Deaf Man shot by N.C trooper

[Vassenor]

Dash and body cam footage should clarify this matter..

Bodycams have a habit of conveniently being broken during controversial shoots.

[Jamzmania]

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

Shaun King provides no evidence for his assertion that he was unarmed. He simply says "He was unarmed," and leaves it at that.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Dash and body cam footage should clarify this matter..

Bodycams have a habit of conveniently being broken during controversial shoots.

Hmm. Do you have any evidence supporting this claim (even anecdotal?)

In cases like this I would support having a law where the cop is automatically charged with tampering and/or whatever crime they are suspected of (in this case, manslaughter most probably) and it is taken as an aggravating circumstance in court. Modern electronics are fairly reliable.. the chances for a body camera to FAIL right during a controversial shooting are close to nil. The chances of both the body and dashcam failing? Practically 0. Because of the dashcam I find it highly unlikely for a cop to succeed in breaking their own camera physically and getting away with it, as far as the event takes place in view of said dashcam.

[Ethel mermania]

Daily news reported he was unarmed

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

Shaun King provides no evidence for his assertion that he was unarmed. He simply says "He was unarmed," and leaves it at that.

What evidence would you like the reporter to provide? It is a news story, not a court of law. Do you have a source that says he was armed?

[Thermodolia]

Daily news reported he was unarmed

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

Shaun King provides no evidence for his assertion that he was unarmed. He simply says "He was unarmed," and leaves it at that.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Imperializt Russia]

Daily news reported he was unarmed

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

Shaun King provides no evidence for his assertion that he was unarmed. He simply says "He was unarmed," and leaves it at that.

What "evidence" that you would accept could he possibly give you?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Shaun King provides no evidence for his assertion that he was unarmed. He simply says "He was unarmed," and leaves it at that.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The street isn't a court of law either. When someone gets killed by the police it is not a punishment, it is an action taken by the cop to defend him/herself from what they believe is an action that would endanger their own life or physical integrity. The cop doesn't have the luxury to press "pause" in the middle of an incident and call up a judge and jury so they can deliberate there and then whether he is right to fire his or her weapon or not when the suspect is reaching in their waistband or whatever.

What I find unfortunate however, is that cops don't go to their Tasers instead of their handguns in cases where they suspect (if they do at all) impairment or disability as opposed to malevolent intent..

[Ethel mermania]

Thr only thing I am finding about deaf driving in North Carolina is that a deaf driver is suppose to have a card issued by the state saying they are deaf, and hand that card to thr police when pulled over?

Now the website really sucks on the phone, I wonder if there is any more info on deaf driving in NC.

[Imperializt Russia]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The street isn't a court of law either. When someone gets killed by the police it is not a punishment, it is an action taken by the cop to defend him/herself from what they believe is an action that would endanger their own life or physical integrity. The cop doesn't have the luxury to press "pause" in the middle of an incident and call up a judge and jury so they can deliberate there and then whether he is right to fire his or her weapon or not when the suspect is reaching in their waistband or whatever.

What I find unfortunate however, is that cops don't go to their Tasers instead of their handguns in cases where they suspect (if they do at all) impairment or disability as opposed to malevolent intent..

Sometimes officers, at least claim to, accidentally draw a live firearm when intending to draw a taser.

This suggests a colossal failure in training programmes in the use of conflict deescalation and the use of less-lethal methods of control.
Or a lazy excuse after the fact that cannot be truly falsified, if one were being really cynical.

[Ethel mermania]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The street isn't a court of law either. When someone gets killed by the police it is not a punishment, it is an action taken by the cop to defend him/herself from what they believe is an action that would endanger their own life or physical integrity. The cop doesn't have the luxury to press "pause" in the middle of an incident and call up a judge and jury so they can deliberate there and then whether he is right to fire his or her weapon or not when the suspect is reaching in their waistband or whatever.

What I find unfortunate however, is that cops don't go to their Tasers instead of their handguns in cases where they suspect (if they do at all) impairment or disability as opposed to malevolent intent..

IF THE COPS SUSPECTS A DISABILITY WHY THE HELL WOULD HE TASE THE GUY? If the guy gets out of the car with a gun in his hand, the cop can shoot him. If he is unarmed the cop cant. It's not that complicated.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The street isn't a court of law either. When someone gets killed by the police it is not a punishment, it is an action taken by the cop to defend him/herself from what they believe is an action that would endanger their own life or physical integrity. The cop doesn't have the luxury to press "pause" in the middle of an incident and call up a judge and jury so they can deliberate there and then whether he is right to fire his or her weapon or not when the suspect is reaching in their waistband or whatever.

What I find unfortunate however, is that cops don't go to their Tasers instead of their handguns in cases where they suspect (if they do at all) impairment or disability as opposed to malevolent intent..

Sometimes officers, at least claim to, accidentally draw a live firearm when intending to draw a taser.

This suggests a colossal failure in training programmes in the use of conflict deescalation and the use of less-lethal methods of control.
Or a lazy excuse after the fact that cannot be truly falsified, if one were being really cynical.

I'd say this is probably bullshit 90% of the time. Assuming a non ambidextrous officer, and the typical position of the Taser and gun on the belt (diametrically opposite, on either side of the belt to the left and right respectively), a cross draw is a completely different motion compared to a straight draw in my opinion. What may be happening, however, is that the officer is really fearing for their life when they draw and they quickly draw right before shooting (so it's more of an instinctive than reasoned action) so even if they would have preferred to draw the Taser they end up drawing the gun because it's what they're taught to draw first in "panic mode" or maybe with older officers it's an instinct that was learned/adopted before the introduction of the Taser so it's what they go to.

I think the best solution to this (if it was a real problem and not just a lame excuse) would be to allow officers to draw their Tasers when in doubt instead of when shit really gets down (assuming that is what they are taught/their guidelines recommend), so they have the "correct" weapon ready to go if something does happen.

[Imperializt Russia]

In Britain, officers have to justify drawing a weapon, even for a taser.
For drawing a weapon is an inherent escalation of threat and force.

In the context of Britain, it works well.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The street isn't a court of law either. When someone gets killed by the police it is not a punishment, it is an action taken by the cop to defend him/herself from what they believe is an action that would endanger their own life or physical integrity. The cop doesn't have the luxury to press "pause" in the middle of an incident and call up a judge and jury so they can deliberate there and then whether he is right to fire his or her weapon or not when the suspect is reaching in their waistband or whatever.

What I find unfortunate however, is that cops don't go to their Tasers instead of their handguns in cases where they suspect (if they do at all) impairment or disability as opposed to malevolent intent..

IF THE COPS SUSPECTS A DISABILITY WHY THE HELL WOULD HE TASE THE GUY? If the guy gets out of the car with a gun in his hand, the cop can shoot him. If he is unarmed the cop cant. It's not that complicated.

ALL CAPS doesn't help your argument I'm afraid. And you're seriously overestimating the ability of a police officer to assess whether someone is disabled or whether or not they have a gun or if they're about to use it, especially in certain circumstances (e.g. at night, etc.) . You must probably think you'd do so much better, or that the police should because "it's their job", but things don't really sit that way.

Assuming you're so convinced that you're so much better than everyone else, go right ahead and join the force. After all it would be a sin to waste such a talent.

EDIT: Your logic is really dumbfounding to be honest. Suspecting someone of a disability of some sort doesn't automatically make them immune from all use of force from the police for two reasons: 1. To suspect means to have a doubt about something, so even if the cop suspected the person of being disabled, it doesn't mean they are, it means they may or may not be. 2. Suffering from a certain disability does not automatically mean you can't have malicious intent. A guy with normal hearing won't kill you any deader than a deaf guy.

[San Lumen]

I think this officer was completely out of line and they deserve to be fired. Since when is sign language a threat? There is no evidence this young man was armed. I am not against police in any way nor do I think all officers are bad but it sure does seem lately the amount of police shootings and incidents of police brutality is on rise.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

In Britain, officers have to justify drawing a weapon, even for a taser.
For drawing a weapon is an inherent escalation of threat and force.

In the context of Britain, it works well.

I don't see why we have to judge this whole escalate and deescalate game as if the common man and the police are one and the same and on the same level. In a properly functioning state with a properly functioning police you should have no reason to be weary of a policeman wielding (i.e. having drawn) a weapon. After all, the police even in Britain by their very appearance, and through your logic, are inherently more threatening than the common man by the weapons they openly display on their duty belts, whether they be tasers, batons, or for firearms officers, guns. So, what about it? The police should by default represent the law, so a policeman drawing their Taser shouldn't represent an escalation of threat and force in the sense that this could justify an equal response on the other side (i.e. the common man) , as would be the case with a confrontation between two private citizens.

[Jamzmania]

Shaun King provides no evidence for his assertion that he was unarmed. He simply says "He was unarmed," and leaves it at that.

What evidence would you like the reporter to provide? It is a news story, not a court of law. Do you have a source that says he was armed?

If there was a statement from the police that he was unarmed or there is video evidence that would be fine. I don't have a source that he was armed, I only have the OP's article which states that the police had not made any mention of whether he was armed or not.

[Jamzmania]

I think this officer was completely out of line and they deserve to be fired. Since when is sign language a threat? There is no evidence this young man was armed. I am not against police in any way nor do I think all officers are bad but it sure does seem lately the amount of police shootings and incidents of police brutality is on rise.

You just demanded that this officer be fired without knowing all of the fact and then said you weren't against this police officer.

[Platypus Reborn]

I wait for the Great, Unceremonious Georgian-style (country, not a US state) Firing of the Police of 2016.

I highly doubt that day will ever come.

[Jamzmania]

Sometimes officers, at least claim to, accidentally draw a live firearm when intending to draw a taser.

This suggests a colossal failure in training programmes in the use of conflict deescalation and the use of less-lethal methods of control.
Or a lazy excuse after the fact that cannot be truly falsified, if one were being really cynical.

I'd say this is probably bullshit 90% of the time. Assuming a non ambidextrous officer, and the typical position of the Taser and gun on the belt (diametrically opposite, on either side of the belt to the left and right respectively), a cross draw is a completely different motion compared to a straight draw in my opinion. What may be happening, however, is that the officer is really fearing for their life when they draw and they quickly draw right before shooting (so it's more of an instinctive than reasoned action) so even if they would have preferred to draw the Taser they end up drawing the gun because it's what they're taught to draw first in "panic mode" or maybe with older officers it's an instinct that was learned/adopted before the introduction of the Taser so it's what they go to.

I think the best solution to this (if it was a real problem and not just a lame excuse) would be to allow officers to draw their Tasers when in doubt instead of when shit really gets down (assuming that is what they are taught/their guidelines recommend), so they have the "correct" weapon ready to go if something does happen.

The problem is that tasers don't always work and you can only shoot them once.

[The Alexanderians]

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.

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.

if the 20/200 is correctable then it's not legally blind. 20/200 has to be the upper threshold of your vision's ability.
http://www.allaboutvision.com/lowvision/legally-blind.htm
http://www.visionaware.org/info/your-eye-condition/eye-health/low-vision/low-vision-terms-and-descriptions/1235

[Ethel mermania]

IF THE COPS SUSPECTS A DISABILITY WHY THE HELL WOULD HE TASE THE GUY? If the guy gets out of the car with a gun in his hand, the cop can shoot him. If he is unarmed the cop cant. It's not that complicated.

ALL CAPS doesn't help your argument I'm afraid. And you're seriously overestimating the ability of a police officer to assess whether someone is disabled or whether or not they have a gun or if they're about to use it, especially in certain circumstances (e.g. at night, etc.) . You must probably think you'd do so much better, or that the police should because "it's their job", but things don't really sit that way.

Assuming you're so convinced that you're so much better than everyone else, go right ahead and join the force. After all it would be a sin to waste such a talent.

EDIT: Your logic is really dumbfounding to be honest. Suspecting someone of a disability of some sort doesn't automatically make them immune from all use of force from the police for two reasons: 1. To suspect means to have a doubt about something, so even if the cop suspected the person of being disabled, it doesn't mean they are, it means they may or may not be. 2. Suffering from a certain disability does not automatically mean you can't have malicious intent. A guy with normal hearing won't kill you any deader than a deaf guy.

All caps is that I find your statement moronic, and is my frustration in trying to comprehend how it even makes sense..

A cop who uses a Taser on a guy with a gun in his hand is an idiot. He has to shoot to kill. That is simply the way it works. He is trained to order the gun to be dropped, but between that order and the time he shoots is very short. Tasers are for unarmed suspects who are resisting arrest.

Your the one who said if the cop suspects a disability he should TASE the guy not i.

[San Lumen]

I think this officer was completely out of line and they deserve to be fired. Since when is sign language a threat? There is no evidence this young man was armed. I am not against police in any way nor do I think all officers are bad but it sure does seem lately the amount of police shootings and incidents of police brutality is on rise.

You just demanded that this officer be fired without knowing all of the fact and then said you weren't against this police officer.

I don't see any justification for the shooting whatsoever. There is no evidence the man was armed or posed any threat.

[Ethel mermania]

What evidence would you like the reporter to provide? It is a news story, not a court of law. Do you have a source that says he was armed?

If there was a statement from the police that he was unarmed or there is video evidence that would be fine. I don't have a source that he was armed, I only have the OP's article which states that the police had not made any mention of whether he was armed or not.

And the article I provided said he was unarmed, and so did the others that came up in my Google search said that as well. No article mentions a gun being recovered at the scene. Until the police release a statement saying otherwise I think it is safe to say the deceased was unarmed.

[Jamzmania]

You just demanded that this officer be fired without knowing all of the fact and then said you weren't against this police officer.

I don't see any justification for the shooting whatsoever. There is no evidence the man was armed or posed any threat.

There is hardly any evidence about the case whatsoever available to the public right now, so let's not condemn the officer just yet, shall we? It may very well turn out that it was an unjustified shooting, but that hasn't been determined yet.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I'd say this is probably bullshit 90% of the time. Assuming a non ambidextrous officer, and the typical position of the Taser and gun on the belt (diametrically opposite, on either side of the belt to the left and right respectively), a cross draw is a completely different motion compared to a straight draw in my opinion. What may be happening, however, is that the officer is really fearing for their life when they draw and they quickly draw right before shooting (so it's more of an instinctive than reasoned action) so even if they would have preferred to draw the Taser they end up drawing the gun because it's what they're taught to draw first in "panic mode" or maybe with older officers it's an instinct that was learned/adopted before the introduction of the Taser so it's what they go to.

I think the best solution to this (if it was a real problem and not just a lame excuse) would be to allow officers to draw their Tasers when in doubt instead of when shit really gets down (assuming that is what they are taught/their guidelines recommend), so they have the "correct" weapon ready to go if something does happen.

The problem is that tasers don't always work and you can only shoot them once.

If the barbs catch, it works pretty much all the time, and there are Tasers out there now with 2 and 3 shots.