Shit happens... if it was a 35 - 45 year old white guy, it wouldn't be this blown out of proportion. Either way, no matter who was on the receiving end, it's traggic. But you shoot at the cops, they're gonna shoot back, and shoot to kill or unload their clip on you... and they have a right to do so.

__________________
Originally Posted by Roc3b "Great, so Gman landed a nympho with a brain! Damn him!
Guinness you lucky son of a byotch!!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.bmwcca.org
http://www.sunbeltbmwcca.org

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

too. It's pretty simple: If you shoot at cops they're going to shoot back. There isn't much time to figure out whether it's a 29 year old or a 92 year old, especially in the dark. It's like if a kid pulls out a very realistic looking Airsoft gun and in a split second, with dim lighting, a cop doesn't see the itty bitty orange tip, the kid is going to get dumped and the media fallout would be mighty. Interestingly, I have been to trainings where they've shown us a very real Glock painted bright yellow with an orange tip. Scary stuff.

It is remarkable to see situations where a cop could very well have shot someone but didn't. The discipline and control is pretty impressive. It doesn't always happen but you never hear about the times when someone who needed to be shot wasn't.

__________________

... simple fact is, you shoot at a cop (cops), you're gonna get shot yourself ......

__________________

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- An informant cited in a search warrant as having purchased narcotics at an elderly Atlanta woman's house denies buying drugs there, authorities say.
Undercover officers raiding the 88-year-old woman's house shot her to death last week after she fired on them while they broke down her door in a high-crime neighborhood.
Federal prosecutors will investigate the case, Atlanta police Chief Richard Pennington announced Monday. (Watch when the snitch says he got the call to concoct a drug-buy story )
Pennington said the eight-member narcotics squad that took part in the raid has been placed on paid leave while investigators look into the informant's story and the circumstances surrounding the November 21 death of Kathryn Johnston.
The informant also told investigators from the Atlanta police internal affairs bureau that he was told to lie about the matter, the chief said.
"The FBI will investigate his statements, along with the police officers' statements as well," Pennington said.
Authorities said Johnston opened fire on police who tried to enter her home, prying off burglar bars and forcing open her door, during a "no-knock" drug raid. Officers returned fire, killing her.
Relatives put Johnston's age at 92, but Fulton County medical examiners said she was 88.
Neighbors and relatives said the raid had to have been a mistake. They said Johnston lived alone and was so afraid of crime in her neighborhood west of downtown Atlanta that she wouldn't let neighbors who delivered groceries for her come into her home.
Atlanta police reviews 'no-knock' policy

In an affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, narcotics officers said an informant had purchased two bags of crack cocaine from a man identified only as "Sam" in the home earlier that day.
Pennington said he called in federal prosecutors and the FBI after internal affairs investigators questioned the informant during the weekend.
"After we brought the informant in and interviewed that informant, he told us that he had no knowledge of going into that house to purchase drugs," he said. "That's what he told us. I don't know if he went in or not. We don't know if he's telling the truth."
In an interview with Atlanta's WAGA-TV, the informant said he had never been to Johnston's house.
"I'm telling them, I never went to the house," the informant told the station. "The police can't say I ever went to the house."
The informant then said police called him and told him "you need to cover our ass."
"It's all on you -- have to tell them about this Sam dude," the informant said police told him.
Pennington said the man was being "put away in a secure place" until the FBI could question him. The chief also promised to make "every document, every witness and piece of evidence" available to investigators.
Meanwhile, the seven narcotics officers and a sergeant were put on administrative leave with pay, and the department is reviewing its use of "no-knock" raids after the shootout, he said. The warrants are common in narcotics cases when officers fear suspects may try to dispose of drugs or evidence in the time it takes authorities to gain access to the home.
In addition to the FBI and Justice Department, the Fulton County district attorney's office and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are taking part in the probe.
Pennington made his reputation cleaning up a corrupt New Orleans, Louisiana, Police Department in the 1990s. He said the "intense speculation and suspicion" surrounding Johnston's death spurred him to call in outside agencies.
"There are many unanswered questions. I promise each and every citizen that the complete truth will be eventually known, whatever that might be," he said. "But we must all exercise patience while we examine and re-examine every single aspect of these tragic events."
A spokesman for Johnston's family, the Rev. Markel Hutchins, went to Washington to request a federal investigation Monday. Hutchins said he had received assurances that agents would conduct a "swift and thorough" investigation into the woman's death.
Hutchins said the three midlevel officials with whom he met also promised "all resources at our disposal" to help counter the fallout in the African-American community from the shooting. He said he urged Justice Department officials to press for strong federal guidance to local police departments against the use of no-knock warrants.
CNN's Terry

If this is true and there's a no knock policy, I can see why she opened fire. She may have had that gun with her for protection against the criminal element. Either way I feel sorry for the family.

__________________
"What you hear in a great jazz band is the sound of democracy. “The jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication.”
Harmony happens whenever different parts get to form a whole by means of congruity, concord, symetry, consistency, conformity, correspondence, agreement, accord, unity, consonance…….

Once again, shot 3 cops.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

well having been studying crim pro all semester long, i can say that the "knock & announce" isn't really upheld at all. that said, they *DID* knock and announce, which could therefore suggest that the question should be whether she heard them?

but i don't think that's the real issue. i THINK the real issue should be whether she was in a state of mind where she would understand what, in fact was happening, even if she *DID* hear the "knock & announce." Simply put, at 92 years old, she may not have properly comprehended what was going on.

That said, the next issue turns to -- as i think some of you have mentioned -- whether she was legally in possession of a firearm?

In any case, there is no POSSIBLE defense she could have:

Even if she were acting in self defense, the question becomes whether she used appropriate force?

Deadly force may be exercised in the defense of one's home ("your home is your castle") but ONLY if deadly force is being used, OR a RPP (reasonably prudent person) in your position believes deadly force is about to be used.

So the question is going to turn to whether a reasonable 92 yr old lady in her home would reasonably believe that she's about to be attacked with deadly force given the facts surrounding this case?

*QUESTION TO YOU BLTs (Big Time Lawyers lol) out there: is it whether a reasonable 92 year old lady would believe this? Or whether a reasonable PERSON, irrespective of age?*

__________________
MARC/CROSVS | UCLA Bruin, B.A. Econ, Aug 2004 | J.D., Thomas Jefferson School of Law, May 2008 -- MEMBER: California State Bar, December 4, 2008

2005 BMW 645 Cabrio | Black Sapphire Metallic, Ti trim | 6AT | fully loaded sans HUD

2000 Ford Mustang V6 | laser red on tan | 5-spd | track-prepped

I think the knock and announce practices must be different from state to state or even agencies. We are required to knock announce and wait 30 seconds before stuffing the door, unless there is some other circumstance that requires an immediate response. Additionally there is always a uniformed officer present at the door. It's too bad grandma was shot, but point a gun at me and I'm not going to think twice about pulling the trigger. No one likes to see sort of thing happen.