SlimRider

So..Are you saying that somehow this was the deaf cyclist's fault?

- Slim

Mobile 155

Once again that was a different problem. We can easily site the number of cycling drug pushers selling drugs to our school kids every day of the week. (I didn't say this was the case here.) We can find sites where people were killed after being hit with a night stick,Peper sprayed, tackeled and given the submission hold. Sometimes it turned out to be justified and sometimes not. But until we find cause of death we can't say the taser was the wrong reaction. Who that was there has said he wasn't a threat? People that say they just knew he wasn't a threat or people that saw him? I am not willing to say at this point what the proper reaction should have been. Just because he was deaf and just because he was a cyclist doesn't mean he didn't know he wasn't supposed to stop. It also doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. And just about any force applied to stop him could have caused him to fall a second time. Until we know why he didn't stop amd what the COD was I am not will to call it unjustified. I would like more information before I toss my stones.

Nightshade

"I" didn't form an "opinion" "I" just reported that story as it was presented to the public in media.

"I" also didn't nit pick the story to suit myself.

Mobile 155

Cause and effect. What caused the action? If he would have stopped as directed what might have happened. Why didn't he stop? What caused the first fall, was that his fault? Did he swallow something? Why did people call 911 on him? Too many questions to take sides.

dscheidt

So the cop gets to execute him for that, assuming that's actually the case?

Mobile 155

In our country it takes intent to execute. If the intent was simply to stop and policy says tazers are not intended to kill they are permitted. The press can spin it any way they want but unless policy is changed that is how the law works. Jumping to a conclusion will not make it more or less tragic. We still don't know what killed the man, we know people are tazed without dying and this guy died. I doubt we will ever know.

christ0ph

Those people probably were in bad health, had some kind of medical condition like athsma, (often doctors dont diagnose patients because then they lose their jobs and then their health insurance) or had a stuffed nose and could not breathe.

Civil liabiliy for a death doesn't mean much in the US, unless the person's life is worth a lot. That usually means they had a very high paying job because the value of someones life is based on their salary and expected loss of wages. Most injury cases never go to court for a dozen good reasons.. Maybe its because the injured was unemployed or retired at the time of death, so there are no lost wages.. or they are dead and cant sue or perhaps they dont have the money to pay a lawyer 300/hr while they wait years for a court trial. It varies from state to state.

Often even when somebody had a good job and the plaintiff wins the opposition can also lower an award amount based on the probability of layoffs in their field.

When people who don't have a good job or are not seriously injured children who have years of high medical bills ahead of them, or if they live in California which has a $250,000 limit on pain and suffering, things like that, they cannot get legal help and so unless they want to represent themselves from bed, they can't bring a case. This is America, legal help is not free.

Also when people's employers have health insurance on them through ERISA, if the employee has any hospital bills, often their employers or ex-employers insurance company has first dibs on "their award" money from any accident due to subrogation clauses.. Its only after the money the insurer has paid out in hospital bills is repaid at list price, that the victims lawyers can start to be paid, and then them.


See the following article..
"Accident Victims Face Grab for Legal Winnings
Wal-Mart Paid Bills For Mrs. Shank, Then Sued for Money Back"

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195...hps_us_pageone

So, the economics kick in and in most cases lawyers make a business decision to just not take the case so they never go to court.

christ0ph

Thats true, its not considered to be murder if they had no intent for the bicyclist to die when they tasered him at 30 Mph

christ0ph

A lot of the time black people get injured or killed when they are driving expensive cars and are pulled over, asked for their drivers license, and are taking their wallet out, and somehow a gun goes off and they magically make a transition from living to dead.

Then sometimes drugs mysteriously appear out of nowhere and stories appear saying it was for one reason or another their fault but it turns out that they are college grads and earned every penny they had and had never had any involvement with drugs.

We shouldn't jump to any conclusions because of these thousands of isolated events.

Mobile 155

Are you any different from jumping to the conclusion the cop was out of line than others might be that the man might have failed to comply with a lawful order? Why have a trial? Assume the the article was the truth. But then if the next time they call the person a drug dealer there would be no need for a trial either. The article tell us nothing from a legal standpoint. How many times have you seen or read about people being pulled over and saying, these aren't my pants? I never hit my wife she fell? Someone must have tossed those drugs in my car.

And how many times have you seen a bicycle pull up next to a car and hand something to a driver and the driver hands money back? I have seen in in SF just as a visitor. So it happens.

SlimRider

So unless the victim was riding his bicycle in a wreckless or disorderly fashion, the police had no legal authority to stop or detain the victim. Perhaps, the victim didn't feel safe stopping at that point. We all already know that he didn't hear any order to stop, or anything else.

Police should taze very reluctantly. This especially applies to the sick, elderly, and disabled. In this case, the victim was not only disabled, but elderly as well.

I find that too many police are either poorly trained or lack the mental disposition to hold their title.

- Slim

PS.

I applaud the efforts and duties provided by the average American police officer.

christ0ph

They will say it was an accident. And since damage awards are based on lost wages, the likelihood of his wife or children being able to sue is based on his earnings, and their dependency on his earnings. If he is employed and makes a lot of money, and is under 45 or 50 or so, chances are his wife or child can get a lawyer and sue, but if he does not have a job or does not have a wife or child or even if his field has seen a lo of layoffs and the probability of his being laid off soon is arguably high, his death will almost certainly just be forgotten.

I don't know the specifics except to say that only a tiny percentage of injury cases go o court, and they are usually the really serious ones.. The reason is tha the law presumes that everyone is innocent and the effect of that presumption is to make it very hard for people to get a lawyer even in cases of obvious culpability. The deck is especially stacked against the poor.

Unemployed people's next of kin might have to prove he had a very high probability of reemployment soon, to claim lost wages.

Pain and suffering would be based on how much and how long he was suffering before death. If he died instantly, no suffering, so no money.

A lawyer will only take it if the client (next of kin?) pays in advance. And what would they sue for? Would anyone have standing to sue?

There is no inherent win in a lawsuit barring lost wages or lost support, in most places. In the US the laws vary from state to state. It may be different in other places like Europe.

christ0ph

The district attorney would be the entity that pursued a criminal prosecution. I think it would vary quite a bit from one jurisdiction to another whether the DA would see something like that as an issue requiring state intervention.

For a civil case for wrongful death a law suit would have to be brought by someone with standing (next of kin - typically a dependent) and estimate a monetary loss in most cases.

christ0ph

Juries are reluctant to award plaintiffs against municipalities anything because they are afraid that their property taxes might go up.

Chief

That would assume that :
a) Jurors are property owners
b) Jurors understand civics enough to actually make that dollar connection with their taxes!

christ0ph

That is the biggest tragedy..

christ0ph

Oftentimes the cop might just be concerned for their own life, and make a mistake that turns out to be a tragic one. But, if it really was a gun, and they get shot, its an equally terrible tragedy.

Nobody wins in any of those situations.

As far as the person on a bicycle selling drugs, its been a long time since Ive lived in a neighborhood where that was something you would see.... but I do remember, it was really a stressful situation because sometimes those drug dealers would get into our apartment building.. (the cheap electrical lock on the door was perpetually broken/malfunctioning and the landlord would not fix it) Luckily nobody got hurt or killed when I lived there but sometimes you would come across them sitting on the stairs, smoking pot or crack.. and have to decide, do I try to get past them or just go and come back five minutes later.. There were also some great people living in that (huge) building and the rent was cheap but with everything broken it was a death trap. One of the tenants, the Walgreens on the ground floor, was withholding rent, but the residential tenants risked eviction - or so they thought, if they did the same thing. At one point I discovered that a law - six months afer they had received a certain kind of citation and the issues were still not addressed, it made it illegal for them to even ask for rent. But nobody believed me when I told them. This landlord was a piece of work, she drove around in a red Mercedes 450 SEL with gold hood ornament but she claimed she could not afford to change the bulbs in the hallways when they burned out. She threatened anybody who stood up to her by telling them she had mob connections!

Not long after that I moved. Living there was making me too stressed.

Where in SF were you? When I left, the number of neighborhoods that were like that was very small..and rapidly getting smaller.. A long long time ago, big parts of the Western Addition were fairly sketchy but they gentrified and now only a few areas in that area have those kinds of problems..

If you live there, you come to know what blocks are safe and which are not. But out of towners have no way of knowing. Sure, in those areas stuff like that happens..

Certain things would be red flags... People perpetually hanging out outdoors.. in the same spot..

In an area like that, I agree, police do have a right to be extra cautious. Not to the point of shooting unarmed people, but you're also right, if what you are saying is that its hard in retrospect to know what happened.

I guess I'm lucky that I dont live in one of those places any more. Its very stressful over time to have to worry about street crime every time you go out. But you have to.

Mobile 155

I was there about a year ago. I spent some time in the Mission District 24th and Bryant, also in the Marina District between Chestnut and Marina Boulevard.
I haven’t done a city search on the area where the cyclist was tased. But if it is like San Pedro between Pacific Avenue and Gaffey I could see it like I described. I could take you to the USC campus or the USC medical center and show cyclists selling drugs all day.

And no, I don't live there I used to work there and moved as far away from the big cities as I could.

Digital_Cowboy

I agree, not too long ago as I was leaving the parking lot of a local shopping center my front wheel hit a patch of either loose sand or gravel and I fell. Does that mean that anyone who saw me fall should automatically reach for the phone and call 911 and report me as being drunk?

Was there anything in that SOP about dealing with people who are deaf or profoundly hard of hearing? As correct me if I'm mistaken, but just because a person doesn't respond doesn't mean that they heard the order(s) and are ignoring them. They could be deaf/hard of hearing and not heard the order or the siren. Hell they could even be color blind and not know what color the lights are behind them are.

A person with disabilities shouldn't have to worry that their disability will cost them their life in an encounter with law enforcement.

Digital_Cowboy

Okay, but what happens when the person who doesn't stop when ordered to do so is deaf or is profoundly hard of hearing? Should they be charged with "felony fleeing" because they couldn't hear the order in the first place?

When I was a kid going to school there were a number of children in my school whose hearing was bad enough to require hearing aids. I have a friend today who has a hearing aid. When his hearing degrades to the point that he can't hear and a hearing aid can't do anything for him should he worry that his loss of hearing will result in the loss of his life if he has a run in with a cop?

Should the deaf be forced to a choler(sp) implant so that they can hear? What if the implant doesn't improve their hearing? What about those who are totally deaf? Should the deaf be forced to wear a sign that alerts others that they're deaf?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Asides from according to the deceased's family that he was hard of hearing and suffered seizures, what was his crime?

About the only real crime that he committed was trespassing by riding through the parking lot of the bank after it was closed. Is that really a crime worthy of the death penalty?

Is it really a crime to take something out of one's pocket and put it in one's mouth?

Taking into account that his family said that he suffered from seizures isn't it safe to presume (albeit after the fact) that it was his anti-seizure medication?

Digital_Cowboy

Simple question, when the deceased didn't respond (and we don't know what the course of actions were) why didn't the officer simply pull in front of him and stop his car? Wouldn't that have gotten his attention, without putting his life in danger?

Given that the deceased was riding a bicycle why did the officer tase him while he was moving?

Digital_Cowboy

So is a person being deaf or profoundly hard of hearing and not being able to respond grounds escalate to force when they don't respond?

In one of the articles linked to in this thread one of the people commenting on the story basically is blaming the deceased for being deaf saying that he shouldn't have been riding a bike.

His family have stated (and we have no reason to depute them) that he suffered from seizures, so it is reasonable to presume that what he was observed taking from his pocket and putting in his mouth was his medication.

Should people with disabilities have to worry that their disability(s) is going to cost them their life if they do not respond the way that they (the LEO) think that they should respond? I.E. the deaf/profoundly hard of hearing may not hear the siren on a police car, they may not hear the LEO order them to stop over his/her PA system. Someone with certain physical limitations may not be able to get on the ground when ordered to do so, or be able to do so as quickly as the LEO thinks that they the person should.

Again, should a person with a disability(s) whatever it/they may be have to worry that their disability(s) will cost them their life when/if they have an encounter with law enforcement?

Digital_Cowboy

NEVER, not once. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but you asked if we've seen it happen, and no I haven't seen it happen. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen here in the Tampa Bay Area, just that I've never seen it happen.

Mobile 155

From the story only I gather the cyclist has fallen down once already. We don't know if he hit his head or not but the 911 call said he was riding in an erratic manner. We don’t know if he was injured before the officer arrived or not. We do know that unless someone else was pulling him with a car he wasn’t doing 30 MPH. We also know that the red and blue lights were on. Now forgive me if I am wrong but if it is dark outside and an emergency vehicle passes my house with the drapes closed I still notice the lights coming through the edges. Often I notice the lights when I am driving and “always” I notice lights behind me when I am riding at night.
I will say again till the coroner says what killed the man we don’t know how he died and if the taser killed him. We also don’t know if he was indeed putting something in his mouth and if that something contributed to his death. We don’t know the area the suspect was riding in or if the officer had a reason to believe the rider was deaf. So the taser may have seemed like a more reasonable response than a pit maneuver or a 9mm.
Like I have said earlier the article is misleading until we “know” the cause of death the police aren’t guilty of killing him. Has anyone done a follow up on the story? Or might our knees be too tired of jerking?

Digital_Cowboy

About the only constant in the various articles that I've read on this is that the person "fell" off of his bike before the concerned citizen called 911. I don't recall reading anything about him "riding erratically," unless equate having fallen with "riding erratically." In which case someone should have called have called 911 when my front wheel hit some loose sand or gravel and I went down.

I hope that you're not trying to suggest that the "only" way for a cyclist to get up to 30+MPH is to be "towed by a car." As I've sprinted up to 30MPH with little effort.

Granted, if he truly was deaf one would think that he should have seen the red and blue lights. But it is also entirely possible that he was color blind and may not have known that the flashing lights behind him was on a police car.

Every article I've read so far (those linked to in this thread and another over in A&S) have stated that the officer observed him taking something from his pocket and putting it in his mouth. Given the statement from his family that not only was he deaf/hard of hearing but suffered from seizures it is reasonable to presume that what he took from his pocket and put in his mouth was anti-seizure medication.

I would think that if the individual on the bike showed no reaction to having either the sirens squawked or the officer either yelling out of his window or getting on his PA system and ordering the cyclist to stop. That it should be presumed that he is/was deaf. As even if they're ignoring the siren or the yell/PA system shouldn't they at least flinch at the sound?

Several years ago I was pulled over by an off duty traffic homicide officer. My first thought when I saw lights light up behind me was that he was going to take off after a car. As I mean really who thinks that a cop (even though they can) is going to stop someone on a bicycle? It wasn't until he got on his PA system and said something like "Yes, you" that I realized that I WAS the one who he was intending to stop.

His reason(s) for stopping me, was that he felt that I was riding in the "middle of the road." I wasn't, I was riding in the right side tire track, and that I didn't have any lights. I did, they might have been a little dim, but I had them. Also one of them a Serfas model had a reflector built into the lens.

Wouldn't a pit maneuver be safer then tasing someone who is riding a bicycle?

I've thought of trying to call the police department, but if they're not willing (according to the articles) to release details to the mayor their boss what chance does an ordinary citizen have of getting any details out of them? As all they have to do is claim that it's an ongoing investigation and that they cannot comment on it.

And not saying that the coroner/ME and the police are "dirty" or "in bed together," but it IS remotely possible. And it's possible that the coroner/ME could list COD as something so as to make the police look less culpable then they might be. So that in the case of a death like this I think it would be a smart move for the family to have an independent autopsy done.

But yes, I agree, that there are too many unanswered questions in this case. Such as:

a) why did the man fall the first time
b) just what (if anything) did he put in his mouth
c) was he deaf/hard of hearing like his family claimed
d) did he suffer from seizures like his family claimed
e) what is that police departments SOP for dealing with a "suspect" that is disabled or who claims to be disabled
. 1) as not all disabilities are apparent to the naked eye
. 2) case in point according the VA I am 70% disabled (service connected) but to the average person I do not appear to be disabled

How long will it take for the coroner/ME to publish their findings? How much digging will we have to do in order to find those findings? Will anyone from here still remember this case when those findings are finally published?