92-Year-Old Woman Had Drugs . . . But Only a Small Amount of Marijuana
The 92-year-old woman in Atlanta did have illegal drugs. But it was just a small amount of marijuana:
The Atlanta Police Department has promised a full investigation, but said they did find suspected narcotics inside the home.
“They did find drugs in the house and it was not a large amount. It was marijuana,” said Chief Pennington.
(Via Balko.)
That sounds suspiciously like an amount for personal use.
My use of force expert, whose interview I hope to publish tomorrow, says that the police didn’t do their homework before going in. This tends to confirm that.
P.S. Credit where credit is due: Radley Balko predicted that the amount and nature of drugs in the house would not justify the raid, and he was proven correct.
What a tragedy for Ms. Johnston and her family. I look forward to your interview with the use-of-force expert, and I hope s/he will comment on whether or not no-knock raids are worthwhile tactics.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 7:24 pmHe generally opposes them.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 7:28 pmUm… marijuana is not technically a “narcotic”, but an hallucinogen. Although I admit I don’t know how the law defines it.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/26/2006 @ 7:28 pmThe justification for the raid is not determined by what was found but rather by what the police reasonably believed they would find. That they were ‘wrong’ does not make the raid a mistake.
steve sturm (d3e296) — 11/26/2006 @ 7:33 pmHmmmm.
Considering that the police supposedly made a drug purchase earlier that day of sufficient proportions to warrant a no-knock raid the lack of drugs *is* a fact that shows the raid was a serious mistake.
ed (ec36cc) — 11/26/2006 @ 7:42 pmSteve–
More to the point would be WHO they expected to find — something they could have spent a bit more time being sure of. But you are right about the probable cause telling the tale. Something I’m sure will come out at some point. All we have now is the assertion that there was a drug buy earlier in, or in front of, the house. But right now, I bet the lawyers are lined up to take the case.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/26/2006 @ 7:44 pmNo. It means he made an educated guess that turned out to be correct. Big difference.
CraigC (1465f4) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:00 pmJust because Balko’s guess was correct (and BTW, his default guess is always that the police were wrong), that doesn’t make him right.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:01 pmOsiris is Tefnut, who was previously banned.
He is a professional comment spammer — I mean that literally, based on his IP addresses — and no doubt has countless IP addresses to use. I may not be able to fight him, but his comments will be deleted as they come up, one by one.
Rule of thumb: if you see a jerk, don’t respond to him. It may be him, and the comments will disappear anyway.
You shouldn’t be feeding trolls anyway.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:03 pmP –
If possible, please edit out “Osiris” from my last post.
[Done. — P]
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:03 pmOkay. Thanks for the troll warning.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:04 pmThe justification for the raid is not determined by what was found but rather by what the police reasonably believed they would find. That they were ‘wrong’ does not make the raid a mistake.
True. But it’s evidence that the raid was carried out in a poor manner.
If I can ever get that interview up and running, you’ll see what I mean.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:06 pmEnch is Osiris is Tefnut.
I suspect him of being a professional spammer.
His latest comment is left from IP address 212.138.64.178. That resolves to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. That is a set of IP addresses I typically see from comment spammers who leave pornographic links and such. Another Osiris/Tefnut/Ench IP address resolved to an Asian IP address that I have also seen associated with spam.
I will keep deleting them.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:29 pmI excerpted the following from the story Balko linked, Patterico:
“It all started Tuesday when Narcotics officers served a search warrant at Kathryn Johnston’s southwest Atlanta home.
Officers said Johnston started shooting at them, so they returned fire, killing her. All three officers were shot.”
To quote you, “Jesus”. What a bland whitewash of the incident! These guys are supposed to be reporters. At least, in my praise of Kathryn Johnston, there was no doubt that I was gushing. Do they have police public relations officers write their copy for them? So was the “not large amount of marijuana” a single stem or seed tracked in on the carpet? It may be the case given the quote above.
nk (b57bfb) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:30 pmsteve sturm at 11/26/2006 @ 7:33 pm wrote:
DRJ at 11/26/2006 @ 8:01 pm wrote:
I get it.
If police make an educated guess that turns out wrong, they weren’t wrong.
If Radley Balko makes an educated guess that turns out right, he wasn’t right.
So I’ll make an educated guess: This is going to be one very interesting comment thread.
Occasional Reader (67852a) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:30 pmSo was the “not large amount of marijuana” a single stem or seed tracked in on the carpet? It may be the case given the quote above.
I suspect it’s less than an ounce.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:36 pmI do think no-knock warrants are sometimes beneficial; you’ve got some of these dope houses with fortifications and security cameras – even nighttime no-knocks may be right.
But obviously, you’ve got to be damn careful. An ounce of pot in a suspected dope house is meaningless; that’s really the same as no dope at all.
Beyond that, it’s impossible to comment on this; we just do not have the facts. Ideally, some competent journalist will get all the facts and we’ll be able to speak intelligently.
–JRM
JRM (389dbe) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:45 pmAfter seeing the trolls right after my and Patterico’s comments, I wish I could retract my comment because it gives them support even though that’s not my intention. That’s how f-wording trolls suffocate a thread. They pervert real discussion.
nk (b57bfb) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:51 pmBeyond that, it’s impossible to comment on this; we just do not have the facts. Ideally, some competent journalist will get all the facts and we’ll be able to speak intelligently.
It’s not completely impossible. My expert had some interesting things to say.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:56 pmnk,
Don’t worry about it. Just ignore them.
It’s a little work deleting the comments, but probably less work than it is for him to type them up.
He has an endless supply of IP addresses — as I said, a real-live professional spammer.
You want to talk utter scum, you’ve found it. There is no being more lowly than the professional spammer. This is someone who belongs in jail. I’d support a no-knock warrant on his house all day long.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 8:58 pmFWIW, Balko suffers the Sullivan/Mona disease, abet not to such sever extents. Pet issues contaminate what ought to be viewed as fine minds. On these issues however, their certitude rivals, and sometimes exceeds, their opponent’s absolutism they claim to detest. In fact, opposition to their opinions in these select issues often leads to one being castigated as, at best, apostate.
I don’t think you did wrong Patrick, but it is honorable of you to re-evaluate, and issue corrections/retractions/apologies if you think you were… rash in your response. That is something I’ve yet to see in Sully, or Mona, or Radley, or a host of other ostensible libertarians whom seem rather left on balance.
bains (dd1157) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:21 pmmarijuana is not a narcotic. narcotics are opioids/heroin.
assistant devil's advocate (7ba82e) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:22 pmcontrary to what kevin murphy said in #3, marijuana is not a hallucinogen either. hallucinogens make you see and hear things that aren’t there. lsd is a hallucinogen.
when the police said there were suspected narcotics in the home, they were lying from the gitgo. they’ve been lying all along, in between simply refusing to disclose information, such as the identity of the informant and his/her relationship to the occupants of the home.
the police launched a swat-team style paramilitary assault against a 92 year old woman based on nothing. the small amount of marijuana may not even have been hers. i will say once again that she is a heroic martyr and i wish she’d killed them. i’m laughing at some of the statist sheep commenters on here who swallowed the lies. you know who you are.
Occasional reader,
I assume that you, like Radley Balko, believe that no-knock raids are wrong and I can understand that attitude. Good for him that he is such an effective advocate for his position. What I can’t understand are statements like this:
This statement leads me to believe that Balko views drug consumption as consensual behavior and drugs as just another addictive product like tobacco and alcohol. As a libertarian, he probably does view drugs that way and maybe someday society will accept that view.
But today’s drug laws don’t view drug offenses as benign events or consensual behavior. When Balko frames the debate this way, IMO he tars both the drug war (as he intends) and its warriors, the police (which he claims he does not intend). Why? Because no warrior would prosecute an immoral war and by framing the drug wars as immoral, he tars both the war and its warriors.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:23 pmWell this is just typical. My guesses:
1. The probable cause for the warrant was a likely fabrication based on (naturally) a “confidential informant”. Translation – somebody in trouble with the cops currying favor. Call the police work sloppy, call it a mistake or whatever. But remember this warrant was apparantly to set up a no-knock SWAT raid – perhaps the most dangerous approach for both citizens and police. There is NO EXCUSE for this (if true) and the officers involved should be prosecuted for acting in bad faith, failure to perform a reasonable investigation, possible judicial deception, etc. and they and the city involved should be sued personally and professionally under US Code 42, 1983 for violation of civil rights. This is a beautiful Federal Law – because with a compentent lawyer the touted immunities of police and cities often evaporates (if it existed in the first place).
2. This seems clearly (in my opinion) an egregious example of excessive force – again a constitutional violation.
3. It seems to me that these apparent bozos (I am sorry, but at this point I feel there is enough good information out there to call them bozos)put themselves, Johnston and I suppose surrounding houses/neighbors in severe jeopardy. I keep hearing over 90 shots were fired by the police of which 4 hit and killed Johnston. If true, where did the other bullets go? If (and I don’t know this yet) they were firing typical SWAT weapons – say M-16 variants they were likely firing full metal jacket rounds capable of going through houses. Actually submachine guns (MP-5’s UMP 45’s, etc) typically are firing 9MM, .40 or .45 caliber rounds which also can penetrate through houses. It seems a miracle that there were no other casualties.
4. Then comes the fed media disinformation – she shot them outside the house as they approached, she was dealing serious drugs, the police announced themselves outside, and she should have known better, and (thank god for us)the cops found (or sadly planted – and there are proven cases of this) some stems or a joint – “see she is a druggy”. Everything they can do to discredit publically an old woman. This works a lot of times btw and that’s the end of the story.
5.Then comes the “there will be a full investigtion stage – months pass – memories fail.
6. The police are eventually completely vindicated by the investigation or slapped (nod nod wink wink) on the hand.
7. If the family has say $250K to $500K they can file a civil suit. What follows will be more disinformation and statements by the city lawyers that “the case is without merit” and typically more slanderous and libelous statements against the deceased are made. These are designed to pre-coach the public — some of whom will be the jury.
8. Then either of two things happen – after the family spends years and say $250k and the cops/city realize the case is likely going to trial they attempt to settle for pennies on the dollar confientially and out of court.
OR it goes to court – now the family has spent say $500k – and if the plaintiffs do win, there are years of appeals, etc. instead of just bucking up and admitting the cops screwed up and taking their lumps like grown men and women.
9. To put the icing on the cake, any relationship between what used to have been good community police and the people of the community are completely destroyed. How sad for what I call the many “TRUE BLUE” honest, competent and good cops and the community they actually serve and protect.
Wanna bet how close I am to what actually happens?
Oh – and why do we need SWAT teams using paramilitary tactics, military super weapons, flash-bang grenades, CS gas, battering rams, APC’s, helicopters and tanks again??????? I know I am getting older and I just keep forgetting the rationale for the SWAT teams and what the cost benefit ratio of having them all over the country really is. I hate geting old.
Nick
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:29 pmassistant devil’s advocate #23:
You certainly chose an appropriate blogging name. Either that or you are doing your best to live up to it.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:29 pm@bracka:
assistant devil's advocate (7ba82e) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:41 pmwhat law school did you go to? i’m a uc hastings alum. i’m guessing you couldn’t get into a matchbook correspondence school.
ada:
We’re almost on the same side. If you could please stop wishing people’s deaths?
nk (b57bfb) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:51 pmBracka is a professional spammer. Ignore him.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/26/2006 @ 9:52 pmI think this is a completely false rendering of Balko’s position. I’d like to see a quote by Balko that supports the above characterization of his argument. I’d like a quote, with either a solid reference or link. Otherwise you are just constructing a strawman.
My view of Balko’s position, after reading many of his posts, is that SWAT teams do have their uses. I’d even be willing to bet that Balko would think that no-knock raids are appropriate in certain contexts.
This context the no-knock raid does not at all seem appropriate. To generalize from this context to the broader context as DRJ does is the sign of intellectual laziness.
Steve Verdon (7a01d1) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:24 pmSteve Verdon,
Good point. I assumed (silly me) that we were discussing no-knock raids in the context of drug enforcement and I think that I correctly stated Radley Balko’s position on that. I believe that Balko has also stated that no-knock raids are or might be appropriate in other contexts, such as in hostage situations. I’m sorry I was, as you put it, intellectually lazy. I need to go back to blogging commenter’s school.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/26/2006 @ 10:58 pmLooking at the Ch 11 story …
All three officers were shot. THREE officers to serve a no-knock warrant?!
Did we ever get settled that it was, indeed, a no-knock warrant, or was it a search warrant with dynamic entry? (For which three also seems inadequate.)
How many rounds were fired by the police (seems to be consistantly over ninty), how many times was she hit (I’ve seen 18, 12, and 4 for the latter)?
Three officers(?), thirty-round magazines(?), bad fire control, maybe ninety is correct.
htom (412a17) — 11/26/2006 @ 11:37 pmada (#22)–
Marijuana in sufficient quantities will cause hallucinations in some people. According to Wikipedia marijuana is considered a psychedelic, which is a subset of hallucinogen. Oddly, “hallucinations” are not technically required for a substance to be called an hallucinogen.
You are correct that narcotics, medically, are substances derived from opium, or synthetics that act similarly, collectively called opioids.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/27/2006 @ 12:06 amWikipedia marijuana is considered a psychedelic, which is a subset of hallucinogen. Oddly, “hallucinations” are not technically required for a substance to be called an hallucinogen.
You are correct that narcotics, medically, are substances derived from opium, or synthetics that act similarly, collectively called opioids.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/27/2006 @ 12:10 amSo the back peddling has begun.
Chief Pennington said the case was built on a drug buy by a confidential informant, who claimed he purchased drugs inside Johnston’s home. At first the police said it was undercover officers made the buy.
“They did find drugs in the house and it was not a large amount. It was marijuana,” said Chief Pennington. At first it was “suspected” narcotics.
So far the police have gone from smearing the victim to damagae control. Coming up next, Stonewalling.
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/27/2006 @ 12:35 amPatterico,
Point of clarification: what is a “professional spammer” exactly?
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/27/2006 @ 2:57 amWhat a bunch of ridiculous comments;
1. htom – How accurate of a shooter are you? How about after you get shot twice, I think most humans would suffer some degradation of accuracy after being hit twice. With perfect 20/20 hindsight what is the acceptable number of shots to discharge when you are being shot at? Is an officer also responsible for counting the shots of fellow officers so the cumulative total does not exceed this acceptable figure? Are you advocating a return to the wild west dual days, officers are allowed one return shot for each shot fired at them?
2. Gerald your faulting the police for not jumping to assumptions? They find something that appears to be narcotics but refer to it as suspected until they perform the test and verify. You would prefer everything that appears to be a narcotic is called such then you give them heat the couple times something test negative? They have done nothing to smear the lady unlike your remarks smearing the cops.
3. So if I sell 10 pounds of weed but only have some personal use left would any raid on my residence be unjustified because only a small amount remained? For anyone to make assumptions on the justification of the raid without reading the warrant is out of line. If they purchased large quantities what does it matter how much was left. Why do you find it so hard to believe someone was selling drugs out of their grandmother’s house? Cops served a warrant looking for the dealers and grandma opened fire, cops never said it was grandma doing the dealing. How can you ignore simple facts while making far fetched accusations against the cops?
4. ADA – Weed is commonly referred to as a narcotic, 99% of cops and people on the street would refer to any controlled substance as a narcotic. Read any medical journal and it will say marijuana causes hallucinogen effects specially when consumed in high doses. So I guess you are lying in your post and lying about everything you say you lying liar. Does any sane person really expect the police to provide the name and address of the informant, why not just toss him to the mobs for street justice, that will do wonders in getting people to come forward with information on crimes.
5. Nick – not one of your assumptions makes any since and to believe any of them would require overlooking much simpler explanations. Three NARC officers is not a swat raid. Police wouldn’t do SWAT raids if it was not safer for the officer. Without seeing the warrant how can you even speculate on the investigation? For all you know an undercover officer made multiple buys in the residence. I’ll bet not a single shot was fired from anything but standard service handguns. Instead of guessing what they were shooting why not save the comments till you have the facts? Do you have any evidence the cops gave the media misleading information or is the police department somehow responsible for the assumptions of journalist?
Why has no one demanded the person selling the drugs out of grandma’s house step forward? This is a typical reaction by race baiting victims. Everyone’s fault but the person selling the drugs that lead to the warrant and Grandma who shot three cops.
Nate Ogden (ca428c) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:32 amNate, #34:
The “Grandma/grandson” theory is not the best one. I prefer to imagine that for a woman of Kathryn Johston’s moxie it was her 25-year old lover. She was not only defending her home, she was defending her man. Extra cool.
nk (956ea1) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:41 amnk,
She was protecting her 30-40 cats, many of which were regrettably killed in the crossfire.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:49 amLeviticus, #36:
If you are not already one of the unfortunate eighteen people who read my poem about Kathryn Johnston, click on my site and read the second post there to see what I was getting at.
nk (956ea1) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:55 amNate — probably better than the average cop, since in the early 1960s I was seriously trying to be in the Olympics as a pistol shooter. I understand that that’s not the same as training house shooting, and that neither are actual combat. Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children taught me to be an even better shooter, and when I left them, for more than a decade I didn’t fire a gun at all. I’m smart enough that when some cops come to a range I’m shooting at and start shooting, I leave, because I don’t think that they are SAFE gun handlers. Some of them have shot themselves or fellow officers in stupid discharge incidents.
For the average citizen, getting five hits on a group of invaders is excellent. We don’t know, yet, if her sixth shot was a miss, an empty chamber, a five shot cylinder, misfire, or she was out of the battle — or if she was attempting a tactical reload.
For the three, four, or n LEOs, ninety shots sounds like very bad fire control. It sounds like they all kept pulling the trigger until the gun was going “click”. I am really curious as to how many rounds she was hit by, how many were near-misses (say 6″-12″), how many were in the room she was in (assuming one room) and how many did not even make it into that room.
htom (412a17) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:00 amPatterico, you are too nice a guy to gents like Balko.
OHNOES (5884ae) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:42 amDRJ,
The default position of any patriot is to be skeptical of their government and assume a little malfeasance on its part. Any good conservative or libertarian knows that.
MikeT (b4ba83) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:16 amDRJ at 11/26/2006 @ 9:23 pm wrote:
If the criterion for being a warrior is that no warrior would prosecute an immoral war, then perhaps the term “warrior” is not the correct one to designate those prosecuting the drug war. Not everyone who prosecutes a war is a warrior just because they fancy themselves one. History is littered with examples.
I’m old enough to be retired and collecting social security. In my lifetime I’ve held many jobs and practiced several professions. I don’t consider myself different in that economic respect from many other normal human beings.
I have walked away from, or declined to accept, jobs in which I thought I would have to do things I believed were just wrong, even though they were perfectly legal.
Anybody who takes a job as a police officer is capable of the same. Those “warriors” who would willingly wreak such hideous inhuman atrocities as this raid simply because they are “just doing their job” have the same choices that I, you, or any other human being has.
In fact they have more and better choices than many have or ever had. Unlike many warriors in history, they wouldn’t be summarily executed, or even imprisoned, for refusing an order to do something they think is wrong. At worst they’d just have to find another job.
I hope their bullet wounds heal quickly and without lasting injury. I also hope their experience in this raid gives them impetus to think thoroughly and clearly about their choices, and perhaps embrace a different approach to their chosen profession. It is not necessary to be a “drug warrior” to be an excellent police officer.
If even one of those police officers comes to realize that, then Ms. Kathryn Johnston’s death was not entirely in vain.
Occasional Reader (3b67fe) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:19 am“The default position of any patriot is to be skeptical of their government and assume a little malfeasance on its part. Any good conservative or libertarian knows that.”
-MikeT
I’m glad someone finally said that.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:26 am@htom:
assistant devil's advocate (1b787a) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:53 amshooting ranges are extraordinarily dangerous places. i haven’t been to one in over 15 years. still remember the chick in the low-cut blouse at the station next to me. the guy on the other side of her fired a semiauto at his target. his gun ejected a piece of hot brass which tumbled through the air and dropped right between her headlights. startled, she spun away from him, and there i was looking right down the barrel of her gun.
at least cops have some minimal weapons handling experience.
you wanna check out a firearm, take it into the woods, don’t go to a range. you have no idea who that is at the adjacent station.
Amen. Just wearing a badge does not a warrior make.
Mitch Wayne (ba946e) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:11 amNate Ogden #34.
1. I think I used words like “my guesses”, “if true” etc. throughout my comments.
2. Three LEO’s dressed in full battle gear (as per police management quotes), not uniforms, making a forced entry – IS a tactical (SWAT, ERT, etc.)raid, and if my memory serves me correctly (if) there was a comment by the police about drawing up a tactical plan.
2(a). I can’t wait to see the warrant. As I said I believe it is likely full of fabrications. Why? Because (per the police chief) it was based on a confidential informant (meaning a rat), and nothing apparently about the intelligence seems to bear out the results and force used. Oh darn-it that’s right they found some evil “personal use” weed.
And if the probable cause presented in the warrant to the magistrate who signed it is flawed or fabricated and the cop knew or should have known — oops, judicial deception …. could be real bad news for the cop – particular if the family gets a really good lawyer in this obviously high profile case.
3. If the number of shots fired is anywhere near correct, and there were only 3 officers, I feel pretty comfortable that military tactical weapons were used. If you have any practical or tactical experience with firearms (as I have) I think you would believe the scenario you suggest is unlikely (not impossible – just not plausible).
Don’t tell me you believe the cops sat there and reloaded say 9mm handguns over and over.
At what point does one think the lady with a 5 or 6 shot (revolver – almost certainly)was disabled/dead? And each of the cops sat there reloading their regular handguns at least 3 times. Not likely. To think so I beleive would elevate a 92 year old lady to someone with tactical training (replete with tactical equipment) capable of conduting a rather lengthy fire fight.
BTW when you say “I’ll bet not a single shot was fired from anything but standard service handguns.” Why not do as you say and ” instead of guessing what they were shooting why not save the comments till you have the facts?”
4. Seriously, who do you think the media gets their quotes from? The police and their information officer mainly – I assume that is true since the articles CITE the names of the officers quoted.
5. We have already gone from the police saying undercover cops made the buys to the backtracking that they got their information from a “confidential informant” as Gerald #32 points out.
6. The promise of a full investigation has already been publically made by the police chief (my point #5, above)
7. My points #6 and forward are predictions (as noted) and are quite typical of what happens in any civil case involving any state or government agency. And as I said anybody wanna bet on the outcome? And the saddest thing (besides Ms. Johnstons death) is the damage this apparent complete foul up has done/will do is the ruination of relationships between the “True Blue” police and the communities they serve.
So come on Nate (or is it really Dafddy?), in my opinion it is really is your comments that make no “since”….
In the alternative I guess we could wait years to find out all the “facts” we are eventually allowed to see – but by then, the point of this discussion would be as cold and dead as Ms. Johnston.
P.S. I agree with and do the same as htom #38 when at the range – and for the exact same reasons.
Nick
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:33 amCI’s “confidential informants” are very often competing dealers. Our policy of prohibition does society more harm than good – time to end the madness.
Gbear (6a100c) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:58 amhttp://www.leap.cc/
“Some cops” doesn’t mean all or any; it means those whom I’ve seen being really unsafe at the range. Some of the best shooters (and teachers and trainers in the shooting sports) that I know are LEOs. I’ll do the same if a stranger is not safely handling his firearms. An occasional loss of muzzle control after a startle is very different than one officer drawing his sidearm, pointing it at me, and asking his buddy on my other side if his barrel looks clean.
I don’t try to teach range safety at the range unless I’m the RSO, I just quietly pack up and leave the firing line. Depending on the range and the RSO, I may comment to the RSO as to why I’m doing so. Some RSOs seem to think that LEOs should be allowed to be unsafe fools at the range; there are various reasons given for this, none of them are any good, and none of them are worth a minute of my time arguing about.
htom (412a17) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:09 amI strongly doubt these officers, assuming they were regular narc-squad guys, had anything resembling MP5s or M4s. Those types of weapons are generally issued only to full-on SWAT members. If they had Glock 17s or similar (I picked that arbitrarily, but it is a common service pistol), they could have exceeded 90 rounds with slightly less than a single reload each.
And it’s highly doubtful they had any idea how many rounds were fired, and that’s pretty standard in a lethal force confrontation. Officers often don’t remember firing, don’t remember reloading, and have been known to find their empty brass in their pocket with no memory of putting it there. The effects of that level of stress often reduce a person to reflex and muscle-memory level… the physiological and psychological effects are well-documented.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:15 amHow much illegal substance does one need to have assumed to be in the house, to justify a military-style home invasion?
Balko is right, not just because of his prediction on the insignificance of the drug found, but the immorality of treating US citizens like terror suspects, to uphold a law that has nothing to do with protecting people or defending liberty. But I know trying to explain the morality of a law with a lawyer is like trying to explain chess to a dolphin. They are smart animals, but they just aren’t wired for that kind of thinking.
Frank N Stein (38ff57) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:24 amMikeT #40:
Mike,
The default position for a conservative (of which I count myself as one) is to be skeptical of government policies, not people. There is a difference however slight it may seem in theory. People get at least one chance before a conservative decides they are corrupt; policies have to prove their value from the get-go.
As for how libertarians view people, I’ll defer to your judgment.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:24 amOccasional reader #41: Do you agree with Radley Balko that SWAT teams may be necessary and appropriate in fugitive and hostage situations? If so, aren’t you glad that some people are willing to do the job that you find morally indefensible?
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:27 amTheNewGuy # 47.
You could be absolutely right – my gut says you are not – but we don’t yet know.
Your comments seem very reasonable and viable to me.
What does strike me however is this:
Had they not chosen a tactical raid, the attributes of which I include:
• forced entry,
• apparently no-knock,
• announce as you are bursting through the door (per the police chief’s latest comments) which highly likely would not have been heard or understood in the melee
then, there likely would have been no confrontation with gunfire with apparently a huge number of shots being fired.
I absolutely do believe what you said about the stress level effects could have happened to the officers. (As an aside, imagine Johnston’s stress levels.)
Fighter pilots call this phenomena “target tunnel vision” and “loss of situational awareness”. It is usually associated with a lack of proper training and highly correlated with bad mistakes resulting in death(s).
Respectfully,
Nick
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/27/2006 @ 12:56 pmtheAgitator.com, that’s Balko’s blog, has a great round up today. It is beginning to look like we, the Balko crowd, were right about this.
RJN (e12f22) — 11/27/2006 @ 1:07 pmIf the police had executed the raid an hour earlier and cought a grandson in the house with a couple ounces packaged for distribution would anyone have had a problem with this warrant? The police have no way of knowing who will be in the house when they execute the warrant but everyone still wants to condem them with 20/20 hindsight. They didn’t execute a warrant on a 92 year old women, they executed it on a house were a 92 year old women happened to be. Which raises the question of how she was so quick on the draw? She muct have been sitting there with her gun in hand when they came through.
Nate Ogden (ca428c) — 11/27/2006 @ 2:23 pm“Which raises the question of how she was so quick on the draw? She muct have been sitting there with her gun in hand when they came through.”
She is apparently a justily paranoid woman, who would rarely open her door. Top this off with a rape of another elderly woman in the neighborhood a week earlier its a safe bet that she was infact in fear of her life. I would imagine she was sitting there with gun in hand as they forced the door open.
G (722480) — 11/27/2006 @ 2:29 pmI’m still rather puzzled at criticism of the officers for firing large numbers of bullets. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation that put them there they were going into a house anticipating possible confrontation. They were then shot, and reacted by firing until they were sure that all the assailants were dead.
Exactly what I’d have done, if put in this situation.
The fact that the prior investigation looks flawed in a number of important respects is not the fault of the officers engaged in the raid (unless they were involved in the prior planning, and in that case their mistakes were there and not at the house).
The question ‘why were they there?’ looks much more reasonable to me than ‘why did they return fire?’
B (e8227e) — 11/27/2006 @ 2:32 pm“I’m still rather puzzled at criticism of the officers for firing large numbers of bullets.”
G (722480) — 11/27/2006 @ 2:36 pmI’m right there with you. People must be really concerned about the price of bullets.
Oh, so now it was a $50 crack rock, huh? Bought not by the drug warriors, but an informant? But no crack in the house? Gotcha. Anybody willing to bet money this “Sam” character whom the (I’m sure very reliable) junkie, er… “informant” allegedly bought the rock from will NEVER be found?
CTD (7054d2) — 11/27/2006 @ 2:48 pmDRJ at 11/27/2006 @ 11:27 am wrote:
Of course I agree with Radley Balko that such tactics may be necessary and appropriate in some situations.
If I am to answer your second question, you’ll first have to show me where I said that SWAT teams and tactics are always morally indefensible.
Occasional Reader (2f9493) — 11/27/2006 @ 2:53 pmThe latest from Atlanta:
And:
steve (8572b6) — 11/27/2006 @ 3:24 pmI honestly have a hard time believing it was a bona-fide no-knock warrant. It certainly could have been, but it would have to be a seriously cavalier department to serve a high-risk no-knock like this.
IMO a regular squad of Narcs has no business serving any kind of no-knock warrant with only three guys. Those are high-risk warrants by definition, and every department I’ve ever known mandated that SWAT serve those as a matter of departmental policy. Even if you don’t do a full activation (for instance, the perimeter team could be regular patrol officers), the entry team must be made up of trained operators, and the bigger the structure, the more men you need. I’d hesitate to do an apartment with only three guys.
Even if you’ve got three very high-speed operators, that’s a recipe for disaster if you run across any kind of serious opposition (which is theoretically why you sought a no-knock in the first place). Say you get your #1 man wounded, now you’re down to two, where #2 has to simultaneously return fire/cover long and drag his wounded buddy, while the other covers his six… or their rear goes uncovered while one fires and the other drags… ugly and dangerous either way. Those are the kinds of warrants where you want your varsity.
Their warrant may have been legit, and their motives pure, but I’d like some more of the operational details. At this point, I’m not sure what these guys were doing.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/27/2006 @ 3:50 pmGood work, Steve.
nk (5a2f98) — 11/27/2006 @ 3:51 pmThese are my opinions based on what I understand as of now. New factual information may change my opinions.
• It is beginning to sound like a no-knock should not have been issued in the first place (we will hopefully see soon).
• The approval of the warrant will be based upon what truths, lies, reasonable or unreasonable assumptions the officer put into the probable cause for the warrant (again we will see). If it is either unreasonable or lies – the officer is highly exposed to a federal civil rights suit to include judicial deception (again we will see) and his immunity goes “bye-bye”. Likely so does the city’s, if it has it.
• The LEO’s are supposed to be trained and knowing that a 92 year old woman lived in the house should have made them back off from a no-knock. Take it to the extreme – would you say the same – that is was ok to use a no-knock tactical entry to execute a simple warrant if it was a child care house with 10 children inside being watched by Ms. Johnston?
• On the bullets – perhaps you have never fired a gun even at a range or been under fire and wounded – I have – by an M-16 which permanently maimed me.
In a non-military confrontation there should be some matching of force – particularly when a 92 year old woman was known to live in the house. Shooting over 90 rounds is absurd – these guys were out of control – (pissed? you betcha). But you don’t club somebody because they insult you. You also don’t unleash a paramilitary fire fight (remember – they are supposed to have done surveillance, tactical and used intelligence) in a house with an old woman in it. Don’t tell me that they didn’t know what they were doing or confronting – this was a planned tactical assault supposedly on a house under surveillance. Remember they got a no-knock warrant ahead of time? They went in there in body armor – how many freaking shots does it take? These guys were in, IMO, War (on drugs, or whatever) Mode – not civilian policing mode.
Maybe some of you saw the sickening quote from the SWAT team member in Florida: they had tracked down a cop killer in the woods hiding under a log. They shot (yes, he apparently deserved dying and I am not losing any sleep over him) something like 160 rounds of submachine and M-16 rounds at him while he was under a log. The coroner stated something like the first 5 shots killed him. The SWAT team members quote was – “We would have shot him more but we ran out of ammunition”. Damn if only they had thought to drain some gas out of the SWAT vehicles and burn his body too…….but I guess they were plumb tuckered out by then.
If you don’t see the difference and why firing so many rounds (btw – where did they go, through a window, into a neighbors house, where?) is absurd and dangerous to the neighborhood – well then I just don’t know what to say.
• And if as so many have postulated (perhaps correctly) the old woman was sitting/standing there when they burst through her door, while simultaneously making an announcement (per the police chief) – it is no wonder the lady shot at them. What would you, perhaps an untrained frightened out of your mind civilian, have done in that split second as they burst through your door yelling something. Beer bet says you would have unloaded that gun as fast as you could without even thinking – AND before your mind had time to realize these intruders were not thugs.
• What is a wonder is why these trained professionals did not realize it was the old lady shooting at them??? Please don’t tell me she could have been some kind of agile sniper – she was over 90 years old for god’s sake. Firing 90+ rounds at an old lady who fired 5 shots in what was IMO clearly self defense is ridiculous.
• The final bottom line is, again in my opinion, is these SWAT/NARC whatever cops were executing a tactical home invasion and appear to be complete screw ups. There is nothing that has come out yet that makes me believe otherwise (may be there will be) – but every day – every new piece of information seems to back up they are screw ups. And again, how great is all this for relations between good police doing good community police work and the people of the community?
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:14 pmOccasional reader,
If you intended to limit your comments to drug enforcement, then I stand corrected – theoretically. However, I doubt there are many police officers who have jobs where they can specify what laws they will enforce and what laws they won’t enforce. In fact, I don’t know of any police officers that get to make that decision, do you?
So if you want to be a police officer in most jurisdictions, you have to be willing to serve search warrants and make arrests for drug offenses. Those operations might very well include no-knock raids. Your suggestion that police officers should find other jobs rather than engage in no-knock raids sounds fine until you realize that if everyone did that, the only police left would be those in areas that don’t have SWAT teams. My recollection of DOJ statistics is that over 70% of the police forces in America have SWAT capabilities.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:55 pmThis gets curiouser and curiouser.
APD has released the original warrant, asked the FBI to investigate the shootings and has suspended 7 narcotics offcicers pending the results of the FBI inquiry.
Channel 5 in Atlanta has this to say:
ATLANTA (FOX5) — A confidential police informant tells FOX5 News APD officers asked him to lie about events leading up to the fatal shooting of an elderly woman.
Actual (b40158) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:57 pmHey Nate,
Marijuana ISN’T a narcotic. That is the smear they attempted.
Guess I missed a step in backpeddling, blame the informant slipped in there. With him saying the cops told him lie, and to help those who seem to have trouble connecting the dots, SOMEONE IS LYING!
Boils down to one of three choices.
1. Lying Informant
2. Lying Cops
3. Lying Cops and Informant
Kinda gives ya a warm and fuzzy feeling, don’t it?
Gerald (88e5f0) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:14 pmYup,
The informant now says no such buy ever took place, and the cops told him to make it up.
Ergo, you must believe the Rambo-wannabe drug warriors either a) violently invaded the home of a terrified octogenarian woman solely on a tip from an informant they now claim is a liar, or b) really did have him lie about the “drug buy” beforehand. I’m not sure which scenario scares me more.
CTD (53d3c5) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:30 pmSteve #59
Excellent – really appreciate you posting that article ….WOW!
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:33 pmI don’t get it. Why would the cops commit perjury and claim the informant told them something he did not?
Actual (b40158) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:59 pmAlternatively, why would the informant tell the cops something to cause the raid and then deny he told them anything?
I mean, who gains from all this?
It almost seems like the informant set the cops up for some unknown reason.
“The confidential informant on whose word Atlanta police raided the house of an 88-year-old woman is now saying he never purchased drugs from her house and was told by police to lie and say he did.”
Hey, Frey: is this the part where I get to call you a fuckin’ asshole and you’ll hold still for it? Hmm? Is it the part where you’ll just throw me out of here for asking a pointed question without resort to “snide fakery”? Hmm? Do you think we have enough facts to work with, yet, or what?
Do send word.
Billy Beck (7e7d4b) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:02 pmDRJ #63
I think you are right about that it is part of the job and that 70% have SWAT teams. What I question in general (not of you)is:
1) Why are this many SWAT teams necessary? According to everything I’ve read 99% of the time they just serve warrants (Rambo style). This should just be civil police work like it used to be.
2) Why is it so apparently easy to get no-knock warrants? This is supposed to be the USA, a person’s home is supposed to be his castle “Castle Laws”.
We now have a case where a no-knock warrant – which to me is inviting life or death – and should be the extreme exception – is apparently easily obtained by lying cops, lying informants, both or whatever – but obviously it was rubber stamped. And unfortunately this is not unusual.
3. The other thing is don’t the cops themselves initiate the warrants in most cases? SO it is not only that you have to be willing to go to serve the warrant – but you also have to create the circumstances in which a warrant of any kind is issued. Seems like for example in this case (as in others) the cops initiated the warrant, got it approved as a no-knock by some magistrate, and then executed the warrant (as well as Ms. Johnston, one might argue).
I guess I just think none of it is taken seriously as relates to our civil liberties, unfounded raids are occuring and people are getting killed. And there is no accountbility. And to top it off we have the federal government granting probably billions of dollars a year in funding and equipment give aways so that almost every town has a SWAT team.
I’m thinking one way to solve this is to make the people involved accountable legally. If a magistrate just rubber stamps a warrant that clearly is questionable – he or she should be able to be sued. If a cop creates a warrant that is poorly investigated, etc. he or she should be sued.
If Ms. Johnston had lived she would be now be chained to a hospital bed, under arrest recovering. And once she recovered she would face 1st degree felony charges for assault on a police officer.
If we the people are held to such standards – why aren’t the cops – we are all equal under the law aren’t we (lol)?
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:02 pmThe only thing that I regret in all this is that I didn’t have the nerve to step right out and say that I thought these animals in APD were going to fake it.
Billy Beck (7e7d4b) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:04 pmBilly, #69:
That was totally uncalled for. Blame the APD and the totally worthless media who only parrot police press releases. (See my earlier comment on this.) But Patterico provided a forum where “the truth” is being discussed and disseminated. He’s entitled to his opinion on his own site just as much as every Randroid looking for a good pot party with hookers who comments here. OK?
nk (f58916) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:12 pmNate Ogden (#53)-
They didn’t execute a warrant on a 92 year old women, they executed it on a house were a 92 year old women happened to be.
Kathryn didn’t HAPPEN to be there, she lived there. HAD lived there for years. This, pure and simple, a tragedy. A tragedy for family and neihbors, a tragedy for the APD and a tragedy that points square at the continued failure of the WO(s)D
Thanks. Lively bunch, tho’ some good use an enema or high colonic…
allan (be1eb2) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:12 pmSince I have a hard time believing that the cops faked probable cause just so they could invade a house at random, the only thing that makes sense is that the informant *did* claim he bought drugs and now recants.
He could be recanting because he’s afraid that he will be exposed in the “community” and be in danger. Since this is going to happen now for sure, it’s unlikely to help him.
He could be recanting because he lied to the cops about the buy, keeping the $50 for himself. He may have done this many times before, but this is the first time that he was seriously questioned about it.
I’m pretty sure that this is going to affect other cases the informant was involved in, as his credibility is for s*it however it plays out.
And this is the up-side. If the cops *did* ask him to lie, then you have Rampart-South and cops are going to jail.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:17 pm…says an especially thoughtful and balanced commenter a few posts up. However, this kind of of defence has a wider range of applicability.
John Sabotta (739510) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:17 pmYes, God forbid that any one of these murdering swine should ever exercise any individual moral judgement, instead of just following orders like kill-crazed robots.
Close your impudent yap, “nk”. I was as straight and careful with this fool as I could possibly be. I meant every single word of it exactly as I wrote it, and he went and had his way with it.
Well, it’s my turn now. And he doesn’t have to stand for it: it’s his place and he can throw me out of here if he wants to, like he intimated that he would. But, by Christ: he was wrong every goddamned step of the way.
You get to butt out. This is between him and him. Sit down and shut up.
Billy Beck (7e7d4b) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:21 pmDRJ, #23
So, because today’s laws view drug consumption, prostitution and gambling as “dangerous” to the public at large would you prefer a statment like this: “The Drug War is wrong and immoral, but these noble officers were just doing thier job, protecting the average Joe from the dangers of illegal drugs, when they invaded Mrs. Johnston’s house on the word of an informant.”? That makes no sense whatsoever. A person who supports an immoral law is himself immoral. Would you also support “Runaway Slave Laws” in the 1850s (remember, it was the law of the day) or would you speak out against both the laws and the people who abided by them?
Kwix (696885) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:33 pmI like the other extremely thoughtful and balenced commentator (a Mr. Bains) who tries to psychoanalyze Balko. “He’s obsessed with the police.” Oh, is it possible that he’s obsessed with them killing so many people.
For some unknown reason, Mr. Bains refers to being worried about the police smashing into private homes and gunning down 92-year old women as the “Sullivan/Mona disease” Well, we must all defer to his keen psychological insight, I suppose. However, if the police ever bust into Mr. Bains house and shoot him dead for no reason at all I will certainly try to avoid becoming obsessive about the issue.
I think I can safely say that I wouldn’t find that very difficult to avoid doing.
John Sabotta (739510) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:49 pmI don’t need your noise in between real comments, Billy. Shove it.
nk (77d95e) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:00 pmThe fool who objects to Balko criticizing the “war on drugs” because police officers are “warriors” and “no warrior would prosecute an immoral war” is beneath comment and beneath contempt.
John Sabotta (739510) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:03 pmA copy of the warrant is now available.
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/pdf/searchwarrant.pdf
Gaius Obvious (aabbce) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:05 pm“Shove it.”
That’s what I’m doing here. Pay attention.
Billy Beck (7e7d4b) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:06 pmI visited your site and you don’t allow comments. So Steve could not link the snitch’s recantation and Gaius Obvious could not link the warrant there. So who’s the asshole?
nk (77d95e) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:12 pmJohn Sabotta and Kwix,
You’ve collectively compared me to a slaveowner and a Nazi because I don’t view drug enforcement as inherently immoral. I know you intended to offend me but your statements are so extreme that I can’t take them seriously. Thanks for playing, though.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:13 pmThanks for the link, Gaius Obvious. I don’t know enough about search warrants to evaluate this one. Does anyone know if this is fairly typical?
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:16 pmclose your tags
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:21 pmThank you, Kevin.
Billy Beck (7e7d4b) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:26 pmDRJ #85
In my experience – absolutely typical.
The first reason given is basically a paragraph of BS which says: “I am a cop”. Therefore the point is proven because, hey I’m a cop. It is really meaningless but it holds sway within the gears of the system.
Second, there is always a paragraph which states there are thing like computers, photographs, records, paper, check books, cash, jewelry, safes, address books, guns, passports, car titles,in the house which obviously “prove” it is a drug factory.
Forget the fact that virtualy every home in America has these things and they are all legal to have. They do this so they can confiscate (read that steal) your personal property hunt through it and try to find something they can, use against you. Oh, and just try and get any of it back. Particularly things like valuable collector item legally owned and even registered gun collections – these mysteriously disappear never to be found again. Tip: if you would at like to at least see them again, go to a shooting range where police shoot -you are very very liekly to see your once prized family heirlooms being fired by their new police owners. I have seen lawyers literally told to f*off by police property clerks when they try and recover their innocent client property.
Then there is always the flimsy claim supported by some guy the cops busted who “voluntarily and for no reason other than his concern for the public safety” conjures up the story such as the one shown here.
Lastly, there is the “it might be dangerous” for the warrant to be served – so give the right to use a SWAT team, no-knock, forced entry in the middle of the night using paramilitary weapons. And of course there is some truth here – there is probably nothing more dangerous than cops being allowed to use a SWAT team, no-knock, forced entry in the middle of the night using paramilitary weapons. Never mind the fact that the cops themselves cause the danger.
What you don’t see is: Judge what we really have here is a home inhabited by a 92 year old woman with no history of any crimes, we have not done any real servielance and we are executing a raid in a residenctial neighborhood with high powered weapons which may be auto fired endangering everybody in the vicinity based soley on a “good citizen’s (i.e. rat)word who we actually busted and have by the balls and who will do anything to keep on our good side and out of jail.
And don’t worry judge, we are not liable for completely tearing up the person house, setting on fire with a flash-bang, knocking down interior walls etc. Oh, and you know what – it is even cooler because the person insurance doesn’t cover damage by a government agency – so let’s really f*him over. And what so cool is it doesn’t matter if the person is innocent or not – god I love being a cop!
Then you have the big rubber stamp – and then the SWAT team get blue balls waiting to blow shit and people up.
Now sometimes it is different – we have a known killer in this or that house and so a SWAT raid makes sense etc. But there are far far to many of the other kind.
Oh and there are never any common sense ideas like let’s detain the person when they leave the house to go to the store or work – it is far too much fun to blow shit up. Besides we’ve got all these SWAT paramilitary gear which is going to go to waste if we don’t use it.
Sorry to be somewhat sarcastic – but this is truley what I have seen – any defense attorneys out there? You’ve seen it too…….
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:55 pmHey, Frey: is this the part where I get to call you a fuckin’ asshole and you’ll hold still for it?
Actually, no. This is the part where your comments go into moderation.
I met Ed Morrissey’s parents the other day. Nice people, and they said they read my site.
I’d be ashamed to think of them reading this thread. You could be that rude to my worst enemy and I’d tell you to cut it out.
Since I don’t think you will, it’s moderation time for you. Get some anger management counseling.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:25 pmJust as a counterpoint to the “grab them when they’re out in public” folks.
That can be fairly dangerous, particularly to the public and bystanders. When you have a violent felon, you really don’t want them to go mobile on you and create a high-speed chase. Also when the chase ends (and it will, either by your spike-strips or his own volition), it doesn’t necessarily end where you want it to, and you may end up with a worse situation that you started with (what if he crashes his vehicle through the front of a daycare and takes hostages?) All SWAT teams train for this scenario.
Contrast that to taking said felon at home. It’s only his stuff that gets broken, he’s only likely to have his own family with him (people he ostensibly cares about, and is not likely to take hostage with the credible threat of killing them), and (important) you can prepare and control the surroundings. He may be on his home turf, but you’ve a chance to get a floor plan, cut the power, control access, evacuate surrounding houses, stage additional resources if it turns into a long seige, gun-port windows and walls to restrict his movements, etc.
Generally speaking, when you have a high-risk situation, you don’t let the suspect go mobile, because he will eventually go to ground and you’re back to square one at the new location. It may even turn into a tactical nightmare scenario, like a school or hospital. Even worse, it may not be a location you can control at all, he may even be able to reach accomplices, supplies, re-arm himself, reach a better-fortified stronghold, or simply get away.
Taking violent felons down out in public is fraught with peril; it’s not nearly as simple as it sounds.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:29 pmThen moderate this: tell Ed’s parents to go read how you handled me the other day and see if you’d be proud of that in front of them. I didn’t deserve a single word of that. I don’t know who you hang out with, but you’ve got a lot of bloody nerve to coach me about anger management, when perfectly reasonless cynicism, sir, is your own line of attack. Let me tell you something: anybody with clear eyes can always see me coming from a mile away, for good or ill. Your specialty, however, is far, far more corrosive precisely because of your bloody pretense to reason: there are any number of people out there reading this stuff without the intellectual wherewithal to make serious heads or tails of it in a time when morals are being sacrificed to manners.
I don’t play that. I never did, and I’m not about to start with you.
You were dead wrong. Root and branch. You smeared that poor woman as a criminal. We’re now getting a good look at who the real criminals are, and there are lots of us who know how and why this happens while you’re pleased to snoot the whole thing off.
If you’re not going to stand still for my language, the bloody least you could do is to cop to it with the same volume at which you were wrong, and then start thinking about the larger implications of the thing.
I tried to put it to you nicely, early on: there is a lot more going on in all this than you say out loud, whether you actually know it or not. That’s what the “context” question was all about. You’re the one who brought it up, and you hadn’t thought it through before you did.
It’s about time.
Billy Beck (7e7d4b) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:43 pmIt seems to me that somewhere in between qualified immunity and ambushing the police with Mini-14s there can be a policy of firing police chiefs, demoting district commanders, cashiering police officers and voting mayors out of office when the police pull a Kathryn Johnston. Of course, it might require that more than 25% of citizens eligible to vote actually vote. We get the government we deserve.
nk (77d95e) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:55 pmTheNewGuy,
And, who, praytell, was the “violent felon” in this case? I assume you’re not talking about the drug warriors who gunned down a terrified old woman.
CTD (53d3c5) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:55 pmOf course, in this country supposedly you arn’t a “felon” until you’re actually convicted not just because some judge signs a paper based on what somebody claimed a junkie told them.
John Sabotta (739510) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:59 pmThis whole thing is very suspicious from the police end of the matter. Why only 3 cops? I had a non-no knock (ie, they actually knocked) warrant served on me thanks to an anonymous tip that I bought large quantanies of cold medicine (apparently 1 box every week counts as this) and so I must obvious be a meth maker. There were at least 7 cops, including one highway patrolmen, complete with cruiser.
A neighbor of mine got raided (apparently because he has relativees into that stuff) had a similar experience, only they also had a police chopper overhead.
Yet in this case, they supposedly have actual proof, and they only send 3 cops? Granted, I live in the rural part of St. Louis, which is probably the met capital of the world, and thus the police likely have a lot of funding, compared to a bad part of Atlanta. But still, awfully suspicious – even if it was a real drug dealer, not an elderly lady, why one 3 cops? Any serious opposition would have cremed them.
JeremyR (4c2e7c) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:03 pmCTD, #42:
I disagree that Kathryn Johnston was “a terrified old woman”. She was the ballsiest lady I have heard of in a long time. A lot more brave, in my opinion, than the police who killed her. Her story, as far as I’m concerned, is that of a lioness brought down by a pack of Dobermans.
nk (77d95e) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:06 pmThat should have been, CTD #92. Sorry.
JeremyR, #94:
There were more than three cops. We have the police chief’s lickspittle media reporting at least one more on the lawn. We’ll see how many more they admit to.
nk (77d95e) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:10 pm[…] Second, it is unconscionable that the Assistant Chief was claiming that the warrant was predicated on a buy by an undercover officer, when it was, in fact, predicated on alleged information from an informant. There have been many apparent conflicting statements coming out of the Department, but that particular one is inexcusable. The warrant has been released (link via Gaius Obvious) and it clearly says it’s predicated on a buy from an informant. Whoever is responsible for so badly misinforming the public should be fired. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Fit Hits the Shan in Atlanta (421107) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:12 pmPolice had no idea whether there was a violent person in the home or not. All they “knew” (and in fact they didn’t even know this) was that there was crack cocaine in the house that might get destroyed if they didn’t rush the place.
The bottom line, in a case like this one, is that they were afraid of some crack cocaine getting flushed down the toilet. We have to ask ourselves: How many old ladies are we willing to have killed to prevent crack cocaine from getting flushed down the toilet?
I also second much (not all) of what nickcharles said about forfeiture. It creates a whole set of wrong incentives for police. But ultimately, it’s not the police, it’s our elected officials that set up that mess. Someday, maybe, enough voters will realize how screwed up these policies are that we’ll change them.
In fact, all of this drug war miaery, ultimately, is legislative. The police are doing a dangerous job, and it’s understandible that they often err on the side of coming in with the most force they can.
The real problem is that our society has turned the drug trade into something that’s incredibly profitable for the most violent people in our society. We keep creating incredibly lucrative jobs for them. The harder we crack down, the more money there is to be made for those brave enough and violent enough to risk getting busted.
This will never end — it’s permanent employment for those brave enough to be drug law enforcers, and those crazy enough to be drug dealers.
Phil (d5d27f) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:17 pmNewGuy #90
• Fine if you have a violent felon. But let’s not forget even criminals have rights in America in terms of their lives, the lives of their families and their private property. Let’s not throw the Constitution/Bill of Rights out just yet, please. But again fine if you have a violent felon on your hands.
I actually wasn’t meaning to imply letting them get mobile. An example of a heads up play was a woman wanted on a warrant – the cops surveilled her house and car – found out her habits. In the early morning they watched her leave her house saw she had no obvious signs that she was carrying any weapons. As she was getting into her car they blocked her in her driveway, detained her and executed the search warrant. Far better than smashing down doors and inviting gunfire in a residential neighborhood.
• Not fine if you have an innocent until proven guilty person.
• Not fine if you have a non-violent person perhaps committing the crime of smoking some weed in his home. (Please let’s not make this about a discussion on drug preferences).
• Not fine as in Johnston’s case where you rely on “confidential informants” and don’t do your job – and fail to take into account the obvious.
• Not fine to deploy SWAT teams with super weapons in residential neighborhoods endangering everybody around.
• Not fine in the types of cases Balko and others cite where innocent or non-violent law benders homes are destroyed, fires set, and people killed and maimed.
The problem is these SWAT teams seem to have carte blanch and frame every case in the same light and handle every case, regardless of reality with paramilitary attacks. Honestly (and I am kicking myself for not doing it) I could have outlined the Johnston warrant without even seeing it – I have seen so many like that. As one cop friend I took some tactical training from told me – “we know what words to use to get what we want done” – it is a freaking template in effect. SWAT attacks may be appropriate in hostage or violent felon cases – but I can see virtually no other reason for them.
In these latter cases I believe the cops and magistrates involved should be fired, prosecuted, sued, defamed in the newspaper and generally have their lives ruined –just like those of their victims. I am not saying that to be a jerk – I just don’t see why they should receive any different treatment than a civilian would for making the same mistakes. Again let’s all be equal under the law.
Respectfully,
Nick
nickcharles (0591d5) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:23 pmHey, do any of you have a link to a story saying that over 90 shots were fired? Everyone seems to be saying that, but I can’t find a story that says so. Is there one?
I am asking the use of force guy about it.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:31 pmCTD,
I wasn’t referring to Mrs. Johnston… didn’t even mention her, in fact.
I was replying to the frequent “arrest them in public” rejoinder from those who pitch SWAT raids as unnecessary. Those giving that advice should know what kind of pandora’s box of problems they’re opening.
If it was that much easier and safer, we’d already be doing it.
TheNewGuy (114368) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:31 pmThe “knock on the front door politely” crowd also doesn’t know what they’re talking about, as the interview with the use of force expert will make clear.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:38 pmPatterico, #101:
I read it but did not bookmark it and when I went back looking for it I could not find it. Steve posted a comment about it in your first post. I wonder whether he saved it.
nk (2ab789) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:39 pmThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution initially reported that the police declined to state how many shots were fired by the police. An article from today has an interesting footnote: Ms. Johnston, who was actually 88-years-old, used a rusty six-shooter and hit one officer 3 times.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:46 pmIn addition, there is this AJC article quoting a neighbor, Yolanda Jackson, who estimates there were 16-24 shots fired. I assume that would include Ms. Johnston’s 5 or 6 shots.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:51 pmFrom the Saeed Ahmed, 11/27 AJC story today:
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, at the request of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, is looking into the incident, including examining the home to determine how many gunshots were fired in the confrontation. GBI spokesman John Bankhead said it will take several more weeks before results are available.
I’ve just cruised the stories since 11/22… no mention of the # of shots fired (AJC, 11/22):
He [asst chief Dreher] declined to say how many shots were fired and what kind of gun the woman had. Dozier said her aunt owned a pistol. “I don’t know what kind and it was rusty, but apparently it was working well.”
The only numbers came (as was noted above) from the neighbor Yolanda Jackson (AJC, 11/22):
“I heard ‘pow, pow, pow, pow,’ ” said Jackson. “A whole lot of gunfire, really fast.” She estimated the number between 16 and 24.
allan (9485af) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:25 pmI’m thinking this could be one of those things everyone “knows” is true, but nobody can prove.
But hey, maybe it’ll prove right after all, in the end. And then I can be castigated for not agreeing with the assertion, even in the absence of evidence to support it.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:28 pmI never once saw anyone link an authoritative cite.
Billy Beck (7e7d4b) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:33 pmBilly,
Just so you know, I have a job, so your posts going into moderation will not be approved during the workday. Doesn’t mean you’ve been banned; it means they’re in moderation and haven’t been approved yet.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:37 pmIf one or more of the officers caried a shotgun everybody might be right. Five shells from a 12- gauge loaded with No. 2 buckshot equal ninety .25-caliber projectiles.
nk (5e5670) — 11/28/2006 @ 5:34 amUnless someone is shoving the drugs down your throat, drug use is a consensual act. The legal posture created by drug laws does not change the consensual nature of the act, it just makes a consensual act illegal. Argument from Newspeak is not persuasive; laws don’t change reality.
Mr. X (8311b0) — 11/28/2006 @ 7:45 am