# Tasing the deaf & disabled **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598 "2009-07-28T21:18:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/141 "2009-08-02T06:21:54Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > The ‘resistance’ they met was not a threat of any kind. The resistance they met was refusal to respond to a police order to open the door. The threat was anything in the suspect’s hand that could be used as a weapon. > [@NoJustice](#): > > Incorrect.An umbrella is only a weapon if it is used as one. To say otherwise makes _ **EVERYTHING** _ a weapon, rendering the word ‘weapon’ completely meaningless. Your continuing equivocation is as clumsy and transparent as it is insulting. Yes, just about everything in your hand is a weapon when confronting the police. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/142 "2009-08-02T06:38:12Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > They were then met with an umbrella which can easily be used as a weapon. Anyone who doubts the lethality of one can place their thumb below their Adam’s apple and apply 1 lb of pressure. An umbrella tip will have 1/3 of the surface area (more lbs per sq in). A mild jab using 10 lbs of pressure is an incapacitating event if not fatal. 10 lbs of pressure is far less than what a child can generate in a thrusting motion. It’s a child with an umbrella and HE’S COMIN’ RIGHT FOR US!!! ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/143 "2009-08-02T06:42:56Z")
> [@](#): > > The resistance they met was refusal to respond to a police order to open the door. No shit sherlock. This, in itself, is not a reason to use defencive weapons. > [@](#): > > The threat was anything in the suspect’s hand that could be used as a weapon. Actually no. But I’ll leave it to you to figure out what is wrong with this statement since nobody has claimed that there was anything in Mr. Love’s hand at any time during this incident. > [@](#): > > yes, just about everything in your hand is a weapon when confronting the police. Nor did Mr. Love ‘confront’ police, in any way which would make it reasonable to refer to any object in his hand as a weapon. More equivocation. Nobody is fooled. Like **The Tao’s Revenge** I am losing the will to even bother forming complete sentences in response to this bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/144 "2009-08-02T06:58:34Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > No shit sherlock. This, in itself, is not a reason to use defencive weapons. > > Actually no. But I’ll leave it to you to figure out what is wrong with this statement since nobody has claimed that there was anything in Mr. Love’s hand at any time during this incident. > > Nor did Mr. Love ‘confront’ police, in any way which would make it reasonable to refer to any object in his hand as a weapon. > More equivocation. Nobody is fooled. Like **The Tao’s Revenge** I am losing the will to even bother forming complete sentences in response to this bullshit. The police had no way of knowing the person resisting didn’t understand what was going on. The resistence they encountered changed the dynamic on how they would react to a potential weapon. It’s logical to assume that a non-cooperative suspect is more likely to harm them. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/145 "2009-08-02T07:01:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The police had no way of knowing the person resisting didn’t understand what was going on. The resistence they encountered changed the dynamic on how they would react to a potential weapon. It’s logical to assume that a non-cooperative suspect is more likely to harm them. Yeahhhhhh. Closing a bathroom door because someone is trying to barge in on you is highly unusual, and therefore suspicious (and violent and dangerous) behaviour. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/146 "2009-08-02T07:11:37Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yeahhhhhh. Closing a bathroom door because someone is trying to barge in on you is highly unusual, and therefore suspicious (and violent and dangerous) behaviour. > > :rolleyes: It is when you’ve been pounding on the door asking for an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/147 "2009-08-02T07:13:28Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yeahhhhhh. Closing a bathroom door because someone is trying to barge in on you is highly unusual, and therefore suspicious (and violent and dangerous) behaviour. > > :rolleyes: Dude - I agree. Except, from the perspective of those outside: Been in the bathroom for an hour (or so) Not answering any knocks. Not answering any words. Seriously, what is someone supposed to think is going on? What should the cops do after being called in by the store about the person locked into the bathroom for a long period of time who does not respond? Personally, if someone tries to come into the room when I am on the toilet, I yell out “occupied.” I also don’t think that the devil is coming to get me. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/148 "2009-08-02T07:33:36Z")
> [@](#): > > The police had no way of knowing the person resisting didn’t understand what was going on. Another red herring. Neither Mr. Love’s understanding of what was going on, nor the officers knowledge of this has any bearing on whether or not to use a defencive weapon when there is no threat. > [@](#): > > The resistence they encountered changed the dynamic on how they would react to a potential weapon. In theory… That’s a possibility. I consider it much more likely the ‘potential weapon’ was an excuse made up after the fact rather than something they actually reacted to. But it makes no difference. Whether or not the ‘resistance’ affected their reaction to a ‘potential weapon’ or not, has no bearing on whether it _ **SHOULD HAVE** _. > [@](#): > > It’s logical to assume that a non-cooperative suspect is more likely to harm them. Utterly irrelevant due to the meaninglessness of the term “more likely” without specifying ‘more likely _that what?_’. I’ll admit. Your bullshit is at least becoming slightly less transparent. **On preview:** > [@Magiver](#): > > It is when you’ve been pounding on the door asking for an explanation. Bullshit. Pounding on the door and not getting a response, is unusual.. this does not, in addition, make otherwise normal reactions unusual in themselves. > [@Algher](#): > > Dude - I agree. Except, from the perspective of those outside: > > Been in the bathroom for an hour (or so) > Not answering any knocks. > Not answering any words. See above. > [@](#): > > Seriously, what is someone supposed to think is going on? > > What should the cops do after being called in by the store about the person locked into the bathroom for a long period of time who does not respond? This has been asked and answered many many times. Read the thread, and the responses to you yourself since you have asked this over and over. Respond with an argument, or STFU, but bother us no more with your invincible ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/149 "2009-08-02T08:48:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The police had no way of knowing the person resisting didn’t understand what was going on. The resistence they encountered changed the dynamic on how they would react to a potential weapon. It’s logical to assume that a non-cooperative suspect is more likely to harm them. Thus the point of _investigating_ a little before escalating the physicality of the encounter. If they’re in close proximity to this person, identifying themselves, knocking and asking if the person is okay and the person’s response is to slam the door shut, then it’s time to step back and ask why. And while it is a possibility that the person is doing something nefarious or illegal, it is also a real possibility that the person could not understand who was forcing their way into a small space where privacy is a necessity. It could have been that the person was deaf, it could have been that the person did not speak English. It could be that the person is in a fugue state, a diabetic crisis or having a panic attack/PTSD episode. None of these warrant _physical confrontation_ (via door ramming, pepper spray or tasers) as the next step. > [@Algher](#): > > Personally, if someone tries to come into the room when I am on the toilet, I yell out “occupied.” I also don’t think that the devil is coming to get me. You can also hear and speak. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/150 "2009-08-02T13:32:48Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Care to back away from this reprehensible little condescension, then, Shodan? No, I don’t see any reason to. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/151 "2009-08-02T13:55:59Z")
I have not clicked on the link. I’m guessing white cop/black deaf guy. I’m guessing the South. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/152 "2009-08-02T15:29:49Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Thus the point of _investigating_ a little before escalating the physicality of the encounter. If they’re in close proximity to this person, identifying themselves, knocking and asking if the person is okay and the person’s response is to slam the door shut, then it’s time to step back and ask why. And while it is a possibility that the person is doing something nefarious or illegal, it is also a real possibility that the person could not understand who was forcing their way into a small space where privacy is a necessity. It could have been that the person was deaf, it could have been that the person did not speak English. It could be that the person is in a fugue state, a diabetic crisis or having a panic attack/PTSD episode. None of these warrant _physical confrontation_ (via door ramming, pepper spray or tasers) as the next step. > > You can also hear and speak. They did investigate. Nothing came of it. As you stated, the person could be having medical problems or be a fugative. The police have no way of knowing without breaking down the door. Since they didn’t get any response they have to be ready for a threatening situation. The umbrella posed a threat to them. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/153 "2009-08-02T16:50:56Z")
Again with the invincible ignorance. Every single one of these points has already been refuted. Those which you didn’t snip out of the quotes when you replied, you ignored regardless. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/154 "2009-08-02T17:18:36Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I do agree with this (which is different from what I said.) I fully support a police officer’s right to defend him or herself. Show me where these officers were defending themselves. They were defending themselves from a possible threat. The possible threat came from: 1. Unknown person resisting orders 2. Object that can possibly be used as a weapon 3. Unusual circumstances requiring police presence If it were just one of those, I would not support the police defending themselves. An odd guy, so what? He’s got a right to be odd. Some guy in the street with an umbrella, so what, its not illegal. Resisting…well, that’s less defensible, but still doesn’t require force (depending on situation). But all 3? Yeah, take out the pepper spray. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > No one has made any mention that the officers should not be on their guard. No one. You are arguing against a point that has never been brought up. Isn’t there a term for doing this? You have not said so explicitly, no. However, you expect them to act as if they are not on guard, big difference. Like what I said to Cisco above, all 3 circumstances combine to make this a situation in which the cops rightly acted more forcefully > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Defense is fine. What actions were they defending themselves against? They were defending themselves from possible harm by an unknown with a potential weapon who is resisting a simple order to open the door by pushing up against it when they were trying to enter. If you don’t think that there might possibly be some element of danger there had the guy turned out to be an addict shooting up or whatever, then this conversation will go nowhere > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Come again? Not wanting someone to come into the bathroom is now a violent act? Seriously? Not talking is now threatening behaviour? Are you serious? I didn’t say violent nor did I imply that not talking is threatening. Please refrain from making up shit. I said that because he was resisting AND was in there an hour AND there was a potential weapon AND he didn’t respond to orders, the cops correctly assumed that pepper spray might be necessary to subdue this guy. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yes, in the abscence of any new information, I would say that after that amount of time trying to ascertain what was going in the bathroom, and who was in there, it would be reasonable to think that the best source of information was, in fact, the person in the bathroom. At that point, I would agree that breaking into the room would be a reasonable course of action. Considering that he was already in there for an hour, your assertion is that cops should wait at least 2 hours when they can’t get any information? I guess I have less tolerance of wasting their time than you do > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > There you go assuming things again. Why would you do that? Why **should** anyone assume things, and then act, knowing that they have very little information about the situation? Do you want your state senators, your president, your neighbors, your co-workers, your banker, your lawyer, _anyone_ to actually make decisions based on assumptions? I don’t, and I don’t want my police officers acting on assumptions either, not when so much hangs in the balance (you know, little things, like life, liberty, etc.) Because not all assumptions are equal. You think that the manager never tried to knock and tell the guy to come out? That he just waited for an hour and called the police? Certain things, even assumptions, are a pretty safe bet. Do you think Mr. Love was on the toilet or snorting coke? Since you weren’t in there, you don’t know. So what if his stomach was upset before he went in? He could be shitting and doing crack at the same time. It was perfectly fine to assume the manager tried to get him out by at least knocking. That’s what’s called a safe assumption. Given that, the cops already knew this guy was unresponsive so they acted rationally when trying to get him out > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I disagree. They had all the information they could get _without making any efforts on their own to gather any_. That’s sloppy, shitty police work. They knocked and told him to get out. I dont know what you expect them to do from behind a locked door in order to gather information. Its not like there are any windows to peer in or a security camera inside the bathroom. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > You keep harping on this badge thing. They could slip it under the door without relinquishing it, you know. They could have used a business card, which officers do carry. They could have written on a piece of paper “police open up”. There are dozens of ways to communicate, and the police tried 2: knocking and speaking. Because in most situations, knocking and speaking would be perfectly acceptable. To put it another way, if they guy had normal hearing and maturity, and he STILL didnt respond, and the cops busted in, I wonder how many people would be upset at their behavior? People may have said instead “They gave him a chance, they shouted and pounded at the door, its his fault that he didnt come out. He should have spoken up at least”. Its only because you seem to want the police to know beforehand that he was deaf and mentally challenged that I think you’re having an issue with this. Besides, I could simply take your example and extend it further into ridiculousness. What if he was blind as well and couldn’t see the card or badge? Should the cops assume that? If he didnt respond to the badge or card, should they slip a rope under the door and expect him to pull on it, once for yes, twice for no? What if they guy didnt notice the rope? Maybe the cops should have drilled a small hole into the door so they could see whats going on? But what if they couldnt see him from that angle? Drill another hole? Maybe should send in some kind of robot? The cops spoke and knocked, thats all they should be expected to do. They cannot expect everyone to be deaf, blind, mentally challenged, ignorant, etc. They gave him a chance to come out, but it was unfortunate that he had a disability that they didnt know about. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Well, I know it. You should too, if you had read the stories in the links provided. Sorry, scanned it quickly. Missed that detail. Changes nothing though ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/155 "2009-08-02T17:25:26Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > They were defending themselves from a possible threat. I can’t really argue against something so ridiculous, but it did make me laugh. Thanks for that. I’m gonna go defend myself from possible threats now. Where’s my taser . . . ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/156 "2009-08-02T17:33:02Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > Again with the invincible ignorance. > > Every single one of these points has already been refuted. Those which you didn’t snip out of the quotes when you replied, you ignored regardless. Unless there is a debate judge I’m not aware of to award points you’ve refuted nothing beyond agreeing with yourself. You’ve provided no logical course of action for the police to take except that they should “investigate”. Kreskin was probably busy that night so that means they had to break the door down and confront the person to fnd out what is going on. They had no way of knowing what to expect and reacted appropriately to a pointy object in the hands of someone who (in their view) was not cooperative. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/157 "2009-08-02T18:23:55Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > **You have not said so explicitly, no. However, you expect them to act as if they are not on guard, big difference.** Like what I said to Cisco above, all 3 circumstances combine to make this a situation in which the cops rightly acted more forcefully The bolded part is REALLY funny considering that 2 paragraphs later you say: > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I didn’t say violent nor did I imply that not talking is threatening. **Please refrain from making up shit**. I mean, that’s fucking hilarious. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > They were defending themselves from possible harm by an unknown with a potential weapon who is resisting a simple order to open the door by pushing up against it when they were trying to enter. If you don’t think that there might possibly be some element of danger there had the guy turned out to be an addict shooting up or whatever, then this conversation will go nowhere Look, the whole concept of “pre-emptive defense” is Orwellian. If I walk down the Las Vegas strip clubbing every other passerby within arms reach, would you accept my explanation that I was defending myself from possible harm or robbery from persons unknown? I mean, if they don’t intend to rob me or hurt me, why are they getting _so_ close to me? That excuse was ridiculous in 2003, and it’s ridiculous today. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > I said that because he was resisting AND was in there an hour AND there was a potential weapon AND he didn’t respond to orders, the cops correctly assumed that pepper spray might be necessary to subdue this guy. > > Considering that he was already in there for an hour, your assertion is that cops should wait at least 2 hours when they can’t get any information? I guess I have less tolerance of wasting their time than you do Actually, my thought before he pushed back against the door would be “Is there a corpse in there?” After he prevented me from entering it would be “Whaaa??? What the hell is going on in there?” at which point I would have tried to find that out, not by pepper spraying, but by trying to establish communication again, in a different manner; i.e the badge/note/whatever under the door, speak in Espanol, whatever else I could think of. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Because not all assumptions are equal. You think that the manager never tried to knock and tell the guy to come out? That he just waited for an hour and called the police? Certain things, even assumptions, are a pretty safe bet. Do you think Mr. Love was on the toilet or snorting coke? Since you weren’t in there, you don’t know. So what if his stomach was upset before he went in? He could be shitting and doing crack at the same time. > > It was perfectly fine to assume the manager tried to get him out by at least knocking. That’s what’s called a safe assumption. Given that, the cops already knew this guy was unresponsive so they acted rationally when trying to get him out Let me get this straight: you think that the correct action to take to an unresponsive person is to pepper spray them and tase them? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > They knocked and told him to get out. I dont know what you expect them to do from behind a locked door in order to gather information. Its not like there are any windows to peer in or a security camera inside the bathroom. How could you not know what I expect them to do when it’s all I’ve been writing about throughout this thread? Are you actually reading my posts? Hell, I just said it **again** right above that last quote box. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Because in most situations, knocking and speaking would be perfectly acceptable. To put it another way, if they guy had normal hearing and maturity, and he STILL didnt respond, and the cops busted in, I wonder how many people would be upset at their behavior? People may have said instead “They gave him a chance, they shouted and pounded at the door, its his fault that he didnt come out. He should have spoken up at least”. Its only because you seem to want the police to know beforehand that he was deaf and mentally challenged that I think you’re having an issue with this. Nope. Not an accurate assessment of anything I’ve written here. And ya know what, if the cops had only broken thru the locked door, I prolly wouldn’t have a problem with that part of the situation. **As I already said in another post in this thread** , at some point it would become obvious that the best source of information about the situation was in the bathroom itself, and so the officers would have to gain entry. But thinking that an unresponsive person, who denies you entry to a room that any normal person would deny another person entry to while utilizing themselves, needs to be “taken down” is ridiculous. Utter insanity. Lunatic reasoning. I mean, you (and others, to be fair) are still not acknowledging that this was a bathroom. Not a storeroom, not an office, but a room _specifically_ built to offer a person **privacy** of a type that for the most part, in our culture, we find inviolate. For fuck’s sake, man, most men won’t even look at or talk to another man, even a friend, in a multi-user public restroom. Can’t you see that the context of the room matters to the behaviour exhibited? It’s just not normal to let another person into the bathroom while you are using it, not in our culture. > [@](#): > > Besides, I could simply take your example and extend it further into ridiculousness. What if he was blind as well and couldn’t see the card or badge? Should the cops assume that? Now you’re offering ridiculous scenarios, but I’ll tackle them. The officers knew he wasn’t blind, because that would be a detail that store personnel would be unable to miss. He would have a cane, or a dog, and would be unable to see the sign for the bathroom, or to follow verbal instructions: Blind Mr. Love: Do you have a bathroom I can use? Store Employee: Sure! Right down the 3rd aisle, then thru the stockroom door. First door after the diapers! Blind Mr. Love: I’m blind. Can you point me towards the door, at least? Or show my dog which way to get going? If the store employees withheld that information, and thus the officers acted the way they did in real life, then we have a whole other thing to be upset about. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > If he didnt respond to the badge or card, should they slip a rope under the door and expect him to pull on it, once for yes, twice for no? Why would anyone, faced with a rope under a door, _assume_ that pulling it once meant yes and 2x meant no? And since he can’t hear them, he prolly wouldn’t give a tug on it at all, except maybe to try and pull the rope into the bathroom, no doubt puzzled as to why someone was pushing a rope under the door. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > What if they guy didnt notice the rope? Maybe the cops should have drilled a small hole into the door so they could see whats going on? But what if they couldnt see him from that angle? Drill another hole? Maybe should send in some kind of robot? **Again** , at some point I agree that the police would have to gain entry in order to fully ascertain what was going on with this guy who won’t come out of the bathroom. I never NEVER have made any statements that the police should just have infinite patience and just let the guy be if he doesn’t want to come out. NEVER. NEVER. I never came up with ludicrous examples for the police to keep trying things. I don’t think they should have slipped a cel phone under the door, with only the officer’s cel phone number pre-programmed into it. I don’t think they should have called for a hostage negotiator. I don’t think they should have told the store personnel to wait until closing time before they dealt with the guy. I don’t think they should have called NASA for satellite surveillance. I don’t think they should have called Sylvia Brown to come and use his psychic powers. I don’t think they should have immediately resorted to violent take down procedures either, like pepper spray and tasers, since there was **no threat** , only the same type of resistance that you or I or anyone else would have offered to an unknown person trying to enter the most private room in our culture, a room designed for one, and only one, person to use at a time. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > The cops spoke and knocked, thats all they should be expected to do. They cannot expect everyone to be deaf, blind, mentally challenged, ignorant, etc. They gave him a chance to come out, but it was unfortunate that he had a disability that they didnt know about. I want my police officers to be better than that. I want my police officers to protect and serve their community. Not protect OR serve, but to do both at the same time, with restraint and intelligence. I don’t want stupid, ignorant assholes with itchy, nervous trigger fingers and fear in their hearts walking around with weapons and the “right” to use them in my name. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/158 "2009-08-02T18:31:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Unless there is a debate judge I’m not aware of to award points you’ve refuted nothing beyond agreeing with yourself. You’ve provided no logical course of action for the police to take except that they should “investigate”. Kreskin was probably busy that night so that means they had to break the door down and confront the person to fnd out what is going on. They had no way of knowing what to expect and reacted appropriately to a pointy object in the hands of someone who (in their view) was not cooperative. Are you Kreskin? How do you know it was a “pointy object in the hands of someone” who was not cooperating? Do you have a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/159 "2009-08-02T18:32:55Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > I have not clicked on the link. I’m guessing white cop/black deaf guy. I’m guessing the South. Unfortunately, you have quite a few of the details right without even looking at the story. But I really don’t think race had anything to do with this, since there was no way anyone could know the other’s race thru a closed bathroom door. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/160 "2009-08-02T18:38:54Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Unless there is a debate judge I’m not aware of to award points you’ve refuted nothing beyond agreeing with yourself. Incorrect. You made factually incorrect claims; I, and others, posted refutations of these claims. If you decline to rebut, you are either conceding the point or are attempting to debate dishonestly. No official judge is needed to recognize your failures. > [@](#): > > You’ve provided no logical course of action for the police to take except that they should “investigate”. Bullshit. Read the thread, or STFU. > [@](#): > > Kreskin was probably busy that night so that means they had to break the door down and confront the person to fnd out what is going on. Already refuted. Repetition != rebuttal. > [@](#): > > They had no way of knowing what to expect … Already refuted. Repetition != rebuttal. > [@](#): > > … and reacted appropriately to a pointy object in the hands of someone who (in their view) was not cooperative. These claims that the umbrella was ‘pointy’ or that it was even in Mr. Love’s hands at any time would be irrelevant even if true, but they are also completely lacking any evidence. This has been pointed out many times, and nobody has made any attempt to provide support for these claims. Yet you continue to repeat them. Invincible ignorance. See **YogSosoth** above. He has also already been refuted several times, but he rebuts with more factually incorrect claims instead of merely repeating his refuted opinion over and over. This is at least an argument, though an invalid one. You on the other hand have not posted an actual argument in a while (if ever). Merely repeating yourself over and over, while ignoring all refutation, is not an argument; it is invincible ignorance. I have no interest in determining whether your inanity is the result of dishonesty or simple stupidity; the appropriate response is the same either way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598.md?page=9)