As kids, my twin brother John and I would ride our matching Schwinn bikes around the neighborhood looking for criminals. We would pull our imaginary police radios from our handlebars and speak into them saying, “Seven Mary Three and Four, responding”, the line made famous by Ponch and John from the TV show CHiPs.
That kinda started my experience in law enforcement, patrolling the mean sidewalks of Hudson Street. Hudson Street was and continues to be a mean neighborhood. It’s where the 11 year old boy Nathaniel Abraham shot and killed a man, just to see what it was like to kill someone.
I’ve been around Law Enforcement in varying capacities since. As a teen-ager spending 2 or 3 nights a week riding around the rough parts of town in a police car with my Godfather, or being called at all hours of the day and night as an interpreter. Some of the best experiences for me were while making a brief stint with the Detroit Police Department. I’ve seen several law enforcement interactions with Deaf folks, and contrary to what some would like to believe, most people don’t get beat without reason- Deaf or hearing.
Of course, I read the article that my fellow blogger Chris Heuer wrote, and I got a few emails asking what my take on it was. As I read through Chris’s post I was especially disappointed when I read this:
If you can’t or won’t use your voice in a situation that involves police officers, God help you. If God doesn’t help you, you’ll die for holding a rake.
In the last line of that quote, Chris was referencing the story where a Deaf man in Detroit was shot by a police officer. It’s very unfortunate that Chris was inferring that the guy died because he couldn’t or wouldn’t use his voice.
In fact, just after being hired by the Detroit Police Department, I had an old crusty veteran walk up and say- “Stuckless, I heard you know Sign Language. How do you tell a deaf guy to put down the rake?” I responded the only way I could, and the way I knew he would- by drawing an imaginary gun and pointing it at him. Yeah, bad joke, but we laughed.
Erroll Shaw Sr. was a 39 year old Deaf guy that lived in the city of Detroit. True to it’s reputation, Detroit can be an unforgiving place. On that hot summer day in August of 2000, Erroll Shaw Sr. scared his parents and his son. As good grandparents would do, Erroll’s parents called the police to protect their grandson from his father. His Deaf father.
The facts stated here were testified to by Erroll Shaw Sr.’s family members, police officers on the scene, and the medical examiner… Erroll Shaw had smoked crack 3-4 hours before, had a blood alcohol level of between .06 and .08, had recently assaulted his son by throwing a beer can at him, and was also threatening his son with a large butcher knife, which is why Erroll Shaw’s parents called the police. While the police were pulling up, Erroll Shaw ran behind his home and returned with a rake. This is where the story fades as it’s presented by the person telling the story.
A rake? A simple rake?! The part about the rake is deceiving, this wasn’t just the leaf rake we all used as kids to pick up leaves.
In the photo above, the police officer, David Krupinski, holds the same rake in the manner that he testifies Erroll Shaw held it.
“He proceeded to come through a gate with a rake raised over his shoulders,” said Krupinski. “He kept coming toward us … [I] pulled my weapon … He kept advancing toward us.” Krupinski said that he backed up several steps and yelled for Shaw to put down the rake, but Shaw did not comply and turned toward the closest officer, Brandon Hunt.
When he raised the rake above his head he was approximately 15-20 feet from Officer Hunt, well within the training doctrine that 21 feet is within the danger zone. It was then that Officer Krupinski shot him.
Any one of you could say that you wouldn’t have shot Erroll Shaw- as a matter of fact there were 3 other officers standing there that didn’t shoot him. Officer Hunt had his weapon drawn with his finger on the trigger, but didn’t shoot. Hunt says he was in the process of pulling the trigger but heard the shots that Krupinski took and watched Shaw go down.
Officer Krupinski was charged and personally prosecuted by local prosecutor Mike Cox (who was preparing a run for the Michigan Attorney General’s office). 12 Jurors eventually found Officer Krupinski not guilty of manslaughter.
To clarify, Erroll Shaw Sr. wasn’t shot for being Deaf or not using his voice, I would suggest it was a series of poor decisions- that Shaw made- that led to his death.
Tips for interacting with Law Enforcement are readily available in the comments following Chris’s blog. Tips for responsible blogging on the other hand, well, hopefully they come with experience.
As for Doug Bahl, I look forward to someone getting the transcripts of his case and posting them publicly, so we can all make informed decisions based on the facts of the case.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Hi, David–
Due to recent discussions on police-deaf interactions ending badly, I began to compile a database of names and facts available. To my surprise, immediately seven names appeared, all occurring since 2000.
In this particular case, I wondered why the responding officers didn’t respond first with nonlethal means of control–tear gas, tasers, rubber bullets, or tackling the guy from behind by two or more officers. Even a shot to the leg would be enough to disable a man with a rake.
Armchair analysis and second guessing never work unless the lessons are applied in the future.
What are your findings thus far? Were the seven killed or…?
David, I want to comment on this further. I will soon.
The data collected so far from the internet were all deaf men killed by police in various situations. Since this is based on internet media reports, it won’t be a complete database unless I get access to better information bases.
I think such data would be much, much more meaning if held in comparison to the total number of encounters with deaf citizen, *and* then, in turn, comparing the results to the general (hearing) population. Seven may seem many, but what if that’s seven out of a hundred thousand encounters? What if it’s even lower than killings among the hearing community?
Well, math is not my strong point, but I said this earlier… any data would also be meaningless unless you made it proportional between the populations. If seven deaf people died in 100,000 encounters, that’s one thing. But if seven hearing people died in 100,000 encounters, and the hearing population outnumbers the deaf population by 100 to 1, that’s… not good.
Making comparisions between populations like here tempts one to say, “it doesn’t exceed the norm, so it must be all right”.
Any avoidable death is one death too many. In the case of deaf people, communication may mean the difference between a good or a fatal outcome, and no excuse should be made for failure to communicate.
Better methods of handling need to be made and quickly before the next one dies needlessly.
Chris - yes, I meant proportionally — but I was really just trying to point out a better way to validate Dianrez’s “study” (otherwise, the public won’t take it seriously).
Seems that the issue of communication may not really have been *the* issue in Shaw’s case. For that same reason, I would be wary of any informal studies done on deaf deaths — especially if it’s written in a “failure-of-communication” slant.
All great points and they work well- in Hollywood… but here you have an under equipped police department- at the time I think pepper spray (and possibly a 21 inch baton) was their only other option.
Under the use of force continuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force), Mr. Shaw held a deadly weapon with a range of 15-25. A man with a pocketknife has a deadly range of 21 feet.
Pepper spray is effective out until 6-10 feet, and takes several seconds to take effect. A taser, which until recently wasn’t widely available and still isn’t available in Detroit, is effective at a maximun range of 21 feet.
So knowing they had their guns out and directed at Mr. Shaw, would you want to run stand behind him? Or try to tackle him, knowing the other officers could shoot at any minute?
Also, Police Officers never shoot to wound, but they also never shoot to kill. They shoot to stop a threat.
Its often much easier for us to look at the “facts” as reported by a biased news media and jump to conclusions, than it is to really examine the actual details and testimony of witnesses. Thank you for this well-written explanation of a difficult situation. This is the first time I’ve ever heard that the situation in Detroit involved crack and alcohol, and that the police were called to protect the man’s son…
David, even after careful consideration of what you said, I still have to say that I cannot concede certain points in this debate, though your post and counter-arguments are excellent.
First I have to ask, though, were you disappointed in my whole post (No Right to Remain Silent for those of you just joining this discussion), or just that one point, about my using the rake incident as an example? What I’m saying is did you think I had a point here and there or was I entirely wrong?
Chris,
David’s point is valid. Using a “rake” in your blog implies that Erroll Shaw Sr. was innocently raking his leaves when he was shot. David helps us understand the context of the incident.
Oh I understood EXACTLY what I was doing. I just had a different reason for doing it than the way it’s being taken. But I’m going to wait for David to reply to my comment above.
I am in agreement with Shane. It’s how you hold a rake that signifies an aggressive stance or not.
as well as the type of rake you hold. Obviously Mr. Heuer was going for sensationalism to make a point, an invalid point at that!
I disagree, Bobby, that it’s sensationalism or invalid. And I’ve tried my very best to explain why elsewhere, so I hope you’ll look up those comments in this post and in mine…
To me… The goal of Chris’ post is to get the readers riled up while the goal of David’s post is to give readers clear and need-to-know information. Chris focused on using the voice while David believed it’s a series of poor decisions made. I take the latter post more seriously because it just logically made sense to me.
It reminds me of the August, 2003 blackout in Northeast where a series of technical and human errors caused it. “How a series of poor decisions can be prevented?” should be discussed between the police and deaf community members.
Chris, not sure what points you “cannot concede”. The only thing I’m saying is that you pulled an Al Sharpton on this one. Remember the story of Tawana Brawley?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley
Chris, I was disappointed in the whole post.
I posted my above reply in the wrong place… meant to post it under my first reply to David.
Here I meant to post a link to an article to support what I_C_Voices is arguing… varying accounts…
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2.....-a31.shtml
Yes, it’s the World Socialist Website. Are they more or less biased than the editorial section of the Washington Post? Or just differently biased?
Another link… see how the story changes either greatly or slightly from source to source? What are we to think?
http://www.metrotimes.com/edit.....sp?id=1105
(quote from article: “The Freep reported that Detroit police were shooting civilians at a rate higher than the country’s largest cities.”)
Another interesting take:
http://www.alternet.org/story/10503/
You would suggest the story changes, I would suggest that facts are left out.
David, I would suggest that assumptions are made. Not just by the media. But also by the police. And also by us.
I have to say that while your counter-arguments are excellent, I’m personally disappointed in the responsible blogging part. Google the terms deaf and man and rake and shot. I did. I read several stories, including one from CNN. Here’s the link:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/U.....index.html
Here’s the last paragraph of that story:
“Four hours of training on how to handle hearing-impaired people also are being added, and the department next month will hold training sessions on police management of hostile situations.”
Well, why? I mean, the deaf guy was holding a deadly weapon (a metal rake–which certainly can be used as a deadly weapon, don’t get me wrong). So why is the extra training necessary? If the police didn’t act in some way that somehow didn’t fit or wasn’t appropriate? Maybe it’s just civilian outrage and politics?
I did my homework. Again it’s a question of assumption and skepticism. After a year of watching the editorial section of the Washington Post and “responsible” writers such as Charolette Allen who give “well-balanced accounts” (note the sarcasm) of what deaf people think and why they behave the way they do, I really do have to say that if you think I’m being any more irresponsible than they were, we need to sit down and hammer out some new jouralistic standards here. Because basically we’re editorialists in our blogs, but we face 1000 times more uncensored feedback than the editorialists of old ever did.
I was responsible. And what I saw alarmed me.
I’m going to stop here but one more comment will be coming later.
I have to agree with David and others here. What you wrote was irresponsible.
“Here is the reason why I was not pepper-sprayed by the two officers who approached my car and beaten to a bloody pulp:
I used my voice.”
—
“It’s why I wasn’t thrown into a holding cell with no access to a TTY or an interpreter for hours and days on end.
I used my voice.
Do you understand me? That’s it. That’s the only reason that I as a deaf man am relatively safe around police officers at all.”
—-
What purpose did those comments serve? Were solutions proposed? No.
Not once in that blog or even in comments did you acknowledge that what worked for you, might not work for other deaf.
You have a lot of power as a blogger, Chris. Making comments like those serves no purpose except to rile people up for no reason. And I think it’s deeply ironic that people did get riled up - but not at police.. they got riled up at YOU. :P
No DP I don’t find it ironic. I find it additionally disturbing though. When I pick up a gun I assume it’s loaded. If I see a snake I assume it’s poisonous. With no or limited input regarding what’s going on when I’m pulled over or when a cop approaches me on the street, I have to make assumptions. You choose to assume that everything will be cool so long as you are cool. But one of the things that contributes to a deaf person’s ability to remain cool is the ability to use his or her hands. But if police officers are trained to watch for and react to exactly that, well.
I get what you’re saying but…
DP, wait I totally missed this:
“Not once in that blog or even in comments did you acknowledge that what worked for you, might not work for other deaf.”
Yes I did, when I said that that was why I was ashamed of my ability to use my voice in this situation (in the comments). That’s the whole point. It may or may not make ME safer, but will it make a deaf person who doesn’t speak safer? No. Wow, I commented on that SEVERAL times throughout this whole thing, I think…
Chris, you googled the beginning of the case, not the outcome.
That’d be like publishing an article about the protest and only talking about the arrests, without mentioning that JK isn’t there anymore.
When living in another city in the Midwest, I became good friends with a man who served on their police department. Based upon conversations I have had with him and other police officers, I think some people have misunderstandings about how law enforcement works.
Police officers are trained to “shoot to kill.” When they draw their gun and fire it, they do so with the full understanding that such action can and likely will take someone’s life. They don’t shoot to wound, shoot to disarm, shoot to scare, or whatever. They shoot because in that split second, they have made a determination that their lives or the lives of the public they are pledged to protect and serve are in danger.
Hollywood and the mass media’s portrayal of cops is often woefully inaccurate. As I_C_Voices says, one has to examine the actual details and testimony in order to fully comprehend the situation and the decisions that officers make.
Let me clarify that I am not defending all cops, or the actions taken by certain officers. I’ve had my share of not-so-pleasant experiences with cops over the years also. But I have also met, talked to, and worked with some truly good people who take their roles and responsibilities seriously and try to conduct themselves in an appropriate, ethical manner.
Being a police officer is a difficult, often thankless job…even more so when you are working in a large metropolitan area with a high crime rate. You’ve got to make life-or-death decisions in a split second. Sometimes it’s a judgement call, and you have to err on the side of caution. Occasionally an officer will make the wrong decision, sometimes with tragic results.
I found David’s blog regarding the deaf man and the rake to be especially illuminating since I didn’t know the background of the reference to the rake in Chris’ blog. Chris, on the other hand, was somewhat sensationalistic in claiming that using your voice while being deaf would ameliorate problems with the police while ostensibly deploring that statement. Chris is a blogger that appears to be more interested in getting a reaction which is why I don’t bother to reply to his blogs. It’s wearying to continually respond to someone who takes the devil’s advocate position all the time.
I’ll concede that Chris’ blog generated a lot of useful suggestions and responses regarding deaf people’s behavior with the police. However, the fact remains that deaf people are not the only minority that is afraid of the police. A lot of the comments and responses could have been made by members of the African-American community. Have you ever heard of driving while black or suicide by cop?
Ok, but I think taking the “devil’s advocate” position actually benefits us– it forces us to think, develop our rationales/arguments, and makes our case that much stronger next time.
While I think Chris Heuer went overboard at times (as others have noted here), I found both posts useful and thoughtful in their own ways, and together they contributed to the overall dialogue we’re having on this particular subject.
Thank you. I will admit that many thought my post was too extreme. But I have to ask… what are bloggers supposed to do? Are we credible and everyone’s friend only so long as we’re an echo chamber in a human body?
Many people here in DeafDC–and not just professional journalists working for big papers–comment all the time on things they don’t necessarily have all the information on, because it’s often impossible to get all the information, or to even be sure that the info you have is accurate. So does that require you to sit on your hands? And why does there have to be a solution? Why can’t you just comment on what you see, or what you feel, and see if someone ELSE has a solution? A lot of people had a lot of good solutions. So who lost here?
I see this situation as a disturbing social condition. Police officers–through no fault of their own–are trained to react to the one thing we all need to do: move our hands. Whatever else you take or do not take from thess posts, please walk away with at least that thought.
I agree, Chris– bloggers are akin to columnists– we just don’t get a salary, health insurance, or other benefits.
Credibility comes from the strength and support for arguments. I think where everyone is pointing at is the emotion in your post, even though you brought up (and continue to bring up) some very good points, along with quite a bit to think about.
I also agree there there doesn’t have to be a solution; there aren’t solutions for lots of things in life, and where there are solutions, they’re ultimately a lot more complicated than whatever a single column/blog post can cover. I think the responses in your post and in Stuckless’ post have contributed quite a bit, even if there’s no ultimate “solution” in either entry.
David, I understand what you’re saying. Now here’s what I see as the problem. The polar opposite argument of “That deaf person deserved the actions taken by the police because he provoked them” is “That deaf person didn’t deserve the actions taken by the police because he didn’t provoke them.”
We can say this about Doug Bahl, about the deaf man with the rake, the student who was killed by security officers on Gallaudet’s campus and so forth.
Now once you establish those two opposites, it might seem that all that remains to be figured out is which “opposite” a particular case is closer to. That’s what I think David Stuckless and Shane are getting at. It’s what Deaf Pundit is probably getting at. Especially in regard to emotion. If a deaf guy is standing there innocently holding a rake and he gets shot by police officers, the emotion (especially the paranoia) is called for and justified. If the deaf guy was high on crack and threatening to bring the metal teeth of that rake down on one of those officers’ exposed faces or necks (probably seriously wounding him in the process), then the emotion and paranoia isn’t called for.
Do you think people would agree to this assessment so far? I want to show that I’ve got this straight. And I’m going to ask here that we either have this out respectfully or walk away from it and I will contact thsoe police officers and the police organizations listed in the comments of my post and nobody else need further involves themselves any more in any way. But if people decide to discuss this further, then let’s not beat our heads against the wall, or accuse me of sensationalism or irresponsibilty, etc. If you think I’ve got this straight, I’ll show you calmly and clearly what I think is wrong with that type of thinking.
(By “that type of thinking” I mean, of course, that if the guy deserved it, the emotion isn’t justified)
I agree with that assessment so far. And that was what I was getting at, yes.
All right, then to completely map this out, because David used media reports, court info, and his firsthand knowledge of the challenges police face–all sources that reasonable people would refer to in order to determine which opposite a particular case falls closer to (the deaf guy deserved it or he didn’t), I’m going to challenge them one by one and then justify the level of emotion used.
First the media. I’m pretty sure that the post that DeafDC.com’s record so far as comments is concerned is Julie Feldman’s post on Charolotte Allen’s article decrying the identity politics were supposedly out of control at Gallaudet. You yourself, DP, wrote an utterly convincing counter-argument to almost every point she made. Which means that every story written can be countered with an alternate view. That’s exactly what’s happening with my post, which is no more (though I am entirely open to the argument that it is no less) biased than Charlotte Allen’s was. No less responsible. No less of a focus on one particular set of facts over another. Even David’s post does this. For example, the deaf man holding the rake is what he chose to focus on, over the additional two examples I referred to (the case of Dough Bahl and the incident involving the death of a Gallaudet student some years back at the hands of Gallaudet security officers).
I’d also like to add that even when the media shows you an unbiased image, such as your link earlier today of the college student being tasered by security guards for disturbing the peace, that same image can be interpreted a hundred different ways by a hundred different people. And that’s just assuming the image IS unbiased, because perhaps that particular segment doesn’t tell the whole story, and if another segment tells more of the story but wasn’t shown, then that’s ommission of information as David said. Which would be irresponsible.
As people who weren’t there, we don’t know what’s what. We can’t be sure. Media will give us an idea of what happened but that’s it, and there’s always the chance that even that “idea” can be grossly distorted. This isn’t true just of what happens on the streets with police officers. It can be argued that it’s true about what’s going on in Iraq, what’s really going on with global warming, and so forth.
I found several stories that showed the deaf man with the rake had a bunch of family members standing on the steps screaming “He’s deaf, he’s deaf!” They didn’t want the officers to shoot. David showed you more information alluding to the type of the rake, drug use, a perceived threat to the police officers, and so forth. And I believe Ridor linked to something that talks about racial slurs (though I did not read it).
In the end what we’re left with at best (so far as media is concerned is) is the particular take of a particular writer at a particular time in the story. David goes to the end of the trial, shows you the findings, and that’s the end of the story. Those are the facts, he implies, because that’s the FULL story. And immediately people rise to his defense. He’s far more balanced and I’m far more sensationalistic. None of us were there, remember, nonetheless we somehow feel justified in deciding at some point that we have “all” of the facts. But we don’t and we can’t, otherwise let’s see a bit more blogging on what the guy’s parents had to say about it.
The media assumes and we assume and David assumes and I assume. We write what we write, we read what we read, we draw the conclusions we draw, yet the lot of us cannot say for sure what happened. Perhaps the people who witnessed it can, but they’ll have different perspectives and I can offer evidence of that through the quotes from the various people involved.
I think it’s reasonable to say that if we’re going to use the media to make our judgment on whether or not someone deserved to live or die, then there are enough holes, enough places where things might have been misunderstood, to not really rely on it all that much. Or barring that, to at least respect another person’s disagreement with our position based on what we read in the media alone. If a source that full of potential bias and misunderstanding and utilization of selective information is enough to make us decide that someone should die at the hands of a police officer who has drawn a gun, then certainly we should understand why it might not be enough for another person to decide the same thing… to decide instead that the man deserved to live.
That’s my argument against the discrediting of the media at large, and I think it echoes a lot of recent comments in here advising people to not believe everything they read. If you can’t trust what you read to this extent, then I say play it safe and don’t rely on it and as a result someone might live.
I’ll wait to see what you say and then move on to court evidence.
Sorry second to last paragraph… should be “that’s my argument FOR the discrediting…”
Seems pretty clear, although the use of “David” was disconcerting at times. ;-) I think your assessment above is well-done– two opposites, where on the spectrum does the particular incident lie? I’d say Errol Shaw’s case is in the middle of the spectrum, while most deaf/Deaf people’s experiences, such as Bahl and Tessien, are clearly of the “That deaf person didn’t deserve the actions taken by the police because he didn’t provoke them” end of the spectrum.
Again, I think both your post and (David) Stuckless’ post did a service, because you both approached the same issue from different perspectives, and as a result, we were all able to consider various aspects and angles of what is decidedly a serious social problem.
Chris, I get what you’re saying so far, and I pretty much agree, actually.
You’re right, the media absolutely does not present the entire truth. I saw that up close and personal when I was at Gallaudet during Plunkett’s murder. It was unbelievable at how many facts the media got wrong. It was extremely frustrating to watch it get all mucked up.
That’s one reason I support blogging, vlogging and citizen media. We need more independent journalists to report the facts as accurately as possible.
And yeah, everyone has their version of the truth. No question about that. But at the same time, and this is a bit of segue but relevant I think… We have to recognize that all of us have individual, unique experiences with everything in life. One person’s reality/experience may not be true for another person’s. You will find common threads and themes, but never *exactly* the same. Even when a bunch of people are watching something, nobody will see the exact the same thing happening.
And I would have to agree with David Evan’s comment above. Errol Shaw’s case lies in the middle of the spectrum. Did he deserve to be killed? I wouldn’t say so, but presented with the facts that were given, I would say the police were appropriate in shooting him.
I know that if some coked-up guy came at me with that rake, and I had a gun.. I would use it on the guy if I felt he was an imminent threat. Self-defense is legal.
Regarding Bahl, I think we all can agree that there aren’t exactly a lot of facts to go by on, but again, based on what I do know, the police weren’t justified in their reaction. That’s just my opinion, though, and I’m trying to do something about it, personally.
With Stuckless, he put things in context, and shared facts in a straightforward manner as much as reasonably possible. Did he leave things out? Probably. We all do that, usually. And hopefully, we don’t leave things out on purpose either, because that would turn into a lie by omission. That’s where sensationalism comes in.
It’s definitely a serious issue and all of us need to work on this issue, but let’s just present things in a straightforward manner. What happened is bad enough, and we don’t need more drama added to it. That’s how I feel.
Thank you David and DP. I’ve continued this below in comment #88507. Needed more room to write.
Also I apologize for the length of the replies. But I want to be clear. (And I might need to edit a bit, something I can’t do in these small boxes).
C’mon, do you really believe Stuckless or even Detroit cops? In fact, I watched the whole TV show on CourtTV. The family of Errol Shaw, Sr said that the rake was not lurching towards the cops. He was merely HOLDING it … and the defense attorneys made sure that this particular cop’s racist background was kept out of the court — he was admonished several times for making racist comments.
Oh, Stuckless did not mention this?
of course. He just made a joke at the expense of deaf people when a cop aske dhim how to communicate with Deaf people.
Maybe Stuckless could have prevented a killing but he did not.
great friend, is he?
R-
Maybe Errol Shaw Sr. could have avoided using alcohol, drugs, and behaving in such a manner that required his own family to call the police. (If the family subsequently testified that he was “merely holding” the rake, as summarized by Ridor, then why did they bother to call the police in the first place? Was the family’s court testimony fully credible?)
Yes, it would have been nice for no one to have died. But Shaw could have easily avoided this predicament by not engaging in unlawful behavior.
I speak from the recent experience of having had to deal with a drug-addled intruder in my apartment. Getting the guy out the door turned out to be an exercise in non-violence, but at the time I was petrified that this illogical character would turn violent. My years of living in big cities have made me wary, and unsympathetic, of people who break laws and endanger others, whether or not they use drugs.
Whatever mistakes made by individual cops, I would would much rather have police available than not have any law enforcement at all. I think the police have also done a great deal to improve society and provide solutions to many tense or difficult situations that threatened the welfare of people.
Ridor… sigh…
I remember standing on my front lawn introducing another police officer to my dad. This was just a few days after Erroll Shaw was shot. This officer asked me what my dad thought of the shooting. I told him to ask my dad- and he did.
My dad responded by saying- If you saw a police car/police officer, why would you walk up with a rake in your hand? Especially if you’re Deaf and would need to either gesture or write to communicate.
I love my dad… He seems more wise than many here.
Deaf people use their hands to communicate and when a deaf man raises a rake over their head and continues toward a cop with a held gun, a cop who backs away several times and the deaf man continues.
He is communicating one clear message! The police offer, understood that message and responded back. Sadly a life was taken, but I dont see a lack of communication here.
Ridor, quick question- ever been to Detroit?
Yep and stayed for a couple of days.
Detroit sucks majorly.
R-
Ridor, foul. The black humor typical in people who work with people of all dispositions and demands was AFTER the rake tragedy. Lay off this Stuckless guy.
The full story is still debatable, however, and it is not totally clear that the police were at fault, nor Errol.
However, I wished David could explain more about what other options the cops in Detroit had, from his own police background. A little more discussion could give us more food for thought.
For example, suggesting the cops would not tackle or sneak up behind Errol because they knew other cops had their weapons ready to shoot. That says something about the police mindset and their training. Shoot first, best option? Failing that, pepper spray?
What about heeding the shouted “he’s deaf!” from his family and then police shouting to the other police officers to pull back, distract and flank him and take him down with a tackle? That is too Hollywood? How hard could it be to grab a rake from behind, when he is outnumbered?
No, the best option and the only one open by police training is to shoot. Cops aren’t known for their thinking or strategy skills.
Dianrez: Nope. It could have been said differently if Stuckless did it. But he chose to put the black humor in a job that is often largely dominated by high-school graduates.
Dianrez: Did you watch the documentary show on CourtTV about Errol Shaw, Sr and the DPD. It is quite balanced program which pointed out that the defense attorneys made sure that this cop who killed Deaf AFrican-American’s background where he was admonished SEVERAL times for making racial derogatory comments to others by his superiors — it was prevented out of the court.
Why?
Krupinski was admonished several times for using racial slurs? Are you sure about this? I’d love to see this information.
David, I did not say that you’re racist. I said that you cracked a joke on how to deal with deaf people, hence the term: “black humor”.
AS for Krupinski was admonished? Check this link.
http://www.ridorlive.com/?p=2289
http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/krupinski/
And this should question your misplaced faith in these pigs.
R-
Ridor, I see your blog bring race into it- can you copy, paste, and attribute where Krupinski was admonished for using racial slurs?
It was on The Investigators: Sounds of Silence — apparently the website took it down. It mentioned about Krupinski’s racist comments. It appears that the program’s online contents has been taken down. I’m not in mood to hunt it down. The segment has decreed that several cops came forward to indicate that Krupinski was a racist, ’nuff said.
R-
Ridor, what does education have to do with the fact that I made a ‘black joke’. I prefer to call it a ‘bad joke’. Black has such, well, racial udertones to it.
How about gallows humor, that’s what most of us call it.
It has to do so much, really.
Attitude is everything.
R-
He didn’t say to shoot him - he just alluded to the fact that having a gun in someone’s face TYPICALLY makes them more cooperative - hence, put the rake down.
He was high on crack. Regardless of the situation - I have to default to the person who was NOT high on drugs.
Why not officers holding the rake simply while Erroll Shaw carried it? They should use their judgement. That means officers were afraid of black men as the pictures of bad, mean, stink skins. So they were simple to shoot him. They were feeling safe before the action took. In fact, they are baby and chick out if they don’t have gun with them. They should train the workout wiht the varity of diversity people. That mean they have to talk with black, deaf, blind, wheelchair, blind-deaf, white, asians, hispanic, and Middle East people. Then they know how to handle with. They (officers) are Very Stupid….never social with. You know. The officers want to be saints and above the law. I haven’t heard from Dan Tessin since since Modesto police officers shot with beanbags to him 13 times. The incident was happening in Central California in early 2006. Modesto Hall City and p. officers don’t show the public. I learned from my friend who lives in Modesto that they want to be low-profile talk with CalClad attorneys (California Center for the Law & Deaf)before Supreme Court in Fresno sets up or not. I will find more details later.
California lady, please keep us posted on what you find and thank you for your contribution to this discussion.
David, okay. No problem.
Okay David, here we go:
First the rake. I live in a world where the media does not always represent what happens accurately. If that weren’t true there wouldn’t be conflicting reports. Therefore I remain skeptical about what I read in the paper. For some people, not necessarily you, skepticism is equated with never believing the deaf person but always believing the hearing person. I can’t measure how often this happens nonetheless I believe it’s there and it’s a factor.
I also live in a world where any jury of my peers is going to probably be composed of all hearing people, to say nothing of the judges, the lawyers, etc.
And finally, as someone said on another blog (I’m paraphrasing)… “If you bit an officer’s thumb would you admit it?” To this came the reply “That goes both ways. If you overreacted and assaulted somebody would you admit it?”
Mixed in with all of that the family members of the man with the rake are for some reason shouting at the officers: “He’s deaf! He’s deaf!” And they shot him anyway.
David, your dad sounds like a wise man. I am in agreement with the guy that you shouldn’t do stupid things around cops. If we want to avoid problems with the police we shouldn’t break the law.
But breaking the law isn’t always a requirement for having problems with the police. And sometimes even being guilty of having broken the law isn’t necessarily a requirement for the situation to escalate beyond what it needs to. Go and read Steve’s (a police officer’s) replies to me in my post. He–not me–came up with a hypothetical scenario in which I could be pulled over by a police officer and the situation regarding communication and the input I’m aware of became steadily worse.
If he can imagine that situation, and his scenario involved a car, why can’t my scenario involve a rake? Or a drive to the store to get milk, or a walk from the Pour House to the Metro? As soon as I become aware that a cop is there, I now think about Doug Bahl. That’s the way it is. Shane has a lot to say about the way things are (regarding how even a small number of deaf people partying too hard reflects on all of us nationwide). Why does that apply to deaf people but not police officers?
Overall I have not seen that many statements (except over in MishaZena’s post on the topic) expressing over the verdict or the actions of the police, but I’ve found quite a few that talk about the actions of the deaf person.
If public opinion stops there, how are we ever going to be ready for the deaf person who DIDN’T do anything wrong? That could be Doug Bahl! We don’t know! Most of us weren’t in Detroit or any other city where these things have happened. It’s all speculation. You can pull down facts and findings to support you, and I can pull down others to support me. Meanwhile the more threatened people feel over admitting that something like this COULD happen, and maybe even HAS happened, the more they just abandon debate and start attacking the messenger. And the more uncomfortable they feel with the opposite, the more they just start attacking *you.*
Sorry second to last paragraph should be “expressing outrage over…”
Well said, Heuer. This happened in DC at 8th St NE and Maryland Ave NE. My friends and I went to 7-11 store and we were chatting in ASL, emerging out of my car. My friend pointed at this particular car that he liked the most just beyond this police officer who was standing looking at us.
Suddenly, the cops went after me and my friend — slammed us against the wall. Turns out that he thought my friend was making a threat on him. All in all, he was merely telling me he liked this *car*.
That’s the whole point. Many Deaf people has common sense not to escalate with cops one way or other but it is *them* that failed us, first and foremost of all!
Cheers,
R-
David,
I’m with Ridor about your “bad” joke…you had an opportunity to educate that cop. I think you blew it and mocked poor Shaw’s death at the same time. You could have told the other cop something like “I would wave my index finger to say NO” or “I would bring my arms up and down slowly to indicate that he should put his rake down.”
One more issue I’d like to bring up: somebody said in a post here that police officers are trained to “shoot to kill”.
I would suggest that maybe it’s time to change that type of thinking and training.
Maybe all police officers should be trained to “shoot to hurt” instead. I mean, why not shoot in the arm or leg? Or knees?
I’ve never understood why it is necessary for police to shoot someone in the head or heart area, or even shower the poor person with multiple bullets when one or two bullet in the leg or arm will do.
I mean, the police could always shoot the person in the arm or leg, and then physically restrain him and get him under control that way.
It seems to me that maybe police officers in general have become too trigger-happy and/or lazy in the sense that they cannot be bothered to just “hurt” someone, but would rather to just kill someone to get it over with.
I suspect that David Stuckless has done more to enlighten members of the Detroit police force about deafness than most of us have done with any law enforcement officers anywhere. It seems persnickety to pounce on that one joke in order to seize the moral high ground without, however, bothering to interact with cops to the same degree that David does.
He can correct me if he only goofs off and scarfs down doughnuts with Detroit cops while never making any constructive comments whatsoever.
Oh yeah, telling hearing cops that it’s OK to shoot deaf people and making a joke out of it is…truly enlightening and educational all at once.
Yup. Score one for wonderful education methods employed by Stuckless. I’ll be sure to recommend him to Deaf conferences, schools for the deaf, etc. He’s truly an inspiring role model for all Deaf people who want to get killed by cops who think it’s funny to shoot ‘em.
Yup.
Ridor’s Court TV link leads to a rich mine of information on the Errol Shaw case in court. Take a look.
In one part, while neighbors and family are shouting, “Don’t shoot! He’s deaf!” one cop is asking, “Can he talk?”
Makes me want to groan.
I don’t even want to watch it at this point. What new “sensationalism” war will it set off?
Nuts.