Posted by: Snuffy Smith | December 07, 2007 at 08:18 AM

Well, let’s say I am a teenager with a penchant for prank calling. I live across town from you and I randomly pick your number. I call the police saying that I heard shots coming from across the street at my neighbor’s house. The police respond to your home and you’re in the shower. You are also deaf. The police officers knock and you can’t hear them, they have to bust in. You hear the crash of the door and run out to check. You startle the already suspicious officers, you can’t communicate (being deaf) you are now treated as a threat and are tased (or worse). I guess my prank call was pretty funny. So, my thinking was, if I didn’t see a weapon or hear the shots myself, then how can it be considered “probable cause”. There is no evidence that a shot rang out, only someones word. Now take my prank call scenario and apply your own. No evidence, no probable cause. But I’m no lawyer.

You raise good and valid points and concerns. Frankly, our training programs taught police officers to error on the side of caution with respect to their personal safety. If it isn’t obvious to the officer that a suspect is disabled in some fashion and unable to communicate or comply, he/she would reasonably employ a less-than-lethal level of force to subdue a suspect. There is an old police addage – “It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” It’s just not reasonable to expect law enforcement officers to put their lives on the line just in case someone could possibly be deaf or autistic.

I have twelve years experience on the street. Of course, that was way back in the days before tasers, stun guns and pepper spray were invented. (All we had back then was batons and mace.) During that time I encountered four suspects who were deaf. Two were known to me prior to our encounter and two were not. In each case our suspect assessment easily identified the problem and we (my partner and I) took the suspects into custody without incident. I had at least a couple of dozen suspects feign deafness in order to disarm me specifically to gain a tactical advantage with the intent to actively resist custody. I’ve had a few others feign other disabilities, but deafness was the most common.

I recall being called to apprehend one autistic (older) child who was experiencing some type of crisis and had run into a particularly hazardous (electrical) environment. We were successful and we rescued the kid without physically harming him, but I’m sure he was put off of police (and probably anyone else in a uniform) for quite awhile. Unfortuinate, but I don’t think we had any other reasonable recourse. If I had to, I would use a taser to apprehend an autistic person rather than let him/her risk imminent harm in a dangerous environment or risk being injured by fighting with police. The theory was that it would be better/easier to repair emotional damage than any serious physical damage. I’ve been retired for awhile, and I don’t know if the philosophy on that has changed or not, but it stills seems reasonable to me.

But you are very right – it would be a very good idea for all police officers to learn some rudimentary sign language in order to give suspects who are deaf (or who feign to be deaf) instructions on how to comply with police during a custodial situation. It would go a long way to both avoid problems when a suspect is legitimately deaf and to establish that a suspects true intentions are to resist custody if he/she is feigning deafness.

As far as using a taser on a fleeing suspect – generally not appropriate nor practical. Someone running from an officer is not actively resisting. (Fleeing is a form of passive resistance.) And as you know, tasers have a range of 15 to 20 feet, depending on the model. If a suspect is farther away than that, the officer won’t hit his/her target. If both the officer and suspect are moving, the odds of good target acquisition are pretty damn poor. The only justification for using a taser on a fleeing suspect would be the reasonable belief that by allowing the suspect to move to another environment or escape would place someone, the community in general or the suspect him/herself in danger. Of course, trying to use a stun gun or pepper spray on a fleeing suspect is practically impossible.

Cops have a need to be “POWERFUL” and to be “HEROES”. The God-complex’s and narcissism need to be fed. When you (even seemingly) challenge that part of their psychology disaster ensues. Whenever I have had contact with any police, wherever, there was a single regular Joe and then the rest of them. When you describe them as being “nice”, I’ve noticed that too. But the “nice” always has a tinge of condescension in it.
Why don’t we just issue them giant Chinese finger traps?

Nor did you think period. Under which exception can the police withold witness statements in traffic accidents? And don’t call me Cranberry. I’m a Muslim now, and I’ve legally changed my name to Door King.

How about a sign that says “resident is deaf. doberman hears just fine”?

Posted by: Econ101

Ha! Now I like that one.

Pmom -
I am not totally against profiling; I do believe that the police have a right to profile if it serves to enforcements.But I do agree with you, I would probably be one of the first ones to let them know if it is allowed.

P.M. Here are the exceptions to the open records act.

Personnel information of public employees
Medical treatment records
Records protected by attorney-client privilege
Records closed by the rules of evidence
Records containing personal information compiled for Census purposes
Notes and preliminary drafts
Criminal investigation records

The cops claimed the “criminal investigation” exemption. What investigation? What crime? No ticket was issued.

I’ll also point out p.m. that from the accident report I learned all I needed to know if I cared to retaliate.

As usual, when a woman is involved, you automatically think the man is the villian. That is not the case, and in the case of the miserable personal life you so eagerly expose on thse blogs, most certainly not the case.

Yours: Cranberry, campsis, door king, sarah bellum and sometimes, buster hymen and dick holder.

How about a sign that says “resident is deaf. doberman hears just fine”?

I’ve had to battle down patients with head trauma, patients with diabetes…mental illness, even had one try to jump out of the back of my ambulance on the interstate. I don’t get to use a taser, I have to take what comes. I even had a suicidal patient who the police refused to intervene in (he was new), and it took awhile, but I was finally able to convince him into the ambulance.

Last resort.. is when the taser should be utilized. And only when there is danger.

I once heard from some of my coworkers about a police officer that had been on a footchase with a man who needed medical care, my coworkers said they’d get the suspect calmed down to try to treat him, and then the officer would stick his face down and start riling up the patient. In that case, police were HINDERING our ability to provide care. I swear that officer was just looking for a reason to use the taser.

And I still think anytime a taser is used, it should be mandatory immediate medical personnel.

I’ve often said with my son being autistic and scared to death of police cars (the lights and sirens cause him to freak out), he’s likely to run from police if they don’t know him…they will probably think he’s up to something. He’s at risk for being tased- especially since it takes time for him to compute a verbal order. I’m trying to prevent this before it happens to him, as it has to so many other autistic kids already.

I would NEVER recommend that at all. People look for things like that as well as wheelchair ramps as easy targets for home invasion burglaries. No way.

“Interesting that this sounds like “Profiling”, good or bad thing?”

How is this profiling if the person wants that information known to police?

You have to go through the appropriate channels to get information. If you were the way you always act, it’s no wonder the secretary was nasty to you.

Interesting that this sounds like “Profiling”, good or bad thing?

“Also, deaf people must take some responsibility for themselves. A sign similar to the “medic alert” notices, for prescription drugs, that many people put on their doors would be smart. Deaf or Blind people should make sure that emergency personel know exactly what they are dealing with. These notices should be on the front door, or near the door-bell, just like the “medic alert” notices.Posted by: Econ101 | December 06, 2007 at 11:14 AM “

Econ, I am sorry to hear about your brother and thank you for focusing on the problem about on how to remedy a first contact situation for the Deaf.You have a good ideal but privacy wise you would be leaving yourself open to be taken advantage of, especially by the criminal elements.

WAR, what does your experience tell you of how to approach this kind of situation?

I don’t know why it is that people do not understand this. The police officer’s job is about judgement. “Do I chase or not?” “Do I draw my gun or not?” or “Do I use less lethal force?”. I have never been a cop but I have really come to appreciate what they have deal with because of the reality TV shows. If people think the job is easy they should watch “Under Fire” on Court TV and see what a misjudgement of even a second can cost. Then they would appreciate what the police have to put up with on the job more. I am not saying all cops are right all the time and there are 4 cops in Chicago that did me dirty and to this day I would like to slap them around a few times. But I will stand by our police. If not for them, you people would not worrying about Christmas shopping this year because a predator would have all you money and maybe your life too.

Put yourself in the place of the officer. The man was coming out of a room that the officer had not viewed and would not show his hands. The officer does not know what is behind that door. May be a gun or a knife there. The officer made a judgement call that the man was not going to comply and that he might retreat to the room or reach for something behind the door. Remember that the policeman was there because of a shooting call so the officer was probably already on high nerves when he arrived on the scene. It was an unfortunate incident but lucky nobody got seriously hurt.

My brother died of a brain tumor in his late teens. It was first discovered when he was playing basketball at Olatha School for the Deaf.

A few suggestions:

Police should learn some BASIC sign language. It has been awhile, for me, but sign language for “get down” or for “hands against the wall” would not be that hard to teach, or to learn.

Also, deaf people must take some responsibility for themselves. A sign similar to the “medic alert” notices, for prescription drugs, that many people put on their doors would be smart. Deaf or Blind people should make sure that emergency personel know exactly what they are dealing with. These notices should be on the front door, or near the door-bell, just like the “medic alert” notices.

Tasers should be used before a night stick, in most cases.

Yes, there are people with pace-makers, heart conditions and other problems that will have some issues if a taser is used against them.

A night stick or a bullet could cause even more damage, to such people.

“Hard cases make bad law” — this is a sad and troubeling incident, but lets try to address the problem:

COMMUNICATION!

Posted by: Lonnie | December 06, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Agreed, Lonnie, but are we as taxpayers ready to pay for that? I would assume that if the education requirements (a 4-year degree) increase, so would the payscale.