92 yr old woman resists police state, pays with her life

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by lew

And someone selling coke is a pressing reason.

Ask anyone that lives in a drug infested neighborhood...

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

And someone selling coke is a pressing reason.

No, the ability of the person to flush all of the coke down the toilet in 5 seconds if you let them know you're coming is the pressing reason. Please put your anti-war-on-dugs sentiment aside for two seconds and look at this from the perspective of the police...you don't serve a search warrant by easily allowing the suspect to destroy the evidence when you show up. This applies to any evidence, not just drugs. It just so happens that with drugs, you can often easily get rid of them in a few seconds down the toilet.

[DosEquis]

Personally I think it should be a case by case basis. This is not the first time I have heard of someone being shot, wounded, or killed from people serving warrants in plain clothes and busting doors in. This woman is 92 years old and in this case the smarter thing to do would probably have been to go in uniform. Its not like she can run and then if she still shoots the police officers there is no debate, she is a crazy old woman. In this case it adds the issue of someone just busted in her door and she thought she was defending herself?

Personally if i was the police I would look at things such as:

Age of suspect
Criminal history of suspect - is it violent, robbery, drugs, etc?
Amount of drugs suspected at the location
Amount of drugs suspected sold by suspect

If they are a 26 year old male who just got out of jail from serving an armed robbery charge, with 2 lbs of coke, and who has sold much more than that... ok plain clothes with flak jackets... go in like soldiers after an insurgent.

A 92 year old woman...... its probably not needed.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Personally I think it should be a case by case basis. This is not the first time I have heard of someone being shot, wounded, or killed from people serving warrants in plain clothes and busting doors in. This woman is 92 years old and in this case the smarter thing to do would probably have been to go in uniform. Its not like she can run and then if she still shoots the police officers there is no debate, she is a crazy old woman. In this case it adds the issue of someone just busted in her door and she thought she was defending herself?

Personally if i was the police I would look at things such as:

Age of suspect
Criminal history of suspect - is it violent, robbery, drugs, etc?
Amount of drugs suspected at the location
Amount of drugs suspected sold by suspect

If they are a 26 year old male who just got out of jail from serving an armed robbery charge, with 2 lbs of coke, and who has sold much more than that... ok plain clothes with flak jackets... go in like soldiers after an insurgent.

A 92 year old woman...... its probably not needed.

The problem is they don't know WHO all is in the house. I have seen video of a 71 year old man shooting a cop in the head because he thought the seatbelt laws were an infringement of his rights. I saw another article where a 91 year old robbed a bank. Age should play no part in how much caution police need to take.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

No, the ability of the person to flush all of the coke down the toilet in 5 seconds if you let them know you're coming is the pressing reason. Please put your anti-war-on-dugs sentiment aside for two seconds and look at this from the perspective of the police...you don't serve a search warrant by easily allowing the suspect to destroy the evidence when you show up. This applies to any evidence, not just drugs. It just so happens that with drugs, you can often easily get rid of them in a few seconds down the toilet.

while you're right - evidence might get lost, do you really believe the ends justify the means?

I don't think it's worth it to knock down doors and run military style raids unless there is some pressing emergency where other might get hurt. Isn't this at least a fair difference of opinion?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The problem is they don't know WHO all is in the house. I have seen video of a 71 year old man shooting a cop in the head because he thought the seatbelt laws were an infringement of his rights. I saw another article where a 91 year old robbed a bank. Age should play no part in how much caution police need to take.

I can agree with the 'who is in the house' part. That can be studied in their investigation, as far as who comes and goes.

Shooting the policeman for the seatbelt is a bit different and robbing a bank is also a bit different. They are blatently breaking the law. If someone you dont know comes storming in your house in regular clothes, and you shoot them, you at least have an argument of self defense.

[lew]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

No, the ability of the person to flush all of the coke down the toilet in 5 seconds if you let them know you're coming is the pressing reason. Please put your anti-war-on-dugs sentiment aside for two seconds and look at this from the perspective of the police...you don't serve a search warrant by easily allowing the suspect to destroy the evidence when you show up. This applies to any evidence, not just drugs. It just so happens that with drugs, you can often easily get rid of them in a few seconds down the toilet.

Then evidence is destroyed.


A person's life is worth more than evidence.

[hsmith]

I find this thread amusing.

How people "wouldn't freak out" if a group of men barged into their house in plain clothes proclaiming they are police.

Right.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, then let's skip the vague suggestions and get to specifics...

The police have obtained a search warrant for a guy's home because they have probable cause to believe he is hiding 1 kilo of cocaine inside. You're the police. What do you do?

undercover. They were already at the house buying the drugs, would it be much more difficult to arrest the actual person they want and enter the house then ?

[Diesel66]

new info
http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=88179

Pennington confirmed police found a "small amount of marijuana" in the home following the shooting and that they have a warrant out for a man they describe only as "Sam". So far, no arrests have been made.


big drug bust,

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

undercover. They were already at the house buying the drugs, would it be much more difficult to arrest the actual person they want and enter the house then ?

You've got to be kidding me. At first you were complaining because people who announce that they're police and wear vests which say "police" could be criminals disgusted as police. And now your solution is to have a guy who's already posing as a drug buyer suddenly announce that he's a policeman and expect the drug dealer to believe him? Yeah...that's far less likely to provoke violence.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

You've got to be kidding me. At first you were complaining because people who announce that they're police and wear vests which say "police" could be criminals disgusted as police. And now your solution is to have a guy who's already posing as a drug buyer suddenly announce that he's a policeman and expect the drug dealer to believe him? Yeah...that's far less likely to provoke violence.

Arresting the actual person that is breaking the law vs shooting some innocent woman defending her house.


And no I didnt mean only the one guy undercover. Obviously there would be more officers in full uniforms

[Diamond Cross]

Cocaine destroys lives, I'd say it's a pressing reason.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

Well none of the cops are dead, are they? And before its over 'the' guy will either be arrested or meet the same fate. Of that you can be sure.

You have no concern for the dead innocent? Those cops should be hung out to dry.. just like the ones who shot up that guy and his friends leaving a club after his bachelor party a few days ago (Mayor Calls 50 Shots by Police ‘Unacceptable’ - New York Times).

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

The last part of what you said would be great if users only screwed up their own lives. But coke heads usually ending up stepping all over the rights of law abiding productive citizens. Now if they had their own lil place in the world where they could go rob, rape , and kill each other for coke, that'd be fine by me.

Almost everything a person does treads on others to some extent. I fail to see how cocaine is a special situation and other psychoactive/addictive drugs are not. If we reduce the cost of all this stuff to the point where it's affordable by making possession/use legal, then addicts will less likely need to steal to get it. This also eliminates the high profits inherent in drug trafficking because the industry doesn't have to evade law enforcement all the time. The fact is we've gotten SO maniacal about enforcing drug bans that the effects of it are net negatives for society.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Cocaine destroys lives, I'd say it's a pressing reason.

No, stupid people do, along with stupid ineffective laws that have no evidence to back them up.

Someone wants to use cocaine they will, and no matter how many dealers are sent to prision as long as the demand exists another will take thier place.

Containment without a police state is impossible at this point in time.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I have no problem with the old woman panicking and shooting up the cops. A lot of people in her situation COULD do that. But I DO have an issue with people blaming the cops for doing their job...and doing it LEGALLY. The old lady is to blame because she was the one who committed the crime here.

She certianly made a mistake, no doubt about it. Legal right isn't the same as moral right however.

If my job was to assainate people I'm suer people would take issue with it.

I don't think the police were wrong, but I do think case was not handled well.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Please put your anti-war-on-dugs sentiment aside for two seconds and look at this from the perspective of the police...you don't serve a search warrant by easily allowing the suspect to destroy the evidence when you show up.

I won't but aside my sentiment simply because it's key to the entire issue. Police shouldn't be going after people for drugs because it is of no benefit to society.

The law may indeed direct them to do so, but the law is in this case, flawed.

While I think it is important to work within the legal framework for change (in most cases) and one should obey most law I will still say that going after people for dugs is a poor decision because it is based on flawed reasoning (putting ideals above reality)

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Cocaine destroys lives, I'd say it's a pressing reason.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I won't but aside my sentiment simply because it's key to the entire issue. Police shouldn't be going after people for drugs because it is of no benefit to society.

It's not key to the entire issue. This could've played out the exact same way if the police barged into someone's home on a valid search warrant for terrorism evidence.

Whether it's drugs or terrorism, you can't give people a chance to destroy the evidence. In the time that you're knocking and waiting for the person to answer the door, they're flushing the drugs or throwing the terrorist communications in the fireplace. It's simply a matter of needing to come in immediately to secure evidence when a person is likely to destroy it. It's the same whether it's drugs or anything else that can be easily disposed of.

You guys are just getting sidetracked on the red herring of drugs involved. The law makes no distinction, nor should it, when there is a valid search warrant.