ronburgundy
Contributor
There are at least 3 distinct issues here:
1. Did the driver behave in ways that made it reasonable for the cop to view and react to him like a probable criminal trying to evade the police?
Based of given info, the answer is yes. The driver did something (keep speeding and refuse the pull over for 7 miles) that virtually no drivers do (even many/most deaf drivers), unless they deliberately trying to escape the police. Then he violated standard protocol and likely police commands when he got out of his car, which again is most typical of fleeing criminals.
2. Was the officer justified in shooting him? Based on current information, the answer is NO. Being a fleeing criminal doesn't justify the cops shooting him, unless he also showed evidence of being a violent threat to the cop or others in the area.
3. Did his deafness play a causal role in the outcome, thus indicating that in addition to better police training we need stronger regulations regarding deaf drivers?
Unless he was in fact a criminal deliberately fleeing, then the answer is yes. A hearing test should be added to the vision test to get a licence, with the results determining the type of limitations, restrictions, or added safety measures the driver needs to adhere to. At minimum, deaf drivers should have to put a sign on the rear window and have equipment that uses lights on the dash in response to sensors that detect sirens (such things exists and some deaf drivers use them).
IOW, whether the driver acted like a highly suspicious criminal, whether his deafness played an objective causal role in those actions and thus the outcome, and whether the cop was unjustified in his ultimate response to the driver's actions are separate questions with different answers. Causality and moral responsibility are distinct, despite rabid ideologues making tired, fallacious accusations of "victim blaming" every time objective causal factors related to the events are mentioned.
1. Did the driver behave in ways that made it reasonable for the cop to view and react to him like a probable criminal trying to evade the police?
Based of given info, the answer is yes. The driver did something (keep speeding and refuse the pull over for 7 miles) that virtually no drivers do (even many/most deaf drivers), unless they deliberately trying to escape the police. Then he violated standard protocol and likely police commands when he got out of his car, which again is most typical of fleeing criminals.
2. Was the officer justified in shooting him? Based on current information, the answer is NO. Being a fleeing criminal doesn't justify the cops shooting him, unless he also showed evidence of being a violent threat to the cop or others in the area.
3. Did his deafness play a causal role in the outcome, thus indicating that in addition to better police training we need stronger regulations regarding deaf drivers?
Unless he was in fact a criminal deliberately fleeing, then the answer is yes. A hearing test should be added to the vision test to get a licence, with the results determining the type of limitations, restrictions, or added safety measures the driver needs to adhere to. At minimum, deaf drivers should have to put a sign on the rear window and have equipment that uses lights on the dash in response to sensors that detect sirens (such things exists and some deaf drivers use them).
IOW, whether the driver acted like a highly suspicious criminal, whether his deafness played an objective causal role in those actions and thus the outcome, and whether the cop was unjustified in his ultimate response to the driver's actions are separate questions with different answers. Causality and moral responsibility are distinct, despite rabid ideologues making tired, fallacious accusations of "victim blaming" every time objective causal factors related to the events are mentioned.
