North Carolina police kill unarmed deaf man

[mxnerd]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...deaf-mute-man-sign-language-article-1.2760714

This is as bad as it gets.

A North Carolina state trooper shot and killed 29-year-old Daniel Harris — who was not only unarmed, but deaf — just feet from his home, over a speeding violation. According to early reports from neighbors who witnessed the shooting this past Thursday night, Harris was shot and killed "almost immediately" after exiting his vehicle.

He appeared to be trying to communicate with the officer via sign language.

"They should've de-escalated and been trained to realize that this is an entirely different situation," neighbor Mark Barringer said. "You're pulling someone over who is deaf, they are handicapped. To me, what happened is totally unacceptable."

===

Read whole story at the website.

 

[JSt0rm]

nationalize the police force.

 

[AntonioHG]

I ran into someone already on FB saying one should always follow officer's command blah blah blah typical pro police rant. People honestly believe the police can do no wrong at all. I'm waiting for some sort of response from the police as to why this person had to die. "He was reaching for his waistband and the officer felt his life was in danger" - is what I'm predicting.

 

[JSt0rm]

An officers life isnt worth more then my life. In fact they chose a risky line of work so therefore its worth less then mine.

 

[PokerGuy]

The fact that he's deaf might have very well influenced what happened, but the real problem seems to be that too many cops see their weapon as the first line of defense when something happens. I'm fine with a lot of leeway when an officer is confronted with an armed person or has reason to legitimately fear for his safety... but it should not be the first thing, it should be the last possible alternative.

Looks like a sad event, there was no reason this man had to die.

 

[PokerGuy]

An officers life isnt worth more then my life. In fact they chose a risky line of work so therefore its worth less then mine.

Sorry, that's not how it works. An officer is allowed to use force if needed to enforce the law, and that includes lethal force. It just seems like that is all too often the first course of action instead of the last resort.

 

[JSt0rm]

Sorry, that's not how it works. An officer is allowed to use force if needed to enforce the law, and that includes lethal force. It just seems like that is all too often the first course of action instead of the last resort.

I didnt say they cant use lethal force. What I said was their life isnt worth more then my life. They should wait to fire until fired upon. Just like our military if given that order.

Unless you think police lives are worth more then soldiers lives?

 

[Commodus]

One of the core problems, aside from latent (and occasionally overt) racism, is that the vast majority of police training focuses on how to handle a fight, not how to prevent it.

The Police Executive Research Forum notes that a typical recruit gets 58 hours of firearms training, 49 hours of defensive training, 24 hours of use-of-force scenario training... and 16 hours of training for both use-of-force policy and de-escalation. Numbers aren't everything, of course, but that kind of wild disproportion shows that the police see the streets as a battlefield. If you treat everyone as a potential threat, it doesn't take much to make you pull out your gun.

 

[PokerGuy]

I didnt say they cant use lethal force. What I said was their life isnt worth more then my life. They should wait to fire until fired upon. Just like our military if given that order.

Unless you think police lives are worth more then soldiers lives?

Again, that's not how it works. It's not that his life is "worth more" than yours, but in order for him to do his job, society has granted him discretion to use lethal force to protect both his life and that of the public if he perceives you to be a threat to it. That means if it comes down to his life or yours, he is permitted to use force to end yours to save his (or anyone elses).

Waiting to fire only when fired upon is insane. If a guy aims a gun at someone, you're gonna wait until he actually kills them before you take action? If a guy aims a gun at a cop, the cop has to wait until he gets shot before taking action? No, just no.

Personally I think there needs to be more focus on training of de-escalation and other non-lethal actions so lethal actions are not needed.

 

[Commodus]

I didnt say they cant use lethal force. What I said was their life isnt worth more then my life. They should wait to fire until fired upon. Just like our military if given that order.

Unless you think police lives are worth more then soldiers lives?

Well, I'd be more specific: when there's a real likelihood that someone is about to be fired upon or otherwise face a lethal weapon. If someone's pulling a real gun, you don't want to wait until they shoot... you might not get the chance to shoot back. The problem, of course, is that officers have not only shot unarmed people, but have shot them while they're running away or pinned down. There's no self-defence justification in those cases.

 

[mxnerd]

I wonder whether police or state DMV keeps a database with drivers with hearing disability. When the police gets the license plate number, he/she should immediately know whether the car owner has hearing problem and act accordingly.

This is not the first case like this and won't be a last one. The way police being trained to use lethal force really have to be changed!

 

[SMOGZINN]

This was bound to happen when we started making excuses for cops shooting people for not following orders. No matter what their training a good portion of society is telling the police that they have the right to kill you if you disobey them.

 

[JSt0rm]

Again, that's not how it works. It's not that his life is "worth more" than yours, but in order for him to do his job, society has granted him discretion to use lethal force to protect both his life and that of the public if he perceives you to be a threat to it. That means if it comes down to his life or yours, he is permitted to use force to end yours to save his (or anyone elses).

Waiting to fire only when fired upon is insane. If a guy aims a gun at someone, you're gonna wait until he actually kills them before you take action? If a guy aims a gun at a cop, the cop has to wait until he gets shot before taking action? No, just no.

Personally I think there needs to be more focus on training of de-escalation and other non-lethal actions so lethal actions are not needed.

Soldiers have to operate like that sometimes when in a actual war zone. The idea that on the streets some guy who got all C's in school gets to make that judgement call is beyond the pale

 

[runzwithsizorz]

The man didn't make things better for himself by leading 2 cops with lights flashing on a "high speed chase", was he blind as well?
A witness stated that the cop car was "smoking real bad", sounds like the bump the officer says he gave, was just a bit understated.
Also, the cops should have known though dispatch just who they were chasing,-- warrants, records, weapons, license restrictions, etc.
Bottom line? did he deserve being killed? IMO no. One more thing, this was a 1 shot kill, there's only one way to do that.

 

[JSt0rm]

They always lead these stories by saying what the person did wrong. This is to help sell the police narrative.