107-year-old man killed by SWAT Team.

[Tigger]

Why does it depend? That's not very consistent. You're all about standards, standards, standards.

It depends on whether they can safely engage in the gun battle without needlessly endangering non-combatants and whether the individual is a minor or not. I'd give some leeway to minors (12 or younger).

 

[rocket88]

WTF? That's the resolution to a problem with a 107-year-old man, for God's sake?

Where's Fox's outrage about white on white murder?

 

[Bodi]

As I said earlier, 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. Given the distance bullets can travel, there was no way for them to guarantee that simply pulling back and waiting wouldn't result in casualties. They gave him a bunch of chances to surrender, he failed, they did what they had to do. There is literally no moral or legal standard which puts them in the wrong, but don't let that get int he way of your armchair quarterbacking.

They were morally wrong. Legally? No. Many people agree that morals are superior to a particular law. Evidently you feel that you are a superior armchair quarterback? Good for you.

 

[Bodi]

Oh cmon. First, how would YOU react if the police kicked you and your family out of your home and neighborhood for 24 hours because they were waiting for the old fart to go to sleep. You be saying just go in there and get his ass. Especially a guy who had just been threatening others with a sidearm (the police were there for the guy for a reason you know). Second, they gave the guy every out, every chance to stop shooting and surrender.

I would be telling my children that leaving our house for a day in order to help save a person's life is good and decent. This guy was not a murderer or some horrid criminal. I would tell my children that when somebody threatens to hurt you, you don't respond by getting a bunch of friends together and gang beating the kid to the ground.

 

[joG]

They gave him multiple chances, and he continued trying to murder people.

A guy that acts like that is abnormal and pretty probably out of his rational self. As there was no reason to believe he could be successful at killing anyone, why kill the nut? No one has demonstrated that there was a clear and present danger. If there was such danger, okay. As it is? I don't see it.

 

[joG]

Right, because not shooting back when he shot at them through the door, and trying to negotiate, and not shooting when tear gas resulted in more gunfire, AND trying to distract him when they finally charged into the room in the hopes of getting him in-hand before he fired again -- all of that was them looking for the first chance to blow the old man away. Yes, obviously, those cops wanted nothing more than to mow down an old man. What was I thinking? :lol:

Oh, I would not say they were trigger happy. They only wanted to get home in time for dinner.

 

[Surtr]

A guy that acts like that is abnormal and pretty probably out of his rational self. As there was no reason to believe he could be successful at killing anyone, why kill the nut? No one has demonstrated that there was a clear and present danger. If there was such danger, okay. As it is? I don't see it.

You're high on crack if you honestly believe that an armed man who, while being "out of his rational self", assaulted a citizen, threatened two others with a gun, and repeatedly fired at police is not causing an extremely dangerous situation.

 

[joG]

You're high on crack if you honestly believe that an armed man who, while being "out of his rational self", assaulted a citizen, threatened two others with a gun, and repeatedly fired at police is not causing an extremely dangerous situation.

Nah. Crack isn't my drug of preference. I guess you can read anything into the article and if you want to, you can even justify shooting a nut that had limited food and ammo in his hideout instead of waiting till he got hungry and ran out of shot.

 

[Tigger]

Oh, I would not say they were trigger happy. They only wanted to get home in time for dinner.

Nothing wrong with that, so far as I'm concerned. We'd be a lot better off if more of these lunatics and criminals got shot for their troubles.

 

[Surtr]

Nah. Crack isn't my drug of preference. I guess you can read anything into the article and if you want to, you can even justify shooting a nut that had limited food and ammo in his hideout instead of waiting till he got hungry and ran out of shot.

It was right there in black and white, no "reading into" required. He was threatening people with a gun and shooting at the police. They should have burst in and killed him after he shot at them through the door, but they didn't. They gave him every chance to stop, but he didn't, so they took the only reasonable action that he gave them.

 

[Tucker Case]

Why do people get more outraged when an elderly person is killed for a reason like this as compared to someone in their 20's-50's killed in a similar situation?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why do people get more outraged when an elderly person is killed for a reason like this as compared to someone in their 20's-50's killed in a similar situation?

Good point. When a firearm is involved and in a fixed location it does not much matter how strong, fast or physically able the one doing the shooting is. You are no less likely to be shot based on the age or physical strength of the person doing the shooting. I guess it is simply an extension of the natural tendency to assume that those that are less physically able are less capable of inflciting serious harm on those that are more physically able.

 

[radcen]

Why do people get more outraged when an elderly person is killed for a reason like this as compared to someone in their 20's-50's killed in a similar situation?

Why do people get more outraged when children are killed or hurt as compared to someone in their 20's-50's killed or hurt in a similar situation?

 

[radcen]

A guy that acts like that is abnormal and pretty probably out of his rational self. As there was no reason to believe he could be successful at killing anyone, why kill the nut? No one has demonstrated that there was a clear and present danger. If there was such danger, okay. As it is? I don't see it.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? A stray or bullet kills or maims just the same as a targeted bullet.

 

[Tucker Case]

Why do people get more outraged when children are killed or hurt as compared to someone in their 20's-50's killed or hurt in a similar situation?

Children haven't had any chance to live their lives. Seems fairly obvious to me.

 

[radcen]

Children haven't had any chance to live their lives. Seems fairly obvious to me.

So? :shrug:

Apart from the clear repugnance and short-sightedness of the common illogical emotional point-of-view, what you're saying is that it's ok to destroy a kid's life by sacrificing their parents as long as you protect the child itself. Nice.

 

[clownboy]

Why do people get more outraged when children are killed or hurt as compared to someone in their 20's-50's killed or hurt in a similar situation?

Children, especially small children aren't going to commit the actions this old fart did. Any children hurt in a similar situation would be the victims, not the perpetrators.

 

[Tucker Case]

So? :shrug:

Apart from the clear repugnance and short-sightedness of the common illogical emotional point-of-view, what you're saying is that it's ok to destroy a kid's life by sacrificing their parents as long as you protect the child itself. Nice.

Wow! Do you even bother to think at all before you post a strawman like that, or is it a product of completely disconnecting with all gray matter before tying?

What, exactly, do you think the word "more" means in the phrase "more outraged"?

Where did you invent that idiocy about sacrificing parents from?

 

[radcen]

Children, especially small children aren't going to commit the actions this old fart did. Any children hurt in a similar situation would be the victims, not the perpetrators.

Mine was a generic comparison, not specific to this incident. "Similar" meant, for example, being physically abused. Some would say, incorrectly of course, that abusing a kid is worse than abusing an adult. Both are equally abhorrent.

Politicians even play into this emotional claptrap. (Probably because the easily led fall for it.) It's not uncommon for a politician to say something like, "As a result of this treaty, there will be no missiles aimed at American children.", as if everybody else is unimportant.

Wow! Do you even bother to think at all before you post a strawman like that, or is it a product of completely disconnecting with all gray matter before tying?

What, exactly, do you think the word "more" means in the phrase "more outraged"?

Where did you invent that idiocy about sacrificing parents from?

You're the one willing to go down the road of assigning some people being more worthy of living than others. Without thinking it through to the ultimate potential consequences, no less.

 

[Tucker Case]

Mine was a generic comparison, not specific to this incident. "Similar" meant, for example, being physically abused. Some would say, incorrectly of course, that abusing a kid is worse than abusing an adult. Both are equally abhorrent.

Well at least you admit that you came up with a completely asinine strawman, then.

You're the one willing to go down the road of assigning some people being more worthy of living than others. Without thinking it through to the ultimate potential consequences, no less.

Yet sadly, even with your admission that you were making up an asinine strawman, you aren't willing to recognize how incredibly stupid it was. Sad really.

 

[radcen]

Well at least you admit that you came up with a completely asinine strawman, then.





Yet sadly, even with your admission that you were making up an asinine strawman, you aren't willing to recognize how incredibly stupid it was. Sad really.

In addition to being willfully incorrect, your two comments here aren't even addressing the same points/posts.

I know you thrive on being mind-numblingly and witlessly argumentative for no reason at all, but really, sometimes you would be better off to just give up and let it go. I won't hold my breath, though. Carry on.

 

[Tucker Case]

In addition to being willfully incorrect, your two comments here aren't even addressing the same points/posts.

Irony. You have it down. :lol:

 

[clownboy]

Mine was a generic comparison, not specific to this incident. "Similar" meant, for example, being physically abused. Some would say, incorrectly of course, that abusing a kid is worse than abusing an adult. Both are equally abhorrent.

Politicians even play into this emotional claptrap. (Probably because the easily led fall for it.) It's not uncommon for a politician to say something like, "As a result of this treaty, there will be no missiles aimed at American children.", as if everybody else is unimportant.

The reason child, and to an extent elder abuse is seen as worse is that those classes typically cannot defend themselves, have no hope of doing so. With children it's especially worse because not only can they not defend themselves, but they also don't have the mental capacity to resist psychological abuse.

Yes, politicians do often crassly use these "defenseless" groups as sympathy getters. That's a whole different story.

 

[radcen]

The reason child, and to an extent elder abuse is seen as worse is that those classes typically cannot defend themselves, have no hope of doing so. With children it's especially worse because not only can they not defend themselves, but they also don't have the mental capacity to resist psychological abuse.

Yes, politicians do often crassly use these "defenseless" groups as sympathy getters. That's a whole different story.

I agree that these segments of society are less able to defend themselves, and while that isn't irrelevant, the unavoidable natural extension is that some lives are more worthy than others. That's a dangerous road to go down.

"Hate crime" legislation is a similar mindset.

 

[Tucker Case]

I agree that these segments of society are less able to defend themselves, and while that isn't irrelevant, the unavoidable natural extension is that some lives are more worthy than others. That's a dangerous road to go down.

Looking at it objectively, a child's life is more valuable than an elderly person's life. There's significantly more of it left in most cases.

Let's say you have two glasses with water in them. One glass has a half an ounce of water in it, the other has twelve ounces of water in it. The water in one glass is not any more important than the water in the other glass, but the glass with more water in it is more "valuable" than the one with almost nothing left in it.