The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
"Dreher, in a news conference on Wednesday, said the officers broke through a burglar bar entry door and then a wooden door. The police, whom Dreher called "experienced officers," were not wearing uniforms but had on vests with "police" on the front. He said they were inside the house when they were shot.
Thats why they are prepared to shoot back.ea40ss wrote:. , But justified or not, when you decide you are going to kick in someone's door you should reasonably expect to get shot at.
Eric
This 92 year old woman fired 6 shots and got 5 hits, while probably scared out of her wits! WOW!Investigator Gregg Junnier, 40, was shot three times, police said, in the side of the face, in the leg and in the center of his protective vest. Investigator Gary Smith, 38, was shot in the left leg, and Investigator Cary Bond, 38, was shot in the left arm.
I can be pretty lenient on police when they make mistakes, but when they attempt this coverup and lie. They deserve the book thrown at them. Their willingness to lie and make false statements to cover their buttocks, suggest to me that they are willing to lie and cheat in the courtroom. One has to wonder how many innocent people are in prison because of these guys.KBCraig wrote:My, what a tangled web we weave...
How many more victims of "collateral damage" will we see, until this insane War On Some Drugs gets called off?
Latest reports are that the warrant was based on a cocaine purchase by a confidential informant. The CI says he never bought any drugs from that house, and was approached by the officers after the shooting, and asked to lie.
The entire narcotics squad has been suspended.
And just by way of trivia, the medical examiner says Kathryn Johnston's age is documented as 88, not 92; not that it matters. Six gunshot wounds, including one to the center of the chest, made sure she won't have another birthday.
Police found "not a large amount" of marijuana, but no cocaine. Ms. Johnston apparently enjoyed a toke. Last time I checked, user quantities of marijuana didn't justify no-knock tactical raids.
Various articles:
Atlanta Journal Constitution
AJC 2
WIST TV
CBS
I've always wondered why no-knocks are justified "to prevent destruction of evidence". If the aim is to get drugs off the street, then sending them down the toilet while a uniformed officer knocks on the door, seems as good a way as any. The drugs are gone; what's the problem?
The dealer will also probably be on the hook to someone else for the drugs he flushed.
Kevin
"Drugs found at the scene."GlockenHammer wrote: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.
Very true. Which makes it a very bad idea to seek a warrant based on CI statements.txinvestigator wrote:However, CI's lie. Period.
I never thought of it that way but...I've always wondered why no-knocks are justified "to prevent destruction of evidence". If the aim is to get drugs off the street, then sending them down the toilet while a uniformed officer knocks on the door, seems as good a way as any. The drugs are gone; what's the problem?
Eh, it's basically evidence. you want the drugs off the street, yes, but you also want to be able to punish the pusher, and without that evidence you can't prosecute ("Your Honor, I just know they were dealing!").KBCraig wrote:I've always wondered why no-knocks are justified "to prevent destruction of evidence". If the aim is to get drugs off the street, then sending them down the toilet while a uniformed officer knocks on the door, seems as good a way as any. The drugs are gone; what's the problem?
correction: Playasstevie_d_64 wrote: Just to avoid a majority of the heat from non-players...
Ah, but you miss my larger point: if the drugs get flushed, not only are they off the street, but a sizable chunk of street justice has been dispensed as well.casselthief wrote:Eh, it's basically evidence. you want the drugs off the street, yes, but you also want to be able to punish the pusher, and without that evidence you can't prosecute ("Your Honor, I just know they were dealing!").KBCraig wrote:I've always wondered why no-knocks are justified "to prevent destruction of evidence". If the aim is to get drugs off the street, then sending them down the toilet while a uniformed officer knocks on the door, seems as good a way as any. The drugs are gone; what's the problem?
I see your point, and yes, hey, great, the illicits are off the street, but the big catch is busting the dealers, as well.
And the warrant shouldn't have been issued based on the word of that same informant.txinvestigator wrote:As you know I am a strong supporter of the police and am opposed to knee-jerk reactions to bias news reports.
That said, if the police make mistakes, they need to be reprimanded and corrected. If they engage in criminal conduct, they should be prosecuted.
However, CI's lie. Period.
I refuse to indict these officers based on the word of an informant. I'll trust the FBI to sort it out.
The Constitution already says that warrants require probable cause, and there are dozens if not hundreds of U.S. Supreme Court rulings about what that means.cyphur wrote:There needs to be legislation at the federal level imposing requirements on all non-National Security related warrants, specifically regarding the requirements placed on intelligence to be able to be actionable. CI's alone should not meet that criteria.
You're right, twice.KBCraig wrote: Ah, but you miss my larger point: if the drugs get flushed, not only are they off the street, but a sizable chunk of street justice has been dispensed as well.
