Police shoot & kill 93-year-old woman

[Mr. Oobir]

From FoxNews:

ATLANTA — 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.

Sarah Dozier, identified as a niece of the woman, told WAGA-TV that there were never any drugs at the house.

"My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier said. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

"Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

Another redition of the story can be found on CNN.


Were the officers justified in shooting this woman?

[Glenn]

She looks like she was about done anyways.

[Uncle Mxy]

To what extent do you want your police to go after known small fry versus potentially bigger fish? The cops here had a choice of:

1) busting the drug dealer earlier that day, when the deal happened, catch them red-handed
-or-
2) coming back at some later time, hoping to score more evidence, land that bigger sentence, and maybe stumble onto something big

They chose "2", and got sharpshooting old grandma instead. I don't know all the details to know if it made sense or not. The cops claim they found drugs at her place afterwards and bought there beforehand. It's not clear if they should've reasonably known the tenant(s) of the place, etc. But my point is -- going for that big score tends to be more of a risk. There will inevitably be some screwups along the way, including some that cannot be redressed like this one. Is it worth it in a general "war on crime" sense? Is it worth it in the context of the "war on drugs"?

And no, I sure as hell don't know the answers.

In the "war on drugs" case, part of me wants to end the war on drugs so we can permit the self-destructive muthafuckers to off themselves in Darwinian style, kill off the prohibition that pumps $ to the druglords and "war on drugs" profiteers. Another part of me wants to help my fellow man, keep any truly "bad elements" that may go along with drugs away from my neighborhood. So, color me conflicted.

[Black Dynamite]

killing old ladies doesnt stop the war on drugs. But I understand you gotta do something as a cop. But why do cops have a gun range is none of them know how to disarm an assailant with a wounding shot?

[Uncle Mxy]

But my point is -- going for that big score tends to be more of a risk. There will inevitably be some screwups along the way, including some that cannot be redressed like this one. Is it worth it in a general "war on crime" sense? Is it worth it in the context of the "war on drugs"?

Gotta love the mainstream media. Only the British press seem to have caught onto this story, about DEA agents in El Paso using a homicidal rogue informant in an attempt to get "the big score". But, of course, there's been enough drug stories for the time being, what with the old woman getting killed and all:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...962643,00.html

But, if you're still interested in the old woman getting killed, there's even more dope. Here's audio where the claim was that someone was arrested during the raid in which the 88-year old (her age is shrinking with light) was killed:

http://www.11alive.com/video/player.aspx?aid=62838&bw=

[Daviticus 2.39]

Does anyone else want to give the old lady mad props for being a pretty damn good shot. Don't know how many shots she fired, but a 92 year old GRANDMOTHER who can score 3 hits on 3 different cops has either lived in the hood for a very long time or is a former deadly assasin.

[gusman]

lol daviticus, she must be a good shot. Still though, I hope this doesn't turn into a race issue as well

[geerussell]

There are a few answers that would make things better.

First, stop passing out no-knock warrants like they were candy. It should be an extreme measure used for only in the most dangerous cases.

Second, put the Special back in Special Weapons and Tactics. In bad neighborhoods hardly a warrant goes out without a paramilitary unit blazing the way in. This isn't Iraq and Atlanta (or Detroit or Los Angeles) isn't Baghdad, stop sending the marines against american citizens for petty shit.

Third, when they do execute that kind of warrant, video tape it to clear up all the confusion about whether they knocked, identified or shot grandma while she was reaching for her robe. Getting the facts on film is better for everyone.

Lastly, in those cases where the cops have completely fucked up beyond any shadow of a doubt and killed, wounded or destroyed the home of an innocent person, they should be held legally responsible for it. Right now if you are the unlucky winner of that sweepstakes you're just fucked. The cops have pretty much full immunity in these situations and they know it so there's no pressure on them to make sure they get it right.

[Uncle Mxy]

Note that the latest Supreme Court ruling upholding "no-knock search" was quite recent, the result of a Detroit case (Hudson vs. Michigan), where Bush appointee Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...is_exclus.html

First, stop passing out no-knock warrants like they were candy. It should be an extreme measure used for only in the most dangerous cases.

Do "no-knock" search warrants make sense to execute in the context of the "war on drugs", in particular? There's always the increased danger to the neighborhood and life and limb, so someone has to decide if it's worthwhile to society, so the benefits of issuing the warrant have to be couched in societal terms. What happens if we "win", here? Don't the self-destructives simply turn to abusing their bodies in legal ways -- drinking, smoking, morbid obesity, etc.? This "war on drugs" hasnt' done much other than shuffle wealth and damage around, much like past wars on drugs (e.g. Prohibition in the 1920s).

Second, put the Special back in Special Weapons and Tactics. In bad neighborhoods hardly a warrant goes out without a paramilitary unit blazing the way in. This isn't Iraq and Atlanta (or Detroit or Los Angeles) isn't Baghdad, stop sending the marines against american citizens for petty shit.

How do you cost-justify the SWAT teams? A number of SWAT teams also do "search and rescue" and other things that aren't really "law enforcement" as it is. I'm not saying that we issue bullshit warrants so we can justify SWAT. But, you want to think hard about what "put the Special back" means when expensive special programs are big budget expenses and money is tight.

Third, when they do execute that kind of warrant, video tape it to clear up all the confusion about whether they knocked, identified or shot grandma while she was reaching for her robe. Getting the facts on film is better for everyone.

We have a culture who's far too eager to take 30-second clips shown out of context and make lousy decisions. If I bust into a pedophile in the act of a crime and call them, say, a "sick motherfucker", someone will sue for being verbally hostile, causing permanent psychological damage, using language inappropriate for a city/county employee of the department, etc.

Lastly, in those cases where the cops have completely fucked up beyond any shadow of a doubt and killed, wounded or destroyed the home of an innocent person, they should be held legally responsible for it. Right now if you are the unlucky winner of that sweepstakes you're just fucked. The cops have pretty much full immunity in these situations and they know it so there's no pressure on them to make sure they get it right.

It's a nice way to recruit cops, who obviously don't have enough stress in their lives, who don't have enough problems dealing with generally the worst of society every day. I guess the cop-inclined will join the military where they'll get better protections, and we can start replacing those police with military troops on the streets. The U.S. defunded cops for the military.

[geerussell]

If a cop-inclined person can't stand the "stress" of having to make sure they kick down the right door and shoot the right person then we're better off without them. The overriding interest here is the right of a person not to have their home wrongfully invaded, not to make things as convenient as possible for the police or to cost justify swat teams or nebulous ideas about the "war on drugs."