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 ...
So I presume you apply the same standard to civilians. That would imply if somebody is standing in their house, or on their front porch and somebody, in fact anybody, approaches and raises their hand in a way where they might shoot, the person standing in or around their house has the right to start shooting.
And it would seem that if the other person actually had a firearm in their hand the homeowner shouldn't have to wait to see if they are going to "accept a bullet if that’s what the man intended." So by your logic it is perfectly reasonable for anybody who sees someone else with a firearm to start shooting at them. After all, how could they know the other person wasn't about to shoot them?
So in your logic there is a very low threshold for shooting someone. If that was the actual standard we use in our society we'd have shootouts all the time, and anyone carrying a firearm would be a legitimate target.
Nobody should be shooting anybody unless they have a realistic fear of imminent danger to themselves or others, or of course the situation meets some of the other more specialized circumstances where use of deadly force is justified.
That cop must be quite agile to be be able to simultaneously fire a weapon and use sign language.
When a cop turns on his lights and the SOB saw them and refused to stop he/the speeder created a dangerous situation That alone might get one shot. Not to damn smart.
Is anyone even implying that the deaf man ran toward the police officer while signing?
Apparently from other comments, there's a lot of information that's been left out in this article. But I've been alive long enough and on FR long enough to see what has been happening with police seemingly using deadly force too freely against people and their pets.
Granted, there are elements that hate police and target them, but when one is enforcing the law and has the powers that are thereby granted, it should be axiomatic that such an individual be held to a high standard. Especially when a life is taken.
If you don't want to be shot by a cop, don't run from cops and don't jump out of your car waving your arms. It's not rocket science.
And the cop had absolutely no way of knowing the guy was deaf. If you have evidence that he did, present it or shut up.
Where is the information that he resisted arrest before?
5. Harris Has a History of Resisting Arrest, Reports Say
“Let me make this 100-percent crystal clear: there is no evidence at all that Daniel Harris attempted to communicate with Trooper Harris via sign language. Those making that claim are manufacturing evidence that does not exist.”
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/08/23/deaf-man-executed-cop-narrative-lie-heres-proof/
For the record, I am deaf and I wear hearing aids so I can hear the sirens. Anyway, Daniel refused to pull over when the state trooper attempted to stop him for speeding, well it turned out that Daniel wasn’t exactly innocent because he led to a car chase that lasted for 7 miles. But he shouldn’t get a death sentence for it. Just my $0.02.
Thanks for links
Thanks for the links. A lot was left out of the posted article, but we still do not know exactly what happened after the man exited the vehicle. If an altercation took place as reported, then obviously the shooting would be justified.
Again, I’ll wait for more facts.
I am not going to play games with you.
An officer is not required to take on the the head before defending himself. The officers here had ample evidence to conclude this guy did not intent to be taken into custody.
If you wish to stew of what took place, be my guest.
You explained what they wanted to do. When you chose your words you chose poorly.
You used the word terror first.
Instilling terror in another individual is terrorism.
If the driver of this vehicle had pulled over, he would have been sited for speeding. If he had pulled over after causing damage to police vehicles, he would have faced more serious charges.
When he chose to do what he did, he set himself up for what happened next.
He escalated this to the point the officers didn’t now what to expect, and one fearing for his safety used lethal force.
Now we will watch it play out.
Link please (Re 1975)? Thanks in advance.
That is a question I sometimes ponder myself. I have a hard time thinking someone should be shot and killed if they are unarmed. If a person has been convicted of a felony and it’s the type of felony where you know this guy will kill as many as he can get away with, that would do it for me.
I don’t think of myself as an executioner. I do consider myself a defender of the public.
I am not a law enforcement officer. I would still have to consider what their guidelines would be, but if say Charlie Manson or some such individual was trying to effect an escape and be lost in the body of the populace, I wouldn’t have a problem doing him in.
In that case, I would do so and accept whatever penalty I got, knowing I saved more lives than I took.
These are two types of circumstances.
In the instance you described, I as the homeowner am not tasked with taking the person in custody. For that reason I would hunker down adjacent to the door and wait for entry there. I would be prepared to respond to entry at any other location. Hopefully he would move on.
Once he came inside the home I would have very little patience with the individual.
If he came into my presence and made the wrong move, I would take him out.
I would not have left my home looking for an easy target, knowing full well I might put myself in jeopardy.
I would be home minding my own business, not wishing anyone else loss of property or personal harm.
Once a person looks me or my family up to cause trouble, all bets are off.
I apologize for not proof reading that post.
=
I am not going to play games with you.
An officer is not required to take one in the head before defending himself. The officers here had ample evidence to conclude this guy did not intend to be taken into custody.
If you wish to stew over what took place, be my guest.
The dead guy evidently didn’t learn anything from his previous encounters with cops.
“I fought the law, and the law won.”
Death to speeders everywhere. Death to anyone rouge police officers decide to murder. We are Mexico.
The reality is that in today’s world ANY unarmed person shot for ANY reason is going to be a very bad thing for cop, force and the community.
The world and the rules have changed, those who can’t deal with it should get behind a desk. I sympathize with the men and women who have to make a decision such as that, but this is 2016, and EVERY police shooting is going to be second guessed by any and every citizen who wants to do so, and if the person is found to not have a genuine weapon (and no one not on FR gives a rat’s patootie how much a BB gun or airsoft pistol looks like a real gun) their career is effectively over. An officer who can’t handle that should investigate other careers; I know *I* couldn’t do their job.
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.