Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Atlanta Shooting: Based on a lie?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Monday, November 27, 2006

Well, this is a fine kettle of fish. Remember the 92 year-old woman shot last week by Atlanta PD detectives (all three of whom she winged, as well)?

The confidential informant upon whose statements and undercover buy the no-knock search warrant was based, has told the APD IA unit that not only did he not provide such a statement, but that he was told by police to lie about it, and say he did.
The confidential informant on whose word Atlanta police raided the house of an 88-year-old woman is now saying he never purchased drugs from her house and was told by police to lie and say he did.

Chief Richard Pennington, in a press conference Monday evening, said his department learned two days ago that the informant—who has been used reliably in the past by the narcotics unit—denied providing information to officers about a drug deal at 933 Neal Street in northwest Atlanta.

"The informant said he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs," Pennington said. "We don't know if he's telling the truth."

The search warrant used by Atlanta police to raid the house says that a confidential informant had bought crack cocaine at the residence, using $50 in city funds, several hours before the raid.

In the document, officers said that the informant told them the house had surveillance cameras that the suspected drug dealer, called "Sam," monitored.

Pennington on Monday evening said the informant told the Internal Affairs Unit that he did not tell officers that the house had surveillance equipment, and that he was asked to lie...

Smith's affidavit was sufficient to persuade Fulton County Magistrate Kimberly Warden to sign a warrant allowing the officers to enter the house without knocking on the door. Smith asked for the special "no knock" authorization because of the possibility that officers would be injured or evidence would be destroyed. Warden signed the warrant shortly before 6 p.m., about an hour before the shooting.

However, the informant has since denied to police and a local television station that he purchased the drugs. He also said there was no person named Sam.

The informant, who said he worked with Atlanta police for four years, also told WAGA-TV that he hadn't been to 933 Neal Street. His identity hidden, he told the TV station that one of the drug officers called him soon after the shooting with instructions.

Quoting the police officers, the informant told Fox 5 News: " 'This is what you need to do. You need to cover our (rear). ... It's all on you man. ... You need to tell them about this Sam dude.' "

Pennington said investigators were trying to determine the truth. "I don't know if he went in or not," he said.
Both the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the FBI have begun investigating the incident, along with APD's IA unit.

If what the CI says is true, then the scenario that goes through my mind is that the detectives mistakenly thought they had a line on a bad guy, obtained a warrant perjuriously, then told the CI to back them up about the statements on which the warrant was based. Now that the raid went horribly wrong, the CI is distancing himself from it as fast as possible.

Either that, or the CI fed the APD detectives a line of bull, and now that the raid went horribly wrong, the CI is distancing himself from it as fast as possible.

Either way, the CI apparently wants nothing to do with it.

Again, this is the type of thing we can regularly expect to happen when no-knock warrants are served. Someone, either the CI or the cops he's working with, are going to get overzealous, or make a mistake and go the wrong house. A law-abiding citizen will be woken up from a sound sleep in the wee hours of the morning by the sound of men breaking into his home. Being a law-abiding citizen, frightened, sleepy, and disoriented, said citizen will grab a firearm and begin shooting out of fear for his life. The police will promptly kill said citizen.

Certainly there are situations when the police, dealing with a violent, dangerous suspect, will need to obtain a no-knock warrant. But to routinely issue no-knock warrants in non-violent drug cases ensures that an innocent citizen and the police will be involved in a fatal confrontation. It will happen as surely as the night follows the day.

As is stands now, tiny little hamlets that haven't had a violent crime for years have paramilitary SWAT units, whose primary employment is warrant service.

This is an outrageous abuse of authority, and it simply has to stop. Whatever utility such warrants may have in preventing drug dealers from flushing evidence away, it can't possibly outweigh the life of an innocent citizen who is killed for no other reason than defending herself when armed men burst into her home unexpectedly in the middle of the night.

That seems to me to be so obvious as to be beyond debate.

UPDATE: The search warrant and affidavits supporting it have been released by APD. The affidavits contain the information that the CI is now denying ever took place.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If there were a shred of justice in this country, this deal would now run to murder charges.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Absolutely. If this woman’s death resulted from a perjurious statement, murder charges would seem to me to be the proper indictments.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Richard Pennington is the former Chief of Police of New Orleans. His legacy there was nothing but corruption and wastage. Why on earth did Atlanta expect any better from him?

I’m with Billy and Dale. This warrants a murder investigation of whomever ordered the raid.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
If what the CI says is true, and it is proved that the cop signed false affidavits in order to get the search warrant, Atlanta could be in for quite the ride. Every convict in jail now because of a search warrant based on a Jason R. Smith affidavit will seek to get the evidence in his case dismissed and his conviction overturned. Most won’t succeed, but the circus to follow will cause the court system a heck of a lot of grief.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
No-knock warrants need to have a higher standard applied to them. Much higher.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
How do you know when a cop is lying?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
His lips are moving.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The very same standard would apply to every single social-worker, for all the same reasons.

Sit down and be quiet.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
By the way, the proper police term for this is "testilying".
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Great column. I think murder charges are a bit extreme a punishment for the cops, while they genuinely thought they had a drug dealer and were, it seems, fired upon first with a gun, but what’s best and most important is that people understand the how easy it is to manipulate the system frominside of it. The intra-instutional observations in this piece with the CI and APD mark a perfect example.

The media - big and little alike - play a critical role in keeping that system as honest as it is. However much cops get punished here, the system itself will (first) recognize this event as a black eye for itself and (second), hopefully, strive to make changes. That is what counts.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
When we were in Iraq, a raid against specific target is not allowed unless there are three seperate and corroborated sources. One single informant is a very low standard.
 
Written By: Minh-Duc
URL: http://
That strikes me as a very important and noteworthy fact, Minh.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Here is Atlanta there is much outrage over this.

The blogs have been burning up with debate.

However, the now former apologists for police action (on the blogs) have fallen silent.

Their typical excuse was "she should have known what her target was before firing." Well hell, she did; very large men busting her door down, her worse fear. She just did not know who cut their paychecks..

When cops dress like bad guys and bad guys dress like cops, something must change.

It was suggested on one blog that these units have helmet cam’s with audio/video recorders (heavy duty motorcycle helmet cams and recorder weigh about 1#). Have your cam off or the film lost and the entire is fired, no excuses.

There is also talk of a "Kathryn’s Law" that restricts to the most violent of cases the issuance of no-knock warrants.

I believe that everyone in the chain is has Kathryn Johnston’s blood on her hands.

And yes, she had a name.

This incident will probably pull me out of activist/lobby retirement, grrrrr.....
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://
I think murder charges are a bit extreme a punishment for the cops...
If this had been a legally, and properly obtained warrant, I’d agree with you. If it turns out that the warrant is based on perjurious testimony by the detectives, then murder charges are perfectly reasonable. In that case, the warrant was illegally obtained, the detectives knew it to be illegal, and they used it to force an unlawful confrontation that ended in the death of an innocent citizen.

The illegal obtaining of a warrant is a felony. Breaking into someone’s home with an illegally obtained warrant is a felony. In the course of committing that felony, an innocent citizen was killed. That makes the charge felony murder. It’s no different that blowing away a convenience store clerk during an armed robbery. If you kill a person during the course of a felony, it becomes a felony murder case.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Besides taking away police immunity, if you really want to clean this stuff up, here’s a novel idea. If the raid turns out to be against an innocent person, the person has legal immunity from prosecution for any shots fired in self-defense. As I have noted before, the police cannot claim "fog of war" on their end, when they’re the ones doing the investigating and raiding, and then expect most people on the receiving end to know what is going on.
 
Written By: MikeT
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com
Whatever utility such warrants may have in preventing drug dealers from flushing evidence away, it can’t possibly outweigh the life of an innocent citizen who is killed for no other reason than defending herself when armed men burst into her home unexpectedly in the middle of the night.
Hyperbole alert...the same line of reasoning can be used to justify pretty much ANYTHING, after all NOTHING can outweigh the life of an innocent person...guns...Free Speech...automobiles...

Who said:
The issue isn’t whether or not the police should have returned fire. Of course they should have. They didn’t know who was doing the shooting. They believed they were entering a house where drugs were being sold. On the other hand, Kathryn Johnson did the right thing also. Scared to death living in that high-crime neighborhood. She had heard of a recent rape of an elderly woman nearby. She was simply defending herself when she was killed.
A boot-licking Fascist wannabe OR a libertarian....

Just a little to try to calm the "frothing" going on here. I might also point out that whilst what’s being said is nice propaganda it’s NOT the basis for effective public policy.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Hyperbole alert...the same line of reasoning can be used to justify pretty much ANYTHING, after all NOTHING can outweigh the life of an innocent person...guns...Free Speech...automobiles...
Uh, actually, it doesn’t. Not even close. We are talking about the police taking direct action to invade a citizen’s home. That element simply doesn’t exist in the other cases you mention.

When armed policemen are breaking into a private home, killing innocent citizens, then preventing that is a more important consideration that preservation of evidence of a non-violent crime. There is a qualitative difference between forcing people to wear seat belts in order to prevent them from dying in car accidents, and trying to prevent police officers from shooting people in the head. If I’m forced to wear a seatbelt, well, that’s inconvenient. If I’m shot in the face with a .357 by a police officer...that’s a bit more serious.

If you can’t even grasp something as fundamental as the qualitative difference between the two scenarios, then you really have nothing useful to add to this discussion.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Uh Dale, you’re wrong... The "One Innocent Life" routine is used to justify opposition to many things, just as I pointed out.
If you can’t even grasp something as fundamental as the qualitative difference between the two scenarios, then you really have nothing useful to add to this discussion
No Dale you’re thinking with yur hind brain, not your frontal lobes. IF it would save one innocent life shouldn’t we outlaw 5 gallon cat litter pails, children drown in them. And that’s the "logic" you used, no qualifiers. You can dismiss yuor opposition if you care to, but it doesn’t enhance the strength of your argument. Would you care to be more specific in your cost-benefit analysis?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Great column. I think murder charges are a bit extreme a punishment for the cops, while they genuinely thought they had a drug dealer and were, it seems, fired upon first with a gun, but what’s best and most important is that people understand the how easy it is to manipulate the system from inside of it.
They had no reason to think they had a drug dealer in the house. In fact, they very likely made up the reason to think there was a drug dealer in the house.
The intra-instutional observations in this piece with the CI and APD mark a perfect example.
And the fact it can be manipulated so easily is why it’s tasks should be relegated to only the most obviously neccessary ones. The "drug war" is both unconstitutional and not, to judge by history, neccessary or even possible to conclude or pursue with any justifying success of any sort.
The media - big and little alike - play a critical role in keeping that system as honest as it is.
And sometimes the CI will play along and the media will not be the wiser. It is inevitable this will sometimes happen, so the police must only be given the most important of jobs. The war on drugs does not qualify.
However much cops get punished here, the system itself will (first) recognize this event as a black eye for itself and (second), hopefully, strive to make changes.
The system will attempt to preserve for itself every perk and privelege it associates with the use of SWAT style tactics in as many situations as possible. The desirablility of acquiring resources and authority without accountability is an attribute of any beauracracy.
That is what counts.
Government gets to kill people. That it should be limited to doing what is required by an overwhelming majority is what counts.

In fact, that is what the constitution demands, we just haven’t paid much attention to that for a long time.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
The "One Innocent Life" routine is used to justify opposition to many things, just as I pointed out.
*sigh*

You are operating under the misconception that I am making the argument that if it saves one life it should be stopped. That is not the argument I am making. That argument is not even related to the argument I am making.

My argument is grounded in the traditional, constitutional view of limited police powers. The exercise of police powers belongs in a special class by itself, because the exercise of those powers always imply the power to imprison or kill the citizen, and are therefore so ripe for abuse, and so easily subverted into tryanny, that they must be serverly circumscribed. This is why the Bill of Rights hedges the exercise of police powers with limits to unreasonable searches, protection against self-incrimination, etc. As it has been traditionally phrased, "it is better that a hundred guilty persons go free than one innocent person be unjustly convicted." If that traditional view is true, then it follows similarly that it is better for 100 suspects to destroy evidence, than to allow the police to kill an innocent citizen.

The greater danger to liberty is the overzealous exercise of police powers, not the disposal of evidence by non-violent offenders.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Ahhh, a more qualified statement...at last. So when are "No Knocks" acceptable or alternatively, what mix of of positive and negative benefits need to be added to the pay-out matrix to ensure a more proper use of No Knocks?

Still, you haven’t demonstrated that No Knocks ARE a problem. My 2nd point talking about "propaganda." Using your logic we need to abolish the Army and the Marine Corps, BECAUSE members of the Army and Marine Corps committed murder and rape in Iraq. Or that we need to come home from Iraq, because of the actions of members of those groups. That ignores the PERCENTAGE of good actions v. the number of bad actions. So let’s examine the use of No Knocks in their entirety, not simply in the case(s) where they have gone poorly. We simply can’t use the Atlanta situation as "evidence" it’s not; the singular of data is not "anecdote."

So at this point I am agnostic on their value or evil...and that’s really the best anyone can do at the level of "evidence" produced here, so far. Again, a discussion of the costs and benefits are necessary before we can make a judgement. I am hesitant to say ANYTHING is uniformly evil OR good, or Good or Bad Public Policy, every tool has a use. When is the No Knock acceptable and what does a department need to do to get to that acceptable use?

In this case, IF the police have committed wrong-doing I think a civil penalty, as well as criminal penalty is a good idea, IF... it might teach the APD to oversee the use of No Knocks, or formulate better rules for their use.

DALE RESPONDS: Look, Ms. Johnson was, I believe, the 42nd innocent citizen killed by the police in no-knock raids. Radley Balko has been covering this extensively.

You appear to be entirely unaware of the problem, and are interested only in trying to score cheap debating points. That’s your usual MO, however. You have become the right-wing MK-Ultra.

Congratulations, troll.

I’m done with you.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Still, you haven’t demonstrated that No Knocks ARE a problem.
Joe: You want proof this is not an isolated incident?

Would you belive Cato?


Here is your god damn proof
.

Now shut up, sit down and LEARN something.

(I learned that last part from McQ, heh heh)
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://
Dale;

I understand your argument, but I think it mis-focused.

The fact is that the laws of surrounding no knock warrants assume that the process as laid out has been followed. Demonstrably, that wasn’t been the case here; The warrant was obtained under false pretext. I call that, corruption. I also call that, in this case, directly responsible for the woman’s death.

There are many, some of which have popped up in this comment chain, who will use this incident to argue against drug policy, or who will use it to argue against no knock warrants, but I suggest that neither argument is valid until the more basic issue is dealt with:

The problem here, is not the no-knock warrant, nor the drug policies of this country; it is that the laws and procedures surrounding that type of warrant, were clearly not followed. Think; Can you say that were those procedures followed, that this woman’s house would even have been entered?

I mean, argue against the drug policy if you like... argue against no-knock warrants, too, if you like. But you cannot say a no-knock warrant, or a drug policy is flawed, on the basis of this case, since the laws and procedures which enforce those drug laws and which allow for no-knock warrants, simply were not followed.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Troll eh...? OK, 42 people died out of how many warrants served, Dale? Just a question? And this rate compares to the death rate for other than No Knocks? You can be doe all you want...You might still advance some EVIDENCE. In a population of 300 million Americans, is 42 deaths in an unspecified time period excessive or not? Please explain and differentiate between that rate and some other death rate that IS acceptable, but higher... e.g., drownings in public pools, per capita or drownings per public pool per actual user. And the map, it’s good, it covers the era, at least 1991, to present, right? So, you’re saying 42 dead people over 15 years is bad, very bad policy, then? Because more kids probably died from 5 gallon pails in that same time frame, and using your logic surely now we can abolish the 5 gallon pail?

What you don’t like is that I’m not running off at Da Man like a good libertarian OUGHT to...I’m just asking some questions. Which you seem reluctant to answer, like are No Knocks UNIFORMLY bad? What can be done to make them more acceptable? In short I am asking you how you want public policy changed and why...so far I get an angry response that is "Shut UP! This is WRONG." And if you want to focus on AN incident, I will say "fine." But from now on, any time you or Tom or any others try to advance a cause and IF I can find ONE instance where bad things happen as a result of that policy, I’m going to invoke the Dale Rule. One or two or 42 bad incidents sink a policy, no matter how many GOOD incidents there may be associated with a policy...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, are you saying that death at the hand of a police officer is the same as death by accidental drowning? One is an act of aggression by another human, the other is not. One is suspiciously like murder, the other is not. And I believe Dale cleared up your strawman about his logic that justifies eliminating the 5-gallon pail.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Unknown are you saying it’s DIFFERENT, how so, from a public policy viewpoint? You measure intent, I measure outcome...And no, saying 42 people have died at the hands of the police is NOT knocking down a strawman. It IS beginning the debate. Now a time-frame and a comparison of No Knock v. other than No Knocks is in order. IF, assuming-with no evidence- let us say that 1 person dies for every 1,000 No Knocks dies, v. 1 person for every 750 Other than No Knocks, shall we then conclude that ALL warrant service is too dangerous? Without some standard by which to judge we can not say if No Knocks are better, WORSE or no different from other forms of warrant service.

Right now the focus on this 88 y.o. woman is no different than the focus on Abu Ghraib. Yes it’s bad, but is it indicative of anything? And no, so far the evidence does NOT suggest, imply or PROVE otherwise.

It MIGHT, someday... I am merely asking that we find out, not that we base policy on what happened to one person, otherwise we just begin the "duel of anecdotes." What about this old lady, well I’ll match one old lady with a story about the police surprising a well-armed gang of drug dealers.... in and of themselves NEITHER story is the basis for public policy, they are just that stories. They may ILLUSTRATE a point, but they do not PROVE a point.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
How so from a public policy point of view? Doesn’t this depend on one’s opinion on what public policy should accomplish? I don’t think that public policy should aim to prevent all deaths that are not caused by human aggression. We should rely on the common sense and prudence of individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones (even when they do not - that’s an acceptable cost of freedom). I do think, however, that public policy - the law - should do everything possible to protect innocent individuals from acts of aggression - especially those perpetrated by agents of the state itself! THAT is how it’s different. Outcome is a false idol.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
And since it doesn’t appear to be clear - claiming that Dale is arguing death by drowning in a 5-gallon pail is the same as wrongful death at the hand of a police officer (because of the outcome) is your strawman. He’s not. Don’t be silly.

Finally, you wrote:
In this case, IF the police have committed wrong-doing I think a civil penalty, as well as criminal penalty is a good idea, IF... it might teach the APD to oversee the use of No Knocks, or formulate better rules for their use.
I read this as: If the punishment doesn’t lead to reform, why punish the guilty? You can’t possibly mean that.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Unknown at the end of the day, we need a baseline for these "Common sense" and "Prudence". Please begin to describe them...It ain’t trolling when someone asks, "As compared to WHAT?" Right now, we’ve got 42 deaths, over at least 15 years, and a nation of 300 million folks. Is this good or bad, and is it good or bad compared to what? Also as Thomas Sowell, I believe, that in public policy we have trade-offs. How much evil are you willing to tolerate, v. the amount of good generated by a given use of a given No Knock policy? Right now, it seems that we are focused on one data point and the implication is that No Knocks are INHERENTLY wrong or bad public policy. And I simply say that this has not been demonstrated.

And so I present the 5 gallon pail example... IF 42 deaths are intolerable, and IF more than 42 children have died in pails, what is the difference? The children are just as dead, as the people in the No Knocks...How do we distinguish between bad outcomes? And what level is INTOLERABLE and how do we define "intolerable?"-Dead innocents, dead innocents at the ahnds of police? Dead innocents at the hands of the police, v. the number of folks killed by drug dealers?

Saying that this little old lady PROVES something is no more or less silly than the people who appeared on Oprah, claiming that silicone breast implants had caused them harm. It makes good Press but does it provide a sound basis for policy?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I read this as: If the punishment doesn’t lead to reform, why punish the guilty? You can’t possibly mean that.

I didn’t I meant IF things are proven...and right now that’s an "IF"...IF they aren’t proven to have broken the law, i.e., the CI is LYING now, then I’m not so sure.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I don’t see anyone here arguing soley based on the NUMBER OF DEATHS as justification for the rightness or wrongness - it’s the method and the responsibility for them that matters. It’s your strawman to think anyone is arguing based on the numbers.

If, however, you see no difference between X number of innocent people dead from drowning and X number of innocent people dead from being shot by police; if you don’t think the manner of the death and the responsiblity for it matter, I don’t know what else to say other than you’re seriously confused. If you do see the difference, you’re failing to communicate it.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I don’t see anyone here arguing soley based on the NUMBER OF DEATHS as justification for the rightness or wrongness - it’s the method and the responsibility for them that matters. It’s your strawman to think anyone is arguing based on the numbers.
You’re RIGHT Unknown until I pressed NO TALKED ABOUT NUMBERS, at all. It’s all been about, how "Intolerable" this is! This is the SECOND posting about the issue, and until now no one has bothered to even discuss how many folks have been killed by No Knocks!

And yes numbers matter...IF more folks are killed per service in NONE No Knocks, do we also cancel THEM? If No Knocks REDUCE Police Fatlities, do we continue them or not.

Here’s the core of the problem, from Dale’s original posting:
After having spent half of my adult life as a sworn law enforcement officer, I find I am becoming more anti-police every day.


It’s about being Anti-Police, not being interested in the problem of service of warrants. Radley Balko studies POLICE BRUTALITIES AND MISCONDUCT. Note, he isn’t studying the Police, but Police Misconduct. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but if all you study is MISCONDUCT, you really can’t suggest remedies, can you? After all how big a problem is it, what ever "it" is. Which makes it difficult to judge the alternatives on the basis of their merits.


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 last year, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond.

Botched raids are relatively rare, but since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1129/p03s03-ussc.html

So 75,000 to 1,250,000 No Knocks....42 dead. Ok now we have numbers. Average 53,000 per year.
1.68 deaths, ON AVERAGE per year. 3.1698113207547169811320754716981e-5 deaths per service of warrant or one civilian death per warrant served 31547.619047619047619047619047619. Simple average on warrants served over 25 years.

So Dale, Tom, Unknown let’s talk about public policy. Of course, Dale you’re through with "trolling" but if you happen to see this you might want to comment. Just on the off case that you might be interested in some comparative numbers for which we now have some access.


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
BTW, in the same period ~1,300 persons died in Hot Pursuits. Sadly I can’t get my browser to open the PDF file, so all I can do is access an abstact but from a Police Policy viewpoint I’d say that Hot Pursuit is a topic meriting MORE discussion than No Knock Warrants. Again that’s just me...It’s not the same as accusing the police of murder or a desire to get in and get the drugs for personal use or resale, but it’s just me. Me the troll, you know the one with access to Google and the desire to begin to look for some numbers, rather than just talk about the injustice involved.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider