107 Year Old Man vs SWAT

[royal barnes sass #5792]

I agree that speculation is based upon reports that are something less than facts. If the reports are accurate, I stand behind my opinion.

 

As I read them he brandished a gun and threatened the homeowners and not until the police tried to gas him or forcibly enter the room did he ever fire a shot.

 

I'll grant you that someone had to make a judgment call on a tense and dangerous situation. Making the wrong call isn't something that should be punished necessarily. I disagree with the call until different information is available.

Please read it again. The first officers to try to make contact were the initial responders. He fired at them through his door. They retreated and called for SWAT. The gassing and forced entry came later. Even the liberal news media reported it that way.

[Bama Red]

Looks like Miss Allie Mo is gonna have her work cut out for her and the Judge gets more fuel for his fire.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Looks like Miss Allie Mo is gonna have her work cut out for her and the Judge gets more fuel for his fire.

Probably not. The Saloon debates may get energetic but are nowhere near the insulting, sarcastic and immature fights on the Wire inmy opinion.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Probably not. The Saloon debates may get energetic but are nowhere near the insulting, sarcastic and immature fights on the Wire inmy opinion.

Fact

LG

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Not baiting, LG. Merely responding to a post that appears to chastise me for having an opinion.

 

And as far as not being a LEO, you are correct. I am not, nor have I been. I tried; scored extremely high on the written, oral, and physical agility tests, but was ultimately rejected due to a congenital heart condition. (Hence my comment to you earlier in this thread* - I can relate).

 

That said, I am the son of a LEO, and have many others in my family. And have had any number of LEO's as good, personal friends during my life, ranging from patrol officers in large cities, a Chief, an FBI SAC, and others.

 

But have I ever been a LEO myself? Nope.

 

Do I support LEO's? Absolutely. But not blindly. On balance a darned good bunch of folks.

 

But sometimes dumb things happen. Here's an example: Local officers responded to a loud party complaint. Inebriated "guest" handcuffed and placed in back seat of patrol car. Begins to kick and shout. Officer states "I'll take care of this" and reached for her taser. Pulls Glock instead and puts one right through the guy's heart. (I heard the shot from a couple blocks away, and it turned out that the guy had been dating a gal I work with). And by the way, the chief I mentioned had recently retired. Uncanny sense of timing... we had a lengthy discussion about it.

 

And an interesting thing... just about every law enforcement type I've known has had stories about "dumb things." So I'm always surprised at the adamant stance by some here that LEO's are always in the right.

 

UB and J Mark speak wise... let's see what the investigations come up with.

 

In the meanwhile, we can all have opinions. And we can disagree. Was my response to JEL a mite "pointed?" Perhaps. But from my perspective, I'd been jabbed, and was merely jabbing back.

 

*And like I said earlier, Lumpy - take care of yourself! We need you to be around these parts for a long time!!

[royal barnes sass #5792]

Bob is right. The conversation here can get spirited but I've never seen it draw blood.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Bob is right. The conversation here can get spirited but I've never seen it draw blood.

 

Oh I dunno... I poked myself with scissors once while guffawin' at something Badger said....

[royal barnes sass #5792]

Oh I dunno... I poked myself with scissors once while guffawin' at something Badger said....

Self inflicted doesn't count.

[MARSHAL W.E. BGood SASS 18429]

As a retired LEO with a high-risk incident management background, ON THE FACE OF IT, it would appear that the police decision to conduct an "assault" unnecessarily forced the issue. They had the situation contained, the offender isolated, probably unlikely he would have jeopardized others by trying to escape...should have waited. Unfortunate.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

I think we can have discussions and agree to disagree over here in the saloon without getting nasty and spiteful. It's kind of interesting to see other people's opinions of a news story based on their personal experience.

[John E. Law]

 

And you were there, Ace...?

No, I wasn't there, but as I said in my post I will never believe what is written in any of today's mullet wrappers You have no clue nor do I as to the reasons why they made entry as they did but you quickly jumped in to say that they were wrong and should have waited. With what facts? You immediately bashed the the actions of the LEO's without any more knowledge about the incident other than a newspaper acticle to back up your claim?!? Then you state that you support law enforcement? Well thanks but no thanks for that kind of "support".

 

Were the LEOs right in their actions? I don't know but they were the ones who put their life on the line and I will give the LEO's every benefit of fhe doubt until proof is given otherwide. Especially in a situations such as this, whatever decision is made someone will always criticize it.

 

As for chasitzing you, not true in any way. If you reread my post I said Ya'all, (thata be southern for "the bunch of you") who were speaking against law enforcement. You said you don't "blindly" support LEOs but then take the paper on its word? That's truly confusing to me. As for your SA "ace" remark? Well I'll just say my opinion (which, just like yours, was all that I was stating) comes from 19 years in the line of fire, including 10yrs in SWAT. My sons, daddy's, uncles, friends, neighbors, brother who used to be a cop's time on the job don't count.

 

You have a great day and remember, no matter what your opinion of the men and women in Law Enforcement, the Fire Services, EMS, and all First Responders in general, they will be there to put their lives on the line for you, just like they did 12 years ago today.

 

 

JEL

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Not baiting, LG. Merely responding to a post that appears to chastise me for having an opinion.

 

And as far as not being a LEO, you are correct. I am not, nor have I been. I tried; scored extremely high on the written, oral, and physical agility tests, but was ultimately rejected due to a congenital heart condition. (Hence my comment to you earlier in this thread* - I can relate).

 

That said, I am the son of a LEO, and have many others in my family. And have had any number of LEO's as good, personal friends during my life, ranging from patrol officers in large cities, a Chief, an FBI SAC, and others.

 

But have I ever been a LEO myself? Nope.

 

Do I support LEO's? Absolutely. But not blindly. On balance a darned good bunch of folks.

 

But sometimes dumb things happen. Here's an example: Local officers responded to a loud party complaint. Inebriated "guest" handcuffed and placed in back seat of patrol car. Begins to kick and shout. Officer states "I'll take care of this" and reached for her taser. Pulls Glock instead and puts one right through the guy's heart. (I heard the shot from a couple blocks away, and it turned out that the guy had been dating a gal I work with). And by the way, the chief I mentioned had recently retired. Uncanny sense of timing... we had a lengthy discussion about it.

 

And an interesting thing... just about every law enforcement type I've known has had stories about "dumb things." So I'm always surprised at the adamant stance by some here that LEO's are always in the right.

 

UB and J Mark speak wise... let's see what the investigations come up with.

 

In the meanwhile, we can all have opinions. And we can disagree. Was my response to JEL a mite "pointed?" Perhaps. But from my perspective, I'd been jabbed, and was merely jabbing back.

 

*And like I said earlier, Lumpy - take care of yourself! We need you to be around these parts for a long time!!

Say what you want, NOW.

But your remarks to John E Law were rude and insulting!

LG

[John E. Law]

Say what you want, NOW.

But your remarks to John E Law were rude and insulting!

LG

Thanks for the backup.

 

I do however give as much as I get sometimes. I'm kinda protective of my LEO brethren.

 

JEL

[McCandless]

On this day, Sept 11, let me say that I am humbled, and stand in awe of all men and women who willingly put their lives on the line every day... to protect me.

They certainly don't do it for the pay. But they will run towards the danger. They certainly don't do it for the recognition, because most their lives they live in obscurity, "just another" uniform. But when you need them, here they come...probably the most welcome sight you'd ever want to see. Gentlemen and Ladies who form the "Blue Line", and all that have... all I can say is a quiet and heartfelt, "Thank You."

 

McC

[Litl Red]

I think we can have discussions and agree to disagree over here in the saloon without getting nasty and spiteful. It's kind of interesting to see other people's opinions of a news story based on their personal experience.

 

Yup it is.

 

It gives some insight into what the average readers all over the US (very few with SWAT experience) are going to base their opinions on. I wonder how many of them saw the TV coverage of Waco?

 

Anything nowadays that can be exploited will be. That in itself should be understood by those who protect and serve. It's a minor concern, yet can have impact beyond their immediate concerns.

 

The people I pity are the ones who dropped the hammer on the old guy. Cold way to put it? It's how they're going to be viewed by a lot of today's population. Wonder what each of them would say if you asked them today whether or not they would give the old guy awhile more.

[Litl Red]

BTW, don't expect for the public to hear "the whole story" so we can make up our minds. This town has a number of police cases that have been reviewed over and over. It appears at least one is about to be reviewed again or may have just been reviewed, it's not easy to tell which. They don't seem to come to conclusions that are acceptable to everyone. But the local paper uses the same few words in every headline. And the headlines on this one are always going to include "107" and "blind".

[Seldom Seen #16162]

I disagree completely

 

The situation was contained-he didn't shoot at police until they tried to gas him or come into the room. If they had left their camera in place and waited, there would have been a possibility of a nonviolent solution.

 

Not necessarily.

 

In my previous life I was a team member and later a primary negotiator for a Crisis Resolution Team (known to some as Hostage Negotiator although many situations do not involve hostages).

 

One of our primary rules is time is on our side. The longer a incident continues the more likely for a favorable outcome.

 

However for Crisis Resolution to be successful (for us which means avoiding injury and death to everyone involved) certain elements have to be present. These include such things as the perp making demands, being rational enough to negotiate, being willing to negotiate, lack of more violence on his part and the desire to live.

 

It is also important for me to point out the REAL life negotiations and incidents are totally unlike the stuff portrayed on REEL and TV.

 

There simply not enough information to determine if the decision to go tactical was appropriate. It well could have been a "suicide by cop" or it may have been he lacked the ability to negotiate due to illness as dementia.

[Utah Bob #35998]

 

There simply not enough information to determine if the decision to go tactical was appropriate.

Exactly.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

Lots of things to consider.

 

1. Time of day. Is the sun setting? You lose visibility, both inside and outside the house about 2030.

2. Fatigue of the swat team members. Try hiding behind a tree in full swat gear on high alert in the Summer for 3 hours. If they are going to have to enter the house, I want them fully alert.

3. How congested is the area. I looked at this address on Google Earth. It's a high density neighborhood with at least 15 houses within range of the suspect's pistol rounds.

4. Is the suspect negotiating and what is the likelihood that the situation can be resolved peacefully?

 

There is a hierarchy we use when determining life priority.

1. General Public (innocent bystanders)

2. Hostages

3. Police

4. Suspect

 

I wasn't there but I have been on quite a few Swat call outs. It's a judgement call based on as much information you can get at the time. There are always monday morning quarterbacks who offer the perfect solution after the fact. Sometimes waiting them out is the right thing to do. Sometimes it just makes matters worse.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Hello,

 

I'd like to tell you my thoughts on Saloon arguments. They happen and, sometimes, they get mean. Moderators have deleted many inappropriate posts here. Again, let me restate, I am not the only Moderator who hides or locks threads and posts. All of us can see those hidden posts.

 

Most Saloon arguments seem to escalate, plateau, then calm down.

 

Calling people's posts SA is inappropriate as are some posts that elicit that response. Like I've told some people, debate the concepts, don't attack the person.

 

Many threads about LEO actions have gotten ugly. If you attack someone's profession, expect them to fight back. Please don't make us forbid this category of post by adding derogatory comments with a "broad brush."

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Hello,

 

I'd like to tell you my thoughts on Saloon arguments. They happen and, sometimes, they get mean. Moderators have deleted many inappropriate posts here. Again, let me restate, I am not the only Moderator who hides or locks threads and posts. All of us can see those hidden posts.

 

Most Saloon arguments seem to escalate, plateau, then calm down.

 

Calling people's posts SA is inappropriate as are some posts that elicit that response. Like I've told some people, debate the concepts, don't attack the person.

 

Many threads about LEO actions have gotten ugly. If you attack someone's profession, expect them to fight back. Please don't make us forbid this category of post by adding derogatory comments with a "broad brush."

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

..this includes passion/hobby or sport one participates in with what you say (in bold).

 

GG ~

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

..this includes passion/hobby or sport one participates in with what you say (in bold).

 

GG ~

Agreed! I was just addressing the topic of this thread. However, as you wrote, that reaction is likely with anything folks feel passionate about.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Agreed! I was just addressing the topic of this thread. However, as you wrote, that reaction is likely with anything folks feel passionate about.

 

Thanks ...

 

GG ~

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Sorry 'Mo.....

LG

[Utah Bob #35998]

I have a mental list of trigger words and phrases that I have compiled over the years. When you deal with people on a confrotational basis daily, it's good to understand what words can push the wrong buttons.They are pretty much guaranteed to shut down intelligent debate or escalate a discussion into an argument and an argument into a fistfight.On the old Political Fire forum apparently no one had such a list.

I always try to review my writings to make sure I have not included any of them. If ya give it some thought, you can probably come up with your own list.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

What Lumpy sez.

[John E. Law]

There simply not enough information to determine if the decision to go tactical was appropriate.

 

 

Exactly, so why then do some always give the benefit of the doubt to the "possible" offender??

 

JEL

 

S.S. Thank you for your service.

[Litl Red]

Exactly, so why then do some always give the benefit of the doubt to the "possible" offender??

 

JEL

 

S.S. Thank you for your service.

 

Thank all of you for your service.

 

As for an answer to your question? Probably because one basis for our nation from day one is that we aren't considered guilty until proven guilty. And the expectation is that our police will do their best to protect and serve everyone in confrontations including the "perps". The example being discussed here isn't really an ordinary one. And had the old man been one of Obama's possible sons, the idea the SWAT team might be getting fatigued and had to be used before they lost efficiency (really just a problem of tactics and on the shoulders of the man in charge) wouldn't have mattered to most of us, would it.

[Cat Brules]

Sounds to me like a gang of heros protecting society and getting their tickets punched.

[Dubious Don #56333]

We always have disagreements here on most police shooting incidents. At least those that appear to involve a citizen who is not a career criminal. There is always an investigation after a shooting and given the high profile of this case it will be extensive and possibly conducted by an outside agency. It's best to await the results before forming a final opinion. Most of us are very skeptical of the media except, it seems, when it comes to a case like this. Then we believe all the reports, which are usually published quickly and with only sketchy information in order to meet deadlines. I have seen it first hand many times. I have no doubt lawyers are lining up for the inevitable litigation.

Reportes are scrabling to interview anyone with an opinion. "They could have waited for him to run out of bullets"

I will wait for the investigation to conclude before I make any judgement as to whether or not the incident was handled properly, legally and in accordance with best policies and procedures.

If there were screw ups, I will be the first to criticize them. But I'm not ready to condemn or praise yet.

 

Well said, Bob.

 

For some of you all I have to say is you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I mean, claim police officers are eager to kill, bloodthirsty, did I really hear that? As a police officer with well over 35 years experience who spent a large part of his career in the firearms training division as 'the' guy I could think of a LOT of scenarios why this 'went bad'. But I wouldn't choose to say that WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION. iT WAS A SAD SITUATION FOR ALL.

 

For instance...Would this incident have turned out differently had the police officers involved been better trained? If it had happened in a larger city with more resources? Yeah, I could think of a LOT more reasons why this incident may have turned out badly HOWEVER....I do not know this agency, never trained with them and to make that assumption at this point would be WRONG.

 

And why are some ready to condemn over a news article? News articles are often wrong; I will share with you two that I was personally involved in.

 

1. Vehicle accident; driver at high speed clipped another vehicle parked at the light and ended up wedged under a bridge up to the A pillar (that's the thingie that runs from the corner of the front fenders behind the hood to the roof along the windshield for all of you who aren't accident investigators). It took Fire AN HOUR to cut that guy out. He's lucky to be alive. Broke everything but mom's best china. Of course the news reported him as an impaired driver which, two weeks later, (The lab tests aren't even done yet) it seems that he may have suffered a medical emergency while driving. Yeah, the news media was all over that. (Not)

 

2. Got a 9-1-1 hang-up call, walked into a homicide. Suspect in custody, unharmed. He probably won't ever see the other side of the grey bars again. The news media was quick to call it a mercy killing. Let me ASSURE you, it was NOT. I was there, I did the initial investigation and I had to stand over that woman knowing that there was NOTHING I could do for her except to see that justice was done.

 

The media SELDOM gets the facts right these days it seems. Lets not jump to any conclusions until the FACTS are in, shall we?

 

It's real easy to Monday Morning quarterback the woulda-coulda-shouldas and accuse the police in this case of being too eager to go in and kill a 107 year old man who was shooting at them.

 

Funny, I had a similar call just yesterday. Wasn't an old guy, it was a druggie locked in his bedroom totally wigged out on various chemical concoctions. He'd already assaulted several family members and we considered walking away. We probably could have justified that considering the information we had. Of course the downside is what if next time, he uses more than his fist...a knife or a gun the family said he didn't have. (Sure wouldn't be the first call I got where people said so-and-so wasn't armed when I took incoming or found the gun...after)

 

No, I did NOT like putting myself in harms way. No, I did NOT like crouching around the corner to unlock a door not knowing if I'd catch a bullet through the drywall. No, I DID NOT LIKE being the first to barrel through the door, pushing the small mountain of clothes and a chair he thought would keep the door closed out of the way to get at him.

 

But I did it and so did my squad, all of them right there. He went to jail unharmed, having suffered only the indignity of the 'polyester pileup'. (No, it wasn't the first time I was on the bottom of the pile with the bad guy under me)

 

Why did I do ANY OF THIS? Because it's my job. Serve the public trust, keep the public safe. Make sure I go home at the end of the day along with my brothers and sisters.

 

For those of you who still have a differing opinion, PM me your phone number. Next time I get a call like the above, I'll call you. You can come on over and I'll put MY uniform on you and I'll even give you my own Glock, AR, vest, Kevlar helmet, ballistic shield and the 150lbs+ pounds of equipment, squad car included. YOU can handle the call and I'll go to Starbucks for a latte...

[Caliope Cupcake #13981]

I read this over the weekend. All they had to do was wait until he fell asleep. I mean this guy was 107.

 

HS

 

they couldn't tear gas to disable him?

[John E. Law]

 

they couldn't tear gas to disable him?

We (my agency) hasn't used tear gas for other than training purposes in over a decade. As for the other "tools" we have i.e. pepper spray, tasers, flash-bangs, pepper ball guns, less than lethal rounds, etc. they all have their uses but are not the end all be all that can fix every situation. Using these items doesn't always work on a subject, especially with your high octain ones. There are many many factors that come into play in reference to their effectivness. Using less than lethal also puts the officers at an even higher risk because of that. Their weapon has a great deal to do with making choices wether to use LtL or not. A person with a knife may be able to be controlled after its application but someone with a gun can start firing randomly and who knows who could be hit. The decisions of when, how, why and what method entry will be made, especially in situations like this, are NOT normally a spontainious ones. They are well thought out plans and the suspect, his weapon(s), surroundings, building structure, environment, and numerous other things are taken into coinsideration before any action takes place. Do we make mistakes, yes all the time. But if entry is made in any certain manner there are usually reasons for it. It this case we may or may not ever know why that manner of entry was chosen and wether it was the right or wrong decision, but we do know that a subject was armed and was willing to shoot. His age and mental capacity doesn't make a difference if he's willing and able to take a life. He made his decision to pick up that gun and his actions were the reason the police were called. He made the choice to do what he did forcing law enforcment to make theirs. You can say he was 107 or mentally challanged or whatever reason you can come up with but they don't make a bit of difference in situations like this. I can assure you his age and mental capacity wouldn't make a bit of difference to you after he's put a bullet in your brain.

 

It was a tough situation for all involved. Like Hardpan said earlier. It would have been nice to sit and chat with the old guy but his decisions let to the path that was taken. It's unfortunate and sad but at the end of the day everyone was safe except for the guy who started shooting at people.

 

JEL

[John E. Law]

iPhone double tap

[Utah Bob #35998]

 

they couldn't tear gas to disable him?

Tear gas doesn't disable you. It's unpleasant but some people can still fight like hell.