Police Storm Wrong Apartment, Resident Dies of Heart Attack

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

[A CA Guy]

I did not say that at all, I aid there are many alive (perhaps hundreds or more) that would be dead if not for the other 1896 that were successful and that didn't slight the loss though this nice lady.

[budwiesest]

>>Make accountability the vogue again and just maybe the brighter side of humanity will shine again

You should get extra points for answering correctly. Yet I wonder about this "brighter side of humanity" part. Suppose I should look up 'brighter' if I'm to get a clue as to the meaning. Nite....

[A CA Guy]

Long before that Christ died for our sins...your point.

[A CA Guy]

I like oreos, but from what I am hearing about the content, I shall try not to ever eat more than a few.

[ThinkDifferent]

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.

Good point. That would explain why the murder rate skyrocketed after alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933. Oh wait.

[harrowup]

Law enforcement officers are goons to you and we have been hit (according to you) on the head too many times...

Do not ever misquote me. SWAT Squads are goons whether they are with the NYPD going into Apartment 6F or the BATF storming the roof in Waco. There was reckless disregard for human life in both cases:

1. The lady in 6F paid taxes to the city for whom she worked. There is a public record of that fact. It is unlikely the "warranted felon" is similarly inclined and unless he is bedridden he is available for inquiry on the street while he is engaged illegally without a peddlers' license.
2. The BATF had any number of opportunities to apprehend Mr. Koresh while he shopped for toothpaste at the dollar store.

Have you a clue how anti-conservative and foolish you sound here.

I am not a conservative and I am not an anti-conservative.

Since when did "conservatives" become the only supporters of the Bill of Rights?

The fact is that the illegal drug person's breaking of the law is what brought enforcement there. They are the reason any officers were near the woman to make that mistake in the first place.

A cursory examination of tax records would suggest that a 57 year old female employee of the city lived in 6F. A telephone call would confirm it. A knock on the door would prove it. SWAT squads don't make mistakes. SWAT squads are a mistake.

The fact that some might try and use this as a foil for the trying to legalize addiction is amazing to me.

What is amazing is that you still don't get the difference between addiction, drug abuse and illegal distribution.

What ticks me off is that you used this disgraceful event to rail against 'addiction' and those you mistakenly charge as 'druggies' and add insult to injury by blaming the victim.

[Badray]

You are overlooking or dismissing the need for the police to be 100% certain of their information before such a dynamic entry. This is not yet officially a police state. The police have rules that they should obey and a duty to exercise care - although they do not have a duty to protect.

Rather than showing how good they are, it shows how lucky they have been and that the more this tactic is used the more chance there is that something will go wrong. Up until now no one has died in these raids. Now this woman is dead.

You are also quite dismissive of this lady's medical condition. For a professing Christian, that's a pretty lousy attitude. I would like to see how you react when ten masked, ninja dressed, JBT's come bursting thru your front door and toss a flash bang grenade into your living room.

You also keep asserting that her death is insignificant because these raids save so many lives. First show me the numbers of deaths FROM THE DRUGS USAGE and exactly how they would increase if this innocent woman was still alive. Then prove to me that there would be more users and more death if the police were not as 'proactive'. Next, prove that this WOD has decreased drug usage, increased integrity in law enforcement and judicial circles, and is worth the cost in terms of money and lost liberty

[coloradan]

One did end in death because she was in poor health

Blaming the victim is also very clintonesque. It was her fault that she was in such bad health, a healthy person wouldn't have died.

[Amelia]

It was her fault that she was in such bad health, a healthy person wouldn't have died.

While it's probably not her fault she was in such bad health (I say probably because if she weighed 400 pounds and smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day, some might regard those as contributory factors for heart disease), it is probably also true that a healthy person would not have died.

I'm not a big fan of the idea of these no-knock raids, but I also don't know if the police were just 'going for the drama' as some posters have alleged, or if they had good reasons to think this might be the best and safest way to apprehend their 'very dangerous' suspect.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[SJSAMPLE]

Again, you're missing it. The entire concept of the "War on Drugs" (of which I was once an ardent supporter) is a constant and increasing infringement on our civil rights. Wether we use drugs or not, we're all diminished by;
1. "No Knock" warrants: This is where the officers do not have to knock and accounce themselves, but where they can move in, without warning, in order to prevent the loss of evidence. This, no doubt, was used on the old lady.
2. Dynamic Entry: Used in conjunction with "No Knock", they move in, weapons drawn. This is used under the pretext that the suspects are known or thought to have dangerous weapons. Guess what? This can be used in nearly any case, as a good percentage of the US is (rightly) armed. The FBI/HRT and numerous federal, state, and local agencies have increased this type of entry significantly in the past 20 years. God forbid somebody kicks down your door and comes in screaming and pointing, and you decide to defend yourself. Anyone else and it's called a "Home Invasion."
3. Again, random stops. Now you're required to stop and answer questions,. The act of stopping you, randomly and without probable cause, is a breach of your rights. Just stopping and rolling down your window is enough to give them access to "probable cause" ("I smelled something funny, Judge."). Someday, when you hear "Papers, please.", you'll get it.
4. Since you've grown up in NY, you're no doubt used to and desensitized to your loss of rights. Just because you've lived with and accepted the loss of your 2nd Ammendment rights (among others) doesn't mean that the rest of us are. I'm used to carrying, legally, without hassle. I don't get stopped randomly as part of a sweep. I don't get smoked by overzealous, militarized police as I reach for the identification that they request. As such, I don't accept these tactics as necessary and just.

You quote a significantly high success rate, but you can only accept those figures if you accept the premise: "Success" is determined by the number of times you violate people and their rights, but you stop short of killing them. Out here in "flyover", we don't accept that as police work. That is the hallmark of a Junta.

[headsonpikes]

Okay, Guy, here's the scoop:

What is obnoxious about your posts is the apparent slavish desire to justify any and all behavior by agents of government to accomplish their ends in the WOD.

Police, like any other humans, can make errors. It could well be argued that this woman's untimely death can be laid at the feet, not of the arresting officers, but of the legislative and bureaucratic enablers of this sorry perversion of the legitimate public demand for law and order.

Citizens such as yourself, who pre-emptively defend collateral civilian damage in this neverending war, are the sort of sheeple who will go along with any excesses of the police, so long as you feel exempt. The logical end of this submissiveness is the kind of horrible regime we have all become too well acquainted with over the last century - a police state.

Don't think it can't happen here. Attitudes such as yours encourage the worst kind of authoritarians. You're really going to love the kind of policing Hillary has in mind for America.

As for my Koolaid-drinkers remark, that metaphor is based on the Jonestown mass-suicide by poisoned Koolaid.

By extension, 'drinking the Koolaid' means to swallow whole whatever set of ideas is suggested to you by those you ackowledge as superiors.

In your case, specifically, the Anslinger/Walters School of Misinformation and Deceit.

Police deserve some respect; you do not.

[jmc813]

dennisw supports the death penalty for drug dealers, but not for drunk drivers. What do you think, Chemist Geek?

[Mark was here]

There isn't a jury on the planet that will buy THAT spin. And there WILL be a jury, unless the city is smart enough to settle out of court.

The taxpayers should not have to pay one cent.

The Judge who signed the warrant and the keystone kops who participated should pay. If their pockets are not deep enough empty their pension funds.

If you can prove the taxpayers did something wrong, go ahead and sue them.

[Mark was here]

There was no intent to harm that woman I am sure.

Drunk drivers have no intent to harm either...

[TLBSHOW]

here is one that can't be fired...there are LOTS more POT SMOKING COPS But you know that.

Court rules Washington Co. can't fire pot-smoking deputy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/913421/posts?page=

[Amelia]

Don't try to draw me back into your little tangent.

[TLBSHOW]

I'll just post em as they come in to back up the fact that there are lots of pot smoking cops, lawyers, teachers and judges.