OT: 'They should have de-escalated'

Page 6 of 8  
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/2016 11:02 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Wrong. My conclusions are reached based on facts.

Your statement should read: We don't know ALL the facts.
We DO actually know some facts.

The video tells a great deal as I pointed out, that cop and the driver had a face to face with time enough for them both to interact with each other. That cop saw the driver signing.

You're exaggerating. I'm arguing this scenario from the viewpoint of the hearing impaired perspective.
[...]

Evidently, you don't have the skills to understand human nature.

You JUST posted: "We don't know what the facts are"
Now you're modifying your statement to "almost no facts are known", so, you now agree there are currently facts that ARE known. It's about time.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/01/2016 11:28 AM, Muggles wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/2016 12:53 PM, Lin Guist wrote:

Are you sure?
This is a separate discussion altogether, but I'll give you this to think about.
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 of life.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
It's a very long read, but quite interesting.

Why don't you do your homework before you post?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Muggles laid this down on his screen :

That's what I was told when I got my license.
https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/2016 11:28 AM, Muggles wrote:

OMG, that is exactly what you are doing. Not waiting to see the entire scenario.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/2016 5:50 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 and explode.
This particular

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/2016 8:36 PM, Muggles wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/1/2016 9:23 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I'm arguing with facts that exist now.

So, tell me what you believe it's like for someone who's deaf when they can't communicate in such situations?
[...]

No. I'm analyzing the scenario detail by detail.
[...]
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 8:49 AM, trader_4 wrote:

How would you know what deaf people feel?
You've got zero empathy, no sympathy, have no skill in analyzing human behavior or responses, and you don't care.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 12:09 AM, Muggles wrote:

Yes, and the world used to be flat

They were smart enough to avoid those situations.

Even though many details are known to be missing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 impaired?
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?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 be deaf?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 12:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:

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.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 else's responsibility.

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 people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 1:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:

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.
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.