92 Year Old Woman Defends Home

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slugthrower said:
Addicts by my definition cannot stop the use of a drug because they may die from stopping. All the old folks that must take government approved drugs to keep themselves alive, are in a strange way are legal addicts. Adds new meaning to Dependant. Uncle Sam is a pusher if you will. Alcohol is a drug approved by the government. Yes we had prohibition. It made bootlegging very profitable for the "Gangsters". If they ended the war on drugs it would have the same effect, over time, as the end of prohibition.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Slugthrower,

Think about what would really happen if drugs were legalized. Look at the Netherlands. Look at their crime rate. Legalizing drugs would basically be saying to kids that getting hooked on addictive substances is okay. Addiction rates would soar. We already have enough problems with drinking and driving. How about people driving while high? How many druggies do you know that can hold down a job? How many become hopelessly addicted and turn to crime or prostitution because they can't get enough of the drug? What about drug induced violence or over doses?

Alcohol is mostly a psychological addiction. Many drugs, on the other hand, cause a physical addiction. Playing down the addictiveness of nicotene is one reason why the government has allowed tobacco companies to be sued. No one forced that cigarette into someone's mouth, but I challenge you to ask chain smokers how easy it is to quit.

Sure, you can eliminate the war on drugs, but you sure as hell will have a hell of a lot more problems with a drug addicted population. Think these kinds of things through before making such flippant comments. In my opinion, anyone who thinks legalizing drugs will make things better is either a druggie, an idiot, or most likely, both. :barf: :mad:
 
If my door gets busted in and I don't hear people yelling "police" and see "police" written in big letters, I'm shooting. Plain clothes officers serving warrents and making raids is an idiotic idea. I can understand undercover stings, but that is not the issue at hand. Why do sports teams have different colored uniforms? So they don't end up wearing the same color as their opponents and get confused. They need to know who is on their team, and they need to do it under pressure. Am I supposed to assume that a bunch of guys busting down my doors are cops? :rolleyes: Whatever. All I can say is that they had better start doing their homework and stop making careless mistakes.
 
So we create a crime out of consuming the wrong kind of substance, punishable by the full application of the brute force of the almighty state, just to make a point to children?

Did the rate of alcohol consumption, and hard liquor consumption, go up or down during alcohol prohibition in the US? Do you even know, or are you just going on gut feel?

Driving impaired is already against the law, same goes for driving while high. Do you think the solution for drunk driving is banning all alcohol?

The main reason people steal to support their drug habits is because something that would cost pennies per dose - such as dried leaves of a fast-growing plant, or some simple chemicals - is jacked up to $20, $30, or $100 per dose as a market compensation for the risk of criminal prosecution.

Drug addiction is a medical problem, that should be addressed by medical professionals, instead of by police and prison guards.
 
Ever heard of DT's Step, they can kill you. So much for alcohol being mostly psychological. It is personal responsibility that will govern what drugs you get addicted to. If you are a fool, you will suffer a fools fate. What drugs people do doesn't concern me. What they do on drugs does. If a person murders while on drugs it is no different than if they were sober. So where does the government have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do to yourself? I agree that using drugs is stupid and not to be encouraged. Still if you do them you deserve what you get. I am a free man not a physical resource for the government to use as they see fit. A part of freedom is personal responsibility, liberty has dangers in it. Trading liberty for security will give us that dictatorship we all keep asking for , even if we don't realize that is what we are aking for.
 
According to the report I posted, it seems the plainclothed detectives serving the warrant were approaching her house when they were shot, thus, they haven't knocked on the door yet or were able to announce themselves. It MAY be that she shot at the detectives BEFORE they announced their intentions thus causing the resulting actions against her.

The truth is somewhere in between the lines.
 
kc-griz said:
"As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman."

Apparently according to THIS account, the 92yr old woman was the pre-emptive aggressor in this situation and she escalated it to its final end.
Click to expand...

I was probably wrong in my first post to wish ill upon police officers and have since amended that post... I was angry and drafted a Discussion Board topic... bad idea!! 1:mad:

However, there are so many questions with this incident it boggles the mind... plain-clothes officers serving a warrant at 7:00 pm? That drives me crazy...A 92 year old dead over what?

Sorry...

The whole idea of police officers barging in anywhere is just wrong in my book...
 
eh, we're still getting conflicted reports

from cnn:

The officers had a legal warrant, "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door and were justified in shooting once fired upon, he said.
Click to expand...
So one says they were shot at before they entered the home, another says the knocked and announced before they were shot at which obviously means they had finished "approaching" the home and were actually at the door.


oh and before anyone complains about ZOMG LIBERAL BIAS COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK the exact same article as reported by the AP is on foxnews.com
 
This happened in my town

Man killed in police raid on wrong house

Web posted at: 10:29 PM EDT (0229 GMT)


LEBANON, Tennessee (AP) -- A 61-year-old man was shot to death by police while his wife was handcuffed in another room during a drug raid on the wrong house.

Police admitted their mistake, saying faulty information from a drug informant contributed to the death of John Adams Wednesday night. They intended to raid the home next door.

VIDEO
Correspondent Erika Lathon reports on how Nashville police came to shoot and kill the wrong man

Play video
(QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)


The two officers, 25-year-old Kyle Shedran and 24-year-old Greg Day, were placed on administrative leave with pay.

"They need to get rid of those men, boys with toys," said Adams' 70-year-old widow, Loraine.

John Adams was watching television when his wife heard pounding on the door. Police claim they identified themselves and wore police jackets. Loraine Adams said she had no indication the men were police.

"I thought it was a home invasion. I said 'Baby, get your gun!," she said, sitting amid friends and relatives gathered at her home to cook and prepare for Sunday's funeral.

Police say her husband fired first with a sawed-off shotgun and they responded. He was shot at least three times and died later at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.

Loraine Adams said she was handcuffed and thrown to her knees in another room when the shooting began.

"I said, 'Y'all have got the wrong person, you've got the wrong place. What are you looking for?"'

"We did the best surveillance we could do, and a mistake was made," Lebanon Police Chief Billy Weeks said. "It's a very severe mistake, a costly mistake. It makes us look at our own policies and procedures to make sure this never occurs again." He said, however, the two policemen were not at fault.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating. NAACP officials said they are monitoring the case. Adams was black. The two policemen are white.

Family members did not consider race a factor and Weeks agreed, but said the shooting will be "a major setback" for police relations with the black community.

"We know that, we hope to do everything we can to heal it," Weeks said.

Johnny Crudup, a local NAACP official, said the organization wanted to make sure and would investigate on its own.

Weeks said he has turned the search warrant and all other evidence over to the bureau of investigation and District Attorney General Tommy Thompson. A command officer must now review all search warrants.
Click to expand...

Both officers were never charged, Wear a badge...get a pass on Murder:barf:
 
I hate to continue this thread jack so if the mods want to make this a new thread, please do so or let us know.

So we create a crime out of consuming the wrong kind of substance, punishable by the full application of the brute force of the almighty state, just to make a point to children?
Click to expand...
The reason is not to make a point to children. The reason is that it is highly destrctuve to society and increases crime rate.

Did the rate of alcohol consumption, and hard liquor consumption, go up or down during alcohol prohibition in the US? Do you even know, or are you just going on gut feel?
Click to expand...
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm

I challenge you to read this article and the hundreds if not thousands that are available online. The same site has information on alcohol consumption. If you want to split hairs and say that hard liquor consumption increased, it is only because of home distilleries and the ability to get drunk drinking a smaller amount of beverage (greater potency). You can say I'm going on a gut feeling or you can do your won research. I assert that legalization leads to greater rates of addiction and crime. Believe what you will.

Driving impaired is already against the law, same goes for driving while high. Do you think the solution for drunk driving is banning all alcohol?
Click to expand...
I never claimed that it would. I am already well aware of the laws. Have you ever tried to convince a friend that has had a few too many that they should not be driving? They seem to think they are perfectly fine. Having a wider variety and more potent mind altering substances legally available

The main reason people steal to support their drug habits is because something that would cost pennies per dose - such as dried leaves of a fast-growing plant, or some simple chemicals - is jacked up to $20, $30, or $100 per dose as a market compensation for the risk of criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...
Look at the research on the previously linked article. Is this your gut feeling your going from? Like I said, how many drug addicts do you know that can hold a steady job. You might want to focus on the increase in crime rate in Holland even though drugs are readily available.

Drug addiction is a medical problem, that should be addressed by medical professionals, instead of by police and prison guards.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Drug addiction is a medical problem. The problem is that it is also a societal problem since it only impacts society in a negative way. How many drug addicts do you know that are seeking treatment? They don't think they have a problem. Their actions often do impact society in a negative way so it becomes the duty of police and prison guards to prevent and restrict those negative actions.
 
Again, people jumping to conclusions based on initial media reports. The same reports which have been shown on this thread to have somewhat conflicting stories.
A few things to consider:
1) Plain clothes does not equate to not having identifiable markings (i.e "Police). It simply means they were not uniform officers. Typically, plain clothes officers (narco, gang units) are in jeans but will wear raid jackets or vests with the appropriate identiifers when conducting warrants. It is an officer safety issue and legal issue. It has not been mentioned whether they had raid jackets or vests on.
2) Self defense can never be denied. This goes both ways. If the woman thought she was acting in self defense, she may well be justified. The officers clearly acted in self defense, and were justified in their actions.
3) Elderly certainly can be dangerous. As can the mentally challenged, juveniles and so on. Age does not matter, nor does sex, creed or sexual orientation. A life threatening situation is simply that, and it has no boundaries.
4) As was stated above, contraband can be stored anywhere, especially in elderly homes. Gangs here in LA routinely use mom's house, someone outside the gang, etc to stash all manner of things. Has anyone read the affidavit for the warrant? Please post.

No one likes to see a 92 y.o woman shot dead. Period. But from an objective view, the officers clearly were in the right to defend themselves. That is really the bottom line. Unfortunately, the woman cannot be interviewed as well.
Let's leave the emotion out of the discussion.
 
Two points.

1. What was the warrant for? Were the officers at the right place?

2. V, I looked at that CATO map. I have several problems with it before I take it at face value. What is the time span for all of those marked incidents? When it makes a statement "death of an innocent," who is "innocent" and who killed them, police or badguy/raided person? "Other example of paramilitary police excess." Wow that's a nice undefined category there. Unnecessary raids on doctors and sick people. What the heck does that mean? Death of a nonviolent offender. How does that provide evidence that the nonviolent offender was not justifiably shot?

Edit: Sorry, V. I see some answers now after playing around with the map.

1985-2006 is the time frame.
The few "death of an innocent" markers I clicked on told stories of people killed by police during a wrong location raid.
The "other examples" category seems to be about legal drug raids and catching people on visa/immigration violations.
The "doctors and sick people" is all about "medical marijuana."
 
No one likes to see a 92 y.o woman shot dead. Period. But from an objective view, the officers clearly were in the right to defend themselves. That is really the bottom line. Unfortunately, the woman cannot be interviewed as well.
Let's leave the emotion out of the discussion.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: :barf:

I assert that they were not. From reading the article, my impression is that they got the wrong house. We have no conclusive evidence that contraband was being stored in her house. If the police went to the wrong address based on their screw up, their rights to "self defense" are diminished.

I don't care if they have to triple check. We can't afford these types of screw ups. It could well be any one of us since it is safe to assume almost everyone of us here are gun owners. If we have an unannounced entry into our homes, we are going to defend ourselves. Someone has to make a mistake for this scenario to occur and my defending my home certainly is not a mistake. Let the responsibility fall where it should.
 
Now, I'm just putting this info from the CATO site in condensed form because it took me a few to figure it out.

Stats from 1985-2006, all 50 states.
292 "offenses" are marked on this map for those years
40 Death of innocent
22 Death/injury of Police Officer
20 Death of nonviolent offender
143 Raid on innocent suspect
53 Other examples of paramilitary police excess
14 Unnecessary raids on doctors and sick people​

Only one other piece of data I'd like to see. The total number of these types of raids over that same period.
 
Guys,

I'm sorry, and I know I'm opening myself up to being flamed at this point, but did ANYBODY catch the part in that article where the 92 year old lady opened fire on a team of POLICE OFFICERS who were entering her home, after properly announcing themselves and their intentions, to serve a legally VALID WARRANT!?!?!?

I have a basic ground rule that I operate from: If a cop tells you to stop, stop. If you run and get beaten up over it, you shouldn't have run. If you fight and get beaten up over it, you shouldn't have fought. And, if you open fire on a team of at least three cops and get killed over it, then perhaps you shouldn't have shot at the cops.

I hate that an old lady got killed. But, it certainly begs the question what in the world she was doing gunning down a team of DEA cops after they had knocked and announced that they were serving a legally valid search warrant. If this had been anyone OTHER than a little old lady, we wouldn't be out here waving the flag, talking about the right to "defend our homes." We'd be talking about how stupid it is to SHOOT AT THE COPS. Just an observation...

Now. Let the flame war begin...
 
From reading the article, my impression is that they got the wrong house.
Click to expand...

Which article? I've read nothing that states anything such as that. Nor have I read the purpose of the warrant, nor if the search revealed anything.

The only things I've read so far are that non-uniformed LEOs were going to serve a search warrant. Either the lady shot at them as they were approaching, or the lady shot at them after they entered her house (battering ram? kicked in door? just opened the door?). LEOs returned fire. The lady was killed.

Did I miss anything? Seriously, has anyone read anymore about the warrant or gotten a better telling of what happened?
 
When does a "mistake" become a home invasion. If the warrant was served at the wrong place, then there is no authority to break into that place, and it is a home invasion. A tragedy, for sure.

badbob
 
Stephen and Heist, with all due respect I do not believe you're not being objective. Whether or not they were in the right place or if narcotics were on the premises has nothing to do with self defense. If the officers felt they were in a life threatening situation ( as 3 of them were shot), they have the legal right to defend themselves. No one can argue that they were shot at, or that 3 of them were wounded. What would your next course of action be after receiving fire and your partners getting hit? Quickly now.
Now, if the facts come out that they botched the warrant or that due investigative process was not in compliance with their department policies, then it will probably be a civil matter. But I highly doubt this will become a criminal case against these officers, espiclly considering 3 were wounded, and by all accounts, were fired on 1st.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top