would you be afraid when the officer in front
of you just kept mouthing words at you that you couldn't understand?
What would you do? Panic? Get frustrated? Continue to try to
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 10:50:11 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Who knows? It was likely the cop was pointing his gun at the perp for
that period of time. The perp could have been giving him the finger,
sticking his tongue out, or just ignoring the cop and concentrating
on getting the car going and fleeing again, which is what he did.
When you're going to continue fleeing, why would you want to communicate
with the cop?
Did you notice in that video that the cop had the perp stopped in
the middle of the chase and the perp then drove off *again*?
Per the above, there is no reason to believe that the perp was
in fact trying to communicate, trying to sign. Again, you're
making assumptions without facts.
Details and facts matter very much. Unfortunately you just make crap
up and continue to embarrass yourself. The perp did continue to try
to do something, he continued to try to flee, which is what he did
from the very beginning, when it was just a speeding stop. Village
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 12:18:05 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Keep repeating the same idiotic lie. Everyone can go look a the video.
The cop gets to the driver's door at 6 secs, the perp backs away at
20 secs. It's 14 secs, not 60 secs. WTF is wrong with you? You not
only make up pure crap, you can't even accurately assess a clear
video tape. And during that 14 secs, there is zero evidence the perp
was signing. Why does someone who has been fleeing and is about to
continue to flee, need to communicate with the cop?
The video is right here, so everyone can see that the village idiot
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:21:21 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
No, because it's simply not true.
The village idiot rides again!
First, for the third time now, the cop was only near the driver's
door, facing it for 14 secs. I've posted the video link, IDK WTF
is wrong with you.
The cop gets to the door at 6 secs into the video, the perp has the
car backing away and fleeing again at 20 secs. It's just 14 secs,
not the 30 to 60 secs or more you keep claiming. This is a fundamental
problem, you not only make up crap that doesn't exist to fit your
BS narrative, you're incapable of using what clear facts are right
in front of you. And then as is typical you turn that 14 secs into
face to face time, when nothing can be seen in the video. The perp
could have been focused on starting the car, figuring out which
way to go and not even looking toward the cop. He was obviously
fleeing, there was no inherent need for any face time with the cop
who's pursuing him. We don't even have a statement from the cop,
who AFAIK is the only person close enough at that point to know
what was going on.
No, I agree with Trader it is about 14 seconds. I just watched the
video again. It is also too far to determine if there was any real
contact or communication between them. Certainly not enough time to
defuse an angry person determined to avoid the police.
The video didn't begin when the stop began. The video began at some
point after the incident began. The officer is standing behind the open
passenger side door looking over the top of the passenger window at the
deaf man in the other car.
It takes some time to position yourself behind an open passenger door
after you stop any vehicle that you're driving. You exit the drivers
door, walk/run around the car, open the passenger door and then position
yourself. So, a reasonable conclusion is that he had been standing
behind the passenger side door for a little more time before the video
Another reasonable conclusion is he probably had been there up to 30
seconds, at least if not longer, before the video began recording.
Therefore, it's also reasonable to state that the time period more than
likely lasted at least 30-60 seconds where the cop and deaf man were
face to face.
No, it's not too far because the videographer adjusted the zoom.
Set a timer. Stand in front of your bathroom mirror, and wave your arms
like your using sign language. How long does it take for it to register
in your mind what your actually seeing? 10 seconds? 15? 25?
Additionally, take into account that you're a highly trained observer of
human behavior and knock a few seconds off of the time it took you to
recognize what you're seeing.
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 12:01:04 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
No one said that it did.
The video began at some
How is exiting, walking around the car, opening the door, positioning
yourself counted as time when the cop was at the perp's door? It isn't.
Sure, feel free to make up anything else out of thin air. The
village idiot rides again!
Pile BS ever deeper and then throw in "face-to-face" for good measure.
As has been pointed out, the perp could have been facing straight
ahead, trying to figure out where to flee, working on getting the
car started again, which isn't exactly face-to-face.
And then add in deceptive editing. What Ed actually said:
" It is also too far to determine if there was any real
contact or communication between them. "
Which any rational person who looks at that video will conclude.
That is the essential point here.
You can barely see the back of the cop and nothing of the perp
in that video, it shows the cop near the door for about 14 secs
end of story.
Irrelevant. There is no evidence the perp was using sign language.
He was in the middle of a felony pursuit. At that point, it's
probably more common than not for the perp to just ignore the cops
and keep fleeing. This guy kept fleeing, whether he was doing
anything else we don't know because the video doesn't show it,
and you won't wait for the statements from the cop and from
witnesses. In this whole incident, there isn't a single witness
so far that said he was using sign language at any time, that was just
pure speculation of what he might be doing. Speculation by his brother
who saw nothing, speculation from neighbors who didn't see it,
speculation from people like you. It fight the original narrative
of a poor confused deaf guy who was trying to be cooperative.
Now that we know it was a 100mph+ crash em felony chase, with both
cars damaged, that ended with the perp spun out, and that the perp
has a rap sheet with similar resisting in the past, it no longer
fits so well. It's possible he wasn't signing at all, or if he
was, it was "I'm gonna kill you!"
The village idiot rides again! Now we're timing how long it's supposed
to take someone to recognize sign language, when there is no evidence at
all that the sign language ever occurred. This would be like blaming a
cop for not listening to a perp saying "I give up, don't shoot!", when
there is no evidence the perp ever said it. And if the poor confused
deaf perp was trying to communicate, wanted to end it, then why in the
video is he seen driving away again? Regardless of any communication
or lack thereof, all he had to do was sit still with his hands on the
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:29:06 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
From what was posted of the communication, the response of who the car
was registered to came back at the end, right after the perp was dead.
The whole thing took 7 minutes, from him spotting him speeding, to dead.
At what point was he able to read the plate? Did the car have a plate?
Was the plate easily readable? How long does it normally take for a
plate to be run in NC? All those questions will probably come out in
the INVESTIGATION, which everyone else here is willing to wait for.
And you miss the other part, which is they ran the plate, it came
back to the perp. Nothing there indicates that any information was
available as a result of that to indicate that the guy was deaf.
Again, that's because it seems very unlikely that info is on the
vehicle registration. It might be on a driver's license, but again,
that would come out in the INVESTIGATION. And even if the cop had
know that the registered owner of the car is deaf, it may not have
changed anything. For example if someone is charging at you, you
believe they present a deadly threat, what does it matter whether
they are deaf or not? A deaf person doesn't know they can't charge
a cop that's pointing a gun at them? That isn't enough? And note
I'm not saying that's what happened here, because we don't know the
facts, as has been pointed out over and over. All I'm saying is that
given what we know about the violent 100 mph chase, the smashed up
cars, it seems very reasonable that this perp could have been doing
something very different from just standing by the car and smiling
at the cop. We're all willing to wait to find out the facts, what
is your problem?
You should just accept that I have come to a different conclusion. What
is your problem with doing that?
I've given details as to why, and also mentioned that I'm coming from
the perspective of the hearing impaired, and I want people to understand
If I *wanted* to argue pro the cops point of view, I could and would.
ANYONE can argue pro the cops side, and no one has brought up ANY point
that wasn't obvious pro cops side, but there's no one who understands
the deaf mans perspective.
If you're unwilling to see the entire scenario as many sides of the
coin, how can you legitimately come to any understanding of what happened?
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.