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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Woman, 92, dies in shootout with police
- Thread starter Lyle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
poopyhead said:
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.
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.
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.
I don't. I feel for all parties involved equally.
They did. A drug dealer lived there.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
If you think this is controversial, check out what happened in Queens.
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.
killr_b said:
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.
Taken directly from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution
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
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
hm
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.
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.
Maybe, at 92, she was ready to die and thought she might as well take these scumb bags trying to rob her with her
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...
oh really, is that fact or YOUR speculation?
they made a mistake, or a number of them, while doing so
well, i don't question this, but perhaps be a bit more careful with other people's lives, even if they MIGHT be criminal
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)
i'll make sure to let you know that if this kind of misunderstanding happened to you.
Uh, no.
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?
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.
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.
Indeed. You should also make sure you know what you're shooting at.prograham said:
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?
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?
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.
why do novogenarians get special treatment? if some old woman shot at me i would pump her full of bullets.
You know, I don't think I ever agreed with you in a thread until now.
Spread the word of freedom. Don't let the fud scare you into submission.
FIGHT THE POLICE STATE OR LIVE IN FASCIST OPRESSION.
i stand corrected, however ive heard many times from notable professors the term novogenarian, which may have its roots elsewhere than the usa.
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
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
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
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
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
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.