Bad shooting????

[txinvestigator]

The cops were fully justified in firing upon the officers.

umm, what?

The police dept. Started off lying. They showed an early willingness to lie and cover up for themselves.

where is your proof of THAT?

[Liberty]

The cops were fully justified in firing upon the officers.

umm, what?

I meant the cops were fully justified in firing on Mrs. Johnson.

The police dept. Started off lying. They showed an early willingness to lie and cover up for themselves.

where is your proof of THAT?

The spokesman at first claimed that the officers were fired upon as they approached the door.

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.

Later they changed the story to

Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said. The officers had a legal warrant, "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door and were justified in shooting once fired upon, he said.

see this link The quote about the officers being fired upon as they aproached the building was in the first reports. The chief later came out with the statement that the officers approached , knocked and forced entry. To me the first comment was a clumsy attempt at a cover up.

[GlockenHammer]

Sad situation. From what is available now, I'd say the police were in the right. Drugs found at the scene. Drug purchase made there earlier in the day. Sounds like a place I'd like the cops go and check out. If they got shot at, i'd expect them to return fire. I'm just sorry that three of them had to get wounded in the ordeal. I'm sorry if this lady was not involved in the selling of the drugs--that would just add to the tragedy, but I can't blame the cops at this point.

[Liberty]

Sad situation. From what is available now, I'd say the police were in the right. Drugs found at the scene. Drug purchase made there earlier in the day. Sounds like a place I'd like the cops go and check out. If they got shot at, i'd expect them to return fire. I'm just sorry that three of them had to get wounded in the ordeal. I'm sorry if this lady was not involved in the selling of the drugs--that would just add to the tragedy, but I can't blame the cops at this point.

Three men in plain clothes broke into the lady's house. No police cruiser in the front yard. It's dark. This woman was as justified in firing at the cops as the cops were at her. The detectives should have had a uniformed officer with them. Anyone breaking down my door after dark can claim to be an officer, Governer Perry, or the Pope. I will shoot. Those cops had no reason at all to break in like they did. They could have waited for a uniformed officer to arrive. If one wasn't available they could have come back later. The sad part about this is when cops make mistakes it isn't only them that get hurt.

[Diode]

With all the home invasions going on lately, seems to me there must be a better way to serve a warrent. If the police knew drugs were being sold there arrest them coming out of the house.? Maybe tear gas through the windows? Force them out into the open? Then again does that give the BG's time to flush the drugs?

I guess it all come back to the root cause. Bad guys doing home invasions as police to gain entrance. HOme owners are going to be shooting. I see a problem only getting worse until someone comes up with a better policy.

[John]

Anyone breaking down my door after dark can claim to be an officer, Governer Perry, or the Pope. I will shoot.

Key difference between your door and the door involved is that, hopefully, no one is dealing drugs out of your house. If this had been a case of busting down the wrong door, i'd say the police would be in a world of hurt and rightfully so. Simple fact is that if you fire at police, be you 92 or 12, they will return fire.

The 92 year old lady may very well of been justified in firing, but the real blame goes to the people who caused the police to have need to serve a warrant, by dealing drugs out of the house.

[ElGato]

The 92 year old lady may very well of been justified in firing, but the real blame goes to the people who caused the police to have need to serve a warrant, by dealing drugs out of the house.

True and I sure we will hear a lot more about this one.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The 92 year old lady may very well of been justified in firing, but the real blame goes to the people who caused the police to have need to serve a warrant, by dealing drugs out of the house.

Very true indeed! This is another example how one's bad acts can cause the innocent to suffer. I agree with Liberty that there should have been uniformed officers at least in the yard/street area and marked units that could have had the light bars on when the team made entry. However, as ElGato pointed out, at 92 these may not have helped.

I also agree that home invasion robberies by people posing as police are making this situation more dangerous for both LEO's and innocent homeowners, as discussed in another thread. This situation was a little different in that it didn't involve a mistake in the house entered. But wrong house or not, if the occupants are worried about fake cops committing a burglary/robbery, then having the entry team wear distinctive uniforms or raid jackets probably won’t help. As we discussed before, this is a very dangerous situation for all involved with no easy, clear-cut answers.

I'm still scratching my head on who was selling drugs. My first suspect would be a family member living with or routinely visiting the lady, but neighbors said she lived alone. Judging from the response from neighbors and "community activists" accusing the police of gunning her down for no reason, at a time when they had even less information than we have now, makes me question the neighbors' statements.

As for the shooting itself, I think the police had no choice. They weren't merely drawing fire, they were taking multiple hits on some or all of the entry team! I too would have fired on her under those circumstances. We are focusing on the fact that she was 92 years old, almost to the exclusion of everything else. Since drugs were found in the home, I question whether she was truly innocent and unaware of the drugs and the drug dealing. She may have been, she may not, only a through investigation will tell. If she was innocent, then as John said, her death lies squarely on the shoulders of the low life that used an old woman's home as their drug emporium. If she participated directly or indirectly in drug dealing, or if she was aware of it and sat passively by and let it go on, then her blood lies on her own head.

Chas.

[jimlongley]

One thing that I have not noticed in this critique is the possiblity that "granny" wasa maybe just a bit hard of hearing. Maybe she just plain didn't hear or understand the "announce."

I think a good lesson for that is to just watch "Cops" on tv a couple of times. Usually when they bust in a door there are several screaming "police warrant" or some such thing at the tops of their lungs. The resulting cacaphony is hard enough to understand without adding in possible hearing loss, the fact that they usually start the screaming before they break the door in and continue while they pouund, and the "tunnel hearing" that takes place as the excitement mounts (on both sides.)

As a former long time fireman I can recall going to fires and getting there and wondering why we never used the siren. I could distinctly recall the wind rushing by my ears, but never heard the siren.

Maybe she just never heard them.

And then there's the possibility that she had tried and tried to chase off the drug dealers that were doing their thing on her property, and thought that the three non-uniformed guys wwho broke in her door were them coming back for revenge.

Anyone remember Kenyon Ballew?

[txinvestigator]

Three men in plain clothes broke into the lady's house. No police cruiser in the front yard.

No, three police officers served a legitimately issued search warrant. Police cruiser in the front yard. Yeah, let me park that right in front so the dopers can see you coming a mile away, destroy the evidence and get a better sight picture on you so they can shoot you quicker. You have never served warrants, have you?

This woman was as justified in firing at the cops as the cops were at her.

Without the facts, you don't know that. All you know is what the media is choosing to tell you. I'll let the investigation and Grand Jury decide if she was justified.

The detectives should have had a uniformed officer with them.

That is not usual or normal procedure. You also don't know if they were wearing raid jackets or not, do you?

Those cops had no reason at all to break in like they did. They could have waited for a uniformed officer to arrive.

Yes they did, its called a search warrant. Again, you don't have ell of the facts.

The sad part about this is when cops make mistakes it isn't only them that get hurt.

They didn't make a mistake. She shot them. She, in return, got shot back.

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . I think we have already proven on this board that the media does a terrible job or reporting, and seldom is accurate.

Initial reports at the scene can be confusing and misleading.

. . .

I hope if any of us are involved in a shooting that the public does not judge us by sloppy reporting.

I believe we can rely on the later news reports much more than those initially "filed." The media tends to sensationalize everything now and there is always that tendency to want to 1) report it first; and 2) get something that the other news outlets didn't get. Combine all of these factors and we have a recipe for an inaccurate news report, perhaps grossly so.

We also don't know what the PD spokesman told the media, versus how it was reported, or what the spokesman was told from the field for that matter. Everyone from the PD spokesman to the media to the public want answers NOW and this quest for speed often comes at the expense of accuracy.

In my seminars and classes, I caution people about trying to give too detailed a report about a traumatic and stressful event such as a self-defense shooting or a fatal car wreck immediately after the event. It is far too common to have citizens’ and LEO’s statements about such an event change after they have had a chance to calm down and reflect on what happened. They simply think more clearly, but everyone assumes they changed their story and are lying. The sad thing is that the public will believe the LEO is lying and made up a new story to protect themselves, but LEO's do the same thing to citizens who later recall more details or that their earlier version of events was not entirely correct.

Unless you have been through such a trying event, it's not possible to truly appreciate how the mind works under tremendous stress. In every tactical class I've taught or attended, it's pointed out that we must train how we will fight, because the higher order thinking will be shutting down and the mind and body will go into survival mode. Yes, there are ways to fight this natural phenomenon and lessen it's impact, but you clearly are not functioning mentally as you would over a cup of coffee. It is unrealistic for us to think that we can hit a mental button and instantly have a complete and accurate recall of the event seconds or even minutes after it's over. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had clients get a blank stare or horrified look on their face when we are going over the details of their case, or a report, and they suddenly remember something entire new and never reported, or worse, something entirely inconsistent with what they have previously stated.

A coverup may be underway, or it may not; we just don’t know yet. Are the police trying to word their version of the events in a manner that best serves their interest? You bet they are, just as everyone else does, whether they are LEO or not. This isn’t lying, it’s just trying to present facts in the light most favorable to the PD.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I messed up and had to delete one of txinvestigator's posts. I mean to hit the "quote" button and respond to his post, but I hit the "edit" button instead and didn't notice. When I posted my response, I had actually edited his and deleted most of it and replaced it with my response.

I've reposted mine, but I can't get txinvestigator's back.

Sorry for the mistake.

Chas.

[txinvestigator]

I messed up and had to delete one of txinvestigator's posts. I mean to hit the "quote" button and respond to his post, but I hit the "edit" button instead and didn't notice. When I posted my response, I had actually edited his and deleted most of it and replaced it with my response.

I've reposted mine, but I can't get txinvestigator's back.

Sorry for the mistake.

Chas.

I see how you are. You recovered enough to make my point. Liberty is saying that because of conflicting information in the intial news report that the poice are lieing and covering up.

We just don't know that. All we know is what the media wrote in the order they chose to write it. Intial reports by the media are often off track. I see no evidence of a cover up.

[bdsnooks]

Update on shooting----

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman. ... index.html

[ea40ss]

This is very sad indeed. True we don't know all of the facts, But justified or not, when you decide you are going to kick in someone's door you should reasonably expect to get shot at. I don't know if Granny is who they were looking for, but Granny is who they got.

Hopefully we will get all of the facts.

Eric