Fort Worth police shoot elderly man

[carlson1]

This is a second warning. This post is going down hill.

We Do Not Have Facts! The media twist a lot of things. This post is headed towards violating Forum Rules of bashing the police. Innocent until proven guilty

This is a very sad incident and we should be praying for everyone involved. Also, praying that the truth will be revealed.

[baldeagle]

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/ ... 07171.html

Jerry Waller was killed inside his own garage in the Woodhaven neighborhood early Tuesday morning.

A pair of Fort Worth police officers, who have been on the force less than a year, were responding to a burglary alarm in the area.

There's two problems with this. The first is, what does killed inside his garage mean? If they wrote shot while inside his garage, that would be specific. Killed inside his garage could mean that's where he expired. The imprecision of the language lends itself to speculation. Secondly, citing that the officers were on the force for less than a year is prejudicial. It leads the reader to the obvious conclusion that they were young, inexperienced and screwed up. Those aren't facts. They are suppositions.

And it's a little strange from the logical point of view how you accept the police version and reject the homeowner's version.

The homeowner is dead. How could he have a version?

Again, as I've repeatedly stated, we don't have enough facts to make any judgments about what happened, and speculation about what happened merely fuels conspiracy theories.

[E.Marquez]

Again, as I've repeatedly stated, we don't have enough facts to make any judgments about what happened,

I respectfully disagree...

We use the AVAILABLE facts, even if limited at the time to make sound and reasonable judgments. That is what good critical thinking does for you.
Your argument that there are not enough facts to make a opinion or judgment is simply not so.. and that same argument and position can be said to counter anything... When someone wish to ignore the information available and not come to a conclusion they do not wish to be true,, you will often read them spout.. NOT ENOUGH FACTS...
But when the limited facts available NOW support what they want to be true,, suddenly.. those same limited facts are gospel... Thats not intellectually honest.. IMHO.

I'll agree, that the facts at hand, and facts that may come later, may (are likely) to change a later opinion or judgment that was considered relevant and factually correct today..

I guess as well.. we have to make sure we are defining terms consistently and the same between readers.. If one were to say.. there are not enough publically stated facts on this event for a Judge and jury to pass judgment.. I would agree wholeheartedly.

If another does not assign the same meaning to the word "Judgment" they might conclude the available facts allow them to come to a judgment based on what IS known.

Me?... I think a collection of mistakes and coincidence, coupled with the type and procedure and mindset of today's LEO's is the root cause for this event.

Criminals, thugs, elderly and youngins are more likely to shoot than say 30 years ago.. likewise, LEO,s are more likely to assume an active aggressive posture against a perceived threat.. which has a much lower threshold than 30 years ago.... That together .. mean more folks are getting shot, killed than ever before.. when the reality is... they were not a threat, or even the intended target of the LEO activity. Hard to fault the officer on the street for that.... the issue is MUCH larger.

[baldeagle]

I'll throw this into the mix. According to this research paper "Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal." According to this site which tracks police shootings, "In 2011, according to data I have collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607." That would mean that police accidentally shot 126 innocent people and killed 67 of them in 2011.

Food for thought.

[sugar land dave]

Through six pages of posts four people have expressed concerns for the family. Those being Middle Aged Russ, Gthaustex, Keith B, and myself when I worried about the statistical reduction in life span that an elder woman faces when her mate dies suddenly. If I missed someone feel free to speak up.

I do not think this gentleman knew these men were police. I do not think his 72 ear old ears properly heard them identify themselves, and I do not think he understood their instructions to him. Does logic suggest that a 23 year old with a flashlight can see and hear better than an elder man with flashlights in his eyes and ringing in his ears? I'm younger than the victim, but after a few years of working in a 150 decibel plant when I was young, I lost some hearing. My wife is younger than me, and measles when she was a child greatly lessened her hearing.

I hope pros and antis can both agree on prayers for the family and maybe a few for the young officer too, who I suspect will be scarred by this experience for quite a while.

[texanjoker]

I do not believe we can even come close to making a decision because not one of us knows the true facts. We are basing our statements on what the "media" says and we should know by now that the media is twisted. Over and over some have said and righteously so, "wait until the investigation is over."

As for as this statement my answer is REALLY?

Where is the blame for the person that set off the alarm and started this chain of events? Alarms are considered a burglary in progress and are treated as such. Had this person properly operated their alarm this would not have happened.

That was for a specific reply to a specific poster and should be treated as such as that was the start of this awful chain of events.

[Jumping Frog]

I'll throw this into the mix. According to this research paper "Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal." According to this site which tracks police shootings, "In 2011, according to data I have collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607." That would mean that police accidentally shot 126 innocent people and killed 67 of them in 2011.

Apples and oranges.

Ordinary citizens getting into a deadly force situation have -- by and large -- pretty clear cut situations facing them. A home invader. A robber sticking a gun in their face and demanding money. Someone trying to abduct them or sexually assault them. Pretty hard to shoot someone that you mistakenly thought was a criminal that way.

Ordinary citizens are never tasked with ambiguous instructions: "there is a bad guy in there somewhere and we have reports of bad stuff happening. Go in there and find them and figure out what is going on".

Yet that is what law enforcement is asked to do everyday.

Of course there is a difference in the number of cases of mistaken identity.

[Diesel42]

I've had to think long and hard before adding this post.
I've lived in Woodhaven for 20 years. I've taken the required training for Citizens on Patrol (COP) and I belong to the Woodhaven Neighborhood Association. I am part of the Neighborhood Watch which serves as a communication tool between near neighbors on each street.

I am not bashing anybody. However, mamabearCali and E.Marquez clearly reflect the concern expressed by myself and my neighbors here in Woodhaven. The East Division has a reputation for being "cowboys." One family just south of me is presently pursuing legal action against the FWPD for shooting their border collie in their driveway while they were unloading groceries from their car. The officer was on the right street but three blocks off from the call he was on. The officer stated he on there on a call and that the family's "pit bull" attacked him. That was about a year ago.

There comes a time when making excuses for incompetence has to stop. The Ft Worth City Council hasn't said anything yet. Several of us have asked for a review by the Department of Public Safety. I'm told privately that our City leaders would prefer an internal review. As you might imagine, I have little hope we will see a comprehensive review with constructive criticism.

Chas. or the Mods are welcome to close my account if I'm offending anybody. But, my integrity is very important to me and right now I'm in fear for my life when I see a Fort Worth Police officer on the east side of town.
Thanks for reading, I don't plan to post anymore.
Nick

[texanjoker]

I'll throw this into the mix. According to this research paper "Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal." According to this site which tracks police shootings, "In 2011, according to data I have collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607." That would mean that police accidentally shot 126 innocent people and killed 67 of them in 2011.

Apples and oranges.

Ordinary citizens getting into a deadly force situation have -- by and large -- pretty clear cut situations facing them. A home invader. A robber sticking a gun in their face and demanding money. Someone trying to abduct them or sexually assault them. Pretty hard to shoot someone that you mistakenly thought was a criminal that way.

Ordinary citizens are never tasked with ambiguous instructions: "there is a bad guy in there somewhere and we have reports of bad stuff happening. Go in there and find them and figure out what is going on".

Yet that is what law enforcement is asked to do everyday.

Of course there is a difference in the number of cases of mistaken identity.

Well said!

[n5wd]

Tragic does not seem to begin to describe what happened here. I hope there is an outside investigation.....not that it will bring the man back.

Unless something changes, our Chief of Police has decided that the FWPD are very capable and are the right agency to investigate this case.

[opinion=on]
Maybe it's just me, but I would feel better about this incident if FWPD wasn't investigating themselves or their own. I believe when an officer's conduct has turned deadly, and there are question surrounding the actions of the officers, prudence would dictate that the agency ask some one else, perhaps the Rangers or the FBI, to investigate the actions of the officers and the agency, itself.
[/opinion]

[talltex]

The department should have announced they were having an outside agency conduct an investigation immediately. Their failure to do so just fuels the fire that this incident has created, and every day that they continue to delay doing so, further undermines the FWPD's credibilty with the people they are sworn to "protect and serve". They are in a public relations nightmare, and their insistence that they are conducting a "thorough and transparent" investigation "in-house" just fans the flames of public suspicion and distrust which will continue for weeks or months until the results are released. They may very well conduct an exemplary investigation themselves, but regardless of their conclusion, the damage to their image and the ill will generated from now until it is completed, will be tremendous. Possibly, the department is "too close to the trees to see the forest" because they view it as a personal attack on their integrity. If so, the Mayor and City Council need to step in and insist they back away and let someone else take charge of it, in the best interest of everyone.

[Ericstac]

Someone mentioned the 6/6 shots the officer made and I have to agree. I don't see how this cop could be searching this property and shoot some old man 6/6 times. Are cops not trained to get a visual of your target before firing? Surely they are and if so what was going through his mind when he got his visual of a 72 year old man.

Okay, let's say the victim was confused and didn't put the gun down, and worse, aimed it at the cops thinking they were bad guys... SIX times? Really Mr. copper? Does anyone really think having a visual on a 72 yr old man who is obviously confused warrants six shots to the chest... No. Single..maybe a double tap and I could say yeah this was an error.. But to do six shots is just nonsense and shows this cop, who obviously trains with his weapon a lot, wanted more than to stop this poor old man.

[E.Marquez]

Someone mentioned the 6/6 shots the officer made and I have to agree. I don't see how this cop could be searching this property and shoot some old man 6/6 times. Are cops not trained to get a visual of your target before firing? Surely they are and if so what was going through his mind when he got his visual of a 72 year old man.

Okay, let's say the victim was confused and didn't put the gun down, and worse, aimed it at the cops thinking they were bad guys... SIX times? Really Mr. copper? Does anyone really think having a visual on a 72 yr old man who is obviously confused warrants six shots to the chest... No. Single..maybe a double tap and I could say yeah this was an error.. But to do six shots is just nonsense and shows this cop, who obviously trains with his weapon a lot, wanted more than to stop this poor old man.

You have never shot at, or shot a human have you

Just a guess.... but that sir is the only takeaway from your post I can gather.

[E.Marquez]

The department should have announced they were having an outside agency conduct an investigation immediately. Their failure to do so just fuels the fire that this incident has created, and every day that they continue to delay doing so, further undermines the FWPD's credibilty with the people they are sworn to "protect and serve". They are in a public relations nightmare, and their insistence that they are conducting a "thorough and transparent" investigation "in-house" just fans the flames of public suspicion and distrust which will continue for weeks or months until the results are released. They may very well conduct an exemplary investigation themselves, but regardless of their conclusion, the damage to their image and the ill will generated from now until it is completed, will be tremendous. Possibly, the department is "too close to the trees to see the forest" because they view it as a personal attack on their integrity. If so, the Mayor and City Council need to step in and insist they back away and let someone else take charge of it, in the best interest of everyone.

This with an add.... Even after the internal investigation has completed, unless there are criminal charges recommended, the results will be viewed as suspicious by many..

Though honestly, it matters not who does the investigation, if the LEOs involved come out with a clean shoot..... even if the investigation is done by the Texas Rangers, FBI, there will be some that will continue to cry foul. This is a no win for the officer that fired his weapon, department, the citizens and of course, the deceased.

[Lucky]

The department should have announced they were having an outside agency conduct an investigation immediately. Their failure to do so just fuels the fire that this incident has created, and every day that they continue to delay doing so, further undermines the FWPD's credibilty with the people they are sworn to "protect and serve". They are in a public relations nightmare, and their insistence that they are conducting a "thorough and transparent" investigation "in-house" just fans the flames of public suspicion and distrust which will continue for weeks or months until the results are released. They may very well conduct an exemplary investigation themselves, but regardless of their conclusion, the damage to their image and the ill will generated from now until it is completed, will be tremendous. Possibly, the department is "too close to the trees to see the forest" because they view it as a personal attack on their integrity. If so, the Mayor and City Council need to step in and insist they back away and let someone else take charge of it, in the best interest of everyone.

I agree there needs to be not only an impartial investigation but the appearance of one too. I trust a government agency to investigate their own employees as much as I trust Goldman Sachs to investigate theirs.