BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop

Subject: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 16 - 08:49 PM

You don't have to be black to be shot by US cops. (Though it helps.) An unarmed deaf man, Daniel Harris was shot in South Carolina a couple of days ago, as he got out of his car outside his house, after the police had been following him for speeding with a siren going, that of course he couldn't hear.

And he's by no means the first deaf man to be shot and killed. I suppose someone who doesn't answer and waves his hands in the air must look dangerous to some cops.

What is it with American cops, killing people? Things like that happen in other places, but far far less often. I imagine it must be one consequence of the Second Amendment - if your mindset is based on the idea that everyone you see is carrying a gun and trying to kill you it must make cops a bit trigger-happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:55 AM

I am grateful to see your posts continuing, McGrath, but I have no answer to your question except, perhaps, endemic idiocies.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:19 AM

I'm sure that most cops have good reasons for shooting the people they shoot. For the most part, they're afraid the other person is going to kill them. If you take the time to read accounts of most police shootings, it's easy to see that most of the time, the shootings were in self defense.

But that's not good enough, just as self-defense is not good enough reason to justify allowing civilians to carry guns for self-defense.

Well-trained police officers can and should be able to de-escalate almost any situation before it gets to the shooting stage. That may seem a lot to demand, but I think we have a right to demand that of our law enforcement officers. I did background investigations on hundreds of law enforcement officers in my thirty years as a government investigator. The good ones, never had to draw a gun.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Thompson
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 03:20 AM

Good reason for killing another person? Surely not.

In Ireland, the Garda Síochána, our police force, was founded by people who had spent the previous five years shooting; they very deliberately made it an unarmed force: "The Garda Síochána will succeed, not by force of arms or numbers, but by their moral authority as servants of the people." (Commissioner Michael Staines (1885-1955), First Commissioner of An Garda Síochána)

This record was maintained through years including those when very violent revolutionaries were captured and brought to justice by those unarmed gardaí.

Currently, when the government, like other EU governments, is too stupid to follow the example of Portugal's targeted and careful decriminalisation of all drugs, we're in the middle of a gang war in Dublin; as a result, without consultation of the people, many of the gardaí are now armed. It has done nothing to stop the murders, and has distanced the police from the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 03:47 AM

I often watch UK Police documentaries, which follow the duties of traffic and other Police in various locations (Manchester, London, Lincoln for example) They often deal with speeding motorists. I just cannot imagine any of our officers shooting a person dead for speeding and failing to stop!
This is a human life taken away for an extremely trivial reason, it's deplorable. The man was unarmed; what threat did he pose?

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Stu
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 05:32 AM

"That may seem a lot to demand, but I think we have a right to demand that of our law enforcement officers."

Blimey.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 05:50 AM

'The good ones never had to draw a gun' I suppose we in the UK have to remember that enormous numbers of the population in the US carry guns, so everyone is in a state of tension all the time, including the Police.
Here, the ordinary Police officers don't have a gun to draw, and while many baddies in the big cities may (illegally) carry knives, guns are to my mind quite rare. I've only seen armed Police here in airports, as a terrorist deterrent I suppose, carrying big 'automatic rifles' (I think that's what they are!).
I'm not sure how often Tazers are carried or used by the officers, but I do know they have to write a report every time one is used, and justify its deployment.
I feel heartbroken for that poor deaf chap's family. Terrible waste of a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 09:29 AM

Any deaf driver would certainly have noticed the flashing lights... but there have been law-and-order episodes about law enforcement not understanding that taking a hand out of loose handcuffs in automatic attempts to answer questions, for example, is not an attempt to resist arrest that requires tackling them to the ground, since the '80's, it's hardly new.
What does seem to be new is the kill-first-and-ask-questions-later attitude of US police forces. It's one of my main fears for my young adult children, I can't imagine being the parent of a young *black* man in this country. How terrifying. Now deaf people too? How could the cop have been in *reasonable* fear of their life? I can see being in badly-trained fear, but not reasonable. The standard the cops are being held to is in the wrong place.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 09:43 AM

So now, in the US, not only does walking away from a police officer carry a summary death-penalty, but speeding in a motor-vehicle does too.

I'm so, so glad I live in a civilised country, where very few people need, want, or possess guns, and the vast majority of police officers don't carry firearms.

60 shooting deaths p.a. (UK) compared with 12,000 (US) is a very, very telling statistic. Unless you've been brainwashed by the lies and bullshit of the NRA, and fallen for that 'Second Amendment' hokum, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Jeri
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:21 AM

On any given day, murders are committed, children molested, authority is abused and all sorts of atrocities occur. I don't want to hear about every single case because I can't do anything about them all except get upset. I know that some folks cruise around the internet looking for bad things to push their buttons, but I'm sick of it. Our presidential election is enough stimulation.

So I'm bowing out of the "recreational outrage" threads, and leave them to their passionate devotees. Have a ball being Right and Just.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 10:30 AM

I place part of the blame for this incident on officials who have chosen to allow deaf people to drive and then done nothing to help law enforcement (or other drivers, for that matter) easily identify deaf drivers as such. Deaf drivers should be issued special "deaf" license plates. They're probably eligible for handicapped plates, but when a cop sees a "handicapped" plate he's far more likely to think "amputee" or "paraplegic" than "deaf".

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:00 AM

The fact that Daniel Harris was deaf may have contributed to this killing, and brought it to wider attention, but it wasn't the reason he was shot. The only circumstances in which it could possibly be justifiable for a police officer to shoot anyone is in where he or she reasonably believes this is necessary in order to stop that person seriously injuring the officer or some other person. It seems pretty hard to conceive how those circumstances could have applied in this case.

The fact that someone does not respond to a police officer, for whatever reason, in no way justifies that kind of action. Nor does actions that might be interpreted as resisting arrest or trying to escape.

I'd argue that the same rule should apply in the case of using tasers, since these can kill. Police in the U K are still not armed in normal circumstances, but tasers appear to be used too frequently in situations where there is no evident danger of those targetting endangering other people. It seems as if it is seen as OK to use them as a matter of convenience.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:17 AM

'Recreational outrage' jeri?? 'Have a ball being right and just'??

No, it's just one has a right to comment on matters which disturb one.
This is a forum, and on a forum people give their reactions and opinions. No-one is doing this for 'stimulation'.

I can't see why Police have to shoot dead anybody at all, unless as McGrath says, there is a great risk of death to the officer/s or the public. Even if the poor man had not been deaf but just flagrantly disobeying the sirens and blue lights, one doesn't kill him.
And I agree too that nowadays, the Police in UK are getting rather gung-ho with tasers.
How to justify ending a life with no dangerous provocation? How can those officers live with knowing they caused a family's bereavement?

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: bubblyrat
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 11:20 AM

One wonders just how brave these US Police Officers would be if confronted with heavily -armed Soviet troops or IS Terrorists ? Obviously, one hopes that they would behave both bravely and appropriately ,but let us hope that it never comes to that ,lest they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 12:21 PM

if confronted with heavily -armed Soviet troops or IS Terrorists
Not to worry, the NRA members will take care of THOSE pansies.....

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 01:20 PM

I suppose, bubbly, you are thinking of those embarassing videos of cops laying into the bodies of people who've been shot, in a kind of frenzied feeding fit.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Aug 16 - 09:34 PM

The deaf community has lobbied hard to not be considered handicapped... so not sure about the plates, but it's a thought.

Black man called the cops to report an armed robbery, and that the robber had driven off in their car, so the cops shot him when they got there. Even though they'd been told the robber had driven away.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 02:44 AM

I'm not sure some of you understood what I tried to say above.

I don't think this is a reason for shaming either the police, or the people who get shot at. I used to get mightily annoyed when one Mudcatter thought she needed to start a new thread every time a minority got shot by a police officer. I'm glad she finally stopped.

I'm not sure the U.S. needs to disarm police officers. As long as civilians are armed, I think that police officers probably need to be armed, also. But as I said above, the good police officers never have to draw their guns. A well-trained, competent police officer knows how to defuse a situation before it gets to the point where there is any thought of a need for weapons.

To do this, police departments need a philosophy change, and they need much better training. Control without violence, needs to be seen as the standard. Officers need to see a management and public attitude that sternly frowns on the use of firearms, or any other weapons. And police agencies need to work hard on community relations, especially on building trust with minority communities.

I get lots of Facebook thingies from my nice, conservative friends, asking me to support my local police. The last one I got, I replied that most people I know support their police just fine, and there's no need to have some sort of support campaign. And I get lots of Facebook thingies from my nice, liberal friends, asking me to join in their outrage against certain police agencies or against the police in general. I respond to them that we need to work to build bridges between the police and the communities they serve.

And I get downright huffy to people who want to condemn the "Black Lives Matter" movement.

The black people who live in our community are mostly middle-class people who are fully integrated into the community, but we do have a large Hispanic community that has problems with the police on occasion. In the largest city in the county, our social justice nonprofit has organized bilingual social gatherings and tours at the police department (led by a very popular and handsome black chief), and they have been very successful and a lot of fun. Changes in community and police attitudes can make a lot of difference.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 03:30 AM

Yep to all of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 03:36 AM

'As long as civilians are armed, I think that police officers probably need to be armed also.'
There we have it I'm afraid. Shoot-out at the OK Corral.

I suppose I'd be very afraid as an unarmed US police officer confronting an armed felon. I don't think actually there's any way back from this 'everyone can carry a gun' situation. Either they all disarm, or they continue firing at each other at the least provocation out of fear.

I had quite a lot of contact with the Deaf Association in Norwich as I learned BSL (British Sign Language) The deaf people I met were, of course, very dignified and determined to carry on their lives as normally as possible. I don't feel that being labelled in one's car as DEAF would necessarily be acceptable. But there are stickers, plates and so on to buy. They aren't however mandatory in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Stu
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 05:03 AM

"Have a ball being Right and Just."

Have a ball as your society descends further into the abyss of casual deadly violence. Some of us are trying to point out there is an alternative.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 05:11 AM

'Qui tacet consentire videtur...' etc. In other words those who say nothing and stick their heads in the sand are tacitly allowing evil situations to continue unchallenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: meself
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:13 AM

'There we have it I'm afraid. Shoot-out at the OK Corral.'

Interestingly, the Shoot-out at the OK Corral was, ostensibly, all about 'gun-control'. Tombstone, like many towns in the Old West, did not allow the carrying of firearms (where was the NRA?!!!). The Earp brothers' enemies were carrying, in a locale where it was often tolerated - the OK Corral. The Earps confronted them, with the infamous results.

That's the way I heard it, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 08:27 AM

One protection for people liable to be confronted by the police, and for the police themselves, is the the technology that allows these to be recorded, both cameras attached to the police, and phones carried by observers.

It puzzles me that there are objections by police to such filming, because if they are doing their job properly, this protects them against unfounded charges. If they are not doing their job prerly, they are in fact endangering their colleagues, and the sooner they are identified and retrained or fired the better.

It's the same with the introduction of video into police interrogation of suspects. It protects the police every bit as much as the prisoners.

The same goes for video surveillance of staff in care situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 10:54 AM

Here in town a 14 year old autistic boy was taken to the movies and told to wait in the hallway until his folks were done with their movie.

Cops now hang out at theaters since the Colorado shooting and similar killing fields.

Orders are important to Autistics so when ordered by the police to leave he tried to tell them he had to stay so the cops killed him right there.

Of course the cops were young and dumb o they were cleared.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 01:39 PM

What sort of parents go to the movies and leave any kid, let alone an autistic one, hanging around in 'the hallway' (presumably the foyer) while they watch the movie?

words like 'dumbfucks' springs to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 02:02 PM

The detail of who left the kid is weak in my memory, the outrage of the 'we don't take no shit' mentality of the cops is strong.

search Maryland

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 02:25 PM

The lad was callled Ethan and had Downs syndrome. He was actually in the cinema foyer with his 'aide' (carer, I assume). He had wanted to see the film again as he'd liked it so much. Instead of leaving the cinema, he was trying to purchase another ticket on his mobile phone, and getting very agitated. His mother was at home. The Police didn't actually shoot him, but over-restrained him with 3 sets of handcuffs and compressed his larynx, crushing it. He died of asphyxia.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 03:09 PM

What sort of parents go to the movies and leave any kid, let alone an autistic one, hanging around in 'the hallway' (presumably the foyer) while they watch the movie?

What the hell has that got to do with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 03:13 PM

Here's an article about it: (click).

The incident happened January 12, 2013, at Frederick, Maryland. Frederick as a small, quiet town that is maybe 50 miles northwest of Washington, DC. Mostly, what I remember about Frederick is that it has some great bookstores. I'd think I should feel safe dropping a 26-yr-old Down Syndrome man off at a theater in Frederick.

Ethan Saylor was 294 pounds and had Down Syndrome. He saw the movie "Zero Dark Thirty" and wanted to see it again, but didn't buy a second ticket. Officers ended up pulling him from his seat and restraining him with three pairs of handcuffs. His larynx was damaged, and that that and other factors led to his death by asphyxiation.

This 2016 Baltimore Sun article says that police in Maryland are now required to get training on how to handle people with disabilities, so maybe that's one good result of the fate of Ethan Saylor.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 03:16 PM

If you don't know, you're not half as clever as you like us to think you are Kevin. Think about it, and report back when you've worked it out.

Thanks for the full explanation, Eliza - sheds new light on Donuel's skimpy, and dare I say not entirely accurate, original story.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 03:18 PM

And you too, Joe - I guess we cross-posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 04:01 PM

Your comment seemed to imply that a mistake by "dumbfuck" parents contributed to the cops killing him. That I saw as a disgraceful suggestion.

In fact the story we had been given was innacurate, and there is evidently no suggestion of any such mistake, and the guilt of the police for his death is to some extent lesser.

But I am still at a loss at what your last post was about. Was your previous comment actually intended as suggesting that the story given by Donuel must be false because the actions of the parents were too improbable, rather than an attack on the parents?

In which case I'd say there is nothing particularly improbable about the supposed action of the parents. There could be all kinds of circumstances we didn't know about, and in any case people do silly things sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Aug 16 - 07:34 PM

I was puzzled by one thing in the story - why on earth were the police getting involved in the first place. But I gather, they weren't. The people who killed Ethan were police all right, but they were moonlighting as security for the cinema.

I'd think any sensible management would have said, leave him alone, he's doing no harm, we can chase him for the price of a ticket later, and any responsible security officer would have refused to obey orders to try to yank him out of his seat. But that's how it goes. I see they all got off scot free when they got to court. Indeed, that's how it goes.

When I was a kid the normal thing was to sit through a film for a second time if you liked it. Different times, and a different country too.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 02:29 AM

My initial comment, based on Donuel's inaccurate report of the circumstances, suggested that it's extremely irresponsible of any parent(s) to leave a child to 'wait in the hallway', where any kind of mishap could befall him, while they sit watching the movie in the theatre.

If those had been the true circumstances, whilst not in any way absolving the 'cops' of responsibility for their actions, they would certainly have contributed to the child being put into a situation where that kind of thing could happen. Had the parents kept the child with them, and under control, it's far less likely that the situation would have escalated to a point where the child was shot. It's called 'Being a Responsible Parent' and, although there can be no excuse for a police officer shooting an innocent (or even guilty) person, a dead kid is still a dead kid whose death at the hands of rogue cops might possibly (probably?) have been avoided by his parents behaving responsibly.

You know all this perfectly well, and your comments are disingenuous in order to try to score points. It won't wash, and you demean yourself thereby.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:14 AM

For a number of reasons, I think it is much healthier in a discussion, if we express our own ideas on an issue, without attacking the ideas of another. I understand this is contrary to the Internet Code, but I think it makes for better discussion. I admit that I'm guilty of violating my own suggestion at times.
I think that oftentimes when we actually understand what others are thinking, we can come to an agreement. But too often, we get fixed on the battle rather than on the ideas. It would be nice if we could be a little less aggressive and a little more open-minded in our discussions here.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:41 AM

"It would be nice if we could be a little less aggressive and a little more open-minded in our discussions here."

This is standard practice in the UK in parliament, discussions in the pub and around the Sunday dinner table and as I've said before on MudCat it is a cultural difference in debating some cannot seem to get their head around. What you see as aggressive we see as robust. What you see as attacking ideas we see as challenging each other to defend their arguments and convince us our own are wrong. There's nothing close-minded about this way of discussing a subject at all, I think most people are very open to reconsidering their own opinions after a lively debate if the arguments are persuasive and/or new facts come to light during the course of that discussion.

Attacking ideas and not people is the essence of good debate. Ideas should be interrogated closely, dissected and then vigorously and passionately debated. If you ever come to the UK and get caught in a pub discussion you'd better be ready to defend your ideas and point of view with a bit of backbone. It's OK though, because unless someone gets very personal there's unlikely to be trouble (caveat: choose your pub as you would anywhere) and even then no-one is ever going to pull a gun and pop a cap in yo ass; more likely they might even buy you pint and start talking about the football.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:49 AM

I'm not sure Stu. I agree that in UK itself, people debate robustly and it can seem very confrontational, while being perfectly acceptable in a pub etc. But this forum isn't the UK, it's an international talking-place.
Therefore, I wonder if modifying a little one's usual debating style might be better, so that everyone here from several different countries, might not be offended or upset?
I think Joe's suggestion, of criticising an opinion rather than its originator, is the best way forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:16 AM

I have heard all that before, Stu, and I don't believe it. I have seen videos of your Parliament, and I cannot understand how it can be a place for reasonable discussion. I see value in expressing an idea that I may not completely espouse, simply to put it on the table for discussion. It should be one of many ideas to be considered. But if all ideas are attacked as soon as they are expressed, many good ideas get lost in the battle. I cannot believe that combat is a good technique for constructive and fair discussion. I'm sure many British Mudcatters agree with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 06:33 AM

I would suggest that even opinions should be given some respect, and not immediately refuted by those who espouse the opposite position. Given time, a mutual understanding can be developed.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 08:40 AM

I wholly agree with what Joe wrote about the way in which we ought to carry out our discussions.

I also agree with backwoodsman when he wrote that no supposed failure of the parents in the case as presented would in any way absolve the police for their actions as stated.

Since the discussion was about how police sometimes behave, I saw any parental mistakes as irrelevant. And the expression "dumbfucks" in this context seemed particularly uncalled for, and also to go far beyond anything justified by the alleged details. (For example the simple term "autistic" tells us very little indeed about the degree of support and supervision needed by a person. That's why the term "autistic spectrum" has been developed, and it is a very wide spectrum indeed.)

It is never right to leap to a judgement on the basis of very inadequate information. All of us get tempted to do it, and fall into the trap at times.

IF in some way I have offended backwoodsman, as his posts sufgest I have, I apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Stu
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 08:55 AM

"I have seen videos of your Parliament, and I cannot understand how it can be a place for reasonable discussion"

On that I couldn't agree more, it's a total embarrassment and there is a shocking display of double standards, ignorance and rudeness. That said, I guess you only see the shouty bits and not the endless hours of far more reasoned discussion that actually do happen. I've stopped watching Prime Minister's Question Time altogether.


"I cannot believe that combat is a good technique for constructive and fair discussion."

Combat? Heck. Couldn't be further from my personal idea of a good discussion or debate. There's nothing wrong being passionate during a discussion as long as the attacks are not ad hominem and people aren't shouted over; this is easier said than done on the internet (which is not an ideal method of communication for in-depth discussion) or when the red mist is down and I'm guilty of being so wound up that on occasion I've written some real crap on this forum that I'm not particularly proud of, but then I make lots of mistakes as I'm a bit dim like that. Ask my mates.


"I think Joe's suggestion, of criticising an opinion rather than its originator, is the best way forward."

Agree 100%. However, ideas and opinions are not people and they are not sacred cows to be paraded regardless. Let's be clear, I'm not advocating a confrontational approach to discussion and debate, just saying that as a society we differ in how we approach this; our societies and social parameters are different and this is part of that difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 09:01 AM

McG, I was actually astonished by your comment, "What the hell has that got to do with it?". Aggressive, dismissive, and not at all the style we've all come to expect from you.

That was the only offence I took. You're perfectly entitled to an opinion, even a wrong one.

And, for the record, I regard it as every parents responsibility to protect their children from evil-doers, including rogue, out-of-control, trigger-happy American police officers. I'd do it - wouldn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 10:38 AM

It would indeed have been better if I had left "the hell" out of my comment. In fact it was a signiificantly toned down version of my instinctive reaction to the use of "dumbfucks" in relation to the surmise that the parents of a slaughtered child might have been in some way foolish. But not toned down sufficiently. I should have simply questioned why this was relevant to a discussion about the supposed actions of the police.

..........................

I disagree with Stu's comment that being self-controlled is harder on the Internet than in other circumstances. That does not apply in the case of the kind of forum which the Mudcat provides. We have all the time in the world to calm down in even the most heated discussion. That doesn't apply in face-to-face discussion.

And yet in face-to-face discussion most people behave with far more restraint. What makes the internet different is that the person we are talking to is not going to throw their drink in our face or lash out, no matter what we say. So the matter of restraint is all down to us. Self control isn't harder on the net, but it is more necessary, in the absence of other restraints.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 01:49 PM

Well, the truth is that we're arguing over something that didn't happen the way it was originally stated on here, which makes us both fools, eh?

But I still believe that we all have a responsibility for ourselves and for our dependents and, whilst I accept that anyone can 'make a mistake', I believe that, had the incident actually happened as first described by Donuel (and, at first reading, I had no reason to disbelieve his account), and the parents had left a child (any child, not just one who is autistic) wandering around the foyer or 'hallway' (whatever that is) of a cinema whilst they went in to the theatre to watch the film, they would have been negligent, perhaps criminally so, and their behaviour would have been a contributory factor to any ill that befell the child.

There cannot be a single person in the US who is unaware of the dangers attendant on an unaccompanied, unsupervised child, which includes the epidemic of shootings by trigger-happy law officers being reported, seemingly, on a weekly basis.

But, no matter what, I'm in complete agreement that there can be no possible justification for a police officer shooting an unarmed civilian under any circumstances. It's ludicrous to suggest that officers were 'in fear for their lives' when dealing with unarmed members of the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 03:00 PM

It does seem a bit daft arguing about something that didn't happen. But then people do it all the time - .why was Hamlet so indecisive?"

Actually I don't think we had enough information in the scenario to make any firm judgement. For example circumstances could occur where leaving a child in a foyer area in a cinema might seem quite reasonable. There could be other children involved inside the cinema who could not be left or taken out - and the very presence of police in the foyer could be seen as a safeguard rather than a threat - "Now you mustn't leave here, even if if somebody told you to. And there's a nice policeman over there, so you,re quite safe."

But on the main point I quite agree that people have a responsibility for ourselves and our dependents. But if we act foolishly in this regard that in no way reduces the guilt of those perpetrating violence, whether we are talking about children attacked, or rape, or car theft . There isn't some limited amount of blame, so that, if the actions of victim or someone with a responsibility for the victim, in some way contributed to something happening that somehow reduces the guilt of other people. It doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 04:05 PM

And I didn't suggest it does. I repeat, from my previous post...

"But no matter what, I'm in complete agreement that there can be no possible justification for a police officer shooting an unarmed civilian under any circumstances."

Sounds unequivocal to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 05:29 PM

I didn't actually suggest you did. I had indicated as much in a previous post.

I was referring in my last post to the way that it often seems to be assumed that it is wrong to suggest that the actions of victims may have contributed to what happened, and that any suggestion of that sort should be avoided because it is seen as tending to let the perpetrator off the hook.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Aug 16 - 09:10 PM

Holy shit, I heard a story and passed it on with search hints.
Usable information gleaned from local TV news blurbs is hard to come by.

The complete story is actually worse than the brief reminiscent story.

I have known many Downs people. I have never met more peaceful and compliant extra chromosome people in my life. In our High School people would assume Autistic and Downs syndrome kids were two of a kind and group them together. That was dim witted but typical of linear minded low information folks. The actual story of the life and death of the gentle giant is probably book worthy.

What I did know of the partial story caused me to confront two cops in front of my house who were questioning a neighborhood young black man who worked part time at home depot and belonged to a therapy group. He had lost his phone and asked to use mine which I let him do. Apparently he had asked someone else first and had scared the hell out of them that a differently abled person would ask to use their phone so they called the police. This rather large young man did have an exasperating story to tell about his phone being destroyed as a result of someone else's malfeasance. Mind you he was difficult to understand.

I reminded the cops about the story I had heard about the incident in the theatre and they were very professional about my input and the little I knew of the neighbor.

I may not have had the right story but the little I did have was put to good use.

And that was the rest of the story as far as I was concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:55 AM

Maybe, as the disseminator of the information in the first place, you should have taken the trouble to check your facts before posting bullshit? It might have saved a lot of fruitless, pointless argument.