BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 07:17 AM

The problem isn't suspension with pay, which is the right thing to do when an accusation has been made, the accusation has been challenged, and an investigation is under way.

The problem is when that investigation is thought to be used as a cover-up.

Police who kill very rarely get punished publicly. Even in the case where an unarmed man (Jean Charles de Menezes) who was competely innocent of any crime was held down in his seat on the London Tube while seven bullets were fired into his head, none of the police involved were ever tried - the police commissioner was found guilty of breach of care to rhe man in question, and the force was fined.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 16 - 03:43 AM

A suspended officer still has to feed his family and pay his bills. The very idea of suspension without pay smacks heavily of unfairness and an abandonment of a founding principle of law - English and American - that of being innocent until proven guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 03:04 PM

Well, Kevin - the idea of suspension with pay is to take the employee off the job immediately after a shooting, until all questions are resolved. I think that most police shootings are justified, even ones that may not look good from some perspectives. But it's unfair to remove an employee from the payroll until there's proof of misconduct.

And yes, people get upset at suspension with pay, but it's the right thing to do.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 02:42 PM

What gets people upset is the suspicion that suspension with pay means back on duty once the fuss has died down, even if the officer in question had screwed up.

I think that improving the video technology significantly, so that there would be hard evidence of what happened in any confrontation is there. Too often we hear that the camera wasn't pointing in the right direction, or the equipment went wrong, or had been turned off. Those things should never happen. And rather than objecting to observers making a record with their phones, or trying to stop the recording, that should be welcomed and encouraged.

As has been pointed out, being recorded encourages all of us to be more careful about behaving badly. It protects police against false accusations, and also protects them against themselves sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 16 - 04:25 AM

Senoufou says: My husband was completely amazed to see on TV crime documentaries that UK officers always ensure an arrested person doesn't bump their head when being put into a Police car.

The same is policy in the U.S., and I see it done as a matter of procedure. The population in the US is 318 million, while the UK population is 64 million. And we have guns. So, we're likely to have more bloodshed, despite the fact that most of our police are quite civilized. Civilized police officers don't make for good drama, so you're not likely to see them on television.

I think there's a need for questioning every time a police officer kills a person - and that's standard procedure in the U.S., too. Most officers are suspended (with pay) after a shooting incident, until the matter is resolved. But it is a serious problem. The Washington Post says that 990 people were shot dead by police in the U.S. in 2015. That's a number big enough to warrant serious scrutiny. There has to be a better way.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 02:32 PM

You may be right McGrath. Being 'observed' brings out the best in people doing their jobs. (Memories of Ofsted Inspectors observing my lessons; I was 'Mrs Completely-Perfect' in front of them!) The prisoners I visited often told hair-raising tales about how Police Officers (and Prison Officers) had treated them. But of course, I had no way of knowing if they were exaggerating.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:56 PM

In my country we have the practical joke of being swatted.

That is reporting a crime from a remote location anywhere in the US that a violent crime is being committed at your exact address.
Within 30 minutes you will have heavily armed men break into your dwelling with a license to kill anyone or anything on the premises.

The domestic use of SWAT teams has grown by thousands of percent since their inception. SWAT history

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 01:33 PM

Crime documentaries are likely to show people being a bit more careful to behave the way they should. I wouldn't necessarily take that as proof our police consistently behave better than yours.

They kill a lot fewer people, but there are other factors involved, especially the plague of gun culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 11:07 AM

It is true the Credo of the police has gone from 'to protect and serve' to 'fight the war of dissent and terrorism on our streets'.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 10:56 AM

I've always tried to use firmness, common sense and kindness when dealing with problems involving other people. Being older helps, as one has more confidence than when young. But the Police are, as you say, in a difficult position. They have a duty to the public at large, and can't risk a situation getting dangerously out of hand.

My husband was completely amazed to see on TV crime documentaries that UK officers always ensure an arrested person doesn't bump their head when being put into a Police car. In his country of birth, they'd be more likely to bash him over the head with their batons, or kick him senseless!

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 10:55 AM

Then there's the the excessive militarization of U.S. police forces.
Much to much info to post here, but for those interested, here are a few places to start.


https://www.aclu.org/report/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-police

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/10/the-militarization-of-u-s-police-departments/

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-not-resist-and-the-crisis-of-police-militarization

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 10:15 AM

Some training makes things worse

Like the School for America

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:39 AM

The right kind of training for people in jobs which involve dealing with the public can help, especially when it allows people to exercise their natural abilities. I am often impressed by the way some check-out workers in supermarkets deal with customers with communication problems and odd behaviours.

At times however I get the impression that some training makes things worse - I've observed people acting in a inflexible and clumsy way in these situations, as if they are applying some rules they have been given. When that applies in the case of police - and at times it does - that can be very dangerous. Especially of course in places where they carry deadly weapons - not just guns, but tasers.

Training can have other unlooked for consequences - I was reading of a case where evidently the police had been given sign language training. The consequence for one young deaf man was that he was arrested for using the sign for "pig" to refer to a policeman.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 08:12 AM

You're right Donuel. It's so easy for us to make assumptions, judgements and over-reactions to other people, when in fact each one of us has strengths and weaknesses, gifts and drawbacks to our make-up.
All we can do, as you say, is to look on all human beings as worthwhile and offer whatever help we can, with humility, as we all march onwards together.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 07:46 AM

Yes Senofou
People are rarely one thing, category or diagnosis.
As a father of an autistic son the effort to teach skills of independence and self confidence in balance with caution and controlling fear is a daunting job whose goal is freedom.

It is not so unlike any parent's duties is it?

To hear other people's assumptions and prejudice regarding autism Is painful but typical. My son is not just one thing. He is also a hyperlexic genius, possibly from a severe blow to the left temporal lobe.
My efforts may have been instrumental or not, since he developed speech within hours of his fall from a bookcase resulting in a 3 by 1 inch welt.

Imagine my surprise as a tabula rasa dyslexic without assumptions or prejudice that Robert is straight line smarter than me. That he is a better writer and all my years and efforts were incidental help at best.
We make our plans , then life happens.

I once wrote "I wonder what a fully 100% actualized Human being would be like". In response there was an insult that I was too retarded to know. It turns out the answer is no one imprimatur person, but instead all of us together each with our own blindness leading the other partially blind to a collective fully actualized Human Being.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 07:14 AM

Yes Senofou
People are rarely one thing, category or diagnosis.
As a father of an autistic son the effort to teach skills of independence and self confidence in balance with caution and controlling fear is a daunting job whose goal is freedom.

It is not so unlike any parent's duties is it?

To hear other people's assumptions and prejudice regarding autism Is painful but typical. My son is not just one thing. He is also a hyperlexic genius, possibly from a severe blow to the left temporal lobe.
My efforts may have been instrumental or not, since he developed speech within hours of his fall from a bookcase.

Imagine my surprise as a tabula rasa dyslexic without assumptions or prejudice that Robert is smarter than me. That he is a better writer and

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:45 AM

Thank you Stu! I'll have a half of Adnams please!

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:42 AM

Downs people can be autistic too. My friend is part of a team that cares for a young man of twenty. He's severely autistic (and has the extra chromosome of Downs) His behaviour can be very challenging, as he has 'meltdowns' of agitation and frustration, triggered by noise, bright lights etc. He's a large individual, and there are always two carers with him. If restraint were needed (eg if Police were called, most unlikely!) they would probably use a light strap around the lower legs and handcuffs. One officer would always be in charge of the person's head, ensuring breathing isn't restricted and the neck is protected. (I've seen this method of restraint used twice, in Parkhurst Prison) For asphyxiation to occur, by fracture of the larynx or compression of the chest, it would mean an extremely poor, over-aggressive and negligent manner of dealing with the person.

Subject: RE: BS: Deaf man shot dead by US cop
From: Stu
Date: 27 Aug 16 - 04:32 AM

I disagree with Stu's comment that being self-controlled is harder on the Internet than in other circumstances."

That's not really what I meant, but I was typing in a rush so apologies. What I actually meant was that communication via the internet is imperfect for some discussions (especially of sensitive subjects) because our posts lack intonation as well as the expressions and body language we use to communicate non-verbally. Also, the turn-based nature of debate on forums is also less than ideal, and think it's easy to misconstrue comments or arguments.

I always like to think that if we were in a pub, most if us would have a right old time over a pint as we put the world to rights.

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.

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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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.