Posted on 11/22/2006 7:35:17 AM PST by Dick Bachert
Atlanta police went to a home on Neal Street in Atlanta last evening to execute a search warrant. When they kicked the door in the only occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, started shooting. She hit all three police officers. One in the thigh, one in the arm and another in the shoulder. All police officers will be OK. The woman will not. She was shot and killed by the police.
I'm not blaming the cops here. Not at all. They had a valid search warrant, and they say they were at the right address. Shots were fired, three cops hit, and they returned fire. A 92-year-old woman who was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood that she had burglar bars on every door and window, is now dead.
The blame lies on this idiotic drug war we're waging. We have all the studies we need, all of the comprehensive data is in. We can do a much more effective job of reducing drug use in this country if we'll just take a portion of this money we spend for law enforcement and spend it on treatment programs. A Rand study showed that we can reduce illicit drug usage in this country a specified amount through treatment programs at about 10% of the cost of reducing drug usage by that same amount through criminalization and law enforcement.
There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated. We think they're stupid and ignorant for getting mixed up with those drugs in the first place. And you know what? We're right? But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.
In the context of those questions it's pretty clear that he's trying to find out if she was a 92 year old drug dealer or not.
You're the one who is jumping to conclusions and making unsubstantiated accusations, not him.
My mistake.
Yes it is.
Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant and "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door.
So just what are you after here?
While it is true that some die from their drug usage, the overwhelming majority do not. Approx. 30 million people have used a controlled substance within the last 12 months, with deaths from overdoses and drug interactions totaling less than 15,000. And many of those deaths would be prevented with drugs legalized, as more info would avaiable to the drug user in preventing these mishaps.
But you go on with your merry little war that creates far more destruction to the fabric of society than recreational drug use could ever do. You and your ilk make distictions when there are no differences. Alcohol is a drug, just like these other things. You and your ilk support injustice in the law by insisting that alcohol users be treated differently than users of other mood altering substances. But that doesn't bother you and your ilk. It's all about self-righteous power and control.
Laugh it up all you want. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You and your ilk are doing the paving here.
Oh, so there's no difference between the actions of a junkie who has to come up with $75/day compared to $15/day? If some bum can panhandle enough money to get drunk every day, why not for heroin produced by pharmaceutical companies and purchased in locations with armed guards and medical practitioners?
So you will either have more crime (because of increased addiction) or you will have the gubmint giving out heroin like candy to anyone who wants it. (Which is happening in Europe.)
All the libertarians who claim to be for smaller government should love paying for drugs for addicts -- plus their upkeep for the rest of their lives.
More crime to pay for a cheaper product? If you acknowledge that they commit crime to pay for the product, you should recognize that they would have to commit less crime (possibly just panhandle or collect cans) to supply their current habits! If these habits increase, that percentage is still much smaller than what it would have been at the previous artificially-inflated price.
More crime by people who can no longer afford to be a drug-dealer making money selling to junkies on the street? More gang violence committed by drug-dealing punks who don't have the drug-supplied money to go around shooting at each other? For one thing, you have people selling parts of plants for more than an ounce of gold. Does that make any sense? If it were artichokes do you think they'd be worth it? Of course not.
The only reason for this is the economic conditions of the black market, which is set up by the existing drug laws. Surely you see the connection between the black market and the inflated prices of things sold in it?
Libertarians for smaller government? Sure! How about a smaller bureaucracy that doesn't spend $40 Billion dollars every year? How about the need for less government by the reduction in violent crime over product trafficking/selling?
Why don't you see people selling six-packs on the street for $45? Unless you mind, as you said,"paying for addicts--plus their upkeep for the rest of their lives" then you'd better get off your butt and help ban alcohol! What? That's different? That's not the case?
"Good thinking there!" Al Capone is very proud of you!
But look at the messages we send to our children every single day with cigarettes, alcohol, and an endless stream of drug ads on television and in magazines. Drug culture? You bet we have.
Without commitment to honesty -- honest principles -- civilization self-destructs. There's drug manufacturers advertising prescription drugs to people almost as though the audience is competent medical professionals able to decide self-medication. The advertisements suggest that they patient ask their doctor for advice. Yet with other drugs the government self-righteously proclaims that people and their doctors are deemed incompetent to decide how the patient may medicate.
"So just what are you after here?"
The gist of Neal's screed is that a 92-old old woman is a victim of the rampant police state, create din th name of svaing society from the overblown ravages of simple, recreational drug use, without presenting any facts to back that assertion up. The emotional impact of an old woman being terrorized by the police is a far more effective prop for his argument than the possibility that the woman is probably guilty of some crime (or someone at that address was) and possibly shot police officers engaged in carryiong out their sworn duty.
I have no agenda here, personally. I would just like Neal to either be prepared to be fair and honest, or keep his mouth shut. There was a dispute about whether or not the police just bashed the door in or if they had followed proper procedure. It appears there may be an argument that they did, in fact, attempt to follow due process and were shot at before they could execute the warrant. This is not being discussed anywhere, so far as I know.
If that is the case, then Neal is guilty of being selective about what facts he presents, how they are presented, and attempting to artificially narrow the scope of debate. This is, incidentally, the same thing he routinely accuses the "Mainstream Media" of doing at every opportunity. He does this again when he alludes to a "percentage" of funds being used for treatment programs a sa solution to the drug problem, without providing that percentage in real terms (i.e. as an acual number).
Just holding Neal to the same standards he demands from everyone else. Or is that heresy on my part?
If you can't see the difference in trying to stop people from doing what they want to do to their own bodies versus actual criminal activity (murder, rape, robbery, etc.), there's really no use arguing with you.
And we wonder where tyrannies arise from. Wonder no more, as tyrannical laws arise from folks who share the mentality, such as it is, like the Sam Hills of this world. So caught up in their fight against "evil", they can't see the evil they, themselves sponsor in the world.
People have been using mood altering drugs since the beginning of time. You and your ilk have succeeded in criminalizing the human condition. WOW. Jesus must be proud.
Unfortunately for the truth, the ONE potential witness for the other side is dead.
For this 92 year-old women to have gotten off 3 shots that found their marks, she and her targets almost certainly had to be well within that 21' range where most gunfights take place. I rather doubt the cops were "approaching" the house. My guess is that they made a racket coming on to her porch, quickly took out the door, she had her weapon handy -- thanks to the cops' inability to secure her neighborhood -- and let fly.
Oh yeah, I forgot some tunes. Maybe some Allmans? Eat A Peach? Little Steely Dan perhaps? Or maybe you want something more up to date...a little Flecktones?
So should we treat alcohol and tobacco like the other drugs? Or treat the other drugs like alcohol and tobacco?
Tobacco, specifically nicotine, is highly addictive. Since 1990 tobacco use has dropped 50% How was that accomplished? Education. The alcohol prohibition turf wars demonstrated that alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure. Politicians and bureaucrats chose to repeat history. The consequences to come from their choice was know yet they still made the choice. End drug prohibition and it ends the violent crime problem it facilitated. Then, and only then can the drug problem be addressed rationally, honestly.
Someone's been drinking the ilk of human kindness.
And we wonder where tyrannies arise from. Wonder no more, as tyrannical laws arise from folks who share the mentality, such as it is, like the Sam Hills of this world. So caught up in their fight against "evil", they can't see the evil they, themselves sponsor in the world.
People have been using mood altering drugs since the beginning of time. You and your ilk have succeeded in criminalizing the human condition. WOW. Jesus must be proud.
OHHHH SOOOOO TRUE!
LOL. Cuz junkies first and foremost concern is their job security. Most jobs NOW don't tolerate junkies. That's why junkies do crimes, duh.
LOL -- So often you see alcoholics doing crimes to get their next fifth of whiskey because it's so expensive.
That's my point. Same crap, different day. Forced treatment, forced incarceration. Same difference.
It makes more sense to diminish the punishment in certain circumstances if the criminal agrees to pay for his/her rehabilitation.
Plain clothes police executing a no-knock warrant would be extremely unusual.
So unusual that I find it very hard to believe.
No-knock warrants are very dangerous for everyone involved, and they have very specific procedures to be followed.
Where did you hear that the officers were in plain clothes? Were they just assuming that because the woman shot at them that they must have been in plain clothes?
It's more likely that it was simply dark since they usually execute these warrants in the early morning hours when people are likely to be asleep so the officers can gain control of the situation before the occupants can react with violence or by destroying evidence.
Very unfortunately, that wasn't the case in this situation.
No knock warrants are very scary, and should only be used when necessary. If the Judge is issuing such warrants without good cause, that judge needs to be removed. If the officers are lying to attain such warrants, those officers need to be held accountable for that.
If everything was done properly, and this is just one of the rare cases where things go bad, it's very sad, but our rights only protect us from unreasonable searches, not all searches, and in some cases the police simply can't give the suspects a chance to dispose of the evidence.
However, that can create a situation that is ripe for disaster.
I know if I woke to someone breaking down my door the first thing I would reach for is my handgun, and if I didn't hear or understand their shouts of "police" the situation could get very ugly very quickly.
I agree that this situation will be spun by gun control advocates, and I understand that the police don't provide protection or security, they enforce laws, and try to catch criminals after laws have been broken.
I believe strongly in my right to self defense.
However, there are situations where no-knock warrants are justified and needed. I'm not going to judge if this particular one was justified or even executed properly based on as sparse of facts as are provided here.
"If you can't see the difference in trying to stop people from doing what they want to do to their own bodies versus actual criminal activity (murder, rape, robbery, etc.), there's really no use arguing with you."
This is the most preposterous and tiresome druggie argument of them all.
The same could be said of a suicide bomber. He was just blowing himself up. The others just happened to be there.
In our modern society -- for better or worse -- no man is an island.
No matter how what you may pretend, our society will not let drug addicts die on the street and their (mentally afflicted) children starve to death.
Also, believe it or not, drug addicts drive cars -- and once they get their inevitable rights -- trains, boats and planes.
They also burn down apartments in building where other people live.
You want to multiply these benefits to society a thousand fold. Or more.
And you pretend it's all because you are so principled. What a laugh.
The first principal of any society is to preserve itself.
But the criminal isn't a criminal until he's apprehended, hence all the same excess Boortz seemingly doesn't like.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.