92 Year Old Woman Defends Home

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heist:

Where is your proof the CI was told to lie? No way that happened. You think cops want to have this headache from monday morning quarterbacks like yourself?

She got off one shot? Where is that coming from? The cops were hit six times.

How much time do you think it takes to take down a door? Unless it's super reinforced solid steel, it takes one solid swing with a ram. Trust me. I've taken down doors in one solid whack. I know, you think they were all victims and I had no right to do so. Guess what? We got drugs and guns out of every one of those hits, and we had the LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT! Even had to shoot a pitbull or two who was there for protection. You think she had time to get up, get her gun and fire on the cops? 92 year old woman can do that?

You hate the police. Face it.
 
best to hit the ignore button in cases like this to keep this thread open..

As the FBI investigation into the shooting unfolds, some key areas to watch for – ballistics tests and the firing direction of rounds inside Ms. Johnston’s home. Phone records of the confidential informant and the type of information on which the search warrant was based.
 
and we had the LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT!

Yet again, with the "it's legal so it's good" defense.

Also:

Where is your proof the CI was told to lie? No way that happened.

Now, there is no proof this happened in this case (other than the word of the CI). But are you suggesting that never in the history of police work has a CI been told to lie? Even coerced into lying?

Are you actually going to go with that?

Because to suggest that there is "no way" that happened, you'd have to believe that.

Also, want to think about something that might just blow your mind? The CI has come out and said that he was told to lie, and did. So either he was lying then, or he is lying now. Either way, the raid was conducted on his word, which has now been proven beyond doubt to be unreliable. Amazing, that.
 
Check out the latest news, Homerboy. She fired and hit one cop. Other cops were hit by shrapnel. Nobody on this board knows what happened. Nobody on this board knows whether the informant was told to lie, or whether he lied to the police. Nobody on this board knows how many guns were used to kill Kennedy. Nobody on this board knows whether the U.S. Navy detected that diesel Chinese sub. The ONLY thing that's going on here and on other boards is that a bunch of guys are tapping keyboards.

Again, what's the motivation for the police kicking in a 92-yr-old womans door? Anybody got a good answer to that?

As to implicating the judge...that's just simpleminded blather. The judge MUST rely on the truthfullness of the affidavit. What could he/she do, personally investigate each request for a warrant? What planet do you live on, anywho?
 
As to implicating the judge...that's just simpleminded blather. The judge MUST rely on the truthfullness of the affidavit. What could he/she do, personally investigate each request for a warrant? What planet do you live on, anywho?

A judge would, I think, have the option of not authorizing the no-knock aspect of the warrant. Just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong...I'm no lawyer.

Also, we do know one thing. The CI is a liar. He has stated that he lied....which means he either lied then or is lying now. Either way his general truthfulness is now in question. Pretty simple logic, really.
 
You're right Juan. The CI's word has NOW been proven to be unreliable. That's after the fact. How does that affect his word BEFORE the incident?

Ausser:

You're right. None of us know exactly what went on, but this is what is undeniable:

Police Officers with a valid warrant went to a location to serve it. The warrant was "no-knock" meaning they were allowed to smash the door in. They make entry with the valid warrant and are immediately fired on. Since they must have left their crystal ball in the car, they returned fire and killed the person trying to kill them.

Now, the CI is saying he didn't tell the cops there were drugs in the house. Could he be telling the truth? I guess so, but since it's his word against police officers who haven't shown any reason for lying, I take their word. You show me proof that they lied on the warrant application, I'll be the one to throw away the key on them.

And in the meantime, while all you keyboard commandos peck away at your keyboards and massage your guns, men and women are out there putting their lives on the line for ungratefuls like yourself.

Adios.
 
Heist:

Where is your proof the CI was told to lie? No way that happened.
Proof?
She got off one shot? Where is that coming from? The cops were hit six times.
five shots from everything I've read. has information changed?
Guess what? We got drugs and guns out of every one of those hits, and we had the LEGAL RIGHT TO DO IT!
No. You had legal permission to do it. No knock warrants are not a "right" in any way, shape or form.
You think she had time to get up, get her gun and fire on the cops? 92 year old woman can do that?
Were you there? Do you know what happened? Do you know how long it took? Can you give us a verifiable timeline of events, Mr. Grissom?

Didn't think so.
 
You're right Juan. The CI's word has NOW been proven to be unreliable. That's after the fact. How does that affect his word BEFORE the incident?

Um, perhaps it suggests that no-knock warrants should not be issued on the word of CI's? Or at all, unless armed resistance is expected?

And in the meantime, while all you keyboard commandos peck away at your keyboards and massage your guns, men and women are out there putting their lives on the line for ungratefuls like yourself.

I did a year in the desert, my friend, which last I checked is about as dangerous if not more so than an entire career on the NYPD. Maybe I'll have to go run the numbers and see how that works out.
 
And in the meantime, while all you keyboard commandos peck away at your keyboards and massage your guns, men and women are out there putting their lives on the line for ungratefuls like yourself.
I have respect for good cops. But even men and women who put their lives on the line for everyone else must be held accountable for their actions and especially for their mistakes.

Unquestioning fealty to law enforcement is as reprehensible as unquestioning hatred of law enforcement.
 
Also, I just have to inject for a second my absolute hatred of the phrase "Monday morning quarterback" on situations like this. Life is not a football game. No matter how badly the quarterback screws up on any given Sunday, it's unlikely that he is going to cause the death of one of the fans. He's going to lose a football game. So yeah, I'd say it's reasonable that once the clock runs out, you probably should let it go.

When a human beings life is ended for no good reason, we owe it to them and to everybody who cares about them (as well as any future victims) to continue to scrutinize the events leading to their death on Monday, Tuesday, and possibly through the rest of the week. We should be looking at what, if anything, went wrong as well as what, if anything, we could do in the future to avoid this result. Additionally, to take it back to inappropriate sports analogies, we should probably assess whether or not we should be playing the darn game in the first place.

And we should try to do so with an open mind and a critical eye, not the kind of "oh well, they followed policy, too bad" dismissal that we've seen some shining examples of in this thread.
 
"Unnamed Sources" So what? When I see an autopsy report, I'll believe it.

Even if it is true, it makes no difference. She fired on cops. She gets shot.
 
"Unnamed Sources" So what? When I see an autopsy report, I'll believe it.

Even if it is true, it makes no difference. She fired on cops. She gets shot.
:confused: unnamed sources? believe what?

Yeah, she fired on cops and gets shot. I don't blame the cops unless we later find out that they either intentionally screwed up or it was due to negligence. I certainly don't blame her for doing the same thing I would do (someone busts in my door, I don't care what they claim to be, unless I see a badge and am allowed to read a warrant I'm going to assume my life is in danger and act accordingly). I do, however, blame the entire system like JC does. She shouldn't have died because the cops should have NEVER been given authorization to bust down her door.
 
fox 5 news said:
Sources told FOX5 that although officers suffered multiple gunshot wounds, Kathryn Johnston fired only one round.

Woman fired one time and five officers were hit????? BS:mad: Sounds like the magic bullet theory to me.:D

Like I said before, was a bad situation all the way around. Now that the CI has been found to be a liar and it was his word that got the cops the warrant in the first place it should be him up for murder.
 
Using the principle of Occum's Razor, what seems to be the most plausible?

1 A 92 year old woman, in the dark, without her glasses, takes an old revolver and fires at an armed entry team and hits them five times before being killed. This woman, unbeknownst to all her family and neighbors, has men living in her house who sell drugs to an undercover officer and who are not there at the time of the raid.

2 The cops rely on an unreliable criminal who provides information in exchange for money. Needing a fix, he lies to get his money, but instead of turning in his connection, gives the cops a fake address. During the raid, the woman living there shoots at what she believes is a home invader. In the ensuing fear and adrenaline-induced return fullisade, friendly fire hits other officers and the old lady. In the confusion, the officers are not sure who shot who. Everyone left alive is now in butt-covering mode. Said CI is now lying to cover his own behind, and gets to nail the cops as a bonus.

3 The cops collude to frame, ambush, and kill a woman who is about to break open the largest police corruption case in the history of the Atlanta PD.


Scenario #2 (or something similar) is the simplest, and thus most likely, answer.
 
You take your "logic" and "reason" and get the heck outta here, mister!

You shoot at cops, you get shot! Period! End of discussion!
 
This was murder, plain and simple.


The elderly lady fired only one round.

Source: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/p...n=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

The cops lied to obtain a warrant. ONE of the officers has a history of not being able to tell the truth.

Officer Arthur B Tesler, (who engineered the "buy" from the granny's house), has a history: fabricating, with the complicity of others. Letter of reprimand.

Officer accused of lying in '01 wreck

By S.A. REID
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/30/06

An Atlanta narcotics officer tied to last week's deadly drug raid on a elderly woman's home was the subject of a 2002 lawsuit that said he "fabricated" the events that led to his head-on traffic collision with a motorcyclist.

That rider, Samuel T. Gulley Jr., received a $450,000 payment from the city last year to settle his claims against Officer Arthur B. Tesler, the city and the Atlanta Police Department. The civil case was dismissed from Fulton County State Court after the settlement in September 2005.

That lawsuit alleged Tesler and other unnamed officers "fabricated traffic charges against Plaintiff, ignored evidence ... and improperly initiated criminal proceedings" against Gulley to cover up the fact that Tesler was at fault in the accident that left Gulley with a broken pelvis and broken leg.

Now the credibility of Tesler and other officers involved in last week's killing is being called into question. Tesler was one of two officers who told a judge they directed a confidential informant through the process of an undercover drug buy at the house occupied by Kathryn Johnston, according to court records.

After the fatal raid, the informant told the Atlanta police internal affairs unit and a local television station that he wasn't involved in the buy that led to the shooting, and that police officers asked him to fabricate his role in the incident.

Denies allegations in lawsuit

In a phone interview, Tesler denied the allegations in the lawsuit but refused to discuss the matter in detail. He said he was aware that the city had settled the traffic case but didn't know the amount.

He refused to comment on the drug raid.

"I really don't want to comment on anything or on any other specific cases until everything is done with," he said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Tesler is one of seven narcotics officers and one sergeant on administrative leave pending the outcome of internal, state and federal investigations into the Nov. 21 firefight between three drug officers and Johnston, who was buried Tuesday. Johnston has been identified as 88 years old by authorities but as 92 by family and friends.

Johnston fired on the officers, wounding all three, after they broke down the front door of her Neal Street home in an attempt to serve a "no-knock" search warrant. She died from gunshots to her chest and extremities.

Gulley, who accused Tesler in the civil case, did not return calls left with his father. Steven Barnhart, his lawyer in the case, on Wednesday doubted that Gulley would be willing to talk.

In his lawsuit, Gulley said he was seriously injured when Tesler's patrol car hit his motorcycle head-on after the officer swung wide as he pulled out of a parking lot and into his southbound lane, going the wrong way, the night of May 27, 2001, on Marietta Boulevard in northwest Atlanta.

The lawsuit accused Tesler of giving an inaccurate description of the events leading up to the accident, which resulted in traffic charges against Gulley that were later dropped.

Deputy City Attorney Jerry DeLoach said Gulley's injuries and medical expenses, as well as liability issues, justified the $450,000 settlement, which shouldn't be considered an admission of guilt.

"Looking at all the facts and evidence," he said, "we thought it would be to the city's advantage and the employee's advantage if we minimized our exposure."

A police report written by Officer Jackson Christopher listed Tesler as the victim and suggested that Gulley ran into the officer's police cruiser.

Tesler's account had him pursuing a fleeing suspect when he pulled out. But Tesler didn't alert radio dispatchers to the chase because of heavy radio traffic, according to court papers. The lawsuit contradicted Tesler's account by alleging that the officer was on routine patrol and didn't have his emergency lights or siren on at impact.

Christopher issued Tesler a ticket for driving on the wrong side of the road, according to Barnhart.

The traffic citation was dropped when Christopher and Gulley failed to appear at Tesler's hearing, court papers said. Christopher was away on military duty at the time and Gulley was recovering from the wreck.

Gulley suffered serious injuries in the crash that sent him to the hospital for more than 90 days and left him with more than $90,000 in medical bills.

Based on Tesler's account, Christopher charged Gulley with driving under the influence, failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, reckless driving, driving too fast for conditions, failure to maintain lane and driving with an expired tag, Barnhart said. Christopher also was named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit.

Bbood alcohol level below legal limit

Subsequent test results showed Gulley's blood alcohol level to be below the legal limit, Barnhart said.

The city's solicitor's office abandoned the failure to yield to an emergency vehicle charge, Barnhart said. All the other charges, except driving with an expired tag, were eventually dismissed, Barnhart said.

"I think it was pretty stupid," Barnhart said, adding that the accident report didn't support the alleged violations. "The charges were clearly false. The only way to avoid liability is to say he was chasing a subject. Otherwise, he was a negligent driver himself."

Tesler received a written reprimand after an office of professional standards investigation found that he had violated department policy regarding the operation of city vehicles, according to court papers.

Atlanta police officials deferred to the FBI, the lead investigative agency in the fatal drug bust case, on questions regarding the case and his punishment. FBI officials declined to comment.
 
This sniping has really gone on long enough. Until more actual evidence is introduced that may change minds, I think the lines of opinion are clear and there's no point in continuing the deceased equine flagellation.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top