TexasCHLforum.com

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, Thursday, relatives of an 83-year-old man called police, concerned that he might be "homicidal."

The man refused to speak with officers. The officers then called the SWAT team. After three hours of negotiations, the man reportedly fired on officers who approached his house.

He then allegedly left the house carrying two handguns and fired at officers. The officers returned fire, fatally shooting him.

Three officers were placed on administrative leave. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is investigating. (Probably this is routine in police-involved shootings.)

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/01/1 ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not a good outcome for anyone.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:In Minneapolis, Minnesota, Thursday, relatives of an 83-year-old man called police, concerned that he might be "homicidal."

The man refused to speak with officers. The officers then called the SWAT team. After three hours of negotiations, the man reportedly fired on officers who approached his house.

He then allegedly left the house carrying two handguns and fired at officers. The officers returned fire, fatally shooting him.

Three officers were placed on administrative leave. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) is investigating. (Probably this is routine in police-involved shootings.)

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/01/1 ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not a good outcome for anyone.

- Jim

It is pretty common knowledge that if you exit a house shooting at the police, you will get shot. Sounds like this guy got what he wanted. For the LEO's this was a good outcome as no officer was shot or killed and they went home to their families.

Very few LEOs enjoy shooting people.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:The man refused to speak with officers. The officers then called the SWAT team.

vee haff vays of making you talk

Watched an episode of Alaska state troopers recently. Similar situation. Welfare check. Homeowner tells them not to come in or he'll start shooting. Troopers talk with him for a few through the door. Confirm he's OK. Then they leave. Nobody dies. Nobodies 4a gets violated.

seamusTX wrote:The man refused to speak with officers. The officers then called the SWAT team.

W W!

So much for the right to remain silent.

Here's a similar situation from Cherokee County where parents asked the police to help their suicidal son - http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/1991783 ... lanta-news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

S_3 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:The man refused to speak with officers. The officers then called the SWAT team.

W W!

So much for the right to remain silent.

If the subject's refusal to speak to police was the only issue here, you'd have a point. It's not.

The man was reported to the police as making "homicidal statements". This means he is actively threatening to kill others. There was almost certainly additional information available to support that, since police would be unlikely to take such a statement at face value. This is taken seriously, particularly when he is known to be in possession of weapons. The fact that he exited his home and immediately shot at police is a pretty good indication that information was correct.

If they had failed to act in this case and the subject had in fact attacked and harmed others, the critics would be all over them like ants on spilled honey.

There is some robust discussion in the LEO community around whether suicidal individuals should be treated as barricaded suspects or if they should be left alone if they refuse to speak to police and are not threatening harm to others. This situation was different in that the report was he was an immediate danger to persons other than himself.

The police were clearly under an obligation to investigate, and they were equally obligated to respond to protect themselves when they were fired upon. I think most folks on the Forum would do the same if they were the target of incoming rounds.

The officers in this case took action which quite likely saved the lives of others, even though it wasn't as clear cut as it would have been if they fired as the subject held a gun to someone else's head.

LEO's don't look for trouble like this, and you can bet the officers who fired weren't at all happy about having to take down an 83 year old who had snapped. If there was another way around that action, you can bet they would have taken it.

Lots of what LEO's have to do isn't pretty and they like having to do it even less than others like reading about it. Their world is full of critical decisions that have to be made in fractions of a second with only partial information, some of which they know will likely turn out to be unfounded.

It wouldn't hurt to cut them a little slack for doing the best they can in circumstances that often allow for only really bad choices or horrific ones.

Excaliber wrote:

S_3 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:The man refused to speak with officers. The officers then called the SWAT team.

W W!

So much for the right to remain silent.

If the subject's refusal to speak to police was the only issue here, you'd have a point. It's not.

The man was reported to the police as making "homicidal statements". This means he is actively threatening to kill others. There was almost certainly additional information available to support that, since police would be unlikely to take such a statement at face value. This is taken seriously, particularly when he is known to be in possession of weapons. The fact that he exited his home and immediately shot at police is a pretty good indication that information was correct.

If they had failed to act in this case and the subject had in fact attacked and harmed others, the critics would be all over them like ants on spilled honey.

There is some robust discussion in the LEO community around whether suicidal individuasl should be treated as barricaded suspects or if they should be left alone if they refuse to speak to police and is not threatening harm to others. This situation was different in that the report was he was an immediate danger to persons other than himself.

The police were clearly under an obligation to investigate, and they were equally obligated to respond to protect themselves when they were fired upon. I think most folks on the Forum would do the same if they were the target of incoming rounds.

The officers in this case took action which quite likely saved the lives of others, even though it wasn't as clear cut as it would have been if they fired as the subject held a gun to someone else's head.

LEO's don't look for trouble like this, and you can bet the officers who fired weren't at all happy about having to take down an 83 year old who had snapped. If there was another way around that action, you can bet they would have taken it.

Lots of what LEO's have to do isn't pretty and they like having to do it even less than others like reading about it. Their world is full of critical decisions that have to be made in fractions of a second with only partial information, some of which they know will likely turn out to be unfounded.

It wouldn't hurt to cut them a little slack for doing the best they can in circumstances that often allow for only really bad choices or horrific ones.

Well said

I'd like to be sympathetic, but if you shoot at police expect them to shoot back. I am sorry it turned out that way.