Deaf Man shot by N.C trooper

[Ethel mermania]

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

I can't find the page I was looking at, but it was on the nys dmv website. That said I don't know of any state that allows 20/200 vision to drive.

[Jamzmania]

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.

I've looked through several articles now. About half don't mention whether he was armed or not. The ones that do say he was unarmed either don't provide any evidence (like the opinion piece by Shaun King), provide a link to an article which does not say he was unarmed, or say that the family of the deaf man say he was unarmed.

All in all, you would basically have to take it at the word of the family and a BLM activist that he was unarmed.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

Wait.. what. Why?

He is trained to order the gun to be dropped, but between that order and the time he shoots is very short.

If the gun is not pointed at the cop, and the suspect is not waving it around and the cop doesn't believe the suspect is willing to use the gun, then no, they shouldn't shoot. Not to kill at least. There's plenty of video examples of armed but otherwise "peaceful" suspects that are negotiated with for a long time before being shot, if at all.

Tasers are for unarmed suspects who are resisting arrest.

This is not such a hard and fast rule. If it's a wimpy cop, sure he'll probably shoot to kill a guy with a knife from 50 feet. Tasers can be used with suspects armed with melee weapons or gun-armed but non-aggressive suspects.

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

What I meant was that when cops suspect non-compliance is a result of disability or impairment instead of malevolent intent they should go for their Taser first more than they should otherwise. Just because they might be wrong and if they fuck up (as people on this thread are saying this particular cop fucked up) at least they tase someone instead of killing them.

As I've said, suspecting a disability doesn't magically make someone immune to being tased or shot by the police for the reasons that I have enumerated. I will do that again if you can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote. 1. The suspicion may be false, as in, the suspect may not actually be disabled, or they may be pretending. 2. Even if they are disabled, as I've said, a deaf person will punch, stab or shoot you just as well as a person with normal hearing will if they want to. Disabled people aren't inherently "less evil" than anyone else.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Five days since the man was shot, and the police still haven't said that he was armed despite a number of articles stating that he was unarmed. Considering how quickly departments tend to confirm the presence of a firearm (or even a cell phone or wallet that the officer mistakes for a firearm) in the immediate aftermath of other shootings, I'm thinking that the officer really screwed up, here.

[Llamalandia]

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?

Fair point. Thoh both sides Black lives matter and "blue lives matter" each have lost site of this. Like the cops need to realize some people are going to get away, and sure they can stop them by gunning them down but that isn't reasonable in some cases. On the other hand the black laives people need to realize that proving homicide against cops is going to be very difficult and except that some cops will walk.
Basically the whole criminal justice system is designed to refer the letting 100 guilty men go free, than to wrongfully convict one innocent man.

[Natapoc]

I highly doubt the officer involved will be punished

Why not? They killed a man. If the officer isn't punished then a lot of people are gonna face jail time for corruption.

Nope. Paid vacation during an internal investigation followed by reinstatement of his position will be the worst he gets. And if he's lucky a promotion in a year or two.

You must be new to this kind of thing.

[Luna Amore]

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.

*** 3 day ban for flaming ***

[Threeman]

Well, that is one way to get a eugenics program started. Poor cop.

[San Lumen]

Well, that is one way to get a eugenics program started. Poor cop.

What are you talking about?

[Valystria]

You know, the unarmed deaf man who was shot happened to be white.

Should we spin this as as being a form of institutional racism against white people? Or should we perhaps admit even the best of police officers make mistakes and may suffer from inadequate training?

"They should've deescalated and been trained to realize that this is an entirely different situation," Barringer told NBC affiliate WCNC. "You're pulling someone over who is deaf. They are handicapped."

Howard Rosenblum, CEO of the National Association of the Deaf, said in a statement to NBC News that "there have been too many incidents with tragic consequences between law enforcement officers and deaf people."

Going by what is available, it seems to be that police officers in the US have simply not been trained on how to deal with deaf persons. Oh, how tempting it is to jump to the racism card.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You know, the unarmed deaf man who was shot happened to be white.

Should we spin this as as being a form of institutional racism against white people? Or should we perhaps admit even the best of police officers make mistakes and may suffer from inadequate training?

"They should've deescalated and been trained to realize that this is an entirely different situation," Barringer told NBC affiliate WCNC. "You're pulling someone over who is deaf. They are handicapped."

Howard Rosenblum, CEO of the National Association of the Deaf, said in a statement to NBC News that "there have been too many incidents with tragic consequences between law enforcement officers and deaf people."

Going by what is available, it seems to be that police officers in the US have simply not been trained on how to deal with deaf persons. Oh, how tempting it is to jump to the racism card.

This doesn't change the fact that unarmed black people are about three and a half times more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white people.
Now, let's not try to make the incompetence of this officer reflect on the racial bias or lack thereof of other officers.

[New Grestin]

Are they fucking one-upping each other?

A cop shoots a caregiver when he was trying to hit the mentally-ill patient with a toy train, now a deaf guy? Fucking really?

Did real life turn into an Abbot and Costella routine while I wasn't looking?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Are they fucking one-upping each other?

A cop shoots a caregiver when he was trying to hit the mentally-ill patient with a toy train, now a deaf guy? Fucking really?

Did real life turn into an Abbot and Costella routine while I wasn't looking?

Abbot And Costello Meet Maniac Cop

[New Grestin]

Abbot And Costello Meet Maniac Cop

Abbot and Costella in: Who's Shot First?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Abbot And Costello Meet Maniac Cop

Abbot and Costella in: Who's Shot First?

You asked for it.

Costello: Look Abbott, if you're the Chief, you must know all of the police on the force.

Abbott: I certainly do.

Costello: Well you know I've never met the guys. So you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's shooting people unnecessarily.

Abbott: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these cops now-a-days very peculiar names.

Costello: You mean funny names?

Abbot: Well, let's see, we have in this incident, Who shot the guy, What backed up his story, and I Don't Know claimed not to have been there despite video evidence showing otherwise.

Costello: That's what I want to find out.

Abbott: I say Who shot the guy, What backed up his story, and I Don't Know claimed not to have been there despite the evidence.

Costello: Are you the Chief?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Well I should.

Costello: Well then, who shot the guy?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy who shot him.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The shooter

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy who fired the gun

Abbott: Who shot him!

Costello: I'm asking YOU who shot him!

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you got an officer first on the scene who shot him?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: Who shot him?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: When you put him on administrative leave with pay, who kept collecting his salary?

Abbott: Every dollar of it.

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name that shot him.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy that shot...

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Who still collects a salary....

Abbott: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Abbott: What's wrong with that?

Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when the guy filed the police report saying that the other guy was going for a gun that we never found at the scene, what name did he sign?

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: How does he sign...

Abbott: That's how he signs it.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name who shot him.

Abbott: No. What backed up the story.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: One cop at a time!

Abbott: Well, don't change the officers around.

Costello: I'm not changing nobody!

Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.

Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy who shot him?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: Ok.

Abbott: All right.

PAUSE

Costello: What's the guy's name that shot him?

Abbott: No. What backed him up.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He claimed not to be there, we're not talking about him.

Costello: Now how did I get to someone who says he wasn't there?

Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.

Costello: If I mentioned the name of the guy who shot him, who did I say wasn't there?

Abbott: No. Who shot him.

Costello: What shot him?

Abbott: What backed up the story.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He wasn't there.

Costello: There I go, not there again!

PAUSE

Costello: Would you just stay with the guy who said he wasn't there despite video evidence, and stick with it.

Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?

Costello: Now who wasn't there?

Abbott: Why do you insist on saying Who wasn't there?

Costello: What am I saying wasn't there?

Abbott: No. What backed up the story

Costello: You don't want who backing up the story?

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta Internal Affairs?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The chief investigator's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.

Costello: Then tell me who's investigating this.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I'm not... stay out of the initial incident! I want to know what's the guy's name in internal affairs?

Abbott: No, What backed up the story.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: The chief investigator's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because!

Abbott: Oh, he's the D.A.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, You gotta Lieutenant in charge?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The Lieutenant's name?

Abbott: Tomorrow.

Costello: You don't want to tell me today?

Abbott: I'm telling you now.

Costello: Then go ahead.

Abbott: Tomorrow!

Costello: What time?

Abbott: What time what?

Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's the Lieutenant?

Abbott: Now listen. Who is not the Lieutenant.

Costello: I'll break your arm, you say who shot him! I want to know what's the Lieutenant''s name?

Abbott: What's backing up the story.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: Gotta press spokesperson?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: The spokesperson's name?

Abbott: Today.

Costello: Today, and tomorrow's the Lieutenant.

Abbott: Now you've got it.

Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the PR team.

PAUSE

Costello: You know I've been a spokesperson too.

Abbott: So they tell me.

Costello: I get behind the podium to do some fancy speaking, Tomorrow's right behind me, so it all looks official. Now the situation doesn't look good, but I've got to defend the shooter, the guy who shot the unarmed fella. I'm gonna defend the shooter, call it clean. So we're releasing his name and record, and I'm giving them who?

Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.

Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

PAUSE

Abbott: That's all you have to do.

Costello: Is to defend the shooter.

Abbott: Yes!

Costello: Now who's being defended?

Abbott: Naturally.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, if I'm defending a cop who shot someone to the press, I'm defending a person. So who is it?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Naturally?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: So I'm defending Naturally.

Abbott: No you aren't, you're defending Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's different.

Costello: That's what I said.

Abbott: You're not saying it...

Costello: I defend Naturally.

Abbott: You defend Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's what I said!

Abbott: You ask me.

Costello: I defend who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Now you ask me.

Abbott: You defend Who?

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! I defend who. Whoever it is needs backup. Who gives his report, and it's backed up by What. What is the only person there to testify, since I Don't Know claims to have not been on site during the shooting. I Don't Know says as much in his report to Tomorrow, asses covered. The entire business falls into the lap of Because. Why? I don't know! He wasn't there, and I don't give a darn!

Abbott: What?

Costello: I said I don't give a darn!

Abbott: Oh, that's our Commissioner.

[Ethel mermania]

Abbot and Costella in: Who's Shot First?

You asked for it.

Costello: Look Abbott, if you're the Chief, you must know all of the police on the force.

Abbott: I certainly do.

Costello: Well you know I've never met the guys. So you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's shooting people unnecessarily.

Abbott: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these cops now-a-days very peculiar names.

Costello: You mean funny names?

Abbot: Well, let's see, we have in this incident, Who shot the guy, What backed up his story, and I Don't Know claimed not to have been there despite video evidence showing otherwise.

Costello: That's what I want to find out.

Abbott: I say Who shot the guy, What backed up his story, and I Don't Know claimed not to have been there despite the evidence.

Costello: Are you the Chief?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Well I should.

Costello: Well then, who shot the guy?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy who shot him.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The shooter

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy who fired the gun

Abbott: Who shot him!

Costello: I'm asking YOU who shot him!

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you got an officer first on the scene who shot him?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: Who shot him?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: When you put him on administrative leave with pay, who kept collecting his salary?

Abbott: Every dollar of it.

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name that shot him.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy that shot...

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Who still collects a salary....

Abbott: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Abbott: What's wrong with that?

Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when the guy filed the police report saying that the other guy was going for a gun that we never found at the scene, what name did he sign?

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: How does he sign...

Abbott: That's how he signs it.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name who shot him.

Abbott: No. What backed up the story.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: One cop at a time!

Abbott: Well, don't change the officers around.

Costello: I'm not changing nobody!

Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.

Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy who shot him?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: Ok.

Abbott: All right.

PAUSE

Costello: What's the guy's name that shot him?

Abbott: No. What backed him up.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He claimed not to be there, we're not talking about him.

Costello: Now how did I get to someone who says he wasn't there?

Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.

Costello: If I mentioned the name of the guy who shot him, who did I say wasn't there?

Abbott: No. Who shot him.

Costello: What shot him?

Abbott: What backed up the story.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He wasn't there.

Costello: There I go, not there again!

PAUSE

Costello: Would you just stay with the guy who said he wasn't there despite video evidence, and stick with it.

Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?

Costello: Now who wasn't there?

Abbott: Why do you insist on saying Who wasn't there?

Costello: What am I saying wasn't there?

Abbott: No. What backed up the story

Costello: You don't want who backing up the story?

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta Internal Affairs?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The chief investigator's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.

Costello: Then tell me who's investigating this.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I'm not... stay out of the initial incident! I want to know what's the guy's name in internal affairs?

Abbott: No, What backed up the story.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: The chief investigator's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because!

Abbott: Oh, he's the D.A.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, You gotta Lieutenant in charge?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The Lieutenant's name?

Abbott: Tomorrow.

Costello: You don't want to tell me today?

Abbott: I'm telling you now.

Costello: Then go ahead.

Abbott: Tomorrow!

Costello: What time?

Abbott: What time what?

Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's the Lieutenant?

Abbott: Now listen. Who is not the Lieutenant.

Costello: I'll break your arm, you say who shot him! I want to know what's the Lieutenant''s name?

Abbott: What's backing up the story.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: Gotta press spokesperson?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: The spokesperson's name?

Abbott: Today.

Costello: Today, and tomorrow's the Lieutenant.

Abbott: Now you've got it.

Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the PR team.

PAUSE

Costello: You know I've been a spokesperson too.

Abbott: So they tell me.

Costello: I get behind the podium to do some fancy speaking, Tomorrow's right behind me, so it all looks official. Now the situation doesn't look good, but I've got to defend the shooter, the guy who shot the unarmed fella. I'm gonna defend the shooter, call it clean. So we're releasing his name and record, and I'm giving them who?

Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.

Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

PAUSE

Abbott: That's all you have to do.

Costello: Is to defend the shooter.

Abbott: Yes!

Costello: Now who's being defended?

Abbott: Naturally.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, if I'm defending a cop who shot someone to the press, I'm defending a person. So who is it?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Naturally?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: So I'm defending Naturally.

Abbott: No you aren't, you're defending Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's different.

Costello: That's what I said.

Abbott: You're not saying it...

Costello: I defend Naturally.

Abbott: You defend Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's what I said!

Abbott: You ask me.

Costello: I defend who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Now you ask me.

Abbott: You defend Who?

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! I defend who. Whoever it is needs backup. Who gives his report, and it's backed up by What. What is the only person there to testify, since I Don't Know claims to have not been on site during the shooting. I Don't Know says as much in his report to Tomorrow, asses covered. The entire business falls into the lap of Because. Why? I don't know! He wasn't there, and I don't give a darn!

Abbott: What?

Costello: I said I don't give a darn!

Abbott: Oh, that's our Commissioner.

We disagree about the issue, but I must say

That was fucking brilliant.

[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.

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.

The drawing of a weapon is a statement of intent. You have drawn a dangerous, potentially deadly weapon, and are demonstrating the intent to use it to control you if you do not control yourself.

The drawing of a weapon is an escalation. We saw this with Brazilian security guards in the US swimmers incident - the swimmers were being drunk and rowdy, and a guard unholstered his weapon as a statement of intent. The swimmers settled down.

The use of force does not require an act of violence, or even physical contact.

Drawing a live firearm as the default response, and not just drawing it, but pointing it at a person as first response (which dashcams and gopros aplenty will depict), is bad policing. Smart policing goes swimmingly.
There was a Cracked article a few weeks ago of a British officer explaining why the culture is so different here - it was probably a response to the Orlando shooting. One of the stories he mentioned was being called in to try and calm a known violent individual. A person known to be unstable and requiring medication.
He says that he played it very calmly, and sought to make conversation. Acted nonchalant and kept his hands in his pockets, and kept jovial about it. The guy agreed to wander off, or come with, or whatever, I don't recall. The point is, it never escalated, and it was resolved amicably. It was smart policing.

He then says that he heard of a group of cops being called to the same guy later. Hearing "known violent", they went in hard, and one of the cops nearly lost a finger. Not smart policing.

"Not smart policing" is what leads to a large number of the high-profile police shootings or otherwise killings in the US.
Garner, killed from a chokehold. The man shot by having a gun jammed into his body while being held on the ground by two officers. The black man shot in his car because a panicky cop couldn't handle the idea of a black man owning a firearm. This incident.

[Imperializt Russia]

You know, the unarmed deaf man who was shot happened to be white.

Should we spin this as as being a form of institutional racism against white people?

Obviously not, because why would it be?

Or should we perhaps admit even the best of police officers make mistakes and may suffer from inadequate training?

You mean that thing that most people have been saying in the thread since the start?

"They should've deescalated and been trained to realize that this is an entirely different situation," Barringer told NBC affiliate WCNC. "You're pulling someone over who is deaf. They are handicapped."

Howard Rosenblum, CEO of the National Association of the Deaf, said in a statement to NBC News that "there have been too many incidents with tragic consequences between law enforcement officers and deaf people."

Going by what is available, it seems to be that police officers in the US have simply not been trained on how to deal with deaf persons. Oh, how tempting it is to jump to the racism card.

Who jumped to the race card? It's quite clearly depicted in the OP article as white.

Also when I looked for a picture of State Trooper Jermaine Saunders (who is black), I stumbled across an article from The Sun, which described the victim as "deaf mute", which I've not seen claimed elsewhere.

[Vassenor]

You know, the unarmed deaf man who was shot happened to be white.

Should we spin this as as being a form of institutional racism against white people?

Obviously not, because why would it be?

Or should we perhaps admit even the best of police officers make mistakes and may suffer from inadequate training?

You mean that thing that most people have been saying in the thread since the start?

Going by what is available, it seems to be that police officers in the US have simply not been trained on how to deal with deaf persons. Oh, how tempting it is to jump to the racism card.

Who jumped to the race card? It's quite clearly depicted in the OP article as white.

Also when I looked for a picture of State Trooper Jermaine Saunders (who is black), I stumbled across an article from The Sun, which described the victim as "deaf mute", which I've not seen claimed elsewhere.

It seems like some sort of Pavlovian response to assume that anyone criticising a police shooting must be doing so because of racial lines.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

The drawing of a weapon is a statement of intent. You have drawn a dangerous, potentially deadly weapon, and are demonstrating the intent to use it to control you if you do not control yourself.

The drawing of a weapon is an escalation. We saw this with Brazilian security guards in the US swimmers incident - the swimmers were being drunk and rowdy, and a guard unholstered his weapon as a statement of intent. The swimmers settled down.

So you give yourself an example why escalating threat of force first is a good thing, sometimes a least. I'd argue most of the time, when you sense malicious intent on the other side of the fence. It's better to be safe than sorry tbh. Encroaching on a person's right if you want to call it that, of not being threatened by the police in the form of them drawing their weapons in a preemptive manner when they sense something fishy although there is no actual escalation of force on the citizen's part, should be less important than a cop potentially being too late to draw if something does go down e.g. they get a gun drawn on them. Yes, it is a double standard. But it should be OK because the police represent the law. After all, it isn't their duty to protect citizens (whether it be from feeling threatened by themselves or something else), it's their duty to enforce the law.

The use of force does not require an act of violence, or even physical contact.

Drawing a live firearm as the default response, and not just drawing it, but pointing it at a person as first response (which dashcams and gopros aplenty will depict), is bad policing.

Not that I am advocating drawing and pointing a gun or Taser at a suspect by default. My original point was that, assuming that cops do actually accidentally draw guns instead of Tasers when under pressure occasionally, it would be overall better to allow them to draw their Tasers earlier (when not 'under pressure') so they don't mix their weapons up. I think that an early drawn Taser 1000 times is better than even one dead person where the cop draws their gun instead.

Smart policing goes swimmingly.
There was a Cracked article a few weeks ago of a British officer explaining why the culture is so different here - it was probably a response to the Orlando shooting. One of the stories he mentioned was being called in to try and calm a known violent individual. A person known to be unstable and requiring medication.
He says that he played it very calmly, and sought to make conversation. Acted nonchalant and kept his hands in his pockets, and kept jovial about it. The guy agreed to wander off, or come with, or whatever, I don't recall. The point is, it never escalated, and it was resolved amicably. It was smart policing.

He then says that he heard of a group of cops being called to the same guy later. Hearing "known violent", they went in hard, and one of the cops nearly lost a finger. Not smart policing.

Well, obviously, if a group of cops were later called to the same guy (assuming on the same day), he didn't "come with" but wandered off. The conclusion that I can draw from this anecdote of yours goes very differently - the initial encounter failed to actually calm this known violent person. He only "played along" himself only to go and be violent or aggressive again (assuming that is why the police were called again). What would you suggest the second set of coppers did? Calmly woo him away like the first only to be called a third time? To me it shows inefficiency, not smart policing. And I am not even advocating responding guns drawn by default to known violent people, if they are not being actively violent (but simply known to be violent in general).

"Not smart policing" is what leads to a large number of the high-profile police shootings or otherwise killings in the US.

No. People should stop acting dumb and think they're entitled to act on police as police act on them.

Garner, killed from a chokehold. The man shot by having a gun jammed into his body while being held on the ground by two officers. The black man shot in his car because a panicky cop couldn't handle the idea of a black man owning a firearm. This incident.

I think that first and foremost what needs to be done is getting officers to use their Tasers more instead of their guns. Of course it is still morally reprehensible for a disabled individual to get Tased for nothing (although I highly doubt that was the case here), but it is preferable to a dead body.

[Imperializt Russia]

Te second "incident" was a week later or so.

[MERIZoC]

And the string of incompetent, murderous people with power and responsibility continues.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You asked for it.

Costello: Look Abbott, if you're the Chief, you must know all of the police on the force.

Abbott: I certainly do.

Costello: Well you know I've never met the guys. So you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's shooting people unnecessarily.

Abbott: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these cops now-a-days very peculiar names.

Costello: You mean funny names?

Abbot: Well, let's see, we have in this incident, Who shot the guy, What backed up his story, and I Don't Know claimed not to have been there despite video evidence showing otherwise.

Costello: That's what I want to find out.

Abbott: I say Who shot the guy, What backed up his story, and I Don't Know claimed not to have been there despite the evidence.

Costello: Are you the Chief?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names?

Abbott: Well I should.

Costello: Well then, who shot the guy?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: I mean the fellow's name.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy who shot him.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The shooter

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy who fired the gun

Abbott: Who shot him!

Costello: I'm asking YOU who shot him!

Abbott: That's the man's name.

Costello: That's who's name?

Abbott: Yes.

Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you got an officer first on the scene who shot him?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: Who shot him?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: When you put him on administrative leave with pay, who kept collecting his salary?

Abbott: Every dollar of it.

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name that shot him.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy that shot...

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Who still collects a salary....

Abbott: He does, every dollar. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.

Costello: Who's wife?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Abbott: What's wrong with that?

Costello: Look, all I wanna know is when the guy filed the police report saying that the other guy was going for a gun that we never found at the scene, what name did he sign?

Abbott: Who.

Costello: The guy.

Abbott: Who.

Costello: How does he sign...

Abbott: That's how he signs it.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name who shot him.

Abbott: No. What backed up the story.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: One cop at a time!

Abbott: Well, don't change the officers around.

Costello: I'm not changing nobody!

Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.

Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy who shot him?

Abbott: That's right.

Costello: Ok.

Abbott: All right.

PAUSE

Costello: What's the guy's name that shot him?

Abbott: No. What backed him up.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He claimed not to be there, we're not talking about him.

Costello: Now how did I get to someone who says he wasn't there?

Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.

Costello: If I mentioned the name of the guy who shot him, who did I say wasn't there?

Abbott: No. Who shot him.

Costello: What shot him?

Abbott: What backed up the story.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott: He wasn't there.

Costello: There I go, not there again!

PAUSE

Costello: Would you just stay with the guy who said he wasn't there despite video evidence, and stick with it.

Abbott: All right, what do you want to know?

Costello: Now who wasn't there?

Abbott: Why do you insist on saying Who wasn't there?

Costello: What am I saying wasn't there?

Abbott: No. What backed up the story

Costello: You don't want who backing up the story?

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta Internal Affairs?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The chief investigator's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.

Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.

Costello: Then tell me who's investigating this.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I'm not... stay out of the initial incident! I want to know what's the guy's name in internal affairs?

Abbott: No, What backed up the story.

Costello: I'm not asking you who backed up the story.

Abbott: Who shot him.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: The chief investigator's name?

Abbott: Why.

Costello: Because!

Abbott: Oh, he's the D.A.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, You gotta Lieutenant in charge?

Abbott: Sure.

Costello: The Lieutenant's name?

Abbott: Tomorrow.

Costello: You don't want to tell me today?

Abbott: I'm telling you now.

Costello: Then go ahead.

Abbott: Tomorrow!

Costello: What time?

Abbott: What time what?

Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's the Lieutenant?

Abbott: Now listen. Who is not the Lieutenant.

Costello: I'll break your arm, you say who shot him! I want to know what's the Lieutenant''s name?

Abbott: What's backing up the story.

Costello: I don't know.

Abbott & Costello Together: Wasn't there!

PAUSE

Costello: Gotta press spokesperson?

Abbott: Certainly.

Costello: The spokesperson's name?

Abbott: Today.

Costello: Today, and tomorrow's the Lieutenant.

Abbott: Now you've got it.

Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the PR team.

PAUSE

Costello: You know I've been a spokesperson too.

Abbott: So they tell me.

Costello: I get behind the podium to do some fancy speaking, Tomorrow's right behind me, so it all looks official. Now the situation doesn't look good, but I've got to defend the shooter, the guy who shot the unarmed fella. I'm gonna defend the shooter, call it clean. So we're releasing his name and record, and I'm giving them who?

Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.

Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

PAUSE

Abbott: That's all you have to do.

Costello: Is to defend the shooter.

Abbott: Yes!

Costello: Now who's being defended?

Abbott: Naturally.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, if I'm defending a cop who shot someone to the press, I'm defending a person. So who is it?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Naturally?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: So I'm defending Naturally.

Abbott: No you aren't, you're defending Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's different.

Costello: That's what I said.

Abbott: You're not saying it...

Costello: I defend Naturally.

Abbott: You defend Who.

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: That's what I said!

Abbott: You ask me.

Costello: I defend who?

Abbott: Naturally.

Costello: Now you ask me.

Abbott: You defend Who?

Costello: Naturally.

Abbott: That's it.

Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU! I defend who. Whoever it is needs backup. Who gives his report, and it's backed up by What. What is the only person there to testify, since I Don't Know claims to have not been on site during the shooting. I Don't Know says as much in his report to Tomorrow, asses covered. The entire business falls into the lap of Because. Why? I don't know! He wasn't there, and I don't give a darn!

Abbott: What?

Costello: I said I don't give a darn!

Abbott: Oh, that's our Commissioner.

We disagree about the issue, but I must say

That was fucking brilliant.

Thank you! It was just a matter of going through a transcript and replacing some things.