Skip to comments.WOW! ISN'T THIS DRUG WAR GREAT!
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.
"Availability hasn't seemed to have suffered much either, in this war."
By the DEA's own statements, purity of heroin on the streets is the highest it has ever been, and the cost is at a low point.
Supply and demand at work in the illegal drug market?
Sounds like a ptractical solution.
Now, I'm no longer sure that legalization is a bad idea. Obviously, laws against driving under the influence and similar laws would remain, but I'm no longer convinced society is well served by imprisoning someone who uses drugs in their own home where they aren't messing with someone else while doing it.
A quality post. We need more people like you to weigh in on the subject.
Everyone that knows me knows to call before showing up. If you're at my door and you didn't call; I assume the worse, either you're a salesman (and deserving of death) or a cop. Luckily, I'm not a criminal so if it's a cop, he's there for something minor like selling me police man's ball tickets.
These no knock warrants and plain clothes warrants are deadly and need to be stopped. The WOD is not worth an innocent civilian's or cop's life.
You are assuming that the relationship is linear, which is not likely to be true. It never is when discussing the marginal utility of money.
The article does not indicate if she was or was not a dealer.
ONLY that she was 92.
The article implies there are bars on her windows. Are the bars there to keep other drug dealers out? Did she install them?
Remember dealers use unlikely people (minors, older people) as lookouts.
The article also does not indicate if she lives alone.
too many holes in this story reporting.
need more information.
Ever hear of Alberto Sepulveda? The police went to the right house, but still ended up shooting the 11-year old in the back with a shotgun while on the floor complying with orders. "Whoops. Sorry, kid. Have a nice day."
"Next time, instead of kicking the door in like you're the A-Team on speed, try ringing the doorbell with a bouquet of flowers and then cuff grandma while you search the house."
They had to get in before she flushed her stash.
Another reason to legalize pot is to deny Libertarians the one issue that can sooth their pouts and shut them up.
I have also somewhat reluctantly concluded that illegal drugs should be legalized in order to defund gangs, reduce mayhem, and (greatly) reduce our prison population. But I have a question:
If drugs are legalized, doesn't that mean that they will be branded, marketed and sold? Will Merck come out with MadDash brand cocaine? Starball Express methamphetimine? How would the (now legal) user get his stash? If consumption were legal but distribution were illegal, you'd have essentially the situation we have now. If manufacture and distribution were legal too, then capitalist forces would end up promoting drug use. How do you resolve that one?
Don't mistake that result for causality, though - it could be that neighborhoods with an extant drug problem are more likely to use the DARE program, thus self-selecting for abusive tendencies.
In any case, there is no evidence that DARE works at all.
"There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated."
More like 'increasing influence of statist control freaks', acting as 'health Nazis'. From H.L Mencken's obituary of a "latter day Puritan" who was utterly opposed to, as Mencken calls it, "the Prohibition imbecility":
In his own position there was never the least shadow of inconsistency. When the Prohibition imbecility fell upon the country, and a multitude of theological quacks, including not a few eminent Presbyterians, sought to read support for it into the New Testament, he attacked them with great vigor, and routed them easily. He not only proved that there was nothing in the teachings of Jesus to support so monstrous a folly; he proved abundantly that the known teachings of Jesus were unalterably against it. And having set forth that proof, he refused, as a convinced and honest Christian, to have anything to do with the dry jehad.
This rebellion against a craze that now seems so incredible and so far away was not the chief cause of his break with his ecclesiastical superiors, but it was probably responsible for a large part of their extraordinary dudgeon against him. The Presbyterian Church, like the other evangelical churches, was taken for a dizzy ride by Prohibition. Led into the heresy by fanatics of low mental visibility, it presently found itself cheek by jowl with all sorts of criminals, and fast losing the respect of sensible people. Its bigwigs thus became extremely jumpy on the subject, and resented bitterly every exposure of their lamentable folly.
In the process of being added to the "verboten substances":
I can only hope grandma's family suit against the department outweighs whatever potential "revenue" the gubmint makes off confiscations.
"We're from the gov'ment and we's here to help!"
This is where the tire hits the pavement, and what I've always wondered. When I ask a 'tarian "Just how are these recreational drugs going to be manufactured, distributed, and sold?" I get some "principled" fairytale about how the gov ought to get out of everything, like that's going to happen, but I know that this would be a lawsuit/liabiliity nightmare that would choke the courts.
I'd say, let the pothead 'tarians get the capital together to open up their chain of MJ stores.
"Seizure laws and no-knock warrants seem to violate the 4th Amendment. The gubmint has used the WOD to expand its tyrannical powers. I don't like that."
The bottom line here is that you don't own yourself any longer, the state does.
I wonder if this 92 year old woman is a casualty of the SCOTUS no-knock decision.
"Take the profit out of the equation and the problem will be reduced substantially"
Legalization wouldn't take the profit out of the equation. Drugs are the same as any comodity, price is based on supply and demand. To take the profit out of the equatiuon we need to take the demand out. How do we do that?
What kind of treatment would be required for someone that smokes a joint on the weekend with some friends?
"There's just something in the American psyche that demands that drug users be punished instead of treated and rehabilitated."
I'm a big fan of narco-darwinism. If you can do drugs and fulfill your obligations then fine. But don't come crying to me saying "I'm sick," or "I need treatment," or some other horsesh*t.
Girl scouts sell cookies door-to-door, without calling first...
need more information.From news.bbc.co.uk:
Elderly woman dies in shoot-out
A 92-year-old woman has been shot dead after she apparently fired at three police trying to serve a search warrant at her house in Georgia, officials say.
Kathryn Johnson shot the plain-clothed narcotics officers who had approached her home in Atlanta, city police said.
The officers had knocked on the door and announced themselves before forcing it open, the police said.
She was the only person home at the time and had lived there for about 17 years, police said.
One policeman was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder.
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 returning fire when they were fired upon.
Her niece said she talked to her aunt every day and the conversation was often about crime in the area.
"Every window in her home and every door on her home has burglar bars," Sarah Dozier told a local newspaper.
"I talked to her the other day about a 72-year-old who was raped. I know she was just scared."
The incident is being investigated by police.
AND an entrepreneur!
And, now a corpse. She just keeps on morphing.
How many of these do we have to see before people learn...
Er, according to CNN:
"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."
Now she's a symbolic victim. :-) Whoops, another morph.
Do you think that drug dealers will fold their tents and become upstanding citizens if drugs were legalized? There are always those who claim that most drug dealers are regular folks who just want to make enough to use a little of this or that and are "forced" into being criminals by our archaic drug laws.
Will all drugs be legalized for every age group? Why wouldn't the dealers simply target the still-illegal drugs for the still-underage customers, as many have stated they would do?
Perhaps the displaced drug dealers can open one of the revolving door treatment centers that will spring up, they are fairly lucrative and the customers usually return since the success rate is so low.
In the early 90's in my area, some of the drug profits dipped due to law enforcement crackdowns, so some of the gangs concentrated on robbing banks and stepped up their auto thefts and other property crimes to try and make up the difference. They recruited lots of underage kids to commit these crimes (less consequences, kept the older thugs out of jail). The drug problem is complicated and the criminal culture involved in it won't just go away due to legalization.
Probably an old cap and ball revolver. If it had been anything more modern than that the press would have blamed it on the gun.
This was a bad deal from the get go. An hours worth of real investigation would have shown their "annonymous informant" was full of sh*t. Too bad cops apparently don't do real police work any more.
"If drugs are legalized, doesn't that mean that they will be branded, marketed and sold? Will Merck come out with MadDash brand cocaine? Starball Express methamphetimine? How would the (now legal) user get his stash? If consumption were legal but distribution were illegal, you'd have essentially the situation we have now. If manufacture and distribution were legal too, then capitalist forces would end up promoting drug use. How do you resolve that one?"
If drugs are legalized they won't be sold for long. The addicts will soon lose any ability to make a living and so will again resort to theft for their habits.
Then the government will step in and "give" the addicts whatever drugs they demand. This has happened in Holland and Switzerland and is going to soon be done in the UK.
And the same people here who talk about how they are for less government will have brought about the government keeping God knows how many people addicted to drugs and otherwise cared for.
It's lunacy of the first order.
I'd like to nominate, posthumously of course, this 92 year old sharpshooter for the NRA Woman of the Year award. Door gets kicked in, and she gets off 3 shots and 3 hits. Outstanding. And I also like to nominate the 3 a$$hole cops for the Janet Reno/Waco Civil Rights Common Sense award. Don't show up at her door at 10:00 in the morning in broad daylight wearing uniforms, show up in the dark wearing plain clothes and kick in the door. Brilliant.
How do imbeciles rise to such lofty position of power and authority.
Check out http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ to see all of the stupidity on parade prizes that have happened. It would be funny if it wasn't deadly serious and kept the funeral homes busy.
I watched an episode of Dallas SWAT on A&E once and was shocked by the mentality of some of these jack booted thugs. I remember one of the only chicks on there describing what was going on in a certain episode as not being the "fun" part . I wished then for the ability to reach through the TV screen and slap her as hard as I possibly could.
She's symbolic of something, that's for sure.
Maybe a cold one? Some snacks?
We had a drug house next door to us in an upper middle class neighborhood in CA, that was owned by a little old lady, the grandmother of the drug dealer and his girl friend. They used to keep the drugs in a pipe in the front lawn, with a big guard dog chained right next to the pipe, so that anyone looking for the drugs wouldn't have enter the house. I guess maybe you'd prefer that in your neighborhood.
"I'd like to nominate, posthumously of course, this 92 year old sharpshooter for the NRA Woman of the Year award. Door gets kicked in, and she gets off 3 shots and 3 hits. Outstanding. And I also like to nominate the 3 a$$hole cops for the Janet Reno/Waco Civil Rights Common Sense award. Don't show up at her door at 10:00 in the morning in broad daylight wearing uniforms, show up in the dark wearing plain clothes and kick in the door. Brilliant."
Most reports have this kindly old lady shooting the police officers as they approached her house.
But don't let such details get in the way of your desire to suck your bong.
Imagine two heroin addicts with the same habit (use quantity). One is an ordinary Joe, the other a famous actor. As the cost of heroin goes up, due to greater enforcement (e.g. tax dollars spent), the two junkies spend more. More enforcement, greater risk/liability of the dealer, higher premium on the product.
Now, the cost has crossed the point where the "ordinary" Joe (minus that heroin addiction, of course) can no longer afford it, and probably doesn't really get it from a consistent source anyway. So, he ends up stealing a bit, trading for heroin. Maybe pawns some jewelry. Then, his habit gets worse, more expensive and he's getting to the point of robbing (the "ordinary Jane" might have been hooking by now). Now, you've got a junkie, who can't support a habit/addiction, trying to find money to pay inflated prices for unsafe/unregulated black market product, most likely helping spread HIV, HEP-C, etc.
The actor hasn't had any trouble with cost/product and hasn't resorted to crime to continue his habit. This hypothetical is really only on the consumer side anyway, nevermind what happens on the dealer/supply side where the serious violence occurrs over mega-bucks. These billions of dollars are partly to blame for our illegal immigration problem, considering who is in control of the money and the corruption that follows.
Drugs don't do anything for me there buddy, suck on your own bong. I am however a huge fan of the Bill of Rights. The 4th amendment more precisely.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
According to a report on Instapundit.com, the officers were being fired at AS THEY APPROACHED THE HOUSE, rather than after having busted the door in.
Which kinda makes sense: you gonna tell me a 92-yr old woman squeezed off 3 shots and got three hits on targets less than 10 feet away, and who were somehow unable to overpower her?
"Regarding people resorting to prostitution/theft/other crime to support their habits, don't you think this would be greatly reduced if they didn't have to pay inflated black-market prices? The incentive for dealers is money. Why buy a product on the street when it can be purchased in a store (generally speaking)? If it's at a huge discount, fantastic! Let these drug-addled bums buy if for pennies on the dollar so they don't break into my house and get shot trying to steal my possessions! Better yet, they don't stab me or kill someone I care about trying to get the money to pay for another day. Have them go to a drug store (not a general type store) where there are armed guards all over the place!"
How much money can a crack addict or a heroin addict make?
The answer is none. They can't hold jobs. So no matter how cheap legalized drugs become, they will still be too expensive for those who are addicted to them.
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.
Good thinking there! George Soros is very proud of you!
Oh, I just assumed you were stoned since you are ignoring the apparent fact that these officers were shot at as they ***approached the house.***
I missed that right in the Fourth Amendment.
The lamebrain media is portraying this as a legitimate drug raid and legitimate killing.
In reality, it's a murder of the innocent homeowner protecting her life and property from an unknown armed intruder.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You also missed the fact that they had a valid search warrant.
I think you are saying the drug dealers might be bribing the officials, that may be true. I know for a fact though that the police lobby like crazy for the war on drugs and they especially like the forfeiture laws. The war on drugs is great job security and increased funding for the police, courts and prisons. It's a win win situation for the police, drug dealers and politicians.
We the people are the losers.
Man, all the Soros stooges are showing up.
You can buy a lot of internet outrage for $50 million dollars.
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.