Bahl Juror Who Swayed The Jury Speaks Out
I served on the jury for Mr. Bahl’s trial last week. As you may guess from my entry to this blog, it was a moving experience for me.Â
I have no doubt in our guilty verdict of Obstructing Legal Process. We deliberated for 2 days, so certainly we did not treat this case lightly. In the end it came down to Mr. Bahl’s testimony for me. When asked why he pulled his wrist away from Officer Bobrowski, he testified that he pulled it away to write. Although I feel that Mr. Bahl intended to communicate with the officer by writing (and therefore improving the situation), he also intended to do this on his terms. I firmly believe that police have the authority to control these situations in the way they see fit and that citizens that resist are breaking the law. The only way we can legally resist is in self defense. However, when Mr. Bahl was asked whether he felt that Officer Bobrowski intended to harm him, he responded no. Therefore, he cannot claim self defense in pulling away from the officer trying to restrain him. This is why I feel he was guilty.
That being said, I very much sympathize with him for what happened to him outside of the car. Certainly there was communication issues, and I think that Officer Bobrowski could have done a better job. I do not know who contacted who first, their testimonies contradicted each other, but the end result was very unfortunate. My thoughts are that police have at lot to learn from this situation. But I also believe death individuals have some responsibility when being pulled over; just like somebody who can hear, the first response is to produce your identification and insurance. Does not producing these items give the police the right to beat someone? Absolutely not!Â
After the trial I found out that Mr. Bahl had spent 4 days in jail without being allowed to contact his family. This is absolutely tragic, and if his claims are true I certainly hope he is successful in his civil trial.
One thing that was evident to myself, and to the rest of the jurors, is that Douglas Bahl is an extraordinary individual. Even by judging him guilty of this crime, that in no way takes away from his accomplishments as a leader and activist in the deaf community in my opinion. Â
From reading this blog it is quite obvious to me that there is a lot of concern for Mr. Bahl, as well as the current state of relations between police and deaf individuals. I hope my first hand description of the trial was helpful to you all.
Sincerely,
Eric Barsness
St. Paul, MN
Commentary:
This comment was entered in my blog last night. For those who may not know, Mr. Barsness was instrumental in swaying the jury from four not guilty and two guilty to all six guilty.
Mr. Barness, I appreciate you reading this blog and sharing your thoughts with us. I hope you’ll agree to answer my questions. First of all, did you ever imagine what it is like to be fully deaf, non verbal, sitting in the driver’s seat, facing an officer speaking in a language he cannot understand? You mentioned that the deaf driver should hand in his driver’s license. Perhaps he thought the officer was telling him not to move. Are you aware that some deaf people have been shot and killed by the police for taking out their driver’s licenses before being asked for them, prompting the officers to shoot in self defense, thinking they may be reaching for handguns? Consequently, many deaf people are terrified of how an officer might react to them due to a communication breakdown. Mr. Bahl was being very prudent, wanting to understand what the officer said first, so he wouldn’t be shot.. and he ended up being maced, blinded, and beaten to a bloody pulp. What is a deaf person supposed to do? Move first and risk getting shot and killed or try to communicate and get beaten? This sounds like an impossible position to be in for any deaf driver.
Do you feel as an American, Mr. Bahl has the right to communicate and the officer holding down his hand was in effect, preventing him from communicating at all? Do you agree the officer has the right to ’silence’ the citizen by depriving him of his only means of communication? Don’t you think that act violates Mr. Bahl’s rights under Americans with Disabilities Act, which dictates that a disabled citizen must be treated as equal to a non-disabled American? In other words, the jury apparently decided that an officer of the law isn’t expected to comply with federal laws, ADA and Section 504. Please excuse my confusion.
Also how do you feel when you realized that the jury ignored the significance of statements that Mr. Bahl, already in severe pain, experienced greater pain when the officer held his wrist, even though Mr Bahl knew the officer didn’t mean to inflict harm? Do you think one should be expected to tolerate the extreme pain? I don’t know about you, but I know I couldn’t if I am already in tremendous pain. I didn’t know officers are permitted to inflict pain, intentionally or unintentionally, on an unarmed and peaceful American, especially an older man. I believe the individual has the right to move away in self defense against greater pain.
Please think about the points I raise here, Mr. Barsness. Again I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. MZ
Â
Deaf Pundit’s Bahl Petition:
Please show your concerns in how Bahl was handled by the police during the traffic stop by signing this petition. This online petition is montiored for duplicated IP addresses and spammers, so it’s a valid petition. http://deafpundit.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/sign-bahl-petition-now/
This petition will be sent to the Ramsey County Sheriff Department, the County Commissioner, and the District Attorney. MZ
Â
PS. Readers, I understand it’s distressng to read this juror’s comments, but there is no need to get nasty. I want to have an effective dialogue with this juror and other hearing people, so they can understand what deaf people experience. This juror didn’t have to reach out and share with us, but he was gracious to do so and I appreciate his gesture. Nasty comments will cause doors to be slammed and an excellent opportunity to educate hearing people thrown down the drain. Perhaps hearing people, including this juror, will see the serious miscarriage of justice Mr. Bahl underwent. Please respect my wishes as this is my blog and refrain from being nasty.
I think the jury made the best decision based on the information they received in the courtroom. It is the responsibility of the attorney to educate the jurors, explaining to them deaf culture, what it is like to be deaf, and the laws protecting the deaf people. Did they hear the issues I brought up here? I don’t know, but I have a feeling no, they didn’t.
Please don’t take the typo, death, literally. Even I made that infamous dead typo two days ago. The other party laughed cuz I should have known better than make that typo.  Blame it on the qwerty keyboard.Â
Again please show some respect. Thanks. MZ
P.S.S. My request for civility had been disregarded.  If you cannot be civil, don’t bother leave any here as nasty comments will be deleted.  My blog will not be a party to personal attacks. MZ
I served on the jury for Mr. Bahl’s trial last week. As you may guess from my entry to this blog, it was a moving experience for me.Â
I have no doubt in our guilty verdict of Obstructing Legal Process. We deliberated for 2 days, so certainly we did not treat this case lightly. In the end it came down to Mr. Bahl’s testimony for me. When asked why he pulled his wrist away from Officer Bobrowski, he testified that he pulled it away to write. Although I feel that Mr. Bahl intended to communicate with the officer by writing (and therefore improving the situation), he also intended to do this on his terms. I firmly believe that police have the authority to control these situations in the way they see fit and that citizens that resist are breaking the law. The only way we can legally resist is in self defense. However, when Mr. Bahl was asked whether he felt that Officer Bobrowski intended to harm him, he responded no. Therefore, he cannot claim self defense in pulling away from the officer trying to restrain him. This is why I feel he was guilty.
That being said, I very much sympathize with him for what happened to him outside of the car. Certainly there was communication issues, and I think that Officer Bobrowski could have done a better job. I do not know who contacted who first, their testimonies contradicted each other, but the end result was very unfortunate. My thoughts are that police have at lot to learn from this situation. But I also believe death individuals have some responsibility when being pulled over; just like somebody who can hear, the first response is to produce your identification and insurance. Does not producing these items give the police the right to beat someone? Absolutely not!Â
After the trial I found out that Mr. Bahl had spent 4 days in jail without being allowed to contact his family. This is absolutely tragic, and if his claims are true I certainly hope he is successful in his civil trial.
One thing that was evident to myself, and to the rest of the jurors, is that Douglas Bahl is an extraordinary individual. Even by judging him guilty of this crime, that in no way takes away from his accomplishments as a leader and activist in the deaf community in my opinion. Â
From reading this blog it is quite obvious to me that there is a lot of concern for Mr. Bahl, as well as the current state of relations between police and deaf individuals. I hope my first hand description of the trial was helpful to you all.
Sincerely,
Eric Barsness
St. Paul, MN
Commentary:
This comment was entered in my blog last night. For those who may not know, Mr. Barsness was instrumental in swaying the jury from four not guilty and two guilty to all six guilty.
Mr. Barness, I appreciate you reading this blog and sharing your thoughts with us. I hope you’ll agree to answer my questions. First of all, did you ever imagine what it is like to be fully deaf, non verbal, sitting in the driver’s seat, facing an officer speaking in a language he cannot understand? You mentioned that the deaf driver should hand in his driver’s license. Perhaps he thought the officer was telling him not to move. Are you aware that some deaf people have been shot and killed by the police for taking out their driver’s licenses before being asked for them, prompting the officers to shoot in self defense, thinking they may be reaching for handguns? Consequently, many deaf people are terrified of how an officer might react to them due to a communication breakdown. Mr. Bahl was being very prudent, wanting to understand what the officer said first, so he wouldn’t be shot.. and he ended up being maced, blinded, and beaten to a bloody pulp. What is a deaf person supposed to do? Move first and risk getting shot and killed or try to communicate and get beaten? This sounds like an impossible position to be in for any deaf driver.
Do you feel as an American, Mr. Bahl has the right to communicate and the officer holding down his hand was in effect, preventing him from communicating at all? Do you agree the officer has the right to ’silence’ the citizen by depriving him of his only means of communication? Don’t you think that act violates Mr. Bahl’s rights under Americans with Disabilities Act, which dictates that a disabled citizen must be treated as equal to a non-disabled American? In other words, the jury apparently decided that an officer of the law isn’t expected to comply with federal laws, ADA and Section 504. Please excuse my confusion.
Also how do you feel when you realized that the jury ignored the significance of statements that Mr. Bahl, already in severe pain, experienced greater pain when the officer held his wrist, even though Mr Bahl knew the officer didn’t mean to inflict harm? Do you think one should be expected to tolerate the extreme pain? I don’t know about you, but I know I couldn’t if I am already in tremendous pain. I didn’t know officers are permitted to inflict pain, intentionally or unintentionally, on an unarmed and peaceful American, especially an older man. I believe the individual has the right to move away in self defense against greater pain.
Please think about the points I raise here, Mr. Barsness. Again I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. MZ
Â
Deaf Pundit’s Bahl Petition:
Please show your concerns in how Bahl was handled by the police during the traffic stop by signing this petition. This online petition is montiored for duplicated IP addresses and spammers, so it’s a valid petition. http://deafpundit.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/sign-bahl-petition-now/
This petition will be sent to the Ramsey County Sheriff Department, the County Commissioner, and the District Attorney. MZ
Â
PS. Readers, I understand it’s distressng to read this juror’s comments, but there is no need to get nasty. I want to have an effective dialogue with this juror and other hearing people, so they can understand what deaf people experience. This juror didn’t have to reach out and share with us, but he was gracious to do so and I appreciate his gesture. Nasty comments will cause doors to be slammed and an excellent opportunity to educate hearing people thrown down the drain. Perhaps hearing people, including this juror, will see the serious miscarriage of justice Mr. Bahl underwent. Please respect my wishes as this is my blog and refrain from being nasty.
I think the jury made the best decision based on the information they received in the courtroom. It is the responsibility of the attorney to educate the jurors, explaining to them deaf culture, what it is like to be deaf, and the laws protecting the deaf people. Did they hear the issues I brought up here? I don’t know, but I have a feeling no, they didn’t.
Please don’t take the typo, death, literally. Even I made that infamous dead typo two days ago. The other party laughed cuz I should have known better than make that typo.  Blame it on the qwerty keyboard.Â
Again please show some respect. Thanks. MZ
P.S.S. My request for civility had been disregarded.  If you cannot be civil, don’t bother leave any here as nasty comments will be deleted.  My blog will not be a party to personal attacks. MZ
September 20th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Death individual, Eric Barsness? Oh, god.
However, your argument in claiming that Doug did not pull his wrist away in the name of self-defense — baloney! How can he defend himself if he did not know that the next step would result in such a vicious attack?
xxxxxx
R-
September 20th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Oh, one more thing, Eric - you wrote:
“Although I feel that Mr. Bahl intended to communicate with the officer by writing (and therefore improving the situation), he also intended to do this on his terms.”
Of course he intends to do this on his terms — what else is there for Doug to do? Speak with his voice? What? Doug was attempting to *write* — that is to use his wrist — duh. No? He should use his foot?
xxxxxx
R_
September 20th, 2007 at 6:57 am
I have to agree with Ridor. Mr. Bahl was attempting to communicate the ONLY way Deaf people CAN communicate-with their hands!
Your arguments are full of holes and at best-weak and inhumane.
Shame on you.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:09 am
To Eric Barsness,
First of all, I wonder what caused Mr. Bahl to pull his wrist away, was his wrist grabbed by the officer? Supposedly someone puts a hand on your mouth when you try to speak and that person insists you not to speak because s/he wants you to use sign language that you couldn’t understand or use. What would you initially react to that person? I think we both know what would you do about that kind of approach if it should occur to you. I can see that the jury obviously lack knowledge about Deaf issues and culture; otherwise, they would feel that pulling his wrist away from the officer was appropriate.
Please do not tell us that we should have better responsibilities about being approached by the police because I know many hearing people didn’t show their driver license and/or insurance card to the police immediately and they even shouted and cursed to the police. The police are instructed to react to angry drivers calmly and warn them several times if the drivers refuse to cooperate with them. It is quite common that the police yank Deaf drivers out and harm them physically without hesitation when Deaf drivers show their negative facial expression or tell them that they couldn’t understand them. What made you think that drivers would be glad to talk to the police when they are stopped by them?
You just called us “death” individuals instead of Deaf individuals and it shows that you lack knowledge of Deaf issues and culture. That is another example of your ignorance about Deaf people and that kind of ignorance might led the jury’s guilty verdict.
- Ron -
September 20th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Eric,
I wanted to thank you for inputting your view with us. I apperciate that. Still, we are very concerned about the police and deaf situation. Okay, Could you re-read your message regarding death individuals…? When you mentioned the policeman and deaf under unforntuate sitaution, you were thinking of death. yeah. that s for sure. It was your implication. Freud’s defense mechanism!! Yeah… Your reaction to this situation is possible death. I love you for that!! Thanks for mentioning this!
deafk
September 20th, 2007 at 8:49 am
We need to understand that this juror made the best decision he could make, given the information he had. If Mr. Bahl’s attorney had done his job, the additional information about Deafness and communication could have been presented during the trial, but obviously Mr. Barsness did not know those things. Either Bahl’s attorney was incompetent, or the judge refused to allow that information to be presented.
We shouldn’t blame the juror for making the best decision possible, given what little information he had to make the decision.
Instead of criticizing the jury, either the judge or Bahl’s lawyer is the person who failed in providing a fair trial.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:51 am
I have to agree with Ron.
I am a responsible deaf person and when a person grabs my arm or wrist, my initial reaction is to pull away.
Even with a cop, I would do that – not because I’m trying to resist them but because it violates me as a deaf human being who differs from a hearing human being by how we are touched. We try to educate people that tapping our shoulders lightly are the way to get our attention and in some situations pulling out paper and pen when a Deaf person wants to communicate and doesn’t have a paper and pen on her/him.
When a hearing person grabs me, it limits my attempt of trying to communicate because I am focused on the grabbing part.
It’s very clear that the jury lacked the knowledge and understanding of Deaf Culture and as a result, Bahl paid the price for reacting the way most of us would do in everyday life.
I pulled my arm away from a nurse who attempted to hold my arms (and then my hands) in an effort to WALK me to an ATM machine when I wrote down on the paper asking for the directions. It was my way of saying, “I can walk just fine, thank youâ€. I’m very sensitive on how hearing people touch me.
That wasn’t a claim to self-defense like Bahl said. That was a huge misunderstanding on your behalf and other juries, Eric.
We even have the right to request interpreters with cops in situations like this to prevent further misunderstanding.
And you voted guilty. *shakes head*
September 20th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Hi Eric,
The officer must follow constitutional law. The question is whether or not the officer was justified in grabbing Bahl’s arm in the first place.
You said: “…police have the authority to control these situations in the way they see fit”. Do you understand that the officer is not allowed to do things on his terms either? He must follow constitutional law.
Did the judge give you clear instructions on this issue?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Kudos to Mr. Barsness in coming forward to give his perspective. Only in dialog can we prevent situations like this from happening again.
Now if only the Saint Paul Chief of Police would be so kind as to explain exactly when it is permissible for his officers to kick defenseless people in the head.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Yes Ridor — Death individuals … *chuckled* I read that last nite .. I was like ugh … Death? Eric must be tired from hearing the word “Deaf” over over again in the courtroom. He must be feel like a Death sitting there for three days.
I was at the train station a few months ago — struggling to put one dollar bill into the slot of the new machine for the ticket. The plain clothed worker grabbed it by her hand Whoa! I grabbed my money away from her immediately. The woman got shooked by my angry face. Both of us realized I didn’t see her behind me. Finally she realized I am Deaf! The woman introduced herself nicely with her name tag. She did helped me to get thru afterward. It was occurred in the late afternoon — getting dark. Scary huh?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I_C_ Voices,
Look at Jena 6. Are you saying that all-white jury is not responsible for Bell’s conviction? I suspect that prosecutor in Bahl’s trail was overzealous and used legal tactics in order to save the officer’s face.
I feel that jurors were manipulated by the juror, Eric Barsness and I strongly believe that some of jurors were not happy about the decision. They might be pressured to agree with him and that is my opinion. I hope those jurors will go forward and share their feelings about the verdict publicly.
- Ron -
September 20th, 2007 at 9:49 am
There should be more justice in this for Mr. Bahl.
I turn away red in my face with anger!!
HAS NOTHING CHANGED IN THE PAST THIRTY YEARS?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I am trying to be polite, rational, and listening to both sides. I mean no offense and should have said,..”Have opinions about the Dead and the deaf remained static for the past thirty years?”
Now, I’m going off to repeat a combination of four letter words and a great many signs that have their origins around my nose and chin,..and one series of signs hat ends in the English transliteration…”NOTHING!!”!!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Thanks to the juror and to Mishkazena for bringing his viewpoint to our attention. In court, one is limited to what is said and the law is laid out to be followed in decisions.
Unfortunately, matters of human rights, sensitivity, culture and custom are trashed in the process of trying to interpret the incomplete facts and the sketchy law.
Bahl got a bad day in court where the mix was not optimal and he got slapped the same way as many other minorities. One factor in this is that police are favored in most cases where there is a fuzzy area, fair or not.
I hope that when it comes time to try the civil part, the police lies about his beating are fully exposed and damages are awarded to an extent it will be less likely to happen again.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:58 am
WHEN ANY POLICE STOP TO YOU AND POLICE SHOULD KNOW WHEN IT DEAF PERSON OPEN COMMUCATION WITH SIGN LANGAUGE AND POLICE SHOULD KNOW WHO YOU ARE BEING DEAF PERSON NO MATTER WHEN SIGN LANGAUGE SAID” HOW CAN I HELP YOU POLICE OFFIER?AND I AM DEAF” AND POLICE OFFIER WILL KNOW WHO IS PERSON IS ONLY BEST WAY I WISH POLICE SHOULD TAKE TRAINING CLASS FOR DEAF ” HOW TO WORK WITH DEAF PEOPLE ” THEN LATER AFTER THAT TRAINING POLICE WILL KNOW THE SIGN LANGAUGE ” WHO ARE YOU ” IF DEAF PERSON RAN AND POLICE TRY CALL YOU THAN DEATH MADE MISTAKE AND SHOULD BE GRAB DEAF PERSON AND IF SEE SIGN LANGAUGE WILL KNOW THAT MEAN DEAF PERSON CANNOT HEAR BEING DEAF WILL PROTECT SAFETY FOR OUR DEAF COMMUNITY BY ADA LAWS FOR OUR USA
September 20th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Also, the sad thing is that you did not think critically about the person who questioned Bahl in the first place. Two things to address here:
1. Was it possible that the lawyer played with the words in order to trap Bahl into saying “No,” because he assumed it was in hindsight instead of at that moment….Or…
2. The interpreter failed horribly to convey the message the questioner meant it to be in that moment when the cop grabbed his arm, did he assume he was being aggressive?
Because like it or not, to us deaf people who is habitually signing, our arms is our “mouth” and to grab our arms inspires our automatic reflix of pulling away, nothing more. Think critically, future jurors, judges, cops, and lawyers in future, please!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:26 am
.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Oops that was a mistake. This is what I meant to submit:
It is unfortunate for Eric that Mishka refers to him as “the man who swayed the jury”, and Kari Bahl said that “the juror, being the jury’s spokesperson, convinced the rest of the jury in two and a half days of deliberation” that her father was guilty. Please. There were 5 other jurors there who listened to the whole trial and had their own opinions. The jury spokesperson does not have more power than the other jurors . . . It is just the person that volunteered - or was elected by the rest of the jurors - to communicate to the judge on behalf of the jury.
I agree with I_C_Voices: “We need to understand that this juror made the best decision he could make, given the information he had.” Mr. Barsness is not solely responsible for the outcome of the trial.
He should be thanked for being the only juror with balls enough to try and answer the deaf community’s questions about the trial or agreeing to be interviewed by Bahl’s civil lawyer after the trial. Since he is a hearing person, I think he is brave for speaking up even though he lacks knowledge of Deaf people, Deaf issues, and Deaf culture. Give him a break.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Would an officer have the right to put his hands over the mouth of a hearing person to prevent that person from speaking?
If an officer did that and the hearing person attempted to speak while the officer was attempting to keep his mouth closed, would the hearing person be guilty of a misdemeanor?
I doubt that this trial was handled properly.
This is why we all have the constitutional right to by judged by a jury or our peers, because our peers are able to make an informed decision, based on a better understanding the entire situation.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:53 am
To Eric,
As you knows what in trail went, Mr. Bahl is very lucky alived. In past time I have good friend classmate Deaf Black young from St. Louis when he speed on freeway cops chased him to stop and he did stop then cops walked to check on car and he did shows his one hand point with ear (Deaf) shake his head (Can’t hear) so he shows hand (wait) he reached looked for paper and pen his seat then cops shot his head very messed already dead quickly then cops found no weapon so Eric what you think the situation do? Cops got lost his job that it. Make sure Cops have control to do this situatuion should have already trained?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
First, I’d like to thank Eric Barsness for having the concern and courage to post his thoughts on the trial. And a thank-you to Mishka Zena for hosting this civil discussion.
Secondly, let me introduce myself. My name is Lou and I am a hearing man. I knew nothing about the Deaf community or Deaf culture until about a year ago, when I met my Deaf boyfriend. I now have a blog (click on my name above to go to it) called Learning Deaf Ways, in which I talk about some of the technical and cultural changes I’ve had to adapt to (yeah, I should blog more often!). I live in Minneapolis, but do not know Mr. Bahl personally. I have heard of him because I took an ASL class at St. Paul College and he teaches there (although he did not teach my class) and because my boyfriend knows him. I have no insider information about what happened when Mr. Bahl was pulled over by the cops that day.
I have lots to say but not lots of time to post, so let me just say a few things.
I agree with most of comment #4 (from Ron), except the “death” typo. I feel it was just a typo and is really irrelevant. (After all, MK did misspell Mr. Barsness’ last name in her commentary, and I don’t think there’s anything evil about that.)
Keeping on topic, I agree with Ron’s comment and MK’s commentary that the officer’s restraining of Mr. Bahl’s hand is equivalent to covering the mouth of a hearing person–he was blocking communication, which is 180 degrees opposite to what the officer should have been doing. I think it is *completely natural* for a citizen to want to communicate with an officer, and *any hearing person* would resist a cop that tried to cover his or her mouth.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the Deaf community, it’s that communication is paramount. I can’t emphasize that enough. One of the first things you learn in ASL class is that Deaf people communicate much more intensively than hearing people. For example, if you come late to class, you’re expected to say why–not so much an excuse as just to let Deaf people know everything is OK. In a hearing class, you would probably just slide into your seat quietly; not so in a Deaf/ASL class.
Might I have agreed with Eric Barsness a year ago, before I knew anything about Deaf culture? Perhaps. I wouldn’t have thought of the communication issues–how critically important they are.
Unfortunately, it appears that that simple attempt to communicate by Mr. Bahl started the ball rolling in a negative way, and it all went downhill from there.
Admittedly, I do not know all the details of the trial, but from the rationale that Mr. Barsness gave, I feel that the verdict was a travesty of justice.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Another thought: suddenly grabbing anybody is automatically taken as aggression of the worst type.
A few years ago, I walked out of a Sears store carrying a small package with a receipt taped to the top.
Halfway through the deserted parking area, a hand roughly grabbed my shoulder from behind. It made me flinch and whirl around, and the unreasonable urge to fight the guy was strong. In the surge of adrenaline I could have knocked him down with all my might.
He pointed at his store nameplate and pointed to my purchase. Shaking, I showed him the receipt on the box. He was very apologetic and walked away. Nothing was said about my being deaf, but it appeared he had already guessed.
It was surprising what overcame me. I was actually a second away from freaking out big time, and it didn’t matter what size the man was. If a 95-pound grandmother could lift a car off her son as I read once, I was capable of getting myself in serious trouble here. (This is from a normally sedate, calm person, and it took me a while to stop trembling.)
Police are must be aware that normally law-abiding citizens can be provoked or frightened beyond reason. Jurors must be aware that they themselves could be in the position of the defendant and limit police roughing-up license accordingly.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Mishka
Thank you for your commentary and your request by others to refrain from nasty responses (“rot in hellâ€? Unbelievable!). I sincerely apologize with the typo of “death” in place of “deaf”. This is a very unfortunate typo because I accidentally referred to the vast majority of the readers of this blog in a derogatory way. Again, I apologize. However, I am appalled at some of the responses. I did not have to comment on any of this. I was attempting to provide more information about the trial, verdict, and mindset of the jurors when coming to this decision. I read a lot of questions being raised that I hoped to provide some insight on the trial. I could have moved on with my life after performing my civic duty, but I do care about this situation and what happened to Mr. Bahl.
Prior to responding your questions, I want to address the label of me being the juror that was “swayed the juryâ€. I would like you to recall that there was another juror that from the beginning had the same opinion as I. In fact, I believe that this person made their opinion known first. We presented our arguments to the remaining jurors, and they came to their own decision. I would appreciate it if going forward I am not referred to is the “juror who swayed the juryâ€, because I don’t believe that it is completely accurate.
Now, to your questions:
Do you feel as an American, Mr. Bahl has the right to communicate and the officer holding down his hand was in effect, preventing him from communicating at all? Yes, certainly. I believe that more could have been done by the officer to improve the communication, and at the point where he grabbed his wrist he was preventing him from communicating by writing. However, if a police officer feels that restraining a suspect’s wrist is necessary in a given situation, then the suspect must adhere to this. If this restraint is unjust, then this will be addressed after the fact by those in the authority to do so. Mr. Bahl did not have that authority, and given his testimony that he didn’t feel that the officer intended to harm him he didn’t have this authority under self defense.
Do you agree the officer has the right to ’silence’ the citizen by depriving him of his only means of communication? In the appropriate situation, I do believe that an officer has that right. Should this deprivation continue to occur for an extended period of time (which seems to be the case with Mr. Bahl)? Absolutely not! I do not know if this situation warranted the silencing of Mr. Bahl, that was not what I was tasked to judge. I was serving on a trail where Mr. Bahl was the defendant, and in this case the only way that he has the right to resist and communicate was under self defense.
Don’t you think that act violates Mr. Bahl’s rights under Americans with Disabilities Act, which dictates that a disabled citizen must be treated as equal to a non-disabled American? This is a very difficult question as I am not educated on this act, this wasn’t discussed in the trial nor referenced in our directions of the law. I understand that if this act was violated, that Mr. Bahl’s rights were obstructed. However, the officers involved in this situation were not who I was asked to judge, Mr. Bahl was the defendant. The fact that the defendant was deaf in this situation was discussed in great detail by the jury during deliberation. It was tempting to rule Mr. Bahl innocent based on this, and that because of his disability he should be given more leniency in this situation. However, I could not in good conscience ignore that in my opinion he was guilty of the crime that he was accused of.
Also how do you feel when you realized that the jury ignored the significance of statements that Mr. Bahl, already in severe pain, experienced greater pain when the officer held his wrist, even though Mr Bahl knew the officer didn’t mean to inflict harm? Do you think one should be expected to tolerate the extreme pain? There seems to be a misconception that the jury ignored any testimony by Mr. Bahl, whether it was about the pain he was enduring or otherwise. This is completely incorrect. If any testimony was not considered in the verdict, it was that of the officers. Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and considering the fact that he is innocent until proven guilty, we only relied upon testimony that was consistent between the two. When attempting to understand Mr. Bahl’s rationale of why he did what he did, I was swayed by his testimony solely. He did say that he was in pain when the officer “pushed his shoulderâ€, and that was well understood by the jury. However it wasn’t the pain that he referenced in our recollection of the testimony when asked why he pulled away from the officer, it was that he wanted to write. Again, I will repeat from my previous entry that I feel that Mr. Bahl intended to improve the situation here. But, he also intended to do this on his terms, which is obstruction of legal process. I cannot assume at what point he felt pain, or how long he endured it, I am only left with his testimony and my comprehension of it.
I understand that this is all very difficult to understand because of what happened to Mr. Bahl outside the car and in jail. However, I ask that you consider that we were asked to rule on whether he was guilty of obstruction of legal process, which I believe occurred inside the car and prior to him being sprayed by mace. Whether mace was unjustly used, I cannot say for sure. What happened outside the car is very unfortunate. What happened in the jail sounds like a violation of rights (but the only information I have is from the media). None of those aspects of this situation were my responsibility to judge and they did not factor into my opinion on the verdict.
I hope this helps.
Eric
September 20th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Although the events that occurred during this incident are horrific and deserve intense scrutiny and hopefully punishment for the officer(s) involved, I think the majority of the arguments posted regarding the jury verdict are flawed and aren’t focused on the law and the details of the case. I have the greatest sympathy for Mr. Bahl and hope his other legal proceedings go greatly in his favor, but that does not change the facts of what happened in the early moments of the traffic stop.
Mr. Bahl knows he is deaf. He also knows most people don’t know he is deaf by looking at him. Unfortunately, that is a reality that the deaf community has to deal with. Although the cop should have acted differently, it would seem jerking a hand out of the police man’s grasp to go for a pad of paper could be construed by a confused officer as aggressive behavior. That doesn’t justify the beating, etc., but it at least gets to the point of THIS TRIAL.
The jurors were asked to look at a specific moment during the course of events and that’s what they did. Nothing more, nothing less.
PS - All those that focused their responses on an obvious typo (”death” instead of “deaf”) pretty much lose credibility on the rest of their post.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Eric, what I see here is the analogy of the cop placing his hand over the mouth of a hearing person. A cop grabbing the arm of a deaf person attempting to write to communicate is no different.
A hearing person would continue to try to defuse the situation by speaking.
Saying the deaf person attempting to defuse the situation is doing so “on his own terms?”
Sorry, Eric, that doesn’t wash. I realize you were trying to be conscientious, but you missed the boat.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
To the juror,
I am sorry that I don’t agree with your vote. You missed the whole point of the incident! Every Deaf person’s initial reaction would be pulled away from the hand which will definitely obstruct the communication mode. Of course, we *KNOW* that this action of police is not intended to injure me or others.
Sad to say this, Shame on you for voting him guilty!
September 20th, 2007 at 11:42 am
One thing that should be made known to some of these people here, I do not think he specifically intended to use the word death as in being dead. When I was growing up I had several hearing friends that have told other hearing people when introducing me, “he’s death” Now deaf and death may sound somewhat similar or it may be a lisp on their part, but no matter how many times I had told him, “its deaf not death” he still didnt get it. I just wanted to make this known, and it does still happen to this day.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Eric, you obviously took your duties as a member of the jury seriously and you’re to be commended for that, as well as for taking the time to write and give us your perspective. I’d want someone like you on the jury in a case in which I was the defendant, though I daresay I’d want a better lawyer than Doug had.
I agree with your analysis, that Bahl “intended to improve the situation” but “on his terms which [constituted] obstruction”. There’s an important lesson here we should all take to heart: the minute the police stop you, they control the situation, not you.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I am frankly dissapointed in Eric and the justice system. It seems that it is so audistic the way hearing people were handling this case.
Suffice to say, the trail is tainted as the judge did NOT tell the jury about the four days he was in jail. Did he?
It is a simple form of audism how they treated that case.
There are holes that this case needs to go back to court and have it corrected.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I have read Mr. Eric Barsness response. You said, sir: “I would like you to recall that there was another juror that from the beginning had the same opinion as I”. That means to me, that you have already made up your minds before jury deliberations. That is not what you were supposed to do.
You, as a member of the jury, were supposed to look at all the evidence-BEFORE you make up your mind-and after you discuss the evidence. It appears to me that you were prejudice in this case, (based on what you said).
Your explanations have so many holes that it just does not make any sense.
Suppose, sir, you were stopped by the cops- and that cop put his/her hand over your mouth-thereby preventing you from communicating? By your logic-you be charged of a crime and found guilty.
That is what the hands of deaf people are, sir.
The hands are THE ONLY WAY to effectively communicate! Of course it is on their terms. That deaf man was trying to wirte something-anything- as fast as he could! Unless you can explain it to me -I do not understand how else it can be!
Again I have to say this: Shame on you.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Eric,
I appreciate your comments regarding Bahl’s trial. I am sure this was a completely new experience for you as a hearing person and I am assuming for the other jurors as well. I hope through all of this you are learning some valuable information to share with other hearing people about how Deaf people communicate and the injustices that occur daily because of simple communication breakdowns.
The biggest tragedy is that hearing people in general know little to nothing of Deaf culture, language, and everyday mannerisms. Hearing people can only think in terms of auditory language and speech. Anything else to them is foreign. This lack of education has caused so many unfortunate things to happen to innocent deaf people over the years. This is THE REASON you are seeing such a public outcry. Deaf people are tired of the injustices that continue to occur in such modern times.
This officer misunderstood every physical movement that Bahl made in order to communicate with the officer. The jury’s decision came down to guilty only because they lacked any prior education or background on how deaf people communicate.
People in public service, do have an obligation to understand the American Disabiity Act, otherwise they can be held legally responsible for not adhearing to it. Not only that, employees who are untrained regarding ADA, hold their departments and companies responsible for the ADA infractions they commit while working in public service positions. If police officers are not trained or educated, like in the Bahl’s case, the department is still responsible for their actions.
I do have a question regarding this comment you made…
“The only way we can legally resist is in self defense. However, when Mr. Bahl was asked whether he felt that Officer Bobrowski intended to harm him, he responded no. Therefore, he cannot claim self defense in pulling away from the officer trying to restrain him. This is why I feel he was guilty.”
Here is my question…. Typically an attorney will ask a “yes” or “no” question so that the defendent doesn’t have an opportunity to elaborate. Bahl answered “no” about being harmed. He answered honestly. Suppose the rest of the questioning went like this..
“Did you pull your hand away to communicate?” Bahl answered “yes”.
“Did the police officer spray your eyes with mace?
Bahl answered “yes”
“Could you see to communicate”
Bahl answered “No”.
Would this line of questioning have changed the jury’s opinion about self defense?
My point is that the only one that Obstructed Justice was the police officer. His lack of communicative training caused him to react incorrectly and therefore he interferred with with Bahl’s only means of communicating via his hands and his eyes.
I hope through your jury duty experinece and by reading all the comments that you are learning something new and becoming enlighted and educated along the way.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
To the juror: Thanks for sharing your perspective on this. It has been very educational, and will be helpful in future situations.
I think the grabbing the arm situation can be compared to an officer putting his hand over your mouth, as others have said. Suppose you had TMJ, a condition in the jaw that can be very painful. The officer covers your mouth, and you resist because first, it’s very painful, and second, you want to be able to communicate. The officer is not intending to inflict harm, so you just have to tolerate the extreme pain and inability to communicate. Of course, it is hard to say how one would react without being in that situation, but can you honestly say that you wouldn’t flinch the slightest? And if you did flinch, can you imagine being charged with obstruction of legal process?
Another question, out of curiosity… Did you see any inconsistencies with the interpreter or do you think the interpreter interpreted everything perfectly? I’m just curious about this aspect.
Aside from that, I think that it’s not the juror we should be upset with. This is how our US Government works. If a cop wants to do something because he feels like it, he can, and won’t be punished for it. We need to be upset with the system that allows this and see what we can do to change the laws in this type of situation.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
To Eric,
I wanted to say thank you for your two inputs in the comment. This is very much appreciated.
You see, your words, “However, I could not in good conscience ignore that in my opinion he was guilty of the crime that he was accused of” surely scares me. I would rather not to have you as the juror at all, should I be in court…
deafk
September 20th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
to Dave:
if Bahl intened to improve the situaion-then please tell me how? Bhal did it the only way a deaf man can!
And Mr. Barsness own statements says that Bhal
has no intents on doing anything criminal-that is to say- he (Bahl) had no intent to do a crime. In most crimes, the Prosecution(the government) has to prove intent.
If Mr. Barsnes now says that he believs that Bahl had no intentions to do a crime-then why did he voted find him guilty?
I mean Mr. Barsnes Explanations has so much holes it really does not hold up at all.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Juror Eric Barness,
It is common for hearing people to spell “death” when they try to spell “Deaf” for the first time. I often saw “death” instead of “Deaf” on newspapers and letters when they were writing about Deaf people and schools. For example, the reporter wrote “the school for the death has the largest enrollment in its history…” and it was not computer error because it was published in 1960’s and the computer became more popular during 1980’s.
You should admit that you didn’t realize that you misspelled it until someone mentioned it on this blog. Otherwise, you just told us another lie and that means you are not telling us the truth. Sorry that you couldn’t manipulate me and it would waste your time if you keep trying to convince us. Or should I said, “convict us” instead?
- Ron -
September 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Ron,
I don’t mean to be making an issue out of this, but really, it is very common for people to misspell “death” when they really mean “deaf” and many write what they “hear” in their heads.
I really don’t think it was Eric’s intention to purposely saying that to us.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Doug Bahl had a lousy lawyer, simply put. This is what happens to people who get lousy lawyers.
Why do you think theres an alarming number of poor people in jail while OJ SIMPSON walks free?!
LAWYERS. lousy lot.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
To Raphael J. St. Johns:
If I was unable to explain orally to a cop that I’m deaf, and if he grabs my arm, I would hope to have the presence of mind to wait till he lets go–as he surely has to, at some point.
Once the cop stops you, like it or not, he is in control. His role is The Person In Authority, and yours is The Cooperative Citizen. Deviate from that role at your own risk.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
IamMine,
I am aware that Eric didn’t intend to offend us by spelling “death” instead of “Deaf”. I just wanted to point out that he actually lacked knowledge about Deaf issues by showing his inability of spelling Deaf at the first time correctly. His judgement may be impaired due to his limited knowledge about Deaf people.
- Ron -
September 20th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I think it was an unfortunate typo. I’ve seen many hearing people type ‘death’ when they meant to type deaf. Even I made the typo dead when I meant deaf and everybody knows I’m Deaf!
I truly believe this juror has no idea that deaf people were indeed killed by cops due to communication breakdowns. I don’t get the impression the juror is being malicious, but trying his best to explain his POV the best way he can as a hearing person.
What it obviously shows me is that the jury never had any introduction to these touchy issues complicating the interactions of deaf citizens and police with lethal weapons. Don’t place the responsibility on the jurors, but the lawyers, judge, and the system.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I agree, MZ.
First need to educate the police, judges, lawyers, and THEN the jurors.
A judge would be held responsible in informing the jurors about the Deaf Culture and the communication system.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Mr. Barness, thank you for clarification about your role and the other juror in leading the discussion on Bahl’s behavior. I appreciate your patience while fielding with many responses.
I understand you were directed to answer one specific question, black and white. However, I am not sure if you did see my comment about deaf people being afraid to move until they are clear what the cops are saying, based on the common knowledge of other deaf people killed by cops due to communication breakdowns. Had you had this knowledge, would it have make any differences in your decision?
Please excuse some of the strong comments. Unknown to you, more than several commenter here had bad experiences with police due to the unfamiliarity of police in dealing with deaf citizens or knew someone severely injured or killed by police. In fact, you may be surprised to hear how often this happened. To be honest with you, the frequency of police misconduct in the deaf community is a national disgrace.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I agree, too!
deafk
September 20th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Spell Death astead Deaf … just an unexpectedly typo. I read that last nite .. I suddenly laughed and I knew it is a mistake. I sometimes typed by mistake too! Oops … Don’t forget we are humans here. I was making a sarcasm in my first reply earlier today. Lol … Enjoy ur day!
September 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Dave:
But that’s the whole point. I have seen Deaf kids and adults get their hands shackled-and their first response has been to resist.
What Bahl did, apparently, was nothing out of the ordinary for a deaf person.
Most cops I’ve seen would realize that the person is deaf-then either would not press charges or would let the deaf individual unshackled.
For some reason- Bahl was not given this treatment-including spending 4 days without any communications to the outside world.
This repeats what I said- this is inhume and just wrong.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Raphael, good point. Not all of us have the same experiences growing up and experiencing our hands restrained.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
The jury usually makes the decision for defendant’s fate and the judge makes the decision about the disciplinary actions for the defendant. The judge would take over if the jury couldn’t make the agreement. Am I right?
I can bet that some respondents would make different comments about the jury if they put themselves in Mr. Bahl’s shoes. I think I have said enough.
- Ron -
September 20th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Like I said, the cop has to take his hand off you at some point. By not resisting, you’ll improve the odds he will do that sooner rather than later.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
That’s true, Ron.
But had the judge been trained about the Deaf Culture, which then he passes down to the jurors… would it have made a difference?
I think so!
I’d be angry at this juror had it been me, but it’s the system’s responsibility to make sure they are familiar with the Deaf Culture.
From this juror’s comments and the way the court was handled, the answer is very obvious - NO.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
The ACLU had pointers on what to do if you’re stopped and/or arrested:
Think carefully about your words, movement, body language, and emotions.
Don’t get into an argument with the police.
Remember, anything you say or do can be used against you.
Keep your hands where the police can see them.
Don’t run. Don’t touch any police officer.
Don’t resist even if you believe you are innocent.
Don’t complain on the scene or tell the police they’re wrong or that you’re going to file a complaint.
Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.
Remember officers’ badge and patrol car numbers.
Write down everything you remember ASAP.
Try to find witnesses and their names and phone numbers.
If you are injured, take photographs of the injuries as soon as possible, but make sure you seek medical attention first.
If you feel your rights have been violated, file a written complaint with police department’s internal affairs division or civilian complaint board.
Read the whole thing: http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14528res20040730.html
I recall reading that cops appreciate it if you turn your overhead light on if he’s stopped you at night. You’d want to do that anyway if there’s going to be any writing done, of course.
Making it easier for them makes it easier for you.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
But who control ADA Laws for the Deaf community???
September 20th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Dave:
You keep saying things that are not realistic.
I have seen many (in my role as Deaf advocate 10-15 years ago) deaf people get arrested. The natural tendency is to resist. You can say all you want to about the cops in control and if you resist even for one second-you are out of line, etc.etc.-but the reality is that most deaf people,when they are shackled, do resist.
And again- most cops would understand that, and immediately would unshackled or not press charges like what happened here in Bahl case.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
It’s a combination. Of hearing people.
The judge—gives instructions, defines the law, allows testimony or not, charges the jury when time to deliberate.
The lawyers—chooses what evidence to present, what evidence to dispute or disprove.
The witnesses–how effective, how clear and how objective their witness information is.
The defendant–how convincing with the help of his lawyer his testimony is, how effective with his lawyer’s help
The jury–how objective, well informed, and critical they are of everything, not just the defendent.
As we have seen with the OJ Simpson murder trial, an effective lawyer can skew the whole case in favor of the defendant. Also, with trials of Black defendants in the Old South in Jim Crow days, the prosecutor can skew the case against the defendant.
The law is an ass…popular saying. We deaf people know that hearing people are not objective and cannot possibly understand certain things when it comes to Deaf people. The only way to change this situation is for people like Doug Bahl to gather their resources and backing of the Deaf Community and FIGHT.
Fight the status quo, fight the lack of understanding, fight the hearing assumptions about Deaf people, fight the injustice generated by clueless people who have no knowledge whatsoever of Deaf people and their lives.
Fight for as long as it takes, with all their courage and patience. Fight so that future Deaf people will not suffer the frustration of being the forgotten person in the court system.
Do not try to close the case and try to forget about it, tempting as that may be. Other Deaf people are depending on you and others to fight the courts’ lack of understanding and the cluelessness of hearing people in general. We are all with you, Doug Bahl.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
My basic objection to the questioner’s methods and the perceptions by hearing people is that they expect the citizens to be always cool in those types of situations. Is that realistic? When people admonish us to cooperate, cooperate, COOPERATE! it irritates me because people admonsishing is assuming that we are cool machines under stress every time when we aren’t! We are as much a human as a cop trying to get in charge of the situation. Since the cop has the superior force arensals at his/her availability, would it not beg the question that the cops be more cool, calm than the citizens in question? Where is the so-called willing to put “your life on line of duty” commitment? That is a tragedy here.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Deaf=Death in the cops perspective period. The cops did not try to communicate with Doug. They jump into conclusions that he’s a dangerous man.
I am very afraid for our future generation. They will have to wear a sign everywhere they go. Please don’t shoot me I am just Deaf. Take out paper and pen and attempt to communicate. Don’t shoot first ask questions after I am dead.
Deaf=Death
September 20th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Eric,
I am *stunned* that you continue to assert that the police officer has “control over the situation.”
No, sir. He does not. The US Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota has control over the situation. The officer is merely a public servant who is obliged to submit himself to the proper controlling authority–the People.
Self defense is not the only reason why it might be legal for Mr Bahl to pull his arm away.
If an any point in the process of an arrest a person believes that the officer himself is not submitting himself to the proper authority and performing the proper actions, then the person being arrested has the prerogative to make a decision on whether or not to obey or disobey the officer.
Your analysis is very shallow. You are attempting to claim that no citizen has the right to make on-the-spot judgments that affect his own life, but rather has to blindly follow the will of whatever the police officer decides. That sir, is false.
What if a police officer orders someone to to take a precious photograph out of his pocket and burn it? Should he obey? Suppose it’s the only photograph that exists of his deceased wife and the officer is ordering him to destroy the only photograph of her that exists?
Obviously, the officer has no legal right to order him to burn the photo, and therefore the person is under no legal obligation to follow the officer’s orders.
You can’t tell me that the police officer has the legal right to grab someone’s arm in any and *all* situations and that there are *no* circumstances under a which a person is legally entitled to pull his arm away.
That’s not the way the law works. You don’t seem to see the distinction between #1) the Law, and #2) an officer of the law. An officer of the law is not entitled to determine what the law is, he or she is only entitled to *interpret* it, as it applies to his job, and his *interpretation* is not automatically the correct interpretation.
The police officer might be in error in any given situation. In that case, the citizen is under no obligation to obey the officer.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
What I cant understand is Mr. Bahl have to take behavior or anger management? I have encountered a cop who came over at my home and said that I have an attitude and I wasnt! I believe that is the most serious misconception of reading deaf’s facial expression! (I was trying to read his lip!) Afterward, he realized and apolozied that I cant hear him at all! I dont think prosecutor care at all, only to win and gain their own freakin reputation when they know their career is at sake.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
comment deleted due to nastiness.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
What do you guys expect from Eric and the jury?
They are all hearies. Like I wrote on my blog — DO NOT CALL COPS OR DEAL WITH COPS UNLESS YOU HAVE AN INTERPRETER OR A TRUSTED HEARING FRIEND WITH YOU. EVEN IN CASE OF EMERGENCY WHERE IT IS LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION — DO NOT CALL COPS!
This morning, I freaked out when I saw the cop stop by my place!
True biz!
R-
September 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
As a deaf individual who has studied constitutional criminal procedure, which discusses various police conducts and individual’s constitutional rights as he goes through the criminal system, I must disagree with Brian Riley. The U.S. Supreme Court, through many decisions, has made it plain that police officers are vested with powers that ordinary citizen do not enjoy. The reason is simple - their job is to protect the public AT LARGE, not just one person. You would not believe how many police conducts are justified on the basis of public safety. Hell, there is even a “public safety exception” to the so-called requirement of giving Miranda rights. If the jury believes that the officer in this case felt that Doug was a threat, then unfortunately, the officer did have the right to take appropriate actions to protect himself, his fellow officers, and the public at large. Like it or not, the police approaches each situation expecting the worst - they do not treat on-the-job encounters like they would tea parties - they are bound by the law to ensure that innocent people are safe. That is why they can get away with so many things - searching a car without a warrant in some circumstances, seizing things in plain view, stop and frisk someone on the street, and even holding a suspect’s hand. The police department would MUCH rather to be viewed as discriminating bigots than be viewed as a bunch of weaklings who allowed a serial murderer go which led to 20 deaths. Of course, the Court says the officers are restricted to actions that are “reasonable” under the circumstances. So, your photo-burning example is poor, since there is probably no circumstances any court would find to be reasonable enough to warrant such destruction of personal property.
It is with a heavy heart that I must say Eric made the right decision, considering the letter of the law. Perhaps the law must be changed to prevent future cases like this. I personally would be scared to death and feel incredibly violated if someone restricted my hands - I do not lip read or use my voice like Doug. Unfortunately, public safety trumps ADA, so that is why Doug cannot use the ADA during the stop. I agree with Leif that we do have a responsibility to work with the hearing community - we know that interactions with us require some creativity, but it is a 2-way street.
What really irks me is why the prosecutor went ahead with this charge - it seems like a huge waste of the city/county’s money and it serves minimal deterring effect.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
DP,
You need to read what I wrote. Actually you are not disagreeing with me, because you say that it is up to the jury to decide.
The officer does his/her best to apply the law, but the officer is not the final moral authority. The citizen has the moral right to disobey based on his (the citizen’s) best judgment of the situation as it is happening.
We do not live under a dictatorship. A police officer is an *officer* of the law, he is not the *law* itself. He/she is a fallible being who might make a mistake.
The citizen is not obligated to obey every order a police officer makes. The citizen has the right to decide of the order is a legal or illegal one. That’s why we live in a free country, not a dictatorship or a police state.
The legality of the decision to restrain Bahl’s arm does not lie with the officer. It lies with the People of Minnesota and the People of the United States. If Bahl thinks that the officer is disobeying the People, then it is not necessary to obey the officer.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Brian:
You need to stop spreading misinformation. Your grasp of legal issues leaves very much to be desired.
All citizens must follow what the police officer says. If you disagree with it, you still must submit and then challenge that accordingly in a court of law. This is why we have a court system… to address issues like this. To take the law in your own hands is a very bad idea and I am quite disappointed that you are spreading this misinformation… that it is ok to do whatever you please. That assumption is very misguided and can lead to disastrous results.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Dose,
The officer is only authorized to give orders under certain situations, *not all* situations. We don’t live under a dictatorship or in a police state.
This is the same in wartime. A soldier does not always have to obey his superior officer if the order is illegal.
I never said: “Do whatever you please.” I made a very careful analysis.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
[…] My Petition Comment Regarding Doug Bahl September 20th, 2007 — andreashettle I haven’t written anything about the Doug Bahl situation until now–in good part because I felt too helpless to respond. What could I say that hadn’t already been said, either by other Deaf/deaf bloggers, or in the comments area at places like MishkaZena’s? […]
September 20th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Eric Barsness:
I had forwarded your post to my friend who is a professor of law at Cornell University. He says that your story does not hold water. It is disturbing and troubling him. (Caveat: He used to work for Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy at the Department of Justice.)
It is interesting to note that you knew HOW to locate Elizabeth’s “Mishkazena’s Blog” and completely ignored, or chose to ignore (take your pick) Google on Deaf Culture emphasises the deaf’s hands as his voice and eyes as his ears.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:35 am
I can see where Eric is getting at. The jurors were given instruction to focus on whether resisting occurred inside the car. I know it’s hard to understand but, fact is when officers expect something, we all are expected to adhere (follow) what they ask of us regardless of anything. If we don’t, then we are resisting. To me this sounds more like Bahl asserting his “right” to his method of communication and the officers were asserting their rights to control the situation.
In this situation, unfortunately, who we are and what culture we are from has no standing. It is the same with other culture. I have had an officer telling me that they don’t care what culture this (country) person is from, officers expect nothing less from anyone from a different culture. Imagine how hard it would be for them to “police” if they had to take into consideratin of every culture they meet up with.
I had been in a situation once where I attempted to do things my way and it was not taken lightly by the officer and I was fortunate to be given a warning and it was easier for me to take it since I could hear some. For a deaf person it’s different but the system expects us to somehow shut up and just do as we are told. So…we are not supposed to “react” to any situation, lest we are resisting.
But, for some reason, I have this uneasy feeling that the officers normally do not give resisting for this type of action on Bahl’s part. Most of the time officers will give a deaf person another chance to understand the “rules” and try and make the process less frustrating for everyone involved.
Did the officer went too far in causing this unnecessary resisting charge? Well…I think it could have been avoided.
Bahl must have pissed them off to no end for them to be so anal. Or, The officers must have pissed Bahl off to make him assert his rights more profoundly which only pissed the officers off more.
There is no question that whatever happened outside of the car (in jail or wherever the beatings occurred) is totally uncalled for. What it tells me is the air smells awfully foul. We need to understand that the juror only focused on the resisting part and that’s that.
Bahl should have his day in civil court.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:03 am
C:
I understand where you and others are coming from. But-like I (and others) keep repeating:
The natural tendency for most deaf people (in fact, in my experience, all of the Deaf people I have worked with) is to resist when they get their hands shackled.
What Bahl was doing was trying to communicate thru paper-pen.
Most cops, when they realized that the person is Deaf-will release them from being shackled.
To me it’s very scary when you have a member of a jury who has made up his mind before the jury deliberation has even begin (his words)and then tries to justify his decision by using a line of reason that has so much water that a car can drive thru it!
September 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Raphael J St. Johns -
You are doing nothing but bringing misinformation to the discussion and it doesn’t help in a blog that has been very educational and enlightening. You state that Mr. Barsness “…made up his mind before the jury deliberation has even begin (his words)”. This is incorrect and you are simply spinning the statements previously written.
What Mr. Barsness said was: “I would like you to recall that there was another juror that from the beginning had the same opinion as I”. As the jurors likely knew nothing of the case prior to the trial (an important criteria for jurist selction), Mr. Barsness was likely referring to the beginning of deliberation. Not the beginning of the trial.
..and if you are now going to come back and say that the jurors aren’t supposed to have an opinion after days of testimony, you are wrong. Typically, each jurist will have an opinion after days of testimony. The deliberation is the time they discuss these opinions, the facts of the case, bounce questions off each other, the judge, etc. and try to come to a consensus on what the jury believes. That’s how it works.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:32 am
Sir or madam:
You are wrong… I can tell you-judges usually instruct juries before and during the trail NOT to form an opinions -until they have reach the jury room and evaluate all the evidence. I know this because I have been a member of jury -and because of my years in the legal advocacy.
Most of the time, jury members follow the judges’ instruction.
According to the writer own words, he and the jury member had already formed an opinion-in the beginning of deliberation. That is a violation of most legal procedure.
Please don’t start attacking me with out facts.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:44 am
Mr. Bahl deserved it
September 21st, 2007 at 9:49 am
And I have to say this again- It is scary that he (Mr. Barsness) according to his own words- formed his opinions at the beginning of the deliberations. Then apparently spent the rest of the 2 days convincing the other juries’ members.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:56 am
To John:
I respect your opinion-but can you at least see that it made no sense at all?
September 21st, 2007 at 10:09 am
Do you really think the human brain works that way Raphael? Do you really think any intelligent being would listen to days of testimony and not be formulating thoughts, questions, opinions, and critical pathways for an ultimate decision?? I would hope that’s what’s happening. The intent of judges’ instructions’ is to make sure the jurists don’t form concrete decisions prior to deliberation so other “opinions”, facts, perspectives, etc can be entered into each jurists decision making process.
At the end of the day there were 6 jurors. No one was coerced. They each made their own decisions based on the information presented during the trial and during deliberations.
PS - I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your misleading posts.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:12 am
WHY he stepped out of car first place. he might on purpose and wants to sue cops to get money from police department
GREEDY at Bahl
September 21st, 2007 at 10:19 am
John,
It is obvious you do not have the facts. Do your research before you do your argument.
Are you here as a troll, trying to stir the pot? I hope I am wrong, but this is what I am getting the feeling. If so, you are in the wrong place. This is a place where people discuss issues, not one or two liners.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:29 am
About 15 years ago, my friend and I went out to deaf event in NYC. when my friend drove and turned thru stop. I saw behind cop followed us I told him to keep slow down and contiune drive till the siren came out. the cop contiune follow us for couple miles and started siren. we pulled over and my friend jumped out of car and walk over to cop and the cop took out his gun and toward at him that i saw thru mirrow veiw it was very clearly.. i stayed in car and think what to do next. the rest story he got ticket and fine for not stop sign ..
September 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
To #73-
I don’t know where you are coming from. But I am informing you that most juries follow the instructions of the judges. I know this because-like I said- I have been in a jury before, and based on years of legal advocacy- I have seen it with my own eyes that most juries do not make up their minds until they start to evaluate the evidence.
According to his own written statements on this blog-he said that he already made up his mind.( at the begingings of deliberations-that is -before they looked at the evidence). He said that he and another jury tired to convince the others.
May I ask: why don’t you go back and read what the guy wrote?
And no- they are not misleading…especially since I am just repeating what himself wrote.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am
I should have included this in my last comment:
Of course, Mr. Bahl was taking a huge chance, but he only had a fraction of a second to decide whether he was going to submit to the pain and maybe experience a permanent injury, or whether the officer would be reasonable enough to quickly realize that he (Bahl) was attempting to communicate.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am
Raphael J. St. Johns -
You just wrote: “[Eric] said that he and another jury tired to convince the others.”
I DARE you to find where he wrote that.
Nice try. Why don’t YOU go back and read what the guy wrote?
September 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am
Read #23:
“We presented our arguments to the remaining jurors”…
He also said something to that effects earlier
Nice try to you!
September 21st, 2007 at 11:03 am
PS- he said that before they looked at the evidence.
I would like you to recall that there was another juror that from the beginning had the same opinion as I. In fact, I believe that this person made their opinion known first. We presented our arguments to the remaining jurors,”
September 21st, 2007 at 11:15 am
Raphael is the statement, “We presented our arguments to the remaining jurors” the same thing as we “tired” [sic] to convince the others????
That is the type of misleading example we are talking about. You are trying to throw in a quote here of there, then misleading readers with your own spin on what some other comment was. If you want to make your point regarding other people’s posts, quote their posts exactly. Don’t put your words in other’s mouths.
With that said, I’m through with this message thread as I am more focused on Mr. Bahl’s civil suit and the hopes that he can find swift justice from terrible treatment at the hands of the police officers.
Good luck Mr. Bahl.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
I am not trying to “misleading”(your word) anyone. If you read the content of the quote, it clearly states that they (Mr. Barsness and the other member)”presented the arguments”. To present an argument means to argue..does it not? And since they were arguing, they were, in effect, trying to convince the other members.
Don’t accuse me of making up all of this- It came directly from his ((Mr. Barsness own writings.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
The juror stated “I would like you to recall that there was another juror that from the beginning had the same opinion as I”
I think it is a giant leap to assume that he meant the beginning of the trial and not the beginning of deliberation.
The juror also stated “We presented our arguments to the remaining jurors, and they came to their own decision.” The definition of deliberation in the context of a jury is basically “To consult with another or others in a process of reaching a decision.” I would expect most jurors that are in deliberations will discuss and debate their understanding of the case in an effort to make all members of the jury understand the facts and their duty.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I was not talking about the beginning of the trial- if you please read my postings-I said before the discussions of the evidence. Please re-read my postings.
I also said that - a jury-as instructed by a judge- is not supposed to form an opinion until the deliberation phase. This jury man had an opinion BEFORE the deliberation phase (if you believe what he wrote) and tried to convince the others. (again based o n his own words)
Yes-you are correct regarding the process of reaching a verdit.
But this jury person had a prior conclusion-before even he looked at the evidence in the jury room(and spent the remaining two days trying to conviced the other jury members).
All of this is based on his own postings here.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Minnesota Statutes 609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as
provided in subdivision 2:
(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or criminal,
or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;
(2) obstructs, resists, or interferes with a peace officer while the officer is engaged in the
performance of official duties;
That’s the law on this. And the standard jury instruction specifies that “obstructed, hindered, or prevented means the words and acts of the defendant must have the effect of substantially frustrating or hindering the officer in the performance of the officer’s duties.” 10A Minnesota Practice, CRIMJIG 24.26 (2006).
All this criticism of the juror is misplaced. The jury applied the law to the facts and made their decision. Mr. Bahl has clearly suffered a lot through this whole ordeal, and the predicament deaf citizens face in interactions with police is frightening. But, from what I can tell, the evidence was there to convict him. The officer has some discretion in how he performs his duties. He grabbed Mr. Bahl’s wrist. Mr. Bahl pulled it away — a natural reaction, especially for someone who communicates through sign language. But being deaf is not a defense to this crime. Self defense is, and the jury concluded that the evidence showed he wasn’t acting in self defense.
The jury could have convicted him or acquitted him for any reason or no reason. I think they chose to apply the law to the facts before them and not to excuse his conduct because he communicates through sign language or because of what occurred outside of the car — a very tough decision to make. And they concluded that his action had the effect of hindering the officer’s performance of his duties in making the traffic stop.
I for one would would want fair-minded and intelligent jurors like this one if I were ever on trial.
The civil case is where all the broader issues will be heard. But in a small but important way, this case will help too by drawing attention to the predicament deaf people face in dealing with police.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Is kicking in the head justified? And during the jurist selection, of course prosecutor rather have a juror who KNOWS nothing about deaf culture or ANY experiences that they had encountered in the past. How about looking at OJ’s trial and you tell me that they had black jury and he had the right to have them as equal opinion based on color of their skin? If that wasnt the case, and an ALL-WHITE jury would have convinced him! So, there is no question that those jury had a preconceived notion based on Bahl’s attitude.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
The law says “lawful execution.”
It is possible that the officer did not execute the law properly if he violated Mr Bahl’s right to communicate with him.
If the officer’s action was not “lawful,” then Mr. Bahl did not interfere with a “lawful execution” of a legal process.
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Did we all forget Bahl grabbed the officers jacket to start off the hole incident the aggressive behavior of attacking the officer first. I guess since all of you are deaf you are all on Bahl’s side . When really you all need to stop being so dense and get your head out of your butts. I feel it is a break down of the jury not to find him guilty wirh force. That is the problem we have people in the court room that know nothing about the laws as do most of you people whom are writing on these blogs.
GET A LIFE PEOPLE, the guy was wrong and did get what he was asking for.
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Jim Bob,
What’s your evidence for that? You’re making that up.
If you read what Eric, the juror, wrote, Bahl simply jerked his arm away and wrote a quick note to the officer, attempting to communicate that he had a medical problem, and that the officer was causing him pain.
The officer was denying him the right to communicate.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
to reggie (#86):
thank you for qouting that section of Minn. Law.
You made my case.
“Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as
provided in subdivision 2″ etc. etc.
I’ve said several things on this blog reagrding this incident. One of the most important thing is: i cannot understand how this jury can find Bahl guilty when they was no intenion by Bahl to do any crimninal acts. He was just reaction naturally as ANY deaf person would do.
To find anyone guilty of a crime …you must find weather he had the intent. Please read the frist sentence in the paragrph. It says “whoever intentionally etc.etc”
Bahl was not intent on causeing this “crime”.
In fact, he was reaction like most deaf persons would- the shackling of hands is inhume to deaf people. He was to tyring to communicate something to the police oficer, for God’s sake! It was not his intent to any crime.
That being the case- he should have never been found guilty. NO intent= not guilty. It’s as clear as the shy above on a clear day.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
to: Evidence?
nope not making it up, its in the paper (Press) and on news web sites, with witness that watched. If you find them read them all together YOU CAN GET A GREAT IDEA OF WHAT HAPPENED!
Bahl may or may not have wanted to cause a problem but he did cause the problem non the less, hence getting himself into the incident. I see a lot of people here putting blame on the OFFICERS, JURY,JUDGE, AND “THE SYSTEM”. Put the blame where blame is, on Bahl!
Intent or no intent; it is what it is. Yes our courts are messed up, but if you really don’t like it go live in some other country and see how they run things.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Media are notorious for inaccurate and biased reporting. I am surprised you aren’t aware of this. Why do you think jurors must be screened first and any who are biased by media are removed automatically. Everybody is entitled to a fair justice, free from influence from media.
That’s the reason for the judicial system.. where the truth are spoken under oath. The jurors heard the testimonies and decided that the words of the officier and the witnesses not credible. Don’t like it? Go discuss this with them, not us!
Your last comment is deleted for incivility. Considered it your final warning. Any further nastiness will get your whole comment deleted.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
How can you delete a quote from one of our nations greatest speakers, but what ever, I guess it doesn’t give your kind a look of goodness, so you do not want to put in on YOUR site.
And as an added note: juries are not screened they are picked by both sides. An as an added note to my added note media reports what they are given from the courts which is what happens in the court so Bahl is guilty making this whole blog pointless anf the deaf comuniety dumb to the whole situation.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I have a feeling MZ will delete what she feels right o me BLOG so just to let you know she deletes whatever she wants to make the deaf community sound good.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
FYI, she might have deleted the last comment do to my right of freedom of speech!
September 24th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
deleted for nastiness
September 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
i’ll try to get this too 100 blogs
September 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
MZ YOUR UNAMERICAN
September 24th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
deleted for nastiness.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
if you are a cop or a wanna-be, this explains everything….
September 24th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
MZ, if you are deaf this explains everything.
oh wait it does
September 24th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
oh wait i forgot its a deaf blog sat WHAT YOU WANT
September 24th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
I SEE HOW IT IS
September 24th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
THE ONLY NASTYNESS IS YOUR BLOGERS DONT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU DELETE WHAT PEOPLE SAY, what is true.
oh MZ nice work
September 24th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
delete more MZ its YOUR BLOG
September 24th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
This is it, your 3rd grade banter stops me from blogging any further. I have moved on to the next topic.
FYI, I hate police but you people and news make them in the right.
moving on to a blog that can help the fight for the people, not one that fought the police…….not good
September 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
MZ, my recommendation is to ban his ip address, if he continues because it don’t look like he is really interested in an intelligent debate *sigh*.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
MZ:
Please do us a favor…and delete “Jim Bob Says” comments. He really does not sound like he wants to have dialoge. He seemes want to attack you and others.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Jim Bob!
Jim Bob! What an appropriate name!! What a splendid name for you! And you chose it for yourself!! That makes it even more apropriate!!
In our local German-English dialogue, a “jim-bob” is a certai type of pig-headed person, who refuses to look at what is really being said to them. A “jim-bob” ignores what has really happened in certain instances and makes up his own version of the story!!
Did you notice that MZ asked to have a DIALOGUE here, not a series of rants? Or are dumb Deafies only worthy of your scorn so that you can mock?
We have folks like you down here in the country where I live. When they become too much of a pain in the ..deriere…sorry…I want you to understand me,….”pain in the ass,”….the “men-folk” take them down behing the gravel pit to “wisen-em” up!!
You sound as if you are in need of such a trip!
September 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Sounds like Jim Bob is jealous of you and the rest. He is deeply miserable.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
MZ,
I have a question. I am ignored Jim Bob’s comment seem not appriorated. By the way I have question for MZ about how many deaf injuries or died from cop shot in All of USA? I was keep want to know how many? I know California is one of these very recently less a years ago.
and otherwise you have recevied to get some count how much cop hurt or killed deaf people, yet?
I hope it did helped you,yet.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Question: WHY did the officer grab Bahl’s wrists to begin with? What led to that? I’ve never had an officer touch me when pulled over and would not expect one to unless I am asked to get out of the car. So why did Bahl have his wrists in the officer’s hands at any point?
October 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Glad Jim Bob gave up his temper tantrum. Some people will not respect others no matter what. Sorry you had to have such a vile troll visit, MZ.
Jim Bob, there is a way to state your opinion that will not get deleted: in a form that promotes constructive dialogue. The posts above just show you are no better than the two- year-old who wants candy and wants it NOW! Even people who are staunch supporters of freedom of speech understand that in civil society, there are lines you do not cross and boundaries you RESPECT. There are times when free speech is not necessarily adding anything productive to a discussion. Self-censorship is a highly desirable trait and does not mean you are any less of an American.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
In response to Mr. St. Johns:
The first thing that comes to mind while reading your arguments that it is natural for a deaf person to pull away if his hands are restrained is this: What is natural is not always what is legal.
Thus if you want to get technical (as jurors are asked to be), Bahl resisted and interfered with the officer doing his job. It doesn’t make it right, but when you give leniency based on what is a relative judgment (that the reaction to pull away is natural for deaf…maybe, but not for all) then you progress to a slippery slope. That may be what cinched it for the jurors.
As for Brian Riley, I learned long ago the dude loves to hear himself talk, so I don’t even read his posts anymore. I’ve found so many of them a huge twist on reality that I wonder if he’s taken his meds that day.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
To “CyanSquirrel”
That is not the point. I have to state what I have said many times here:
1) I have seen it many times- when a police official realized that it’s a Deaf person- he/she will release and not file charges.
Your “slippery slope” has happened many times-yet I doubt that society has suffered.
2) There was no intent by Mr. Bahl to cause any problems-if you believe the officer’s own testimony. That said- since there no intent, he should not have been found guilty. If you want to, please read the Minn. Statue. It’s says: “with intent”.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I haven’t heard quite from Doug Bahl since after he was a loser in court. I wonder if he could have an appeal. I think the judge follow the hearing way - not Deaf becuz it is the proper process for years. Few or some ways in the system should be changing for Deaf who have their custom in Deaf Culture.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Update: A vlog on Doug Bahl’s Testimony regarding his police encounter at a Sept 26 hearing on public safety for the disabled by the Minnesota House Health and Human Services Committee.
http://signcasts.com/node/136
There he described fully what happened to him. This juror was so wrong if he wasn’t able to comprehend the reason Bahl reacted like that. How can he sleep with a good conscience? I hope he checks this blog again and read the testimony, then maybe he will feel remorse for making a travesty of social justice for a profoundly Deaf man who cannot talk verbally and letting a cop get away with brutal inhumane treatment *shuddering*
November 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I am in college taking ASL I and need to do research paper on DEAF culture. Have looked at many blogs, articles etc. (my eyes are clouding over after reading so many!).
I want to do a paper on what appears to be a very big issue: police departments and communicating with DEAF people when stopped for traffic violation, arrested etc. (Started with reading Doug Bahl’s incident - of interest as I am from MN).
Are there and if so where can I find training materials that would be used for in-service training that I could maybe review? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you.
Kim
PS I have read lots about Drs etc who do not want to hire intepeters. I am going to school to be a chiropracter and feel ASL (also taking Spanish for same reason), will be very beneficial to clients and looks as though it is sorely needed.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Now can you all see- no wonder PERF (Law Enforcement center that is being paid) to make “How to approach Deaf Victims” for all law enforcement agencies (including Sheriff, Ranger, Police, etc.) and said they cannot afford or will not pay to make “How to approach Deaf Suspects” booklets!!!!!! Unbelievable. I researched and discovered that through my research few years ago and called PERF up and they gave me clear answer: no money, no “How to approach Deaf Suspects” booklets.
I believe “How to approach Deaf Suspects” are more important than “Deaf Victims”! Of course, automatic reaction is to be gentle to ALL Victims, right? So Suspects are important:
1. TTY/VP set up in jail AFTER office hours.
2. If hearing jailer makes call at night, therefore deaf jailer should be allowed to make calls and treat equally as the hearing jailer. In fact, one case- said sorry- the tty is locked up in the office at the front desk and has to wait til 8 am to get it. Deaf jailer could not make any calls. He also attempted to tell officer please to make call for him since no tty avail, officer said he cannot do that. and looked at hearing jailer who could make calls! DOnt you know that, officers, it is ILLEGAL to lock up the ttys, didnt you? Yes. ILLEGAL nowadays.
3. Get an interpreter as according to ADA law for law enforcement, police dept covers the cost no matter what. DO NOT deny an interpreter.
4. Always always carry a notepad and pen with the law enforcement officers. Don’t you see? Officers don’t bother to carry their own and make us work hard to get notepad and pen to write and jeopardize the situations too often!!! Every officer should be required to carry one unless they know sign language!
5. Requirement: At police academy to learn basic sign language before they graduate! NOT later on. On my research memory, in Maryland alone, WHOLE MD state had only ONE deaf culture class given for the law enforcement officers in the FULL year a few years ago. Only one out of MANY classes offerred free to the officers! and one was just enough for the quarter session. Deaf Culture? We dont need to let officers know our deaf culture. THey need to attend sign language class to learn basic sign language and also attend “how to approach deaf suspects” class. Not deaf culture. It is too general or broad subject.
6. Captain of each police or law enforcement agencies should be REQUIRED to attend ADA with law enforcement class every year to get update information and feedback and learn to deal with situations with their officers and bring the information to the ADA compliance officer at each department to give sessions to all officers in the agency every semester, NOT every year or NOT one time only. True story: one captain said no to have an interpreter provided when one deaf person requested one and sergeant wasn’t sure and asked the captain, he said no. so that deaf person went to his deaf wife for help. deaf wife pulled up the print out ada for law enforcement and made deaf husband bring to the captain and showed in his face. he gulped and demanded sergeant to get an interpreter right away when he learned that police dept is required to pay for an interpreter. police dept has a fund for that kind of requests according to ada for law enforcement fine print. captain then asked if he could keep the print out. Like he doesnt know about this?! Captain of the whole dept?! No excuses… Don’t you know that there are ADA compliance officer in each department or agency?? Yes. and what they do? Lousy job training the officers on ADA!
Many many more to name. Including should have “How to approach deaf suspects” booklets given across each agency and dept!!!! Even the police academy should include that in the training!