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

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>

In article >, Top >
wrote:

> Dave Smith expressed precisely :
> > Top wrote:
> >
> >>> 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.
> >
> > That would be your problem. It is a health issue. It becomes a
> > criminal issue when the drugs are illegal and fall into the hands
> > of the black market. There is the risk of getting caught by the
> > police or other authorities, the risk of dealing with other
> > criminals, the risk of getting ripped off by users. If drugs
> > 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.

Easy: all of them.

>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> > There are definitely some drugs that people should not be taking.
> > Some are very dangerous. Some are addictive. IMO addiction is
> > highly overrated. It is more a matter of addictive behaviour than
> > addictive drugs, which explains why so many people find the Lord
> > to help them get off drugs. they trade one vice for another,
> > immersing themselves into prayer instead of popping pills or
> > drinking.
> >
> How do you rate different drugs?

You don't. People are free to do themselves harm if that is what they
wish.

>
> AFAIC there is no reason for marijuana to be illegal. It is less
> > harmful that alcohol. It is not addictive. It does not lead to
> > harder drugs, and for a lot of recreational drug users, if they
> > had ready access to pot they probably wouldn't bother with other
> > drugs.
>
> 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.

Actually, he appears to know quite a bit about it. As for abusers not
driving, there are people I'd rather drive with after 6 beer or tokes
than some stone cold sober who've been given driver's licenses.

>
> >>> 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.
> >
> >
> > You are right. Even one is too many, especially for the victim
> > and their family. And you are right about us not knowing enough
> > about this case. I have checked a number of sources and the
> > report is pretty much identical in all of them. They claim to
> > have bought "narcotics" there earlier in the day. They went back
> > after dark and in plan clothes, yelled to identify themselves.
> > The old girl managed to hit three of them? There was something
> > else happening there.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > 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 ....

What have the numbers to do with it?

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Brent P wrote on 11/24/2006 :
> 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.
>
> You outline the first step of the slope that eventually gets cameras into
> everyone's homes.

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.

Top

In article >, Top wrote:

> 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.

Which ones? The sheeple, the ones who don't know what is going on, or
those that know what is going and object?

Or better yet, the ones that burn gatso cameras?

Miriam Cohen > wrote in
:

> Steve wrote:

>>
>> After they broke down her door and entered her home at 1:00AM.
>> Under those circumstances, I would have shot them too, hopefully more
>> accurately (headshots...the way to show that you really care).
>
> Then they'd kill you, too. Only morons and braindead whackjobs answer
> the door for police with guns blazing.

How does one know the invaders truly ARE police other than them shouting
"POLICE"? The "police" were all plainclothes,just like home invaders.

Are you not aware that home invaders often shout "POLICE" to put off any
response from their victims?


> I won't mourn you when they do
> you.
>
>====================
>
> 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.

Just as home invaders would.

> 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.

ISTR that they forced the door and ENTERED before she began firing at them.
Not "as they approached the house"(before they "knocked and announced"!).

Inconsistant.

>
> 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
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Top > wrote in :

> Brent P wrote on 11/24/2006 :
>> 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.
>>
>> You outline the first step of the slope that eventually gets cameras
>> into everyone's homes.
>
> 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.
>
> Top
>
>
>

If they are that civilized,why do they need cameras everywhere?

I just read a post on rec.guns from a UK citizen accosted in the
subway;grabbed by the lapel in preparation for an assault,he kneed the guy
and kicked him,and fears the police will be coming for HIM.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Hawke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Top" > wrote in message

>> > Well it is, because all you free will types freely help yourselves to
> my TV
>> > so you can (semi) privately top off, or then you beat your chick until
> she
>> > puts for cash out so you can afford to be (semi) privately stoned.
>> >
>> > The fact is, if you people could handle your joneses like adults,
> little
>> > old ladies wouldn't get shot by SWAT teams.
>> >
>> > Who's more at fault, them or you?
>> >
>> > Personally, I say legalize- spend the enforcement money on the
>> > border,
> or
>> > something worthwhile.
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> If you deal drugs that is not far from murder. You know the effect,
>> what the difference between dealing drugs and poisining someone?
>
> Tobacco and alcohol are both drugs. The only difference between them and
> the
> illegal ones is the fact they are legal.

Exactly.

So get out and vote.

>So doesn't that mean that people
> who sell tobacco and alcohol are poisoning people too? If the government
> thinks it is okay to poison people with some drugs and not other ones
> isn't
> that letting some people as much as murder others legally? You can't allow
> some substances that are extremely hazardous to people and put people
> behind
> bars for using other hazardous substances without being hypocritical.
> Adults
> should be responsible for what they do to themselves. It's not the
> government's job. They have been trying to stop Americans from using
> illegal
> drugs for over 40 years. It has never worked. When is it time to stop?

You and I agree on many points, if not for the same reasons.

But the laws today are what they are, and you'll have to change them
through the system.

<But hey, you police state
types like using the excuse of saving the crackhead to make it so you can
<bust down doors.

No doubt the citizens who support these "nazi police state style" home
invasions are secretly perverts who want to be controlled and told what to
do by big brother. If put in the position of being able to participate in
home invasions themselves, they would likely support and if possible, take
part in the home invasions for random "morality checks". And gladly join
those fine officers while they rape the female occupants and then deny it
ever happened or leave no witnesses behind.

<You have to submit to rightful authority.
<"Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick"

Heil Hitler!
All hail darkness!

<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.