North Carolina police kill unarmed deaf, mute man using sign language

[W2L]

The guy was followed by blue lights for 6 miles, the cops even bumped into his car to get his attention and the man never stopped once till he got home. Then he gets out of his car and moves toward police, something you don't do when guns are pointed at you. You put your hands up and freeze. Sure the cops might have done something different, but then again what would you do if you followed a guy for 6 miles as he ignored you, only to finally stop and get out of his car and come toward you? Its a tragic story, but I wonder why the guy didn't stop? Why did he also get out of his car? It sound very strange.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Read my statement carefully. I did not say all police will kill you. I said, given the current US law and police procedures, police are authorized by the state to commit unlimited violence against any citizen who does not follow police instruction regardless of the magnitude of the offense.

This blanket statement is 100% true and the root cause of our problems with police. So please specifically point out the inaccuracies of my statement.

You refuse police instruction, and once the violence starts all that is required for an officer to use lethal force is for him to "believe" that he "might" be in imminent danger. He doesn't even have to see a weapon, as long as he believes you "might" have a weapon and you "might" be reaching for it he can kill you.

Note, no where in my post have I called police bad or evil. So again, please point out the inaccuracies of my statement?

Starting with this latest post that doesn't reflect as you promised in the first of it?
"I said...."
When you could have pasted what you did say and what I took issue with in blanket statements as you've just admitted of your original remarks.
dgiharris said: ↑
We need to take a step back and look at our police procedures.

Essentially, our police procedures and law boil down to this.

• If you don't do what an officer says, by law he can kill you. regardless of the circumstances, regardless of imminent danger or not, regardless of if the altercation is over a misdemeanor or a felony, doesn't matter.

• If you fail to follow a lawful instruction, then by law a police officer can kill you. Period.

So, as a society, we need to reassess this current law/procedure/attitude.

Everything else is a red herring and not at the core of the issue.

Compare our law/procedure/attitude to countries like South Korea. If this situation unfolded in South Korea this man would have never been killed.

 

[SummerMadness]

Starting with this latest post that doesn't reflect as you promised in the first of it?
"I said...."
When you could have pasted what you did say and what I took issue with in blanket statements as you've just admitted of your original remarks.
dgiharris said: ↑
We need to take a step back and look at our police procedures.

Essentially, our police procedures and law boil down to this.

• If you don't do what an officer says, by law he can kill you. regardless of the circumstances, regardless of imminent danger or not, regardless of if the altercation is over a misdemeanor or a felony, doesn't matter.

• If you fail to follow a lawful instruction, then by law a police officer can kill you. Period.

So, as a society, we need to reassess this current law/procedure/attitude.

Everything else is a red herring and not at the core of the issue.

Compare our law/procedure/attitude to countries like South Korea. If this situation unfolded in South Korea this man would have never been killed.

A key point in this post that you either do not understand or you are ignoring: Essentially, our police procedures and law boil down to this.

The statement made has nothing to do with labeling officers, it is highlighting problems in police procedures that can lead to shootings like this. Shooting of unarmed people, especially of the disabled, should not occur; however, the police procedures for interacting with civilians is woefully inadequate and can lead to such scenarios. He is highlighting a systemic issue, that has nothing to do with calling police officers good or evil. This officer may be the greatest guy in the world, but the way police are trained, justification levels for use of force, and methods for approaching people, can result in an unarmed person being shot and killed. We are no closer to preventing such deaths unless we review and revise police procedures.

 

[W2L]

Compare our law/procedure/attitude to countries like South Korea. If this situation unfolded in South Korea this man would have never been killed.

How do we know that? How do we not know South Korean police wouldnt just put a gun in his hand and justify it?

 

[dgiharris]

That's what I've been saying in another thread about the difference in policing like Andy (keeping the peace) rather than policing like Barney (enforcing the law).

A couple of years ago I was in the Foxnews Hannibal forum when someone made the following point: there are so many laws that it is impossible for you to go a day without breaking one of them.

There are so many laws to include a ton of laws open to interpretation and subjective opinion that it is impossible for you to not be cited if a cop has his heart set on having a conflict with you. Loitering, trespassing, disturbing the peace, reckless driving, failure to yield, unsafe lane change, jaywalking, failure to follow police instruction or lawful order (even if it is unlawful) riding your bike on the sidewalk(some cities it's illegal), parking more than 12 inches away from the curve (some cities it's 10inches), "appearing" to sleep in your car, ...

There are so many laws that essentially police can do whatever they want as long as they can contrive a pretense that enables there godlike power to issue you an instruction.

 

[W2L]

A couple of years ago I was in the Foxnews Hannibal forum when someone made the following point: there are so many laws that it is impossible for you to go a day without breaking one of them.

There are so many laws to include a ton of laws open to interpretation and subjective opinion that it is impossible for you to not be cited if a cop has his heart set on having a conflict with you. Loitering, trespassing, disturbing the peace, reckless driving, failure to yield, unsafe lane change, jaywalking, failure to follow police instruction or lawful order (even if it is unlawful) riding your bike on the sidewalk(some cities it's illegal), parking more than 12 inches away from the curve (some cities it's 10inches), "appearing" to sleep in your car, ...

There are so many laws that essentially police can do whatever they want as long as they can contrive a pretense that enables there godlike power to issue you an instruction.

There are so many laws that even the police themselves are sometimes ignorant of them.

 

[dgiharris]

How do we know that? How do we not know South Korean police wouldnt just put a gun in his hand and justify it?

Well, for one thing normal police in SK don't carry guns. And their use of force procedures are way more stringent than those employed by US police. And lastly, you can look at the stats of shootings by police in SK.

Put that all together and I'm comfortable saying that if this unfolded in SK (or most other democraticc countries) he wouldn't have been shot.

 

[W2L]

Well, for one thing normal police in SK don't carry guns. And their use of force procedures are way more stringent than those employed by US police. And lastly, you can look at the stats of shootings by police in SK.

Put that all together and I'm comfortable saying that if this unfolded in SK (or most other democraticc countries) he wouldn't have been shot.

I looked for such stats but didn't find any. I know that owning firearms in South Kora isn't a right but a privilege, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[W2L]

Ok, lets ban all guns. Lets take them from police too, just like in South Korea.

 

[Hank77]

Ok, lets ban all guns. Lets take them from police too, just like in South Korea.

The regular police in most of the UK don't carry guns either.

 

[W2L]

The regular police in most of the UK don't carry guns either.

Fine with me. I don't much care.

 

[timewerx]

How can the police use sign language to kill?

Maybe he was holding a gun while doing sign language....

Perhaps, you shouldn't hold a gun while doing sign language as you could accidentally disengage the safe, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] the gun, and pull the trigger, while the gun is pointing at the person you're doing sign language with.....

 

[Armoured]

That's a credible reporting site for sure.
Kidding.

I wonder if the agendaists knew Daniel Harris was white? Or that the officer was black?

No one mentioned race until you brought it up.

 

[Oafman]

The regular police in most of the UK don't carry guns either.

And in a bunch of other places, including Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and Ireland.

 

[Oafman]

Well, in fairness, arming the police in New Zealand would be a bad idea.

Agreed. If the police were armed, the Orcs would feel obliged to tool up. It could lead to another war.

 

[Armoured]

Agreed. If the police were armed, the Orcs would feel obliged to tool up. It could lead to another war.

Won't somebody please think of the Hobbits?

 

[Dave-W]

ut then again what would you do if you followed a guy for 6 miles as he ignored you, only to finally stop and get out of his car and come toward you? Its a tragic story, but I wonder why the guy didn't stop? Why did he also get out of his car?

No fear. He was home and could do anything he wanted.

 

[W2L]

No fear. He was home and could do anything he wanted.

Even be stupid

 

[Armoured]

The guy was followed by blue lights for 6 miles, the cops even bumped into his car to get his attention and the man never stopped once till he got home. Then he gets out of his car and moves toward police, something you don't do when guns are pointed at you. You put your hands up and freeze. Sure the cops might have done something different, but then again what would you do if you followed a guy for 6 miles as he ignored you, only to finally stop and get out of his car and come toward you? Its a tragic story, but I wonder why the guy didn't stop? Why did he also get out of his car? It sound very strange.

Yes. You'd clearly shoot a guy for that :/

 

[W2L]

Yes. You'd clearly shoot a guy for that :/

No not clearly, but I wasn't there and cant really say why they thought such force was needed. Maybe they were just plain wrong, but without actually being there, or hearing more details. it hard to pass judgment.