nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atlanta cops shoot innocent 92 year old woman dead

seamus

First a student gets tazered for being a little rebellious, then a 92 year old woman gets gunned down for legitimately trying to defend her home. American cops gun happy? Nah...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman.shot.ap/index.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Houston Griffin

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Just read another version of this story. Atlanta has some of the highest crime rates in the USA. Many old folks live in fear. The police who smashed down her door were not in uniforms but in street clothes. She many not have heard the earlier warnings (loud telly or poor hearing at 92?). She could have thought they were coming to assault her, or rob her, or whatever (which is not all that uncommon in Atlanta), and pulled a gun to defend herself?

The police are still being tight lipped about this matter, so I don't have any new information about this incident that isn't already on this post. The local sentiment is not so much directed at the cops directly involved in this raid, but at the policy regarding searches. Although the police claim the cops who stormed the house were wearing flak jackets that said "POLICE" on them, most people here don't feel that was enough. The old woman probably thought it was thugs invading her house. I tend to agree; I think a police raid should look like a police raid, with uniformed cops and whirling police lights. Also, I wonder, if the cops bought drugs off of a guy in house the day before, why didn't they arrest him then?

Manic Moran

Houston Griffin wrote:

Also, I wonder, if the cops bought drugs off of a guy in house the day before, why didn't they arrest him then?

If they did, they wouldn't be able to enter the house to search it. Fourth Ammendment, and all that. Technically they could have arrested him, then gone to the judge for a warrant, but in the intervening time, if he had an accomplice, he, and any drugs, would have scarpered from the house.

She was innocent until she shot a cop 3 times, then she was fair game.

I beg to differ. She thought she was merely defending herself as per her right. I don't blame the cops either, it just appears to have been a tragic set of circumstances brought about by her relative.

NTM

Houston Griffin

Manic Moran wrote:

If they did, they wouldn't be able to enter the house to search it. Fourth Ammendment, and all that. Technically they could have arrested him, then gone to the judge for a warrant, but in the intervening time, if he had an accomplice, he, and any drugs, would have scarpered from the house.
NTM

That answers that obvious question of mine. I should know these finer points, but I had a friend who spent a stint in prison for selling LSD to an undercover cop (without a raid; I don't the exact details, but he was a repeat offender), so I figuered it was fairly easy to get arrested and go to jail just by selling drugs to an undercover agent. Just out of curiosity, are you involved with law enforement in the US?

Manic Moran

Not unless the National Guard tells me to. Could go to jail without the house search, but for a shorter stint as there would be less evidence.

NTM

Houston Griffin

I suppose it makes more sense from the police point of view to get the search warrant and bust the guy for a large amount (maybe get a long federal sentence), rather than go for a lesser possession charge.

Thrill

I posted this on another thread but i guess this is the proper place for it.

Another case of trigger happy cops, this time in New York last night.

One guy has at least 11 bullets in him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184948.stm

thrill wrote:

One guy has at least 11 bullets in him.

And hes still alive!

Dyr

thrill wrote:

Another case of trigger happy cops, this time in New York last night.

Of course you have something to back that up. Unless you're trying to beat Al sharptons world record for conclusion jumping.

Thrill

Bambi wrote:

Of course you have something to back that up. Unless you're trying to beat Al sharptons world record for conclusion jumping.

http://www.hiphopmusic.com/archives/000909.html

In his boldest move yet to establish himself as a crusader against violent hip-hop, today Rev. Al Sharpton announced he is constructing a 500-foot robot, programmed to stamp out all traces of negativity in the music.

I could never reach those dizzying heights.:)

The cops shot up the car without a gun being seen, just the presumption that one might be used after a row in a club.

thrill wrote:

The cops shot up the car without a gun being seen, just the presumption that one might be used after a row in a club.

Aye, and it seems they weren't even trying to stop the car, more just kill those inside.

If theres any conclusion jumping being done, its the American police deciding people are armed when they've no evidence to support such a claim, and then using unreasonable force to bring these people to "justice".

Dyr

thrill wrote:

http://www.hiphopmusic.com/archives/000909.html

I could never reach those dizzying heights.:)

The cops shot up the car without a gun being seen, just the presumption that one might be used after a row in a club.

You hit (or try to hit ) a cop with a car in the states then the car is deemed a weapon and they'll start a-shooting. No need for them to see weapon when you're driving one.

senordingdong

I don't think anyone was in the wrong here.
She was right to defend her home, the cops were right to defend themselves.

Manic Moran

Bambi wrote:

You hit (or try to hit ) a cop with a car in the states then the car is deemed a weapon and they'll start a-shooting. No need for them to see weapon when you're driving one.

Correct. Injuring a cop with a car is categorised as assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon. You'll note three of the cops were injured as a result of vehicle collision. The news reports I'm reading indicated that this wasn't a traffic accident.

NTM

Manic Moran wrote:

Correct. Injuring a cop with a car is categorised as assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon. You'll note three of the cops were injured as a result of vehicle collision. The news reports I'm reading indicated that this wasn't a traffic accident.

NTM

So hitting a cop (an un-uniformed cop at that) in the shin (OH GOD NO!!!) whilst driving off justifies them riddling your car with bullets?

Only in America...

Manic Moran

rb_ie wrote:

So hitting a cop (an un-uniformed cop at that) in the shin (OH GOD NO!!!) whilst driving off justifies them riddling your car with bullets?

Only in America...

Seems to have been a little more complicated than that. I submit that ramming a vehicle, reversing away, and then ramming it a second time is a little unusual.

From the New York Times.

Shortly after 3 a.m., Commissioner Kelly said, the undercover officer inside overheard a club dancer complain about a patron who appeared to be armed, and she went out to alert her supervisor and the backup team of possible trouble. About 4 a.m., as Mr. Bell and some of his friends left, a fight erupted outside. It was unclear who was involved, but it ended and those involved split into two groups.

Four men were then observed getting into Mr. Bell’s Nissan Altima, which drove a half block east on 94th Avenue and turned south into Liverpool Street. There it plowed into the unmarked police minivan on the driver’s side, apparently just missing a head-on collision. Witnesses said the car suddenly went into reverse, backing up onto a sidewalk where the undercover officer was positioned, then pulled forward and rammed the minivan a second time. That’s when the police opened fire, Mr. Kelly said.

NTM

MarkR

If that's the case it turns it immediately into assault with a deadly weapon. Wonder was the unmarked car running it's sirens / lights or where they still undercover?

joebhoy1916

Wasn't there some guy on the news saying the car hardly touched the cops but it was a cop car or something that crashed into them.

Manic Moran

MarkR wrote:

If that's the case it turns it immediately into assault with a deadly weapon. Wonder was the unmarked car running it's sirens / lights or where they still undercover?

No indication that they were running lights. But look at it from the cop's point of view:

"Officer requests backup, suspected armed males. Just got into a Maxima"
Then a minute or two later, that same Maxima hits your car. Reverses away, towards Officer Jane, and then hits your car again.

You're likely to think (a) somehow your cover is blown, and you've been ID'd as cops, or (b) Something has happened and they're desperate to leave the area, everyone else be damned. Almost nobody hits you twice by accident, and having it be the same vehicle you have been called in on as an armed disturbance is just too much for coincidence.

NTM