92 Year Old Woman Defends Home

Status
Not open for further replies.
I keep going back and re-reading original newsreport...look at these two paragraphs (highlighting mine):

"Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door. He said they were justified in shooting once they were fired upon."

"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."

So the question arises... how do you knock on door while you are under fire?

Anyone?

There are far too many questions unanswered here...
 
I heard on the radio (police press conference) that it was a drug related warrant and she (victim) was the subject of the warrant. On a drug bust, this is mostly done by plain clothes policemen. This was apparently not an innocent bench warrant being served.

What is unclear to me is when she fired as you hear it both ways-after police entered house and before they even had an opportunity to knock on the door.

Added: I couldn't hear the questions posed to the police as I got a call.
 
Last edited:
I notice in the original post only neighbors and friends are claiming it was mistaken identity. Is that in fact that case? I know alot of elderly people are involved in illegal drug trafficing because they make good covers.

Regardless, she still opened fire first. If she was firing into the street then they were right to take her out. What if children had been hit or innocent people struck down by her careless actions? This seems to be an example of the worst type of gun ownership.
 
Whether or not she actually had any drugs, they'll be certainly "found" in an amount that would conveniently fit in a BDU pocket.
 
Edit: sorry, nm.

The amount of drugs inside the home is irrelevant as the drug unit had already purchased drugs from that exact house earlier that day, giving them probable cause to get a search warrant. Then they went and got a warrant to search the house. The judge issued the warrant, and the officers returned, in vests that say POLICE on front and back. According to the spokesman, there was also a marked cruiser and uniformed officer in the front yard (marginally relevant, but a fact nontheless). The team announced that they were police and opened the door. (I'm still unclear if they turned the knob, kicked it in, etc.) The spokesman said that the police did not physically knock on the door, but did announce that they were police. Upon entering the house to serve the (legal) warrant, the woman inside opened fire, striking three officers. The officers returned fire, killing the woman.

Those are the facts as presented via various news stories and the police press conference. Why the woman shot, if she was in on the drug selling, etc is conjecture at this point.
 
Police were also looking for an "unidentified male" at the residence per the interview. The male was apparently not there at the time of the incident.
 
There is a long standing legal debate over forced entry by police.

On one side of the debate, people say police officers should knock, announce themselves and wait for a response. If no response then they can force entry into home.

On the other side of the debate, people say that knocking on the door, announcing yourself or waiting for a response would give criminals a chance to conceal drugs (ie. toilet dumping) or arm themselves.

I havent taken a side on this issue, too many issues to consider. But, i do not agree with forced entry in all warrant situations.

Why do cops always have to kick down doors, have they ever heard of a locksmith?
 
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.
Click to expand...


Amsterdam has a very unusual policy with regards to drugs. They classify drugs as Hard Drugs or Soft Drugs. Their government studies have shown that very few Soft Drug users transition to Hard Drugs. Unlike what the US Government studies say would happen.

Out of 700k residence, amsterdam only has about 6,200 Hard Drug users. Only 1,500 of these are citizens of amsterdam the others are foreigners mostly from moracco, Surinam, european countries. There are only around 400 street junkies. Soft Drugs in Amsterdam have been decriminalized.

Not sure which is the best policy for the US. But, here are some interesting points to ponder.

1. There have been several major news stories in recent months over the current zero-tollerance drug law. And many law makers are talking about changing that law to be more tolerant. There are people who were count with some personal use drugs that fell into the dealer category who are now serving life. Supposedly our jails have increased dramatically due to this drug law.

2. Law Enforcement is big money. There are some respectible authors who believe the US Government created drug laws and then used the CIA to distribute drugs just to reap economic rewards. Its no secret that ACID is a CIA invention under a program called MK Ultra. Its also no secret that the CIA released the formula on the streets, knowing very well of its dangers. Its also a fact that the CIA was used to increase drug distribution in predominately black neighborhoods during the civil rights movement. so its possible, people are corrupt, just look at nixon!

3. Some studies have shown that legalizing drugs would reduce their prices and result in less drug crimes. Right now its supply and demand.


In either even, i have never used drugs and i am against legalizing drugs. I do believe in keeping an open mind and understanding different perspectives. But, i have seen too many beautiful people turn to a life of sex and drugs. Just visit any strip club and you know that some fathers little girl is in there dancing or doing tricks just to support her habit. And i think thats terrible!
 
I'm smelling something fishy here on the part of the 92yr old woman. It's obvious by the concentration of fire that the police took that the 3 were grouped pretty tight coming into the door. One policeman took 3 hits, and 1 hit each to the other 2. These guys were obviously NOT being discreet. That being said, the 92yr old woman HAD to have known the POLICE were coming in through the door or if by "chance" they were not vocal about announcing their arrival, she HAD to know someone was forcing her way through the door.

Okay... so, this 92yr old woman is armed. She has a handgun and is at the ready BEFORE the police come through the door. There is NO way a 92yr old woman can react to the surprise to arm herself and have the prepared mental state to react by firing at LEAST 5 shots if not more and concetrating fire on the police as they are rushing in the door! She was mentally prepared to deal with either the police in a raid or with bad guys in the event of an aggravated burglary.

She is NOT as innocent as her neighbors portray her to be. My money says she KNEW her son/grandson was dealing drugs out of her house. She KNEW the possible consequenses and had already mentally prepared to retaliate. She had the ability to do so apparently as well.

If she felt like she was protecting herself from an aggavated burglary, she would have stopped firing once she saw it was the police after a shot, maybe two. This woman concentrated fire on the breeching group conciously even after it was apparent who they were.

Police brutality? No way. Did the police over react? No way. Did they have the wrong address? Doubtful... they had an undercover detective make a buy at that house the day before.

This woman had more at stake than what is being told.
 
Whether or not she actually had any drugs, they'll be certainly "found" in an amount that would conveniently fit in a BDU pocket
Click to expand...
Ahh, there we go. More concrete facts begin to come out supporting the officers and some jump to the planting of evidence probability b/c their conspiracy theory just went to the wind. So, they make up another. Unreal.
 
I will not even try to judge this incident, but it does make me once again have questions about police tactics.

There is a lot of controversy about no-knock or knock-and-batter entries. Many have rightfully noted that citizens are in an awkward position when people yelling "police" are busting into your house. I have always wondered why the police do not turn on a squad car's lights and siren as soon as they start a forced entry. While bad guys might masquerade as police during a break-in, I doubt many of them would post a vehicle with lights and a siren outside to advertise their activities. Once a forced entry has started, lights and a siren would not deprive the police of surprise.
 
Fact is this woman was an elderly CCW permit holder, meaning she had gone 92 years with a clean record. Maby she couldn't hear that well. How come nobody heard the police attempt to announce. I belive these cops just kicked in the door and didn't announce, trying to be covert. That is only my belife though.

Hard Facts: 92 year old elderly woman was gunned down by armed intruders in her home. Hard Fact: those police made a mistake which resulted in her death.

I think that what should happen is those officers should get life in prison, or at least 25 years. Maby other officer would think before they act next time. How in the hell do you make a mistake like that, mistaking a 92 year old woman's house for a crackhouse?

Atlanta Police Mistakes in recent times. 1. Courthouse shooting 2. Atlanta police asked a woman to back up, then put his arm in the way of the side view mirror so when it brushed him, he then carjacked the woman and bodyslammed her. Now this. There have been other incidents where truley innocent people have died due to thier errors.

I belive the entire APD needs to be fired, and a new police force to be formed.
 
Apparently one skill set that is lacking in police circles is
critical thinking!

Let me get the following out of the way first...
1. The cops have a hard job, made harder by a lot of restrictions.
2. Just like the rest of us, the cops, individually, are responsible for their actions.
3. As public officials, they must take extra care to ensure they don't put the people they serve in greater danger by their actions.
4. It does NOT matter to me whether this woman is black, brown or purple.
5. The issue here is the methods and tactics used to serve a warrant, not the validity of the War On Drugs (W.O.D.)
6. News reports are notoriously inaccurate and so-called reporters allow themselves to be spoon fed stories through PR flacks and press releases.

In this incident, I have to wonder if;
  • The APD had a pre-raid (tactical) meeting.
  • If the cops thought it would be "easy" because it was "only" a 92 y/o woman.
  • If ANY cop asked if the woman was hard of hearing/deaf or visually impared.
  • This warrant was based on a single drug buy (as it appears in the news)
  • (if) the drug buy was conducted inside or outside of the home.

I think the discussion about the validity of the W.O.D. should be a separate topic too.

Given that we've seen various "techniques" for serving warrants on T.V., through reality shows, it is quite possible that the entry was performed with the officers getting on the porch with a battering ram, yelling together "POLICE" and while the ram is in motion. The result is hearing loud voices just prior to the front door splintering in.

Given my experience with eldery, including an 84 year old mother and a 100 year old aunt, I can tell you that they may be watching TV with the sound up loud enough that they can't reliably hear the phone ringing or the doorbell. Never mind understanding what someone is yelling on the porch. And it's quite possible that her vision is limited in range and clarity -- glaucoma, cateracts, etc. She may be able to see people but not clearly at 10-15 feet, even with glasses.

So this 92 year old is reading or watching TV, hears "something" on her front porch and grabs her revolver. A yell of some sort then CRASH the door breaks down and people are coming in the door. She doesn't see well and opens fire.

If the cops had a valid warrant, supported by sufficient evidence to support a warrant, they were likely to know the owner of the home and resident(s) therein. Knowing it's a 92 year old woman should have trigger someone to think about the above "disabilities" that come with old age and work out an alternative to the macho door-busting adventure.

I've seen and heard enough about "mistakes" of this nature. It seems when the police make a mistake it is "investigated" and seldom are charges brought against those responsible. They claim they will revise their "policies and procedures", but that is little comfort to the families left mourning. Until some true accountability is demanded by the public, loudly and vocally, we'll see these incidents continue.

Could the woman possibly been providing cover for some local dealer or a relative? Very possible, especially if she were being paid to supplement her meager SSI check to help her get by. However, I had the same initial thought about drugs being planted when I read the story. The final question is why the PD felt it necessary to crash the door of a 92 year old woman's house.


Edited by Antipitas.
 
A) Police claim to have made a drug purchase from a male hours/a day before the "search"

B)Police DO NOT have the person who they claim sold them the drugs in custody.

C)Police DO have three wounded officers

D)Police DID shoot to death a woman who DID NOT sell them drugs at any point.

Any way you cut this one, the cops made a bloody mess of it. They should be examining what went wrong and how never to [censored] up this badly again.

You have to give some credit to the granny no matter which side of the issue you stand on. A 92 year old woman reacts to a mob of gunmen smashing through her door in the dark, gets three rounds into the first guy through the door and one into the next two before they put her down. Granny had a cool head on her shoulders and could handle a hogleg.
 
One aspect no one has mentioned: Possible involvement of Atlanta's "Red Dog Unit". This is a little-publicized, highspeed/low drag crew specializing in drug enforcement. There have been various discussions concerning "militarization of police"; here's a unit with no attempt to cover its Marine Corps roots, enforcing laws on US Citizens.

One article: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=87757

Arguably, "crackdowns" involve abridgement of civil rights in the context of a "war on <insert offense here>". Dispense with the investigation phase, hit hard to make an impact, even on minor offenses. In this case, make one undercover buy, send in the Red Dogs within 24 hours. Headlines such as this thread = inevitable result.

I predict this unit could get more ink as the facts of this incident come to light.
 
Thanks for V4Vendetta for posting the link to http://www.cato.org/raidmap.
Reading the incidents is like looking at the abuses of King George against the colonies in the 1700's.

Something has gone horribly wrong with the warrant process.

As I recall, if you had an informant claiming drugs were being sold from 123 Main Street, before a warrant was issued, officers needed to have some confirming evidence indicative of the crime. This would require purchasing drugs by undercover LEOs, the apprehension of people leaving the location who have the same drugs packaged similarly or other proof.

Most importantly, warrants are issued upon the oath of one or more LEOs that the information provided is true and correct. Falsifying information on a warrant - either by omission or false information - is the same as perjury, a felony. Why are officers and their superiors not being prosecuted when things go wrong and an investigation reveals concealment of evidence or false statements were used to obtain a warrant?

Police officers cannot be excluded from prosecution by any act of legislature for violating the oath. By the very wording of the 4th Amedment regarding the need to swear an oath or affirmation before a warrant is issued implies the same duty to truth as testimony in court.
 
Based upon the news cast, my position has changed somewhat. The warrent was for the proper house, although the suspect was not present. It is quite possible that the elederly woman was aware of what was going on in the house, but that has not been confirmed. It is entirely possible that she has some punk grandson that has been pushing dope from her house without her knowledge.

I guess her getting killed for someone else's crime is a tragedy, but if she was aware of the drugs, I guess she got what she had coming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top