92 year old woman dies in Police shootout!

[Rob Lister]

If drugs were legal, this whole incident would not have happend.

*ducks and runs*

Hard to say. If drugs were legal then there would be no profit in selling it illegally. But other contraband does, and will always, exist. Would the person for whom the warrant was issued been involved in other illegal activity? My guess is probably.

Funny part is, since he wasn't even there, the absolute best can do now is charge him for whatever evidence the undercover cop had at an earlier time. I'm willing to bet they can't even charge him for whatever other drugs they found in the house.

It's not like the now-dead lady can testify against him.

 

[wahrheit]

Hard to say. If drugs were legal then there would be no profit in selling it illegally. But other contraband does, and will always, exist. Would the person for whom the warrant was issued been involved in other illegal activity? My guess is probably.

Funny part is, since he wasn't even there, the absolute best can do now is charge him for whatever evidence the undercover cop had at an earlier time. I'm willing to bet they can't even charge him for whatever other drugs they found in the house.

It's not like the now-dead lady can testify against him.

I know it's a bold thesis, and that's why I put it below mercutio's post teasing Claus, along with a smiley. But recently I was actually thinking about it. If drugs were legal, we wouldn't have all the criminality/crime-rate caused by drugs anymore. Would that be worse or better than the probable increase in the number of people killed by drugs? Not only in regards to the actual number of deaths, but also regarding economy (costs) and general peacefulness. (Hope that's the right expressions, I'm probably lacking vocabulary here to express what I mean.)

 

[fuelair]

Really?
I can't imagine any plausible scenarios at all of where it would be necessary for police to kill anyone 5 years old or younger, under any circumstances at all. Can you?

I truly hate to have to say this - but I can: Child rigged with explosive vest (not, obviously, by the child) approaching and not stopping when told to. Child holding real gun, clearly about to pull trigger with gun aimed at officer (even though child probably does not know gun is real) or any other non-criminal person. Unless the officer is armed with a accurate non-lethal (and many of those would kill child anyway) shooting may be only option. I was in Viet-nam and we were warned about those and other possible situations - with examples of their previous occurence.

 

[Checkmite]

Unless the officer is armed with a accurate non-lethal (and many of those would kill child anyway) shooting may be only option.

Just not a taser, for goodness' sake.

 

[Rob Lister]

I know it's a bold thesis, and that's why I put it below mercutio's post teasing Claus, along with a smiley. But recently I was actually thinking about it. If drugs were legal, we wouldn't have all the criminality/crime-rate caused by drugs anymore. Would that be worse or better than the probable increase in the number of people killed by drugs? Not only in regards to the actual number of deaths, but also regarding economy (costs) and general peacefulness. (Hope that's the right expressions, I'm probably lacking vocabulary here to express what I mean.)

Well, it's my [humble] opinion that the laws against drugs do far more harm than the drugs do, even in the absence of those laws against the drugs.

But my point was that some people choose to live in the shadows; the dark places where drugs now exist, are bought and sold. Drugs are but one means of existence in those places. get rid of them through legalization and another contraband will takes its place.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

There was no "mix-up". Drugs were bought from the home. Warrant issued. Police arrive with warrant. Police were not let in. Police bust open door. Suspect(s) open fire on police. Police return fire. Shooter dead. Drugs found. Unfortunate, but done by the book. BTW, if the drugs were painkillers, that is still illegal. Is dealing prescription oxycotin supposed to be better than dealing dope?

Seconded.

Tailgater stated my opinion quite nicely. If anyone was at fault for anything, it would be the people that told the cops to go there and serve the warrant.

 

[shecky]

There was no "mix-up". Drugs were bought from the home. Warrant issued. Police arrive with warrant. Police were not let in. Police bust open door. Suspect(s) open fire on police. Police return fire. Shooter dead. Drugs found. Unfortunate, but done by the book. BTW, if the drugs were painkillers, that is still illegal. Is dealing prescription oxycotin supposed to be better than dealing dope?

"No-knock" warrants are an invitation to cop deaths.

Dreher said undercover officers purchased unspecified narcotics from a man inside Johnston's home on Neal Street in northwest Atlanta just a few hours earlier and had returned just after 7 p.m. with a "no knock" warrant to search the house.
The basis for the search warrant was not known because State Court Administrator Stefani Searcy refused to release a copy of the warrant Wednesday. State law considers all such documents public record but Searcy cited "office policy" as her reason for withholding the warrant.

If someone busts in your door with little or no announcement, what are you to assume? Even if they had announced before entering, it's not completely out of left field that a 92 year old woman might not have understood what they said, or even heard at all.

Why are they even busting down doors to get a drug dealer, anyway? They had no idea who was inside, if there were any threats, or even if they had the right place at all. A little surveillance might have gone a long way.

No way around it. Cops really screwed up this one.

"No knock" warrants have caused trouble before. Just more evidence of the destructiveness of America's drug policy.

 

[Mephisto]

"No-knock" warrants are an invitation to cop deaths.



If someone busts in your door with little or no announcement, what are you to assume? Even if they had announced before entering, it's not completely out of left field that a 92 year old woman might not have understood what they said, or even heard at all.

Why are they even busting down doors to get a drug dealer, anyway? They had no idea who was inside, if there were any threats, or even if they had the right place at all. A little surveillance might have gone a long way.

No way around it. Cops really screwed up this one.

"No knock" warrants have caused trouble before. Just more evidence of the destructiveness of America's drug policy.

I agree completely. Most "announcements" regarding warrants served by law enforcement are made AS the door is being knocked open and there are usually five or six people shouting at once. I can't imagine anything more frightening (especially to a 92 year old woman) than armed, screaming men knocking down a front door. I think the lady was perfectly justified in shooting.

The police had the option of simply surrounding the home and using the telephone to contact the inhabitants. They could have used surveillance to catch the "dealer" (I'm assuming it may have been the woman's grandson or some other relative) OUTSIDE the home. They could have spoken to the neighbors just before the raid to see who else might live at the target address; it might have help clarify how many innocents could be in the home and they might EVEN have found out that the drug dealer wasn't home or that the owner of the home was armed.

Of course, ten men bursting into a home with HKs pointed is much more dramatic than a simple siege and is more likely to make the evening news, UNLESS the 92 year old home owner is scared enough to drop the first three people through the door before they finally kill her.

 

[Bikewer]

There have been some recent high-court decisions on "announcing" a search warrant entry. The situation remains rather confused, IMO.

In order to apply for a surprise or "no-knock" warrant, the police must show that the occupants may destroy evidence, or that other circumstances exist which justify such an entry.
On arrival, exigent circumstances may override the "announcement" part of the warrant if there is probable cause; such as imminent danger to a hostage or whatever.
In this case, we are not told what the warrant specified, what (other than drug activity) was supposed to be going on inside, or much else.
Was there evidence that the dealers were armed? Did the involved principals have past records of violent confrontations with police? All of these things are normally considered, and we haven't been told much about the specifics.

Police have entered the wrong home in the past, with tragic results for both officers and residents. The basis for the warrant has been faulty as well.
In one well-publicized case from years ago the ATF went into an Illinois residence on the basis that the fellow was dealing in illegal firearms. It was a no-knock entry with plainclothes agents (???). The resident, fearing a burglary, reached for a weapon and was shot and paralyzed.
Turned out that the fellow had a large collection of black-powder weapons, all of which he owned legally. No criminal activity was involved; just a nervous neighbor who had seen "lots of guns".
The fellow sued and won in federal court.

 

[Mephisto]

There have been some recent high-court decisions on "announcing" a search warrant entry. The situation remains rather confused, IMO.

In order to apply for a surprise or "no-knock" warrant, the police must show that the occupants may destroy evidence, or that other circumstances exist which justify such an entry.
On arrival, exigent circumstances may override the "announcement" part of the warrant if there is probable cause; such as imminent danger to a hostage or whatever.
In this case, we are not told what the warrant specified, what (other than drug activity) was supposed to be going on inside, or much else.
Was there evidence that the dealers were armed? Did the involved principals have past records of violent confrontations with police? All of these things are normally considered, and we haven't been told much about the specifics.

Police have entered the wrong home in the past, with tragic results for both officers and residents. The basis for the warrant has been faulty as well.
In one well-publicized case from years ago the ATF went into an Illinois residence on the basis that the fellow was dealing in illegal firearms. It was a no-knock entry with plainclothes agents (???). The resident, fearing a burglary, reached for a weapon and was shot and paralyzed.
Turned out that the fellow had a large collection of black-powder weapons, all of which he owned legally. No criminal activity was involved; just a nervous neighbor who had seen "lots of guns".
The fellow sued and won in federal court.

Thanks Bikewer, I was honestly hoping for some insight from you.

I certainly don't envy the job of law enforcement, especially when it comes to dealing with drugs and violent individuals, but the problems always seem to stem from lack of adequate intelligence. You're right about not knowing the particulars about the incident, and certainly no law enforcement officers need put their lives in any more danger than usual during an entry, but this particular incident might have gone better had it been handled differently.

I think it should be SOP, especially in bad neighborhoods, to consider that a homeowner might be armed (to protect themselves against the very people the police are trying to arrest), and there might be innocents involved. Piling through the front door may seem like a good idea, but only after tossing in a couple of flash-bangs and a five second wait.

 

[fuelair]

I think it should be SOP, especially in bad neighborhoods, to consider that a homeowner might be armed (to protect themselves against the very people the police are trying to arrest), and there might be innocents involved. Piling through the front door may seem like a good idea, but only after tossing in a couple of flash-bangs and a five second wait.

Actually, this might not always be true if the house is larger and well (by my standards) designed. If assaulted from any exterior door, I am too far away for a flash -bang to do more than wake me up - and in 5 seconds I will be ready to fire at anything coming through the door from any of three positions they cannot hit easily - and I will not be firing puny (yes, I know they can but.........) .40s or lower (lowest caliber I would/do consider in a weapon is .357 and I go for larger as in a bunch a .480 and sometimes a .44mag can get two in a crowd. I would not knowingly fire at police but I live in an area (that would be pretty much anywhere) where home invasions are possible - and at night I doubt I would be worried about the difference between a flash-bangand a shotgun blast.

 

[Darat]

I find it tragic that any of us have to live in places where it is felt necessary and understandable for a 92 year old to have a gun to protect herself.

 

[Modified]

In order to apply for a surprise or "no-knock" warrant, the police must show that the occupants may destroy evidence, or that other circumstances exist which justify such an entry.

Based on what I've seen on Cops, in a drug bust there is no difference between "knock" and "no-knock". They generally knock, wait one second, then bust down the door.

 

[Checkmite]

I agree completely. Most "announcements" regarding warrants served by law enforcement are made AS the door is being knocked open and there are usually five or six people shouting at once. I can't imagine anything more frightening (especially to a 92 year old woman) than armed, screaming men knocking down a front door. I think the lady was perfectly justified in shooting.

Seems hard for me to believe that a 92 year old woman "scared and caught by surprise" would've been able to dash to wherever a gun was kept and shoot the first three people through the door before the cops were able to see what she was doing and stop her, if it was all as sudden as you say. This woman was quite obviously collected, ready, and waiting before the door was opened - surely you must see that.

 

[Mephisto]

Seems hard for me to believe that a 92 year old woman "scared and caught by surprise" would've been able to dash to wherever a gun was kept and shoot the first three people through the door before the cops were able to see what she was doing and stop her, if it was all as sudden as you say. This woman was quite obviously collected, ready, and waiting before the door was opened - surely you must see that.

I hope you're being sarcastic. I just can't take the notion of a 92 year old woman protecting her stash by crouching in the doorway with a weapon seriously.

I can, however, take the notion of a 92 year old woman hearing the noises of men (and no doubt vehicles) gathering outside her home, becoming frightened, then grabbing a weapon. My grandmother lived in a gang-infested part of town for over 65 years (it got progressively worse up until her death in 1999) and as a result she slept like a soldier in combat. She also moved about her house (where she lived alone) in complete darkness because she knew that turning on lights could expose her. I KNOW that my grandmother would have been awake (and scared) had she heard a group of men whispering outside her front door no matter what the hour.

The idea that a 92 year old woman was a drug pusher guarding her merchandise would be comical if she weren't dead.

 

[Tailgater]

I don't know if you've ever watch the TV show Cops or not, but they don't knock on the door, wait for you to answer and show you the warrant. They break the door down and burst in. And these were plain clothes police. I'm pretty sure the UPS guy doesn't generally knock down your door. No matter what the police do and no matter how authoritarian our society becomes and no matter how much our rights to be left alone and live as we choose are trampled, there will be apologists. Prostitution is a crime also and at the time of 9/11 the FBI had twice as many people going after prostitution rings than investigating terrorism. At some point something like sanity has to prevail. The old "it's the law" routine - like the law in Georgia banning sex toys or the one in Alabama under which you can be executed for putting salt on railroad tracks.

Watch shows that show the buildup to the final confrontation. I find them more infomative to see what they are really dealing with. Maybe less action for a sound byte mentality though.

Home invasion teams are supposed to be in uniform. Plain clothes have to be damn clear they identify themselves as police, so people who don't shoot at police will not shoot them. Can you believe that some people shoot at police because they are police!

UPS always knocks on my door. I have to sign the little lightup clipboard.

I really hope you can find a place where you can live in your anarchist state so "the man" will not get you and make you fear being caught shooting up with your kids and sleeping with prostitutes. Compare the freedoms we have today to 100 years ago as society lets go of old hangups and see that the world evolves at a pace. Have you ever told a room full of children "it's free time"?

 

[Tailgater]

If the dealer was in the home and heard the police, had time to take the old woman hostage, and ended up shooting her, there would be a very different tune being sung.

 

[Tailgater]

I hope you're being sarcastic. I just can't take the notion of a 92 year old woman protecting her stash by crouching in the doorway with a weapon seriously.

I can, however, take the notion of a 92 year old woman hearing the noises of men (and no doubt vehicles) gathering outside her home, becoming frightened, then grabbing a weapon. My grandmother lived in a gang-infested part of town for over 65 years (it got progressively worse up until her death in 1999) and as a result she slept like a soldier in combat. She also moved about her house (where she lived alone) in complete darkness because she knew that turning on lights could expose her. I KNOW that my grandmother would have been awake (and scared) had she heard a group of men whispering outside her front door no matter what the hour.

The idea that a 92 year old woman was a drug pusher guarding her merchandise would be comical if she weren't dead.

Really? When I was in college there was an old couple (around 70's) that sold us pot (and occasionally a few other things). They lived just off campus on a farm and one of my roomies was a local that knew them. If I didn't see the old folks burning one firsthand, I would have thought they were my grandparents.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Just because she's old, that doesn't mean she's weak, helpless, or harmless. She's still a human.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I hope you're being sarcastic. I just can't take the notion of a 92 year old woman protecting her stash by crouching in the doorway with a weapon seriously..

When you are old enough to get out of the house you will see this and many, far stranger things

The "meth grandma" and "meth great grandma" thing leads to a great deal of armed to the hilt great grandmas around here.