U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arkansas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2013, 01:41 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Arkansas
5,981 posts, read 16,739,247 times
Reputation: 7618

Advertisements

Folks, we're going to make this a decent thread if it chokes all of us - we are not discussing Syria or Waco or chemical warfare. That would be P & OC, everyone take a hard left to find it.

This is regarding one incident in Pine Bluff by their SWAT team, not a special weapons group or NRA or whoever this is being compared to. Let's hold it to what is known and not mere speculation. That's what makes things spiral out of control....and please, please stay on topic. If you have a point to make, make it - but no more "yes they did", "no they didn't" back and forth. Fruitless.

Thank you.

 
Old 09-09-2013, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,480,034 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Unless there is an imminent threat to the safety of other people, there was no reason to enter the home to "get the bad guy".
Logic dictates that a 107 year old poppin' shots off at cops WOULD be an "imminent threat to the safety" of the police officers being shot at. Unfortunately, logic seems to be in very short supply these days.

It blows me away how many people seem to think it is suddenly OK to threaten people with weapons in public or start shooting at cops, like it is acceptable behavior or something. Seriously... If you carry on like that and take a bullet as a result, you pretty much had it coming. It's not like it is exceedingly difficult to go through life and manage to avoid being shot at by police.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 02:59 PM
 
7,281 posts, read 9,327,164 times
Reputation: 11449
Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot View Post
I guess the first time that someone shoots at me I'm gonna have to ask him for some proof of age before I shoot at him. Oh yeah, an eye test and a hearing test too.

Annuvin
As an individual, no, you don't have to stop and ask anything. As a professional police force with many resources at your disposal including time, yes, you conduct your intelligence gathering, seek alternatives and above all, save lives and not take them unless there is absolutely no other way.

Just where did the "shoot first and ask questions later" come from when we are talking about the police? Excuse me, they are trained to do just that. What is this a free for all?

There is a little something called due process in case we've all forgotten that little inconvenience.

Ok, what if the man was blind and could not hear. That means if you are the police it's okay to shoot first and to heck with asking questions? Since when?

Weren't some of the people inside released or in some way out of the house? Wasn't there a camera introduced to look inside? The answer is yes. They had a reasonable chance at knowing no one else was inside. So why the breach?

As far as how old this man was, somehow we're all to believe that a 107 year old man might look 50? Really? The point is they had enough time to know who was inside or find out.

In what world do we live where such callous statements about shooting first and not bothering to find out even basic facts is the way to go?

But to answer the questions, yes, if you are the police you are supposed to ask questions. You determine the weapons the man had (they did, a handgun) how many people are involved in the shooting (they did, one old man) and if others were in immediate danger (they found out, he was alone) and then you maintain your perimeter and take all the time in the world because time is what they had and now that man does not.

There is a fine line for the police to thread especially when shots are fired but they are supposed to be trained to take all measures short of lethal force if possible. Who is willing to say taking more time wasn't possible?

I wonder how well the residents of that city sleep from now on.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:04 PM
 
7,281 posts, read 9,327,164 times
Reputation: 11449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Logic dictates that a 107 year old poppin' shots off at cops WOULD be an "imminent threat to the safety" of the police officers being shot at. Unfortunately, logic seems to be in very short supply these days.

It blows me away how many people seem to think it is suddenly OK to threaten people with weapons in public or start shooting at cops, like it is acceptable behavior or something. Seriously... If you carry on like that and take a bullet as a result, you pretty much had it coming. It's not like it is exceedingly difficult to go through life and manage to avoid being shot at by police.
Ok, logic. As a SWAT Officer, I have the benefits of cover and concealment. I have a choice of putting myself in such a position that you can't shoot me even though you might shoot at me.

mod cut
Using your logic, if someone shoots at a police officer and later is discovered walking down the street, it is ok just to shoot that person on sight.

I hope only where you live.

From typical news stories on this topic:

"The SWAT team inserted a camera into the room and confirmed Isadore was armed with a handgun, Price said.

When it was clear the negotiations weren't working, SWAT officers released gas into the room from outside a bedroom window, Price said."

Okay, we can all read this. Negotiations weren't working? According to what time table? You negotiate for 45 minutes and then risk the lives of police officers, to do what and why?

Is no one else seeing this? When you decide to make an entry into a home where a suspect has a firearm, you are purposely putting lives at risk.

Someone explain the scenario where waiting an hour, two hours or all night would have made a difference other than a better outcome? Just how was this man going to leave the house and harm anyone? Oh, he could have shot through the windows or doors. Fine, then while he is shooting you then shoot him but not after he stops.

What was the risk in waiting?

Last edited by Sam I Am; 09-09-2013 at 03:23 PM.. Reason: off topic
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,480,034 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Someone explain the scenario where waiting an hour, two hours or all night would have made a difference other than a better outcome? Just how was this man going to leave the house and harm anyone? Oh, he could have shot through the windows or doors. Fine, then while he is shooting you then shoot him but not after he stops.

What was the risk in waiting?
A stray bullet hitting an innocent bystander, perhaps? You know, something you would actually be aware of if in fact, you were a "SWAT Officer" or had any kind of firearms training whatsoever.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Glasgow Scotland
15,518 posts, read 13,590,127 times
Reputation: 22829
Latest Ive just read...

mod cutCBS
A 107-YEAR-OLD man was killed by a police SWAT team after a siege at his home.

Gun-toting Monroe Isadore fired at cops who surrounded his bedroom and shot tear gas and stun grenades inside after being called to an aggravated assault.
mod cut Monroe Isadore: 107-YEAR-OLD man shot dead by police SWAT team after siege at his home - Mirror Online

Last edited by Sam I Am; 09-09-2013 at 03:38 PM.. Reason: copyright violation
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Hudson County, NJ
1,490 posts, read 2,774,265 times
Reputation: 1181
Quote:
Originally Posted by dizzybint View Post
Have to agree with you Todd.... he hadnt killed anyone, although he might have done, but surely men with the training they had could have handled this differently but as you say, we ll probably never know.
So law enforcement can only kill someone, after the suspect killed someone. Good logic.

Did anyone here read the article?

The suspect shot at police officers numerous times.
They used a camera, they used tear gas, they used a "distraction device", which didn't stop him and he continued to shoot at them, what did you want them to do.

Being "deranged" isn't a get out of jail free pass.

I wonder what his motive was.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Hudson County, NJ
1,490 posts, read 2,774,265 times
Reputation: 1181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
A stray bullet hitting an innocent bystander, perhaps? You know, something you would actually be aware of if in fact, you were a "SWAT Officer" or had any kind of firearms training whatsoever.
Exactly, something that you would know as a SWAT team member. You don't think they keep this in mind when they go into this situation?

They have a whole arsenal of weapons at their disposal, such as shotguns which reduce the risk of bullets blowing through the wall, along with weapons training so they hit their target.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:36 PM
 
Location: The Great State of Arkansas
5,981 posts, read 16,739,247 times
Reputation: 7618
They gassed - they threw in a flash-bang - what does everyone want, the police to send him an engraved invitation to step outside? They broke down the door and he continued firing at them....and they shot him daid.

Perhaps they should have waited longer - and if they had and if this man had committed suicide you would have heard the uproar in Europe (oh, wait, you already did) - "why did the police not try to go in and saaaaavvvveee him?".

Bottom line - he'd already threatened people with the gun - I assume that from the "agg assault" call. On two people. He fired at the po-po and continued to fire. I feel sure somewhere in there they demanded he cease fire. He didn't.

No one that I know of posting here was actually there, we're all speculating. All of us.
 
Old 09-09-2013, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,480,034 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowitsshowtime View Post
Exactly, something that you would know as a SWAT team member. You don't think they keep this in mind when they go into this situation?

They have a whole arsenal of weapons at their disposal, such as shotguns which reduce the risk of bullets blowing through the wall, along with weapons training so they hit their target.
I was referring to the nutjobber poppin' shots off at the cops, not the cops themselves.

If the wingnut started shooting out a window, who knows who could have got hit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arkansas
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:09 PM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top