Driving While Deaf: Daniel Harris, a deaf 29-year-old man, was shot and killed by police in Charlotte.

[laughing dog]

That wasn't an eyewitness.

Yes it was.

A simple scenario that fits the facts we know:

After his car is stopped he gets out and tries to flee on foot. The cop chases him and catches him. At this point he attacks the cop.

And once again you're treating an absence of evidence as evidence.

And you making stuff up again. If Harris had attacked the officer, it would have been reported already.

You still haven't provided any evidence that you didn't sink that sub.

You are babbling again.

 

[KeepTalking]

You mean unlike the OP article that just said Harris was driving home minding his own business, gets pulled over by a cop and tries to talk in ASL and the cop shoots him?

Unfortunately we'll probably move on to the next couple of shootings before we get the full report on this one.

I suspect we will never have conclusive information on this one. If there was evidence we would have seen something of it by now. There will of course be the forensic examination that shows where shots were fired and where he was when they were fired but without stories to compare that against it's unlikely to tell us anything.

If the shots were in the back we most likely would have heard it by now, so the shots are almost certainly in the front and at close range. Barring lucky things (Michael Brown's hand injury comes to mind) that's unlikely to tell us much about what he was doing at the time.

The article linked in the OP notes that the police are reviewing dash cam and body cam footage from the officer involved. They have the evidence, they just are not releasing it. That is more of an indictment against the police officer than the suspect, as they likely would have released the footage by now if it exonerated the cop. But, that does not mean the shooting was unjustified, we just don't know at this point. Your making shit up to fit your narrative of a justified shoot is just that: making shit up.

 

[Malintent]

This idea that the public has any entitlement to the pre-trial details of evidence gathering is very new.
It also makes no sense.
You are not entitled to a preview of the case, and their actions of keeping this within our legal system, and not enlist your sorry ass opinion into the process, is exactly the correct thing to do.
You can hear all about it after the trial... you know, so our legal system can work correctly.
Have we learned nothing from OJ?

 

[laughing dog]

This idea that the public has any entitlement to the pre-trial details of evidence gathering is very new.
It also makes no sense.
You are not entitled to a preview of the case, and their actions of keeping this within our legal system, and not enlist your sorry ass opinion into the process, is exactly the correct thing to do.
You can hear all about it after the trial... you know, so our legal system can work correctly.
Have we learned nothing from OJ?

Why would anyone confuse an internet forum with the legal system?

 

[ksen]

This idea that the public has any entitlement to the pre-trial details of evidence gathering is very new.
It also makes no sense.
You are not entitled to a preview of the case, and their actions of keeping this within our legal system, and not enlist your sorry ass opinion into the process, is exactly the correct thing to do.
You can hear all about it after the trial... you know, so our legal system can work correctly.
Have we learned nothing from OJ?

Who said anything about being entitled?

Also "pre-trial" assumes a trial is forthcoming and, well, lol.

 

[KeepTalking]

This idea that the public has any entitlement to the pre-trial details of evidence gathering is very new.

Is someone in this thread advocating that idea?

It also makes no sense.
You are not entitled to a preview of the case, and their actions of keeping this within our legal system, and not enlist your sorry ass opinion into the process, is exactly the correct thing to do.

I don't expect the legal system to enlist any of our opinions, unless one of us happens to sit on the jury, which is highly unlikely. On the other hand, we are all free to express our opinions in this forum.

You can hear all about it after the trial... you know, so our legal system can work correctly.

What trial? Is someone being put on trial in this case? That would be news to me. The person we would have expected to be put on trial for fleeing from the police is now dead.

Have we learned nothing from OJ?

I may have learned something from the OJ Simpson trial, but what is it that you imagine we all should have learned?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suspect we will never have conclusive information on this one. If there was evidence we would have seen something of it by now. There will of course be the forensic examination that shows where shots were fired and where he was when they were fired but without stories to compare that against it's unlikely to tell us anything.

If the shots were in the back we most likely would have heard it by now, so the shots are almost certainly in the front and at close range. Barring lucky things (Michael Brown's hand injury comes to mind) that's unlikely to tell us much about what he was doing at the time.

The article linked in the OP notes that the police are reviewing dash cam and body cam footage from the officer involved. They have the evidence, they just are not releasing it. That is more of an indictment against the police officer than the suspect, as they likely would have released the footage by now if it exonerated the cop. But, that does not mean the shooting was unjustified, we just don't know at this point. Your making shit up to fit your narrative of a justified shoot is just that: making shit up.

In the past I would have agreed with you here. These days, however, it seems that the video that gets withheld often exonerates the cop.

 

[KeepTalking]

The article linked in the OP notes that the police are reviewing dash cam and body cam footage from the officer involved. They have the evidence, they just are not releasing it. That is more of an indictment against the police officer than the suspect, as they likely would have released the footage by now if it exonerated the cop. But, that does not mean the shooting was unjustified, we just don't know at this point. Your making shit up to fit your narrative of a justified shoot is just that: making shit up.

In the past I would have agreed with you here. These days, however, it seems that the video that gets withheld often exonerates the cop.

Only if you include video taken by citizen by-standers. I was referring specifically to police dash cams and body cams.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the past I would have agreed with you here. These days, however, it seems that the video that gets withheld often exonerates the cop.

Only if you include video taken by citizen by-standers. I was referring specifically to police dash cams and body cams.

Remember the recent cases where we thought the video was damning--until it finally was shown at trial?

 

[Arctish]

Only if you include video taken by citizen by-standers. I was referring specifically to police dash cams and body cams.

Remember the recent cases where we thought the video was damning--until it finally was shown at trial?

Remember the recent case where it took a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act, widely known inconsistencies in the police report, eyewitness accounts of events not matching the police report, an eyewitness account and video evidence of police personnel reviewing private surveillance video that was found to have been erased when other investigators gained access to it, a whistle-blower report on what the dash-cam video showed, several independent investigations, a lawsuit, and a letter from the Illinois Attorney General to the Police Department plainly stating that the police must release the dash-cam footage before it finally was, 13 months after the shooting?

 

[KeepTalking]

Only if you include video taken by citizen by-standers. I was referring specifically to police dash cams and body cams.

Remember the recent cases where we thought the video was damning--until it finally was shown at trial?

No, can you provide a link?

 

[Malintent]

Is someone in this thread advocating that idea?

yes, sort of.. It seems that since the rise of the social network, that attitude has been developing.

I don't expect the legal system to enlist any of our opinions, unless one of us happens to sit on the jury, which is highly unlikely. On the other hand, we are all free to express our opinions in this forum.

the opinions that are being expressed seem to allude to the idea that absence of every detail of a matter publically being made available is somehow evidence of a 'coverup' or the like.

What trial? Is someone being put on trial in this case? That would be news to me. The person we would have expected to be put on trial for fleeing from the police is now dead.

OK, not always pre-trial.. but during the investigation. Releasing sensitive data to the public (like may be with certain details) would not be how a healthy legal system operates. It is how social networks operate... every wipe of the ass is fully documented and socialized.. not how legal investigations work, or should work.

I may have learned something from the OJ Simpson trial, but what is it that you imagine we all should have learned?

The relevant thing that should have been learned from the OJ trial is that public socialization of every step of the legal process is obstructive to the fair and just performance of that process.

 

[KeepTalking]

yes, sort of.. It seems that since the rise of the social network, that attitude has been developing.

That seems like it is a 'no' disquised as a 'yes'. Let's put it to the test... can you point to a post by someone in his thread that is advocating that idea?

I don't expect the legal system to enlist any of our opinions, unless one of us happens to sit on the jury, which is highly unlikely. On the other hand, we are all free to express our opinions in this forum.

the opinions that are being expressed seem to allude to the idea that absence of every detail of a matter publically being made available is somehow evidence of a 'coverup' or the like.

Oh, they 'seem to allude', do they? I don't suppose you could also point to a post that claims that the police are covering something up in this case, could you?

What trial? Is someone being put on trial in this case? That would be news to me. The person we would have expected to be put on trial for fleeing from the police is now dead.

OK, not always pre-trial.. but during the investigation. Releasing sensitive data to the public (like may be with certain details) would not be how a healthy legal system operates. It is how social networks operate... every wipe of the ass is fully documented and socialized.. not how legal investigations work, or should work.

I think that when police release dash cam videos from their officers at the point when an investigation should be in process, they are usually hoping to avoid the legal system working by swaying public opinion in their favor, so that the public will not demand actual operation of the legal system against their officers.

I may have learned something from the OJ Simpson trial, but what is it that you imagine we all should have learned?

The relevant thing that should have been learned from the OJ trial is that public socialization of every step of the legal process is obstructive to the fair and just performance of that process.

OK, yeah, that's not the lesson I learned. The lesson I learned is that when wealthy celebrities hire expensive lawyers, and are tried in a friendly jurisdiction, they are unlikely to be convicted of murder.

 

[Malintent]

I'm not going to look for a specific post in this specific thread to defend my broad statement.

That "expensive lawyer" won the case by enlisting public opinion against the judge, prosecutors and witnesses. He got the public to "demand" things from the courts, like fucking cameras in the court room broadcasting live feeds.

I think that when the police release anything to the public about anything, it is in RESPONSE to some media hype that is causing a disruption to the normal due process for the accused.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not going to look for a specific post in this specific thread to defend my broad statement.

In that case I will dismiss those broad statements as being without merit.

That "expensive lawyer" won the case by enlisting public opinion against the judge, prosecutors and witnesses. He got the public to "demand" things from the courts, like fucking cameras in the court room broadcasting live feeds.

None of this invalidates the lesson I learned. Ti all goes back to wealthy celebrities hiring expensive lawyers and being tried in a friendly jurisdiction.

I think that when the police release anything to the public about anything, it is in RESPONSE to some media hype that is causing a disruption to the normal due process for the accused.

The "media hype" is often just the public demanding the same due process be applied to police officers as it is to the rest of us. When a police officer is involved in an incident where they cause the loss of life of a civilian, and they think the video exonerates the officer, they are quick to release the video of the incident to avoid prosecution of the officer. This is not the fault of "media hype", the police department makes a choice as to whether or not the video is released. They are doing so to protect their officers from prosecution, not to make sure that the legal system works. In those cases, they don't want to engage the legal system at all.

 

[Malintent]

UPDATE

From http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/us/north-carolina-deaf-man-police-shooting

Authorities are gathering dashboard-camera and body-camera video relating to the incident from the highway patrol and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, which sent officers to the scene after the shooting, said Audria Bridges, a special agent with North Carolina's State Bureau of Investigation.

"Because at least 20 highway patrol officers responded, it is taking some time to get all videos related to (the) incident together," said Bridges, whose agency is investigating the shooting.

Baker and Bridges declined to answer CNN's questions about whether Harris was armed.

CNN sent emails Tuesday with further questions seeking clarification about the matter, but officials said to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation, they could not comment.

bolding mine.

also, from http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/article98919807.html

According to public records, Harris was twice charged with resisting arrest in 2010. He was found guilty in Connecticut; in Florida, the charge was dropped.

In this article, the audio from police dispatch between the officer and dispatch is available to listen to in full.

 

[Derec]

Whatever the investigation ultimately concludes, it is by now quite clear that, contrary to the claim from the OP, Harris was not killed for "driving while deaf".

 

[laughing dog]

Whatever the investigation ultimately concludes, it is by now quite clear that, contrary to the claim from the OP, Harris was not killed for "driving while deaf".

If one actually reads the actual words of the OP it is clear that it does not make that causative claim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

From http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/us/north-carolina-deaf-man-police-shooting



bolding mine.

also, from http://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/article98919807.html

According to public records, Harris was twice charged with resisting arrest in 2010. He was found guilty in Connecticut; in Florida, the charge was dropped.

In this article, the audio from police dispatch between the officer and dispatch is available to listen to in full.

20 officers responding shows that it was far more than "driving while deaf".