95-year-old killed by Park Forest, IL coppers

[Hard Truth]

My big fear is these officers all over are going to keep doing these heavy handed maneuvers and cause an uproar, it isn't that far fetched that people start shooting back.

The policies promoting militarization of local law enforcement need to be strongly opposed. Homeland Security Funding promotes and subsidizes increased use of military style weapons and other technology (i.e. drones) by local law enforcement. When people are given certain tools, there is a tendency to seek situations where they can be used and they are used more often than is appropriate. That is why many communities have refused to allow police use of tasers, they tend to get over-used and abused. Give the police enough military training and tools and they will tend to become more like an occcupation force and less like a community policing service.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The policies promoting militarization of local law enforcement need to be strongly opposed. Homeland Security Funding promotes and subsidizes increased use of military style weapons and other technology (i.e. drones) by local law enforcement. When people are given certain tools, there is a tendency to seek situations where they can be used and they are used more often than is appropriate. That is why many communities have refused to allow police use of tasers, they tend to get over-used and abused. Give the police enough military training and tools and they will tend to become more like an occcupation force and less like a community policing service.

I agree. There are some good officers out there, ones that are respectful, judicious, and most of all careful in enforcement. Then on the swing side there are dangerous types that don't double check information, use force first instead of proper tactics, and otherwise go full on Judge Dredd, those types need accountability, not better weapons.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

What an absurd story. He made it 95 years and this is how he leaves. That's ****ed up to say the least. I don't know what's going on in police department's around the country, but there have been a lot of stories of excessive force being used recently. Everybody better be careful.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

And the reason the cops came to begin with was that the man refused medical attention?

Doesn't he have a right to refuse medical attention if he wants to?

and they come in and wind up killing him.

This sounds to me like a great illustration of what happens when a government entity decides to protect someone from themselves.

Well, it depends. When a person isn't in a state of mind to make competent and rational decisions, such rights are often mitigated. The article is rather confusing and doesn't give many clear details on anything, so it's hard to say what happened here

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

"Mental Health Technicians" have the job of dealing with people, mentally and physically, with severe mental illness while they are mental health facilities (hospitals etc.). It is their duty to respond when the patients act inappropriately, including when they make threats or are violent. As mentioned, they can do this without weapons because they know how to de-escalate situations. They have an excellent record of avoiding injures to anyone.

A very significant portion of the people the police need to interact with are mentally ill. I believe that all armed law enforcment officers should receive the same training as "Mental Health Technicians" and should be required to master those skills. Perhaps an internship in a mental health facility should also be required. This would reduce violence, lawsuits and improve police-community relations significantly.

The article states that the staff wanted to try and calm the guy before the police interceded. But what confuses me is why were the cops called prior to such options being exhausted to begin with?

Let's face it, that article is **** and explains little and provides very few facts. And it's not something people should be deriving an opinion from

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The woman was iirc completely deaf and sight restricted.

While I agree about too much leniency being given to cops, someone in that condition should not have access to a firearm

 

[LaMidRighter]

While I agree about too much leniency being given to cops, someone in that condition should not have access to a firearm

She was afraid of someone illegally entering her house and harming her. She didn't have anyone else, the police ****ed up and illegally entered her house and killed her. Don't blame the victim.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

She was afraid of someone illegally entering her house and harming her. She didn't have anyone else, the police ****ed up and illegally entered her house and killed her. Don't blame the victim.

1) If she can't even competently see and hear what is going on around her, then clearly she shouldn't be armed

2) No one blamed her (I never even offered an opinion on the issue of the shooting). So save the pointless emotional appeals. What I did was point out that someone who can't see or hear shouldn't be armed with a gun. the reason why? Well, because she can't ****ing see or hear, genius

 

[LaMidRighter]

1) If she can't even competently see and hear what is going on around her, then clearly she shouldn't be armed

I disagree. If she can't see that is one thing, but sight restricted is not blind. Seeing someone kick your door down is all one needs to see.

2) No one blamed her (I never even offered an opinion on the issue of the shooting). So save the pointless emotional appeals. What I did was point out that someone who can't see or hear shouldn't be armed with a gun. the reason why? Well, because she can't ****ing see or hear, genius

If you are saying she shouldn't have a firearm because of disabilities it sounds like blame. Honestly, that lady was alone fragile, yes, a firearm was an appropriate decision, the police get far too many no knock warrants issued, and they served it in error. Not only does that tip off anyone in the vicinity that should have been served it literally opens the door for a homeowner to panic and fire.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I disagree. If she can't see that is one thing, but sight restricted is not blind. Seeing someone kick your door down is all one needs to see.

mate, if she can't properly see she can't aim a gun. Adding to that she can't properly hear, you got a situation where she can't even ask who the blob is in front of her who they are

If you are saying she shouldn't have a firearm because of disabilities it sounds like blame.

No, that is simply you being a reactionary who apparently can't manage a reasonable discussion on the topic of guns, and who should have access to them

Honestly, that lady was alone fragile

I agree, but giving her a gun hardly solves that and creates a an even more precarious situation. So how it works as a solution is beyond me.

yes, a firearm was an appropriate decision

Not if she can't properly see to even aim the thing, let alone having the sense capacity to be properly aware of her surroundings, a firearm is not an appropriate decision. It only makes the situation worse

the police get far too many no knock warrants issued, and they served it in error.

No ****, sherlock, which is why I started my post with "While I agree about too much leniency being given to cops".

 

[LaMidRighter]

mate, if she can't properly see she can't aim a gun. Adding to that she can't properly hear, you got a situation where she can't even ask who the blob is in front of her who they are

Can't properly see does not mean completely inhibited. She may be able to see a rough picture of a person engaging in attack, it could mean simply colorblind, anything. It doesn't mean she cannot aim.

No, that is simply you being a reactionary who apparently can't manage a reasonable discussion on the topic of guns, and who should have access to them

The woman didn't do anything wrong, according to the story she was minding her own business sitting in her living room when the cops kicked her door down. They ****ed up and an innocent person got killed.

I agree, but giving her a gun hardly solves that and creates a an even more precarious situation. So how it works as a solution is beyond me.

I have perfect vision and last test hearing, if a bunch of random men kicked my door down unexpectedly I would have done the exact same thing.

Not if she can't properly see to even aim the thing, let alone having the sense capacity to be properly aware of her surroundings, a firearm is not an appropriate decision. It only makes the situation worse

A situation where people unexpectedly breech your door can only get worse no matter what you do.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Can't properly see does not mean completely inhibited. She may be able to see a rough picture of a person engaging in attack, it could mean simply colorblind, anything. It doesn't mean she cannot aim.

Being able to only see "a rough picture" still creates some serious issues, especially when we are talking about someone that can't properly hear. That means their ability to assess a situation is severely limited

The woman didn't do anything wrong, according to the story she was minding her own business sitting in her living room when the cops kicked her door down. They ****ed up and an innocent person got killed.

How many times do we need to cover the same point: I keep telling you I made no judgement about her or the situation you cited. My point was someone facing such disabilities should not be armed, because they represent a threat to public safety. it's the same concept in limiting such people in their ability to drive.

But thank you for once again showing that you are completely incapable of discussing the topic

I have perfect vision and last test hearing, if a bunch of random men kicked my door down unexpectedly I would have done the exact same thing.

lol, you have to be kidding? What part of "I am not offering an opinion on the incident with the police" do you ****ing fail to grasp? Should I draw you a picture, or something?

A situation where people unexpectedly breech your door can only get worse no matter what you do.

*facepalm*

 

[Black Dog]

This is just too ridiculous for words. Your thoughts?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

Did cops need a Taser, riot shield and shotgun to subdue a 95-year-old veteran? - Chicago Tribune

I grew up in Park Forest, Illinois. Lived there from 73-82 and 95-07. They have an OK police dept or did at one time. Seems like the dept deteriorated as did the town. I think this sums it up...

Most veteran cops I talked to suspect this is a case of unnecessary force. I've never met a police officer who couldn't handle a 95-year-old man in a walker. And John Wrana wasn't Jason Bourne. He was an old war veteran who didn't want to be pushed around.

Damn shame.

 

[Wiggen]

Obama is only the result of the mistakes in your cognition.

Your post, like the previous one, makes no sense. We get it - you folks on the Far Right side of the political spectrum, hate the President. I can pretty well guess why. You don't need to reveal your loathing in every frickin' post - especially those that have nothing to do with politics. You only make yourself look stupid by doing so.

 

[Forseti]

This is why so many people "hate" or distrust cops.

Every person who has witnessed this kind of nonsense, and seen NO repercussions levied against the officers involved, will probably NEVER trust the police again.

I've personally seen a ridiculous amount of abuse at the hands of police. I understand they have a dangerous job, which gets hairy and complex at times. But when they **** up they need to be held accountable, not just have it swept under the rug, as usually happens. I don't know of anybody who ever filed a complaint that ever received ANY satisfaction.

Make an example of cops who obviously ****ed up. It will go much farther with community relations than pretending it was ok to preserve the "image" of the department. Which is how an officer once explained the phenomenon.

But of course. The police are thugs and they are not going to sacrifice their brotherhood to bring each other to justice and make this kind of crap stop. And far, far too many people out there are willing to chalk these instances up to "bad apples". Bull****. How many more cases like this will it take until people realize it's the training, the type of personality that seeks this type of job, the culture within PDs etc.?

 

[year2late]

Damn.

First of all this was a wobbly 95 year old in need of a walker?

WTF? WHy shoot him with a bean bag ...why not just let him fall on his own, get tired, or keep him a safe distance from others???Are we gonna act like a walker toting 95 year old was gonna sneak up on people? Perhaps he was gonna sharpen his teeth on his dentures and hurl them at people?

Seriously. Keep him a safe distance from others and let him fall asleep or fall. Pudding helps too.:lol:

 

[MaggieD]

It's the training, the type of personality that seeks this type of job, the culture within PDs etc.?

I agree it's the training. Perhaps the psych tests need to do a better job of finding that perfect candidate; certainly waiting lists are long enough in most jurisdictions to make that possible. And you're right about the culture, too, I think. That Brothers in Blue thing is rough. IMO, there is no WAY the officers' response to that 96-year-old man should have been to use force. Such poor decision making there. In a perfect world, some one of them would have spoken up and said, "What the HELL are you doing?? That could be your old man sitting there." A taser and beanbag assault. Absurd. That should be considered deadly force on a 96-year-old. Jesus.

Don't know if you read the post earlier (sorry, I don't remember the poster) who worked in a similar environment and had experience with rowdy 96-year-olds. A mattress, he said. "We'd pin them to the wall with a mattress." What?? No taser? No shotgun?

 

[Dittohead not!]

While I agree about too much leniency being given to cops, someone in that condition should not have access to a firearm

So, in addition to a background check, a potential firearm owner should have to pass an eye chart test, just like someone applying for a driver's license.

 

[Oftencold]

Your post, like the previous one, makes no sense. We get it - you folks on the Far Right side of the political spectrum, hate the President. I can pretty well guess why. You don't need to reveal your loathing in every frickin' post - especially those that have nothing to do with politics. You only make yourself look stupid by doing so.

Again, the Leftist's compulsion to oversimplify and to assume childish motives on the part of their intellectual betters leads you astray. Obama is not to be hated, he should have been ignored. The vile ideologies he spouts, as well as his tyrannical assumption of power is to be hated by rational people enamored of personal liberty.

You see, or rather you should see, and would see were you to apply thought, for those of us who have attained what would have passed in more robust eras for a merely adult outlook, the nation is seen as a thing to be guided far more by ideals than by personalities.

Of course you can guess! Children, and those who think like them guess constantly, since rational cognition is either beyond them, or too tedious for them. It would be meet to see if you can do ought else.

Carry on.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I agree. There are some good officers out there, ones that are respectful, judicious, and most of all careful in enforcement.

Unfortunately, those are all dog-bites-man stories.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Damn.
First of all this was a wobbly 95 year old in need of a walker?
WTF? WHy shoot him with a bean bag ...why not just let him fall on his own, get tired, or keep him a safe distance from others???Are we gonna act like a walker toting 95 year old was gonna sneak up on people? Perhaps he was gonna sharpen his teeth on his dentures and hurl them at people?
Seriously. Keep him a safe distance from others and let him fall asleep or fall. Pudding helps too.:lol:

That's kind of what I was thinking. When dealing with a 95 yr old, it seems time is on your side.

 

[Wiggen]

Again, the Leftist's compulsion to oversimplify and to assume childish motives on the part of their intellectual betters leads you astray. Obama is not to be hated, he should have been ignored. The vile ideologies he spouts, as well as his tyrannical assumption of power is to be hated by rational people enamored of personal liberty.

You see, or rather you should see, and would see were you to apply thought, for those of us who have attained what would have passed in more robust eras for a merely adult outlook, the nation is seen as a thing to be guided far more by ideals than by personalities.

Of course you can guess! Children, and those who think like them guess constantly, since rational cognition is either beyond them, or too tedious for them. It would be meet to see if you can do ought else.

Carry on.

More ludicrous extreme right babblings from one of the devoted. 'Intellectual betters'? :lamoYou took a post about a 95 year old guy being killed by the cops and turned it into Obama-bashing. How intellectual do you have to be to do that?

Every post you make you reveal yourself for what you are. Somebody so far out on the fringe of politics you can't even see the center. 50 years ago you would have been ranting about how Eisenhower was part of the International Communist Conspiracy. We've heard your 'enlightened' philosophy before - generally expressed in a more articulate although no less pernicious manner. Thank God the number of countries that have succumbed to this nonsensical view of the world is rather limited. We limited a couple of them ourselves in the middle of the last century.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

So, in addition to a background check, a potential firearm owner should have to pass an eye chart test, just like someone applying for a driver's license.

Well, it would be nice to know that someone armed with a gun could actually see what they are shooting at.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

That's kind of what I was thinking. When dealing with a 95 yr old, it seems time is on your side.

I tend to agree, but the article is so lacking in anything like detail about the incident I'm going to resist a snap-judgement here

 

[LaMidRighter]

Unfortunately, those are all dog-bites-man stories.

Well, when an officer does go overboard there are severe consequences to all exposed to the actions. Most officers are very professional, but the bad ones seem to be a bit more abusive and they have better toys right now.