Here We Go Again

Police in Altanta have apparently shot and killed a 92-year-old woman Tuesday night during a drug raid.  Details are sketchy, but unless a nonagenerian was pushing dope and using lethal force to protect her supply, the most likely explanation here is that someone sent the tactical team to kick down the wrong door after a bad tip from an informant.  Again.  Only this time, the spunky old broad inside met the intruders with gunfire:

The woman's niece, Sarah Dozier, says that she bought her aunt a gun to protect herself and that her aunt had a permit for the gun. Relatives believe Johnston was frightened by the officers and opened fire."They kicked her door down talking about drugs, there's no drugs in that house. And they realize now, they've got the wrong house," Dozier said. "I'm mad as hell."

Police insist the warrant was legit, and the house was correct --  which is why I'm guessing the problem originated with the informant.

This of course is why you don't kick down doors for nonviolent offenses in the first place, especially if all you've got is a CI's tip.  But you already knew that.  Thing is, even if this case is every bit as egregious as it seems, it won't change much.  There will be some outrage.  Perhaps an apology.  Maybe even a few empty promises for reform.  And then, in a few months, everything will go back to the way it was before.  The only certainty here is that Kathryn Johnston won't be the last person to die in one of these stupid raids.  Just ask Alberta Spruill.

In the meantime, somebody wanna' hand me another one of those red thumbtacks?

UPDATE:  More from the AJC  here.  Police aren't saying what they were looking for, or what they found inside.  Johnston was the only person in the house at the time of the raid.  Perhaps this case will prove different, but my experience in researching this stuff is that when police conduct a drug raid, they trot out everything they found -- particularly when the raid resulted in violence.  That they've yet to announce any seized contraband doesn't bode well.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    This sounds bad like you say. I hope we get an explanation but I not holding my breath.

  • ||

    Let me cut to the chase:

    I HATE the fucking police. I especially hate the militarized goons who wear the uniform today.

    Yeah, yeah--they are a "necessary" evil, like chemotherapy or the free exercise clause. But they could be far LESS evil and still perform their necessary function--they just choose not to be.

    So, bag all the brainwashing you've been fed from the cradle, and just say it: fuck the police. They are the bleeding edge of coercive state power.

  • ||

    Part of me wishes Ms Johnston could have taken out those three cops before expiring, as a form of justice or a lesson. Unfortunately, either way, the lesson will likely be "not enough force used".

  • ||

    Another prime example of an UNnecessary evil. The war on drugs has done far more evil than the worst illegal drugs, save those deliberately or ignorantly designed to kill the users. Every thinking person should do whatever they can to spread the word about incidents like this, no matter how much it seems a losing battle.

  • ||

    From the AJC article:
    A 92-year-old woman was killed after she shot three Atlanta narcotics officers Tuesday night

    That's pretty damned impressive that a 92 year old woman, with no advanced notice, was able to get to her gun, and hit 3 cops before they took her out.

    A well armed citizenry may be much more effective in preventing no-knock raids than media attention. Although the cops may not like the bad press, it does not always have a direct effect on them. Bullets do. Sometimes, the sword is mightier than the pen.

  • ||

    Henry:

    Very well put.

  • ||

    Henry,

    I must respectfully disagree. The news stories we get are always about the police at their worst. Just like your boss always seems to walk by when you're cooling your heels playing solitaire (or scanning H&R) rather than actually working. I'm sure there are plenty of fine cops out there who do thier jobs without shooting old ladies or sodomizing immigrants with a baton. It's the laws that they enforce, the relative priorities given those laws, and some excessive jerks who truly do not deserve the badge that are the problem, not Cops in general.

  • ||

    One word:

    Gestapo

  • ||

    Eric,

    One thing to consider is that when the laws become less reasonable, the types of people who desire to enforce them also become less reasonable. Hence, a bunch of thugs enforcing a bunch of asinine laws, and thinking it right and proper, and, in fact, reveling in and enjoying it.

  • EL||

    "one officer was struck in the arm, one officer was struck in the shoulder and one officer was struck in the thigh"

    Sounds like she managed to hit all three stormtroopers outside of their bullet-resistant vests. Good for her. They may have avoided serious injury, but even minor bullet wounds take a while to recover from.

    Pity tungsten core bullets are illegal, as they would be really useful in situations like this.

  • ||

    Radley,

    And what's the status of Cory Maye?

    Have you ever found a city/police chief even willing to consider (!) your point?

  • rightnumberone||

    Yea,

    I think the funniest part of this story is that the Atlanta PD are so well-trained that some sleepy 92-year-old bag 'o bones was able to send three, presumeably spry violence-prepared officers to the hospital before they gunned her down.

    They are so sued.

  • ChrisO||

    This kind of stuff makes my blood boil and makes me want to strangle anyone who praises the war on drugs.

    That said, police brutality and injustice has always gone on in this country, just not as well publicized or in such a frighteningly militarized form.

  • ||

    Well, I think it's sad that this happened, but sadder still that so many of you are so quick to blame the police. Looks to me like Eric is the only one of you to get it right. Did it ever occur to any of you that the reason 3 police were shot is that they didn't burst in with guns blazing?

    My suggestion to Henry, Bill and some of you others is that if you are ever in need of help from law enforcement... call a freaking journalist. Creeps

  • ||

    "They are so sued."
    Everyone says this whenever there is an egregious excess by agents of the State.

    Sovereign Immunity
    "Good Luck with your law suit Comrade Citizen"

  • ||

    Boy, its a good thing the cops are the GOOD guys! Just imagine if they were out to really hurt us...

  • tom||

    also notice that the cops that were shot were plainclothes cops. So the poor old lady had nothing to go on other than their saying they were the police.

  • ||

    The facts of this story are not really known, but don't let that stop reasonable people from assuming the cops are completely at fault here.

    I see three contradictory accounts and none of them given by eye-witnesses. First is Joe Cobb, APD spokesman, who says that the officers were fired upon as they approached the house. Second is Assistant Chief Alan Dreher, not even fully quoted by the reporter of the story linked by H&R. His account is paraphrased and only has "knocked and announced" quoted. The last account is from the niece of the woman, not identified as someone who saw what happened.

    I have a very hard time believing that a 92 year-old woman fired her gun enough times to hit three police officers while they all had guns drawn and ready. Get real. This sounds more like a case where she was ready for them, not the other way around.

  • _Jon||

    The AP report is stating they were "plainclothes" officers... I'm sure that's a stretch.
    If they are fibbing on that, what other crap are they accepting from the police...
    Here's the article:
    http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061122/NEWS99/61122004

  • ||

    if you are ever in need of help from law enforcement... call a freaking journalist.

    Try it again without the straw man. The lady did not call the cops, they showed up unannounced.

  • ||

    Well, I think it's sad that this happened, but sadder still that so many of you are so quick to blame the police.

    You're right. We should blame that 92-year old drug-dealing bitch.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    However much this may sound like an apology for the actions of the police here and elsewhere in such incidents, isn't the issue here whether the law should permit the execution of warrants in this manner in the first place and not whether police officers, presumably following orders (and yes I know that following orders is not per se exculpation), acted correctly by returning fire?

    I'm not questioning the wrong of the matter here, I'm questioning what the proper remedy should be. Do you want police protection or not? Do you want the police to be able, at least in some circumstances (no, not this one), to be permitted to use deadly force? If not, fine. But categorizing rank and file police officers without qualification as "militarized goons" is not only childish, it focuses attention away from the leadership that either authorizes or condones these incidents.

  • Dan T.||

    The Reasonoids are looking to blame this tragedy on the police, but if we had the proper gun controls in this country then this poor old lady never would've been shot because she never would've had the damn gun to begin with.

    If you're looking to blame someone, look no further than the NRA and its lackeys.

  • ||

    w3:I have a very hard time believing that a 92 year-old woman fired her gun enough times to hit three police officers while they all had guns drawn and ready. Get real. This sounds more like a case where she was ready for them, not the other way around.

    Yeah, a 92 yr old woman lay in ambush waiting for the police so she could shoot them. Put the pipe down, son.
    Maybe she was armed with a shotgun and only fired once. That would seem to explain how she hit three of them.

  • ||

    Ok, TFA said it was a pistol. Still, the idea of an old woman laying in wait for the cops is absurd.

  • Bagger||

    Yeah get real people. A 92 yr old woman was laying in wait for the police. Is that so hard to believe?

    http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000VV5BM.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1072814728_.jpg

  • pat||

    Dan,
    Your straw-man "argument" is laughable and is typical of the anti-choice left who seek to shift blame from criminals to law abiding people who have done nothing more than to exercise their right to self-defense.

  • ||

    I'm here in ATL, and here's what we know:

    1) Plainclothes police served a "knock and announce" warrant. This means they announced they were cops and smashed in the door. Probably happened just that fast.

    2) 92 yr old woman shoots three of them. They shoot her dead.

    In these neighborhoods, anyone pounding on your door at night is bad news. Just because they say they're the cops, do you believe them? We've had a number of cases recently where home invaders have used this very ploy to gain entrance.

    My GUESS is that a police informant or someone they busted for drugs gave them the address figuring "Hey, they'll go over there, and figure out that it's an old lady, so it'll be OK. And I'll have copped my plea." I wonder if the police even bothered to do any investigation, such as observing the address for a couple of days to see if drug activity was present.

    The problem is that the Drug War has created paramilitary units within these police departments that operate under very aggressive rules of engagement. No-knock and Knock and Announce (Then smash in the door and run in screaming and waving around submachine guns)raids are the common practice, and they result in these sorts of shootings.

    The police have every right to used deadly force, but I think it's incumbent upon them to make damn sure they're at the right house and are acting on real evidence when they do.

  • ||

    I have some questions. Did the police talk to the neighbors about the house and residents?
    Did the police do surveillance on the house and residents. Did the police do a GODDAM THING to corraborate the evidence (that led to the warrant)? Was there more than one piece of "evidence" relating to the warrant? Did the judge who signed the warrant ask ANY FUCKING QUESTIONS before signing it. Finally I have to ask this because of the numbers in the WOD. Was she a white person?

    Does anyone. ANYONE, want to wager that the answer to one of these question is YES.

    I did'nt think so.

  • ||

    The worst part of it is, these no-knock raids are the product of simple laziness (as well as the mercenary desire for a bigger budget for the suddenly de regeur paramilitary branch of the police force). Think about it- the premise is that drug dealers will be able to destroy their stash if a warrant is properly served. Ok. How about waiting till the scumbag walks out his front door, and then executing the warrant? Oh, well that might require some time and the possibility of losing the clown. Jeez, god forbid the cops should have to due a little extra legwork instead of putting on black pajamas and bashing into peoples houses in the dead of night.

  • ||

    It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that a 92 year old might not clearly hear police identifying themselves before kicking in the door. I know in my house that I almost certainly wouldn't unless I was in the front room.

    What gets me is how much surveillance would it take to determine the resident of the house is a 92 year old woman, simply knock on her door one afternoon, and ask her if she knows anything about this drug tip they've received?

  • ||

    The irony is that no knock raids are more unsafe for police. No knock raids are much more likly to lead shootouts. A drug dealer may run or flush his stash, but no one wants to go down for killing a cop. The only way a drug dealer or nearly anyone for that matter is going to get into a shootout with the police is if they kicked down his door and don't anounce themselves as police and he thinks they are his competition there to rob and kill him. If the Police knock on the door and say "open up police", yeah they may loose some evidence due to people flushing their stash, but they are much less likely to get shot at or have to kill anyone.

    The problem is that you get a macho culture in police departments and an us against them mentality. Everyone wants to beleive that they are in the most dangerous and important job in the world going after the most dangerous people known to mankind. The no knock raids and the military hardware just feed the police's own self importance. The more stuff they have and the harder they come through the door, the more important they feel.

    This is why police need adult supervision. I really can't imagine a situation outside of a kidnapping or a hostage taking where a no knock raid is necessary. Yes, occassionally a cop is going to get shot, but that comes with the job. Whatever the increased risk is associated with giving the occupants a chance to get ready for the police is more than outweighed by the decreased risk of being shot by an innocent person defending his home.

  • ||

    Henry,

    I disrespectfully disagree. Cops are human and they make mistakes like all the rest of us. And, like all the rest of us, there are good ones and bad ones -- obviously.

    But they do put their asses on the line every day. Yes, much of what they do is in the interest of protecting against non-violent crime. But much of what they do is done to protect against violent crime, too.

    And what's so "evil" about the free exercise clause, anyway?

  • ||

    Well, I think anything Dan T. posts on HNR can safely be ignored from here on out...

  • pat||

    libertyhawk,
    Unlike the rest of us, however, when we mistakenly kill someone we get charged with manslaughter or murder.

  • ||

    "Well, I think anything Dan T. posts on HNR can safely be ignored from here on out..."

    Maybe he was just being ironic? I hope so, because I can't believe that he was really serious.

  • Sam Franklin||

    The problem is that you get a macho culture in police departments and an us against them mentality. Everyone wants to beleive that they are in the most dangerous and important job in the world going after the most dangerous people known to mankind. The no knock raids and the military hardware just feed the police's own self importance. The more stuff they have and the harder they come through the door, the more important they feel.

    I wonder how that nation building is going in Iraq. Haven't heard too much about it since the election.

  • ||

    "I wonder how that nation building is going in Iraq. Haven't heard too much about it since the election."

    Yes, lets needless highjack the thread to Iraq. That is an excellent idea. And for the record, it is a hard slog, but most wars are.

  • Sam Franklin||

    The Reasonoids are looking to blame this tragedy on the police, but if we had the proper gun controls in this country then this poor old lady never would've been shot because she never would've had the damn gun to begin with.

    And if we had improper gun controls then the lady would lose her gun and be repeatedly raided by those young go-getters that were able to get them.

    I think many here, myself included, think that is how gun control would work out in reality in this particular part of Atlanta.

  • Timothy||

    Look, if you break down somebody's door based on a tip from someone looking to get out of jail you kind of have getting shot coming. I mean, really.

  • ||

    > ...yes I know that following orders is not per se exculpation.

    Actually, it pretty much IS. That's the whole purpose of police sovereign immunity.

    I'm sympathetic to the notion of revoking sovereign immunity, but I wonder why nobody who suggests it ever acknowledges that this would result in a firestorm of frivilous lawsuits.

    You doubt this? Educate yourself on the incredible density of lawsuits filed by prisoners(compared to the general population). Now note that this density happens *in spite* of the facts that a: Sovereign immunity still applies and b: prisoner lawsuits tend to automatically be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.

    It *is* possible to kill institutions with lawsuits. Dow Corning was killed by junk-science based breast implant lawsuits. And as severe a blow as losing Dow was, don't you think that losing the police force is worse?

    You could argue that the city/state/feds would bail out a bankrupt police force, but that has its own nightmare consequenses. Anyone who follows lawsuits knows that there really is only one law that's consistantly applied: those with deep pockets are targeted. And an entire government is the deepest pocket of all. Imagine the vast amount of lawyers who'd like a shot at THAT much money.

    Have you ever seen the internet video of piranas stripping the meat from a cow?

  • ||

    Drugs? Stupidity?

    Sam Franklin posts, you decide.

    Apologies to FOX news.

  • ||

    Ryan Waxx is right. You can't get rid of sovereighn immunity. It would be a disaster. The race hustlers and the trial lawyers would make law enforcment impossible. The answer is that people need to take back control of their police departments. Everyone has a boss. If you hold mayors and city council's responsible for this kind of crap, that rolls down to the police departments. The simple sollution is to ban no knock raids outside of the most egregous of circumstances.

  • Sam Franklin||

    I said that gun control is bad. I thought that is what I was supposed to say.

  • ||

    I disrespectfully disagree. Cops are human and they make mistakes like all the rest of us. And, like all the rest of us, there are good ones and bad ones -- obviously.

    Fair enough, but given that mistakes do happen, shouldn't the standard operating procedure be to minimize situations where those mistakes are fatal?

    But they do put their asses on the line every day. Yes, much of what they do is in the interest of protecting against non-violent crime. But much of what they do is done to protect against violent crime, too.

    That's debatable. I'll agree that police presence can prevent some crimes while they're there, but for the most part they can simply react to complaints about crimes already committed. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "putting their asses on the line everyday". It's not as if the rest of us are skipping around in a fantasy land, while police are dying defend its borders.

  • ||

    I was referring to the Iraq post.

  • Ryan Waxx||

    > Think about it- the premise is that drug dealers will be able to destroy their stash if a warrant is properly served. Ok. How about waiting till the scumbag walks out his front door, and then executing the warrant?

    Think about it - That only works in cases where there is only one suspect in the house(rare), and completely ignores the reality that there are limited police resources. If the police are sitting around waiting for the criminal to move... perhaps for days *for each case*, you'd better be prepared to quadruple the police budget.

    Also, you don't think that in many cases a spotter would be himself spotted? Especially in a bad neighborhood?

    Finally, if criminals know that police are constrained from no-knock raids, it becomes VERY easy to make your operation nearly risk-free. All you need is someone to watch your stash when you go out, OR to spot the spotter, OR to conduct business inside, and send your wife when you want to buy munchies.

    No-knock raids are a very bad thing. But no one has suggested a better thing (except for the leagalize-all-drugs psychos).

    The illusion that 'there must be a better way' comes from complacently not thinking out the dwawbacks of the alternatives.

  • ||

    "Well, I think anything Dan T. posts on HNR can safely be ignored from here on out..."

    Maybe he was just being ironic? I hope so, because I can't believe that he was really serious.


    T is for Troll.

  • ||

    ...except for the leagalize-all-drugs psychos).

    Added together, police shooting, turf war shootings, ODs from impure drugs, HIV infections, a loss of respect and trust for law enforcement among huge parts of society make legalization, regulation and taxation of drugs that people are going to do regardless seems psycho to Ryan Waxx.

    'Nuff said.

  • ||

    acted correctly by returning fire?

    This really gets my shorts in a knot. Every time the police gun down some poor bastard, apologists trot out the "they were just following their training" or "they had to react to the situation" line of shit, and there is never any question about whether or not the police involved CREATED THE SITUATION in the first place.

  • ||

    The illusion that 'there must be a better way' comes from complacently not thinking out the drawbacks of the alternatives.

    Given that no knock raids haven't eliminated or curtailed drug usage in the slightest, shouldn't alternatives be considered despite such "drawbacks"?

    I would like to see some data as to how many of these raids really break up big operations as opposed to people who have just enough drugs to be considered traffickers. I would bet that the ratio of innocent deaths to big drug busts would surprise people.

  • Sam Franklin||

    I was referring to the Iraq post.

    Read the post again, including Fakesoldier John's quoted portion, and I think you will see the connection even in the absence of mad bong hits.

  • Ryan Waxx||

    Go ahead, J sub D, tell us that crack should be legalized. It's for the children!

  • ||

    This really gets my shorts in a knot. Every time the police gun down some poor bastard, apologists trot out the "they were just following their training" or "they had to react to the situation" line of shit, and there is never any question about whether or not the police involved CREATED THE SITUATION in the first place.

    Hey, entrapment and beating a confession out of a suspect have been ruled illegal by SCOTUS. Gunning down the citizenry appears to be a loophole for the cops (who know they're guilty).

  • ||

    "Just following orders"--I don't care. That excuse was shitcanned for good 60 years ago. They also get off on follwing these orders.

    "When you need a cop...."--I'll grab my gun first, then my phone. The truth is cops prevent almost NO imminent violent acts. They just come by later and toe-tag the bodies. Of course they SHOULD investigate and pursue violent criminals to get them off the streets--that is the "necessary" part referred to earlier. But if you are in peril, 911 is joke compared to 357.

    "What's so evil about the free exercise clause"--only that we have to the continue to allow the dissemination of ancient voodoo bullshit. Unfortunately, every other alternative to allowing same is far, far worse, so the free exercise caluse is absolutely necessary.

  • ||

    Hell yes, crack should be legalized. All you drug laws in the world don't fucking work. I can walk 2 blocks from my front door and buy crack, blow, or weed. So can a 15 year old. It is harder for said 15 year old to get a 40 of malt liquor than a dime of crack in this town (Detroit, MI)
    So Ryan Waxx, you can take that "for the children" shit, and shove it up your ass if you can get your head out of ghe way.

  • ||

    _"No-knock raids are a very bad thing. But no one has suggested a better thing (except for the leagalize-all-drugs psychos)."_

    First off, somehow police work always got done before no-knock raids became the tool of first resort. Secondly, whats so psychotic about legalizing drugs? Any day you want to stack up the costs of the drug war (in dollars and human terms) vs the theoretical costs of a society where people can choose which chemicals to put in their bodies, im game. Shouldnt it at least be debated? Shouldnt we at least check to find out if permissive drug laws have led to rampant drug abuse in other countries? Sadly the anti-drug industrial complex has made even the suggestion of having that discussion in a logical manner equivalent to advocating giving crack to school kids.

  • ||

    Everybody, please excuse my lack of civility. Dumb people really set me off sometimes.
    Please forgive me.

  • ||

    Understandable JsubD, considering the anti-drug crusaders best argument has devolved to Mr Mackey repeating the mantra, "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?"

  • Nobody Important||

    Grummun | November 22, 2006, 10:16am
    acted correctly by returning fire?
    This really gets my shorts in a knot. Every time the police gun down some poor bastard, apologists trot out the "they were just following their training" or "they had to react to the situation" line of shit, and there is never any question about whether or not the police involved CREATED THE SITUATION in the first place.



    From an oft-quoted (by cops) article about the Diallo shooting:

    While 41 shots sounds excessive, in actuality it is not. There were four officers firing, only 19 rounds struck Diallo, and only one was fatal. Most of the rounds struck Diallo's arms and legs. Remember the actual shooting only took four seconds. While this will not offer any comfort to the Diallo family, we hope it will paint a more truthful picture than the one the media portrays. These officers are not assassins. They are good cops that were attempting to question a person who fit the description of a man who preys on innocent victims. These cops were going to conduct a routine, short investigation and Mr. Diallo would have been on his way. It was Amadou Diallo who set the stage for tragedy.

  • ||

    Go ahead, Ryan Waxx, tell us how crack being illegal helps the children!

  • Ryan Waxx||

    Brilliant, 'J'. Some kids can get access to it, so lets have MORE of it.

    In other news, J advocates the abolishment of murder and rape laws because they obviously aren't working. After all, even 15-year-olds can rape people easily.

    Yes, there's a moron in the house... but you're pointing at the wrong fellow.

  • ||

    Ryan Waxx, murder and rape have actual victims. Hence they are legitimate matters for law enforcement.

  • Ryan Waxx||

    > Ryan Waxx, murder and rape have actual victims.

    And crack doesn't?

    Only an armchair philosopher with absolutely no first-hand knowledge of what crack does to people could make a naive statement like 'crack should be legal' with a straight face.

    Even the countries who DO legalize grugs don't legalize crack. And there's damn good reasons for that. Not that someone blinded by ideology would ever see them.

  • ||

    No one rapes or murders themselves, Ryan. That's an important distinction between those, and "consensual crimes".

  • ||

    J sub D - No worries, man, we all lose our patience from time to time when it's tested by people employing the oldest and most discredited arguments available.

    Most days regular HNR posters spawn new and novel arguments to hammer back and forth, but some days you get folks who haven't done their homework and show up with points that were taken off life support years ago.

    Problem is, it's actually more offensive than showing up to a formal dress dinner party in 2006 wearing parachute pants and "Winger" t-shirt...

  • Ryan Waxx||

    For some drugs, like crack, it is very questionable weather free will is even involved after the first few doses.

    And not all consensual things are, or should be, legal. Most should be, we agree on that. But there are exceptions.

  • ||

    As a confirmed "legalize all drugs psycho", I see no sign of ANY benefit to society from the drug war:

    1) Dangerous drugs are still being sold.
    2) The selling of said drugs has been put into the hands of people who have no interest in protecting their 'customers' and often sell tainted drugs which are even more dangerous.
    3) The 'customers' are forced to pay exorbitant prices for the drugs, which often forces them to commit crimes to support their habits - including the 'crime' of selling the drugs.
    4) Millions of people who have done no harm to others are being criminalized.
    5) The police are being turned into paramilitaries.
    6) Drug cartels are destabilizing countries in the third world.

    The list could go on indefinitely, but I will give only two more.

    7) Despite the Ryan Waxx's beliefs, the children are not being protected; they just stop believing their parents or the police.
    8) Innocent people are being killed by the police.

    My condolences to this poor woman's family.

  • ||

    Ryan - Can you tell us what the active narcotic ingredient in crack is?

  • ||

    >b>Ryan Waxx, if it wasn't for drug prohibition, we wouldn't have drugs like crack or meth labs in trailer parks.
    The war on drugs has created these street drugs.

  • Ryan waxx||

    > Most days regular HNR posters spawn new and novel arguments to hammer back and forth, but some days you get folks who haven't done their homework and show up with points that were taken off life support years ago.

    Of course, "I can walk 2 blocks from my front door and buy crack, blow, or weed. So can a 15 year old." and "Ryan Waxx, if it wasn't for drug prohibition, we wouldn't have drugs like crack or meth labs in trailer parks." are a new and fresh arguments right?

    Its so CUTE when you people apply double standards and expect to get away with it.

  • ||

    "It was Amadou Diallo who set the stage for tragedy."

    By doing what? Walking while swarthy? Give me a fucking break. Just because someone reaches into their pants doesn't give you the right to shoot them. Those cops totally overreacted and killed an innocent person. Their are inherent risks with being a police officer. You can't just shoot someone because they might be going for a gun. If those cops don't like those risks, go find a different line of work.

  • ||

    Ryan - No, they're not new and fresh counter-arguments. That's because it doesn't take new and fresh arguments to counter your old argument and your specious claims that crack cocaine eradicates free will more than any other addictive substance.

  • ||

    For some drugs, like crack, it is very questionable weather free will is even involved after the first few doses.

    Really? With the exception of ecstasy, I think I've sampled everything out there in my life. Illegal drug use over the past 2 years, a few joints. Next brilliant comment, please.

    BTW, no arrests, no convictions, no rehab.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    ...yes I know that following orders is not per se exculpation.

    Actually, it pretty much IS. That's the whole purpose of police sovereign immunity.


    I meant morally exculpatory.

    This really gets my shorts in a knot.

    Your shorts knot too easily. I don't deny the police in question may have misbehaved, I merely note that changing the underlying policy and holding their superiors accountable would significantly reduce such incidents.

  • Ryan Waxx||

    ...1> Dangerous drugs are still being sold.

    You can call it an 'old argument' (argument by namecalling), and you can even repeat it a few dozen MORE times. But you can't eveade the FACT that the presence of lawbreakers DOES NOT prove the law is broken. NO OTHER EXISTING LAW is held up to that standard, because if it WERE, we'd have very few left.

    ... 2) The selling of said drugs has been put into the hands of people who have no interest in protecting their 'customers' and often sell tainted drugs which are even more dangerous.

    This much is true.

    ... 3) The 'customers' are forced to pay exorbitant prices for the drugs, which often forces them to commit crimes to support their habits - including the 'crime' of selling the drugs.

    And the fact that people become so enslaved to the things that the need for the drugs, and ONLY the need for the drugs (according to you) causes them to commit crimes... bounces off your head, making no mental impact whatsoever.

    Because of course if you bothered to THINK, you might WONDER weather something that is so controlling that it could compel people to commit crimes might be... well... a BAD thing.

    ... 4) Millions of people who have done no harm to others are being criminalized.

    I don't necessarily like this either. But enriching a crack dealer IS a harm to society. Of course, in your worldview, ONLY the government is guilty of enriching crack dealers. Everyone else has a free pass.

    ... 5) The police are being turned into paramilitaries.

    So enforce the drug laws WITHOUT using paramilitary police. I'll help. Problem solved.

    ... 6) Drug cartels are destabilizing countries in the third world.

    You can only take the chain of causation so far(unless you are a fanatic). We're their biggest customer, but you seriously think we're their ONLY customer? And you also think there are no other criminal enterprises that enrich thugs? Get real.

    7) Same argument, same answer as 1).
    8) Same argument, same answer as 5). People accuse me of using old arguments, who wants to bet NO ONE will call you on outright recycling yours?

  • ||

    J sub D

    "Really? With the exception of ecstasy, I think I've sampled everything out there in my life. Illegal drug use over the past 2 years, a few joints. Next brilliant comment, please.

    BTW, no arrests, no convictions, no rehab."

    Ve vill correckt zee omizzion. ;)

  • Ryan Waxx||

    Sure you have, J. And I'm the ghost of Richard Nixon. Interesting what arguments internet anynomity makes possible, no?

  • ||

    My initial assumption, when I heard about this on CNN earlier, was that the old lady must have let loose with the scattergun when the door came crashing off its hinges. But apparently she was armed with a pistol- I doubt that I will ever see it, but I would like to see the score card (ratio of shots fired to hits). Cops are notoriously poor shots; the coppers, instead of rubbing the old woman out, should have hired her as a consultant to teach combat marksmanship.

    If she is/was 92, that would have put her in her fifties in the Civil Rights decade; maybe the cops can smear her as a Black Panther Domestic Terror Cell.

    -----------

    "...occassionally a cop is going to get shot, but that comes with the job."

    John- I see a glimmer of hope here; work on your notion of "acceptable risk." It doesn't just apply to policemen.

  • ||

    NO OTHER EXISTING LAW is held up to that standard, because if it WERE, we'd have very few left.

    Prostitution.

    Next!

  • ||

    For some drugs, like crack, it is very questionable weather free will is even involved after the first few doses.

    Wake up, Van Winkle, that old myth was demolished years ago.

    But then you probably believe the "crack babies" fable too.

    But enriching a crack dealer IS a harm to society.

    How in the world is "enriching a crack dealer" any more of "a harm to society" than enriching a hardware store owner?

  • ||

    Ryan - So when are you going to answer my question? What is the active narcotic ingredient in crack that makes it so much worse than regular cocaine?

    Also, just because you haven't been reading up on previous threads here at HNR doesn't mean that the argument you're using hasn't been discredited here before. You're the guy who shows up at the end of a discussion wanting everyone to re-argue it for you because you don't agree with what their conclusions are - because you were late to the party. (AND wearing parachute pants...)

  • Larry A||

    No-knock raids are a very bad thing. But no one has suggested a better thing (except for the leagalize-all-drugs psychos).

    1. No "dynamic entry" warrant shall be issued unless two independent sources of information show probable cause that the persons on the premises are predisposed to use deadly force against law enforcement officers or hostages.
    No more than one of the two sources of information may be a criminal informant.

    2. No "dynamic entry" warrant shall be issued for the purpose of preventing the destruction of evidence.

    3. All executed "dynamic entry" warrants served will be reviewed to determine if a less invasive technique could have been used.

    4. Department procedures will state that serving a "dynamic entry" warrant is an inherantly dangerous situation, and therefore such warrants are to be reserved as a last resort and limited to those cases where the danger to officers or innocent civilians is a substantially greater threat.

    Shouldnt we at least check to find out if permissive drug laws have led to rampant drug abuse in other countries?

    It should be sufficient to note that the war on drugs, with all the attendant pain and suffering that is the natural result of prohibition and the creation of a black market, has completely failed to stem drug use in this country, and that historically no government prohibition effort has ever successfully shut down a black market.

    WoD: All pain, no gain.

  • Ryan Waxx||

    > Wake up, Van Winkle, that old myth was demolished years ago.

    For SOME drugs, it was. But vindicating pot doesn't make crack unaddictive. Wake up, indeed.

    > How in the world is "enriching a crack dealer" any more of "a harm to society" than enriching a hardware store owner?

    I'm sorry, I made the mistake of assuming the readers here had functioning neurons. Let me use smaller words:

    Man give Crack Man money. Crack Man use money to buy more crack to sell. Kidz see crack man with big cadillac. Kidz wanna cadillac. Wot dey gonna do?

    I hope this helps.

  • ||

    Nice to be called a liar by a fool. But alas, the list includes, Marijuana, opium, heroin, PCP, LSD, cocaine (powder and crack), amphetimines, barbituates, psilocybin and codeine.
    Also alcohol, nicotine, and chocolate. But they're OK.

  • ||

    "...the presence of lawbreakers DOES NOT prove the law is broken."

    *WTF?*

    --------

    "...EXISTING LAW is held up to that standard, because if it WERE, we'd have very few left."

    Careful, Ryan; you're teetering precariously on the edge of a revelation.

  • Ryan Waxx||

    > You're the guy who shows up at the end of a discussion wanting everyone to re-argue it for you because you don't agree with what their conclusions are - because you were late to the party.

    I see. So, everyone has already agreed that crack causes no harm. Great information. Makes me wonder why it's still illegal if everyone already agrees with you.

    Of course, it could ALSO be that you are simply using rhetoric to imply your position is unassailable, when in fact the opposite is true. But that would mean that there are hard-core ideologues impervious to reason on this board. Couldn't be... I'd have to call them fanatics.

    Which is how this little flamewar started, and how it will end, since I have to go visit family for a non-crack-laced thanksgiving feast.

    Have a great time festering in your ideological playpen and wondering why all the sheeple don't recognize your RIGHTNESS and immediately agree.

    Larry A: I'm truly sorry I have to leave just as a reasonable, responsible post like yours appears. I think there's much we agree on and I would have liked to discuss it further. Sorry :(

  • ||

    "John- I see a glimmer of hope here; work on your notion of "acceptable risk." It doesn't just apply to policemen."

    It absolutely applies to policeman. If the cops just shot everyone with impunity, there would never be a police fatality would there? Of course no one would want that. Police procudures have to balance the risk to police with the risk to cilivians. There always will be risk to police. The no knock raids are the result of the idea that "if we don't take this or that precaution and bust in unannounced we could loost an officer out there." That statement is flawed for two reasons. First, the mere risk of an officer getting hurt does not justify increasing the risk of killing an innocent person. The innocent person is who the police are there to protect and every cop assumes the risk of being killed by taking the job. Second, I think that no knock raids actually increase the risk to police getting shot by causing people not to realize it is the police invading their house. If I am really crazy and want to kill a cop, there is not a whole lot that cop can do about it. My action will always beat his reaction. The best protection any cop has is his uniform and his badge and the absolute resolution by society to put anyone who wrongfully harms a cop away for ever for better yet to the death chamber.

  • Ryan Waxx||

    > Careful, Ryan; you're teetering precariously on the edge of a revelation.

    Quick reply as I'm leaving: Yeah, repealing laws when they get broken is a GREAT idea that has no drawbacks or unintended consequenses at all. Some revelation.

  • BLS||

    Ryan Waxx said:
    For some drugs, like crack, it is very questionable weather free will is even involved after the first few doses.

    Even if I grant that this is true, is someone forcing that first dose upon users?

  • Cop Talk||

    http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=619523

    TheeBadOne 11-22-2006 12:36

    Dealing narcotics = cash, and money cuts across all lines. From mule to distributer to dealer, elderly folks have been lured into this world by quick cash just like any other segment of society. If an elderly person is pulling down $400 a month in assistance, and their living expenses are $800, just how tempting does this cash look? It's in every state, in every area.

    chance3290 11-22-2006 13:05

    We've had nice little old man and ladies dealing out of their house. Or, their son/grandson/nephew/etc sells out of the house, and they will swear to GOD that they knew nothing of all the drugs in the house.

    If they had the wrong house, its a tragedy. If it was the right house, thank GOD the officers will be OK.


    EdTracker 11-22-2006 15:01

    alcohol is a drug. it just happens to be legal, but there are many limits to its legality. you can't drink and drive, drink and fly, or drink at work. etc.

    lets not be too hasty towards judgment. no one likes granny getting shot but what really bothers me is officers getting shot at.


    http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=619524

  • ||

    "lets not be too hasty towards judgment. no one likes granny getting shot but what really bothers me is officers getting shot at."


    So their lives are worth more than the old lady's? Bullshit. I am sorry but it is more of a tragedy when an innocent person is shot in their home than it is when a cop is shot in the line of duty. The cop took the job and knew that the risk of getting shot was part of his job. By your logic, a cop is never wrong in shooting someone because they are some kind of petrorian guard whose lives are worth more than the rest of us's lives.

  • Larry A||

    It was Amadou Diallo who set the stage for tragedy.

    Actually in this case it was the anti-gun administrations of NYC and the NYPD. When the NYPD changed from revolvers to semiautos they chose a 9mm and mandated that the officers carry only ten round magazines filled with full metal jacket (hardball) ammunition instead of "inhumane" hollowpoints.

    The 9mm hardball has an extensive reputation for drilling through a person without doing anything to slow down or stop him, where a hollowpoint will transfer more energy to the body and actually end the confrontation. NYPD officers adopted the only rational response to having 9mm hardball, they learned to empty their guns into anyone they shot hoping that number of hits would take the place of bullet effectiveness.

    Four cops, four ten-round magazines plus one gun with a round in the chamber, 41 rounds in four seconds.

    While 41 shots sounds excessive, in actuality it is not. There were four officers firing, only 19 rounds struck Diallo, and only one was fatal. Most of the rounds struck Diallo's arms and legs.

    In other words 22/41 bullets (54%) missed and 40/41 (98%) were ineffective. Not very good shooting.

  • BLS||

    Ryan Waxx said:
    the fact that people become so enslaved to the things that the need for the drugs, and ONLY the need for the drugs (according to you) causes them to commit crimes...

    See, I think that it's the artificial inflation of the price of the drug brought about by its illegal status and ONLY the artificial inflation of the price of the drug brought about by its illegal status that causes users to commit crimes.

    Because of course if you bothered to THINK, you might WONDER weather something that is so controlling that it could compel people to commit crimes might be... well... a BAD thing.

    Maybe this is because I don't bother to THINK, but I'm not certain that every BAD thing should be illegal.

    So, everyone has already agreed that crack causes no harm.

    I don't agree with that. I think that prohibition of crack does more harm than crack would do if legal.

  • ||

    Ryan - I'll answer the question for you. The narcotic present in crack is cocaine - the same as the white powder that doesn't get the same militarized response that crack does. It's no more or less harmful than regular cocaine - which admittedly can have some nasty effects, but it doesn't remove free will and IF it becomes an addiction it is still one that can be beaten.

    So your claim that "For some drugs, like crack, it is very questionable weather free will is even involved after the first few doses" is simply not true.

    "I see. So, everyone has already agreed that crack causes no harm. Great information. Makes me wonder why it's still illegal if everyone already agrees with you." - Ryan

    Uh, no, what that means is that around here the general consensus is that police violence - shooting little old ladies, for example - is not an acceptable response to the presence of recreational drugs.

  • ||

    Man give Crack Man money. Crack Man use money to buy more crack to sell. Kidz see crack man with big cadillac. Kidz wanna cadillac. Wot dey gonna do?

    Wow, your superior skillz of logic have defeeeted me. Why, oh, why did I question your wisdom?

    (rolls eyes)

  • Larry A||

    So, everyone has already agreed that crack causes no harm.

    Not really. My point is that crack is an exceedingly dangerous drug, the ingestion of which has many serious consequences. However the war on drugs causes worse consequences to far more people than even the hyped-up results of the "crack epidemic" has.

    For instance, drug interdiction efforts are what largely fuels the creation of exotic varieties designed to be more portable/less detectable/not quite illegal substitutes. Had there not been a war on drugs, had those wishing to snort/inject/sip/smoke/whatever psychoactive substances been given legal access to commercial-quality products, I don't believe crack would ever have been invented.

  • BLS||

    Ryan Waxx said:
    Man give Crack Man money. Crack Man use money to buy more crack to sell. Kidz see crack man with big cadillac. Kidz wanna cadillac. Wot dey gonna do?

    Wait, a second. Where did the big cadillac come from? I thought Crack Man used money to buy more crack to sell.

  • ||

    The narcotic present in crack is cocaine - the same as the white powder that doesn't get the same militarized response that crack does. It's no more or less harmful than regular cocaine

    Sure it is. Don't you know that poor BLACK people are the majority of crack users, while middle to upper class white are the majority of powder cocaine users. We have to protect the poor BLACK user because he doesn't know any better. If granny gets whacked by SWAT, oh well, collateral damage.

  • ||

    Ryan Waxx - Do people have a problem getting drugs now? Nope. So what exactly would be the difference, as someone else noted its easier for kids to get drugs than liquor which your dictator freinds from last century found out they could not stop either. The fact that something is illegal does not make it unavailable, simple supply and demand.

    As for having to increase the budget of cops for them to actually INVESTIGATE something is bullshit as well. Had one of the DEA agents that raided my neighbors house a few weeks ago spent an hour on the datamine of info they have on us all and another few hours staking the place out they would have seen the amount of force brought to confiscate a internet server was a bit excessive. So they come guns and vests on to serve the warrant for a computer in a residential neighborhood, all 12 of them. Now thats 12 agents times the 3 hours they were there rummaging through his house. That equals 36 man hours to pick up a server. One hour looking at data followed by a few hours of actual investigating takes us to 8 total man hours at which point they would have seen they were in no danger and only needed 2 agents at most to serve the warrant. Seems like a cost cutting measure to me not a increase in spending.

    Cops these days do no investigating. The only way they catch major criminals is via traffic stops. They are usually only around after the fact to write a report of what happened. To bad those they kill in these raids can't give their side of the story.

    I really think the only way to get this type of shit to stop is for people all over the country to locate relatives of judges, politicians etc and give the gung-ho cops anonomous tips that would lead to their doors being kicked in. Perhaps if a few of them needlessly lose their lives something will change.

    The main issue most overlook is that if your an honest citizen with nothing to fear from illegal activities your first instinct when hearing your door smashed in is that your being robbed since there is no other reason your door should be being dehinged in the middle of the night. In my house I could not hear someone at the front door from my back room, unless they kicked the door down. At which point they would have to come down the hallway at which point they would be shot because I would have my sights lined up with the door and the first person to walk into it gets it, period! What might a home invader yell as he kicks in your door to give them that extra moment to take over and try to assure themselves no one goes on the instant defensive, POLICE perhaps so they might not get shot would be my guess.

    And for you anti-gunners in the audience how do you think the country would look if all guns were outlawed the same as drugs are now? Zero tolerance has worked so well in stopping drugs I am sure it would care over to firearms as well. Then you will want to ban knives as well I suppose. But we will still be free to defend ourselves with our nail clippers I hope.

    Something tells me if this woman would have been in her 70's those cops would be dead as well if she managed to hit 3 at 92 years old.

    I think all drug use will stop just as soon as we pay off the national debt. *holding breath*

  • ||

    I haven't noticed any wagers. See my post November 22, 2006, 9:34am.

  • ||

    J sub D - Wouldn't I have to bet a million to win one dollar with those kind of odds? Talk about your long shots.

  • M. Simon||

    All this effort and killing to fight a phantom menace:

    Is Addiction Real?

  • ||

    Don't play ball on Ryan's imaginary ballfield. The question isnt whether or not we would be better off without crack. That is not an option. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and incarcerated millions of people to combat illegal drugs, sent military forces thousands of miles to destroy sources, kicked in doors from coast to coast, and the price of drugs has DROPPED. For all those little capitalists out there, that means the supply hasnt.

    So lets deal with reality. We cant get rid of drugs any more than we got rid of alcohol. The ONLY debate that is of any relevance in the real world is whether our current system (which makes drugs widely and easily available to anyone who wants them of virtually any age) is better than legalization (where at worst the same would be the case). Lets concentrate on that.

    Cheeseburgers kill more Americans than cocaine comes remotely close to- we dont send planes to strafe cow pastures in Wisconsin. Cigarettes kill more people than every illicit drug put together... easily, yet they are still legal.
    So lets not play the game of 'drugs are too dangerous'. Illicit drugs are feared, largely because there is a major industry in this country worth billions of dollars that has made it their business to scare middle America into believing we are on the cusp of every grade school kid in America developing a crack addiction. Its rubbish. Lets deal in realities.

  • ||

    "We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars"

    OUCH- correction- Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars.

    Sorry.

  • ||

    Oh and I forgot to mention. When my neighbor opened his door to the DEA one of the agents Policedyke Debbie I think her name was took it upon herself to profile him immediately and even told him that as soon as she saw him she knew they would find drugs. I assume this is because he dresses in tshirts and has long hair. Another then commented that it looked like the type of neighborhood where you could find drugs easily. Two profiles in less than 15 minutes, both WRONG! I live in a mixed race middle income hood where we only have 5 streets and a loop and none of the houses look anything like she implied. Said part is I was thinking of buying the house I am in now. I guess this gives me some price negotiating room if I do since the cops already have it profiled as a drug scene kind of hood and those home values can't be that high.

    To me the people that would risk their lives on informants tips to try and stop something they will never stop for a salary of around 30K a year is insane. I WOULD have to be on some GOOD drugs to take that job to begin with.

    Dyke Debbie also gave a heartfelt speech to my friend about how using marijuana affects your ability to think as she stood in the middle of a room filled with servers preaching to a programmer who is unquestionably 1000x's more intelligent then she will ever be. She said this simply because he said something about pot being illegal being ridiculous.

    I love the WoD mongers who say you will never succeed if you smoke pot etc. Guess I should roll up a fattie with my Engineering Degree and smoke it just to prove a point!

  • ||

    The problem is that you get a macho culture in police departments and an us against them mentality. Everyone wants to beleive that they are in the most dangerous and important job in the world going after the most dangerous people known to mankind. The no knock raids and the military hardware just feed the police's own self importance. The more stuff they have and the harder they come through the door, the more important they feel.

    I think John hit the nail on the head here - I've talked to a number of "old-timer" cops and state troopers here in Nevada, and most of them are disturbed by the mentality of many of the younger policemen coming into their departments. There seems to be a real tendency among young cops to puff up chests and exude authority, and the whole SWAT-team ethos feeds that tendency.

    Wow, they only hit Diallo with 19 out of 41 shots, fired at close range? Sounds like any bystanders may have been at much at risk as Diallo or the cops!

    The arguments of the anti-drug crusaders haven't changed a wit in 80+ years - temperance crusaders used them all in reference to alcohol when they pushed for the Volstead Act and continued to back the 18th Amendment long after its ineffectiveness was apparent to everyone. Criminalizing a social/behavioral problem like alcoholism or drug abuse never does anyone any good in the end, but as usual we have to relearn this lesson every generation or two.

  • Robert R.||

    For what it's worth:

    I have a friend who's in Canon City.

    He says that he's never seen as much drug dealing in his life as he has in prison.

  • Geoff||

    The problem with the no-knock raid is that a tactic that might have been used in extremely rare circumstances where a decent body of evidence sustained its use has been used in at least a handful of fairly notorious cases where the police and informants had it wrong. As close as the tactic skates to the edge of - if not over - our civil liberties, when used you'd better have it right.

    I'm disappointed, though, to see that responsibility is being primarily assigned to the police. What about the judge who issued the warrant? If judges took their responsibility as a check on executive power seriously, they would be asking the hard questions that are being asked now before the raids even took place.

    If judges simply stopped issuing no-knock warrants, the raids would disappear. If they only issued them when the cops made a really strong case, law enforcement would only ask for them as last resort because the hassle in justifying them wasn't worth it.

    If police think the no-knock raid is their best tool, it's fine for them to think that. But the only way for them to get away with lazy police work and sloppy procedure is if the people who are supposed to be a check on them - the judges who issue warrants - are equally lazy.

  • ||

    "we dont send planes to strafe cow pastures in Wisconsin."

    I can see it now:

    'Food Enforcement Agency [FEA] officers today wiped out 500 Jerseys and 400 Holstiens near Oshkosh as part of the War on Milk.

    'FEA officers complain that they are getting little cooperation in their efforts and lack the firepower needed to wipe out the threat. FEA has requested permission to use nuclear weapons.'

    I hope you Reasonoid extremists won't get all psycho about the need to eliminate Wisconsin.

  • violent_k||

    I've got no beef with it.


    Sorry, I tried not to type that. But, having no free will...

  • ||

    Sorry, I tried not to type that. But, having no free will...

    Godamn, you on crack again?

  • ||

    I am!

    And I feel fantastic!!

    Does anyone know where I can find a crack whore?

  • ||

    If somebody crashes through my door in the middle of the night; I'm rolling off the side of the bed and coming up with my Glock .40 and my S&W .357 Magnum... unloading on whoever it is.

    Police be warned.

    I'll probably get killed but that's a decision I've already made.

  • Libby Spencer||

    I'm long on the record as being for the legalization of all drugs to avoid this sort of tragedy, that occurs with increasing regularity as the tactics of the drug war have changed. Drugs have been around for thousands of years and society has managed to deal with it without routinely killing elderly people in their own homes until now. So what has changed to cause this phenomenon, you ask? In a word forfeiture. Time was that the cops wouldn't bother with sending SWAT teams to serve warrants for penny ante drug dealers but every podunk town in America has all this cool SWAt team gear and of course they are going to want to use it. Boys and their toys and all that.

    The reason they have all this gear, and the big cities make enough on forfeiture to buy farookin tanks and other heavy military equipment, is because they get to keep the money and property they seize in drug busts but they can only use it to purchase equipment, not to fund more officers on the street. And as an added bonus, they don't even have to prove a crime has been commited. . They can seize on mere suspicion of a crime and then it's up to the property to prove itself innocent. Often the owners don't pursue the return of their goods because the cost of the legal fees outweighs the value of the property itself. But it adds up and thus do the police have an undue incentive to pursue petty busts, that pre-forfeiture simply wouldn't have been worth their time. Certainly not worth sending in a team of officers in hoods and flack jackets instead of sending a couple of uniforms over on a Sunday afternoon to take the perps into custody. So if you want to end the war on some drugs -- I'd urge any potential reformers to harass your Congresscreatures until they rescind forfeiture laws or at the very least have the seized property go to anyone except the police who are conducting the raids.

    As far as the instant case, I have also lived in Atlanta. I was assaulted at gunpoint at 10:00pm in a parking lot in the very center of Little Five Points. It's a dangerous town, even in the "better" sections and if I was a 92 yr old woman living alone, you can bet I'd shoot first if a bunch of strange men dressed in black busted my door down, no matter who they said they were. There's no reason this raid needed to be conducted in that manner, particularly on the say-so of a CI. If the cops had used some common sense instead of their fun toys, this woman would have likely died peacefully of old age and three cops wouldn't have been shot. If drugs were legalized this wouldn't have happened at all.

  • ||

    """"lets not be too hasty towards judgment. no one likes granny getting shot but what really bothers me is officers getting shot at."

    John replies,
    So their lives are worth more than the old lady's? Bullshit. I am sorry but it is more of a tragedy when an innocent person is shot in their home than it is when a cop is shot in the line of duty. The cop took the job and knew that the risk of getting shot was part of his job. By your logic, a cop is never wrong in shooting someone because they are some kind of petrorian guard whose lives are worth more than the rest of us's lives.""""

    I 100 percent agree John. I mentioned on the other thread that I believe law enforcement are becoming super citizens with rights greater than every one else. The above quote is an example on how many believe cops are more important than everyone else.

    The original poster claims it's something to not like when granny gets shot, but a cop getting shot really bothers 'em. This equates to Cops having a greater right to self-defense than granny. Or the poster misspoke.

    I have nothing whatsoever against cops, but they should not have greater rights than the rest.

  • ||

    lets not be too hasty towards judgment. no one likes granny getting shot but what really bothers me is officers getting shot at.

    You're joking right? Or are you really, really fucking stupid?

  • Sam Franklin||

    Funny thing, Isaac:

    the thd that guy linked at that other (pro-LEO) board got closed for mysterious reasons. Best as I can tell, it looks like the powers that be over there decided that this news story was not going to be helpful from a pro-LEO perspective.

  • ||

    This killing of innocent people is depressing and tiresome. Forfeiture of property is the corrupting influence, as Libby points out.

    The whole concept of seizing "guilty property" should be rescinded. If that is unacceptable to the drug warriors, then all seized property should be auctioned and the money rebated to taxpayers. If the cops can't keep the filthy luker (sp?), you can bet they would quickly lose interest.

  • ||

    What does Amadou Diallo have to do with this incident?

    41 rounds in 4 seconds, with 4 cops shooting... Wow! That is about 10 rounds per cop, all in 4 seconds, i.e. about one round fired every 400 milliseconds. And the cops still made about half the rounds hit the target. Wow again. That actually sounds like fairly good gun control considering the circumstances. Only one fatal round fired out of 41 though, so issue demerit.

    Still, I have to ask, what does this have to do with the old lady being murdered by bad police policy?

  • ||

    Well, I guess because the Amadou Diallo case is about a young man being murdered by bad police policy.

    And there really is way too much of that bad police policy out there.

  • Jeff||

    Maybe you should investigate these stories more before you post your idiotic rants. The police acted on a drug buy from an undercover cop.

  • ||

    Maybe you should investigate these stories more before you post your idiotic rants. The police acted on a drug buy from an undercover cop.

    Oh, well that just changes everything. I'm all for killing old ladies any time that happens.

    (rolls eyes)

  • cdub||

    Typical liberal media reporting on issues where they have not done the proper research to report intelligently on the subject matter.

    I agree with the most recent previous posters

    and by the way

    92 is a pretty good run of it! HA!

  • ||

    Since, police lie in unison to cover their tracks, we will never know the truth about this incident! The narcs are not smart enough to be in control of law enforcement. They were not fired on in the driveway, they tore the burglar bars from the front door, which took a few minutes, giving Ms. Johnson time to get her gun, before they kicked in the front door. If there had been thugs inside, we would have 3 dead cops because one old lady wounded all three.

  • ||

    And, another thing. Why did the cops not know whose home this was? How hard would it be to check tax or utility records? This could have been the home of the mayor's grandmother.Wow, that would have been really embarassing!Why didn't they arrest the person who sold them drugs as it happened? If "police policy" was actually followed, it is obvious, policy is seriously flawed and individuual officers don't have the common sense to question it.

  • ||

    Initial reports are always ALWAYS wrong in some way. But don't let that stop you cop haters from jumping on every opportunity to compare police to nazis. The cops announced who they were, and they wore bulletproof vests that said POLICE in large letters. They were not at the wrong house, and they had their guns drawn - probably because they new the woman had a registered gun. So far, not at all unreasonable.

    However, one she started firing at cops, they have every right to fire back and protect themselves (the fact that she shot all three cops before they fired once upon her shows remarkable restraint). At this point, it is no longer about laws against your precious narcotics, but about unnecessary violence against 3 people who are paid to protect your sorry selves. The old woman instigated all of this. Contrary to what you think, journalists are not paid to get the story right. They are paid to write stories that sell papers.

  • ||

    (sigh)

  • ||

    I understand there were drugs found at the location. Who started shooting first?

  • ||

    I understand there were drugs found at the location. Who started shooting first?

    According to those wise souls who have shown up to straighten us out this 92-year-old drug lord (baroness?) was lying in wait to ambush the cops because she thought she would win a shootout with the police.

    Apparently she just got what she deserved. I feel so much better now that I have been enlightened.

    Drugs are bad, Mmmkay.

  • ||

    Forgot to close italics at the end of the first para. Sorry I was concentrating on placing the sarcasm tags properly.

  • ||

    Atlanta police kill 92-year old woman in drug raid.

    Police have no constitutional right to enter anyone's home with regard to prohibition. No judge would issue a warrant if they had a remote clue what constitutionally guaranteed freedom means. Likewise, no Supreme Court judge would support prohibition if there were a clue in his puny and decrepit mind.

    If it weren't for the promise of free drugs, free money and the non-observance of ethical law that states warrant serving profiteering prohibitionists (police) must announce their presence before entry, this would not have happened. It is an unconstitutional war. These spineless and scared police who innately know they are doing something wrong think that ignoring law and ethics is justifiable. Clearly greed induced ignorance and violence.

    If there were any real motivation to "protect the kids" as they claim, legislators would protect them by getting drugs off the street by ending this dim-witted profiteering scheme of a drug war for the spoils of war. Drugs are never destroyed after confiscation, but always returned to the street for profit by law enforcement, if they don't use it themselves.

    Do you follow the path of confiscated drugs to their claimed destruction? Certainly not. Someone who has no one looking over their shoulder eventually gets them and no one is aware of their eventual sale and use.

    In a free country, people have the right to peacefully use drugs and to provide them to those who want them. Some may not approve of their choices, but to interfere coercively is a violation of their rightful liberty.

    Coercion is acceptable to whom the alluring promise of personal gain and elating drugs is too seductive and because too many people don't have a clue as to what is a principle. Principles are rules I decide I will live by because principles are the only thing that can support ideal realty. Freedom is a principle. Profit is way more important to heartless warmongers. Heartlessness and the seduction of gain creates unthinking and greedy members of society not to mention the sadistic pleasure derived from watching others suffer, especially if these sufferers are of the race that prejudiced sadistic bigots hate.

    If we know prohibition doesn't work (proven for more than 80 years) and only creates a street market for crime, violence, and child addiction (prohibition creating anarchy), to continue the drug war madness (reminiscent of witch hunt days) means we are either stupid or irresponsibly greedy or both.

    Prohibitionists suffer from the lack of intelligence, lack of information, insatiable greed or all three. Mainly it is the profiteering prohibitionist that stands in our way.

    Lack of intelligence means you cannot see a true cause or realize that controlling others is futile. Those that lack intelligence are (for lack of better words) programmable lemmings - robots following their televised programming - unable to think for themselves or have an original thought. That only describes the little prohibitionist. The real problem cases are the heartless profiteering slime-ball prohibitionists.

    All of this is something Government can control and make sane. But why would they? Their insatiable greed is the cause and they belong in their own death camps if only for non-action. They can check for ID at the drugstore. The street dealer isn't checking ID. So it isn't really about the children in the poor neighborhoods going to jail before they get a chance at career life. It's about the utilitarian price of greed. Geo Group stock would crash. There would be no more "illegal" drugs to fight over.

    Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."-- Abraham Lincoln December 1840. Another President said, "Its up to you to recognize the enemy; the enemy is ambition"

    If everyone doesn't have the intelligence to take a stand, together, against the stupidity, we are doomed to this deserved insanity.

  • ||

    Ok to the defenders of the Police, I have a question.

    Why did she need to be taken down forcefully, SWAT style, in the dark of night?

    Was the 92 y/o woman a threat? She was dangerous, so a SWAT raid was the only option?

    Or are SWAT raids just so much fun we have them whenever there is an opportunity?

    For the record, if you have to take a 92 year old woman into custody, would you like to try it when she is at home at night, possibly armed, or when she heads to the grocery store? Maybe have a couple uniformed officers wait for her to get home from Church Sunday AM outside her house?

    Some days I don't understand Police planning at all... why do they believe kicking in the front door is the best idea for them or for the suspect? If I'm setting up a drug house (which this wasn't but nevermind that), I'm damned well going to fort it up as best I can to prevent a police raid.

    Wouldn't this make a run to 7-11 for munchies a better time to arrest me? You know, outside the fort?

    Ok, maybe they aren't willing to put the public at risk by trying a public arrest; but putting people at risk with numerous "no-knock" raids which occasionally involve hitting the wrong target, house, or have faulty information... that isn't risk I guess.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement