On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 11:28:59 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
The problem is your "conclusions" are reached without the facts.
We don't know what the facts are. We don't even have a statement from
the cop, from the police. Yet you're leading the lynch mob. And
already the pretty picture you painted a few days ago, just a poor,
deaf guy driving peacefully home to a safe, well lit place where he
could safely pull over, has been completely debunked. Yet you can't
learn from being wrong on that, nor can you learn from the Michael
Brown shooting and how that turned out compared to the fools that
rushed to judgment. As is typical with you in these threads, you
just ignore those points, and proceed to divert to some lie like:
"The cop executed a deaf guy for speeding" That statement is a
good example of why you have no respect here.
You've given nothing, you have nothing to give because we don't even
have the facts yet.
and also mentioned that I'm coming from
Back to the poor confused deaf guy again, are we? There is no way
being deaf explains a high speed, crash em, felony chase. And per his
rap sheet, which again you won't even acknowledge, this was not his
first encounter with cops where resisting, interfering charges were
brought. If you're incapable of pulling over for a speeding ticket,
you should not be driving. And how fast was he going? 88 MPH in
a 70. That's some real speeding, it's not 51 in a 40. It's likely
that as someone else posted, the guy thought he could use his deaf
handicap to get away with anything, that people like you would make
excuses for him, he'd get off. He pushed it too far this time.
And that's a common pattern in almost ever one of these police shootings.
The perp created the toxic, volatile, dangerous situation that
ultimately lead to their death. Almost every single one would be
alive if they had just cooperated.
No "perspective" can explain what happened.
You're the one who has come to the conclusion of what happened, with
almost no facts as to what happened after the perps car spun out.
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 12:15:59 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Another example of taking things out of context. I've made it very
clear that the part we have no facts on is the last and most important
part, from when the perp spun out and got out of his car, until when
he was shot. THAT is where you are trying to apply the law on use of
deadly force, without any facts. Capiche?
More lies from the village idiot. The video you're referring to was in
the middle of the high speed chase, when the cop had the perp pitted
and momentarily stopped. There is no video of what happened mins later,
in a totally different location.
A total fabrication. You can't even see what is there. The video
shows the cop at the perp's car door for 14 secs. You just told
us it was 30 to 60 secs or longer. Now you state that the driver
was signing? Zero evidence of that. This is another clear example
of why you're the village idiot, why you get no respect. You just
make crap up as you go. Woman, have you no self-respect?
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Deaf or not, when a motorist sees a LEO's lights in their rear view mirror, they should pull over and hand the officer a license, registration and proof of insurance. WTF is so hard about that?
Are you mentally impaired?
Are you sure?
This is a separate discussion altogether, but I'll give you this to
The following argument has been used in at least three states
(Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a
demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is
the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a
"win" in court against the argument that free people can have their
right to travel regulated by their servants.
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen
from the "most sacred of his liberties," the *Right* of movement, the
*Right* of moving one's self from place to place without threat of
imprisonment, the *Right* to use the public roads in the ordinary course
It's a very long read, but quite interesting.
Arguing for the cops "side" is easy. Anyone can do that. It's a safe
bet to argue every point that people on the cops side have argued so
far. People like a safe argument. It makes them feel they're smart,
superior, and on the side of "justice". That's why so many people
automatically jump to the defense of the cop and spout off the usual
expected arguments about LE. "Support your local cop!"
Arguing on behalf of the deaf mans "side" requires attempting to put
yourself in the shoes of a man who can't hear and can't speak, and then
try to understand him, his actions, what he could have been
experiencing, and why he responded as he did, etc.
I've got no problem arguing either side of the issue. This particular
scenario inspires me to argue on the deaf mans behalf because I'm
hearing impaired and I think it's important that people get a glimpse.
Frankly, if people can't accept that I have a different perspective,
they should just ignore this discussion because they aren't going to
listen, let alone understand.
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:36:56 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Actually we're not arguing on the side of the cop. We;re arguing on the
side of the FACTS and withholding judgment where we don't know the facts.
And where we have no facts at all is the most important part, which is
what happened between the time the perp spun out and when he was shot.
There are a lot of facts that show the perp created the toxic, violent
scenario that lead to his demise.
And then as usual, you just toss out what doesn't fit with your BS.
He was supposed to be just a confused deaf guy, who drove home to get
to a well lit, safe place, to pull over for his speeding ticket. You
said 7 miles to do that, no problem. Then it turns out that it happened
at 6PM, so everywhere was light enough, Doh! Then it turns out it
wasn't a simple drive, it was 100MPH+ crash em, smash em. That is a
felony eluding charge, which is exactly what I told you it might be.
Doh #2! Then it turns out he has a rap sheet showing similar encounters
with cops in the past, for resisting, interfering, etc. It wasn't his
first rodeo. He also has a conviction for theft. Doh #3! Then
you conjured up that the cop would have known from pulling up "reports"
that the guy is deaf. Except the just released tapes of the cops
communication with dispatchers apparently show that he only learned
who the car was registered to just after the guy was dead. Not that
it matters much, because when you're in a felony pursuit, you don't
know if the car is stolen or who the driver might really be. Doh #4.
Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?
Then start arguing with yourself, maybe you're brain will overheat
This is the glimpse you want us to remember of the hearing impaired?
That they are dangerous psycopaths that we should stay clear of
because they may turn any traffic ticket or similar into a felony
pursuit? And you say you're a conservative? Yet you make any
excuse, tell any lie, to excuse criminal behavior? If this is
a problem with the hearing impaired, why is it that we don't have
these deaf people doing felony eluding all the time? Good grief.
Your perspective is to make up crap, to ignore the limited facts
that are available.
I'm not arguing a side. I'm arguing to wait for facts. you may or may
not be right.
I've known and worked with deaf people so I can see their perspective.
I also know people that have evaded the police for one reason one
another. Can you put yourself in that position? Have you ever been in a
car with someone fleeing from the police? I have.
You are not giving the perspective of a deaf person. You are sticking
up for someone breaking the law. We don't know everything, but we know
he did break the law.
We understand the presumption of innocence and the need for facts to
determine guilt or innocence. Our court system is not perfect but that
is the way it works.
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 12:09:20 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
I would think most deaf people would be offended by how your trying
to portray them. There are a million of them in the US, how come
we don't have these problems every day? According to you, when deaf
people can't communicate with a cop, they become violent, irrational
felons. Seems what we really have here is an angry, irrational,
violent felon who just happens to be deaf.
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:25:33 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
IDK how deaf people would feel, I just assume most groups of any
kind of people would not appreciate being characterized as likely
to turn into crazed, angry, violent felons because a cop is trying
to pull them over for speeding. That is how you're characterizing
them. And note that the perp here didn't pull over, have trouble
communicating, then flee. He was doing 88 in a 70 and refused to
pull over right from the start, turning it into a smash em, 100+ mph
felonly chase. Is that how deaf people behave? I doubt it because
there are 1 mil of them here and this is the first one of these we've
heard about. Seems kind of like characterizing blacks or mexicans
as rapists, to me.
They never speed? They never encounter situations where they can't
communicate with people around them? They've never been
misunderstood, frustrated, or scared because of their being hearing
Do they only interact with other hearing impaired people, or avoid
people who don't know sign language?
Do you even know the answers to any of those questions?
What is their life really like?
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 12:46:36 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
Let me take a wild guess here. I think what Ed is saying is that
the hearing impaired he's known were smart enough not to flee from
police over a speeding ticket, that they are the same as the rest
of us in that respect. I bet a lot of deaf people would object
to your stereotype of them, which appears to be that they can't
interact with people, that they turn a very routine traffic stop
into a felony pursuit, because of their handicap? Good grief!
I don't see that history, that problem, with deaf people in general.
Where they lead police on a wild felony chase instead of pulling
over for a speeding ticket. But we do see in this perps rap sheet
that he's had similar problems with police in several states
before. Hmmm, do we have a deaf guy who keeps having these problems
because of his handicap? Or do we have a skunk who gets into these
problems just like a lot of other skunks, but he just happens to
Hearing impaired people aren't clones, in addition to, they all don't
have the same level of hearing impairment. You don't know what someone
might do if their scared and can't communicate. Some people handle
better than others, but even that doesn't mean future encounters with LE
wouldn't have issues of accessibility.
Totally deaf people I've encountered don't want to interact with hearing
people who can't sign. I've come across several who just motioned they
couldn't hear and to go away.
How many deaf people do you interact with? How many hearing impaired?
You can't see it if you've no empathy and don't care.
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:33:25 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
I agree. The vast majority are normal, law abiding people. Some
are felony perps, like the dead guy. Same thing with people who
aren't hearing impaired. You're the one trying to lay this all off
on the guy's handicap.
in addition to, they all don't
If they can't handle communicating, can't handle interacting with cops
or other people for something as routine and common as getting stopped
for speeding, then they shouldn't have a driver's license. If they
turn into violent felons, they should stay home unless they have someone
accompany them. Note this is a BS strawman, because what you claim
is the problem, isn't. You just can't accept that some people do
stupid, bad things, and having a handicap doesn't excuse it. It's
like the other poster postulated, this perp probably has used his
handicap as an excuse for his bad behavior for a long time and got
away with it. This time, he pushed it too far. And it not having
been his first rodeo, he was more than fairly on notice.
If that's the approach they take with police, they can't understand
that isn't acceptable, they should not be driving, end of story.
This is the classic lib BS, it's always someone else;s fault, someone
Show us all the similar cases then. There are 1 mil deaf people in
the US, why isn't this a common problem, where they lead police on
felony puruits? Please, just stop. You're badly stereotyping deaf
In my life I've dealt with many people. Very nice ones, very nasty
ones, honest and dishonest. Both come in all sizes, ages, sexes, with
and without handicaps. I don't recall a handicapped person ever using
it as an excuse to perform an illegal act.
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.