http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...t-police-taser
Printable View
at face value, my reaction is "Oh FFS...", but I know my feisty ass old grand dad... he carried a revolver til he was 92 and moved in to a nursing home... he wasn't fast, but he could still hit the target.
interested in more details, but 6-7 cops to subdue a 95 year old man? yeah, they fucked up. thats the bottom line. it is in illinois.
great quote: "The Japanese military couldn't get him at the age he was touchable, in a uniform in the war. It took 70 years later for the Park Forest police to do the job," Wrana's family attorney, Nicholas Grapsas, a former prosecutor, said in an interview....
sounds like one of pesky contempt of cop incidents.
This is my shocked face. [Eek2] Doubtless he presented a credible threat.[Puke]
stfu all u cop haters. good shot!
u were not there. guy was probably selling drugs out of his bed room. ill wait for the facts to come in.
plus cops went home safely that night. that is all that matters
This is my shocked face that this article appears here. Oh, wait. I'm not shocked.
Until there are more details, that pretty much sums it up for me. Is it possible the cops fucked up? Yes. Is it possible they did what they thought was necessary and they thought they were facing a credible threat? Yes. I don't know and the thoroughly biased article didn't provide a whole lot of answers.Quote:
"When I first heard it, I was like, 'C'mon,'" he said. "Then I thought it through. We don't know what occurred. We don't know what information they had at that time. If you don't have all of the facts, it's hard to judge someone. … Anyone can be dangerous."
So, cop bashers of the forum unite around this story full of speculation. You guys are really good at it.
I've met a few 95 year olds. None posed a physical threat to any able-bodied adult male under 94. If there's a cop out there under 65, that can't handle a 95 year old, they probably ought to find a different teet off the taxpayers nickel.
I agree do with this, no need for cop bashing. There is no other information other than the article. We can armchair judge all we like, but without the facts and not knowing all the story. There was 2 stories listed in the article, which leads to opinionated interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I do have some doubts about the action by the police in the first place.
This part is what gets me all flustered;
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/images/pixel.gif
The man has the right to refuse medical care PERIOD!Quote:
The old man, described by a family member as "wobbly" on his feet, had refused medical attention. The paramedics were called. They brought in the Park Forest police.
My opinion based of what info IS available;Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Cops attempting to subdue a 95 year old man should raise flags with everyone. Why not leave him alone until he calmed down?
I have been in human services for 10+ years and Safety Care (Crisis intervention) teaches to avoid the physical contact at all possible, last resort only. Have been in situations where we almost called the police but backed off, they calmed down and went the right way. Thinking about it later we realized calling the police would have just escalated it further.
Maybe if they would have left him alone from forcing medical care he probably would have calmed down. There was no need to attempt to subdue him, let alone a tazer, a riot shield and a shotgun bean bag.
...Seriously. I really hope this is sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbeyond
Objectivity. A lot of you could use a big dose of it.
Can you buy that at the store? Maybe IKEA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
[Coffee]
Probably not enough.
[ROFL2][ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Swedish Objectivity...........
I'm not a "cop basher", I'm supportive of and have many friends in law enforcement but if you're unable to perceive the pervasive militarization of our police organizations and the increasing instances of heavy handed behavior I submit it is you who should consider "objectivity". A full frontal assault on a 95 year old man confined to a small room and posing no immediate threat to innocents is unjustifiable irrespective of circumstance. Unfortunately I happen to disagree with your perspective of (and I paraphrase) "order, demand, force" and "sort it out later in court".
I'll stick with my stance. there is NO FUCKING WAY that you need 6-7 cops for a 95 year old man in a nursing facility who doesn't have access to guns, no gun was present, the staff even said they weren't in danger, they weren't even in the room.
seriously...a riot shield, a taser and a bean bag gun? yeah, that isn't excessive force on a 95 year old.
Well if you think you have enough facts to make an informed decision without any doubt the police acted inappropriately, good for you. I'm glad I had reasonable people willing to listen to facts rather than form an opinion from an overly biased internet essay when I was sued for something I didn't do.
I can't even begin to imagine the endless pissing and moaning from some of you if a cop saw you in a situation where it appeared there was no doubt you did something wrong and said he didn't want to listen to anything you had to say because it was obvious you were guilty.
Then again, you're all experts in LE tactics and procedures. We know that from the countless other similar threads.
Not to mention all the times the Constitution is cited by many of you as a source of how things should be done...until something happens that pushes your emotional buttons. Then all those "constitutional" issues like due process seem to be forgotten.
so you really think 6-7 cops should have to enter the room of a 95 year old man with riot shields, then taze him and shoot him with a bean bag? is that a tactic used by most LE at nursing homes/assisted living facilities?
I'm with you on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
I think I don't know enough about what happened based on the information in the OP's article. I think on the face of it it seems unreasonable but I don't have enough information to condemn anyone. I think the IL State Police are investigating the incident and I'm good with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I also know better (from personal experience) than to make a blanket statement that age disqualifies someone from being dangerous.
This old dude must have been saying disparaging remarks about Obama and the death panel was sent out.
Sorry...dupe.
I guess that depends. Why were the police called and what was the man doing when they got there?Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Nah he was probably trying to sell his Winchester 1887 on Armslist.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbeyond
Did you not read the actual news article? [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by centrarchidae
".............he refused medical care/treatment." (that is a whole other subject matter)
Nursing home call the Paramedics, Paramedics called the police.
reading is essential! thanks for saving me the timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Skully
You were not the intended helped, but glad i could lend you a hand. [LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
In the video you can hear someone yell, "If you don't take your meds, you will die." Ominous.
The state police investigating the local police, kinda like Joe Biden investigating Barack Obama! I'm all for law and order, but this sounds a little bit too much, even bears get the tranquilizer dart! They only had one taser? No pepper spray? Russia won't give Snowden back, so Obama should nuke Moscow? I am betting a large sum of $ awarded by a jury...
The Forest Park police website does make them look like cowboys....http://www.forestparkpolice.net/
Well I would suggest that an investigation needs to be done and anyone could agree, a person lost their life. I bet we could also agree that a separate agency should do the investigation otherwise it would be a conflict of interest. If there is criminal or policy violations then the agency that is investigating will most likely bring that out. Those investigators have no loyalty to those of another agency and shouldn't feel obligated to falsify a report just because the party involved is a police officer too. Just like any cop out there trying to do the right thing, if one of them is doing or has done something wrong then the others want him gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy
But, I would argue that any article is not going to be full of the information that we really need.
I think you should just stop now...Quote:
Originally Posted by KevDen2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
After all the things I said we should agree on are you now disagreeing?
Actually, I'm agreeing that these threads are pointless and always end the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevDen2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
Do you disagree that there should be a checks and balances system? Do you hate America?
It had nothing to do with that, clown..... [LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by KevDen2005
I simply meant you should stop commenting before you get a headache....
You should stop commenting before YOU get a headacheQuote:
Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0
I think the FBI should investigate. They investigated the Trayvon Martin death and he wasn't killed by any law enforcement agency. Or was it just because Obama is black?
And George Zimmerman still doesn't have his gun back...
http://www.policeone.com/federal-law...rge-Zimmerman/
What are you going to do? Hurt me? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by KevDen2005
Speaking of you....... I need to send you a PM.
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
I always find it amusing to see how people respond to these articles. One side always "Cops are over reaching wanna be jack booted fascist thugs" with the other side defends them to the hilt.