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

[RavenSky]

No one jumping on this thread to talk about problems with cops murdering people?

Oooooohhh... It was a white guy that got shot. That's why no one cares. I see.

Noo...that's why nobody has tried to claim that his use of ASL (I assume) was really "gang signs". The BLM supporters were raging about this one online - and note that Shaun King wrote the article Athena linked to.

The bolded is a facts Derec already pointed out in trying to minimize police misconduct.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear someone claiming his ASL looked 'threatening' as justification for this shooting.

 

[Derec]

The bolded is a facts Derec already pointed out in trying to minimize police misconduct.

Nope, the bolded is to show that we do not know that much (given unreliability of Shaun King) and that we thus should not jump to conclusions.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear someone claiming his ASL looked 'threatening' as justification for this shooting.

Him leading the cops on a chase for miles, even ignoring a TIP maneuver, is what likely put the cops on edge. That does not mean that the shooting was justified, but Harris did plenty to put them on edge. Note: he apparently did resist arrest before.

 

[Derec]

Once again, it is irrelevant to the actual OP issue. But please continue to find a way to blame someone other than the responsible party - the police.

Of course it is relevant. Either he didn't know the cops tried to pull him over for several miles (is he blind in addition to deaf, those police lights aren't exactly subtle), in which case he had no business driving in the first place. Or he deliberately ignored them, in which case the shooting is at least partly his fault. Him evading police also makes it more likely he did something aggressive upon leaving the vehicle which prompted police to shoot. But this is speculation. It should be thoroughly investigated. I am only mentioning it to say that his behavior is certainly relevant. How could it not be?

 

[Derec]

Why use a taser on someone who is behaving peaceably and attempting to communicate via sign language?

Do we know for a fact that he was "behaving peaceably"? His behavior immediately prior to him exiting the vehicle was anything but peaceable.

I see absolutely NO reason to subdue this person. Figure out how to communicate? Absolutely. Ticket? Probably. Figure out how to ensure the driver recognizes when patrol is attempting to pull him over? Certainly.

After the police chase more than a ticket was in order. He was definitely subject to arrest at that point. And we do not know if there was a reason to use a taser or shoot him. We should await the outcome of the investigation. And we should not take Shaun King's version of events as ironclad.

Tasers should only be used to physically subdue a suspect when other methods are ineffective--and if actual danger exists if the suspect is not subdued. Tasers cans and not infrequent ARE lethal. Not as lethal as guns but bad enough a great deal more caution should be used before deploying them.

That it true. But again, we do not know exactly what transpired.

 

[Derec]

It isn't clear but mere speculation that Harris was unable to understand why patrol wanted to pull him over. Nothing suggests that his hearing declined after meeting and fulfilling the states requirements for licensure to operate a motor vehicle. The state apparently saw him as sufficiently competent.

Speculation on Shaun King's part. That's my point. If he was competent to drive, as he likely was, he made the decision to ignore the police deliberately. Thus when he got out of the vehicle it was much more than a routine speeding traffic stop.

It is also extremely unclear why police officers felt the need to kill a slight, unarmed man mere seconds after he exited the vehicle.

I do not know either. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't. Hopefully the investigation brings some clarity. We do not know that he was "killed on sight" and neither do we know that he was shot "meres seconds after exiting the vehicle". In fact, neighbor Mark Berringer contradicts that last assertion.
But given his behavior leading police on a chase, we should not discount the possibility that he did something aggressive upon exiting, something that made police think they had to shoot.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Derec, just theoretically, is there anything that the police could do when they shoot someone where you'd feel that they were not justified in that shooting?

 

[Derec]

A better article (not a difficult feat mind you, it's Shaun King and NYDN after all) from the local newspaper.
State trooper shoots, kills deaf driver in north Charlotte neighborhood

Investigators said the incident began at 6:14 p.m., when the trooper tried to stop a Volvo for speeding on Interstate 485 near the North Tryon Street exit. The driver refused to stop and after a brief pursuit, the driver traveled onto Rocky River Road, exiting into a neighborhood at Seven Oaks Drive, officials said.

That's more than 7 miles of pursuit.

Public records show an interpreter provided sign language for Harris at a court hearing in Florida in 2010. At the hearing, he was found not guilty of misdemeanor larceny and had a charge of misdemeanor resisting property recovery dismissed, records show.Harris was found guilty of resisting an officer in 2010 when he lived in Connecticut, according to public records.

Not a stranger to the legal system.

“The Highway Patrol car came down across here,” neighbor Mark Barringer told the station. “He was kind of smoking real bad, and then he stopped over here, and then a few minutes later, I heard a gunshot. I saw a body on the street, and it looked like he was dead.”

1. The cruiser was "smoking", probably from the PIT maneuver.
2. The neighbor stated that there were a "few minutes" between the cruiser stopping and the gunshot. That disputes the assertion that Harris was shot immediately upon exiting the vehicle, unless he refused to exit for a "few minutes".

- - - Updated - - -

Derec, just theoretically, is there anything that the police could do when they shoot someone where you'd feel that they were not justified in that shooting?

Yes. Plenty. For example I think the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston was unjustified.
In this case, for example, if he was really shot "mere seconds" after exiting the car and he did not do any aggressive moves toward the cop, then the shooting would be clearly unjustified. But we do not know that it happened that way.
Also, what part of "I do not know either. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't." do you have comprehension problems with?

 

[laughing dog]

Once again, it is irrelevant to the actual OP issue. But please continue to find a way to blame someone other than the responsible party - the police.

Of course it is relevant. Either he didn't know the cops tried to pull him over for several miles (is he blind in addition to deaf, those police lights aren't exactly subtle), in which case he had no business driving in the first place. Or he deliberately ignored them, in which case the shooting is at least partly his fault. Him evading police also makes it more likely he did something aggressive upon leaving the vehicle which prompted police to shoot. But this is speculation. It should be thoroughly investigated. I am only mentioning it to say that his behavior is certainly relevant. How could it not be?

Keep on blaming the victim - you are not fooling anyone but yourself with these ridiculous responses.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A better article (not a difficult feat mind you, it's Shaun King and NYDN after all) from the local newspaper.
State trooper shoots, kills deaf driver in north Charlotte neighborhood

That's more than 7 miles of pursuit.

Public records show an interpreter provided sign language for Harris at a court hearing in Florida in 2010. At the hearing, he was found not guilty of misdemeanor larceny and had a charge of misdemeanor resisting property recovery dismissed, records show.Harris was found guilty of resisting an officer in 2010 when he lived in Connecticut, according to public records.

Not a stranger to the legal system.

“The Highway Patrol car came down across here,” neighbor Mark Barringer told the station. “He was kind of smoking real bad, and then he stopped over here, and then a few minutes later, I heard a gunshot. I saw a body on the street, and it looked like he was dead.”

1. The cruiser was "smoking", probably from the PIT maneuver.
2. The neighbor stated that there were a "few minutes" between the cruiser stopping and the gunshot. That disputes the assertion that Harris was shot immediately upon exiting the vehicle, unless he refused to exit for a "few minutes".

- - - Updated - - -

Derec, just theoretically, is there anything that the police could do when they shoot someone where you'd feel that they were not justified in that shooting?

Yes. Plenty. For example I think the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston was unjustified.
In this case, for example, if he was really shot "mere seconds" after exiting the car and he did not do any aggressive moves toward the cop, then the shooting would be clearly unjustified. But we do not know that it happened that way.
Also, what part of "I do not know either. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't." do you have comprehension problems with?

Plenty? Really? Plenty is more than one.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A better article (not a difficult feat mind you, it's Shaun King and NYDN after all) from the local newspaper.
State trooper shoots, kills deaf driver in north Charlotte neighborhood

That's more than 7 miles of pursuit.

Not a stranger to the legal system.

“The Highway Patrol car came down across here,” neighbor Mark Barringer told the station. “He was kind of smoking real bad, and then he stopped over here, and then a few minutes later, I heard a gunshot. I saw a body on the street, and it looked like he was dead.”

1. The cruiser was "smoking", probably from the PIT maneuver.
2. The neighbor stated that there were a "few minutes" between the cruiser stopping and the gunshot. That disputes the assertion that Harris was shot immediately upon exiting the vehicle, unless he refused to exit for a "few minutes".

- - - Updated - - -

Derec, just theoretically, is there anything that the police could do when they shoot someone where you'd feel that they were not justified in that shooting?

Yes. Plenty. For example I think the shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston was unjustified.
In this case, for example, if he was really shot "mere seconds" after exiting the car and he did not do any aggressive moves toward the cop, then the shooting would be clearly unjustified. But we do not know that it happened that way.
Also, what part of "I do not know either. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't." do you have comprehension problems with?

Plenty? Really? Plenty is more than one.

Here is what you said about Walter Scott

What I said about Scott is that his shooting was unjustified but that he made a fatal mistake when he decided to run from the police - twice. Escalating a mere traffic stop like that increases the likelihood of an adverse interaction with a police, be it getting shot, tackled to the ground or tased. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do on his part. He had nothing to gain but everything to lose. Even if he hadn't been injured physically he'd have a charge of evading police to deal with. That is not unfairly attacking him, because it matches the facts.
Should I not say that people shot by police made serious mistakes when they clearly did, even if their shooting was unjustified like Scott's was?

So while the shooting is unjustified, it is still Walter Scott's fault.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If Harris is unable "fully understood what was happening" when police is trying to pull him over due to his disability, then perhaps he should not be driving in the first place.

That is a separate question from the shooting though.

We can't discriminate just on disability since this would not fully affect his ability to drive. He should have a sign on his car, and also perhaps the police and deaf should learn to respond to flashing lights.
However, he was shot while exiting the vehicle while using sign language. So an investigation should take place but it does not suggest it is a fault to drive while deaf.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ly-shoots-deaf-man-after-traffic-stop-n636221

State trooper Jermaine Saunders shot Daniel Kevin Harris to death on Thursday after what North Carolina Bureau of Investigation described in a statement as "an encounter."

The bureau, which is investigating Harris' death, did not provide additional details. In an earlier statement, the North Carolina Highway Patrol said that the trooper tried to pull over a Volvo for speeding.

A brief pursuit followed, the statement says, and the driver, who is not identified, left his car.

"An encounter took place between the driver and the trooper causing a shot to be fired," the statement reads. The driver died at the scene, the statement adds, and the trooper was placed on administrative leave.

...

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."

Too often, Rosenblum said, officers order deaf people to comply with verbal commands — then act aggressively when they don't.

...

On a crowdfunding page said to be set up by Harris' family, a post says that any additional funding raised for a memorial will go toward educating and training law enforcement.

...

The post adds that states should change their DMV registration systems so that a police stop triggers an alert showing that the person is deaf.

 

[Derec]

We can't discriminate just on disability since this would not fully affect his ability to drive. He should have a sign on his car, and also perhaps the police and deaf should learn to respond to flashing lights.
However, he was shot while exiting the vehicle while using sign language. So an investigation should take place but it does not suggest it is a fault to drive while deaf.

Note the first word in my reply, "if". I don't believe Shaun's speculation that Harris did not notice the flashing lights for 7 miles. I think his actions were deliberate. But if he didn't, then he would be unfit to drive.

 

[Derec]

Plenty? Really? Plenty is more than one.

I gave one example.

Here is what you said about Walter Scott

And I stand by it.

So while the shooting is unjustified, it is still Walter Scott's fault.

Running away was Scott's fault, the shooting was Slager's fault. I fail to see why we should ignore the dead guy's contribution to the situation just because overall the shooting is unjustified.

If Harris' shooting turns out to be unjustified, we can still fault Harris for what he did.

Even if Scooby is confused by all this, you should not be.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep on blaming the victim - you are not fooling anyone but yourself with these ridiculous responses.

I noticed that when you have nothing to contribute you fall back to your old and tired "you are not fooling anyone" shtick. Any chance of getting an actual response to the points I made?

 

[Derec]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ly-shoots-deaf-man-after-traffic-stop-n636221

That article does not give us any new info, and in fact it provides less than the article I posted.

Btw, what happened to that commie quote by Stokey Carmichael?

 

[laughing dog]

I noticed that when you have nothing to contribute you fall back to your old and tired "you are not fooling anyone" shtick. Any chance of getting an actual response to the points I made?

I did respond to your predictably pointless blame the victim routine. This man did nothing to merit being shot to death. So, in your predictably flaccid attempts to defend the police, you are only fooling yourself.

 

[Malintent]

I was referring to this group of folks.. It's taking a long time for the "lynch the cops" mob to come out for this one. I still am not seeing it. Too bad this kid wasn't black. Maybe someone would have cared more.

since no one else commented.... I can't imagine how the actions of the police can be justified, but something is certainly odd about the perp's behavior. Deaf or not - flashing lights and a failed PIT maneuver should have been sufficient to get the attention of a completely deaf person. But why not a taser, or some other action? There must be some missing information, for sure.

Why use a taser on someone who is behaving peaceably and attempting to communicate via sign language?

I see absolutely NO reason to subdue this person. Figure out how to communicate? Absolutely. Ticket? Probably. Figure out how to ensure the driver recognizes when patrol is attempting to pull him over? Certainly.

Tasers should only be used to physically subdue a suspect when other methods are ineffective--and if actual danger exists if the suspect is not subdued. Tasers cans and not infrequent ARE lethal. Not as lethal as guns but bad enough a great deal more caution should be used before deploying them.

Ya, you're right... I was trying to express a de-escalation of force, but taser is still too high for what we know about so far.

 

[Malintent]

I noticed that when you have nothing to contribute you fall back to your old and tired "you are not fooling anyone" shtick. Any chance of getting an actual response to the points I made?

I did respond to your predictably pointless blame the victim routine. This man did nothing to merit being shot to death. So, in your predictably flaccid attempts to defend the police, you are only fooling yourself.

And you, LD, predictably take any point made about any degree of contributing issues and quote-mine to death, or just willfully remove all context, and call it victim blaming. The def guy dindu nuffin (except lead a chase for 7 miles, even after taking a physical hit on his vehicle, sufficient to rupture the cop car's radiator)... naw, he dindu nuffin. But your response, predictably will be along the lines of, "Malintent says all deaf people should be shot if they drive" or some other bat-shit retarded nonsense.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I gave one example.

Here is what you said about Walter Scott

What I said about Scott is that his shooting was unjustified but that he made a fatal mistake when he decided to run from the police - twice. Escalating a mere traffic stop like that increases the likelihood of an adverse interaction with a police, be it getting shot, tackled to the ground or tased. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do on his part. He had nothing to gain but everything to lose. Even if he hadn't been injured physically he'd have a charge of evading police to deal with. That is not unfairly attacking him, because it matches the facts.
Should I not say that people shot by police made serious mistakes when they clearly did, even if their shooting was unjustified like Scott's was?

And I stand by it.

So while the shooting is unjustified, it is still Walter Scott's fault.

Running away was Scott's fault,

Running away did not force a projectile into his internal cavity and caused his vital organs to cease functioning.

the shooting was Slager's fault.

THAT forced a projectile into his internal cavity and caused his vital organs to cease functioning.

I fail to see why we should ignore the dead guy's contribution to the situation just because overall the shooting is unjustified.

That statement only rings true if you believe that once Scott ran, the officer had no control over his gun, his hand and his aim and was physically compelled, even against his will, to shoot. If this is not the case, then constant refrains of "Scott was running" can only lead to people thinking you somehow blame Scott for his own shooting, and it is the shooting that is in question not that Scott ran (which in retrospect might have been a good idea as the man he was running FROM shot him to death)

If Harris' shooting turns out to be unjustified, we can still fault Harris for what he did.

WE can't but I'm sure YOU will.

Even if Scooby is confused by all this, you should not be.

Oh I not confused. I understand YOU Derec quite clearly. Always have and always will.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We can't discriminate just on disability since this would not fully affect his ability to drive. He should have a sign on his car, and also perhaps the police and deaf should learn to respond to flashing lights.
However, he was shot while exiting the vehicle while using sign language. So an investigation should take place but it does not suggest it is a fault to drive while deaf.

Note the first word in my reply, "if". I don't believe Shaun's speculation that Harris did not notice the flashing lights for 7 miles. I think his actions were deliberate. But if he didn't, then he would be unfit to drive.

Yes but this is not the Philippines, where you shoot first and ask questions later. It would appear that the man did get out of his car in the end. However a proper inquiry should hopefully find the answer.