You're just making things up. I, literally, never said that his wife said he was disabled. I said, like five times, that his wife said he had TBI.
- "I've heard no more than the guy's wife saying that he has TBI in the now released video."
- "The officers had reason to know that he may have TBI, because his wife was telling them."
- "The jury may still be out on whether he had TBI or not. As I said, I only have heard his wife's comments."
- "The officers were told he had TBI."
- "I said TBI CAN be a disability, not TBI = disability."
You should try to meet more people. I've met plenty of people with TBI, including veterans, who actually just want to make it through life as productively as possible and have no desire just to get a check.
You said the cops had to accept her claim as true (and, apparently, assume she meant he had some severe disability). I just can't imagine anyone telling cops that they have to automatically defer to bystanders about... anything... and be taken seriously. It's absurd. Now you're backing away from that, I think. Great. Otherwise, I'm still not saying I'm doubting you. Not when Obama's president. I just hope no one takes your prior post as some kind of standard of care.
This is an exaggeration of what I'm saying. No, an officer doesn't just defer to bystanders. They assess for credibility, though. And, as I explained, his wife's excited uttering that he has TBI tends to give credibility. It's not like it was some well concocted plan to scheme for money. She was trying to provide the cops very relevant and potentially very useful information that could help deescalate the situation.
When interacting with someone and you have credible reason to believe they have a disability, then it is good practice to assume that is, in fact, true. Erring on the side of caution generally makes everyone safer, including the officers, because it generally leads to deescalation. It also is for the officer's OWN safety. If you have credible information that someone has TBI, there are certain precautions that you likely can take to protect yourself from getting injured. You automatically jumped to assuming that this is some sort of defense of the bad guy when deescalation is also about protecting the officers too.