• 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.

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,
Click to expand...

Thirty minutes!?!?!?! What makes you think he had such excellent bladder control?
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...
Essentially, what you're saying is we should look at it from the aspect of what we can gain in return from our "investment". We've already sucked pretty much all the productivity out of an old person. A middle-aged person only has half of a productive life left, and so on. It is, after all, 'just business'.

Ok, let's run with this objective point-of-view. When I was in high school, there were three kids who were all severely mentally and physically handicapped. Each in wheelchairs. Each with full-time handlers, special programs, and so on. I'm not sure two of them even knew their own names, and probably never would, no matter how hard anyone tried to teach them. Each student cost a lot more to educate than the average student on a per-pupil basis. Since we're basing our decision on objectivity, why should we be spending as much time and money on these kids that we did? They're never going to be productive members of society, nor even be able to have a job. Looking at it objectively, what's the point?
 
Tucker Case said:
No, that's a strawman. Try again.
Click to expand...
I didn't think you were really interested in adult discussion, but thought I'd give it a shot. You didn't disappoint. Have a nice day, and if you are ever ready to participate and address the point... which was obviously too inconvenient for your purposes... let me know.
 
radcen said:
I didn't think you were really interested in adult discussion, but thought I'd give it a shot. You didn't disappoint. Have a nice day, and if you are ever ready to participate and address the point... which was obviously too inconvenient for your purposes... let me know.
Click to expand...

Listen, when you decide to make up something instead of my argument, you aren't trying to have an adult discussion, you are making up bull**** and pretending I said it. You do this because you have no real argument. Don't blame me for your incompetence here.

****, you couldn't even competently defend against your own strawman because you created a subjective example and mislabeled it as objective.

when you actually make an intelligent point, I'll address it. You haven't done so yet. Don't blame me for that.
 
Example of an adult conversation for Radcen:


I say something

You respond to what I say, not some imaginary bull**** you made up and pretended I said

I respond to what you say

You respond to what I say, not some imaginary bull**** you made up and pretended I said

and so on and so forth.

Until you master that formula, you won't be capable of having an adult conversation. The key is to respond to what was said and refrain from making up bull**** and pretending the other guy said it. Try it out, it's amazingly effective.
 
Tucker Case said:
making up bull****
Click to expand...
Another alternative is to discontinue your practice of trying to have an 'adult' conversation with children?
Oops then you'd seldom converse with anyone here?
nvrmnd as you were carry on
 
WI Crippler said:
Where do we set the cut off for not using deadly force against someone shooting at you?
Click to expand...


well, I'd set the maximum age at 100. Anybody over 100 the cops ought to be able to deal with without blowing them away.
 
Wiggen said:
well, I'd set the maximum age at 100. Anybody over 100 the cops ought to be able to deal with without blowing them away.
Click to expand...
what about the children anyone under 17 gets a pass too?
 
No, I'd set the childhood age younger than 17. How about you? Would killing a 5 year old be OK with you? Look, I understand that there are some of you - especially those Far Right law and order freaks - who cheer cops when they kill anybody. I'm not one of those. If you are seriously maintaining that the cops had no alternative with a 107 year old man except to shoot and kill him, then I'm glad I don't live in your neighborhood.

Swat teams live for this sort of stuff. It's how they get their jollies.
 
Surtr said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, he was threatening people, who were in cover and at distance. His threats were impotent. Had he got charged the police fortifications, sure they would have to stop him. But that he did not seemingly do. He sat in the house using threatening language and harmless bullets from afar. To tell you the truth? I think, if the article portraits the facts correctly, it was criminal to shoot him.
 
radcen said:
Do you make this stuff up as you go along? A stray or bullet kills or maims just the same as a targeted bullet.
Click to expand...

Sure. Just like when you go hunting.
 
"The SWAT team confirmed that Isadore was armed with a handgun by inserting a camera into the bedroom through a window."

If they had such surveillance equipment at their disposal, they could have waited for the old coot to fall asleep and then quietly disarmed him. Unusual circumstances require a little creativity in procedure. While the SWAT team cannot necessarily be faulted for using deadly force in this instance, this was not exactly "brilliant" police work. I give them a grade of D minus.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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...
Click to expand...

I may have missed it..... but did the news article list all of the times between all of the different actions?

If not.... who is to say they didn't "wait it out" for longer than was prudent......
 
Considering absolutely no TIMELINE was given for the wait periods between all the different actions in this incident..........

People who keep saying they should have "waited it out" may not be aware that they could very well have been there for 12-14 hours on scene trying to "wait it out"..... as nothing was mentioned for the timeline.

Im not saying that they WERE there that along..... but you have no clue as to whether they tried to "wait it out" or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom