Posted on 04/09/2009 1:07:13 PM PDT by Dallas59
I was referring to the abuse by non deaf individuals that would inevitably and immediately take place if there were some sort of simple signal to notify the officer. The guy who didn’t understand you was a perfect example.
My question is,” So now you have an interpreter. Now what. Does the cop then subdue the person to be communicated with, so that the interpreter can safely talk to the person? Or do you let the interpreter go into a potentially dangerous situation? Or , if they do not respond to Spanish, do you get a Korean interpreter, or maybe Portuguese?”
Sure..., that’s bound to happen, someone faking being deaf. But, I really don’t know how you’re going to stop that. How about the people in wheel chairs, that get up and walk away at the end of the day, when finished begging for money... :-)
The “key” is not necessarily that a person is deaf, but rather than an officer doesn’t start beating on someone or shoot them... If an interpreter is needed, then they’ll all wait for one and when the interpreter shows up, it will be found out right away (at that point I’d throw his butt in jail... LOL...).
If they have to take the person down to the station, then they’ll have to do it, for an interpreter, instead of one coming out there. Otherwise, if it’s not something serious, then no big deal, just let them be on their way...
I am against police brutality. I’ve had it happen to me. These threads make me angry, viscerally, like I stated in post #6.
You were saying — My question is,” So now you have an interpreter. Now what.
—
Well, the whole issue of this conversation, as it started in the first place, was for the officer to recognize that he was dealing with someone who did not hear him, and not someone who was refusing to cooperate. Once an officer knows that, then it may not really be necessary for an interpreter.
My experience with deaf people is that they are going to be very cooperative once they *actually know* that an officer is there. The problem is — that they don’t know it from a shout or a “halt” or something like that. If they actually see the officer, and see he’s waving them down to stop — they’ll stop and interact with him as a normal citizen. At that point, an interpreter may not be necessary, because pen and paper can suffice for simple things.
If the stop is much more complicated (than a traffic stop and a ticket for running a stop sign, for example), then an interpreter may be needed. In other words, if some extensive questioning is needed, then you might need an interpreter. If the officer was simply going to see what someone was doing walking around at 2 AM, perhaps a note on paper, in which the deaf person indicated they were going to a night shift at work would be all that is needed, writing down where he worked...
So, once again, if you can get by without an interpreter, then fine. If you need one, then when they get there, you simply ask the questions just like you would with any normal person. If you would *have to restrain* a normal citizen under some circumstances, you would do the same with a deaf person, but indicate that you have to according to “rules” or whatever, by writing it down, before the interpreter gets there.
But, really, I don’t find that I have an officer handcuffing me, just to talk to me about something or ask a question. You can do it just as simply with a deaf person, once you understand that they’re deaf.
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you were asking — Does the cop then subdue the person to be communicated with, so that the interpreter can safely talk to the person?
The answer to that question would be the same as the determination that the officer would make for a hearing person in similar circumstances. I’ve had policeman come up to me in public and ask me something or talk to me, but I’ve never had one find it necessary to restrain me or handcuff me in order to do that. With some people, if they start getting violent, then it may be necessary. But, that’s related to them getting violent or making things unsafe for the officer.
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And lastly you said — “Or do you let the interpreter go into a potentially dangerous situation? Or , if they do not respond to Spanish, do you get a Korean interpreter, or maybe Portuguese?”
In terms of the deaf person, you can let the officer decide if the person is dangerous or not. Mind you, the officer would be making that determination if it were a hearing person and he would determine whether he was going to have to restrain the person and handcuff him, to *even* be able to talk to him. It would be the same thing here. And when the interpreter was talking to the deaf person, the officer would be right there, to observe exactly what was going on. I’ve been in those situations with other officers, as a manager of apartment complexes and have seen them talk to people normally, have people attack the officers, have them go for weapons on them, seen struggles on the floors and all out fights with officers, with me right there... LOL.. So, I know what can happen. It’s a determination that they make on the spot.
As far as Spanish, Korean or Portuguese..., there is not the problem of the person not being aware that they are being *yelled at* to stop. If you hear a siren, and/or a holler to stop, saying “PO-LICE* STOP where you are!” (or something like that... LOL..) — they are going to hear it no matter what language they’re speaking. It’s the deaf person who will not hear that.
As to whether you get an interpreter or not — it depends on whether the officer wants to have his questions answered... or not... LOL...
If he the officer doesn’t want to communicate with a Spanish person — then no, he doesn’t have to have an interpreter... :-)
You said — In a traffic stop the LEOs need to protect themselves. If they are stopping a wanted felon, who knows the signal, I don’t want him back on the road because the interpreter was busy. I don’t know the answer here.
—
Well, remember, the issue of being deaf was related to someone not being aware an officer was there (usually a deaf person walking along the sidewalk and not responding to an officer’s calls to “Halt!”... or something like that) and having that result in a shooting or something from a misunderstanding.
If you’ve got a traffic stop, the deaf person is stopping the car and knows what the flashing lights mean and they know that they’re being stopped by an officer. Then, in that situation, it’s not a problem of the deaf person not being aware that the officer is there.
In that case, the officer takes care of the traffic stop just like any other traffic stop. If they need to write a ticket, they do so. If they have to arrest a drunk person, they do so. If the guy has to be arrested because he robbed a liquor store, then they arrest the guy. It’s no different that way.
If the deaf person is stopped driving drunk — just because he flashes some card is not going to get him out of being arrested for driving drunk... LOL...
In that situation, an interpreter not being there doesn’t mean that the deaf drunk driver is not going to be arrested.
If the guy is a wanted felon, I don’t see how flashing a card or a sign is going to keep him from getting arrested.
Does that clear it up?
You said — No, it doesn’t unfortunately. I’m seeing both sides here. A signal that can virtually guarantee a release from custody will be misused. The officers need to know more is the converse of that.
—
In terms of the officer doing his duty, I really don’t see the problem. If the officer needs to arrest a person — he just arrests him and takes him to jail. It’s not that big of a deal, if that’s what an officer needs to do. It’s up to him to determine if the person needs to be arrested.
I don’t know why that’s a big deal, actually...
I see nothing that prevents the officer from doing that. What is it that you see that keeps the officer from arresting a person, handcuffing him, putting him in the back seat and driving him off to jail?
As far as someone being “released from custody” — after they get to jail, I guess that would depend on the interpreter and what they say back and forth with whomever is questioning the guy. Remember, if the person is not deaf, they’re basically not going to be able to use the interpreter... LOL...
So, being deaf is not going to get someone released from jail... LOL... Having an interpreter there, at the jailhouse, when the person needs to be questioned is going to do nothing more than simply *communicate*. I can’t see a problem with that.
If a crime has been committed, then someone will go to court and be convicted or not. If that person is released on bail (by a judge), it would happen dependent on what the judge said and did, in a court of law.
Where is the “problem”. I just don’t see it...
You said — Being detained and waiting will not only get them released but give them grounds to sue. If a speeding ticket is grounds for arrest, which it is, then you are thinking incorrectly. I say that in the most respectful way and meant no offense.
—
You’ve gotten off track of the original point here. The issue was, originally, that an officer didn’t realize that someone was deaf and thought that someone was reaching for a weapon and/or his life was in danger.
That could have been solved by some sign that is what an officer is told to recognize. It doesn’t mean that the person *can* reach for a weapon — no, but it means that when a deaf person gives a “sign” — like “deaf” (shown up above) and/or something like I was saying — then the officer knows what he’s dealing with. That’s all that happens at that point.
It doesn’t prevent a ticket; it doesn’t prevent an arrest (if that is what would be required of a “hearing person”), it doesn’t prevent getting a driver’s license so he can write up a ticket, it doesn’t prevent the officer from doing his duty.
He’s simply aware, now..., that he’s dealing with a deaf person. The officer may have to write on a piece of paper, “your driver’s license” (but most likely, that won’t be necessary, because everyone knows that officers want your driver’s license if you’re driving the car... LOL...).
And so, I think you’re misunderstanding the situation that was there in the beginning of this issue — which was not knowing that the person was deaf. It was not, as you seem to indicate, a way to “get out of something”...
Neither did I say that someone needed to be arrested for a driving violation if that is not done for any other person. What I said was that *if* someone needed to be arrested — then they could be arrested just as easily whether they are deaf or hearing. That’s not the issue here.
And neither will the “sign” of being deaf prevent someone from being arrested if they need to be arrested. So, it’s not that they *will* be arrested, but rather being deaf, giving a “sign” will have *absolutely no bearing* on whether one has probable cause to arrest someone for whatever violation.
If it’s a “ticket” — then the deaf person simply gets a ticket — that’s all...
If they’ve done something that requires being arrested, then they’ll get arrested (just as anyone else would be arrested).
So, once again, I see no problem here...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And lastly you said — That makes me sick. Lock ‘em all up right? WTF.
—
You didn’t see me write that...
I said, and I don’t know why you can’t understand this — is if someone needs to be arrested, then they will be. It has *absolutely nothing* to do with being deaf (in terms of arresting someone). The acknowledgment of being deaf is only for the purposes of communications and to avoid misunderstandings in the “stop” by the policeman — and not having anything to do with arresting or not arresting...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Oh, and one more thing... the idea that “waiting” is going to open up a “lawsuit” in terms of being stopped is sort of ridiculous. The problem is more having to do with probable cause for the stop, than anything else. And that’s not too hard of an issue to deal with, as far as an officer is concerned. I’ve heard that all an officer has to do is follow a car for a few minutes and they’ll have “probable cause” for a stop, because hardly anyone can drive a car without violating some law in a few minutes... LOL...
And in addition to that, I don’t know about you, but I’ve been stopped in some *long* traffic stops. It depends on a lot of things. I’ve seen others that have been stopped for almost an hour or so... (I would hate to be in that kind of a mess) before they were on their way again. I’ve seen people sitting out on the side of the road, while they are stopped, because it’s taking so long. I don’t think the amount of time that the officer takes to do his job is going to be a factor in the probable cause of stopping a person, driving in their car.
So, once again, I really don’t see a problem with a “sign” to alert the officer to what he’s dealing with. If he has to arrest the person (no matter who it is), the “sign” is not going to stop the arrest from happening. And the “sign” is not going to get the person out of jail any faster, either... :-)
I just want to interject and make one request, shorter responses please. I try to respect you.
Well..., that one may be hard to do for me... :-) What can I say..., this issue is something that would probably generate hundreds of thousands of words in the course of trying to get a “solution” that the city could implement...
I can’t discuss anything with you. Your mind is not in it right now. Sad. Ping me later if you can stand a healthy debate.
I don’t know about that one... I’m quite “focused” at the moment... :-)
Okay. Whatever. Nice to know I’m being apweciated. (sniff, sniff). What a joke.
All I’m saying is that I’m as focused as I’ll ever be, right now... :-) and I really can’t see that I’m not analyzing all this very seriously and intently. I say that because I’ve been personally involved with these very issues, so that’s why I’m as focused as I am about it. I know these issues from having relatives involved in them.
... and... I’ve also lived in this very area, too (where these issues were directly relevant at the time), so I know the local circumstances (as far as Dallas and Fort Worth are concerned...).
So what’s up? I value your perspective. What’s going on down there.
“lived” — past tense... I’m in Oklahoma now. But, I was involved with the deaf community down there at the time, through relatives and also growing up in the deaf community...
I can’t tell you what is going on down there right now, in terms of this case, but I can say that it’s a problem in just the *recognition* of someone being deaf and not “misunderstanding” the situation. Once you’ve got that recognition, then it should be okay, and that’s all that I’m saying.
It’s when that’s not clear that things go wrong...
And, it’s like I’ve been saying that “recognition” of being deaf is not really going to affect that officer in terms of a “get-out-of-jail-free card”. Perhaps this is not “understandable” from someone else’s perspective, but it’s super clear to me, at least the way I see it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.