Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guilt is not punishment enough. You don't get to shoot someone and say, it's okay, I really feel bad about it.
The deaf community has said there have been a lot of negative interactions between police and the deaf and they are requesting that deaf drivers be flagged in some way so the police officer gets notification when the driver is deaf, perhaps based on the license plate of the deaf driver. This makes a lot of sense. But it doesn't absolve this particular officer who appears to have shot immediately because he was angry. They are not above the law and any other angry driver would be charged.
he was unarmed. It is not justified. The officer allowed his anger and adrenaline to put himself into a road rage mindset.
The guy knew he was followed. He saw the lights. He didn't want to pull over until he was home. Is this reasonable? It's not completely unreasonable.
It's not a reason to kill him.
You don't know..neither do I..
From your statement he didn't want to stop.. you obviously agree.. I mean we know this because he "didn't" right?
You said he saw the lights.. we know that because its reasonable right?..but you cannot say this with a moral certainty can you... I mean I can.. but to use your logic can you? oh ok.. so the inference is that he knew he was violating the law.. had something to hide or conceal (another conjecture or inference).. if nothing more than fear of getting in trouble... don't you agree?
Where did he learn it was ok to flee from a police officers at high speeds for eight miles.. what school teaches that.. or did he learn that from his parents? Friends.. COPS?... Did he have some fear that made him act irrationally.. sure he did.. don't you agree?
Or was there something more sinister.. we don't know.. don't you agree?
You are making an inference he didn't want to stop until he got home.. but you don't have any evidence of this.. and it doesn't matter does it?.... or does it... don't you agree?
A 4000 auto is a great weapon.. don't you agree? If it was one. By their very nature vehicles used in the commission of a crime are considered potential weapons.. don't you agree?
As is fighting with an armed policeman? Dont you agree? If this occurred...
It has been said the policeman was "angry".. where is this coming from?... what evidence is there of this?.. do we have dash cams that show this.. video that shows this... witness statements... radio traffic anything? anything at all... NOPE.. don't you agree?
The perception of danger can be construed as danger.. don't you agree?.. I mean If there is a hot stove you know not to put your hand on it... because you reasonably know it can and will hurt you... don't you agree?
As are a thousand other "as is" .. that are all conjecture.. just like your assertions .. don't you agree?
A lot of inferences will come out of this.. what the DEAD PERSON believed .. and a lot of people will say they know.. but they dont... and what the police officer knew... not what he should have ..or may have or could have possibly known.. but what he knew..
Last edited by notmeofficer; 08-23-2016 at 02:47 PM..
From your statement he didnt want to stop.. you obviously agree
A 4000 auto is a great weapon.. dont you agree? If it was one. but by theri very nature vehicles used in the commission of a crime are considered potential weapons.. dont you agree?
As is fighting with an armed policeman? dont you agree? If this occurred
The perception of danger can be construed as danger.. dont you agree?.. I mean If there is a hot stove you know not to put your hand on it... because you reasonably know it can and will hurt you... dont you agree?
As is a thousand other "as is" .. that are all conjecture.. just like your assertions .. dont you agree?
Are you comparing the police officer to a hot stove?
I know pretty much nothing about this case other than what I've read on this thread. I'm about to read the articles. I will say that I don't think a cop has ever used his sirens to pull me over. In the dozens of times I've been stopped, just the emergency lights were activated, day or night.
I hope they release the video footage soon.
Until the family forces it, it is unlikely to be released. N.C. passed the bad cop protection act so that it's not so easy to get the video now.
Hopefully someone can now challenge this law in court.
he was unarmed. It is not justified. The officer allowed his anger and adrenaline to put himself into a road rage mindset.
The guy knew he was followed. He saw the lights. He didn't want to pull over until he was home. Is this reasonable? It's not completely unreasonable.
It's not a reason to kill him.
His brother said he was afraid of cops. I've known a few deaf people. All of them have been very paranoid people. Maybe it comes from not being able to ever hear inflection in a persons voice, never knowing what others are saying except for whatever you can lip read. I don't know.
It sounds like he was trying to get home. Got out of the car and was gesticulating wildly, trying to sign.
This is all just conjecture, of course. Who knows what we aren't being told yet. By the cops or the media.
Screaming foul play before we know hardly any facts just obfuscates things with cries of wolf. (there may indeed be a wolf...but maybe not)
Anymore I'd say for every case where the cop did something wrong we have 9 cases where we find out that the public hysteria including outright lying was really the case. (Remember Ferguson????)
At some point you are dulling public outrage by trying to turn every incident into a bad action by the police before you really know.
Hysteria and mob mentality never wins hearts and minds. Just look at the comments in this thread, they're full of imaginative hyperbole from zealots....rationale people read that crap and just
I'm hardly being hysterical. Merely citing the history in cases like this. Its not exactly a glowing beacon of truth and disclosure. I don't believe I've stated anything that's calling for this troopers head on a plate yet. Being as there seems to be a momentum building behind this case, the agency will have to release the dashcam and radio transcripts and such sooner than later. I'll put off building any gallows till more information spills over.
Which, it seems, will be happening. So long as there's a driving force in place, it can't just be "case closed". "Trust, but verify". ?? Isn't that the old adage? Except in cases like this, trust may be in short supply. That's not at all unexpected.
Are you comparing the police officer to a hot stove?
Stay with me in the ethereal world of city data
Perception... perception can lead to cause and effect.. which can lead to fatal consequences...
But..this is all conjecture and as such we are just blabbing with ones and zeros
Dont you agree?
You do know that perception can be used as a legal means for action or inaction by anyone right?
Now ..back in the real world of investigations and evidence we seek the truth.. not the perfect truth ..but the truth to a moral and legal certainty.. which is what is occurring.. at least I think so.. but that's conjecture I guess...
As the other poster stated "trust but verify"... but I see very little "trust".. so lets wait for the "verify"
Perception... perception can lead to cause and effect.. which can lead to fatal consequences...
But..this is all conjecture and as such we are just blabbing with ones and zeros
Dont you agree?
You do know that perception can be used as a legal means for action or inaction by anyone right?
Now ..back in the real world of investigations and evidence we seek the truth.. not the perfect truth ..but the truth to a moral and legal certainty.. which is what is occurring.. at least I think so.. but that's conjecture I guess...
As the other poster stated "trust but verify"... but I see very little "trust".. so lets wait for the "verify"
Dont you agree?
What I know is I didn't really understand what blacks were going through until cameras were everywhere and I saw the video over and over. What we have seen in video is pretty horrifying the past couple of years and I think police have gotten away with a lot of terrible things. I'm not against police in the least but the guy was deaf, had no weapon and all he did was speed. That should not be a death sentence.
What I know is I didn't really understand what blacks were going through until cameras were everywhere and I saw the video over and over. What we have seen in video is pretty horrifying the past couple of years and I think police have gotten away with a lot of terrible things. I'm not against police in the least but the guy was deaf, had no weapon and all he did was speed. That should not be a death sentence.
Ok.. so lets understand your thought process for a second in relation to how this worked out
So.. something happens over and over and it skews ones perception through their reality.. is that correct? I mean life is full of a process of experiences.. correct ( and I state the obvious)
And in the past certain groups have gotten away with horrible things to paraphrase what you're saying.. oh.. and this dead man wasnt black right?
The guy was deaf.. we know that after the fact.. I mean we dont have any evidence that he had a neon sign on his car stating "dont stop me Im deaf".. and" Ill drive my car home where I will then talk to you calmly and appropriately because that is where I choose to do business with you.. but since I dont want to do business with you Ill just flee.. and when I do stop after you've rammed me Ill get out and be involved in an "incident" with you Mr Policeman".. I know that would be a long sign... but it wasnt there was it?
Now we come down to perception (and plenty of conjecture) because we don't have a clue what was in the policeman's mind OTHER THAN we know he used a lot of force.. a vehicle pit maneuver and then at some point deadly force.
Again to correct the record a vehicle is a weapon if used as such,,, can we agree on that?
We dont know how many pursuits the policeman had ever been in.. and how they ended.. we dont know how many times he has rammed cars during a pursuit. been involved as first car at a pursuit termination.. we dont know what kind of shape he was in.. what his mental status was (although some have said he was all jacked up ready to kill)... we dont know how many altercations he has been in at the end of a pursuit and why
We dont know how many bad guys hes arrested and how many times hes been hurt by those bad guys
We dont know if he had twinkies for breakfast
All this goes into the mix.. and a lot gets thrown out as irrelevant
We dont know a lot but yet we make inferences of guilt ..innocence and degrees of same..
Perception
All conjecture
We do have causation... and we can reasonably infer causation... as we can reasonably infer responsibility
He could have been able to hear. He could have been black. He could have been a she. He could have been an illegal. He could have been whatever.
Police officers can not be allowed to allow their emotions control their actions and shoot an unarmed man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
