ArmorPierce wrote:From the looks of how the police tried to put up a elaborate cover story I don't think they did.
In this case, no they didn't, However as the article states the old lady did fire off a shot as they were breaking in the door. She was going to shoot regardless of who these people were.
This illustrates my point pretty well.
If she hadn't open fired she very well may still be alive. Cops or home invaders, if you start shooting at someone who has guns you are going to get shot back at and more than likely killed.
Using this as an example, if they were home invaders they may have killed her anyway, but there is also the chance that they may have just tied her up and robbed her. You just start shooting like a retard and you take away the option of surviving.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Most home invaders don't expect you to resist, and if you open fire they are going to run. What retarded land do you live in that people breaking in your place with no warning isn't time for you to engage the Fight/Flight instincts?
A teenage girl is just a teenage boy who can get laid.
-GTO
We're not just doing this for money; we're doing this for a shitload of money!
Dark Hellion wrote:Most home invaders don't expect you to resist, and if you open fire they are going to run. What retarded land do you live in that people breaking in your place with no warning isn't time for you to engage the Fight/Flight instincts?
Oakland.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
havokeff wrote:You just start shooting like a retard and you take away the option of surviving.
Because there is no possibility that you will successfully engage and repel the people breaking in - since home-invasion robbers are in it for glory and courageousness and not for an easy score - while is is an absolute certainty that the people coming through your door, will execute perfect shot placement and drop you in your tracks.
/sarcasm
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Dark Hellion wrote:Most home invaders don't expect you to resist, and if you open fire they are going to run. What retarded land do you live in that people breaking in your place with no warning isn't time for you to engage the Fight/Flight instincts?
No knock warrants are suppose to be served against homes where there is greater possibility that the occupants will start shooting at police. Given the fact that they lied to the judge in order to get the warrant I submit to you that this is not a good example of what circumstances need to be present in order to get such a warrant.
Dark Hellion wrote:Most home invaders don't expect you to resist, and if you open fire they are going to run. What retarded land do you live in that people breaking in your place with no warning isn't time for you to engage the Fight/Flight instincts?
No knock warrants are suppose to be served against homes where there is greater possibility that the occupants will start shooting at police. Given the fact that they lied to the judge in order to get the warrant I submit to you that this is not a good example of what circumstances need to be present in order to get such a warrant.
It does illustrate why we shouldn't give such warrants in the first place.
Amateurs study Logistics, Professionals study Economics.
Dale Cozort (slightly out of context quote)
Dark Hellion wrote:Most home invaders don't expect you to resist, and if you open fire they are going to run. What retarded land do you live in that people breaking in your place with no warning isn't time for you to engage the Fight/Flight instincts?
No knock warrants are suppose to be served against homes where there is greater possibility that the occupants will start shooting at police. Given the fact that they lied to the judge in order to get the warrant I submit to you that this is not a good example of what circumstances need to be present in order to get such a warrant.
It does illustrate why we shouldn't give such warrants in the first place.
How do you figure? Again, if the officers would have been honest they would not have gotten a no knock warrant. They lied.
Perhaps, you'll be able to explain why the police should lose a valuable advantage in dangerous house searches just because some idiot police lied to a judge?
havokeff wrote:If she hadn't open fired she very well may still be alive. Cops or home invaders, if you start shooting at someone who has guns you are going to get shot back at and more than likely killed.
Using this as an example, if they were home invaders they may have killed her anyway, but there is also the chance that they may have just tied her up and robbed her. You just start shooting like a retard and you take away the option of surviving.
Yeah, surrendering to home invaders seems like such a good idea, especially for a woman. There is also the chance they might just rape/torture/kill you for shit and giggles in such a situation, especially if they are drugged. You want to make that case again?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
It does illustrate why we shouldn't give such warrants in the first place.
How do you figure? Again, if the officers would have been honest they would not have gotten a no knock warrant. They lied.
Perhaps, you'll be able to explain why the police should lose a valuable advantage in dangerous house searches just because some idiot police lied to a judge?[/quote]
Because it has a long history of being abused, and its unnecessary.
If you have a suspected house where evidence is being kept and a potential suspect may be armed and ready to destroy evidence.
Here is a radical ideal. Case the place till it empties out of all people and then seize the house. Have plainclothes detectives discretely tail the occupants and radio their location to Uniformed Policemen in waiting patrol vehicles to pick them up.
Evidence doesn't get destroyed, and there is a low chance of a shootout.
Amateurs study Logistics, Professionals study Economics.
Dale Cozort (slightly out of context quote)
Wanderer wrote:
Because it has a long history of being abused, and its unnecessary.
Warrants in general have a history of abuse. However, you fail miserably in proving that it is unnecessary. What needs to be done here is the officers should spend the rest of their lives in prison.
If you have a suspected house where evidence is being kept and a potential suspect may be armed and ready to destroy evidence.
Here is a radical ideal. Case the place till it empties out of all people and then seize the house. Have plainclothes detectives discretely tail the occupants and radio their location to Uniformed Policemen in waiting patrol vehicles to pick them up.
It certainly is a radical idea, but a stupid one. You want them to get into a vehicle where a high speed pursuit is now highly likely and the possibility of a shootout hasn't changed. Now, they're mobile and might be able to take hostages.
Evidence doesn't get destroyed, and there is a low chance of a shootout.
Right, because evidence can only be destroyed in homes. It couldn't be destroyed in a vehicle.
Why is there a low chance of a shootout now? You think being in a vehicle magically changes their mindset?
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Honestly, I'd like a comparison between No-Knock Raids with a SWAT team in some random American city and a housecleaning operation in Fallujah or Basra with military. They already use exactly the same guns, armor, tactics, and uparmored vehicles. My point is where does Drug War turn into Civil War?
They do because drug dealers have some of the same small arms that insurgents have in Fallujah, or Basra.
Well, including obtaining an illegal warrant isn't a good example. These officers broke the law, and abused a tool given to them by the law. A no knock warrant legally obtained and executed is based upon very good reason which is based upon seizing evidence, but more importantly the safety of the officers involved.
Uraniun235 wrote:Don't forget the profits from auctioning off seized property. Oh hey we found drugs here, guess that means you bought everything here with drug money so now we're going to take it all. Have fun trying to prove you bought it with legit money.
Unless I'm mistaken even if you could prove you purchased it with legit money it doesn't matter because you used that property to commit a felony.
havokeff wrote:If she hadn't open fired she very well may still be alive. Cops or home invaders, if you start shooting at someone who has guns you are going to get shot back at and more than likely killed.
Using this as an example, if they were home invaders they may have killed her anyway, but there is also the chance that they may have just tied her up and robbed her. You just start shooting like a retard and you take away the option of surviving.
Yeah, surrendering to home invaders seems like such a good idea, especially for a woman. There is also the chance they might just rape/torture/kill you for shit and giggles in such a situation, especially if they are drugged. You want to make that case again?
You are missing the point. The shoot first and hope for the best/ask questions later approach got this lady killed.
If she HADN'T fired she very well may still be alive. Good cop or bad cop, if they get shot at they are going to return fire.
The reason in this instance, if I have read the articles correctly, that the cover up and drug planting happened, is because of the shooting and the death.
If the lady hadn't acted stupidly, she would be alive. This has nothing to do with the good/bad inclinations of the cops.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Warrants in general have a history of abuse. However, you fail miserably in proving that it is unnecessary. What needs to be done here is the officers should spend the rest of their lives in prison.
So basically you're saying we can't prevent the abuse by changing the way we serve warrants?
It certainly is a radical idea, but a stupid one. You want them to get into a vehicle where a high speed pursuit is now highly likely and the possibility of a shootout hasn't changed. Now, they're mobile and might be able to take hostages.
Geez do I have to spell out every single step? First you wait for the person to leave the house and have the Plainclothes Detective tail him. Once he exits the vehicle to go into a store or for a walk. The Plainclothes Detective tails him while notifying Uniform back, walks up the suspect Badge out with gun and says you are under arrest, Miranda deal, then hands him off to uniformed cops.
Effectively you have ambushed him before he could even act.
Right, because evidence can only be destroyed in homes. It couldn't be destroyed in a vehicle.
Thought we were talking about a house. For a car just wait till he is not in the car to serve the warrant and arrest him when he comes back to the car.
Amateurs study Logistics, Professionals study Economics.
Dale Cozort (slightly out of context quote)
This is simply priceless...the pro-gun folk arguing that folk shouldnt use a gun to defend themselves in their own home. It's a true Kodak Moment...
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
havokeff wrote:You just start shooting like a retard and you take away the option of surviving.
Because there is no possibility that you will successfully engage and repel the people breaking in - since home-invasion robbers are in it for glory and courageousness and not for an easy score - while is is an absolute certainty that the people coming through your door, will execute perfect shot placement and drop you in your tracks.
/sarcasm
Don't be an ass. The entire threat of a gun is based on some one USING IT. If someone breaks into my house and is waving it around and threatening to use it and I open fire with my own weapon, I am FULLY going to expect that person to shoot back.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Keevan_Colton wrote:This is simply priceless...the pro-gun folk arguing that folk shouldnt use a gun to defend themselves in their own home. It's a true Kodak Moment...
For the record, I am not Pro-Gun.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
Wanderer wrote:So basically you're saying we can't prevent the abuse by changing the way we serve warrants?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that just because abuse exists you don't take away an important tool from every single person.
Geez do I have to spell out every single step? First you wait for the person to leave the house and have the Plainclothes Detective tail him. Once he exits the vehicle to go into a store or for a walk. The Plainclothes Detective tails him while notifying Uniform back, walks up the suspect Badge out with gun and says you are under arrest, Miranda deal, then hands him off to uniformed cops.
You assume that they don't already do these things. Again, no knock warrants are for special circumstances where there is an increased amount of danger, strong possibility of evidence destruction, and other unknowns.
Effectively you have ambushed him before he could even act.
For such a person you probably wouldn't need a no knock warrant.
havokeff wrote:You are missing the point. The shoot first and hope for the best/ask questions later approach got this lady killed.
If she HADN'T fired she very well may still be alive. Good cop or bad cop, if they get shot at they are going to return fire.
The reason in this instance, if I have read the articles correctly, that the cover up and drug planting happened, is because of the shooting and the death.
If the lady hadn't acted stupidly, she would be alive. This has nothing to do with the good/bad inclinations of the cops.
So let me rephrase my question then. If people knock down the door, start charging into your home and this happens in a bad neighbourhood, you think the best approach is to...not use the only weapon at your disposal to defend yourself?
Because being a very old lady, the gun seems to have been the only serious method of self-defence for her. Besides, you are under the assumption that the old woman knew they were police, when the case can be made that she was probably in shock and didn't even think anything except "People are coming to hurt me".
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
havokeff wrote:
Don't be an ass. The entire threat of a gun is based on some one USING IT. If someone breaks into my house and is waving it around and threatening to use it and I open fire with my own weapon, I am FULLY going to expect that person to shoot back.
Not quite. If someone points a weapon period, the smart thing to do is expect they plan on using it. Any gun safety course will always teach you to never point a weapon without the intention to use it, so regardless of whether or not you point a weapon back at them it's idiocy to assume they mean to do anything other than shoot you. Oh, and you might want to re-read the article again to get the order of events straight.
Article wrote:Johnston fired one shot from a pistol as police were breaking down her door, but she did not hit any of the officers.
She didn't bother waiting to see whether they had any guns before shooting but didn't actually hit anyone, since the door was still being broken down.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
havokeff wrote:You are missing the point. The shoot first and hope for the best/ask questions later approach got this lady killed.
If she HADN'T fired she very well may still be alive. Good cop or bad cop, if they get shot at they are going to return fire.
The reason in this instance, if I have read the articles correctly, that the cover up and drug planting happened, is because of the shooting and the death.
If the lady hadn't acted stupidly, she would be alive. This has nothing to do with the good/bad inclinations of the cops.
So let me rephrase my question then. If people knock down the door, start charging into your home and this happens in a bad neighbourhood, you think the best approach is to...not use the only weapon at your disposal to defend yourself?
Because being a very old lady, the gun seems to have been the only serious method of self-defence for her. Besides, you are under the assumption that the old woman knew they were police, when the case can be made that she was probably in shock and didn't even think anything except "People are coming to hurt me".
Again she fired as the door was being broken down. Now unless she is the Flash, that means she knew they were there and were about to break down the door and had her gun ready. How did she know that without looking outside a window or something. Plain clothes officers still have big yellow letters saying Police on there tactical vests in this situation.
Now don't get me wrong, I give this particular lady every benefit of the doubt, because of her age, eyesight, her daughter(?) telling her about a 72 year old getting raped, but she made the ABSOLUTELY wrong choice in this circumstance.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
havokeff wrote:
Again she fired as the door was being broken down. Now unless she is the Flash, that means she knew they were there and were about to break down the door and had her gun ready. How did she know that without looking outside a window or something. Plain clothes officers still have big yellow letters saying Police on there tactical vests in this situation.
If she was as paranoid as the article mentions, she probably had the gun close at hand and did the first thing that came to mind to protect herself. Also, anyone can get ahold of gear with the word "police" on it. There's even been instances in Denver of criminals imitating the cops as late as the last couple years. Plus it's not much of a leap to assume that people breaking your door down will be out to kill you, especially for someone with paranoia.
Now don't get me wrong, I give this particular lady every benefit of the doubt, because of her age, eyesight, her daughter(?) telling her about a 72 year old getting raped, but she made the ABSOLUTELY wrong choice in this circumstance.
That's only according to hindsight. If you're getting your door busted down by people in plainclothes who might not even be police, then doing everything you can to defend yourself is the best decision when there's nowhere to run, mental illness or no.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
havokeff wrote:
Don't be an ass. The entire threat of a gun is based on some one USING IT. If someone breaks into my house and is waving it around and threatening to use it and I open fire with my own weapon, I am FULLY going to expect that person to shoot back.
Not quite. If someone points a weapon period, the smart thing to do is expect they plan on using it. Any gun safety course will always teach you to never point a weapon without the intention to use it, so regardless of whether or not you point a weapon back at them it's idiocy to assume they mean to do anything other than shoot you. Oh, and you might want to re-read the article again to get the order of events straight.
This isn't about the article. I'm fully aware of the order of events. This is in response to Kanastrous's "sarcasm hur hur" rant about how if you shoot at a home invader they are going to run away and not shoot back, even though they are brandishing weapons.
If you had quoted what I was responding to, you might have noticed that, but you have a weird habit of not doing doing so.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it. Blank Yellow (NSFW)
havokeff wrote:
This isn't about the article. I'm fully aware of the order of events. This is in response to Kanastrous's "sarcasm hur hur" rant about how if you shoot at a home invader they are going to run away and not shoot back, even though they are brandishing weapons.
If you had quoted what I was responding to, you might have noticed that, but you have a weird habit of not doing doing so.
My point was that if you're going to use an example, it helps to use one that's at least similar to what's being talked about. The one you gave was different enough from what happened in the OP that it wasn't really a good one. As far as quoting entire posts, it's a waste of space. I'm not going to quote an entire post just to address one point.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
havokeff wrote:If she hadn't open fired she very well may still be alive. Cops or home invaders, if you start shooting at someone who has guns you are going to get shot back at and more than likely killed.
Using this as an example, if they were home invaders they may have killed her anyway, but there is also the chance that they may have just tied her up and robbed her. You just start shooting like a retard and you take away the option of surviving.
Yeah, surrendering to home invaders seems like such a good idea, especially for a woman. There is also the chance they might just rape/torture/kill you for shit and giggles in such a situation, especially if they are drugged. You want to make that case again?
You are missing the point. The shoot first and hope for the best/ask questions later approach got this lady killed.
If she HADN'T fired she very well may still be alive. Good cop or bad cop, if they get shot at they are going to return fire.
The reason in this instance, if I have read the articles correctly, that the cover up and drug planting happened, is because of the shooting and the death.
If the lady hadn't acted stupidly, she would be alive. This has nothing to do with the good/bad inclinations of the cops.
Well the cop got the warrant by lying to the judge in the first place.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@ To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
