Cause if you're stood therebwithout your gun drawn when the other guy gets out of the vehicle with his gun already out your wife is going to be getting a neatly folded flag delivered to the door.
Cop Shoots and Kills Unarmed Deaf Man as He Tries to Communicate Using Sign Language
- Thread starter ThestigGT999
- Start date
Cause if you're stood therebwithout your gun drawn when the other guy gets out of the vehicle with his gun already out your wife is going to be getting a neatly folded flag delivered to the door.
Man of Honour
Because he's a police officer in a country in which a very large proportion of people are armed and there is a strong movement dedicated to increasing hostility to the police and he was dealing with a person who had tried to evade him in a car chase and maybe other reasons too, we don't know. A ludicrously biased account without any knowledge of what happened is not a reliable source of information.
I recently read an article based on an interview in the USA with a retired UK copper. One of his comments stood out - he said that if he was glad UK police don't carry guns but if knew that there was a good chance of every drunk and crackhead he had to deal with having a gun, he'd be first in the queue at the armoury.
Legends about Wild West gunslingers who could draw, aim and shoot with perfect accuracy in less time than it takes to blink make for good stories, but in reality if you don't have your gun in your hand it's not much use if someone pulls a gun on you.
Man of Honour
Fair enough and my apologies, it was a tad graceless of me.
This clearly shouldn't have happened, but the start of the story doesn't make sense to me. The deaf guy surely would have seen a police car behind him blue lights and flashing at him etc - so how come he didn't pull over.
Then the next sentence mentions both cars were smoking, which i can only assume means the police tried to force the guy to pull over - so again, why did he not stop.
Just all sounds a bit odd to me, but granted, the police should have been hesitant about using lethal force.
Then the next sentence mentions both cars were smoking, which i can only assume means the police tried to force the guy to pull over - so again, why did he not stop.
Just all sounds a bit odd to me, but granted, the police should have been hesitant about using lethal force.
Soldato
It's a shame the shooting happened but I don't believe you should be driving anyway if deaf. You aren't fully aware of your surroundings while in the car.
Back to the story. Clearly more details are needed, he may not have heard the siren but surely the flashing lights and the fact your car is getting hit is noticeable. Add to the fact he's resisted arrest in the past would instantly put the copper on the defence.
It's also very easy for people of over here to stay he shouldn't draw his gun or he should be hesitant.
This is a country where every pull over, every call over the radio could potentially end up in a gun fight. It's s horrible job and I wouldn't thank you for it.
Back to the story. Clearly more details are needed, he may not have heard the siren but surely the flashing lights and the fact your car is getting hit is noticeable. Add to the fact he's resisted arrest in the past would instantly put the copper on the defence.
It's also very easy for people of over here to stay he shouldn't draw his gun or he should be hesitant.
This is a country where every pull over, every call over the radio could potentially end up in a gun fight. It's s horrible job and I wouldn't thank you for it.
Last edited:
better ban radios and headphones...and motorcycles.
at 70mph wind noise and helmet basically makes you deaf (90db +)
A headphone ban does actually have merit. It isn't just the fact that headphone wearers cannot hear what is going on around them, Headphones are immersive in a way that a loud radio is not. Headphone wearers are in a little world of their own which is really not a good place to be when you are actually on the Public highway.
Soldato
Last edited:
Caporegime
And yet you've still given no comment on the matter...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...g-police-black-man-robbery-impd-a7206746.html
Another 'accident'. And in other news, I had a poo today.
Probably about time we stop arguing over every single shooting in America. In case you hadn't noticed, there's quite a few every single day. US police have shot 698 people in 2016 so far. That's an average of nearly 3 a day. And that's only counting shootings by police.
Another 'accident'. And in other news, I had a poo today.
Probably about time we stop arguing over every single shooting in America. In case you hadn't noticed, there's quite a few every single day. US police have shot 698 people in 2016 so far. That's an average of nearly 3 a day. And that's only counting shootings by police.
So either ...
he phoned home told them he was being pursued by the police and said thank you for the offer of translation even though he couldn't hear what the other person said because well he can't hear
or ...
he texted home to tell them he was being pursued by the police whilst driving away from the police who were actively trying to stop him.
Because unless those things very very unlikely things happened how on earth can we know that?
Soldato
yup, especially motorcycles - I'd vote yes in that referendum!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...g-police-black-man-robbery-impd-a7206746.html
Another 'accident'. And in other news, I had a poo today.
Probably about time we stop arguing over every single shooting in America. In case you hadn't noticed, there's quite a few every single day. US police have shot 698 people in 2016 so far. That's an average of nearly 3 a day. And that's only counting shootings by police.
So man reported robbery by armed assailant. Police turned up at address and saw man with gun and shot him.
Not saying it's correct but I can see why this is happening. It's not rocket science. To pretend that this is a wholly police issue is totally wrong. This is about the police adopting a siege mentality to a very very violent society.
I thought I did regarding why he went home to be specific this incident is so similar to previous events that happened regarding police and guns, regarding him going home he went there so that some can translate for him as people I have read refer to.
So either ...
he phoned home told them he was being pursued by the police and said thank you for the offer of translation even though he couldn't hear what the other person said because well he can't hear
or ...
he texted home to tell them he was being pursued by the police whilst driving away from the police who were actively trying to stop him.
Because unless those things very very unlikely things happened how on earth can we know that?
or he just went home on his on accord hoping someone will help him
Last edited:
And how then can we know what you said is true then because he is dead so how can he tell people that was his intention.
So either someone knew his intention as I said or what you said is just made up.
Basic logic:
For us to know he was going home to get a translation then either he or the other party at home had to let us know of that intention.
He can't as he is dead.
They can't because he couldn't exactly have a chat on his mobile with them could he.
well we won't know either way thanks to incompetent cops
It's nothing to do with the cops it do with that fact what you said was obviously a made up lie.