Witnesses yell 'he can't hear you' as cop shoots deaf man

[cubby]

Lack of training, what else is new.

In the meantime some people will come defend that lack of training because they get their rocks off on their fantasy of a police state utopia.

Actually, this wasn't a lack of training - the officer acted correctly according to most local training doctrines. You can't walk towards an officer with a weapon and not stop. That doesn't make any sense at all. Everyone gets shot at that point.

[sionus]

The point remains, nobody dreams of becoming a cop for the paycheck. It is usually because their family members are/were in law enforcement, they want to serve the public etc...

Who exactly was making that point that I was arguing against?

[urasim]

*shrug* that's on you then. If the dude isn't too tall (can't find his height, but given pictures I'm sure we can both agree he isn't 7 foot tall) you can absolutely use it by holding it near the top. Especially if it has some sort of widened end or fitting at the top.

Hard to tell without a picture of it though.

This has to be a joke. There's no possible way you're serious. He'd have to be a dwarf.

[A dot Ham]

This is the reason we really need body cams on all cops. This one's going to be trouble for those cops.

All this does is reduce complaints against police department, and doesn't necessarily curb police shootings.

(1) You would think that given such a hot topic more officers would more cautious about discharging a firearm... They aren't. There has to be something GREATER at play here.

(2) Training. Police are paramilitary in that they have to be trained in a way that if necessary they can and will take a life. In these moments of heightened stress... the TRAINING takes over.

Police are TRAINED to be aggressive and use bully tactics and 9/10 its effective. Innocent people cower and becomes docile, admit to wrong doing, etc. etc.

If we want an end to Police shootings and the loss of innocent life... we have to demand better training programs.

[petej0]

I suppose this is an assumption, but isn't it part of their training to know disarming or takedown techniques? This isn't about getting into a fist fight, but about forcing someone onto the ground.

Disarming and take downs are all acts that can injure (potentially fatally) both the officer and the assailant. If a person does not comply both people are at risk of injury or death.

[sionus]

Lack of training, what else is new.

In the meantime some people will come defend that lack of training because they get their rocks off on their fantasy of a police state utopia.

Just because you don't like what happened doesn't mean it was the result of a lack of training. How about you drop your anti-police bias and look at the situation objectively? Maybe walking towards police officers who are pointing their guns at you and visibly yelling at you, while holding a metal pipe, is a bad idea?

[urasim]

Blatantly false.

-snip-

Try harder next time.

You're speaking for yourself. At least I hope you are...

[petej0]

Who exactly was making that point that I was arguing against?

Does it matter?

[sionus]

Does it matter?

No you're right, I suppose saying "the point remains" when no one has actually made that point nor argued against it makes complete sense... /s

[Tijuana]

I believe in the second amendment, but we need more uniform laws and better background checks. And pushing for more guns is not actually advocating for the second amendment in a rational manner.

There are other ways of doing that, like maybe working with the other side and coming to a moderate position besides "we need to put guns into schools, churches, and bars."

Please stop saying things I agree with, it's grossing me out!

I agree we need more restrictions. But, I don't agree with some that have been proposed, as they are unworkable. The mental health checks come to mind for unworkable solutions. There is a MOUNTAIN of health care law that would need to be undone, before you can bring mental health in to the gun rights laws. Health status is extremely confidential, and doctors are pretty unwilling to engage in matters that are not health care. (The recent nurse arrest for refusing to illegally draw blood on a detained patient comes to mind.)

That said, using police interactions as reasoning to deny gun ownership is something I would support. If they had to show up and talk you off the ledge, to me, that's a valid way to bring mental status in to the debate. Obviously prior crimes is a valid standard, but it's one largely already in place.

Your notion that the NRA is pushing for more volume of guns, rather than gun rights, is just silly. They don't make money from gun sales, and the people who do, are not going to stop donating to the NRA any time soon. Get serious.

[cubby]

Just because you don't like what happened doesn't mean it was the result of a lack of training. How about you drop your anti-police bias and look at the situation objectively? Maybe walking towards police officers who are pointing their guns at you and visibly yelling at you, while holding a metal pipe, is a bad idea?

I have found that even very intelligent people seem to have a need to label all incidents like this "murdering cops" without ever really bothering to think through the situation. And they tend to ignore (or forget) all the great things LEO's do that are outside their normal job descriptions.

And of course there are bad actors and actions/incidents - but this clearly isn't one of them (unless there is some huge fact they are leaving out of the story).

[Heladys]

In an age where cops are killing people, I think it does. I would rather miss 3 days of work then end up dead.

That's what other people who thought the same and cooperated and got killed thought too.

[Tijuana]

Blatantly false.

1st - Yes. Incitement to violence is not protected by the first amendment. Nor is your hate speech protected against disciplinary actions by your employer, or negative community perception.
2nd - Yes. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There was a pretty good discussion about this in the other thread (guy shoots at car thief, misses and kills neighbor). Basically the "left" could probably be onboard with guns in the US given reasonable training required for their ownership (less than the training you need to get a driver's license).
3rd - Yes. Though not super relevant at this point. Find me a leftist who thinks the military should have full rights to crash on your couch because reasons, and I'll find you a person who isn't a leftist.
4th - Yes. Officers who execute warrantless searches without consent should be charged accordingly.
5th - Yes. Also, providing passwords is incrimination. While we are at it, repeal the All Writs Act and write something that's more precise, and covers things that are actually foregone conclusions.
6th - Yes. Make the trials speedier, and more public IMO. If I am charged with a crime I didn't commit, I would much rather have a court date this month than next year, let me get my day in court, be vindicated, and carry on with my life. Also less taxpayer expense, as we wouldn't be footing the bill for people sitting in jail for months before even being tried, then have to pay them reparations for wrongful imprisonment when they are released.
7th - Yes. If you charge me with a crime, and you botch the case, too bad, you lose. Alternately, if you charge me with a crime I didn't commit, you can't continually haul me in to court on the same charge in an effort to ruin my life.
8th - Yes, pretty cut and dried.
9th - Yes. You are free to talk like an asshole, and I am free to publicly point out that you are, in fact, an asshole. You can't use any of the other amendments to prevent me from saying as much.
10th - Yes, goes without saying. Without this amendment, Congress could pass literally any law about anything they want, and there would be no means to challenge it, even in the courts. Government checks and balances are completely ineffectual without this.

Try harder next time.

This was humorous. Thanks for posting it.

I won't nit pick how many wrongs there are but, I would point out one that I find amusing. And no, I'm not going to try harder. I abhor work, particularly the free kind.

In your mind, it's cheaper to have speedy trials, than not speedy trials, due to the cost of incarceration? I would point out that in order to achieve this, effectively, you would be replacing low wage jailers with high wage lawyers. I'm not sure that maths out, are you? I mean, I sort of doubt we are doing things the expensive way, in every jurisdiction in America, across any number of differing political views, and nobody has figured out that just hiring more lawyers would make it cheaper. Doesn't that seem pretty far fetched to you, now that I put it a different way?

[cuafpr]

I doubt many disabled people are taught that much about guns.

and that would be problem failing to teach them how to identify threats to their safety.

[Baelic]

Disarming and take downs are all acts that can injure (potentially fatally) both the officer and the assailant. If a person does not comply both people are at risk of injury or death.

That sounds like part of the job description to me.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Just because you don't like what happened doesn't mean it was the result of a lack of training. How about you drop your anti-police bias and look at the situation objectively? Maybe walking towards police officers who are pointing their guns at you and visibly yelling at you, while holding a metal pipe, is a bad idea?

Objectively police in other country's seal with the mentilly ill/disabled far better then American ones do. I would say it has to do with training.

[A dot Ham]

Anecdotal commentary from Cali!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...plaints-rialto

But again as stated earlier... it may cut down on police violence. But note that it says nothing about police shootings. Because again... the training.

This cop was on camera, and it didn't stop him.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...051241173.html
This was a shitty situation for the driver. I honestly don't know what the right thing to do here is... the guy told him he had a gun. He was fucked either way. Police officers are not used to people being so honest. Driver was scared, cop got scared... someone died. We need better training.

[Tijuana]

It is funny that you think that you think in a civilised society you should have to follow any commands a police officer gives no matter how unlawful or face instant execution.

It's the standard in every nation, that courts decide guilt or innocence, not the accused. You think every nation is uncivilized?

Also, you are misrepresenting the issue, in a very plain way. Nobody is saying cops should just shoot people who disobey them. What I, and others, are saying, is when you have a weapon and you are told to do something, you need to obey, or else you risk your life. Cops can't determine which crazy person with a weapon is going to attack and which one isn't. Asking them to needlessly risk their lives, is not a workable scenario, as they would just quit. If the Left got what they wanted, in regards to US police, there would be no police literally the next day. Risking your life every day is one thing, knowingly giving it every day is another.

[petej0]

I understand that, I was just saying what is bothering me (and others) about the police getting militarized. Images like that. It creates a distrust between the people the police are supposed to protect because now there is fear...

Distrust? They are protecting the public, but they are also protecting themself from the same threats they are protecting us from.

No you're right, I suppose saying "the point remains" when no one has actually made that point nor argued against it makes complete sense... /s

Well it doesnt matter the salary of law enforcement if the majority of officers arent in it for the paycheck.

That's what other people who thought the same and cooperated and got killed thought too.

There are very few cases of that. Resisting has 100% chance of things not going well for you. What are you expecting the cop to just give up and walk away?


I think Sam Harris sums up police shootings rationally. Espcially starting at the 5 min mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqRzWjqXFWo&t=4s

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds like part of the job description to me.

Not the point I was arguing.

[lokithor]

I doubt they get in trouble at all. They did their part by the book. How were they supposed to know he is deaf or has no criminal background? I'd sure like to know where mind reader cops are stationed.

The death is already being treated as a homicide. The cop that shot him will more than likely have murder charges filed against him.

The cop that tazed the guy shouldn't be in any trouble at all.

That being said, if a cop is pointing a gun at you. Put the fucking pipe down. Dont need to be able to hear to use common sense. Still Murder by the cop that shot him though.