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

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Did not follow lawful command of a police officer.
Again, we don’t know the entire situation only what the media has chosen to tell us. The person had a two foot club with a lanyard on it. That has to be taken into account as well.

A deaf person not following a command they can't hear is not breaking the law are you high?

[Tijuana]

No, what you are doing is called special pleading, and it's a logical fallacy.

Swing and a miss.

[Heladys]

No, I'm making the obvious point that you can't pull an hunting rifle out of your pants very quickly, which creates a very different police/citizen dynamic.

You could also just be flexible enough to get your leg up high.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I am explaining part of the reason why we have bad police officers.



Are you saying departments in the US dont not lower standards?

No idea what you said, but in sting in Canada you have a much higher chance become ingrained a police officer if your a minority but in general Canada has higher standees then America.

[NineSpine]

Yeah, and I could not disagree more, that police interactions are the same in places where hand guns are allowed and where they are not. To statistically support that with logic, you would have to think the people of the US are being oppressed, and fighting some sort of underground resistance. Far more cops are shot in the US, than cops are shooting citizens. If there is a war between citizens and cops, the cops are losing fucking badly. Given the reality of the situation, it's hard to blame cops for taking an aggressive stance, since they want to, you know, keep living and such.

Nobody is saying cops don't make mistakes, or that they should not see due process when they do. But making it look like there is some epidemic, is transparently painting an agenda driven narrative. It's not an accident these stories are in the news. The actual numbers of unlawful usages of force tell a VERY different story, given the hundreds of thousands of police in the US. Even if you accept every news story that the cop was wrong, you are still left with a statistically insignificant number of instances, and no supporting data for an increase, let alone an epidemic.

The REAL problem, is mother fuckers getting off when they are clearly guilty. Why is THAT not the topic ever? Why does it always have to be all cops are bad and racist and they wake up knowing they will kill, they just don't know who yet?

In what fantasy world are more cops being shot than cops shooting citizens? In 2016, 64 police were shot and killed, while almost 1000 citizens were killed by police.

You still refuse to get it, no matter how many times it is explained to you. The murders are the head of the problem, not the entire problem. They are the most stark and clear issue to rally around, but they are just part of the issue, and the issue is NOT that police wake up every day looking to kill people.

[Heladys]

The REAL problem, is mother fuckers getting off when they are clearly guilty. Why is THAT not the topic ever? Why does it always have to be all cops are bad and racist and they wake up knowing they will kill, they just don't know who yet?

Okay, we can agree very solidly on that part. Nail some bad cops to the wall for a while and see the tone of conversation change.

[uopayroll]

Was he fucking blind also? You see cops pointing a gun and tazer at you, yelling something and you still keep going...hmm, nothing could possibly go wrong, could it?

[NineSpine]

No, it was understood all along. US citizens have owned fire arms for our entire existence. Any statement to the contrary is just retarded, sorry.

No, you are wrong.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...856_Page2.html

"From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”

At first, only a few articles echoed that view. Then, starting in the late 1970s, a squad of attorneys and professors began to churn out law review submissions, dozens of them, at a prodigious rate. Funds—much of them from the NRA—flowed freely. An essay contest, grants to write book reviews, the creation of “Academics for the Second Amendment,” all followed. In 2003, the NRA Foundation provided $1 million to endow the Patrick Henry professorship in constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University Law School.

This fusillade of scholarship and pseudo-scholarship insisted that the traditional view—shared by courts and historians—was wrong. There had been a colossal constitutional mistake. Two centuries of legal consensus, they argued, must be overturned."

- - - Updated - - -

Was he fucking blind also? You see cops pointing a gun and tazer at you, yelling something and you still keep going...hmm, nothing could possibly go wrong, could it?

He was mentally handicapped.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm making the obvious point that you can't pull a hunting rifle out of your pants very quickly, which creates a very different police/citizen dynamic.

No, you were making the very obvious point that the problem is a specific group of people known for wearing baggy pants. We can read you.

- - - Updated - - -

I am explaining part of the reason why we have bad police officers.

No, you aren't. You are going on an irrelevant tangent. There is ZERO evidence to support your point. You are just finding a way to shoehorn in your bizarre preoccupation.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Was he fucking blind also? You see cops pointing a gun and tazer at you, yelling something and you still keep going...hmm, nothing could possibly go wrong, could it?

You might keep going if your mentilly disabled like he was ya.

[A dot Ham]

If you're going to try to argue your point while providing examples of extremely rare and unrelated cases then there is no point talking to you. Blindly comparing vastly different scenarios is not helpful.

Hey why don't you open your fucking eyes and read before you type out the most douchey thing you can think of. Blind indeed!

"Granted these are probably the most ideal situations..."

The point was if you had even cared to read, is you have to train your officers for the desired behavior. US officers (while trained in hand to hand combat) are trained to use force (their gun) when faced with an imminent threat/weapon. The hand-to-hand training is used a backup when/if an officers firearm is unavailable. In these videos this behavior is trained as a primary tactic, NOT secondary. UK police for example are often not even carrying a firearm.

The purpose was not to show some non-applicable tactic to an unrelated situation. It was to show that it CAN be effective, but the officers have to be trained that way and a certain standard of conduct upheld.

The videos themselves may have a very anti US cops, vs the "amazing" do gooder cops of the rest of the world. No... that wasn't MY point. MY point was that we simply don't train that way. If that's the behavior and outcomes that we the people (society) wants... then we have to demand different training/tactics. A bodycam... doesn't solve that, because camera or not in a crisis situation an officer will rely on their training which should be rather instinctual (if the training was effective).

[petej0]

No idea what you said, but in sting in Canada you have a much higher chance become ingrained a police officer if your a minority but in general Canada has higher standees then America.

Ok, I guess we are talking the same point, I am not questioning the standards in Canada, I am saying the US Standards have dropped which has allowed shitty cops to infiltrate our police departments in the US.

[Tijuana]

I am saying that the NRA is getting in the way of having any actual substantive debate on the issue of guns. I am not talking about banning guns, I am talking about a good faith debate on guns, inline with the second ammandment.

Ok. And if we give you everything you want, how many less murders will there be? And what will be given up?

You seek to eliminate like 100 deaths a year, while leaving thousands of others untouched. And to achieve that, most of the legitimate and legal usages of guns will become illegal or pointless. Hunting deer with a revolver is probably a bit too hardcore for most hunters. I mean, props to those who can get a kill that way though. Legit skills.

Why does it make any sense to chase rifles instead of hand guns? Seriously, if you are just completely against guns, it's hand guns you should be chasing. Why leave 95% of the murders untouched, in your grand plan to redo all of our laws?

Seriously, the reason we can't get "common sense" gun reforms, is two fold. One reason is that one side is SUPER fucking bad this debate (left). And the other reason is that the other side (right) doesn't trust them because of their incoherent demands.

[Allybeboba]

A deaf person not following a command they can't hear is not breaking the law are you high?

How deaf is he?
Can he read lips?
Can he see?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Ok, I guess we are talking the same point, I am not questioning the standards in Canada, I am saying the US Standards have dropped which has allowed shitty cops to infiltrate our police departments in the US.

Ya I can agree with that.

[petej0]

No, you aren't. You are going on an irrelevant tangent. There is ZERO evidence to support your point. You are just finding a way to shoehorn in your bizarre preoccupation.

Its not irrelevant, we are talking about shitty cops that lack proper training. Well, this is partly how you get shitty cops that lack proper training.

http://www.adversity.net/policefire_4_new_jersey.htm
http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvan...-state-academy
http://www.trentonian.com/article/TT...MP02/304149996

[NineSpine]

Ok, I guess we are talking the same point, I am not questioning the standards in Canada, I am saying the US Standards have dropped which has allowed shitty cops to infiltrate our police departments in the US.

The standards have not dropped. They have always been low and the training has always sucked. I will repeat myself: Some departments and states BAN HIGH IQ COPS FROM SERVING:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...story?id=95836

[Lorgar Aurelian]

How deaf is he?
Can he read lips?
Can he see?

I'll go with deaf deaf and he probably can't read lips as he's mentilly disabled and there's a good chance he wouldn't understand the threat of cops pulling guns on him.

[petej0]

I am saying that the NRA is getting in the way of having any actual substantive debate on the issue of guns. I am not talking about banning guns, I am talking about a good faith debate on guns, inline with the second ammandment.

The NRA isnt getting in the way. It is idiot politicians, media talking heads who have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to firearms trying to dictate to the conversation.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The standards have not dropped. They have always been low and the training has always sucked. I will repeat myself: Some departments and states BAN HIGH IQ COPS FROM SERVING:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-b...story?id=95836

That's pretty sad, you would think America would have way higher standers for there cops as they have to deal with things most other country's don't due to the first amendment.

[NineSpine]

The NRA isnt getting in the way. It is idiot politicians, media talking heads who have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to firearms trying to dictate to the conversation.

The NRA pours massive amounts of money into US politics in order to bribe politicians to oppose any and all gun laws, even ones that their own members support overwhelmingly, such as universal background checks.