digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Officer aquitted in shooting death of woman holding baby

toledoblade.com — It was a controversial shooting as it was determined that the woman was on her knees holding her 1 year old son and complying with SWAT's orders. It was a no-knock drug raid in the middle of the night.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • buffalowolf, on 08/05/2008, -25/+103Thats a bunch of crap
    • tykwondingo, on 08/06/2008, -10/+27Thanks -pseudojd

      They should get mass emails from the from everyone disgusted by this - amirite?

      Emails:
      mayor@cityhall.lima.oh.us,
      lpd@limapolice.com,
      sally.clemans@cityhall.lima.oh.us,
      jmnixon@wcoil.com,
      rmagnus@wcoil.com,
      smclean@allstate.com,
      ttebben@woh.rr.com,
      mpitts@woh.rr.com,
      ptownsend62@hotmail.com,
      dsadams@wcoil.com

      A woman's dead cause of this guy and it's all because of the (neverending) 'war on drugs', that we've been losing since it began. Prohibition does not work. It's time for legalization, let's let these people know.
      • seanmx, on 08/06/2008, -30/+4Yeah, so we should just let drug abuse occur.
      • nomadxx7, on 08/06/2008, -1/+21I think I read somewhere once that the average rate of abuse has not changed over the years. There will be the same number of addicts today if it were legal and if it were illegal. There is just a certain demographic/genetic make-up that is pre-disposed to doing drugs or being adrenaline seekers. I figure that what you do behind closed doors shouldn't be society's problem. Now if you decide to harm others on your late night runs that a DUI would be standard procedure to stop people from driving under the influence of ANY drug
      • expert01, on 08/06/2008, -16/+2Amen, brother. Free drug abuse for everyone!
      • Arramol, on 08/06/2008, -0/+26"Yeah, so we should just let drug abuse occur. "
        Logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Ending the War on Drugs, with its high cost in both lives and money, does not amount to "just letting drug abuse occur." The War on Drugs is accomplishing nothing in the fight against drug abuse. Don't believe me? Visit any high school. They all have their druggies. Education and responsible parenting are about as good of weapons as we have. A good method of stopping ALL drug abuse does not exist, but it's entirely possible to fight drug abuse without busting down people's doors and risking innocent lives. These are much the same reasons why we (rightly) gave up Prohibition. The parallels between drugs and alcohol are important to take note of when making these types of policy decisions.
      • Brandoskey, on 08/06/2008, -9/+2so don't punish an officer who was doing what he was trained to do, get out there and vote and stop trying to punish every officer who follows his training. hell did you even read the article? everyone else said he waited TOO long to fire.
      • misguidedmonkey, on 08/06/2008, -11/+0***** Digg and ***** Kevin Rose for creating this cesspool of liberal garbage.
        The SWAT member was in a dark room and heard gun shots. It could have either been his life or someone else's life that has no ***** reason to exist. I would have shot her lame ass too. Hopefully the kid will be put in a different environment and not become a ***** loser like his/her dead druggy whore mom.
        Also, please digg me up so everyone can read my message.

        Love,
        Bubbles
      • nomadxx7, on 08/06/2008, -0/+5@Brandoskey

        Yes they said that he waited to long to fire. So if a newspaper said it, IT MUST BE TRUE. Tell ya what, when they develop time travel you should go back to the timeframe when H.G.Well's War of the Worlds was played on the radio and scared the ***** out of everyone because EVERYONE believed the radio and believed we were being invaded.

        An unarmed woman is dead. Our police follow company policy of "Shoot first, ask questions later, deal with the consequences as they arise." I don't care if it was training. She's dead. I don't feel that the guy was completely wrong but THE MAJOR ISSUE is this. A no-knock warrant for one and also in Hunter Safety Training they tell you not to take a shot until you know the surroundings and what you're shooting at. This officer did not. He saw a shadowy figure, heard a gun shot and fired at this "ghost" which turned out to be a unarmed woman kneeling
      • Nevarius, on 08/06/2008, -1/+6(misguidedmonkey) It's called 'situational awareness'. You clear each section of a building making sure you CORRECTLY target aggressors, Not innocents. Thou its understandable to a degree if someone is scared *****, and they get a bit trigger happy, BUT you make sure the person in question is trained well enough to handle such ***** before unleashing them on the public. Plus its very noticeable if your getting shot at since you can hear additional sounds as the bullets travel (whistles) through the air + hit objects. Just because other officers are playing a lopsided game of bullet tag with a couple of dogs downstairs, no officer in the building should go into trigger-happy mode, they need to rely on training instead so incidents such as this don't occur.

        Sounds like its most likely poor training or a person that shouldn't be on a swat team in the first place.
      • IglooBurner, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3@Nevarius
        You sound like you've been in this kinda situation many times.
      • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -0/+7Constitutionally we can not make it illegal to abuse drugs this has already passed the supreme court. This is why its NOT illegal to abuse drugs but illegal to POSSES THEM (cop out)

        The problem people fail to see here is that they (the cops) themselves CREATE the conditions under which they are "forced" to shoot innocents with there no knock warrants.

        The no knock warrant IS the primary problem here.

        They should be (and in reality ARE) illegal and unconstitutional. people need to DEFY no knock warrants. Openly and Aggressively.

        We need to aggressively eliminate no knock warrants.

        Anyone who opposses this is a moron because your in essence saying that an innocent persons LIFE is more valuable than some "evidence" that might get flushed by a 2bit criminal.

        Story after story of people "defending" themselves against intruders and being SHOT.

        There answer? Do not defend yourself? its constitutionally guaranteed the right to defend one self!

        If someone breaks into my house I WILL SHOOT THEM FIRST AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHO THEY ARE. PERIOD.

        I am not going to go excuse me are you a police officer as the insane criminal slices my throat or puts a bullet in my head.
      • tykwondingo, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2At the few people who left sarcastic "OH YEAH GUISE JUST LET ADDICTS DO DRUGZZZ":

        Addicts will treat themselves regardless of whether drugs are legal or not and it should NOT be illegal for them to do so. You need a head check if you think otherwise.
      • expert01, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0For everyone that buried me, I was actually being serious. Let's let everyone do their own drugs.

        Except for opposite-sex hormones. If you're popping Estrogen, and you're a guy...
    • geniuslocimusic, on 08/06/2008, -1/+28With all due respect, I live only a few blocks from where this event occurred and if there is blame to be had, it perhaps lies in the decision to raid a house where 5 kids live, on a Friday night, at around 7pm, with machine guns at the ready. The police made 5 drug buys from the suspect, NONE of which were from the residence in which the raid took place. This officer was a 30-year veteran who served this crime-ridden city very well and he made a tragic mistake, but it was NOT his choice to be there. This raid was poorly planned. I would align this situation to the plight of a soldier who doesn't ask to be in combat, but does so to the best of their ability. Casualties are inevitable, but my attitude is that those who planned this raid should have done the minimum by realizing that a house with toys on the porch probably has kids inside.
      • tykwondingo, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2We shouldn't be in the war on drugs either. It was sold to us under false pretenses. It's a trend we've been running with for awhile now.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1geniuslocimusic,
        you have a very good point but if that was the case drug dealers would always have kids in thier house so they do not get raided. it sucks that she was killed but no matter how unjust a person may feel about it, what was she doing there?
        Please dont say "she lives there so thats why" I dont care. If you live in a house where Illegal drugs are sold or the dealer lives you are taking a risk. if you are there at the house and a raid happens running away or hiding (which she did) she is putting herself at risk.
        If a cop bangs on the door or just blasts though you stop and dont move. Do not allow a cop a chance to do anything bad. you can say cops suck all you want but they take a huge risk every day and they do not need this lack of understanding.
        you may not like what police do but until you walk a mile in thier life what right do you have to criticize it?
        Do a ride along with a cop. If you do you have to sign a waver that they are not responsible if you get hurt. can the same be said of any other job?
      • Paulish, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1Hey signed on for the job. He continued to do the job. These cops get a rush from the energy of the moment and the power they have.
    • IglooBurner, on 08/06/2008, -3/+4What options does the officer have?
      • tykwondingo, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1He could do a little research into the "war on drugs" and realize just how futile and wrong it is? The more people that speak up about it and the less mindless ***** we have in law-enforcement the faster we'll move towards a reasonable change.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2tykwondingo,
        so during a raid the cop should stop and say "is this worth it?" If he does it and is shot and killed will you bad mouth the dealer that shot him?
        The war on drugs is many things but this is a instance of a cop shooting a woman who was in a house during a raid. The article says she was running and hiding and he heard gun shots. he did what he felt he had to do.

        you speak of a reasonable change but are you even willing to try to understand what a cop has to deal with everyday or would you rather just blindly cast them all as killers without reason?
      • gwolf, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1The officer was just following his training sounds a lot like " I was just following orders" to me.
    • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -0/+5DO NOT EXECUTE NO KNOCK WARRANTS !!!

      HOW HARD AN OPTION IS THAT !!!

      Eliminate no knock warrants and almost all of these "shootings" go away.
  • HCviolence, on 08/05/2008, -34/+165A democracy where both the makers of the law and its enforcers are not themselves obligated to abide by the law is not a democracy.
    • belumaves, on 08/06/2008, -6/+34did you miss that he was acquitted by a jury?
      • Speed, on 08/06/2008, -13/+13A jury is made up of 12 people too stupid to avoid jury duty. It's really not a good system.
      • somedirtbag, on 08/06/2008, -2/+11"I'm just glad to be part of the American judicimal system...
        Judaical... Naw, that ain't right...

        The jewidecimal system..."
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -1/+6hey speed,
        I was happy to be called to jury duty as at least i try to do my part and look at the case i had and make a good choice. Have you? Have you tried to understand this system or would you rather bitch about it with out coming up with something better?
        If its not a good system then tell us your idea. do you have one? do you have anything worthwhile to add? No you dont.
      • Speed, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0catfish, since I'm studying law, I'm legally ineligible for jury duty. Do you call that a good system? Anyone who has studied law isn't eligible for jury duty, nor are half the occupations that require advanced education. Do you really see nothing wrong with that?

        somedirtbag: well done, getting the reference.
      • somedirtbag, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1"I was so glad to be picked for jury duty. It's like watching Court TV, except, I'm in the TV! Just like that boy from Willie Wonka."

        I do what I can. What a great flick. =)
    • Myonosken, on 08/06/2008, -5/+6Whilst I agree with the sentiment that its ***** ***** and a sign of a bad system, something like that would not stop a system being a democracy. Just a corrupt one.

      Like Italy.
    • Pittance, on 08/06/2008, -3/+18This article sucks. I have no idea how he fired, or what he saw, or what the situation is. Therefore none of us can make much of a judgment. But if he shot into the dark without seeing anything but a shadow, then its pretty horrible. There could have been a hostage or anything like that. ***** prosecution.
    • ptsuk, on 08/06/2008, -13/+7Read the ***** article:

      He told the jury that as he climbed the staircase of the house with another SWAT team member directly behind him, he saw a shadowy figure duck in and out of a doorway at the end of the dark hallway at the same time he heard gunfire.

      Sergeant Chavalia said he was "absolutely, positively" certain he was being fired at, and he returned fire even though he could not see the person he was shooting at.

      As it turned out, two SWAT officers downstairs had shot two pit-bull dogs let loose on officers by Wilson’s boyfriend, Anthony Terry, the target of the raid.

      So a)It was a ***** no-knock drug raid. This means they don't knock on your door and ask you to open up, they bust the door in and yell "down on the floor" so that would be the order she is complying with which is thinly veild in the title dick. The title makes it sound like she was being ordered by an officer in full light and that same officer open fired.
      b) The officer heard shots, thought he was being fired upon and returned fire. The circumstances just turned out it was officers down stairs shooting two attack dogs released on them by the boyfriend (oooo nice guy hun, but then again likely a drug dealer so *****'em)

      Look this woman knew the situation she was in and remained in the location with her drug dealer boyfriend.

      If she was so concerned with her baby's welfare and/or her own she would have a)moved out or b) kicked his ass out.

      Just like in movie clerks the "plumbers" who died on the 2nd deathstar that were blown up knew well in advance there was the risks of working for the "empire" ;)
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/06/2008, -3/+14Nice...blame the unarmed woman who was protecting her child for getting shot and killed by ***** officers during a no-knock raid in the middle of the night.

        On top of this, there seems to be a real problem between the police and the residence in that area.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/30lima.html?_ ...
      • dagnome1984, on 08/06/2008, -3/+10Sure blame the victim you statist piece of *****.
      • MaynardJK, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3I hope you are hit by crossfire in a drug raid someday when you are walking down the street. It will teach you a lesson for hanging out near drug dealers.
      • spongya77, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3You are an utter moron. The simple fact, that the SWAT team is unable to coordinate, that some of them are actually shooting makes it a very shaky ground for the defense. If they are utterly incompetent, then they should hang for their actions.
        As IceT used to say: ***** the police.
        I came from a country that was under a Communist dictatorship until '90, but man, I never hated uniform that much since I came to the US. Land of the free my ass.
      • ptsuk, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3Are you people daft? WTF. the swat team uncoordinated? Would you like them to indicate to their entire team each and everytime before they pull the trigger?

        "Ok guys i'm gonna shoot, is that ok with everyone?". Jesus you have no idea what kind of danger these guys are placed in.

        So i think the "moron" blame game is clearly winning and won in your court spongya77.

        MaynardJk funny don't seem to hang out/around any drug dealers or people who use, so I think i'm rather safe. However you might want to know that between the hours of 3pm-8pm on a friday is when the most traffic accidents happen so avoiding driving then will increase your chances of not being in a car accident greatly! ;)

        Look if you are in a situation that you know to be wrong/bad you do one thing and one thing only , GET OUT. You don't wait around until it "gets better" or "oh he'll only deal until he's got enough money" because it won't ever be enough.

        If you want to move forward in life you move out. Sadly this girl didn't learn that fact.
      • Icyfenix, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2I support that position, however unpopular. It is a situation that is tragic, yes. Avoidable? Yes- however the fault lies with the mother and not the officer. It was the SITUATION that was dangerous, not the actions of the officer.
        These men are trained to protect their own lives and the lives of their team at all cost. They are trained usually in battlefield situations and they assume upon going in(remember, this was no beat cop- this was SWAT) that everyone in the area is an armed and dangerous enemy. Anyone who cared about their own life, or the innocent life of their child would have left that situation and gotten help.
        Unfortunately drugs mess with your higher brain functions and concepts such as "the future" and "your progeny" are too difficult to grasp. I'm assuming here, but it was probably chemical dependence that kept her there, and doomed her child.
        The real enemy here? Greed. Humans using each other for sex or money or drugs or whatever momentary thrill they want without concern to the lives of others.
      • ptsuk, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1spongya77spongya77 "***** the police" was by NWA, Ice-T had "Cop Killer" might want to look up the social aspects if you're going to quote rappers.

        also you know you could always leave if you don't like living here or the rules we've established.
    • mike17032, on 08/06/2008, -8/+4Aquitted, by a jury.

      I guess that kinda shoots your OMG ITZ DA Police State!!!!11111oneone ***** down doesnt it? But feel free to keep ignoring facts that get in the way of your propaganda.

      I guess the moral of the story is dont live with ***** drug dealers.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/06/2008, -3/+5Just one question: What colour of skin did the jury have? I'm guessing none of them were black...
      • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3NO the moral of the story is No Knock Warrants are bad

        The moral of the story is officers should not be allowed to fire unless they have POSITIVE CONFIRMATION of a hostile target. EVEN IF THIS MEANS THEY RISK DYING THEMSELVES !! Thats part of the job.

        Officers "chose" to put there lives at risk performing this job function. This lady did not have that choice.
      • rayfiend, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1The moral of the story is that my country has degraded to the point that its citizenry is composed of too goddamn many of you. By that, I mean freaking idiots determined to destroy it. The jury probably held a little crew of Bush/Chaney supporters. aka "good little fascists". .
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3nerys,
        go and find a family of a police officer that was killed in action and tell them that.
        Do you have the balls to say that? Thier job is to enforce the law and stay alive. it is not thier job to die.

        That woman did have a choice. She knew he was a drug dealer and she stayed. When the police came she should have stayed on the ground with her kid and not moved. She was running. For all you know she could have been going for a gun.
        Everyone wants to blame the police but they forget the house was a drug house. they forget the dealer did let his dogs loose on the cops. you people clam to have intelligence but you cant see the other side of things.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0@catfish182

        "go and find a family of a police officer that was killed in action and tell them that. Do you have the balls to say that?"

        I would, because it *is* their job to give up their lives in a choice between an officer and an innocent bystander protecting her child. "To Serve And Protect"...remember that saying. That doesn't mean "To Serve And Protect Themselves".

        And sometimes people don't have the luxury of choosing where to live. If she was living with a drug dealer, chances are that she was already living in a hopeless situation with no where else to turn. And with a child to take care of, you do whatever the hell you have to for that child.

        I can see the other side...a guy in another part of the house, *behind* the ***** officer in the basement, let dogs loose on a bunch of people who just broke into his house because he probably thought it was someone coming to rob him. The cops shot the dogs, which freaked out everyone in the basement, she went running because she was scared, and he shot because he was scared. But the point of all this is that the cops shouldn't have been there in the first place. If they had done their ***** jobs, they would have done the surveillence and known there was a child in the house. If they had done their ***** jobs, they would have nailed the guy outside of the house. If they had done their ***** jobs, none of this would have happened. But a no-knock warrent in the middle of the night is easier to do instead...
    • ersnyder, on 08/06/2008, -3/+5For future reference: The United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.
      • spongya77, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2For future reference read the ***** definition, you idiot.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republ ...
        Constitutional republic is a FORM OF DEMOCRACY.

        Illiterate *****.
      • ersnyder, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3Haha...

        Wow, that sure got you fired up didn't it, you really should put that internet ego of yours in check. I said nothing offensive, yet you attack me with malice backed by anonymity of the internet. Thumbs up to you sir.

        Way to cite a source known for inaccuracies, Wikipedia is hardy the definition to anything. Though, it still didn't disprove my previous statement, it is still a Republic, whether is has Constitutional or not in front of it.

        More so to the point, I would appreciate you pointing out where the word 'Democracy' appears in that article as you would believe it to imply as a definition. Thanks.
    • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4As a correction the United States is SUPPOSED to be a republic. It certainly is not anymore.
    • BESTenemy, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2 Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The majority gets the rights, the minority gets privileges granted by the majority. The member of the majority gets to live off the exploitation of those that possess no rights under the system. Democracy by design is set up to exploit the weak element in order to sustain itself, constantly splitting in halves with the greater half consuming the lesser one until the society collapses over loose and predatory fiscal policy.

      Democracy, at best, is the system where the slaves get to pick their master. It's a flawed system inferior to Republic that protects the individual regardless of his association with other individuals.
  • sturmgiest, on 08/05/2008, -26/+140Im probably going to get dugg down for this, but this really sounds like a tragic accident. In such a high tension situation, officers have to shoot because their lives may be in danger. But I don't support no-knock raids. Police should always have to identify themselves. Many people are accidently shot, both police and not in no-knock raids, if you think someone is breaking in your home you have to fight back. It would be great if no-knock raids always occurred at the right address where the dangerous suspect was located, but they don't and when they are at the wrong place, innocent people often get killed thinking its a home invasion.
    • ordig, on 08/05/2008, -13/+55So why don't they ***** knock? It would significantly decrease the likelyhood that someone will get shot.
      • btgoss, on 08/05/2008, -37/+27Well I think knocking would actually raise the odds that the cops would get shot.

        This woman's boyfriend let his dogs attack the cops downstairs, which had to be shot. He caused this tragic accident.

        Don't sell drugs from your girlfriends house. Don't let your dogs loose on the cops. Don't make a situation where the police have to raid your house. That is the ultimate answer here, not have the police knock. Don't give them a reason to raid and this woman is still alive.

        It is a shame that the community will not focus on that, but will instead focus on the race of the cop involved. The priorities are all wrong.
      • wishninja, on 08/05/2008, -8/+33If it wasn't that they would have another excuse. It doesn't matter the police never make mistakes is what you are saying. Break the law you deserve to get shot up is what you and the public opinion is. Pretty ***** up i say.

        yea don't make the cops have to shoot you because they failed to do a good investigation. Maybe getting the guys weed should not have taken priority over the safety of the children and the people living there.
      • GRTWHT, on 08/06/2008, -2/+18Ever stop to think that maybe that's why they don't knock?

        With a lot of the cops I've known, I can easily believe that they prefer a 'guns blazing' situation to one that's calmly resolved without any 'action'.
      • macdady843, on 08/06/2008, -4/+4@ Wishninja

        There was no mention of what the drugs were in this house unless I missed it. You are assuming that they were looking for weed. I find it hard to believe the SWAT team would execute a no-knock warrant for marijuana. How do you know it wasn't the more dangerous cocaine/extasy/heroin?? If it were the latter I would say its partly her fault for associating herself with shady people.
      • akruble, on 08/06/2008, -5/+6You're seriously asking why they don't knock before a drug raid?

        *knock knock* "It's the police! Open up!"
        "Just a minute!"
        ... *flush* ...
        "Okay come in officers!"
      • NCg8r, on 08/06/2008, -3/+5They prefer weed to REAL drugs. Who wants to go after a real drug-dealing criminal?!? I mean... those guys have guns! We just wanted to auction off your house (and all of the contents) so we could buy new 4-wheelers with the Dept logo on them...
      • seldon452, on 08/06/2008, -7/+3Uh, not only would it give the criminals a chance to dispose of any illigal substances but it will give them time to "lock and load" so to speak.
      • twiztidsinz, on 08/06/2008, -1/+9"Uh, not only would it give the criminals a chance to"
        What happened to Innocent until proven guilty?
      • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -0/+6"You're seriously asking why they don't knock before a drug raid?

        *knock knock* "It's the police! Open up!"
        "Just a minute!"
        ... *flush* ...
        "Okay come in officers!""

        Let me get this straight. You consider that insignificant flushed evidence to be of MORE VALUE than the countless INNOCENT LIVES taken in these no knock warrants?

        What about when they NO KNOCK on the wrong damned house and the owner PROPERLY attempts to defend themselves and gets SHOT for his or her efforts?

        I guess its there fault too ehh?

        No knock warrants are illegal immoral unconstitutional and bad for this country.
      • Icyfenix, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2@twiztidsinz
        Gotta have a pretty serious warrant for a no-knock raid. Evidence that had BETTER ***** put these people away for a long time or the DA or the assistant DA will never get anything from that judge again.
      • Icyfenix, on 08/06/2008, -4/+1@Nerys
        So black and white.
        "No knock warrants are illegal immoral unconstitutional and bad for this country."

        How bout we judge on a case-by-case basis? using some sort of impartial judge to assign who does and doesn't get these things?
        Hmm...
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2Nerys,
        so how is the law to be enforced? do not say all drugs should be legal as they currently are not. how does the police enforce drugs laws then? You may not like it but if a drug dealer pushes then police need to push back. if they dont then its all for nothing.
      • griffinjam, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Yeah, you guys are right, it's much better that this woman has been killed rather than some drugs got flushed. I mean, killing innocent people is nothing compared to getting a drug conviction that will put someone away for a few years, totally worth it.

        I'm against no-knock raids because of the cowboy justice it implies. If you have weapons in your house and some people come busting in in the middle of the night, you're probably going to be using them, and you're probably going to get killed. At that point it doesn't matter if you were guilty or innocent, you got a death penalty, and (like in this case) your friends, family, and/or loved ones got one too.

        How is the law to be enforced? Do drug dealers only have drugs at the house? Supposedly they sell them, so at some point they have to bring them into the house, and at some point they leave. I would assume that it's hard to flush drugs when you're busted outside the house.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1who said she was innocent?
        and you did not answer the question. all you did was blab on and on. you are generalizing a thought over a drug house. Can you not understand that police will raid the drug house as the dealer will have most of his drugs there and that makes thier case easier.

        ". If you have weapons in your house and some people come busting in in the middle of the night, you're probably going to be using them, and you're probably going to get killed. At that point it doesn't matter if you were guilty or innocent"

        you forgot the words DRUG HOUSE.
        if you do not like the law fight to change it but it is the law right now. They were breaking the rules and the police thought there was a need to go there.

        and also for the record i do think the cop should be punished for shooting a unarmed person but the facts are she ran during a drug raid and the cop made a choice. Not a good one but he made it as he wants to go home every day and if you actually had a shred of decency you would at least respect the job cops have to do and want to see the bad ones be punished but instead you want to point and scream with little regard to the whole story. You see one point and thats it and everyone is wrong unless they agree with you.
      • twiztidsinz, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2"who said she was innocent?"
        Innocent till proven guilty you child molester.

        You say you're not a child molester? Too bad.
        You're a child molester because I said so.
        No trial needed.
      • griffinjam, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Most possession with intent to sell laws have fairly low limits on how much a person has to have to prove they area dealer. Beyond that everything else is gravy. If you bust him with 1 pound of meth or 10 pounds, he'll be charged and sentenced the same. Your greater quantity make for a better case argument just doesn't hold up. I would even think that catching someone in the act of selling would make for a better case than just catching them with drugs.

        "if you do not like the saw fight to change it" [sic]

        Well, the law innocent until proven guilty, and it sounds like you think any person accused or suspected of committing a crime should be punished as if they had committed it. Not only that, but it seems like you're pretty cool with someone around them being punished as well, even if they aren't even suspected of criminal activity. I would give your own advice back to you, but I there are already countries more in line with your views of how the government should treat it's people, may I suggest China?
      • catfish182, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1ok first off twiztidsinz- ***** you. you do not have the ability to talk about this with any intelligence as you want to jump to name calling. So sit down and shut your ignorant mouth.

        Griffinjam- the law is innocent until proven guilty. I just said who said she was innocent? Did i say she was guilty? Nope. I just said who said she was innocent. if the police are going into a house and they have the proper warrant then there is a reason they are going in. If someone is in the house of a drug dealer and they are truely innocent then she should have stopped and not moved when the police came in. Dont give me that crap of people breaking in. They yelled police. She ran.
        Also you should know- I do beleive that the cop should be punished for shooting a unarmed person. I understand the situation but there has to be a better way.
        The part that pisses me off is people taking the side of a woman with out all the info or not caring one bit about what police have to deal with.

        So instead of jumping to conclusions and thinking that you know all how about at least trying to understand the things police have to deal with including cops that break the rules and ignorance like yours.
      • griffinjam, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1Wow, I can tell that you don't have kids.

        Someone comes bursting into a house at night, and you want a young mother to just get down and totally forget about her kid, who was probably in his room. Also, the officer said she was ducking in and out of a room, the way you said it it sounds like she was running for it. More like he saw her run into her kids room, grab the kid, then not know what the hell to do, because as much as you seem to think that yelling "Police" when you burst into a house at night tells everyone just what to do, guess what, it doesn't.

        Also, "Did i say she was guilty? Nope. I just said who said she was innocent." is penis tasting dickery at its finest. The statement "who said she was innocent" implies that you are questioning her innocence. Don't make yourself look like more of an idiot with this "Did I say she was guilty?" *****.
      • catfish182, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0wow your smart, You must be correct that i dont have kids, since you are so smart.
        Have you ever seen swat go into a house? You stop. Its that simple. You may not feel its right but its a fact of life you cant admit. you want to think she was running for her kids but you, along with me, dont know all the facts so once again you want to plug in what you think belongs.
        That is not the truth. you are assuming she was thinking of her kid (and she may have been) but when police come in you stop. its that simple. Anything else will invite trouble.

        The article that is posted does not say if she was a part of the investigation or not. The new york times article said she was not a person of interest for the police. I do not think a person should be labeled guilty or innocent until the system determines that. You can be innocent until proven guilty but i am not a cop so i do not label ether way. Once again you input in that she was innocent as the thought of what happened bother you but you still refuse to think clearly and try to look at both sides.
    • yohnstoppable, on 08/06/2008, -1/+39I agree the main issue here is the stupid no knock raids. I mean, she wouldn't have been in the wrong had she actually shot at them, because for all she knew they were breaking in to rob/harm her and her family.

      These raids put both the cops and the civilians at risk. The civilians have to protect themselves, and what are the cops supposed to do if someone does shoot at them? What an idiotic situation to put people in over drugs. ***** this stupid war on drugs.
      • PopcornDave, on 08/06/2008, -0/+3"I mean, she wouldn't have been in the wrong had she actually shot at them, because for all she knew they were breaking in to rob/harm her and her family."

        You would think so, but since there were allegedly drugs involved, she would have been named an accomplice and charged with assault on an officer I'm sure.
    • rrife, on 08/06/2008, -2/+15Yeah if somebody breaks down my front door w/ knocking, I'm shooting first, then I'll ask questions. Well actually I may ask "WTF?", then I'll shoot.
      • spongya77, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4...and then you are executed for shooting a police officer. Although you had no way of knowing that the said officer stormed your house by accident, and it wasn't a gangbanger high on ecstasy, keen on raping you, your wife, your dog, and your houseplans. THEY can shoot first, in YOUR OWN house. YOU can't.
        Because this is how this wonderful free country works.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1they can not shoot unless they feel their life's are in danger. The cop in question heard the shots and felt he was in danger. He was wrong in his choice and it sucks but cops do not shoot unless they feel they are in danger. How many times must that be said to you?>
    • JinnRikki, on 08/06/2008, -1/+30It's a damn drug bust against small time dealers. Is it really necessary to go in like your storming the beaches at Normandy? Can't these raids be handled so there is less chance of this happening? Do some home work officers so you know the perp has dogs and don't get surprised. These cops mishandled this raid and should be held accountable.
      Another child will grow up resenting cops and white people, great.
      • macdady843, on 08/06/2008, -12/+5Yea, and maybe someday the black community will realize that selling drugs isn't the way to better yourself in society and stop criticizing the white community for their shortfalls/failures.

        That would be like me robbing a bank or killing someone and then saying the system is biased just because I got caught.

        Last time I checked drugs were illegal and they have been for a long enough time for people to know that they shouldn't mess with that *****.
      • NCg8r, on 08/06/2008, -3/+9"Last time I checked, drugs were illegal."

        That makes Lady Liberty cry... Would you say that it was morally correct for women to be denied the vote prior to that law changing??? What about owning people as slaves? Was that all good before they ratified the Amendment??? Think.
      • hmunkey, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2I understand that, but if you're a drug dealer you know full-well what you're getting into. People might not think it should be illegal, but it is, and drug dealers are armed so raids happen.
      • spongya77, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2That would be looked as being "soft on crime" by the voters. Any sensible approach is doomed. You have to satisfy your electorate by real-world action, black camos and submachine guns. Also, the uber-macho, inbred morons, who choose these professions need a chance to shoot people legally.
      • macdady843, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1@ NCg8r

        Your argument makes little to no sense. Basically you're saying since drugs were once legal in the U.S. that people shouldn't be punished since they're now illegal? Its not like drugs were just made illegal yesterday. They may have been legal for a good part of U.S. history but they've been illegal long enough for people to know better.
      • griffinjam, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1That's all well and good, but they didn't shoot the drug dealer.

        Even IF dealing drugs warranted being shot without trial by police that storm your house without warning, this girl was not a drug dealer.
    • eekthekat, on 08/06/2008, -16/+11Did any of you idiots RTFA, they were there to go after her boyfriend who released two pit bulls on them. They clearly had the right address. The issue here is if the officer should have shot the woman. Given the testimony, I would have too.

      I wonder how many people that comment on this stuff actually have any experience at all when it comes to enforcing law or being in situations where you are shooting or being shot. Until you lived in the same moment STFU.
      • Sharkky, on 08/06/2008, -5/+19You know what dude? ***** you. The shadow was NOT identifiable as it was in the dark. Does that give an officer the right to start blindly opening fire in that vicinity? No. That's lack of experience you stupid *****. Identify the threat and then make the decision. She was only 24 years old and a mother and now she's dead. She was found guilty of a crime and punished by death by the hand of a police officer. Not a jury of her peers. And why? Because a bunch of ***** maniacs barged into her home in the middle of the night and started opening fire. And for what? Some ***** drugs? Until you start appreciating our rights to defend our homes and protect our families, STFU.
      • HonestAbe, on 08/06/2008, -8/+8"Given the testimony, I would have too."

        ***** you.
      • macdady843, on 08/06/2008, -7/+4Funny how you got dugg down.

        I'm sure everyone who dugg you down would glady stand in front of a criminals bullet with no thought of defending their own life that they put on the line everyday to protect civilians.
      • Sharkky, on 08/06/2008, -2/+8Who's testimony? His or hers? What was her side of the story? I guess we'll never know. So we'll just stick with the testimony of a cop who fires into blackness and is protecting himself from (this next part is a WHOLE new debate) a misdermeanor for negligent murder. I'm not favoring drugs, I'm not favoring criminals. People are DYING. Does that have no meaning in people's lives anymore? Does it not make anyone sad and learn to appreciate life more to hear/see about someone who's dead because of something so stupid? The cop should be punished, but the real fault lies in this home invasion crap. If you've got enough evidence to barge into someones home in the middle of the night with guns pulled, then there's no reason why they can't surround the house and arrest them peacefully. There's enough killing in this world.
      • ersnyder, on 08/06/2008, -5/+2I believe everyone upset at your comment are viewing this situation in "hindsight" with an emphasis on "woman holding a child" rather than actually putting themselves in the situation. Being in unfamiliar surroundings, in a home of someone willing to go to extremes to not be arrested, getting the hounds released on you, and gun fire around you... it's down to survival.

        That woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It sucks, it really does... but from the testimony - this guy did what he needed to do for his job and his own life. Her boyfriend deserves a lot of the heat from this for putting his family/friends in such dire circumstances.
      • Debofett, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2Ersnyder, I agree with you there. "That woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time." She should have also known who she was dating and what the risks are. They are several key points in this topic; no-knock raids, defending your home, defending your life and enforcing the law.
        NO-KNOCK RAIDS: ***** retarded, if your gonna bust into someone's home with guns, you better be prepared for the consequences, like guard dogs or the home owner opening fire on you. IMO, knock tell them that your entering their facility, what their guilty of and to come quietly. If they open fire, then its no holds bars.
        DEFENDING YOUR HOME: If anyone busts into your home you have the right to open fire on them, if they have entered into your home uninvited. If someone busted into my house and it was me or them, I would not hesitate to kill them.
        DEFENDING YOUR LIFE: The officer was also in the right for opening fire, he thought his life was in immediate danger. No one should be held guilty for defending their life.
      • MaynardJK, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3I don't give a ***** what it is like when you are in a situation like that. How ***** hard would it be to stake out the house and grab the guy when he goes out to check his mail or something.

        Any cop shot during a no knock warrant has it coming. They are no different than any other intruder.
      • ersnyder, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Any innocent bystander that stays with their child in a high risk environment runs the risk of being injured or killed. Now, in case she some how didn't know she was in a potentially hostile situation; the boyfriend shouldn't have been running an illegal business from the same place he keeps his family.

        Not blaming the boyfriend for this is basically deeming him innocent which is far from correct..
      • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1"DEFENDING YOUR LIFE: The officer was also in the right for opening fire, he thought his life was in immediate danger. No one should be held guilty for defending their life."

        This is where we disagree. The officer was not defending his life in the same way YOU or I would be. He CHOSE this profession. HE executed or helped in the execution of a no knock warrant where he KNEW in advance what the possible outcomes were going to be. HE KNEW he would have a team to back him HE KNEW he had a gun to shoot with HE KNEW he had a vest to protect him with.

        HE WENT IN EYES OPEN and behaved as if he was teleported unknown into a hostile situation as a civilian and just had to deal with it. This is not the case.

        THE WOMEN had no clue. SHE had no idea. SHE Was the one DOING the right thing. SHE GOT ON HER ***** KNEES WITH HER CHILD IN ARMS

        HOW DO YOU GET INTO A MORE PASSIVE AND DEFENSELESS POSITION SHORT OF SHOOTING YOURSELF TO SAVE THE OFFICER THE TROUBLE.

        The officers KNOWINGLY put there lives at risk. IT IS THERE JOB TO BE SURE WHO THEY ARE GOING TO KILL !!!!

        SO if I see a shadow in an ally hear some gun fire and MOW DOWN a women on her knees with child. Whats going to happen to me? I can assure you "acquittal" will not be a word you will hear.
      • Debofett, on 08/06/2008, -1/+0I am coming from a civilian POV. Yes if they are trained to act calmly in a hostile situation and be able to access what is going on, and they do MOW down an innoceant girl, yes should be held somewhat accountable...I do give you that one Nerys...imo 20 years of constant getting his nuts kicked in, would do just for shooting the kid.
    • coyote1284, on 08/06/2008, -3/+6But if no one had guns, then they couldn't shoot at the cops breaking down the door, then the cops would have no reason to shoot them. Right? Right? Isn't the answer to overturn the Second Amendment?
      /tag for the sarcastically impaired
    • jeffiek, on 08/06/2008, -8/+23"officers have to shoot because their lives may be in danger"

      Have to????? May??? He's upstairs, his own partners fire guns at DOGS downstairs. Just how little provocation do you think is acceptable? Would you still consider it acceptable if there were two people shot at? How about three? What IS your limit on senselessly killed people?

      In my world brave people refrain from violence as much as possible, even at the risk of death. COWARDS fire blindly at shadows because they're afraid.

      And you apologize for them. You make me sick. You and the 24 others that dugg you up. Enjoy your popularity. Every day the bar against police violence is lowered. I only hope you realize what is happening before it's too late.

      Whatever happened to PROTECT THE INNOCENT?
      • eggsovereasy, on 08/06/2008, -6/+4Yeah... he didn't know who fired at what where. I hate cops too, but it's easy to see how he might have believed himself to be in danger because there were gunshots and someone moving in the shadows like they were going to set up an ambush.

        Of course if the cops had announced themselves and knocked, then she would have known it was just the cops and probably wouldn't be hiding in the shadows.
      • Flambo, on 08/06/2008, -4/+5The points you make are correct. The association of those facts with this article is wrong.

        "In my world brave people refrain from violence as much as possible, even at the risk of death."
        According to the article, it was testified that this is exactly what the officer did. Furthermore, that testimony of his hesitation was the thing that got him off the hook.

        "And you apologize for them. You make me sick."
        You apologize for a man who, realizing his guilt, sics dogs on armed police officers. A man who would trade the lives of two animals for a few more seconds of freedom. Would escalate to violence at the risk of his wife and child, for a few seconds of freedom.

        However, this does bring the spotlight back to the issue of illegal drugs. Is it really worth all the time, money, and lives, just to keep stupid people from overdosing on chemicals? If this were legalized, taxed, and regulated, the only people who paid for these drugs would be the users themselves. Not the families, communities and taxpayers who're paying for it today.
      • PopcornDave, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Don't they have lights on those guns? Are they really going in to a dark area and shooting at shadows? Do they train the police on Nintendo 8 bit systems nowadays?
      • Icyfenix, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2*****.
        Have you EVER been in danger of losing your life? EVER?
        I'd be willing to bet my OWN life that if you were given a gun and told people might shoot at you and then dropped in the middle of a ***** battlefield(SWAT..not a beat cop. These ARE battlefields) you'd shoot at shadows too, and you don't even have the calmness and training of a SWAT officer.

        All the officer heard was gunshots. He didn't know it was dogs, he didn't know it was his partners, he didn't know it was downstairs(guns are ***** LOUD)
        It would be just as acceptable if 20 people died. The officer is in the middle of a WAR created by our government against people who are profiting tax-free(which is all they care about really...i don't know why they don't just tax it) and he doesn't have any say where he goes or who is on the other side of his weapon.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1jeffiek,
        you are making me sick, your ignorance makes me wonder if you understand the world that police deal with day to day. during the raid when tensions are high he hears gunshots and sees something running away. He made a choice. It was not a good one but it was made.
        protect the innocent but how about you go into a house during a drug raid? see what a dealer will do to stay out of jail. Its ok though as its just a cop.
        I personally think the cop was wrong and something should happen to him but the situation was bad and the woman did nothing to help herself.
    • scheckler, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2Accident? His sworn testimony was that he was unable to identify his target. So, WTF WAS HE SHOOTING FOR? An accident would be identifying somebody shooting at you, shooting back, and the bullet missing and hitting the woman behind him.
      • Icyfenix, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2He HONESTLY believed someone WAS shooting at him.
        God I wish you ***** knew what it was like to try to identify where a gunshot came from when it's closer than 500 yards.
    • nydwarf, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1It seems like the cops have more lax rules of engagement than the Army does.
    • TriTech, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1I can see the necessity of no-knock raids where lives are at stake, but we are just talking drugs here. They aren't trying to save a life. Why not wait until they are in a better position to arrest the guy outside the home, then execute the warrant? They just like to put on a show, I guess, prove they are as bad ass as the perps.

      Same thing with the hairstyle. Do you see these guys with normal hair? No, they all have to go for the look the see in the movies and the military types. It is a style that is intended to make them look different than the average citizen.

      One thing they don't mention is if they actually found any drugs during the raid. And shooting the dogs? Why didn't they announce that over their radios that they, the police, were doing the shooting, not the target of the raid.

      On the other hand, she was going along with her drug dealing boyfriend, so I guess you have to be responsible for your own actions. She was, the cops weren't
  • reepax, on 08/05/2008, -23/+94when are officers not aquittted? -- and being demoted to desk work doesn't count
    • belumaves, on 08/06/2008, -17/+10this was not an administrative deal where cops are covering for cops, it was a public trial! please start reading the entire article...
      • jeffiek, on 08/06/2008, -6/+5You really think the prosecutor went all out for a conviction? Enjoy your dream, the alarm clock will ring in a few minutes.
      • Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Nobody said anything about cops covering for cops, please start reading the entire comment...
    • Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Even better than being demoted is paid suspension for a couple of months while they 'investigate'.
  • welliwonder, on 08/05/2008, -45/+34Someone hang him.
  • imacommi, on 08/05/2008, -27/+115Proof the system doesn't work
    • Yazilliclick, on 08/06/2008, -9/+7No, proof your peers on the jury have a lot more sense than you.
    • Brandoskey, on 08/06/2008, -6/+4the fact he has 48 diggs is proof no one RTFA
    • mike17032, on 08/06/2008, -11/+3One less drug whore in the world, seems to work fine to me. Maybe someone that isnt a waste of ***** life can raise the kid so it has a chance in life too.
  • lazerus9, on 08/05/2008, -15/+40This is beginning to sound familiar. Here is a good link for those of you too young to remember this event:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Ih4H70MM&feature ...
    • Conspiracy20, on 08/05/2008, -0/+14Thanks for the vid's lazerus. I never really knew much about Ruby Ridge only that something went wrong.
    • baudbwoy, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1wow...i remember waco thanks for letting me know about the weavers
  • MarkEarhart, on 08/05/2008, -20/+64The best way to avoid this problem is to kill anything that bursts through the door instantly. Keep a gun in every room, and one on or beside your body at ALL times. Don't go to the bathroom in the middle of the night unarmed!! If someone breaks and enters your house don't make the mistake of waiting around to find out who they are and what they want. If they break in their intentions are not good!! Don't go to the door for any stranger, regardless of what they appear or profess to be.
    • tykwondingo, on 08/06/2008, -10/+26right... and when you shoot the innocent person or cop coming in you can go to prison or be put to death. Great idea!

      /sarcasm
      • skyshock1, on 08/06/2008, -0/+7In many states in the USA, it is not illegal to shoot someone if they broke into your house. And in the states where it IS illegal, most D.A.'s won't elect to prosecute you.
      • twiztidsinz, on 08/06/2008, -0/+5This case proves you're not responsible for shooting the wrong person.
        They are breaking into your house, last I checked, that was a crime.
        For you to say it would be wrong would mean you disagree with this case or you think that cops are above the law.
      • furi0us1, on 08/06/2008, -2/+0You're only not responsible for shooting the wrong person if you're a cop. I don't remember the details exactly, but there was a situation just like this a few months ago. The only difference was that it was the civillian who shot and killed a cop in a no knock raid--to the wrong house. He was not acquitted (though I forget exactly what he was charged with).
      • twiztidsinz, on 08/07/2008, -0/+2@furi0us1
        Then you're saying cops are above the law.
        The story you were mentioning PROVES that no-knock warrants are BAD.
        Cops bust into an INNOCENT man's house who, most likely thinking its a robber, was defending his home and now he's the bad guy because he killed a cop.
    • Ymeg, on 08/06/2008, -3/+21What if they have a warrant?
      • Cerebron, on 08/06/2008, -3/+29Then they should be obligated to inform you of that fact, and not just kick the door in and stick a gun in your face.
      • emailer33, on 08/06/2008, -3/+11well the fact is in our ***** up system they'll bust in with a no-knock warrant, shoot back at you, and you can enjoy your jailtime
      • Jagdwulfe, on 08/06/2008, -11/+4Don't blame the police. Blame the drug dealers who would shoot at the police or destroy evidence before opening the door. Also blame the people in the neighborhood for not informing the police on who the drug dealers are yet complain about the high crime rates. I find it amusing the Armchair quarterbacks saying the police were wrong yet never been in those situations. Life is not Counterstrike kiddies and when you are in the real world you react differently than like in a game. It is sad that the child will not have a mother but as someone else said probably better off since the mother did not make a decent choice in lifestyle or dating obviously.
      • tykwondingo, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3I blame the (*****) war on drugs.
    • IveGotTheRuns, on 08/06/2008, -3/+24What if they're a Jehovah's Witness and want to tell me the "good news"?
      • MmmPi, on 08/06/2008, -0/+10even better
      • RomeyRome, on 08/06/2008, -0/+15Shoot them 3 times then.
      • SnarleyJoe, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Then I would recommend shoot first, ask questions later.
        You can never be too careful...
      • somedirtbag, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4Open fire! They might have literature!
      • Flambo, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4***** you're right, I DO need guns in every room!
    • Myonosken, on 08/06/2008, -11/+4Thats as ***** retarded as this cop.
    • zadadka, on 08/06/2008, -13/+8My God...you're depicting your view of daily society as it being nothing short of a war-zone !
      I can't work out whether you're merely severely paranoid, or actually deranged.
      Unless, of course, you have a rap sheet that would take hours to read, then I might understand your rationale.
    • bjs3171, on 08/06/2008, -10/+4don't worry. no one's gonna be bothering your cabin in the woods.
    • Speed, on 08/06/2008, -8/+3Then you're a cop killer and you get the chair.
      • theaceoffire, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3If you die either way, might as well take the guy who kills you out as well.
    • mike17032, on 08/06/2008, -8/+3Gotta love internet tough guys.

      Thats a great way to get killed, retard. Thanks for proving why we dont let 15 year olds buy guys too btw.

      But I say go for it, saves the rest of us the cost of a trial on your worthless retarded inbreed ass.
  • Truzseeker, on 08/05/2008, -26/+54proof that juries generally are stupid
    • poprocksandsoda, on 08/06/2008, -7/+14Yeah, let's just do what they do in Myanmar and have a military junta hand down death sentences to enemies.
    • MysticSavage, on 08/06/2008, -3/+10Of course, because you have 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1so you are smart to get out of jury duty. It has nothing to do with maybe thinking you can do something helpful.
        Way to go.

        you bitch about a system that you do nothing to change or stop.
    • rxbudian, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Of course, If the jury is smart, the lawyers will have a really really hard time convincing them.
    • reyalp, on 08/07/2008, -1/+1proof that you didn't RTFA
  • davidkeithjones, on 08/05/2008, -46/+42The above comments are insane. The police conducted a legal raid. What happened to the woman is tragic; however, the police have to make split second decisions, hesitation can cost either their life or the life of another civilian in the house.
    • kemp34, on 08/05/2008, -16/+61Further reason why the Drug War is base idiocy.

      Rationalizing the killing of an unarmed woman and the maiming of the child for the aggression and "split second decision" of a cop enforcing insane policy.
      • tykwondingo, on 08/06/2008, -5/+11Well said!
      • davidkeithjones, on 08/06/2008, -22/+5How is fighting drugs idiocy exactly? People have died in other routine police operations but that doesn't mean they are brought to an end. Drug operations are run by hard criminals who would cut your ass up in no time at all. Be careful which side you take.

        It is sad the woman died and I'm sure the officer involved will see her every time he closes his eyes.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 08/06/2008, -4/+47"How is fighting drugs idiocy exactly?"

        It's creating victims by punishing people for a victimless crime.

        And if they were legal, there wouldn't be gang violence anymore, no more drug cartels: basically 3/4 of all organized crime would just vanish over night.

        A year in prison costs 50k per person to the state. We could make money with state controlled drugs instead of losing, and invest it in drug addiction treatment, maybe even in law enforcement.

        There's absolutely nothing that justifies the war on drugs. The only argument you can make is your opinion on what other people should have the right to do with their own bodies.

        And being a constitutionaly free individual, you have absolutely no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.

        Enjoy your coffee and alcohol.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 08/06/2008, -2/+8Oh good, then you support alcohol prohibition, right?

        30k people die from alcohol related car accidents each year in the US alone.

        It's the number one cause of spousal abuse.

        40% of suicide attempts are done under the influence of alcohol.
        54% of violent crimes are done under the influence of alcohol.
        60% of all emergency room admissions are alcohol related.

        http://www.nh-dwi.com/caip-206.htm

        Or, are you a giant hypocrite?
      • SteilsMcGee, on 08/06/2008, -2/+0Etan, I'll play the role of the Wikipedia protester

        "Citation needed!"
      • EricSchC1, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2@ EtanHodge: not all drugs create the same social conditions and not all drug users are dangerous burdens to innocent tax payers.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 08/06/2008, -23/+42The guy shot in the dark because he thought he was being shot at. The shots fired were the other team members killing a dog outside.

      That's criminal negligence causing the death of a person.

      First of all, the team members that fired shots should report shots fired.
      Second, you don't shoot in the dark.
      Third, I don't believe for a second that an experienced officer can't tell whether gun fire comes from the same room he's in or outside, especially in a dark basement.
      Fourth, "click". Where the ***** was his flashlight? Why didn't he turn on the light going into the basement?

      My take on this: he followed the girl downstairs and just plain murdered her.

      Yeah, it's a high stress job with life and death situations. And the required qualifications are to be able to handle a high stress job with life threatening situations.

      He was unprofessional, scared and stupid.
      • richbleak, on 08/06/2008, -1/+11FTA: "James Scanlon, who has been with Columbus Police for 30 years and co-owns a SWAT training business, said as police officers in high-threat situations frequently do, Sergeant Chavalia waited too long to fire after he heard gunfire and believed he was the target."

        So wait, the mistake this guy made was not shooting the woman soon enough? WTF?
      • Briankh3, on 08/06/2008, -13/+4First, team member did not have time to report shots fired. This isn't a video game and that doesn't happen automatically.
        Second, if you believe you are being shot at, you return fire period. Being in the dark means nothing.
        Third, what basement are you talking about? Read the story. Nobody was in a basement.
        Fourth, what the hell basement are you talking about?

        I'd like to see you have the balls to be in that position and not fire. I bet you don't even know how to fire a gun.

        This is a textbook example of ignorant people making ignorant posts about topics they know nothing about.
      • dzw120, on 08/06/2008, -6/+6Are you a SWAT team member? If you don't, then you don't know what is the best protocol. Were you there? If you weren't, then you don't know how the gunfire sounded that night. Besides, do officers have time to call out all of their shots? What do you want, to have attack dogs gnawing on an officer's face because he was wasting time telling everyone about how he's planning to shoot the dog? And maybe he didn't have a flashlight, since it'd make him an easy target for gunfire.

        This case could have potentially ruined a man's life, and you want to say that he murdered someone in cold blood because you want to believe that all cops are terrible people and deserve to rot. What, is it that unlikely for forensic evidence to prove that a cop actually was put in a situation where he tried to react as well as he could in his situation, but that due to a tragic coincidence a mother was killed? You've been reading too much Digg if you think that it's more likely that SWAT members are raiding people's houses looking for innocent lives to take.

        The real culprits here are (1) The war on drugs, seeing as the raid never would have happened if there weren't a war on drugs; and (2) The boyfriend who unleashed the attack dogs, forcing the officers outside to fire, thus unfortunately creating a terrible coincidence on the second floor where an officer making his best decisions thought that he was actually being fired at by the person he saw ducking behind the wall.
      • Brandoskey, on 08/06/2008, -4/+5you guys are digging this moron? are you telling me that if you were in the same situation where you thought you were being fired at you'd fumble around for a light switch or get on a radio and ask who was shooting? all the while you have a genuine concern for your own life?
      • AchaIemoipas, on 08/06/2008, -4/+7Actually, my entire family are cops. I'm the only one who isn't one.

        And do you really need to consult a ***** operations manual to figure out you should provide some light when entering dark buildings that are possibly occupied by armed criminals, which is why you got a no-knock warrant in the first place?

        This isn't common sense to you people? Light to see? no?

        So, going into dark buildings with no light to see anything in a situation where you expect people to shoot at you, perfectly ok?
      • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1"I'd like to see you have the balls to be in that position and not fire. I bet you don't even know how to fire a gun. "

        There is one difference here. the officer CHOSE to put his life at risk. The lady did not have such a choice or training.
      • dzw120, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0@Nerys

        The woman chose to be involved with a drug dealer. She probably wasn't involved in his dealings, but she knew that there would be risks (and not only from the police) when she chose to live with him.
    • poprocksandsoda, on 08/06/2008, -14/+32I have a simple resolution for this case that I think we can all agree with:

      STOP SELLING DRUGS FROM THE SAME HOUSE YOUR WIFE AND KIDS LIVE IN ASSHOLES.
      • punkcat, on 08/06/2008, -3/+7hey he was a responsible father, didn't you read he had two pit bulls for protection?
        father of the year i tell ya.


      • MmmPi, on 08/06/2008, -1/+5I'm sure drug dealers everywhere will add that to their business plan
      • coyote1284, on 08/06/2008, -3/+1@punkcat
        the dogs were to protect them from anonymous.
      • mike17032, on 08/06/2008, -4/+4No, this is digg. Its clearly the cops fault and no one elses. Not the retard dealer, not the retard women for living there with a god damn baby, not the retard that sent the dogs after the police.
      • ersnyder, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2Exactly.
      • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2If you fire a gun YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for that bullet. Period. End of Discussion.

        The dealer did not shoot her. The dogs did not shoot her. She did not shoot back. She did nothing aggressive.

        SHE WAS ON HER ***** KNEES HOLDING THE CHILD !!!

        Can you DESCRIBE a more PASSIVE non threatening position than just shooting herself first to save them the trouble.

        Oh but wait he NEVER IDENTIFIED HIS TARGET.

        HE JUST RANDOMLY FIRED HIS ***** BULLETS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE ***** HE WAS GOING TO HIT.

        and you blame ANYONE but the officer?
      • naledge86, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1this guy wasn't selling from his house smart guy......read the article again
    • teethandeyes, on 08/06/2008, -15/+4***** THE POLICE!
      I really hope that the officer who shot this woman loses a loved one because of somebody else's 'split second' decision.
      • coyote1284, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3***** Joseph Chavalia. Millions of police officers work day to day without randomly beating someone over a traffic violation, but you'll never hear about them because "Cop issues a warning ticket" is not a news story, or when a cop makes the news for something good, it's "fluff". So you only focus on the negative, become suspicious of police, then feel justified to act a fool and get yourself in deeper ***** when if you'd been level-headed the cop would have been level-headed (or calmed down) and left you alone.
      • Speed, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1So you hope an innocent woman or child dies because of this cops decision? *****.
    • diggydougie, on 08/06/2008, -8/+10Here's the problem: The police instigated the situation in the first place. The police shot the dogs for doing what dogs are for. There are many other ways that they could have arrested these people. What was the urgency? Why in the middle of the night? The cops set up the entire situation for their adrenaline rush. They live to blow away the bad guy.
      • 99er, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1The police didn't instigate this situation...THE DRUG DEALER DID!
    • Samurai77, on 08/06/2008, -5/+8"Legal raid"? Hmm seems to me the Nazi's had Legal raids too.
    • EricSchC1, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2"The above comments are insane. The police conducted a legal raid. What happened to the woman is tragic; however, the police have to make split second decisions, hesitation can cost either their life or the life of another civilian in the house."

      Ummm, there was hesitation and another civilian in the house did die.
    • Nerys, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2In every gun training situation I have been in I have had ONE RULE ground into my very being over and over and over and over.

      YOU are responsible for that bullet be ABSOLUTELY SURE what your firing it at.

      In this kind of split second decision process you STOP FIRING and you BACK UP if you feel threatened.

      He did not do this. He chose to FIRE BLINDLY.

      He should be put in prison. He took a SACRED TRUST the trust we give him to SHOOT PEOPLE and KILL THEM and he F'd it up and shot an innocent. Its not even as if he SAW HER and she appeared threatening. She did EXACTLY what people wine she should have done. Got in the most NON threatening position she could ON HER KNEES with her child in her arms.

      HE never saw this because he BROKE the PRIME DIRECTIVE of gun safety. KNOW WHAT THE ***** YOUR SHOOTING AT.
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 08/05/2008, -9/+22Well their names are on public record, so it is possible that their heart attacks could be explained by extreme guilt over executing an innocent.
  • desotohawk, on 08/05/2008, -31/+27***** adrenaline junkie pig scumbag! someone should shoot him! no knock raids are unnecessary. just a show of brutal force.
  • theNazz, on 08/05/2008, -15/+59"Earlier Monday, a longtime member of the Columbus Police Department’s SWAT team testified that he would have fired at Ms. Wilson during a drug raid at her home, although he would’ve fired sooner."

    Welcome to the land of the free and home of the brave...
    • wishninja, on 08/05/2008, -5/+34its pretty much where we are at in the drug war. Its going to get worse before it gets better. Cops are cowards they only think of themselves and not about the lives they are about to endanger to get that drug bust notch on their belt. Just wait until its black water doing all the raids and the state can put one or two degrees of separation in between enforcement and the laws.
    • kemp34, on 08/05/2008, -3/+11Sickening.
  • pseudojd, on 08/05/2008, -26/+37mayor@cityhall.lima.oh.us,
    lpd@limapolice.com,
    sally.clemans@cityhall.lima.oh.us,
    jmnixon@wcoil.com,
    rmagnus@wcoil.com,
    smclean@allstate.com,
    ttebben@woh.rr.com,
    mpitts@woh.rr.com,
    ptownsend62@hotmail.com,
    dsadams@wcoil.com

    In order, Mayor of Lima, Police Chief, City council. Please let them know your thoughts, I did.
    • wishninja, on 08/05/2008, -3/+26I am sure he knows and doesn't really give a *****.
    • poprocksandsoda, on 08/06/2008, -20/+12I just emailed them to thank them for their service to our country. Drugs are a cancer and anyone who would deal drugs in the same house as their wife and children is a serious threat to society. I hope the father in this ordeal is given a sentence that is long enough for him to realize that crime doesn't pay.
      • belumaves, on 08/06/2008, -6/+2:) me too
      • kemp34, on 08/06/2008, -5/+12So you kill people over a vice?

        I'd say killing people is the worse vice.

        YOU, sir, are the cancer in our society.
      • darkened, on 08/06/2008, -3/+6***** YOU.
      • DryMaltExtract, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2She lived off the addiction and suffering of others. Screw her. The baby had no choice, she did. TS for her.
      • starbuxadct, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Finally, someone on here with a brain.
    • punkcat, on 08/06/2008, -5/+15yeah a bunch of people from the internet with no real knowledge of events will certainly help.

  • wishninja, on 08/05/2008, -10/+39And the war on drugs rages on.
    • Lucas123, on 08/06/2008, -7/+2You know. It's not just drugs. It was alcohol during prohibition. These are gangsters who choose to live wrongly and commit crimes. If there were no drugs, they'd likely find another avenue to earn money by breaking the law.
      • rand0mm0nkey, on 08/06/2008, -2/+7Alcohol isn't a drug?
      • ComradeRikhi, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2What, other than drugs, do gangs have to profit from?
      • Jagdwulfe, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2Extortion, carjacking, robbery, etc etc.
      • enantiodromia, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4I can guarantee most people on this very forum commit crimes every day, be it file sharing, running red lights, lying on their tax returns, not paying child support, illegal modifications to their cars, drinking before they were 21, etc.

        Do those people deserve to be murdered in their homes in the middle of the night in front of their children?
      • Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0@ComradeRikhi

        Before drugs gangs weren't much more than clubs, with the exception of the occasional robbery. I mean in LA before crack I think there was only a couple of gang related killings per year, now it's like one a day.

        I can't wait for the day when the government realizes that everybody loses the 'war on drugs'. Cheesy but true.
    • Cuchanu, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Yep I guess a dead young mom and a shot baby was worth it to "protect" our country from drugs.
  • AaronSaund, on 08/06/2008, -17/+48People are beginning to riot here. I live in Lima. This cop shot a ***** woman carrying a baby! He shot off one of the baby's fingers!
    • dstz, on 08/06/2008, -1/+25"He shot off one of the baby's fingers!"

      And killed his mother I heard.
      • ender7074, on 08/06/2008, -16/+5Though ***** about the mother. Sounds like shes a real winner if shes hanging out with known felons and drug dealers.
      • sindex, on 08/06/2008, -1/+12Gee I never thought of it that way. I guess she deserved to be shot and a baby wounded, then. After all, she was peacefully asleep in her own home! Gotta watch out for people like that.
      • s0nicfreak, on 08/06/2008, -4/+1She was peacefully asleep in her own home... that she allowed her boyfriend to deal drugs out of.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0"She was peacefully asleep in her own home... that she allowed her boyfriend to deal drugs out of. "

        And since they weren't a pharma company, onbviously they should have been shot.....gotcha.
    • carnivore0311, on 08/06/2008, -10/+2Wow, he must have been one hell of a shot.
    • NinjaBoy, on 08/06/2008, -2/+33Oh jesus thats ***** up.
      Hey girl, What happened to your finger?
      It got shot off when my mother was murdered by the police *crys*
      • MattB123, on 08/06/2008, -1/+20That kid might be a great terrorist one day. This is how we make them.
      • griffinjam, on 08/06/2008, -1/+0That's a good point, better have a preemptive strike on the kid, kill the baby now while it's still easy.
      • Rally603, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0I'm a terrible person for laughing at that.
    • geniuslocimusic, on 08/06/2008, -0/+10Ummm where are these riots again? I too live in Lima and I must have missed them, unless you are referring to the 4-ish people downtown holding homemade signs a couple of nights ago. A tragic story doesn't need any extra sensationalism.
    • smotpoker1, on 08/06/2008, -7/+5I hope they ***** up the police departments they are murdering and acquitting themselves.That cop committed murder he planned to go in there by sneaking and fired without any recognizances of who he was shooting at.You MF disgust me.I hope you pigs die horrible deaths.
  • RANDOM667, on 08/06/2008, -19/+17What a ***** outrage!
    I hope one of his fellow officers "accidentally" blows this guys face off.
  • Oxygen, on 08/06/2008, -30/+20Zero sympathy for Drug Traffickers.
    • diggydougie, on 08/06/2008, -4/+5But wait. The cops were just there to arrest the suspected drug traffickers. Remember, innocent until proved guilty. It is the job of the courts to meet the justice, not the arresting officer. By shooting the "suspect" justice will never be met. It's likely that the woman was just the girlfriend/wife of the "bad guy". She didn't necessarily do anything wrong. And she did NOT shoot at the officer, remember that.
    • kemp34, on 08/06/2008, -3/+5Prohibition is the root cause of all this and is the root of the evil.
    • enantiodromia, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Please tell me you're a Christian; I need a good laugh.
    • Oxygen, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2There are plenty more honest law-abiding people who die everyday that I have more sympathy for then some drug dealer.
  • Lucas123, on 08/06/2008, -16/+31Obviously the officer considered the baby a lethal weapon. Completely understandable. OK, there was the sarcasm. Now for the reality. These officers were going up against a known felon, drug dealer and violent man who had just sicked two pit bulls on them. There was gun fire and the saw a figure in the door above them.

    It can happen. It's dangerous living with a felon drug dealer, though all of this is really quite tragic.
    • Abomonog, on 08/06/2008, -6/+10You mean a known felon who would never have been one had there been no unjustified drug laws on the books. The fact is that if you're a cop willingly participating in a drug raid you are a traitor to the constitution. If you kill while participating in one you are a murderer. In this particular case the cop was even worse. He killed a mother holding a baby while shooting in the dark. That not only makes him a murderer, but it also proves that he is a careless one and is dangerous to everyone as long as he holds a gun.
      • 99er, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2"The fact is that if you're a cop willingly participating in a drug raid you are a traitor to the constitution."

        WHAT?!? That makes no sense, and is completely crazy.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2abomonog,
        you are retarded. I mean no other way about it. The laws are on the books and the dealer is knowingly breaking them. so thats ok but when someone tries to stop it then thats bad.
    • diggydougie, on 08/06/2008, -4/+7They always shoot the dogs. Dogs bark, they always do. Pepper spray would be sufficient. Pepper spray is silent and would not have triggered the chain of events. Did the guy "sick the dogs" on the officer? probably not. Even so the cops are the intruders here and should be aware that people might react violently to their intrusion and not shoot first, ask questions later.
      • 99er, on 08/06/2008, -1/+3The newspaper story (that everyone here on digg is taking for fact) says that the drug dealer did sick the dogs on the cops. When a dog attacks you, lets see if you have time to take out pepper spray, spray the dogs, and see if it stops them before they can bite you. Face it: if the drug dealer hadn't let the dogs loose on the cops, none of this would have happened. He had a choice- give up peacefully, or fight. He chose the later.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -0/+2diggydougie,
        no they do not always shoot the dogs. Swat raided next door to my house and they did not shoot the dog. They told the owner to hold the dogs and he did. You have no idea what happened there but you assume the things that you want.
      • diggydougie, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1catfish182,
        You partially made my point for me. All these people are making biased comments without knowing the facts (me included). But I do know that the cops like to shoot the dog. They do this to gain control. It pisses off the owner, who will usually go into a blind rage and give the cops an excuse to slam them to the ground and rough them up in response. That's what they want. Cops later lie about the facts frequently and it has been proven. Just because they said that the dogs were sicked on them doesn't make it true. The cops usually shoot the dogs in the back by the way - explain that.
    • XFDRaven, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2So the baby and the mother were guilty by association and thus all people in the household were fair game for execution. Awseome.

      You're the reason why our nation is going to *****. DIAF
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2She could have stayed where she was and not moved. She didnt.
        if you live in a house where drugs are being dealt you are taking a risk. You may not like the drugs laws but until they are overturned they are laws.
        Contact your representatives and start a signature drive to change the laws. O wait that requires effort other then bitching on digg.
  • Ramenhood, on 08/06/2008, -6/+33*Goes right to comments to see what my opinion is*
    • belumaves, on 08/06/2008, -4/+10*saw that it was about cop and began ranting about pigs and tyranny*
      • deathsythe, on 08/06/2008, -4/+8...much like the rest of digg who clearly do not understand, nor have ever been put into a position where a split second decision could mean the difference between life and death.
      • blipblipbeep, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0*yeah sounds like someone got shot again. somebody very young lost a finger. something about dogs dieing. and what was that other thing. Oh that's it, I remember now, the cops did this.
  • Oakie1, on 08/06/2008, -11/+3this is so much ***** *****.
  • gametavern, on 08/06/2008, -16/+27so judges, jury in a trial who sat there and learned the whole story acquitted him, but you clown who read a headline know more about the case and cry *****? Hmmm... makes sense for Digg.
    • XtheXlanternX, on 08/06/2008, -1/+4I live in this town and have followed it from the beginning. You probably won't believe me, but this is statistically one of the most segregated towns in the North, and is full of racist white people. Plus, there is a massive anti-drug campaign going on among the Bible-thumpers of the region. An all white jury in this town would never convict a cop of anything, no matter what the charge. Like I said, I'm sure you wont' believe me, but I speak from someone who lives here.
  • SillyDigger, on 08/06/2008, -6/+10Had he been convicted he only faced 8 months :/
  • unfilterthought, on 08/06/2008, -6/+29But drugs are bad!! We have to stop drugs! Think of the children!! Oh wait...he just wounded one.
  • jjohnson16, on 08/06/2008, -4/+26I'm blown away that "negligent homicide" is a misdemeanor......
  • ender7074, on 08/06/2008, -17/+9Yep, those crack houses are a great environment to raise a child. Why isnt the mother on trial for child abuse for having an infant in that sort of environment? Guess its all the cops fault that shes some goddamn crackwhore. The real victims here are the poor child and the poor officer that has to live with having shot a baby. Screw the mother and the rest of the drug dealing piles of crap.
    • BuLong, on 08/06/2008, -2/+9The mother is DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADD!!!
      • ender7074, on 08/06/2008, -3/+0Yah I skimmed over that and missed it the first read through. No loss though.
    • diggydougie, on 08/06/2008, -5/+5Better a crack whore than dead. And really, how can you be so sure? Did you know her? Did the cops?
      • ender7074, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3I know all I need ot know about her. She willingly had a child in an environment that was extremely bad and dangerous for a child. Enough said.
    • ScrewedThePooch, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1Who ever said it was crack? For all we know, she got shot over an ounce of pot.
  • BXRWXR, on 08/06/2008, -10/+16Don't give trigger happy criminals guns.

    That goes for the police as well.
    • darkened, on 08/06/2008, -0/+4There's a difference?
    • deathsythe, on 08/06/2008, -3/+2Clearly neither BXRWXR or darkened no NOTHING about the process in order to be eligible to even be considered for Law Enforcement. I'm pretty sure being a criminal, or committing a felony of any nature is right up there on top of the list of no-nos and discards when it comes to handling the applications.

  • carnivore0311, on 08/06/2008, -15/+11So, someone who was doing something illegal, then doing something stupid got shot. Just because she was holding a baby doesn't change the situation.
    • Kenzan, on 08/06/2008, -6/+6Drugs should not be illegal in the first place.
      • Oxygen, on 08/06/2008, -4/+2As said by all those who have never known anyone with a serious drug problem...
      • Kenzan, on 08/06/2008, -2/+4Do not blame others for your weaknesses.
        Alcohol kills more than all illegal drugs combined.
        Yet it's legal.
        The bottom line is, personal responsibility.
        It's not the Government's job to keep me from putting whatever I want in my own body.
        The obvious failure to win the war on drugs is proof that prohibition does not work , and only causes pain for citizens.
      • ComradeRikhi, on 08/06/2008, -3/+3@Oxygen
        If that's the case then it should be obvious that the drug war isn't working and never has been.
        http://www.drugwarfacts.org/
      • esgrove, on 08/06/2008, -2/+2I know someone who had a serious credit problem. They got so deep in debt that they killed themselves. Does that mean that credit should be illegal? Does everything that causes problems for some have to be illegal for all? Making something illegal is not a solution, it only creates more problems.
      • Jagdwulfe, on 08/06/2008, -3/+1Good then it is not the Government nor my responsibility to care for your junkie ass when you are strung out on Heroin.
      • Kenzan, on 08/06/2008, -2/+1Is it the Government's responsibility to cure alcoholics of their addiction?
      • Oxygen, on 08/06/2008, -2/+3to be young and naive...
      • Kenzan, on 08/06/2008, -1/+2I'll bet you I'm older than you by at least 20 years.
      • catfish182, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1if you do not like the law then fight to change it but on that day drugs are illegal and they were breaking the law. It sucks but it happened.
      • ComradeRikhi, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Civil Disobedience.
        Can ya dig it?
    • carnivore0311, on 08/06/2008, -1/+1I don't really think that semantics matter when it gets you dead.
    • dave122, on 08/06/2008, -4/+8There is nothing to say that woman was doing anything illegal, and holding onto her baby when people are charging into your house unannouced is stupid? Even if the woman was a drugdealer, that doesn't excuse this in the slightest. Raiding someones house and killing them over a victimless crime is ***** up no matter what way you look at it.
  • user12345x, on 08/06/2008, -12/+20Someone should seriously find out where this douchebag cop lives and conduct a "no knock raid" on his sorry, sub-human ass.
  • wantonwonton, on 08/06/2008, -10/+15Jesse Jackson just needs to die already.
    • thedogfatherx, on 08/06/2008, -0/+6No *****. I shook my head when I read "Jesse Jackson" in the article. God he's a pile of *****.
    • SuperGoth, on 08/06/2008, -2/+0Yah genius fücking idea dumbasses. Next to the president, he's pretty much the only man who can actually do something in this case. People will follow him, and if he says its wrong then maybe it will get more public attention rather then burried as a tragedy.
      • uglybanana, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0Does Jesse Jackson ever get involved when white people face injustice?

        If not then doesn't that mean in some way he's a ***** racist *****?
  • mchan103, on 08/06/2008, -14/+31No knock raid should be unconstitutional. This is police state in action. No judge, No jury, and No Trial. The amount of force unused is even worse than Communist China. The drug war is about the Fed having monopoly of the drugs. They are the only one that can bring in the drugs. I am asking all readers to stay away from drugs--legal and illegal. They are all slow kill bioweapons. Go find a holistic doctor for treatments. My holistic doctor cured my "uncurable" Chronic Hepatitis B disease. The price was well worth it. If you all demand holistic treatments, your treatments could be near free since they are so cheap relative to drugs, radiation, and surgery.
    • VigRoco, on 08/06/2008, -2/+5That must be why this article centers around a judge, jury, and a trial.

      (Please read article again to confirm my above statement)
    • Flambo, on 08/06/2008, -3/+1You're right, the amount of force is SO much worse than communist China. Hell, this ***** makes Tiananmen Square look like a damn joke.

      =/
  • chicofaraby, on 08/06/2008, -9/+24Criminals with badges walk free.
  • teethandeyes, on 08/06/2008, -7/+9The more I hear about ***** like this, the more I am considering not getting out of jury duty next time I am called. I will be that ***** that will not be intimidated. I don't care if it takes months. I will never break.
    • tomjeff08, on 08/06/2008, -0/+1That is exactly what is needed to change things.
  • donkeySays, on 08/06/2008, -3/+10The time has come to wipe out the scum the human race is turning into.