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

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Sounds like a too convenient excuse to explain why they beat him so badly.

A 64yo could not be restrained by TWO officers (if not more)?

They're full of it.

Besides, if it seems a person can't use their ears, don't go for the eyes. Sheesh.




posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Prove the person didn't resist a lawful arrest.




he website alleges Pearson, who is deaf and diabetic, has a placard on his driver's side door that says, "Driver is deaf." His license also allegedly indicates he is deaf.

"An interpreter was never provided while Pearl was under the care of law enforcement," the website states. "Not during the booking, hospital, or time at the jail was an interpreter provided, even though Pearl requested one."

Oklahoma Highway Patrol spokesman George Brown told HuffPost that troopers Eric Foster and Kelton Hayes have been placed on suspension with pay.


I'd have to ask because I don't know, are suspensions given out when the case has little merit?




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.



Maybe they aren't "defending" him but they are supporting him by hosting a fundraiser:


The organization "Total Source for Hearing-loss and Access" is holding a fundraiser for Pearson in Tulsa, Okla., Thursday. The benefit will try to raise funds for his legal and medical expenses.

Rene Ryan, the executive director for the organization, told HuffPost the agency does not have a position on whether excessive force was used in the case.

"We have not asked for the details of what happened," Ryan said. "We are an advocacy agency and for us, there was a communication issue and a culture issue that was not addressed, and as a result, he sustained injuries ... We're trying to focus on [educating people] so this does not happen again."


www.huffingtonpost.com...


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?


I don't think Pearson himself is anti-police as his son and his son in law are both LEOs.


6. Pearl’s own son is a police officer, as was his son-in-law, who is now a deputy sheriff. He respects law enforcement and knows how to respond when pulled over. There is no reason for someone like Pearl to be hurt like this by those who are meant to protect and serve.


www.pearlpearson.com...

Given all these facts and his age, the amount of injury he sustained, I'm having trouble believing the "official" account.

edit on 20-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 





Sounds like a too convenient excuse to explain why they beat him so badly.


What so badly? He had two black eyes. That doesn't mean he was punched. He could have a blood disorder. As I stated earlier you can get a black or two from an accidental elbow, or pavement or anything if the blow is in the right spot. If he was fighting, there is a good chance he landed on his face.




A 64yo could not be restrained by TWO officers (if not more)?


I did plainclothes security in my early twenties and I will tell you it is a LOT harder than you think getting someone who is actively resisting into handcuffs. It can be hard with two people, even if the person is on the ground. Another guy (big guy) and myself (and I'm not tiny) took about 3 minutes trying to cuff a dude in his 70's because we didn't want to hurt him.

Shoot, I used to have a similar jacket.



Dirtbags gonna dirtbag and the security guy didn't hit him in the face.

The ones that fight ALWAYS cried abuse when they got hemmed up. Drag them back to the office and they would then fake a medical emergency. Tell them you would call 911 but the ambulance bill was on them and no more diabetics.

It is a PAIN handcuffing someone.
edit on 2020140120141 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Grimpachi
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.




It's possible as anything else, but as a deaf man, I thought he would be more in tuned to other senses. At least that's what I'm led to believe. Though, anything is possible. Still, I agree that either way, as I mentioned, police are supposed to use minimal force nessisary to effect the arrest if it comes to that. They were out of line, though I still believe that only half of a story is missleading and may lead people to some sort of action that could be just as wrong, if the whole story is not available.

tamusan - I agree totally. I understand that LEOs are supposed to affect and arrest by using minimal force and only going above that minimal when it's warranted. In this case, I highly doubt it was.

Domo1 - Agreed. Myself personally, i'm willing to put my money that it is as the story says, but you are right. It's still possible that circumstance played a heavy role in the way it all came about. I grew up around quite a few police officers in my family. I know how hotheaded, smartass and holier than thou they can be. I also know some good ones that even though they are trying to do what's right and think they know what's best, sometimes frustration gets the best of them and it's really easy to go there. As a cop, I think those guys need to be aware of their thoughts and actions at ALL times so they don't slip. They have to respect that everyone is human and we all slip just as they do and if they take action for our slips then it's only right that we take action for theirs.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

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?


So you're labeling this guy innocent even though you were not there and you have no idea who this guy is. See, this is exactly what I mean. You're showing me that your post was motivated for sympathy or even racially motivated, if I so dare... This is not how this works. You choose to take a side without wanting to face the possibilities that the rest of the story is true.

This is why I hate media. This is why I dislike many posts here because they seem to be for choosing sides without wanting to distribute facts, just your own side of it all. I have all the sympathy for the underdog, but wrong is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

You proved the exact point I made in my first response. Thank you.




posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I am very deaf with only very partial hearing in one ear however, I can see a flashing light when I am driving even if I don't hear a siren. So in truth I don't understand why the guy didn't stop when they wanted him to. That is, unless they have had issues with him before or he knows they are thugs by nature in uniform and would give him a hard time - especially if no-one around would stop them.

It is very frightening today because the one guardian of the public, the police have totally changed their job description without consultation with or letting the public know - who incidentally pay their wages through their taxes.

Perhaps its time to renegotiate the exact role of the police, especially in the USA and the UK where we seem to appoint far too many accomplished liars and have even altered our laws to accommodate easy arrests with precious little even circumstantial evidence.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 





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



That is an excellent point that you brought up. I hope an energetic member decides to start a campaign for law enforcement to have complete accountability for their actions.

Internal affairs is another big problem. Police should not be allowed to police themselves. There should be an independent and fully seperate agency investigating the actions of law enforcement. The investigators should get bonus points for every case of police misconduct that they prove. Similar to the way that cops get bonus points for every arrest they make.

Personally, I have never been treated poorly by law enforcement, and I make it a point to obey every law, even when I think they are stupid laws. However, I have developed a near debilitating fear of law enforcement, because of their lack of accountability. I am not a person who is usually afraid of something. In the past, I've charged in the direction of gunfire without fear. It's ridiculous that I have to be afraid of law enforcement officials in a country that I have served to protect. My fear is only because it would be a criminal act to stand up to a cop who lacks integrity.
edit on 20-1-2014 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by StallionDuck
 





tamusan - I agree totally. I understand that LEOs are supposed to affect and arrest by using minimal force and only going above that minimal when it's warranted. In this case, I highly doubt it was.


I have no problems with a law enforcement officer using force when necessary. I respect their right to safety, but they have also agreed to do a dangerous job. All I expect is the right to call bull# when an officer abuses their authority.

Personally, I think that the only time an officer should be allowed to remove his or her firearm is when the suspect is comfired to have a firearm. I'll accept that they can use a tazer on a suspect armed with a knife or other non-firearm type of weapon. However, I also reserve the right to look down on an officer who is unable to neutralize a knife threat with their bare hands.

I refuse to respect or support police officers until they all exhibit an over the top level of integrity. There is no way I will call the police for help until that happens. Until then, I will also vote against any law enforcement funding that I can.
edit on 20-1-2014 by tamusan because: to correct an unintentional gender inequality



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


My point was people need to get all the facts before jumping to a conclusion, obviously something you do in your posts (you get the facts / look at both sides then comment from a position of knowledge). Others on the other hand not so much, and are inclined to believe what's posted provided it shows law enforcement in a negative light.

Hence my comment about the title of this thread and my question on how someone can appear "obviously deaf".

As for paid leave, its dependent on departmental policy. An officer does not have to discharge a firearm in order to be placed on paid administrative leave. Being placed on leave also does not mean they are sent home. Its entirely possible for an officer to be moved to a support / administrative position pending an internal affairs investigation.

My point, and irritation, is with people who refuse to allow both sides of the story to be told. Instead they do the vey thing they complain about the police doing.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by gardener
 


time to seriously jail corrupt and abusive cops in US.



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I do read the articles and try to make sure that I see as much of the picture as I can. However, in these kinds of threads, the only comments I have are directed at the level of force used by law enforcement. I believe that the most minimum amount of force needed should always be used. I think officers should be punished for needlessly beating a suspect, regardless of the suspects guilt, innocence or crimes. Someone who needs a taser to detain an unarmed man, in my opinion, are unqualified to be in law enforcement. I should not be afraid of getting jacked up, tased, or shot because I am acting too slow or suspicious for law enforcement. Believe me, I am always abiding the law. If I am even approached by law enforcement, I will consider it unreasonable. I don't have time for that crap. However, I will comply, and I expect to be treated with respect. I am always innocent until proven guilty, not based on an officers suspicions, but by a court of law. A person should not be jacked up by law enforcement simply because they think they can.
edit on 20-1-2014 by tamusan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Weak spineless pathetic pieces of s### - oxygen thieven wastes of f###ing space.

The thoughts I have for retribution will ensure my throne in hell.



edit on 20-1-2014 by Sublimecraft because: Pathetic



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


And whether or not an officer's actions are lawful is also up to a court of law and not peoples personal opinions. A position several of the posters above my post here are demonstrating quite well.

An officer is allowed to use necessary force to overcome the level of resistance offered. The requirement set forth by scotus requires an officer to de-escalate force as soon as safely possible to do so. The other requirement set by the court is an officer's actions must be viewed in the context they took place in and not use 20/20 hindsight.

Again, one of the reasons I have asked how someone can look "obviously deaf".

The other issue is we are getting the details from the victim / suspect in this case. The Law Enforcement side wont be released until the investigations are concluded, so once again we have half a story in which people are basing their positions on.

How bad was the accident?
Why did the guy flee the accident scene?
How long did it take for him to stop for law enforcement?
What were his actions when he was contacted by law enforcement?

The fact the guy is deaf is not a relevant factor to consider since it was determined after the fact. It would be like assuming a person does not have a gun in the car because he has an anti-NRA bumper sticker. Just because there is a sticker making a claim does not mean it was put in place by the person in control of the vehicle nor does it mean the sticker / what have you even applies to the driver in question.

There are reasons why people flee accident scenes, almost all of which go hand in hand with continued criminal activity.
* - Is the driver licensed?
* - Is his license valid?
* - Is he suspended / revoked?
* - Is the driver intoxicated?
* - Is the driver under the influence of drugs?
* - Is the driver suffering from ketoacidosis?
* - Did the driver steal the car?
* - Did the driver just get done killing someone and only crashed because he was fleeing that scene?
* - Did the driver have anything illegal in the car?
* - Does the driver have warrants for his arrest?

I can keep going but you get the idea. Its not enough to claim law enforcement acted inappropriately when those claims are being made by people who refuse to educate themselves on the topic. As I have stated in other threads, investigation of law enforcement is complex and usually involves outside agencies. Those investigations look at various aspects of the officers actions -

* - Internal Affairs - Were the officer's actions within departmental policy (Garrity Rights)
* - Criminal Investigation - Done by an independent law enforcement agency / separate division of the same law enforcement agency to determine if any criminal violations occurred (Miranda Rights)
* - Civil Rights investigation - Done by the FBI using 42 USC 1983
* - Once the reports are done and sent to the PA's office, the PA usually runs their own investigation using their own investigators.

There are a lot of factors that need to be looked at before any claims can be made as to whats reasonable and whats not.

As for injuries sustained -
The head is one of the few parts of the body that can over exaggerate a persons injuries. The head has very little in between the skin and the bone. Even minor cuts can bleed to the point of it looking like a person skull was cracked open. It also bruises easier for the same reason.

Factor in the age of the suspect / victim and their medical background and an entirely different story can emerge. There are people who can bruise just from being touched -

A bruise is medically termed a contusion. Bruises are typically a result of some degree of injury to the blood vessels in the skin. Easy bruising may be a result of a seemingly insignificant compression of skin or there may be no skin injury recollected. Easy bruising can occur when the blood vessels are weakened by diseases (such as scurvy), medications (such as aspirin, prednisone and prednisolone), and aging. Easy bruising can also occur because of absent or deficient blood-clotting elements. Local leakage of blood into the skin from the capillaries that occurs spontaneously, without injury, and results in a flat, purplish discolored area is referred to as ecchymosis.


My position is let the investigation run its course, and if wrong doing is determined then by all means, charge them with a crime and let it go to court.

Calling for a lynching, so to speak, by people who refuse to educate themselves on this area simply because they hate law enforcement and who lump them all together regardless, is part of the problem.

Its not enough for a person to say "this is a problem". They must determine specifically what that problem is and develop a plan based on understanding of the issues behind it in order to effectively fix it. Taking the time to understand why seems to be the part where people fail.

Instead they would rather interject their opinions while ignoring established law / case law.

If you want to change something, you have to fix the laws in place. That cant be done when people want to use their own personal moral's in place of the laws in question.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


yet two officers beat up a 64 year old man......deaf or not was that really necessary?.....surely being trained they could take down the old man without the use of violence



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


yet two officers beat up a 64 year old man......deaf or not was that really necessary?.....surely being trained they could take down the old man without the use of violence


I, nor anyone else not present, don't know.

Hence the reason for an investigation to be conducted. The report states the victim / suspect resisted arrest. In what manner did he resist and how was the resistance perceived by the officers in question?

You are always going to hear the non law enforcement side of the coin to start out with because of how investigations and reports are conducted.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


i realise there needs to be an investigation.....bit i still cannot understand why the old man needed to be manhandled...by two officers..........would a 12 year old child need the same treatment?...regardless of him being belligerent(if he was we dont know) they are grown men and should be able to exercise restraint



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


yet two officers beat up a 64 year old man……deaf or not was that really necessary?.....surely being trained they could take down the old man without the use of violence


I think that depends on the situation. The reason resisting arrest is such a big deal is because one person resisting might just not want to get arrested, and the next one is simply trying to grab for an officers sidearm, or is ready to draw a weapon or fight.

Tough call to make in a split second. And fear and loathing on both sides of the law doesn't help.

I've already made my opinion on the OP case. I was only responding to the situation you posit. Which, I thought about to myself too in the earlier post, but didn't believe it was worth mentioning for the above reason.
edit on 20-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:48 AM
link   

boncho

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


yet two officers beat up a 64 year old man……deaf or not was that really necessary?.....surely being trained they could take down the old man without the use of violence


I think that depends on the situation. The reason resisting arrest is such a big deal is because one person resisting might just not want to get arrested, and the next one is simply trying to grab for an officers sidearm, or is ready to draw a weapon or fight.

Tough call to make in a split second. And fear and loathing on both sides of the law doesn't help.

I've already made my opinion on the OP case. I was only responding to the situation you posit. Which, I thought about to myself too in the earlier post, but didn't believe it was worth mentioning for the above reason.
edit on 20-1-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)




fair call ...i live in a country where the average citizen does not wander out of the house with a firearm so it is hard to get my head around that mindset



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


i realise there needs to be an investigation.....bit i still cannot understand why the old man needed to be manhandled...by two officers..........would a 12 year old child need the same treatment?...regardless of him being belligerent(if he was we dont know) they are grown men and should be able to exercise restraint


Did the officers know the person age at the time of encounter?

This is an example of what im talking about when I say totality of circumstances and hindsight 20/20 not being allowed to be used to review actions.

Age is not a relevant factor to consider since the age was not established until after the fact.
Being deaf is not a relevant factor to consider since it was not known until after the fact.

To answer your question though yes, I have seen people take on several officers. To assume a person is not dangerous based on their age or appearance leads to complacency and can lead to an officer not going home at the end of the night. I would rather go hands on with a 6'3 250 pound body builder than go hands on with a 25 year old female who weighs 110 pounds.

The mindset of guys being more dangerous than women is also one of those preconceptions that can get an officer killed.

Does the use of force need to be reviewed? Absolutely.

However it needs to be reviewed by using proper procedure and not what other people think should be considered, like age or disabilities. We only know this guys age and disability "after" the fact.

To address the resisting arrest issue -
A person refusing to comply with officer commands can result in a resisting an arrest charge. Resisting does not have to be an active struggle to prevent an arrest. Its like assault on an officer in my state, an officer does not have to be physically hit for it to be an assault. Here, an assault on an officer is an unwanted physical contact (apply common sense).

Did the guy refuse to open the door?
Did the guy resist when officers went to remove him from the vehicle?

Also, depending on state law, fleeing the scene of an accident is generally a felony charge.


All I want is for people to examine both sides... Then make your decision and let the investigating agency and courts work it out from there.
edit on 20-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


tamusan
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.


Couldnt agree more. With the exception of those that live in the city, no one in America protests.

There was OWS and they were hated for it. There have been a couple of pro-gun rallies and a couple of attempts to march on DC but with these few exceptions, no one in America seems to care.

Sure people complain on forums and to each other but besides being internet tough guys, theres no action.

Maybe we need a group of people in each state who will organize and motivate people (even a couple hundred) to gather outside city hall every time this happens.

Gather your friends, family, neighbors, classmates, church groups, go to the local gun clubs, wherever you think there are people who are concerned about the ever increasing criminal police state and make sure your voices are heard.





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join