Deaf Man shot by N.C trooper

[Libertine States of America]

Oh, so if the sniper doing overwatch for the convoy had been a Marines sniper and not a Navy SEAL, the above dialogue probably would have actually happened.

I'm just saying, what you are suggesting about how the military operates is ridiculous.

Ok first off it is well documented that the military has ROEs. Second the SF and regular forces do tend to operate on different rules at times. Third if a male was aiming a weapon that would cause a lot of damage, was to far away to be reasoned with and/or was hidden from view, it is then considered an escalation of force and a justification for lethal force to be used. Fourth, what the hell does any of this have to do with the police murdering a deaf man?!

About as much as this thread has to do with fucking someone's cousin. Jamzmania probably does it, anyway.

[Jamzmania]

Oh, so if the sniper doing overwatch for the convoy had been a Marines sniper and not a Navy SEAL, the above dialogue probably would have actually happened.

I'm just saying, what you are suggesting about how the military operates is ridiculous.

Ok first off it is well documented that the military has ROEs. Second the SF and regular forces do tend to operate on different rules at times. Third if a male was aiming a weapon that would cause a lot of damage, was to far away to be reasoned with and/or was hidden from view, it is then considered an escalation of force and a justification for lethal force to be used. Fourth, what the hell does any of this have to do with the police murdering a deaf man?!

We got onto this tangent because you apparently believe that police need to learn sign language so that they can stop and try to reason with a [hypothetical] deaf man pointing a gun at them.

[Thermodolia]

Ok first off it is well documented that the military has ROEs. Second the SF and regular forces do tend to operate on different rules at times. Third if a male was aiming a weapon that would cause a lot of damage, was to far away to be reasoned with and/or was hidden from view, it is then considered an escalation of force and a justification for lethal force to be used. Fourth, what the hell does any of this have to do with the police murdering a deaf man?!

We got onto this tangent because you apparently believe that police need to learn sign language so that they can stop and try to reason with a [hypothetical] deaf man pointing a gun at them.

That would definitely help de-escalate the situation. Sometimes it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into every situation

[Jamzmania]

We got onto this tangent because you apparently believe that police need to learn sign language so that they can stop and try to reason with a [hypothetical] deaf man pointing a gun at them.

That would definitely help de-escalate the situation. Sometimes it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into every situation

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

[Thermodolia]

That would definitely help de-escalate the situation. Sometimes it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into every situation

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

Generally most police yell at said gun holder in order for said man to drop the weapon, if that man is deaf it would be reasonable to communicate though sign language in order to resolve the situation without someone getting killed.

[Alvecia]

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

Generally most police yell at said gun holder in order for said man to drop the weapon, if that man is deaf it would be reasonable to communicate though sign language in order to resolve the situation without someone getting killed.

The deaf can still legally open carry I assume.

[Jamzmania]

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

Generally most police yell at said gun holder in order for said man to drop the weapon, if that man is deaf it would be reasonable to communicate though sign language in order to resolve the situation without someone getting killed.

My point is that if the suspect is already pointing a gun at the officer, trying to reason with the suspect should be discarded immediately before the suspect is able to start hurting people. This isn't like TV where two guys can just aim weapons at each other in a stalemate. In a situation like that, whoever shoots first probably wins, so it's best to not wait.

[Libertine States of America]

That would definitely help de-escalate the situation. Sometimes it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into every situation

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

The fucking guy said that it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into EVERY situation. That means you only use force when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Do you fucking morons understand fucking plain English? No wonder you fucking retards lost the Civil War.

[Jamzmania]

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

The fucking guy said that it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into EVERY situation.

Do you fucking morons understand fucking plain English? No wonder you fucking retards lost the Civil War.

We are discussing a specific hypothetical situation; namely, when a suspect is pointing a firearm at a police officer.

[True Refuge]

That would definitely help de-escalate the situation. Sometimes it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into every situation

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

Or, you know, have a separate way of dealing with armed deaf people to unarmed deaf people, since the person that got killed was unarmed.

Be trigger-happy when the deaf person's got a gun, and be able to use sign language when they don't. I'd say that would work.

[Alvecia]

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

The fucking guy said that it's not a good idea to go guns blazing into EVERY situation. That means you only use force when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Do you fucking morons understand fucking plain English? No wonder you fucking retards lost the Civil War.

That ain't kosher mate.

[Thermodolia]

Generally most police yell at said gun holder in order for said man to drop the weapon, if that man is deaf it would be reasonable to communicate though sign language in order to resolve the situation without someone getting killed.

My point is that if the suspect is already pointing a gun at the officer, trying to reason with the suspect should be discarded immediately before the suspect is able to start hurting people. This isn't like TV where two guys can just aim weapons at each other in a stalemate. In a situation like that, whoever shoots first probably wins, so it's best to not wait.

Most humans don't want to kill others. Most people can be reasoned with, again it's best to not go guns blazing into every situation.

[Llamalandia]

Ok first off it is well documented that the military has ROEs. Second the SF and regular forces do tend to operate on different rules at times. Third if a male was aiming a weapon that would cause a lot of damage, was to far away to be reasoned with and/or was hidden from view, it is then considered an escalation of force and a justification for lethal force to be used. Fourth, what the hell does any of this have to do with the police murdering a deaf man?!

We got onto this tangent because you apparently believe that police need to learn sign language so that they can stop and try to reason with a [hypothetical] deaf man pointing a gun at them.

It's probably unreasonable to expect every cop to be trained in sign language. I mean, why not train them in foreign languages as well?
That said, there should be an app for that. I mean, just hold up a laptop with some kind of translation program. The exact practicality may very by situation, but it is better than nothing.

[Jamzmania]

That is not a good idea. Someone who is aiming a firearm at a police officer must be assumed to have the intention to shoot that police officer. An officer cannot afford to assume that the suspect will not shoot them immediately. If the officer is shot, there is a significant chance that they will either be incapacitated, killed, or so wounded that it makes no difference. If this happens, they will not be able to defend others from this armed and dangerous suspect. This does not even take into account the right of every police officer to defend their own life.

Or, you know, have a separate way of dealing with armed deaf people to unarmed deaf people, since the person that got killed was unarmed.

Be trigger-happy when the deaf person's got a gun, and be able to use sign language when they don't. I'd say that would work.

Unless there has been an update, we do not know for sure if the deaf person was unarmed. According to the article in the OP, it was the crowdfunding page that said he was unarmed and the authorities have not mentioned anything about it yet.

[Thermodolia]

We got onto this tangent because you apparently believe that police need to learn sign language so that they can stop and try to reason with a [hypothetical] deaf man pointing a gun at them.

It's probably unreasonable to expect every cop to be trained in sign language. I mean, why not train them in foreign languages as well?
That said, there should be an app for that. I mean, just hold up a laptop with some kind of translation program. The exact practicality may very by situation, but it is better than nothing.

Pen and paper work wonders

[Alvecia]

It's probably unreasonable to expect every cop to be trained in sign language. I mean, why not train them in foreign languages as well?
That said, there should be an app for that. I mean, just hold up a laptop with some kind of translation program. The exact practicality may very by situation, but it is better than nothing.

Pen and paper work wonders

Surprising how many people forget this. I work in tech support and I always have a pen and paper next to my keyboard.

[Ethel mermania]

Or, you know, have a separate way of dealing with armed deaf people to unarmed deaf people, since the person that got killed was unarmed.

Be trigger-happy when the deaf person's got a gun, and be able to use sign language when they don't. I'd say that would work.

Unless there has been an update, we do not know for sure if the deaf person was unarmed. According to the article in the OP, it was the crowdfunding page that said he was unarmed and the authorities have not mentioned anything about it yet.

Daily news reported he was unarmed

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2760714

[True Refuge]

Unless there has been an update, we do not know for sure if the deaf person was unarmed. According to the article in the OP, it was the crowdfunding page that said he was unarmed and the authorities have not mentioned anything about it yet.

Daily news reported he was unarmed

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2760714

My point stands (I think.)

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Are deaf people even allowed to drive legally?

Because it doesn't make any sense. Sirens and horns exist for a reason.

[Imperializt Russia]

Are deaf people even allowed to drive legally?

Because it doesn't make any sense. Sirens and horns exist for a reason.

People who are legally blind are legally allowed to drive.

Sirens and horns exist to make you aware of vehicles you may not be watching out for. If you are literally deaf, it is a simple suggestion that you take greater care of the space around your vehicle to remain aware of these vehicles you can no longer hear.
Noise is a minor sense in driving.

[Llamalandia]

It's probably unreasonable to expect every cop to be trained in sign language. I mean, why not train them in foreign languages as well?
That said, there should be an app for that. I mean, just hold up a laptop with some kind of translation program. The exact practicality may very by situation, but it is better than nothing.

Pen and paper work wonders

Well Im assuming communication at some distance. Kinda hard to spell out words sports stadium style on the fly and I assume deaf people would be most comfortable with signs rather than alphabetic characters, but I guess either could work with a digital device really.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Are deaf people even allowed to drive legally?

Because it doesn't make any sense. Sirens and horns exist for a reason.

People who are legally blind are legally allowed to drive.

Sirens and horns exist to make you aware of vehicles you may not be watching out for. If you are literally deaf, it is a simple suggestion that you take greater care of the space around your vehicle to remain aware of these vehicles you can no longer hear.
Noise is a minor sense in driving.

Umm, no, it isn't. Horns can be very important to preventing accidents when you're trying to get the attention of someone who seems oblivious (e.g. someone is backing out in front of you, not maintaining their lane and a whole bunch of other stuff) . And in many cases depending on your speed by the time you actually see an emergency vehicle it may be too late to do what you should (i.e. yield to them) .

Rumbler type sirens may help but IDK their range or how common they really are

[The Alexanderians]

Are deaf people even allowed to drive legally?

Because it doesn't make any sense. Sirens and horns exist for a reason.

People who are legally blind are legally allowed to drive.

That's completely asinine. Deaf is one thing but blind? I have a hard time believing that DMVs has vision requirements for driving. Generally correctable to 20/40. While legal blindness is 20/200.

Sirens and horns exist to make you aware of vehicles you may not be watching out for. If you are literally deaf, it is a simple suggestion that you take greater care of the space around your vehicle to remain aware of these vehicles you can no longer hear.
Noise is a minor sense in driving.

Have you ever heard a police or emergency services siren?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Dash and body cam footage should clarify this matter..

[Ethel mermania]

People who are legally blind are legally allowed to drive.

That's completely asinine. Deaf is one thing but blind? I have a hard time believing that DMVs has vision requirements for driving. Generally correctable to 20/40. While legal blindness is 20/200.

Sirens and horns exist to make you aware of vehicles you may not be watching out for. If you are literally deaf, it is a simple suggestion that you take greater care of the space around your vehicle to remain aware of these vehicles you can no longer hear.
Noise is a minor sense in driving.

Have you ever heard a police or emergency services siren?

20/200 correctable to 20/40 is allowed to drive in nys. The driver is still considered legally blind. Telescopic Lens are also permitted with a review by DMV.

Interestingly if you are completely deaf in nys with a hearing aide, you can not drive.