Talk about putting the Police in a tight spot

[DaveTN]

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

Probably, it’s my understanding that one of two people he threatened with the gun prior to the Police arriving was his Granddaughter.

[leroy]

Dave:  I aint suggesting a "duty to retreat";  far from it.... Im suggesting thinkin thru the specific situation that is in front of ya; considering all the facts at hand, and commin up (...hopefully...) with a plan that does not include killin anyone.   I do not believe that shooting thru a door when no one gets hurt is grounds for "ending anything immediately"... 

 

The old man wuz stationary, the police were in place... Any potential harm to innocents were minimized... If ya read the accounts, there wuz no one there except the police and the little old man...The neighbors and friends were moved by the police to a safe location...

 

leroy

[DaveTN]

Dave:  I aint suggesting a "duty to retreat";  far from it.... Im suggesting thinkin thru the specific situation that is in front of ya; considering all the facts at hand, and commin up (...hopefully...) with a plan that does not include killin anyone.   I do not believe that shooting thru a door when no one gets hurt is grounds for "ending anything immediately"... 

 

The old man wuz stationary, the police were in place... Any potential harm to innocents were minimized... If ya read the accounts, there wuz no one there except the police and the little old man...The neighbors and friends were moved by the police to a safe location...

 

Leroy

Responding Officers were shot at. (Not SWAT)

SWAT was called.

They started pumping in tear gas.

The shooter started shooting at them through a window.

Absolutely everyone in the area (Cops and Citizens) were safe from the gun fire coming thorough that window? I find that hard to believe.

How much more could they have done?

Duty to retreat in the face of an active shooter is exactly what you are suggesting. No… we will not accept that.

[gregintenn]

What if you just left the old fart alone until he cooled off? I wonder if that wasn't al he wanted to begin with.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Threatened once, but never killed anyone. They had the time to do what Leroy suggests.

 

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

 

DaveS

Probably, but I'm not so sure it matters, the more I think about it. The situation and the information they rely on does matter,

but shooting a round through a door doesn't mean take it to the end so fast. I don't see the police being threatened until

they put themselves in harm's way, but the role of the cop is not to just put people down.

 

Not at you, DaveS, but I'm still laughing at someone sitting in a chair, who can't get up, being called an active shooter. I don't

remember, at this point, but did he ever even fire a shot at anyone before the police arrived? Cause and effect. His daughter

could have over-reacted to the situation, also.

 

Putting an old dog down like that brings up thoughts and memories to me about the value of the human in modern times as

hints given to us from select science fiction authors and political ideologues who have succeeded in twisting many minds

to accept lower standards of life. I'm old enough to remember how things used to be, and young enough to want it back.

Those sci-fi authors were trying to tell us the path we were heading down, not encourage it.

[TMF]

What if you just left the old fart alone until he cooled off? I wonder if that wasn't al he wanted to begin with.

 

If it was that easy then why did the grand daughter call the police?  Certainly they could have done the same if it wasn't such a big deal.

 

Bottom line, when guns are pulled and shots are fired the police are expected to intervene.  100% of the time that police intervene in such a situation there are people who say they shouldn't have. 

 

I'm going to always defer to the guys who were getting shot at.  The police were trying to contain the situation using less than lethal force.  If they went in there heavy handed with the intention of killing this guy they wouldn't have used tear gas or diversionary devices.  They tried to employ less than lethal force and were engaged with lethal force.  I'm not sure why people think the bullets coming out of his gun are any less dangerous simply because the guy was old.  Bullets don't discriminate; they kill cops just as easy regardless of who is firing them.  The cops didn't initiate fire, they returned it.  I would expect anyone here would return fire at someone shooting at you, regardless of age.

[leroy]

This is silly:  

 

Duty to retreat in the face of an active shooter is exactly what you are suggesting. No… we will not accept that.

 

i'm suggguesting waiting him out and outfoxing him without killin him; nothin more   -- the solution to this problem (...most likely....) did not have to be shootin this old man... What is with this mindset that says that we have to neutralize everything regardless of what it is?   Who the hell is the "we" that are too blind to accept common sense approaches to this sort of thing anyway??   God protect us from this kind of "we" that thinks this is the way to do police work....That evidently was tragically lost on those involved and is apparently being missed by some here...  Again..  Who is in the house?  --- an old man with a gun and the police; nobody else is in danger here.... 

 

In my mind; this dammed carryin water for those who have used, at best, poor judgement, and at worst apparently wanted to show the community what defyin the police can mean is unconscionable; ethically, morally, and logically, and no amount of explainin is gonna take that opinion away...  When you carry this to its logical conclusion; the end of everything is to shoot lawbreakers...  I dont know about you, but that dont sound too much like "...protecting and serving...." to me....

 

This whole thing is rotten; and no amount of lipstick smeared on this pig and whitewashing thru police doublespeak is gonna smooth it out.... I would suggest to you all, that if this is "acceptable police work"; the nazi death camp guards should have never been tried....

 

Believe what ya will, but this is morally repugnant and ethically bankrupt; police dogma or not...  Ya better be afraid of folks like this...

 

leroy

[DaveTN]

 

Ya better be afraid of folks like this...

 

 

Don’t be scared.

Unless of course you start trying to kill innocent people. Then be afraid… be very afraid. There may not be a bunch of people standing around hand wringing; a shot may ring out from an HCP holder, cop, or other armed citizen.

[bersaguy]

Ok , I had a buddy come by that is a swat officer here in gallatin. He has read every one of the posts plus read the articles posted with links. He said they had somewhat of a similar issue about a year ago when an 82 year old man barricaded himself in his home because his family wanted to move him from his home of 55 years into a nursing home. Not because he could not care for himself and he had 24 /7  paid sitters paid buy his insurance to come in and do for him. One day when the family arrived to move him from his home to the nursing home he showed them his gun and told him he was not going. They called the police and told them he threatened them with a gun. My buddies Swat team was called out along with a negotiator. The swat team got eyes in the house and saw the old man was armed with a 38 pistol and said he was not leaving his home. He actually fired off two rounds into the floor to get their attention that he would shoot. In the end the swat team got him to fire off his last 4 rounds by making noises under the floor which after that they made a quick entry into the house and room and took control of the issue with out killing the old gentleman. They brought him out with out even putting him in cuff's and took him to the police station. After an investigation it was exposed that the only reason the family wanted him placed in a nursing home was a large offer had been made on the old man's home and property and he turned it down and his two sons were do to get the house when he vacated it. The man was evaluated by a doctor and the doctor said that the old gentleman was not crazy and his health was good for his age and with the aid of the sitters he should have been able to remain in his home indefinitely or until his health worsened. Now after it was all said and done, because the old gentleman actually never pointed the gun at anyone including his two sons but just showed it to them and he never fired directly at any of the police officers or swat team the judge made a decision to dismiss all of the charges that had been made and sent the old man back home without his gun and he is still living in his home with his 24/7 sitters. Now with that said I realize that all cases are different but my buddy said that not being there it was hard for him to make a totally accurate decision but he said that someone in the upper level must have had plans and didn't have time to do his job and keep his plans and gave orders that should not have been given and he left it there.............. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Guest nra37922]

Tragedy all the way around.  107 yr old dead and the Granddaughter and LEO's are going to have to live with this the rest of their lives.  Seems like instead of taking a deep breath and cooling down that the situation was allowed to take on a life of its own and escalate.  Real shame and glad I don't have to live with the decisions that were made.   

 

[gregintenn]

 

Then be afraid… be very afraid.

:drama: Is it that you guys watch too many movies, are taught this stuff in training, or is it just that a certain sort of person that is drawn toward law enforcement?

[TMF]

:drama: Is it that you guys watch too many movies, are taught this stuff in training, or is it just that a certain sort of person that is drawn toward law enforcement?

I'm pretty sure it's standard for anyone, LEO or not, to react to being shot at by shooting back. I dunno, is that just me?

[gregintenn]

I'm pretty sure it's standard for anyone, LEO or not, to react to being shot at by shooting back. I dunno, is that just me?

Sure, but how much do you antagonize someone in order to get them to shoot first?

 

Put yourself in the old man's shoes; if people came to remove me from my home, I'd put up a fight as well.

Edited September 15, 2013 by gregintenn

[Guest TankerHC]

The situation occurred and nothing can be done about it "yet" since a judge has sealed the records in the case. But it got me to thinking after reading these posts last night. I have a friend who is a vet, he was having emotional issues and went to a civilian doctor (Tricare network provider, he is a retiree and VN Vet) and told him what he was thinking. The Doctor told him he may have to take him off the street for 72 hours. He  didnt, he got some counseling that night and they gave him some medication and he has been fine for 5 or 6 years now. 

 

The Police had contact with this old man months ago. He clearly stated to them that if they came back or he had to go to his daughter and son in laws there was going to be a gunfight.

 

Arkansas law, involuntary commitment "involuntary commitment status is that the person is deemed a ‘danger to himself, a danger to others, or is incapable of taking care of his needs’

 

A missed opportunity. Otherwise this whole shootout could have been avoided. A family member would have to go to the Courthouse and file papers, but a judge will do it. A Police Officer can mitigate a threat to someone or even the person themselves just by requesting it. 

 

How many of us could stand in front of a LEO and threaten a shootout and still get to go back in the house and the LEO go about his business?

 

I still say the cops were put in a tight spot. Old man? Doesn't matter. In this case he wasn't too feeble to load a gun and pull the trigger. Blind? Not too blind to aim at a door and send that round through the door he was aiming at. Intent" He told the police what he was going to do and he did it", he wasn't THAT demented. 

 

I say he probably should have been taken of the street at least temporarily. I know there will be some (Not here, just generally) who would think that "the government" has no right to take anyone off the street and incarcerate them, even temporarily on what "they believe" is the case. And at the same time say that the Police did a poor job and there was no reason to kill an old man with a gun shooting through doors after having threatened a shootout", a threat, in this case, which was carried out.

 

So what exactly were the Police Officers supposed to do? If the laws were changed to say "if its an old man sending bullets through the neighborhood, wait him out" and the old man was sending rounds, and the cops stood around to wait him out...the first thing we would see on the news is residents saying "he was shooting and the cops stood around and did nothing, what are they good for?". 

 

Anyone can look and see I have no repsecot for trained LEO's who disregard innocent life and cant shoot straight (The NYC cops who shot 9 bystanders or were hit with fragments while the cops were trying to take down one guy they could have walked up to and arrested) or cops who selectively enforce the law (Chicago and Detroit) or Cops who think they can trample on peoples Constitutionally protected rights because they "think they can" with impunity (Chicago Chief of Police). But I have the utmost respect for those Officers who enforce our laws on a daily basis.

 

in this case I still say they were put in a tight spot. Either way, I would not have wanted to have been the officer (They said one officer fired and killed the old man) who had to make this decision.

 

At the same time, the daughter and son in law better not sue the Police and City, they are just as culpable, they knew what he said months earlier. Why didn't they do something then? 

 

 

 

​

[TMF]

Sure, but how much do you antagonize someone in order to get them to shoot first?

Antagonize? They were called and then shot at when they attempted to investigate the call. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I'm pretty sure that any officer in the world would interpret the situation as deadly. They responded with less than lethal force, twice. They were then shot at some more and they defended themselves. What else do you want them to do? They had no choice. We don't know that "waiting it out" was a viable option since we weren't there. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

What I do know for sure is that they had the right to defend themselves when they were shot at. You can't shoot at police because you think they're "antagonizing you" as far as I know, so I'm trying to do the mental gymnastics it takes to arrive at the conclusion these officers did something wrong.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep, the reaction may be necessarily different
from situation to situation. That requires thought,
proper training and a certain kind of duty that
doesn't bring battlefield mentality into every
situation, doesn't it?

I know police can't be everything to everyone, but
they can be less than highly trained junk yard
dogs. In fact, many are.

Bersaguy's example is what I was alluding to, as
an example of cause. Family members get
greedy. Cops get called for sometimes wrong
reasons. When the two collide, and with activity
like this, well, it solves problems, doesn't it?

If we let things like this continue, we could easily
become Soylent Green a little bit sooner.

[TMF]

This isn't a battlefield response. Either on the battlefield or in the states, if someone shoots at you then you can defend yourself with deadly force. If a 15 year old kid shoots at me in the US or Iraq I'm gonna put holes in him. Same for an elderly guy. It isn't about me not discriminating, it's about THEIR BULLETS not discriminating. Their bullets are just as capable of hitting and killing me if they came from the gun of any other criminal. It's sad this guy was killed. He may well have been out of his mind. However, I don't think it's appropriate to make judgements about the cops simply due to this guy's age.

[DaveTN]

Is it that you guys watch too many movies, are taught this stuff in training,

Standing guard over the perp in the same ER where two of your fellow officers are being worked on (one shot nine times) or facing a gunman that is trying to take your life makes you understand it’s no movie.
 

Or is it just that a certain sort of person that is drawn toward law enforcement?

Did you not post in one of your other rants about cops that they are all people that couldn’t get jobs anywhere else?

[Mike.357]

some of the comments here are near unbelievable.    

 

There is absolutely no reason police could not have waited the old guy out.   If budget came into consideration then they need a better manager/chief.   There has not been a valid reason presented for the police doing what they did.   

 

The old man was not a threat locked up in his bedroom.  Very likely demented and not knowing what was going on.  Class act by the police here.  I remember a time when police protected people.  Getting the old guy out alive should have been the priority not getting SWAT into his room at all cost.

 

I just don't get it.   There was no reason he could not have been waited out.

[bersaguy]

I think maybe they wanted to stop giving him his social security check might be a possibility and a $1.50 bullet could do that. I mean isn't that what our Federal Government has planned for all us old folks anyway. Now they will save another $800.00 bucks a month..........jmho

[Guest 6.8 AR]

This isn't a battlefield response. Either on the battlefield or in the states, if someone shoots at you then you can defend yourself with deadly force. If a 15 year old kid shoots at me in the US or Iraq I'm gonna put holes in him. Same for an elderly guy. It isn't about me not discriminating, it's about THEIR BULLETS not discriminating. Their bullets are just as capable of hitting and killing me if they came from the gun of any other criminal. It's sad this guy was killed. He may well have been out of his mind. However, I don't think it's appropriate to make judgements about the cops simply due to this guy's age.

Just as it's not fair to judge the old man's status with a bullet, without all the information. Yeh, bullets don't discriminate, being only a tool, but did he aim at anyone in particular, or did he take a shot at the door? You can tell I'm still concerned for that door's safety. He may have been completely within his mental capability to act in anger against the intruders in his house, also. This old man was lucky to be alive, being 107 years old, and if anyone ever hears the full details on this please prove the use of excessive force was necessary. Things like this used to be handled much differently. Hey, if this guy was some hardened criminal, I wouldn't be so quick to complain, but that's not the case.

Edited September 16, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[TMF]

Just as it's not fair to judge the old man's status with a bullet, without all the information. Yeh, bullets don't discriminate, being only a tool, but did he aim at anyone in particular, or did he take a shot at the door? You can tell I'm still concerned for that door's safety. He may have been completely within his mental capability to act in anger against the intruders in his house, also. This old man was lucky to be alive, being 107 years old, and if anyone ever hears the full details on this please prove the use of excessive force was necessary. Things like this used to be handled much differently. Hey, if this guy was some hardened criminal, I wouldn't be so quick to complain, but that's not the case.

I don't know since I wasn't there, but I'm not going to default to them doing something wrong simply because this guy is elderly and the age makes it sensational. Instead I'm going to default to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops because they were being shot at. Being shot at sucks. I'll not judge someone's actions when they're under fire unless it's a matter of cowardice.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

I think maybe they wanted to stop giving him his social security check might be a possibility and a $1.50 bullet could do that. I mean isn't that what our Federal Government has planned for all us old folks anyway. Now they will save another $800.00 bucks a month..........jmho

:screwy:

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think maybe they wanted to stop giving him his social security check might be a possibility and a $1.50 bullet could do that. I mean isn't that what our Federal Government has planned for all us old folks anyway. Now they will save another $800.00 bucks a month..........jmho

Really? I mean are you seriously saying this was some conspiracy to stop this old guys social security check.

 

If so I need to go buy up all the aluminum foil I am going to need for the rest of my as well as buy stock in ALCOA because you are obviously using a lot of aluminum on tinfoil hats.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Dolomite_supafly