Marijuana confirmed in home of 92 year old woman in Atl, GA.
- Thread starter FTF
- Start date
- Status
Biker said:
You aren't alone in this sentiment. I really feel powerless in this situation. I know that there is a serious problem with the insular nature and increased militarization of the police, but I don't know what we can do about it.
I think the War on Drugs has been a huge mistake. I'm not a drug user, I barely drink alcohol, I just don't understand why we didn't learn a single lesson from Prohibition v1.0. Here we are in Prohibition v2.0 and are wondering "gosh, why isn't this working?"
How stupid are we?
FourTeeFive
Member
One look at our culture, political system, and involvement in international conflicts over the past 50 years should pretty much answer that question.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
I can only hope that with reviews by outside agancies in progress, there will be some beneficial resolution to this travesty/tragedy. But no matter what is done after the fact, it won't restore life to the body of this elderly lady. The truth of this matter in every detail needs to be fully revealed, and quickly. This news will not improve with age or with further attempts to pretty it up for public consumption. Every last detail of this affair, no matter how dirty, sorry and sordid, needs to be made public and any criminal wrongdoing, no matter who did it, needs to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Otherwise we move one step closer to the time when anyone in uniform is perceived by the public as the enemy. And treated accordingly.
There is no way to have it both ways. Either LEOs abide by the laws they are supposed to enforce, or there will be a complete loss of respect, cooperation and confidence on the part of the public. The days of a badge serving as a get out of jail free card have to end, and soon.
lpl/nc
Otherwise we move one step closer to the time when anyone in uniform is perceived by the public as the enemy. And treated accordingly.
There is no way to have it both ways. Either LEOs abide by the laws they are supposed to enforce, or there will be a complete loss of respect, cooperation and confidence on the part of the public. The days of a badge serving as a get out of jail free card have to end, and soon.
lpl/nc
It isn't just no-knock warrants. Any warrant where police are allowed break in with little or no attempt to gain peaceful entry should be strictly limited. You also hear about a other raids where they knock in the wee hours of the morning , but break down the door inside of 30 seconds.
I don't know if those warrants should be banned, but I think legislation could be introduced to require strict rules of evidence and requirements such that a lot more is needed beyond an informant or a tip to break into a house without clearly notifying the occupants and being let in.
In this particular case, It seems that the officers who obtained the warrant were pencil whipping things to get the paperwork through. The judge probably didn't apply a great deal of review either.
I don't know if those warrants should be banned, but I think legislation could be introduced to require strict rules of evidence and requirements such that a lot more is needed beyond an informant or a tip to break into a house without clearly notifying the occupants and being let in.
In this particular case, It seems that the officers who obtained the warrant were pencil whipping things to get the paperwork through. The judge probably didn't apply a great deal of review either.
Zundfolge
Member
The only reason the police should EVER forcibly enter ANY residence is to save a life in imminent danger. Period.
Here's my letter to my state rep
Hello, and thank you for your service to our state!
The recent killing of Kathryn Johnson in Atlanta, GA, should bring a review of, and legislation against, so-called "no-knock" raids by police agencies at the state and local levels. Ms. Johnson, reportedly 92 years old, was legally armed with a revolver when men broke down her burglar bars and forced their way into her home. Ms Johnson hit three of the men before they killed her.
They were police officers, executing a "no-knock" warrant.
There is a huge amount of confusion as to why they were there, and the FBI is now investigating the case. The "agent" who was supposedly there buying drugs was in fact an informant who says he never did any such thing at that address.
Here in Texas, we need to act to protect our citizens AND our police, by making no-knock warrants and searches illegal. Police officers are placed in a terrible bind and in extreme danger, as was shown in the death of Officer Keith Ruiz in Bastrop five years ago. Citizens are also in extreme danger, particularly when there are innocents in the house or when, as in the case of Mrs. Johnson, the warrant is simply factually incorrect.
I would ask that you introduce a bill this legislative session making no-knock raids and searches illegal for police, sheriffs, Texas DPS and all other state and local agencies. Would that you could also cover DEA and other federal agencies, but we can at least keep our local and state officers, and our citizens, safer by forbidding this tactic to our law enforcement.
Thank you for your help on this matter.
Sincerely,
{Springmom}
I'll let you know what she says. She's pretty conservative and she does pay attention to all her email. Now to write Ted Poe....
Springmom
Hello, and thank you for your service to our state!
The recent killing of Kathryn Johnson in Atlanta, GA, should bring a review of, and legislation against, so-called "no-knock" raids by police agencies at the state and local levels. Ms. Johnson, reportedly 92 years old, was legally armed with a revolver when men broke down her burglar bars and forced their way into her home. Ms Johnson hit three of the men before they killed her.
They were police officers, executing a "no-knock" warrant.
There is a huge amount of confusion as to why they were there, and the FBI is now investigating the case. The "agent" who was supposedly there buying drugs was in fact an informant who says he never did any such thing at that address.
Here in Texas, we need to act to protect our citizens AND our police, by making no-knock warrants and searches illegal. Police officers are placed in a terrible bind and in extreme danger, as was shown in the death of Officer Keith Ruiz in Bastrop five years ago. Citizens are also in extreme danger, particularly when there are innocents in the house or when, as in the case of Mrs. Johnson, the warrant is simply factually incorrect.
I would ask that you introduce a bill this legislative session making no-knock raids and searches illegal for police, sheriffs, Texas DPS and all other state and local agencies. Would that you could also cover DEA and other federal agencies, but we can at least keep our local and state officers, and our citizens, safer by forbidding this tactic to our law enforcement.
Thank you for your help on this matter.
Sincerely,
{Springmom}
I'll let you know what she says. She's pretty conservative and she does pay attention to all her email. Now to write Ted Poe....
Springmom
One other thing I was thinking: If officers have to enter a building, would it be too much to ask to get a really, really loud speaker system to announce themselves as police 2 or 3 times before breaking down the door? Guys just yelling police is not enough for a homeowner who is asleep.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
Is anyone in danger right then and there?
Well, yes.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
Works for me. He'll come out sooner or later.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
That's what I figure, too.
If he doesn't and simply stays there forever without harming or threatening anyone... how's it different from prison?
If he doesn't and simply stays there forever without harming or threatening anyone... how's it different from prison?
Zundfolge
Member
Yes, thats the one of the bedrocks of a free society, a man's home is his castle.
Of course there's nothing to keep the police from surrounding his house, cutting power and water and waiting him out ... nobody can live in their shack forever.
In addition, this "criminal" who has holed up in his home is not a "criminal" until AFTER a trial ... until then he's got rights just like everyone else.
But rights issues aside, surrounding the house and waiting the suspect out is safer for all involved, especially the police officers on the scene.
As a separate issue, and because I see it being brought up again and again, I respectfully disagree with the widely held view that these intrusions are attributable to the War On Drugs. Forgive me for the cross-post.
SWAT teams didn't magically come into existence when the government decided to crack down on drugs. They had existed long before then, starting in CA as paramilitary units as a response to incidences of domestic terrorism. A few big cities needed them on rare occasions, but they were on TV, and cool, and everybody wanted them. They were a status symbol. The problem is, they were an expensive status symbol, with nothing to do most places. Then the War on Drugs came along and justified their continued existence and expansion, and proliferation. But do you honestly think that had drugs been legalized/decriminalized that this wouldn't have occurred? There would have been a War on Something Else, there's always something else.
The problem is once the government creates a program that program will never shrink. It'll grow and morph and find new missions, reasons to expand, and authorities to assume. They're not just using SWAT teams for drugs; they're becoming the default tool of law enforcement. Got a person threatening suicide? Call the SWAT team. Guy holed up in his house? Call the SWAT team. Do you think that if drugs were made legal tomorrow they'd put these guys in uniforms and send them out on patrol? Please. They'd just rename "writing a speeding ticket" to "performing a high risk traffic stop" and run you off the road with an armored Suburban as 5 SMG wielding officers jumped off the running boards and stuck the muzzles through the window and the sixth busted out the passenger window and tossed a flashbang into your wife's lap. SWAT teams would replace crossing guards, "protecting our most valuable assets" with black clad fire teams at intersections ready to deploy spike strips at a moments notice from their sniper/spotter overwatch at the first sign of any inbound Huffy's. Do you think a politician would be dumb enough to go on record saying that the town should maybe get rid of the local SWAT team and recover the not insignificant annual cost? I can see his opponents ad now... "Joe Smith hates cops and wants your kids to die. That's why he wants to cut desperately needed police resources. And that why his opponent is endorsed by the local police union."
You want to find the source of a problem, to paraphrase a LE term "follow the incentives". These tactics are used, and will continue because there's zero downside and a massive upside to them. When it works, you're the star of the department, get instantaneous feedback on success or failure without the tedium of day to day traditional policework, and can almost guarantee lucrative post SWAT employment consulting or training because of the creed the job gives you. If you're wrong, in all but the most grievious cases you're insulated from prosecution, liability, heck even professional scorn.
SWAT teams didn't magically come into existence when the government decided to crack down on drugs. They had existed long before then, starting in CA as paramilitary units as a response to incidences of domestic terrorism. A few big cities needed them on rare occasions, but they were on TV, and cool, and everybody wanted them. They were a status symbol. The problem is, they were an expensive status symbol, with nothing to do most places. Then the War on Drugs came along and justified their continued existence and expansion, and proliferation. But do you honestly think that had drugs been legalized/decriminalized that this wouldn't have occurred? There would have been a War on Something Else, there's always something else.
The problem is once the government creates a program that program will never shrink. It'll grow and morph and find new missions, reasons to expand, and authorities to assume. They're not just using SWAT teams for drugs; they're becoming the default tool of law enforcement. Got a person threatening suicide? Call the SWAT team. Guy holed up in his house? Call the SWAT team. Do you think that if drugs were made legal tomorrow they'd put these guys in uniforms and send them out on patrol? Please. They'd just rename "writing a speeding ticket" to "performing a high risk traffic stop" and run you off the road with an armored Suburban as 5 SMG wielding officers jumped off the running boards and stuck the muzzles through the window and the sixth busted out the passenger window and tossed a flashbang into your wife's lap. SWAT teams would replace crossing guards, "protecting our most valuable assets" with black clad fire teams at intersections ready to deploy spike strips at a moments notice from their sniper/spotter overwatch at the first sign of any inbound Huffy's. Do you think a politician would be dumb enough to go on record saying that the town should maybe get rid of the local SWAT team and recover the not insignificant annual cost? I can see his opponents ad now... "Joe Smith hates cops and wants your kids to die. That's why he wants to cut desperately needed police resources. And that why his opponent is endorsed by the local police union."
You want to find the source of a problem, to paraphrase a LE term "follow the incentives". These tactics are used, and will continue because there's zero downside and a massive upside to them. When it works, you're the star of the department, get instantaneous feedback on success or failure without the tedium of day to day traditional policework, and can almost guarantee lucrative post SWAT employment consulting or training because of the creed the job gives you. If you're wrong, in all but the most grievious cases you're insulated from prosecution, liability, heck even professional scorn.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
A reminder--from the FBI, no less--of why offering residents full opportunity to comply voluntarily, except in rare circumstances, is important:
And realize the author is speaking of an announcement that can be understood by the home's inhabitants, and one that gives them the opportunity to respond peacefully (which a "knock-and-announce-followed-by-dynamic-entry-after-ten-seconds-at-3:00am" certainly does NOT do).
And realize the author is speaking of an announcement that can be understood by the home's inhabitants, and one that gives them the opportunity to respond peacefully (which a "knock-and-announce-followed-by-dynamic-entry-after-ten-seconds-at-3:00am" certainly does NOT do).
Blackfork
Member
Kathyrn Johnson vs the NYDP Undercover.
Who shoots better? A little OLD lady with a rusty revolver or the fit, young, highly-trained professionals of the NYPD?
I'm just saying. Can the drug war get any crazier?
Who shoots better? A little OLD lady with a rusty revolver or the fit, young, highly-trained professionals of the NYPD?
I'm just saying. Can the drug war get any crazier?
Zundfolge
Member
Excellent point.
Remember the modern BATFE came from what was left of the "Revenuers" that looked for illegal alcohol during prohibition ... prohibition ended and they had to find something else for these boys to do (some speculate that the real purpose of the 1934 NFA was a jobs program for out of work revenuers).
Sindawe
Member
Sidebar:
I can see a few issue with the police just surrounding a place and outwaiting the person inside. How does one address neighbors access to THEIR homes? Not everyone is fortunate enough to live on 5 acres of land. Am I to be barred from my home for some indeterminate period of time because my neighbor MIGHT have commited some crime?
Sure could. Just totally ban all tobacco products. Instant additional insanity.
I can see a few issue with the police just surrounding a place and outwaiting the person inside. How does one address neighbors access to THEIR homes? Not everyone is fortunate enough to live on 5 acres of land. Am I to be barred from my home for some indeterminate period of time because my neighbor MIGHT have commited some crime?
Yes it can and will get crazier unless citizens insist on a few changes.
1. Decriminalize small amounts of currently illegal drugs. Maybe 5 hours of community service for possession. No fines, because they encourage the use of LE for revenue generation rather than dealing with crime.
2. No more no knock warrants. No exception for anything other than imminent danger to an innocent person's life.
3. No more paid informants or witnesses. No $$, time off, or dropping of charges.
4. Allegations of police misconduct are investigated by an agency independent of the agency the individual(s) work for. All records of the investigation are public record, as are the dispositions of the case.
5. No more warrants served by anyone not in a recognizable police uniform commonly worn by the locals. No masks, no black coats.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well, yes. Gotta come out sooner or later, then you arrest them.
Why is that such a big deal?
These are usually done to keep the bad guy from flushing the drugs down the toilet.
If the cops are convinced he's such a bad dude, surely they have more evidence than what's about to get flushed and if not, maybe they should rethink the need for a no knock.
This is not rocket science of civil liberty here.
Because most municipalities don't have the resources to cordone off every suspect's residence for days or possibly weeks. Plus, how are police supposed to gather any evidence that may be in the residence if they are never allowed to enter unless someone is at risk?
My comment wasn't in response to no-knock entries - it was to the idea that police shouldn't EVER enter a residence unless a life was in danger. I view such a policy as ridiculous. Sindawe illustrates one example of why this is such an impractical policy. It's obvious there are problems with no-knock entries, but that doesn't mean that police with proper warrants shouldn't be allowed to enter a residence after properly announcing themselves and why they are there.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Nor do most suspects have the resources to stay in a house for days or possibly weeks.
So budget issues now encroach on civil liberties issues?
I'm not buying into that argument.
If they are really sure something is going on, drug dealing for example, then send in a UC officer to make a buy. It's done all the time and that evidence stands up.
There is simply no reason for this kind of entry unless someone is known to be at risk. While the majority of the time it goes well, there are enough instances of mistakes to question the whole process.
22-rimfire
Member
It may be time for law enforcement to review under what circumstances a "no-knock" warrant is enforced. I personally think there are good reasons for no-knock warrants.
The war on drugs.... partial legalization. MAYBE for small quantities of certain drugs. Product would have to be taxed much like cigarettes. Guess all the pot heads that grow their own will have to get business licenses. Maybe we could get back to faming hemp again.
The war on drugs.... partial legalization. MAYBE for small quantities of certain drugs. Product would have to be taxed much like cigarettes. Guess all the pot heads that grow their own will have to get business licenses. Maybe we could get back to faming hemp again.
- Status