All I can think of… there is a little boy without his father. :signofcross:
State trooper shoots dead an unarmed deaf mute father who was trying to communicate via sign language after being pulled over for a speeding violation
I’m sorry, exactly how is the NRA to blame for this? and when did opposing unconstitutional, ineffective and unrelated (to whatever tragedy the anti-second amendment folks are exploiting) legislation make them the bad guys?
What are you saying? Let’s assume that he deliberately ignored the police. Why does that make it any better than if he never saw them? It shouldn’t, you shouldn’t be attempting to defend this at all. No number of “missteps” should allow the police to gun you down in the street like that, and no number of “missteps” should make it any more excusable than if there were no mistakes made at all.
Stop defending murderous policemen.
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Just noticed this quote at the bottom of your page… Where??? Who??? RBG??? is she talking about gun toting Catholics? sorry to hijack the thread…
Yes, let’s pray for all… before we jump… Lord, have mercy.
I am not defending him, but more importantly I am not unjustly accusing him without knowing what happened. I highly doubt that this officer started out his shift thinking “I’m going out to kill someone today, hope someone steps over the line”. We don’t have hundreds or thousands of officers that are risking their lives day after day who are just killing people on a whim.
Without more information we cannot say they are “murderous policemen” versus officers dealing with an agitated and overly aggressive suspect. We simply do not know enough about the situation to defend or condemn the officer or man that was killed.
The founding fathers envisioned a government where the police could kill deaf people for speeding?
Abortion and getting rid of populations…wonder if gingsburg is a fan of Margaret Sanger?
I would think it would be hard to drive if you are hearing impaired…you would not hear an ambulance which you are required to move to the side for.
The NRA is NOT to blame. Too bad no one will ever know why he was speeding…
And yes, a child now has no father…
Yep, that’s what she said, all right. And she wasn’t talking about gun-to tin’ Catholics (tho she probably wouldn’t mind).
What does that have to do with you blaming the NRA (a non goverment entity) for implimenting “lax gun laws”. We started with “lax gun laws” when the bill of rights was ratified 225 years ago. Those laws remained largely uninfringed for the next 143 years. It has only been in the last 80 years that we have seen an ever increasing passage of law reducing what the founding fathers considered an inherent right.
Statements like “killed a deaf man for speeding” is complete hyperbole. It is not like the man was speeding, was pulled over and gunned down because the NRA told the founding fathers to consider the right to bear arms as an intrinsic right to guarantee freedom. It’s not a matter of convoluted logic, but a complete twisting of history to match your preferred narrative.
This is completely disingenuous. We have no idea whatsoever if this shooting was justified or not. No real information about the shooting has been released yet. Unless you have some secret information source that no news source in America currently has then you as well have no idea whatsoever about the legal basis for this shooting.
It is entirely possible this shooting was justified. It is also entirely possible it was not. An investigation is being conducted and we will all undoubtedly know in about w eek or so if it was.
Our entire knowledge of the incident:
Deaf man with a record of resisting the police was pulled over after a 6 mile chase >
Man was shot once and died
That’s it. Has not all the absurd news reporting that led to riots over completely justified shootings not at least led to you to believe that maybe we should wait till the investigation is complete before jumping to conclusions?
It is funny how people like to make it seem like an encounter with a police officer is like an encounter with a deadly animal. One wrong move and your dead.
I will say one thing: a handcuffed deaf person is unable to communicate. If anything is wrong, he can’t tell the police, like I can’t breathe, or, I need to take my insulin.
Maybe the police union and some people at Gallaudet could get together to come up with protocols for the police and help for the deaf.
I don’t like derailing this thread further but just want to say that the full quote, in context, is worse than the excerpt you have in your signature. Yikes.
It is certainly not unreasonable to not allow deaf people to drive, given the modern legal status of driving. Driving a car is a privilege the government grants us. Our beneficent government cares very much for our safety. Deaf people driving are at greater risk for harm to themselves and to others. So I could see not allowing them to drive the same as you wouldn’t allow blind people to drive. That isn’t my opinion but it is certainly within the bounds of how the state operates.
Those are legitimate fears. The police are given very wide latitude in interpreting something as a threat and thus whether they are justified in using deadly force. It is simply a fact that being around police officers, whatever the reason, represents a serious threat to your property and your life. If you can’t obey their commands, whether it be due to an inability to hear or any other reason, they might well shoot you and this be perfectly legal.
This is absurd. No one gets shot just because they don’t obey commands. If the police shot everyone who didn’t follow orders there would be hundreds of shootings a week. Instead the police are usually very restrained in their tactics and seek to exhaust other means before having to use deadly force. Despite the news constantly making a parade of police shootings (almost all of which are completely justified) so few police encounters result in deadly force that it is almost a statistical anomaly.
I’m not saying he intended to kill someone when he woke up, but he is certainly a murderer. I don’t see what new information could make this shooting justified. You are undoubtedly trying to defend police shootings. You’re trying your hardest to leave room for the policeman’s innocence when there really isn’t any. Even if we don’t fully understand the circumstances, there is no reasonable justification for the victim’s death.
If the victim was “agitated and overly aggressive”, does that make it okay for him to be shot like he was? Does that make the policeman innocent? The police should not be able to go around shooting people based on short interactions. It is normal for people to be agitated and nervous around the police.
There is something realistic that we may not know about this incident that could make this shooting justified in your eyes. What is it? I can not think of a single thing.
I swear I recall being taught that the police are supposed to help people. Why are people content with the police being scary Judge Dredd type characters? The police shouldn’t be allowed to gun people down at their own discretion. That’s why I don’t think regular police should be armed. If only special armed response units can carry guns, it prevents these kinds of incidents.
The fact is that while the police continue to behave as they do, anger at them will only grow as will violence against them. Something needs to be done. I don’t believe that the police as an institution should be preserved at all, but even a liberal should see that there is an issue with the United States police force.
Frankly, the police are an institution of state violence. When a normal civilian interacts with a policeman, there is a power balance in favour of the policeman. They are in a position of authority, and as such are able to abuse that position. They should be held more accountable for their actions than anyone else.
If the victim got out of the car and was told to stop and he continued to advance on the officer, the officer would likely have drawn his weapon and repeated the command. If the victim continued to advance after the officer drew their weapon he could be perceived as a threat. If the man was completely deaf it is likely he would not hear a command to get back in his car, but the second the officer drew their weapon they should have stopped. The barrel of a weapon pointed at you transcends language and carries a very specific message.
I don’t know if that is what happened, but it is a possible scenario. I have seen people get out of their car at a traffic stop and slam their fists into their car and also the police cruiser. There is a difference between being nervous and agitated and being overtly aggressive. Does that mean they deserve to be shot? No. Does that mean each escalatory step greatens the risk to the officer and the suspect? Yes.
You say I defend them when I am simply saying that we do not know the circumstances. There are certainly reasons why an officer is justified in discharging their weapon, but it appears you do not believe it is ever justified (though I could be wrong in my estimation). Do I personally suspect that the shooting was justified? No. I suspect that the officer used undue force, but I cannot say until more evidence is presented about what lead to the officer drawing their weapon. You are correct that I leave open the possibility that the officer was justified just as I leave open the possibility that he used undue force. In either case, it was not premeditated and there for not murder.
Yes, the police act in the name of the state, so there is a power imbalance.
But I should think that after the Michael Brown incident, that everyone would wait until most, if not all the information were in before making up our minds and judging the police. One of the main things to remember is that people who are on drugs tend to act erratically; I remember back in the 1980s when PCP was popular, and the people who used it did not really feel pain. Now we have synthetic marijuana and bath salts (!), both of which seem to cause people to act very erratically.
I do think that there should be trained civilian review teams, and some revision of training for the police.
If the deaf man, who had already evaded the police, came out of the car gesticulating excitedly, and kept walking towards the police officer, who had very little time to make a decision, may well have felt in danger.