S.W.A.T. Team Shoots 107 Year Old Man

[BullKurtz]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He shot at the cops when they showed up to investigate the complaint. Bullets can penetrate walls too, dumbass.

He did not, stop the font abuse.

When they arrived, they were able to determine that an Aggravated Assault had occurred against two people at the residence. The suspect, Monroe Isadore (M, 107 years old), had pointed a weapon at them. The officers had the two victims leave the residence, for their safety, and approached the door to the bedroom where Isadore was supposed to be.

When officers announced themselves, Isadore shot through the door at them. No officer was hit or injured by the gunfire.

A counselor can help you with your fontphobia but probably can't help with your stupidity.

Look at that, he didn't fire when they showed up. In fact, he shot through a closed door inside the house, and the officers were not hurt, nor was anyone else. Not lnly that, he didn't shoot again until they tried to gas him and force the door to the bedroom.

I guess I was right, just say no to font abuse.

 

[YWN666]

He did not, stop the font abuse.

When they arrived, they were able to determine that an Aggravated Assault had occurred against two people at the residence. The suspect, Monroe Isadore (M, 107 years old), had pointed a weapon at them. The officers had the two victims leave the residence, for their safety, and approached the door to the bedroom where Isadore was supposed to be.

When officers announced themselves, Isadore shot through the door at them. No officer was hit or injured by the gunfire.

A counselor can help you with your fontphobia but probably can't help with your stupidity.

Look at that, he didn't fire when they showed up. In fact, he shot through a closed door inside the house, and the officers were not hurt, nor was anyone else. Not lnly that, he didn't shoot again until they tried to gas him and force the door to the bedroom.

I guess I was right, just say no to font abuse.

You said "the only shots the old man fired were through his bedroom door when the cops tried to rush him"

The text of the article proves you wrong, kid.

Here is an extra helping of bold fonts just to keep you going till your next diaper change.

 

[BullKurtz]

I expect geezer-murder will become quite the rage in the coming years.....we are spending our social security money and pensions on things not deemed appropriate by the commisars. If they can't death-panel us they'll simply shoot us; it's the only way Barry-Care can possibly work you know. The more humane amongst the progs will suggest we be shipped to the Arctic and put to sea ala eskimo elders....on a chunk of ice. Now that their gorebal warming scam is being heartlily laughed at, even by themselves, same as "shovel-ready jobs"....(remember that one?) they can not only rid themselves of us by not actually murdering us in person, but also feed their beloved polar bears. Win-Win.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When they arrived, they were able to determine that an Aggravated Assault had occurred against two people at the residence. The suspect, Monroe Isadore (M, 107 years old), had pointed a weapon at them. The officers had the two victims leave the residence, for their safety, and approached the door to the bedroom where Isadore was supposed to be.

When officers announced themselves, Isadore shot through the door at them. No officer was hit or injured by the gunfire.

A counselor can help you with your fontphobia but probably can't help with your stupidity.

Look at that, he didn't fire when they showed up. In fact, he shot through a closed door inside the house, and the officers were not hurt, nor was anyone else. Not lnly that, he didn't shoot again until they tried to gas him and force the door to the bedroom.

I guess I was right, just say no to font abuse.

You said "the only shots the old man fired were through his bedroom door when the cops tried to rush him"

The text of the article proves you wrong, kid.

Here is an extra helping of bold fonts just to keep you going till your next diaper change.

You said he shot at them when they showed up, what's your point? Just say no to font abuse.

 

[BullKurtz]

Just say no to font abuse.

 

[The Gadfly]

A well trained police officer will instantly shoot to kill anyone who is intentionally using a firearm in such a way as to kill or injure any other person. He is also trained to shoot first, if the gun is pointed in his direction, and he has reason to believe that his life may be in danger.

Typical liberal think: use cops, as if they were soldiers, use soldiers, as if they were cops. Neither works well, especially for the people involved, but somehow it gives you folks a warm, fuzzy, secure feeling. Go figure.

I work with cops. I am a trained uniformed officer with the Sheriff's Auxcilary Volunteers. When you feel so inclined as to take a job whereby you are putting your life on the line every single day, against people who would rather kill you than to be arrested and go to prison, let me know. and please include you wife's name and address, so that I can send her condolences on your death at the hands of an armed criminal who sees your reluctance to use a gun as his escape route.

Some people on this thread have seen way to many episodes of the Andy Griffith Show. There is a cure for that. Attend the funeral of an officer killed in the line of duty. I have attended three. Andy and Barney were not among the attendees.

Uh-huh. The first problem I see with this last comment is in the part I bolded. You see, that's not what happened here. What we have here is not an armed criminal attempting to escape/evade arrest and endagering any officer who gets in his way, or the public at large, in the process. What we have here, is a domestic dispute gone bad, in which (10 the other parties involved had been safely evacuated from the scene, (2) the surrounding area had been secured (3) the subject was only firing when attempts were made to enter the room where he was holed up. In short, this was a contained situation under reasonable control; there is nothing to suggest that the subject was continuing to fire at anyone outside, or that he was attempting to flee. Therefore, there was no reason for an immediate assault to neutralize the subject, and every reason (including officer safety), to talk him out, or wear him down through negotiation. Result? A shoot that is most likely completely legal, but still a bad shoot, because it was NOT necessary at that point. The lesson? Just because you CAN resolve a situation through a tactical assault, does NOT mean you SHOULD.

You have drawn, from whatever training you have had, a combat mindset. For what it is worth, I have some actual experience (a bit over a year's worth), in actual infantry combat, including receiving more small-arms fire on a typical day, that you are likely to see in a lifetime in civilian law enforcement. Your mindset would have been entirely appropriate in Vietnam; it is entirely inappropriate in the world you chose to enter. Your training should inform you that in that world, a tactical assault is a last resort for resolving that sort of stand-off; if it does not, either that training is deficient, or you have misunderstood or misapplied it.

Incidentally, I have trouble believing that initiating an M84 (or similar) stun grenade in a typical residential room would have somehow failed to disorient a 107 year-old subject sufficiently to allow a well-trained entry team to disarm/secure him, as opposed to simply shooting him on sight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Typical liberal think: use cops, as if they were soldiers, use soldiers, as if they were cops. Neither works well, especially for the people involved, but somehow it gives you folks a warm, fuzzy, secure feeling. Go figure.

I work with cops. I am a trained uniformed officer with the Sheriff's Auxcilary Volunteers. When you feel so inclined as to take a job whereby you are putting your life on the line every single day, against people who would rather kill you than to be arrested and go to prison, let me know. and please include you wife's name and address, so that I can send her condolences on your death at the hands of an armed criminal who sees your reluctance to use a gun as his escape route.

Some people on this thread have seen way to many episodes of the Andy Griffith Show. There is a cure for that. Attend the funeral of an officer killed in the line of duty. I have attended three. Andy and Barney were not among the attendees.

Uh-huh. The first problem I see with this last comment is in the part I bolded. You see, that's not what happened here. What we have here is not an armed criminal attempting to escape/evade arrest and endagering any officer who gets in his way, or the public at large, in the process. What we have here, is a domestic dispute gone bad, in which (10 the other parties involved had been safely evacuated from the scene, (2) the surrounding area had been secured (3) the subject was only firing when attempts were made to enter the room where he was holed up. In short, this was a contained situation under reasonable control; there is nothing to suggest that the subject was continuing to fire at anyone outside, or that he was attempting to flee. Therefore, there was no reason for an immediate assault to neutralize the subject, and every reason (including officer safety), to talk him out, or wear him down through negotiation. Result? A shoot that is most likely completely legal, but still a bad shoot, because it was NOT necessary at that point. The lesson? Just because you CAN resolve a situation through a tactical assault, does NOT mean you SHOULD.

You have drawn, from whatever training you have had, a combat mindset. For what it is worth, I have some actual experience (a bit over a year's worth), in actual infantry combat, including receiving more small-arms fire on a typical day, that you are likely to see in a lifetime in civilian law enforcement. Your mindset would have been entirely appropriate in Vietnam; it is entirely inappropriate in the world you chose to enter. Your training should inform you that in that world, a tactical assault is a last resort for resolving that sort of stand-off; if it does not, either that training is deficient, or you have misunderstood or misapplied it.

Incidentally, I have trouble believing that initiating an M84 (or similar) stun grenade in a typical residential room would have somehow failed to disorient a 107 year-old subject sufficiently to allow a well-trained entry team to disarm/secure him, as opposed to simply shooting him on sight.

I am still trying to figure that last part out myself.