92 Year Old Woman Defends Home

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from Redworm:
I don't blame the old woman or the cops. I blame the stupid War on Drugs and every fool that supports it.
Click to expand...

Well, I blame the cops. The "Old Woman" wasn't doing anything but trying to sleep. The cops used the "war on drugs" to justify storming a house, when waiting for the suspect to come out would do.

The "old woman's" 4th Amendment rights trumps police powers, by a long shot. I blame the cops for storming her house in violation of the 4th Amendment. She obviously didn't leave her home, and storm the police station.

According to the article, they broke in her house. She was just sleeping in the house.

So they should all stand trial, obviously. For negligent homicide, as would any other citizen.

Only then will this insane "Waco-Delivery" of warrants cease.

Then possibly someone will realize, if the cops suspect there is a reason for a warrant to be "served", it can be done in a Non-Waco-like manner.

It can be done. It was done that way for many, many years previous to the "Janet Reno" warrant delivery method being implemented nationwide.

It just ain't "fun" to do it the old way.
 
I do not agree with the war on drugs at all.

I also do not trust most police depts. since I was an LEO and I saw some shady stuff.

I do however find it a little hard to swallow that this 92 year old woman was trying to nap and still managed to retrieve a firearm and then fire 6 shots before being shot herself if she wasn't already prepared to shoot before they entered.

The fact that friends say she "seldomly" even allowed friends or neigbors in her home makes me more suspicious.
 
LOL, I love how some folks find it more plausable that granny was James Bond's mom than that the cops did something wrong.

The problem with these police home invasions is that you aren't given time to think--that is the whole point. And Pnut, those "Police" vests are everywhere. They are cheap nylon and can be gotten at any number of places. Home invaders now commonly announce that they are the police. Frankly, if there is actually an audible announcement of "POLICE" it is more likely to be a home invader than a cop!
 
That's it! She was 00Granny! A clever ambush, for sure.:p

BTW, I just heard the "CI" on the radio and I figured out the problem. Nobody could understand what the scumbag actually said.

badbob
 
Last edited:
From what I read, this story strains belief.

1 A 92 year old woman, who wears THICK glasses (see picture) takes a revolver, and makes 5 hits with 6 shots, including a head shot, in the dark and under fire. Most cops and even competitors would be hard pressed for those results.

2 The CI who supposedly bought the drugs that supported the warrant claims he was asked to lie to cover the cops' mistake.

3 A misdemeanor amount of marijuana was found.

There is enough there to raise one's eyebrows.

And to address the comments of "no knocks are needed to stop perps from flushing evidence" remember- the govt's need to arrest criminals does not trump your rights as preserved by the Constitution.
 
It is troubling to me, that we have reached the state-of-affairs in which the protection of evidence of criminal wrongdoing is placed higher than the protection of human life itself.

The only thing I can say with any seeming certainty is that the events are now problematic.

An excerpt from The Atlanta Journel-Constitution (all markups are mine):
Many questions and conflicting accounts have surfaced since police shot the woman, described by neighbors as feeble and afraid to open her door after dark. At first police said that the drug buy was made by undercover police, but later they said the purchase was made by an informant. Early on, police said narcotics were found at the house after the shooting, but on Sunday investigators said they had found only a small amount of marijuana, which police don't consider a narcotic.

Also, even though the affidavit said that the house was outfitted with surveillance cameras, Pennington said the informant had told internal affairs investigators that police officers had asked him to lie about the cameras. Pennington could not confirm whether the cameras existed.

From the beginning, it has been unclear why police targeted the woman's house, and the affidavit and warrant documents shed little light. The documents do not suggest that police had been keeping the house under surveillance and provide no rationale for entering it other than the informant's alleged buy earlier in the afternoon. The raid did not produce the cocaine, money, computers and other equipment related to the drug business alleged in the affidavit. The documents listed the only resident as Sam, who was described as at least 6 feet tall and 250 to 260 pounds. Johnston's family said she lived alone.

Court officials initially refused to release the affidavits and search warrant even though state law requires that such records be made available immediately. The documents were made public Monday, nearly a week after the incident.
Click to expand...
 
It all stinks. IF all information released so far is true, and the police LIED to obtain a warrant, then this should be the wake up call. If all of this is true, there had better be murder charges against all involved. NOT any of this suspension, letter in you file crap, LEO's are not military, and I am tired of the "non Judicial" punishment LEO's get, when a non badge wearing citizen would get jail time.

Everybody write, fax, email, snail mail, and call your reps. Let them know how you feel about this. We have notified our reps before, and we know how useless it is, but we must contact them. Let them know that it is a problem that needs to be fixed, and fixed soon.
 
More news about the lady killed in Atlanta:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10408234/detail.html
Watch the video:(

Informant Says He Was Asked To Lie

POSTED: 6:14 pm EST November 27, 2006
UPDATED: 6:32 pm EST November 27, 2006
ATLANTA -- There is major fallout from the Atlanta Police shootout that left an elderly woman dead – officers are put on leave and the state and the feds are investigating.
Atlanta’s Police Chief announced both the FBI and GBI are investigating the shootout. Also, a narcotics team involved is now on paid leave and autopsy results reveal 88-year-old Kathryn Johnston was shot six times.
Chief Richard Pennington wrapped up a surprise press conference around 5:20 p.m. Monday telling us his entire narcotics unit is on administrative leave – that means seven officers and one sergeant are on leave after the police shootout that left Kathryn Johnston dead.
Now, Chief Pennington confirmed there are questions as to whether there was ever a drug buy at Kathryn Johnston’s home – the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit he was told to lie.
“Officers are saying one thing – confidential informant is saying something else,” said Chief Richard Pennington.
Chief Pennington dropped several bomb shells at a press conference Monday evening. He tells us his entire narcotics unit will be placed on administrative leave after last Tuesday’s police shootout that left 88-year-old Kathryn Johnston dead and three officers wounded.
In search warrants obtained by Channel 2, investigators say a confidential informant made an undercover buy at Johnston’s home -- $50 worth of crack cocaine.
Johnston’s family and community leaders were outraged, claiming no such drug deal could have happened because Johnston lived alone in her Northwest Atlanta home.
Now, Chief Pennington confirmed there are questions as to whether that drug buy ever happened.
When Pennington was asked if it was his understanding that the informant was told to lie about a possible drug purchase, Chief Pennington replied, “Yes. According to the informant, after we brought that informant in and interviewed that informant, he told us he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs.”
From here, the FBI is taking over the investigation and the GBI will process the crime scene on Neal Street – Johnston’s home. The U.S. Justice Department will also be conducting their own independent investigation. Chief Richard Pennington announcing no stone will be unturned and said they will review their policies on “no-knock” warrants and using confidential and reliable informants.
badbob
 
Chief Richard Pennington announcing no stone will be unturned and said they will review their policies on “no-knock” warrants and using confidential and reliable informants.
Click to expand...

Sure they will. Because we all know nothing like this has ever happened before. They couldn't possibly have known that conducting no-knock raids on the word of a CI was a bad idea. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure "we will review our policies" is police-speak for "we will try to make sure this same thing doesn't happen again until the public has forgotten this current charile-foxtrot."

Maybe next time I'm pulled over I'll get out of the ticket by informing the officer I intend to "review my driving habits." Which is to say that I'll not speed again...until I'm out of his sight.
 
Last edited:
While I don't particularly take the word of an informant over that of an officer, I have to agree with Wildcard's assessment except for one thing. I'm not sure if I could convict these guys for murder. For 4th Amendment violations, and other things, sure. But if all of this talk from the informant is true, these officers were simply called upon to serve the warrant. (I am correct in thinking the assault officers were not the officers who procured the warrant right?)

Now, the entry team officers were acting in good faith that the warrant issued by the judge was issued because the judge thought the evidence presented by other officers was valid enough for a search warrant. THOSE officers are the guys that should be left out to dry if the situation is what the informant claims.

The entry team is serving what they believe to be a valid warrant. They enter the residence and are fired upon and hit. They return fire. For those three, at least, not really murder. Not even manslaughter IF AND ONLY IF, they were unaware of the other goings on with the warrant/informant gaffe.
 
You know, I am one of the biggest opponents of the militarization of the police but something smells here.
1. I do not believe for one second these officers busted in this house just to kill an old lady.
2. If they didn’t get that information from the reputable CI then where did they get it from?
3. After they realized they fupawed, Why did they cover it up with a lie?
4. Whats this camera stuff about?


What is more plausible is that they were set up by someone who knew the woman lived in there scared, alone and armed. That person may not be known to the courts a reliable hence that would be investigated hence the lie. If so than this is a story for the movies since it will bring down the entire narcotics squad and probably the administration. Then maybe the CI is lying.


Just a thought since we are still speculating on this.
 
It's starting to go sideways for the APD...

WAGA channel 5...Today adds more ongoing information from the investigation. The elderly woman it turns out fired only ONE shot from her revolver. The three police officers who were wounded in this raid were hit by bullets from POLICE guns in a 'friendly fire'fulisade of a total 130 shots fired by police. The police now say that they believe the first man thru the door was hit by the single bullet fired by the resident citizen. That bullet struck his chest ,protected by his kevlar bullet proof vest,and has not been found/accounted for. ...At this point I have not heard a repeat of the accusation that the timeline on the warrant is questioned. The 88 year old citizen was struck by 6 bullets; one in her right leg,two in her left leg, one in her right arm,and two in her left chest area.....Meanwhile in the middle of all this Atlanta's chief of police Pennington comes up for a possible salery increase. He currently recieves 193,000 dollars a year,amoung the top paid chiefs in the USA...Many citizens are howling that such a possible pay increase ought to be set aside for now.....
 
1. I do not believe for one second these officers busted in this house just to kill an old lady.
2. If they didn’t get that information from the reputable CI then where did they get it from?
3. After they realized they fupawed, Why did they cover it up with a lie?
4. Whats this camera stuff about?
Click to expand...

1 - Nor do I. But lack of malicious intent does not prove lack of negligence. Even criminal negligence.

2 - Who knows. Another, less reputable CI? A very good question.

3 - Because they didn't want to get screwed, and hard. Seriously, covering up screwups with lies is a natural human reaction...and police training does not magically make this go away. Most people don't even consider it a bad thing if the lie will not affect the outcome of the screwup (aside from their own punishment). Would the lady be less dead if they told the truth?

4 - Maybe embellishment that either the "reputable CI," some unknown third party, or the police themselves came up with to justify the "no-knock" aspect of the warrant further. Who knows.

What is more plausible is that they were set up by someone who knew the woman lived in there scared, alone and armed. That person may not be known to the courts a reliable hence that would be investigated hence the lie. If so than this is a story for the movies since it will bring down the entire narcotics squad and probably the administration. Then maybe the CI is lying.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory. Even more interesting because this could be explained with one of two end motives...one, they could have been shooting to either get a cop or few killed, or get the team brought down. Two, the grandma may or may not have children/grandchildren involved in criminal activity, and the whole thing could have been a setup to get her killed as retribution. I don't know how cold-hearted you'd have to be to mess with somebody's grandma, but who knows.

I doubt we'll ever find out exactly what the hell happened. But I can tell right now the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
 
a 'friendly fire' fusilade of a total 130 shots fired by police
Click to expand...
Disappointing, if true; granny went 1 for 1 and the police only manage 10 for 130, with 4 of those hitting fellow officers.
 
You don't pull a gun on an officer.
Click to expand...

Maybe officers shouldn't kick down people's doors without knocking, as well. We still don't even know that she knew that these were officers. The word "Police" on a vest does not necessarily prove that somebody is a cop...and these guys were breaking in like thugs.

Heck, my first reaction to anybody trying to force entry into my home is to get a gun. Especially as a law-abiding citizen. It's not as though nobody has ever posed as police to force entry into a home and then victimize the residents...this has happened.
 
You don't pull a gun on an officer.
Click to expand...

And that justifies her death, Freetacos? Does it?

I like your sneaky wording, too. "pull a gun on an officer" conjures up a mental image of walking along a street, being confronted by a uniformed policeman, and pulling a gun out of a pocket on them.
 
It doesn't matter if you are 150 years old
You don't pull a gun on an officer.
Click to expand...

Sorry, so sorry. If you break my door down in the middle of the night, officer or not, you will be looking down the business end of a shotgun.

There had better be charges. IF not, All respect that I had for Police Officers is gone. And yes, I mean all Police Officers. You see, citizens voices are not enough. Police Officers know right and wrong. Police Officers need to stand up, voice their opinions on this, tell their supervisors what they think. This tired excuse we get of "if you dont like the law, vote to change it" or "I dont make the laws" and and lets not forget "I was just following orders", these excuses are old, and are enough to give someone the runs. It is way past time to make Police Officers pay, be criminally liable for their screw ups. You want the power to bust into peoples homes on a whim (which is what happened here IMO) then you should have the responsibility of having your A$$ hung out to dry if you screw up.
 
There had better be charges.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. There won't be. Who would you charge, anyway? The officers pulling the trigger? The courts have ruled on this: they have a right to defend themselves...and I'm not entirely sure they shouldn't. The judge who signed the order? Yeah, right. I don't know the legalities, it might actually be impossible to charge him with anything...but even if it isn't, never gonna happen. I suppose you might try to charge the CI for lying...but really, will this even fix anything? For all we know he was coerced into do so by a police officer.

We've created a brilliant system where if an innocent person (even if Johnston wasn't innocent other victims definitely have been) has their home invaded and ends up dead, somehow nobody is responsible.* This is the kind of thing that should happen once, nationwide. After it has happened multiple times, it's no longer an "aw, shucks"...it's a serious threat to the public's safety. And since this was a forseeable outcome of the raid (as it has happened before), somebody ought to be held responsible. Preferably somebody other than the victim, which seems to be what Freetacos favors.
 
"Preferably somebody other than the victim, which seems to be what Freetacos favors."

Sorry, you are not the "victim" when you pull a gun on a police officer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top