Cop Shoots and Kills Unarmed Deaf Man as He Tries to Communicate Using Sign Language

Saunders is on administrative leave while an internal review is conducted into the shooting, the highway patrol said.
Click to expand...

I know it's standard procedure but the chances of this cop being punished for this seems remote to me. Thinking about all the black people killed by white cops who walk away free men, this case is the reverse, so I wonder if they will hang him out to dry or find him innocent of killing this guy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...mber-deaf-man-killed-police-questions-n636776
 
ThestigGT999 said:
how can you it was made lie if the person in question can't answer for his actions
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read my posts - then rethink the logic here and see how it is impossible for people to state what they said and therefore it can only be made up conjecture.

Taking random comments from unknown people on a 'funny' site on the internet as fact ... hmm.

The irony is your link then suggests he had form for evading cops which would only then prejudice the police's view of him even more.
 
Last edited:
US police have a nasty habit of treating anyone who doesn't 'respect them', i.e. doesn't do exactly what they say when they say it, as some kind of deep personal threat to their safety. I suppose that includes people who can't actually hear their orders.
 
Xordium said:
I think you need to re-read my posts - then rethink the logic here and see how it is impossible for people to state what they said and therefore it can only be made up conjecture.

Taking random comments from unknown people on a 'funny' site on the internet as fact ... hmm.

The irony is your link then suggests he had form for evading cops which would only then prejudice the police's view of him even more.
Click to expand...

when did i say it was a fact, I just put it out there as a possibility
 
h4rm0ny said:
US police have a nasty habit of treating anyone who doesn't 'respect them', i.e. doesn't do exactly what they say when they say it, as some kind of deep personal threat to their safety. I suppose that includes people who can't actually hear their orders.
Click to expand...

That's because often the time between seeing a threat and getting shot is incredibly short. The US Police act the way they do because of the prevalence of firearms, something the US seems inept at changing. This is simple cause and effect. You can't blame the US police for being twitchy when so many officers die in the line of duty. It's not right, but it is inevitable given the choices of the US public.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That's because often the time between seeing a threat and getting shot is incredibly short. The US Police act the way they do because of the prevalence of firearms, something the US seems inept at changing. This is simple cause and effect. You can't blame the US police for being twitchy when so many officers die in the line of duty. It's not right, but it is inevitable given the choices of the US public.
Click to expand...

Whilst I hate to disagree, the chances of a US officer dying in the line of duty due to criminal action has been dropping steadily for something like 20-30 years.
The perception of the risk of it has been rising though.

It's something like they're about twice as likely to die due to criminal action than the statistical average for the population, but less likely to die than if they worked in a shop or as a taxi driver.
The overall risk of dying as a law enforcement officer in the US (for all causes including accidental and health) lower than many "normal" occupations that don't get considered as high risk.

It's actually far harder to work out how many people have been killed by police (let alone shot) in the US because no one keeps proper records that account in the same way* - however various newspapers and academic groups have tried keeping track and I think the curve for the number of unarmed people getting killed is going up (from memory the FBI has actually stated that one of the newspapers has better and more reliable information than they have, as the newspaper has been actively keeping track).


*And there are strong indicators that some areas actively try to distort the figures.
 
Werewolf said:
Whilst I hate to disagree, the chances of a US officer dying in the line of duty due to criminal action has been dropping steadily for something like 20-30 years.
The perception of the risk of it has been rising though.
Click to expand...

A fair point. The perception of risk is more important in explaining the behaviour of officers than the actual stats though. How you go about matching the perception with reality is an interesting question though. I don't expect many officers would just accept the stats and change their behaviour accordingly.
 
Perhaps one of the reasons they're now less likely to die is because of more common firearm deployments by them?
 
Like people have said, theres more to this and the guy was clearly stupid as well as deaf, maybe also blind as the blue flashing light for 7 miles were not seen! ..............
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That's because often the time between seeing a threat and getting shot is incredibly short. The US Police act the way they do because of the prevalence of firearms, something the US seems inept at changing. This is simple cause and effect. You can't blame the US police for being twitchy when so many officers die in the line of duty. It's not right, but it is inevitable given the choices of the US public.
Click to expand...

it isn't necessarily inevitable and there are clearly more factors at play - the scenarios where they're allowed to use lethal force, the consequences for using it and the way that complaints are followed up and investigated will likely all play a part in this too

the US does have a different attitude in general to say the UK when it comes to use of lethal force, now obviously the police have rather different populations to police but you can see the differences in say areas where British and US troops have operated in Iraq for example - the different rules of engagement and the resulting civilian casualties
 
Sliver said:
I know it's standard procedure but the chances of this cop being punished for this seems remote to me. Thinking about all the black people killed by white cops who walk away free men, this case is the reverse, so I wonder if they will hang him out to dry or find him innocent of killing this guy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...mber-deaf-man-killed-police-questions-n636776
Click to expand...

Punished? Nah, he'll get a campaign medal for it, and they'll stencil another skull on his car.

America, **** yeah.
 
Orionaut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Also worth pointing out that if you're cycling more than about 15mph you can hear **** all but wind noise anyway.
 
Xordium said:
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.
Click to expand...

But remember guys. The public owning guns is their god given right...

Yet still we aren't allowed to discuss gun laws in the US.
 
muon said:
It's presented what is known at this time. No speculation made. A statement from the police and some witnesses.
.
Click to expand...

"Harris was found guilty of resisting an officer in 2010 when he lived in Connecticut, according to public records. However, this resisting charge was likely due to the fact that Harris could not hear the officer’s commands."

K :p
 
Pawnless Endgame said:
Sure we'll hear the finer details later, but atm I think 25 years custodial is the right thing for this police officer. The guy was a deaf civilian, not a gun or machete-wielding terrorist.
Click to expand...

Given the recent events in America, I think the victim was in the right to fear for his life when a police officer starts acting aggressively (in a car) towards him.

As has been said, there seems to be more to this story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom