91 YO black woman killed

[Farbmeister]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231364,00.html

PLAIN CLOTHED LEO serve warrant on 92 YO black woman cause she's a 'drug dealer' (story never mentions if they found any).

Granny takes out 3 LEO (no serious injuries) and they mow her down.

Read the story... tell me if this is in any way justified as to method of warrant being served.

She could be guily as sin.. I don't know... but on a 92 YO anyone doing a dynamic entry?

Does anyone think this was appropiate?

[LittleRedToyota]

the shooting sounds justified to me. she started shooting at the officers...they have to defend themselves.

dynamic entry justified? the article does say they knocked and announced. given that they had a warrant, they had to enter somehow. so, i would say it was probably tactically justifiable.

is the whole war on freedom, er, i mean drugs, justified. heck no. the government has absolutely no right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. you wanna be an idiot and waste away shooting up heroin...that's your business.

in addition, if drugs were not illegal, this stuff would not happen. this, and many other of the problems associated with drugs in this country, are actually a result of the war on drugs...not drugs themselves.

[phillyd2]

Agree on the stupidity of our drug laws but do think this kind of LEO action is outrageous and would consider it egregious regardless of the victim's age or race. Of course LEO will find it "justified"....

[dmg1969]

A few questions which weren't answered to my satisfaction in the story...

1. Was the warrant served on the CORRECT house or were the police in error?

2. Which is it??? Did she shoot them as they APPROACHED the house (as indicated in the story) or after they broke the door down?

3. The story says that the officers were plain clothes. Did they have ANYTHING to indicate that they were indeed police officers?

Now a few concerns I have...

1. If they did serve the warrant on the correct house...the drugs could have been sold by a relative without her knowledge. The LEO intelligence should have known that there was an elderly woman in the home.

2. The woman could have been hard of hearing and not heard them announce themselves as police.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Then again, she could have been a gang-banging granny. Who's to say??????

Dave G.

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

Totally justified!

And the quote from the article -

"There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

WHAT?!? Lemme teall ya somethin'......This was likely a sudden and high stress situation involving multiple people entering her house at a high rate of speed. The lady managed to fire AT LEAST three shots...AND HIT THREE TARGETS before the LEO's were able to answer.

I'll tell you what....Gramma's got it going ON! I'm sure there will be some muffled jokes circulating this dept regarding that! Folks who train and train and train for high stress invironments STILL often fail to hit as well as she did even though they know it's only a training test.

If gramma lives in a BAAAD neighborhood....and she WAS innocent, I can understand her unwillingness to answer a knock or pounding on her door like that which happened. But po-leese is po-leese. And da po-leese dress like police. Gang bangers don't go around routinely dressing the way that the LEO's were likely dressed.
She was, unfortunatly wrong in fireing upon the police. The police were justified for returning fire after THREE of them were hit.

My only gripe qould be if the LEO's that fired emptied their magazines into her. A two to three shot string is expected from each LEO....that's natural ( I'd imagine ) even though that may mean as many as 12 or more bullets in her. But if they nearly EMPTIED their Glock 22's into her......we have a punishable discipline issue.

OOPS - EDITED TO REFLECT THAT I MISSED THAT THE OFFICERS WERE IN PLAIN CLOTHES. That definitely complicates things.

But she still shot well!

[craigc]

Drugs being legal?With all due respect this is absolutely crazy!1) being I HAD a brother who died from Heroin.2)Ok dope is legal so since Mr. doper has no record he can legaly carry a firearm.3)I spent the better part of my life in the military Before drug testing and let me tell you when it first came out 90% of our company tested positive! And I might add their performance and motivation showed.Just look at todays military is there an occassional druggie..yes and they are weeded out quickly.as I would not want some strung out doper covering my ass when bullets start snaping around your head.I could go on and on with senerios but if Grandma was dealin dope to kids then I only hope that they DOA'd her

[avizpls]

This is a Justified shooting


On the elderly womans part.

Had I been in her position, I would NOT have allowed the men to enter my house unless they made it VERY clear (and proved) that they were police, and de-escelated the use of force.

If they were PLAIN CLOTHES police (that is retarded! That alone can explain this!) , and executed a no-knock, or close to it (knockknock KICK) I would have fired at them not knowing they were police. I have no reason in the world to expect a raid on my house, and if one is executed by plain clothes who were too quick to enter aggressivly rather than identify and request permission to enter, I would fire under the impression I was victim of a home-invasion.

Thats what this was-a Home Invasion.

------------------------------------------------

Of course, we have to realize the POSSIBILITY that this woman actually WAS the intended target and was in fact a drug dealer. If this turns out to be the case, then they were justified.

[LittleRedToyota]

1) being I HAD a brother who died from Heroin.

i'm sorry to hear about your brother.

i also had a friend who was a heroin junkie who is probably dead (no one really knows for sure...by the end, he was pretty much a walking corpse and then just disappeared one day). it was really a sad thing to watch someone who was once a very outgoing, bright, and compassionate person turn into a shell of a human being and then just disappear.

none of that gives the government the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

moreover, my friend disappeared, and i'll bet your brother died, while the WoD was in full swing. it hasn't worked...it never will. it creates many more problems than it solves.

(btw, if drug addiction were not a crime, both of your brother and my friend might still be alive. living in constant fear of being arrested and thrown in jail makes it a bit hard to seek help.)

2)Ok dope is legal so since Mr. doper has no record he can legaly carry a firearm.

i have no problem with making it illegal to carry a firearm while intoxicated. (well, i have a little bit of a philosophical problem in that it is a violation of the 2nd amendment, but i wouldn't argue against that one--people should not be handling firearms when intoxicated.)

3)I spent the better part of my life in the military Before drug testing and let me tell you when it first came out 90% of our company tested positive! And I might add their performance and motivation showed.Just look at todays military is there an occassional druggie..yes and they are weeded out quickly.as I would not want some strung out doper covering my ass when bullets start snaping around your head.

i don't have any problem with not allowing drug users in the military. drug test military personnel all you want and boot those who fail the test.

someone sitting in their own home shooting heroin...or to make it a bit less controversial, smoking a joint...is not harming anyone other than themselves (and family members/friends who have to watch, but that is a problem that should be dealt with by the family members/friends...not by authoritarian government).

i'm not saying drugs are a good thing (i don't even drink alcohol personally)...but the government (especially the federal government given the 10th amendment) does not have the right to regulate personal use thereof.

btw, when was the last time you heard about innocent bystanders being gunned down as part of gang wars over "alcohol turf"? during prohibtion, perhaps?

[billamj]

LRT - How would you feel about random drug testing for anyone with a LTCF? That would be the only way to know for sure that people were not carrying while they were under the influence.

[avizpls]

LRT - How would you feel about random drug testing for anyone with a LTCF? That would be the only way to know for sure that people were not carrying while they were under the influence.

THAT sounds like a whole new direction for the tread.