92 year old woman dies in Police shootout!

[fuelair]

New news (for me) on NPR tonight - A)age disagreement (maybe 88), B)tip was a snitch not police observed and snitch claims now police got him to say it after raid went wrong, C)she got all three of the three involved cops. If B is true (all involved and alive being investigated by state and FBI), things should and do change.

 

[King of the Americas]

This whole story is trippy...

I have to give kudoes to the now deceased woman. She 'hit' all three intruders, before secumming to their gun fire. I don't know if she was armed with an automatic or a revolver, but three hits on moving targets, under that circumstance is quite remarkable...

I lived in a 'bad part of town' before, and I had 3 hand guns stragetically placed shere I could use them in a hurry, if neccessary. However, I almost doubt my ability to get that gun and have it ready to target against a 'no-knock' warrent being served.

I had 2 guys knock on my door one night (around 11:30 pm). They asked to come in and use my phone because their car broke down, just down the street. Upon hearing a couple of guys walking up to my unlite house, at that time in the evening, I grabbed my firearm before answering the door. I responded to the request, by clicking back my hammer and saying, "I think you guys should try the convience store a few blocks down." I never opened the door all the way, and I had my wheelchair placed so that entry would have been very difficult for them. Although I never brandished my weapon, I made it known that I WAS armed and ready to fire.

The two men returned from whence they came, and did not head toward the convience store I pointed them toward. In retrospect, I seriously doubt they only wanted to make a call... Had police showed up to serve a 'no-knock' warrant after that inncodent, they'd have been met with a wall of hot lead headed right for center masses.

This woman is dead, but I can't fault her.

I think warrants NEED to be served by officers in UNIFORMS, who make their intention ABSOLUTELY clear. Being worried about 'desruction of evidence' is a poor excuse for putting officer's lives in harm's way.

I think others have said it much better. There were several times this situation could have gone much better, and I think the blaim here lies solely with law enforcement and the judiciary who issued said 'no-knock' warrant...

Bust in MY door, in plain clothes, and I think you'd see a repeat situation of what happened...

I live in Texas, deep in the heart of gun country. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have some kind of firearm, and while I am not as armed as was previously, when I lived in that bad part of town, I think busting in MY door would be a bad idea.

*I think the Drug War is a losing fight, and that it only serves to make drug dealers rich, put cops in harms way, and put non-criminals in jail space that should be used by rapists, murders, thieves, and burglers. Prohibition did not work yesterday, it isn't working now, and it won't work tomorrow.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

If they have a gun and are trying to shoot someone why does their age matter?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So the way to deal with things is to turn any situation into a stand off and give them as much time as they need to destroy evidence that they have there?

 

[Mephisto]

So the way to deal with things is to turn any situation into a stand off and give them as much time as they need to destroy evidence that they have there?

Of course not! They should toss a frag into each window before they enter with guns blazing. Everyone knows that the police never have faulty intelligence and they would NEVER hurt an innocent old lady.

I heard on CNN this morning (I've tried to find a link, but couldn't) that the informant who provided the intelligence denies ever pointing out the house to police. They also mentioned that the "intelligence" said the home was easily noticed as it was covered by closed-circuit security cameras (police have since refused to comment on whether security cameras were found in the home).

Why is it necessary for police officers to dress like commandos to serve a warrant.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course not! They should toss a frag into each window before they enter with guns blazing. Everyone knows that the police never have faulty intelligence and they would NEVER hurt an innocent old lady.

I would really have thought you would vastly prefer disarming police and painting big target signs on them, see how many criminals can score a bullseye.

I heard on CNN this morning (I've tried to find a link, but couldn't) that the informant who provided the intelligence denies ever pointing out the house to police. They also mentioned that the "intelligence" said the home was easily noticed as it was covered by closed-circuit security cameras (police have since refused to comment on whether security cameras were found in the home).

Why is it necessary for police officers to dress like commandos to serve a warrant.

And where the police who got the search warrent the ones who exicuted it? If they where not then those officers did nothing wrong. They entered as dirrected by their search warrent and returned fire when being shot at by someone.

 

[Mephisto]

I would really have thought you would vastly prefer disarming police and painting big target signs on them, see how many criminals can score a bullseye.


And where the police who got the search warrent the ones who exicuted it? If they where not then those officers did nothing wrong. They entered as dirrected by their search warrent and returned fire when being shot at by someone.

Why would you think that? I'm a law-abiding citizen, I appreciate the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make every day on our behalf, I bemoan the fact that they get paid so little and get so little respect for their efforts and I believe that an honest and efficient police force is necessary in any democracy. There IS a difference between a liberal and a criminal you know.

I don't know whether or not the officers who procured the search warrant were the ones who raided the home, but that sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? It would certainly but the crux of the blame on those responsible when something like this goes wrong.

If you've pestered a judge into giving you a "no-knock" warrant, it might behoove you to ensure that:

A. All communications with informants is available for key officers to review,

B. All pertinent information is double-checked (including addresses, key suspects, what they're looking for, the likelihood that weapons will be involved, number of people in the building, criminal records of the suspects, etc.),

C. The informant is "on-hand" to confirm the "particulars" of the warrant as it's being served,

D. all officers wear helmet cams (they do it in reality shows), and

E. no-knock warrants shouldn't be served without an initial period of surveillance (of at least 24 hours) - there is always the chance that the key (most violent) suspects might be caught unawares away from friends and weapons.

OR, we could just label them terrorist suspects beforehand, wiretap their phones, kick down their door and drag them to Guantanamo. We could claim their drug business was how they financed their terrorist business.

Hey, that could work for parking tickets too. Just think, we could bust into anyone's home (after the obligatory "ties to terrorism", of course) just to see what they had in there. Most cities would go along with it because we'd let them collect for parking tickets, city utilities, library fees and the like. It'd be a great time to round up some guns too. Anyone that shoots at us eventually gets killed, the rest get taken to a secret camp in Detroit.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why would you think that? I'm a law-abiding citizen, I appreciate the sacrifices that law enforcement officers make every day on our behalf,

You seem to wish they would make alot more of them though.

I bemoan the fact that they get paid so little and get so little respect for their efforts and I believe that an honest and efficient police force is necessary in any democracy. There IS a difference between a liberal and a criminal you know.

And there is a difference between someone who recognises that police need to occasionaly shoot people, and the stance you repeatedly seem to take. You seem to want the police to back down as often as possible and premit poeple to do as much violence to them as possible.

And what does liberal have to do with it, I generaly concider myself a liberal, I just don't see what that has to do with wanting the police to let criminals do what they want.

I don't know whether or not the officers who procured the search warrant were the ones who raided the home, but that sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? It would certainly but the crux of the blame on those responsible when something like this goes wrong.

No it doesn't. The people you want going in there is swat and that takes alot of training and practice to attain and keep those skills. While they might well be only on SWAT part time, it means they exicute others search warrents in exactly this kind of situation, because they are the specialists in doing so.

It actualy makes more sense to have different people exicuting the search warrent than who obtained it because it permits more specialization, you have the people who specialize in getting information about places selling drugs and people specializing in going into potentialy hostile situations.

 

[glsunder]

B)tip was a snitch not police observed and snitch claims now police got him to say it after raid went wrong

If the "snitch" was a paid informant and they were wrong, then the corrupt system killed that woman.

 

[luchog]

It actualy makes more sense to have different people exicuting the search warrent than who obtained it because it permits more specialization, you have the people who specialize in getting information about places selling drugs and people specializing in going into potentialy hostile situations.

But it does greatly increase the chance of miscommunication and mistake. It makes far more sense to have the information gatherers partnered with SWAT in an advisory/confirmation role during the search/arrest process.

 

[Mephisto]

And there is a difference between someone who recognises that police need to occasionaly shoot people, and the stance you repeatedly seem to take. You seem to want the police to back down as often as possible and premit poeple to do as much violence to them as possible.

Oh, I definitely recognize the necessity of police to occasionally shoot someone, I just don't think they should kill someone who is protecting themselves or their home from a group of armed men who have mistakenly raided the wrong house.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the police should do EVERYTHING in their power to ensure that someone (yes, even a suspect) isn't unnecessarily shot. I don't think I'm asking too much of police officers when I say I want them to do their jobs to the absolute best of their ability.

And what does liberal have to do with it, I generaly concider myself a liberal, I just don't see what that has to do with wanting the police to let criminals do what they want.

Who believes that criminals should do what they want? I've never asserted that, nor do I believe that's in keeping with the law. Don't forget, this woman was allegedly armed BECAUSE of criminals in her neighborhood "doing what they want."

No it doesn't. The people you want going in there is swat and that takes alot of training and practice to attain and keep those skills. While they might well be only on SWAT part time, it means they exicute others search warrents in exactly this kind of situation, because they are the specialists in doing so.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant that the officers procuring the "no-knock" search warrant should be present when the warrant is served. I certainly wouldn't want to explain to a pissed-off SWAT commander why his men had to shoot a little old lady. Surveillance and recon go a long way toward building an effective raid of any type and I think that both would be employed BEFORE issuing a no-knock warrant.

It actualy makes more sense to have different people exicuting the search warrent than who obtained it because it permits more specialization, you have the people who specialize in getting information about places selling drugs and people specializing in going into potentialy hostile situations.

Okay, I'll agree with you there, but here's something to consider; maybe it's the "specialization" that is partially responsible for modern crime. Too many people specializing in too many different things may seem cost-effective, but I can't help but wonder what effect a beat cop (actually several ) would have on "bad" neighborhoods? Open hostilities would open the flood gate for the "specialists," so they would at least be as safe as any policeman. A beat cop in a bad neighborhood would also be an excellent source of information too regarding who is the neighborhood is actually criminal.

Just a thought.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If the "snitch" was a paid informant and they were wrong, then the corrupt system killed that woman.

Error=Corruption?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But it does greatly increase the chance of miscommunication and mistake. It makes far more sense to have the information gatherers partnered with SWAT in an advisory/confirmation role during the search/arrest process.

So SWAT should only be advisors? You do not have them as the entry team but normal police officers with basic training?

This will result in more deaths of police officers to start with. But that does seem to be what many people want.

What you are talking about is exactly what swat was developed as a responce to. And that was to create professionals at entering into potentialy violent situations with in the police department

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, I definitely recognize the necessity of police to occasionally shoot someone, I just don't think they should kill someone who is protecting themselves or their home from a group of armed men who have mistakenly raided the wrong house.

Got it, entry teams have no right to defend themselves. They should ask politely and if told to go away do so.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the police should do EVERYTHING in their power to ensure that someone (yes, even a suspect) isn't unnecessarily shot. I don't think I'm asking too much of police officers when I say I want them to do their jobs to the absolute best of their ability.

Including getting shot more themselves I see. That was the problem of the individuals here, they had a problem with being shot, if you mind being shot don't become a police officer.

Who believes that criminals should do what they want?

You are not interested in preventing them.

I've never asserted that, nor do I believe that's in keeping with the law. Don't forget, this woman was allegedly armed BECAUSE of criminals in her neighborhood "doing what they want."

And shooting when people are coming through the door, can cause all kinds of problems.

I think you misunderstood me, I meant that the officers procuring the "no-knock" search warrant should be present when the warrant is served. I certainly wouldn't want to explain to a pissed-off SWAT commander why his men had to shoot a little old lady. Surveillance and recon go a long way toward building an effective raid of any type and I think that both would be employed BEFORE issuing a no-knock warrant.

Take that up with the Judge. Of course when actually searching anyones place you must give them a minimum of 5 minutes to destroy evidence before you do anything about it.

Okay, I'll agree with you there, but here's something to consider; maybe it's the "specialization" that is partially responsible for modern crime. Too many people specializing in too many different things may seem cost-effective, but I can't help but wonder what effect a beat cop (actually several ) would have on "bad" neighborhoods? Open hostilities would open the flood gate for the "specialists," so they would at least be as safe as any policeman. A beat cop in a bad neighborhood would also be an excellent source of information too regarding who is the neighborhood is actually criminal.

Just a thought.

That might help, but that is not the issue here. It is like with Eleon Gonzalez, they went in with swat because their policy is to do that when ever resistance is expected and the family made a point that they where going to resist if a social worker came to pick him up. So they called in the professionals in dealing with cases where there is a real chance of violence happening. Sending in beat cops is going to get more people on both sides killed.

 

[kalen]

The facts of the case will come out eventually.

Not likely. It's the word of the police against the word of a dead woman.

 

[mgidm86]

Agreed, we'll never know. Few things that haven't been mentioned though...

The police say the officers were plainclothes, but were wearing bullet proof vests that were clearly marked "POLICE". I don't know whether or not the word was on the front as well as on the back.

They claim they made an announcement before breaching the home. Obviously nobody can claim otherwise. No witnesses as of yet. And to whoever claimed that police never make an announcement before breaching a home on the TV show COPS, keep watching. They do indeed make announcements...not sure how often but definitely more than never. Also keep in mind they may only show the more exciting clips.

Also, she was obviously waiting for them. She knew they were there (cops or otherwise) so they either announced their intent, or she saw the cars gathered outside. In either case she was not caught off guard.

Key point:
Was it dark inside? Could she have only seen shadows of men and not the vests? Or were her lights on inside? If it was dark then I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. But if her entryway was lit, I would think she would have recognized them as cops, at least after the first few shots.

Then again, they could have been crammed in a tight entry hall like fish in a barrel and she may have just pointed, closed her eyes and started squeezing off rounds.

My thoughts (based on little evidence):
I believe that if the police did indeed have the right address that the woman knew who they were and knowingly shot at police officers. But we don't know enough. Perhaps her son is the drug dealer and she was protecting him from the evil cops? As stated earlier, there are drug dealing grannies.

All we can do is guess as to what happened. My opinion so far is that I don't buy the "I'll shoot whatever comes through my door cause I'm in a bad neighborhood" thing. I think she knew what she was doing and was ready for them. Not much surprises me these days.

If mistakes were made it was not by the officers on the scene.

Furthermore, I don't believe the police should have the authority to break down someones door simply because they have purchased drugs there. I'm assuming that that is the only offense (who knows, maybe there are extenuating circumstances). Sending in SWAT over a routine drug deal sounds extremely, uh...extreme. Again that would depend on other circumstances...like how much drugs were sold.

I mean, should I expect a home invasion if someone sees me take a bonghit through my front window? Something tells me we're missing a lot of this story...at least I hope so.

edited: spelling

 

[gnomon]

This is an interesting case that requires outside investigation. The news here in Atlanta so far is that the police initially lied. The first reports from the police stated that an undercover agent made a purchase inside the house. Then they stated that it was not an undercover agent but a "reliable" confidential informant. That informant has since stated to internal affairs that he was never in the house and was asked to lie for the police officers.

Another bit of misinformation was news that the police had found narcotics inside the house. Chief Pennington has stated that narcotics were not found but rather a small amount of marijuana. And for those who know, including the ONDCP, marijuana is not a narcotic.

Documents were also released which show exemplary records for the police officers involved yet do not mention one of the police officers being involved in a traffic accident four years prior in which evidence was fabricated and eventually resulted in nearly a half million dollar lawsuit being settled by the city due to the actions of this officer.

So far, the initial story has turned completely sour and now federal investigators are involved while the police are on leave. This is not unprecedented. In Columbus, Georgia a few years ago a police officer was fired after shooting a suspect twice in the back of the head while he was down on the ground. He was fired primarily for not following proper procedure but in that case police initially lied about the situation. Even the dashboard camera of the police cruiser was withheld for about a year which showed the police in error.

As far as drug raids there are many that have gone bad and resulted in innocent people being killed. In all of these cases reason takes a backseat and people usually fall into two camps. One demonizing all police officers and others who believe law enforcement can never go wrong. The real debate lies in the wisdom of these tactics and their actual constitutional validity.

This case will most likely drag on for a year, the officers will be back on the job regardless of the outcome for or against them and the news media will go hunting after the next untalented celebrity who shows their naughty bits.

Last, in the Atlanta case, investigators are looking into whether or not all the police officers were actually shot by the woman or if two of them were hit by "friendly fire".

 

[ponderingturtle]

Furthermore, I don't believe the police should have the authority to break down someones door simply because they have purchased drugs there. I'm assuming that that is the only offense (who knows, maybe there are extenuating circumstances). Sending in SWAT over a routine drug deal sounds extremely, uh...extreme. Again that would depend on other circumstances...like how much drugs were sold.

SWAT going into drug houses is very common. Arresting someone on a corner no, but arresting someone likely to be armed with an unknown number of others who might be armed there as well is what SWAT is for.

If it was a say a crack house and definitively a crack house and the woman was say 40 no one would say a thing. It is the age of the individual and that they did not find all that much in the way of drugs that makes this noteable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is an interesting case that requires outside investigation. The news here in Atlanta so far is that the police initially lied. The first reports from the police stated that an undercover agent made a purchase inside the house. Then they stated that it was not an undercover agent but a "reliable" confidential informant. That informant has since stated to internal affairs that he was never in the house and was asked to lie for the police officers.

Another bit of misinformation was news that the police had found narcotics inside the house. Chief Pennington has stated that narcotics were not found but rather a small amount of marijuana. And for those who know, including the ONDCP, marijuana is not a narcotic.

Documents were also released which show exemplary records for the police officers involved yet do not mention one of the police officers being involved in a traffic accident four years prior in which evidence was fabricated and eventually resulted in nearly a half million dollar lawsuit being settled by the city due to the actions of this officer.

So far, the initial story has turned completely sour and now federal investigators are involved while the police are on leave. This is not unprecedented. In Columbus, Georgia a few years ago a police officer was fired after shooting a suspect twice in the back of the head while he was down on the ground. He was fired primarily for not following proper procedure but in that case police initially lied about the situation. Even the dashboard camera of the police cruiser was withheld for about a year which showed the police in error.

As far as drug raids there are many that have gone bad and resulted in innocent people being killed. In all of these cases reason takes a backseat and people usually fall into two camps. One demonizing all police officers and others who believe law enforcement can never go wrong. The real debate lies in the wisdom of these tactics and their actual constitutional validity.

This case will most likely drag on for a year, the officers will be back on the job regardless of the outcome for or against them and the news media will go hunting after the next untalented celebrity who shows their naughty bits.

Last, in the Atlanta case, investigators are looking into whether or not all the police officers were actually shot by the woman or if two of them were hit by "friendly fire".

Welcome to the forum, and you raise good points.

I have not been trying to argue that the police did act apropraitely just that the arguements people are useing against them from the public available information are often bad.

For example waiting a significant time before going in after anouncing your presense will get many more officers killed as well as suspects becuase it will give those inside more time to prepare resistance to them. It will also give them time to destroy evidence, which is a major reason the police are there in the first place.

There are good reasons why the entry officers might have had nothing to do with the gathering of information in the case, but I have not heard anything about that either way.

 

[gnomon]

Welcome to the forum, and you raise good points.

I have not been trying to argue that the police did act apropraitely just that the arguements people are useing against them from the public available information are often bad.

For example waiting a significant time before going in after anouncing your presense will get many more officers killed as well as suspects becuase it will give those inside more time to prepare resistance to them. It will also give them time to destroy evidence, which is a major reason the police are there in the first place.

There are good reasons why the entry officers might have had nothing to do with the gathering of information in the case, but I have not heard anything about that either way.

The bigger issue is the use of SWAT teams or their tactics in serving warrants involving drugs, gambling, child pornography or any other crime which does not involve a barricaded suspect or the possibility of harm to a victim.

The Atlanta case will require more investigation. It's quite possible the woman, being 88 years old, was asleep at the time and only hear the sound of burglar bars being pried off the front door. The issue of when the officers announced themselves is also important. I have always felt that announcing police after violently removing a barrier and then entering the building is unacceptable. Many Americans are quite willing to shoot someone coming through their front door in a violent manner and the law supports such sentiments in most localities.

I alse have yet to find any barrier to police arresting suspects outside of their home and not being able to obtain a warrant to search the home. The raids are used to essentially enter an unknown location based on an informant's tip. In this instance in Atlanta, we have based on the statements of police basically no investigation before a no-knock warrant was executed on this home. Considering prior obfuscation by the officers I don't have any reason to believe that they executed a knock and announce raid rather than a no-knock as they claimed.

But as I've said. The case isn't too old yet and there is much to investigate. After the Donald Scott case fifteen years ago with its outcome and many more since that time I've become extraordinarily critical of drug raids. My personal opinion is that they do far more harm to society than any good. But I place the blame not on police officers but on legislators.