SWAT kill 107 year old man, in standoff

[Thunder71]

Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.

There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.

[xd9]

So do you think if this guy had not fired one shot he would still have been killed? The "warning shot" theory is laughable. Flying lead is deadly whether it was meant as a warning or as a directed assault. It does not care your intent. The guy's fate was self written IMHO.

[Collector1337420]

Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.

There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.

"Wide scope of opinion."

You're a funny guy.

[xd ED]

Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.

There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.

"Wide scope of opinion."

You're a funny guy.
<<<eliminated duplicate imagery>>>

You need to decide if your topic is the police shooting the old guy,
or
the militarization of police forces- around the world.

I do see much overlap of the 2.

[CraigJS]

MORON, did I spell it correctly?

[xd ED]

MORON, did I spell it correctly?

That would depend on exactly what word you're attempting to express.

[Collector1337420]

Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.

There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.

"Wide scope of opinion."

You're a funny guy.
<<<eliminated duplicate imagery>>>

You need to decide if your topic is the police shooting the old guy,
or
the militarization of police forces- around the world.

I do see much overlap of the 2.

Yes, there is much overlap. That's why I bring it up.

The over-zealousness of police these days is the discussion that should come from this old man being killed.

This is yet another data point in an ever increasing number of ridiculous police actions.

The ultimate question I ask is, how much do we put up with before we start pushing back?

The problem, is there are still so many people, who think there is no problem. Even on a gun forum, where people tend to be more patriotic.

If it's that bad here, just think how bad it is in the rest of the country.

[xd ED]

Yes, there is much overlap. That's why I bring it up.

The over-zealousness of police these days is the discussion that should come from this old man being killed.

This is yet another data point in an ever increasing number of ridiculous police actions.

The ultimate question I ask is, how much do we put up with before we start pushing back?

The problem, is there are still so many people, who think there is no problem. Even on a gun forum, where people tend to be more patriotic.

If it's that bad here, just think how bad it is in the rest of the country.

I could have perhaps more articulately stated my thought as I do not disagree that trend towards police agencies using military equipment is something to be concerned about.

But you need to pick better fights:

Someone shooting at another armed person is likely to get shot at themselves. Most people have no issue with that.

That the bad guy-yes, that's what I call him- was 107 was irrelevant.

That he initiated the threats, and shot at the cops is what got him killed, and again, most people understand that is what will happen, and generally have no issues with self defense.
It's not a happy story to read, but neither is it a tale of hovering black helicopters.

[Thunder71]

That's the issue I have as well, you're trying to paint this story with something that just isn't there.

[Collector1337420]

I disagree his age is irrelevant.

We're talking 107 here, not 60, or even 80.

60 year olds on gun forums complain about how their eyesight is going on them, so they need better sights... and then there's 107 year olds. The fact the guy could even see is just short of a miracle.

This is from a different gun forum, about the subject:

"the question that really needs to be ask here is not whether this old man was innocent or whether the police gunned down an innocent man....but this: Did the police REALLY need SWAT to handle a 107 year old man with a handgun???
SWAT is WAY overused and used for the wrong reasons. It's used as more of a macho "show of force" to kill easier (one of the early criticisms of SWAT in the early 70s) now rather than an instrument to handle situations with little or no loss of life efficiently (it's original claimed intent)

It might even be said that the mere appearance of SWAT, their actions and this show of force escalated this situation to the point where it had to end in a blaze of gunfire."

[Collector1337420]

That's the issue I have as well, you're trying to paint this story with something that just isn't there.

It is. You just don't see it.

I tried to help. But I failed apparently.

[smurfman]

Let's break this down into more simple terms:

Person threatens others with a gun.

Police are then called and arrive.

Person with gun shoots through door when police attempt to make contact with him.

Police then retreat and call for a SWAT team who is equipped and trained to handle such situations.

SWAT determines person is still armed and attempt to resolve the situation with a less lethal means- tear gas.

This does not work and person then exits the room and fires at SWAT who then fire back, killing the person with a gun.

Just where any issue is I can't see it. As already mentioned, if a person threatens others with a gun and later fires on other armed people multiple times then they have to expect to be shot at in return. Age has nothing to do with it as a bullet fired from a person 107 years old is just as capable of killing another person as a bullet fired by a 7 year old. There is no mention as to the visual acuity of the individual but it does not take 20/20 eyesight to see and hit someone at house distance. I don't see an alternative in this case, unfortunately for all involved.

[Collector1337420]

Let's break this down into more simple terms:

Person threatens others with a gun.

Police are then called and arrive.

Person with gun shoots through door when police attempt to make contact with him.

Police then retreat and call for a SWAT team who is equipped and trained to handle such situations.

SWAT determines person is still armed and attempt to resolve the situation with a less lethal means- tear gas.

This does not work and person then exits the room and fires at SWAT who then fire back, killing the person with a gun.

Just where any issue is I can't see it. As already mentioned, if a person threatens others with a gun and later fires on other armed people multiple times then they have to expect to be shot at in return. Age has nothing to do with it as a bullet fired from a person 107 years old is just as capable of killing another person as a bullet fired by a 7 year old. There is no mention as to the visual acuity of the individual but it does not take 20/20 eyesight to see and hit someone at house distance. I don't see an alternative in this case, unfortunately for all involved.

Making it all about the gun are we? Isn't that something gun control advocates do?

So, your rationale is that if there is a gun involved, that's an excuse for these "police" to use any force they feel like using?

Isn't waiting out the 107 year old, who would probably fall asleep in the next 12 hours, a much safer and easier option?

[wasfuzz]

A warning shot through a door is not the same thing as "to have someone shooting at them."


Unless you happen to be the guy on the other side of the door, who was sent to a call about someone he knows nothing about, how stable or unstable he is and on and on. Unless you have been in the same type of incident it is best to keep an open mind, also have you ever seen the media get all the details about something and tell the story in a unbiased fashion? No I am not a COP (anymore), I just played one for 22 years, and yes I have been shot at!

[jgalt]

It could be argued that the fact SWAT was called is another example of the over-use of SWAT teams generally, and that may be a valid point.

However, you will have a hard time finding support for your theory that an adult who has decided to shoot in the general direction of folks he knows to be armed deserves anything other than return fire.

Is it possible the standoff could have ended without the cops shooting the crazy old bastard? Maybe. Depends on whether or not it really was suicide by cop (which was my first assumption upon reading the story elsewhere). If that was the case, then the old guy was going to get his wish, and may he rot in Hell for forcing someone else to do what he didn't have the balls to do himself...

I am as appalled as anyone by the rediculous abuses of power by agents of the state that seem to be happening with increasing frequency (or are at the very least reported more often / widely...). But this case just doesn't seem to fit that pattern.