107 year old man killed by SWAT team in Arkansas

There actually was a time when shooting at someone or a cop wasn't an automatic 'you get killed' situation. But that was in a time when cops were real men. Days long past.

reply to post by tetra50


I do feel his spirit strongly no matter what anyone else may or may not think. I get that he loved bacon, alot, beans and cornbread, porkchops and gravy... I really do want to know more about him, his 107 years strong. I want to see pictures of him, his wife, family, Military.

Originally posted by roadgravel
There actually was a time when shooting at someone or a cop wasn't an automatic 'you get killed' situation. But that was in a time when cops were real men. Days long past.

I feel split in two here, for I understand what you say, and at the same time, I understand what cops must feel, going into certain situations they may face every night, and have families and want to live, just like all of us.


However, there no longer seems to be any balance to any of this..... I'm old, myself, and certainly would be able to imagine times when I might do just what this old man did.....for we all suffer, and if no one helps you, then the world easily becomes seeable as "the enemy."
And you can still be quite SANE and experience just that. This is what no one seems to get.......

But I see both sides, and hate that what happened, happened. Because at some point, if you've suffered and no one has helped you, don't you intrinsically have the right to barricade yourself with a weapon to protect you and what you hold holy, and disallow any interaction, therefore?

And with "news at 11" no one really knows what his situation was, or how it got like that. And I find that just this fact alone seems to spell the sign of the times, here and now....really.
Tetra50

Thanks for all the neon......

Think of the Loooong standoffs we have heard about over the years. This was nothing, and he had only threatened, then gone to bed.

I'm all for the second amendment, I'm all for not trusting LEO's, but I'm sorry, the LEO's in this case did EVERYTHING they could to attempt to diffuse the situation nonlethally, and the guy was having none of it. The LEO's weapons werent fired til HE fired. Now, if they shot him willy nilly, then I could be up in arms about it. Like someone said earlier, a bullet fired from a toddler or an old man has the same potential to kill someone.
Someone else said they could have waited til he fell asleep, but thats not feasible either. The guy had a loaded weapon and was primed to shoot.

reply to post by HomerinNC


You are going by the msm story and that does not make any sense.

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

You are going by the msm story and that does not make any sense.

Do you now any witnesses to the story?
If not, this is the story I have to go by, I dont speculate, dont theorize, I go by whats stated, unless there is another side of the story

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

You are going by the msm story and that does not make any sense.

Which story are you going by as I want to have all the information so I can make a properly informed statement about this situation.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
I'm all for the second amendment, I'm all for not trusting LEO's, but I'm sorry, the LEO's in this case did EVERYTHING they could to attempt to diffuse the situation nonlethally, and the guy was having none of it. The LEO's weapons werent fired til HE fired. Now, if they shot him willy nilly, then I could be up in arms about it. Like someone said earlier, a bullet fired from a toddler or an old man has the same potential to kill someone.
Someone else said they could have waited til he fell asleep, but thats not feasible either. The guy had a loaded weapon and was primed to shoot.

In manmy ways, Homer, I agree completely, and have tried to make that clear, here. But I find we are suffering for a lack of information: such as: who were the other two people there? Why did he threaten them? Who owned the residence? Did he invite the other two people, or what? Without this info, we cannot therefore know why he felt it necessary to pull a gun in the first place, and I find this logically, to be of circumstantial importance....

Otherwise, it seems as if there was no real negotiation,, for we've heard nothing about a negotiator being present and active....and Swat teams routinely have them and work within their scope of professionalism....

So, in short, this thread is reliant upon information not really fully provided. And I do not mean this as a criticism of Antar, for I would gather that this information is not forthcoming, as of yet. And if and when it is, who will, in this day and age, believe it , anyway.....for it may simply be a retroactive justification of what has already occurred, as so much of what we see now happening, is......
Tetra

reply to post by tetra50


Exactly, we dont have the WHOLE story, only what we have been told. If another more sinister side comes out, then I'd be outraged. Til then, this is a sad story of an old person threatening people with a firearm, discharges it at the LEO's, who call in SWAT to attempt to negotiate, that failed, they attempt to gas him, he shoots again, and they fire to subdue him.
Sad all around, but justified

How do you go from Surviving WWI, the Great Depression, to living in a little old home in need of repair and then death at the hands of a SWAT team at 107?




Can you imagine going home as one of the SWAT teams? " Yeah, that Bad GUY went Down Hard! He wont be a threat to anyone ever ever again!" "It was a good day then Honey?" "Yeah, a real good day darlin." "Yep, the old man will never threaten another citizen under my watch, no sir re bob."

That team went in to kill him. That is the purpose of SWAT, despite what we are told. Welcome to the 21st century.

Probably by shooting at cops, you keep leaving that part out .

Do you have another source indicating the story didn't happen as it was described in your original post or do you just have your theories? I will be the first one to admit that this response was not warranted when I see an article indicating that any of the following didn't happen:

1. pointed his gun at the policemen
2. Police say that when they approached the bedroom where Isadore was hiding and announced their presence, he shot at them (first time he shot at them)
3. further negotiations failed to get Isadore to turn himself in,
4. S.W.A.T. inserted gas into the room, after it was evident negotiations were unsuccessful, in hopes Isadore would surrender peacefully
5. When the gas was inserted into the room, Isadore fired rounds at the S.W.A.T. officers that had inserted the gas from outside a bedroom window (second time he shot at them)
6. After using a flash bang and being fired on
7. The S.W.A.T team returned fire.

So far every search is returning the same story, please let me know what sources you are using so I can form a more informed statement on this.

107 year old shot

So the people he threatened we so frightened that they just stayed in the house. Should have just left the guy alone.

Like they do with the gangs.

Lets see here...this is the "modern" "norm" for police.

Arrest the person, chain them like an animal, lock them in a cell like an animal, and then after weeks or months of this completely brutal treatment, let them go if they are innocent. "sorry" for treating you like nothing ever resembling a human, but it was more important to treat you this way, on the off chance you may have been guilty, than to follow the rules and determine your guilt before treating you this way.

Sigh...... what ever happened to the old ways...you know....better let let 10 guilty men go free than to jail 1 innocent?

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
I hate to say it, but I'm not sure there was much way around this? I'm not sure the old guy was going to allow this to end any other way. It describes him engaging police with gunfire at least twice. The first time, causing them to call SWAT. Many departments we've read about would have killed him with officers on scene after the first shots he engaged them with.

I just can't help but think this reads like a man who knew precisely what he was doing. He was plenty old enough to understand Suicide by Cop and perhaps, he was just bitter and mean enough to have decided sometime during this event, 107 was a bit longer than he wanted and taking some with him was as good a way to go as anything.

I'd be outraged if he'd simply had the gun and not fired...or fired into the air (although shooting is shooting is shooting and that slams many doors of peaceful outcome on the spot). I have to say though, when you engage cops multiple times? I think he may have forced how this ended.

R.I.P. for the old guy. Whatever his mind was processing on this, I hope he's moved on to better places.

The problem is the police will not EVER let a situation end peacfully, they have to chain and drag away someone to put in their cages, while treating them as guilty, until they are finally proven innocent weeks or months or even years later.

A man should not be chained like a slave, dragged to a cage like an animal, and held in this terrible environment for weeks months or years, if he isnt absolutely guilty of some quite brutal offense.

Yes there are examples where this should happen, but this happens every single time.

Unless your politically conected and or quite wealthy.

Then the LEOs will call you, ask you nicely to come and talk to them, and then after weeks months or years, they will lock you up if your "Johnny Cockren" attorney doesnt get you off with a minimal charge and reduced sentence.

The entire system is crap.

This old man could have been defending himself from attackers for all we know, who then called it in acting like victims, and the old guy was not willing to be treated like an animal by this very abusive system, so he responded the only way available to him.......He defended himself from it.

Originally posted by antar
How do you go from Surviving WWI, the Great Depression, to living in a little old home in need of repair and then death at the hands of a SWAT team at 107?

Can you imagine going home as one of the SWAT teams? " Yeah, that Bad GUY went Down Hard! He wont be a threat to anyone ever ever again!" "It was a good day then Honey?" "Yeah, a real good day darlin." "Yep, the old man will never threaten another citizen under my watch, no sir re bob."

edit on 8-9-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)

okay. gotta say you got me there, no matter what.....
Tetra

Originally posted by tetra50

Originally posted by antar
How do you go from Surviving WWI, the Great Depression, to living in a little old home in need of repair and then death at the hands of a SWAT team at 107?

Can you imagine going home as one of the SWAT teams? " Yeah, that Bad GUY went Down Hard! He wont be a threat to anyone ever ever again!" "It was a good day then Honey?" "Yeah, a real good day darlin." "Yep, the old man will never threaten another citizen under my watch, no sir re bob."

edit on 8-9-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)

okay. gotta say you got me there, no matter what.....
Tetra

Just answer me one question, would the bullets he fired have done any less damage if they hit someone ?

reply to post by opethPA


What's your point there, tho? That he fired, and so was a danger, so the response was warranted?

I get that, obviously. What I don't get is how it got to that point with a man of that age....really. But I have many unanswered questions: like, who called the police; who were the two in the house who supposedly were fired upon first; did he own the house, and perhaps ask them to leave and they did not comply, causing him to get a gun. Here in Louisiana, he would be innocent and justified, right there.

The problem here with justification of violent response, the way I see it, here, is not only his age, but that he apparently was not motivated to kill or hurt anyone. People who are motivated, truly, to do that with their weapon, don't take it and go and hide. This is easily interpreted as defensive behavior, not offensive, or violent in regards to others. It screams, "please, please, leave me alone. I have a gun because I do not feel safe, to protect myself from all of you."

Surely, you can see this is apparent?

Another question, over what time span since the SWAT team first arrived was the gas introduced? My point? How long was this "negotiation," bc as another poster already said, in my experience, once SWAT is called in with snipers and gas, negotiation isn't all that serious, at that point. Getting a kill shot is. That's what SWAT does and is for.....

And you gotta admit, why do you need a team trained in kill shots for 107 yr. old veteran of every friggin foreign war in this country????

Originally posted by iamhobo
reply to post by antar

 

Then, the police statement claims: "S.W.A.T. inserted gas into the room, after it was evident negotiations were unsuccessful, in hopes Isadore would surrender peacefully. When the gas was inserted into the room, Isadore fired rounds at the S.W.A.T. officers

There were negotiations. They tried less invasive tactics. When someone begins shooting rounds AT you, negotiations are no longer necessary. It's plain and simple.

did you even bother to read the article, other than fixating on anything that serves to confirm your obvious bias?

It is not clear what gas or distraction device was inserted into the room Isadore was holed up in, nor his roll in the alleged aggravated assault. Police have also not clarified how exactly negotiations with Isadore, who was allegedly alone in the bedroom, failed. They have not issued any further statement to local media so far.

in other words the press doesn't know anything factual only what little they were told while the criminals who murdered this old man get there story down pat.
reply to post by antar


this kind of crap is exactly why my house is full of booby traps
this article has just nudged me just a little closer to fully weaponizing the house

the sheer paucity of information given makes me wonder WHO the 2 claiming assault by the victim are
and whether they even belonged there in the 1st place, who are they and why would this old man allegedly assault them?
abusive bill collectors? was the house being foreclosed?
or confiscated for unpaid taxes/bills
social workers trying to talk the old man into an institution

who called the police? the 2 unamed?

again the whole article reeks to high heaven regarding what is being left unsaid.

I see the leo apologists are already hinting at the usual "suicide by cop" BS of last resort when the abuse is so blatant, even oral roberts couldn't give legs to their [and the officers involved ] excuses

BS because no one pushed to kill themselves would elect such an undignified and degrading way to die.

my instinct is that this is a case of using the law and police to do ones dirty work for them, one just has to set up the right situation confident that that these thugs will mindlessly get rid of ones problems .

in other words: setting up a murder by cop.


would not surprise me at all that