Cops pull over & beat 64yo obviously deaf man for 7 minutes

www.theroot.com...

Highway troopers flashed 64yo Pearl Pearson to pull over, he eventually did and rolled down his window.

These cops walked up to his driver door which has a plackard with states 'Driver Deaf', and beat him bloody for 7mins before he could get his driver's license out to show them.

His drivers license also declares he is deaf, however obviously these cops were too high on road rage to see.

What punishment will the cops pay, for not just their abuse of power, but also both's blatant blindness??

reply to post by gardener


I hope he can sue. I hope the cops rot in jail.

One can only hope.

That's what American police officers do these days. They beat you first for no reason and then they get off the hook. Be scared America, be very scared. The police are after you.

reply to post by gardener

What punishment will the cops pay, for not just their abuse of power, but also both's blatant blindness??

The citizens of Oklahoma should start petitions, asking for these highway patrol officers to get heavy handed punishment, or else they will boot the governor as soon as possible.

reply to post by gardener


Repeat after me:

"We are not living in a police state"
"We are not living in a police state"
"We are not living in a police state"
"We are not living in a police state"

Oh wait, we are living in a police state, never mind.

Are there any non-profit organizations which seek to publicize, and seek to force the punishment for, the inappropriate actions of law enforcement? Causing the politicians to worry about their jobs is the fastest way to end this crap.

They're taking down those threatening badass old folks in NYC too - for jaywalking!

An elderly man was thrown to the ground and cuffed by cops Sunday for allegedly jaywalking on the Upper West Side, a witness said.

An eyewitness said cops tried to give the unidentified man a summons at Broadway and W. 96th St. during stepped-up enforcement in the wake of recent traffic fatalities.

“He was jaywalking,” said witness Ian King, 24. “It didn’t seem like he understood English or knew what was going on. A police officer tried to give him a summons. He told him to stop.”

So, they beat you up to protect you? The guy was in his 80s.

www.nydailynews.com...

I just realized:

does anyone notice that their beatings targetting both EYES?

Which leads me to conclude they were wary about his deafness, and sought to render him blind just as well.

They must have been scared.

I really feel bad for the police officers they have it so rough. Oh wait, they bring it on themselves i forgot.

I was brought up to have respect for police officers and that they are there to help us.

I can't believe how much my opinion of them has changed over the years. I wanted to teach my daughter the same respect my parents taught me and then I realized I didn't have that respect for them anymore.

It really does sadden me, but the police are no longer worthy of respect, although I would imagine there are many, positive examples of LEOs that still remain.

I think all police services needs to start paying out of pocket for convictions and judgements against them. From their pension funds. (It's not my idea, another member suggested it.)

Until then, it doesn't seem like enough is done inside to stigmatize this kind of behaviour. I don't believe for a second that a couple LEOs just up and one day decided to beat someone up, meaning that this kind of thing is progressive. Probably starts (to their credit) with some ass attacking them, putting them on the defensive, then it progresses into pushing around regular people. And then into random assaults when they let take their anger out on people who do not immediately submit to their authority.

Behavioural patterns are often highlighted in criminal cases, but apparently law enforcement does not use the same magnifying glass on themselves.

I blame political policy and unions above anything.

reply to post by gardener


Welcome to Oklahoma!

This insanity is why i left. Unfortunately its like this all over.

Ill stay on the move. Live in my van and live as free as i can until in done in for some vs.

Hope u all stay safe. And remember when it come to it defend yourself from these crashes.

Save a life, shoot a cop

Your OP forgot to mention that he was involved in a hit and run. I know it's not reason to beat the guy, but you should throw ALL of the facts in there first so as not to arouse sympathy right off the bat. There is more into this story. If he hit and ran, then the cops were reacting off of impulse.

I'm not with the cops on this one, because I do not believe in brutality, and the minimal amount of force rule seemed to have been forgotten here, but I believe every bit of the story is NEEDED. Otherwise, there will be tons of people here going "oh poor defenseless guy!". If they new the full of it, they might not be so encouraged to take the "victim's" side.

oh look more police brutality...this is really way to common....wtf is happening to make these police so aggressive....

now we just have to wait for the sympathisers to come and tell us it was self defence on the police behalf and the deaf guy deserved what he got.....

reply to post by StallionDuck


Is it possible he didn't know he hit someone? It sounds outlandish but it has happened with people who could hear.

reply to post by StallionDuck

Your OP forgot to mention that he was involved in a hit and run. I know it's not reason to beat the guy, but you should throw ALL of the facts in there first so as not to arouse sympathy right off the bat. There is more into this story. If he hit and ran, then the cops were reacting off of impulse.

I read the article and noticed the part about an alleged hit and run. I gave you a star for pointing that out for those who won't read the article.

I think that law enforcement officers should be required to cause the least amount of harm possible when apprehending a suspect. They are not the judge, jury, or executioner, despite how it appears that they tend to think that way. Their job is to apprehend a suspect. They should be held accountable for any and all accidental, negligent or willful errors they make. I was held to those standards while serving in the military. There should be no room for errors in law enforcement.

reply to post by StallionDuck

I'm not with the cops on this one, because I do not believe in brutality, and the minimal amount of force rule seemed to have been forgotten here

With the complete lack of information and evidence I think it's impossible to say whether or not the cops used too much force. If the guy did indeed flip out and struggle, and they fell to the ground a bump in the right spot could easily given him two black eyes. It's not always direct hits. I've had three, and only with one was I struck close to my eye (all VERY boring/surprisingly sober/embarrassing stories... there was a countertop in one).

I'm not with anyone until we see a video. The only thing in the story that swayed me at all is that the guy hasn't been charged. There better be video. I can see this playing out so many different ways. I really want all cops outfitted with a camera. It's worth the $0.05 (if that) increase in property tax. It would exonerate the good cops and save the taxpayer from paying out and defending against frivolous lawsuits, while helping to identify those that would abuse their power.

It's important that we have at least a handful of facts before we jump to conclusions. Clearly there are some very bad cops out there. Don't automatically believe cops. Don't automatically assume every time a news story about brutality airs that they are guilty.

tamusan
reply to post by StallionDuck

 

Your OP forgot to mention that he was involved in a hit and run. I know it's not reason to beat the guy, but you should throw ALL of the facts in there first so as not to arouse sympathy right off the bat. There is more into this story. If he hit and ran, then the cops were reacting off of impulse.

There should be no room for errors in law enforcement.

edit on 19-1-2014 by tamusan because: (no reason given)

Police Unions..

should not exist.. they are a big root of the problem.

why should/does a "public servant" have a union? unions are designed to go against employers... to give more to the members. the public is the employer// do you see a problem there? I DO

Hit and run?

Prove it.

The civilian has already proven his beating. Where is proof of hit and run? Where is the claimant of being hit?

Does this mean IF you hit and run, and you're elderly, you get beat till your eyes bleed?

reply to post by gardener


For starters how about changing the title of this thread to the title of your source instead of making it up as you go?

He fled the scene of an accident.

Secondly how are the police suppose to know the driver of the vehicle is in fact deaf? Just because there is a sticker does not make it so.

The flip side is he resisted both officers during the arrest.

Next time, don't flee the scene of a motor vehicle accident and then claim a disability after the fact.

gardener
Hit and run?

Prove it.

The civilian has already proven his beating. Where is proof of hit and run? Where is the claimant of being hit?

Does this mean IF you hit and run, and you're elderly, you get beat till your eyes bleed?

Prove the person didn't resist a lawful arrest.

Deaf man says police beat him for disobeying orders he couldn’t hear - Fox4 News OKC

Pearl Pearson, 64, allegedly fled the scene of an automobile accident and was later pulled over by Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers.

Affiliate KFOR reports that an affidavit indicates Pearson resisted two troopers and didn’t comply with multiple orders to show his hands after they had pulled him over on January 3. A seven-minute physical altercation ensued. Pearson alleges he was hit in the face before he could show his ID. The affidavit does not mention if the officers knew Pearson couldn’t hear them. Pearson was arrested and later charged for leaving the scene of an accident and resisting arrest.

I love it when a video is posted and claims made yet no one bothers to look at the other side of the story to see if the facts are accurate.

I would say this guy has other issues than just being deaf -

In an earlier report, Pearson reportedly indicated that the Total Source for Hearing-Loss and Access group (TSHA) was coming to his defense, but a member of the group told FOX 4 that it doesn’t know the circumstances behind the arrest and said they are not involved and not his spokesperson. TSHA provides interpreters and other services for the hearing-impaired. On their website, they are accepting donations for his legal and medical expenses.

So how about we wait for the investigation to run its course before we grab a rope and find a tall tree eh?

A statement provided to KFOR from the highway patrol mentioned that Pearson’s arrest and officer’s actions are currently being reviewed. Online court records indicate that charges have been filed, but no future court dates are listed at this time.

Final thought and a question for the OP -
Please explain to us what "obviously deaf" looks like? Or is that your way of trying to twist facts to fit the anti police contingent on this site?