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

"Steve" > wrote in message
news:azt9h.247852$FQ1.6568@attbi_s71...
>
> "Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" > wrote in
> message ...
>> "Steve" > wrote in message
>> news:cAq9h.156598$aJ.2537@attbi_s21...
>>>
>>> "Miriam Cohen" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> ====================
>>>>
>>>> Official: Narcotics officers were justified in shooting 92-year-old
>>>> woman
>>>>
>>>> ATLANTA (AP) - A police official said narcotics officers were justified
>>>> in returning fire on a 92-year-old woman they shot to death after she
>>>> shot them as they tried to serve a warrant at her house.
>>>>
>>>> Neighbors and relatives said it was a case of mistaken identity. But
>>>> police said the woman, identified as Kathryn Johnston, was the only
>>>> resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and
>>>> "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door. He said they
>>>> were justified in shooting once they were fired upon.
>>>>
>>>> As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about
>>>> 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said
>>>> Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman.
>>>>
>>>> One was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder.
>>>> The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were
>>>> conscious and alert, police said.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.courttv.com/news/2006/1122/shootout_ap.html
>>>
>>> The police version of the story is continuing changing...previously is
>>> that they broke the door down before the shooting began. Under those
>>> circumstances, her firing at them was understandable. Had she survived
>>> a conviction would have been hard to come by. Had she had a better
>>> weapon, the body count would have been much higher. I for one, have
>>> better weapons...
>>
>> You're chok full of ****, too.
>>
>> Previously you claimed the ability to make three headshots on 3 charging
>> law enforcement officials, most probably in the dark, that you -allege-
>> opened fire first.
>>
>> That is simply impossible.
>
> Actually I said broke the door down not opened fire first
>
>> Now you say the "The police version of the story is continuing
>> changing", and I'd like to see your cites that state the story has
>> changed.
>
> Multple media reports citing witnesses

Then multiply cite them.

You made the claim, support it.

Who shoots before a door is open, and why?

Where's your cite that says they did?

Their story has always been the same.

>> I'd like to see your cite for what kind of weapon she had, because I've
>> read several stories, and they don't mention it.
>
> Again, multiple media reports have said handgun. Furthermore, if she had
> used a rifle, there would have been a host of "assault rifle" claims and
> the guy in the vest would have been seriously wounded if not killed.
> Detectives do not normally wear ceramic armor on raids and the soft vests
> are not particularly effective against rifle rounds.

All gross speculation without a scrap of cite.

>> If you didn't have a pre-conceived notion of what happened here, and
>> had -any- experience as a competition combat shooter, you could clearly
>> see what happened.
>
> Let see, backlit target, narrow opening...I do believe you would not have
> to be on par with the late Jeff Cooper to have found that an easy shot.
> As for charging officers, you need to review current room clearing
> tactics...

All gross speculation without a scrap of cite, and a **** poor attempt at
name dropping and comic book tactics.

The Chairman would tell you you're full of ****.

> As for my combat shooting record...some competition & some actual with the
> usual assortment of trophies, ribbons, medals, and scars.

A flat out lie.

> The preponderance of the reports, including the early ones citing the
> police stated that the shooting started AFTER they breached the door.
> *IF* that was the case, the police were lucky that only 3 were wounded.

This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

At any rate, all reports that I've read state they identified themselves,
had to break down the door, were fired on, and returned fire.

Anyone who knows anything about shooting, which does not include you,
knows that if those cops made a tactical entry into the house, they could
have easily killed the 92 year old after her first shot.

The simple fact that she had -time- to shoot three officers bids two
conclusions:

1) Either the 92 year old woman was a highly trained, and I mean
national class competitor, combat pistol shot, or:

2) They stood and shouted at her to stop firing before being forced to
defend themselves.

This from the scant facts at hand, other information may shed more
light.

Maybe she just shot them through the wall, or her closed bedroom door,
who knows.

Now, I know which I would choose as a rational selection, but, all you
dopers see black helicopters

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Douglas W \"Popeye\"
> Frederick wrote:
>
>>> Here you go again trying to paint me as a drug user because you don't
>>> have any debate skills.
>
>> You keep repeating that, but you've offered no in-context rebuttal, and
>> can only chant liberal sky-is-falling paranoia (see the above Orwell
>> paragraph as an example).
>
> Your unwarranted attacks on my character are to put me on the defensive.
> I will just note that they are invalid and move on rather than play it
> the way you want.
>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> From a USENET POST??????????
>> I see you're no stranger to a CRACK PIPE either.
>> Libel that, Skippy.
>
> How about the kill file.... *PLONK*
>
> <snip, unread>

Oooooohhhhh nnooooo!

I've been "plonked" by some druggie dickhead.

Why do people think you care when they do that?

Like I said, unable to argue his point.

"J. Bartley" > wrote in message
.. .
> <You have to submit to rightful authority.
> <"Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick"
>
> Heil Hitler!
> All hail darkness!

Godwin.

"J. Bartley" > wrote in message
.. .
> <An explanation and apology might just work fine for me.
> <"Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick"
>
> We're sorry your grandma was accidentally shot to death. We're also sorry
> that your daughter was accidentally raped by Officer Heinrich Drool. But
> you see, she was provocatively dressed and got in his way during the
> lawful
> search. We hope you'll forgive and forget since you are such a fine
> citizen
> of the Reich.

And they say dopesmoking is harmless.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Holy cow guy. You think they have time for that? I'd be all for it
>> for a reason though, sex offender, drug dealer, suspected terrorist, etc.
>
> You only look at what you want to look at when you want to look at it.
> The point is to record everything and then pull it up when desired.


In certain public places, sure. Banks, airports, etc. Even the solviets didn't
monitor everyone's home.


> You outline the first step of the slope that eventually gets cameras into
> everyone's homes.

I think you are being a bit paranoid.

Top wrote:
>
>
> > were legalized today the biggest losers would be the people in
> > Colombia and other drug producing regions. They would end up
> > being like the lettuce farmers who make so little money on their
> > crops they have to hire illegal immigrants to harvest them.
>
> Okay, which drugs should be legalized? I can just see the advertizement
> for the pharmacy with the best price for crack.

There is no reason for marijuana to be criminalized. I won't say
the same for crack. but maybe if people could get pot they
wouldn't bother with crack.

> > I will give you a prime example of the effect of criminalizstion
> > on prices. Three years ago I spend the summer taking oxycontin.
> > Those pills were worth about $20 US apiece across the border,
> > about $#0 Cdn. at the time. I paint $14 for a bottle of 60, and
> > that included the pharmacists $6 prescription filling fee.
>
> There are some drugs in the US that could be cheaper, no doubt in my
> mind about that. But Dave, I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest
> over how bad the US is vs. Canada.

I assure you that it was not meant as a crack against the US. I
was just pointing out the street value of those pills on the
black market and using $US figures. Given the exchange rate at
the time, my bottle of 60 pills would have been roughly $10 US,
and a single pill would have been worth double the cost of a
bottle of 60.

That is a hell of a profit. Had I not been in need of serious
pain relief, and if I had a criminal mind, and the connections, I
could have taken them over the border, I had a prescription so it
would not have looked liked smuggling, and sold my pills for $20
US each $1200... close to $1800 Canadian, a $1786 profit.

> Then you don't know much about pot and certainly don't have the
> experience of taking it. Some people handle it better than they handle
> alcohol some don't. That doesn't mean abusers of either should be
> behind the wheel of a car.

Let's just say that I was a student in the 60s and 70s.
I did not say that people should operate equipment under the
influence or toke and drive. But I see nothing wrong with
someone smoking pot in private. Driving under the influence
should be treated the same as DUI.




> > Are you kiidding?. Law enforcement is a civilized business on
> > this side of the border. If a cop pulls out his gun he has to
> > fill out a form. If a cop shoots someone there is a major
> > investigation, and they are frequently charged. People under
> > arrest are "suspects", not perps or scum buckets. Our police tend
> > to act in a very professional manner.
>
> Give me a break on your side of the border, didn't know you moved to
> the artic circle, lol. You guys have much of the same problems we do
> just not in the quantity we do because more people chose to live on
> this "side of the border". Now drop the cheap shots. What was that
> mounty's name ....

To tell you the truth, I have always found American cops to be
intimidating, and having worked in law enforcement and dealt with
some of them, found them to be less professional. In our
training films the how not to act examples were all American
(police videos). They are more inclined to use force and more
inclined to shoot. Police shootings are rare here. FIW in an
LEO forum discussion on "professional courtesy" there as a clear
division about ticketing fellow officers. Canadian LEOs
considered other LEOs fair game, while American LEOs ranged from
looking the other way to outright outrage that one would even
consider ticketed a "brother".

Top wrote:
>
> Want to see that first, or maybe more, step?
>
> Ask people in the UK how they feel about the cameras that record them
> when they drop a piece of paper on the sidewalk. They are, after all,
> much more civilized on that side of the pond.

What is your point there, that they do it and the US does not, or
that they do it more than the US? I wonder which taps more
international calls or monitors the most email.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Top wrote:
>
>>Want to see that first, or maybe more, step?
>>
>>Ask people in the UK how they feel about the cameras that record them
>>when they drop a piece of paper on the sidewalk. They are, after all,
>>much more civilized on that side of the pond.
>
>
> What is your point there, that they do it and the US does not, or
> that they do it more than the US? I wonder which taps more
> international calls or monitors the most email.


The Big American LIE

http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com/

Dave Smith explained :
> Top wrote:
>>
>>
>>> were legalized today the biggest losers would be the people in
>>> Colombia and other drug producing regions. They would end up
>>> being like the lettuce farmers who make so little money on their
>>> crops they have to hire illegal immigrants to harvest them.
>>
>> Okay, which drugs should be legalized? I can just see the advertizement
>> for the pharmacy with the best price for crack.
>
> There is no reason for marijuana to be criminalized. I won't say
> the same for crack. but maybe if people could get pot they
> wouldn't bother with crack.

I think if alcohol is legal then pot should be. I'm surprised out
government hasn't realised the tax that could be collected from weed.

>
>>> I will give you a prime example of the effect of criminalizstion
>>> on prices. Three years ago I spend the summer taking oxycontin.
>>> Those pills were worth about $20 US apiece across the border,
>>> about $#0 Cdn. at the time. I paint $14 for a bottle of 60, and
>>> that included the pharmacists $6 prescription filling fee.
>>
>> There are some drugs in the US that could be cheaper, no doubt in my
>> mind about that. But Dave, I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest
>> over how bad the US is vs. Canada.
>
> I assure you that it was not meant as a crack against the US. I
> was just pointing out the street value of those pills on the
> black market and using $US figures. Given the exchange rate at
> the time, my bottle of 60 pills would have been roughly $10 US,
> and a single pill would have been worth double the cost of a
> bottle of 60.

After 4 major back surgeries I undertand perfectly. We are finally
seeing progress in this area. It's not enough yet and we have to keep
the effort going. Oxycontin is strong and addictive, I'm surprised you
were on it that long. I don't think your price is correct though.

>
> That is a hell of a profit. Had I not been in need of serious
> pain relief, and if I had a criminal mind, and the connections, I
> could have taken them over the border, I had a prescription so it
> would not have looked liked smuggling, and sold my pills for $20
> US each $1200... close to $1800 Canadian, a $1786 profit.
>
>> Then you don't know much about pot and certainly don't have the
>> experience of taking it. Some people handle it better than they handle
>> alcohol some don't. That doesn't mean abusers of either should be
>> behind the wheel of a car.
>
> Let's just say that I was a student in the 60s and 70s.
> I did not say that people should operate equipment under the
> influence or toke and drive. But I see nothing wrong with
> someone smoking pot in private. Driving under the influence
> should be treated the same as DUI.
>
I do think pot is addictive. just alcohol and nicotine.
>
>>> Are you kiidding?. Law enforcement is a civilized business on
>>> this side of the border. If a cop pulls out his gun he has to
>>> fill out a form. If a cop shoots someone there is a major
>>> investigation, and they are frequently charged. People under
>>> arrest are "suspects", not perps or scum buckets. Our police tend
>>> to act in a very professional manner.
>>
>> Give me a break on your side of the border, didn't know you moved to
>> the artic circle, lol. You guys have much of the same problems we do
>> just not in the quantity we do because more people chose to live on
>> this "side of the border". Now drop the cheap shots. What was that
>> mounty's name ....
>
> To tell you the truth, I have always found American cops to be
> intimidating, and having worked in law enforcement and dealt with
> some of them, found them to be less professional. In our
> training films the how not to act examples were all American
> (police videos). They are more inclined to use force and more
> inclined to shoot. Police shootings are rare here. FIW in an
> LEO forum discussion on "professional courtesy" there as a clear
> division about ticketing fellow officers. Canadian LEOs
> considered other LEOs fair game, while American LEOs ranged from
> looking the other way to outright outrage that one would even
> consider ticketed a "brother"

Your experience is different from mine. I've seen asshole LEOs but then
in the Army I knew fellow NCOs that were the same type assholes.

Top

on 11/24/2006, Dave Smith supposed :
> Top wrote:
>>
>> Want to see that first, or maybe more, step?
>>
>> Ask people in the UK how they feel about the cameras that record them
>> when they drop a piece of paper on the sidewalk. They are, after all,
>> much more civilized on that side of the pond.
>
> What is your point there, that they do it and the US does not, or
> that they do it more than the US? I wonder which taps more
> international calls or monitors the most email.

The point is that the US does not have the market cornered on envasion
of privacy. I look forward to seeing what our Democrats do now.