Source: Only One Officer Was Shot

WSB-TV ^ | November 29, 2006 | WSB

[FreedomCalls]

Channel 2 Action News has learned major new details today in the controversial police shooting that left an elderly woman dead.

A source close to the officers involved now tells Channel 2 only one of the officers was hit directly with a bullet – the two others were hit with shrapnel. The source also says all the officers involved are in the process of getting lawyers. ...

But a source familiar with the injuries of two officers, including the one that Channel 2 spoke with yesterday, say the wounds were caused by bullet fragments.

[FreedomCalls]

Welcome to the ever-changing story.

[JLS]

I have not seen any of the follow up stories from the first day. Is this the first revision of the story or have they been extending and revising before this?

[mutley]

"The source also says all the officers involved are in the process of getting lawyers. ..."

I'll bet! They know they are in deep doo-doo.

[Kirkwood]

"I have not seen any of the follow up stories from the first day. Is this the first revision of the story or have they been extending and revising before this?"

The other major revisions were that the police said they announced before entering before admitting that it was a no-knock entry and that the drug informant now says the police told him coverup the bad address.

[Publius6961]

Actually, the cops shot themselves...

I'm just sayin'...

[JLS]

The other major revisions were that the police said they announced before entering before admitting that it was a no-knock entry and that the drug informant now says the police told him coverup the bad address.

This does not surprise me at all. Of course, the fault does not necessarily lie with these particular officers, but with the stupidity of so called "drug war" and whomever collected the information to justify the warrant.

[JLS]

I'll bet! They know they are in deep doo-doo.

They probably are not in so deep unless they personally got the warrant. If they were just a special unit that serves "dangerous" warrant and did not expect a 92 year old woman there, the fault lies elsewhere.

[mutley]

"They probably are not in so deep unless they personally got the warrant. If they were just a special unit that serves "dangerous" warrant and did not expect a 92 year old woman there, the fault lies elsewhere."

They are in trouble no matter what. This is the poster child for Jack Booted Thugs Kill Granny.

[JLS]

They are in trouble no matter what. This is the poster child for Jack Booted Thugs Kill Granny.

I completely agree with your second sentence. They may be smart to be getting attorneys, if they had anything to do with the warrant or it looks like they may be scapegoated by the city.

But if they only had the job of serving dangerous warrants, she fired at them first and they followed the rules, they should have no worries. Again it is a big if, but if there part was only to serve what they were told was a dangerous warrant, we should demand the end to the "no knock" warrants not the scalp of the guys unlucky enough to be given an address for a 92 year old women but told it was a dangerous drug address. The issue in the so called "drug war" is not actions of individual cops, it is what the rules are now.

[mutley]

"she fired at them first and they followed the rules, they should have no worries."

If I believed that, I'd agree with you. No one is available to give an account of what happened, besides the cops. I have no automatic faith in what they said happened, and I suspect something went terribly wrong in this raid.

Of course, I could be wrong, but the story is suspicious and seems to be changing.

[Rb ver. 2.0]

Maybe Granny stopped making her payments.....

[JLS]

but the story is suspicious and seems to be changing.

I agree completely. I suspect official wrong doing. I just suspect that the guys who actually went on the raid were not the ones to get the warrant and I know they did not set the policy to allow "no knock" serving of warrants.