OT: 'They should have de-escalated'

Page 7 of 8  
On 9/2/2016 2:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Likewise, however, I have come across people who have lousy attitudes about disabled people, and simply treat them as if they're lying about their disability, their stupid ignorant people, or worse, just because they are disabled.
This discussion, imo, has been interesting because it shows just how little understanding some people are even willing to put towards the man who lost his life in this scenario. I've been trying to show a different side of the coin and 'understand' how that deaf man felt, why he behaved as he did, and why he could have been afraid.
While some people continue to object to my tack on this topic, my hope is that other people who have read can see how the deaf man may have felt and what he experienced.
Anyone can just say he got what was coming because he didn't stop, but if that were your relative who you loved and knew well, it would be a different perspective you'd be having at this point.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@2thenxtholi.day says...

Will someone please ask Muggles if the deaf guy was kin to her?
--
RonNNN

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:57:01 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

And absolutely zero evidence that happened in this case.

Actually you're just making irrational excuses. First you tried to tell us he was just a poor confused deaf guy, maybe he didn't even know the cops were following him. All he wanted to do was find a well lit, safe place to stop and that place was his home, 7 miles away. Well that BS went down quickly, because it turned out it was 6PM, not night and it wasn't a normal drive home, it was 100+ mph felony eluding. The cop had him stopped in the middle, he drove off *again*. Plenty of perps have done that who haven't been deaf. And we have 1 mil deaf people in the USA who aren't doing it. Case closed.

It also wasn't his first rodeo. He had several other similar incidents in other states too, resisting, interfering with cops. Is that common among the deaf? Why do you stereotype deaf people as unable to obey the law, unable to interact with cops, as violent felons because of their disability?

No, because someone who is a damned fool is still a damned fool. I'd be sad that it happened, but I would accept who created this toxic, violent, chaotic situation and that was the perp. And I would not be out to ruin the cops life, to blame the cop, before even hearing the facts of what happened after the perp spun out and exited the car. Your approach is exactly what the Black Lies Matter idiots do. A black guy gets shot by a white cop, it's automatically the cop's fault, no need for an investigation, any cop that was around, they are all guilty. How did that work out in the Michael Brown case, when the investigation was complete? How did that work out in the case of Freddie Gray? Just because someone died, doesn't mean the cops were wrong, criminally responsible, etc. Worst of all, in this case, we know *nothing* about the most important part, which is what happened at the end.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 12:46 PM, Muggles wrote:

I do know that Jose had at least one speeding ticket. He stopped, he gave required paperwork was ticketed. He did not take off at excessive speeds.

Yes and no. He was in a position that required him to interact with others he worked with ad well as strangers.
He is not the stereotype you are trying to convey.
His family seems to be doing well. Nice kids too.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 2:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Good for that one person. Unfortunately, it doesn't always turn out that nice for others who are deaf.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 12:46 PM, Muggles wrote:

If a driver can't operate a motor vehicle properly their driver's license should be revoked.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/2/2016 5:29 PM, Red wrote:

I've done some research into requirements for driver's licenses, and more specifically in North Carolina, since that's the state this happened.
There is no 'hearing requirement" to get a driver's license.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 3:35:52 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Who ever said there was? The poster said if someone can't operate a motor vehicle properly, their driver's license should be revoked. If you're deaf you can have a license and drive. If you're deaf and dumb enough to think that gives you the right to not pull over for police, to instead have a felony chase, then your license should be revoked. I think the perp here just had his license revoked.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/16 1:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt V. Ullman wrote :

General Diploma Mills?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/2016 2:57 PM, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:

It doesn't take a law degree to search out the laws on the books in any given state, find the laws that deal with this topic, READ them, understand the plain English their written in, and then determine that the requirements under those laws that are written in plain English were NOT met in this scenario.
I researched them, but since you may not have read them, I'll re-post them for you.
........... North Carolina General Assembly website: http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_20/GS_20-141.5.html
Here it says it's a class 1 misdemeanor unless the person does the things in section (b)[ If two or more of the following aggravating factors are present at the time the violation occurs, violation of this section shall be a Class H felony.].
§ 20-141.5. Speeding to elude arrest; seizure and sale of vehicles.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or public vehicular area while fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer who is in the lawful performance of his duties. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, *violation of this section shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor*.
NOTE: (b)"The amount of the fine for a Class 1 misdemeanor and a Class A1 misdemeanor is in the discretion of the court." http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/gs_15a-1340.23.html
Now, as far as North Carolina *defining* what exactly constitutes "speeding to elude arrest" see the following on the first link:
(f) Each law enforcement agency shall adopt a policy applicable to the pursuit of fleeing or eluding motorists. Each policy adopted pursuant to this subsection shall specifically include factors to be considered by an officer in determining when to initiate or terminate a pursuit. The Attorney General shall develop a model policy or policies to be considered for use by law enforcement agencies.
Additionally see this: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H427v7.pdf (f)Each law enforcement agency shall adopt a policy applicable to the pursuit of fleeing or eluding motorists. Each policy adopted pursuant to this subsection shall specifically include factors to be *considered by an officer* in determining when to initiate or terminate a pursuit. The Attorney General shall develop a model policy or policies to be considered for use by law enforcement agencies.
So, if each LE agency is responsible for the defining what constitutes "fleeing or eluding", how can any definition be codified under any law in NC?
NC says "fleeing or eluding" exists, but it leaves it up to various agencies to define policies concerning how they will define that infraction, in addition to, leaving it up to the officer as to how he actually interprets those policies that are supposed to define "fleeing or eluding".
So, once again, it puts responsibility of the incident and it's outcome onto the shoulders of the officer, and it says it specifically in letter (f) that I quoted above.
Additionally: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/gs_15a-401.html
NC statues state: 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:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be *the use or imminent use of deadly physical force*;
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
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.
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*.
The scenario with the deaf man did not meet the criteria for the use of deadly force, therefore, the officer used "unreasonable and excessive force".
...........
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/2016 1:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

I rest my case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/2016 4:18 PM, Meanie wrote:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/gs_15a-401.html
NC statues state: 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:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be *the use or imminent use of deadly physical force*;
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
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as a result of conviction for a felony.
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*.
The scenario with the deaf man did not meet the criteria for the use of deadly force, therefore, the officer used "unreasonable and excessive force".
....
So, prove the cop have due cause to use deadly force.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/2016 6:24 PM, Muggles wrote:

Prove he didn't, idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/2016 6:58 PM, Meanie wrote:

I've already posted North Carolina state laws on LE using lethal force. Those conditions did not exist in this scenario.
The point at which you resort to using the word "idiot" is the point at which you can't support your own argument.
If you're simply frustrated, give up. Otherwise, support your argument with legitimate information to counter my argument.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:13:32 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Woooosh! The village idiot rides again! Everyone else here realizes and agrees we don't know what the conditions were at the moment the shot was fired. Only you claim to "know" and now you've expanded that into the absurd claim to know what was in the perp's mind too.

No, it;s the point where you keep lying, making things up, ignoring all the relevant points, that there is nothing left. It's like trying to argue with a squash. An example is what happened in the case of Michael Brown? What was the outcome after an investigation, after all the facts were in, versus the wild BS that flew in the days after? It's the inability to learn from that, to see that you're doing the same dumb thing, that makes you the village idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/30/2016 7:45 PM, trader_4 wrote:

I'm not responsible for other's conclusions, only my own, and it really doesn't bother me if I have to stand alone in my viewpoint or not. I don't take a stand unless I've got a good reason to do so, and you really should just give up because you'll only get angry, frustrated, and use more profanity in an effort to prove how small-minded you really can be.
You talk about how I should keep an open mind about this scenario JUST in case, but at the same time you're so closed-minded at the idea that someone actually has a different point of view from yourself.
Liberals talk about being open-minded at the same time they're cursing at other people and telling them to shut up because they don't line up with the liberal mantra.
OTOH, conservatives do the opposite. I'm a conservative. Always have been. You're welcome to your opinions, and I'm willing to discuss them and even debate them. At the same time I'm welcome to my opinions, and if you want me to shut up.
Why do liberals always want to shut up conservatives?

--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 11:17:31 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Again, the typical Muggles deflection. You didn't address the point, which is that you can't apply the law because we don't know what happened just before the shot was fired. So, instead you deflect and now we're on our way to Muggles the poor victim scenario, which is the typical endgame.

The obvious difference is, that in the shooting case, we don't have a statement from the cop, we don't have videos, witness statements, we have very little. In the case of your BS arguments, we have you here making post after post, loaded with what you're saying to use. You've said the cop executed the guy for speeding for example. Apparently you can't understand the difference.

You should be able to answer that, because your arguments are straight out of Black Lies Matter, which is 100% full of libs. Conservatives understand you can't apply the law until you know all the facts and it's wrong and dangerous to condemn someone, to condemn police, until they get to tell their side, until there is an investigation. In this case, the facts are just starting to come out and we know nothing about the most critical part, what happened just before the shot was fired.

I notice there is no answer about Michael Brown and how as the investigation went on, that whole BS narrative of the poor innocent black child went down the drain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 1:48:21 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:

Again, making assumptions with hardly any facts to even go on. No statement from the police, no statement from the cop, no police interviews of witnesses, no videos, no investigation. All you have are basically the same very limited story that ran in multiple media. That's it. You tried to tell us he was just a poor harmless deaf guy that decided it was safer to drive on home instead of pull over. Now we have a newspaper report, which I provided but you ignore, that says both the cop car and the perp's car were damaged in the chase. And they identify and quote a neighbor that says the cop car was smoking badly. Does that sound like a quiet, normal drive home or a police chase that's a felony? Meanwhile. most of what you're hanging your hat on, eg "he was using sign language to try to communicate", I can't even find a report that says that. You have it? What I saw there was that his brother, who apparently saw nothing, said that's "probably" what he was doing, or that neighbors said that he might have been doing that based purely on speculation.
Why can't you learn? What happened when a bunch of idiots who couldn't wait for an investigation jumped to conclusions in the Michael Brown case? The painted a picture of an innocent, unarmed black kid being murdered by a cop for walking in the street. Two full investigations concluded something very different. Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Meanie wrote:

Hmm , you, trader , and rafters are all taking her quoting what was said to mean that she thinks they're right . You could be wrong .
--
Snag



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.