Police Storm Wrong Apartment, Resident Dies of Heart Attack

WABC News NYC ^ | May 16, 2003 | Art McFarland

[A CA Guy]

Man that drug company and Cuba rhetoric is exactly what I read over at DU when I see when I go read what the far laft is saying contrary to FR. Did you think this was DU or are you a regular poster there? Sure sounds like it.

[A CA Guy]

I didn't say an innocent dies and that's OK, talk about who is doing the Clinton, it's you.

I said it was reported that they have a success rate of 99.8% of showing up at the right place. That is 1896 out of 1900. One did end in death because she was in poor health and that is a tragedy, but is not like that department is abusive with there methods. It was horrible error.

Out of the 1896 successful busts, we can probably figure that perhaps thousands of lives might have indeed been saved because those involved with illegal drugs lost the opportunity to kill, be killed or OD!

So I do agree with you that this was a horrible thing to happen and she was by all accounts a wonderful person. I do not trivialize her death, but I do say that using her death as a weapon against what has been extremely successful and as the article points out, nearly flawless record is going too far.

It is very Clintonesque of you to over-react to something you hope works for your political agenda regarding illegal drugs.

[budwiesest]

Haha, no way. Please provide me with a better explanation. If your family business of a thousand years were to fall apart due to the introduction of an herb in the legal marketplace, would you not be inclined to rub it out? It may be cleaner to do it legislatively.

Flash-grenading grand ma seems mighty suspect to me.
(ps, bet you spend more time at DU than I. Socialists bore me, parasites piss me off.)

[A CA Guy]

They said that they had three other times where the information was wrong from their sources, but there was no death there or they would have printed that in the story as well.

You are obsessing over a very successful operation from all I read. There is no bad pattern there.
You are pointing at the one tragic accidental death involving someone who had a pre-existing condition. You are ignoring the fact that 1896 successful operations more than likely saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people related to criminal illegal drug operations that would have killed, been killed or over dosed without enforcement.

We lost one fine woman there, buy they have to have saved far more by their actions under the law.

[A CA Guy]

I'm saying out of those 1896 operations, there had to be may people who were saved from killing, being killed or overdosing.

[A CA Guy]

Like I said, we can go read what you are saying
all over the place at the DU general information forum.


BUSTED DUDE!

[A CA Guy]

More far out there propaganda. Stickers...LOL

Yeah they all have whistles and decoder rings as well. LOL

[A CA Guy]

I'm the good guy, your the one talking Cuba and stickers on windows.

[CurlyDave]

How is this an abuse case, especially when the error rate is stated as being 1/5th of 1%? That is a low error rate for any activity where humans are related.

WRONG!

Let us think of some examples. If your car broke down and needed to be towed 1/5th of 1% of the times you used it, you would stop using it.

If a family member died 1/5th of 1% of the times you stayed in a hotel, no one would patronize them.

If airplanes crashed 1/5th of 1% of the times they took off no one would fly.

she had a pre-existing condition

Like it or not, when an ordinary citizen is at fault in an accident, a pre-existing condition does not lessen liability. The same should be true for law enforcement.

[WoofDog123]

"There is no proven case of excessive police use of force in this case. "

Is there a video recording of the entry/subduement of the subject?

Rational posters on this thread can bet this was THE shock of her life, presumably with police-ownership-only select-fire weaponry aimed at her head while she was handcuffed.

Posters should also view this " a ca guy" person as an example of why you shouldn't vest too much moral and legal power in your own government. Before you know it, you will have you own local brownshirts shoving bizarre deaths down the public throat as a cost of doing business over some narcotics, which at base production cost, should be dirt cheap.

[budwiesest]

>>all over the place at the DU general information forum.

Never been there, your kind of place?

I'm a capitalist. I like to exploit and profit by my abilities when customers are in need of such service. Don't get me wrong. However, when I see a constraint of trade (ie. locking out of competition) it seems unhealthy to me. Drug and alcohol companies have the most to gain by supporting pyrotechnic shows in grandma's house than anyone else in order to supress weed.

[WoofDog123]

"a number greater that 1/20th of 1% as this department has. Only 4 out of 1900 went to the wrong address and only 1 out of 1900 ended up involving a person with a pre-existing heart condition and because of that pre-existing condition a death. "

What remedy/legal options would you recommend when a department exceeds your number? Slap on the wrist, or extra job-training, or pall-bearer duty?

[A CA Guy]

Then how would you feel about all the innocents that would have died if those other 1896 successful operations did not happen.
They had to stop many deaths by way of killings, being killed and overdoses.

Yo want to sit on one rare tragedy for politics sake and overlooks the hundreds or more lives they must have saved by upholding the law.

Your position has little merit, but that still doesn't diminish the death of this woman. She is a terrible loss.

[A CA Guy]

I'm not saying my number would even be that high, because when you add to this situation that these 1896 successful drug related busts prevented killings, being killed and overdoses, there ends up being many lives saved by their actions. That is perhaps hundreds of extra alive people because of their actions.

They need to look into how they got the wrong address and see if there could have been anything done better.

They did no used deadly force, so there was no intended crime.

[budwiesest]

Hey xbar, I think CA Guy was directing his last comment to me. It was something to do with how many have been saved by the interdiction method vs. the just let'em have it method. And how whilst saving a few, you lose one occasionally, but how that's not a bad average when you consider how many you've saved.

[A CA Guy]

News flash, that won't work because those that break the law aren't known for their self accountability and never will be.

You don't end crime by the ceasing of calling a crime a crime.

If we stop calling rape a crime tomorrow, you only encourage rapists to do more with even more aggression and violence. The numbers would rise without a price to pay, the same goes for all that surrounds illegal drug use, distribution and sales.