Freddie Mac has posted a video on YouTube, to help people avoid fraud when they find themselves facing possible foreclosure. I checked it out, and this video is not captioned. Is it required to be? No. Title IV of the ADA requires that any Public Service Announcements that get any funding from the Federal government be captioned. However, Freddie Mac is not a government agency; it is a private company that was chartered by Congress.
Even if they are not a Federal agency, Freddie Mac should have captioned this video. It is a de facto public service announcement from a private company. The information provided needs to be accessible to all.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Deaf, Tasers, and Police: Damned If You Do, Damned if You Don't
I understand the anger about the use of the taser on a naked, helpless deaf man (Donnell Williams) who just got out of the bathtub and did not hear the police's commands. At the same time, I can understand why it happened. The police were trying to handle a dangerous situation according to police protocol for handling a report of a shooting.
I examined all the news articles about the incident, trying to piece together what happened and have comments about certain key events.
1. The police were responding to a very potentially dangerous situation, that of a shooting. (The report later turned out to be false)
2. When he got out of the bathtub wearing only a towel and went around the corner, he saw guns pointing at him.
3. The police say they commanded him to show his hands (and bear in mind he was naked wearing only a towel - we don't know if he was using his hands to hold the towel)
4. It is not clear if the command to show his hands came when he was face to face with the guns, or if it came after he allegedly walked away and then returned. ("He walked out of their field of view and then came back," Lee said. Quote taken from today's article in the Wichita Eagle. )
5. Why did he walk away when facing police? Walking away may have been a bad thing to do, because when you walk away and turn your back, you are not going to be able to hear anything said behind you. Was walking away the rational response to being face to face with police? Should he have stayed where he was and tried to communicate to the police that he was deaf?
Or was it different - did he react the way people react when surprised? Bob pointed out that when people are surprised, they sometimes walk backwards, hide a bit, then peer around to see what is going on and come back. Is that what happened here?
Bob also wonders if he was going to get something to write on.
6. When the police thought he was refusing to obey the command to show his hands, they shot him. Did they shoot him from behind? Was he facing them (bear in mind that they say he returned) ? None of the news articles seem to have this information.
7. Williams says that he kept telling them he could not hear. It is not clear from news reports if his back was turned or if he was face to face with the police when he was telling them that. It makes a big difference which way he was facing. It might have been a factor in their deciding to taser him.
That's the problem with news reports...they often create more questions than they answer.
In the Eyewitness News 12 story, the police deputy chief said:
"Do I wish there would have been some way they were notified in advance this gentleman was hearing impaired? I certainly do. No one is happy with the way it worked out," says Lee.
And that brings me to the damned if you do, damned if you don't of this blog post. What can the police do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? What if the police had a rule that said "no tasering until you are sure that the person can not hear?" That could lead real criminals or shooters to pretend to be deaf and take advantage of the time delay to cause more harm to people, police or otherwise.
I don't want to be tasered by accident, but if the police had reason to believe I was a mall shooter, who would blame them for tasering me before I could explain that I could not hear? How do you protect individual rights of a deaf person in the face of the greater need - to prevent death and mayhem? Should deaf people be required to register with the police in their communities? That would smack of big brother, but I don't know of any other way to make sure police know in advance that someone they are about to confront in their home is deaf! I'm sure no deaf person wants to put up a sign in front of their home that says "A deaf person lives here. Police, please be careful."
The police and the Wichita Association of the Deaf met today to come up with to prevent this situation from repeating itself. If they come up with something workable, hopefully it can be replicated in communities nationwide.
I examined all the news articles about the incident, trying to piece together what happened and have comments about certain key events.
1. The police were responding to a very potentially dangerous situation, that of a shooting. (The report later turned out to be false)
2. When he got out of the bathtub wearing only a towel and went around the corner, he saw guns pointing at him.
3. The police say they commanded him to show his hands (and bear in mind he was naked wearing only a towel - we don't know if he was using his hands to hold the towel)
4. It is not clear if the command to show his hands came when he was face to face with the guns, or if it came after he allegedly walked away and then returned. ("He walked out of their field of view and then came back," Lee said. Quote taken from today's article in the Wichita Eagle. )
5. Why did he walk away when facing police? Walking away may have been a bad thing to do, because when you walk away and turn your back, you are not going to be able to hear anything said behind you. Was walking away the rational response to being face to face with police? Should he have stayed where he was and tried to communicate to the police that he was deaf?
Or was it different - did he react the way people react when surprised? Bob pointed out that when people are surprised, they sometimes walk backwards, hide a bit, then peer around to see what is going on and come back. Is that what happened here?
Bob also wonders if he was going to get something to write on.
6. When the police thought he was refusing to obey the command to show his hands, they shot him. Did they shoot him from behind? Was he facing them (bear in mind that they say he returned) ? None of the news articles seem to have this information.
7. Williams says that he kept telling them he could not hear. It is not clear from news reports if his back was turned or if he was face to face with the police when he was telling them that. It makes a big difference which way he was facing. It might have been a factor in their deciding to taser him.
That's the problem with news reports...they often create more questions than they answer.
In the Eyewitness News 12 story, the police deputy chief said:
"Do I wish there would have been some way they were notified in advance this gentleman was hearing impaired? I certainly do. No one is happy with the way it worked out," says Lee.
And that brings me to the damned if you do, damned if you don't of this blog post. What can the police do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? What if the police had a rule that said "no tasering until you are sure that the person can not hear?" That could lead real criminals or shooters to pretend to be deaf and take advantage of the time delay to cause more harm to people, police or otherwise.
I don't want to be tasered by accident, but if the police had reason to believe I was a mall shooter, who would blame them for tasering me before I could explain that I could not hear? How do you protect individual rights of a deaf person in the face of the greater need - to prevent death and mayhem? Should deaf people be required to register with the police in their communities? That would smack of big brother, but I don't know of any other way to make sure police know in advance that someone they are about to confront in their home is deaf! I'm sure no deaf person wants to put up a sign in front of their home that says "A deaf person lives here. Police, please be careful."
The police and the Wichita Association of the Deaf met today to come up with to prevent this situation from repeating itself. If they come up with something workable, hopefully it can be replicated in communities nationwide.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Donations Influence Deaf Schools
Last night at the Northern Virginia Association of the Deaf Christmas party I met a couple with a deaf child. Their child used sign language. We got to chatting, and I learned that the child attended the River School in northwest Washington, DC. The River School is a private school for deaf and hard of hearing children. I asked the parents, "but isn't the River School an oral school?" They replied that yes, River School was primarily an oral school, but because of apparent stipulations by donors to the school, they have had to become somewhat flexible, allowing sign language when needed or desired.
When I got home I checked out the River School website. The website makes no mention of permitting use of sign language as desired or needed, and emphasizes oral education. I have never visited the River School, so I do not know what the learning environment is like. Are students there learning both orally and with sign language? All I know is that I met a signing deaf child who attends a school that purports to be oral.
Incidentially, the parents said their signing child was thriving at the River School, so the school must be doing something right.
When I got home I checked out the River School website. The website makes no mention of permitting use of sign language as desired or needed, and emphasizes oral education. I have never visited the River School, so I do not know what the learning environment is like. Are students there learning both orally and with sign language? All I know is that I met a signing deaf child who attends a school that purports to be oral.
Incidentially, the parents said their signing child was thriving at the River School, so the school must be doing something right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
