Talk about putting the Police in a tight spot

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

The Hell it doesn't matter. This resolution of using SWAT is probably part of the problem. What did we see before the

militarization of the police department? How do you know what he was doing or thinking, other than what the article

implied? 

 

These things go on all too often, or at least they get air time, often. I'd love to see more information before I pass

judgement on any individual. The police should have much more of a threshold to reach before they use deadly

force, in cases like this. That old man could be guilty of something we will never know about, now. He could have

startled and not known what was really at his door, also.

 

And if it is cop bashing, you be the judge. I won't waste any time arguing that silliness, but it could been handled a

lot differently.

My goodness ,calm down..

Its my opinion..just like you have an opinion..

I comented on the article as I see it..Nothing more..I wont get in to this with you as it seems it doesnt matter if someone has a different opinion, you like to jump down their throats.

[Erik88]

I cant believe what im readin here from some of ya.... If the police cant handle a 107 year old guy without an armed entry with a distraction blast, then shootin him; we are in deep trouble... This was poorly (...and tragically...) handled...

 

Folks are gonna have to quit carryin the water for these SWAT "dynamic entries" and come to the realization that there are some bad people wearin badges and guns; and some buffoons commanding them... This aint a dammed video game; its real life and a poor old out of his mind man is dead because of this nonsense...

 

At best, this is a terrible mistake... At worst it is a police commando murder...  God forbid these folks come and protect you, me or anybody else...

 

This is another Branch Dividian thing, abeit on a smaller scale.   It's capricious (...and most likely criminal...) use of deadly force to and military tactics to take out a crippled up, childish old man...  If the police cant handle poor, demented 107 year olds without killin 'em; you had better be afraid when they come to your house....

 

And, by the way, i aint a SWAT team member, nor do i play one in video games or on TV;  and (...thank God...) ive never made a police entry... That dont mean a dammed thing here... You need to think before ya kill people...Especially the oldest and youngest among us..

 

This is, in fact, a tragedy and most likely a crime to boot.... Havin said that, i'm willin to bet that someone will cover for this disgraceful act....

 

leroy

 

Maybe I didn't fully understand the story because I typically agree with 99% of your posts Leroy.

 

It sounded to me that they tried several methods to get him to surrender and he didn't do it.

 

Did you read the 2nd article? The man had already made some questionable statements. I'm just not sure what they police could have done differently.

 

 

 

"Mr. Isadore stated we would have to shoot him or throw him jail before he went back home with" his son-in-law, one of the reports said. "Mr. Isadore stated he was a hundred and seven years old and GOD told him to do his will."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, Erik, that means a SWAT team? Get real.

 

Every cop in this country knows he puts his life on the line every time he goes to work. That doesn't necessitate having

a SWAT team there, every time, does it? A cop is supposed to be professional in his duties. That not only includes

protecting himself, but protecting the public, and dissolving situations that could erupt into worse situations, like this

one did, possibly because of the SWAT team's mindset and their training.

 

SWAT teams have their place in our society, just not like this.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My goodness ,calm down..

Its my opinion..just like you have an opinion..

I comented on the article as I see it..Nothing more..I wont get in to this with you as it seems it doesnt matter if someone has a different opinion, you like to jump down their throats.

I'm just fine. The article didn't have enough information to make an informed judgement, and knowing that, I won't

defend the use of that kind of force against what some would refer to an active shooter, when he could have thought

something completely different and acted for other reasons than you or I know. Allegations shouldn't turn out like this.

It thwarts the justice system.

Edited September 15, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Erik88]

So, Erik, that means a SWAT team? Get real.

 

Every cop in this country knows he puts his life on the line every time he goes to work. That doesn't necessitate having

a SWAT team there, every time, does it? A cop is supposed to be professional in his duties. That not only includes

protecting himself, but protecting the public, and dissolving situations that could erupt into worse situations, like this

one did, possibly because of the SWAT team's mindset and their training.

 

SWAT teams have their place in our society, just not like this.

 

Why are you getting so worked up over this? Again, if you knew you were going to be shot at would you want to go alone? I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

That being said, I don't see how we would have seen a different result if one office responded alone.

 

I understand, and agree, with the point you are trying to make about SWAT teams becoming too common but I'm just not sure this is a good example of that power being abused.

 

I'm sure the call came in as "man threatening woman with a gun", not "107 year old gentle old man might just need someone to talk to and a nap"

Edited September 15, 2013 by Erik88

[gregintenn]

My wife's grandmother will be 101, and if she has her shotgun out, it's best you leave her alone. SWAT team or else.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Age has nothing to do with it because a firearm was being used and the firearm is an equalizer. Being 107 doesn't make the gun any less lethal. I would be condemning the officers if the 107 year old man was trying to fight them using only his body strength but he was not, he was using a firearm that could have killed any of the officers that had a legal right to be there. Any firearm is capable of serious bodily injury or death regardless of the age of the shooter.

 

And in this situation SWAT was warranted because you have a criminal who had previously stated that officers would have to kill him. Then the criminal shot at the initial officer (not SWAT officers) who attemped to make contact. SWAT was called out AFTER the criminal shot at the officer (not SWAT) who tried to make first contact. When the criminal shot at the officer then it required SWAT to be called for everyone's safety. And SWAT is what should have been used because they are the best trained for situations like this. They are not trained to run in with guns a blazing. They generally have a lot more training on "no shoot" situations than most road officers.

 

In the end the officers had a legal right to be there. The homeowner did not have a legal right to shoot at them. And because of this the officers had every right, legally and morally, to stop the criminal's lethal assault on innocent people.

 

And one more thing for those who may not know. The reason why you do not wait a criminal out is because it allows them to barracade themselves, boobytrap the entrances and better arm themselves. Any one of these things makes it more dangerous for the officers. As long as entering doesn't place innocent people in danger it should happen as soon as and quickly as possible.

[Erik88]

Age has nothing to do with it because a firearm was being used and the firearm is an equalizer. Being 107 doesn't make the gun any less lethal. I would be condemning the officers if the 107 year old man was trying to fight them using only his body strength but he was not, he was using a firearm that could have killed any of the officers that had a legal right to be there. Any firearm is capable of serious bodily injury or death regardless of the age of the shooter.

 

And in this situation SWAT was warranted because you have a criminal who had previously stated that officers would have to kill him. Then the criminal shot at the initial officer (not SWAT officers) who attemped to make contact. SWAT was called out AFTER the criminal shot at the officer (not SWAT) who tried to make first contact. When the criminal shot at the officer then it required SWAT to be called for everyone's safety. And SWAT is what should have been used because they are the best trained for situations like this. They are not trained to run in with guns a blazing. They generally have a lot more training on "no shoot" situations than most road officers.

 

In the end the officers had a legal right to be there. The homeowner did not have a legal right to shoot at them. And because of this the officers had every right, legally and morally, to stop the criminal's lethal assault on innocent people.

 

And one more thing for those who may not know. The reason why you do not wait a criminal out is because it allows them to barracade themselves, boobytrap the entrances and better arm themselves. Any one of these things makes it more dangerous for the officers. As long as entering doesn't place innocent people in danger it should happen as soon as and quickly as possible.

 

Here is a great explanation based on experienced and logic....rather than emotion.

 

Makes sense to me Gordon.

[TMF]

So, how are regular bear cops supposed to enter and disarm a person who has already fired shots and made their intention to kill officers known?

Beat cops don't have access to whiz bang cameras, gas and distraction devices, nor are they trained on them. If you want regular beat cops to be trained on that sort of stuff and have that sort of equipment then write your city leadership and let them know you want your taxes raised so that the local LE budget can support it. If regular cops had to go in there to disarm him there would be dead cops. What are they supposed to do? What would you do if it was your job to disarm someone who is trying to kill you?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Containing the situation and waiting it out would be more on the right course, from what I got out of the article. Maybe

some of you are privy to information I'm not. Did he have a hostage? How much of a threat is someone like him, who

probably couldn't wipe his ass. Evacuate and contain. SWAT my ass! I wonder what kind of conversations were started

by said SWAT, or uniformed police, and what kind of outcome was desired. Tear gas didn't do the job?

 

This wasn't a battleground in a foreign country, and I seriously doubt the situation would have lasted very long if they

had only evacuated and contained and tried less lethal means. What was he going to do, start a war? Yeh, right.

 

If the cops didn't have enough time to contain the situation without shooting this guy, what else is so important?

Dunkin Donuts?

[TMF]

I don't now the full situation. I'm certain every house in that neighborhood was evacuated though. Between displacing hundreds of homeowners and having most of the police force tied up on overtime keeping this crime scene closed off I'd say there's some good reasons to effect and end to the standoff. I don't know, I wasn't there. What I do know is that his age is irrelevant.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Age has nothing to do with it because a firearm was being used and the firearm is an equalizer. Being 107 doesn't make the gun any less lethal. I would be condemning the officers if the 107 year old man was trying to fight them using only his body strength but he was not, he was using a firearm that could have killed any of the officers that had a legal right to be there. Any firearm is capable of serious bodily injury or death regardless of the age of the shooter.

 

And in this situation SWAT was warranted because you have a criminal who had previously stated that officers would have to kill him. Then the criminal shot at the initial officer (not SWAT officers) who attemped to make contact. SWAT was called out AFTER the criminal shot at the officer (not SWAT) who tried to make first contact. When the criminal shot at the officer then it required SWAT to be called for everyone's safety. And SWAT is what should have been used because they are the best trained for situations like this. They are not trained to run in with guns a blazing. They generally have a lot more training on "no shoot" situations than most road officers.

 

In the end the officers had a legal right to be there. The homeowner did not have a legal right to shoot at them. And because of this the officers had every right, legally and morally, to stop the criminal's lethal assault on innocent people.

 

And one more thing for those who may not know. The reason why you do not wait a criminal out is because it allows them to barracade themselves, boobytrap the entrances and better arm themselves. Any one of these things makes it more dangerous for the officers. As long as entering doesn't place innocent people in danger it should happen as soon as and quickly as possible.

The Stazi called anyone they wanted a "criminal", also. What does morally justifying have to do with this situation? And whose morals?

 

It's good to know the police are protecting the doors inside houses with plenty of firepower. At least the doors can seek

justice, I guess.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't now the full situation. I'm certain every house in that neighborhood was evacuated though. Between displacing hundreds of homeowners and having most of the police force tied up on overtime keeping this crime scene closed off I'd say there's some good reasons to effect and end to the standoff. I don't know, I wasn't there. What I do know is that his age is irrelevant.

So overtime is more important than preserving life? We aren't talking about a hardened criminal. If budget is considered in

the decision making process, then take the damned guns away from cops, as fast as you can.

[TMF]

So overtime is more important than preserving life? We aren't talking about a hardened criminal. If budget is considered in
the decision making process, then take the damned guns away from cops, as fast as you can.

Well, yeah. If the entire police department is rendered ineffective by a standoff it is putting the greater public at risk. Not every PD has dozens of cops they can just throw at a problem for days at a time without neglecting all other duties to the community. As a tax payer I have no problem with officers incorporating those cons in their course of action development.

And we're not exactly talking about one or the other here in terms of them deciding not to preserve life because they chose to make entry. They didn't intend to shoot this guy. They tried multiple less than lethal means in order to incapacitate him before he was shot. Obviously those means didnt work. That happens sometimes.

Age means squat to me. I had a 15 year old boy unload half an AK mag on me from 20m away while I rode in the back of a truck. If I had the opportunity I would have shot him deader than Elvis. Same goes if he was 107 years old.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I would have gladly stopped at the possibility of considering this man, being 107 years old, possibly had dementia, or something

similar, but now it seems the budget, active shooter, moral justification and a shot fired inside a house leads to a SWAT team called

in to essentially kill someone who probably has no criminal record. Maybe he does. I didn't catch that part. It used to be that cops

role was to preserve life when possible, take life only when absolutely necessary.

 

I guess times have changed. We have truly devolved into something we were trying to guard against, but we got so much malaise

in our minds that it is more suitable to let the bullet be the judge.

 

I don't have anything against SWAT teams, except their excessive use, nowadays. Moral decay comes in two forms: one is malaise

and cynicism, and the other is tyranny. This one broke both thresholds.

[TMF]

I'm not saying this wasn't tragic, but what are officers supposed to do? They had to secure the scene. They cant just leave after a person pulls a gun on someone and fires shots. They have to make an arrest. They did everything they could within reason to get this guy to surrender. He didnt. He tried to kill the officers that were making the arrest. What should they have done? Get shit because they feel bad this person is 107?

[TMF]

Ugh, that's supposed to be "get shot" not "get shit". Stupid tapatalk autocorrecting then not letting me edit my post for some reason.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, yeah. If the entire police department is rendered ineffective by a standoff it is putting the greater public at risk. Not every PD has dozens of cops they can just throw at a problem for days at a time without neglecting all other duties to the community. As a tax payer I have no problem with officers incorporating those cons in their course of action development.

And we're not exactly talking about one or the other here in terms of them deciding not to preserve life because they chose to make entry. They didn't intend to shoot this guy. They tried multiple less than lethal means in order to incapacitate him before he was shot. Obviously those means didnt work. That happens sometimes.

Age means squat to me. I had a 15 year old boy unload half an AK mag on me from 20m away while I rode in the back of a truck. If I had the opportunity I would have shot him deader than Elvis. Same goes if he was 107 years old.

I understand, Dan, but was it a war zone, or a neighborhood? You know better. Age means squat to me, but in this case, it wasn't

a battleground, and it wasn't half a mag from an AK.

 

As a taxpayer, also, I have a different take. Costing out life to ensure the rest of town remains safe is bogus.
Ah Hell...Klatu, veranda, nicto. Just make sure everyone is under control and is accounted for each night. Then, to

budget things properly, use something akin to Minority Report to predict and prevent crime. Utopia is just around

the corner.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not saying this wasn't tragic, but what are officers supposed to do? They had to secure the scene. They cant just leave after a person pulls a gun on someone and fires shots. They have to make an arrest. They did everything they could within reason to get this guy to surrender. He didnt. He tried to kill the officers that were making the arrest. What should they have done? Get #### because they feel bad this person is 107?

They could have used better judgement and could have taken without the excessive force. Securing the scene doesn't mean shooting

the perp, like this situation. I'm just primarily concerned about the lack of value of human life being all reduced to the lowest common

denominator and budgeted in at the next city council meeting. There are situations that require the use of deadly force, but I have my

doubts about this being one.

[NoBanStan]

Should sent her after him

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=--K3X6rptE4

[TMF]

They could have used better judgement and could have taken without the excessive force. Securing the scene doesn't mean shooting

the perp, like this situation. I'm just primarily concerned about the lack of value of human life being all reduced to the lowest common

denominator and budgeted in at the next city council meeting. There are situations that require the use of deadly force, but I have my

doubts about this being one.

 

Well I think you're missing the point.  They didn't go in there to shoot someone.  They went in there to make an arrest on someone who had threatened a person with a weapon, who then called the police.  When the police showed up to investigate they were shot at.  I'm not sure what the police were supposed to do.  They had to intervene and make an arrest.  They tried and were shot at.  They had no choice but to shoot back.  107 years old or not, that's a pretty simple equation.  If this person was 40 years old I don't think too many people would disagree with the actions of the officers.  How does the fact he's 107 years old make his bullets any less deadly?

[DaveTN]

 

SWAT teams have their place in our society, just not like this.

This is exactly the place you use a SWAT team. There was an active shooter in a residential area. I submit that if one of his rounds had killed an innocent citizen down the street, those here ripping on the cops would have been condemning them for not reacting in time and calling for their dismissal.

 

People with mental disabilities pull guns and start shooting people all the time. The Sandy Hook shooter had mental disabilities. If a teacher in the hallway killed him as he approached with a gun and no kids were killed would we be having discussions about how the kid had a mental illness and should not have been shot? Sure we would and some would be calling for the disarmament of all teachers. Because we would have no way of knowing 26 lives were saved.

 

Bottom line: When you start shooting at people and refuse to surrender you are probably going to get shot.

 

The Police records have been sealed by a Judge and a special prosecutor appointed. We will see. I don’t see how they could blame anyone but the shooter.

[leroy]

I'm still saddened by what i continue to read here...

 

If ya dig thru the news accounts (....yeah, i know that they can be wrong, deliberately or otherwise...) ya see that this man wuz a 107 year old, legally blind and gimped up old man....  Folks, that IS the heart of the problem here... This little ole man wasn't a murderin drug dealer, mother raper or father stabber, nor a 21 year old junkie blowed up on drugs; he wuz a gimped up little man, aged 107... This man pointed a gun at a couple of his friends because he was evidently distraught, and shot thru a door when the police were interacting with him...  He evidently had some sort of an episode that rendered him terribly confused... 

 

I simply do not agree with the "protocols" and "dogma" that says that once police are called, they are obligated to end the situation they find themselves in by neutralizing (...killin...) whomever they are interacting with immediately... The police did their primary job by protecting those who needed protection by escorting them away from the house.  This old man had no hostages in his house with him, if ya believe the info that is out there.  There wuz no one there but him (...in the room...) and the police... What would be the harm in waiting him out?   A 107 year ole man aint likely to "barricade and boobytrap" anything; especially a crippled up, mostly blind old man...

 

I simply ask that ya think that one thru for a few minutes...  What was the harm in waiting him out?... There aint a real answer for that one....  It appears that this little ole man's sin that evidently wuz worthy of death is that he defied a command from the police to give up and shot thru a door...  I simply cant help but wonder that if that little ole man wuz the granpaw or father of one of these officers, especially the commander, would this technique be used and the outcome defended...??  

 

Folks, this is a serious moral and ethical issue as well as a police technique issue...  It needs a thorough review and some very serious analysis...  I'm vitally interested in this stuff, and i think ya should be too..  These guys could come to your (...or your grandpaw's house...) house one day...  Think about that one for a bit... This is, indeed, a tragic (...and i think heinous...) episode indeed... 

 

Time will tell if this one shakes out; this one is far from over...  There is one thing for sure, however, that little ole 107 year old aint gonna get any older, and those involved will never be the same again... I think that is a shame...I think it should have been avoided...

 

leroy

Edited September 15, 2013 by leroy

[DaveTN]

It needs a thorough review and some very serious analysis...

I think that is what's happening now.

Maybe they will implement a policy of securing active shooters and waiting them out. Until that gets someone killed and then they can come up with another plan.

When the situation turns from threats to shots being fired the on scene Officers have to end that immediately.

The man put citizens and Police in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. If you are suggesting a duty to retreat it will be applied across the board. We have fought for years to get rid of that.

[DaveS]

I cant believe what im readin here from some of ya.... If the police cant handle a 107 year old guy without an armed entry with a distraction blast, then shootin him; we are in deep trouble... This was poorly (...and tragically...) handled...

 

Folks are gonna have to quit carryin the water for these SWAT "dynamic entries" and come to the realization that there are some bad people wearin badges and guns; and some buffoons commanding them... This aint a dammed video game; its real life and a poor old out of his mind man is dead because of this nonsense...

 

At best, this is a terrible mistake... At worst it is a police commando murder...  God forbid these folks come and protect you, me or anybody else...

 

This is another Branch Dividian thing, abeit on a smaller scale.   It's capricious (...and most likely criminal...) use of deadly force to and military tactics to take out a crippled up, childish old man...  If the police cant handle poor, demented 107 year olds without killin 'em; you had better be afraid when they come to your house....

 

And, by the way, i aint a SWAT team member, nor do i play one in video games or on TV;  and (...thank God...) ive never made a police entry... That dont mean a dammed thing here... You need to think before ya kill people...Especially the oldest and youngest among us..

 

This is, in fact, a tragedy and most likely a crime to boot.... Havin said that, i'm willin to bet that someone will cover for this disgraceful act....

 

leroy

Wonder, did the cops know how old this guy was BEFORE they had to shoot?

 

DaveS