• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

107-year-old man killed by SWAT Team.

RabidAlpaca said:
Either you were too lazy to read the article, or your reading comprehension is lacking.
They then proceeded with:
- Negotiation FAILURE (suspect responds with gunfire)
- Tear gas FAILURE (suspect responds with gunfire)
- Flash bangs (distraction device in article) FAILURE (suspect responds with gunfire)
When he continued firing at them, they had no other choice but to shoot back. No law enforcement agency on the planet would've done more. You are wrong as hell.
Click to expand...

Yep. Just as I thought. After all, I had read the lines. No reason to hurry. Why shouldn't the police wait? Unless the danger was much greater than the article seems to indicate, there does not really appear to have been much reason to kill him. Why do you think the police shouldn't have waited, till food an ammo ran out? Or why not have used teargas.
 
joG said:
Yep. Just as I thought. After all, I had read the lines. No reason to hurry. Why shouldn't the police wait? Unless the danger was much greater than the article seems to indicate, there does not really appear to have been much reason to kill him. Why do you think the police shouldn't have waited, till food an ammo ran out? Or why not have used teargas.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ... Is that a joke? I even just told you they used tear gas and gave you a link.

You're either trolling or just completely uninterested in a fruitful conversation. Goodbye.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Jesus christ... Is that a joke? I even just told you they used tear gas and gave you a link.

You're either trolling or just completely uninterested in a fruitful conversation. Goodbye.
Click to expand...

Actually you did write teargas and referred to the article as an information base. I had read the article and knew it only mentioned gas. Now maybe you have additional info and it may have been teargas they pumped into the room. I do not know.

But it does not really make much difference, I would have thought. The only reason a government should be allowed to kill a citizen is immediate danger to others. The article does not make a very good case for that.
 
joG said:
Actually you did write teargas and referred to the article as an information base. I had read the article and knew it only mentioned gas. Now maybe you have additional info and it may have been teargas they pumped into the room. I do not know.

But it does not really make much difference, I would have thought. The only reason a government should be allowed to kill a citizen is immediate danger to others. The article does not make a very good case for that.
Click to expand...

He was SHOOTING AT POLICE OFFICERS. You do realize that police officers are people, right? Not to mention the police were called in for an AGGRAVATED ASSAULT charge.

You're one of those ridiculous people that wants to disarm all cops, right? Why didn't they just shoot the gun out of the guy's hand, right? :roll:
 
RabidAlpaca said:
He was SHOOTING AT POLICE OFFICERS. You do realize that police officers are people, right? Not to mention the police were called in for an AGGRAVATED ASSAULT charge.

You're one of those ridiculous people that wants to disarm all cops, right? Why didn't they just shoot the gun out of the guy's hand, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

I wonder if those policemen were standing out in the open without any cover in sight. Nope. I am sorry about this. But the article does not support killing the guy. If you have more evidence of immediate danger to limbs or life, fine. Otherwise I think it was unnecessary.
 
Remove age...not really relevant. There was no mention as to his sanity or capacity for reason. Not sure why they felt the need to 'end' situation. Crisis negotiations can take hours to days. Unless he was randomly shooting at people or had threatened to come charging...I am curious why the police entered the room in the first place. All I can imagine is that he represented a threat to others.
 
MaggieD said:
WTF? That's the resolution to a problem with a 107-year-old man, for God's sake?
Click to expand...

Here I was ready to get all pissed off at another police screwup, but after reading it, it sounds like they actually handled it well. The old guy had a gun and shot at the cops. They attempted to negotiate with him and tried to stop him non-violently with tear gas, at which point he began shooting at them some more. I can't really fault them for killing the guy at that point.
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, let's see -- they could have popped in teargas; stun grenades. They could have waited it out. It'd only be 30 minutes before he'd have to pee, after all. I mean, really. Negotiate? Knockout gas? Something besides rushing the old man and killing him dead? Really?
Click to expand...

Sorry Maggie - for me, age doesn't mean a lot when you're talking about a guy shooting blindly through a closed door at police. He forfeited all sympathy from me by doing that.

One has to wonder how the guy survived 107 years with such a hair-trigger temper.

Finally, I never, personally, challenge what law enforcement does in such situations because I'm not their shoes and never will be. I do support, however, police oversight by civilian ombudsmen charged with investigating and passing judgement on police actions when a citizen is killed in such situations.
 
Honestly - sounds like suicide by cop.
 
joG said:
I wonder if those policemen were standing out in the open without any cover in sight. Nope. I am sorry about this. But the article does not support killing the guy. If you have more evidence of immediate danger to limbs or life, fine. Otherwise I think it was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

If you repeatedly shoot at cops you are going to get blown away. They tried to avoid killing him, he gave them no choice.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Don't bother, she's one of the "They should've shot the gun out of his hands" types.
Click to expand...

What, she doesn't think they should have stopped his bullets by firing one of their own into the barrel of his gun? Not only did they murder an old man, they failed to protect the community from his hail of lead!
 
CanadaJohn said:
One has to wonder how the guy survived 107 years with such a hair-trigger temper.
Click to expand...

I wonder if maybe the guy wasn't impaired or confused in some way. Alzheimer's or dementia maybe. It doesn't make it any less necessary, but it makes it really sad if that's the case.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
What, she doesn't think they should have stopped his bullets by firing one of their own into the barrel of his gun? Not only did they murder an old man, they failed to protect the community from his hail of lead!
Click to expand...

Dood was in his bedroom. He didnt fire until/unless the police approached him. Why not then wait him out?
 
MaggieD said:
WTF? That's the resolution to a problem with a 107-year-old man, for God's sake?
Click to expand...

He could have died the next day from old age... They couldn't talk him out of it? Hell, how much longer does he have to live?

Whatever happened to waiting the people out? What's with the sudden urge to breech all the time? ****ing asshole cops...

I am starting to respect cops less and less now days...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If you repeatedly shoot at cops you are going to get blown away. They tried to avoid killing him, he gave them no choice.
Click to expand...

Because they came at him. If they evacuated the area and waited down the street, the guy would not have fired (we assume). If he did then they can fire. Waiting him out is the best option. They didn't do that. They are assholes that charged in with testosterone raging in their veins and itchy trigger fingers. Bunch of wannabe Rambo's out killing people.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Because they came at him. If they evacuated the area and waited down the street, the guy would not have fired (we assume). If he did then they can fire. Waiting him out is the best option. They didn't do that. They are assholes that charged in with testosterone raging in their veins and itchy trigger fingers. Bunch of wannabe Rambo's out killing people.
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
Dood was in his bedroom. He didnt fire until/unless the police approached him. Why not then wait him out?
Click to expand...

Their job isn't to try to save his life, their job is to protect the community first. He was shooting blind at people who were not shooting at him, and they can't predict the future. If they'd backed off and he'd squeezed off a round on accident and an innocent was killed, we'd be berating them for being too timid to do their job.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Their job isn't to try to save his life, their job is to protect the community first. He was shooting blind at people who were not shooting at him, and they can't predict the future. If they'd backed off and he'd squeezed off a round on accident and an innocent was killed, we'd be berating them for being too timid to do their job.
Click to expand...

They do this all the time. Secure the area. Get innocents out. They are in charge. They can wait him out. Calm him down. He fired at a couple of people. Cops show up. Secure area. Wait. He did not continue firing until the cops started attacking him. They are in the wrong.
 
If the government can't afford to compassionately care for them(elderly/needy)before they go off the reservation, why would anyone expect them to be treated better when they finally do go off.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Their job isn't to try to save his life, their job is to protect the community first. He was shooting blind at people who were not shooting at him, and they can't predict the future. If they'd backed off and he'd squeezed off a round on accident and an innocent was killed, we'd be berating them for being too timid to do their job.
Click to expand...
Of course their job is to try to save his life. He wasnt on a rampage shooting op the streets. He had...gone to his room. The only time he fired shots (according to the report) is when the police took an aggressive action.

Im not an anti-cop guy. Ive worked closely with multiple police agencies doing this very kind of thing. I just dont know what the urgency was to end him/it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
They do this all the time. Secure the area. Get innocents out. They are in charge. They can wait him out. Calm him down. He fired at a couple of people. Cops show up. Secure area. Wait. He did not continue firing until the cops started attacking him. They are in the wrong.
Click to expand...
He didnt even fire at people first...he pointed a gun. He didnt fire until the police approached him. Not saying thats OK...just that they maybe could have done something different (unless there is more to it that we dont know).
 
Bodhisattva said:
They do this all the time. Secure the area. Get innocents out. They are in charge. They can wait him out. Calm him down. He fired at a couple of people. Cops show up. Secure area. Wait. He did not continue firing until the cops started attacking him. They are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

After being shot at through a door (i.e. before the cops were "attacking" anybody), they tried to negotiate with him. When that failed they tried to disable him without hurting him, and he shot at them some more. They're not in the wrong, and they went out of their way to end it peacefully.
 
VanceMack said:
Of course their job is to try to save his life. He wasnt on a rampage shooting op the streets. He had...gone to his room. The only time he fired shots (according to the report) is when the police took an aggressive action.
Click to expand...

They didn't have a chance to take "aggressive" action, he shot at them through the freaking door when they showed up. He was lucky they invested as much energy as they did trying not to kill him. He failed to take the numerous chances he was given to stop threatening the lives of others. End of.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
After being shot at through a door (i.e. before the cops were "attacking" anybody), they tried to negotiate with him. When that failed they tried to disable him without hurting him, and he shot at them some more. They're not in the wrong, and they went out of their way to end it peacefully.
Click to expand...

Why does negotiating have to end with an attack? Keep negotiating... with bullet proof shields and tactical armour they certainly did not need to go busting into his house. They are in the wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom