92 Year Old Woman Defends Home

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

I thought I had something intelligent to say, but it has been said.

I do, however, wish that grannny was describing how her attackers met their demise.
 
Sorry, you are not the "victim" when you pull a gun on a police officer.
Click to expand...

If somebody breaks into my home, I do not know they are police, I react by grabbing a gun, and I end up dead I am most certainly the victim.

This may or may not be the case in this instance. It has been the case in others.

Also, every time a door gets kicked off its hinges and the owner of that door is guilty of no crime, they are a victim. Every time a family is terrorized by a SWAT team on intelligence that is shaky at best, they are victims. And every time somebody ends up dead who was at worst innocent and at best a nonviolent drug offender, there is a victim.

We live in a society, and you're posting on a forum, full of people who firmly believe in a person's right to defend their home with a firearm. Then we fault those whose first instinct is to do just that. We're expecting somebody who is scared ****less because people are trying to (or have already) forced entry into their home, people who may or may not be half asleep, to be coherent enough to realize that these are police officers and that no, they don't need to defend themselves.

It's idiocy. Especially from the same kind of people people who justify an officer firing 31 rounds (including a reload) into a car full of unarmed people because they just thought their life was in danger. Trained officers. Yet we expect common civilians to exhibit more rational judgment in an equally, if not more, frightening situation.

EDIT: And yes, all this in the name of "preserving evidence." Innocent people (in other cases if not in this one) dead just so DAs have a better shot at a conviction. And we continue with this policy knowing that statistically this will happen again...which sends the message to the common citizen that the law enforcement community considers such "collateral damage" in the War on Drugs acceptable.

Personally I feel if my government has declared war on its citizens, we really shouldn't have to give them our tax money anymore.
 
Baltimore city police are looking for four gunmen who posed as police officers to force their way into a home downtown
Click to expand...

This is why no-knocks are a bad idea. In places like Baltimore, you don't know if the people breaking down your door are police , criminals, or criminal police. No matter who, it is going to get people on both sides of the door very dead.
 
It's a really sad commentary when violent criminals take on police-style tactics in order to commit their violent crimes.
Click to expand...

In fairness, it is the police who took on criminal-style tactics in the performance of their duties, not the other way around. It's great, too, because you're screwed either way. As a law-abiding citizen (as compared to, say, somebody running a meth lab), it's about as likely that the people trying to kick down your door while shouting "Police!" are criminals as is is for them to be actual cops. So what do you do? Defend yourself or not? If you do and you're wrong, you're dead. If you don't and you're wrong, you could wind up dead too, and might have the pleasure of watching your wife and daughter get raped first.

No-knock raids put the public in danger, and often for no better reason than the preservation of evidence. The law enforcement community should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to allow this to go on.
 
Sorry, you are not the "victim" when you pull a gun on a police officer.
Click to expand...

Given that a review of the posts herein reveals you are aware of the fact these intruders busted in her door, your characterization that this old lady "pulled a gun on a police officer" is no less than astounding.

It is one thing to not be informed of facts. It is quite another to refuse to accept known facts, and continue to characterize events as something they were not.

This woman did not leave her home and walk up to the first officer she saw, and "Pull a gun on an officer." You know that as fact.

The only people who "pulled a gun" were the intruders who broke in her door in the middle of the night. What this old lady did, was respond to a threat.

Not only was the murdered woman a "victim" of the intruders, she was also a victim of the "paramilitary" law enforcement practice which seems to require officers to never question the integrity or veracity of an admitted drug user, if their statements offer an opportunity to storm a building.

God forbid, law enforcement try another method than the "dymanic entry" method which has proven so successful in many similar matters.

I guess the cops were the victims, since all Americans are subject to a house storming, and therefore should NEVER defend their families when some idiot breaks in their home.

Such ideas sell big in England.
 
If the confidential informer lied to the police about his having bought drugs at that location, then he should be tried for murder. If the police asked the confidential informer to lie, then they should be tried for murder. Given the jurisdiction, there's no doubt in my mind that the police would be found guilty, if evidence surfaces that they, in fact, knew that only the old lady lived in the house and that nobody had bought drugs undercover prior to the door-kicking.

I can't, for the life of me, though, figure out why the police would intentially break down an old lady's door. What could their motivation possibly have been? Doesn't make any sense to me. Most likely scenario is that they, like Prez Bush prior to invading Iraq, were working on bad intelligence.
 
There are a fews ways to look at this situation. If, in fact, they knocked the door down with no introduction, they were asking for it. If I lived in the slums of Atlanta and somebody knocked my door down and I would have done the samething. If they did announce their presence then she was at fault.
 
There are a fews ways to look at this situation. If, in fact, they knocked the door down with no introduction, they were asking for it. If I lived in the slums of Atlanta and somebody knocked my door down and I would have done the samething. If they did announce their presence then she was at fault.
Click to expand...

Look up. I imagine the thugs in Baltimore "announced themselves" as well...would you be at fault for shooting them? Of course not.

Somebody shouting "Police!" does not make them police. This isn't rocket surgery. People have been posing as police to commit crimes since long before no-knock raids become so popular. The problem is that when the police adopt the same tactics as criminals, and vice versa, it's impossible to tell who is who until after the smoke clears...and by then people are dead.

I don't care who the heck you are, if you're forcing your way into my home I'm going to assume you are a threat. If you're a cop, and you don't want to get shot, you might try knocking and waiting for me to answer. More drugs might get flushed down toilets, but less cops and innocent homeowners end up dead. Sounds like a fair trade to me.
 
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.
Click to expand...

jcoiii,

Not to jack the thread, but how does the process usually work ? Am I understanding correctly that the officers that secured the warrant are not necessarily on the "entry team"?

I guess what I am asking is, does one LEO get the warrant signed by the judge, and then hand it off to a different set of LEOs and say "OK Guys serve this warrant"?

Surely there has to be some briefing or coordination?

If not then it seems that the officers on the "strike team" are at a disadvantage without all the intel.

I would be very hesitant (were I on that team) to simply "dynamically enter" a home without all the facts.
I would be, at the least , an accessory to this if I did so.
 
Outcast,

Preface: I'm LEO, but not on any entry teams.

You are correct that officers who secure a warrant may not be on the team that goes in based on that warrant. Some are, some aren't.

Very basic outline of procedure:

Secure a warrant- an officer takes an affadavit of complaint to a judge, requesting a warrant. The reasons for the warrant (i.e. probable cause) are spelled out in writing. The judge reviews the information and either issues or does not issue a warrant. In this case, the request would state that a "trusted" informant bought drugs at this residence at the behest of the police. Any information the informant provided, such as cameras, bars, weapons, stashes, previous activity, "knowledge" about the perp or the location, is included.

If it is determined that this could be a "high risk" warrant, meaning there's a good chance that the person inside could be armed and/or put up major resistance, the serving of the warrant is usually passed off to a tactical team.

The entry/tactical/SWAT team reviews the warrant to see what they are supposed to look for upon entry. They also review the possible points of resistance. The team decides on the tactics to enter the building. They check information, such as address and other landmarks to ensure the right location (which, yes, they still sometimes get wrong, for various reasons, good and bad). Often, a driveby or quick surveillance is conducted to check the state of things. Then they execute the plan. (And there are plenty of times where these entries yield no injuries and major arrests.)

So, yes, there is some coordination with those who secured the info/warrant/etc and the entry team.

And I concur, I'm not going in on a dynamic entry unless I'm 1000% sure it's the right place, simply because I know what I'd do in my house if someone came in.
 
As my Republican friends would say about all these types of cases, "She was undoubtedly a druggie, and knew they were cops, so she had it coming". Nevermind that druggies don't live that long, and she probably couldn't hear, assuming they did knock and announce, which I don't believe - cops have been caught too many times lying on that one to believe them off the bat.
 
This is stupid. If I was sitting in my home minding my own business and my door came crashing down, I'd go for a gun, as well. But guess what? The odds of that happening are pretty damn slim. You love to post "mistaken address invasions by cops", and they do happen, but they are so rare it's almost not even worth talking about. Cops conduct THOUSANDS of these a year, and 99% of them go off without a shot fired. I can hit by lightning if I go out in a thunderstorm, but that hasn't happened yet and I'm feeling pretty confident it won't. if you want to blame someone for her death, blame the mutts who live there who deal this posion that brings the cops to their doorstep. This woman was sitting in her chair with her gun ready to go. There is no way a 92 year old woman could have shot throse cops coming through the door otherwise. So she either fired at what she thought were intruders, and she lost, or she fired at who she knew were cops, and she lost. The warrant was legal, the entry approved, and if you don't like it, tough. The cops did nothing wrong in this case.
 
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
_________________________________________________________________
Yes, Warrants were served. However as I understand it , the informant lied.
When you declare war on yourself you get what you ask for. Policy and the modern " Prohibition " on intoxicating substances has caused this to happen.
Police doing their duty and an old lady minding her business. Result is 3 injured civil servants , 1 dead citizen.

Quite some time back I recall a drug raid , wherein the police killed a one year old baby. The officer stepped on the infants skull. He was standing on the couch trying to look up into an attic access. In all the chaos that was created by the raid , no one thought to look underneath the afghan blanket to see what may be there. I would say +1 busting the bad guy. -1 for society. Once again people absolve themselves of liberty for security.

Al Capone sold alcohol. The user had a choice to buy and break the law. We are repeating history because be fail to learn from it.
When prohibition of alcohol ended there was a spike in alcoholism. Profit to risk ratio made Mr. Capone. Same for any other drug. You treat abuse of any substance from the same perspective. Medical. Drunks and drug users are sick. They are also stupid and irresponsible
Personal responsibility and behavior is the way to a better place.

If I behave in anyway that is a threat to the well being of others with a legal firearm, stick, stone, hand, automobile, etc. It is my behavior that should get me jailed. Public intoxication is where you bust these people.

Maybe we should make firearm ownership illegal, if we didn't have guns we wouldn't have anymore shootings... Black Market would be real profitable...
... some years later...
Yeah and if you do make guns legal there will be many more shootings. You know those gun loving types are always looking to shoot someone. :eek:

Ok, I am done... I think... :D
 
you want to blame someone for her death, blame the mutts who live there who deal this posion that brings the cops to their doorstep. This woman was sitting in her chair with her gun ready to go.
Click to expand...

Balderdash and more balderdash.

Looks like I'm going to break out the hickory stick of reason.

First, what mutts who lived there dealing "posion"? The word of a CI who was told to lie? The mystery guy who sold drugs is probably going to be as hard to locate as the one armed man, or the guy that OJ saw.

Second, she got off one shot. One, single, shot. She doesn't have to be James Bond to do that, considering that it took them time to break the door down. She didn't start firing before they attacked the door, because no cop would continue attempting to breach a door while coming under fire. MY frail old grandmother could do equally well under the circumstances, if she had the mind to.

Thank you, thank you very much.

As for blaming someone for her death? I think I'll settle for blaming everyone involved in the chain from the officers who broke down the door and capped off nearly a hundred rounds, to the judge who signed the warrant. :)

Honestly, you'd think that anyone who says the cops screwed up here was blaspheming Jesus, considering the kinds of mental contortions that other people are going through to blame the victim and religiously insist that all is well.
 
I'd have to say after listening to this on the local news for the past WEEK:rolleyes: . This is just a bad situation on both sides. The cops should have used a little more common sense (busting the door down on ANYONE after dark that even MIGHT have a gun is just plain STUPID) and a little more carefull intel might have prvented this. The 92 year old woman having a "gun in hand" in time to shoot police officers busting her door down sounds sorta fishy to me. That woman was either expecting something to happen or she is a whole hell of a lot faster than I am. As far as all the "folks" here in Atlanta complaining about the JUSTIFIED killings of late, the way I see it, you pull a gun, knife, rock, stick or any other lethal looking object out against a LEO you dserve one right between the eyes. When we start siding with the BG's on these types of cases cops are going to get killed because they will hesitate to take action.
 
The warrant was legal, the entry approved, and if you don't like it, tough.
Click to expand...

Homerboy, tell the truth. Are you really using psychology to deliberately make cops look like bigoted, insulting jerks with a serious superiority complex? If it's your intent to make people distrust the PD even more, it's working. If it's your intent to increase the "them vs. us" mentality, you're doing a great job.

badbob
 
contender6030, are you saying the lady was a BG? Was she Grandma Barker waiting with gun in hand for the cops to walk through the door, or was she just an old lady, who heard a gosh awful noise as her security door is broken down, and responded with 1 shot from a rusty revolver laying on her nightstand or table?

badbob
 
contender said:
The 92 year old woman having a "gun in hand" in time to shoot police officers busting her door down sounds sorta fishy to me. That woman was either expecting something to happen or she is a whole hell of a lot faster than I am. As far as all the "folks" here in Atlanta complaining about the JUSTIFIED killings of late, the way I see it, you pull a gun, knife, rock, stick or any other lethal looking object out against a LEO you dserve one right between the eyes. When we start siding with the BG's on these types of cases cops are going to get killed because they will hesitate to take action.
Click to expand...

If I lived in a crappy neighborhood, I'd have a gun closeby too...92 years old or not.

I also like how apparently putting an end to these no-knock raids isn't an option...it's either let the cops go in guns a blazing or more cops getting killed.

EDIT: Also, is it a good thing for law-abiding homeowners to be made hesitant to take action when somebody starts banging down their door? Is it a good thing to give criminals another tool in their arsenal, the "phony police raid?" Because when people can't be sure they're allowed to shoot thugs breaking down their door because if it is the police the courts will take action against them, then law-abiding homeowners will hesitate and end up dead.

And I'd anybody breaking down my door when I'm guilty of no crime "deserves one right between the eyes" as well. Guess I'd better start practicing headshots more.

homerboy said:
This is stupid. If I was sitting in my home minding my own business and my door came crashing down, I'd go for a gun, as well. But guess what? The odds of that happening are pretty damn slim. You love to post "mistaken address invasions by cops", and they do happen, but they are so rare it's almost not even worth talking about. Cops conduct THOUSANDS of these a year, and 99% of them go off without a shot fired. I can hit by lightning if I go out in a thunderstorm, but that hasn't happened yet and I'm feeling pretty confident it won't. if you want to blame someone for her death, blame the mutts who live there who deal this posion that brings the cops to their doorstep. This woman was sitting in her chair with her gun ready to go. There is no way a 92 year old woman could have shot throse cops coming through the door otherwise. So she either fired at what she thought were intruders, and she lost, or she fired at who she knew were cops, and she lost. The warrant was legal, the entry approved, and if you don't like it, tough. The cops did nothing wrong in this case.
Click to expand...

Just because something is rare does not mean it isn't worth talking about. This is not in any way comparable to a bolt of lightening; that's a random and uncontrollable force of nature, and this is a choice the law enforcement community is consciously making. Mistaken addresses and innocent deaths (as well as deaths of non-violent offenders, even unarmed nonviolent offenders) have occurred in no-knock raids in the past, and they will continue to occur during them in the future. Period. There is nothing that can be done to prevent this, because mistakes will always happen.

The problem I think a majority of people have is twofold.

One, I don't think every possible precaution to keep things like this from happening is being taken right now anyway. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that really there is nobody to hold personally responsible, so if something goes wrong it's no big deal...just weather the headlines and go on with business.

Two, police are using no-knock raids for (in the opinion of a majority of the public who knows jack about the issue) the wrong reasons. It'd be one thing if no-knocks were just used when the officers had good reason to fear for their lives, and where a violent outcome was likely if the perps were given any time to prepare, I doubt you'd hear as much about them (and there wouldn't be nearly as many to boot). But no, we use them just to prevent Joe Dealer from flushing his drugs. As has been stated before, this sends the message that preserving evidence is more important to the law enforcement community than human life...even innocent human life.

I'll agree that, as far as the shooting was concerned, the police did nothing wrong. They do and should have a right to defend themselves in such a situation. However, the entire situation should never have been created in the first place...and that falls squarely on the law enforcement community. From the original investigator and his CI, to the judge, down to the cops who are willing to execute such raids and up to the Supreme Court who has failed to put a stop to this.

Also, please don't try to argue that it's right simply because it's legal. Argument from authority does little for me. Lots of things were once legal, from shooting Indians on sight to owning slaves to letting children work 18-hour days in poorly ventilated factories. Assault weapons are banned in California...that's the law, but I assume many here aren't okay with that either. In fact, it seems about half of what this forum is dedicated to is complaining about the laws of this country and how they aren't right and should be overturned...as long as it's gun-related laws.

The courts have upheld no-knock raids. They have also upheld California's weapons bans, and near-bans on handguns in other parts of the US. So really, who cares if what happened here was legal...we're talking about whether it was right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top