Neighbors Told Police the Man Was Deaf. They Shot Him

[Audacious]

An innocent disabled man was shot dead on his own property. People are understandably upset at the man who killed him. This is why all cops should have body cams.

I would say: this is why other countries don't let their cops carry firearms all the time.

 

[Audacious]

I'm not disagreeing with that. And I think since a taser was obviously possible (that's what the other police officer used) - that would have been a much more appropriate response than multiple gunshots.

It's a tragedy. And yes, I think it's terrible.

But bottom line, you do have a man with a weapon in his hand walking toward two police officers (who were already responding to a call at that address that hadn't been sorted out yet).

If the scenario had looked the same, but had a different backstory and outcome, you could hear very different opinions.

Like I said, mainly I think the officer should have used sufficient but not deadly force, since it was available to him. But I don't like to see it painted as an innocent disabled man minding his own business gunned down on his property for no reason by rogue police officers (I'm not saying you are saying that, but it's what some will likely imagine).

Bottom line, everyone should be taught NEVER to appear to be threatening police officers. Walking toward them holding a weapon appears threatening.

If that was never a confounding factor, it would be easier to identify and remove those officers who DO misuse their authority, because I know they exist too.

But situations like this muddy the water.

Lord have mercy.

Part of the problem is that, when there is trouble, many policeman's first reaction is to use a firearm, rather than a more appropriate tool. They tend to use force when it isn't needed, and go to guns as a first response.

That is simply not how policing should work; here, or in any country.

 

[381465]

The more I see stories like this, I think it's the drilling of self preservation at the Academy and OJT.
Things weren't as publicized 25 years ago, but I remember lots of stories, simulations and scenarios from use of force trainers that were scary.
I've known 2 officers murdered. This might sound cold, but that's not a high percentage of cops I've known.
I was never trained assume everyone is out to get you, but there was plenty of "head on a swivel" indoctrination.
I don't think they're out to kill...I think they're hyper vigilant from training.

 

[HawgWyld]

An innocent disabled man was shot dead on his own property. People are understandably upset at the man who killed him. This is why all cops should have body cams.

What? You don't find the idea of living in a terror-filled police state to be appealing?

Cops should absolutely have body cams. I am surprised at how often officers don't have body cams, in fact. Even here in scenic Arkansas, body cam are fairly common until you get to the more rural areas of the state.

As a lawyer, I can tell you how valuable body cams can be. Cops are extremely aware when those things are on and I am certain that helps deter potential abuse.

Funny story. I tried using the lack of a body cam on an officer to try to get a client of mine off a DWI.

"It's my guy's word against the cop's," I told the prosecutor. "Look! They were out in the county and the deputy had no body cam!"

"Your guy blew three times the legal limit on the breathalizer," the prosecutor replied.

"Just, like, never mind..."

 

[~Anastasia~]

Walking towards them with a cell phone can get you killed as we found out when they killed the woman from Australia a couple of months ago.

I have instructed my Aspie grandson if he comes in contact with the police to drop whatever he is carrying and put his hands palms up far away from his body. It's so sad to have to teach our children to be afraid of the police.

You are right.

Civilians as well have to be much more careful not to be mistaken for having some intent they don't.

I could wish things were more like I remember them. I'm from small towns, mostly. Patrolled very vigilantly by ever-present officers. Plenty of times I've seen them hanging out in the diner, chatting at the feed store, always firearm on hip. Not to mention private citizens who would carry. We had respect for the firearms, and the officers. Rarely ever saw one drawn.


Which actually reminds me. I was pulled over in a state park one time for doing I think 25 mph when I didn't realize that little wooden sign with 15 carved on it was the speed limit. The guy opened his car door and shielded behind it, screaming at me, with his pistol drawn on me. It was pretty unnerving, and he felt like a loose canon. Yeah, types like that don't belong behind a badge, or with a firearm. All I was doing was driving in a wooded state park.

It is sad.

Forgive me, I just don't like what seems to be a very strong tendency in society of late to jump on a story ignoring certain points, or blowing it out of proportion, or misrepresenting facts. We seem to have that happen a lot.

But you are right in what you say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The more I see stories like this, I think it's the drilling of self preservation at the Academy and OJT.
Things weren't as publicized 25 years ago, but I remember lots of stories, simulations and scenarios from use of force trainers that were scary.
I've known 2 officers murdered. This might sound cold, but that's not a high percentage of cops I've known.
I was never trained assume everyone is out to get you, but there was plenty of "head on a swivel" indoctrination.
I don't think they're out to kill...I think they're hyper vigilant from training.

Agreed. Even at the federal level that's how training is...but I think it's for good reason. I've seen many officers and civilians die on video. I've had coworkers nearly lose their lives.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Walking towards them with a cell phone can get you killed as we found out when they killed the woman from Australia a couple of months ago.

Or don't answer your door with a Wii remote when you're playing video games, like this 2014 article. Unfortunately in this case he didn't realize it was cops at the door so didn't have time to drop anything. Either way, another sad article and misunderstanding here.

 

[Nithavela]

Basically, never hold anything in your hands or walk towards or away from a police officer.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Basically, never hold anything in your hands or walk towards or away from a police officer.

In his particular story, if the police show up at your house on a call, definitely don't walk toward them with a metal pipe in your hands.


Seriously though, if you put yourself in the opposite position, if you went to someone's home and had reason to be potentially expecting trouble, and they walked toward you carrying a metal pipe, might you not think for a moment they meant to attack you? Take a moment and really imagine it from that perspective.

If anyone says absolutely not for a moment, then I would say they are not being honest and reasonable.

(The "you" not personal here but addressed to anyone, that's why I removed ID from quote)




I still think less lethal force would have been more appropriate, and if the man just wasn't thinking about what he was doing, it's true he didn't deserve to die. It is a tragedy. But we can't act as if walking toward a police officer responding to a call while holding a metal pipe is not a factor as well.

 

[KCfromNC]

In his particular story, if the police show up at your house on a call, definitely don't walk toward them with a metal pipe in your hands.


Seriously though, if you put yourself in the opposite position, if you went to someone's home and had reason to be potentially expecting trouble, and they walked toward you carrying a metal pipe, might you not think for a moment they meant to attack you? Take a moment and really imagine it from that perspective.

I've been to lots of people's houses. They've had all sorts of things in their hands. They've walked towards me and away from me. None of us ended up dead because of it. Then again, I haven't been on the receiving end of years of militarization and training that everyone is a criminal, so there might be a slight difference in perspective.

 

[381465]

I've been to lots of people's houses. They've had all sorts of things in their hands. They've walked towards me and away from me. None of us ended up dead because of it. Then again, I haven't been on the receiving end of years of militarization and training that everyone is a criminal, so there might be a slight difference in perspective.

Where were you trained that everyone was a criminal?

 

[dgiharris]

There really isn't enough information in the article to know the exact scenario.

The problem I have with the defense of the police in these situations and the "we don't know all of the information" sorta soft defenses is that it sets the threshold for taking an innocent life very very low.

Let's take a step back from the normal argumentative circles we typically run around in whenever these sorts of things happen. Let's take a more mathematical and logical approach...

The problem is simple: The threshold for police taking a citizen's life is frighteningly low. Conversely, the threshold for a private citizen to take a life is very very high.

As a private citizen, I have to be in 100% imminent danger in order to take another citizen's life.

For a police officer, they merely have to possibly maybe perhaps kinda sorta somewhat "think" they "could be" in imminent danger and the law and their procedures authorize them to use deadly force.

So I will just skip the normal anecdotes and arguments about the Constitution and role of government, yada yada yada yawn yawn yawn.....

I will just leave you with the mathematical truth which is at the heart of the problem.

The threshold for police using lethal force against a citizen is absurdly low. So is it any wonder why so many citizens are shot and killed by police?

....
If the scenario had looked the same, but had a different backstory and outcome, you could hear very different opinions.....

Not really. It comes down to the value you place on a citizen's life. From my perspective, the taking of a citizen's life should only occur in imminent threat situations. Thus, when there is no imminent threat situation (to either the officer or innocent bystanders etc) then lethal force just should never be used.

Someone walking towards police officers with a pipe, stick, knife, or non projectile weapon, is NOT imminent threat "unless" the officer is in a situation in which he can NOT retreat. Or if the subject is approaching another citizen who for whatever reason is unable to retreat and thus the officer has to use lethal force against the subject to protect the other citizen... That is acceptable as well because of "imminent threat".

....Bottom line, everyone should be taught NEVER to appear to be threatening police officers. Walking toward them holding a weapon appears threatening.

Apparently, the citizenry must treat police officers as if they are wild bears incapable of controlling their natural reactions whenever they feel threatened???

I've been to lots of people's houses. They've had all sorts of things in their hands. They've walked towards me and away from me. None of us ended up dead because of it. Then again, I haven't been on the receiving end of years of militarization and training that everyone is a criminal, so there might be a slight difference in perspective.

This is the heart of the issue for me.

This narrative that our country is "so dangerous" and that police work in such "dangerous" conditions that their use of force protocols have to be this low in order for them to be effective is just a narrative I reject.

I used to do outreach and volunteer work in gang infested projects and ghettos and bad neighborhoods. Hell, I grew up in a bad neighborhood and had to walk pass 3 different gang territories to and from school... I've spent thousands of hours walking past gang members and drug dealers and yet I managed to do all of that without shooting anyone.

I'm sorry, this narrative that America is just "so dangerous" that police are justified in killing the citizenry whenever the citizenry "appears to be threatening" is so insane I just can't believe we accept it.

A close relative of mine is big and black and suffers from mild dementia. My fear is that he has an episode in front of police and they shoot him. And what is scary to me is that my fear is not unreasonable. All it takes is for him to "not follow direction" and for him to have "something" in his hand (like a cell phone) and that is that. He can be shot and killed by police.

 

[whatbogsends]

I'm not disagreeing with that. And I think since a taser was obviously possible (that's what the other police officer used) - that would have been a much more appropriate response than multiple gunshots.

It's a tragedy. And yes, I think it's terrible.

But bottom line, you do have a man with a weapon in his hand walking toward two police officers (who were already responding to a call at that address that hadn't been sorted out yet).

If the scenario had looked the same, but had a different backstory and outcome, you could hear very different opinions.

Like I said, mainly I think the officer should have used sufficient but not deadly force, since it was available to him. But I don't like to see it painted as an innocent disabled man minding his own business gunned down on his property for no reason by rogue police officers (I'm not saying you are saying that, but it's what some will likely imagine).

Bottom line, everyone should be taught NEVER to appear to be threatening police officers. Walking toward them holding a weapon appears threatening.

If that was never a confounding factor, it would be easier to identify and remove those officers who DO misuse their authority, because I know they exist too.

But situations like this muddy the water.

Lord have mercy.

No, situations like this don't "muddy the water". Situations like this expose just how quick to over-react some police officers are. This isn't an isolated incident - these types of incidents happen again and again. There is a problem with the training/procedures of our police force that allow these situations to reoccur so frequently.

 

[Goonie]

What is the point in having tasers if one every occasion all police officers empty their weapons regardless. Why did the second police officer fire his gun at the same time as his colleague with the taser?

 

[KCfromNC]

Where were you trained that everyone was a criminal?

Nowhere, which is why I said I hadn't.

 

[381465]

Nowhere, which is why I said I hadn't.

I was just wondering where your information came from about years of militarization and training that everyone is a criminal.
I never had or heard of this training.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm probably going to drop out of this discussion. Because I'm not on either "side" but I don't like to see quick judgements not even based on the actual facts. For whatever reason, sometimes people seem so invested in only a single point of view, and it's not helpful to our society.

Let me just say that I ALSO agree with much of what you say.

The problem I have with the defense of the police in these situations and the "we don't know all of the information" sorta soft defenses is that it sets the threshold for taking an innocent life very very low.

Let's take a step back from the normal argumentative circles we typically run around in whenever these sorts of things happen. Let's take a more mathematical and logical approach...

The problem is simple: The threshold for police taking a citizen's life is frighteningly low. Conversely, the threshold for a private citizen to take a life is very very high.

As a private citizen, I have to be in 100% imminent danger in order to take another citizen's life.

For a police officer, they merely have to possibly maybe perhaps kinda sorta somewhat "think" they "could be" in imminent danger and the law and their procedures authorize them to use deadly force.

So I will just skip the normal anecdotes and arguments about the Constitution and role of government, yada yada yada yawn yawn yawn.....

I will just leave you with the mathematical truth which is at the heart of the problem.

The threshold for police using lethal force against a citizen is absurdly low. So is it any wonder why so many citizens are shot and killed by police?

You have a good point. Oftentimes the officers are held accountable, and in the vast majority of cases, officers do wait as long as possible or refrain from using unreasonable force (those situations never make it into the news, unless the officer is too late and is killed).

Not really. It comes down to the value you place on a citizen's life. From my perspective, the taking of a citizen's life should only occur in imminent threat situations. Thus, when there is no imminent threat situation (to either the officer or innocent bystanders etc) then lethal force just should never be used.

I agree with your statement, but that wasn't what I meant by an alternative scenario. There are times when the officers' or, worse yet, other civilians' lives are at stake, likely would have been lost, and the officers prevent that, and so the public opinion tends to be different.

I meant a very different scenario.

Someone walking towards police officers with a pipe, stick, knife, or non projectile weapon, is NOT imminent threat "unless" the officer is in a situation in which he can NOT retreat. Or if the subject is approaching another citizen who for whatever reason is unable to retreat and thus the officer has to use lethal force against the subject to protect the other citizen... That is acceptable as well because of "imminent threat".

Well, that depends on the exact situation. As can be seen from the differences in posts here, what we imagine can be very different. A man casually sitting on his porch with a stick held loosely in his hands is clearly not a threat. A man advancing with speed, menacingly, brandishing an iron pipe would be (and remember, having been called, there is no way to know if others might be involved, also invested in attacking the officers). The truth of what happened here is somewhere in between, but what we imagine in our minds can be very different.

Some argue that it is unreasonable to fear for your life just because you have something innocuous in hand, and I agree. But that's not the case here.

Apparently, the citizenry must treat police officers as if they are wild bears incapable of controlling their natural reactions whenever they feel threatened???

The muddying of the water I was speaking of is this ... an officer who will immediately use lethal force in many of the situations we've seen videos of is clearly NOT someone who should have a firearm or be charged to use it. Such officers ARE out there, and I'd quickly acknowledge that. Those need to be removed.

However, if you have a case where someone is waving a fake gun, or appearing to advance on an officer in spite of being ordered to stop, etc ... these may result in tragedies that are wrong as well, but I submit that they need to be considered separately. If it is all seen as the same thing, extenuating circumstances that should be considered in some cases may make it seem as though all cases are less clear-cut. And some of them are very clear-cut. But I am not suggesting no investigation - even in clear-cut cases the officer deserves an investigation. But the officers who act very inappropriately stir people up against police in general, all cases begin to draw the same sentiment from particular persons who take "sides" regardless of the circumstances etc.

But I rather doubt most people are going to appreciate my point of view, and it is only a small part of the problem.

This is the heart of the issue for me.

This narrative that our country is "so dangerous" and that police work in such "dangerous" conditions that their use of force protocols have to be this low in order for them to be effective is just a narrative I reject.

Well, I'm not a police officer so I can't comment from personal experience. I have close family members who are, and good friends. And they have been in danger, and people close to them killed. Yet one, in particular, I worry for - she is a woman and goes into some of the most volatile situations, and relies on her presence and voice to keep people under control. God protect her, it scares me. Though I must say I'm impressed that someone I used to see as a little girl is capable of shouting and intimidating me in an instant, lol. There are many, many like her. And I know some of them are tired of risking their lives in order to ensure public safety, in the face of growing public sentiment that despises them. It's starting to look good to some of them to take early retirement instead of continuing to be sent into increasingly dangerous situations where they don't want to be forced to use a firearm, but more and more people react more aggressively to them just because of their position.

If the tiny microcosm I see is any indication, the kinds of polarization and sentiments out there may result in the loss of many prudent officers and so an increase in the ones who are more likely to use deadly force, since they are the ones perhaps more likely not to be put off by being hated for doing their jobs.

I used to do outreach and volunteer work in gang infested projects and ghettos and bad neighborhoods. Hell, I grew up in a bad neighborhood and had to walk pass 3 different gang territories to and from school... I've spent thousands of hours walking past gang members and drug dealers and yet I managed to do all of that without shooting anyone.

I grew up in some pretty rough neighborhoods myself. If you managed to stay completely safe, that's good for you. I actually used to get beat up all the time just for being white, but that was the prejudice of the young people. Many of their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers were some of the kindest, finest people I've ever known.

But there IS often violence in bad neighborhoods. Not always.

I'm sorry, this narrative that America is just "so dangerous" that police are justified in killing the citizenry whenever the citizenry "appears to be threatening" is so insane I just can't believe we accept it.

Again, it's a matter of definitions and imagined scenarios, but what I think you're probably talking about, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

A close relative of mine is big and black and suffers from mild dementia. My fear is that he has an episode in front of police and they shoot him. And what is scary to me is that my fear is not unreasonable. All it takes is for him to "not follow direction" and for him to have "something" in his hand (like a cell phone) and that is that. He can be shot and killed by police.

Yes, THIS is the the heart of the human aspect of the matter. And I don't have an answer for you there. Unfortunately your fears are not completely unfounded.

But it's not something we can paint with completely one brush or the other. There are many officers out there who would not overreact to your friend. But obviously many who could.

The difference there is what we might do well to identify, and work to change it where needed. Someone has mentioned training - that may be. I'm not very familiar with police training in the past some decades. Maybe that's where the problem starts, or is part of it. Maybe the psychological profiles of some are an issue. I've known bad cops, but bad in a different way. I do know people who are of the sort who might gravitate to that kind of field though who would be totally unsuited because of their psychological tendencies. I don't really know.

We DO have a problem. I guess I'm just more interested in understanding exactly what the factors are and addressing them, rather than the reactions I've often seen in the past few years that just add to the problem.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Seriously though, if you put yourself in the opposite position, if you went to someone's home and had reason to be potentially expecting trouble, and they walked toward you carrying a metal pipe, might you not think for a moment they meant to attack you? Take a moment and really imagine it from that perspective.

Sure, but they are supposed to be trained for this. The cop shooting the tazer 15 feet away is enough. The other cop didn't have to let off 5-6 shots and kill the man, who may have been confused in the first place and didn't do anything wrong, or have a criminal record. The deaf man may not have even thought about having the pipe since it was a habit to carry it - a sad misunderstanding, but I don't see why he had to die over it.

 

[JCFantasy23]

What is the point in having tasers if one every occasion all police officers empty their weapons regardless. Why did the second police officer fire his gun at the same time as his colleague with the taser?

Sounds to me like one of the cops handled it well with the tazer, and the other overreacted and emptied his gun into an innocent man who was probably surprised and confused why cops were at his place at all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

An innocent disabled man was shot dead on his own property. People are understandably upset at the man who killed him. This is why all cops should have body cams.

Yeah, that way we can view the shooting on the evening news.