Posted on 08/23/2016 12:47:33 PM PDT by Trump20162020
Police allegedly shot dead a deaf man outside his front door as he tried to communicate with them in sign language.
Officers in North Carolina had attempted to pull over 29-year-old Daniel Harris last Thursday for speeding, according to NBC.
But instead of slowing down, Mr Harris continued on his way home.
One witness reported Mr Harris was then shot and killed "almost immediately" after exiting his vehicle".
The witness said it appeared the victim had attempted to communicate with an officer via sign language when he was fired on outside of his home.
(Excerpt) Read more at itv.com ...
Go try that yourself sometime, see if you get Arrested?
Why exactly do you believe in “Special Rights” for Special People???
My guess is you weren’t around when we had “Peace Officers”, they went away in 1975, since then we have had “Law Enforcement Officers”. Do you where “Law Enforcement Officers” Started and began??
ADOLF HITLER, They were affectionately known as the SS, or the GESTAPO. They were ABOVE THE LAW, Just li8ke you demand of our “Law Enforcement Officers” My Grandparents explained it to us many years ago, Maybe you should try studying a little history.
SIG HEIL!
It’s very simple to solve this problem: a universally understood icon on a sticker or on the license plate of the vehicles used by deaf drivers, nationwide.Then the police will always know they have encountered a deaf driver.
Identifying other medical conditions that could cause erratic driving wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
Here is what some people are starting to believe, I heard this from two separate folks (one minority, one not) within the last 6 weeks:
Cops that shoot unarmed people should have their houses firebombed, preferable at night when everyone in the family is home. Oh my........ That will solve the problem (or so goes the thinking) as then police will be subject to the rules they apply to others on the street.
Now I do not ascribe to that chain of thought, as I kind of like to see courts, legal system work things, presumption of innocence, and all that, but it is coming, (kind of like Dallas) if the shooting of unarmed people do not stop and the courts absolve any bad shooting as it seems they generally do,
How this shooting is a good one unless the guy had something in his hands is beyond me. This is like judge dread. While my reaction to Milwaukee has been to support cops more, I have heard others, not just minorities who see it entirely differently. There is a tension rising in the public and it is not good on any level. Unless cops stop acting like SS troops in the Warsaw ghetto, there are going to be more Dallas or worse incidents ahead.
I agree. If he didn’t aim a weapon at the cop I see no reason to kill him. I’ve read about cops killing deaf people before for not following orders.
Look, that fist plan, you really need to check your friends. Regardless of where they come down on this, the officer’s wife and children had nothing to do with this.
That right there reveals some very very whacked out thinking.
The officer in this instance didn’t execute this man’s entire family. There’s simply no comparison in this reaction.
Beyond this, the officer was fulfilling his duty. While he may have had a reaction that others can’t justify, I don’t think he lined up there and thought to himself, this guy just bought himself a one way ticket before the driver exited his car. If he did, the court will hopefully determine it.
Those who seek to deliver a justice of their own have determined what action they should take in advance, and are acting entirely outside the law.
It is not for regular citizens to form some sort of vigilante group and deliver justice. It’s not how our system works, and when folks lend themselves to plans such as this, it NEVER turns out well.
As for the BLM folks, lets remember what set them off. Michael Brown was out causing trouble on the night he died. He refused to comply with officer’s directions. He assaulted an officer. He was returning to either beat the officer more, or kill him.
He was then shot dead.
There isn’t a single bit of justification behind BLM’s claims about this incident.
Please don’t try to tell me what these groups will derive from other incidents. From the first incident on, they proved their ability to reason. They have none.
This was posted also a day or so ago. I remember reading 2 patrol cars were damaged in the chase. No mention in this article of that.
During the pursuit, both cars became damaged and eventually came to a stop near Harris’ home.
If a man is unarmed, not a fleeing criminal and not threatening an officer, where is the justification for shooting that person? Unless some facts are missing, that officer gets my guilty vote if I’m on the jury.
That’s is interesting. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
We hear these sanitized “tellings”, and some folks make up their mind before due process.
That’s a shame.
Thank you.
Did not say I agree with this, or that these fellows were my friends, just observing that tensions are rising. I was quite surprised to hear a very similar sentiment from two separate people within a 6 week period. Shooting of unarmed men does not help the situation, hopefully cold weather will get folks inside and put a lid on this for at least 6 months or so.
Certain segments of the population are very tribal, they see things not as an individual vs. individual, but as a clan based thing. Kind of like the Mau-Mau, who would go in and attack entire English families, because of perceived wrongs by the English at large. There are middle east minded folks who think the same way. To them I suppose it seems reasonable, I do not really know. The Dallas shooting might be the first manifestation of this but not family based retaliation.
While might well be idle talk, it seems to me that tensions are rising across the spectrum. Kill the wrong son of the wrong tribal based culture and that is where it is headed. The one white guy (Irish stock) was referring to his son and his only son, so it might be revenge based, again I do not really know.
I should mention both individuals who said this were specific that it was to spread terror to the police as they have spread it to certain populations, or words to that affect. Neither believe the system will deliver any justice. I gather the perception of police is very different in certain populations.
On this thread we are presented with this scenario.
1. the driver was speeding
2. the offers tried to pull him over
3. he did not pull over
4. he drove all the say home
5. during the chase, two police cars were damaged (sirens had to be going off with lights flashing)
6. once home the driver pulled in his driveway
7. he excited his car swung around
8. he raised his hand from a blind spot toward the officers
9. his fingers were moving during this process so the officers could easily think he was manipulating a device, a gun
10. the officers had reason to think he was belligerent, harboring hostility toward the officers
You go ahead and think the officers were at fault here.
Don’t expect me to join you.
“Until 1975 if a Police Officer SHOT AN UNARMED PERSON, It was AUTOMATIC CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for Manslaughter and immediate FIRING and LOSS of Pension.”
“This was BEFORE PUBLIC UNIONS, After, well, you see how many UNARMED people are Killed by Police.”
This is the best post on this thread. It is drearily depressing to see “Freepers”, that is, people who allegedly value freedom, invariably always supporting the deadly use of force by the police for every infraction of the law, no matter how trivial. The bottom line is this; the cop shot and killed a deaf, unarmed man. There is no reason on earth to rationalize this patently tyrannical action by the police if you sincerely, truly, believe in the protections afforded by the Constitution.
I carefully suggested you talk some sense into your friends.
I did not say you harbored these thoughts.
Certain segments of our populace are practically certifiable these days. That does not mean they are right.
I would caution you about being around folks like that. You never know when a situation will blossom, and some idiot starts making choices you’ll have to live with.
Spreading terror to the police? You do realize you were talking to a potential terrorist right?
“Until 1975 if a Police Officer SHOT AN UNARMED PERSON, It was AUTOMATIC CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for Manslaughter and immediate FIRING and LOSS of Pension.
Not trying to be ignorant, but could you provide where this data is to be found, I really have a professional interest in knowing.
The union I belong was started in 1915 and has no part in contract negotiation or the like. They are really on lawyers on retainer IF I get into a shooting.
I do not think it is legal. Maybe the individual in question became deaf after he obtained his license? Regardless, he should have not got out of his car waiving his hands..
Which of these actions are a capital offense under NC law?
When being pulled over, you are not to exit your vehicle until the cop asks you to do so.
I dare you to run up to a cop waving your arms.
I have no influence over any of these chaps.
The one was a reservist, black fellow I have known for years, one state over (New York). That unit had a lot of people who were police in their full time job. The second was a local guy who was commenting on a PA event where a handcuffed kid was shot and killed by police (after spitting on the cop), yet no grand jury was called. The statement occurred at a gun club and several people nodded their heads, the exact significance of that I know not. None of these folks were radicals so as I could tell, all have jobs, none have been arrested and all are solid middle class types married with kids (black guy too, stand up guy).
I mentioned the police in that reserve unit. All stand up guys, I would have trusted any of them with my life. All those guys are on the right side of everything I hold dear, though some of the older guys are a bit jaded, but who would not be?. Same is true of the local/state cops I know, my interactions with them have been above reproach (even when stopped by them).
Tensions are rising. It is as if a spring is being wound up. It is not only minorities that are a wee bit upset by what is occurring with police and their attitudes. I live in a middle class area and I have head more than one fellow opinion that police are a greater threat to the populace than the criminals (once again I do not agree but that is the perception with a lot of professionals I now in their 50s). Folks are taking sides, at least in their mind. The perception of reality is very different to different folks. Dallas was kind of a shock, it was as if a line in the sand was passed. To me I do not recall since the 1970s any attacks on law enforcement, yet I have a feeling worse could come down the line if things keep going this way.
You mentioned terrorists, no, what they are in my estimation is folks who see injustice and will now act if their children are directly affected. They know the consequences but see no other way to achieve justice but to go medieval on the families of those who they perceive as their foe
I do not know about the blacks, but the gun club guy would be cheering if the police went after the BLM crowd with their shenanigans. By the same token if a policeman was to shoot his son, who is a good kid I suspect we would be reading about it shortly (unless it was idle words, could well be).
My main point is the belief in intuitions that allows folks to put aside private justice is frayed to the breaking point. In order to reign it in the police are going to have to try and reduce the degree to which they use deadly force so soon in an encounter. Else there will be more escalation.
Can police shoot a fleeing suspect?
In a very limited set of circumstances the answer is YES. The key word in that statement is limited. This is one of the most hotly debated issues of our modern era when it comes to law enforcement and the amount of force they use and when they choose to execute it. So what is the legal standard that police rely on when shooting and killing an unarmed fleeing suspect?
In Tennessee v. Garner, the court said this case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.