Balko Distorts the Facts In a Lengthy Screed About How He Doesn’t Distort the Facts
Radley Balko has a lengthy screed about me today, which misstates my position in several respects regarding the Atlanta shooting involving the 92-year-old lady.
The nonsense starts right from the beginning:
My old pal Patterico — a prosecutor in California — has valliantly [sic] rushed to the defense of the police tactics that led to the death of an apparently innocent 93-year-old [sic] woman.
Was the woman “apparently innocent”? I think that’s a leap. From the published reports I have seen, the 92-year-old woman 1) lived at a house that had been the location of drug sales, and 2) shot 3 police officers who had identified themselves as police officers. These factors suggest that she may not have been entirely “innocent.” But there are other factors, discussed at length in Balko’s post, that suggest that she was. Taking all of it together, can we say that she was “apparently innocent”? I don’t think we can reach that conclusion yet, based on the facts.
I reiterate my suggestion that we wait for all the facts to come in before we leap to conclusions about the behavior of the police or the woman.
Balko misstates that position. He converts it into a strawman, pretending that I am insisting that the police, and only the police, do the investigation:
Patterico is a prosecutor (oddly, he took it as a personal attack the last time I pointed that out). He’d rather we all just let the police do their own internal investigation, and accept their conclusions as fact.
Wrong. That’s a pure strawman argument, and Balko knows it. When I say “wait for the facts” he twists it into “let’s wait for the facts as determined by the police and nobody else” and then “rebuts” the strawman by pointing out problems with police investigations.
Here is precisely what I said: “For the last time: let’s wait until the facts come in, and save our criticism until that time.” I am perfectly pleased to have the investigation conducted by any source or sources capable of doing it thoroughly and accurately, and I have never said otherwise. If the police tactics turn out to have been improper, I will be happy to report that.
In fact, I heard from an expert in the use of police force today, who told me: “Whatever went down, it was bad mojo and poor planning likely played a major role in what happened.” I hope to get him to elaborate on this in coming days, and if he does, I will publish the results — because I firmly believe in airing all relevant facts on all sides. I trust this expert, and if he can reach that conclusion based on what he knows, I’m willing to help him spread the word.
If Balko can point to a quote from me that insists that the facts must come only from the police, and from no other source, and that we should accept the police conclusions as fact, then I’ll admit that he correctly characterized my position.
Otherwise, I find it ironic that, in a long and huffy post about his credibility and how he would never distort the facts, he distorts the facts of what I have said, to convert it into an obvious strawman for him to easily bat down. I’d like an apology from him for misstating my position, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to come.
By the way, I never took his mentioning that I am a prosecutor as an “insult.” That’s another distortion on his part. How could I take it as an insult when I am extremely proud of what I do? I think I have one of the few jobs in the world where you can do the right thing, all the time — including working to exonerate the innocent, something I have done on many occasions.
What I said was that I didn’t like his dragging my employment into the discussion in order to “make a few dark insinuations about how I do my job.” This is a cheap and sleazy tactic that he repeats in today’s screed, in which he talks about “some Prosecutor like Patterico” keeping confidential the identity of a lying informant.
Also, I don’t believe I have rushed to defend the police tactics, other than to say that 1) when someone fires at you, you fire back, regardless of age; and 2) no-knock warrants, while you may disagree with them as a matter of policy, are legal; police serving them don’t deserve to be shot, as so many seem to be suggesting.
For the record, I don’t think Radley Balko gets the facts wrong all the time, or most of the time. I don’t really know one way or the other, because I barely read the guy — and then, only when someone else has linked him. I disagree with several aspects of his lengthy recitation of the background of our rather poor Internet relationship. In particular, there is much more to the story of his correcting his mistakes than his simple narrative of Balko makes mistake, mistake is pointed out, and Balko issues prompt correction. But I’m not really interested in revisiting all of those issues here, even though Balko is. All of the facts are on this site; if you’re really interested (and Heaven help you if you are), plug the word “Balko” into my search engine and go nuts.
The reason I took a slap at him in this case is because I read an Instapundit post that opened in this way:
POLICE IN ATLANTA have shot and killed a 92-year-old woman in what appears to be another wrong-house no-knock raid.
Then I read news reports that said 1) police served the warrant at the correct address; 2) a drug sale had previously occurred at the address; 3) police found suspected narcotics inside the house; and 4) police returned fire when a woman shot three of them.
I thought to myself: gee, I wonder why Professor Reynolds is leaping straight to the conclusion that this was a “wrong-house” raid, when the facts reported in the media seem to suggest otherwise.
And then I clicked on the link to see his source, and learned that it was Radley Balko, saying:
Police in Altanta [sic] have apparently shot and killed a 92-year-old woman Tuesday night during a drug raid. Details are sketchy, but unless a nonagenerian [sic] was pushing dope and using lethal force to protect her supply, the most likely explanation here is that someone sent the tactical team to kick down the wrong door after a bad tip from an informant.
That’s hardly the most likely explanation. There are many possible explanations. Based on the facts I have heard so far, among the more likely is this: someone was using Grandma’s house to push drugs, and that when the police served a lawful warrant on the correct house, Grandma — for whatever reason — opened fire on three police officers who had identified themselves as such.
Balko claims that, according to me, it shows his “disregard for the facts” for him to rely on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for the proposition that the search warrant is a public record. Again, I’d like for him to show me where I said that. In my post suggesting that the search warrant in this case may not be a public record, I was modest and restrained in my claims — precisely because I have not done enough research to reach a firm conclusion that refutes the statement in the paper.
You can read my post again and again, and you won’t find me saying anything mean about Radley Balko for accepting the statement made by the Atlanta paper. Rather, I simply say that I’m not certain that he and the paper are right, and I provide evidence to explain why. However, I do find this statement of his amusing: “If the reporter proves to be wrong about that fact, then I guess I was wrong to cite him, and I’ll post a correction. Until then, I’m going to go ahead and assume that what’s written in an edited, respected, large-circulation newspaper is mostly correct. . . .” If there’s one thing we should learn from the blogosphere, it is that we should not make such assumptions.
Balko claims that I “defend keeping search warrants secret in these types of cases.” Actually, I defend keeping portions of search warrant affidavits sealed only in specific cases. I, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Supreme Court of every state in the nation recognize the need for confidential informants to remain confidential in appropriate circumstances, for their own safety. Generally, it’s appropriate for their identities to be withheld when the police can develop a rock-solid case that stands on its own, completely independent of anything the informant ever said. That’s hardly a radical statement I’m making; it’s simply how the courts have viewed this issue for decades. Keeping such evidence sealed is not some deep and dark government cover-up. It is, quite simply, a necessary step to protect the very lives of people who cooperate with law enforcement to fight crime and clean up the streets.
What’s more, I don’t know whether the Atlanta case presents such a situation, and neither does Balko.
I’d like to close with a link (not safe for work) that the aforementioned use of force expert sent me, to a video showing the murder of Texas DPS trooper at the hands of a 72-year-old. My expert says:
Who knows why he [the trooper] didn’t shoot, but I’d bet that the suspect’s age was a key factor. Also, after the trooper gets killed, you will see responding officers holding their fire because they don’t want to shoot an old man.
Be careful clicking the link, for a couple of reasons. First, the site hosting the video has some links to unsavory videos. Maybe some of you will enjoy that, but in any event, I wouldn’t click the link at work. Second, while the video is not particularly graphic in its visual presentation, the video has extremely graphic sounds — the ugly sounds of a Texas state trooper dying after being shot by a 72-year-old man. It’s a stark reminder that bullets kill, no matter the age of the person firing them.
UPDATE: Balko fails to defend his misstatements here. After his super-lengthy screed earlier today, it’s interesting (and I think highly revealing) that he doesn’t bother to give a single specific response to my detailed charges that he distorted my arguments in that post. When I charge him with misstating things, I back up what I say, and respond to criticisms that I have misstated the other guy’s
positions. By contrast, Balko simply sets up strawmen at length, and when I call him on it, he goes mute.
Why? Simple: because there is no defense. And if he tried to defend himself, he’d likely just ignore my most compelling points anyway. That’s what he’s always done in the past.
UPDATE x2: Something I just noticed:
One last point, though. Patterico repeatedly says that I “demonize the police officers” who are just doing their jobs in these raids. On the contrary. I have gone out of my way — in my paper and elsewhere — to emphasize that the individual officer who rightfully fears for his life and uses lethal force in one of these raids isn’t to blame. The policy that put him in that position is.
Yet another inaccuracy from Balko! Actually, the word “Balko” does not appear in the post that Balko quotes above. In that post, that quote appears once, not repeatedly, and is used to describe libertarians. It accurately describes many of the libertarians who have been commenting on my site about this, who have been saying that the officers “murdered” the woman and need to beg God’s forgiveness and such.
So, two points. First, Balko declares he is not among the group of libertarians who are demonizing the officers. Fine. Second, this guy is about the sloppiest journalist I have ever run across. He needs to learn to be a lot more careful about his assertions. He misstates things one after the other after the other.
UPDATE x3: The post previously said that, according to published reports, “drug sales” had taken place at the home. In fact, published reports document only a single drug sale, earlier in the day. I have corrected the post to fix the error.
[…] UPDATE x5: Balko has a lengthy screed that distorts my position in several respects. I note the numerous inaccuracies of his post here. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Libertarians Jump the Gun in Story of Shooting in Atlanta (421107) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:02 pmBullets don’t kill people. Are you telling me a little piece of metal can kill someone? No you know what kills people, bleeding to death or your head coming apart. That is what kills people.
Tony (cfee12) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:08 pmTony, I have full confidence in your argument.
They’rrrrrree grrrrrrrreat!!!!!
David Moon (cfee12) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:11 pmI read Balko’s piece. I thought he did a good job of stating his position. You, Patterico, have chosen to decide the meaning of words like apparently for the rest of us. We can read.
More and more, I fear, we are seeing the forces of our hired guns in the offices of the prosecutor, and in the precincts of the police turned against the citizens who pay them. The bloody drug laws have been a boon for salary’s and pensions of law enforcement in general.
The anguish of the citizens in communities with rigorous and brutal, anti drug, law enforcement seems to go unnoticed. Oh, forgive me, of course, it is a war and the stupid citizens keep getting in the way of cop’s bullets.
RJN (e12f22) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:17 pmI also Balko’s piece, and I have a few questions that?
Why do they sterilize lethal injection needles? They should just use the same one for everyone, less tax dollars and a better budget.
David Moon (cfee12) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:19 pmI confided in Balko recently and he’s told me quite a bit about himself.
Like how daddy drinks because he cries.
David Moon (cfee12) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:28 pmI read Balko’s piece. I thought he did a good job of stating his position.
Perhaps.
It’s just that he did a right crappy job of stating mine.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:28 pmDavid Moon, I almost never understand your comments, but I’m starting to think I’m going to take crazy nk’s advice and ban you.
I’m not a fan of Balko, but I’m not going to let anyone smear him here, even though he is busy smearing me at his site.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/23/2006 @ 2:29 pmBalko’s real beef is with the war on drugs, and as the tip-of-the-spear in the drug war, Police officers are frequent targets of his rhetorical swipes.
You may give his opinion whatever weight you wish, but he writes from the perspective of a writer/analyst. His undergraduate degree is in Journalism and Poly-Sci, and he has no apparent law enforcement background listed on his resume. In my opinion, his lack of operational experience/background in police work limits his perspective… and it shows.
He frequently argues against the use of CIs, but criminal enterprises are generally run by unsavory characters. We don’t like dealing with criminals either, but being dimed-out by one of their own requires the ability to deal with such people and protect their identity from their cohorts. People in criminal subcultures tend to have a rather direct way of expressing their displeasure, and CIs would be dead meat without protection. Maybe that protection doesn’t concern Mr. Balko, but most narcotics officers would have a much tougher time working informants without it.
It’s probably enough to understand where Balko comes from, and what drives his rhetoric. Those of us in the tactical community have been dealing with guys like Balko, Kraska, et al for years… in time, the rest of you will get used to them too.
TheNewGuy (2e7a0f) — 11/23/2006 @ 3:33 pm[…] Earlier today, I linked a not-safe-for-work video of a Texas trooper killed by a 72-year-old man, to show that: 1) bullets kill people, even when they are fired by old people; and 2) police may be overly cautious about returning fire when an older person points a gun at them — a factor that could explain why a 92-year-old woman was able to shoot three separate cops in Atlanta. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » More on the Video of the Texas State Trooper Killed by the 72-Year-Old Man (421107) — 11/23/2006 @ 3:34 pmTheNewGuy,
“…but criminal enterprises are generally run by unsavory characters.”
Yes, as most economists will tell you, when you force markets underground those in the market cannot avail themselves of the normal avenues of recovery, protection, etc. that other businesses can. They can’t sue in court for breach of contract for example. So it isn’t surprising that they find alternative means by which to protect their profits, etc.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/23/2006 @ 3:40 pmThe cops say “they served the warrent at the correct address” doesn’t mean it’s the CORRECT HOUSE.
Going from one controlled buy from a John Doe aka Sam to a full blown military assault on a 92 year old woman inside a few hours doesn’t strike you the least bit odd?
“Officers found suspected narcotics” which means what. There are legal narcotics, and I’d venture a guess most 90+ year olds have some in the medicine cabinet.
“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 states they are public record but cites “office policy”. If you need any help translating that, there’s no help for you.
When the “police department” interviews and statements start sounding like a lawyer, one can reasonably sure they screwed up, know they screwed up, and are stalling till they figure out how to pin it all on the victim.
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/23/2006 @ 4:56 pmGerald,
Balko quotes the AJC as saying: “Police say they found illegal drugs in the northwest Atlanta home of Kathryn Johnston after the shootout.”
Illegal.
And I already posted about why I think Balko and the AJC are probably wrong to claim that all search warrants are public record, in this post.
Preliminary investigation says they had the legal right to enter the house, meaning they probably had the CORRECT HOUSE.
All this could be wrong, but you’re speculating like someone who WANTS certain facts to be true, to fit his world view.
Quite a bit like Balko himself.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/23/2006 @ 5:03 pmOur friend The Liberal Avenger has four articles on Corey Maye, a man on Mississippi’s death row, because he shot and killed a police officer. The officer, Ronald Jones, was serving a no knock warrant for drug possession — but not for Mr Maye. (The warrant specified the address of Mr Maye’s apartment and the apartment next to his, where the drug problem existed.) Mr Maye was asleep, was awakened by someone breaking into his house (wheer his 18 month old daughter was sleeping as well), and defended his property.
Such would have been entirely legal, and everybody would have said that he did the right thing, had the man he killed not been a police officer.
I understand and accept the justification for no-knock warrants, as they are intended to prevent drug evidence from being flushed, and to catch presumably armed criminals off-guard. But the execution of no-knock warrants with an armed citizenry is going to generate hard cases like Mr Maye’s, and the one listed above.
Dana (e7aa47) — 11/23/2006 @ 5:15 pmPolice said they bought “illegal narcotics”, found “narcotics”.
Stefoni Searcy sited “Office Policy”, not statue for not releasing the warrent.
Preliminary investigation means what? Address on the warrent same as the house they raided, still DOESN”T make it the correct house.
And my World view is based on places I traveled in the world. When police in America start acting like “police” in a few of the 3rd world pissholes I’ve been, then we all have problems. But one could always count on some “elite” living in their tower not concerned because it would never happen to them.
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/23/2006 @ 5:43 pm“apparently innocent”
I thought it was a commonly stated in our system of government that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Your statements Patterico in regards of the above phrase show you don’t consider that as a concept. But then you also confess you don’t have all the facts. I would suspend any sort of judgement until you have more otherwise it makes Radley’s arguements have more validity.
Thomas (5a801d) — 11/23/2006 @ 6:13 pmThomas,
Patterico acknowledges we don’t know all the facts but it appears the 92-year-old woman shot 3 police officers who entered her home pursuant to a valid no-knock search warrant. Rodney Balko does not merely presume her innocent but also crowns her with victim status, tarring the police in the process.
Presumed innocent works both way. The 92-year-old woman is presumed innocent of a drug violation but the police are presumed to have been acting legally. Giving the woman a better status than the police evidences a bias that appparently you and Rodney Balko share.
DRJ (8c00f0) — 11/23/2006 @ 6:22 pmEven if the woman was as guilty as sin, it was stupid to raid her house in such a manner. Doing so placed officers lives at risk without need (and well, we all know what happened to her life…)
Does a 92 year old woman in a wheel chair look like a flight risk to you?
All the backstroking and coverups only serve to strengthen the cases of those who rightfully critisize questionable practices.
reason (236fa1) — 11/23/2006 @ 6:54 pmIt is amply clear by now that anyone who writes frequently for Hit and Run is anti-American. The US is, to each of them, uniquely evil and dangerous, both domestically and abroad. That being the case, good Patterico, do not bother attempting to respond intellectually. Facts and logic do not work with cultists.
Bleepless (9970c5) — 11/23/2006 @ 7:01 pmAll of this debate about the nonsensical “War on (some) Drugs” will thankfully be moot within another decade or two anyway. The recent decriminalization ballot initiatives in Nevada and Colorado garnered about 45% “YES” votes, and are showing that opinions are slowly shifting. 20 years ago, those questions would have been lucky to get 20% voting “YES”, but soon, the first city or state will get more than 50% of the ballot initiative vote to decriminalize marijuana, then the floodgates will open, and common sense will begin to prevail across the country.
Scott (4e31da) — 11/23/2006 @ 7:03 pmI thought it was a commonly stated in our system of government that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Your statements Patterico in regards of the above phrase show you don’t consider that as a concept. But then you also confess you don’t have all the facts. I would suspend any sort of judgement until you have more otherwise it makes Radley’s arguements have more validity.
I would suspend all judgment as well. Literate people can divine that from my post.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/23/2006 @ 7:03 pmWow, big surprise… Anybody that doesn’t agree with Patterico’s nonsensical tirades is illiterate. Gee Pat, can’t you at least be original?
And of course, to Bleepless, those with opposing concecpts are equivilent to “cultists”. But hang on a minute Bleeper, isn’t that what the cultists say?
Patty and the Bleeper Boy deserve each other much more than this country deserves the result of their narrow minded facisim.
reason (236fa1) — 11/23/2006 @ 7:31 pmMy post:
Sounds like I am saying we should suspend judgment.
To anyone who can read.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/23/2006 @ 7:35 pmI’m all for getting “all the facts.” The question is, will we ever get them? And if so, when? Will the policies that resulted in injuries to officers and worse to the “perp” be examined?
What if there was a better way to do these things?
Are our current methods and processes able to see the possibility of improvement?
reason (236fa1) — 11/23/2006 @ 7:48 pmPatterico,
I’ve been a reader of Balko for a long time, and have always found him to be a thoughtful voice for reasoned discourse. You seem to have rubbed him the wrong way, and I believe that, by ‘washing his hands’ he is trying to avoid any sort of ‘flame war’ of the type which so often diminishes the credibility of legitimate bloggers with legitimate opinions.
I like him, and his opinions. That is not to say that he is always right. In this case, however, I think you are going out of your way to back up a statement you made in haste. Specifically
“I added the phrase “Making the mistake of relying on Radley Balko for his facts” to the post. I clicked Insty’s original link to see why he had leapt to the conclusion that the police had served the warrant on the wrong house, and saw that he was relying on Balko for the facts. Bad idea.”
You’re almost begging for him to respond to you negatively. Which he does.
For the record, however, I will now state my own opinions.
Firstly, the use of “apparently innocent” is probably an overstep by Balko. On the other hand, however no evidence has yet, so far as I have seen, been provided to prove her guilt.
Secondly, your argument about Balko constructing a strawman seems, and please don’t take offense, strangely naive. You say that you will accept having “the investigation conducted by any source or sources capable of doing it thoroughly and accurately, and I have never said otherwise.” In our world, who else will conduct the investigation besides the local police force? I am puzzled by your comment in this respect. The only legitimate investigations not coming from the local police would seem to be the FBI or higher ups. Do you really think they’ll bother sending investigators to a case where the suspect, whatever her crime, is already dead?
As far as the Instapundit remarks, I think you have the wrong target. What Balko says is neither an outright lie, nor anything other than a statement of what he believes is the “most likely” cause.
“Police in Altanta [sic] have apparently shot and killed a 92-year-old woman Tuesday night during a drug raid. Details are sketchy, but unless a nonagenerian [sic] was pushing dope and using lethal force to protect her supply, the most likely explanation here is that someone sent the tactical team to kick down the wrong door after a bad tip from an informant.”
Admittedly, you and he have a different definition of “most likely” cause, but otherwise you can’t really argue with any of the facts listed above. He presumes she’s innocent, you presume she’s guilty… based on the same facts. The one distorting the facts is Instapundit, who seems to have taken Balko’s “most-likely” assertion and spun it as a “fact”. That is, as you state, not accurate.
Personal attacks, while always to some extent a satisfying thing, don’t invite much more than mutual nit-picking. I do hope that you and Balko do not descend to such a level where you are combing each other’s posts for every possible inaccuracy or misstatement. Such an action is detrimental to you both, and I hope you will wash your hands of it just as he did. And perhaps, if you feel so moved, apologize to him for calling him “about the sloppiest journalist I have ever run across.” I’ve seen far worse journalism than this, even if everything you say is absolutely correct.
Best,
ytmnd (9f9975) — 11/23/2006 @ 8:50 pmYtmnd,
Your comment is thoughtful and seems well-intentioned. Patterico is certainly capable of defending his point of view and I won’t presume to do that, but it’s hard not to add one comment: Patterico has not stated that either party is innocent or guilty. He has consistently urged people to keep an open mind and not prejudge this event or anyone involved in it, including the police, until the facts are known.
I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the police be given time to investigate and report before the citizen-journalist militias saddle up and charge police brutality, racism, sexism, and the like.
DRJ (8c00f0) — 11/23/2006 @ 9:17 pmFirstly, the use of “apparently innocent” is probably an overstep by Balko.
Agreed.
I also agree that his claim that it was most likely the wrong house was an opinion, not a fact. But it was a hasty opinion that flies in the face of a lot of the facts, and in my view it undercut his credibility. And I think Instapundit was sloppy to assume Radley Balko was playing it totally straight, and thus, Insty prejudiced half the blogosphere, many of whom didn’t even seem to read the media stories, but took the Balko/Insty “wrong house/apparently innocent woman” meme as gospel.
All day I have had idiot Balko minions flooding in here declaring that the police shot an innocent woman at the wrong house. They have no idea that there are media reports that say the opposite.
As Xrlq told me on the phone tonight: “If Balko doesn’t want people to say he’s not credible, he should try being more credible.”
He presumes she’s innocent, you presume she’s guilty… based on the same facts.
I don’t believe I have presumed her innocent or guilty. I have said, let’s wait for the facts — but if she knowingly shot at cops, that was wrong of her.
In our world, who else will conduct the investigation besides the local police force?
I rather imagine the media will. In L.A., we have independent people and commissions who are often brought in to investigate such complaints.
And perhaps, if you feel so moved, apologize to him for calling him “about the sloppiest journalist I have ever run across.” I’ve seen far worse journalism than this, even if everything you say is absolutely correct.
The number of inaccurate statements he has made about me just today is staggering. And it’s not the first time. It’s like he’s incapable of summarizing an argument of mine fairly. He’s the one who owes an apology. But he’s shown no desire to reconsider or even defend his plain misstatements after I pointed them out, though he spent hundreds and hundreds of words attacking me earlier in the day.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/23/2006 @ 9:29 pmDRJ,
I think the use of militia in your final sentence is decidedly inapproriate for inclusion in this current discussion. Additionally, I have yet to see mention of police brutality, racism, sexism or the like from either Balko or Patterico.
Either way I definately agree with you about the thoughtfulness of Ytmnd’s post.
For what it’s worth, I am firmly encamped with Balko’s as follows:
“Violating the sanctity of the home with a violent, forced entry — all to enforce laws against consensual acts — simply isn’t compatible with any honest notion of a free society.”
I’ll add in fact that this violation is absurd, fails to achieve it’s intended goal, has never done so, and no evidence suggests that it ever will.
Obviously pure opinion, and from nothing more than JAFO!!!
-bear
bear (854f59) — 11/23/2006 @ 9:36 pmFor what it’s worth:
I have said, let’s wait for the facts — but if she knowingly shot at cops, that was wrong of her.
Is also something I agree with.
Paterrico you old hard corps law and order radical.
-bear
bear (854f59) — 11/23/2006 @ 9:40 pmBear,
I’m sorry that I offended you with my phrase “citizen-journalist militias saddle up and charge.” I thought it was an effective linguistic device to describe those who view themselves as Watergate-style crusaders intent on publicly exposing government employees, especially the police. Perhaps I should have used the term “crusaders” instead. Thank you for your comment.
DRJ (8c00f0) — 11/23/2006 @ 10:01 pmTrigger-happy Georgia cops…
Look, I’m not a cop, but if you broke into my house, I would consider it my solemn duty to kill you. It would be a stain upon my honor as a citizen if I allowed a burglar to escape my house alive. This is where I can relate to that 92-year-old Atlanta…
Alabama Liberation Front (6ed3f8) — 11/24/2006 @ 12:49 ami don’t understand why the cops can’t just tap into the foul pipe before it joins the main, knock and announce and identify themselves, and sample anything that gets flushed while they are in the process of identifying themselves. If this was standard practice, it would be a lot safer for the police and a lot safer for the citizens. Alright, someone might occasionally get shit on their hands, but that’s got to be better than getting blood their hands.
wade (946f9f) — 11/24/2006 @ 3:13 amIf someone kicks your door in at night, wearing police jackets and shouting “police”, and you lie down, and they then rob your house and rape your daughter – how are you going to feel? Safer to get your retaliation in first, no matter who someone claims to be.
i don’t see how we can be asked, on the one hand, to “wait for all the facts” while simultaneously being told, on the other, that some of the facts are secret and we’re not fit to know them.
assistant devil's advocate (e0368c) — 11/24/2006 @ 9:14 amassistant devil’s advocate wrote 11/24/2006 @ 9:14 am:
I’ve read all of Patterico’s and Balko’s blog accounts and comments on this event. I don’t think “we’re not fit to know them” is an accurate characterization of Patterico’s position. I think his reasoning is more like this:
We don’t know the facts. We should wait until the police have internally investigated their own actions and reported the facts. We (neither the public nor any lawyers for parties to the incident) are not entitled to know some facts (search warrant affidavits, CI statements or identity, etc.) because the law prohibits it. The law is in place to protect CIs or investigative techniques.
We have no reason to believe police will not act with scrupulous honesty in the matter because they are sworn to be honest, and the law presumes they will be honest.
The investigation by police will probably conclude that they acted properly. We should believe them.
If you don’t like the law, write your congressman.
That’s foreshortened, but I think an accurate summary.
Occasional Reader (37001b) — 11/24/2006 @ 10:05 amOf course Balko never claimed she was entirely innocent. He said she was “apparently” innocent You’re being dishonest by using that strawman argument. And he thinks that because she’s 93, and it is hard to imagine a 93 year-old being the sort of dangerous drug dealer that calls for a no-knock raid. If you can’t grasp that simple idea there’s something wrong with you.
Harkonnendog (91c575) — 11/24/2006 @ 11:43 amThe guy they should go after in these “no knock” raids is the “Barney Fife” who OK’s them, not the officers involved. He doesn’t know the circumstances, all he knows is that he is getting shot at.
The rational is that if it is a dope raid they have to no-knock in order to get in before the dope is flushed down the toilet. These raids go wrong when they use informer info that doesn’t check out or make mistakes as to the address or other info.
Plus there is a tendency to use “Swat” methods because they enjoy doing it.
The underlying philosophy that causes these problems is that they think it’s a “War on Drugs.” Police are not in the “War” business. They are in the “Police” business. Policing takes a different mental outlook toward the people they deal with. The TV series, “The Wire” makes a big point of this. The public is not the “enemy.”
Bill Millan (78dc90) — 11/24/2006 @ 11:52 amhmmm…
Do drug policy reform types have perhaps a hot button on this? Could it be that after cases like Cory Maye, Donald Scott, Ismael Mena, Rev. Accelyne Williams, etc, there are legitimate reasons to overtly (and occasionally aggressively) question these types of incidents?
We had a 49 officer interagency “marijuana grow operation” raid in my neighborhood… flash grenades, armed personnel carrior (Nat’l Gd) and they came away with just over a gram of pot. No grow, just a couple who made jewelry and did landscaping, nice folks… I read the affadavit for the search warrant and did a walk around the site…
No doubt there are judges who, with trust in the local LEOs, will sign a warant easily. But, as in my neighbors case, there were no exterior indications of a grow-op. The black plastic, black pots, etc cited in the warrant were legitimate artifacts of their business.
News reports called it a “raid on a grow-op” and officers had discovered an operation in the house basement. All of it was wrong.
And the 49 officers, if they had knocked on the door – at a decent hour – would have been invited in precisely because these are genuinely nice folks.
On the case of Ms Johnston… I’ll wait and see. I have my suspicions but I don’t live in Atlanta. I do read Radley’s stuff and am thankful someone tackled the task of following and documenting this dangerous trend of similar incidents in the WO(s)D.
I suppose its cases like this that have lead to the formation of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP http://www.leap.cc/ ).
allan (5fa039) — 11/24/2006 @ 2:32 pmCan all the drug warriors just mind their own f-ing business? Stop thinking you have a right to ban people from taking substances. Stop before more innocent people die.
Scott (137738) — 11/24/2006 @ 6:26 pmWade said (32) –
i don’t understand why the cops can’t just tap into the foul pipe before it joins the main, knock and announce and identify themselves, and sample anything that gets flushed while they are in the process of identifying themselves. If this was standard practice, it would be a lot safer for the police and a lot safer for the citizens. Alright, someone might occasionally get shit on their hands, but that’s got to be better than getting blood their hands.
Umm, Wade, you would need heavy construction equiptment, right outside the house to get to the “foul” pipe. Then there is the “tapping” of the pipe itself, they are not made to be “tapped” into so that you can divert the flow temorarily. I.e. they would have to cut out a section of pipe and stick a bucket under it.
To be clear, I do not agree with the extent that no knock raids used. I believe that they should have a dramaticly higher standard to meet than other warrants. I would like to see law enforcement get the money needed to investigate thoroughly, before committing to a raid.
The basic problem is that I see the police having less and less concern for the safety of innocents and non-violent offenders, than for the safety of the officers.
Just to be entirely clear on my position in the overall discussion on law enforcment – I also believe in decriminalising illicit drugs.
On topic. I know that Balko regularly makes assumptions that later turn out not to be the case. But he also clearly identifies when he is making assumptions. That said, I have made eroneous claims in the past, based on one of Balko’s assumptions. It pissed me off – I don’t like having to admit that I was mistaken. But it was my fault. I looked back and sure enough – he said it was supposition on his part and I just missed that. I would only go as far as to call it sloppy journalism if he made such claims as though they were fact.
DuWayne (1d1e37) — 11/25/2006 @ 12:53 amSomething you would never do, eh counselor?
juris imprudent (f6e979) — 11/25/2006 @ 1:44 pmI prefer to base my comments on published reports.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 1:50 pmReally? Yet you uncritically accept as fact:
Sale by an unidentified, 6′ tall, 250 lb black man, not apparently even known to reside at that address. I seem to recall that warrants are required to be specific, not general. Why is it that no-knock, drug warrants get a pass on that? Oh, that’s right, we can’t have evidence flushed down the toilet – that would ruin the case.
Yet there seems to be some question as to when they identified themselves, before, during or after the door was kicked in – that according to the Chief himself. I might also note that the police fired 90+ rounds. Now this is purely speculation, but what if she had a .22 revolver and the police were all wounded by 9mm rounds? After all, it surely wasn’t the front 3 cops that fired off all 90 odd rounds. And since she was hit, what 4 times, where DID all of those other rounds go?
juris imprudent (f6e979) — 11/25/2006 @ 2:12 pmRadley and Patterico at are again . . . Why am I not surprised?
Radley and Patterico have some very strong opinions regarding the War on Drugs, and it is perhaps on account of their strict adherence to their causes that they have both had a tendency to misstate the facts of these cases or else play up certain aspects of these cases that support their views while ignoring other aspects that don’t serve to support their views.
Misstating the facts of a case is obviously wrong, and I don’t condone such things, no matter which side of the issue one falls on.
Having said that, when you consider this ongoing debate between Radley and Patterico from a philosophical standpoint, the argument pretty much boils down to one thing:
Patterico supports the government telling us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.
Radley supports individuals making these decisions for themselves.
Facts are facts.
1) The War on Drugs is at odds with individual liberty and free market economics. People who support the War on Drugs–no matter how well-meaning their intentions–are supporting an anti-freedom position.
2) The Controlled Substances Act of the 1970’s that began the modern day War on Drugs is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to regulate, much less, prohibit the possession or sale of drugs.
The so-called “Interstate Commerce Clause” does NOT grant the federal government the power to prohibit the sale of goods within or between states. As the Federalist Papers clearly illustrates, this clause was written into the Constitution in order to PROMOTE free trade between the individual states, not RESTRICT it.
Prohibition was UNCONSTITUTIONAL when the alcohol temperance movement gained steam during the 1910’s–a fact that congress acknowledged by AMENDING the Constitution in order to ban the sale of alcohol. That amendment was later reversed, and no further amendment has been added to the Constitution in order to justify drug prohibition.
How is it that in 40 years, without a single amendment to the constitution–prohibition suddenly went from being unconstitutional to constitutional? That answer is that it didn’t. Congress and President Nixon took it upon themselves to delegate this unconstitutional power to themselves.
3) The War on Drugs is a clear example of the government enacting a well-intentioned government program that ends up producing unintended and undesirable side effects. The War on Drugs has utterly FAILED in its originally purpose and has led to an untold number of INNOCENT deaths–not to mention raids on the houses of innocent suspects and deaths of well-meaning police officers whose lives were cut short far too soon.
These tragedies are not isolated incidents. These are the inevitable consequences of a government program run amok. The Cato Institute has identified nearly THREE HUNDRED instances in the last 20 years in which drug raids involved (see http://www.cato.org/raidmap):
– the death of an innocent person
– the death of a nonviolent offender
– the death or injury of a police officer
– the raid on an innocent suspect
– the raid of a doctor or sick person
– a paramilitary raid involving excessive force
These botched raids make the local papers but rarely make national television, and it’s only on account of civil libertarians like Radley that we hear about them at all.
If Radley gets his facts wrong, then, by all means, call him on it. But don’t let that distract you all from the bigger argument–the erosion of civil liberties that has come about due to our government’s INHUMANE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL War on Drugs.
Mr. Patterico, as a criminal prosecutor, unless you’re actively trying to reform our country’s drug laws, YOU are part of the problem.
nicrivera (bfcb70) — 11/25/2006 @ 2:34 pm‘”In our world, who else will conduct the investigation besides the local police force?
I rather imagine the media will. In L.A., we have independent people and commissions who are often brought in to investigate such complaints.’
Is that how the judicial system works? The media will? And what will be the consequences for the police? Nothing, they are not accountable to the media.
Ben (46082e) — 11/25/2006 @ 3:15 pmI hear the FBI might look into it as well.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 3:16 pmPatterico supports the government telling us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.
Nonsense. I support enforcing the laws that are on the books, and citizens working to change those laws they don’t like.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 3:17 pmjuris whatever says:
No. I said:
As I say, I like to rely on published reports over assumptions.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 3:19 pmIs that how the judicial system works? The media will? And what will be the consequences for the police? Nothing, they are not accountable to the media.
And the police are accountable to police commissions.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 3:20 pmPatterico,
Yet you still can’t get it right. The published account is that there was one alleged sale by an unidentified male at, possibly inside, the residence to undercover officers. Hmm, where is the CI issue that is supposedly keeping the search warrant a secret? Do we have two different versions of events – according to the police?
Let me ask you counselor, what kind of case is someone trying to build when they don’t even know who they are looking to arrest? Do you rountinely apply for warrants with such slim bases?
juris imprudent (f6e979) — 11/25/2006 @ 3:31 pmGood point about it having been only one sale. I’ll fix the post.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 3:43 pmnicrivera: Patterico supports the government telling us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.
Patterico: Nonsense. I support enforcing the laws that are on the books, and citizens working to change those laws they don’t like.
Patterico,
1) The United States wasn’t founded as a pure democracy. It was founded as a Constitutional Republic in which our basic liberties were enshrined in the Constitution. These liberties are not subject to a vote.
2) If you truly “citizens working to change those laws they don’t like”, then I suppose you also support Medical Marijuana laws in California and the dozen other states that have passed similar laws.
Perhaps you’d like to refresh my memory as to what your opinion in regards to the Raich v. Gonzales (formerly Raich v. Ashcroft) Supreme Court decision. Did you condemn Bush’s Justice Department for prosecuting medical marijuana users in California? Did you codemn “Strict Constitutionalist” Scalia for siding with the liberal Supreme Court Justices in ruling against the medical marijuana laws that the people of California voted for OVERWHELMINGLY in a referendum (which is about as “citizens working to change those laws they don’t like” as one can get)?
Just wondering.
nicrivera (bfcb70) — 11/25/2006 @ 4:28 pmNicrivera,
The Constitution you love, and the Amendments thereto, create and protect our rights but they also establish the system that makes the laws that govern us all. Some of those legally established laws prohibit the sale and use of illegal drugs. Apparently you don’t like these laws. Does that mean you don’t have to abide by them?
If your answer is yes then bear in mind that I don’t like the gun laws that restrict my Second Amendment rights to carry a concealed weapon anywhere I want. I hope you will also be in favor of my right to ignore gun control laws and that you would unequivocally state that here.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/25/2006 @ 4:59 pmPerhaps you’d like to refresh my memory as to what your opinion in regards to the Raich v. Gonzales (formerly Raich v. Ashcroft) Supreme Court decision. Did you condemn Bush’s Justice Department for prosecuting medical marijuana users in California? Did you codemn “Strict Constitutionalist” Scalia for siding with the liberal Supreme Court Justices in ruling against the medical marijuana laws that the people of California voted for OVERWHELMINGLY in a referendum (which is about as “citizens working to change those laws they don’t like” as one can get)?
Yes, I did.
Not because I support medicinal marijuana. I don’t, at least in a system where we enforce drug laws. As I said in my post on the matter:
But I criticized the majority Justices, including my beloved Justice Scalia, for a tyrannical reading of the Commerce Clause:
I bet you didn’t expect that. But that’s OK. I’m used to people coming on here and making all sorts of fallacious assumptions about me and my views.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 5:34 pmPatterico,
Peter (6f40d6) — 11/25/2006 @ 10:57 pmI am a longtime reader of your blog and greatly respect your views. I understand that you feel that if the police are in error in cases like these, there will be a proper investigation and those who are at fault will pay a price. The thing that disturbs me is that it seems the police are NEVER held responsible in any meaninful way EVER. It is impossible for the police to be infallible, so the mechanism that holds them accountable must be faulty. Why should they get a free pass on criminal or at least civil liablity when they cause us the citizens grevious harm? The small details of cases where they are clearly in the wrong also disturb me. There is an arrogance about it, as if the citizen is in a lower class of some kind and does not even deserve to have the physical damage done to the property repaired. This is why, I think, people get so upset about this type of thing. There seems to be a bullying streak in a fair number of police officers, and they don’t always use it only on the criminal element.
The thing that disturbs me is that it seems the police are NEVER held responsible in any meaninful way EVER.
Do you have the slightest idea how thoroughly the LAPD investigates itself nowadays?
A gang detective told me the other day that the LAPD has more people investigating cops than they have in gang units.
Many of them end up investigating stupid, obviously fraudulent complaints.
There are genuine issues with police misconduct. But to suggest that they are NEVER (in CAPITAL LETTERS!) held accountable is simply not true.
Perhaps you meant to exaggerate.
Do you have a personal experience you want to share with us?
Patterico (de0616) — 11/25/2006 @ 11:01 pm[…] Even though I have been making the point all weekend that police found suspected drugs in the house, Balko still has not corrected his Reason post. Instead, his only response to me has been to write a screed about how it’s “bullshit” for me to say he got the facts wrong, and that I’m “sleazy.” In this screed, he misstates my arguments six ways from Sunday, but when I pointed that out, I got a post that said “whatever” and claimed that I wasn’t worth his time. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Why I Said Radley Balko Got the Facts Wrong: Because He Did (421107) — 11/26/2006 @ 2:24 amI read both Patterico and Balko and enjoy them both. Seems to me the biggest problem here is that for Balko the “war on drugs” combined with the increasing militarization of police tactics is a dangerous development and anyone who doesn’t agree is simply deserving of little respect. Patterico on the other hand is a reasonable, cautious, person who wants to examine all the facts before making a judgment. For Balko, the mere fact that a 92 y/o women, with no prior criminal history, is shot by police less than 24 hours after a supposed drug buy at her house in a dynamic no-knock raid is ipso facto another example (in a long list of examples) of people, some less innocent than others, who die needlessly as a result of this war on drugs. Balkos’ response is: STOP the damn no-knock raids. And I agree. Patterico may be right, we should wait for the facts before making a judgement in this case. But chances are we’re going to find that there was really little or no reason to invade the womens’ house in the middel of the night. And thats what I think too. The only way to stop this from happening again is to stop these damn no-knock raids for minor offenses. I wish that Patterico was as incensed about them as Balko. We could use him on our side of the fight.
scott wilkinson (cb2474) — 11/27/2006 @ 12:31 pmAs with anything that the government does the issue becomes “who watches the watchers?” That’s why cops (or any government official) need heavy, multi-layered, independent oversight of their actions.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/27/2006 @ 1:07 pmThis is from Balko’s blog today.
Johnston Update
“The AJC reports today that Chief Pennington has now confirmed that it was a confidential informant, not an undercover police officer, who purchased some sort of drugs from a man named “Sam” just hours before the raid.
Let’s give Pennington some credit, too. He also said the city will reevaluate its use of no-knock warrants, confidential informants, and dynamic entry. That’s good to hear. It’ll be even better if the city implements actual reforms.
A few questions in light of this new information:
# Have police talked to the informant since the raid? Have they shown him Johnston’s house to confirm that that is indeed the house where he made the buy?
# Did police conduct any corroborating investigation in the hours between the buy and the raid? Did police make any attempt to see who lived in the house, and if that person was actually dangerous?
# Did they drive the informant by the house to get a confirmation before conducting the raid, or did they rely on a physical description or written address?
# Why can’t we see the warrant and affidavits with the name of the informant redacted?
# What type and quantity of drugs did the informant buy from “Sam?” What made police think there would be a supply inside that house large enough to merit a dangerous no-knock warrant and forced entry raid?
# What evidence of exigent circumstances did police cite in obtaining the no-knock warrant? Why did they use forced entry?
# Where in the home was the marijuana found? How much was found?
# Is it acceptable police policy in Atlanta to conduct a forced-entry drug raid based solely on the word of a confidential informant? Is that what happened here? If so, what will the city do to make sure it doesn’t happen again? If such tactics are acc# eptable policy, will the city now make changes to that policy?
# We were first told that an undercover officer made the buy. Now we learn it was an informant. We were first told that Johnston began firing before police entered. We were then told police knocked and announced before entering. Then that they announced, but didn’t knock. Then that they announced as they were entering. Why does the police account of events keep changing?”
RJN (e12f22) — 11/27/2006 @ 1:40 pm