Three narcs invade home of 92 y/o women - SHE SHOOTS THEM ALL

In article >, Douglas W \"Popeye\" Frederick wrote:
>>> Let's make sure the grandkids didn't have a meth lab in the garage
>>> first-
>>
>> Maybe the government could start with your home?
>
> Sure.
>
> We don't lock doors where I live.
>
> If they came to the door, I'd offer coffee.
>
> I don't even drink coffee.


The true police state cheer leader. Maybe they can put a camera and
microphone in every room of your house too.... put a GPS tracking system
on your vehicles... you're all for it, right... you're not doing anything
wrong so it's ok in your mind for the government to watch, monitor, log,
track, search?

>> I see that sensible debate is beyond your mental capabilities.

> Compared to a Stoner?
> That's pretty rich.

Here you go again trying to paint me as a drug user because you don't
have any debate skills.

> But it's a cop-out.

Yes, your tactic here is.

> You want an excuse to be absolved from the big picture you (and -I-, as a
> consumer of alcohol) are a part of, and you want to avoid -all-
> responsibilities for your actions.

Here he goes again constructing a personal attack out of thin air. Would
you like a libel suit?

> Funny, that's one of the things "The Man" says that your "totally
> harmless" dope smoking does to you, and here you are to example it
> perfectly.

Again, thin air false personal attack. You know, I hear those radical
muslim theoracies (sp?) pretty much control every aspect of everyone's
life. I am getting to think that one of them might be a much better place
for you to live since you cannot grasp the concept of individual liberty.

>>> The fact is, if you people could handle your joneses like adults,
>>> little
>>> old ladies wouldn't get shot by SWAT teams.

>> Yep, it appears you want to insult me personally instead of debate.

> Oh, no.
> I'm perfectly capable of doing both.

You're not showing it.

> But what you're doing is bristling at an accurate description.

Your libel isn't an "accurate description"

> I notice you couldn't wait one post to respond with insults, and no point
> or context, so I guess we see who can carry the debate.

Let's see... You've repeatedly called me a drug user without any prompting.
Nice projection.

>>> Who's more at fault, them or you?

>> Here you go, you have to paint me as a drug user because your low
>> intellect doesn't allow anything of greater substance.

> Thanks for the excellent ad-hom example.

Typical... you can't take it flung back at you.

> And methinks thou doth protest too much.

projection.

>>> Personally, I say legalize- spend the enforcement money on the border,
>>> or
>>> something worthwhile.

>> The war on drugs, the prohibition of drugs has cost us a great deal of
>> the bill of rights. I value the Bill of Rights. I don't care if my
>> neighbor smokes a joint or does LSD in his own home. It's not my concern
>> how he lives his life or destroys his body. Both are his to ruin.

> See above about avoiding big picture responsibility.

You want the government to be responsible for people then eh? To stop
them from using drugs or doing anything bad to themselves. Without
responsibility, there is no freedom, no liberty. My neighbor is
responsible for himself. Should he want to ruin his body, ruin his life,
that is his business, he is responsible for that. The government has no
responsibility to intrude upon it. For to give it such, allows it to
intrude upon us all.

>>> But I don't want any government money going to your support or rehab.
>>> You made your choice to be privately free- now you pay for it.

>> Here you go again displaying your stupidity. Hint: My view that people
>> should be free to consume whatever substances they choose has nothing to
>> do with my personal choices.

> Suuuuuuuure, Cheech.

Yet more insults.

>>The Bill of Rights is more important than
>> stopping some crack head from getting a high. But hey, you police state
>> types like using the excuse of saving the crackhead to make it so you can
>> bust down doors.

> Not me.
> I think dopers in prison is a waste of time and money, totally.
> I think addiction is a sickness.
> I think the war on drugs is a on-running mistake, and that personal choice
> is the answer.

wooptie do.

> I'm just not willing to pay for your personal mistake.

More baseless, libelous personal attack.

> And if me making some logical conclusions from your positioning is
> "showing my stupidity", you must be an imbecile.

You're the one making false accusations.

> The reason I don't worry about cops coming to my house is because I have
> nothing to hide.

The police state cheerleader mantra.

> As far as being a "police state type", I handle my own problems.

You have the mantra of a police state type.

> Given the choice, right after I legalized drugs, I'd cut police powers and
> jurisdiction considerably, and you, my whiny friend, would be on your own.

More libel.

> See, what I -am-, is a "survivalist" type, or something close to it, and
> you are a "sheeple".

Only sheeple say: "The reason I don't worry about cops coming to my house
is because I have nothing to hide."

BTW Government sees 'survivalist types' as a threat. Just the kind of
people who's doors they like to bust down for paperwork gun violations
and the like.

In article >, Miriam Cohen wrote:

>> Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her dead
>> for defending her own home.

> You guys do know that she shot them first, don't you?

Busting through the door is effectively 'the first shot'. The moment the
home invasion begins, firing is in self defense.

Dave Smith expressed precisely :
> Top wrote:
>
>
>> If you deal drugs that is not far from murder. You know the effect,
>> what the difference between dealing drugs and poisining someone?
>
> Why is dealing drugs like murder? Most of the criminal problems
> associated with drug dealing are due to it's illegal status. The
> most popular drug in the country is alcohol. It is responsible
> for more violence, more crime, more accidents, more violence,
> more health, social, work, financial and family problems that
> all illegal drugs combined.

Dave I'm a bit surprised at your point of view on this. Alcohol abuse
is a big problem. Th reason I say dealing illegal drugs is close to
murder is simple. If you sell me crack you know how addictive it is.
You know what lengths I will go to buy more. You know I'll sell
everything I have to support that habit.
>
> A Gestapo style raid on the residence of an old lady for a little
> bit of pot? Get real.
> It is time to get rid of the no knock search warrants except in
> the most serious cases. They should require a thorough
> investigation of the owner or lessee of the property.
>
> Too many innocent people have died as a result of no knock search
> warrants.

Too many? One is too many. So far I don't think I know enough about
this case to form an opinion. Maybe you've seen more than I have. Tell
me though, isn't using a tazer on someone while dragging them from a
car a better use of force?

Top

Miriam Cohen > wrote in
:

> P.Roehling wrote:
>> "ToddPriest2" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home. Polluting the area
>>>with drugs.
>>
>>
>> And exactly where's your proof of that? Has there already been a
>> trial? No? Then you're just spouting bull****.
>>
>>
>>>She was a saint?
>>
>>
>> Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her
>> dead for defending her own home.
>
> You guys do know that she shot them first, don't you?
>

Unidentifiable armed men yelling "POLICE" broke down her door.
This is clear "Castle Doctrine","shoot first" self-defense being acceptable
and legal in that case.
She's in her own home;should she have to wait until one of them shoots at
her first?

Other cases of police entering the wrong home and being shot were found to
be legal self-defense on the resident's part,BTW.

Thugs have worn clothing marked with LEO markings and yelling "police" on
other home invasions;there's no reason to believe this was any different.
They should have used uniformed police,and gave time for the resident to
open the door,see the warrant. This "forcible entry" crap has gone too far.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

on 11/23/2006, Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick supposed :

> The reason I don't worry about cops coming to my house is because I have
> nothing to hide.
>
> As far as being a "police state type", I handle my own problems.
>
> Given the choice, right after I legalized drugs, I'd cut police powers and
> jurisdiction considerably, and you, my whiny friend, would be on your own.
>
> See, what I -am-, is a "survivalist" type, or something close to it, and
> you are a "sheeple".
>
Here is a surprise for you. If I were able to legally carry a sidearm
I'd say let society police themselves, or to a degree at least. If I
had the right to take down a dealer with a minimum of police
questioning I say where is the closest arms dealer. However I don't
think that is going to happen anytime soon so we have to look at others
options.

I, like you, would welcome cops in my home. On the flip side anyone
breaking down my door needs to know there is a real good chance they
will leave feet first.

Top

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Top wrote:
>
>
> > If you deal drugs that is not far from murder. You know the effect,
> > what the difference between dealing drugs and poisining someone?
>
> Why is dealing drugs like murder? Most of the criminal problems
> associated with drug dealing are due to it's illegal status. The
> most popular drug in the country is alcohol. It is responsible
> for more violence, more crime, more accidents, more violence,
> more health, social, work, financial and family problems that
> all illegal drugs combined.
>
> A Gestapo style raid on the residence of an old lady for a little
> bit of pot? Get real.
> It is time to get rid of the no knock search warrants except in
> the most serious cases. They should require a thorough
> investigation of the owner or lessee of the property.
>
> Too many innocent people have died as a result of no knock search
> warrants.

Oh, but if it prevents just one child from turning to drugs, all those
deaths will have been worth it.

(Sorry if I broke your irony meter.)

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

In article >,
"P.Roehling" > wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote
>
> > Here you go again displaying your stupidity. Hint: My view that people
> > should be free to consume whatever substances they choose has nothing to
> > do with my personal choices. The Bill of Rights is more important than
> > stopping some crack head from getting a high. But hey, you police state
> > types like using the excuse of saving the crackhead to make it so you can
> > bust down doors.
>
> Pretty much the same mind-set that saw us busting down Iraq's doors to
> "save" them from Saddam.

Well, the US war on Iraq has killed only half as many Iraqis as Saddam
killed Kurds, so it's okay.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

In article >,
Miriam Cohen > wrote:

> P.Roehling wrote:
> > "ToddPriest2" > wrote
> >
> >
> >>She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home. Polluting the area with
> >>drugs.
> >
> >
> > And exactly where's your proof of that? Has there already been a trial? No?
> > Then you're just spouting bull****.
> >
> >
> >>She was a saint?
> >
> >
> > Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her dead
> > for defending her own home.
>
> You guys do know that she shot them first, don't you?

knock-knock-knock-knock-knock

"Mrs. Johnston?"

knock-knock-knock

"Mrs. Johnston. Are you home? We'd like to have an interview with you
about some drugs a policeman purchased at this location a few hours
before this point in time. Mrs Johnston?"

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!


Is that how it went?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Douglas W \"Popeye\"
> Frederick wrote:
>>>> She was allowing dope to be ran out of the home.Polluting the area with
>>>> drugs.She was a saint?
>>>
>>> Where was that in the article? Oh that's right, you just accept what the
>>> government says at face value.
>>
>> Compared to you?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> So when they write you bogus tickets, when they harrass you for money,
> when they bust down your door, it will because you deserved it.

I've been arrested 34 times since '82, as recently as 2002, and been in
jail several times.

But you keep those assumptions coming.

Among other things, I was charged and convicted with 22 counts of "Failure
To Stop For A Police Officer" (through 3 states), and did 90 days in jail
for it.

I deserved every scrap of it.

Not only have I never been written or charged for a crime I didn't commit,
I've committed thousands that I -wasn't- charged for.

So much for your "police state" enthusiast.

As far as all these boo-hoo "bogus" tickets and arrests you seem to
receive, there again, methinks thou doth protest too much.

If you spent ten seconds studying the situation instead of chanting civil
liberties mantra, you'd ask yourself why she shot them after they identified
themselves, or, why the held their fire while she took the time to shoot all
three if they were so trigger happy.

You're a shill.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Miriam Cohen wrote:
>
>>> Probably not; few of us are. And that includes the cops who shot her
>>> dead
>>> for defending her own home.
>
>> You guys do know that she shot them first, don't you?
>
> Busting through the door is effectively 'the first shot'. The moment the
> home invasion begins, firing is in self defense.

Wrong.

Not if they have a warrant and announce themselves (if the warrant
requires it).