From: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=88163
SO, it was a CI's word, not an undercover LEO that bought drugs, that killed this woman. The Police entered here home, and killed her over the word of a CI. hmmmm
92 Year Old Woman Defends Home
- Thread starter Camp David
- Start date
- Status
From: http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=88163
SO, it was a CI's word, not an undercover LEO that bought drugs, that killed this woman. The Police entered here home, and killed her over the word of a CI. hmmmm
JuanCarlos
New member
He's suggesting that the cops could have planted the drugs. Pretty simple, really.
Considering that the alleged "buy" was made by a CI and not an actual officer, this would make sense as a CYA move considering the goat-rope that occurred.
How likely you think it is probably depends on your opinion of police, especially the type of cops who jump at the opportunity to execute raids like this. I do know that anybody who says such a thing would never happen should get in on this smokin' deal I've got on a bridge up in New York.
all because of a confidental informant? seriously...what judge signed this warrant?Wow, you guys just don't quit, do you?
Please pardon me for observing the obvious--it just HAD to be the fault of law enforcement, right? Some STUPID judge signed the search warrant, huh? And of course, the informant can not be trusted.
The jack booted thugs just HAD to plant the drugs! Of course, police normally carry small amounts of drugs, JUST to plant them on upstanding citizens! Of course!
And, let's not forget brave old Gramma, shaking in her boots as the hideous, craven villains broke down the door of the frail shack. As the final vestiges of the door give way, she raises her handgun, given to her by a loving son to protect against the yattering hordes.
The JBTs are now in the house! They notice the frail old lady. Gibbering in morbid glee, they raise the muzzles of their terrible service weapons...
PLEASE!!! GIVE ME A BREAK, WILL YOU???
Of course, there is NO way that:
1. The police had the proper address;
2. The informant (who, by the way, is usually accompanied by an officer on at least ONE of the buys) purchased drugs which tested positive, and were locked into evidence;
3. The person named as selling the drugs was more than likely checked, and was found to have extensive criminal history;
4. The search warrant was articulated properly and demonstrated that probable cause to conduct a search of the premises and curtilage thereto for items of contraband named in the warrant existed; and,
5. Based on either (a) the amount of drugs that were expected to be found (b) the arrest/conviction record of the subject, an entry team was composed, as opposed to a simple knock-and-talk. Also, based on the readily disposable nature of the contraband, the criminal history and possible assaultive nature of the suspect, AND THE AMOUNT EXPECTED TO BE THERE, a dynamic entry was authorized.
And of COURSE, Gramma could NOT have known ANYTHING about drug activity in her house!! Can't happen, right?
Most of you folks just can't make the leap of faith that says that maybe--just MAYBE--the cops were RIGHT!
Pardon me while I go vomit.
Please pardon me for observing the obvious--it just HAD to be the fault of law enforcement, right? Some STUPID judge signed the search warrant, huh? And of course, the informant can not be trusted.
The jack booted thugs just HAD to plant the drugs! Of course, police normally carry small amounts of drugs, JUST to plant them on upstanding citizens! Of course!
And, let's not forget brave old Gramma, shaking in her boots as the hideous, craven villains broke down the door of the frail shack. As the final vestiges of the door give way, she raises her handgun, given to her by a loving son to protect against the yattering hordes.
The JBTs are now in the house! They notice the frail old lady. Gibbering in morbid glee, they raise the muzzles of their terrible service weapons...
PLEASE!!! GIVE ME A BREAK, WILL YOU???
Of course, there is NO way that:
1. The police had the proper address;
2. The informant (who, by the way, is usually accompanied by an officer on at least ONE of the buys) purchased drugs which tested positive, and were locked into evidence;
3. The person named as selling the drugs was more than likely checked, and was found to have extensive criminal history;
4. The search warrant was articulated properly and demonstrated that probable cause to conduct a search of the premises and curtilage thereto for items of contraband named in the warrant existed; and,
5. Based on either (a) the amount of drugs that were expected to be found (b) the arrest/conviction record of the subject, an entry team was composed, as opposed to a simple knock-and-talk. Also, based on the readily disposable nature of the contraband, the criminal history and possible assaultive nature of the suspect, AND THE AMOUNT EXPECTED TO BE THERE, a dynamic entry was authorized.
And of COURSE, Gramma could NOT have known ANYTHING about drug activity in her house!! Can't happen, right?
Most of you folks just can't make the leap of faith that says that maybe--just MAYBE--the cops were RIGHT!
Pardon me while I go vomit.
the point, powderman, is that a woman should not have died for a few baggies of a drug less harmful than the beers you and I drink during football games. the point is this whole war on drugs has not helped save any lives, only destroy them. the point is that these are the very laws that could be one day used to confiscate your firearms because suddenly they're illegal and you're a criminal
JuanCarlos
New member
I have faith in Jesus. The police I'll keep my eye on, thank you very much.
As a more serious note, I have to agree with Redworm. The militarization of our police force, along with the declaration of a "War on Drugs" (with cops as soldiers and citizens as "the enemy") is what led to this tragedy. And it is a tragedy, regardless of whether the cops executed everything by the book, and regardless of whether the lady knew what was allegedly going on at her house. Nobody should have died over this, and had the police opted for different tactics it's likely nobody would have died over this. I'd rather see the DA fail to make a case because the evidence was disposed of than see people, including innocent people (which has happened, if not in this case) dead.
And, despite how I started out, I am willing to put forward that perhaps the police were right; it doesn't mean suddenly I think the policy behind their actions was. And I'm also enough of a realist to suspect that, while not the more likely scenario, the idea that the police would plant evidence is not so far-fetched as to warrant dismissal out of hand. Some police do use excessive force, some police do plant evidence when it suits them and hide it when it doesn't. Acting like it's completely preposterous does not make it so.
Now it looks like the cops are using throw-down blunts...
Informant in shooting says he never bought drugs at house
Says he was asked to lie
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.
Chief Richard Pennington, in a press conference Monday evening, said his department learned two days ago that the informant — who has been used reliably in the past by the narcotics unit -- denied providing information to officers about a drug deal at 933 Neal Street in northwest Atlanta.
"The informant said he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs," Pennington said. "We don't know if he's telling the truth."
The search warrant used by Atlanta police to raid the house says that a confidential informant had bought crack cocaine at the residence, using $50 in city funds, several hours before the raid.
In the document, officers said that the informant told them the house had surveillance cameras that the suspected drug dealer, called "Sam," monitored.
Pennington on Monday evening said the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit hat he did not tell officers that the house had surveillance equipment, and that he was asked to lie.
The Chief still maintained that "Sam," the alleged drug dealer, "actually exists."
Pennington was joined at the press conference by representatives from various law enforcement agencies who are now looking into the shooting.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also been called in to investigate.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, at the request of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, is also looking into the incident, including examining the home to determine how many gunshots were fired in the confrontation.
Kathryn Johnston was killed Tuesday night when she fired at officers seeking to serve a warrant. They had broken down the front door and exchanged gunfire with Johnston.
Police later claimed a man named "Sam" had sold drugs from inside the house to an informant, prompting the officers to seek a "no-knock" warrant. Such warrants are frequently issued so police can get inside a home before suspects can destroy or flush drugs.
Johnston --- described by neighbors and family as a frightened woman who had burglar bars on her windows and door and rarely let friends and neighbors into her home --- had lived at the one-story brick home near the Georgia Dome for 17 years.
The police chief said officers found marijuana inside the house but "not a large quantity." The officers were not wearing uniforms but had on bulletproof vests with "Police" emblazoned across the front and back. And they identified themselves as they burst through the doors, police said.
Johnston grabbed a rusty six-shot revolver and emptied it. Five shots struck the officers, hitting one of them three times. The other two were each hit once. The officers returned fire, shooting Johnston twice in the chest and elsewhere, police have said.
The three officers were released from the hospital the next day. They are on leave with pay.
Funeral plans for Johnston have not been made.
Informant in shooting says he never bought drugs at house
Says he was asked to lie
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.
Chief Richard Pennington, in a press conference Monday evening, said his department learned two days ago that the informant — who has been used reliably in the past by the narcotics unit -- denied providing information to officers about a drug deal at 933 Neal Street in northwest Atlanta.
"The informant said he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs," Pennington said. "We don't know if he's telling the truth."
The search warrant used by Atlanta police to raid the house says that a confidential informant had bought crack cocaine at the residence, using $50 in city funds, several hours before the raid.
In the document, officers said that the informant told them the house had surveillance cameras that the suspected drug dealer, called "Sam," monitored.
Pennington on Monday evening said the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit hat he did not tell officers that the house had surveillance equipment, and that he was asked to lie.
The Chief still maintained that "Sam," the alleged drug dealer, "actually exists."
Pennington was joined at the press conference by representatives from various law enforcement agencies who are now looking into the shooting.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also been called in to investigate.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, at the request of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, is also looking into the incident, including examining the home to determine how many gunshots were fired in the confrontation.
Kathryn Johnston was killed Tuesday night when she fired at officers seeking to serve a warrant. They had broken down the front door and exchanged gunfire with Johnston.
Police later claimed a man named "Sam" had sold drugs from inside the house to an informant, prompting the officers to seek a "no-knock" warrant. Such warrants are frequently issued so police can get inside a home before suspects can destroy or flush drugs.
Johnston --- described by neighbors and family as a frightened woman who had burglar bars on her windows and door and rarely let friends and neighbors into her home --- had lived at the one-story brick home near the Georgia Dome for 17 years.
The police chief said officers found marijuana inside the house but "not a large quantity." The officers were not wearing uniforms but had on bulletproof vests with "Police" emblazoned across the front and back. And they identified themselves as they burst through the doors, police said.
Johnston grabbed a rusty six-shot revolver and emptied it. Five shots struck the officers, hitting one of them three times. The other two were each hit once. The officers returned fire, shooting Johnston twice in the chest and elsewhere, police have said.
The three officers were released from the hospital the next day. They are on leave with pay.
Funeral plans for Johnston have not been made.
By Powderman:
From what we are finding out, yes, it is the cops fault. Some stupid judge relied on the cops to do their jobs, and not lie when providing PC for the warrant. IF things keep jumping up in this incident, there had BETTER be Murder charges for all officers involved, on scene and off.
Tough call
When officers kick in doors announced or not, in plain clothes busting people for drugs their government smuggled here in the first place. Seems every time there's a "war on something" there's more of it. Where is the due process of law these days? Anybody that kicks in my door in the middle of the night will be considered and treated as a criminal, because they are. They could have set up at both front and back door, and used a bullhorn or phoned her and asked that she come outside. Tear gas the house. Negotiated. Something. Did she have priors? Not good PR, and more officers will be put in harms way because of it. When police aren't respectful to citizens, the citizens aren't respectful to the police. Just human nature to self defend.
This ain't Iraq. There had to be a better way. Glad the officers didn't get killed but I'm sad she was.
When officers kick in doors announced or not, in plain clothes busting people for drugs their government smuggled here in the first place. Seems every time there's a "war on something" there's more of it. Where is the due process of law these days? Anybody that kicks in my door in the middle of the night will be considered and treated as a criminal, because they are. They could have set up at both front and back door, and used a bullhorn or phoned her and asked that she come outside. Tear gas the house. Negotiated. Something. Did she have priors? Not good PR, and more officers will be put in harms way because of it. When police aren't respectful to citizens, the citizens aren't respectful to the police. Just human nature to self defend.
This ain't Iraq. There had to be a better way. Glad the officers didn't get killed but I'm sad she was.
JuanCarlos
New member
But she could have flushed the drugs! Their conviction could have gone out the window! We all know that human life is less important than convictions, don't we.
stephen426
New member
Juan Carlos,
You and a bunch of other people are totally missing the point here. You blame Kathryn Johnston's death on the war on drugs. I blame it on he opening fire on police officers. While it is entirely possible that she thought they were criminals breaking into her home, that fact can not be determined. Many different warrents are served on a daily basis. Where drugs are concerned, no-knock entries are performed. If the suspect does not open fire on the police (or is not pointing a weapon at them), they usually do not get killed.
I fully agree that the police could have done a better job, such as surveillance on the house to confirm the informant's story. They could also fake a food delivery to the wrong house as I posted earler. I still don't think the solution is to legalize drugs though.
JuanCarlos
New member
No, you are missing the point. She may have opened fire first, but many here are suggesting that it's possible that the police created the situation in which she felt opening fire was reasonable. Much the same way absolutely innocent* people have been gunned down by SWAT teams in the past because, oddly enough, their first reaction to hearing a bunch of people break into their house is to grab a gun to defend themselves. Was Johnston such an innocent? We'll likely never know. But it has happened, and this is just yet another case of no-knock warrants gone wrong.
I can maybe understand executing a no-knock warrant when the police have strong evidence that the suspect will be armed and likely to resort to violence. But going this route only to "preserve evidence" (when the suspect is not considered a high risk of violence) just increases the likelihood of a violent outcome exponentially. Which might be acceptable to me, if innocent people were never in such houses, if innocent people were never arrested, and if the police never got the wrong house. Unfortunately, it's 0 outta 3 there.
And even if we don't legalize drugs, perhaps we could call a "cease-fire" in our dirty little "war." Ceasing these no-knock (or "knock, whisper "police," and go in guns blazing") warrants in the name of "preserving evidence" would be a great start.
* - There have been instances where police raid the wrong house, the residents grab a gun (which is a reasonable reaction when half-asleep and awoken by the sounds of a break-in), and innocent civilians end up dead.
But following such brilliant logic, they are the ones who caused their deaths, by firing on a police officer. (Or just having a gun in their hands. Or something that looked like a gun. Or a furtive movement. Or, heck, maybe they treated the officers with disrespect and a taser wasn't handy.)
We should just disarm everyone. I guess that's what he wants, then no one would resist an unidentified home invasion and end up killed by the police.
CNN update
This morning the informant that they questioned about the incident now denies he ever bought drugs there. The police say he said that he did say yes when first questioned. There should be a recording of that conversation. It is going to be the recorded proof that will clear it up. The feds are now involved. All over supposedly some weed. High risk entries need to re-examined.
This morning the informant that they questioned about the incident now denies he ever bought drugs there. The police say he said that he did say yes when first questioned. There should be a recording of that conversation. It is going to be the recorded proof that will clear it up. The feds are now involved. All over supposedly some weed. High risk entries need to re-examined.
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/ajc/pdf/searchwarrant.pdf
It was a no-knock, she didn't know. Let's bring back Prohibition, eh?
even worse situation: home owner defends himself, kills a cop he thinks is an intruder and even though it was the cops fault for being at the wrong house the sentence is death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye
Kill a dirtbag dressed as a cop, you're a hero. Kill a cop dressed as a dirtbag, you're a criminal.
- Status