It Seems Like Cops Should Be Aware of the Existence of Deaf People

A deaf couple are suing after the man was jailed for 25 days in May 2010 over later dismissed domestic assault charges. During that time, the lawsuit claims, the man wasn't given access to an interpreter, nor was the woman given access to one so that she could testify that her partner had not victimized her after all.

According to CBS Denver:

The suit claims Adams County is violating the [Americans with Disabilities Act] by failing to provide an interpreter or auxiliary aids for deaf suspects during their arrest and booking process.

“To this day,” [the attorney who filed the lawsuit, Kevin Williams] said, “we don’t know why he was held for 25 days.”

Williams told the paper the coalition recently settled a similar case against the Lakewood Police Department and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office that call for very specific policies for compliance with the ADA.

It shouldn't take the ADA for people to grasp that if a supposed victim cannot make herself understood to cops, and a supposed criminal cannot be told what the charges against him are, their basic rights are being violated. But at least they didn't end up like 61-year-old Roger Anthony, a deaf North Carolina man who was killed by a rookie police officer [video] on November 22.

WRAL.com:

Officers were responding to a 911 call Monday night about a man who had fallen off his bicycle in the parking lot of BB&T Bank. The caller told dispatchers that the man appeared drunk and that it looked like he had hurt himself.

Officers said they repeatedly told Anthony to get off his bike, but when he didn't respond, they shocked him. Family members say Anthony had hearing problems and suffered from seizures.

It could take months for a cause of death to be confirmed, and for the moment the officer who used the stun gun on Anthony is on administrative leave. Regardless of the official cause of death, it's fundamentally ridiculous to Tase someone while they're riding a bike, particularly if you do it because you're concerned they're drunk and might fall and hurt themselves.

Everybody knows deaf and mentally disabled people exist. If there aren't police procedures about dealing with such people, then something is fundamentally flawed in police training. There's no excuse for "maybe they can't hear or understand me" not occurring to an officer. It has to occur to them, because cops have the power to deprive anyone of their life and liberty.

Reason on police, including a March Reason.tv interview with Radley Balko where he discuses (among other cases) the deaf homeless whittler who was shot by a Seattle cop for refusing to drop his (perfectly legal) knife. And of course Reason on Kelly Thomas, the mentally disabled homeless man beaten to death by Fullerton, California cops.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The mayor of the small town of Scotland Neck seems reasonable:

    Scotland Neck Mayor James Mills said Wednesday that he wouldn't blame the family for suing.

    "There has been no information that this man was a threat to anybody," he said. "If I was a family member, I'm sure I'd be thinking the same way."

    Mills said he has tried to get information from the police department about what happened to Anthony, but they have turned him away.

    I'm sort of impressed/appalled that the police department can say "Fuck off, mayor" like this.

  • ||

    Union contracts, baby.

  • R||

    Depends on whether or not it's the Sheriff or the Lakewood Police Department that he was trying to get info from. Usually, the Chief of Police serves at the discretion of the mayor, and can be fired. The sheriff, on the other hand, is also an elected official, and doesn't answer to the mayor.

  • ||

    I'm talking about the second story. Lakewood is the first story. A little confusing with two in the same post.

    Your point about the Sheriff would remain, except that the story both says that it's the police department (not sheriff's department) and then quotes the Police Chief saying that the officer is on leave.

  • Mr. Mark||

    You have blatantly disregarded any concern whatsoever for the mental disabilities of the brave police officers that we entrust with full arrest powers and arm with tasers, firearms, and police vehicles. Is it too much to ask society to sacrifice a few bicyclists every year in order to make reasonable accommodation for the stupidity of T.J. Hondo Nico "Above the Law" Friday?

  • Gojira||

    The fatal flaw in your argument, Lucy, is the word, "should".

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Sure, but my wife has impaired hearing that's been getting worse. That cops would so badly mishandle communication problems isn't at all academic to me.

  • fish||

    Hey Dunphy....are all your fellow cops morons?

  • Bingo||

    He failed to show proper respect to the law, lack of hearing is no excuse.

    Really, if the legislature wants to stop these things from happening all they have to do is pass a law. It's not the cops fault for following department policy.

  • Gojira||

    We give the guy a hard time, many times unjustifiably so, but that legislature schtick is absolutely the worst argument he makes (well that, and the "survey sez: everybody luvs cops!" routine. Sure...everybody feels great whenever they're driving down a road and see a cop car behind them. I know that's when I feel safest.)

    He completely absolves cops from making the moral decision regardless of the law. As if cops can't be expected to restrain themselves in any way unless the questionable behavior is specifically proscribed by law.

    I don't give two shits if no law was technically broken, or any procedure violated...how about you have enough common fucking sense not to escalate this situation?

  • Bingo||

    I really would love to know when the law started to usurp common-fucking-decency toward your fellow man as the moral way to do things.

    Because that is how dunphy (and many other people) operate. What you can get away with > Law > Politics > Church > taught morality > innate morality > feral behavior. With ancaps it's practically the opposite (with feral behavior bookending the sequence as long as you aren't hurting people).

  • Coeus||

    I really would love to know when the law started to usurp common-fucking-decency toward your fellow man as the moral way to do things.

    January 16, 1919

  • ||

    yawn. i don't know ANY cops i have talked to about this case who don't think the cops and the county should be sued within an inch of their life.

    as for how i operate - i've gotten a medal for pulling people out of a burning building at great risk to my own life, and in many many years of carrying a taser , i've tased nobody.

    so spare me your bullshit

  • whiney soccer player||

    "as for how i operate - i've gotten a medal for pulling people out of a burning building at great risk to my own life"

    and then you used it as currency to buoy your weak ass point

    super classy

  • ||

    when PERSONAL attacks are addressed at me, you are damn right i do

    adults can discuss POLICY and IDEAS.

    children, like above, make personal attacks.

    hth

  • ||

    bingo, here's a fucking hint for you. it's not a "morals' system, and frankly, it'snot a justice system either. it's a LEGAL system

    that's why evul corporashuns can't get all their assets seized and shit just because they are EVUL (as libs think)

    and it's why cops (that you think are evul) still get the protections of due process, and are responsible for following the law, not whatever version of morality that you think should apply to them

    hth

  • bullshit||

    "it's a LEGAL system"

    yeah, you have no discretion whatsoever.

    seriously, you're an idiot.

  • ||

    i have plenty o' discretion with bullshit misdemeanors. i do not have discretion with felonies (generally speaking)

  • bullshit||

    and yet you continue to cry that you don't

    why so disingenuous?

  • ||

    i have said a metric assload of times we have and use discretion for many petty misdemeanors. for example, many cops go YEARS on patrol w/o doing a MJ arrest (at least for mere possession)

    tons of cops give warnings for MJ.

  • bullshit||

    "i have said a metric assload of times we have and use discretion"

    and yet in this very thread cried that it's not your fault for enforcing bad law

    why so disingenuous?

  • ||

    there are lots of bad law we don't have any discretion with

    DV law being the most obvious example

    certainly, most felonies.

    etc.

  • The law||

    and are responsible for following the law

    Don't blame your stupid fucking nonsense on me

  • ||

    WTF is with trolling dunphy all the time? Why is he personally responsible for every bad thing any cop has ever done?

  • ||

    That would be swell if you were talking about evaluating police officers' performance for promotion or reprimands. That's not what the discussion usually centers on here at H&R on the topic of questionable police behavior -- you guys are out for blood. So it's perfectly understandable for dunphy to point out what the law says.

    In most cases of police abuse that we see reported on Reason, the cop was clearly breaking the law. It's not clear here whether that was the case, largely because there are so few reliable details.

  • Coeus||

    That's not what the discussion usually centers on here at H&R on the topic of questionable police behavior -- you guys are out for blood.

    I think that comes from many of us actually seeing innocent blood spilled by team black & blue. Doesn't make it always right, but it's definitely understandable. Too many people try to pigeonhole it under a "general anti-authority attitude" (which many of us do admittedly have in spades). Hell, even dunphy has it. He just makes sure he mentally transfers it to the cop's bosses, i.e. "cop-o-crats".

  • ||

    many, if not most cops have an anti-authority atttitude in my experience.

    as a libertarian, i certainly do. people who aren't doing shit that endangers others, or violates their rights should be free to do their thang, whether that;'s drugs, or whatever

    i support the right of all to keep and bear arms, etc.

    what i don't support is your ridiculous double standard where cops are always guilty, any claims against them must be true, and cops alone dont deserve due process

  • whiney soccer player||

    "many, if not most cops have an anti-authority atttitude in my experience."

    You are a liar.

  • ||

    yawn. nice that you know my experience. troll

  • whiney soccer player||

    I know you're a proven liar.

    I also know you're deluded to the point that you often appear to be leveling.

    Which is either the saddest thing ever or scary as fuck, or both.

    Either way, you're a farce and a joke, and your word means nothing.

  • ||

    yawn. and you are clearly a troll and know nothin

  • whiney soccer player||

    you're a farce and a joke, and your word means nothing.

  • Coeus||

    what i don't support is your ridiculous double standard where cops are always guilty, any claims against them must be true, and cops alone dont deserve due process

    Find me one time where the cop turned out to be innocent that I called for his head. You won't. And for fucks sake quit that damn due process shit. Calling giving a cop a paid vacation when they're caught on video breaking the law due process is bullshit. When you do that you're purposely conflating union benifits with the constitution. It's dishonest at best, and functionally retarded at worst.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "many, if not most cops have an anti-authority atttitude"

    Classy.

  • Dominatrix||

    "many, if not most cops have an anti-authority atttitude"

    Each man to his/her trade

  • ||

    ""many, if not most cops have an anti-authority atttitude in my experience.""

    Yeah, when authority looks at them. When cops encounter people using authority, they expect that authority to be respected, else the taser may come out.

    Most, if not all LEOs I know expect their authority to be obeyed, yet complain about what their bosses demand.

  • ||

    no, that's not true. in most alleged cases of police abuse e.g. guernica, seattle PD pepperspraying etc. it is not even excessive force, let alone criminal law violations.

    in SOME examples, it is criminal. in SOME thats obvious from the beginning (e.g. paul schene) and in others it's ambiguous until further data comes in (kelly thomas)

    in some cases, the shit NEVER EVEN HAPPENED e.g. the "pregnant woman" but bigots ASSUME it happened and take everything that paints cops negatively as IT MUST BE TRUE which is why they end up looking like fools so often

  • ||

    ""no, that's not true. in most alleged cases of police abuse e.g. guernica, seattle PD pepperspraying etc. it is not even excessive force, let alone criminal law violations.""

    There is no equality on issues of force. What is legal for cops isn't always legal for everyone else. That's the beef many people have with cops.

    When force is used, the instructions read to the jury are often different depending if it's a cop on trial or someone else.

  • Coeus||

    but that legislature schtick is absolutely the worst argument he makes

    Even he knows it's crap. Remember him ranting about cop-o-crats over that shit with the xtranormal videos? Those guys were simply enforcing a law passed by the legislature.

  • ||

    because that law is prima facie unconstitutional, and i have said that for over 2 yrs repeatedly at volokh.com

    here's a hint. drug laws aren't unconstitutional

    laws that say it's illegal to call somebody a poopiehead if you do it on the intertoobz ARE

    furthermore, it's a selective prosecution, because in 15 yrs of police work in WA state, i have NEVER seen anybody prosecuted EXCEPT THIS COP for such a ridiculous example of "cyberstalking"

    double standards suck right?

  • shorter dumphy||

    THE LAWS I DON'T LIKE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T!!!!!

  • ||

    no, the laws that ARE unconstitutional are unconstitutional

    i don't like
    1) laws that prohibit smoking in bars, etc.
    2) laws against marijuana etc.
    3) 4 loko bans
    4) the fact that nationwide concealed carry isn't the law
    5) etc.

    but it doesn't follow that because i don;'t like a law that it's unconstitional (although imo anything less than shall issue CCW *is* unconstitutional but that's opiunion)

    i have been saying for YEARS that the cyberstalking law is unconstitutional

    because calling somebody a poopyhead is free speech
    hth

  • shorter dumphy||

    NO SERIOUSLY GUYS, THE LAWS I DON'T LIKE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T!!!!!

  • Gojira||

    Hint: being constitutional doesn't make something right, and it doesn't absolve you from charges of statism if you enforce laws on victim-less crimes.

    You correctly point out that it isn't a justice system, it's a legal system. I believe you're absolutely correct, and that it is an important disctinction. That makes it utter shit. If it isn't interested solely in justice, it's meaningless garbage, and so are the people who promote it.

    Cops, nor any member of the state with enforcement power, do not deserve the same level of protection as people who do NOT legally have the ability to deprive others of life and liberty. You're ab-so-fucking-lutely correct that I support a harsh double standard for the police, and legislators. You want the power to cuff me, beat the shit out of me, maybe shoot me? You want the power to "give a lawful order" or command me to move, and arrest me if I don't? Fuck you then...I don't give a shit how many "good" ones of you there are, and I don't give a shit about your personal fucking anecdotes about how awesome and heroic and righteous you personally are. ONE rotten apple with the power that cops have is one too many, and the penalties should reflect that.

    I have a bad day at work, some mortgage holder has to wait an extra day to get a return phone call. A cop has a bad day at work, maybe somebody doesn't go home that night. You are not on the same level or playing field that we are, so do not act like you deserve equal protection under the law. You do not.

    Also, tax-payer funded unions, like the police one, are an abomination, and I find your frequent defense of it to be repulsive.

  • ||

    my union isn't taxpayer funded. our dues pay for it hth

    again, this is a stupid argument addressed ad nauseum. our legal system is imperfect and many of our laws are fucking stupid.

    tough shit.

    i don't pass the laws. i have some discretion, but it;s not the cops' fault that there are stupid ass laws we enforce. blame the people who passed the laws. they passed them and they (and in many cases, the citzenry ) can get rid of them

    so go start an initiative to repeal a law you don't like. whining about it on the internet solves nothing

  • Gojira||

    Your dues, like, from your salary? Which is funded, how, exactly?

  • ||

    that's a ridiculous argument. see: locus of control

    so, if i buy granola at the grocery store, the govt. is now funding granola?

    jesus fucking christ. get real

  • 2nd level thinker||

    "my union isn't taxpayer funded. our dues pay for it"

    and you're paid by...?

    hth

  • ||

    right. so, if i buy some smirnoff , my local govt. is now funding smirnoff?

    seriously. this is stupid even for a reasonoid bigot

  • Gojira||

    And another grand false equivalence!

    Let's see: does Smirnoff directly lobby for my pay and benefits? No? So unless I'm rip-roaring drunk, it's probably not affecting my job any, right?

    Now, let's compare that to the union, and what it's function is. Do we begin to see the difference?

  • ||

    While I support Dunphy's right to organize, I abhor the monopoly on labor granted to the unions.

  • Coeus||

    DWI is unconstitutional, at least the way it's currently enforced. And no, roadblocks aren't the only constitutional problem with it.

    You're saying that it's only understandable to be angry at cops for enforcing laws that are unconstutional? Is that the argument? Cause if it was just double standards, we'll be talking about my dog versus a police dog in the next comment.

  • ||

    false, imo. and btw, in my state, roadblocks ARE unconstitutional. because we have a right to privacy. unlike the dfederal constitution

    no, what i am saying that it is not understandable to be angry at cops for enforcing bad law. it's understandable to angry at legislators for passing it

    we do not (with some exception for officer discretion on more minor crimes) get to pick and choose

    i personally don't think a person's RKBA should be taken away based on felony conviction for nonviolent bullshit.

    however, that's the law, and if i catch a felon with a firearm, i arrest him for VUFA

    i have a problem with that law, but it is not MY law. the legislature passed it. i am tasked to enforce it

  • shorter dumphy||

    "no, what i am saying that it is not understandable to be angry at cops for enforcing bad law."

    seriously guys, no discretion whatsoever, automatons, robotic justice machines

  • ||

    except nobody said that.

    cops have discretion and use that.

    i don't have discretion NOT to arrest for VUFA. i do have discretion to give verbal warning for MJ

    guess which one i do?

  • liar||

    "it is not understandable to be angry at cops for enforcing bad law."

    "except nobody said that."

    yeah you did.

    if it's bad law, don't enforce it. that's your job as a citizen.

  • ||

    false. it is NOT my duty. that is contra to rule of law. do you really want a police force where each individual officer has carte blanche to ignore the laws he disagrees with?

    i realize some people are anarchists, but that is just stupid.

    "hey, i let that burglar who took all your shit go. i'm not really down with laws against burglary" . christ

  • Gojira||

    i don't have discretion NOT to arrest for VUFA.

    Actually, yes, you do. It might cost you your job, though. So where the metal meets the meat, we see where you stand on liberty v. a paycheck.

  • ||

    right. just like MD's have discretion to prescribe oxycontin to anybody who asks for it.

    hey, they might lose their job. but so what?

    darn those FASCIST DOCTORS!!!

    and they have discretion NOT to report people for forging scripts in their name and stealing their script pads.

    but they do anyways.
    DARN THOSE FASCIST DOCTORS!!!

  • Gojira||

    Um, if they're reporting people for consentual drug use, then yes, they are fascist enablers. I don't know why you keep bringing them up.

    And, by the way, I'd much, much, much rather take my chances in a world where cops sometimes don't enforce obviously shitty laws than a world where they enforce every single shitty law. It isn't as hard as you make it sound.

    "Do you really want to live in a world where sometimes you get a warning, and sometimes a speeding ticket?! That's ANARCHY!!!"

  • Coeus||

    None of these involve roadblocks:

    FOURTH AMENDMENT: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES Except in the DUI case where you may be forcibly held down and your blood withdrawn against your will for testing purposes.

    FIFTH AMENDMENT: YOU MAY ONLY BE PUNISHED ONCE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) Except in the DUI case where, in Kansas and most other states, you are subject to criminal proceedings and proceedings against your driver's license at the same time (Note: driving privileges may be suspended in BOTH the criminal and "administrative" proceedings).

    FIFTH AMENDMENT: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT Except in the DUI case where, by the act of obtaining a driver's license, you are deemed to have consented to a breath, blood or urine test and may not refuse the same without losing your driving privileges. Further, field sobriety tests are not considered "testimonial" and therefore no Miranda Warnings are necessary.

    SIXTH AMENDMENT: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AT ALL CRITICAL STAGES OF PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING WHILE MAKING ANY STATEMENT) Except in the DUI case where you may not consult with an attorney about whether to take field sobriety tests or a breath, blood or urine test

    EIGHTH AMENDMENT: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL OR UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Except in the DUI case where, in Kansas and most other states, incarceration is MANDATORY for a DUI conviction. There is virtually no other crime for which this is true. For most felonies, including car theft, some sex crimes, and residential burglary, probation is granted automatically and the offender need not spend one day in jail.

  • ||

    i could have a long discussion, but i'm not going to. how many times do i have to. i am well aware YOU THINK dui laws are unconstitutional. i don' (generally speaking. or at least the laws in my state. i could probably find some, somewhere that i might think are)

    i'll address one of your points though. fifth amendment

    here's a hint. read it. case law going back WAY farther than current DUI law interprets the incrimination aspect as referencing TESTIMONY, not physical evidence

    iow, one can get a warrant to get physical body FROM THE PERSON . that does not violate the 5th. compelling their TESTIMONY would

    i arrested a DUI the other day who agreed to the breathalyzer (after consulting with an attorney), but refused to waive her rights to answer question and was within her rights to do so.

    the law varies state to state, but in brief, a breathalyzer collects physical evidence, therefore a person CAN be compelled to submit to one (or a blood test)

    this principle applkies OUTside DUI law as well. DUI is just the most common example.

    in some cases, breath or blood can be compelled w/o a warrant. the reason is that that evidence degrades quickly over time (BAC changes) such that there is an exigency involved that wouldn't apply to many other searches.

    EVEN though that is true, many DUI cars will still apply for telephonic warrants in some cases. in others, statute authorizes mandatory draws.

    either way, it's not unconstitutional imo for the reasons given./ we can disagree

  • Coeus||

    here's a hint. read it. case law going back WAY farther than current DUI law interprets the incrimination aspect as referencing TESTIMONY, not physical evidence

    Damn, you picked one argument and it was that one? I'd have gone for the 8th, myself. Here's a hint. Breath tests collect no evidence. It'd cost $1.50 to do so, but they don't. If you think they do, kindly direct me to a police department that can provide the breath to your lawyer upon request. Can't really do confirmation testing on something which doesn't exist, can you? That alone should make it inadmissible.

  • Gojira||

    i have a problem with that law, but it is not MY law. the legislature passed it. i am tasked to enforce it

    And that, regardless of your relative personal merits, is what makes you a fascist scum-bag and a world-class hypocrite, if you claim to be any sort of libertarian. You freely admit to enforcing laws which are unjust (not being a justice system, but rather a legal system, as you correctly pointed out above), and then cannot understand why that pisses people off.

    Guess what: shitty laws wouldn't have any meaning if you people refused to enforce them after the legislature passes them. You are equally guilty. Stalin ordering a million people to gulags doesn't mean shit if he doesn't have henchmen willing to do the heavy lifting. And yes, the drug war is akin to that, and no, I don't give a flying fuck if you personally never arrested somebody for weed. Plenty of cops do, so your anecdotes are meaningless. When you grasp that concept, we'll be able to move forward with the conversation.

  • Coeus||

    I don't give a flying fuck if you personally never arrested somebody for weed. Plenty of cops do, so your anecdotes are meaningless.

    Shit, he said he used to be undercover. Unless he's Paul Walker, you can bet your bippi it was for prostitution or drugs.

  • ||

    we didn't do any MJ cases. did a metric assload of meth, heroin, coke, etc. cases.

    my experiences and what i learned undercover are part of the reason i am so against the WOD. i was not against it THEN. obviously

  • tarran||

    Dunphy claimed he was on a long term undercover assignment for a drug investigation - he even had a taxonomy on various drug abusers.

    I should point out that he is not fully consistent - one time he attempted to imply that he wasn't involved in enforcing drug laws other than forwarding some poor shnook's name to a DA for prosecution for marijuana prohibition.

    It was many moons later that he claimed to have been involved in enforcing drug laws by tricking people into assuming he was cool.

    Of late when I read his claims (fire-fighter, body-builder etc) I am reminded of the writing of Tom Selleck's character in Her Alibi and the following story about L Ron Hubbard.

    "One evening [in 1934], Frank Gruber [a friend of Hubbard and fellow pulp fiction writer], sat through a long account of his experiences in the Marine Corps, his exploration of the upper Amazon and his years as a white hunter in Africa. At the end of it he asked with obvious sarcasm: 'Ron, you're eighty-four years old aren't you?'

    'What the hell are you talking about?' Ron snapped.

    Gruber waved a notebook in which he had been jotting figures. 'Well,' he said, 'you were in the Marines seven years, you were a civil engineer for six years, you spent four years in Brazil, three in Africa, you barnstormed with your own flying circus for six years... I've just added up all the years you did this and that and it comes to eighty-four.'

    Ron was furious that his escapades should be openly doubted. 'He blew his tack,' said Gruber. He would react in the same way at the [American Fiction] Guild lunches if someone raised an eyebrow when he was in full flow. Most of the other members expected their yarns to be taken with a pinch of salt, but not Ron. It was almost as if he believed his own stories."

    [Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah (1987), p.67; Frank Gruber, The Pulp Jungle (1967)]
  • ||

    again, you can name call all you want... fascist nanny nanny boo boo

    i'll defer to pj orourke and tell you to get over yourself. this stupid canard is... stupid

    and again, most of my drug cases this last year were based on physicians and pharmacists calling us to report the crimes

    so, i guess they are FASCISTS TOO!!!!!!

    darn those fascist drug war enabling MD's and PHARMACISTS!!! oh noez

  • Gojira||

    Um, do those MD's and pharmacists personally possess the power to imprison people, or tase/shoot them for noncompliance? No? Then shove that nice false equivalence right back up your ass where it came from.

    And for what it's worth, I do think they're facsist scum-bags if they're calling to report people to you for drug use. I've known plenty of people who did drugs right in front of me, and, guess what I DIDN'T do? If you answered, "called the police!", you are absolutely correct! You see, holding a pro-liberty position and actually living by those principals instead of just spouting off about them while I go arrest non-violent drug offenders is both easy and fun! But then, you wouldn't get that nice gov't paycheck.

    Those who enforce unjust laws are fascists, and those who report their fellows for breaking unjust laws are fascist enablers.

  • ||

    they don't have that PERSONAL POWER>

    they just use agents of the state to do it for them
    THEN, they testify against the bad guys

    they could refuse to testify if they weren't such FASCISTS!@!!!!

    darn those fascists MD!!!!!!!

  • Gojira||

    Coeus's argument below is also excellent, but one more time, since you didn't seem to comprehend it when I wrote it above:

    Yes, I consider people who report others for victimless crimes to be fascists.

    I consider them fascist hypocrites when they profess to be against something, while at the same time enforcing that very thing. Like you.

  • Coeus||

    and again, most of my drug cases this last year were based on physicians and pharmacists calling us to report the crimes

    so, i guess they are FASCISTS TOO!!!!!!

    I shot this down last time you used it:


    The doctors or pharmacists are protecting themselves from fraud and violence from the state (pill mill laws). If they ask a patient if they use drugs, and then tip off the police, it's a different story. If the only thing the doctors were protecting were their careers (see, they don't get immunity) then yes, they should quit, since they're clearly violating their oath to do no harm.
    http://reason.com/blog/2011/11.....tcontainer
  • ||

    ""false, imo. and btw, in my state, roadblocks ARE unconstitutional. because we have a right to privacy. unlike the dfederal constitution""

    Or many other states for that matter. WA is really good about that. One of the reasons I've thought about moving back.

    But there was an intresting SCOTUS case from VA where state law said the cop couldn't arrest for a certain offense, the cop did and SCOTUS upheld it. Scalia said the state was violating the cop's 4th amendment right. Don't remember the name.

  • Amakudari||

    Cops are contractually allowed one deafkill, after which you get a paid vacation. It's all contractual. What, you libertarians don't believe in contracts?

  • ||

    the man wasn't given access to an interpreter, nor was the woman given access to one so that she could testify that her partner had not victimized her after all.

    Pen and paper?

  • Gojira||

    They were both illiterate, you insensitive monster!

  • insensitive monster||

    Crayon and napkin?

  • Almanian, Poet Lori Ate||

    Dolls?

  • insensitive monster||

    Stick and dirt?

  • Chatroom Crank||

    You are expecting cops to know how to read?

  • AlmightyJB||

    What?

  • Almanian, Poet Lori Ate||

    I know I shouldn't laugh, but I did.

    Cause I was gonna post this but you got here first.

  • Anon||

    I'm sorry Mr. Handicapped man.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip9GFAcfNP0

  • ||

    Procedures were followed. Tasers don't kill people. If you don't want the police to kill you, don't be deaf, diabetic or fat. I don't see anything wrong. Cops are treated more harshly than the general public. We don't make the laws, we only enforce them. Cops are beloved.

    Cue Dunphy, I saved him the trouble

  • ||

    except as usual, you are a bigot and wrong.

    there is NO excuse for what happened here, and i hope they are sued within an inch of their life.

  • Almanian, Poet Lori Ate||

    Not experts - duh!

    Where's 'hmm' when I need him?

  • ||

    you mean the guy who speciously claimed cops are firearms experts and couldn't admit he was wrong?

    probably trolling and/or having his mommy wipe his ass for him as he scarfs down cheezy poofs and hotpockets

  • Hugh Akston||

    Everybody knows deaf and mentally disabled people exist. If there aren't police procedures about dealing with such people, then something is fundamentally flawed in police training.

    There are suck procedures, as evidenced by the Kelly Thomas case. And while I doubt the words "beat them into a coma so they can't testify" don't appear in the P&P manual, I'm sure they are discussed in the training sessions.

  • Gojira||

    Everybody knows deaf and mentally disabled people exist.

    Speak for yourself. I don't believe in them. I worked in a TTY call center; I know all about the massive conspiracy.

  • ||

    How expensive do you think it would be for every sheriff's department and police department in the country to keep an ASL interpreter on call 24/7, just in case they have a coercive encounter with a deaf person?

    I suppose they should keep translators of every language on the planet on staff too, in case they run into a suspect who only speaks Farsi.

  • ||

    Every hospital has them on call, so if the po-po can't find one, they can always ask us.

  • ||

    What kind of response time are we talking about? Probably not fast enough to deal with a traffic stop.

  • Nipplemancer||

    Sure as fuck beats 25 days in jail.

  • Nipplemancer||

    Sure as fuck beats 25 days in jail.

  • ||

    And the wife didn't know a single person who could both sign and lipread? Not one?

  • ||

    Doesn't she watch Celebrity Apprentice?

  • Amakudari||

    Telephone/video interpreting. It's really not that expensive, and you (usually?) don't have to keep them on staff or pay for them to be on call.

  • ||

    Yeah, every cop should be carrying a videophone around just in case.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    You are right, camera phones are some kind of futuristic nonsense.

  • Sevo||

    And 'way more expensive than, say, tanks.

  • Amakudari||

    The radio would probably work for most languages in the field, and ASL could be offered at the station. The marginal cost for equipment is minimal. Most police and other government departments provide interpreting as policy unless it poses an undue burden.

    I suppose it wouldn't help with the guy on the bike, but I don't know why they were tazing a guy on a bike who wasn't suspected of a serious crime.

  • juris imprudent||

    Didn't the cops beat (or kill) a deaf guy because they thought he was throwing gang signs at them?

  • Nipplemancer||

    No, it was the patrons at the bar/club where the deaf guy signed to his friend. The cops just did clean up. Though I do remember an incident from a year or two ago involving LAPD and some in-store security beating on a deaf guy who was suspected of shoplifting for ignoring the EAS gate alarm.

  • ||

    It Seems Like Cops Should Be Aware of the Existence of Deaf People

    It also seems like deaf people should be aware that most people they run into don't know they're deaf.

    There's no video of the incident at the "[video]" link; that's just the family talking about how wonderful the guy was. I'd like to see more rather than getting the facts through the lens of Reason, which I've found quite often willing to publish seriously misleading information, unknowingly or otherwise.

    I'd think if you're deaf and police are talking to you, it's encumbent on you to try to figure out what they want, rather than just whizzing past them on your bike because you don't immediately understand. Tasers don't have very long range so it's not like he was too far away to see them talking to him.

  • Rabbler||

    You need to check your hearing-privelege.

  • ||

    It's illegal to wear headphones while riding a bike on public rights-of-way for this and other reasons. It's important for you to hear what's going on around you while biking. If deaf people are allowed to ride bikes on public property they have to at least make an effort to be aware of what's going on around them through their other senses.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "It's illegal to wear headphones while riding a bike on public rights-of-way"

    So fucking what.

  • francis||

    Wow.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "It also seems like deaf people should be aware that most people they run into don't know they're deaf."

    "I'd think if you're deaf and police are talking to you, it's encumbent on you to try to figure out what they want"

    You are so right. Also, everything should be expected all the time of free individuals, and any expectation of state agents is completely unreasonable based on what it costs.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Tasers don't have very long range so it's not like he was too far away to see them talking to him.

    In my experience, deaf people often have a blind spot behind them.

  • ||

    There's no excuse for "maybe they can't hear or understand me" not occurring to an officer. It has to occur to them, because cops have the power to deprive anyone of their life and liberty.

    No, they don't have that power (at least in the law), and even if they did that doesn't mean you can reasonably expect omniscience.

  • francis||

    Completely overstep the boundaries of the law and human rights, and then get paid to take a vacation? America!

    Train for years to be adept at effectively resolving verbal and physical conflict with the least amount of force, and then be expected to use those skills on the job? Outrageous!

  • Coeus||

    So, according to everything I've read on excited delirium, after this man is diagnosed with e.delirium as a cause of death, he should have a massive amount of stimulants in his blood stream, right?

    Oh, and fun fact I just learned. You know when cops brag about "taking the ride" on a taser? They apply the electrodes to their backs. Not the chest, where most people get it, but their back. Why, you might ask? It's because taser says appliocation of electrodes to the chest is not recommended for safety reasons.

  • Coeus||

    Ignore the first paragraph. I just read another article over on injustice everywhere that was similar and I mentally conflated the two.

  • Coeus||

    Yep. Not recognized by doctors or shrinks. The most data I ever found on it was mostly veterinary. The part about humans just had compilations of death-while-restrained statistics (useless, since there are already many medically sound causes of death that occur while restrained), and a couple of eye-witness police accounts.

  • Mensan||

    Funny thing, I was recently talking to a pathologist and there had just been a patient in the ER who the police had tasered, so the topic of excited delirium came up. According to the patho, it doesn't exist as a medical COD, and it's something that police departments invented to account for when people die in custody.

  • Coeus||

    damn squirrels. reply above at 11:00pm

  • cynical||

    "Everybody knows deaf and mentally disabled people exist. If there aren't police procedures about dealing with such people, then something is fundamentally flawed in police training."

    That seems like a lot to expect out of a group of people that itself includes so mentally and emotionally disabled people.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa|11.28.11 @ 9:23PM|#
    "That would be swell if you were talking about evaluating police officers' performance for promotion or reprimands. That's not what the discussion usually centers on here at H&R on the topic of questionable police behavior -- you guys are out for blood."

    I think you're missing the point.
    Yes, we're 'out for blood', or at least some cop (and his/her supervisor) suffering some punishment for illegal activity/brutality/stupidity/etc.
    What we get is some Janet Reno wannabe 'taking responsibility' at a press conference while the cop/perp gets a three-month paid vacation and a handsome retirement.
    And no change in behavior.

  • ||

    no, you don't get that. in cases where charges are warranted, they are pressed . in cases where suspensions are warranted, they are given

    etc.

    you can find counterexamples to anything, but cops are suspended all the fucking time, fired, and/or prosecuted.

    i've called for prosecution in any # of incidents, and since i actually know use of force law, when i say something is criminal, i'm usually right (e.g. paul schene) whereas when you kneejerk w/o evidence you are usually wrong (e.g. the "pregnant woman" lol or the guernica shooting)

    that's because bigots kneejerk, don't look at stuff objectively and let their butthurtness override whatever ability they have to rationally assess data

  • bullshit||

    "no, you don't get that. in cases where charges are warranted, they are pressed . in cases where suspensions are warranted, they are given"

    no they aren't.

  • ||

    yes, they are. you just don't understand UOF etc. cops don't get suspended because you are butthurt. they get suspended for doing actual wrong, as in policy violations, etc. that's based on the law we have, not the law we would have in your perfect universe.

  • bullshit||

    "you just don't understand UOF"

    no guy, YOU don't understand reality.

  • ||

    don't call me guy, buddy

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa|11.28.11 @ 8:57PM|#
    "It also seems like deaf people should be aware that most people they run into don't know they're deaf."

    When I run into deaf folks, I can usually figure it out without them wearing a sign.

  • ||

    If you ran into deaf folks but didn't figure out that they were deaf, you wouldn't realize that you had done so.

    And you probably have.

  • Sevo||

    Well, when I run into deaf folks, I can usually figure it out without them wearing a sign.
    Hypothesizing otherwise is hypothesizing.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and I'm not a paid professional who is charged with maintaining the peace or protecting the right of citizens.
    You'd think folks who were would somehow ACT LIKE THEY WERE.
    Or get their ass fired.

  • francis||

    Yup, just "running into somebody"; booking them into jail. With no evidence of anything.

  • DuncPhy||

    Making hand gestures to a cop? That's a tazin

  • anon||

    Moving your hands quickly is a good way to get shot.

  • ||

    What's to stop criminals from copying that sign to get away with their crimes?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    What? Explain.

  • francis||

    I know you're trollin', but here are two recent attempts for fun: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.....912378.cms + http://chicago.cbslocal.com/20.....est-fails/

  • francis||

    Oops, those are just attempts at playing deaf, not trying to sign.

    Regardless, you'd find out pretty quick through records, a driver's license (deaf licenses have a sticker with a slashed-out ear on it), or just common behavioral sense.

  • ||

    we deal with deaf people all the fucking time. most deaf people are pretty savvy about getting their point across.

    there's a couple we deal with all the time (domestics left and right) and there are any # of ways to communicate.

    in their case, their kids can translate. several of us also know sign language.

  • Kyle||

    Deaf people aren't the only ones who can't respond to verbal commands. A kid in Cincinnati got tased from behind, while the cop was still in his car with his foot on the break, because he had headphones on and a hoodie.

  • El Commentarioso||

    DUNPHY: If you enforce a law that you don't agree with, then you have no spine.
    hth

  • ||

    same goes for doctors and pharmacists then!!!

    spineless fascists derp derp derp

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "doctors and pharmacists"

    There are a lot more things wrong with doctors and pharmacists besides being drug war statists, which is definitely one of the things wrong with them. They are also rent seeking motherfuckers. Like cops and their unions are.

  • El Commentarioso||

    darn those fascist drug war enabling MD's and PHARMACISTS!!! oh noez

    If you're enforcing the drug war, then you're a drug war fascist. Not hard.
    hth

  • El Commentarioso||

    there are lots of bad law we don't have any discretion with

    What's more important, your principles or your paycheck?
    hth

  • ||

    my principles are that i have to enforce laws, some of which i disagree with. i would be violating my principles if i chose NOT to enforce them.

    i know that's hard for you to understand, but here in the grown up world, that's how it works

    if you pay taxes, you support the drug war. YOU FASCIST!!!!!

    many of my drug cases come from doctors and pharmacists./ they could stand by principle and not report forged prescriptions!!!

    those FASCISTS!!!!

    what would hippocrates think!!!

    hypocrisy probably!!

    derp derp derp

  • El Commentarioso||

    my principles are that i have to enforce laws, some of which i disagree with. i would be violating my principles if i chose NOT to enforce them.

    That's self-contradictory.
    How have you not imploded yet?

  • ||

    no, it's not. it's called being an adult.

    frankly, imo some DV laws are more unjust than the drug laws and are far more likely to ensnare actual innocents.

  • Gojira||

    Being an adult entails holding contradictory opinions and claiming to believe both of them at the same time? I thought that was out of 1984?

  • truth be told||

    "my principles are that i have to enforce laws, some of which i disagree with. i would be violating my principles if i chose NOT to enforce them."

    Truth be told, you don't HAVE to enforce laws you disagree with (i.e. nobody is 'making' you enforce these laws). You actually make conscious CHOICES each time you enforce them. It's because you like the results you get better than if you made a different choice. The results are enhancement and protection of your paycheck/career/pension. Different choices would put that stuff at risk and there's a pretty damn good chance you'd get results you wouldn't like. Bottom line you don't HAVE to, you CHOOSE to.

    And for the record, choosing to enforce unjust laws, or those with which you disagree, while continuing to be paid and rewarded for doing so is a perfectly common, self-interested, natural thing to do. We all make choices based on self-interest and the results we get, or hope to get.

    Based on the statement that your principles are such that you have to enforce unjust laws, I am not sure where that fits into the definition of a libertarian. (But, truth be told, I'm not clear on how or what constitutes a clear definition of libertarian anyway.)

    Maybe one of your principles is taking care of your self as best you know how. And all this enforcing stuff is just an example of you not violating your principle of looking after yourself. So, in a roundabout way, one could say that by making the choice to enforce unjust and unlikeable laws, you are in fact, taking the best possible care of yourself and are actually upholding a core libertarian principle… right?

  • ||

    Reasonoid logicz:

    cop arrests guy for possessing drugs... FASCIST!!!

    doctor calls cops to report guy just got a bunch of drugs via a forged prescription. doctor uses police to do his dirty work to arrest guy for possessing drugs illegally. NOT FASCIST.

    so, arresting for drugs makes you a fascist

    using the fascist cops as your agent to get somebody arrested for drugs doesn't

    fascinating!!!

  • El Commentarioso||

    you may want to cover up, your false equivalency is showing.

  • ||

    explain why arresting people for drugs is fascist but calling the police to get somebody arrested for drugs is not

    again, explain it. if anything , the latter is worse. you are USING EVUL FASCISTZ to do your dirty work.

  • El Commentarioso||

    Because a false prescription is fraud?
    hth

  • Gojira||

    Hey, shitface: why don't you scroll on up there where I called the docs fascist enablers? Are you really that fucking stupid? I'll reprint them for you, in their entirety, just to make sure you got the chance to read it:

    Gojira|11.29.11 @ 12:04AM|#
    Um, do those MD's and pharmacists personally possess the power to imprison people, or tase/shoot them for noncompliance? No? Then shove that nice false equivalence right back up your ass where it came from.

    And for what it's worth, I do think they're facsist scum-bags if they're calling to report people to you for drug use. I've known plenty of people who did drugs right in front of me, and, guess what I DIDN'T do? If you answered, "called the police!", you are absolutely correct! You see, holding a pro-liberty position and actually living by those principals instead of just spouting off about them while I go arrest non-violent drug offenders is both easy and fun! But then, you wouldn't get that nice gov't paycheck.

    Those who enforce unjust laws are fascists, and those who report their fellows for breaking unjust laws are fascist enablers.

    Gojira|11.29.11 @ 12:11AM|#
    Um, if they're reporting people for consentual drug use, then yes, they are fascist enablers. I don't know why you keep bringing them up.

    Gojira|11.29.11 @ 12:13AM|#
    Coeus's argument below is also excellent, but one more time, since you didn't seem to comprehend it when I wrote it above:

    Yes, I consider people who report others for victimless crimes to be fascists.

    I consider them fascist hypocrites when they profess to be against something, while at the same time enforcing that very thing. Like you.

  • ||

    good for you!! you are consistent! i tip my hat!

  • ||

    MDs, cops and pharmacists are fascists!!1

    that's a LOT of fascists!!

  • El Commentarioso||

    It is an uphill battle.

  • Gojira||

    You're correct, sadly. There are a lot of fascists. I suspect the majority of people are, given the kinds of laws they demand out of your hated legislatures.

    Here's one to grow on: fascists can't win if the men with guns refuse to carry out fascist orders.

  • Coeus||

    I suspect the majority of people are, given the kinds of laws they demand out of your hated legislatures.

    My current estimates are running at about 80%.

  • Short Viking||

    What is it like to be a monster?

  • deos son of eros||

    Dunphy,

    "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

    Now I don't give a fuck about what 5 out of 9 people in robes say, what do you say?

    Can I compel you to give me your blood and then use it to put you in jail?

  • ||

    It's Guerena. Guernica is a city and a political painting. The least you can do, Dunphy, is get the name of the police murder victim right.

    I hope that asshole Lib fuckstick in charge in Pima county chokes on a cock as his last mortal act.

  • ||

    And Dunphy, what happens to the doc or pharmacist who fails to report the fake script? Answer that you disingenuous cocksucker.

  • Bünzli||

    Do you really need 'procedures' to deal with deaf people?
    Wouldn't a little bit of so called common sense and basic human decency suffice?
    These procedures and guidelines just serve to deflect blame from the individual and to keep people in positions of power from having to make the decisions they're paid to make. And then being accountable for their decisions.
    It's just so much easier to follow the rules (or orders).

  • francis||

    Wouldn't a little bit of so called common sense and basic human decency suffice?

    You are asking too much of people you are forced to pay regardless of the quality or legality of their work.

  • ||

    You're right. I've fallen into a rut. Dunphy is a disingenuous motherfucker.

    Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Joe M||

    There's no excuse for "maybe they can't hear or understand me" not occurring to an officer.

    The only reason someone doesn't do what a cop tells them is because they're not respecting authoritah!

  • Mensan||

    The second part about the cop tazing and killing a bicyclist sounds familiar.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement