Cops in Atlanta Shouted that They Were Police and Wore Vests Labeled “Police”
More news on Kathryn Johnston, the 92-year-old woman who opened fire on cops serving a search warrant on her house in Atlanta, and died from wounds caused by return fire from the police. Turns out that, although the police weren’t in uniform, they say that they were still clearly identifiable as police:
[Assistant Chief Alan] Dreher said Johnston should have recognized the men as officers even though they were not wearing uniforms. He said all three wore bulletproof vests that had the word “Police” across the front and back. He said they shouted they were police as they burst through the door.
I’m still trading messages with a use of force expert who is going to discuss the police tactics with me. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Since we now know that police lied to get in the house, as I disclosed in this post, I can’t trust what they say about this incident at all.
“He said they shouted they were police as they burst through the door.”
Note to self, if ever breaking into someone’s home, shout police as you burst through the door and wear a bulletproof vest with the word “Police” across the front and back.
With luck, you can get the police department to cover for you for a couple of days while they check to make sure whether there is any chance of some officers going into the wrong house (because you never know).
If you’re even luckier, you can get the blogosphere to cover for you as well.
Jaybird (f420c4) — 11/24/2006 @ 4:49 pmwhile wearing ‘police’ on your vests and shouting police as you bust through the door, let me put it this way. If it’s MY door that’s being broken through, I’m not going to care what it is you’re shouting. I’m going to pump as many pieces of lead at you til you stop or drop, cop or no cop.
dksuddeth (ac44fb) — 11/24/2006 @ 5:02 pmI simply can’t take the chance that you’re not the police and put my family at risk.
Isn’t it right that bursting through the door is rather a loud activity? Also it seems it should be pretty movement intensive. Will the average 92 year old woman have time to read these things? Again, isn’t the whole point of these no-knock raids to be disorienting and too quick for the suspects to react by destroying evidence. How can it also then be expected everyone will understand perfectly that this is a police raid, especially 92 year old women?
Given how things worked out, is there anyone that denies that a simple knock on the door by uniformed officers would have been the better choice here, at least in hindsight? I said it in the last thread about this case and I repeat it here. The U.S. can not have both a policy that gun owners can defend themselves in their home against forcible break-ins and that the police can forcibly break-in with only a yell of ID as they are breaking through the door, often while the suspect is asleep. Well, I guess we can since we do, but it does seem like it will have the downside of maximizing the number of 92 year old and other age innocent people shot (or police shot by them).
Counterfactual (e910b9) — 11/24/2006 @ 5:03 pmExcellant idea! We can save money by not buying badges and photo ID cards; sweatshirts, guns, and shouting will suffice.
htom (412a17) — 11/24/2006 @ 5:03 pmDoom Is Nigh – for “Movement Libertarianism”…
Daniel Weintraub, in his excellent Bee-blog California Insider, published a brief little post about the 92 year old woman who was shot by Atlanta police after she opened fire on them when they attempted to execute a search warrant. This……
Big Lizards (5ca406) — 11/24/2006 @ 5:12 pmThe AJC article does raise several questions in the reader’s mind.
The AJC article reiterated the claim, attributed to nobody except possibly the reporter, that disclosure of the warrant’s “sworn statement”, presumably an officer’s affidavit, was a “public records subject to immediate disclosure under Georgia law”:
Would the AJC make such a claim without advice of counsel? To make a false claim about such an easily checkable fact would discredit the newspaper’s credibility badly. Does the court administrator’s statement deny the AJC’s assertion about the law?
I also wonder why the police refuse to say what drugs were found, or where. A lab test is not required to determine where any suspected drugs were found:
Usually police like to disclose their successes in drug raids, at least in most newspaper accounts I’ve read over the years. If they found some significant quantity in the house why would they not even say where they found the suspected drugs in this case?
Another odd point is the AJC’s report that neighborhood residents claim never to have seen a person matching the police description of the suspect. Is it unreasonable to presume this is the person the police say sold the drugs, from which the warrant and raid arose?
Should citizens not even ask these questions until the police investigate and determine the facts?
Occasional Reader (2f631d) — 11/24/2006 @ 5:20 pmDKSudduth you are a moron!!!!
Why are you concerned with such trivialities like protecting your family? Don’t you know that prosecutors like Patterico have evidence to preserve?
JagBag (329cc6) — 11/24/2006 @ 5:47 pmCertainly she deserved to die if the three people who broke her door down with guns drawn had the word police on the front of their vests.
More and more it becomes obvious that a dangerous woman who needed killing has been taken off the streets, and that the brave officers wounded in battle with this menace have saved untold civilian lives.
Harkonnendog (91c575) — 11/24/2006 @ 5:50 pmBeing from the greater Atlanta area, I’ve heard various news reports on this story. It was originally reported that the three officers had the wrong address, and were in plain clothes. Much later in the day it was reported that they were wearing bullet proof vests with “police” written on the front and back of vests, further more, there was a marked police car parked outside. The house had bars on the doors and windows, which slowed the cops a few minutes from breaking in. Its been reported that the cops had the correct house as they made a drug purchase at that house earlier in the day. Later, the news said they were testing suspected drugs, which later was reported to be illegal narcotics. The facts seem to be hard for a lot of people to accept, but regardless, the cops were fired upon, the cops were shot, and the cops returned fire as they should have. While I believe it is tragic that the 92 year old woman was shot and killed. I see nothing wrong with what the cops did, regardless if the “drugs” they found are illegal or not. To those of you who say that she deserved to die because the police officers wore vests that said “police” on them, or try and trivialize the encounter, grow a brain. They are cops, on a drug raid, with a valid warrant. I doubt the 92 year old lady looked outside to see the squad car, or had enough light to see “police” written across their chests.
G (51a1fd) — 11/24/2006 @ 6:15 pmIts simply a horrible situation to think about. I can believe the woman was in fear of her life, and did not know they were cops. I feel that the people responsible for this are the person selling drugs from her home, her niece, for buying her that house in a horrible part of town and not putting her in a more suitable place, wherever that may have been (and going with her to get a gun, as it has been reported). Anyway, its a sad situation, lets try and talk about it seriously.
Oh, and I think its pretty safe to say that if the cops had entered your home with a valid search warrant, bullet proof vests with “police” written on them, before you decide to pump them full of lead, you’d probably wish to see a badge, or perhaps, look outside to see an official marked vehicle. Usually criminals do not enter in the front of a house…
G (51a1fd) — 11/24/2006 @ 6:21 pmWell said G. This is horrible. I too can’t blame the cops involved from what is now known. However, when policies allow this to happen all too often, it’s time to change the policies.
As far as the statements that all the cops were yelling “Police” as they kicked in the door, maybe if only one yelled it the people inside might understand it. When you have at least three people yelling, the odds of them being intelligible are slight.
This yelling seems to be offered as a defense of police procedures. It should be another condemnation thereof.
johnny (4033d8) — 11/24/2006 @ 6:25 pmAs I said, ‘BREAKING DOWN THE DOOR’ is not knocking and asking to come in. If a cop is breaking down my door to raid with a warrant, I doubt very seriously that he’s going to stop and show me his badge. I’m also not going to run to the window in the hopes that I’ll see a marked police unit. There is no time for that.
You should read some home invasion news more often.
DKSuddeth (644921) — 11/24/2006 @ 6:28 pmAll I’m saying is that it took the cops several minutes to enter the door. I don’t expect the police to knock on the door, asking to come inside in a part of town that is known to be dangerous. The real question is if the woman knew drug dealing was happening in her home or not. And yes, if a cop is asked for his badge, he will show it. A better scenario then shooting at them. Again, it took the cops minutes to enter the home, which is plenty of time to do something such as sit and wait for them to get inside, say dial 911, or look outside the window. I would say the police could have done things differently. Do you think they just came in and started shooting without being shot at? Perhaps I should read some home invasion news more often, though all the stories I’ve heard, they usually enter in a side window or door, and then unlock the front door. On Tuesday night I saw people driving in a small U’haul truck around in my neighborhood, perhaps I over-reacted when I called 911, but it isn’t often I see people move at midnight, and even less often that I see a Uhaul truck enter into a neighborhood, and promptly leave when there are other people outside near the house they may have wanted to rob.
G (51a1fd) — 11/24/2006 @ 6:54 pmHmmmm.
Lovely.
Yet another instance where a blog Insta-Expert sticks his two cents in without either research, experience or knowledge as a basis.
Well the interesting thing about this is:
A. There’s nobody alive who can dispute the allegations about drug sales.
B. There’s nobody alive who can dispute that the drugs were found in the home after all.
C. There are far too many instances of drugs planted on suspects. As an example here in New Jersey one of the most highly decorated NJ State Trooper was arrested and removed from the force because he was **caught** planting little bags of cocaine on people he intended to arrest on drug charges. And they think he’d done it for more than a decade.
So, personally, I’m not that quick to believe police when they declare they’ve found drugs, which evidently automatically negates any and all rash actions, when there’s someone dead and there’s a sudden need for cops to cover their ass.
ed (ec36cc) — 11/24/2006 @ 7:01 pmHmmm.
And do you know this for a fact? Can you provide a link?
Or are you making assumptions?
Because the police have a wide array of devices to knock open highly secured doors that doesn’t take “several minutes” to open a secured door.
ed (ec36cc) — 11/24/2006 @ 7:05 pmwhether it took 30 seconds or 2 minutes to get through a barred doorway is irrelevant. We’re talking about a 92 year old woman who knows only one thing and that is that several men are yelling something while trying to force their way in to her home, a home in a very bad, crime ridden section of town. She fired her gun, the police shot back. A tragedy all around, but nobody wants to deal with the reality of that issue.
DKSuddeth (644921) — 11/24/2006 @ 7:22 pmExcuse me, last I checked I never claimed to be an expert of any sort. However, the reports I listened to on the radio had said several times that it took them time to pry multiple bars off the door before they could get it open. Anyway, it does not matter if illegal drugs are found at the scene or not. The police had a valid search warrant for that address and were fired upon. The woman’s death is tragic, but I fail to see any error in the actions of the police. If only people would be so upset and concerned when a criminal shoots and kills a policeman then say somebody who fires onto the police and gets killed.
G (51a1fd) — 11/24/2006 @ 7:33 pmA. There’s nobody alive who can dispute the allegations about drug sales.
I believe his street name is “Sam.” I’m sure you’ve at least read the articles on this subject.
G (51a1fd) — 11/24/2006 @ 7:35 pmIt doesn’t sound like Ms. Johnston had been trained in the use of a firearm. Regardless of your views on drug laws and no-knock raids, I’m curious about the people who are defending Ms. Johnston’s use of a gun to shoot the police in this case. Do any of you own a gun and, if so, have you had training in the proper use of a firearm?
G – Has there been anything in the Atlanta news indicating whether she had been trained or certified? Those here who laud Mrs. Johnston’s response (Hey, she hit 3 of them!) don’t seem to realize that indiscriminate shooting is rarely an effective method of self-defense, even if you are fortunate enough to hit someone.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/24/2006 @ 7:53 pmDRJ, #19:
If you get to be 92 years old you might have learned some things. Like shooting a gun. Possibly even to protect yourself against Klansmen who kicked your door down in the middle of the night for doing such illegal things as registering to vote or “sassing” a white peson. If you’re a black girl growing up in
nk (5e5670) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:10 pmRedneckstateGeorgia.Ummm… to those of you who think that just because somebody where’s a jacket with “Police” printed on it yelling “Cop” and beating down your door is always actually a cop, you might want to do some research. There are tons of incidents where homes have been invaded by crimminals using this ploy.
Fake cops storm into Penn Hills house
By Tony LaRussa
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Rodger Macek thought something was wrong with the wood-burning stove in the basement of his Penn Hills home when he heard a loud bang about 5:30 a.m. Monday.
NickCharles (0591d5) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:13 pmYet when the Beechford Road man came downstairs to investigate, he was met by four armed men dressed in dark clothing. Two of the men wore jackets with the word “police” in large letters across the front.
NK,
Is your point that age obviates the need for gun training? Or are you saying that people who have been the victims of discrimination don’t need gun training?
DRJ (0df497) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:15 pm“Those here who laud Mrs. Johnston’s response (Hey, she hit 3 of them!) don’t seem to realize that indiscriminate shooting is rarely an effective method of self-defense, even if you are fortunate enough to hit someone.”
She shot five times and she wounded three. They shot ninety-two times to kill one. I put it in a poem if anybody cares. This is mythical. This lady is a hero however you want to slice it. The cops who killed her are dwarves.
nk (5e5670) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:17 pmhold it right there. major media has reported that the officers were in plainclothes…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/national/main2205048.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2205048
and assistant atlanta police chief alan dreher is quoted in this article, the officers “knocked and announced” before they forced open the door.
so which is it? were they plainclothes, as has been reported, or tricked out in police vests, which may be a lie? did they knock and announce before entering, or “shouted they were police as they burst through the door” as asst. chief dreher is quoted once again in patterico’s post?
i live out in the country. i’m a gun owner. i’m used to peace and quiet out here and i can be just a little excitable upon surprise provocation. i will surrender to officers of the state if they present themselves outside in a peaceful, orderly fashion. bursting through my front door is not a good idea for anybody, particularly at night, oh no no.
assistant devil's advocate (35054b) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:18 pmi just wish the 92 year old atlanta martyr was a better shot.
DRJ, #22:
We crossposted. I meant that by age 92, with need to defend yourself, you might know how to use a gun like you know how to use a serving spoon at dinner.
nk (5e5670) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:19 pmada, #24:
You said you wished Kathryn Johnston were a better shot. I don’t know that anybody could be. She did real good as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know anyone that can shoot better. Certainly the cops who killed her could not. She shot five times and wounded three. They shot as many years as she had lived to kill one. And it’s good that she did not stain her soul with manslaughter. Read my poem.
nk (5e5670) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:32 pm@nk:
assistant devil's advocate (35054b) — 11/24/2006 @ 8:57 pmok, three out of five rounds hitting **anything** at age 92 is pretty good. i wish she had a machine gun with teflon-coated bullets.
we’re all gonna die. many of us are looking at things like heart attacks and car wrecks, which, albeit personally tragic, have only limited larger significance. this woman went out with guns blazing against tyrannical oppressors. a veritable boudicca, perhaps even, considering the neighborhood, a black boudicca, which could make her bigger than rosa parks.
ada, #27:
She connected with all five rounds. She shot one three times and the other two once. But all three survived. Her soul is still pure.
nk (5e5670) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:01 pmI don’t see why you’ve decided to romanticize this event and Ms. Johnston’s death in a poem, as if she were a modern-day Billy the Kid taking on cruel Sheriff Pat Garrett. Americans love underdogs but sometimes it seems we carry this affection to the extreme.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:14 pmThis may be off topic, but wouldn’t things like this happen less if we changed how we deal with the drug problem? Did we learn nothing from the Era of Prohibition?
latcatin (c3de95) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:16 pmas a pagan, i don’t believe the soul is sullied by taking life in legitimate self-defense.
assistant devil's advocate (35054b) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:18 pmi’m reminded of an editorial a new york newspaper wrote in the wake of the amadou diallo shooting, in which it printed the word “bang” 41 consecutive times. as i recall, this editorial formed part of the grounds for moving the trial from new york city to albany. for the enlightenment and amusement of patterico readers, i will now recreate the atlanta shootout (92+5):
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang…..
whoa, i’m out of ammo!
ok, three out of five rounds hitting **anything** at age 92 is pretty good.
Yeah, the 72-year-old cop killer was probably a pretty good marksman, too.
Where’s his poem?
Patterico (de0616) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:20 pmHale was a pure nutcase. He carried a gun looking for an excuse to use it. If he had not killed the officer for pulling him over he would have killed a mother driving her baby to daycare for cutting him off. He should have gotten the death penalty but at his age and with the appeal process life is the same thing. There’s no comparison with Kathryn Johnston.
nk (2e1372) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:27 pmHe only stood up for his rights
A seatbelt they won’t make him wear
He got that damn cop in his sights
And blew him to Heaven knows where
His courage we all must salute
Patterico (de0616) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:30 pmValhalla must be this man’s prize
He won’t submit to some cop’s boot
And so, like a hero, he dies!
DRJ, #29:
She deserves it. I hope better poets than I will take it up. Musicians too. She was 92 years old. Does she have a criminal record? I mean … how long do you have to live to be safe from the casual reach of the long arm of the law?
nk (2e1372) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:36 pm@patterico:
assistant devil's advocate (35054b) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:40 pmin comment #54 on your “more video on texas state trooper” post, i was pretty clear on calling that guy a murderer. no poem for him.
for the heroic granny in atlanta, let’s see if i can do better than nk:
pistol packing granny
you’re the terror of this town
dealing drugs at 92
how do you get around?
i don’t expect to be 92
i’m mortal as you know
but if i get to be 92, well
that’s the way to go.
i do not look for trouble
keep pretty much to myself
but if trouble comes looking for me
i have the means right up on my shelf
you are an inspiration
a model for us to say
pistol packing granny
blow those mofos away!
Patterico, #34:
I fear that Ann Coulter’s readers will take that seriously. But I’m not one of them. And I insist on the difference. Kathryn Johnston got her door kicked in. What’s your opinion of my opinion that maybe growing up in the “Birth of a Nation” South influenced her tendency and her ability to fight back against having her door kicked in in the middle of the night?
nk (2e1372) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:45 pmPatterico wrote:
Can you ask him his opinion: what is his estimated minimum reasonable time from buy to bust to minimize any mistakes in a raid like the one in this case?
An expert opinion on that question stating the minimal asserted facts in news reports that you or he accept as true for the purpose would be enlightening to everyone following your discussion here.
Occasional Reader (176b9c) — 11/24/2006 @ 10:54 pmIs anyone suggesting that the police should have responded differently after three were shot and wounded.
davod (5fdaa2) — 11/25/2006 @ 1:15 amSo, it is the opinion of the Atlanta Police that the 92 year old woman knew that the men entering her home were cops but tried to gun them down anyway? Are the Atlanta Police telling the surviving family members that the 92 year old woman was purposely trying to murder cops on the day she died?
Pathetic and disgusting…..
rrsafety (09e9d0) — 11/25/2006 @ 5:16 amNK,
paul from fl (967602) — 11/25/2006 @ 5:52 amYou racist! If this was a white 92 year old lady in Illinois, would the situation be different?
So many posts speak to the the fact that this took place in “
redneckGeorgia” and other silliness like that.Your arguments are ludicrous.
You claim that her 92 years informed her on the use of a weapon. They didn’t inform her on the illegality and detriment of dealing with illegal drugs and/or the ramifications of that association?
The reaction time of a 92 year person is more than twice that of the police serving the warrant.
I contend that she was waiting for them to come through the door with her weapon locked and loaded.
You lawyers tell me, is that premeditation?
Think about a 92 year old woman, in the best shape you ever saw, looking for anything under pressure. her glasses, her car keys (god save me!). Never mind her weapon , as people yell and scream through her house.
You’ll never convince any rational individual that she wasn’t laying in wait.
yeeeesh.
No
mitch (55069c) — 11/25/2006 @ 6:09 amThe more news that comes out,especially with corrections, the worse the police look. The cops screwed up badly on this. An outside agency needs to pick this case up and shake it by its heels.
And DRJ – whether the gal had training or not makes NO DIFFERENCE – it was her right to defend her home, and whether she did so competently or not does not matter in determining right or wrong here.
elb
elb (6253a4) — 11/25/2006 @ 7:13 am“He said all three wore bulletproof vests that had the word “Police” across the front and back. He said they shouted they were police as they burst through the door.”
GS From FL (936b55) — 11/25/2006 @ 7:29 amDoes he really think that this is adequate identification and that the woman is at fault for responding with force? Does he not know that pretending to be a police officer is so common that there are specific laws against impersonating officers, and that people are (rightly) usually suspicious of anyone who claims to be a police officer unless they are in uniform and have a clearly marked vehicle?
First, let’s set aside the ruse argument of whether the “police had the legal right to enter the residence”. The police apparently had a warrant.
Second, let’s set aside the association with drugs. People see “drugs” and go “well the police were right” – not because the police’s actions were correct – but because of their personal disapproval of drugs.
Third, let’s set aside personal politics.
To me none of the above are the point. The point is the ill-advised actions and abuse of our civil liberties by the police via undercover and SWAT operations.
In the recent case of Kathryn Johnston, the 92 year old Atlanta woman blown away by police, note the usual contradictory statements by authorities regarding the raid – such as “as the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting” – followed by – “the officers …knocked and announced before they forced open the door….[and] were justified in shooting once they were fired upon”. What apparently actually happened, the latter, is they were shot after they started breaking down the doors terrorizing a 92 year old woman. People naturally and legally defend themselves in this situation – they think are being attacked in a home invasion – and they are.
A typical ruse used by police in these situations is to say “well we had a warrant and the legal right” to enter. I say “ruse” because it is an argument designed to distract from the issue. Let’s extrapolate to the extreme to make the point – is it OK for the police, armed with warrants to routinely drive bulldozers, tanks or fire bazookas into houses to execute warrants? Obviously not. The point is how these warrants are executed – not whether or not a warrant exists. The routine use of paramilitary tactics is unreasonable and dangerous way to execute warrants and people are getting killed – that is the point.
The next ruse used is “we made an announcement”. Of course if a SWAT team does choose to announce who they are (and under law it is now their choice to announce) the mumbled word “police” is drowned out by the simultaneous smashing sounds of private property being destroyed, exploding flash-bang grenades and weapons fire. The fact is they don’t announce themselves unless it is in the perfunctory and nugatory manner mentioned above. When there is a raid, the unwavering, moronic and illogical police statements about announcements are belied by the fact the teams are obviously opting for the element of surprise by smashing down doors – why would you negate that surprise by announcing ahead of time?
If you sadly have been attacked in an ill-advised SWAT team raid where gunfire erupts you may have gotten lucky and despite the unrecompensed destruction/theft of your property only been permanently maimed instead of killed outright. You may have been shot because you simply stood up in surprise, ran for cover, or grabbed a weapon to legally defend yourself and family from a home invasion.
The point is SWAT teams are part of the “War On (insert term: drugs, poker, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being a student in a library at UCLA, or – trust me this happened to my friend – dating a cops ex-girlfriend, etc).”
SWAT teams are paramilitary units at war – they have enemies. “We the People” are the potential enemies – and with enemies (real or potential) in a war the rule is to shoot first and ask questions (i.e. cover-up what really happened) later.
Contrarily, a police officers primary role in society is to keep the peace and maintain order in a sophisticated, humane and Constitutional manner:
“The difference between the quasi-military and the civil policeman is that the civil policeman should have no enemies. People may be criminals, they may be violent, but they are not enemies to be destroyed. Once that kind of language gets into the police vocabulary, it begins to change attitudes.”
— John Alderson, The Listener, 1985
So why exactly are such paramilitary teams, weapons and tactics necessary except in the most unusual of cases? FBI statistics show clearly our police are not outgunned and that SWAT team deaths are highly correlated to members shooting each other. Further, contrary to misleading publicity – a person is twice as likely to die in a traffic accident as a police officer is to being killed by a felonious act. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the “dangerousness” of being a police officer in terms of fatalities by a felonious act is nearly statistically insignificant. So why do we need all these SWAT teams? It seems to me we do not need the vast majority of them, they are dangerous, inappropriately used, often out of control and an expensive waste of taxpayer monies and police resources.
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/25/2006 @ 8:18 amI’m a little surprised Chief Richard Pennington hasn’t spoken out on this. The community is boiling – though it doesn’t take much for that to happen. The drugs seized inside her home should have been tested by now. Some clarity by the end of the day Monday would be nice.
steve (d5d31b) — 11/25/2006 @ 11:32 amPaul, #41:
If you will reread all my comments you will see that I did not make the arguments you are refuting. I admit that “redneckstate” is not a correct description for Georgia. I believe Georgians are more commonly called “crackers”.
nk (35ba30) — 11/25/2006 @ 12:21 pmNK,
paul from fl (967602) — 11/25/2006 @ 12:46 pm1. “Cracker” is correctly reserved for white Floridians who settled that state by driving mule-teamed wagons and cattle while ‘Crackin” a whip to keep it all moving.
2. Very much like the term “Nigger” which is a mutation of the word ‘Negro”, “Cracker” (Or as used in it’s derisive form “Cracka”) is a racial slur in modern usage. Therefore I would implore you to cease in it’s usage.
3. You did not address the probablity that, due to her advanced age and slowed reaction time, that Ms. Johnston had to have been laying in wait for the police (Or is it ‘po-po’ in your ‘hood?).
We need to lay off the race card once and for all. They had a warrant, they executed that warrant, and the occupant of that home was laying in wait with a weapon to kill police officers. For her trouble, the occupant of the house was shot to death. I’m sorry it went down that way, but at her advanced age, I would hope she’d have known better.
ELB,
Guns are like cars. You shouldn’t use either without training.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/25/2006 @ 12:49 pmIt is always boring and repugnant to listen to snotty would-be elitists slander the South. What happened has nothing to do with race or geography. What it does concern is why in hell a “no knock” warrant was issued to apprehend a 92 year old woman and search her house. Personally, I would like to see someone pop a Claymore mine in the faces of a SWAT team pulling a Gestapo raid. THAT, not needless civillian deaths, would see some policy changes. There is a place for SWAT and no-knock warrants for violent offenders, when the police agency is sure who is in the premises and that it is necessary. Does anyone need to be reminded that Ruby Ridge could EASILY have been avoided by arresting jackass Randy Weaver when he was in town and unarmed? How about doing the same thing with wackjob David Koresh? Nah, too simple. Let’s use the National Guard!
Mark (206a30) — 11/25/2006 @ 1:02 pmThe Minneapolis, Minnesota police have used front end loaders to knock down walls for dynamic entries. IIRC, the claim at the time was that the doors were both barricaded and booby-trapped, and (again IIRC) they have only done this twice.
htom (412a17) — 11/25/2006 @ 2:07 pmPaul #48,
I responded to another commenter asking how could a 92-year old woman shoot so well. I could have said “by age 92 people know a lot of things and one of them may be how to use a gun”. Instead I took it to what you read — a black girl growing up in Klan country learning the need and the inclination to defend herself when her door is kicked in. I do not take it back. I am a white European on the census form. (Although I have a year-round tan and I don’t know where that outside epicanthic fold came from. An American Indian, Attila the Hun …?) Still, I do not revisionize the South’s shameful treatment of black people for more than a 100 years after the Civil War.
I agree that I will be very careful how I use redneck or cracker to describe Southerners because if I don’t my Southern friends, relatives and in-laws will beat me up.
As for the lady lying in wait, I do not dispute the police version in any way. I have no interest in Radley Balko’s or any other libertarian’s spin about the drug wars. I am romanticizing Kathryn Johnson. She was a woman anyone would be proud to claim as a relative or ancestor. She has captured my imagination. Blame it on my (now politically incorrect) grade school days reading about pioneer women who settled this country with a baby in one arm and a rifle in the other.
nk (47858f) — 11/25/2006 @ 4:09 pmThat’s Kathryn Johnston. Sorry.
nk (47858f) — 11/25/2006 @ 4:15 pmP-
I’ve seen some blogs that say the SWAT team, after being fired upon inside Ms. Johnston’s home fired 92 shots.
Does anybody know if that is accurate?
What kind of weapons were they using – if the above is true and note a joke, the 3 officers must have blasted away with something like HK MP-5’s with the selector switch on full auto with 30+ round magazines until they were empty.
Tell me this is not true. If it is it is not self defense – it is sadism. How many shots does it take to kill somebody? Reminds me of the movies: like the end of Bonnie and Clyde or when Sonny got it at the tollbooth in the GodFather.
This IS a joke – right?
(BTW – I’ve had some brief off line e-mails with P regarding blogging – I am new to this – and I must tell you that although I may disagree with some of his points of view – he appears to be a stand-up guy – unafraid of opposing views – thanks P!)
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:24 amshe shouldn’t let people sale drugs in her house.
myg (71415b) — 11/26/2006 @ 5:34 pmNick #54,
I may be responsible for the specific number of “92 shots”. I read that “more than 90 shots were fired” at Kathryn Johnston and used poetic license to make it “a bullet for every year of her life”. There may have been more than that. I also believe that there were quite a few more than three policemen.
I disagree with Mr. Balko and other libertarians (and, I suppose, with you) whether Kathryn Johnston is a good example on the futility of the drug wars or the overaggressiveness of the police. I do not consider her a victim. I consider her heroic and even mythical. I see her 150 years ago in the Texas Panhandle making a raiding band of Comanches wish they had been born Hopis. She came to a tragic end but most heroes do. Who wrote, “Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy”?
nk (54c569) — 11/26/2006 @ 6:14 pmNK #56
What you said about there being more than 3 cops makes sense. But in any case, if there were 90 or more shots fired it is a massacre. Ridiculous.
I can not fathom the reasoning behind a paramilitary raid in this instance (how about a regular cop just knocking on the poor old lady’s door?). I do think for all that I currently understand she is a hero for defending her right to live peaceably in her own home.
If you can find something that says how many shots were fired – can you post a copy of link? I’d really like to see that.
Thanks
Nick
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/26/2006 @ 6:48 pmNick, #57:
Read this (https://patterico.com/2006/11/26/5448/92-year-old-woman-had-drugs-but-only-a-small-amount-of-marijuana/#comment-113179) to see why you should not trust anything you read in the media. It may be years and several lawsuits before we can say definitely how many officers were there and how many shots were fired. For now, I will just keep my legendary view of Kathryn Johnston.
nk (b57bfb) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:42 pmTrying the link again: https://patterico.com/2006/11/26/5448/92-year-old-woman-had-drugs-but-only-a-small-amount-of-marijuana/#comment-113179. That’s better.
nk (b57bfb) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:45 pm[…] defenders and critics of mine were quick to jump on Dreher’s statements to show that I and others were “jumping the […]
The Agitator » Blog Archive » Failing Upward: New Frontiers in Scalia’s “New Professionalism” (2e5fcf) — 5/28/2008 @ 7:34 amInteresting, nothing on this post indicating that Balko was right all along. Even after all this time. Hmmm….
Steve Verdon (4c0bd6) — 5/28/2008 @ 9:26 amNo, but it does end with “stay tuned,” which you obviously didn’t.
Xrlq (b71926) — 5/28/2008 @ 2:32 pmI don’t think the post is inaccurate, although by far the most widely linked post I have ever done on this topic is the one where I reported the cops lied their way into the house. I had that up before Radley Balko, and I bet before Steve Verdon, in this post.
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/30/2008 @ 1:18 amNevertheless, it’s worth doing an update to make sure that all those people who never heard the nationwide story that the cops lied — and somehow missed my Instapundit-linked post that is at the top of the Google results for Kathryn Johnston and my site, that talked about how the cops lied — won’t be misled by this post!!!!eleven!!.
Steve Verdon, you are a dishonest, humorless, ideologically rabid piece of dog[expletive deleted]. Thanks for the comment.
Now go dig up all the other posts of mine that mention Ms. Johnston BUT DON’T DISCLOSE TO READERS THAT THE COPS LIED!!!!!11111!!!1!1!!! I’m not going to bother because it’s a stupid exercise and any moron can find the post where I acknowledged errors. But knock yourself out, you [expletive deleted]ing [expletive deleted]bag.
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/30/2008 @ 6:47 am“douche” is an expletive now?
Huh. The things you learn…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/30/2008 @ 6:55 amNah, it’s the same expletive that was deleted in dog[expletive deleted].
I didn’t delete them when I responded to the guy on Balko’s site.
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/30/2008 @ 6:56 amAh. Ok then. Just wanted to make sure I stayed on top of the latest developments in swearing. I’d hate to fall behind the curve. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 5/30/2008 @ 7:03 amWhat gets me about this guy is that I do a WHOLE POST, which is linked by Instapundit and widely circulated, detailing the errors I thought I made — and he pretends like the post was never published. And then he is a snide little dick, whining about how I didn’t go back and correct every little post I ever did on the topic. As if I would majorly get on a newspaper for having someone who made an error write a whole new article — by the original author — explaining why they made the mistake. I can see pointing it out to the newspaper, while 1) praising their new article and 2) being polite about it. But dishonest [expletive deleted]bag Steve Verdon did neither. You’d never know that I had done another post if you listened to that pustule.
Patterico (cb443b) — 5/30/2008 @ 7:54 amJust for the record, not all of the profane words dubbed as “expletives” are in fact expletives. Expletives, by definition, have no meaning but exist to fill a grammatical (or, by extension, other) function. Classic examples of expletives are the “it” in “it’s raining” and the first “there” (but not the other two) in “there is no there there.”
Curse words are often, but not always, expletives. If I were to say “I hate Steve Verdon’s f***ing guts,” no one in his right mind would interpret this statement as a representation that Steve Verdon’s guts actually f***, nor even that he has certain guts that are somehow related to f***ing, and I hate those guts of his, but am cool with the other ones. Rather, the sentence would be interpreted as semantically identical to “I hate Steve Verdon’s guts,” with the f-word adding nothing but a little non-semantic “mmpf.” So in this case, the f-word is an expletive.
By contrast, if you and I were watching a porn flick, and I said “hey, look at all those people f***ing,” the f-word would have actual semantic content (the sentence wouldn’t mean the same thing as “hey, look at all those people”), so in this case, the f-word is not an expletive. Vulgar, sure, but not an expletive.
Thus, the answer to Scott’s question depends on whether calling Steve Verdon a “douchebag” means something different than simply referring to him a bag. I tend to think it does.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 5/30/2008 @ 3:37 pm