Woman, 92, dies in shootout with police

[Lyle]

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The niece of a 92-year-old woman shot to death by police said her aunt likely had reason to shoot three narcotics investigators as they stormed her house.

Police insisted the officers did everything right before entering the home Tuesday evening, despite suggestions from the woman's neighbors and relatives that it was a case of mistaken identity.

The woman, Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years, Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said.

The officers had a legal warrant, "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door and were justified in shooting once fired upon, he said.

Sarah Dozier, the niece, told WAGA-TV that there were never drugs at the house. (Watch niece's fury at police shooting )

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier said. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman.

One was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

"Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

It's unclear to me whether she started shooting as the officers approached her house, or if she started shooting once they kicked the door down and entered the house. Either way, it's a sad story. Given that the officers followed procedure and only returned fire once Ms. Johnston started shooting, I can't blame them for their actions. I do blame whoever it was that gave them this (apparently false) information that led to the warrant.

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman.shot.ap/index.html)

[Dont Hurt Me]

I agree, but lets admit it doesnt add up. How do you get a warrant for the wrong address? Why are you storming the wrong house? Then doing this at 7pm at night? knocking on the door but then breaking in? why not let someone answer first? Plus she had bars on her windows so that tells me its a bad area and the little old lady was most likely scared to death of a home invasion. Hence the gun she had for protection.

Now if she's shooting at them and they are still outside that changes it all but the first question is why are they even at her house?

Its time for the ambulance chasers for sure.

[CanadaRAM]

Age has nothing to do with it. The fact that she's a woman, a granny, has nothing to do with it. It just makes for a better story.

D'you think that the police should have asked for her ID to verify her age after she shot at them? No, you don't do a raid on a residence and wait politely for the suspects to open the door and offer you tea - get real. The reason you have a warrant, and go in at night, is precisely that the suspect is presumed to be either a risk for flight, or armed and dangerous. If it was a parking ticket matter, then a process server would have handed them a summons. Not a SWAT team.

IF it was a mistaken identity (persumably, the warrant had the right address on it?) then its tragic that a mistake was made, and the police should institute procedures to lower the error rate.

BUT - my biased opinion is that nobody needs to have a gun in a household for 'self defence' and that the legal defensibility in some jurisdictions to meet property crime with deadly force, is a societal cesspool.

[Felldownthewell]

It was a terrible accident, but since the police were fired upon before they opened fire (or so it seems), they were probably justified. My feelings on guns for protection are mixed, but at the moment I feel that as long as the government is armed, the people should be armed as well (although weapons in self defence are an entirely different matter). What I would be most happy with is a UK-ish solution where neither the police nor the populace has guns.

Anyway, I'm sort of anti-police at the moment seeing as police is my town beat an unarmed, non-on-drugs, homeless man to death for "urinating in public" (he was never charged). The three officers, who multiple witnesses saw kicking and punching him repeatedly after he was tackled and hog tied, were exonerated by grand jury, saying that the death was accidental, and that 26 fractures on 16 ribs was 'caused by an officer falling on top of the homeless man while he chased him, even after the "officer who fell" testified he fell next to the man, not on him.

Back on topic, however, this seems like an awful accident, for the obvious reason that 4 people were shot, but also because the police raided a house with a 92 year old woman in it in an obvious case of mistaken identity. I'm all for gettick crack dealers off the streets but get your intel right!

[Dont Hurt Me]

Just the fact the cops were at the wrong place should say something. We are dealing with lives here. Why are plain clothesman serving warrants? Something is wrong here. So you have non uniform men busting into her house at night in a bad neighborhood. Thats why they were shot and then they kill this old lady who had lived there 17 yrs? Sorry, cops are wrong for going to the wrong house,wrong for busting into her home and wrong for killing her when she is defending her life & property from guys who arent even in uniform.

[Abstract]

It was probably mistaken identity, but if they had the right address (ie: the person committing the crimes lives with grandma), and someone was firing at the police, even if it was just grandma, I think I'd shoot her too. Maybe her face wasn't clear because it was dark. Whatever. After 3 cops/people were shot, I think it's justified. Every shot fired at them is also potentially deadly. I'm not saying the police were right, but I'm saying that in this situation, there isn't a lot of alternative. Even if the police did what they had to do, they're going to look bad afterwards.

It could be one of those no-win situations.

[AoWolf]

I think the police were justified. She didn't come to the door when they knocked why? When someone knocks you don't run for the gun you see who it is. The fact that the neighbors had time to tell police that they had the wrong address says they didn't just barge in. Put yourself in their shoes you are told to search a house, you get their and there is no answer but all the neighbors are covering for the owner. They had to treat it as it looked. She also fired 3 rounds off the police she should have had ample time to stop when she saw they were officers. Something doesn't smell right about all of this.

[Counterfit]

It could be one of those no-win situations.
It was.

[kentrox99]

Well, I live in Atlanta and will clear something up. The was NOT a case of mistaken identity or wrong address. The undercover police officers purchaced drugs from that address earlier in the day. They obtained a warrant and went back to the house. They knocked and nobody answered. When they broke the door down, they were fired upon by the elderly woman. All 3 officers were shot. Yes, it is a tragety that this happened. But, the officers were doing their job and had to shoot.

[poopyhead]

I'm also from atlanta (grew up in decatur/stone mountain) now live in Kennesaw

Just from what I have heard from the local news

police obtaind a no knock search warrant (the warrant was for the address of the woman who was killed this however does not mean that it was the address from which the police had earlier purchased drugs)

they did not knock and announce, they simply broke down her door and luckily she was able to shoot three of them before they killed her

she lived in a relatively bad part of town, they broke down her door with guns drawn while in plain clothes
If i owned a gun and was in the same situation I would have done the same thing

Atlanta Journal and Constitution article on the incident stating that plain clothes officers did not knock and announce

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2006/11/22/1123metshot.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild173=FlxfAi3B1194slnduGICPJ28JQ9BYfCdSpizIQhvlH8zw9MaAVWA!-1163132878&UrAuth=aN`NUOaNWUbTTUWUXUWUZT[U\UWU\UaUZU\U^UcTYWVVZV&urcm=y

[Felldownthewell]

she lived in a relatively bad part of town, they broke down her door with guns drawn while in plain clothes
If i owned a gun and was in the same situation I would have done the same thing

Atlanta Journal and Constitution article on the incident stating that plain clothes officers did not knock and announce




If this is true it puts a rather large spin on things...if I lived in a bad part of Atlanta and 3 guys with guns broke down my door and they weren't wearing some kind uniform then I would start shooting too. She must've had a quick trigger finger to hit 3 of them and they must have been beasts to be able to shoot her after being hit.

[Earendil]

If this is true it puts a rather large spin on things...if I lived in a bad part of Atlanta and 3 guys with guns broke down my door and they weren't wearing some kind uniform then I would start shooting too. She must've had a quick trigger finger to hit 3 of them and they must have been beasts to be able to shoot her after being hit.

Beasts? Perhaps, but I think you'd be surprised what your mind and body will do in an adrenaline fill situation like that. Pain is a none entity, the limbs that work will be used to keep you alive.
Personally I'd have to be shot a few more times before I would be unwilling to fire back... Of course after I was in the clear I'd cry like a little baby, even if I had just been glazed :rolleyes:

Back on topic: Why would you wear street clothes as officers. If you are wearing a uniform there is at least a *chance* that you won't be fired upon. In street clothes, good guys or bad, your chance of getting return fire has got to be higher. Would it be so they could approach the house?

[Felldownthewell]

Beasts? Perhaps, but I think you'd be surprised what your mind and body will do in an adrenaline fill situation like that. Pain is a none entity, the limbs that work will be used to keep you alive.


True, but a bullet from a revolver at close ranger has some stopping power, especially if shot in the face and chest as one officer was, or in the leg, as was another. Maybe that is part of the training but those are some pretty big injuries to sustain and still manage to hit her several times, twice in the chest (meaning the fire must have been either extremely lucky or accurate).

I don't know. It is never a good thing when one human being kills another. It is worse when the victim is an innocent old lady and when the killers are the police, the people who are supposed to protect you. It is hard to lay blame in this case: the officers were apparently wrong in the first place, then they entered in plainsclothes (albeit with bulletproof vests labled "Police", but I can't imagine they were that visible to a terrified 92 year old in the dark), which was wrong. However, she shot first, and they really had no option other than returning fire.

[Henri Gaudier]

"The only good grandma I ever met was pluggged full of holes!" says Police Defective Chip "Goodbye Granny" Striker.

A lot of very efficient "protecting" and "serving" going on I see. And quite a few "justifieds" from the Mac Rumors right wingers.

All in all - a nice start to my day.

[kentrox99]

I'm also from atlanta (grew up in decatur/stone mountain) now live in Kennesaw

Just from what I have heard from the local news

police obtaind a no knock search warrant (the warrant was for the address of the woman who was killed this however does not mean that it was the address from which the police had earlier purchased drugs)

they did not knock and announce, they simply broke down her door and luckily she was able to shoot three of them before they killed her

she lived in a relatively bad part of town, they broke down her door with guns drawn while in plain clothes
If i owned a gun and was in the same situation I would have done the same thing

Atlanta Journal and Constitution article on the incident stating that plain clothes officers did not knock and announce

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2006/11/22/1123metshot.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild173=FlxfAi3B1194slnduGICPJ28JQ9BYfCdSpizIQhvlH8zw9MaAVWA!-1163132878&UrAuth=aN`NUOaNWUbTTUWUXUWUZT[U\UWU\UaUZU\U^UcTYWVVZV&urcm=y

Might want to check your facts.......Drugs were sold at the house and drugs were found at the house. Officers did identify themselves and marked cars out front. sorry to burst your bubble..
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10382628/detail.html

[poopyhead]

Might want to check your facts.......Drugs were sold at the house and drugs were found at the house. Officers did identify themselves and marked cars out front. sorry to burst your bubble..
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10382628/detail.html

I dont think shouting police as you burs through the door is knocking and announcing futher if she was inside the house chances are she did not see the cars outside the house. Further, I did not state that it was the wrong house (ie it was the house listed on the warrant) but simply that police have been known before to put the wrong address on a search warrant. in fact there is a fairly famous supreme court case in which police lawfully obtained and executed a search warrant on the wrong house because one office had faultily transcribed the numbers. Once again I say good for her shooting 3 of them before they got her.
and
She was 92 I truly dought she could hear or see that well

Should we really be killing people over drugs? It seems that one of the justifications for the war on drugs was crime and violence caused by the drug sub-culture (which for the most part I do not beleive), It seems that possibley all we have done is transfere the violence from a private thug sub-culture to a state sponsered and initiated thug sub-culture.

[pinto32]

What is up with not announcing that you are a police officer upon entry? Its not like they are trying to maintain an element of surprise: I think most people will notice you breaking down thier door. As this incident has shown, it is in the officer's own self-interest to announce thier titles. There's a lot of people that won't think twice about shooting an intruder in thier home; but shooting a cop takes some guts, due to the stiffer penalties, tougher prosecution, and the fact that you will get your ass beat if they ever get you out of the view of cameras.

This is just one more case that proves that MORE GUNS do NOT solve problems. If this woman did not have a gun, 3 officers would not have been wounded, and she would not be dead. If indeed she was unaware of the dealing taking place on her property, that would have probably come out very quickly and she would have been free and clear. Even if she was in on it, what jury is gonna send away a 92 year old woman?

I don't blame the cops for breaking down the door: that is standard proceedure for this type of take-down. You wanna get them before they can dump whatever they have down the toilet. I can't fault the woman for thinking she was under attack by a gang or whatnot.

I DO blame the cops for not announcing who they were, and I DO blame the deceased woman for having and using a gun without knowing who she was shooting.

I disagree that this is a no-win situation though. I am sure that this type of incident happens all the time, however no one ever hears about it because it is not a 92 year old woman involved. Hopefully, this will cause departments around the country to examine thier proceedures so that EVERYONE is safer.

[Xeem]

I dont think shouting police as you burs through the door is knocking and announcing futher if she was inside the house chances are she did not see the cars outside the house. Further, I did not state that it was the wrong house (ie it was the house listed on the warrant) but simply that police have been known before to put the wrong address on a search warrant. in fact there is a fairly famous supreme court case in which police lawfully obtained and executed a search warrant on the wrong house because one office had faultily transcribed the numbers. Once again I say good for her shooting 3 of them before they got her.
and
She was 92 I truly dought she could hear or see that well



I don't think we should be congratulating anyone that shoots 3 police officers doing their job. Not only that, but if you really doubt she could hear or see very well as you stated, should she be using a firearm?
Let's take the woman's age and sex out of the story, and see how it reads...

An undercover police officer purchased narcotics from a man living inside a house in Atlanta. Police obtained a "no-knock" warrant for the house, and returned just a few hours after the drugs had changed hands. Although not required by the warrant, the police did knock and announce themselves, but upon entering the house they were fired upon, with three officers sustaining injuries. They returned fire, killing the shooter, and an immediate search of the house then revealed more suspected narcotics, although the dealer himself was not found.

Would anyone cry brutality if the story was phrased this way? These are the facts of the case (some argue against the fact that the police announced themselves, but most sources say that they did); anything else in this particular case is just periphery.

[poopyhead]

I feel that it is a travesty that 3 police were wounded and that a 92 year old woman was murdered defending her life and property
I, however, feel more for the woman than for the 3 wounded police officers

my main problem with this case is that
1. someone who seems not to be involved (or only tangently involved) in the case was killed. (you would think that the police would attempt to discover who actually owned and lived in the house before initiating such a warrant)
and
2. police, given power by the state, have the right to destroy property, invade privacy, dispossess one of their liberty, and create situations in which the innocent and not so innocent are killed simply to fight a loosing battle against the sale and use of narcotics.

I think it is time that the US ends its state sponsered terrorism against its own people and rescind laws that have turned americas youth and infirm into criminals and enemies of the state.

Just an after thought

why wasn't the man selling narcotics arrested at the time he sold them to the police instead of police obtaining a warrant and then returning to the house several hours later. If he was arrested at the time of sale police could have searched the house at that time or at the very least could have secured the premises, obtained a warrant, then searched it and no one would have died.

[pdh1]

"I think it is time that the US ends its state sponsered terrorism against its own people and rescind laws that have turned americas youth and infirm into criminals and enemies of the state."

So nobody is to blame for their own actions? People made them become thugs, gang bangers, and drug dealers?

By 'state sponsered terrorism" do you mean actually arresting people who commit crimes? Oh, the humanity!

[GFLPraxis]

From the multiple sources I've read, it looks like the policemen were in street clothes, not in uniform, and the old lady had been prepared by her children because there had been a lot of recent reports of people breaking in houses and attacking the occupants, and they had recently bought her a gun.

The old lady perhaps couldn't hear the policemen announcing themselves as police, and just saw them bust the door, and grabbed her gun and started shooting. They shot back.

Sad misunderstanding :(

[Counterfit]

2. police, given power by the state, have the right to destroy property, invade privacy, dispossess one of their liberty

Yes, they're called "warrants", issued pursuant to the Fourth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).

[nitynate]

I love old people.

Thats a shame.


*messes with stupid apple in ear headphone because it is painful*

[Lord Blackadder]

A terrible tragedy...I'm inclined to think that the woman thought she was defending herself...

Even so, I'm more worried that the police officers in question will be villainized over this. They have a very difficult job and I wonder how many of their loudest critics would have the courage or mental toughness to do it, never mind doing it better.

Whatever led up to the exchange of fire, I feel the officers were justified in returning fire, if only to protect themselves. We all know that the police are far from perfect, but every time something like this happens the police are nearly always presented by the media as guilty-until-proven-innocent.

Also, anyone who purchases a gun for self defense should take firearms safety training as well as home-defense training. Having a weapon does not necessarily make you any safer - in this case it may have cost the woman her life.

[cslewis]

It's certainly unusual, considering that old lady's age. What an event!

[mrkramer]

I think the police were justified. She didn't come to the door when they knocked why?

Possibly since she was so old, she couldn't hear well. And if the officers were really plainclothes officers then I think she was justified to shoot since she couldn't tell that they were police. They should have sent officers in uniform to the house, especially if it was in a bad area of town where people have to worry about break-ins.

[Koodauw]

So police should just walk up to the house, where there is known drug activity, knock on the door, ask to come in, meanwhile any evidence could be flushed down the toilet or disposed of.

And I highly doubt that they whispered they were police. Anytime i've seen police entering a building, it is pretty clear when they announce who they are.

[poopyhead]

So police should just walk up to the house, where there is known drug activity, knock on the door, ask to come in, meanwhile any evidence could be flushed down the toilet or disposed of.


no, but, it seems to me that you may be implying that evidence of criminal activity should be valued more than the life of the criminal him or herself.

This entire situation could have been avoided if the police had simply done a more thorough investigation of what was going on at the house, and who actually lived in and was at that time present at the house before executing a no-knock search warrant and bursting through the door with guns drawn.
If the warrant was executed only a few hours after the drugs were bought how difficult would it have been to simply watch the house in the time that intervened in order to discover if the actual target of the bust was at the house. It seems to me that when lives are at stake (and given the fact that the police were wearing bullet proof vests and had a no knock warrant, they thought their lives were) you should exercise a modicum of caution both for your own sake as well as the sake of others.

And I highly doubt that they whispered they were police. Anytime i've seen police entering a building, it is pretty clear when they announce who they are.

1. this was a 92 year old woman who most likely could not hear that well or see that well (after all, she only managed to hit the police in the extrematies)
2. how often have you actually seen police execute a warrant. Most of what you see on TV is fiction with a defined point of view and set of promoted values, and even "reality" shows such as cops are subject to the fact that the actions of those who are being observed are often different from the same individuals unobserved.

I might be the only one, but, I unequivocally and whole heartedly belive that grannies should not be gunned down (or anyone else for that matter) simply because it is more expedient than thorough investigation and well planned action.

[benthewraith]

1. this was a 92 year old woman who most likely could not hear that well or see that well (after all, she only managed to hit the police in the extrematies)

Have you ever actually fired a gun before. Anything higher than a .22 round will have a recoil and become very difficult to shoot. Most people have a tendency to develop a flinch when firing the Colt 1911.

They did announce, and from the looks of it, there was someone else in the house with the other woman. Because she did not respond, the police invaded the house. It's standard practice to go into a house with guns drawn if you knock down the door. :rolleyes:

Any case that had a unwarranted search and seizure, well, would be thrown out of court, so I highly doubt the police would be knocking down doors and invading the "granny's" home without a warrant.

[Dont Hurt Me]

What it boils down to are stupid laws that are getting people killed for drug enforcement. The drug war didnt work with alcohol in 20s with prohibition, and they still dont work now. People getting killed over drugs, A police state using the drug war to grow the whole system from police to lawyers to judges to building more prisons and then the tax payer gets the bill for everything. Its time for a new approach.

[James L]

I feel that it is a travesty that 3 police were wounded and that a 92 year old woman was murdered defending her life and property
I, however, feel more for the woman than for the 3 wounded police officers

I don't. I feel for all parties involved equally.

my main problem with this case is that
1. someone who seems not to be involved (or only tangently involved) in the case was killed. (you would think that the police would attempt to discover who actually owned and lived in the house before initiating such a warrant)

They did. A drug dealer lived there.

and
2. police, given power by the state, have the right to destroy property, invade privacy, dispossess one of their liberty, and create situations in which the innocent and not so innocent are killed simply to fight a loosing battle against the sale and use of narcotics.

I think it is time that the US ends its state sponsered terrorism against its own people and rescind laws that have turned americas youth and infirm into criminals and enemies of the state.

Just an after thought

The police simply uphold laws that civilians write. It is that simple.

I personally, on a daily and nightly basis, treat people whose lives have suffered as a result of drugs. I treat people shot, stabbed, and beaten because an addict robbed them for drug money. I have treated young children accidently shot in drive by shootings that were drug related. I have seen young adults in their prime od and die. Personally, I think the police have every right to strictly enforce the drug laws, even if you and I don't agree with them.

And, "state sponsored terrorism"? Give me a break. That line is nothing but liberal FUD.

why wasn't the man selling narcotics arrested at the time he sold them to the police instead of police obtaining a warrant and then returning to the house several hours later.

This could be for several reasons: There may not have been probably grounds to enter the residence at that time. More importantly, an undercover operator may have not wanted to blow his cover at that time, so he or she simply reported it and let the officer in charge of the operation decide what to do. Often, undercovers purchase drugs numerous times from an establishment before it is taken down.

If he was arrested at the time of sale police could have searched the house at that time or at the very least could have secured the premises, obtained a warrant, then searched it and no one would have died.

See above.

The police arrived at this residence to raid it, with a court ordered warrant. The time of day is completely irrelevant. They announced their arrival, and forced the door. When met with fire, they replied with lethal force against their assailant.

I really don't see a problem here. Granny A) didn't have to live with a drug dealer, and B) Could quite easily have laid down on the ground and not opened fire on the cops.

A sad situation yes. A mistake on the parts of the cops...no.

If people don't like these situations occurring, they should run for office and work to change the laws. Attacking the cops does nothing.

Cheers,

James

[quagmire]

This thread is a huge mess! Anyway, I do not fault the police or the women(unless she was involved with the drugs, but I doubt that).

A) It is standard procedure to break down a door with guns drawn when cops have a warrant. It is also common for cops to wear civilian clothing during these sort of things.

B) The women being 92 obviously probably contributed to the horrible misunderstanding. Also living in a dangerous neighborhood did as well. The cops being in civilian clothing was probably one of the biggest factors for her firing at the cops. Probably her senses were failing too( ears, eyes, etc). So her bad sight could of made it things harder for her to distinguish the cops and her failing hearing could of caused a few misconceptions in her mind when the cops announced themselves.

Neither are at fault.

[Cassie]

When I read the first line, it sounded like her neice had been shot.

[killr_b]

"I think it is time that the US ends its state sponsered terrorism against its own people and rescind laws that have turned americas youth and infirm into criminals and enemies of the state."

So nobody is to blame for their own actions? People made them become thugs, gang bangers, and drug dealers?

By 'state sponsered terrorism" do you mean actually arresting people who commit crimes? Oh, the humanity!

This might be the dumbest comeback EVAR!!
If drugs were legal there wouldn't be drug dealers.
Holy *hit!!!

Then there would be less tax evasion, no gangsta income, no reason to have a turf, ect…

Doing drugs is a crime because some asshat says it is.
This is the most hypocritical aspect of modern culture.
What percentage of the world is on Perscription drugs?

Keeping drugs illegal divides the nation.

Who ever profits most is to blame. So that would be the U.S. Federal Government. Since they get a crazy amount of our tax dollars to never solve the problem. Hence the "State Sponsored."

The Victory Act would have made anyone with any amount of a controlled substance outside a valid perscription a "terrorist." Calling your own citizens "terrorists" is the definition of terrorism. "You aren't safe! Even from your neigbors!"

We founded this country to have rights that were inalienable.
The right to be secure in your person, property and effects.
And to secure we mean with a gun.

And to everyone on the "they were just doing there jobs" boat: Get F*****G REAL!!! "I can't be blamed for my lack of judgment. After all I'm just an idiot with a gun and a badge."

Shouldn't they feel secure enough to investigate just a tad before going WILD WEST on one of our own citizens? Misguided or mislabled, I don't care. They have the ability to NOT SHOOT for a moment to decide why they're getting shot at. A warrant is NOT a licence to kill, and neither is a badge.

I'll be shooting at anyone who comes to my house to break down the door. Especially if they had a warrant because I know they have no reason to get one.

But instead we should give up our guns and our right to be secure in our lives and let the Nazi's come to take us to death camps without struggling, because in the end the government knows best. (Sarcasm)

The reasons we have an America are listed. 1-10.

[thewhitehart]

If you think this is controversial, check out what happened in Queens. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_POLICE_SHOOTING_TACTICS_BAOL-?SITE=NYNYD&SECTION=MIDEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

They have the ability to NOT SHOOT for a moment to decide why they're getting shot at.

Have you ever been shot? There is no such moment considering the range between the old woman and the officers. I'm not arguing the ethics regarding the execution of the search warrant without better knowledge of the situation unbiased by the media. But as for returning fire, it is a knee-jerk reaction in such a situation, whether you're the granny or the police officer.

[poopyhead]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2006/11/27/1127metshoot_html.html

Informant in shooting says he never bought drugs at house
He says police asked him to lie

By RHONDA COOK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/27/06
An informant who narcotics officers say led them to the house where an elderly woman was killed in a drug raid is accusing the officers of asking him to lie about his role, Atlanta police Chief Richard Pennington said Monday.

The informant, who has not been identified, complained to department officials that the drug investigators involved in the bust had asked him to go along with a story they concocted after the shooting, said Pennington. He said the informant had been placed in protective custody.

• Related story: 'No knock' warrants under scrutiny
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2006/11/28/1128metknock.html

The informant told an Atlanta television station that the officers asked him to lie to provide them cover in the shooting.

Pennington confirmed the television station's account of what the informant had claimed and said it mirrored what the informant had told his Internal Affairs Unit over the weekend.

"The informant said he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs," Pennington said. "We don't know if he's telling the truth."

All seven narcotics investigators involved in the raid have been suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation, Pennington said. Their names were not made public.

"The complete truth will be known," Pennington said.

After nearly a week of unanswered questions prompted by the northwest Atlanta shooting of Kathryn Johnston, the chief on Monday called for an unusual multi-agency review of the incident.

Pennington announced the investigation at a news conference that featured officials from the U.S. attorney's office, the FBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Fulton County district attorney.

David Nahmias, the U.S. attorney in Atlanta, said federal agents "come to this investigation with an open mind" but he cautioned that anyone who lies could face federal charges.

"No one should get in the way of the truth," Nahmias said.

Johnston was shot to death last Tuesday night as the drug investigators burst into her house at 933 Neal Street. Johnston was shot twice in the chest by the officers, who have said that they were returning her fire. The 88-year-old woman - whose age was originally thought to be 92 - wounded three of the officers with a rusty revolver her niece had bought for her aunt's protection. One officer was hit three times, including once in the center of his bullet-proof vest, while the other two where shot once each. None of their wounds were life threatening.

Police officials have said the officers went to Johnston's small brick house after the informant purchased drugs there from a man identified only as "Sam." Police have obtained an arrest warrant for Sam.

In a court affidavit released Monday, Jason R. Smith, an Atlanta narcotics officer, said that the informant had used $50 of city money to buy crack cocaine from Sam at the house at 933 Neal Street. Smith, who could not be reached for comment Monday night, described the informant as a reliable source of information who has helped police make drug arrests in the past.

In the affidavit, Smith said Sam greeted the informant at the front door and spoke briefly to him on the porch. Sam disappeared into the house and reappeared with two bags of crack cocaine, which the informant later turned over to the officers, according to the affidavit. Smith's statement also said that the informant had alleged that Sam had installed surveillance cameras at the house and monitored them constantly.

Smith's affidavit was sufficient to persuade Fulton County Magistrate Kimberly Warden to sign a warrant allowing the officers to enter the house without knocking on the door. Smith asked for the special "no knock" authorization because of the possibility that officers would be injured or evidence would be destroyed. Warden signed the warrant shortly before 6 p.m., about an hour before the shooting.

However, the informant has since denied to police and a local television station that he purchased the drugs. He also said there was no person named Sam.

The informant, who said he worked with Atlanta police for four years, also told WAGA-TV that he hadn't been to 933 Neal Street. His identity hidden, he told the TV station that one of the drug officers called him soon after the shooting with instructions.

Quoting the police officers, the informant told Fox 5 News: " 'This is what you need to do. You need to cover our (rear). ... It's all on you man. ... You need to tell them about this Sam dude.' "

Pennington said investigators were trying to determine the truth. "I don't know if he went in or not," he said.

Many questions and conflicting accounts have surfaced since police shot the woman, described by neighbors as feeble and afraid to open her door after dark. At first police said that the drug buy was made by undercover police, but later they said the purchase was made by an informant. Early on, police said narcotics were found at the house after the shooting, but on Sunday investigators said they had found only a small amount of marijuana, which police don't consider narcotics.

Also, even though the affidavit said that the house was outfitted with surveillance cameras, Pennington said the informant had told internal affairs investigators that police officers had asked him to lie about the cameras. Pennington could not confirm whether the cameras existed.

From the beginning, it has been unclear why police targeted the house on Neal Street, and the affidavit and warrant documents shed little light. The documents do not suggest that police had been keeping the house under surveillance and provide no rationale for entering it other than the informant's alleged buy earlier in the afternoon. The raid did not produce the cocaine, money, computers and other equipment related to the drug business alleged in the affidavit. The documents listed the only resident as Sam, who was described as at least 6 feet tall and 250 to 260 pounds. Johnston's family said she lived alone.

Court officials initially refused to release the affidavits and search warrant even though state law makes such records available immediately. The documents were made public Monday, nearly a week after the incident.

"There are many unanswered questions," said Pennington, who returned Sunday after being out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday when the shooting occurred.

Mayor Shirley Franklin, who has said little about the shooting, said she had discussed the allegations with Pennington. Franklin said the chief has "my confidence that they will be transparent and honest and very thorough in their review. ...

"I certainly share the concern that all of us have on the loss of life," Franklin said. "We were not expecting something like that could happen in the city of Atlanta."

Staff writers Ernie Suggs, Stephanie Reid, David Pendered and Saeed Ahmed contributed to this report.

Apparently I was wrong in only one assumption, the elderly woman did not just shoot officers in the extremeties, she hit one in the bullet proof vest

[williedigital]

i heard an interview on a local atl radio sation with the cheif this morning. The one interesting thing that came out was that he said the woman had a steel door, which took "quite a while" to break down.

Secondly, it should be noted that the Red Dog narcotics division, which the officers were part of, has an excellent track record within law enforcement communities. They are known as model for how to reduce drug crime in urban neighborhoods, as they have done in atlanta. There have always been those that accused them of brutality, etc. but the general census is that they are highly trained and effective.

I think it was simply a mistake.

[prograham]

It's really pretty simple: she should never have had the gun in the first place. If you're going to shoot, make sure you kill, or are prepared to be killed. It's better to be robbed and alive than any other outcome and dead.

[Earendil]

It's really pretty simple: she should never have had the gun in the first place. If you're going to shoot, make sure you kill, or are prepared to be killed. It's better to be robbed and alive than any other outcome and dead.

Maybe, at 92, she was ready to die and thought she might as well take these scumb bags trying to rob her with her :o
92 is still quite old even by todays health standards!!

Still... I'm not sure I'd give my 92 grandma a gun!! Holy cow...
If I were the police and I was there to arrest a 92 year old women, and my partners were both shot, I'd probably assume there was someone besides the old women there taking shots, and return fire without question...

[bearbo]

They did. A drug dealer lived there.
oh really, is that fact or YOUR speculation?


The police simply uphold laws that civilians write. It is that simple.

they made a mistake, or a number of them, while doing so


I personally, on a daily and nightly basis, treat people whose lives have suffered as a result of drugs. I treat people shot, stabbed, and beaten because an addict robbed them for drug money. I have treated young children accidently shot in drive by shootings that were drug related. I have seen young adults in their prime od and die. Personally, I think the police have every right to strictly enforce the drug laws, even if you and I don't agree with them.
well, i don't question this, but perhaps be a bit more careful with other people's lives, even if they MIGHT be criminal


I really don't see a problem here. Granny A) didn't have to live with a drug dealer, and B) Could quite easily have laid down on the ground and not opened fire on the cops.
A) she didn't, she lived alone
B) would you lay down upon stranger's entry? provided you didn't know who they are? (whether the announced or not is questionable)


If people don't like these situations occurring, they should run for office and work to change the laws. Attacking the cops does nothing.


i'll make sure to let you know that if this kind of misunderstanding happened to you.

[Counterfit]

Calling your own citizens "terrorists" is the definition of terrorism.
Uh, no. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=terrorism)
Shouldn't they feel secure enough to investigate just a tad before going WILD WEST on one of our own citizens? Misguided or mislabled, I don't care.
How secure would you feel when the only thing standing between your body and a bullet is a bit of kevlar that doesn't cover anything outside of you chest?
They have the ability to NOT SHOOT for a moment to decide why they're getting shot at.
Right, and they also have the ability to get shot at more while they stop and think. Hesitation in that kind of situation means death.
I'll be shooting at anyone who comes to my house to break down the door. Especially if they had a warrant because I know they have no reason to get one.
And you probably won't make it out of your house alive. But in the off chance you do, you'll now have charges against you (assault with a deadly weapon, or worse), even if the warrant was baseless.
If you're going to shoot, make sure you kill, or are prepared to be killed.
Indeed. You should also make sure you know what you're shooting at.

[Dont Hurt Me]

We are creating a police state around the drug war and around Bin Laden. This is just more of the same failed war on drugs where the cure is worse then the actual problem. But hey its building more of the police state and the politicians love to look big & tough on crime.
So the informant is now being protected by the feds from the cops. Just amazing, I said before the drug war is costing us billions and its as much a failure now as it was in the 30s, the 60s and now into the year 2006. Lets stop trying to turn everyone into criminals and look for better ways. How many police and regular people have been killed for this drug war? how many billions have we thrown away for the prison sytem and everything that makes it up? We cant invest in people, schools, or factorys but we sure can invest in cops, law enforcement and prisons. As usual we are chasing this war from the ass end instead of getting in front of it. I knew something was fishy from the start of this one. Control freaks will allways try to push their control on others. The informant is saying he never has been to that house. Cops abusing authority, we have a "informant" so lets go get em! Legalizing drugs would eliminate this stupidity and would give true control over drugs but that wouldnt build the politicians police state now would it?

[killr_b]

Have you ever been shot? There is no such moment considering the range between the old woman and the officers. I'm not arguing the ethics regarding the execution of the search warrant without better knowledge of the situation unbiased by the media. But as for returning fire, it is a knee-jerk reaction in such a situation, whether you're the granny or the police officer.

Actually yes, I have been shot at.
There is plenty of time to think.
But I guess you weren't in line to serve America, so you wouldn't know.

THERE IS EVEN MORE TIME TO WALK AROUND THE HOUSE AND CHECK IT OUT BEFORE BREAKING THE DOOR DOWN, BEFORE ANY SHOTS ARE FIRED.

@COUNTERFIT
Look kid, I don't think you know much of anything about the real world.
And your attitude would have had the SS taking your family away in a flash.
American's have the right to defend themselves from all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC.
If you have a gun pointed at me, you are my enemy.

[TequilaBoobs]

why do novogenarians get special treatment? if some old woman shot at me i would pump her full of bullets.

[killr_b]

We are creating a police state around the drug war and around Bin Laden. This is just more of the same failed war on drugs where the cure is worse then the actual problem. But hey its building more of the police state and the politicians love to look big & tough on crime.
So the informant is now being protected by the feds from the cops. Just amazing, I said before the drug war is costing us billions and its as much a failure now as it was in the 30s, the 60s and now into the year 2006. Lets stop trying to turn everyone into criminals and look for better ways. How many police and regular people have been killed for this drug war? how many billions have we thrown away for the prison sytem and everything that makes it up? We cant invest in people, schools, or factorys but we sure can invest in cops, law enforcement and prisons. As usual we are chasing this war from the ass end instead of getting in front of it. I knew something was fishy from the start of this one. Control freaks will allways try to push their control on others. The informant is saying he never has been to that house. Cops abusing authority, we have a "informant" so lets go get em! Legalizing drugs would eliminate this stupidity and would give true control over drugs but that wouldnt build the politicians police state now would it?

You know, I don't think I ever agreed with you in a thread until now. :cool:
Spread the word of freedom. Don't let the fud scare you into submission.
FIGHT THE POLICE STATE OR LIVE IN FASCIST OPRESSION.

[killr_b]

why do novogenarians get special treatment? if some old woman shot at me i would pump her full of bullets.

Uh, that's not a word…

What did you mean to say? Nonagenarian?

[killr_b]

It's really pretty simple: she should never have had the gun in the first place. If you're going to shoot, make sure you kill, or are prepared to be killed. It's better to be robbed and alive than any other outcome and dead.

Defeatist.

[TequilaBoobs]

Uh, that's not a word…

What did you mean to say? Nonagenarian?

i stand corrected, however ive heard many times from notable professors the term novogenarian, which may have its roots elsewhere than the usa.

[Earendil]

Yes, too much control by the government is bad.

Legalizing drugs would eliminate this stupidity and would give true control over drugs but that wouldnt build the politicians police state now would it?

Now, and I'm sorry, this is just mho. But that is %^&*ing stupid :(
While we're at it, legalize drunk driving, cigarettes for little kids, and just go ahead and toss out any sort of rules on who can own a gun. Heck, hand them out at play grounds. The world is better when everyone gets to do whatever they want :cool:


I can't say it for smoking, but at least guns and alcohol can be used safely, and even have benefits. There is no safe way or benefit to cocaine. I'm sorry. Have you ever seen someone on that sh*t?!!!
Perhaps you are quite the wisend old man, but you don't strike me as having any experience with drugs and the lifestyle it brings :(

[poopyhead]

Yes, too much control by the government is bad.



Now, and I'm sorry, this is just mho. But that is %^&*ing stupid :(
While we're at it, legalize drunk driving, cigarettes for little kids, and just go ahead and toss out any sort of rules on who can own a gun. Heck, hand them out at play grounds. The world is better when everyone gets to do whatever they want :cool:


I can't say it for smoking, but at least guns and alcohol can be used safely, and even have benefits. There is no safe way or benefit to cocaine. I'm sorry. Have you ever seen someone on that sh*t?!!!
Perhaps you are quite the wisend old man, but you don't strike me as having any experience with drugs and the lifestyle it brings :(

Most illegal drugs can be used safely
they were all (except crack which we all know was created by the CIA) once legal and available typically without a prescription.
Historically what has typically driven the US to make various substances illegal is not the danger they pose, but instead latent if not blatent racism and classism.

for those that beleive everything that is spewed out by the government, please do some independentt research, investigate many differing views. Then, and only then, accept what you decide is most reasonble. All governments and beurocracies have vested interests that are not necessarily what are best for the public. Accepting everything any government or agent therof says does not make you a good American or citizen, contrary to what the current administration would have you beleive, it makes you a lazy sheep, one of the things that the founders of this country feared most. Today we have the right to bear arms specifically because the founders of this country (as imperfect as they were) realized that citizens of any country can often times be easily swayed, and that democracies, even democratic republics such as our own, can and do slip into dictatorships and autocracy such as the Weimar Republic.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Yes, too much control by the government is bad.



Now, and I'm sorry, this is just mho. But that is %^&*ing stupid :(
While we're at it, legalize drunk driving, cigarettes for little kids, and just go ahead and toss out any sort of rules on who can own a gun. Heck, hand them out at play grounds. The world is better when everyone gets to do whatever they want :cool:


I can't say it for smoking, but at least guns and alcohol can be used safely, and even have benefits. There is no safe way or benefit to cocaine. I'm sorry. Have you ever seen someone on that sh*t?!!!
Perhaps you are quite the wisend old man, but you don't strike me as having any experience with drugs and the lifestyle it brings :(No whats Stupid is shooting little old ladys for the drug war thats stupid. Big Brother isnt going to solve societys problems by making a law for everything you do. Your drug war is a failure. Legalize it you can control it, keep it under ground and more cops,little old ladys and others will be killed for nothing. Just look at prohibition or look at why weed is illegal. Has nothing to do with weed and everything to do with mexicans that our govt is letting in by the millions. Politicians love people that cant think further then their next spin phrase.

[Earendil]

Most illegal drugs can be used safely

You have got to say more than that, because what you said after is no counter point. If by used "safely" you mean in such tiny doses that you don't feel anything than yes (but still no earthly benefits). However the only reason people use them is for the effect they have on brain and/or body, and at those levels just about every last one of them is either toxic to your body, or impairs your mental and decision making abilities. The only good argument for any of them is as a pain killer, and even that can only be applied to some of them.

Personally I think they should make getting drunk illegal, because it does far far far far more harm than good. The only good it does is as a way of getting people sexually loose, and as an escape from ones own life and responsibilities. However at least that one isn't highly addictive (though alcoholism has destroyed many families and many people).

they were all (except crack which we all know was created by the CIA) once legal and available typically without a prescription.

And doctors got many WWII soldiers hooked on morphine because it was handed out like candy before they new about it's highly addictive qualities. However I don't think that's a reason for a 14 y.o to be able to purchase a shot down at the quicky mart.

Using the logic that "it once wasn't illegal" can be used to strip away every single law.

Historically what has typically driven the US to make various substances illegal is not the danger they pose, but instead latent if not blatant racism and classism.

I would be very interested in some good reading on the subject from notable authors or publishers. In my wide reading I have come across very little that said that that is a "typical" practice for making substances of any kind illegal. I know of a few small cases, but that doesn't mean you get to apply it to every case, nor does it mean it isn't a good idea to begin with, even if it was also used for evil.


for those that beleive everything that is spewed out by the government, please do some independentt research, investigate many differing views. Then, and only then, accept what you decide is most reasonble.

If I was one of those blind believers I wouldn't be having this conversation with you ;)

All governments and beurocracies have vested interests that are not necessarily what are best for the public. Accepting everything any government or agent therof says does not make you a good American or citizen, contrary to what the current administration would have you beleive, it makes you a lazy sheep, one of the things that the founders of this country feared most. Today we have the right to bear arms specifically because the founders of this country (as imperfect as they were) realized that citizens of any country can often times be easily swayed, and that democracies, even democratic republics such as our own, can and do slip into dictatorships and autocracy such as the Weimar Republic.

Um, yes, all well and good. It is only a matter of time before the US falls, and I'll do my part to delay that. However you didn't address my point, and that is that painting it black and white is a horrible solution.

Just because you *think* the government is using the law against illegal drug use in the US does not mean that the law is in fact a bad idea. Nor does it mean that we need to turn a complete 180 degrees and make everything perfectly legal. Prescription drugs are an example of highly addictive and dangerous drugs, but they are regulated by those people that know all the effects, and can rely on a doctor to teach you about them before you use them. Now don't get me started on the FCC, and the system is far far from perfect. But making it all legal is a very bad idea imo. The day the US does that is the day I leave.

Have you watched a good guy and friend go down hill and throw his life away, start robbing and stealing just to feed his addiction? You watch that and get back to me on legalizing it.

~Tyler

[Earendil]

No whats Stupid is shooting little old ladys for the drug war thats stupid. Big Brother isnt going to solve societys problems by making a law for everything you do. Your drug war is a failure. Legalize it you can control it, keep it under ground and more cops,little old ladys and others will be killed for nothing. Just look at prohibition or look at why weed is illegal. Has nothing to do with weed and everything to do with mexicans that our govt is letting in by the millions. Politicians love people that cant think further then their next spin phrase.

Alcohol and weed are tame little kittens compared most of the drugs out there.
No, it's a shame an old lady was shot, but it happens. People die in all kinds of stupid ways while someone is trying to do some good for the world.
And btw, if you had a gun, and I started unloading a clip and you and your buddies, all of you were shot, you don't think you'd fire back?

Okay, so you're going to respond with "They shouldn't have been there at all". Well how about your friend invites you over to his house, whoops, you walked up to the wrong, house, mistake.

The cops did not go in there intending to kill an old lady. And the old Lady probably didn't intend to shoot cops. However mistakes were made, and this time people died. Get over it. There are more important deaths happening in this would for far more senseless reasons to be worried about a single death compared to the many saved by those people who devote their life to keeping us "safe". Even if it isn't your definition of safe, it is my definition of safe, and I'll continue to vote in a way that gives me that level of safety. I'd suggest if that bothers you, that you move to Costa Rica with the rest of the people sick of Governments. Personally I think half of them are kooks, but interesting ones, and the weather is nice down there.

~Tyler

[Dont Hurt Me]

We need to choose do we want a country of freedom,liberty and personal responsibility or do we want a fascist police state monitoring everyone and everything they do? I didnt say hand out drugs to kids, I said legalize and control them like alcohol or tobacco. At the moment keeping it all under ground empowers the drug dealers & the control freaks and prison makers. Legalize them and both are out of business.

Drug war is a failure, we can do better by pumping $$$ into education & people rather then prisons. Stupid is as stupid does and breaking into a little old ladys home for this is stupid.

[Earendil]

We need to choose do we want a country of freedom,liberty and personal responsibility or do we want a fascist police state monitoring everyone and everything they do?

Personally I'd rather have something in the middle, not paint it black and white.

I didnt say hand out drugs to kids, I said legalize and control them like alcohol or tobacco.

I think your words were:
"Control freaks will allways try to push their control on others."
*snip*
"Legalizing drugs would eliminate this stupidity and would give true control over drugs but that wouldnt build the politicians police state now would it?"

At the moment keeping it all under ground empowers the drug dealers & the control freaks and prison makers. Legalize them and both are out of business.

Not really. Drug dealers will still be able to sell it cheaper than any government agency or FCC section company could.
And Prisons will still house all the idiots that actually use the stuff and go do something stupid. Besides, half the crimes committed because of cocaine and the like are due to robbery in order to get the money to buy the stuff, or killing for it.
Making it "legal" to do both of those will help neither of them. All it would allow is for the distributors to more opening distribute.

Drug war is a failure, we can do better by pumping $$$ into education & people rather then prisons. Stupid is as stupid does and breaking into a little old ladys home for this is stupid.

Me might be able to do better with education. I'd guarantee that there is indeed a better way of doing it. But having society and our government condone the use of such drugs by legalizing them and selling them is a huge step backwards. How in the world are we going to teach our kids not to use drugs if the government as well as peer influence is telling them it's okay? Not to mention access will be far easier, rules or not. It's not like it's a real challenge to get alcohal if you're under 21 :cool:

And it does sound bad, breaking into an old ladies home.
But would you condone breaking into a thugs home who is selling your kids crack?
What difference does sex or age really make?

[Earendil]

It seems some of you have a problem with drug control and the way the government uses that issue, and think the solution is it legalize drugs.

I think you have a problem with the government, and that dealing with the drug issue isn't going to solve your problem with the government.

[poopyhead]

Have you watched a good guy and friend go down hill and throw his life away, start robbing and stealing just to feed his addiction? You watch that and get back to me on legalizing it.

~Tyler

I have and do know several people who have and do use illegal substances, but I have never known anyone who has started robbing or stealing to feed their addiction. I have seen peoples lives destroyed in part due to meth, but I would argue (as 2 of them did) that the drugs were not the cause of their problems they were instead what was turned to for solace when no answers existed to difficult questions and situations. Drugs are more of a symptom to a problem and not a problem in and of themselves.

Further, for 3.5 years I went to a top 20 University. At that school I knew more people who used drugs regularly than at my current institution and strangely enough all of the drug users I knew had at or near genious IQs. Most of them graduated with GPAs above 3.0, and several of them went on to some of the finest medical and law schools in the country. The vast majority of the drug users I know (only speaking from my own experience) are amazingly successful extremely intelligent individuals. In fact most of the people I know and have known who use drugs do not simply use them as an escape, but instead see them as a way of expanding and testing perception. Given that my experiences are the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum than the typical crack head, I cannot answer to the drug culture at large, but I am willing to bet that there are more people who use drugs and do not destroy their lives than people who do.

[benthewraith]

If we were to legalize drugs, what should be allowed to be legalized and what shouldn't? Ecstasy is very dangerous, an overdose would shut down the hypothalamus, terminating the body's temperature regulation. That wouldn't be a good thing. There's a reason drugs are against the law, and that is because a significant portion of them can potentially cause damage the first use and be killed.

Government control? Hell, the government can't control prescription drug abuse. Drugs such as oxycontin, hydocodone, and versed are out on the streets each day. An overdose with any of these can be fatal. Who do you think will stand to benefit from the legalization of marijuana? The people who are growing them right now. Do you know what they find in the average marijuana bag?

The people growing them in S. America will just get richer, and who do you think works for them? Who tends to the marijuana fields?

[killr_b]

i stand corrected, however ive heard many times from notable professors the term novogenarian, which may have its roots elsewhere than the usa.

I also stand corrected, as it would be incorrect to spell color with a 'u' in America, it is correct in England.
I always forget people online can be from anywhere. :D
My bad?

[killr_b]

You have got to say more than that, because what you said after is no counter point. If by used "safely" you mean in such tiny doses that you don't feel anything than yes (but still no earthly benefits). However the only reason people use them is for the effect they have on brain and/or body, and at those levels just about every last one of them is either toxic to your body, or impairs your mental and decision making abilities. The only good argument for any of them is as a pain killer, and even that can only be applied to some of them.

Personally I think they should make getting drunk illegal, because it does far far far far more harm than good. The only good it does is as a way of getting people sexually loose, and as an escape from ones own life and responsibilities. However at least that one isn't highly addictive (though alcoholism has destroyed many families and many people).

And doctors got many WWII soldiers hooked on morphine because it was handed out like candy before they new about it's highly addictive qualities. However I don't think that's a reason for a 14 y.o to be able to purchase a shot down at the quicky mart.

Using the logic that "it once wasn't illegal" can be used to strip away every single law.

I would be very interested in some good reading on the subject from notable authors or publishers. In my wide reading I have come across very little that said that that is a "typical" practice for making substances of any kind illegal. I know of a few small cases, but that doesn't mean you get to apply it to every case, nor does it mean it isn't a good idea to begin with, even if it was also used for evil.

If I was one of those blind believers I wouldn't be having this conversation with you ;)

Um, yes, all well and good. It is only a matter of time before the US falls, and I'll do my part to delay that. However you didn't address my point, and that is that painting it black and white is a horrible solution.

Just because you *think* the government is using the law against illegal drug use in the US does not mean that the law is in fact a bad idea. Nor does it mean that we need to turn a complete 180 degrees and make everything perfectly legal. Prescription drugs are an example of highly addictive and dangerous drugs, but they are regulated by those people that know all the effects, and can rely on a doctor to teach you about them before you use them. Now don't get me started on the FCC, and the system is far far from perfect. But making it all legal is a very bad idea imo. The day the US does that is the day I leave.

Have you watched a good guy and friend go down hill and throw his life away, start robbing and stealing just to feed his addiction? You watch that and get back to me on legalizing it.

~Tyler

Ok. Number one. Have you ever done any drugs?
You can definitely take reasonable doses of any illicit drug and get super farking faded.
OMG, and the reason you feel different is that they are all toxic and poisonous.
Hence the phrase, "pick your poison."
Number two. We've know about the addictive nature of opiates since ancient China.
Number three. Legal doesn't mean "for children." Nice leaping 'what if' there.
Number four. Just because you haven't read about it doesn't mean it isn't true or possible. Just because someone in politics does it doesn't mean it's right. Your youth is showing…
Number five. Have you seen the ranking of America in the world? We are behind the Dutch, who have extremely 'laxed drug laws, in every area but GNP.
Number six. So, you forgot what Jefferson said about revolution?
Number seven. You let your friend become what he is. And the fact that drugs are illegal lead him to more illegal activities? Maybe that wouldn't have happened if he could find a crowd to roll with that did drugs responsibly.
Number eight. When you see a sign that says "legalize it" read "decriminalize it" 'cause that's what we mean. It can be regulated and taxed just like everything else. Then we make money instead of spending it. :eek:

Oh, and the difference between alcohol and pot is this:
You ever heard of a stoner beating his wife 'cause dinner wasn't ready on time?
Personally, I'd trade in cigs and beer for weed.

Peace out,
B

[killr_b]

*snip*
Not really. Drug dealers will still be able to sell it cheaper than any government agency or FCC section company could.


Here in California we have prop 24, the legal use of marijuana for medical research.
A pound of weed on the street averages $3,600.
A pound of weed when the owner of the canabis club buys it for distribution to patients is $1,000.
You gotta remember that the big dealers at the top have to account for lost income on confiscated products.
The pot farmer I met said if he could sell it legally it would be about $500/ lbs. Some pay that for an ounce now, which is 16x the price. :eek:

[Earendil]

I love the point by point syste,, makes it a no brainer where I put the html quote boxes :D

Ok. Number one. Have you ever done any drugs?
You can definitely take reasonable doses of any illicit drug and get super farking faded.
OMG, and the reason you feel different is that they are all toxic and poisonous.
Hence the phrase, "pick your poison."

You admit to them being poison :rolleyes:
Yes, I have taken a few of them. If by "responsible" you mean nothing bad can come of it, than yes. However That wasn't what I said or my point. My point is that there are little to no benefits to body, mind, or society, and there is great potential harm to mind, body, and society.

Number two. We've know about the addictive nature of opiates since ancient China.

I stand by my statement that doctors were not aware that they were getting soldiers highly addicted to morphine.
And what exactly does this have to do with the counter point I was making with that statement?

Number three. Legal doesn't mean "for children." Nice leaping 'what if' there.

"legalize it" also doesn't mean "legalize it in certain conditions". Way to be nit-picky on english there :rolleyes:

Number four. Just because you haven't read about it doesn't mean it isn't true or possible. Just because someone in politics does it doesn't mean it's right. Your youth is showing…

I believe I was open to sources on the matter. And I never said it wasn't possible. However I'm also not going to change my mind because an anonymous user on a Mac forum told me to. That user is however allowed to back of his statement with something if he likes. You are showing you lack of discrimination in sources of information.

Number five. Have you seen the ranking of America in the world? We are behind the Dutch, who have extremely 'laxed drug laws, in every area but GNP.

Yeah, we're "behind" Columbia too. What is you point here?
"everyone else is doing it, so should we". Please, you're being a little clique in your arguments for drugs now :rolleyes:

Number six. So, you forgot what Jefferson said about revolution?

Yeah, and there are a few other things he said that I haven't memorized yet ;)
Care to enlighten us with your own memorization skills, or are you just going to ask a vague question?

Number seven. You let your friend become what he is. And the fact that drugs are illegal lead him to more illegal activities? Maybe that wouldn't have happened if he could find a crowd to roll with that did drugs responsibly.

Oh yeah, it's my fault. What a horribly crule, untrue, and irrelevant statement to the point at hand :mad:
You don't know what I tried to do for my friend, you don't know who he is, where he came from, or the other influences in life. But I'll tell you right now, his life didn't %^&*ing improve after starting cocaine.

And I'm pretty sure his other influences were not telling him that it was going to ruin his life and make recovering from his problems a lot harder. I'm sure they fed him a bunch of sweet lies and misplaced truths. People normally don't up and start taking poison on their own, the idea and misinformation is placed there by the "crowd they roll with".

Number eight. When you see a sign that says "legalize it" read "decriminalize it" 'cause that's what we mean. It can be regulated and taxed just like everything else. Then we make money instead of spending it. :eek:

Yes, this has been said, and I have responded to it.
There is already a system in place to sell drugs to anyone that has the money. The profit margin is not small. If we actually put every drug through the FCC and put regulations on it, you really think the drug dealers will go home? No, they can undercut any government pricing and still sell to whoever they want. So what they are doing is still illegal, right? You haven't done anything but add a more expensive alternate route to getting drugs promoted by our own government.

Oh, and the difference between alcohol and pot is this:
You ever heard of a stoner beating his wife 'cause dinner wasn't ready on time?
Personally, I'd trade in cigs and beer for weed.

Hey, so would I. And I'm quite aware of the difference between downers and uppers, and the effects of alcohol and its history.
I've also heard of(and seen) stoners doing some other pretty dumb sh*t. There are a couple rocks and flowers sitting at a 90° elbow just before an 800ft cliff. Just guess what happened.

Peace out,
B

Stay Cool,
~Tyler

[Earendil]

Here in California we have prop 24, the legal use of marijuana for medical research.
A pound of weed on the street averages $3,600.
A pound of weed when the owner of the canabis club buys it for distribution to patients is $1,000.
You gotta remember that the big dealers at the top have to account for lost income on confiscated products.
The pot farmer I met said if he could sell it legally it would be about $500/ lbs. Some pay that for an ounce now, which is 16x the price. :eek:

Right. But there is huge money and huge profit margins on the way things are done right now. Partly because they can due mostly to the addictive qualities of most of the drugs.

You really don't think the street price has a little room to drop?
Here is an example for you: You can get prescription medication online or from other countries cheaper than in the US.

[thewhitehart]

Actually yes, I have been shot at.
There is plenty of time to think.
But I guess you weren't in line to serve America, so you wouldn't know.

THERE IS EVEN MORE TIME TO WALK AROUND THE HOUSE AND CHECK IT OUT BEFORE BREAKING THE DOOR DOWN, BEFORE ANY SHOTS ARE FIRED.

[

At some point after diligent surveillance, entry will have to be gained to a premise, and at any point you should have to expect a possible exchange of gunfire. You're in the army, I suppose you should know this. I can't speak for the wisdom in their methodology, I wasn't there. I can only guess that they had to enter the premise at some point.

If you honestly think there is time to stop and think about firing when you can identify your shooter at point blank range, whether you're a cop or a civilian, you must be nuts.

My statement had nothing to do with who had the right to fire, the cops or the old woman. My statement was in criticism of your preposterous idea that the police had a moment to think about firing when they were being shot at by someone standing a few feet away. Who posting here besides you would deny that?