Police Officer Shoots and Kills Un-Armed Deaf Man Using Sign Language After Speeding Violation (drug, suspect)

[notmeofficer]

Originally Posted by pknopp

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.

And you know his emotions from what?

The emotionmeter is his car? The biometric feedback device hooked up to central command? of which you have records of?... dont be silly.. you dont know this from a hole in the wall

or is this really your perceptions how you might act

Unarmed? you know that right... or can an officer use deadly force upon an unarmed person?

Yes or no?

The answer is yes..of course they can for a multitude of reasons

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

And you know his emotions from what?

The emotionmeter is his car? The biometric feedback device hooked up to central command? of which you have records of?... dont be silly.. you dont know this from a hole in the wall

or is this really your perceptions how you might act

Unarmed? you know that right... or can an officer use deadly force upon an unarmed person?

Yes or no?

The answer is yes..of course they can for a multitude of reasons

Hopefully this death ends up meaning something and it's where we start holding police officers personally responsible for their actions.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

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

Just who has what is the issue.. of conjecture

I do not care what the officer had for breakfast, what his mental status is or what his record is. It's all irrelevant.

He has a job that gives him a deadly weapon. He has to accept the responsibility that comes with that. If his mental status is such that he cannot handle that weapon responsibly, he should have given up the job before he shot the deaf man. He doesn't get to kill the deaf guy then claim mental distress.

[Mack Knife]

Originally Posted by Seacove

I do not care what the officer had for breakfast, what his mental status is or what his record is. It's all irrelevant.

He has a job that gives him a deadly weapon. He has to accept the responsibility that comes with that. If his mental status is such that he cannot handle that weapon responsibly, he should have given up the job before he shot the deaf man. He doesn't get to kill the deaf guy then claim mental distress.

You mean not anymore than anyone else right?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

You mean not anymore than anyone else right?

I'll accept a mental institution over prison if need be.

[notmeofficer]

Drip Drip Drip

Prior arrest for anger and use of vehicle as a ram at a job he was fired from (minor damage)..
Multiple arrests for obstructing a police officer..one conviction
Lets see theft... more traffic crimes

I wonder what he was thinking this time.....

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

Drip Drip Drip

Prior arrest for anger and use of vehicle as a ram at a job he was fired from (minor damage)..
Multiple arrests for obstructing a police officer
there's more

There always is....

Will we get the number of citizen complaints posted on this officer?

[Old Gringo]

Tragic and inexcusable.

But not unexpected, I'm sad to say. Across the country, cops are on edge after last month's multiple murders of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

I just know that if I'm pulled over for any reason, no matter how minor, I'm gonna sit still and answer the officer's questions, keep my hands in plain view and not make any sudden moves.

[notmeofficer]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Tragic and inexcusable.

But not unexpected, I'm sad to say. Across the country, cops are on edge after last month's multiple murders of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge.

I just know that if I'm pulled over for any reason, no matter how minor, I'm gonna sit still and answer the officer's questions, keep my hands in plain view and not make any sudden moves.

Tragic ..absolutely

Inexcusable.. you mean on the dead man's part? You mean at minimum.. fleeing and eluding.. endangering numerous other people in his what was initially reported as eight mile decision to flee.. but some sources are now saying ten... anyway somewhere between 7-12 minutes of poor decision making time

Because that's all we can surmise so far.... but you are also correct about an officer's mindset also being a decision making factor

Your tactic for traffic stop encounters is excellent...other than getting stopped to begin with

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by notmeofficer

Tragic ..absolutely

Inexcusable.. you mean on the dead man's part?

Nope.

You shouldn't need clarification.

You mean at minimum.. fleeing and eluding.. endangering numerous other people in his what was initially reported as eight mile decision to flee.. but some sources are now saying ten... anyway somewhere between 7-12 minutes of poor decision making time

Just to be clear...

Killing a deaf guy in his own driveway for a speeding violation is beyond stupid, beyond inexcusable, just about plain ol' murder.

Because that's all we can surmise so far.... but you are also correct about an officer's mindset also being a decision making factor

Your tactic for traffic stop encounters is excellent...other than getting stopped to begin with

I'm an old white guy and in my many years of driving have been pulled over a number of times for no apparent reason and then let off with a verbal "OK, you're free to go" after they figured out there was nothing to ticket me for. Police (local yokels especially) looking for revenue isn't uncommon or anything new. Many thousands of motorists are stopped by police every year for fishing expeditions.

"Don't shoot, officer."