It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

107 year old man killed by SWAT team in Arkansas

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 




the LEO stop taking each case on an individual basis, it is the first steps into hard core tyranny against the masses and a direct lack of empathy for human beings which are without empathy, reduced to commodities, animals.


This is what I see happening. It may well be purposeful so society loses it bond and concern for their fellow man.




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 



I usually agree with you, Antar, in spirit and intellectualism...but here, I do not:




At 107 he should have been sheltered against this type of harm. Just like we do not condone nor chastise a 2 year old who finds a gun and uses it in a harmful way because they do not have the ability to discern nor the experience to comprehend, the same goes for care of the elderly.

for I see this as a comparison between a man, and a veteran of every way that allows us to post our thoughts on a site such as this, after all....and a child of two, and they are hardly the same, and I feel the comparison does this man, and the elderly, in general, a disservice.

I have the feelings there are many on this site who have a lack of trust, generally, and would have reacted much the same to people in their home, demanding certain things. That "home" is supposed to be the individual's last bastion of privacy, comfort and safety. Emphasis on the last.

Respectfully,
Tetra



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


I hear what you are saying and do agree with it, however with the experience I have had in elder care, it is not always that way once a persons biology begins to shut down. They can take gradual steps towards interdependence on others without losing their dignity, but it takes time, patience and trust. I am not talking about bull dozing change into someones life, but a gradual trust that happens when there is compassion, understanding and mutual respect.

Most of the time if you and they are lucky, they will have moments of clarity balanced with moments of confusion and distrust, it is natural. It is how the caretaker handles it, just as with a child that directs the flow or damns up the river. When you have this type of trust, they appreciate you for helping them to remain independent and safe, and at 107 it was not safe to have a loaded pistol. At 2 it would not be safe to have a loaded pistol. I stand strong by this knowledge.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
At 107 to live within the safety of a home that upholds with responsibility the Second Amendment, and that can be especially true for someone who has lived through the horse and buggy days of the wild west, which Monroe did, as well as seen wars and that may have even loved grandparents who experienced the US Civil War, is a given.

He deserved to be safe in his home at 107, but not with the gun in his hands, no at some point we all have to hand over the reins as I told my Grandpa, who may not have liked it, but fully respected my decision on the matter when put that way.

I had to remind him to think back to when his beloved Grandpa became elderly and frail, would he have wanted or expected his Grandpa who could no longer cock the gun or see straight to shoot, to be the home defender? Or to have him hand over that responsibility to my Grandpa once he became of age and could show ability to defend and protect. He handed me his pistol and in that moment of clarity knew that it was the truth. Now from time to time, male family members would stop by and if Grandpa was able, they would take him out back to shoot a bit. I know what I am saying. And there is not a single man on this planet who has earned more respect from everyone he has ever met than my Grandpa.
edit on 9-9-2013 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The elderly are abused quite often, even by family. There wasn't anything mentioned about this mental state.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


That was something that really alerted me yesterday, you know how when a situation happens like this how they usually have every tidbit of information on the gunman prior to the arrest or apprehension? I mean sometimes it is down to who they dated in school with video commentary from them, to their grades, mental health status, etc.

Lack of camera or video on the actual event, no information on the 2, no neighbors or family interviewed, it was wrong, like a freaking set up scued to look like whatever it was supposed to be for future laws and protocol.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
UPDATE #1.


According to a police report released Sunday night, police responded to a domestic disturbance call. When they arrived, Laurie Barlow told police she had "come by the house to pick up [Isadore] to take him to his new home they had just got through cleaning up." According to the report, Isadore locked himself in his room and refused to come out, and that when his granddaughter finally got him to open the door he pointed a gun and her and stated, "You better stop breaking into my house." Police arrived and attempted to make contact with Isadore, according to the report. During the attempt, Isadore fired one shot in the direction of an officer. The report states the officers then retreated and waited for a negotiator to arrive. When the negotiator was unable to make contact, S.W.A.T. was called. S.W.A.T. officers inserted a camera into the room and confirmed Isadore had a handgun. They released gas into the room in hopes Isadore would surrender peacefully. Once gas was released into the room, the suspect fired at the S.W.A.T. officers. Shortly after, a S.W.A.T. team entered the room and Isadore continued to shoot. Officers fired back, killing him. The investigation is still ongoing. Pine Bluff Police Department is expected to hold a press conference on Monday to shed more details about this eye-opening situation.


So here we have a little more information on this dire story. It certainly took enough time to come up with a plausible story to cover the reasoning behind the torture, terrorizing treatment this 107 year old man suffered 2 days ago.



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



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Update #2

By Tracy Connor, Staff Writer, NBC News The 80-year-old Arkansas woman who called the police on her 107-year-old roommate says officers had no choice but to shoot and kill him. Pauline Lewis told Little Rock station THV 11 Monday that she invited Monroe Isadore to move in with her last month — but he went ballistic when she suggested he find a new apartment on Saturday night. "He was very angry. He got hostile," she said. "He was going to kill somebody." She said Isadore barricaded himself in a bedroom, with the gun pointing out. "If you want to live, you better get away from this door," he threatened, according to Lewis. She said she had to call police. "I couldn't do nothing else with it," she said. Officers from the Pine Bluff Police Department attempted to negotiate with Isadore, who would not cooperate, officials said. A SWAT team pumped tear gas into the room and he started firing at them through a window, police said. They fired back and he was killed. The incident is under investigation, but Lewis said police were not out of line. "He shot first," she said. "I think they didn't have a choice ... They tried, but they just couldn't do nothing."


usnews.nbcnews.com...

Seems convenient that this took 2 days to come out.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

antar
Seems convenient that this took 2 days to come out.


You could also make the case that it took 2 days for them to gather all the facts..
I still wish the old man would not have made the choice he did and their would be no discussion right now.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Update #3.


But friends and fellow church members say that Monroe Isadore was legally blind and nearly deaf and shouldn’t have died that way.

“I’m in shock today,” Larry Smith, who attended church with Isadore at New Direction Baptist, told KLRT-TV. “He couldn’t hear,” Smith said. “Somebody should’ve told the [police] he couldn’t hear.”

Friends told KLRT that Isadore was also legally blind and believe Isadore must have been confused.

“For that to happen and like that… had to be,” Smith said. Isadore was a God-fearing man who grew vegetables and gave them away at church, according to those who knew him.

“That’s the kind of man that our police department killed,” said Pine Bluff resident Gary Wilson to KLRT.


Link shows a grainy picture of Monroe, the only actual one i have found online , yet.

www.theblaze.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 


Be sure to check out update #3. Now THAT is the perspective I have sensed from the very beginning.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

antar
reply to post by opethPA
 


Be sure to check out update #3. Now THAT is the perspective I have sensed from the very beginning.


Yes this tells me what I think we already knew..this was tragic .. it also explains why a flashbang had a limited or muted effect on him. It continues to be a horrible no win situation but blind or deaf or not...he was aware enough to pull the trigger and shoot in the direction the people were coming..

I don't think he deserved to die , I don't think many people do but I see no reason to place the blame for the outcome of this scenario on the hands of the guys on the ground going into that room getting shot at. If you want to tell me someone should have told someone else that he was deaf\blind and that person should have relayed the message then I'll agree that his relatives\neighbors\friends\police all failed him. What I do not agree with is the guys going into that room responded in a wrong way. All they knew was we tried negotiations, we tried gas, we tried a flash bang type device and now we are getting shot at.. I have a family to go home to also and someone is trying to kill me so I am going to stop that.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


Needless to say, I think, this does change things. He was a roommate in that home, invited there. Was asked to leave, and resisted. Pulled a weapon, and fired, upon others and then the police. Sorry, Antar. I dislike as much as you, if this is true, that it was 107 yr. old man....but no matter your age, this is where this behavior gets you......

Assuming it is true.....
Tetra50



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by oblvion
 


Well, I'll tell ya. There were a few ways I could have gone with this reply. It seems most productive to just show you what the a couple of the most important cases there show. There is a whole lot more to them than the site you got the citations from suggests or shows. It's what I thought, but had to get home and read the case briefs to be sure of, before saying more.

I'd first thought you had written that yourself, seeing no reference link? This site is where the text with citations came from, if anyone is curious and I know your edit time is expired to add it at this point. Given that you hadn't selectively picked these and it was another site doing that...I didn't go further than the major cases that would, if reading how they presented it, matter the most.

Here is the Super Court case, which by it's jurisdiction, is the most important.

JOHN BAD ELK, , v. UNITED STATES.


The plaintiff in error was convicted in April, 1899, in the circuit court of the United States, in South Dakota, of the murder on March 13, 1899, of John Kills Back at the Pine Ridge Indian reservation, in South Dakota, and sentenced to be hanged. The case is brought here on writ of error to the circuit court.


That part is agreed.....and just how the case was decided. What was left out? Oh... Just a tiny little detail about the people involved...


Both the deceased and the plaintiff in error were Indians and policemen, residing on the reservation at the time of the killing.


Hardly a citizen resisting a common arrest. Although, for the purpose of citing it for this? That isn't what puts it out of context.


At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.
Cornell University Law

That is also part of the case decision..and what they didn't mention. You aren't getting the right to kill a cop, no matter the basis of the cop's justification in arrest. You're still going to prison for it, and back then? likely hanging for it, either way. The Super Court just saw a slightly lesser charge as being appropriate.

Additionally, the basis of the case's logic came around the Jury instructions which said it happened as the prosecution claimed....which was that the guy just up and shot the Tribal cop with no provocation but the statement of intent to arrest. The jury instructions said that. I.E.... They got to hear that from the Judge. lol... yeah, I'd call that a major issue for reversible appeal. Although it took the Super Court in 1900 to actually do it.

Mobley was actually one of the assigned case briefs for my American History/Gov't class... Here is a more recent case based on it, to give an idea how it's being used.


Defendant had the right to use such force as reasonably appeared necessary to prevent an
unlawful restraint where an officer attempted to extend a traffic stop beyond the time required to
check license and registration without reasonable suspicion, but reacted with more force than was
necessary when he accelerated rapidly with the officer hanging from the passenger door. Officers
then had probable cause to arrest defendant for assault and to search the vehicle pursuant to that
arrest.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES MCKINLEY BRANCH

It's interesting to see case citations, especially as not many on here go to the effort to do it. It's always helpful to confirm context though. That other site took these pretty far out of it, if any suggestion is being made that resisting a cop and especially to the point of actual violence, will ever be found justified.

It may, possibly, on some outside and rare circumstances....though that's usually when you also see corruption related or other major charges against any other cops who may have been present or related to an incident. Ala Rodney King for a high profile example...but it happens. Just not near often enough. Agreed there.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
The state of Texas


(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

tetra50
reply to post by antar
 


Needless to say, I think, this does change things. He was a roommate in that home, invited there. Was asked to leave, and resisted. Pulled a weapon, and fired, upon others and then the police. Sorry, Antar. I dislike as much as you, if this is true, that it was 107 yr. old man....but no matter your age, this is where this behavior gets you......

Assuming it is true.....
Tetra50


I am in agreement with you....I revoke my previous statements, they were made in error, as the facts were not known.

This man was in the wrong, though I still believe this could have been handled better, but I was not there, thus I have no other avenue than to assume those officers involved did what they thought appropriate.

....really!!!!.....I am so disapointed in myself and all of us as a whole.......this man deserved better....but he decided for worse it seems.....what else can one say........just a tragedy on all sides.....there was no winning scenario for the police, or anyone here.......life just sucks sometimes.




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Okay, so what I'm getting from the story is this, cops were called and the 107 year old man and someone else, police arrived, man locked himself in his house and continuously aimed his gun at the officers? No offense to anybody on this forum, and this is just my opinion. But why are all of you getting so frustrated with this? A.) This man was more than likely going to die soon anyways.. B.) How do you know this man was not mentally ill? Were the police not called because he was threatening somebody with a gun? C.) They tried tear gas, and the guy still wouldn't come out of his "barricade". D.) He kept pointing his weapons at the officers. -.- Don't get me wrong, I really hate police officers, especially in my town. But to me, they figured they'd take the first shot instead of waiting for him too.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ItzShadyT
 


No, He threatened two people with a loaded hand gun, locked himself in a room. The victims called the police and when they approached his room to (I think) reason with him and come out peacefully he shot at them. The police then called (after their failed attempt to negotiate) for back up and SWAT came. They tried to use tear gas by getting it into the window which the 107 year old man shot at them. They went through his bedroom door, trying to use a device to distract him (I assume a flash bang) which failed because he was legally blind and deaf, which SWAT didn't know. He then shot at them as they were going through the door not realizing that the flash bang hadn't worked and so they shot back and killed him. As more facts came out, I still think that the police were in the right. However I feel that someone should have told them that he was legally blind and deaf. If the police were aware of it, I think the scenario would have played out differently.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

antar
This story is so screwed up, so the cops get the call about a domestic situation. The couple who called remained in the house even after the 107 year old man went to his bedroom. Obviously they were not so scared for their lives...

The cops get the 2 out of the house, go to the mans bedroom and tell him to come out. He says no.

He supposedly fires a shot but then the cops go back and place a camera under his bedroom door, obviously the cops were not very afraid either at that point. Did the shots make it through the door? Then why get a camera device to prove he actually had a gun in his bedroom in his home...

After they discover that he does indeed have a gun,,,,,, they come back and place a smoke bomb under his door which at this point the 107 year old man begins to shoot.

The cops then go in guns ablaze and kill the 107 year old man in his bed.

Anyone?




You can place a camera under a door from a good distance away with a pole.. or now days, they can just deploy a remote control vehicle with a camera attached

I know everyone is focusing on the age of the guy but the fact remains that the police were called, the man had a gun, he pointed it at officers ( which normally would result in you being shot instantly ) .. then he later fired at the officers for real, multiple times apparently.. There's no way this would end good for this man. You don't fire at law enforcement, you don't point a loaded gun at them.. the law enforcement tried gas, it didn't work.. your age does not excuse you.. had this been a 30 year old guy nobody would think twice about the actions of law enforcement.

So when they entered the room and the man fired, they returned fire.. Personally I would have gone for a limb rather than critical mass .. but those guys are trained to react quickly when under attack.
edit on 9/10/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/10/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   

ItzShadyT
Okay, so what I'm getting from the story is this, cops were called and the 107 year old man and someone else, police arrived, man locked himself in his house and continuously aimed his gun at the officers? No offense to anybody on this forum, and this is just my opinion. But why are all of you getting so frustrated with this? A.) This man was more than likely going to die soon anyways.. B.) How do you know this man was not mentally ill? Were the police not called because he was threatening somebody with a gun? C.) They tried tear gas, and the guy still wouldn't come out of his "barricade". D.) He kept pointing his weapons at the officers. -.- Don't get me wrong, I really hate police officers, especially in my town. But to me, they figured they'd take the first shot instead of waiting for him too.


Actually from what I read the 107 year old fired at the officers multiple times.. he fired at SWAT when they threw the canisters in his window and fired at officers at the door as well .. but the 107yo fired first.. it wasn't until they tried to enter and he fired again that they returned fire, fatally wounding him
edit on 9/10/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join